<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN class=173104214-09012007><FONT face="Baskerville Old Face"
color=#0000ff>So are you saying DLC isn't peculiar any more?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=173104214-09012007><FONT face="Baskerville Old Face"
color=#0000ff>ADH</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=173104214-09012007></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>John
Camp<BR><B>Sent:</B> 09 January 2007 14:33<BR><B>To:</B>
bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians]
Peculiars<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>At 18:17 on 27 December 2006, I wrote:<BR><BR>> I can't help thinking that
there is some misinformation being produced<BR>> about peculiars.<BR><BR>>
However, I will not have access to the definitive article on the subject<BR>>
in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal until next week.<BR><BR>I now have the article
(Ecclesiastical Law Journal no. 16, Winter<BR>1995, page 299) and have also
spoken to its author, Paul Barber, who is<BR>a friend from former
years.<BR><BR>I have to say that some of the misinformation produced came from
me.<BR>Battle, Bocking and Stamford are not peculiars, though each has a
dean.<BR>Their peculiar jurisdiction was abolished by orders made under
the<BR>legislation I referred to. The other thing I may have got wrong
is<BR>whether the Inner Temple is a royal peculiar. It may not be a
peculiar<BR>at all, but, if it is, it is a royal one.<BR><BR>Paul has said that
I may put the article on a website and I will do so,<BR>when I have time. It is
quite dense and does require some knowledge of<BR>ecclesiastical law. I will try
to set out the most important
features.<BR><BR>____________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<BR><BR>It
is important to remember that what is 'peculiar' is the<BR>jurisdiction, not the
place. Since the Reformation, most ecclesiastical<BR>jurisdictions in England
have been territorial, so peculiars are often<BR>wrongly thought of as
places.<BR><BR>Every peculiar is different.<BR><BR>The method of classification
adopted in the article is according to the<BR>identity of the ecclesiastical
'visitor' of the peculiar. On this basis,<BR>a distinction can be made between
(1) episcopal peculiars; (2)<BR>extra-diocesan, or archiepiscopal, peculiars;
and (3) extra-provincial,<BR>or royal, peculiars.<BR><BR>Most peculiars were
abolished by orders-in-council made under the<BR>Ecclesiastical Commissioners
Acts 1836 and 1850.<BR><BR>The article contains a provisional list of existing
peculiar<BR>jurisdictions in England as at 1994. The list is sub-divided
into<BR>'definite' and 'possible'. Among the peculiars designated as
'definite'<BR>are the following:<BR><BR>Royal peculiars:<BR><BR>The obvious ones
(Westminster Abbey*, the Chapel Royal, St George's<BR>Chapel, Windsor**, and
royal residences).<BR>*could include St Mary Maldon<BR>**could include
Shalborne<BR><BR>New College, Oxford***, and King's and Trinity Colleges,
Cambridge.<BR>***could include Hornchurch<BR><BR>Archiepiscopal
peculiars:<BR><BR>Canterbury Cathedral.<BR>The Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge (not the colleges)<BR><BR>Episcopal peculiars, which comprise most
cathedrals (including Christ<BR>Church, Oxford).<BR><BR>Then there's a list of
'possible' peculiars:<BR><BR>Royal peculiars:<BR><BR>Most other older Oxford and
Cambridge colleges (including Merton).<BR>The Temple<BR>The Tower of
London<BR>Precinct of St Katherine<BR>Chapelry of St John the Baptist in the
Savoy<BR>Great Canford and Poole<BR>Sturminster Marshall<BR>Corfe
Castle<BR><BR>Archiepiscopal peculiars:<BR><BR>York Minster<BR>Hadleigh, St
Barnabas<BR><BR>Episcopal peculiars:<BR><BR>Lambeth Palace<BR>A few other Oxford
and Cambridge colleges (including Magdalen and<BR>Lincoln)<BR>Ripon and
Manchester Cathedrals<BR>Eton<BR>Ravenstonedale<BR>Temple
Sowerby<BR><BR>____________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<BR><BR>No
mention, I'm afraid, of nearly all the places cited in earlier<BR>correspondence
as being peculiars. Paul Barber said to me: "I still<BR>occasionally get queries
referred to me, but usually they are along the<BR>lines of: 'my parish is a
peculiar because it is strange / unusual' and<BR>I have to disappoint the poor
enquirer and point out this has nothing to<BR>do with
jurisdiction.<BR><BR>Sadly, two members of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's
working-party on<BR>peculiars died, and it has not gone on to refine the very
interesting<BR>work already done.<BR><BR>I hope that someone will be able to
work out the answer to Alan<BR>Buswell's question about peculiars with bells,
which started this thread<BR>going. As far as Oxford is concerned, Christ
Church, New College,<BR>Merton, Magdalen and Lincoln are all (probably)
peculiars with bells<BR>(subject, of course, to the proviso that a peculiar
isn't a place).<BR><BR>John Camp<BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>