เ

there are instances of diocesan synods again deliberating.14 The conferences have since 1881 found a common centre in the Council of Diocesan Conferences.' 15 This also is legally independent of the church system. It consists of clerical and lay members chosen at the diocesan conferences. It draws up summaries of the diocesan resolutions, and itself discusses subjects which fall within the scope of the diocesan conferences.16

§ 58.

C. RURAL CHAPTERS."

Rural chapters are assemblies of the clergy of a smaller area within a bishopric. When regular gatherings of this kind became customary is not known. Probably their origin is connected with the establishment of fixed decanal districts.1

14 In the Church Year-Book, 1891, the diocesan synods mentioned as having met are those of Lichfield and Salisbury. In addition to the former there was a Lichfield diocesan conference. The synod of Salisbury seems to belong to the association of conferences. On the diocesan conferences in 1872 and the representation of the laity in diocesan synods see appendix B in the report of the committee of the lower house of Canterbury on lay co-operation, append. to Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1872. In 1880 the only dioceses in the southern province in which there were not conferences were Salisbury, Gloucester and Bristol, London, Llandaff and Worcester. In Salisbury there was however the synod, in Gloucester and Bristol a council, in London the establishment of a diocesan conference was pending. There were moreover in Ely, Lichfield and elsewhere archidiaconal conferences presided over by the bishop. Report of a committee of the lower house in Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1881, appendix. The diocesan conference of London held its first session in 1883. In the northern province there were in 1882 diocesan conferences in York, Carlisle, Chester, Liverpool, Sodor and Man, Durham, Manchester, Ripon, Newcastle. Committee report, 1883, No. 148 in append. to Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1883. In 1883 a diocesan conference was established in Llandaff (Committee report, 1885, No. 180 in append. to Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1885), in 1885 in the newly founded see of Southwell (Committee report, 1886, No. 196 in append. to Chron. of Conv. Cant. 1886), in 1892 in the newly founded see of Wakefield (Church Year-Book, 1893, p. 376). 15 In 1881 the diocesan conferences of Winchester, Bangor, Chichester, Ely, Hereford, Lichfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, Rochester, St. Alban's, St. Asaph, Truro, Ripon, Chester, Carlisle, Manchester, Sodor and Man combined to send representatives (six laymen and six clergymen from each) to a Central Council. Chronicle of Convocation Cant. 1882 (append. No. 137, p. 14). The principles (agreed 7th July, 1881) which were to govern the central council are printed l.c. p. 42. Later adhesions were Bath and Wells, Canterbury, Durham, Gloucester and Bristol, Llandaff, London, Newcastle, St. Davids etc. The diocesan conference of York in 1883 rejected a proposal to co-operate.

16 For further particulars as to the constitution and operations of diocesan conferences and the central council and as to the dates of their establishment see Church Year-Book, 1883, p. 380.

1 Cf. § 43, note 2. It is perhaps to rural chapters that the reference is in leg. Ed. Conf. (a law-book; probably dating from the beginning of the twelfth century). c 2 § 8:. omnibus Christianis ad ecclesiam Dei causa orationis

For literature cf. § 43, note a.

In the twelfth century these assemblies were called by the rural dean, who presided at them. With the thirteenth, it began to be urged that the frequent presence of the archdeacon was desirable.* As he had higher rank than the rural dean, the general presidency passed by degrees to him. From the end of the thirteenth century it became the practice that, as a rule, the officials of the archdeacons held the chapters, the rural deans doing so only occasionally. In consequence of this development the power to determine minor cases at first exercised by the rural chapters became vested in the archdeacon's court.

For several centuries a distinction was drawn between the chief assemblies, held every quarter to discuss more serious business, and less important meetings, attended by fewer persons, which took place every three or four weeks.+

The decay of rural chapters, as of the office of rural dean, began even before the reformation. During that period and after it they fell more and more into disuse. As until the commencement of the nineteenth century attempts to revive the office of rural dean remained fruitless, so it was not found possible to give vitality to rural chapters. Only in this century have meetings of the clergy of the rural deanery under their rural dean again been allowed in some of the dioceses. Such assemblies possess no powers of jurisdiction.

5

pergentibus pax sit in eundo et redeundo; item ad dedicationes euntibus, et ad synodos et ad capitula, sive summoniti sint, sive per se ibi quid agendum habeant. Abroad rural chapters were known in many places in and after the 9th century; they, however, never became so general as in England during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Richter, Kirchenrecht p. 138, note 4. Dansey II, 2 ff.

2 Constit. Otho (1237) c 20: sint autem soliciti (scil. archidiaconi) frequenter interesse capitulis per singulos decanatus in quibus diligenter instruant sacerdotes (Wilkins, Conc. I, 649.)

3 John of Actona (shortly after 1332), p. 54, gloss cap. rural. to const. Otho : quae hodie tenentur per officiales archidiaconorum et quandoque per decaños rurales. In the documents of that time the chapters are variously called chapters of the archdeacons and chapters of the deans. Cf. e.g. provincial synod of Oxford, 1222 c 22 (Wilkins, Conc. I, 585), const. of bishop of Salisbury, 1256 (l.c. I, 715), episcopal synod of Norwich, 1257 (l.c. I, 735), of Exeter, 1287 c 31 (l.c. II, 148), provincial synod of Reading, 1279 c 5 (l.c. II, 36), synod of province of Canterbury, 1341 c 7 (l.c. II, 675).

4 Lyndwood, Provinciale (1433), Book I, tit. II p. 14, gloss: horum capitulorum quaedam tenentur de tribus hebdomadis in tres; quaedam semel in quarta anni et haec dicuntur capitula principalia propter majorem confluentiam cleri et quia in his de negotiis arduoribus tractari consuevit. Cf. also episcopal synod of Exeter (1287) c 31: De mense in mensem capitula celebrentur (Wilkins II, 148). Syn. of prov. Cant. (1341) c 7: capitula de tribus in tres septimanas celebrantes (Wilkins II, 675).—The presence of laymen at the deliberations of rural chapters is forbidden in a mandate of archbishop Peckham, 28th March, 1286 (Registr. Ep. Peckham; Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 77; III, 920).

5 Cf. e.g. instruction to the deans in the diocese of London (1833) c 6, in Dansey II, 355, also the rural dean's commission as now used in the diocese of Salisbury, printed in append. XIII, 2.

On an example of the reintroduction of rural chapters (in a rural deanery of Exeter, 1849) see Warren, Synodalia p. 134.

14. ECCLESIASTICAL

A. HISTORICAL.

$ 59.

COURTS.

a. To the Norman conquest."

IT has not yet been sufficiently elucidated in what way the exercise of jurisdiction during the Anglo-Saxon and Danish periods was divided between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities; nor is it known whether in the Anglo-Saxon period the line of division varied even after the complete triumph of Christianity. The question is considered below. The extent to which ecclesiastical persons took part in civil courts is at the same time examined so far as is necessary to determine precisely the competence of ecclesiastical courts proper.

1. PARTICIPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS IN TEMPORAL

COURTS.

From the reign of Edgar (959-75) at the latest,' a high civil official and the bishop presided jointly over the shire-moot.3

2

1 From Alfred (871-901) c 38, In case a man fight before an ealdorman in the gemot, we must perhaps infer that in his time the bishop did not as yet preside in conjunction with the ealdorman. Similarly it is ordained by Edward (901 to 924-5) II c 8 that every gerefa is to hold a gemot every four weeks. Alfred c 38 § 2 does, it is true, mention fighting before the king's ealdorman's junior or the king's priest.'

2 This was in earlier times (e.g. in Wessex under Ine, 688 to 726-8) until Knut's day, as a rule, the ealdorman. It is, however, to be observed that the district of the ealdorman (like that of the bishop) for the most part extended over several counties. The sheriff (sciregerêfa), whose office is equally old, appears as assisting the ealdorman, but also as an independent magistrate. Knut divided the kingdom into four provinces, over each of which stood an eorl. Probably the smaller, shire-districts presided over by a sciregerêfa were still retained. Edward the confessor altered Knut's division, and temporarily ealdorman and eorl, whose offices seem to have been fused under Knut, again appear side by side. Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 4. Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 125, 132, 176 c 5 $$ 49, 50 c 6 § 66.

priwa on geare burh-gemôt, and tuwa scir-gemôt, and þæer beô on þæere scire bisceop and se ealdorman, and pâer degoer taecan ge Godes riht ge worldriht. ("And let the hundred-gemot be attended as it was before fixed; and thrice in the year let a burh-gemot be held; and twice, a shire-gemot; and let there be present the bishop of the shire and the ealdorman, and there expound both things, as well the law of God as the secular law.")

Knut II c 18: And habbe man þriwa on geåre burh-gemôt, and twâ scirgemot buton hit oftor neôd si. And þâer beô on þåere scire bisceop and se ealdorman, and þæer degðer tâecan ge Godes riht ge world-riht. (“And thrice a year let there be a burh-gemot and twice a shire-gemot . unless there be need oftener. And let there be present the bishop of the shire and the

Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 253 c 8 § 87.

Similarly, the hundred-moot seems to have been held by the bishop or his archdeacon in conjunction with the temporal official.1

ealdorman; and there let them expound both things, as well the law of God as the secular law.")

Charter of Knut (probably in 1020, at any rate between 1018 and 1021) addressed to his lay and spiritual subjects in England (printed in the edition of Chronicles of Croyland Abbey by Walter de Gray Birch, p. x; cf. Stubbs, Sel. Chart. 5th Ed. p. 75): Nu bidde ic mine arceb. and ealle mine leodb. thaet hy ealle neodfulle beon ymbe Godes gerihta aelc on his ende the heom betaeht is; and eac minum ealdormannum ic beode thaet hy fylstan tham biscopum to Godes gerihtum and to minum kynescipe, and to ealles folces thearfe; Gif hwa swa dyrstig sy, gehadod oththe laewede, Denise oththe Englisc, thaet ongean Godes lage ga and ongean minne cynescype, oththe ongean worold riht, and nelle betan and geswican aefter minra bisceopa taecinge, thonne bidde ic Thurcyl eorl and eac beode thaet he thaene unrihtwisan to rihte gebige gyf he maege; . and eac ic beode eallum minum gerefum bi minum freondscype, and be eallum tham the hi agon, and be heora agenum life, thaet hy aeghwaer min folc rihtlice healdan, and rihte domas deman be thaera scira bisceopa gewitnesse, and swylce mildheortnesse thaeron don swylce thaere scire bisceope riht thince, and se man acuman maege; ("Now I beseech my archbishops and all my suffragan bishops that they all be attentive about God's right and to my royal authority and to the behoof of all the people. If any be so bold, clerk or lay, Dane or English, as to go against God's law and against my royal authority, or against secular law, and be unwilling to make amends and to alter according to my bishops' teaching, then I pray Thurcyl my earl, and also command him, that he bend that unrighteous one to right if he can; and also I command all my reeves, by my friendship and by all that they own, and by their own life, that they everywhere hold my people rightly and judge right judgments by the shire bishops' witness, and do such mercy therein as the shire bishop thinks right, as a man may attain to; . .") Institutes of Polity (printed in Thorpe [Record Commission], Ancient Laws etc. 422 ff.) c 7: by sculon bisceopas mid woruld-deman domas dihtan, baet hi ne gepafian, gyf his waldan magan, þaet daer aenig unriht up-aspringe. And sacerdum gebyrep eac on heora scrift-scirum þaet hi georne to rihte aethwam fylstan, and na gepafian, gif hi hit gebetan magan, baet aenig cristen man oðrum derige ealles to suyde, (". therefore should bishops, with temporal judges, direct judgments so that they never permit, if it be in their power, that any injustice spring up there. And on priests also it is incumbent, in their shrift-districts, that they diligently support every right, and never permit, if they can ameliorate it, that any Christian man too greatly injure another.")

Stubbs, Const. Hist. 1, 128 c 5 § 50 understands the law under Edgar and Knut to have been that bishop and ealdorman were present, but that the sheriff was the constituting officer. See, on the other side, Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 4. Cf. also Twiss, Introduction pp. xviii ff. to Bracton V (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 70). It can hardly be supposed that the sheriff would conduct the business in the presence of the ealdorman, so long as the dignity of the latter had not sunk to be merely honorary. The words in the ordinance of William I (append. I): ut nullus episcopus vel archidiaconus amplius in hundret placita teneant are also in favour of control of the business by the persons

named.

On similar but somewhat earlier developments in the empire of the Franks see Richter, Kirchenrecht § 206, note 29.

So may Edgar III c 5 and Knut II c 18 be understood if we refer þɗer beô on not only to scir-gemôt, but in Edgar to all three, in Knut to the two before mentioned kinds of the gemot. Cf. also Alfred c 38 § 2 (above, note 1). Then the mention of the 'hundret'in the ordinance of William I (see append. I) would agree herewith. Why in that ordinance the shire-moots, which continued to exist side by side with the hundred-moots, are not mentioned, would

H.C.

с с

Both Edgar and Knut order that ealdorman and bishop shall expound both things, as well the law of God as the secular law.' Thus both persons are to expound the same law, not the ealdorman only the secular law, and the bishop the law of God. Nor is the rule to be understood as implying that in this court owing to the co-operation of ealdorman and bishop secular punishments are to be inflicted for breach of the laws of the state, ecclesiastical pains for violation of ecclesiastical laws. On the contrary, it is to be maintained that at these judicial assemblies only such penalties could be assigned as were based on the law of the land. This view is supported by remarks in the laws which show that ecclesiastical regulations could only be enforced when backed by the secular laws.5 For, if the same authority as prescribed secular punishments, that is the folkmoot, had determined ecclesiastical penalties, it would not be clear why the latter should be harder to enforce than the former. That in the gemot only secular punishments could be assigned, follows, moreover, from the whole constitution of that court. The judges proper (Urteilsfinder) were not the ealdorman and the bishop, but the assembled suitors. According to the fundamental ideas of the priestly office, it probably was not possible to leave decision as to ecclesiastical pains to other than purely ecclesiastical authorities.

Thus the statement that 'the law of God' was to be expounded in the gemot as well as the secular law, must be otherwise conceived. Above all, the reference will be to the church dues enforceable by the state and to the church-grid, which the state defended; furthermore, the provision contains an allusion to those legal relations,

indeed be not quite explicable. Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 14, note supposes that hundret here signifies the place of the court (Gerichtsstätte), at which the shire-moots were also held.-Hundreds and then moots are first mentioned in England in Edgar's time (950–75), but are doubtless more ancient. Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 104 ff. c 5 § 45; Henry Adams, The Anglo-Saxon Courts of Law pp. 13 ff. in Essays in Anglo-Saxon Law, Boston, 1876. Even if we assume that any ecclesiastical officer sat in the hundred-moot, it may still be doubted whether that officer was the bishop, as it is also doubtful (Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 116 c 5 § 46, Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 4; on the mention of the gingra or junior as the ealdorman's deputy cf. also the Anglo-Saxon treatise printed by Liebermann in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, vol. V, German section, pp. 207 ff.) whether the secular president (ealdorman or sheriff) ever regularly conducted the hundred-moot or whether the duty devolved on special, subordinate officers.

Edward & Guthrum (probably end of 9th cent.), Introduction § 2: And hig gesetton worldlîce steôra eâc, for þâm þingum, þe hig wistan, þaet hig elles ne mihton manegum gesteôran, ne fela manna nolde to godcundre bôte elles gebûgan, swa hŷ sceolde; and would-bôte hig gesetton gemaene Criste and cynge, swâ hwar, swâ man nolde godcunde bôte gebûgan mid rihte tô bisceopa dihte. ("And they established worldly rules also for these reasons, that they knew that else they might not many control, nor would many men else submit to divine 'bot' as they should; and the worldly 'bot' they established in common to Christ and to the king, wheresoever a man would not lawfully submit to divine 'bot' by direction of the bishops.") Cf. Aethelred VIII (laws of 1014) c 36: Be gride and be munde (Schmid, Ges. d. Angelsachsen, append. IV) c 24; Be hâd-bôte (Schmid, append. IX) c 11.