If a person has been duly sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding, he must answer any relevant question put to him. If he does not do so, he risks being held by the judge to be in contempt of court and punished by being imprisoned or fined. The fact that the witness finds it repugnant to his sense of honour to give an answer which will break a confidence reposed in him by someone else does not excuse him from his duty. The public interest in the disclosure of all matters relevant to a judicial proceeding is regarded as so important that it prevails over any considerations of private honour between individuals. It is simply no answer for a witness to say ‘I was told this in confidence by a person who trusted me to keep his confidence’. This general attitude of English law has obvious and unwelcome implications for clergymen. A priest or clergyman will in the course of his ministry often receive private information from members of his flock, which his priestly duty requires him to keep secret. He might well be obliged to choose between disregarding his priestly duty or suffering legal penalties, which may be severe. Moreover, the prospect of having to submit him to this invidious choice will be repugnant to the judge; and the fact of such a choice being put, and of the clergyman being sent to gaol for doing his duty, is bound to cause dismay in large sections of the public. The possibility of this conflict of church and state actually happening is extremely small, but the fact that it exists at all is dismaying to many persons.

A peculiar or exempt jurisdiction is, broadly speaking, one which does not fit into the general scheme of jurisdiction within the Church. It is “exempt” from the “normal” structures, its jurisdiction is “peculiar” to itself. It is important at this stage to note that peculiars are jurisdictions, not places, still less buildings. A jurisdiction can be personal, territorial, or a mixture of the two. However, since the reformation, most jurisdictions in the Church of England have been largely territorial, hence the convention of referring to them as places.

The Church's attitude to housing issues is, of necessity, complicated. At the most basic level, human beings need shelter in order to survive: they need protection from the weather, and from predators, and all human beings need to sleep securely for several hours every day. The Christian gospel enjoins Christ's followers to assist in meeting such human need: “in as much as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me”.

This article is by way of extended reflection, ecclesiological but with sprinklings of both law and history, on two of the topics raised by Canon John Nurser at (1993) 3 Ecc. L. J. 103 which are of particular interest in my present situation: the effect of European Union on the Church of England, and the non-proselytisation policy of the Diocese in Europe.