There are a number of ethical issues connecting with the beginning of life, most obviously abortion and most recently research on embryos. These issues have a number of aspects, particularly in relation to fertility treatment and genetic manipulation but they all assume answers to prior questions about what it is to be a human being and when it is that an entity, to use a neutral term, is accorded the full protection due to a human person. So it is that in this first lecture I will be concentrating on souls, persons and embryos.

As we celebrate the Lord's death in this service, I want to encourage you to put the Cross at the centre of our deliberations about Gospel and order. It might help to relate judgment with the vertical arm of the Cross and mercy with the horizontal.

In 1953 a number of parishes throughout England wished to commemorate the accession and coronation of Her Majesty the Queen by placing representations of the royal arms in their churches. As the introduction of such devices into churches may only be made with the authority of a faculty from the diocesan consistory court, a number of these petitions came to be considered judicially. Two judgments were reported.

The Ecclesiastical Law Society is rightly promoting afresh the study of ecclesiastical law. In the case of the Church of England, the sources of ecclesiastical law are three-fold: case-law, statutes (and Measures made thereunder) and the Canons of the Church of England. These are the formal sources for identifying and expounding (Anglican) ecclesiastical law. The sources qua sources may not be the subject of debate; the debate may only be as to the interpretation of the contents of the sources and whether the sources should be amended. This approach to determining the substantive content of ecclesiastical law reflects the positivist approach to law, such as Bentham, Austin and Hart have set out.

There was an ecclesiastical law shaped hole in the Church of England from the dissolution of Doctors' Commons in 1857 until 1987 when it was filled by the formation of the Ecclesiastical Law Society. In 1947, forty years earlier, the Archbishops' Canon Law Commission had suggested how the hole might be filled. The Commission was appointed in 1939 and published its report under the title The Canon Law of the Church of England (SPCK, 1947). The Report consisted of a learned and authoritative review of the sources of English canon law and made recommendations for its reform, in particular by appending to the Report a body of suggested revised canons. Included in the Report was the following paragraph expressing the hope that a society might be formed for the study of canon law:

‘The success of a new code of canons will to a great extent depend on a wider knowledge than at present exists among the clergy of the law of the Church of England, its nature, history, development, and particular characteristics; and it is hoped that the previous chapters of this Report will provide an elementary introduction to the subject. We recommend therefore that those who are responsible for the training of ordination candidates and for the post-ordination training of the clergy should be asked to consider what steps can be taken to give both ordinands and clergy a more professional knowledge of the Church's law and constitution. In giving evidence before the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission in 1883 the late Sir Lewis Dibdin pointed out that since the disappearance of Doctors' Commons in 1857 there had really been no method of teaching or preserving a knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Law. It is impossible at this stage to revive anything like Doctors' Commons, but we would suggest that a society, consisting of clergy, professional historians, and lawyers, be formed for the purpose of studying the Ecclesiastical Law and of suggesting ways in which that law either needs alteration or can be developed to meet new needs. As a rule there is far too little contact and interchange of ideas and points of view between the clergy and ecclesiastical lawyers, and such a society would give opportunities for this. Such a society would train up a number of people competent to advise and help the clergy in the particular problems of Ecclesiastical Law with which from time to time they are confronted.’

Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 provides that ‘[a] man in holy orders; a regular minister of any religious denomination [and] [a] vowed member of any religious order living in a monastery, convent or other religious community’ is ineligible to serve on a criminal (and also a civil) jury. This has been the law since 1972. For the remainder of this century members of the clergy have been eligible, but not compellable, jurors. In practice they did not serve. The change effected in 1972 is a reversion to the position which probably prevailed in the Middle Ages. Aside from the occasional official report, the liability of religious functionaries to serve on juries in criminal trials has been rarely written about. The last time it happened was in 1882. The object of this article is to fill the lacuna by tracing the history of the clergy's ineligibility for jury service in criminal trials and the reasons for it.