¹ Section 13(1).

² Lyndwood, , Provinciale, 250Google Scholar; Pearce and Hughes v. Rector of Claphum. (1795) 3 Hagg. 10 at 16. and Fowke v. Berington. [1914] 2 Ch. 308 at 347.

³ Daunt v. Crocker. (1807) L.R. 2 A & E 41.

⁴ Vide Cripps. The Law relating to Church and Clergy 7th ed. by Lawrence, A. T. and Cripps, R. Stafford. (London. 1921). p. 405Google Scholar. where this is asserted without citation of any authority.

⁵ The present author can testify to the truth of this comment. Although one who finds the sound of bells pleasing, when an undergraduate at Pembroke College. Oxford, he enjoyed, during his second year, a set of rooms at the top of the college tower, yards from the steeple of St. Aldate's Church in Pembroke Square. Bell-ringing practice on Monday evenings between eight and nine o'clock necessitated his vacation of the rooms and retreat to the Union.

⁶ (1851) 2 Sim. (NS) 133.

⁷ Ibid., at 142–144.

⁸ (1724) 2 P. Wms. 266.

⁹ [1866] WN 379.

¹⁰ The same is true of a nineteenth-century American case from the slate of Missouri. Leete v. Pilgrim Congregational Church. (1883) 43 Amer. Rep. 526. which is also concerned with the striking of the hours at night.

¹¹ Soltau v. De Held, op cit., n. 6 supra, at 134–135. The report is misleading with regard to Dr Nicholas Wiseman's status at the time of Mr Soltau's original complaint. Dr Wiseman was not appointed Archbishop of Westminster nor a cardinal until the end of September 1850. During 1848, when Mr Soltau complained. Dr Wiseman was Pro-Vicar-Apostolic of the Roman Catholic London District, with the episcopal title of Bishop of Melipotamus.

¹² Ibid, at 154. The sizes and weights of the bells are recorded ibid. at 137:

¹³ The plaintiff's complaint contains a veritable timetable of the ringing: it reads: ‘The chapel bell was rung at five o'clock and a quarter before seven every morning; the steeple bell (sic) at a quarter to nine every morning, and a quarter before and a quarter past seven every evening. On the 13th May 1851 a peal of six bells was rung several times; on the 14th the peal continued at intervals during the whole day; on Sunday the 18th the chapel bell rang at five o'clock, the steeple bell at a quarter to seven, and again at a quarter to nine. The chapel bell again rung at half-past ten. A peal of chimes was rung at eleven, and, again, at a quarter before one; again at a quarter before six, and again at a quarter before eight. On Saturday the 24th May the chapel bell rang as usual the three times above mentioned, and the steeple bell twice, and, in addition, a peal of six bells was rung from half-past eight till a quarter to ten at night. On Sunday the 25th May the chapel bell was rung at two different times, and the steeple bell seven different times. On Monday evening, the 2d June, a peal of bells was rung; and on Saturday the 7th a peal was rung from a quarter to eight to a quarter to nine. On Saturday the 8th of June, in addition to the ordinary bells, the chimes were rung several times to nearly nine in the evening. The chapel bell and the church bells were, subsequently to 20th of May, rung daily, upon an average, as great a number of times as they had been rung upon the several occasions before mentioned, down to the time when the Plaintiff obtained a verdict in the action…’ Ibid., at 135–136.

¹⁴ Ibid., at 162.

¹⁵ Ibid., at 160–161.

¹⁶ Buckley, Vide R. A., The Law of Nuisance. (London, 1981) pp. 87ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ In this regard, parking restrictions in the vicinity of the church might be taken into account. For instance, if parking near the church were allowed before 8 a.m. and after 6.30 p.m., but not allowed between those times, this would militate in favour of saying the daily offices at times which would allow the faithful to arrive, attend and leave while the restrictions were not in operation.

¹⁸ [1911] V.L.R. 5.

¹⁹ Ibid., 230.

²⁰ Ibid., at 10.

²¹ Ibid., at 11.

²² Ibid., at

²³ Unless it is prejudicial to health, in which case a common law nuisance need not be proved. Bell-ringing is more Iikely to be injurious to comfort and convenience than to health, although the Leicester Mercury of Thursday. August 4th 1994 contained a report under the headline ‘Bells killing me off claim’ in which it was alleged that persistent bell-ringing from a nearby church aggravated a disabled warpensioner's ulcerative colitis. Mr Soltau had indeed claimed that his daughter's health was suffering as a result of the family's experience, and the plaintiffs wife in Hardman v. Holberton was also described as ill and highly nervous. Both plaintiffs might fare better under the modern law relating to statutory nuisance. I am indebted to Miss Sarah J. Thomas of Leicester City Council's Legal Seivices Department for the report from the Leicester Mercury. A discussion of the specific problem of church bell-ringing as a statutory nuisance from a planning and environmental standpoint, together with further discussion of the health question, can be found in Sarah Thomas and Thomas Watkin, Glyn. ‘Oh Noisy Bells, Be Dumb’, (1995) Journal of Planning and Environment Law 1097–1105.Google Scholar

²⁴ Vide A. Lambert Flat Management Ltds. Lomas. [1981] 2 All E R 280.

²⁵ Ibid., at 285.

²⁶ Appeals are made to the Magistrates Courts under section 80(2).

²⁷ Vide Lambert v. Lomas. op. cit., n. 24 supra, at 285 per Skinner and Ackner JJ.

²⁸ An alternative view of the canon law of the Church in Wales presents it as a form of delegated legislation, Lambert, vide David & Doe, Norman. ‘The Status and Enforceability of the Rules of the Church in Wales’, in Doe, Norman (ed.). Essays in Canon Law: A Study of the Law of the Church in Wales (Cardiff, 1992)Google Scholar. The argument is however very difficult to accept as it contradicts the express provisions of the Welsh Church Act. 1914, section 3(1).