The Convocations of Canterbury and York – the ancient provincial assemblies of the Church of England – are formed of bishops and ‘inferior’ clergy. They were historically permitted to legislate of their own volition on Church matters and to agree the amount of tax payable by the clergy to the Crown. Their powers were drastically curtailed by the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 and by the early eighteenth century they had fallen into desuetude. Attempts at revival have proved of mixed value and, since the passing of the Synodical Government Measure 1969, the two bodies tend only to meet as constituent parts of the General Synod, being joined by a separate House of Laity.Footnote 1 The 1997 report of the Synod's ‘Bridge Commission’ – Synodical Government in the Church of England: a review – concluded that ‘the Convocations no longer perform a necessary or useful legislative function and … should cease to exist’.Footnote 2 This recommended death sentence was subsequently commuted: the convocations were retained and have survived largely intact ever since. Most recently, the convocations have been responsible for the publication in 2015 of a revised and updated version of Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy, subsequently declared an Act of Convocation by both convocations. However, questions about the legal functions and efficacy of the convocations remain.
HISTORY
Since the earliest days of Christianity and formalised episcopal leadership, bishops were able to summon together the clergy of their diocese ‘and in a common synod or council with them to transact such affairs as specially related to the order and government of the churches under [their] jurisdiction’.Footnote 3 Similarly, after the division of the Church in England into the provinces of Canterbury and York in 735,Footnote 4 each archbishop ‘called together first the bishops, afterwards the other prelates, of their provinces; and by degrees added to these such of their inferior clergy, as they thought needful’.Footnote 5 This was no democratic exercise, nor an attempt at representing the inferior clergy, but rather a pragmatic and almost grudging example of patronage. It was to prove vitally significant, as it established the division of the councils into upper and lower houses – a distinction still extant in today's convocations, and central to their operation.
By the early fourteenth century the provincial councils had become formalised into what are now known as the Convocations of Canterbury and York.Footnote 6 Initially these assemblies met only to transact ‘spiritual’ businessFootnote 7 related to doctrine, faith and liturgy; but from 1283 they were also tasked with voting subsidies to the Crown, the clergy being a separate estate of the realm and so outwith the secular taxation regime.Footnote 8
Until the Reformation the convocations held supreme legislative authority in matters ecclesiastical, legislating in the form of Canons, without reference to any other power or authority. The Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 subordinated legislative sovereignty to the Crown, preventing any Canon from being made that was ‘contraryaunt or repugnant to the Kynges prerogatyve Royall or the customes lawes or statutes of this Realme’.Footnote 9 Consequently Parliament became supreme legislator for all Church-related matters, its statutes eclipsing the Canons in the legislative hierarchy. The 1533 Act did not abolish the convocations, however, but instead prevented them from meeting without the Sovereign's permission: ‘theire convocacions … alway shalbe assembled by auctorytie of the Kynges wrytte’.Footnote 10 These provisions are still in force today.
The convocations did not meet from 1640 until the Restoration, it having been held ‘by the parliamentary party that the continuance of the convocation beyond that date was illegal’.Footnote 11 The first convocation called after the Interregnum met in 1661 to approve the revised Book of Common Prayer,Footnote 12 and in 1663 granted a final subsidy to the Crown.Footnote 13 In 1664
by a private agreement between Sheldon archbishop and the lord chancellor Clarendon and other [of] the king's ministers, it was concluded, that the clergy should silently wa[i]ve the privilege of taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money bills prepared by the commons.Footnote 14
It appears that this waiver was in exchange for the right to vote in elections.Footnote 15
The convocations were prohibited from meeting between 1690 and 1701, despite the attempts of campaigners such as Dr Francis Atterbury (later Bishop of Rochester), who questioned the interpretation of the wording of the 1533 Act and contended that ‘the Doctrine of the Clergy's Inability to enter on any Synodical Debates whatsoever, without a Royal Commission, was as utterly Unknown as it is still Untrue and Groundless’.Footnote 16
During Queen Anne's reign, tensions between the lower and upper houses in the Convocation of Canterbury reached an impasse: the lower house
refused to join with the Bishops in an address to the Crown, claiming the right to send an address of their own. The primate informed them that they were not constitutionally a separate House; they were the Council of the Bishops, to give advice when advice was sought.Footnote 17
Nor did the convocations meet to transact business between 1717 and 1852,Footnote 18 owing to ‘an arbitrary act of George I, because the clergy were suspected of Jacobite sympathies’.Footnote 19 While this was ‘scandalous, and … harmful’, it was also symptomatic of a sense of ennui within the Church.Footnote 20
Owing to Parliament's lack of ‘leisure, fitness or inclination’ to pass laws on ecclesiastical matters,Footnote 21 the convocations petitioned the Crown in 1919, seeking, ‘subject to the control and authority of Your Majesty and of the two Houses of Parliament, powers in regard to legislation touching matters concerning the Church of England’.Footnote 22 The Church was subsequently empowered to legislate by Measure – a form of statute – for itself by the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, which established the Church Assembly – composed of a house of bishops (consisting of the upper houses of the two convocations), a house of clergy (consisting of the lower houses), and a house of laity – as the Church's representative assembly.Footnote 23 While this permitted the convocations and the House of Laity to work together on drafting Measures, the making of Canons remained the sole legal responsibility of the convocations. The long and complex revision of the Church's Canons from 1947 to 1969 therefore involved the convocations proposing amendments, the drafts being sent to the House of Laity for comment, reconsidered by the convocations and submitted to the House of Laity again, before finally being approved by the convocations.Footnote 24
The Synodical Government Measure 1969 vested the power of the convocations to legislate by Canon in a new body – the General Synod – which was the Church Assembly reformed and renamed. From the Measure's coming into force in 1970, the laity were permitted to play an equal role to the clergy in the consideration and making of Canons.
COMPOSITION
While it often said that individuals are ‘elected to General Synod’, this is not always strictly the case. Clergy are elected (either directly or specially) as ‘proctors’ to their convocations,Footnote 25 which together constitute the House of Clergy of the Synod; only members of the House of Laity are elected directly to membership of the Synod. While the convocations have become (by virtue of the Synodical Government Measure 1969) a constituent part of the General Synod, they maintain a distinct character and identity.
Before 1966, the convocations were summoned and dissolved at the same time as Parliament. The Church of England Convocations Act 1966 broke this link and permitted the convocations to be called together and dissolved ‘at such times as Her Majesty may determine, without regard to the time at which Parliament is summoned or dissolved’.Footnote 26 As with Parliament today, the term of the convocations is fixed at five years, unless dissolved sooner at Her Majesty's direction.Footnote 27 Consequently, the General Synod ‘shall, on the dissolution of the Convocations, itself be dissolved, and shall come into being on the calling together of the new Convocations’.Footnote 28
The convocations are summoned by a writ from Her Majesty, addressed to the relevant archbishop, commanding them to ‘call together a new Convocation of your Province’.Footnote 29 While addressed to the archbishop and couched in terms of the convocations, in practice the writ begins the process of assembling the General Synod. However, the convocations ‘may continue to meet separately, within the province or elsewhere at such places and times as they may determine, for the purpose of considering matters concerning the Church of England’.Footnote 30
Diocesan bishops (including the two archbishops) sit ex officio in the upper houses of their convocations,Footnote 31 as does the Bishop of Dover.Footnote 32 A similar provision exists for the Bishop to the Forces,Footnote 33 who exercises ‘pastoral supervision’ over armed forces chaplains on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury.Footnote 34 Elections are held for a specified number of suffragan bishops from each province (who join the upper house of the relevant convocation and, therefore, the House of Bishops of the General Synod) and also for ‘proctors’, who are elected by and from the licensed clergy of each diocese.Footnote 35
Currently five suffragan bishops are elected from the Province of Canterbury and four from the Province of York, increased from four and three respectively in 2014. The rationale for these increases was distinct. That in the Convocation of Canterbury was intended ‘to provide a fairer level of representation for the suffragans in the province and, indeed, of suffragan and assistant bishops more generally (who were not well-represented in the Synod)’.Footnote 36 At the time of the amendment there were four elected places for 47 suffragan bishops from the Province of Canterbury, and three places for the 16 suffragans from the Province of York, meaning twice as many voters were needed to elect one suffragan bishop in the Province of Canterbury than in the Province of York. The increase in the Province of York was as a response to ‘the loss of two diocesan bishops in the West Yorkshire Reorganisation Scheme’, which replaced the Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield with a new Diocese of Leeds.Footnote 37
It could be argued that increasing the number of elected suffragans in the Province of York diluted the benefit to the Province of Canterbury: while its suffragans were undeniably better represented as a result of the changes, comparatively and proportionally they were worse off. However, despite the dissolution of all three dioceses and the loss of two diocesan bishops, the Reorganisation Scheme created two new suffragan sees – of Bradford and HuddersfieldFootnote 38 – by the time that the amendments to the Convocations (Elections to Upper House) Rules were made. A further suffragan see – RichmondFootnote 39 – was revived in the diocese in 2015 after nearly a century in abeyance, so the ratios are now proportionally fairer on the Province of Canterbury than previously. The elected suffragan/assistant bishops represent the interests of their fellow suffragans in the councils of the Church, but also bring a distinctive voice. In addition, they help to ensure that the Province of York is appropriately represented in the upper house.
The total number of proctors to be elected to convocation is capped: the Province of Canterbury may currently elect up to 133, and the Province of York up to 58.Footnote 40 Before a quinquennial election, each diocese is assigned a number of seats – being a proportion of the total permitted for each province – to be filled by elected proctors, according to the number of clergy eligible to vote within that diocese.Footnote 41 Discounting the 4 ‘specially elected’ proctors for the Province of Canterbury and 2 for the Province of York (who will be considered shortly), the figures are 129 for Canterbury and 56 for York, representing a 70:30 split.
Before the 2015 quinquennial elections the actual ratio – based on the number of clergy electors in diocesesFootnote 42 – was nearer 72:28.Footnote 43 There is therefore an artificial bias to the Province of York. This is not a new phenomenon: Burn commented in 1797 that, while dioceses in the Province of Canterbury each sent two proctors to Convocation at that time, in the Province of York each archdeaconry sent that number: ‘otherwise the number would be so small, as scarce to deserve the name of a provincial synod’.Footnote 44 The reason for the modern weightings is identical: to ensure that the ‘distinctive voice of the northern province’ might be heard.Footnote 45
The General Synod considered whether to remove this weighting before the 2015 elections. Some members argued that the distinction between the provinces was entirely arbitrary and that the weighting ought to be removed in the interests of justice and equal representation, maintaining that all votes ought to count the same, no matter where in the country one happened to live.Footnote 46 However, the majority agreed that the Province of York was distinctive:
the issue was really one about the relationship between the two provinces since they had different characters and if the representation of the northern province were reduced further, that could result in the northern province becoming even less able to make its distinctive voice heard in the councils of the Church… [T]he weighting reflected the commitment of the Church to the northern province and its Convocation, which in turn reflected the fact that the Church's ministry was to the entire nation and not just the prosperous south …Footnote 47
Maintaining the weighting in favour of the Province of York underlines the importance not solely of the ‘northern voice’ brought by the clergy and laity of that province, but also of the significance of the Convocation of York – a distinctly northern, distinctly clerical, body.
The eligibility of proctorial electors is set out in Canon H 2(4). The first category – clerics holding office as assistant bishop in the dioceseFootnote 48 – might appear an unusual group of clergy eligible to vote in elections to the lower house of a convocation. However, Canon H 2(1)(a) provides that, while no person in episcopal orders is eligible to be elected, appointed, chosen or co-opted to the lower house, they are permitted to vote in a proctorial election so long as they are not a member of the diocesan house of bishops.Footnote 49
The second category comprises archdeacons holding office in the diocese.Footnote 50 Until 2005, archdeacons were a ‘special constituency’ of the convocations: the archdeacons of each diocese ‘chose’ one of their number to be a member of the lower house.Footnote 51 The Bridge Report, acknowledging that archdeacons ‘have a role which is distinct from that of the bishop or the parish priest … [and therefore] should have the opportunity to be represented on the General Synod’, called for the abolition of this special constituency.Footnote 52
We have concluded that, in the circumstances of synodical life in the late twentieth century, it should be properly a matter for the electors in the diocese to determine who should represent them … we are confident that a sufficient number will be elected by this route to Synod to ensure that their valuable contribution continues to be heard.Footnote 53
The provisions relating to the archdeacons’ constituency were repealed in 2005,Footnote 54 bringing archdeacons within the compass of the eligible proctorial electors for the convocations.Footnote 55 As over half of dioceses number an archdeacon among their proctors today, the Bridge Report would seem to have been proved right on this count. It also suggests that archdeacons are well thought of among their fellow clergy, and their distinctive contribution is valued.Footnote 56
The third category – clerks in holy orders beneficed in a dioceseFootnote 57 – is the largest. They are joined by clergy holding office within a cathedral church in the dioceseFootnote 58 (excluding cathedral deansFootnote 59), and all clergy either licensed under seal by the bishop of the diocese, or who are members of a deanery synod and hold the bishop's permission to officiate in the diocese.Footnote 60 Where an elector is eligible to vote in more than one area they must decide in which they wish to vote.Footnote 61
Historically, all deans and provosts were members of their convocations. From 1970 this was reduced to 15, elected from among their number: 9 from Canterbury and 6 from York.Footnote 62 The Bridge Report recognised that, while their contribution
… is considerable… [and] [n]otwithstanding this and the significant role which cathedrals have in the local and regional life and work of the Church, and some in its national life, cathedrals are a component part of the diocese … We believe it should be for the clergy of the diocese to decide whether or not to elect their dean or provost as a member of the House of Clergy.Footnote 63
Unlike archdeacons the special constituency for deans and provosts was not abolished, but rather reduced: five deans are now elected by and from the deans of the cathedral churches – three from the Province of CanterburyFootnote 64 and two from the Province of YorkFootnote 65. By their nature deans are creatures of their cathedrals, not prone to visiting parishes and clergy in their dioceses, and therefore unlikely to be well known outside their chapters. Unlike archdeacons, they are less likely, contrary to the Bridge Report's arguments, to fare well in diocesan proctorial elections. The fact that the Synod has maintained them as a distinct constituency suggests that they have valuable and unique contributions to make. Similar arguments could be made for other cathedral clergy, so perhaps the deans’ constituency might usefully, in time, be replaced with one for cathedral clergy generally.Footnote 66
Another special constituency reserves seats for armed forces chaplains in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury.Footnote 67 The Canons provide for no fewer than three and no more than four ordained chaplains to be elected or chosen ‘in such manner as may be determined by the Armed Forces Synod as soon as practicable after any dissolution of the Convocation’.Footnote 68 In practice, the Armed Forces Synod tends to choose the senior Anglican chaplain from each force as their clerical representatives.Footnote 69
There is a proviso that the number of armed forces representatives overall – episcopal, clerical and lay – may not exceed seven.Footnote 70 As the clerical members may be no fewer than three and no more than four, and an identical provision exists for the lay representatives,Footnote 71 this suggests that the Armed Forces Synod may elect not to ‘choose’ the Bishop to the Forces,Footnote 72 and instead elect an extra clerical or lay representative. It is not immediately clear why this discretion exists, but it seems to offer the Armed Forces Synod a modicum of flexibility, should it wish to exercise it.
The next special constituency is effectively an ex officio appointment: the Chaplain General of Prisons,Footnote 73 who also sits in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury.Footnote 74 In cases where the chaplain general is not ordained, the Archbishop of Canterbury may nominate a prison chaplain of their choice.Footnote 75 The Bridge Report recommended that the chaplain general ought not to sit ex officio, but instead – as all prison chaplains are licensed by the bishop in whose diocese they minister, and therefore eligible to vote and stand in diocesan proctorial elections – that the special constituency be abolished and all prison chaplains, including the chaplain general, be eligible to stand for election.Footnote 76 As with the Bishop to the Forces, the chaplain general survived the Bridge proposals, and remains an ex officio member of the Convocation of Canterbury and the Synod.
It is perhaps unsatisfactory that the Convocation of York has no representatives from the Armed Forces Synod or the Prisons Chaplaincy – its deliberations may be the poorer for their absence – but, given that the armed forces and prisons are the particular responsibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it seems appropriate that the clerical representatives for these bodies sit in that convocation: their presence signifies the distinctiveness of their contribution, and the importance of their involvement in the Church's councils.
The religious communities of the Church of England also comprise a special constituency within the convocations. Two seats are available for ordained members of religious communities whose mother house is in either the Province of Canterbury or the Province of York.Footnote 77 The electors are priests or deacons who have been certified by the superior of their community to belong to that community, and are resident in one of the two provinces.Footnote 78 The Bridge Report considered that, as
the nature of each of the communities concerned varies enormously – some are concentrated in one location, in others the members are widely dispersed … [–] it would not be reasonable, in our view, to expect that they could secure election unless some special provision for them is continued.Footnote 79
The Report also recommended reducing the number of representatives from two to one, to be elected from either province, but this was not approved by the Synod.Footnote 80
Before 2005, one ordained religious was elected from each province; both representatives may now be from one province or the other, or one from each. This seems a pragmatic response to the small number of ordained religious in the Church of England: it was estimated that in 2012 there were 79 electors in the whole constituency: 57 in the Province of Canterbury and 22 in the Province of York.Footnote 81 Given these numbers, finding an ordained religious willing to stand in the election in the Province of York could be problematic. Happily, at present, there is one elected from each province, so both convocations are enriched.
The elected candidate sits in the convocation of the province in which the mother house of the community is situated,Footnote 82 but interestingly ‘shall be eligible to appear only in the Lower House of Convocation’.Footnote 83 Before the Reformation, abbots and priors – as superiors of religious communities with ordinary jurisdiction – used to sit in the upper houses of the convocations.Footnote 84 It was evidently felt necessary to clarify that, were the superior of one of today's religious communities to be elected, they would not be entitled to sit among their fellow prelates.
Including ordained religious in the convocations’ membership is arguably significant and appropriate. It indicates the Church of England's commitment to the religious life and the distinctive contribution that religious make to the witness and mission of the Church. Given that religious communities devote much of their time to praying for the Church and the world, it is also fitting that they should be represented in the Church's deliberative and legislative assembly.
The final special electoral area is the ‘Universities and Theological Education Institutions’ constituency. Before 2015, the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London and the other universities in the Province of Canterbury formed four separate electoral areas, each electing one proctor to that convocation; the universities of Durham and Newcastle together, and the other universities in the Province of York formed another two areas, each electing one proctor to that convocation. The Bridge Report, unsurprisingly, called for the abolition of the universities’ constituencies, arguing that, while ‘the General Synod is, and should continue to be, assisted in its deliberations by those with particular theological expertise… [w]e are not persuaded however that this is necessarily available only through universities’.Footnote 85 The universities escaped reform following the Bridge Report, but modifications made in advance of the 2015 elections took on board some of the arguments set forth in 1997.
The separate electoral areas were combined into one, spanning both provinces, and the number of proctors elected were reduced from six to four, with at least one to be elected from each province.Footnote 86 Previously the electorate comprised clergy authorised to officiate in a diocese and employed to teach and research by a university in either province (or a college of such a university), or else a fellow or head of a college of such a university.Footnote 87 This was expanded to include authorised clergy employed (on at least a half-time basisFootnote 88) to teach and research by a theological education institution (‘TEI’) recognised by the House of Bishops as an institution which trains candidates for ordination in the Church of England, in either province.Footnote 89 The Revision Committee also considered whether the constituency ought to include lay people teaching and researching in universities and TEIs, but considered this problematic on two main grounds: first, as it would not be possible to limit the subject areas that candidates taught or researched in, a potentially huge electorate would result; and second, even if the electorate were extended, some highly respected lay theologians would still not be eligible if they were self-employed.Footnote 90 The Synod agreed with the Revision Committee, and the electorate remains limited to clergy only. However, the dissatisfaction felt among lay theologians disenfranchised by the current provisions – cited in the Bridge Report as a reason for abolitionFootnote 91 – remains.
The rationale for the universities and TEIs’ constituency is somewhat difficult to defend. The convocations and the General Synod more generally clearly require serious theological reflection to inform their deliberations, but there is no reason why this should be expected to be provided by ordained academics, especially when there is no restriction on their area of specialism. Bishops, deans, archdeacons, proctors and lay people may all be capable of theology, so the convocations and Synod would likely be no worse off were the universities and TEIs’ constituency to be abolished. Even if the constituency is not intended to ‘give theological expertise, but to represent the academic community’,Footnote 92 the fact that it has been enlarged to include clergy teaching at TEIs could be an argument for further reform: there is no corresponding constituency for the House of Laity.
PROCEDURE
The archbishop of the province is ex officio the president of that convocation and presides over meetings of the full synod and the upper house,Footnote 93 or may appoint a deputy. In the Province of Canterbury, the Bishop of London has the right to be appointed deputy or, if unavailable, the Bishop of Winchester. Footnote 94 In the absence of both, the chair is taken by ‘the bishop who has been a diocesan in the Province for the longest time’.Footnote 95 In the Convocation of York, the Bishop of Durham has the right to be appointed deputyFootnote 96 and, in their absence, ‘the bishop present who has served longest in the Northern Province in one or more Sees’.Footnote 97 One consequence of the convocations operating independently and autonomously is that they occasionally have different provisions. In both cases regarding presiding over the convocation, the significance of ministry served in the province is tantamount. The Province of York being smaller, the convocation appears less concerned with which bishop has been a diocesan in the province for longest, but who has served there as a bishop longest. This would, for example, afford a recently appointed diocesan bishop who had served in the Province of York as a suffragan for some considerable time precedence over a longer-serving diocesan whose total episcopal ministry was shorter, or had been exercised largely in the Province of Canterbury. In the Convocation of York, it seems that familiarity with the province counts for more than theoretical seniority.Footnote 98
Each archbishop is also joint president of the General Synod.Footnote 99 Once the Royal Assent and Licence to make, promulge and execute a Canon is received,Footnote 100 the archbishops – as presidents of their convocations – sign the instrument of enactment, alongside the prolocutors and the chair and vice-chair of the House of Laity. In making Canons, the convocations continue their ancient, pre-Reformation work, the only differences being that they now require the Assent of the Sovereign and the agreement of the laity.
The lower house of each convocation is presided over by a ‘prolocutor’,Footnote 101 elected to serve for that quinquennium by the members of that house after the elections to the convocations.Footnote 102 The role of the prolocutor has been likened to the Speaker of the House of Commons, acting as ‘an intermediary between the two Houses’.Footnote 103 The Standing Orders of the Convocation of York provide for the prolocutor to be removed by a vote of the lower house;Footnote 104 the Convocation of Canterbury has no such provision.Footnote 105 The Prolocutor of the Convocation of Canterbury is supported by two pro-prolocutors, who act as deputies, and four other members, all also elected by and from the house's membership, who together form the Standing Committee of the Lower House.Footnote 106 The situation is identical in the Convocation of York, save that the deputies are entitled deputy prolocutors, and only two other members are elected to the Standing Committee of the Lower House, known as the Body of Assessors.Footnote 107 The Prolocutor of the Convocation of York may also approve up to four other members of the lower house to serve as assessors for that house.Footnote 108
In both convocations, the president may appoint members of the upper house to the Standing Committee of that house. There is no limit on the number the President of the Convocation of Canterbury may appoint, nor indeed on which bishops they may choose.Footnote 109 The President of the Convocation of York, however, may appoint only one assessor, in addition to ‘the bishop who has served longest as a diocesan in the Province of York whether in one or more Sees’, who automatically becomes an assessor.Footnote 110 In both convocations, the Standing Committee/Body of Assessors for each house may meet separately but, when assembled together, form the Standing Committee/Body of Assessors of the convocation as a whole.Footnote 111
In the Convocation of York, ‘the Assessors shall be responsible for the preparation of the business of Convocation and for drawing up the agenda for each session in consultation with the President and the Prolocutor’.Footnote 112 The procedure in the Convocation of Canterbury is more authoritarian in approach: ‘In determining the order of business, the President and the Prolocutor shall have regard to the ancient customs of Convocation and may consult the Standing Committee.’Footnote 113
Both convocations have a secretary: in the Convocation of Canterbury known as the ‘Synodical Secretary’, who is nominated by the president and admitted by the prolocutor;Footnote 114 and in the Convocation of York known as the ‘Synodal Secretary’, appointed in the same way.Footnote 115 The Standing Orders are silent concerning the duties of the synodical secretary, but the synodal secretary is tasked with minuting the proceedings of the Convocation of York when meeting in full synod.Footnote 116
Although ‘powers to legislate by Canon and other functions of the Convocation[s] …, and the authority, rights and privileges of the said Convocation[s] … vest in the General Synod’,Footnote 117 the convocations maintain certain powers and privileges under the Canons and the Synod's constitution. They may meet to ‘[make] provision by appropriate instruments for such matters [concerning the Church of England] in relation to their province or referring such matters to the General Synod’Footnote 118 and are required to meet in relation to two particular items of business.Footnote 119
The first – ‘discharging their functions under section 3 of [the Synodical Government] Measure’Footnote 120 – relates to provisions in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963.Footnote 121 While none of the prescribed functions are likely to be exercised, given the complexities of the operation of the processes under the 1963 Measure,Footnote 122 it is significant that the convocations maintain such functions after the advent of synodical government, and suggests that in such matters they are best placed to act. The second item (which will also be considered in the next section) relates to a convocation's power under Article 7 of the Synod's constitution to consider a ‘provision touching doctrinal formulae or the services or ceremonies of the Church of England or the administration of the sacraments or sacred rites thereof’.Footnote 123
The making and amending of Canons is no longer a responsibility purely of the convocations, but of the Synod as a whole. While the Canons may and do bind the clergy, it has been judicially established that they cannot bind the laity. In coming to his decision in Middleton v Crofts, Hardwicke LCJ cited a judgment in an earlier suit: ‘that it was the prevailing opinion the canons did not bind the laity without an act of parliament, there being none to represent them in convocation’.Footnote 124 Now that the laity are represented in the councils of the Church by the House of Laity of the General Synod, and are fully and equally involved in the making of Canons alongside the bishops and clergy, whether Canons might bind the laity in a way that they could not have done historically is open to debate.
THE BRIDGE REPORT
The Bridge Report was an incredibly ambitious document. It sought to review the ‘rationale, effectiveness, style and operation’ of synodical government in the Church of England since its foundation in 1970.Footnote 125 The review group took four years to complete its assessment and made recommendations on matters related to the principles of synodical government in parishes, deaneries, dioceses and the General Synod, as well as the convocations themselves.
In coming to its conclusion ‘that the Convocations should cease to exist’,Footnote 126 the Report drew attention to what it termed their ‘attenuated’ functions following the formation of the General Synod, and the presence of formally comprised Houses of Bishops and Clergy within that body.Footnote 127 This led the reviewers to question ‘whether they continue to perform any role of sufficient importance and value in the life of the Church to justify their continued existence as distinct institutions’.Footnote 128 The Report also criticised the fact that, while the convocations were empowered by Canon to make ‘provision by appropriate instruments for such matters in relation to their province’,Footnote 129 ‘No significant use of this power has been made since the General Synod came into being’.Footnote 130
Responses to the Report highlighted what might have been unintended consequences of abolition, particularly focused on the impact on the Convocation of York. The Revd Canon Hugh Wilcox argued in the Synod debate:
if John Stanley and I are to be the last two prolocutors after some seven hundred years of history we will not be the only casualties. For not only the northern convocation but also the northern province and its archbishop will follow in this [G]adarene rush to turn the Church of England into the religious division of McDonald's or the National Health Service … We must reject these destructive impulses which are so out of touch with feeling in both Church and nation about the need to hear and respect regional sensitivities, to give place to minorities, to be faithful to tradition while moving forward … to face challenges of the future.Footnote 131
As has been suggested, there has always been an issue over the division of the Church of England into two provinces. When the convocations first began to meet as representative bodies, the Province of York sent two proctors per archdeaconry, whereas the Province of Canterbury sent two per diocese, to ensure that the northern voice was not lost. There were similar concerns about the persons of the two archbishops. The 1962 Convocation of Canterbury Report No 708 stated:
the Northern Convocation is an important element in maintaining the status of the Archbishop of York, and that it is for the well-being of the Anglican Communion as a whole as well as the Church of England in particular, that the two English primates should complement and balance one another, and that the see of Canterbury should not be allowed to develop into a patriarchate or papacy.Footnote 132
Michael Ramsey, while Archbishop of Canterbury, stated during a debate in the Convocation of Canterbury in 1962:
I believe that the dual Archiepiscopate in this country is something providentially given to us to prevent the See of Canterbury ever becoming a sort of administrative papacy … If there is to be an Archbishop of York and he is to be effectively a Primate he must be able to summon a Synod of bishops and clergy, otherwise he has a cathedra with no corpus around him.Footnote 133
Some northern members understandably felt that the abolition of the convocations would sound the death knell for the Province of York itself. David Hope, when Archbishop of York, urged the Synod to ‘think much more imaginatively about ways in which the Provincial structures with which our Church of England is blessed might be developed to serve it all the more effectively, not only in the present, but also for the future’.Footnote 134 This appears to be a challenge that the convocations have started to work towards meeting, as will shortly be seen from an analysis of their business in the period 1995–2015.
A follow-up group was appointed later in 1997 to consider the responses to the Bridge Report's proposals. The group reported in 1999 that:
One of the most heavily criticised recommendations of the Bridge Report was that for the abolition of the Convocations … we have concluded that their historic role should continue… Nevertheless the provincial basis of their consultative role would be made more consistent with synodical principles if representatives of the laity were to be involved in their meetings.Footnote 135
Provision already exists for such hybrid meetings to be held, permitting the laity of the relevant province to join the convocations.Footnote 136 To date neither convocation has made use of this provision – perhaps because it would result in two ‘mini-synods’ and thus a degree of duplication – but the possibility remains open to either convocation to make provision in their Standing Orders to do so.
An analysis of the meetings of the Convocations of Canterbury and York from 1995 until 2015 reveals that, while just over half of each convocation's business may be said to be concerned with ‘formal’ business,Footnote 137 the remainder in each case is related to deliberation on various reports, draft liturgical revision and legislative business referred under Article 7 of the Synod's constitution.Footnote 138 The quality and utility of these debates is more difficult to assess than their quantity; indeed, it has been the subject of some disagreement within the convocations themselves.Footnote 139 Most meetings of both convocations during the period 1995–2015 took place within the margins of meetings of the General Synod: a convenient time, as members of both houses are likely to be in Westminster or York for the Synod sessions, so scheduling meetings in the evenings after Synod business ends, over lunch or occasionally in the mornings before it begins, is both convenient and effective.Footnote 140
During this period (as far as records show) the Convocation of Canterbury met only once expressly outside the margins of Synod, in February 1998, when there was no February group of sessions, to discuss the reports Under Authority, dealing with clergy discipline, and Synodical Government in the Church of England: a review – the Bridge Report. Both had a distinct relevance to the clergy, so it seems appropriate that they were discussed in convocation in addition to on the floor of the General Synod. The Convocation of York met twice outside the margins of Synod: in October 1997 to discuss the same two reports; and again in October 2006. On this second occasion the convocation received presentations on the operation of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003Footnote 141 from its own legal adviser – the Provincial Registrar – and the designated officer under the Measure, responsible for formally investigating complaints against clergy.Footnote 142 The convocation then divided into groups to discuss the presentations and carry out workshop activities, including case studies.Footnote 143 Again, it appears entirely appropriate for the convocation to have met in this way, given that the subject matter under discussion was so directly related to the ministry of, and impact upon, clergy.Footnote 144 Whether such infrequent meetings justify the existence of the convocations is not easy to say, however.
Apart from considering reports from a clerical point of view – valuable in informing later debate at Synod – and attempting to reach a consensus (which, arguably, is one purpose or benefit of convocation debates;Footnote 145 the real possibility of the consensuses reached by the two houses, or indeed by the two convocations, being different, however, mitigates against this view), the convocations have also in the period 1995–2015 discussed matters such as the review of the terms of service under which clergy serveFootnote 146 and proposed changes to the services of ordinationFootnote 147 – two items in which the clergy have a vested interest.
One disadvantage of discussing matters in convocation and subsequently at Synod, in the company of the other convocation and the House of Laity, is the possibility of repetition. The Venerable David Jennings, Archdeacon of Southend, commented in a Convocation of Canterbury debate on the Bridge Report in February 2000:
We need to be careful that we are not … trampling over the business that is going to be dealt with later [i.e. during a Synod session]. [However, i]t does seem to me that the opportunity to meet in a rather more intimate way is much to be welcomed …Footnote 148
While there is nothing to prevent a member raising the same points in convocation as in Synod (indeed, this may be necessary and welcome), members of both houses appear aware of the privilege of discussing certain matters in different fora, and keen not to abuse that freedom by boring their fellow members. As Prebendary Houlding, a doyen of both convocation and Synod, remarked in the same debate:
If we could use Convocation therefore to feed our debates and to give us some preliminary discussion we could have done that very effectively for this debate on the Creed which might have saved a lot of the to-ing and fro-ing which is still in fact going on.Footnote 149
As the convocations have not met at all in the current quinquennium, and only four times in 2010–2015, there is perhaps rather less risk of such ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ than might have been the case previously.
The convocations maintain a right to ‘claim a reference’ under Article 7(2) of the Constitution of the General Synod, permitting them to consider and elect whether to approve business concerning changes to the doctrine, ritual or ceremonial of the Church. Between 1995 and 2015 the convocations claimed references on proposals to: amend the Marriage Resolutions of the convocations in line with a resolution of the Synod to permit remarriage of divorced people in Church in exceptional circumstances;Footnote 150 amend the Church's services of ordination;Footnote 151 permit baptised but unconfirmed children to receive Holy Communion;Footnote 152 and permit women to be ordained and consecrated as bishops.Footnote 153 This last piece of business,Footnote 154 while approved by all four houses of the convocations, and by the House of Laity, was dramatically not approved by Synod in November 2012, the final approval motion being lost in the House of Laity: perhaps debates in that house when sitting separately are not as successful in establishing a consensus before Synod debates as those in the convocations.
The convocations have also, during this period, taken the initiative and produced of their own volition Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy, being ‘an elaboration of the text of the Ordinal … offer[ing] a spiritual and pastoral framework for a lifetime's vocation and ministry as servants of Jesus Christ’.Footnote 155 The Guidelines are emphatically ‘not a legal code but … the fruit of shared experience and wisdom offered by clergy to clergy and set within the framework and principles of Canon and Ecclesiastical law’.Footnote 156
It may be queried why the convocations took it upon themselves to draft and publish the Guidelines, rather than the House of Clergy.Footnote 157 The answer appears to be twofold. First, as a product of the convocations operating together via a working group, rather than the House of Clergy, bishops could be (and indeed were) involved alongside the clergy.Footnote 158 As the Guidelines apply to clergy in all three orders of ministry, not just deacons and priests, this seems an appropriate rationale. Second, as the Guidelines were a product of the convocations, after their approval they could be declared an ‘Act of Convocation’ – that is, a ‘resolution passed by both Houses of the Convocation’ expressing their opinion on a particular issue.Footnote 159
Such Acts have been described as a form of ‘quasi-legislation’,Footnote 160 not having ‘the force of statute law but … great moral force as the considered judgment of the highest and most ancient synod of the province’.Footnote 161 Hill contends that ‘the principle is of general application’,Footnote 162 and so also applies to Acts of Synod,Footnote 163 which, since 1970, have replaced Acts of Convocation in the Church of England's (pseudo-)legislative perambulations.Footnote 164 In the Convocation of Canterbury debate on the Guidelines being declared an Act, the prolocutor stated: ‘I understand from Stephen Slack [Registrar and Chief Legal Adviser to the General Synod] that the most recent Act of Convocation was in 1968.’Footnote 165 The fact that the convocations chose to declare the Guidelines an Act is therefore significant. It indicates the importance that the clergy of both provinces attach to the Guidelines as the ‘collective and formal expression’Footnote 166 of their will, and to the convocations as their ancient representative bodies, historically empowered to make such pseudo-legislation.
The status of Acts of Convocation – particularly their justiciability – is a complex issue. Slack contends that, as such Acts judicially have only moral and not statutory force on account of the judgment in Bland v Archdeacon of Cheltenham,Footnote 167 they are not capable of creating ‘legally enforceable rights or duties’.Footnote 168 Doe, however, suggests that, if a bishop were to issue a direction to do (or, feasibly, refrain from doing) something to comply with a matter contained within an Act of Convocation, and a cleric refused or otherwise failed to submit to that direction, this ‘may give rise to legal proceedings and thus indirectly render the terms of the Act judicially enforceable’,Footnote 169 given the cleric's obligation to ‘pay true and canonical obedience … in all things lawful and honest’ to their diocesan bishop.Footnote 170 It is hard to imagine a case where this might be tested in relation to the Guidelines, given their declaratory and innocuous content. But the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, before it was rescinded, stated:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.Footnote 171
Thus theoretically, had an archbishop instructed their diocesan bishops to abide by the terms of the Act and a diocesan bishop had elected not to, refusing to sponsor a candidate because they could not in conscience accept the ministry of women priests, it appears that that bishop would have breached their oath of obedience to the archbishop.Footnote 172 Consequently, while Acts of Convocation may never require judicial enforcement, it seems that they could be capable of such.Footnote 173
Historically there were divergences between the Acts passed by each convocation, given the independence of each convocation to ‘legislate’ in this way. Doe gives the example of the admission to baptism or Holy Communion of a person who has remarried after divorce (or their spouse), the former spouse still being alive.Footnote 174 Both convocations passed resolutions in June 1938 relating to ‘Divorce and nullity’.Footnote 175 York's contained a provision that, should the previously married person or their new spouse desire baptism or to receive Holy Communion, the curate must refer the matter to the bishop.Footnote 176 If the bishop considered that admitting the person to the sacrament ‘ought not to give grave offence to the Church nor would be to the hurt of their own souls, he shall direct that they be not excluded therefrom by reason of the marriage so contracted’.Footnote 177 Owing to dispute between the houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, no corresponding provision was affirmed until 1957,Footnote 178 resulting in a period where the law regarding admission to the sacraments was different between the two provinces. This occurred again in 1982, when the General Synod revoked the Convocation of Canterbury's resolution: ‘The equivalent Resolutions made by the York Convocation may still be operative in the York province, as the General Synod did not expressly revoke these.’Footnote 179 Doe speculates, however – reassuringly – that per Canon H 1(2):
in the event of any inconsistency [between a Convocation instrument and one of Synod], the provision made by the General Synod shall prevail … it is arguable that General Synod's Resolutions (1982–5), revoking the Canterbury Convocation Resolutions 2A–B of 1957, prevail over the York Convocation Resolutions of 1938.Footnote 180
Either way, such situations would suggest that the two convocations legislating differently, while symbolic of their independence and heritage, could be a distinct disadvantage of the previous system before the advent of the General Synod.Footnote 181 For this reason the General Synod is in the process of amending the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 to provide that: ‘A decision of the Arches Court of Canterbury or the Chancery Court of York is binding on the other Court to the same extent as it is binding on the Court itself.’Footnote 182 Until then,
A judgment of the Court of Arches of Canterbury is not a binding authority in the Province of York, but is naturally treated with the greatest respect, in particular because the judge of the two provincial courts is required by statute to be the same person.Footnote 183
Again, this is a consequence of the autonomy of the two provinces which, while charming, can prove to be administratively and logistically problematic.
Another issue arises in relation to Acts of Convocation. While the Canons state that, ‘By ancient custom, no Act is held to be an Act of the Convocation of the province unless it shall have received the assent of the archbishop’,Footnote 184 there is no express provision for the declaration of such an Act in the Standing Orders of either Convocation. This fact was raised in the Convocation of York during the debate on the proposal that the Guidelines be declared an Act of Convocation. The Archbishop of York, from the chair, attempted to mollify the consciences of his members:
You are following in the footsteps of your predecessors who passed Acts way back without Standing Orders allowing them but, nevertheless, once you pass a resolution and you send it out that becomes an Act. You have got the powers without a Standing Order to do so. You are not doing anything contrary to common law.Footnote 185
While this may be technically accurate, it seems perverse that there should be provisions restricting what may be considered an Act of Convocation but not how to actually make one. The necessity to rely on historic precedent (‘custom praeter legem’Footnote 186) rather than definitive provision seems not to have worried members of the convocations overly much, and appears to have resulted in a new subspecies of quasi-legislation: post-Synodical Acts of Convocation. It will be interesting to see whether the convocations declare any more such Acts: such an action may, in time, have ‘its sole justification in the sanction of long custom’, and its enforceability require testing.Footnote 187 Indeed, as Podmore exhorts: ‘it is worth studying [the Guidelines], because Clergy Discipline tribunals do take them into account in considering whether a cleric has engaged in conduct unbecoming’.Footnote 188 The day may be near at hand.Footnote 189
CONCLUSION
The convocations have a rich and varied history. They have changed form and responsibility numerous times, from being deliberative bodies where ‘the role of the Lower House … was to offer the Upper House … their counsel and to consent (or not) to the bishops’ proposals’,Footnote 190 to gatherings concerned solely with levying taxes on themselves to be paid to the Crown, only to transform back into representational assemblies for their provinces tasked with the weighty responsibility of discussing doctrine, faith and liturgy on behalf of the whole Church in England. They possessed supreme legislative competence for centuries, only to have it removed at a stroke by the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533, which also prevented them from meeting without royal permission. Working within those parameters, they played a large part in revising and approving one of the most recognised publications in the world – the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Since the advent of synodical government, their members have served alongside the lay faithful in deliberating and legislating on matters concerning the Church of England, sharing their legislative capability in making Canons equally since 1970. As the major constituent part of the Church Assembly and later the General Synod, the convocations have played a vital role in all of the Church's activities and reforms since it was permitted to legislate for itself by virtue of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919.
Their membership is broad-based, and has adapted over the years to take account of changing circumstances and requirements. It represents many classes and categories of cleric, ensuring representation in the Church's councils of many groups, as well as ensuring that those same councils are imbued with a breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding. Other groups of individuals might also be deserving of particular representation, ministering somewhat outside the traditional diocesan structures, in non-parochial ministry, or who are otherwise not well represented among the convocations’ membership – school, hospital and workplace chaplains, leaders of Fresh Expressions and pioneer ministers, retired clergy, permanent deacons, bishops’ chaplains, self-supporting/non-stipendiary ministers and so on – should there be a desire for any further reform.
While, apart from their activity as constituent parts of the Synod, the convocations tend to meet only to transact formal business, they have the ability – indeed are occasionally required – to meet to discuss and agree certain matters. Under Article 7 of the Synod's constitution they maintain a form of legislative competence, in that they are able – by claiming a reference of business relating to doctrine, ritual or ceremonial – to vote (by house) either to approve that business or not. Nothing prohibits them from making their choice, and if one house of either convocation elects not to approve an item, they have exercised a temporary veto – the business is required to be referred a second time.Footnote 191
The convocations also possess an admittedly weak form of legislative competence all their own, through Acts of Convocation. While the use of these instruments in the convocations’ history is plentiful, their employment following the arrival of the General Synod is still in its infancy, the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy being the only instance thus far. It may be that on future occasions where the clerical members of the Synod wish formally to express their combined considered judgement on a matter, or else imbue a statement, document or publication with a degree of authority of their own making, this is the course they will take. Any distinctly clergy-owned document relating to safeguarding, clergy wellbeing or the exercise of the ministry of reconciliation would be a likely candidate for treatment in this way.
The convocations have survived several attempts, in their long existence, at eradication. Briden suggests that part of the reason for their survival is their longevity:
They have, however, survived, partly because of a reluctance to abolish institutions which are older than Parliament, partly from a fear lest, if they went, the larger southern province would by force of numbers swamp the smaller northern province, and partly from recognition of the fact that the clergy, like every professional body, needs a purely professional forum in which to exchange views.Footnote 192
His second point, regarding the possibility of the Province of York's demise in a Church with no convocations, is certainly pertinent. The two provinces are by their nature distinct – not only in practice and tradition but in their contexts. The north of England is, on the whole, less populated, less affluent and (as a result, it sadly seems) less popular as a place for clergy to serve. There is therefore all the more need for that province to be involved at the heart of the Church's councils and for its voices to be heard. The Province of Canterbury would certainly be the worse off for their absence, as – it is respectfully submitted – would the Church of England.
