Definition
A proceeding in English ecclesiastical law by which a clerk or other aggrieved party appeals to a superior church authority—typically the archbishop of a province—against an inferior ordinary (such as a bishop) who has refused or unreasonably delayed to do justice in an ecclesiastical matter. The most common application was the refusal or delay by a bishop to admit and institute a clerk in holy orders to a benefice or church to which the clerk had been presented. If the superior authority found the cause of refusal insufficient, he would grant institution directly to the appellant.
The term translates literally as "double complaint" or "double quarrel," a name derived from the fact that the proceeding was, in effect, a complaint against both the inferior ordinary's decision and his failure to act justly—some sources indicate the name also reflects that the complaint was made in duplicate form.
Why It Matters in Research
DUPLEX QUERELA is a term of narrow historical application. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in sources dealing with English ecclesiastical law prior to the nineteenth-century reforms of church courts, and in American secondary sources drawing on Blackstone or earlier English authorities. It has no meaningful survival in modern American or English law and is not a live procedural remedy in any contemporary jurisdiction.
The primary research trap is conflating this remedy with secular appellate procedure. DUPLEX QUERELA was not a common law writ and was not cognizable in the royal courts; it operated entirely within the ecclesiastical court hierarchy. Researchers consulting Blackstone (3 Bl. Com. 247) will find the clearest classical exposition. Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law is the treatise most frequently cited by the historical dictionaries in connection with this term, and researchers seeking doctrinal depth should consult that source directly.
For corpus researchers working in American legal materials, DUPLEX QUERELA appears almost entirely in dictionaries and treatises as a reference term rather than as a term encountered in reported cases or statutes. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is notable for its concision and its framing of the remedy as one available specifically to a "clerk in holy orders" against a delaying or refusing bishop—a useful formulation for distinguishing the remedy's scope from the broader Burrill description, which extends it to "other persons" in ecclesiastical causes generally.
Researchers should be aware that by the time American legal dictionaries were codifying this term, it had already become a historical curiosity even in England. Its inclusion in Black's and other American dictionaries reflects the transplantation of English legal vocabulary into American legal education rather than any active use of the remedy in American courts.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries substantially agree on the core meaning but vary in their framing of scope and applicability.
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) defines the proceeding narrowly as arising from a bishop's refusal to institute, treating the archbishop as the natural superior authority. Both editions cite Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law as the authoritative source.
Burrill's Law Dictionary offers the most expansive definition, extending the remedy to any complaint against an inferior ordinary for "delaying or refusing to do justice in some ecclesiastical cause," not merely refusal to institute a clerk. Burrill cites Cowell, Blount, Tomlins, and Blackstone (3 Bl. Com. 247), giving this entry the deepest source apparatus of the four. The note that the term is "so called because most comm[only]"—the entry appears truncated in the surviving source—likely completed the explanation of the "double complaint" etymology.
Rapalje & Lawrence takes the narrowest view, defining the remedy specifically as one available to a clerk in holy orders against a bishop who refuses or delays to admit and institute him to a church to which he has been presented. This is the most practically focused description and aligns with the most frequent historical use of the remedy.
No source dictionary offers meaningful guidance on the procedure's internal mechanics—the form of the monition, the standard of review applied by the archbishop, or the consequences of a finding in either party's favor. For those details, Phillimore and Blackstone remain the essential primary references.
Jurisdictional Note
DUPLEX QUERELA is a term of English ecclesiastical law exclusively. It was never transplanted into American law as a live procedural remedy, as the United States has no established church court hierarchy. American legal dictionaries preserve the term for historical and comparative reference only.