Given the prominence accorded to doctrinal authority in the earlier canon law, it is natural that most famous canonists achieved their fame through their writings. Although the leading writers were often also judges and men of affairs, it was possible to lead an active life in the practice of the canon law without leaving any identifiable mark on history. To this general principle Bishop Bateman constitutes a remarkable exception: distinguished judge, leading figure in the Curia at Avignon, and patron of legal studies in Cambridge, he left several marks on history which entitle him, though not known as a writer, to be classed with the greatest English canon lawyers.

Among lawyers who profess to know their way about the labyrinth of the Church of England's legal foundations there is a debate whether there are two subjects or one – are ecclesiastical law and canon law the same? As some purists contend that canon law is more restricted in its scope I shall take, for convenience and perhaps accuracy, the description ecclesiastical law, which certainly comprehends, or should comprehend, canon law. The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England is derived from six sources (1) papal and domestic canon law, (2) ecclesiastical common law, (3) the relevant parts of the Corpus Juris Civilis, (4) parliamentary statutes, (5) Measures of the Church Assembly and the General Synod, (6) the Canons.

One of the main areas of concern highlighted in the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission Report (C.I.O. 1984) was the need for clear public accountability by the Church for changes and alterations to its buildings. Whereas parish churches are covered by the faculty jurisdiction, no comparable mandatory system exists for cathedrals. In order to remedy that the FJC proposed changes. Chapter 8 recommended that the Cathedrals Advisory Commission should be placed on a statutory basis and that proposals by cathedral chapters should be referred to the CAC where they involved “any significant work or works to preserve, alter or add to the building or its contents which would materially affect the architectural, artistic, historical or archaeological character of the Cathedral.”

‘One swallow docs not a summer make’ – so goes the old adage – and the object of this note is not to assert that reported cases are unreliable evidence. Its aim is to suggest that research must still extend beyond the printed evidence even for that period in history when collections of reported cases start to become freely available.