William Stubbs, 2.D., .D.C.L. ,
On C v.tion*
1917.

\ftrr thief avoiding ff a College in, thi; Cofe^}.

^YAiM-wmwmmM>w^'

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
OF THE
Alfred E. Perkins Fund

JJift

MyW

JUL 19
LIBRAl

liiill UBR'
¦¦On Convocation

iiHi

BY
WILLIAM STUBBS, D.D., D.C.L.
r"
LATE BISHOP OF OXFORD
Prepared for publication by
W. H. HUTTON, B.D.
Archdeacon of Northampton

I

il

mi

iii

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO. Ltd.
London : 28 Margaret Street, Oxford Circus, W.
Oxford : 9 High Street
Milwaukee, U.S.A. : The Young Churchman Co.

ON CONVOCATION

ON CONVOCATION
A LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP (BENSON)
OF CANTERBURY ; AND A SPEECH IN THE
UPPER HOUSE OF THE CONVOCATION OF
THE' SOUTHERN PROVINCE
BY
WILLIAM STUBBS, D.D., D.C.L.,
Bishop of Chester, 1884-89; Bishop of Oxford, 1889-1901?
Honorary Student of Christ Church,
LL.D. of Cambridge and Edinburgh, an Honorary Member of
the Imperial University of S. Vladimir of Kieff,
and of the Royal Bavarian, Prussian, Irish,
and Danish Academies
Prepared for Publication, with a Preface,
by
W. H. HUTTON, B.D.,
Archdeacon of Northampton,
Reader in Indian History and Fellow of S. John's College, Oxford,.
Hon. D.C.L., Durham

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO. Ltd.
London : 28 Margaret Street, Oxford Circus, W.
Oxford : 9 High Street
Milwaukee, U.S.A. : The Young Churchman Co.
1917

^^3

Lambeth Palace, S.E.,
February IS, 1917.
My dear Archdeacon Hutton,
I should rejoice to see Bishop Stubbs's article
on the joint action of the Convocations made public.
I have known the pamphlet well for years and have
often myself wished that it should be published, but
I think I am right in saying that Bishop Stubbs himself
was disinclined to its publication. I do not think that
that fact is conclusive against its publication now,
provided it is made clear that though printed by
him in 1887 (thirty years ago) he never published it,
whether because he wished to revise it further or for
any other reason. I am sure that many would be both
interested and instructed by what he says.
With regard to the speech in Convocation in 1898
there can I imagine be no question at all. We have
never claimed, so far as I know, copyright for the
Chronicle of Convocation in connexion with such
a thing as this. I am,
Yours very truly,
RANDALL CANTUAR.

Preface
AT this time, when the relations between Church and
State in England are the subject of close historical
investigation and scrutiny, with the hope of a reform
which, from the ecclesiastical and the political point of
view alike, is greatly to be desired, it seems well to
publish two valuable statements of the late Bishop
William Stubbs, the great English constitutional
historian of the nineteenth century.
The earlier is concerned with the question of the joint
action of the Convocations of Canterbury and York ;
where it had existed in the past, and how ; whether
it is possible to-day, and, if so, by what authority and
under what conditions. It was addressed to Arch
bishop Benson, and was printed by Dr. Stubbs (then
Bishop of Chester) for private circulation, in 1887.
The second is a speech (from which a few intro
ductory words, as of no interest to-day, have been
omitted) delivered in the Upper House of the Con
vocation of Canterbury in 1898. The Chronicle
of Convocation which contains it is now out of
print. It deals with the question as to how the
reform of Convocation, particularly with a view to
the better representation of the parochial clergy,
should be effected. The constitutional method of
reform, Dr. Stubbs argued, is by Act of Parliament,
legalizing changes to be introduced by the Archbishops.
Having obtained the cordial approbation and consent
of the Bishop's representatives, I thought it right to
ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to sanction the

viii PREFACE
publication of what was originally a letter addressed
to one of his grace's predecessors. His kind reply
I print, as his grace suggests, as it stands. I have also
applied for advice to the Archdeacon of London,
who was for several years in close association with
the Bishop, as his domestic chaplain, and to the Dean
of Chester, one of his oldest and most intimate friends.
The Archdeacon replies, as to the Bishop's wishes,
"I can say quite definitely that he would not object
to publication now"; and the Dean writes, "You
will do an excellent work for the Church and for
Convocation if you will get the speech and letter
reprinted." Thus fortified, and the Archbishop of Canterbury
having "expressed his satisfaction that the article and
speech are to be published," I have felt justified in
arranging for the issue of what I believe to be of
permanent historical interest.
It will be seen that both these documents have an
important bearing on the questions raised by the
Report of the Archbishops' Committee on Church and
State. They justify the view that the time has come
when power should be sought from the Crown and
Parliament to deal with purely Church affairs in
a Church Council, with due safeguards for the
inalienable rights of the State. It is true that Con
vocation, as the judges of the Queen's Bench declared
in 1888, is " an ancient body, as old as Parliament, and
as independent " (R. v. Archbishop of York, 20 Q.B.D.
740). It may indeed be said that the Convocation of
Canterbury, since its present constitution dates from
1283, is the older, and the Convocation of York, in its
method of representation, older still, for it is found
as early as 1279.' And, for its independence, it may
be sufficient illustration that in 1894 it was made
¦ Wilkins, Concilia, ii. 41 ; see Stubbs, Constitutional History, it. 198.

PREFACE ix
evident that Convocation could sit when Parliament
did not sit, and that " the Archbishop's prorogation
is recognised in determining the meeting, irrespective
of any other document." I Or, to put it most simply,
by the ancient and existent Constitution of England,
Convocation no more acts under the authority of
Parliament than Parliament acts under the authority
of Convocation. They both act under the authority of
the Crown. But no change in the constitution of the
country can be made except by the Crown and
Parliament. The letter on the joint action of Convocations throws
some light on the opinion expressed in the Report of
the Archbishops' Committee on Church and State (p. 6),
that the creation of two provinces in England was
harmful ; that the division between them, " amongst
other things, led to the murder of Becket, helped
to defeat Edward I's plan of an estate of clergy, pre
vented any union of the English Church except under
papal legates, and deepened that rift between north
and south which showed itself in the Wars of the
Roses and the Civil War, and lasted till the Industrial
Revolution," and that Gregory the Great, when he
decreed that there should be two Archbishops, set up
"a dualism inconsistent with the true functions of a
great spiritual body. " These historical statements are
hardly, I venture to think, such as Bishop Stubbs would
have approved, and they would need a good deal of
rewriting of English history to substantiate them. But
they at least show that the relations between the two
provinces in the English Church are still regarded by
some as a matter for criticism. However this may be,
there is no reason to doubt that the great constitutional
historian would have welcomed the creation of a single
Council for the Church of England.
1 Life of Archbishop Benson, ii. S61.

x PREFACE
It may possibly be suggested that the five Appendices
contributed by the Bishop to the Report of the Royal
Commission on the Constitution and Working of the
Ecclesiastical Courts, 1883, should have also been
reprinted. But the criticism of the late Professor
Maitland (.Roman Canon Law in the Church of England,
1898) has rendered the most important of these still
a matter of dispute, and as the Bishop would certainly
have revised what he had written in the light of
Dr. Maitland's judgement, it would not be right now
to re-issue it unaltered. It must be remembered, how
ever, that the last published statement of the Bishop,
after he had read what Dr. Maitland had written, was
that his Appendices were "true history and the result
of hard work" (Lectures on Medieval and Modern
History, 3rd Edition, 1901).
I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that, apart from
details as to which opinions may naturally differ, the
Report of the Archbishops' Committee seems to me to
be most valuable, most wise and prudent, most helpful
towards the solution of a problem which has been
difficult in all ages but never more difficult than in
England to-day.
W. H. HUTTON,
Archdeacon of Northampton.
Lady Day, 1917

CONTENTS

PAGE
A LETTER FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER
BURY ........ v
PREFACE BY THE ARCHDEACON OF NORTH
AMPTON  vii
A LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY - 1
A SPEECH IN CONVOCATION - - - - 43

Joint Action of Convocations
A Letter to the Archbishop (Benson)
of Canterbury
My dear Lord Archbishop,
I understand your Grace's note as an intimation
that you wish me to draw up a memorandum on the
question of the possibility, and possible conditions,
of a National Synod of the Church of England, to be
constituted by a union or joint sitting of the Convoca
tions of the two provinces. In addressing myself to
the task you allow me to go beyond the bare legal
or constitutional aspects of the subject, on which
I cannot pretend to do more than furnish materials
for a decision, and to review the historical details
which have been or may be adduced in illustration
of the point in question, although they cannot be
admitted as evidence or as grounds for legal argument.
I shall to a certain extent avail myself of this permis
sion, in the belief that, although from such materials
I can furnish no new argument, I may be able to clear
the ground by the exclusion of erroneous or irrelevant
conclusions, such as have been from time to time
current upon a matter which, notwithstanding its
great practical importance, has to be argued within
very narrow grounds and on a very limited amount
of material fact. For I am bound to say that, in
my opinion, the whole question turns on the point
whether or no it is competent for the Crown and the
Church, on the terms and within the conditions of

2 ON CONVOCATION
the first clause of the Submission of the Clergy, to
co-operate for the summoning and holding of such
a National Synod as is desired. Earlier materials,
accordingly, may be used for the interpretation of
the language of the Submission, but not to prove the
validity of rights, abolished, limited, superseded, or
otherwise modified by the Submission, or to justify
theories or practices which, although untouched by
it, have by disuse ceased to be parts of the recognised
and living constitution of Church and Realm.
Even in such a limited use of these materials as
seems, in courtesy, to be due to those writers on the
subject who have used them too constructively, and,
as it seems to me, too dogmatically, some caution is
needful. But, as a matter of personal importance,
I will remark here that I follow in this inquiry a plan
different from that which I adopted in drawing up
the historical appendix to the Report of the Eccle
siastical Courts Commission, for two reasons ; first,
because the point at issue in that Report seemed to
me to be one essential to the character of the Church,
in which judicial freedom within certain limits must
be asserted and vindicated at any cost, whilst here
the consultative powers of the clergy are not really in
question, only the proper and most convenient way
of exercising them ; and secondly, because, as it seems
to me, the vindication of a recognised and perpetual
right, such as that of Church Discipline, from an
ever-opposing and encroaching aggression of the
secular law, is a very different thing from the asser
tion of a right or custom for a particular mode of
consultation, which may have never prevailed, or have
been for ages obsolete, and which, for recognition or
revival, would need more than historical or political
proofs of feasibility.
It is unnecessary for me to discuss the question

ON CONVOCATION 3
whether, on the theory of a National Church, a
National Synod should be regarded as an essential
characteristic of such an institution, or whether the
necessary conditions of nationality would be fulfilled
by a simple harmony of results in the deliberations of
separate provincial, or even diocesan, councils. I will
content myself with observing that, from the first
ages of English Christianity to the latest date at
which a body of canons was promulgated, the idea
of a National Synod has been present to the mind
of the Church. S. Gregory the Great, when in
his commission to Augustine he assigns to the future
English Church two provinces of twelve dioceses
each, directs that the two metropolitans are to arrange
their proceedings by common counsel and concordant
action ; the Council of Hertford,1 held by archbishop
Theodore in A.D. 673, determined in its seventh canon
that an annual synod should be held at Clovesho2 on
August 1 ; which can only be understood as an
assembly of the whole episcopate of the nation. The
139th canon of 1604 is entitled "a National Synod of3
the Church Representative," and describes that body
as the Sacred Synod of this nation in the name of
Christ and by the King's authority assembled ; and
on the title-page of the Form of Prayer used at the
opening of the Convocation of Canterbury at the
present day, the occasion of its use is denoted as
" Forma precum in utraque domo Convocationis sive
synodi praelatorum et ceteri cleri, seu provincialis
seu nationalis." I am aware that it is argued, as was
very strongly urged by archbishop Wake,4 that "the
1 Bede, H. E., i. 29. " Ibid., iv. 5.
3 [The word "of" is inserted apparently by a slip on the author's
part. The title of Canon 139 is " A National Synod the Church
Representative." W. H. H.]
4 State of the Church, p. 73. The Archbishop however maintains
that not the Convocations, but the Provincial Councils, which he

4 ON CONVOCATION
Convocation, though it be provincially summoned
and, with respect to each province, is a provincial
assembly, yet it is, in the intention of the Law, a
National Convention of the whole Clergy of England
in two provincial Convocations ; " and that thus inter
preted the canon is satisfied by the coincident sessions.
It is conceivable that the canon of 1604 may have been
passed by the Convocation of Canterbury in oblivion
or contempt of the Provincial Convocation of York ;
the Form of Prayer has only the authority of a formal
preamble. But, whilst I do not adduce these points
by way of argument, I cannot but believe that they
illustrate a continuous and conscious tradition ; and
I cannot so far antedate the modern use of the term
Synod as to understand by it, not the assembled body
of bishops and clergy, but the body of bishops and
clergy constituted for the purpose, as well out of
session as in session, whether assembled or not or
meeting in different centres. The Holy Synod of
Russia may be the designation of a governing body,
in or out of session, but the National Synod of the
canon of 1604 ought to mean, and I believe does mean
properly, a Synod in Session, not merely the body that
constitutes it.
In interpreting the idea of a National Synod it is of
course necessary to look to the varying circumstances
of the Church at the times when it was attempted to
realise it ; to bring into consideration accordingly
the ages during which bishops alone, or bishops and
distinguishes in design and end [although not in constitution] from
Convocations, are the proper Church Synods, and may be assembled
at any time by the authority of the king's writ ; p. 29. I adduce his
argument here only by way of analogy. The whole is worth reading,
but the reasons for distinguishing between the Convocations called in
both provinces and at the king's request, and the Provincial Councils
called for purely ecclesiastical business, without relation to one
another, and before 1532, by the archbishops without the king's writ,
do not affect the point here put.

ON CONVOCATION 5
abbots, were the recognised members of the synods ;
the ages during which the Church of Canterbury
occupied an effective position of supreme or modified
primacy ; those, on the other hand, in which the
provincial administration of York was practically and
theoretically independent ; and the circumstances of
the Church when, under the supremacy of Rome, its
machinery was so manipulated as to permit the use
of expedients which, after the removal of the papal
pressure, were as matters of fact excluded from
practical administration. Under all these variations
we must, I think, regard the contemporaneous national
recognition, rather than the letter of law or the tradi
tion of the schools, to be the interpreter of valid custom.
It will be convenient, without further preface,
to indicate the several periods into which English
Conciliar History is divided in relation to the Pro
vincial System : these are —
1. The period extending from the foundation of the
English Church to the recognition of the provincial
independence of York : A. D. 596-735.
2. The period of provincial administration up to the
date of the Norman Conquest and the claim made by
Canterbury for a profession of obedience from York :
A.D. 735-1070.
3. The period of the struggle of York against the
supremacy of Canterbury: A.D. 1070-1119 [-1176-
1306-1354]. 4. The period extending from the acquisition of final
independence by York to the date of the completed
organisation of the Convocations: A.D. 1119-1283
x 1295.
5. The period extending from the completion of the
organisation of the Convocations to the Submission of
the Clergy: A.D. 1532.
6. From the Submission of the Clergy to the present

6 ON CONVOCATION
day: this period must be subdivided into (a) A.D.
1532-1664, when the clergy ceased to vote subsidies in
Convocation ; (A) A.D. 1664-1717, when the proper
sessions were suspended ; (c) A.D. 1717-1887.
I. The period extending from the foundation of the
English Church to the recognition of the provincial
independence of the see of York.
S. Gregory in his letter to Augustine, written when
he sent him the Pall and recognised him as bishop of
the English, directed the arrangement of the Church
in two provinces of twelve dioceses each, under two
independent metropolitans, one at London, the other
at York, of whom the senior should have precedence,
and who were to work by "common counsel and
concordant action."1 This direction of the pope was
practically inoperative, although for ages it was referred
to as exhibiting the ideal at which the provincial
administration should aim. Canterbury was never
superseded by London as a metropolitan see ; and
York, which thirty years later received Paulinus as
bishop, with a papal recognition and a Pall, failed to
obtain a body of suffragans. Paulinus, in fact, was
unable to organise the province ; it is not recorded
that he attended any national synod, and after eight
years of struggle he retired into the south. When
archbishop Theodore in 669 undertook the organisation
of the Church, he treated S. Gregory's direction as
non-existent. He, as well as his two immediate suc
cessors, managed the whole Church as one province
under the rule of Canterbury. This state of things
ended in 734 or 735, when Egbert of York, following
the advice of the Venerable Bede,2 obtained the Pall
from Rome and the submission of the Northumbrian
bishops. As, during this period, the presence of
' Bede, H. E., i. 29. « Ep. ad Egb., § 5.

ON CONVOCATION 7
Northumbrian bishops in any synod held by the
archbishop of Canterbury would be in obedience to
him as their recognised metropolitan, no precedents
can be adduced for the joint action of the two
provinces. II. The period of provincial administration : A.D.
735-1070. During this long period the Church was governed
by the two metropolitans in independence of one
another, with the exception of an interval of from
twelve to sixteen years (A.D. 788-801), during which
a third metropolitan see was established at Lichfield.
It is not always easy to determine whether the assem
blies in which, during this period, the bishops and
abbots met, are to be regarded as proper ecclesiastical
synods, or as meetings of the witenagemot of the
several kingdoms. There is, however, no instance of
a distinctly ecclesiastical synod in which the bishops
and clergy of the two provinces met. There are
several full accounts of councils of the Southern pro
vince, and there are incidental notices of synods of the
province of York ; but it is important to observe that
on the occasion of the great consultation held under
the legates George and Theophylact in A.D. 787 or
788, 1 in consequence of which the same body of canons
was accepted in both provinces, the bishops, together
with the kings and ealdormen of the two, met in
separate assemblies.
During the continuance of the metropolitanate of
Lichfield several charters were issued which, if genuine,
prove that synodal meetings of the prelates of the two
Southern provinces were held, the senior archbishop
having precedence among the attesting and confirming
witnesses. But these assemblies were of a mixed
1 Wilkins, Cone, i. 151.

8 ON CONVOCATION
character, and the whole history of this short interval
is anomalous. One result, however, ofthe design was
permanent ; the institution, or careful continuance, of
the exaction of a vow or profession of obedience made
by the bishops of the Southern province to the arch
bishop of Canterbury, after his recovery of his rights
and the abolition of the metropolitanate of Lichfield.
No serious attempt seems to have been made to bring
the Northern bishops under the same subjection until
the Norman Conquest : all the documents, which were
at that time produced in order to prove the dependence
of York on Canterbury and the absolute character of
the metropolitanate of the latter Church over the
whole of Britain, being, as I shall note later on, either
fabrications of the time, or records misunderstood,
having no warrant in accepted usage, or permanent
recognition. From the beginning of the ninth century to the
Conquest the history of the See of York is very
obscure, and the Northumbrian kingdom has very
little connexion in ecclesiastical affairs with the
Southern province until the reign of Edmund. After
the middle of the tenth century the names of the
archbishops of York reappear among the attestations
of the charters, and prove their presence at the
national witenagemots. The notice by Alcuin of a
conventum between the two archbishops in A.D. 801
may refer to a synodical meeting,' but after that time
there is no clear instance of the attendance of the
archbishop of York or any of his suffragans (of whom
the bishop of Lindisfarne, or Durham, was the last
survivor) at any ecclesiastical council either of the
province of Canterbury or of the National Church.
Nor is there any evidence after the year 800 of any
provincial council in Northumbria. The attestation
1 Alcuin, Epist., ed. Froben, 173; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 532.

ON CONVOCATION 9
accordingly of the archbishop of York, appended to
charters of the period, may simply denote his presence
at the witenagemot, which may occasionally have
included a synod ; although the attestation would not
be necessarily regarded as that of a proper member,
any more than those of the kings and ealdormen. It is
to be remembered, further, that after the union of the
several kingdoms under Edgar the archbishop of
York frequently held, with his metropolitan see, the
bishopric of Worcester, in virtue of which he would
be virtually a suffragan of the Church of Canterbury :
such was the case from A.D. 972 to 1016, and again
from A.D. 1044 to 1062. No conclusion as to the union
of the two provinces for counsel or debate can be
drawn from premisses so vague, so obscure, and, in
many points, of such doubtful authenticity.
III. The period of the struggle of York against the
supremacy of Canterbury: A.D. 1070-1119.
During this time the archbishops of Canterbury
obtained from the archbishops of York a qualified
expression of obedience. This was claimed on the
ground and authority of a series of papal letters of
which there are no traces at an earlier time, which are
in purport at variance with genuine letters of the dates
assigned to the suspected series,1 and which can only
be regarded as authentic on the extreme hypothesis of
an irrational and continuous policy of double dealing
on the part of the authorities of Rome. The only
document of ancient origin which can be produced in
confirmation of the claim is a profession made by a
bishop Eadulf, with the title Eboracensis, to archbishop
^Ethelheard in the year 796. 2 No such bishop of York
existed at the time ; and the title is an interpolation in
1 Will. Malmesb., Gesta Pontificum, lib. i. §§ 25-39.
2 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ii. 506, 507 ; Textus Roffensis,
p. 248. C

10 ON CONVOCATION
a document which belongs unquestionably to the Bishop
of Lindsey of that name. On such evidence, however,
and the credit given to it in England and at Rome,
archbishop Lanfranc claimed from archbishop Thomas
of York an acknowledgement of obedience. The rela
tions so established between two archbishops, both, in
virtue of the possession of the Pall, entitled to the
fulness of metropolitan authority, were altogether
anomalous ; and the adjustment of them was the sub
ject of a solemn deliberation in a council held at
Winchester in A.D. 1072 at Easter in the presence of
a papal legate, and resulted in a compact there made,
and confirmed at Windsor at the following Whitsun
tide.1 By this agreement the archbishop of York is
(1) recognised as subject to the archbishop of Canter
bury as primate of the whole of Britain, (2) the arch
bishop of Canterbury concedes to the archbishop of
York the jurisdiction over the diocese of Durham and
the Scottish Churches, (3) on the understanding that if
the archbishop of Canterbury should wish to assemble
a council, the archbishop of York and all his clergy
should attend it and obey the canonical directions of
the primate ; (4) a sworn profession of obedience was
to be made by the successors of archbishop Thomas,
from whom, as a personal favour, Lanfranc accepted
a written form without the oath ; in case of succession,
the archbishop of York was to go to Canterbury for
consecration : and when Canterbury was vacant he
was to join the other bishops at Canterbury in the
consecration of a new primate. This agreement
remained in force for a few years ; the two immediate
successors of Thomas made their profession of obedi
ence to Canterbury;2 the next, Thurstan, was in 1119
consecrated without such profession by pope Calixtus
¦ Wilkins, Cone, i. 324, 325.
¦ W. Malmesb., Gesta Pontiff., lib. iii. §§ 117, 118, 120, 124.

ON CONVOCATION 11
II : a papal bull issued in or about the year 1176 for
bade the exaction or offering of the profession as
contrary to the instructions of S. Gregory ; z and
although in 1306 archbishop Greenfield had to forbid
his people to resort to the courts of Canterbury, and
the struggle for matters of title and ceremony con
tinued until the year 1354, the independence of York
was assured from the date of Thurstan's consecration.
During this period the archbishops of York and
bishops of Durham attended not only the royal courts
in which the archbishops of Canterbury took the
leading place, and in which ecclesiastical business
was frequently discussed, but the proper ecclesiastical
councils held by the primates for the whole of the
English Church. Such councils were held in 1075 at
S. Paul's ; 2 at different dates under Lanfranc at Win
chester and Gloucester ; 3 in 1093 for the consecration
of Anselm, on which occasion archbishop Thomas
procured the substitution of "primas" for "metro-
politana totius Britanniae " in the title of the Church
of Canterbury ; 4 and in 1102, and 1107, at London
under Anselm.5
From the date of Thurstan's consecration, performed
by the pope and without the disputed profession, the
independence ofthe Northern province was assured, but
the quarrel did not immediately subside. The difficulty
of providing for the provincial administration in a pro
vince which had but one suffragan, and of organising
a general assembly of the National Church under two
independent metropolitans, was not overcome. Re
course was had for some time to the "legatine" system,
according to which the clergy were collected in council
before a papal representative whose authority was not
questioned. Thus in the year 1125 a general council
1 R. de Diceto, i. 406. " Wilkins, Concilia, i. 363.
3 Ibid., 369. * Ibid., 370. s Ibid., 383, 386.

12 ON CONVOCATION
was held under John of Crema, at which both the
archbishops and twenty bishops attended ; * in 1126
the archbishop of Canterbury obtained for himself
a legatine commission and summoned a similar synod,
to which the archbishop of York and the bishop of
Durham sent excuses ; " in 1138 when Alberic of Ostia
held a legatine council the archbishop of York was
represented by the Dean;3 the legatine assemblies held
by Henry of Blois between 1139 and 1144 took place
whilst the administration of York was in abeyance and
the kingdom in a state of anarchy : and, before the air
clears under Henry II, the practical severance of the
two provinces for ordinary purposes has become per
manent. IV. The period extending from the final indepen
dence of the See of York to the date of the completed
organisation of the Convocations : A. D. 1119-1283 +
1295. During this period it becomes necessary to distinguish,
more carefully than before, between (1) the assemblies
of the bishops and clergy, in response to the royal sum
mons, or in pursuance of ancient custom, as attendant
on the royal council ; assemblies which bear to the
national council or Parliament of the period a relation
analogous to that which the Parliamentary assembly of
the clergy bore to the Parliament after it had received
its final form under Edward the First ; (2) the provincial
assemblies of the bishops and clergy, constituted by
representation or otherwise, which are the direct ante
cessors of the two provincial convocations, and are
indeed, except by the accidents of developing institu
tions, identical with them ; which provincial assemblies
were very frequently summoned by the archbishops in
compliance with royal requests, to transact business of
¦ Wilkins, i. 406-08. * Ibid., 410. 3 Ibid., 414.

ON CONVOCATION 13
taxation or other, in which the interests of the clergy
were not identical with those of the laity ; but which
were likewise summoned from time to time by the
archbishops without such royal request for the trans
action of proper ecclesiastical business ; and (3) national
or general ecclesiastical synods1 convoked under papal
legates, which action, including the admission and
authoritative proceedings of the legates, was subject to
the royal permission, and was watched with even more
jealousy than the normal action of the national clergy.
(1) An examination of the records of these assem
blies shows that, in the first class, there was little or no
distinction of provincial organisation observed, except
during that part of the reign of Edward I in which
Parliament and Convocation alike were advancing ten
tatively to their final form. Generally the bishops
and higher clergy attended the ffaasZ-Parliaments in
London whenever they were summoned. The money
contributed by the clergy from their spiritual revenue
was sometimes granted in diocesan assemblies, some
times in provincial assemblies, sometimes reported or
even granted by their representatives in the general
Parliament ; and some of the records in which these
processes are traced suggest some superficial points of
resemblance to joint provincial action. In the year 1252,
on the occasion of an application by joint letters of the
king and pope for a grant, the archbishop of York and
the bishops of Durham and Carlisle reply that their
clergy, consulted in the diocesan synods, are of opinion
that as the business touches the whole Church of
England, and in such cases it was customary to hold
a common deliberation between the clergy of the two
provinces,2 that expedient should be followed. In 1254
the bishops were directed to report the grants of the
1 Wake, State, etc., pp. 25-29.
2 Royal Letters of Henry III, ii. 95.

14 ON CONVOCATION
clergy, by accredited representatives, to the council ; '
in 1269, in an assembly half-parliamentary and half-
ecclesiastical, the proctors of the northern dioceses
joined with those of Canterbury in presenting grava
mina.2 Somewhat later, in the reign of Edward I, the
provincial feeling was recognised in this department
of work ; when in 1283 the Parliament sat in two
divisions at Northampton and at York, the clerical
proctors were similarly divided ; but the case was
unusual.3 In 1294 the whole body of the clergy was
summoned, by representative proctors of both pro
vinces, to meet at London,4 in the form some ten years
before adopted for Convocation, and at a time when no
Parliament was sitting. This assembly was however
called by the royal writ addressed to each of the
bishops, and really forms the link and marks the
moment of transition from the older attendances of
the clergy for ff«as/-parliamentary purposes to their
incorporation as a representative estate in Parliament
by the Praemunientes clause in the writs, which was
established in the following year. These cases of joint
action under royal writ are a very near approximation
to joint sittings of Convocations.5
(2) I am unable to find any cases in which the proper
provincial synods met in one assembly under the arch
bishop of Canterbury as primate, during the whole of
the period otherwise so full of anomalies and tentative
expedients. The independence of the Northern metro
politan was too jealously watched for anything of the
kind to have occurred, and gave room for difficulties
on the rare occasions on which, under a legatine com
mission, the whole clergy were called together. An
ecclesiastical council was held at Oxford in 1241 during
the vacancy of the See of Canterbury, in which the
1 Prynne, Writs, i. 3, 4. = Wilkins, Cone, ii. 20. 3 parl. Writs, i. 10.
4 Report on the Dignity of a Peer, App. i, p. 59. 3 Ibid., p. 67.

ON CONVOCATION 15
archbishop of York and bishops of both provinces took
part :' this assembly, to which the king thought it
necessary to address a letter of caution or prohibition,
may not have been singular in its character, but it is
insufficient as a basis for a theory of which so few
traces, if any, can be found elsewhere. It is, however,
so far important as to prove that, without a royal writ,
the clergy, or the bishops at least, of the two provinces
were not precluded from meeting in a proper council.
In the extreme dearth of documentary evidence for
this period, it is unnecessary to attempt to distinguish
the provincial councils called by the archbishops at the
king's request from those called by them proprio motu ;
the point becomes clearer and more important at a
later date.
(3) The legatine councils of the period are of two
kinds : (a) National ecclesiastical synods held under
a native or foreign legate, who possessed the legatine
authority only, which was not likely to be confounded
with the proper primatial or metropolitan power. Of
these assemblies there were several during the two
centuries included in the period, some of which have
been noticed already, e.g. those under John of Crema,
Alberic of Ostia, and Henry of Blois ; others, and
more famous, were the councils held by Huguccione
in 1176, by Otho the legate in 1237-40, by Othobon in
1268,2 and some of less importance held by Rustand
and other financial agents of the pope during the
critical times of Henry Ill's reign. There is no reason
to suppose that these councils were viewed with
provincial jealousy, or that attendance upon them
was avoided for reasons of provincial independence.
The curious scene which occurred in the legatine
council of 1176, when the two archbishops came in
1 Wilkins, i. 682 ; Ann. Dunst., p. 157 ; M. Paris, iv. 173.
2 Wilkins, Cone, i. 647, 663; ii. 1-19.

16 ON CONVOCATION
personal contact for precedence,1 shows that the
strife between the two provinces was not yet allayed.
(b) Legatine councils held under the archbishop of
Canterbury for the whole Church were viewed with
great suspicion. I have mentioned one attempted
by William of Corbeuil in 1127 ; archbishop Hubert
Walter held one in A.D. 1200, 2 but although he was
chancellor at the time, he was visited with a prohibi
tion from the justiciar, and the archbishop of York
was absent in contempt, sending no excuse for fear
that his complaisance might be interpreted as a con
cession of the claims of Canterbury.3 The legate had
in 1195 held a council at York.4 In 1206, during the
vacancy at Canterbury, King John issued a prohibition
to the whole body of the clergy, who were about to
assemble at St. Albans,5 possibly in response to a papal
demand. The attempt to use the archbishop's legatine
power in this way seems to have been futile, under
the royal and provincial jealousy.
V. The period extending from the completion of
the organisation of the two Convocations to the Act
of the Submission of the Clergy, A.D. 1532.
During this long period, which may be characterised
as the period of normal organisation, the clergy met,
besides their assemblies in diocesan and subordinate
meetings, personally and by representation, in synod
or similarly organised assembly : —
(1) In the two provincial Convocations, summoned
by the archbishops of the two provinces (a) either by
their own ordinary authority and for the sole and
proper consideration of matters ecclesiastical ; or (Ji)
in consequence of royal letters addressed to the two
1 Wilkins, Cone, i. 485. 2 Ibid., i. 410.
3 Wilkins, i. 504, 505 ; R. de Diceto, ii. 169. * R. de Diceto, ii. 146.
s Wilkins, Cone, i. 514, 515.

ON CONVOCATION 17
archbishops separately, requesting them to assemble
their Convocations for the consideration of matters
of common interest to Church and State. These
Convocations, like the less perfectly organised assem
blies which preceded them, and out of which they
were developed, contained the heads of the regular
as well as the secular clergy. The date of the final
establishment of the representative forms in the Con
vocations is fixed to the year 1283 ; l not but that there
are traces of the procuratorial system much earlier,
but that from that date the practice has been virtually
unchanged, except when the monastic members
disappeared at the dissolution, and where it has been
slightly modified by the increase of dioceses and
archdeaconries. The organisation of these provincial convocations
was the same under both systems of summons. Cer
tain powers of the Crown were recognised (1) in the
letters of caution or prohibition sometimes addressed
to the archbishops, warning them against treating of
matters dangerous to the rights of the Crown, (2) in
the holding of Convocations at the request of the
Crown, sometimes coincidently with the session of
Parliament, and frequently in concert with, although
not dependent on, the action of Parliament. When,
as I will point out under the next head, the Crown
had failed to obtain a representation of the clergy
in the Parliament itself, the custom of requesting the
assembly of Convocation became a regular part of
the process of assembling the Parliament, and the
taxation of the clergy in Convocation a substitute for
their taxation in Parliament. But every Convocation,
whether summoned by the archbishop proprio motu
or summoned in consequence of a royal letter, was
competent for all sorts of work, whether taxative or
1 Select Charters, pp. 453-55, 466, 467.

18 ON CONVOCATION
legislative ; and, as the demand for money grants was
a much more frequent occasion than the demand for
canons or constitutions, the Convocations summoned
for royal business were much more numerous than
those called by the archbishops of their own proper
motion. The distinction, although strongly insisted
on by the investigators of Convocation history under
William III and Anne,1 is of minor importance in
reference to the point now before us ; but it has some
bearing still on the interpretation of the first Article of
the Submission.
I find no trace of any attempt made either by the
Crown or by the archbishops to unite the Convocations
proper for joint session or discussion.2 The archbishops
contented themselves, so far as secular matters went,
with their joint action in Parliament, and in eccle
siastical legislation did not interfere with one another,
after the ancient jealousy was extinguished. The
kings, on the other hand, possessed, in the right of
summoning the clergy in the bishops' writs, the power
of bringing together the two provinces without the
trouble of calling Convocation, and, after that practice
was disused, acquiesced in the action of the provincial
assemblies. As a result, when co-operation was
required it was easily managed : a royal letter explain
ing the amount of the Canterbury grant was sufficient
to evoke the liberality of the York clergy : 3 the arch
bishops occasionally agreed on similar action in their
two synods ; and occasionally legislated without any
regard to the needs or action of one another. In most
¦ Wake, State, etc., pp. 25-29.
2 In 1409-10 the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Durham sat in
the Canterbury Convocation, Feb. 17 ; but the York Convocation
was in session in the north, having been summoned for the 15th. —
Wilkins, Cone, iii. 325, 333; Wake, State, etc., p. 348.
3 Examples in 1377, 1382, 1398 ; Wilkins, Cone, iii. 125, 126, 176,
205, 238.

ON CONVOCATION 19
matters York followed Canterbury,1 and in 1462 '
adopted in mass the Constitutions of the Southern
province in all matters in which they did not conflict
with the customs and canons of the Province of York.
(2) Besides their assemblies in the provincial Con
vocations, the clergy had their place in Parliament ;
according to the system introduced by Edward I, and
intended to give a definite and formal character to the
attendance of the clergy in the assembly of the three
estates, a system of which a reminiscence survives in
the form of writ by which the bishops are summoned
to Parliament. Every bishop, in his summons, is
required to warn the dean and chapter of his cathedral,
his archdeacons and clergy, to appear, the deans and
archdeacons in person, the chapter and clergy by
proctors, in the Parliament itself. This parliamentary
assembly of the clergy was organised without reference
to provincial organisation, (a) by direct writ addressed
by the Crown to the several bishops, not, as in case of
Convocation, by writ from the archbishop, issued in
consequence of a request by the Crown, and forwarded
to the suffragans by the provincial dean ; (b) they were
to be warned to appear at Westminster, or wherever
else the Parliament was called, not as the Convoca
tions were, at S. Paul's and York ; and (c) the
regular clergy were not included among the classes
so summoned.
This assembly of the clergy of the two provinces met
from time to time from the year 1295 onwards, but
often with a strong remonstrance.3 The whole body
of the clergy objected to a summons proceeding from a
secular court, and the clergy of the province of York
especially remonstrated against being summoned out-
' As in the negotiations on the schism in 1408 and 1414 ; ibid.,
pp. 306, 370, 380, etc.
2 Wilkins, Cone, iii. 580, 663.
3 Pari. Writs, II. i. 196, etc.

20 ON CONVOCA TION
side the province.1 To obviate the objection, the
Crown for several years from 1314 to 1340 issued
letters of urgent request to the two metropolitans for
the enforcement of the parliamentary summons on the
clergy.' But this failed to secure attendance, and after
the latter date, as indeed during the whole period, the
clergy were allowed to dispatch in the Convocations
the business, which was chiefly financial — the granting
of tenths and subsidies — which was intended to be
transacted by their representatives in Parliament. The
parliamentary writ however continued unchanged ; on
more than one occasion the action of the parliamentary
proctors was put forward as necessary for the validity
of parliamentary acts : many instances can be adduced
of the election of such proctors distinct from the elec
tions to the Convocations ;3 and the tradition, which
subsisted at the time of the Reformation, that this
parliamentary assembly of the clergy was properly
adjunct to or associated with the House of Commons,
may be thought to be warranted by one or two slight
indications of co-operation or inter-communication
traceable to the Rolls in Parliament.
In this parliamentary assembly there might have
been complete joint action of the clergy of the two
provinces, but it would not, under the circumstances
of the summons, have been a joint session of the
Convocations. It is, however, important to observe
how very closely these two contrasted bodies might
be brought together, and how easily their character
and constitution might be confused. Thus : as the
practice of voting subsidies in Convocation became
1 Wilkins, Cone, ii. 546; Raine, Letters from Northern Registers,
pp. 344, 345 : " Idem clerus apud Lincoln extra provinciam nostram
non tenebatur eomparere. " — Archbp. Melton.
2 Const. History, iii. 345.
3 Atterbury, Rights, etc., Add. pp. 81-93; Wake, State, ete, App.
pp. 226, 227.

ON CONVOCATION 21
recognised as regular, the direct association of the
provincial Convocations with the Parliaments became
a matter of course, and Convocation was summoned
as regularly as the Parliament, although, for form's
sake, not coincidently or dependently. So long as the
duration of a Parliament was limited to a single session,
there would be an annual election to the House of
Commons, and so also an annual election of proctors
to Convocation as well as to the Parliament : after the
adoption of the rule of prorogation, by which the
House of Commons continued without re-election for
several years together, the Convocations were pro
rogued in the same way. In the province of Canter
bury, where the custom of returning two proctors only
for each diocese prevailed, it would be natural and
economical to return the same persons as proctors for
both Convocation and Parliament, and this was cer
tainly common in the case of the proctors for the
chapters. Thus it may, I think, be plausibly main
tained that, notwithstanding the radical and constitu
tional difference between the two bodies, there existed,
so far as the province of Canterbury was concerned, a
great probability of confusion, or practical identification
between them : which may further on help to the
understanding of the proceedings taken under the
critical circumstances of the reign of Henry VIII.
(3) As in the preceding period, the whole body of
the clergy of both provinces might be assembled under
a papal legate, whose commission superseded or was
supposed to supersede the authority of the metro
politans. Such assemblies were however neither
numerous nor important, and occasionally amount to
little more than formal meetings to hear the message
of the papal ambassador : examples occur in 1312,
when Cardinal Arnold of S. Prisca summoned the
bishops of both provinces to meet at London ; and in

22 ON CONVOCATION
1408, when the Archbishop of Bourdeaux summoned a
Legatine Council of England, Scotland, and Ireland at
London in contemplation of the General Council at
Pisa. As the summons for the Council of 1312 was
addressed by the legates to the bishops direct,1 it is not
probable that the inferior clergy were assembled, or
that the meeting at all answered the idea of a National
Synod. That of 1408 seems to have been superseded
by papal orders.2 By far the most important example
of this practice, however, is of later date. In the year
1518 Cardinal Wolsey by virtue of his legatine com
mission summoned the whole body of the bishops to
meet at Westminster, superseding a general assembly
of the bishops of the province of Canterbury which
archbishop Warham had called to Lambeth.3 This
was followed up in the year 1523 by a distinct attempt
to unite the two Convocations in a National Synod.
The two Convocations were summoned to their usual
places of meeting, in consequence of a royal letter
dated Feb. 6, by Warham on the 7th of February ; and
by Wolsey as archbishop of York, Feb. 28 ; to meet at
London on April 20, and at York on the 22nd of
March. Both Convocations on the day of meeting
were immediately adjourned to Westminster on April
22. To this proceeding objections were immediately
raised ; the prpctors of the Canterbury clergy, having
no commission to treat in such a synod, went back to
S. Paul's, and the Cardinal had to issue a new summons
on the 7th of May, for them to meet, with proper
powers, on the 8th of June, a date subsequently
changed to the 2nd. Very little indeed is known of
what was done in the joint sittings, but they appear to
have been continued until the middle of August ; on the
1 Raine, Letters from Northern Registers, p. 212 ; Regist. Palatinum.
i. 220, 221 ; Wilkins, Cone, ii. 421.
" Eulogium, Coot., iii. 413. 3 Wilkins, Cone, iii. 660.

ON CONVOCATION 23
14th the Convocation of Canterbury granted their
subsidy in their own house, on the 17th the Convoca
tion of York was prorogued from Westminster Abbey
to York House (Whitehall), as a place under the
ordinary jurisdiction of the archbishop of York, and
made the grant on the following day.1
In connection with this point it may be as well to
dismiss the mention of Cardinal Pole's Legatine Synod
held in 1555. It was summoned by the Cardinal as
legate, in consequence of royal letters dated Nov. 2, by a
mandate dated on the 6th and forwarded to the prelates
of the province of Canterbury on the 10th ; the represen
tation of the chapters and clergy is to be by one proctor
only. The Convocation of Canterbury was sitting,
having met on the 22nd of October : the Legatine Synod
met on the 2nd of December, and sat by prorogations
until Nov. 10, 1557. It is difficult with our forthcoming
materials to disentangle the business of the Legatine
Synod from that of the Convocations, but it seems
certain that the York clergy were present in the Synod
and joined in the grant which was subsequently col
lected under the cardinal's authority as voted in the
Synod itself.2
VI. The period extending from the date of the
Submission of the Clergy to the present day.
By the solemn act of the clergy executed in the
Convocation of Canterbury on the 15th of May, 1532,
and accepted, as it would seem, without any formal
vote by the clergy of the Northern province, it was
declared that the Convocation "is, always hath been,
and must be, only assembled " by the king's command
ment of writ.3 And this in the Statute of Submission,
1 Wilkins, Cone, iii. 698-701.
2 Ibid., iv. 130, 131, 151. Wake, State of the Church, pp. 496-499;
App. pp. 228-230.
3 Wilkins, Cone, iii. 754.

24 ON CONVOCA TION
25 Hen. VIII, c. 19, is so far recognised as a matter of
fact and law that the Convocations in time coming
" alway shall be assembled by auctorytie of the King's
writ." It is unnecessary for our present purpose to define
exactly the amount of truth conveyed in the statement
that Convocation is and always hath been so assembled ;
for it is easy to refuse the name of Convocation to such
provincial councils as the metropolitans had convened
without such commandment, although in every respect
the constitution was the same and the powers equiva
lent. It is clear that, from the passing of the statute,
no such assembly could be called conformably with the
law of the land, except by command of the Crown. It
is however a matter of question whether the close
association of the Convocations with the sessions of
Parliament is so much a matter of constitutional law,
that the royal command or licence could not be given
for the summoning of the provincial assemblies irre
spective of the calling of Parliament. Archbishop
Wake, who was by no means wedded to ecclesiastical
privilege or to high monarchical theory, was of opinion
that it might be done.1 In that case considerable
developments might safely be allowed in the constitu
tion and procedure of the assemblies in question. But
without a royal command, no precedent from the
earlier history could warrant the summoning of such
Convocations. I am not, however, prepared to admit
that, considering the wide language of the royal
instructions, the archbishops have no power to modify
the forms of summons and election from time to time,
provided the terms of the instructions are substantially
observed. And I think that it is, on the whole, irrelevant to
attempt to distinguish between the Convocations that
' State of the Church, p. 29.

ON CONVOCATION 25
were capable of making canons and those that were
called mainly for the purpose of money grants : the
latter object having now become obsolete, and the
direct purpose of the Submission being the restriction
of legislative action. The Act and Statute of Sub
mission must be understood as ruling all cases that,
by any equitable consideration, can be brought under
the head of Convocations or Provincial Synods.
With this preamble, we may divide the period before
us into three parts or sections : (1) from 1532 to 1664,
when the Convocation ceased to be called on to vote
subsidies ; (2) from 1664 to 1717, when it ceased to sit
for dispatch of business ; and (3) from the latter date,
through the revival of the present century, to the
present time.
But, before attempting to distinguish and define the
means taken for securing joint action of the Convoca
tions between these dates, it may be as well to dismiss
the subdivisions of our inquiry used in examination of
the previous periods : —
1. There is no instance, during the whole period,
of a joint sitting of the two Convocations under the
normal conditions of provincial councils summoned
in compliance with the royal writ. Such instances of
joint action, as are sometimes alleged as such joint
sittings, may be examined in the next stage of inquiry.
2. The assembly of the estate of the clergy in Parlia
ment, under the praemunientes clause in the bishops'
writs of summons, has not been enforced or permitted,
during the whole period, although the words directing
such an assembly are still retained in the writs. At
different times elections have been made of proctors to
serve in Parliament, and the powers of the Convocation
proctors have occasionally been made to include the
parliamentary attendance as well. In the year 1547
the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury

26 ON CONVOCA TION
presented a bill of petition " that it might be assumed
and co-opted into the lower house of Parliament as
had been the custom from old times." r But no notice
seems to have been taken of the proposal ; and if it
had come before the Crown or Parliament, it would
probably have received the answer which appears to
have been given in Ireland to a similar claim, that
although two proctors from each diocese had been used
and accustomed to be summoned and warned to be
present at each Parliament, they "were never by order
of the law, usage, custom or otherwise, any member or
parcel of the whole body of the Parliament, nor have
had of right any voice or suffrage in the same, but only
to be there as counsellors and assistants to the same, and
upon such things of learning as should happen to be in
controversy, to declare their opinions, much like as the
Convocation within the realm of England is commonly
at every Parliament begun and holden by the king's
highness's special licence. " 2 The statement contained
in this answer probably represents the current idea of
the relation of Convocation to Parliament, as well as
of the indistinct or confused relations of the parlia
mentary and provincial assemblies of the clergy.3 It
may be necessary to recur to this point.
3. No claim has ever been made, so far as I am
aware, on the part of the Crown under the Act of
25 Hen. VIII, c. 19 ; 26 Hen. VIII, c. 1, or 1 Eliz., c. 1 ;
or on the part of the Crown and archbishop of Canter-
¦ Wilkins, Cone, iv. 15.
2 Irish Acts, 28 Hen. VIII, e 12 ; Mant, Hist, of the Church of
Ireland, ii. 157.
3 " An Act against Proctors to be any member of the Parliament."
Rot. Pari., cap. 19, Statutes of Ireland, vol. i, p. 102. The Act declares
that such proctors are not member or parcel of the body of the Parlia
ment, shall not give any voice, opinion, assent, or agreement to any
Act, provision, or ordinance ; their voices, assents, agreements, or
opinions are not to be necessary to any such Act ; any such Act shall
be valid without or contrary to their agreement, etc., etc.

ON CONVOCATION 27
bury under the Act of Dispensations, 28 Hen. VIII,
c. 16, to exercise the authority which has been described
as legatine, for the purpose of calling national Church
councils. In theory, and considering the various methods by
which at different times the co-operation of the two
Convocations has been secured, the following modes
of action suggest themselves ; they may be here enume
rated for reference in the brief chronological summary
which is added.
1. Joint sittings of the two Convocations in one
assembly. 2. Direct communication between the two Convoca
tions, each sitting in its proper place of meeting.
3. The adoption by one Convocation of the resolu
tions passed by the other, with or without discussion
and alteration.
4. The participation of the Upper House of the
Convocation of York with the deliberations and acts
of the Convocation of Canterbury.
5. The representation of the Lower House of the
Convocation of York in the proceedings of the Con
vocation of Canterbury, by proxy or deputation.
6. Co-operation by joint committees of the two Con
vocations, with power to treat, referring all conclusions
back to the Convocations for confirmation.
7. Co-operation by delegations or proxies of both
Convocations with full powers to treat and conclude.
8. The coincident treatment of similar points of
deliberation in independent and unconcerted action,
may be added, although strictly-speaking, it can hardly
be called co-operation.
Chronological Summary I. A.D. 1532-1664.
A.D. 1531. The Convocation of Canterbury recog
nises the royal headship and makes its grant, March 22 ;

28 ON CONVOCATION
the Convocation of York does the same on the 4th
of May.1
A.D. 1532. The Convocation of Canterbury passes
the articles of the Submission, May 16. The Convoca
tion of York had made their money grant Feb. 7 ; but
nothing is known of any proceedings there on the
matter of the Submission.2
A.D. 1533. The Convocation of Canterbury votes
and decides on the two questions touching the validity
of the king's marriage, April 5 : that of York does the,
same, May 13.3
A. D. 1534. The Convocation of Canterbury replies
to the royal question on papal authority, March 31 ;
the Convocation of York does the same, May 5-June 2,
after several days' session and mature deliberation.4
A.D. 1536. The Convocation of Canterbury sub
scribes ten articles of faith, July 11 ; and with them
the archbishop of York and the bishop of Durham.
In this case we find two chief members of the Upper
House of York acting with the southern Convocation.5
As there is no extant summons of the York Convoca
tion this year, and as the Chapter of York elected
proctors under the parliamentary writ, it might be
supposed that there was a possible joint action in the
case.6 But on examination it appears that an answer
of the York Convocation to the questions on the ten
articles is extant,7 which from its reference to the
Dispensation Act which became law in July, and its
mention of Michaelmas as still future, must have been
drawn up in the autumn, and proves that the York
Convocation sat at the time.
"The Institution of a Christian Man," issued in 1537
and known as the Convocation Book, is prefaced by
' Wilkins, Cone, iii. 742-45. 2 Ibid., iii. 754, 748.
3 Ibid., iii. 757, 765. * Ibid., iii. 769, 782. s ibid., iii. 822.
*' Atterbury, Rights, etc., Addenda, 82.
» Wilkins, Cone, iii. 812. Strype, Eccl. Mem., i, App. 179.

ON CONVOCATION 29
an address to the king from both the archbishops, and
all other bishops, prelates, and archdeacons of the
realm, signed by the archbishop of York, the bishops
of Durham and Carlisle, and the archdeacons of Rich
mond and Nottingham. As however no Convocation
was held in 1537 the book must be regarded as the out
come of the proceedings of 1536, and possibly of a joint
committee.1 A. D. 1539. The Bill of Six Articles was laid before
the Convocation of Canterbury, June 2 and 5.2 The
Act passed on this Bill declares in the preamble that
the articles had been referred to a "synod and
convocation of all the archbishops, bishops, and other
learned men of the clergy" of the realm.3 The Con
vocation of York had been summoned for the same
day as that of Canterbury, May 2 ; and capitular
proctors had been elected on the 2nd of April for
Convocation and on the 9th for Parliament. The
action, however, of the Convocation of York is
otherwise unknown.4
A.D. 1540. On the 6th of July the king's ministers
laid before the House of Lords certain doubts as to the
validity of his marriage with Anne of Cleves. The
Lords temporal agreed to consult the Commons and,
with a joint committee of the Commons, requested
the king to allow the matter to be determined by
archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons and the
whole clergy of England now convoked to this
Parliament.5 These words literally interpreted must
mean the assembly of the clergy convoked by the
parliamentary writ of the bishops. The king, how
ever, in his reply signified that the cause should be
committed to the Convocations of the two provinces,
• Wilkins, Cone, iii. 830, 831. 2 Ibid., iii. 845.
3 31 Hen, VIII, c. 14. * Wake, State, etc., App. pp. 226, 227.
5 Lords' Journals, July 6.

30 ON CONVOCATION
and letters patent were issued declaring the royal will
that the archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and
whole clergy should be convoked and come together
" in synodum universalem." ' The writ was dated
July 6. On the following day the synod met,2 con
taining, besides the prelates and clergy of the Southern
province, the archbishop of York, the bishops of
Durham and Carlisle, the dean of York, and five
archdeacons of the province, with a large number
of the clergy also. On the 8th the whole body con
sidered the conclusions drawn up by a committee
formed on the previous day, and on the 9th subscribed
the document which contained their answer.
It is, I think, clear from these details that such
a precedent is of no value except as a proof of the
king's belief in his own powers. No real union of
the Convocations was effected ; the time was too short
for even the news of the summons to be sent to York*
where the Convocation had been sitting in 1539 ;
and, although the two provinces were in a fashion
represented in the synod by the clergy who were in
London at the time, it was not in the capacity of
representatives in Convocation, or as properly quali
fied substitutes for such representatives. But, although
this is of no value as a constitutional precedent for
the joint sitting of the Convocations, it is important
as showing that the Crown was supposed to have
the power of summoning, or directing the summons,
or committing questions to the consideration of
a "universal synod" of the clergy.
The Subsidy Act, 32 Hen. VIII, c. 23, refers to
a contingent subsidy from the Convocation of York ;
the Canterbury grant was made on the 14th of April.3
The remaining years of Henry's reign furnish no
¦ Wilkins, Cone, iii. 853 ; Strype, Eocl. Mem., i, App. p. 306.
2 Wilkins, Cone, iii. 851-55. 3 ibid., iii. 850.

ON CONVOCATION 31
illustrations of the action of the York Convocations,
except in the matter of subsidies, in which the example
of the province of Canterbury was proposed and
followed.1 The names of the members of the York
Convocation are given by Wake, State of the Church,
App. p. 242, for the session of 1545-46.
A.D. 1549. Edward VI, in his letter to Bonner
dated July 13, asserts that the Order of Common
Prayer had been approved not only by the Lords and
Commons in Parliament, but also " by the like assent
of the bishops in the said parliament and of all other
the learned men of this our realm in their synods and
convocations oprovincial."2 The records of the two
Convocations afford little in illustration of this
statement ; 3 in 1547, Nov. 22,4 the Lower House of
Canterbury had proposed that the labours of the
bishops and others on the service book should be laid
before them, and in a later session the Communion
in one kind was adopted, but no reports of the
proceedings in the Convocation of York have been
preserved. A.D. 1552-53. The records of the Convocations
throw no light on the proceedings on the forty-two
articles agreed on by the bishops and learned men
"in synodo Londinensi ;"5 or on the revision of
the Book of Common Prayer. They contain mere
notices of summons and prorogations, with occasional
mention of subsidies. It is clear however, from
the letters of the foreign reformers6 of the year,
that discussion was going on in the Convocation of
' Wilkins, Cone, iii. 862, 877.
2 In a similar form in St. 5 and 6 Edw. VI, c. 12, the consent of
"Convocation " to the lawfulness of the marriage of priests is adduced.
This determination was carried in the Lower House of Canterbury,
Dec. 17, 1547, by 53 votes to 22. Wilkins, Cone, iv. 16.
3 Wilkins, Cone iv. 35. * Ibid., iv. 15, 16. s Ibid., iv. 73,
6 Original Letters, second portion, pp. 444, 450, 452.

32 ON CONVOCATION
Canterbury on reforms, and that the archbishop of
York was employed in the transactions ; but it is most
likely that all details were settled by committees
or mixed bodies of lawyers, scholars and divines,
nominated by the king, probably in concert with
the sitting of Covocation which must be meant by the
"synodus Londinensis."
A.D. 1555. The legatine council held by Cardinal
Pole has been noticed already. The records of the
reign of Mary throw no light on the details of
proceedings in the Convocation of York.
A.D. 1563. The XXXIX Articles of Religion having
been approved by the Convocation of Canterbury, in
their sittings Jan. 19-29, were subscribed on that day
by the bishops of the Upper House, and by the arch
bishop of York with the bishops of Durham and
Chester ; and on the 5th of February by the Lower
House, in which, however, no members of the Con
vocation of York are found.1 These Articles were
published in the same year, as agreed on "in synodo
Londinensi,"2 and are described in the schedule in
which they were brought to the Lower House as
transmitted by the archbishop of Canterbury and the
bishops of the Province of Canterbury. But in the
heading of the attestation by the bishops they describe
themselves as " archiepiscopi et episcopi utriusque
provinciae regni Angliae," and yet "in sacra synodo
provinciali legitime con vocati." It is not clear whether
they were submitted formally to the Convocation of
York which sat from Jan. 12, by prorogations during
a great part of the year.3 Nothing is said about
them in the records, but a subscription of the several
members, like that of the Southern Convocation, may
easily have taken place.
1 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 233-238. 2 Artioles, ed. Lamb, p. 20.
3 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 243.

ON CONVOCA TION 33
A.D. 1571. The XXXIX Articles were published
in English as " Articles whereupon it was agreed by
the archbishops and bishops of both the provinces,
and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden at
London " in 1562 : a description which fairly inter
preted may be understood to mean the bishops of
both provinces and the clergy of the Convocation of
Canterbury. The translation was subscribed May 11,
1571, by eleven bishops ofthe Province of Canterbury,
with the heading, "We the archbishops and bishops
of either province of this realm of England, lawfully
gathered together in this provincial synod holden at
London," although no bishop of the Northern pro
vince subscribes. But as in the same Convocation
of Canterbury a code of canons in six sections was
subscribed on the 3rd of April by the archbishop of
Canterbury as proxy for his brother of York, by
the bishop of Worcester as proxy for the bishop of
Durham, and by the bishop of Chester,1 the omission
of the subscriptions to the Articles is probably
accidental. Neither articles nor canons are men
tioned in the jejune records of the York Convocation,
although the grant of the subsidy is duly noted.2
The copy of the Articles of 1571 printed by Cardwell,
from Jugge and Cawood, adds as a 40th Article the
note that they were confirmed by the subscription of
the hands of the archbishop and bishops of the
Upper House, and by the subscription of the whole
clergy of the Nether House in their Convoca
tion.3 A.D. 1597. A body of canons drawn up by the
Convocation of Canterbury in 1584, and printed with
the queen's approbation, was reissued with amend-
1 Articles, ed. Lamb, p. uit. ; Wilkins, Cone, iv. 261.
2 Cardwell, Syn., i. 131 ; Wilkins, Cone, iii. 268, 270.
3 Synod., i. 106. F

34 ON CONVOCATION
ments by the Convocation of 1598, with the royal
confirmation under the Great Seal for the government
of both the provinces.1 In that Convocation on the
25th of January the archbishop produced the royal
licence in letters patent containing the canons and
constitutions, and dated Jan. 18.2 The Convocation
of York had met at the same time with that of Canter
bury, Oct. 25, 1597 ; but records nothing beyond the
subsidy and the prorogations.3 The canons and con
stitutions therefore, although formally enacted by the
Convocation of Canterbury, were confirmed and made
applicable to York by the queen's sovereign authority.
A.D. 1604. The new code of canons and constitu
tions was passed by the Convocation of Canterbury
acting under the royal licence produced on the 13th of
April ; and, having received the royal authority under
the Great Seal, was published to be observed in both
provinces.4 A.D. 1606. The Convocation of York on the 5th of
March received the royal licence to make canons,
dated Feb. 18 ; and on the 19th of March decreed and
ordained that the canons and constitutions passed in
the Convocation and published with the royal authority
for both provinces should be observed in the province
of York.5
A.D. 1640. The book of canons and constitutions of
A.D. 1640 was passed by the Convocation of Canter
bury under powers conferred by the royal licences
received April 17 and May 13, and subscribed on the
29th of May. The Convocation of York received the
licences on the 5th and 29th of May, and read the
canons and constitutions on the 5th of June. They
received the royal confirmation on the 30th of June,
and are then described as having been treated of,
1 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 352. a Synod., ii. 147-61.
3 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 357. * Ibid., iv. 379. s Ibid., iv. 426-28.

ON CONVOCATION 35
concluded, and agreed upon by both the Convo
cations.1 A.D. 1661. The review of the Book of Common
Prayer was referred by the king to the Convocation of
Canterbury by letters received on the 21st of Novem
ber. On the 20th of December the Book so reviewed
was subscribed by both Houses and by the proxies of
the Convocation of York.2 The Convocation of York
had on the 30th of November received a royal letter
dated Nov. 22, authorising them to review the Book ;
and therewith a letter from the archbishop and bishops
of the province, dated Nov. 23, and requesting the
Lower House to give a proxy on their behalf to the
deans of S. Paul's and Westminster with others, to
give their consent to the proceedings of the Convoca
tion of Canterbury.3 This was done on the 30th, and
letters of proxy were given to the deans of S. Paul's,
Westminster, Ely, and Chester, the archdeacon of
Leicester, Dr. Smallwood proctor of the clergy of
Chester and Richmond, Andrew Sandiland proctor
of the East Riding, and Humfrey Floyd proctor for the
chapter of York, who subscribed the revised Book on
behalf of the Lower House of the Convocation of
York. During the session of the Convocation of Canterbury
the archbishop of York, and the bishops of Durham,
Carlisle, and Chester, had sat with the Upper House
on several occasions, as June 21, July 3, Dec. 5,
Dec. 19 ; and on the 13th of December the Convoca
tion of York sent up a series of six articles or proposi
tions4 drawn up by Dr. Samwaies proctor for the
clergy of Chester and Richmond to the archbishop and
1 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 538-44, 553 ; Cardwell, Synod., i. 380-415.
* Wilkins, Cone, iv. 566.
3 Ibid., iv. 567-69 ; Wake, State, App., pp. 238-41.
4 Cardwell, Synod., ii. 646, 648, 655, 659.

36 ON CONVOCATION
bishops resident in London, to be communicated if
they thought fit to the Convocation of Canter
bury.1 Chronological Summary, II. A.D. 1664-1717.
From the date at which the clergy ceased to make
their own grants in Convocation, the records of the
York Convocation contain nothing but the dates of
meetings, prorogations, and dissolutions ; and we have
no present means of ascertaining whether the proceed
ings of the Canterbury Convocation, in the more
important years of William III and Anne, were
accompanied by any corresponding action in the
North. Of joint action there is no trace. And in fact
the only forthcoming evidence as to the vitality of the
York Convocation seems to be the fact that in the year
1704, on the occasion of the presentation of an address
to the Queen, expressing the gratitude of the Convoca
tions for her promise of the Bounty, archbishop Sharp
of York not only presented the address of the Con
vocation of Canterbury, as deputy for the archbishop,
on the 15th of February, but also presented an address
of his own Convocation on the last day of the same
month. Archbishop Sharp was active as mediator
between the conflicting parties in the Canterbury Con
vocation in 1703 2 and had a considerable share in
arranging the business of the sessions of 1710 and the
following years,3 a fact which makes the apparent
lethargy of his own synod more remarkable. It is
needless to add that the York Convocation, although
it does not seem to have shared in the offence given by
Canterbury, shared the punishment of suspension and
practical suppression until its revival in the present
reign. 1 Wilkins, Cone, iv. 569. 2 Life of Abp. Sharp, i. 344-46.
a Ibid., 351.

ON CONVOCA TION 37
Chronological Summary, III. AD. 1717-1887.
Under this head it is impossible to state more than
the following well-known facts : —
1. The employment of joint committees of the two
Convocations has been found very useful since the
revival of Convocation, but has not received any such
formal and constitutional recognition as would make it
a distinct step in the process of canonical legislation.
2. The instances in which the Crown by letters of
business and licence to make canons has recognised
the position of the Convocations, under the conditions
arising from the Submission of the Clergy, during the
present reign, contemplate the existence of the two
Convocations as independent bodies, without any
obligation of co-operation, or necessity of unanimous
opinion. 3. The proposals of the archbishop of York, for the
co-operation of the two Convocations, by formal dele
gations, would have the effect of giving a distinct and
constitutional character to the proceedings now carried
on by joint committees : but this expedient would not
bind the two Convocations together in such a way that
the conclusions, or the process by which the conclu
sions were arrived at, could be regarded as a solid act
ofthe whole representative body of the Church. Here,
however, I am speculating on a speculation, in a way
which properly belongs to the concluding section of this
memorandum. Before proceeding to the very brief generalisations
and conclusions which can be drawn from the foregoing
details, I will call your Grace's attention to the amount
of illustration which the History of the Irish Church
affords to the subject before us, both as regards the
powers of the Crown to deal with the Church for the
purpose of a National Synod, and as to the expedients

38 ON CONVOCATION
for the exercise of such powers, which were used on
critical occasions.
The Irish Church was divided into four provinces,
each under its own metropolitan ; the primacy, after
having been long in dispute between Armagh and
Dublin, being finally assigned to the former. Before
the Reformation each of these provinces had its own
synod, and except under the occasional summons of a
papal legate, into which there is no reason now to look
for details, nothing like a general synod was prac
ticable. On the English model, however, the writs of
summons to the Irish Parliaments, which were directed
to the bishops, contained the Praemunientes clause,
and might be construed as a warrant for the assembling
of the whole body of clergy, irrespective of their
provincial organisation, for financial and other pur
poses in connection with the Parliament.
No attempt at constituting a Convocation of the four
provinces seems to have been made before the year
1613 ; and for information respecting that assembly and
the later Convocations I must content myself with the
following notes of the Bishop of Down and Connor,
who has kindly furnished me with information.
"The Irish Convocation met May 24, 1613, con
currently with Parliament. Four Provincial writs
were issued to the four archbishops, who with their
suffragans respectively, and with their Lower House
of clergy respectively, met and sat conjointly in one
House, and except in the matter of subsidy, wherein
each province had a several levy and payment, delibe
rated in one assembly." ' Unfortunately the writs are
not preserved, but the facts are clear from the words
of the return made by Archbishop Hampton on the
28th of April, 1615 : " Praelati et clerus nostrae Arma-
chanae provinciae una cum aliarum hujusce ecclesiae
1 See also the Irish Canons in Wilkins, Cone, iv. 447 sq.

ON CONVOCATION 39
Hibernicae respective provinciarum praelatis et cleris
in sacra sinodo generali sive Convocatione vigore et
authoritate brevis vestri regii nobis directi in ecclesia
Cathedrali ut vocatur divi Patricii Dublinensi, die
xxivto mensis Maii .... inchoata," etc.
" Parliament was dissolved 24 Oct. 1615, and was not
reassembled until July 14, 1634. On May 24, 1634,
writs were issued to the four archbishops requiring
them to cause respectively their suffragans, deans of
cathedral churches, and the whole clergy of their
provinces to appear before them in the cathedral
church of S. Patrick of Dublin, or elsewhere as may
seem fit to them, on the 21st of July, i.e. seven days
after the meeting of Parliament.1
" Parliament again met May 8, 1661. The provincial
writs for the Convocation had been issued to the four
archbishops on March 26, and the body assembled in
S. Patrick's Cathedral, Friday, May 10.
"Soon after the accession of Queen Anne, the
[parliamentary] writs [of the bishops] were about to
be issued, omitting the Praemunientes clause ; but
some of the bishops wrote to the Duke of Ormond
and succeeded in procuring its insertion. [The pro
vincial writs having apparently been forgotten.] Upon
this the elections took place, and a number of clergy
men met in Dublin, Sept. 21, 1703. But it was found
that they were incapable of incorporation or discussion.
So the bishops on the 7th of October applied for the
provincial writs as on previous occasions, which were
at length granted, and the clergy, 159 in number, met
at S. Patrick's Cathedral, Jan. 11, 1704, as the Lower
House of Convocation or National Synod." 2 The
' See Wilkins, Cone, iv. 496-98.
2 Mant, Hist, of Irish Church, ii. 160. Wilkins, Cone, iv. 632, 633.
Ware's Ireland (ed. 1705), pp. 164 sq. [A dean, capitular proctor,
archdeacon, and two proctors from each distinct diocese. 1

40 ON CONVOCATION
queen's letter to the Irish archbishops corresponds
exactly with those issued to the English Metropolitans
mutatis mutandis, except in so far as all are to cite their
clergy to S. Patrick's. The precedent was followed
in 1869.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these
details is that the lawyers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries saw nothing unconstitutional in
a royal writ directing the assembling of four provincial
synods in one place. It may, however, be objected
that such an assembly was not the junction of four
independent and separate Convocations.
I have now to refer the more important cases of
precedent, contained in the preceding summary, to
their places in the list of alternative methods of joint
action drafted above : —
1. There are no cases of complete joint session of
English Convocations : the case of 1540 is not in point.
But the case of the National Synod of Ireland furnishes
a valuable example.
2. There has been apparently direct and formal com
munication between the two coincident Convocations
as in the action of the year 1661 ; but the most frequent
cases of such communication are found in the trans
action of subsidy business with which I have not
thought it necessary to deal.
3. Cases in which one Convocation has adopted the
resolutions of the other will be found under the years
1531, 1533, 1606.
4. Cases in which the members of the Upper House
of York have sat and transacted business in the Con
vocation of Canterbury will be found in 1536, 1563,
1571, and 1661. These might be multiplied probably to
a very large extent ; as, the Convocations of modern
times being generally called coincidently with the
Parliaments, the Northern bishops were usually

ON CONVOCATION 41
present in London, and the Convocation of York
was managed by the archbishop's commissaries.
5. The case of proxy or deputation from the Lower
House of York to the Lower House of Canterbury is
unique, that of 1661.
6. The examples of co-operation by joint committees
are of modern use, and detail on them is unnecessary.
7. Co-operation by delegations with full powers has
not been tried.
8. Coincident treatment of similar points in indepen
dent debate may be illustrated by the proceedings of
1534, on the canons of 1640, and on the revision
of 1661.
The expedient of queen Elizabeth's reign, by which
canons were debated and passed in the Convocation of
Canterbury, and then by royal power published for
both Provinces, is a case of supersession of the need of
joint action.
I very much fear that your Grace will consider this
a very small residuum of practical knowledge : it
contains, I think, nothing new ; and such use as it may
have can only be to dispel illusions.
My own conclusion must be very succinct indeed : —
1. I am unable to see that the two archbishops,
singly or conjointly, can by their ordinary power either
assemble the two Convocations in a National Synod, or
bring them together for a joint sitting, or assemble any
bodies of the same constitution and character, in con
sistency with the Submission of the Clergy and the
Act of 25 Henry VIII, c. 19. I believe that there is
no precedent for the exercise of such power, and
cannot believe that the conclusions of such an assembly,
if brought together, would carry more legal weight
than those of the Central Council of Diocesan Con
ferences. 2. I am inclined to believe that the Crown has the
G

42 ON CONVOCATION
power to issue letters of request, or commandment of
writ, to the two archbishops, authorising the assembly
of the synods of the two Provinces in one place, as was
done in the case of the Irish Convocations, and as
Henry VIII assumed to do in 1540 ; and I believe that
the collection of such a synod would be a just fulfilment
of the 139th canon. I also think that this might be done
without parliamentary authority, although I am not
sure that any minister of the Crown would authorise
the issue of such writs in the face of any considerable
opposition. I believe further that no legal defect
would arise from the fact that the summons of the
archbishop of York might cite his Convocation to
London, or that of the archbishop of Canterbury
might cite his Convocation to York ; notwithstanding
the arguments which might arise on the precedent of
objection made by the clergy of York to the parlia
mentary summons of 1327, or the proceedings of
Cardinal Wolsey in 1523 ; or on the idea of the illegality
of extra-provincial summons in general. But I do not
think that the Irish precedent, or any incidental illustra
tion hitherto adduced, would warrant joint sittings of
the two Convocations duly summoned to York and to
S. Paul's, unless some provision to that effect were
made in the writ by which the Convocations were
summoned in the first place : I think that the joint
sitting would require a writ of its own.
I am afraid that your Grace may regard this as
a lame and impotent conclusion ; but I cannot venture
to enter upon the more recondite legal and political
aspects of the question, and must beg you to believe me,
Your faithful and attached friend,
W. CESTR.
Chester, May 6, 1887.

Reform of Convocation
A Speech in the Upper House of the Con
vocation of the Southern Province
[This speech was deUvered after application had been made to the Crown
for licence to prepare a canon dealing with the reform of Convocation, and
the Crown had given no answer — the customary manner of expressing
a refusal.] ... I do not like to appear here or outside as an
opponent of the free development of Convocational
action, or as a subservient Erastian, setting the peaceful
relation of Church and State as the summum bonum of
ecclesiastical life. It is not so with me at all ; for the
last fifty years I have been actively interested in the
revival and working of Convocations. Since I took my
degree in 1848 I have, I think, belonged to most of the
societies formed for securing this. I remember well in
1850, when the Papal aggression roused us to show so
much more zeal than discretion, the need of a Con
vocation to speak the mind of the Church of England
was imperatively forced upon us. I had a part in the
election of proctors from 1851, as long as I remained a
parish priest ; and when I was called to work in another
field the matter, in its historical as well as in its prac
tical bearings, was kept constantly before me in relation
to national history. So, if you do not agree with me,
you must give me credit for approaching you not with
out a sympathy which, although limited, I may presume
to call intelligent. 43

44 ON CONVOCA TION
You have had, my lords, before you in the reports of
committees, in the opinion of the law officers, and in
debates in both Houses of Convocation, a quantity
of illustrative materials, dates, documents, theories
and dogmas, inferences and assumptions, which are a
little bewildering, on the history of Convocation. You
are as well aware as I am of the varied views of the
Convocation itself which are entertained in the political
and ecclesiastical field of party — from the high view of
spiritual authority and liberty, loved as an outwork
of the Faith, or hated as a windmill of Sacerdotalism,
down to the contemptuous regard of those who have
so long looked on us from the point of atavistic
Whiggery, as a nest of restless insects to be settled by
a handful of dust or sand (I do not remember our dear
Hal lam's courteous term).1
In what I am going to say, I shall ask you not to try
to recall a good deal that you have read, and to forget
a good deal of what you know, that seems to me to be
irrelevant to the issue before us. A very few dates
and a very few principles are enough to determine us
on the historical bearing of the questions — and possibly
two or three experimental considerations may enable
us to see our way to make a good use of our existing
position rather than to risk, by attempting too much,
the loss of what we have an historical or political right
to claim or to look forward to. You will not expect
me, in looking at the historical point, to attempt a
statement of the possible conditions of ecclesiastical
liberty. I merely mention the point now because it
has to be guarded. The spiritual liberty of the Church,
[ ' The reference is to the account of the Bangorian controversy and
the suppression of Convocation in Hallam's Constitutional History, chap.
xvi. " In the ferment of that age, it was expedient for the state to
scatter a little dust over the angry insects ; the convocation was
accordingly prorogued in 1717, and has never again sat for any
business." New edn., 1876 ; vol. iii, p. 247. W. H. H.[

ON CONVOCATION 45
and of every religious community in all lands, must be
understood to be conditioned, as to its existence and
exercise, by certain temporal relations. All history
proves this ; if there be a possibility of perfect spiritual
freedom, that is of entire spiritual independence, it is
a possibility of the future. Neither for effective legis
lation, nor for effectual exercise of jurisdiction, can the
Church, in the existing circumstances of humanity,
dispense with the ultima ratio — the physical enforce
ment of law or sentence, canon or censure without
the aid of the secular arm.
A legislative or judicial body may be absolutely and
purely spiritual, owing every particle of its essence to
the ordinance of Apostles, canons, constitutions, or the
Bible direct ; but if it is to get beyond the forum
conscientiae it must have the aid of the temporal law ;
and, indeed, a recognition by the temporal law is a
necessary condition for its existence in society. So,
unnecessary as it is to say this, I will dismiss it, adding
that in what has been done and is done in this case
there is no infringement of any conceivably practical
ideal of ecclesiastical freedom. With whatever body
of Christians we compare ourselves, we must see that
no religious organisation throughout the world can
claim absolute independence of the need of recognition
and practical help from the source which, in the sense
that I am using, is non-spiritual. The powers that be
are ordained of God, and, even if they were not, the
work could not be done without them. The difference
between State Churches and Free Churches, as they
are called, lies only in the more or less intimate
character of the connexion, and in the historical
development of the mutual obligation.
But now as to the particular example. The Crown,
through its officers, declines apparently to assist in the
passing of a canon to reform the constitution of the

46 ON CONVOCATION
Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury,
which subsists, as it has subsisted, with only incidental
modifications of persons and office, since the reign of
Edward I. Here is the crucial question : One party
says, ' ' This should be done by canon ; " the other says,
"This cannot be done without the action of or refer
ence to Parliament." First, then, why must it be done
only by canon ? Second, why should it not be done
without reference to Parliament ? One main argument
for doing it by canon arises from the understanding
that it was by canon that the present existing system
was established. Now, it may be very desirable that
such things should be done by canon, or canonically ;
but I think that it may be proved that the present
system was not so established, and need not be so
altered. It is to me at least clear from documentary
evidence that the form of proceeding is based on an
arrangement made by the archbishop of Canterbury
in an assembly, or congregatio, held at Northampton on
the octave of S. Hilary, 1283 ; a congregatio which,
whatever else might be said of it, could not be said to
be competent to make a canon, because it was sum
moned peremptorily by the king, also because the
necessity for imposing the rule was owing to the
absence of the persons or their representatives, who
certainly might have been expected to be necessary to
a canon-making congregatio. The assembly was, in fact,
one of those exceptional gatherings which Edward I
tried experimentally when he was hard set for money,
and found it hard to get the clergy to contribute from
their spiritual revenue. He called towards the close
of 1282 two ffMasi-Parliaments or assemblies of the
estates — one at York, the other at Northampton ; the
money question was put before the clergy present,
who did not number among them parochial proctors,
or indeed, I think, archdeacons either ; but I am not

ON CONVOCA TION 47
quite sure about that ; and they refused to answer for
their absent brethren. In consequence, the archbishop,
apparently by his ordinary authority as usual, issued
his writ for three weeks after Easter, when, after
discussion in diocesan assemblies, the clergy were to
elect two proctors from each diocese, Sicut in dicta
congregatione provisum fuerat. The importance of the
words must not be overrated ; but it seems decisive, as
it furnishes the form which has been followed in this
province ever since, being sometimes, I grant, called
and treated as a canon.
It is otherwise in the Northern Province, which
never claimed to have such a provision by statute
or canon, but maintained, by the following of more
ancient precedent, and by acceptance of the common
law right of the archbishop, to summon his clergy
in his own way, a practice which seems historically
established a few years before this provision at
Northampton. It must not be understood that this
prescription, or enactment — if it could be called an
enactment — was the introduction of a new principle.
The custom of dual representation of communities by
elected proctors was very ancient in both Church and
State, and is traced, I believe, in most countries of old
civilisation, from the very first appearance of record.
But this provision was the point at which our practice
became stereotyped or crystallised, as people say ; and
this is the formal side that the advocates of change
think requires alteration. We are all aware that the
defining influences that operated on the Convocation
at the time were working also in the direction of
parliamentary development. This prescription of
Northampton is just twelve years older than the great
writ of Edward for the normal or model Parliament
of 1295, on which all subsequent Parliaments were
based down to the year 1832, and which took its

48 ON CONVOCA TION
motive in the maxim of the civil law, Quod omnes
tangit ab omnibus approbetur. The resolutions and votes
which had, up to this time, been taken, as one might
say, by hook or by crook, by g^aw'-Parliaments,
councils, county gatherings, diocesan synods, Exche
quer visitations, and inquests, by special agents and
pressure of royal claims on temporalities and spiritu
alities alike, were from this time set ostensibly, at
least, on a rational and intelligible constitutional basis.
I have not said anything in this short but tedious
statement about the attempt which the king made,
and which was not given up by his successors for
some fifty years, to get the clergy to make their grants
in Parliament, by summoning them, through the
Praemunientes clause in the parliamentary writs of the
bishops. It is possible that some of your lordships
have untied the blue ribbon of your writs at the
opening of a new Parliament, and seen that you are
still enjoined to bring up your deans, archdeacons,
and representative clergy — not to S. Paul's or to York,
as the Convocation writs run, but to Westminster.
The clergy had their chance then of being a working
estate of Parliament, and a balancing chance of gaining
more freedom of spiritual legislation when the Con
vocations were relieved from their financial business.
But they would not obey the " premunition," and we
are having the advantage or disadvantage of their
non-compliance ; they might have held out in Parlia
ment against imposts, in consideration of which they
got no privilege. But the battle, if it was a battle,
was not fought out so. This consideration, which
I would willingly have omitted, if I could, does very
wearisomely embarrass the ordinary discussions on
this question. I think that you will find it discussed
by most of the law officers of the Crown. It turns
up incidentally at the Reformation, but otherwise is

ON CONVOCATION 49
irrelevant, interesting only in the line of fossil. If,
my lords, you interpret these two or three incidents
as I do, you must, I think, concede that there can be
no irrefragable argument in the history for proceeding
by canon in the reform of principle which was not
established by canon. Independently of the historical
argument, canon may be the best way of doing what
is wanted.
Just one word on the wider consideration. We
must remember that we are dealing with practical
life and history. We must remember that the English
Convocation is not an ideal institution, but the result
of a growth which has many parallels in ecclesiastical
theory and in the practice of foreign Churches, but
with a history of its own. We must recognise that
its form has been moulded, and its existence and
action have continued to exist, been tolerated, sus
pended and restored, intermitted and renewed by
the working of the secular influence, of which I spoke
before ; and that with all its rights, indefeasible as
I deem them, to spiritual liberty of action — and not
withstanding its occasional exercise of those rights
as in the age of Wycliffe, of the great schism, of the
Reformation, of the Restoration, on the subject of
the canons, and on the Liturgy — far the greatest part
of the work of the Lower House was concerned with
the money votes and questions of revenue rather
than with what we understand as properly spiritual
concerns. Since the practical surrender of the right
of voting subsidies, at the beginning of the reign of
Charles II, and only since then, has the spiritual
work been the exclusive or the chief occupation
of the Lower House. On this view I think some
consideration might fairly be claimed.
But I confess that whilst we might by permission
of the archbishop proceed by canon in the matter,

50 ON CONVOCATION
there is no reason whatever for regarding it as
essential. The other contention on which we presume
that the refusal of the licence is grounded — namely,
that the consent of Parliament is necessary — may
be more easily disposed of without going into the
arguments of the law officers of the Crown, with
some of which we might agree and with others of
which we might not agree. It is, of course, historically
true that the Parliament has exercised no direct
authority over the Convocations ; it has, in fact, said
extremely little about them ; and, as the existing
constitution of Convocation is, as we have seen, some
twelve years older than that of Parliament, the latter
cannot have created the former. But the law of the
land, in reference to which Parliament is supreme,
does enforce the law of the Church within certain
limits and with certain conditions ; and the Con
vocation has its relation very distinctly to the law of
the Church, so far, at least, as the making of canons
is concerned. Now it stands to reason that if the
legislative action and consequent judicial procedure,
or such small remains of canonical action as we retain
under the wide reforms of all law that have been going
on during the last sixty years, are still to be worked
by canons and courts, the body that issues canons and
works through courts must have a recognition from
the body that by law, or by supreme control over
the executive, has the responsibility of enforcing
decisions legally and canonically arrived at.
A reformed Convocation must be recognised by
Parliament, whether it is founded on canon or any
thing else, as identical with the historic prescriptive
body which for six centuries the nation, through Par
liament, has treated as possessing, within varying
limitations, certain powers which the law, over which
the Crown and the three estates exercise supreme

ON CONVOCATION 51
control, engages or continues to enforce. So I think
on general grounds a parliamentary recognition of any
serious modification such as proposed is absolutely
necessary. How can it be done? How can it be
attempted? Well, it can be done by a short declara
tory Act recognising in the reformed Convocation —
reformed by the authority of the archbishop, under
conditions which might be defined by canon or other
wise — the authority which is recognised in the exist
ing body of Convocation. Very little, indeed, that
authority comes to, for very little notice has the
Commons House, at least, taken of its elder sister ;
but such as it is, it is what would have to be recog
nised. How is it to be attempted? Well, that is
quite a different thing ; and it is the concern of those
who are prepared to face intelligent and unintelligent
prejudice, and determined hostility and captious criti
cism, and suspicious support, and most unhelpful offers
of co-operation, in an area where time for legislation is
limited, and competition of matters and speakers is
very lively, and patience taxed to very little purpose.
I am inclined to let well alone, and make the best of
it. And why should not we ? Why should not the
deans, archdeacons, and capitular and parochial proc
tors be regarded as sufficiently representative for all
purposes? Surely the deans, as a rule, represent a
good deal of ecclesiastical learning and authority, as
well as a side of Church polity on which the State is
popularly supposed to have a special interest and
influence ; the capitular proctors, some twenty men of
experience, mature age, and knowledge of the world,
as well as of the Church, gained chiefly in parochial
work in the past ; the archdeacons, who add to those
qualifications the traditions and experiences of the
several administrations of successive bishops who have
appointed them — here is every element, humanly

52 ON CONVOCATION
speaking, of competency and discretion. And if the
half-hundred diocesan proctors supply a fair represen
tation of younger and, perhaps, more transient opinion,
two for each diocese would be as effective as half a
dozen ; they do supply much more, I know, but I
merely put them in this way as a contributory element.
Well, I honestly believe that we have thus as good a
House as we should ever get : and the representative
element being estimated at its proper value, theoretic
or experimental, I am prepared to acquiesce, with
complacency, in the decision of the ministers.
In conclusion, as this decision on the part of the
Crown blocks the matter for the present, might we not
agree to try to make the best of the situation ? That
certain reforms might be made in particular dioceses
by the ordinary authority of the diocesans is, I think,
quite possible. The election of diocesan proctors is by
no means stereotyped into one form for which irre
fragable custom should be pleaded. It is not desirable
that it should, but the existing laxity and variety of
rule makes it possible to try to remove real abuses.
At all events, something could be done to obviate
reasonable complaints such as occasionally reach us.
Then, more generally, I think that it would be as well
to avoid concessions, which cannot be withdrawn,
about the representative theory of the Lower House ;
its representative function, construed literally and
historically, was based, as I have tried to show, on a
state of things which has long passed away — the repre
sentation of taxation. The representative character,
as we accept it now, is based on the elective votes of
men who think their elected proctors to be the fittest
men for the position ; they are not merely delegates
with power of attorney to agree to certain grants, but
senators in whom discretion, learning, piety, and zeal
are far more important than the mere support of local

ON CONVOCATION 53
votes, indispensable as they may be — the best men for
the position. The constitution of the Church— with due
submission to the spirit of the age — and certainly the
constitution of Convocation, is not democratic. Will
not the clergy show a sufficient solidarity to prove
themselves at least superior to jealousies which are
more contemptible by far than political and parlia
mentary jealousies ?
And then cannot we, regarding this as settled for the
time, do something to show that we are taking pains
with what we have undisputed right and power to do,
and so approach the great maxim of the spiritual life —
to him that hath shall more be given : our fathers were
very near realising the loss of that which they seemed
to have ? And finally, at least, cannot we by ourselves,
and in conjunction with those who in this matter
acquiesce, as we do, do something to prove how
irrational is the cry, and how certain to be used
against us by those who oppose us on all sorts of
fundamental grounds, that we can do no good, and are
not worthy of practical, much less respectful, con
sideration, because we cannot secure one particular
and peculiar instalment of reform, in the direction of
an ideal system which may not work as well as the old
one has done ? We have examples : we have also
warnings.

Printed by A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd.
London and Oxford

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 9369