Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:02:42.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Records of the Court of Arches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

M. Doreen Slatter
M. Doreen Slatter
Affiliation:
Archivist, Lambeth Palace Library
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The surviving continuous records of the Court of Arches, or, to give it its full modern style, the ‘beloved Court of Canterbury of the Arches’, tell its history only from the Restoration. It had already been respected for centuries as the chief ecclesiastical court of the province of Canterbury and a large number of suits continued to come before it every year. The judge or Official Principal, commonly known as the Dean of the Arches from his lesser office as judge in the archbishop of Canterbury's peculiar of that name, was a person of considerable influence and importance. The proctors and advocates who conducted the cases were the more successful members of a flourishing profession. In the early eighteenth century, Thomas Oughton, the writer on ecclesiastical law, who was a proctor of the court, spoke of it with awe and veneration. ‘Let us reverently enter on one of the court days into the sanctuary of this august tribunal. … Behold! How solemn, how awakening the aspect of justice! … At first glance who is not penetrated with emotions of affection and veneration!’ But the court was shorn of most of its jurisdiction during the nineteenth century and it was described by Dickens in 1850 with very different feelings. The society of Doctors' Commons, the stronghold of the profession of the ecclesiastical law, was dissolved in accordance with the Court of Probate Act of 1857 and its buildings were pulled down.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , October 1953 , pp. 139 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 139 note 1 The substance of this paper was given as an address to the Canterbury and York Society at its annual meeting on 28 November 1952.

page 139 note 2 See Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration (1933), i. 430–4Google Scholar, for remarks on the early style of the court.

page 139 note 3 The dean of the archbishop of Canterbury's peculiar of the Arches, thirteen churches in the city of London, at first deputised for the Official. Later the same person was appointed to both offices and the title of the lesser office superseded that of the greater in ordinary use.

page 139 note 4 He was the author of Ordo Judiciorum, 1728–38 (2 vols.). The title page of his book describes him also as deputy registrar of the Court of Delegates.

page 139 note 5 Law, J. T., Forms of Ecclesiastical Law (1844), xvGoogle Scholar. (A translation of Ordo Judiciorum, vol. i, with additions from other works.)

page 139 note 6 Dickens, C., David Copperfield (1850), 242Google Scholar. Steerforth refers ironically to ‘some faded courts held in Doctors' Commons—a lazy old nook near St. Paul's churchyard’ and to Doctors' Commons as ‘a little out-of-the-way place, where they administer what is called ecclesiastical law, and play all kinds of tricks with obsolete old monsters of Acts of Parliament’.

page 139 note 7 21 and 22 Viet. c. 77 s. 116.

page 140 note 1 First Report on the Public Records, 1800, App. L 2, p. 306.

page 140 note 2 They were received at the Bodleian Library in 123 boxes and 5 sacks on 14. and 15 July 1941.

page 140 note 3 Second Report of the Royal Commission on Public Records, 1914, vol. 2, pt. 3, Minutes of Evidence, Q 5310–3, p. 28.

page 140 note 4 Together they compiled an index of Process Books, the largest class of documents in the collection. It is understood that Sir Lewis was prevented by ill health from completing a history of Doctors' Commons.

page 140 note 5 Various cause papers and miscellaneous documents up to 1913 are in the Bodleian Library. There are 12 chance early survivals.

page 140 note 6 First Report, 1800, p. 306.

page 140 note 7 Bodleian MS. Add., c. 302, f. 143.

page 140 note 8 The series of Act Books begins in November 1660, that of Personal Answers in April 1661 and Sentences in December 1662. It may be noted that the Act restoring the criminal jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts except for the oath ex officio (13 Car. II, c. 12) did not pass the House of Lords till 27 July 1661.

page 141 note 1 E.g., Bodleian MS. Arch. Pps. Bucks., c. 264—a collection of latesixteenth-and early seventeenth-century documents relating to cases in the ecclesiastical courts in London. MS. Arch. Pps. Bucks., c. 265—a mid sixteenth-century collection of the various forms of documents used during a case.

page 141 note 2 Such as certain papers of Sir George Lee, Dean of the Arches, 1751–8, which are understood to have been received by the British Records Association from Hartwell House and sent to Lambeth Palace in 1952.

page 141 note 3 Second Report, 1914, App. II, p. 91.

page 141 note 4 See pp. 91–5 of the Catalogue issued by Mr. Edmund Hodgson of 2 Chancery Lane for the sale on 22 April and the seven following days. Items 2429 ‘Ecclesiastical Collections’ and 2430–5 ‘Common Place Books’ seem particularly important.

page 141 note 5 First Report, 1800, p. 306.

page 141 note 6 E.g., Sentences, Depositions and Answers.

page 141 note 7 E.g., Commissions inpartibus. (See below, p. 143.) Between 1662 and 1713 over 1000 of these bear contemporary numbers but the index has not been found.

page 142 note 1 A duplicated typescript Lists of the Records of the Court of Arches was prepared in December 1951 and distributed to libraries and record offices. For a brief description of the records see also General Report on the Public Records, 1837, pp. 263, 4.

page 142 note 2 See Law, Forms, Apps. V and VI for lists of the court days.

page 142 note 3 For details, see article by Pickard, E. A. and Davis, E. Jeffries, ‘The Rebuilding of Doctors' Commons, 1666–72’, London Topographical Record (1931), xv. 51–77Google Scholar.

page 142 note 4 ‘In criminal proceedings the first plea is called articles, because it runs in the name the judge, who articles and objects. In plenary causes, which are not criminal, the first plea is termed the libel, and runs in the name of the party or his proctor, who alleges and propounds the facts founding the demand. In testamentary causes the first plea was called an allegation.’ Subsequent pleas in all causes are also called allegations: Phillimore, R., The Ecclesiastical Law, 1873, ii. 1254Google Scholar.

page 143 note 1 There are over two thousand of these, which are arranged alphabetically according to the name of the plaintiff.

page 143 note 2 The books were later increasingly used for receipts for money paid in satisfaction of legacies and for registering agreements by proctors taking clerks.

page 143 note 3 They include two charters concerning the foundation of a college of regular priests in the chapel of St. Peter, Ruthin, 2 and 7 April 1310. One is printed in Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum (1830 ed.)Google Scholar, vi., pt. 3, 1345–6, from the Patent Roll.

page 143 note 4 It appears from the few examples I have seen that the decrees of the Court of Audience and the Prerogative Court of the archbishop of Canterbury ran in the name of the archbishop.

page 144 note 1 Act Book, 1663–4, f. 49v., 9 February 1663–4.

page 144 note 2 Law quotes Oughton as saying that the Processes of the Court of Arches issued before the vacancy remained in force. (Law, Forms, 8, n. 7.) But the death of William Juxon, archbishop of Canterbury, on 4 June 1663, caused numerous requests for the reissue of documents: e.g., Act Book, 1660–3, f. 266; 15 June 1663, letters to the archbishop of Dublin to examine witnesses renewed. The same result seems to have been produced by the death of an Official Principal.

page 144 note 3 A bill taxed in July 1828 in the suit between the Countess and the Earl of Portsmouth gives the expenses in the Consistory Court of London and in the Court of Arches since 1826 amounting to £3920 is. 11d. This is 6 inches wide and about 104 feet long.

page 144 note 4 E.g., bonds to observe separation orders and bonds to pay legacies to minors.

page 144 note 5 Others remain at Lambeth Palace: see Pilgrim Trust, Survey of Ecclesiastical Archives, Southern Province, i. 12.

page 145 note 1 The ecclesiastical lawyers conducted the business of the Court of Admiralty, the Court of Chivalry and the courts of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

page 145 note 2 Appeal jurisdiction in the province of York was exercised by the Chancery court of the archbishop of York.

page 145 note 3 E.g., a Letter of Request on behalf of Elizabeth Skyrme of the diocese of St. David's, 17 March 1734–5, states that in her cause ‘divers matters of Difficulty may arise wherein the partys on both sides may require the advice and assistance of councel learned in the Law. And forasmuch as there are not any Advocates resident within the said Diocese’, the Official Principal of the Arches is requested to hear the suit.

page 145 note 4 The statute (23 Hen. VIII, c. 9) laid down that no one should be cited out of his diocese except in certain cases. These included cases of appeal to the archbishop of the province and cases in which the archbishop had been requested to act by the lower judge.

page 145 note 5 This seems to have been the case in spite of the contrary decision in Porter v. Rochester, 1608. See Godolphin, J., Repertorium Canonicum (1680), 100–2Google Scholar.

page 145 note 6 The procedure was originally laid down in the Act for the Submission of the Clergy (25 Hen. VIII, c. 19). This was superseded by the Privy Council Appeals Act (2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 92) and the Judicial Committee Act (3 and 4 Will. IV, c. 41).

page 146 note 1 Extract from the will of Robert Lee of Spital Square, liberty of Norton Falgate, Middx., dated 9 August 1754. Proved in P.C.C., 1758. Exhibited in Cowper and Cox con. Littler and Ouvry, 1765.

page 146 note 2 Sometimes both inventory and vouchers are available; e.g. the case of Elizabeth Gardner alias Gwyne con. William Collison alias Collinson and John Gibbon, executors of the will of Mary Awbrey of New Windsor, Berks., widow, 1766.

page 146 note 3 Act Book, 1678–80, fols. 86 ff.

page 146 note 4 Act Book, 1660–3, fols. 53 ff.

page 146 note 5 Thompson, H. L., Christ Church (1900), 12Google Scholar. An additional studentship was created.

page 146 note 6 E.g., Muniment Book, 1714–38, f. 146, 7: entry of grant of administration of the goods of William Bramston, Ll.D., Advocate, 7 December 1736. Ibid., f. 84: entry of grant of administration in Wright con. Wade et alii of the goods of Samuel Wade. (The Muniment Books as a source of testamentary information are mentioned by Bouwens, B. G., Wills and their Whereabouts (1939), 50Google Scholar.)

page 146 note 7 Divorce a mensa et thoro. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 (20 and 21 Viet., c. 85) conferred for the first time upon a court of justice the power to grant divorces a vinculo matrimonii. For divorces by Act of Parliament, see below, p. 148.

page 147 note 1 Depositions, 1669–73, f. 460, 7 June 1664.

page 147 note 2 Answers 1672–81, ff. 44–9, i February 1672–3. The Muniment Book, 1663–89, ff. 125V.-6, has a copy of the marriage settlement, 25 February 1660–1.

page 147 note 3 Depositions, 1669–73, f. 763, 24 April 1673.

page 147 note 4 Answers, 1661–4, f. 5, 7 June 1661.

page 147 note 5 Depositions, 1664–5, f. 727, 10 February 1664–5.

page 148 note 1 26 Geo. II, c. 33, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, which included provision for the registration of marriages before witnesses. Canons 62 and 63 of 1604 had defined the responsibilities of the clergy in performing marriages.

page 148 note 2 Quoted in Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, i. 828. See also the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed. 1910), 337–9, s.v. Divorce, for a summary of the position in England before 1857.

page 148 note 3 Act Book, 1660–3, fol. 116 f. Act Book, 1663–4, fol. 91 f.

page 148 note 4 G.E.C., Complete Peerage (1949), 11. 265.

page 148 note 5 Hist. MSS. Comm., 8th Rep., House of Lords MSS., p. 102, no. 20. The cases of Elizabeth, Lady Burgh, and Anne, Lady Parr. The latter is discussed by Sir L. Dibdin and Sir C. E. H. Chadwyck Healey in English Church Law and Divorce, 1912. They also describe the divorce a mensa et thoro in 1565 and second marriage of Sir John Stawell.

page 149 note 1 Process Book, Fanshaw con. Rotheram, 1748, ff. 66, 67. See also Venn, J. A., The Foundations of Agricultural Economics (1933), 156Google Scholar. Discussing tithes, he says from the evidence of the Law Reports that turnips afforded the most litigation, closely followed by hops.

page 149 note 2 Depositions, 1669–73, ff. 159V.-160.

page 149 note 3 E.g., Depositions, 1673–6, f. 508, 5 June 1675. ‘Nicholaus Sweetman generosus moram faciens in aedibus cujusdam Bishop in superiori parte vici vocati German street in parochia sancti Martini in Campis, ubi commoratus est per sex menses aut circiter, antea apud domum cujusdam Watson Tobacco pipe maker in Shug lane in Peccadilla per quatuor annos aut circiter, ortus apud Castle leafe in Hibernia, aetatis 40ta annorum aut circiter.’

page 149 note 4 Sentences, 1670–5, no. 136.

page 150 note 1 Commission to examine witnesses for Sir Andrew Hacket, 20 June 1683. Deposition of Humphrey Perilous.

page 150 note 2 Process Book, Philpott con. Ganderton, 1700, f. 28v.

page 150 note 3 Schedule of objections attached to sentence, 12 June 1666. Sentenced to be suspended till further order. (Sentences, 1664–6, no. 95).

page 150 note 4 Process Book, Hill con. Calvert, 1729.

page 151 note 1 Process Book, Becke con. Marshall and Page, 1838, f. 51V.

page 151 note 2 Attention has been drawn by Dr. C. Jenkins to the importance of the Arches records and to these cases in particular. See Ecclesiastical Records (Helps for Students of History, no. 18), 1920, 78.

page 151 note 3 Begun 13 December 1662 (Act Book, 1660–3, f. 167V.). Copies of the commissions are in the Muniment Book, 1663–89, ff. 3V.-5V., 49V.-50V.

page 151 note 4 Begun 7 October 1703 (Act Book, 1702–5, f. 91v.). Six commissions in partibus were issued in 1704.

page 151 note 5 21 and 22 Viet., cc. 77 and 85.

page 152 note 1 3 and 4 Viet., c. 86, 37 and 38 Viet., c. 85, 55 and 56 Viet., c. 32.

page 152 note 2 Nevertheless, several post-Restoration Deans of the Arches are not included in the Dictionary of National Biography.

page 152 note 3 These start with the judgments of Sir George Lee in Hilary Term, 1752 (English Reports, vol. 161, 1917), but certain cases before Dr. Bettesworth (1727–30) are included in this volume (App., 440–53).

page 152 note 4 Act Book, 1660–3, f. 218. (Philips con. Philips alias Hughes). He interpreted the oath taken before giving her Answers to Alice Philips alias Hughes who spoke no English.

page 153 note 1 In particular, a number of writs of Prohibition, by which cases were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, may be found among the ‘small exhibits’.

page 153 note 2 A recent case concerned a faculty for refurnishing St. Saviour's church, Walthamstow, on appeal from the consistory court of Chelmsford: Law Reports (Probate Division), 1951, 147–53. The Court of Arches now sits in Church House, Westminster.