1. Ayliffe, , Parergon Juris Canonici Anglicani (London, 1734), p. 514.Google Scholar

2. Act of Uniformity 1558 (1 Eliz. 1, c. 2), s. 23.

3. R. v Bastwick, Burton & Prynn (1637), 3 Howell's St. Tr. 711 at 715Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, Appdx. pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

4. Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), cc, 60, 86, 109, 111, 113, 116–119, 137; Canons of the Church of England, C 18, para. 4, C 22, para. 5, G 5, para. 1.

5. Caudrey's Case (1591), 5 Co. Rep. 1a at 9a; Edes v Walter, Bishop of Oxford (1667), Vaugh. 18 at 21; Martin v Mackonochie (1868), L. R. 2 A. & E. 116 at 153Google Scholar; Mackonochie v Lord Penzance (1881), 6 App. Cas. 424 at 446Google Scholar; , Stillingfleet, Ecclesiastical Cases (London, 1698), pt. i, p. 373Google Scholar; Hale, , History of the Common Law of England (3rd ed., London, 1739), pp. 27–8Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani (2nd ed., Oxford, 1761), I, xxvii–xxviiiGoogle Scholar; Halsbury, , Laws of England (4th ed. London 1975), XIV, paras. 304, 306, pp. 139, 141Google Scholar. Canons of the Church of England, G 5 para. 1 expressly recognises and maintains the law and custom governing the conduct of visitations. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed. para 490) comment as to the status of the Roman canon law concerning visitations is misleading as it is based on a misunderstanding of the case of Philips v Bury (1694) as reported 1 Ld. Raym. 5 (a visitation of an eleemosynary, not a spiritual foundation - see later).

6. Any opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author and should not be taken as in any way reflecting or anticipating the views of the working party.

7. See Acts viii. 14, where the Church in Jerusalem attempts to keep control in Samaria: Hanson, , The Acts (Oxford, 1967), p. 108.Google Scholar

8. “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do”: Acts xv. 36.

9. See Stephens, John, An Historical Discourse, briefly setting forth the nature of Procurations (London, 1661), p. 5Google Scholar. St. Paul is represented as a visitor: Le Case de Proxies (1604), Davis 1 at 2; Stephens, op. cit., p. 45.

10. Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 146Google Scholar; Ayliffe, Parergon, pp. 57, 514Google Scholar. See: Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. (Citation of the Corpus Juris Canonici is in accordance with Bryson, , ed., Dictionary of Sigla and Abbreviations to and in Law Books before 1607 (Univ. of Virgina, 1975), pp. 19–20.)Google Scholar

11. Frere, , Visitation Articles and Injunctions (Alcuin Club XIV, London, 1910), 1Google Scholar, 9. See: Council of Antioch, A. D. 332, c. 24 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 5); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils and Synods (Oxford, 1964), p. 255).Google Scholar

12. The earliest appears to be c. 8 of the Council of Tarragona, A. D. 516, which already refers to the annual visitation of the bishop as an ancient practice: Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum Novael Amplis-sima Collectio (Venice & Florence, 1758–1798), VIII, cols 542–543Google Scholar (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10).

13. Decretum Grat., C. 12, q. 1, c. 14.

14. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 11.

15. Canon 1 (Decretum Grat.) C. 10, q. 1, c. 12).

16. The canons concerning visitations were becoming more widely known through collections such as those of Reginon of Prüm, A. D. 906 (Migne, , Patrologia Cursus Completus, series Latina (Paris, 1844–1895), CXXXII, col. 185)Google Scholar and Burchard of Worms, c. 1010 (Ibid.,, CXL, col. 537). See also: Pipin, , Capitulare Suessionense, A. D. 744Google Scholar, c. 4 (Ibid.,, XCVI, col. 1505); Cone. Germanicum, A. D. 743, c. 3 (Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XII, 366–367).Google Scholar

17. See Historia, BedeEcclesiastica, III, chs. 17, 23, 28 (ed. Plummer, , Oxford, 1896, I, 159, 174, 195).Google Scholar

18. Bede, , op. cit., IV, ch. 2 (ed. Plummer, I, 205).Google Scholar

19. See Ibid.,

20. Moberly, , Bede's, Historia Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1881), p. 397.Google Scholar

21. Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents (Oxford, 1871), III, 363–364.Google Scholar

22. Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 377–378Google Scholar. Although this letter is often regarded as the inspiration for the reforms of the Council of Clovesho, Haddon & Stubbs suggest (III, 382–383, n.) that the latter may have followed the Council rather than preceded it, and may indicate that the decrees of the English Church in this respect were adopted by the German Church rather than vice-versa.

23. Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 449–450.Google Scholar

24. Ibid., 111, 501.

25. Chapter 3: Wilkins, , Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London, 1737), I, 213.Google Scholar

26. By the jus commune. the diocesan synod was to be held annually (Extra, 5, 1, 25 (i. e. lib. 5, tit. De accusationibus (1), cap Sicut olim (25)) but by custom two synods a year were held in some English dioceses: see Cheney, , English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1941), p. 17.Google Scholar

27. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, I, 49.Google Scholar

28. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. l, cc. 4, 9, 10, 11; Gibson, , Of Visitations Parochial and General (London, 1717), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

29. A. D. 633, c. 35 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 11).

30. Letter of Isidore Hispalensis, dated c. A. D. 600 (Decretum Grat., D. 25. C. 1, § 11).

31. Council of Rouen, A. D. 650, c. 11: Reginon of Prüm, ii, c. 1 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII. col. 279–281Google Scholar): Burchard, i, c. 90 (Migne, , op. cit., CXL, col. 572Google Scholar); Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, X, col. 1203.Google Scholar

32. Letter of Pope Clemens II, c. 1046: Decretum Grat., D. 93, c. 6; Gratian, , Decret., comment, ad D. 94, pars iii.Google Scholar

33. Extra, 1, 23, 1 & 7.

34. Ibid.,

35. Extra, 1, 23, 1.

36. Extra, 23, 1 & 7.

37. John of Athon, Constitutiones Legatinae d. Othonis et d. Othoboni, (bound with Lyndwood, Provinciale, Oxford, 1679), Constits. Othoboni, c. 8, Quam indecorum, gl. ad verb, nunciare, p. 93.

38. Provinciale, seu Constitutiones Angliae (Oxford, 1679),Google Scholar lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, visitatione, p. 49, & gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.

39. Extra, 1, 23, 1 & 7; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53.

40. Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, A. D. 845, appointed ‘magistri et decani’ (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXV, cols. 777–778, para. 716Google Scholar), and c. 25 of the Council of Paris, A. D. 829, implies a plurality of archdeacons (Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XIV, 555Google Scholar).

41. See Neve, Le, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1066–1300) (Vols. I–III, London, 1968–1977).Google Scholar

42. Extra, 1, 23, 6. Undated, but must be 1159 X1181.

43. i e. a jurisdiction which is possessed by the holder of an office in his own right by virtue of the office and is not dependent on the grant of another: Hostiensis, Aurea Summa (Coloniae, 1612), I, de Offic. Ord., para. 1, col. 289; Coke, , Institutes of the Laws of England (6th. ed., London, 1681Google Scholar); Hargrave, ed. (Commentary upon Littleton) 19th ed., London, 1832), I, 96aGoogle Scholar; Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt, i, Bonds of Resig., pp. 63–64Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium Canonicum (3rd. ed., London, 1687), p. 23Google Scholar; Burn, , Ecclesiastical Law (9th ed., London, 1842), III, 39Google Scholar. See Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 3, c. 1, gl, ad verb, ordinarii, pp. 16–17.

44. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 96Google Scholar; , Gibson, Codex, II, 958, 970Google Scholar; Van Espen, , Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum (Louvain, 1753), I, pt. i, tit. 12, cap. 1, para. 6, p. 74Google Scholar; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age (Paris, 1880), p. xxx.Google Scholar

45. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit, 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50; Hostiensis, , In Primum - Sextum Decretalium Librum Commentaria (Venice, 1581), I, de Offic. Archid., cap. 10Google Scholar, para. 31, fo. 129 recto; Gibson, Codex, II, 969–970Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, pp. 96, 161.Google Scholar

46. Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. adverb, imperitiam, p. 50. See Justinian's Digest, lib. 2, tit. l. para. 2; Coke, , Institutes, 1, 96a.Google Scholar

47. Legatine Council of London, 1237 (Constits. Othonis), c. 20 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 254).Google Scholar

48. Synodal Statutes for an English Diocese, 1222 X 1225, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148Google Scholar), attrib. Lynd. (lib. i, tit. 10, c. 4, p. 53) and Wilkins, (Concilia, II, 513)Google Scholar to Reynold's Constits., 1322, c. 6; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.

49. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17.

50. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, pp. 50–51; Ibid.,, c. 4, gl. ad verb, personis, p. 54.

51. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, quae corrigenda, p. 53. See: Extra, 2, 12, 4; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c, 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50.

52. “For er the bisshop caughte hem with his hook, they weren in the erchedekenes book”: Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Friar's Tale”, ed. Robinson, F. N (2nd ed., London, 1957),. p. 89.Google Scholar

53. Extra, 3, 12, 1; Ibid.,, 5, 34, 10; Ibid.,, 5, 3, 31; Ibid.,, 5, 1, 17 & 21, confirmed by the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, c. 8, Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, XXII, cols. 994–995Google Scholar (Extra, 5, 1, 24).

54. Durandus, Speculum Juris (Basle, 1574), lib. iii, pt. i. de lnq., para 2, s. 6(11, 31); Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 3, c. 1, gl. ad verb, inquirant, p. 17; Ibid.,, lib. i, tit. 6, c. 1, gI. ad verb, inquirat, p. 34; Ibid.,, lib. 1, tit. 8, c. 1, gl. ad verb, inquirant, p. 46.

55. Athon, Constits. Othoboni, c. 8, Quam indecorum, gl. ad verb, inquisitionem, p. 93; Lyndwood, supra.

56. Cheney, & Semple, , Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England (1193–1216) (London, 1953), no. 23, p. 79.Google Scholar

57. Regesta Honorii Papae III (ed. Pressutti, , Rome, 1888–1895), no. 3891;Google ScholarCalendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters (ed. Bliss, , London, 1893), I, 86.Google Scholar

58. Registres de Greǵoire IX (ed. Auvray, , Paris, 1896–1908), no. 716Google Scholar (I, col. 448); Potthast, , Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin, 1874–1875)Google Scholar, no. 8947 (1, 768); Cal. Papal Reg., Letters, 1. 129Google Scholar; Annales Monastici (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 36), I, 243–244Google Scholar; Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 57), 111, 234.Google Scholar

59. Historia Anglicana (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 16), p. 117.Google Scholar

60. Canon 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar

61. Grosseteste, , Epistolae (ed. Luard, , Rolls Series, 25), no. 50, pp. 146–147Google Scholar; Annals of Dunstable (Ann. Mon., III, 147–148); Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 263–4.Google Scholar

62. Chronica Maj., IV, 579–580.Google Scholar

63. Chronica Maj., V, 256–257Google Scholar. See generally Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 261–265.Google Scholar

64. See the collections of canons for the practical administration of their dioceses compiled by Reginon, Abbot of Prüm (“De Eccles, Disc.”, Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 185Google Scholar) and Burchard, Bishop of Worms (“Decret.”, Migne, CXL, col. 537) in A. D. 906 and 1010 respectively.

65. Epistolae, no. 50, p. 146Google Scholar; Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 263Google Scholar (“rectoribus ecclesiarum, vicariis, et sacerdotibus parochialibus per singulos decanatus coram nobis congregatis”); Grosseteste's report to the Pope and cardinals, Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 265Google Scholar; Annals of Dunstable (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 264Google Scholar; Ann. Mon., III, 147–8Google Scholar).

66. Archbishop Boniface was supposed to have been inspired by Grosseteste's example when visiting his province in 1250: Paris, Matthew, Chron. Maj., V, 119, 195–196Google Scholar. The Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was similarly encouraged to visit his diocese in 1252: Ann. Mon., I, 296Google Scholar. Seeb Cheney, , Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries (Manchester, 1931), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

67. Sextos, 3, 20, 1.

68. Wake, , Visitation Charge (London, 1707), p. 6Google Scholar; Gibson, Visitations, p. 59.Google Scholar

69. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, videant, p. 50Google Scholar; Gibson, op. cit., p. 11.

70. Gibson, op. cit., p. 6. See: Council of Oxford, 1222, cc. 16, 29 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 110–111Google Scholar, 115, Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 587Google Scholar, 589, cc. 11, 24), and its diocesan derivatives, Stats, of Bishop Peter des Roches of Winchester, 1224?, c. 13 (ibid., p. 128), Stats of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X1259, c. 77 (Ibid.,, p. 649); Stats for an Eng. Diocese, 1222 X1225?, c. 52 (Ibid.,, p. 148), attrib to Constits. Reynold, c. 4, Sint rectores (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 512–513Google Scholar); c. 6, Archidiaconi et eorum (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 513Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (Powicke, & Cheney, , p. 254Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (Ibid., p. 768). See the prominence of the inventories of church goods maintained by the archdeacon of Ely in the Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Eliensis (ed. Feltoe, & Minns, , Camb. Antiq. Soc, 48, 1917), pp. 30–146.Google Scholar

71. Hamilton, Thompson, English Clergy and their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947), pp. 61–62.Google Scholar

72. “Porro visitationis officium exercentes non quaerant quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi, praedicationi et cohortationi, correctioni et reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit.” Extra, 3, 39, 23. See also Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, 1, 255).Google Scholar

73. Canons of the Church of England G 5, para. 1.

74. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 514.Google Scholar

75. See Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Salk. 134,1 Ld. Raym. 539.

76. Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 at 39Google Scholar; The Reconciliation Sentence & Service in St. Paul's (1891). 7 T. L. R. 276 at 277.Google Scholar

77. Decretum Grat., D. 93, c. 6; 1, 31, 1; Sextus, 1, 16, 7; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb. inquirere, p. 17; Conset, , Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts (3rd. ed., London, 1708), p. 379Google Scholar; Oughton, , Ordo Judiciorum (London, 1728), tit. cxxxviiv, p. 214.Google Scholar

78. Extra, supra; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quid ad, gl. ad verb, corrigenda, p. 56; Lyndwood, supra; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Salk. 134, 1 Ld. Raym. 539; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435 at 450.Google Scholar

79. Decretum Grat. C. 10, q. l, c. 12; Extra, 3, 39, 23; Extra, 5, 7, 13; Sextus, 3, 20, 1; Reginonof Prüm, I, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lot., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Athon, supra.

80. Lyndwood, supra.

81. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, quae corrigenda, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17; Ibid.,, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50. See: Stats, of Bishop Peter of Winchester, 1224, c. 18 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 128–129Google Scholar); Synodal Statutes for an English diocese, 1222 X 1225, c. 52 (ibid., p. 148); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (Ibid.,, p. 254); Statutes of the diocese of Norwich, 1240 X 1266?, c. 81 (Ibid.,, pp. 361–362); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (Ibid.,, pp. 768–769).

82. Decretum Grat., comment, ad D. 94, pars iii; Ibid.,, C. 10, q. 1, c. 11; ibid. C. 12, q. 1, c. 14; Extra, 1,23,1; Sextus, 2, 20, 1, § 4.

83. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 12; Council of Oxford, c. 29 [24] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 115Google Scholar); Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 20 (supra); Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 19 (supra); Council of Lambeth, 1281, cc. 9 & 10 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 900–907Google Scholar, partic. at p. 907; see also Lyndwood version, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 2, p. 51); Durandus, Speculum, III, pt. i. de lnq., para. 2, sec. 11 (II, 31); Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 137; Wake, , Visitation Charge, p. 6Google Scholar. Such inquiries are clearly evident in the records of visitations.

84. Extra, 5, 77, 9 & 13.

85. Extra, 1, 31, 1; Reginon of Prüm, I, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quid ad, gl. ad verb, corrigendo, p. 56. See e. g. Reg. Palatinum Dunelmense (ed. Hardy, , Rolls Series 62), I, 84–85.Google Scholar

86. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 5; Ibid.,, C. 35, q. 6, c. 7; Ibid.,, D. 93, c. 6; Reginon of Prüm, c. 10 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 194Google Scholar); Extra, 1, 31, 1; Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 10, c. 4, gl. ad verb. personis, p. 54; Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), cc. 109–112. Notices of visitation were expressed to be of both clergy and people (e. g. Reg. Epist. Johannis Peckham (ed. Martin, Trice, Rolls Series, 62), II, 531Google Scholar; Reg. Corbridge (Surtees Soc.; 138, 1925), 1, 154), and the laity were included in commissions to visit (e. g. Reg. Pal. Dunelm., p. 115Google Scholar; Reg. Reynolds, f. 12 verso, quoted Churchill, , Canterbury Administration (London, 1933), I, 307).Google Scholar

87. Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952), p. 69.Google Scholar

88. Woodcock, supra. In the Archdeacon of London's court between 27 November, 1638 and 28 November, 1640, there were thirty sittings and 2500 causes entered; Holdsworth, , Hist. of Eng. Law (7th ed., London, revised 1956 (reprinted 1966) - 1972), I, 620.Google Scholar

89. See Marchant, , The Church Under the Law (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 116–117, 122–123, 136–137.Google Scholar

90. Church Discipline Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86), s. 23, repealed by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1), s. 69. This section, however, is badly drafted. It expressly refers to proceedings “in the consistory court of a diocese or in the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved”, unlike s. 23 of the Church Discipline Act which prohibited criminal suits against a clergyman “in any ecclesiastical court”. The visitation court is neither the consistory court of the diocese nor the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, and with the complete repeal of the former legislation (Ecclestical Jurisdiction Measure, 1963 S. 87, Sch. 5), on the face of it the visitatorial jurisdiction falls outside the scope of thecurrent Measure and the criminal jurisdiction is revived!

91. Phillimore v Machon (1876), 1 P. D. 481 at 487.Google Scholar

92. Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. at 40.Google Scholar

93. See Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts, 1951 (London, 1954), p. 51.Google Scholar

94. Sextus, 1, 16, 7; Hutchins v Denziloe and Loveland (1792), 1 Hag. Con. 170Google Scholar; Walter v Mountague (1836), 1 Curt. 253Google Scholar; Wyndham v Cole (1875). 1 P. D. 130.Google Scholar

95. Extravags. Stratford, 1342, c. 7. Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, , Concilia, II, 699Google Scholar); Gibson, , Visitations, p. 51.Google Scholar

96. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 10, 11; Stats, for an Eng. dioc. 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148Google Scholar). See Simpson, Sparrow, Visitations of Churches belonging to St. Paul's, 1297 (Camden Soc. N. S., 55, 1895), p. xxivGoogle Scholar. Lyndwood (lib. iii, tit. 27, c. 3, gl. ad verb, viros fide dignos, p. 254Google Scholar) advised that such a survey should be conducted with the assistance of builders and skilled men.

97. Extravags. Stratford, supra; Anon. (1671), I Vent, 127; Degge, , Parson's Counsellor (6th ed.London, 1703), pt. i, p. 189Google Scholar; Simpson, Sparrow, op. cit., p. xxv.Google Scholar

98. Council of London, 1200, c. 5, Cum inter ea (Wilkins, , Concilia, I. 505–506Google Scholar); Council of Oxford, 1222, c. 16 [11] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. (110–111)Google Scholar; Consits. Reynold, c. 4, Sint rectores (Wilkins, , Concilia, II 512–513Google Scholar). See Huls J. in Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, Mich., pi. 25, f. 12.

99. Council of Oxford, c. 29 [24](Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 115Google Scholar). Rept. at diocesan level; Stats for an Eng. dioc, 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Ibid.,, p. 148); Stats, of Bishop Peter des Roches of Winchester, 1224? c. 13 (Ibid.,, p. 128); Stats, of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X 1259, c. 77 (ibid., p. 649); Stats of Bishop Peter Quivel of Exeter, 128, c, 12 (Ibid.,, p. 1008). Lyndwood suggests that this should be in duplicate: libi, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. adverb, in scriptis, p. 50. See Canons of the Church of England, F 17, paras. 1 & 2.

100. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. I. e. 10; Extra, 1, 23,1; Synodal Stats, for an Eng. Diocese, 1222 X 1225?, c. 52 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 148).Google Scholar

101. Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435 at 450Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law (2nd ed., London, 1895), I, 169.Google Scholar

102. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit, 10, c. 4 gl. ad verb, sub poena, p. 53Google Scholar; Millar and Simes v Palmer and Kilby (1837), 1 Curt. 550 at 553–555Google Scholar; Cooper v Wickham (1839), 2 Curt. 303 at 312–313Google Scholar; Veley v Burder (1841), 12 Ad. &E. 265 at 314.Google Scholar

103. Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 109).

104. Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1419.Google Scholar

105. Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz. 2, No. 3), s. 4 (1) (ii).

106. See the proviso to s. 4 (1) (ii) of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956, which expressly preserves the liabilities of churchwardens with respect to visitations.

107. Quaere whether as a last resort, the visitor might be able to fall back on his historical power to close the church for divine service until the repairs have been excecuted: Lyndwood, supra.

108. Legatine Council of London, 1268, c. 17 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 766–767Google Scholar); Gibson, , Visitations, p. 52.Google Scholar

109. Neville v Kirby, [1898] P. 160Google Scholar at 167; Att.-Gen. v Dean & Chapter of Ripon Cathedral, [1945] Ch. 239 at 248Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1049.Google Scholar

110. Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435Google Scholar at 456–457.

111. (3 & 4 Eliz. 2, No. 1), s. 2.

112. Canons of the Church of England C 22, para. 5; F 18.

113. See Degge, , Parson's Counsellor, pt. ii, p. 296.Google Scholar

114. The three duties of archdeacons, including that of annual visitation, set out in Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 5 are quite separate.

115. The legal formalities of a visitation are therefore neither required nor available.

116. See: Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 297Google Scholar; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 PC. 435.Google Scholar

117. See below. The churchwardens of a parish wh¸ich had already been visited parochially might attend the regular visitation for the purpose of admission to office, but would not otherwise be involved in its business.

118. Wake, , Visitation Charge, p. 4Google Scholar. See Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 2.Google Scholar

119. Assize of Clarendon, 1166, c. 1 (Stubbs, , Select Charters (9th. ed., Oxford, 1948), p. 170)Google Scholar. See Pollock, & Maitland, , Hist. of Eng. Law (2nd. ed., Cambridge, 1898), 1, 152.Google Scholar

120. Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 75, c. 47.Google Scholar

121. Reg. Stapeldon (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1892), p. 130.Google Scholar

122. See e. g. Reg. Grandisson (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1894–1899), 1, 382, II, 639Google Scholar; Reg. Pal. Dunelm., 1, 62–63Google Scholar; Reg. Wykeham (ed. Kirby, , Hampshire Rec. Soc., 1896–1899), II, 189.Google Scholar

123. Gibson, , Codex, II, 960.Google Scholar

124. Ibid.,; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 28.Google Scholar

125. Gibson, supra.

126. See below.

127. Gibson, , Codex, II, 963Google Scholar; Gibson, , Visitations, p. 74Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, IV, 30.Google Scholar

128. Statutory Declarations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62), s. 9. Canons of the Church of England, G 6, para. 2 provides for the declaration to be made immediately before such a presentment.

129. See Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 118, which though repealed is evidence of the correct practice.

130. Usually the archdeacon, but the bishop in those years when he visits and the archdeacon's visitation is inhibited:R. v Sowter, ] 1 K.B. 396, CA.Google Scholar

131. Bray v Somer (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 135Google Scholar; Bremner v Hull (1866), LR 1 CP. 748 at 760Google Scholar; Canons of the Church of England, E 1, para. 3.

132. R. v. Rice (1697), 1 Ld. Raym. 138, sub nom. Morgan v Archdeacon of Cardigan, 1 Salk. 166; R. v Simpson (1724), 1 Stra. 609Google Scholar; R. v Dr. Harris (1763), 3 Burr. 1420Google Scholar; R. v Sarum, [1916] 1 K. B. 466.Google Scholar

133. R. v Rice, supra; R. v Bishop of Sarum, supra.

134. Carpenter's Case (1681), Sir T. Raym. 439; R. v Simpson, supra; R. v Dr. Harris, supra; R. v Williams (1828), 8 B. & C. 681Google Scholar; Report of the Commission into Ecclesiastical Courts, 1832, p. 45.Google Scholar

135. Anthony v Seger (1789), 1 Hag. Con. 9Google Scholar at 10; R. v Bishop of Sarum, supra at 472.Google Scholar

136. R. v Williams, supra.

137. See: Council of Clovesho, A. D. 747, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils, III, 363–364Google Scholar, and see the letter of St. Boniface to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury: Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 377–378Google Scholar); Synod of Celchyth, A. D. 787, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., III, 449–450Google Scholar); Odo's Canons, A. D. 943, c. 3 (Wilkins, , Concilia, I, 213Google Scholar); Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 12; Extra, 1, 31, 15; Ibid.,, 3, 39, 23; Sextus, 3, 20, 1, §4; Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar

138. Wake, , Visitation Charge, pp. 4, 17, 20.Google Scholar

139. Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 515.Google Scholar

140. See e. g. Wake's Visitation Charge and Gibson's Visitations.

141. Laughton v Bishop of Sodor and Man (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 495.Google Scholar

142. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 9; Grossete 's report to the Pope and cardinals, 1250 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, I, 265Google Scholar); Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.

143. See: Acts, xix. 6; St. Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), Opera Omnia (ed. Adam Tribbechovius, Christian Gensch, Frankfurt & Leipzig, 1684), Epistolarum II, epist. lviii, Dialogus orthodoxi et Luciferiani, p. 96.

144. Decremm Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12; Ibid.,, C. 12, q. 1, c. 14. See: Reginon of Prüm, I, cc. 6, 8,10. II, c. 1 (Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, cols. 193–194Google Scholar, 279–281); Burchard, I, cc. 83, 84, 86, 90 (Ibid.,, CXL, cols. 570–572). For Papal mandates to enforce the episcopal visitation in England, see above. A part of the law of the English Church: Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p 255Google Scholar). See: Grosseteste, , Epistolae, ep. 127, p. 371Google Scholar; Bishop Rede's Reg. (Sussex Rec. Soc, vol. 8 (1908)), 1,99. Implied in Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.

145. Stephens, , An Historical Discourse, Briefly setting forth the nature of Procurations (London, 1661), p. 5Google Scholar; Godolphin, , Repertorium, pp. 34–35Google Scholar; Blackstone, , Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1803), 1, 382Google Scholar. Grosseteste was emphatic that a bishop could not be a pastor to his flock without visiting it: Epistolae, ep. cxxvii, pp. 373–375.

146. Legatine Council of London, 1237, c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255Google Scholar); Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 76Google Scholar; Stephens, , op. cit., pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

147. Canon's Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 60.

148. See Marshall, , George Hooper, 1640–1727 (Sherborne, 1976), pp. 116–117Google Scholar. Hooper, either himself or by his officers, visited triennially. See also Bishop Compton's visitations: Carpenter, , The Protes tant Bishop (London, 1956), p. 216.Google Scholar

149. See: Sykes, , “Bishop Wake's primary visitation in the diocese of Lincoln 1706”, Journal of Eccl. Hist., II (1951), 190;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSykes, , William Wake (Cambridge, 1957), I, 167–174.Google Scholar

150. See Sykes, , Church and State (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 137–139.Google Scholar

151. Canons of the Church of England, C 18, para. 4.

152. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th, Edn para 662; Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 137; impliedly maintained by Canons of the Church of England, G 5, para. 1. The practice is very ancient, e. g. Reg. Grandisson (1328), I, 382; Reg. Wykeham, II, 189–190; Reg. Islip, i. 7b, as quoted Gibson, Codex II, appdx. p. 1545.

153. Lyndwood, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 6, gl. ad verb, primis admissionibus, p. 225; Cripps, , Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (7th ed. London, 1921), p. 110.Google Scholar

154. Gibson, , Codex, II, 959Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1054.Google Scholar

155. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9 & 12; Extra, 3, 39, 23; Council of Oxford, c. 27 [22] (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 114Google Scholar); Extravags. Stratford, 1342, c. 7, Quamvis lex naturae (Wilkins, Concilia, II, 699); Lyndwood, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 1, gl. ad verb, personaliter, p. 221.

156. Decretum Grat., D. 25, c. 1; Ibid.,, D. 93, c. 6; Ibid.,, Gratian comment, ad C. 10, q. 1, pars ii; Ibid.,, C. 10, q. 1, c. 11; Extra, 1, 23, 1 & 7; Lyndwood, gl. ad verb, personaliter, supra; Hostiensis, Commentaria, VI, de Censib., cap. 1, para. 1, f. 25 verso.

157. Sextus, 1, 13, 2.

158. Old archiepiscopal and episcopal registers abound with such examples, and anciently it would appear that this was the most common kind of delegation, e. g. Reg. Romeyn (ed. Wm. Brown, Surtees Soc. 123, 128, 1913, 1916), 1, 55; Reg. Pal. Dunelm., pp. 91–92Google Scholar, 115. See also Churchill, , Canterbury Administration, II, 141–142Google Scholar, 143–144, 147–148.

159. Sextus, 1, 13, 2; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 2, gl. ad verb, inquirere, p. 17; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age, p. 22Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex, I, xxiii, II, 987Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, pp. 514–515.Google Scholar

160. e. g. in the diocese of Exeter: Report of the Commission into the Ecclesiastical Courts, 1883 (House of Commons Papers, sess. 1883, XXIV), II, 676.Google Scholar

161. Gibson, , Codex, I, xxiii.Google Scholar

162. Walrond v Pollard (1568), 3 Dyer 273a; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2 Bro. Parl. Cas. 179Google Scholar; Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 at 40Google Scholar; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 435Google Scholar; Blackstone, , Commentaries, 1, 479Google Scholar; Stephens, , Law Relating to the Clergy (London, 1848), II, 1379Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, I, 166–172Google Scholar; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 491.

163. Gibson, , Codex, II, 957Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1045–1046.Google Scholar

164. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn. para. 1309.

165. Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 297 at 320Google Scholar, 341. See Sextus, 3, 20, 1.

166. Grosseteste's dispute with the Lincoln Dean and Chapter culminated in one of the causes célèbres of the middle ages. See Epistolae, ep. nos. 77, 80. pp. 248, 253–256

167. See Frere, , Visitn. Articles, 1. 75Google Scholaret seq.

168. Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976, (No. 3), s. 4.

169. e. g. Robert Withers v Dean & Chapter of Exeter (1611), Appeals to the Delegates, no. 15, Brit. Parlt. Papers, 1867–1868, LVII, p. 112 (Papers in the case as prepared from the appeal to the Dele gates are in the possession of the Dean and Chapter of Exeter: D. & C. Exeter MS. 7155/1); Leneve Boughton's Case (1715), Brit. Parlt. Papers, supra, no. 134, p. 172.

170. Bagg's Case (1615), 11 Co. Rep. 93b at 99b; Philips v Bury (1694), Holt KB. 715 at 725; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1Ld. Raym. 539 at 544; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2 Bro. Part. Cas. 179 at 183Google Scholar; Withers v Dean & Chapter of Exeter, supra; Leneve Boughton's Case, supra; Wynn v Sager (1740)Google Scholar, Appeals to the Delegates, no. 160, Brit. Parlt. Papers, supra, p. 185; Boyd v Phillpotts (1874)Google Scholar, L. R. 4 A. & E. 297 at 320.

171. R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester (1850), 15 Q. B. 513Google Scholar at 518–519. See Philips v Bury, supra at 724Google Scholar; Boyd v Phillpotts (1874), supra at 335Google Scholar, 340–341. A recent example may be seen in the visitation of Lincoln Cathedral last year by the bishop of Lincoln to inquire into the financial affairs of the cathedral following the losses incurred by taking the Lincoln Magna Carta to the World Expo 88 in Australia.

172. Y. B. 8 E. 3, Mich. pi. 37, f. 69 at 69–70; Philips v Bury, supra; Green v Rutherforth (1750), 1 Ves. Sen. 462 at 472.Google Scholar

173. R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra.

174. R. v Dean & Chapter of Ripon Cathedral, ]Google Scholar Ch. 239 at 252. See also Att-Gen. v Stephens (1737), 1 Atk. 358 at 360.Google Scholar

175. R. v All Souls College, Oxford (1681), Skin. 12 at 13; Philips v Bury, supra, at 720Google Scholar; Att-Gen. v Talbot (1748), 3 Atk. 662 at 674Google Scholar; R. v Bishop of Ely (1756), 1 Wm. Bl. 71 at 83Google Scholar; St. John's College, Cambridge v Todington (1757), 1 Burr. 158 at 202Google Scholar; R. v Bishop of Worcester (1815), 4 M. & S. 415 at 420Google Scholar; Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester (1849), 7 Hare 532Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester (1850), 15 Q. B. 513Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Rochester (1851), 17 Q. B. 1.Google Scholar

176. R. v Bishop of Chester (1747), I Wils BI. 22, 1 Wils. 206Google Scholar; Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester supra; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra. See Philips v Bury, supra at 726–727.Google Scholar

177. See: by the author, “The Exclusive Jurisdiction of the University Visitor”, 97 L. Q. R., (1981), pp. 610–647Google Scholar; Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] A. C. 795.Google Scholar

178. Whiston v Dean & Chapter of Rochester, supra at 559Google Scholar; R. v Dean & Chapter of Chester, supra at 520.Google Scholar

179. Cathedrals Measure, 1931, (21 & 22 Geo 5, c 7), s. 9; now Cathedrals Measure 1963 (No. 2), s. 6.

180. Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, visitent, p. 53; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, imperitiam, p. 50; Hostiensis, Commentaria, I. de Offic. Archid., cap. 10, para 31, fo. 129 recto; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 96, 161Google Scholar; Gibson, , Codex, II, 958, 969–970Google Scholar; Van Espen, , Jus EcclesiasticumGoogle Scholar, I, pt. i, tit. 12, cap. 1, para. 6, p. 74; Fournier, , Les Officialités au Moyen Age, p. xxxGoogle Scholar; per Dodderidge J. in Chiverton v Trudgeon (1619), Palm. 97 at p. 98; Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 2.

181. Extra, 1,23, W; ibid., 1, 33, 16; Gibson, Codex, 1, 171; Cathedrals Measure 1963 (No. 2), s. 10(2).

182. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q, 1, cc, 4, 10, 11, 12; Gibson, , Codex, II, 958.Google Scholar

183. Shephard v Payne (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 414Google Scholar; Archdeacon of Exeter v Green, [1913] P. 21Google Scholar; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 500.

184. Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, videant, p. 50; Ibid.,, c. 4, gl. ad verb, visitationibus ecclesiarum, p. 51; Ibid.,, lib. iii, tit. 22, c. 1, gl. adverb, rationabili, pp, 220–221; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 161Google Scholar. Although the office of archdeacon's official has been abolished by the Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure 1976 (No. 2), s. 7, an archdeacon may still appoint a deputy to carry out a visitation: Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 3.

185. Gibson, , Codex, II, 972Google Scholar; Dansey, , Horae Decanicae Rurales (London, 1844), 1, 160–166Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, II, 121Google Scholar, See Extra, 1, 24, 4.

186. See Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims: Migne, Patrolog, Lat., CXXV, para. 716Google Scholar, cols. 777–778.

187. See Extra, 3, 39, 6, repeated Council of London, 1200, c. 5, Cum inter ea (Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 505).Google Scholar

188. Ibid.,, where the rural deans are referred to as the “decani constituti sub episcopis”; Van Espen, , Jus Ecclesiasticum, I, pt. i, tit. vi, cap. 3, para. 7, p. 39Google Scholar; Richard, , Analyse des Conciles (Paris, 1772–1777), III, 36Google Scholar; Dansey, , Horae Dec. Rur., I, 170–171.Google Scholar

189. Gibson, , Codex, II, 972Google Scholar. See Extra, 1, 24, 4.

190. Lyndwood's description of the archdeacon, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb. visitatione, p. 49, but compare with lib. ii, tit. 1, c. 1, gl. ad. verb, decani rurales, p. 79.

191. Dansey, , Horae, Dec. Rur., II, 108–109.Google Scholar

192. See Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. De archidiaconis, gl. ad verb, capitulis, p. 54.

193. Stillingfleet, , Eccl. Cases, pt. i, p. 2Google Scholar; Gibson, , Visitations, pp. 59–60Google Scholar; Ayliffe, , Parergon, p. 515.Google Scholar

194. See: Extra, 1, 23, 7, § 2; Athon, Constits. Othonis, c. Quod in quodam, gl. ad verb, erubescunt, p. 15; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 2, c. 1, gl. ad verb, decanos rurales, p. 14; Ibid.,, gl. ad verb, eorum vices, p. 15; lib. ii, tit. 1, c. 1, gl. ad verb. In causis, p. 79.

195. See Gibson's, “Instructions for the Deans Rural”, no. 3, Codex, 11, 1551.Google Scholar

196. Athon, gl. ad verb, erubescunt, supra.

197. Godolphin, , Repertorium, p. 54, appdx. p. 7Google Scholar; Burn, , Eccl. Law, 11, 124–125.Google Scholar

198. 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 77.

199. “Rural Deans. Case for the Opinion of Dr. Phillimore”, Ecclesiastical Gazette, Tue. 12 03, 1839, No. 9, p. 164.Google Scholar

200. Decretum Grat., C. 9, q. 3, cc. 1 & 2.

201. See e. g. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, I, 84–86.Google Scholar

202. Extra, 3, 39, 14 & 25; Sextus, 3, 20, 1 & 5; Hostiensis, Commentaria, I, de Offic. Jud. Ord., cap. 11, para. 6, f. 163 verso; Grange v Denny (1616), 3 Bulst. 174 (per Dodderidge J. at 177). For an example of a medieval metropolitical visitation, see that of the diocese of Worcester by Archbishop Winchelsey: Graham, , English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929), pp. 330–359Google Scholar. A justification for the archbishop's full powers of correction is set out by Archbishop Peckham: Reg. Ep. J. Peckham, I, 328–334Google Scholar; Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, 922–932Google Scholar. See also the terms of commission to visit given to commissaries by successive Archbishops of Canterbury: Churchill, Canterbury Administration, 1, 176, 307, 313, 329, 334.

203. Gobbet's Case (1634), Cro. Car. 339, S. C., 3 Salk. 379; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 431. But c. f. Twisden J. in Ford v Welden (1664), Sir T. Raym. 91.

204. The famous judgment Romana ecclesia of Innocent IV; Sextus, 3, 20, 1, confirmed in Papal bull to Archbishop Mepeham, 1329; Cal. Papal Reg., Letters, 11, 290–291Google Scholar. See Churchill, , Canterbury Administration, 1, 143–146Google Scholar, 330 (Reg. Arundel, I, f. 469), and for an example of the process, Reg. Chichele (ed. Jacob, , Oxford, 1945), fo. 247Google Scholar, 111, 463 et seq., See also: Gibson, , Codex, II, 957Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1046.Google Scholar

205. Sextus, 3, 20, 1.

206. Ann. Mon., 1, 303.

207. Sextus, 3, 20, 1; Bishop of St. David's v Lucy (1699), 1 Ld. Raym. 539, 1 Salk. 134.

208. Grosseteste, , Epistolae, ep. 127, p. 376.Google Scholar

209. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, cc. 9, 10, 11.

210. Council of Clovesho, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , Councils, III, 363Google Scholar); Synod of Celchyth, c. 3 (Haddon, & Stubbs, , op. cit., 449Google Scholar); Odo's Canons, c. 3 (Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 213Google Scholar).

211. The Council of Lugo, A. D. 569 recognised that certain dioceses were too large to permit an annual visitation: Mansi, , Sacr. Cone, IX, col. 815Google Scholar. See also Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina (Magontiaci, 1786–1787), VI, pt. ii, lib. 3, c. 78, para. 15, p. 546.

212. c. 8 (Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10).

213. c. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar

214. Hostiensis, , Summa, III, de Censib., para. 19, col. 1040.Google Scholar

215. Degge, , Parson's Counsellor, II, 294Google Scholar. For the need for such supervision, see Decretum Grat., D. 94, c. 3.

216. Thompson, Hamilton, Rotuli Gravesend Episcopi Lincolniensis (1258–1279), p. xvii.Google Scholar

217. Reg. Bronescombe, Quivil and Bytton (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1889), pp. 294–302Google Scholar; Reg. Stapeldon (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1892), pp. 547–560Google Scholar; Reg. Grandisson, III, 1524–1532Google Scholar; Reg. Stafford (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, , Exeter & London, 1886), pp. 476–479.Google Scholar

218. Cardinal Pole in the Legatine Council of 1555: Wilkins, , Concilia, IV, 126.Google Scholar

219. Frere, , Visitn. Articles, gen. index of docts., xxvi, p. 156.Google Scholar

220. De Eccles, . et Min. Ejus, c. 12 (ed. Cardwell, Oxford, 1850, p. 105).Google Scholar

221. Quaere whether even this is possible at the present day: see Bursell, R., “What is the Place of Custom in English Canon Law?”, (1989) 1 Eccl. L. J.(4), p. 12 at pp. 23–26.Google Scholar

222. Bursell, op. cit., p. 23.

223. Epistolae, p. 127, p. 421.

224. C. 22 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 255).Google Scholar

225. Decretum Grat., C. 10, q. 1, c. 10; Sextus, 3, 20, 1.

226. See notes 56–58 above.

227. See below.

228. Canons of the Church of England, C 22, para. 5; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) para. 500.

229. Extra, 1,23,1.

230. Extra, 1, 23, 6; Lyndwood, lib. i, tit. 10, c. 1, gl. ad verb, visitatione, p. 49.

231. Customs of the diocese of Salisbury, 1228 X 1256?, no. 11 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 513–514Google Scholar); Statutes of the diocese of Norwich, 1240 X 1266? no. 81 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, pp. 361–362Google Scholar). See also the Synodal Statutes of Bishop Fulk Basset of London, 1245 X 1259, no. 77 (Powicke, & Cheney, , Councils, p. 649).Google Scholar

232. See e. g. Shephard v Payne (1862), 12 C. B. (N. S.), 414 at 418–428.Google Scholar

233. Indeed, the contrary is asserted, supra.

234. There is a reference to a second visitation in the Reformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum, de Eccles. et Min. Ejus, c. 6 (ed. Cardwell, p. 101).Google Scholar

235. Shephard v Payne, supra, at 417.Google Scholar

236. Ibid.,

237. See Bursell, R., “What is the place of Custom in English Canon Law”, (1989) 1 Eccl L. J. (4), at pp. 22, 25–26.Google Scholar

238. Extra, 1, 23, 6; Phillpotts v Boyd (1875) L. R. 6 P. C. 435.Google Scholar

239. Lunne v Dodson (1661), 3 Salk. 201, approved R v Sowter, ] 1 K. B. 396, CA; Gibson, , Codex, 11. 958Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, II, 1050Google Scholar; Canons of the Church of England, G 5, para. 2.

240. R. v Sowter, supra; approved R. v Sarum, [1916] 1 K. B. 466.Google Scholar

241. Anon, (n. d.), Noy, 123. Sidesmen may also be cited.

242. Clayton v Archbishop of Dublin (1703)Google Scholar, Appeals to the Delegates, no. 116, Brit. Parlt. Papers, 1867–1868, LVI1, p. 161; Bishop of Kildare v Archbishop of Dublin (1724), 2Google Scholar Bro. Parl. Cas. 179; Harrison v Archbishop of Dublin (1713), 2Google Scholar Bro. Parl. Cas. 199; McGeath v Geraghty (1866), 15 W. R. 127Google Scholar; Phillimore, , Eccl. Law, 11, 1050–1051Google Scholar. It is possible that this is not caught by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1) (ss. 14, 69), for the punishment of a contempt of the visitation court is not a proceeding for the punishment of an ecclesiastical offence but the means possessed by any court of law to enforce its own orders and authority, and therefore is not a proceeding instituted in an ecclesiastical court: Coleridge C. J. in Martin v Mackonochie (1879). 4 Q. B. D. 697Google Scholar at 790–793, CA; Whiteside C. J. in McGeath v Geraghty, supra (with ref. to Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. I.)Google Scholar

243. Clewer v Pullen (1684), Rothery's Precedents, No. 79, p. 39; 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.)para. 1357.

244. i. e. there is no element of compulsion.

245. McGeath v Geraghty, supra; Blane v Geraghty (1866), 15 W. R. 133.Google Scholar

246. Migne, , Patrolog. Lat., CXXXII, col. 187Google Scholar, et seq.

247. Wilkins, , Concilia, 1, 627Google Scholar, there attrib. to Hugh de Wells, but more likely derived from Grosseteste's statutes: Cheney, , Synodalia, pp. 122–124.Google Scholar

248. Ann. Mon., I, 296–298.Google Scholar

249. Ann. Mon., I, 307–310.Google Scholar

250. e. g. Reg Giffard (York) (ed. Brown, Wm., Surtees Soc, 109, 1904), p. 302Google Scholar; Reg. Wickwane (ed. Brown, Wm., Surtees Soc, 114, 1907), pp. 116–118Google Scholar; Memoriale sive registrum Henrici Prioris Monasterü Cantuariensis, “Articuli super quibus inquirendum est in visitationibus prelatorum”, f. 61 (B. L. MS. Cotton, Galba EIV); Reg. Grandisson, II, 858–860Google Scholar; Reg. Courteney, f. 90 (Churchill, Cant. Admin., 11, 142–143).

251. Gibson, , Codex, 11, 960.Google Scholar

252. Gibson, , Codex, 11, 963.Google Scholar

253. See Canons of the Church of England, G 6, paras. 1 & 2.

254. See Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 119.

255. Dr. Kathleen Major informed the author that Bishop Wake introduced articles to the clergy as well as the churchwardens in the diocese of Lincoln, and that this marked an important change in the use made by the bishop of his visitation. This is now the practice in a number of dioceses. Canons of the Church of England, G 6, para. 1 appears to require this, but may be based on a misunderstanding of the role of the minister in making presentments as set out in Canons Ecclesiastical (1603), c. 113.

256. Interestingly (and rather surprisingly) the replies of the archdeacons to the questionnaire sent out by the Working Party on Visitations indicate that even now on rare occasions the visitation has furnished the first indication of a problem in a parish.