‘The word Visitatio … denotes that act or office of the bishop, or of some other ordinary, going his circuit throughout his diocese or other district, with a full power of inquiring into such matters as relate to the government and discipline of the Church, and sometimes of correcting abuses and punishing excesses committed by his subjects … Visitation, as we would use the word here, implies some act of jurisdiction and coercive authority …’

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.

At our annual conference next March the proposed topics for discussion are the parson's freehold and clergy discipline. Although it will necessarily touch upon the latter, this article is primarily concerned with the parson's freehold. It is an attempt to consider some of the ramifications of that freehold now that it is a subject once more to be debated by the General Synod. I do not intend to reach any conclusion as to whether or not that freehold should be abolished or, indeed, as to what should replace it if it is. Rather, I would seek to raise questions that should be considered within the legal sphere whilst that debate continues. In so doing, however, I am only certain of three things: first, that the parson's freehold cannot be considered in isolation; second, that it is essential before anything is abolished that careful stock is taken of what actually is being abolished (otherwise the consequences may be other than intended); and third, that equal care must be given to what, if anything, should replace it. Underlying all this is my own conviction that the law is a framework to regulate a society, in this instance the Church. It may be a bastion to protect the weak or it may be a tool misused by the strong but in the last analysis, once others have decided that it should be altered, the lawyer's duty is to advise and then to implement. There is nothing immutable about the ecclesiastical law.

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.

At the February 1990 Group of Sessions of the General Synod Amending Canon No. 14 was promulged. This Canon is part of the package of amending rules which have modified the Election Rules of the three Houses of the General Synod in preparation for the elections to take place in July to October this year.