The Jews have been a source of constant trouble to the judiciary of this country; but, to be fair, only for the last 350 years. Between 1066, when the first Jews to settle here came over from what is now France in the wake of the Norman Conquest, to 1290, when the Jews were expelled, Jewish issues do not appear to have concerned the judges. This discussion of judicial involvement with Jewish issues begins in 1655, when, following Menasseh ben Israel's famous initiative, two senior judges, Chief Justice Glyn and Chief Baron Steel, advised the assembly that had been summoned by Cromwell to consider the matter, that ‘there was no law which forbids the Jews’return into England’.

Requests for exhumation are increasing. Home Office licences appear to be more easily granted than heretofore. Consistory Court applications have multiplied, as witness the case notes in this Journal, and both the Chancery Court of York in Re Christ Church, Alsager and the Arches Court of Canterbury in Re Blagdon Cemetery have given judgments on appeal. Significant articles have appeared in this Journal from Rupert Bursell and Philip Petchey.

The primary virtue of establishment is the Church's duty under law to minister to anyone at all who may turn to it, including the ungodliest. Establishment does not imply a religious State, that is a State whose law requires subservience by the citizens to the State religion; if it did, it would be barbarous (but contrast the Black Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer). Establishment does not entail State control of the Church. The legal characteristics of establishment are as follows. (1) The law of the Church of England is part of the law of the land. (2) Bishops and some other office-holders are appointed by the Queen on ministerial advice. (3) 26 diocesan bishops sit as legislators in the House of Lords. (4) The Queen as Supreme Governor acts as monarch for the Church as she acts as monarch for the State. The Church of England is not a “congregational” church: its forms of worship are prescribed by law, and are not at the liberty of the community worshipping in any particular church. The bishops' resolution which authorised the use of the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer in face of the will of Parliament (which was the lawful authority in the matter) was a lamentable disobedience to the law which it was their duty to uphold. Such a legal transgression might possibly nowadays be subject to correction by the High Court on judicial review, though that would require departure from earlier high authority. However that may be, it has to be recognised that there is no room, in the practice of an established Church, for the notion that conscience might justify disobedience to the law. The conscience of the believer is worth no more than the conscience of an unbeliever. The established Church possesses two immeasurable virtues: first, that religion is no tyrant: belief is not compulsory; second, that the Church's ministration is available to everyone. Their unified effect is a great force for good.

British Quakers are arguably the least dogmatic group in Christendom; indeed, Universalist Friends would not describe themselves as Christians at all. Possibly because of this relaxed attitude to doctrine, some Friends tend also to assume that they operate in a rule-free environment. When I told the clerk of our Preparative Meeting that I was working on an article on ‘Quaker canon law’ her immediate response was, ‘Oh, we don't have any of that’—which is probably why Anthony Bradney and Fiona Cownie gave their recent study of the Quaker business method the gently-ironic title, Living Without Law.

The two main aspects of the Aston Cantlow case1 have been the subject of considerable academic interest.2 The first concerns the status of a parochial church council (‘PCC’) for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, and by implication the status of many other church bodies under that Act. The second concerns the law relating to the liability of certain individuals and corporate bodies to repair the chancel of the parish church.

In the year 1771 a Virginian politician, Richard Bland, wrote to Thomas Adams on issues thrown up by the steadily worsening relations between the legislatures of mainland America and the Imperial government. His letter moved on to the subject of religion, and to the suggestion made increasingly in recent years that colonial worship and ministry according to the English Prayer Book would be strengthened by the introduction of personal episopacy on the model of the mother country. On this Bland commented.

The public religion of the Isle of Man is protestant Christianity in the liturgical tradition of the English Prayer Book. The religious establishment is headed by a bishop, who has been since 1541 subject to the oversight of the Archbishop of York.

Is there an ethical dimension to the practice of ecclesiastical law? The Law Society and the Bar Council prescribe professional standards of conduct, as do certain statutes. Adhering to statutory and professional standards is important for maintaining good order in the administration of the law and the legal system. But are there wider duties and responsibilities that involve more than accountability to God, who expresses his presence and identity in the ecclesial communities that ecclesiastical lawyers serve?

Mathew's varied ecclesiastical progress presents a fascinating case study of an episcopate detached from a main-stream Christian community and alerts us to the danger of solely considering ‘episcopal lineage‘ as the litmus test for apostolicity. Mathew was born in France in 1852 and baptised a Roman Catholic; due to his mother's scruples he was soon re-baptised in the Anglican Church. He studied for the ministry in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, but sought baptism again in the Church of Rome, into which he was ordained as a priest in Glasgow in 1877. He became a Dominican in 1878, but only persevered a year, moving around a number of Catholic dioceses: Newcastle, Plymouth, Nottingham and Clifton. Here he came across immorality, and became a Unitarian. He next turned to the Church of England and the Diocese of London, but was soon in trouble for officiating without a licence. In 1890 he put forward his claim to Garter King of Arms for the title of 4th Earl of Llandaff of Thomastown, Co. Tipperary. He renounced the Church of England in 1899 because of vice. After founding a zoo in Brighton, which went bankrupt, he appeared in court in connection with a charge of embezzlement. He then became a Roman Catholic again, now as a layman.

The parish church is: held upon trust for the parishioners. The abiding theme is one of temporary custodianship. Today's generation holds on trust its inheritance from former generations for the glorification of God in the present and in the future.1.

In May 1932 the House of Lords delivered its judgement in the case about the presumed snail in the ginger beer bottle with which even non-lawyers are familiar, Donoghue v Stevenson. One of the five judges, Lord Atkin, formulated what has become known as the neighbour test in this way:

On 10 July 2003, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered a significant judgment concerning the qualified nature of the right of freedom of expression enunciated in Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The previous May saw the House of Lords deliver a judgment on a similar matter. The former related to the resurrection; the latter was about video footage of unborn fœtuses. Each is illuminating and may prove of wider application.

A glance at the Case Notes section of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal over the last few years points the reader to a flurry of activity in alteration of listed church buildings. This is spurred on by (among other things) changing views and practice of liturgy, access for the disabled, repair of damaged buildings. replacement of worn fabric, making a building multi-purpose, comfort and audibility in worship, the incorporation of new technology, providing space for hospitality, accommodating children's work and commemorating the turn of the Millennium. Chancellors have had to strike a delicate balance between two opposing and contradictory points of view. On the one hand the view of some petitioners that ‘any alteration which is seen by the incumbent and congregation to be desirable in order to encourage and assist true worship should be permitted without outside restraint’. On the other hand the view of the heritage lobby and others that ‘most of the churches in this land are national treasures of which the present incumbent and the present congregation are merely temporary occupiers and custodians with no right to make unnecessary or, as some would seem to argue, any alterations’. Whilst the ecclesiastical courts have at times placed a restraining hand on those seeking to alter church buildings, there is ‘no requirement in law either that a church should be maintained for all time in the state in which it happens to be at present, or that it should automatically be changed in accordance with the latest liturgical fashion’.

The principal item of legislative business at the July Group of Sessions was the Church of England (Pensions) Measure, which had received final approval in November 2001 (see 6 Ecc LJ 298). On its submission to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, the Committee indicated that it opposed the inclusion of a power (exercisable by statutory instrument passed under the negative resolution procedure) to extend beyond 2011 the power enjoyed by the Church Commissioners under the Pensions Measure 1997 to spend capital to meet their pre-1998 pensions liabilities. The Ecclesiastical Committee preferred that any further extension of that power should be achieved by a fresh Measure.