1 The Editor is grateful to Dr Robert Ombres OP and Professor Richard Helmholz for their assistance in the provision of footnote references, which were singularly lacking in the original.
2 Kemp, E, An Introduction to Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1957), pp 76–77.
3 Migne, J (ed), Patrologia Latina, vol 13 (Paris, 1845), cols 1131–1147, translated in Shotwell, J and Loomis, L, The See of Peter (New York, 1991), appendix I, pp 699–708.
4 Migne, J (ed), Patrologia Latina, vol 67 (Paris, 1848), cols 149–316.
5 Mortimer, R, Western Canon Law (London, 1953).
6 See now, Gallagher, C, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium (Aldershot, 2002).
7 Hinschius, P (ed), Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863).
8 For Ivo's works, see Migne, J (ed), Patrologia Latina, vols 161 and 162 (Paris, 1853, 1854); Ivo's Prologue is translated in Somerville, R and Brasington, B, Prefaces to Canon Law Books in Latin Christianity (New Haven and London, 1998), pp 132–158.
9 Friedberg, E (ed), Corpus Iuris Canonici (Leipzig, 1879–1881), 2 vols, of which Gratian is the first.
10 Brundage, J, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: canonists, civilians, and courts (Chicago, 2008).
11 See generally the Report of a Commission Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dispensation in Practice and Theory with Special Reference to the Anglican Churches (London, 1944), and Adam, W, Legal Flexibility and the Mission of the Church: dispensation and economy in ecclesiastical law (Farnham, 2011).
12 Gratian, Decretum Dist I, dictum ante c 1, in Friedberg, Corpus vol I, col 1.
13 Kemp, Introduction, p 26, refers to Wehrlé, R, De la coutume dans le droit canonique (Paris, 1928) for the Aquinas citation. The author may have had Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I–II q 97 a 3 in mind. The quotation from Hostiensis is from Summa aurea, Lib I, tit De consuetudine, no 1. It can most conveniently be found in the edition published in Venice, 1574 (reprinted Turin, 1963), col 80.
14 Kemp, E, ‘Zeger Bernhard Van Espen’, (1946) 49 Theology 194–200, 227–232.
15 Kemp, E, ‘The Church of England and the Old Catholic churches’, in Bill, E (ed), Anglican Initiatives in Christian Unity (London, 1967), pp 145–162.
16 Codex Iuris Canonici (1917). Translated and annotated by Peters, E (ed), The 1917 Pio-Benedictne Code of Canon Law (San Francisco, 2001).
17 For a discussion, see Van de Wiel, C, History of Canon Law (Louvain, 1991).
18 Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canons 23–28. Translation and commentary in Beal, J, Coriden, J and Green, T (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York, 2000), pp 86–96.
19 For more recent coverage of this subject, see Bray, G (ed), The Anglican Canons 1529–1947 (Woodbridge, 1998); Helmholz, R, The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford, 2004); Outhwaite, R, The Rise and Fall of the English Ecclesiastical Courts, 1500–1860 (Cambridge, 2006).
20 25 Henry VIII c 19 (1534).
21 See now, Helmholz, R, ‘The canons of 1603: the contemporary understanding’, in Doe, N, Hill, M and Ombres, R (eds), English Canon Law: essays in honour of Bishop Eric Kemp (Cardiff, 1998), pp 23–35.
22 Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Canon Law, The Canon Law and the Church of England (London, 1947).
23 Kemp, Introduction, pp 63–73.
24 See now, Bursell, R, ‘What is the place of custom in English canon law?’, (1989) 1(4) Ecc LJ 12–26; Bursell, R, Liturgy, Order and the Law (Oxford, 1996); Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law (third edition, Oxford, 2007), pp 23–24.
25 Kemp, Introduction, pp 71–73. The author drew on Sir George Lee's papers for his information (Bodleian Library, Oxford MS Eng Misc c 31 ff 135–142).
26 Surtees Society, vol 47 (1865), pp 101–107.
27 Kemp, Introduction, pp 70–71. The cases are Newbury v Goodwin (1811) 1 Phill Ecc 282; (1811) 161 ER 985 and Martin v Mackonochie (1868) LR 2 PC 365 at 382.
28 Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline (1906), vol IV, p 17.
30 See now, Maiden, J, National Religion and the Prayer Book Controversy, 1927–1928 (Woodbridge, 2009) and Adam, Legal Flexibility, ch 9.
31 Phillips, A, Aussant, J, Bursell, R and Wakefield, R (eds), Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 14: Ecclesiastical Law (fourth edition, London, 1975), para 941, n 1.
32 For an account of Robert Phillimore (1810–1885), and of his son Walter, who in 1895 edited the second edition of his father's Ecclesiastical Law, see Baker, J, Monuments of Endlesse Labours: English Canonists and their Work 1300–1900 (London, 1998), pp 147–164.
33 For Richard Burn (1709–1785), see Baker, Monuments, pp 115–124.
34 Squibb, G, Doctors' Commons: a history of the College of Advocates and Doctors of Law (Oxford, 1977).
35 Report of the Archbishops' Commission, The Canon Law of the Church of England, p 97.
36 For one person's reflection on this subject see Boulton, P, ‘Twentieth century revision of canon law in the Church of England’, (2000) 5 Ecc LJ 353–368. For an authoritative overview and critique of developments from 1987 to the present, see Slack, S, ‘Synodical government and the legislative process’, (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 43–81.
37 Bishop Kemp was speaking at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in March 1987; it is unclear to whom he was referring when making this observation.
38 Doe, Hill and Ombres, English Canon Law.
39 Kemp, E, Shy But Not Retiring: memoirs, ed Haselock, J (London, 2006), p 129.