Definition
A procedural mechanism in English ecclesiastical court practice by which a judge formally closes the period during which parties may submit evidence, exhibits, and allegations. When a term to conclude is appointed, both parties are understood to have renounced any further right to introduce material into the record. The appointment marks the definitive end of the evidentiary or pleading phase and signals that the matter is ready for adjudication.
In effect, the term to conclude functions as a judicial deadline with a built-in waiver consequence: once the appointed time passes, neither party retains the right to supplement the record, regardless of what additional evidence or argument they may wish to present.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially a relic of English ecclesiastical court procedure and will appear almost exclusively in historical sources — primarily materials concerning the Ecclesiastical Courts of England prior to the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which restructured the English court system and curtailed the independent jurisdiction of those courts. Researchers should not expect to encounter this term in American primary sources, as ecclesiastical court procedure did not transplant to the American legal system.
When working in pre-reform English ecclesiastical records — particularly probate, matrimonial, and defamation matters, which were historically ecclesiastical jurisdiction — this term signals a critical procedural moment in the case. Finding a term to conclude in the record tells the researcher that the evidentiary phase has formally closed and that any subsequent documents will be part of the adjudicative rather than the evidentiary record.
A significant research trap: the phrase may appear abbreviated or embedded in Latin formulaic procedural notations in older ecclesiastical records. Researchers working with manuscript court records should be alert to the substantive legal consequence attached to the phrase, not merely its presence as procedural boilerplate. The waiver effect — renunciation of further exhibits and allegations — was operative and not merely ceremonial.
The term has essentially no modern application in either English or American practice. Modern procedural equivalents include discovery cutoff dates, close of pleadings, and pretrial order deadlines, but none of these carry the identical structure of a judicial appointment with automatic bilateral renunciation. Do not map this concept onto modern procedural mechanisms without accounting for that structural difference.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the most complete available definition: the term designates a judge-appointed time at which both parties are understood to renounce further exhibits and allegations in English ecclesiastical practice. The entry is brief but precise on the two operative elements — judicial appointment and bilateral renunciation.
Burrill's Law Dictionary appears to have begun an entry for this term but the available text is incomplete, cutting off after noting its English origin. The absence of a full Burrill entry is itself informative: the term was specialized enough that even comprehensive nineteenth-century American legal dictionaries gave it limited treatment, confirming its character as a term of art specific to English ecclesiastical procedure with little purchase in American courts.
Neither source addresses what occurred procedurally if a party sought to submit material after the term to conclude had passed, nor do they address whether the judge retained discretion to reopen the record in exceptional circumstances. Researchers needing that level of procedural detail should consult historical treatises on English ecclesiastical practice, such as Oughton's Ordo Judiciorum or similar works on the law and practice of the ecclesiastical courts.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is specific to English ecclesiastical court practice. It did not become part of American procedural law. Researchers encountering it in American contexts should treat the appearance as evidence of either direct borrowing from English ecclesiastical sources or use of English precedent in early American probate or matrimonial proceedings that borrowed ecclesiastical forms.