‘Weak’ Legal Pluralism and the Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiastical Courts

ABSTRACTThe work of the eighteenth-century English ecclesiastical courts has received very little scholarly attention when compared with their seventeenth- or nineteenth century counterparts or the eighteenth-century temporal courts. And yet there was significant overlap between the two systems, particularly between the ‘disciplinary’ work of the ecclesiastical courts and the ‘criminal’ work of the temporal courts. Using a heuristic of ‘weak’ legal pluralism, this article examines the work of the ecclesiastical courts and shows that neither system can be understood adequately without reference to the other.KEYWORDS: Eighteenth centuryecclesiastical courtslegal pluralismdisciplinecriminal law Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See, e.g., Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, 2nd ed., New York, 1967, 309–317. Using anecdotal evidence, Addy has attempted to breathe new life into Hill’s overall conclusions. See John Addy, Sin and Society in the Seventeenth Century, New York, 1989.2 See, e.g., Norman Sykes, Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London, 1669–1748: A Study in Politics and Religion in the Eighteenth Century, Oxford, 1926, 150; Norman Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker: Aspects of English Church History, 1660–1768, Cambridge, 1959, 18–22.3 See, e.g., R.H. Helmholz, The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s, Oxford, 2004, chs. 3, 4; Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1570–1640, Cambridge, 1987, 7–8; Ronald A. Marchant, The Church under the Law: Justice, Administration, and Discipline in the Diocese of York, 1560–1640, Cambridge, 1969, 243–244.4 See, e.g., Marchant, Church under the Law, Introduction; Ralph Houlbrooke, Church Courts and the People During the English Reformation, 1520–1570, Oxford, 1979, 272.5 See, e.g., R.H. Helmholz, The Profession of Ecclesiastical Lawyers: An Historical Introduction, Cambridge, 2019, chs. 18–20; J.H. Baker, Monuments of Endlesse Labours: English Canonists and their Work, 1300–1900, London, 1998, chs. 9–13.6 See, e.g., Mary Kinnear, ‘The Correction Court in the Diocese of Carlisle, 1704–1756’, 59 Church History (1990), 191; Anne Tarver, ‘The Consistory Court of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry and its work, 1680–1830’, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Warwick, Coventry,1998.7 See, e.g., R.B. Outhwaite, The Rise and Fall of the English Ecclesiastical Courts, 1500–1860, Cambridge, 2006, ch. 9; Neil Patterson, Ecclesiastical Law, Clergy and Laity: A History of Legal Discipline and the Anglican Church, London, 2019, chs. 1, 2.8 Christopher W. Brooks, Lawyers, Litigation and English Society Since 1450, London, 1998, 72.9 Ibid., 96.10 See Wilfrid Prest, ‘The Experience of Litigation in Eighteenth-Century England’, in David Lemmings, ed., The British and their Laws in the Eighteenth Century, Woodbridge, 2005, 135–144.11 See Outhwaite, Rise and Fall, ch. 10; Prest, ‘The Experience of Litigation’, 144–148; Christopher Brooks, ‘Litigation, Participation and Agency in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England’, in David Lemmings, ed., The British and their Laws in the Eighteenth Century, Woodbridge, 2005, 155, 160–168; Henry Horwitz, ‘Lord Hardwicke’s nisi prius Trial Notes’, 23 Journal of Legal History (2002), 152, 161–163; David Lemmings, Professors of the Law, Oxford, 2000, 97.12 See, e.g., Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged, 2nd ed., London, 2006; John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford, 2005; Norma Landau, ed., Law, Crime and English Society, 1660–1830, Cambridge, 2002; J. M. Beattie, Policing and Punishment in London, 1660–1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror, Oxford, 2001; Peter King, Crime, Justice, and Discretion in England, 1740–1820, Oxford, 2000; J.A. Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England, 1550–1750, 2nd ed, London, 1999; Joanna Innes and John Styles, ‘The Crime Wave: Recent Writing on Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century England’, in A. Wilson, ed., Rethinking Social History: English Society 1570–1920 and its Interpretation, Manchester, 1993; J.S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green, eds., Twelve Good Men and True: The English Criminal Trial Jury, 1200–1800, Princeton, NJ, 1988; J. M. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800, Princeton, NJ, 1986; Norman Landau, The Justices of the Peace, 1679–1760, Berkeley, CA, 1984; J.S. Cockburn, ed., Crime in England, 1550–1800, London, 1977; Douglas Hay, ‘Property, Authority and the Criminal Law’, in Douglas Hay, Cal Winslow, E.P. Thompson, et al, eds., Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, Harmondsworth, 1975.13 See, e.g., Beattie, Crime and the Courts, 457; Norma Landau, ‘Indictment for Fun and Profit: A Prosecutor’s Reward at Eighteenth-Century Quarter Sessions’, 17 Law and History Review (1999), 508.14 Brian Z. Tamanaha, ‘The Folly of the ‘Social Scientific’ Concept of Legal Pluralism’, 20(2) Journal of Law and Society (1993), 192.15 Richard J. Ross and Philip J. Stern, ‘Reconstructing Early Modern Notions of Legal Pluralism’, in Lauren Benton and Richard J. Ross, eds., Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850, New York, 2013, 109–110 (citing John Griffiths, ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’, 24 Journal of Legal Pluralism (1986), 5–8, 12). See also H.W. Arthurs, ‘Without the Law’: Administrative Justice and Legal Pluralism in Nineteenth-Century England, Toronto, 1985, 2–3.16 2 Atk. 650; 26 ER 788. See also Troy L. Harris, ‘Secularizing a Religious Legal System: Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Early Eighteenth Century England’, 8(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies (2019), 1.17 Philip Loft, ‘A Tapestry of Laws: Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, 91 Journal of Modern History (2019), 276, at 280.18 Ross and Stern, ‘Reconstructing Early Modern Notions’, 109.19 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols., Oxford, 1765–69, vol.1, 253–270; Edmund Gibson, Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani, London, 1713, xvii-xviii.20 Blackstone, Commentaries vol.4, 43–65. Specifically, Blackstone listed 1. apostasy, 2. heresy, 3. offences affecting the established Church (both reviling the ordinances of the Church and nonconformity), 4. blasphemy, 5. profane swearing and cursing, 6. witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery, 7. religious imposture, 8. simony, 9. Sabbath-breaking, 10. drunkenness, and 11. lewdness. See also Gibson, Codex, Tit. XLVII (‘Spiritual Crimes and Vices, Restrained by Temporal Punishments’).21 ‘Of Ecclesiastical Crimes in General’, in John Ayliffe, Parergon Juris Canonici Anglicani, London, 1726, 238.22 Gibson, Codex, xviii; see also Gibson, Codex, Tit. XXXIX (‘Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction, in general’).23 See ‘Dilapidations’ and ‘Drunkenness’, in Richard Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, 4 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1767, vol.2, 124–133, 191–195; ‘Of Apostasy’, ‘Of Blasphemy’, ‘Of Dilapidation;’ ‘Of Drunkenness and Gluttony’, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Crimes in General’, ‘Of Fame and Suspicion’, ‘Of Heresy’, ‘Of Simony’, ‘Of Usury, Perjury, and Idolatry’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 85–86, 130–131, 217–219, 231–233, 237–240, 275–278, 288–294, 496–501, 521–524.24 William Watson, The Clergy-man’s Law: Or, The Complete Incumbent, . . . Relating to the Church and Clergy of England, 3rd ed., London, 1725.25 Canons 109–126 in Edward Cardwell, ed., Synodalia, 2 vols., Oxford, 1842, vol.1, 308–318; ‘Of an Archdeacon’, ‘Of a Bishop’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 95–99, 118–129; ‘Archdeacon’, ‘Courts’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 84–88, vol.2, 29–50.26 ‘Peculiar’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 69–72; ‘Of a Dean and Chapter’, ‘Of Peculiars’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 199–205, 417–419.27 ‘Prerogative Court’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 179; ‘Of Courts Ecclesiastical and their Jurisdiction’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 190–193. For a useful study of the work of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, see Lloyd Bonfield, ‘Testamentary Causes in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1660–96’, in Christopher Brooks and Michael Lobban, eds., Communities and Courts in Britain, 1150–1900, London, 1997.28 ‘Faculty Court’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.2, 218.29 See An Act that the Appeals in Such Cases as Have been used to be pursued to the See of Rome shall not be from henceforth had ne used but within this Realm, 1532 (24 Hen. VIII, c. 12) and An Act for the Submission of the Clergy to the King’s Majesty, 1534 (25 Hen. VIII, c. 19); see also Canons 92–108, in Synodalia vol.1, 298–308.30 See ‘Appeal’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.1, 50–57; ‘Of Appeals’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 71–84; Thomas Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum; sive Methodus Procedendi in Negotiis et Litibus in Foro Ecclesiastico-Civili Britannico et Hibernico, London, 1728, vol.1, 404–481.31 ‘Arches’, ‘Doctors Commons’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 88–89, vol.2, 182–183; ‘Of Archbishops’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 90–95; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol. 1, 1–2. See also G.D. Squibb, Doctors’ Commons: A History of the College of Advocates and Doctors of Law, Oxford, 1977.32 W.J. Sheils, Ecclesiastical Cause Papers at York: Files Transmitted on Appeal, 1500–1883, York, 1983, v.33 Ibid., ii–v.34 ‘Delegates’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 123; see also Duncan, High Court of Delegates.35 See ‘Convocation’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 16–28.36 For a helpful study of the profession from its earliest days to the mid-nineteenth century, see R.H. Helmholz, The Profession of Ecclesiastical Lawyers: An Historical Introduction, Cambridge, 2019.37 ‘Chancellors, &c.’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 264–270; ‘Of Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, and Vicars-General’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 160–163.38 ‘Chancellors, &c.’, ‘Official’, ‘Vicar General’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 264–270, vol. 3, 21, vol. 4, 11.39 ‘Chancellors, &c.’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.1, 264–270; ‘Of Courts Ecclesiastical and Their Jurisdiction’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 190–193.40 ‘Chancellors, &c.’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 264–270.41 Ibid.42 ‘Chancellors, &c.’ and ‘Consistory’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 264–270, vol.2, 11.43 Ibid., vol.1, 264–270, vol.2, 7–8; ‘Of Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, and Vicars-General’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 160–163.44 ‘Archdeacon’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 84–88; ‘Of an Archdeacon’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 95–99.45 ‘Archdeacon’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.1, 84–88.46 ‘Chancellors, &c.’ and ‘Official’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.1, 264–270, vol.3, 21; ‘Of Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, and Vicars-General’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 160–163.47 See also ‘Of a Judge’, ‘Of the Office of the Judge, ‘Of the Recusation of a Judge’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 309–317, 395–398, 451–454; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 8.48 See also ‘Surrogate’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 358–359.49 See Canons 129–133 in Synodalia, 320–322; ‘Advocate’ and ‘Proctor’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 2–4, vol.3, 198–201; ‘Of Advocates’ and ‘Of a Proctor’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 53–57, 421–429. See also Helmholz, The Profession of Ecclesiastical Lawyers, ch.1.50 See M.G. Smith, Pastoral Discipline and the Church Courts: The Hexham Court, 1680–1730, York, 1982.51 W.S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, 3rd edn., 12 vols., London, 1903–38, vol.12, 7; ‘Of Advocates’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 53–57.52 Holdsworth, History of English Law, vol.12, 76; see also ‘Proctor’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 198–201; ‘Of a Proctor’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 421–429.53 Canon 130 in Synodalia, vol.1, 320.54 ‘Of Advocates’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 53.55 Daniel Duman, The Judicial Bench in England, 1727–1875: The Reshaping of a Professional Elite, London, 1982, 7–8.56 See Canons 134–137 in Synodalia, vol.1, 323–326; ‘Notary Public’ and ‘Register’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 1–3, 268–273; ‘Of a Notary or Register’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 382–386.57 See Canon 138 in Synodalia vol.1, 326–327; ‘Apparitor’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 47–50; ‘Of Apparitors’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 67–71.58 See also ‘Visitation’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.4, 12–30; ‘Of Visitations’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 514–516.59 See also ‘Churchwardens’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 366–380; ‘Of Churchwardens’ and ‘Of Rural Deans’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 170–171, 205–206.60 See ‘Fees’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 218–228; ‘Of Fees’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 282–284; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 179–180, 209–212; Canons 135 and 136 in Synodalia, vol.1, 325–326.61 The essential guide to procedure in the eighteenth-century ecclesiastical courts is Oughton’s Ordo Judiciorum. Other, more elementary works included Philip Floyer’s The Proctor’s Practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts (1744), but, as Baker noted, Floyer was ‘not a substitute for Oughton’. Baker, Monuments, 93.62 ‘Of the Office of the Judge’ and ‘Of Visitations’ in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 395–398, 514–516.63 See, e.g., Edmund Gibson, Directions Given to the Clergy of the Diocese of London, in the Year 1724, London, 1724; Richard Reynolds, The Bishop of Lincoln’s Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconries of Huntington, Bucks, and Bedford, London, 1727; and Richard Smalbroke, The Charge of the Right Reverend, Richard, Lord Bishop of St. David’s, London, 1726.64 See, e.g., Outhwaite, Rise and Fall, ch. 9.65 ‘Of the Office of the Judge’ in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 397.66 Ibid. ‘Of the Office of the Judge’ in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 397.67 The standard modern account of medieval Church court practice is Paul Fournier, Les Officialités au Moyen Âge, Paris, 1880.68 See Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 81–86.69 ‘Citation’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.1, 381–394; ‘Of a Citation’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 174–184; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 38–49. Where a person wished to contest the probate of a deceased person’s will, the appointment of the proctor would typically be followed by the entering of a ‘caveat’ against probate of the will, which would alert the court to the possible dispute. Before admitting the will to probate, the court would direct that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to the person entering the caveat. On the other hand, where it was hoped or expected that no dispute would arise, the executor of a will could prove the will ‘in common form’, without notice to anyone concerned. Although faster, cheaper, and much more popular than proving a will ‘in solemn form’ (a plenary proceeding), such proceedings had the disadvantage of not being binding upon anyone.70 Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 3–7.71 If the suit was to obtain permission for the plaintiff to do something, such as erect a pew, then the plaintiff’s proctor would generally ask the judge simply to grant the plaintiff’s request, rather than to declare the defendant excommunicate.72 See Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 21–22.73 ‘Of Libels’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 351.74 Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 94–98.75 ‘Of Exceptions’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 252.76 See ‘Consultation’ and ‘Prohibition’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 11–16, vol.3, 204–215; ‘Of a Prohibition’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 434–441.77 ‘Of Calumny’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 138 (citation omitted); see also ‘Oaths’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.3, 4–19; ‘Of an Oath’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 389–392; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 176–178.78 ‘Of Calumny’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 137 (citation omitted).79 Except in criminal causes, where a defendant could not be forced to answer on oath the charges against him. See An Act for Explanation of a Clause contained in Act of Parliament made in the seventeenth year of the late King Charles entitled an Act for Repeal of a Branch of a Statute Primo Elizabeth concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, 1661, (13 Car. II c. 12).80 ‘Evidence’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 196–199; ‘Of Instruments’, ‘Of Proof’, ‘Of Canonical Purgation’, ‘Of Witnesses and their Depositions’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 304–[305], 442–448, 448–451, 535–546; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 116–152.81 Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 153–154.82 ‘Of Instruments’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 304–[305]; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 165–175.83 Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 181–192.84 ‘Interlocutory Decree’ and ‘Sentence’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 293, vol.3, 316; ‘Of Sentences’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 486–493; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 194–201, 406–407.85 ‘Of Publick Pennance, and Commutation of Pennance’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 420–[414].86 ‘Degradation’, ‘Deprivation’, ‘Suspension’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol.2, 122–123, 123–124, vol.3, 359–360; ‘Of Degradation’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 206–209.87 ‘Excommunication’, in Burn, Ecclesiastical Law vol.2, 201–217; ‘Of Excommunication’, in Ayliffe, Parergon Juris, 255–264; Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 68–75.88 There was a summary proceeding available in tithe cases. Under two Henrician statutes, an ecclesiastical judge could have a contumacious defendant put into jail simply by certifying such disobedience to a Privy Councillor or two justices of the peace. See An Act Containing an Order for Tithes Throughout the Realm, 1535 (27 Hen. VIII, c. 20) and Payment of Tithes and Offerings, 1540 (32 Hen. VIII, c. 7).89 Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, vol.1, 458.90 Ibid., 404–481.91 Troy L. Harris, ‘The Work of the Ecclesiastical Courts, 1725–1745’, in Troy L. Harris, ed., Studies in Canon Law and Common Law in Honor of R.H. Helmholz, Berkeley, 2015, 256.92 Ibid., 257–258. Notably, the only disciplinary appeal to the Delegates involving a question of doctrine in the period 1704–1759 was a 1713 case that was eventually dropped.93 Philip Loft, ‘Litigation, the Anglo-Scottish Union, and the House of Lords as the High Court, 1660–1875’, 61(4) The Historical Journal (2018), 943, at 948.94 Harris, ‘Work’, 260.95 Ibid., 269.96 Ibid., 268, 273.97 Ibid., 275.98 Ibid., 277.99 Ibid., 264.100 Ibid., 271.101 Henry Horwitz, ‘Chancery’s ‘Younger Sister’: the Court of Exchequer and its Equity Jurisdiction, 1649–1841’, 72(178) Historical Research (1999),160, 168.102 Brooks, Lawyers, Litigation, 96.103 Harris, ‘Work’, 264.104 Beattie, Policing and Punishment in London, 41.105 Ingram, Church Courts, 43–44.106 The distinction between the two is not altogether clear; Marchant suggests that the causes listed as ex officio mero were probably begun on the basis of informal ‘presentments’. Marchant, Church under the Law, 67.107 The number of official prosecutions fluctuated from year to year, ranging from 3 to 88, whereas the annual number of promoted office causes ranged from 1 to 35, generally hovering around twenty per year. Ibid., 68.108 I have included in the category of ‘disciplinary’ matters prosecutions for brawling in churchyards and contracting or solemnizing clandestine marriages, even if those suits were not styled ‘office’ prosecutions. Although the act books for the Lichfield Consistory Court styles all office prosecutions as ‘promoted’ by someone, that someone is frequently a proctor of the Consistory Court. Accordingly, I have assumed that those office prosecutions promoted by proctors were, in substance, equivalent to ex officio mero prosecutions.109 ‘The Special and General Reports made to His Majesty by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Practice and Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in England and Wales’. House of Commons Parliamentary Papers (1831–32) (199) xxiv, 1, Appendix D, no. 11, 567.110 George Miller, The Parishes of the Diocese of Worcester, London, 1890, vol.1, 101. The entry in Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, Oxford, 1891, 647, states, ‘Harding, Brian, s. Hen. of Drynton, co. Staff., pleb. matric. Brasenose Coll., matric. 27 May, 1696, aged 20; B.A. 18 Jan., 1699–1700, rector of Coome D’Abitot, co. Worcester, 1731’.111 Court of Arches Process Book, D1372 at f 87r, Lambeth Palace Library, London [hereafter LPL, CAPB]112 Ibid., at ff 87r-88r.113 Ibid., at ff 88v-89r, 91v-93r.114 Quarter Sessions Order Book, QS118/BA6/3/78a, Worcester, Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service.115 Ibid.116 LPL, CAPB, D1372 at f 516v.117 Ibid., at ff 515r-515v.118 Ibid., at f 519r.119 Ibid., at f 511v.120 Ibid., at ff 510r-524r.121 Ibid., at ff 101v-102v.122 Ibid., at ff 71v-104v.123 Ibid., at ff 393r-402v.124 Ibid., at ff 375r-377r.125 Ibid., at ff 369r-371r.126 Ibid., at ff 393r-395r.127 Ibid., at ff 63r-64r.128 Ibid., A31 at f 1v.129 In an odd twist, Harding’s death date was immortalized in an 1844 case, R v Bowen (1844), 1 Car. & K 500, 174 ER 911 (Nisi Prius), which involved an indictment for feloniously injuring the Croome D’Abitot parish register by tearing out part of a page thereof. The untorn part stated, ‘The Rev. Mr. Brian Harding, Rect. of this Parish, was buried Octr. ye 10th, 1741’.130 LPL, CAPB, D1372 at f 104r.131 Ibid., D800 at ff 93r-98r.132 Ibid., at ff 132r-143v.133 Ibid., at ff 103r-108v.134 Ibid., at ff 199v-203r.135 Ibid., at f 216r.136 Ibid., at ff 138r-142r.137 Ibid., at f 313v.138 Ibid., A27 at ff 141r-141v.139 Ibid., D811 at ff 134–139.140 Ibid., at ff 123–127, 133–134.141 Ibid., A30 at f 551r.142 Ibid., D1059.143 Ibid., A30 at f Ibid., A31 at f Ibid., at ff Ibid., at f Quarter Sessions Order Book, Warwick, 1 Ibid., 2 Ibid., 27 Ibid., 12 and 12 LPL, CAPB, at ff Ibid., A31 at ff Ibid. at f Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Landau, ‘Indictment for Fun and Ibid., on L. L. is of Law at the University of of Law, His English legal with a on the eighteenth-century ecclesiastical courts. has also on and

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.