When we contemplate ecumenism in South Africa in the twentieth century, we often automatically think of the outstanding work of the South African Council of Churches during the years of apartheid. However, it had two precursors in the General Missionary Conference of South Africa (1904–36) and the Christian Council of South Africa (1936–68). Parallel yet integral to these developments we note the significant contribution of the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. These did not originate or exist in a vacuum but responded to the needs and currents in society and were active in the midst of para-movements such as the Christian Institute.

In recent years there have been protests at Armistice Day services and at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, but these events seem insignificant compared to the impact of the ‘funeral picketing’ carried out in the United States by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, principally at the funerals of American forces personnel killed on active service. This has caused considerable distress to family members and wide public outrage. In 2011 the United States Supreme Court held in Snyder v Phelps that the right of freedom of speech of the WBC rendered them immune to claims for damages by mourners affected by their picketing. This article will first consider how English secular and canon law could be used to restrict the practice of funeral picketing and secondly discuss whether current law could provide a remedy for mourners distressed by funeral picketing and other forms of protest at funerals, were they to take place.

The taking of oaths of allegiance to the Crown has a long history pre-dating the Reformation. However, the shifting balance of power in the sixteenth century gave greater political weight to the taking of oaths, and developments in the monarchy were matched by developments in the oaths required of clerics. In the present day all clergy are required to take the Oath of Allegiance prior to ordination and on taking up clerical posts. Other office-holders in the church are also required to do so.

When George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, accidentally shot and killed a gamekeeper in 1621, questions were immediately asked about whether the accident had rendered him excommunicate and whether he could, consequently, remain in his post. Within the complex ecclesiastical politics of the day, James I remained sympathetic to Abbot and a solution was sought to free him from any adverse consequences. In the end a royal pardon and a novel form of dispensation, utilising a rare process set up by the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533, were brought into play and the archbishop continued in office.

It is a privilege to have been invited to deliver the Boydell Lecture and to record my own appreciation of Peter, whom I can picture now – immaculate and affable as always. He was very kind to me as a fledgling Bishop of London. There was at the time an understandable debate about whether the tradition of inviting the bishop to be an honorary bencher of the Middle Temple should be continued. Time pressures had made the connection of some previous bishops very tenuous. Peter argued that +Londin should be given a last chance and this has led as far as I am concerned to a most nourishing and instructive relationship with the Temple and those who work here. As you know, by the Queen's command I do not appear in the Temple Church as bishop but as Dean of HM Chapels Royal and the Visitor, and I relish my connection with a place which preserves memories of so many events which have shaped our nation, as well as a living choral tradition which must be among the finest in the land.

The background to the passing of the Immigration Act is generally well known and it is recognised that the present Government has had concerns – either of its own or pressed upon it – about levels of immigration in this country. It is clear that all political parties are under some pressure to respond to public concerns over this area, which will clearly be one of the major issues in the campaigns leading up to the forthcoming general election.

Exactly 80 years has passed since the completion of the United States Supreme Court building. This comment is not another paper about the importance or historical influence of the greatest of all American institutions, nor about dramatic cases which shaped America, nor about justices and their approaches, nor about characters or world views. It is about architecture and the messages which are sent from the facade of this strong institution to which legal scholars and practitioners from around the world look.

Events during the period under consideration were overshadowed by the result of the General Election in May, in which the Conservatives secured an overall majority and the Scottish National Party won 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland. What this will mean for issues of particular concern to readers of this Journal is unclear: but at the very least, there is already pressure for devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament over and above those in the agreed package put forward by the all-party commission under the chairmanship of Lord Smith of Kelvin. The Scotland Bill was introduced into the Commons on 28 May and is likely to be a matter of some controversy.