The Court of Arches is the Archbishop's court of appeal for the Province of Canterbury. It derives its name from the church of St. Mary-le-Bow or St. Maria de Arcubus in the city of London where the court was held from at least the primacy of Archbishop Pecham (1279–92) until the church was destroyed by the Great Fire of London in 1666. The church was one of thirteen in the City of London which, before the abolition of peculiars in the middle of the nineteenth century, came within the Archbishop's jurisdiction of the deanery of the Arches. The judge or Official Principal who presided over the Court of Arches came to be known as the Dean of the Arches from his lesser office as judge of the court of the peculiar.

Although I have no legal expertise, I hope I may be able to pose some useful questions. In 1989, I and others founded a group called ‘Christianity and the Future of Europe’ in order to encourage Christians in Britain to reflect on the European Community. What difference will it make to the life of the British churches? What might the special historical experience of the British churches contribute to ‘the construction of Europe’?

A peculiar or exempt jurisdiction is, broadly speaking, one which does not fit into the general scheme of jurisdiction within the Church. It is “exempt” from the “normal” structures, its jurisdiction is “peculiar” to itself. It is important at this stage to note that peculiars are jurisdictions, not places, still less buildings. A jurisdiction can be personal, territorial, or a mixture of the two. However, since the reformation, most jurisdictions in the Church of England have been largely territorial, hence the convention of referring to them as places.

On a Friday afternoon towards the end of April, by car, train and aircraft, we converged on the northern city of Ripon, which I would imagine was not too well known to many of us. Despite road works and an accident, which meant that the writer did only 28 miles in his first hour on the A1 and contrary to received wisdom, a dull and rainy south gave way to a bright and (on Saturday) sunny north. All was redeemed on arriving at the college and seeing buildings of varying decades nestling among trees which were obviously there before the first bricks were thought of some 150 years ago. To complete the pastoral scene were Jacob sheep and many jet black lambs – the clerical members of the Society no doubt noted this illustration for future sermons.

Most clerics of the Church in Wales will be aware that many people on the fringe of Church life will describe themselves as belonging to the Church of England, rather than as members of the Church in Wales. A Welsh hospital chaplain recently issued a circular requesting that Anglican patients entering hospital should describe themselves as members of the Church in Wales rather than of the Church in England. Seventy and more years after the disestablishment of the Church in Wales there is thus confusion in the minds of many about the identity of the Church in Wales. Is it, or is it not, part of the Church of England? But if there is confusion in the minds of some about the identity of the Church in Wales, there is equal confusion about its status. What does it mean to belong to a disestablished Church? What does it mean to be a disestablished Church?

The Church's attitude to housing issues is, of necessity, complicated. At the most basic level, human beings need shelter in order to survive: they need protection from the weather, and from predators, and all human beings need to sleep securely for several hours every day. The Christian gospel enjoins Christ's followers to assist in meeting such human need: “in as much as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me”.

In the public mind noise is associated more with the sound of twentieth century inventions than the ages old chime of church clocks and the clang of church bells or indeed the crowing of cockerels. The Law Reports give little guidance as to the principles governing the legal liability in the case of nuisance from clocks, bells and cockerels at common law and the circumstances in which an injunction can be obtained to stop them, in contrast to a steady flow of cases arising out of noise created by today's mechanised and industralised society. However, it would appear from recent experience as reported in national newspapers and from the writer's own experience that these issues are very much alive and of interest to practitioners, particularly those who are advising ecclesiastical authorities.

In this paper I offer some warnings regarding the scheme for alternative episcopal oversight now embodied in the Act of Synod passed by the House of Bishops and published as Appendix B to Ordination of Women to the Priesthood: Pastoral Arrangements. These arrangements provide sacramental care as well as oversight for opponents of the ordination of women to the priesthood. Furthermore, the scheme is intended to serve two purposes: first, to safeguard the position of bishops and other clergy opposed to women's ordination; secondly, to ensure a continuity of such bishops and clergy. That the scheme is flawed becomes apparent when one examines it in the light of an arrangement devised at the end of the 17th century. The arrangement had been intended to secure the episcopal oversight of the body, both clerical and lay, which separated itself from the Church of England in 1690–91. The separation stemmed from its members feeling themselves unable to take the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary; hence the term ‘Nonjurors’.

The first statutory reference to a Vicar General in Man appears in an Act of Tynwald (the ancient Manx Legislative Assembly and which stil exists and operates today as a modern and democratically elected body) namely section 3 of ‘a book of spiritual laws and customs of the Island’.

‘From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.’

‘Remember always with thanksgiving that the treasure now to be entrusted to you is Christ's own flock, bought through the shedding of his blood on the cross.’

This article is by way of extended reflection, ecclesiological but with sprinklings of both law and history, on two of the topics raised by Canon John Nurser at (1993) 3 Ecc. L. J. 103 which are of particular interest in my present situation: the effect of European Union on the Church of England, and the non-proselytisation policy of the Diocese in Europe.