[1] The illustrations in this article are taken, by kind permission,
from the _Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers_.
CONVOCATION (Lat. _convocatio_, a calling together), an assembly of
persons met together in answer to a summons. The term is more usually
applied in a restricted sense to assemblies of the clergy or of the
graduates of certain universities.
In the American Protestant Episcopal Church a convocation is a voluntary
deliberative conference of the clergy; it has no legislative function,
and like the convocation of a university, assembles primarily to discuss
matters of common interest.
In England the name "convocation" is specifically given to an assembly
of the spirituality of the realm of England, which is summoned by the
metropolitan archbishops of Canterbury and of York respectively, within
their ecclesiastical provinces, pursuant to a royal writ, whenever the
parliament of the realm is summoned, and which is also continued or
discharged, as the case may be, whenever the parliament is prorogued or
dissolved. These assemblies consist of two Houses, an upper and lower.
In the upper house sit the archbishops and bishops, and in the lower the
deans and archdeacons of every cathedral, the provost of Eton College,
with one proctor elected by each cathedral chapter and two by the
beneficed clergy in each diocese in the province of Canterbury (in the
province of York two proctors are elected by each archdeacon), with a
prolocutor at their head. When and how this convocation originated is
not historically clear. This much is known from authentic records, that
the present constitution of the convocation of the prelates and clergy
of the province of Canterbury was recognized as early as in the eleventh
year of the reign of Edward I. (1283) as its normal constitution; and
that in extorting that recognition from the crown, which the clergy
accomplished by refusing to attend unless summoned in lawful manner
(_debito modo_) through their metropolitan, the clergy of the province
of Canterbury taught the laity the possibility of maintaining the
freedom of the nation against the encroachments of the royal power. It
had been a provision of the Anglo-Saxon period, the origin of which is
generally referred to the council of Clovesho (747), that the
possessions of the church should be exempt from taxation by the secular
power, and that it should be left to the benevolence of the clergy to
grant such subsidies to the crown from the endowments of their churches
as they should agree to in their own assemblies. It may be inferred,
however, from the language of the various writs issued by the crown for
the collection of the "aids" voted by the _Commune Concilium_ of the
realm in the reign of Henry III., that the clergy were unable to
maintain the exemption of church property from being taxed to those
"aids" during that king's reign; and it was not until some years had
elapsed of the reign of Edward I. that the spirituality succeeded in
vindicating their constitutional privilege of voting in their own
assemblies their free gifts or "benevolences," and in insisting on the
crown observing the lawful form of convoking those assemblies through
the metropolitan of each province.
The form of the royal writ, which it is customary to issue in the
present day to the metropolitan of each province, is identical in its
purport with the writ issued by the crown in 1283 to the metropolitan of
the province of Canterbury, after the clergy of that province had
refused to meet at Northampton in the previous year, because they had
not been summoned in lawful manner; whilst the mandates issued by the
metropolitans in pursuance of the royal writs, and the citations issued
by the bishops in pursuance of the mandates of their respective
metropolitans, are identical in their purport and form with those used
in summoning the convocation of 1283, which met at the New Temple in the
city of London, and voted a "benevolence" to the crown, as having been
convoked in lawful manner. The existing constitution of the convocation
of the province of Canterbury--and the same observation will apply to
that of the province of York--in respect of its comprising
representatives of the chapters and of the beneficed clergy, in addition
to the bishops and other dignitaries of the church, would thus appear to
be of even more ancient date than the existing constitution of the
parliament of the realm.
Contest between spirituality and crown.
From this period down to the eleventh year of the reign of Edward III.
there were continual contests between the spirituality of the realm and
the crown,--the spirituality contending for their constitutional right
to vote their subsidies in their provincial convocations; the crown, on
the other hand, insisting on the immediate attendance of the clergy in
parliament. The resistance of the clergy to the innovation of the
"praemunientes" clause had so far prevailed in the reign of Edward II.
that the crown consented to summon the clergy to parliament through
their metropolitans, and a special form of provincial writ was for that
purpose framed; but the clergy protested against this writ, and the
struggle was maintained between the spirituality and the crown until
1337 (11 Edward III.), when the crown reverted to the ancient practice
of commanding the metropolitans to call together their clergy in their
provincial assemblies, where their subsidies were voted in the manner as
accustomed before the "praemunientes" clause was introduced. The
"praemunientes" clause, however, was continued in the parliamentary
writs issued to the several bishops of both provinces, whilst the
bishops were permitted to neglect at their pleasure the execution of the
writs.
Five characteristic periods.
The history of the convocation of the province of Canterbury, as at
present constituted, is full of stirring incidents, and it resolves
itself readily into five periods. The first period, by which is meant
the first period which dates from an epoch of authentic history, is the
period of its greatest freedom, but not of its greatest activity. It
extends from the reign of Edward I. (1283) to that of Henry VIII. The
second period is the period of its greatest activity and of its greatest
usefulness, and it extends from the twenty-fifth year of the reign of
Henry VIII. to the reign of Charles II. The third period extends from
the fifteenth year of the reign of Charles II. (1664) to the reign of
George I. This was a period of turbulent activity and little usefulness,
and the anarchy of the lower house of convocation during this period
created a strong prejudice against the revival of convocation in the
mind of the laity. The fourth period extends from the third year of the
reign of George I. (1716) to the fifteenth year of the reign of Queen
Victoria. This was a period of torpid inactivity, during which it was
customary for convocation to be summoned and to meet _pro forma_, and to
be continued and prorogued indefinitely. The fifth period may be
considered to have commenced in the fifteenth year of the reign of Queen
Victoria (1852).
First period.
During the first of the five periods above mentioned, it would appear
from the records preserved at Lambeth and at York that the metropolitans
frequently convened congregations (so called) of their clergy without
the authority of a royal writ, which were constituted precisely as the
convocations were constituted, when the metropolitans were commanded to
call their clergy together pursuant to a writ from the crown. As soon,
however, as King Henry VIII. had obtained from the clergy their
acknowledgment of the supremacy of the crown in all ecclesiastical
causes, he constrained the spirituality to declare, by what has been
termed the Act of Submission on behalf of the clergy, that the
convocation "is, always has been, and ought to be summoned by authority
of a royal writ"; and this declaration was embodied in a statute of the
realm (25 Henry VIII. c. 19), which further enacted that the convocation
"should thenceforth make no provincial canons, constitutions or
ordinances without the royal assent and licence." The spirituality was
thus more closely incorporated than heretofore in the body politic of
the realm, seeing that no deliberations on its part can take place
unless the crown has previously granted its licence for such
deliberations. It had been already provided during this period by 8
Henry VI. c. 1, that the prelates and other clergy, with their servants
and attendants, when called to the convocation pursuant to the king's
writ, should enjoy the same liberty and defence in coming, tarrying and
returning as the magnates and the commons of the realm enjoy when
summoned to the king's parliament.
Second period.
Sheldonian compact.
The second period, which dates from 1533 to 1664, has been distinguished
by four important assemblies of the spirituality of the realm in
pursuance of a royal writ--the two first of which occurred in the reign
of Edward VI., the third in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the fourth
in the reign of Charles II. The two earliest of these convocations were
summoned to complete the work of the reformation of the Church of
England, which had been begun by Henry VIII.; the third was called
together to reconstruct that work, which had been marred on the
accession of Mary (the consort of Philip II. of Spain), whilst the
fourth was summoned to re-establish the Church of England, the framework
of which had been demolished during the great rebellion. On all of these
occasions the convocations worked hand in hand with the parliament of
the realm under a licence and with the assent of the crown. Meanwhile
the convocation of 1603 had framed a body of canons for the governance
of the clergy. Another convocation requires a passing notice, in which
certain canons were drawn up in 1640, but by reason of an irregularity
in the proceedings of this convocation (chiefly, on the ground that its
sessions were continued for some time after the parliament of the realm
had been dissolved), its canons are not held to have any binding
obligation on the clergy. The convocations had up to this time
maintained their liberty of voting the subsidies of the clergy in the
form of "benevolences" separate and apart from the "aids" granted by the
laity in parliament, and one of the objections taken to the proceedings
of the convocation of 1640 was that it had continued to sit and to vote
its subsidies to the crown after the parliament itself had been
dissolved. It is not, therefore, surprising on the restoration of the
monarchy in 1661 that the spirituality was not anxious to retain the
liberty of taxing itself apart from the laity, seeing that its ancient
liberty was likely to prove of questionable advantage to it. It voted,
however, a benevolence to the crown on the occasion of its first
assembling in 1661 after the restoration of King Charles II., and it
continued so to do until 1664, when an arrangement was made between
Archbishop Sheldon and Lord Chancellor Hyde, under which the
spirituality silently waived its long-asserted right of voting its own
subsidies to the crown, and submitted itself thenceforth to be assessed
to the "aids" directly granted to the crown by parliament. An act was
accordingly passed by the parliament in the following year 1665,
entitled An act to grant a Royal Aid unto the King's Majesty, to which
aid the clergy were assessed by the commissioners named in the statute
without any objection being raised on their part or behalf,[1] there
being a proviso that in so contributing the clergy should be relieved of
the liability to pay two subsidies out of four, which had been voted by
them in the convocation of a previous year. In consequence of this
practical renunciation of their separate _status_, as regards their
liability to taxation, the clergy have assumed and enjoyed in common
with the laity the right of voting at the election of members of the
House of Commons, in virtue of their ecclesiastical freeholds.
The most important and the last work of the convocation during this
second period of its activity was the revision of the Book of Common
Prayer which was completed in the latter part of 1661.
Third period.
Claim of Lower House to sit independently.
Bangorian controversy.
Fourth period.
Fifth period.
The Revolution in 1688 is the most important epoch in the third period
of the history of the synodical proceedings of the spirituality, when
the convocation of Canterbury, having met in 1689 in pursuance of a
royal writ, obtained a licence under the great seal, to prepare certain
alterations in the liturgy and in the canons, and to deliberate on the
reformation of the ecclesiastical courts. A feeling, however, of panic
seems to have come over the Lower House, which took up a position of
violent antagonism to the Upper House. This circumstance led to the
prorogation of the convocation and to its subsequent discharge without
any practical fruit resulting from the king's licence. Ten years elapsed
during which the convocation was prorogued from time to time without any
meeting of its members for business being allowed. The next convocation
which was permitted to meet for business, in 1700, was marked by great
turbulence and insubordination on the part of the members of the Lower
House, who refused to recognize the authority of the archbishop to
prorogue their sessions. This controversy was kept up until the
discharge of the convocation took place concurrently with the
dissolution of the parliament in the autumn of that year. The
proceedings of the Lower House in this convocation were disfigured by
excesses which were clearly violations of the constitutional order of
the convocation. The Lower House refused to take notice of the
archbishop's schedule of prorogation, and adjourned itself by its own
authority, and upon the demise of the crown it disputed the fact of its
sessions having expired, and as parliament was to continue for a short
time, prayed that its sessions might be continued as a part of the
parliament under the "praemunientes" clause. The next convocation was
summoned in the first year of Queen Anne, when the Lower House, under
the leadership of Dean Aldrich, its prolocutor, challenged the right of
the archbishop to prorogue it, and presented a petition to the queen,
praying her majesty to call the question into her own presence. The
question was thereupon examined by the queen's council, when the right
of the president to prorogue both houses of convocation by a schedule of
prorogation was held to be proved, and further, that it could not be
altered except by an act of parliament. During the remaining years of
the reign of Queen Anne the two Houses of convocation were engaged
either in internecine strife, or in censuring sermons or books, as
teaching latitudinarian or heretical doctrines; and, when it had been
assembled concurrently with parliament on the accession of King George
I., a great breach was before long created between the two houses by the
Bangorian controversy. Dr Hoadly, bishop of Bangor, having preached a
sermon before the king, in the Royal Chapel at St James's Palace in
1717, against the principles and practice of the nonjurors, which had
been printed by the king's command, the Lower House, which was offended
by the sermon and had also been offended by a treatise on the same
subject published by Dr Hoadly in the previous year, lost no time in
representing the sermon to the Upper House, and in calling for its
condemnation. A controversy thereupon arose between the two houses which
was kept up with untiring energy by the Lower House, until the
convocation was prorogued in 1717 in pursuance of a royal writ; from
which time until 1861 no licence from the crown was granted to
convocation to proceed to business. During this period, which may be
regarded as the fourth distinguishing period in the history of the
convocations of the Church of England, it was usual for a few members of
the convocation to meet when first summoned with every new parliament,
in pursuance of the royal writ, for the Lower House to elect a
prolocutor, and for both houses to vote an address to the crown, after
which the convocation was prorogued from time to time, pursuant to royal
writs, and ultimately discharged when the parliament was dissolved.
There were, however, several occasions between 1717 and 1741 when the
convocation of the province of Canterbury transacted certain matters, by
way of consultation, which did not require any licence from the crown,
and there was a short period in its session of 1741 when there was a
probability of its being allowed to resume its deliberative functions,
as the Lower House had consented to obey the president's schedule of
prorogation; but the Lower House having declined to receive a
communication from the Upper House, the convocation was forthwith
prorogued, from which time until the middle of the 19th century the
convocation was not permitted by the crown to enjoy any opportunity even
for consultation. The spirituality at last aroused itself from its long
repose in 1852, and on this occasion the Upper House took the lead. The
active spirit of the movement was Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford,
but the master mind was Henry Phillpotts, bishop of Exeter. On the
convocation assembling several petitions were presented to both houses,
praying them to take steps to procure from the crown the necessary
licence for their meeting for the despatch of business, and an address
to the Upper House was brought up from the Lower House, calling the
attention of the Upper House to the reasonableness of the prayer of the
various petitions. After some discussion the Upper House, influenced
mainly by the argument of Henry, bishop of Exeter, consented to receive
the address of the Lower House, and the convocation was thereupon
prorogued, shortly after which it was discharged concurrently with the
dissolution of parliament. On the assembling of the next convocation of
the province of Canterbury, no royal writ of exoneration having been
sent by the crown to the metropolitan, the sessions of the convocation
were continued for several days; and from this time forth convocation
may be considered to have resumed its action as a consultative body,
whilst it has also been permitted on more than one occasion to exercise
its functions as a deliberative body. In 1865, under licence from the
crown, the Convocations of Canterbury and York framed new canons in
place of the 36th, 37th, 38th and 40th canons of 1603, and amended the
62nd and 102nd canons in 1888. In 1872 convocation was empowered by
letters of business from the crown to frame resolutions on the subject
of public worship, which resolutions were afterwards incorporated in the
Act of Uniformity Amendment Act 1872.
As a deliberative body, convocation has done much useful work, but it
suffers considerably from its unrepresentative nature. The non-beneficed
clergy still remain without the franchise, but the establishment of
Houses of Laymen (see LAYMEN, HOUSES OF) for both provinces has, to a
certain extent, secured the co-operation of the lay element. Several
attempts have been made to promote legislation to enable the
convocations to reform their constitutions and to enable them to unite
for special purposes; in 1905 a bill was introduced into the House of
Lords. It did not, however, get beyond a first reading. In 1896 a
departure was made in holding joint sessions of both convocations, in
conjunction with the two Houses of Laymen, for consultative purposes.
This body is now termed the Representative Church Council, and it
adopted a Constitution in November 1905. All formal business is
transacted in the separate convocations. It is usual for convocation to
meet three times a year.
The order of convening the convocation of the province of Canterbury
is as follows. A writ issues from the crown, addressed to the
metropolitan archbishop of Canterbury, commanding him "by reason of
certain difficult and urgent affairs concerning us, the security and
defence of our Church of England, and the peace and tranquillity,
public good and defence of our kingdom, and our subjects of the same,
to call together with all convenient speed, and in lawful manner, the
several bishops of the province of Canterbury, and deans of the
cathedral churches, and also the archdeacons, chapters and colleges,
and the whole clergy of every diocese of the said province, to appear
before the said metropolitan in the cathedral church of St Paul,
London, on a certain day, or elsewhere, as shall seem most expedient,
to treat of, agree to and conclude upon the premises and other things,
which to them shall then at the same place be more clearly explained
on our behalf." In case the metropolitical see of Canterbury should be
vacant, the writ of the crown is addressed to the dean and chapter of
the metropolitical church of Canterbury in similar terms, as being the
guardians of the spiritualities of the see during a vacancy. Thereupon
the metropolitan, or, as the case may be, the dean and chapter of the
metropolitical church, issue a mandate to the bishop of London, as
dean of the province, and if the bishopric of London should be vacant,
then to the bishop of Winchester as subdean, which embodies the royal
writ, and directs the bishop to cause all the bishops of the province
to be cited, and through them the deans of the cathedral and
collegiate churches, and the archdeacons and other dignitaries of
churches, and each chapter by one, and the clergy of each diocese by
two sufficient proctors, to appear before the metropolitan or his
commissary, or, as the case may be, before the dean and chapter of the
metropolitical church or their commissary, in the chapter-house of the
cathedral church of St Paul, London, if that place be named in the
mandate, or elsewhere, with continuation and prorogation of days next
following, if that should be necessary, to treat upon arduous and
weighty affairs, which shall concern the state and welfare, public
good and defence of this kingdom and the subjects thereof, to be then
and there seriously laid before them, and to give their good counsel
and assistance on the said affairs, and to consent to such things as
shall happen to be wholesomely ordered and appointed by their common
advisement, for the honour of God and the good of the church.
The provincial dean, or the subdean, as the case may be, thereupon
issues a citation to the several bishops of the province, which
embodies the mandate of the metropolitan or of the dean and chapter of
the metropolitical church, as the case may be, and admonishes them to
appear, and to cite and admonish their clergy, as specified in the
metropolitical mandate, to appear at the time and place mentioned in
the mandate. The bishops thereupon either summon directly the clergy
of their respective dioceses to appear before them or their
commissaries to elect two proctors, or they send a citation to their
archdeacons, according to the custom of the diocese, directing them to
summon the clergy of their respective archdeaconries to elect a
proctor. The practice of each diocese in this matter is the law of the
convocation, and the practice varies indefinitely as regards the
election of proctors to represent the beneficed clergy. As regards the
deans, the bishops send special writs to them to appear in person, and
to cause their chapters to appear severally by one proctor. Writs also
go to every archdeacon, and on the day named in the royal writ, which
is always the day next following that named in the writ to summon the
parliament, the convocation assembles in the place named in the
archbishop's mandate. Thereupon, after the Litany has been sung or
said, and a Latin sermon preached by a preacher appointed by the
metropolitan, the clergy are praeconized or summoned by name to appear
before the metropolitan or his commissary; after which the clergy of
the Lower House are directed to withdraw and elect a prolocutor to be
presented to the metropolitan for his approbation. The convocation
thus constituted resolves itself at its next meeting into two houses,
and it is in a fit state to proceed to business.
The constitution of the convocation of the province of York differs
slightly from that of the convocation of the province of Canterbury,
as each archdeaconry is represented by two proctors, precisely as in
parliament formerly under the Praemunientes clause.
There are some anomalies in the diocesan returns of the two
convocations, but in all such matters the _consuetudo_ of the diocese
is the governing rule.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Wilkins, _Concilia Magnae Britannia et Hiberniae_ (4
vols. folio, 1737); Gibson, _Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani_ (2
vols. folio, 1713); Johnson, _A Collection of all the Ecclesiastical
Laws, Canons and Constitutions of the English Church_ (2 vols. 8vo,
1720); Gibson, _Synodus Anglicana_ (8vo, 1702, re-edited by Dr Edward
Cardwell, 8vo, 1854); Shower, _A Letter to a Convocation Man
concerning the Rights, Powers and Privileges of that Body_ (4to,
1697); Wake, _The Authority of Christian Princes over their
Ecclesiastical Synods asserted, occasioned by a late Pamphlet
intituled A Letter_ _to a Convocation Man_ (8vo, 1697); Atterbury,
_The Rights, Powers and Privileges of an English Convocation stated
and vindicated in answer to a late book of Dr Wake's_ (8vo, 1700);
Burnet, _Reflections on a Book intituled The Rights, Powers and
Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated_ (4to,
1700); Kennet, _Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations
of the Church of England historically stated and justly vindicated
from the Misrepresentation of Mr Atterbury_ (8vo, 1701); Atterbury,
_The Power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself_ (4to,
1701); Gibson, _The Right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue
the whole Convocation_ (4to, 1701); Kennet, _The Case of the
Praemunientes_ (4to, 1701); Hooper, _The Narrative of the Lower House
vindicated from the Exceptions of a Letter, intituled The Right of the
Archbishop to continue or prorogue the Convocation_ (4to, 1702);
Atterbury, _The Case of the Schedule stated_ (4to, 1702); Gibson, _The
Schedule Reviewed, or the Right of the Archbishop to continue or
prorogue the whole Convocation, cleared from the Exception of a late
Vindication of the Narrative of the Lower House, and of a Book
intituled The Case of the Schedule stated_ (4to, 1702); Hody, _A
History of the English Councils and Convocation, and of the Clergy's
sitting in Parliament_ (8vo, 1702); Wake, _The State of the Church and
Clergy of England in their Councils, Synods, Convocations,
Conventions, and other Public Assemblies, occasioned by a book
intituled The Rights, Powers and Privileges of an English Convocation_
(fol., 1703); Burnet, _History of His Own Time_ (2 vols, folio, 1734),
re-edited by Dr Martin J. Routh (6 vols. 8vo, 1833); Hallam,
_Constitutional History of England_ (3 vols. 8vo, 1832); Cardwell,
_Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England_ (2 vols.,
1839); Cardwell, _A History of Conferences and other Proceedings
connected with the revision of the Common Prayer_ (8vo, 1841);
Cardwell, _Synodalia, a Collection of Articles of Religion, Canon and
Proceedings of Convocation in the Province of Canterbury_ (2 vols.
8vo, 1842); Lathbury, _A History of the Convocation of the Church of
England_ (2nd ed., 8vo, 1853); Trevor, _The Convocation of the two
Provinces_ (8vo, 1852); Pearce, _The Law relating to Convocations of
the Clergy_ (8vo, 1848); _Synodalia_, a Journal of Convocation,
commenced in 1852 (8vo); _The Chronicle of Convocation_, being a
record of the proceedings of the Convocation of Canterbury, commenced
in 1863 (8vo). (T. T.; T. A. I.)