I am grateful to the Ecclesiastical Law Society and the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland for their invitation to address this theme, although I have to confess, as a non-lawyer, I do feel rather a fraud standing here. I take comfort, however, first from the fact that, albeit welcome, your invitation was unsought, and second from my understanding that the purpose of canon law is to give legal expression to the theology of the church and that the purpose of the theology of the Church (in its positive and articulated aspects) is to explain the purposes and the work of God. In other words, the ultimate point of canon law is and must be pastoral, as is well expressed by the last canon, Canon 1752, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church, with its reference to ‘the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law’.

In the aftermath of the tragedies in the United States on 11 September 2001, the news media in the United Kingdom reported a great increase in crime and attacks on Muslims. A Director of the Central Mosque spoke publicly of the unprecedented backlash against the British Muslim community and whilst emphasising Islam to be a religion of peace and opposed to terrorism, urgently stressed the need for greater protection. The police chiefs were responsive. The government had to act.

The concept and terminology of ‘accessibility’ have in recent years become very fashionable. This is partly a reflection of a gradually increasing awareness of the desires, needs and aspirations of all sorts of groups within society that were in the past insufficiently taken into account or else completely ignored. So with women, children, the elderly, those of particular races or nationalities, those of different religions (or denominations) or none, those of particular lifestyles or sexual orientations—each has been gradually recognised, and brought into the mainstream of society. Thus, for example, we now take it for granted that equal facilities should generally be afforded for men and women—but it is not so long since this was far from universal.

In 1998 the government published a White Paper entitled Fairness at Work. It invited views on whether legislation should be introduced to take the power to extend the coverage of employment protection rights by regulation to all those who work for another person, not just those employed under a contract of employment. It would not have been apparent from this that the government was considering extending employment protection rights to ministers of religion. Nor is it likely that many people realised this could be the effect of section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1999 by which Parliament subsequently enacted the proposal contained in the White Paper. Nonetheless the possibility was recognised as the Bill passed through Parliament. Pressed about the government's view as to the position of ministers of religion, the Minister explained that no policy decision had been taken, but he did say:

British Quakers are arguably the least dogmatic group in Christendom; indeed, Universalist Friends would not describe themselves as Christians at all. Possibly because of this relaxed attitude to doctrine, some Friends tend also to assume that they operate in a rule-free environment. When I told the clerk of our Preparative Meeting that I was working on an article on ‘Quaker canon law’ her immediate response was, ‘Oh, we don't have any of that’—which is probably why Anthony Bradney and Fiona Cownie gave their recent study of the Quaker business method the gently-ironic title, Living Without Law.

In the year 1771 a Virginian politician, Richard Bland, wrote to Thomas Adams on issues thrown up by the steadily worsening relations between the legislatures of mainland America and the Imperial government. His letter moved on to the subject of religion, and to the suggestion made increasingly in recent years that colonial worship and ministry according to the English Prayer Book would be strengthened by the introduction of personal episopacy on the model of the mother country. On this Bland commented.

In May 1932 the House of Lords delivered its judgement in the case about the presumed snail in the ginger beer bottle with which even non-lawyers are familiar, Donoghue v Stevenson. One of the five judges, Lord Atkin, formulated what has become known as the neighbour test in this way:

A glance at the Case Notes section of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal over the last few years points the reader to a flurry of activity in alteration of listed church buildings. This is spurred on by (among other things) changing views and practice of liturgy, access for the disabled, repair of damaged buildings. replacement of worn fabric, making a building multi-purpose, comfort and audibility in worship, the incorporation of new technology, providing space for hospitality, accommodating children's work and commemorating the turn of the Millennium. Chancellors have had to strike a delicate balance between two opposing and contradictory points of view. On the one hand the view of some petitioners that ‘any alteration which is seen by the incumbent and congregation to be desirable in order to encourage and assist true worship should be permitted without outside restraint’. On the other hand the view of the heritage lobby and others that ‘most of the churches in this land are national treasures of which the present incumbent and the present congregation are merely temporary occupiers and custodians with no right to make unnecessary or, as some would seem to argue, any alterations’. Whilst the ecclesiastical courts have at times placed a restraining hand on those seeking to alter church buildings, there is ‘no requirement in law either that a church should be maintained for all time in the state in which it happens to be at present, or that it should automatically be changed in accordance with the latest liturgical fashion’.