Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T21:48:11.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Changing Legal Framework of Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

David McClean
David McClean
Affiliation:
Chancellor of the Dioceses of Sheffield and Newcastle
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This article looks closely at the legal nature of Establishment, both in England and North of the Border. The legal material shows that the two cases are very different. The Ace od Supermacy 1558 and related legislation enable the English church's porition to be presented so as to meke it one aspect of the State, and tetwntieth-century case-law has tended to confirm that understanding. The Scottish kirk enjoys statutory autonomy under the Church of Scotland Act 1921, and again case-law emphasises the reality of its exemption from some of the usual jurisdiction of the secular authorities and courts (though its scope may be becoming less clear-cut in the light of developments within the European Community). The author asks how, in the English context, the legal analysis relates to the reality of the English situation, as seen through the insights of other disciplines, to the role of the Church of England nationally and locally, and to the, sometimes confrontational, relationship between Synod and Parliament.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 34 , January 2004, pp. 292 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2004

References

1 See my piece ‘Establishment in a European Context’, in Doe, N, Hill, M and Ombres, R (eds) English Canon Law: Essays in Honour of Bishop Eric Kemp (University of Wales Press, 1998), pp 128–138.Google Scholar

2 Carr, W ‘A Developing Establishment’, Theology (01 1999) pp 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Appointment of Bishops Act 1533 (25 Hen 8, c 20): Suffragan Bishops Act 1534 (26 Hen 8, c 14): Suffrangan Bishops Act 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, c 11); and the Bishops in Foreign Countries Act 1841 (5 Vict. c 6).Google Scholar

4 Church and State: the Report of the Archbishops' Commission (1970), para 216.Google Scholar

5 General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v Lord Overtoun, Macalister v Young 1904, 7 F (HL) 1, 12 SLT 297, [1904] AC 515.Google Scholar

6 Church Act 1567 (Jas VI, c 6).Google Scholar

7 Ballantyne v Wigtown Presbytery 1936 SC 625, 1936 SLT 436.Google Scholar

8 Logan v Dumbarton Presbytery 1995 SLT 1228, OH.Google Scholar

9 Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission 2001 SLT 497. I am greatful to Philip Petchey for this reference.Google Scholar

10 On a subsidiary issue, the tribunal held ‘with some hesitation’ that a minister was not an employee, following the English cases of Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales [1986] ICR 280, [1986] 1 All ER 705. [1986] i WLR 323 HL and Diocese of Southwark v Coker [1988] ICR 140, CA.Google Scholar

11 Williamson v Archbishop of Canterbury, the Times 25 11 1994.Google Scholar

12 Williamson v Archbishop of Canterbury and Others: R v Bishop of Britol, ex parte Williamson: R v Presidents and Representatives of the House of Bishops, ex parte Williamson 5 09 1996, CA.Google Scholar

13 See the Welsh Church Act 1914 (4 & Geo 5. c 91), s 1.Google Scholar

14 This is also in the Welsh Church Act 1914, s 1.Google Scholar

15 Cf the Welsh Church Act 1914, s 3.Google Scholar

16 Re Keynsham Cemetery [2003] 1 WLR 66, Bath and Wells Cons Ct.Google Scholar

17 Diocese of Southwark v Coker [1988] ICR 140, CA.Google Scholar

18 In his Bishoprick Papers, 1946, p 47 (but written in 1933).Google Scholar

19 A sense which he also saw as helping resist the trend to ‘denominationalism’, in the Church of England.Google Scholar

20 Jenkins, D, The British, pp 68, 69.Google Scholar

21 Gilliat-Ray, Sophie, Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol 14, no 2, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Davie, G, Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing without Belonging (Clarendon Press, 1994), p 87. The last question raises issues as to the role of the representatives of other faiths.Google Scholar

23 Hastings, A, ‘The Case for Retaining Establishment’, in Modood, (ed), Church State and Religious Minorities (London, Policy Studies Institute 1997), p 41.Google Scholar

24 See Report of Proceedings, 10 February 1998.Google Scholar

25 School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 58.Google Scholar

26 Ibid, s. 60(4).

27 Ibid, s. 60(5).

28 The Way Ahead: Church of England Schools in the New Millennium (GS 1406).Google Scholar