A distressing example of double conveyancing came to light in Reed v Madon. A family had purchased exclusive rights of burial in a private burial ground, but one of the plots was resold, and a burial under this second title occurred before the original grantees had time to object. On the facts, the loss of the exclusive burial right could be effectively compensated in damages. This removed the need for Morritt J. to rule on some of the interesting points of law raised by exclusive burial rights. There was no authority concerned solely with a private burial ground. It was necessary therefore to argue by analogy from corresponding rights granted in other burial places, especially churchyards. It is now proposed to explore these issues.

Mr Chairman, Vicar General, Worshipful Chancellors, ladies and gentlemen. This is the second time that I have been privileged to address this Society. Three years ago I spoke after a good dinner at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, when members' critical faculties had undoubtedly been dimmed by the College claret! It is quite a different thing to speak to you today on a dull Saturday in the solemn environs of Westminster Cathedral, especially as in 1987 I spoke as a diocesan bishop and today I speak as one of those living in what is euphemistically called “retirement”. It is a demanding way of life in which one lacks the resources and the defences long taken for granted, and of course, it is subject to the changes and chances of British Rail for which I profoundly apologise. I had an unscheduled bus journey of an hour and three quarters round the villages of my former diocese this morning.

Another well known name from the golden age of the Cambridge law school was that of John ‘of Aton’. The name, however, requires some comment before proceeding to the man. In the printed edition of his work he is ‘de Athon:’ or ‘de Aton’, which Stubbs rendered as Ayton, on the assumption that it derived from the place in Yorkshire. Maitland said it was convenient to follow this spelling, though he pointed out that the papal chancery addressed him as ‘Johannes Johannis de Acton’. ‘Acton’ was used in the Dictionary of National Biography, and is now the preferred spelling, though more cautious writers have adopted the neutral ‘Athon’. In view of the strong East Anglian bias of the Cambridge law school in the time of Bishop Bateman, it is possible that the name derived from Acton in Suffolk. But that is only so if the papal chancery may be trusted; Athon is not itself a variant of Acton. If, on the other hand, the spelling in the treatise is preferred – and it certainly seems more common in all the manuscripts – Ayton (formerly Aton) remains a more likely identification than any other. Certainly the doctor's connections in his professional career seem to have been with the north rather than with East Anglia.

1. It was over a late night glass of Scotch, a number of years ago, that Graham Routledge and I first talked of the issues I am asked to address this afternoon. Chancellor Routledge and I differed on a number of subjects, political and ecclesiastical, but we discovered common cause in the recognition of the importance of an impartial and unemotional examination of the doctrinal, ecclesiological and constitutional implications of any future Anglican- Roman Catholic unity. It was during one such conversation that Graham told me of his hopes for the establishment of this Society, which he saw as, amongst other things, the most appropriate forum for the bringing together of the necessary disciplines and professions for such scholarly and ecumenical discussion. Graham had been able to initiate some discussion of the question within the English Anglican Roman Catholic Committee (of which he was a distinguished member). But the complexities of both canon and constitutional law, and, problems concerning the interpretation of ecclesiastical history, reinforced his judgement that quiet and continuing consideration was required in a society such as ours as well as in ecumenical committees.