"All the members of both Houses of Convocation have the same
privileges for themselves and their servants as _the members of
parliament_ have, and that by statute."--Chamberlayn's _Mag. Brit.
Notitia_, p. 94.
It may be reasonably doubted, whether a little research would not afford
further reasons for thinking that there was some ground for applying the
phrase "assembled in Parliament" to Convocation.
With respect to the Convocations sitting at Westminster. The first
Convocation of 1283 sat "at the New Temple;" the next was summoned on
St. Matthew's day, 1294, to meet _at Westminster_. On April 22, 1523, a
National Synod of both Convocations was held _at Westminster_ by
Cardinal Wolsey, the Papal Legate. The Convocation sat _at Lambeth_ in
1555 and 1558. In 1586 and 1588, we find Convocation often sitting _at
Westminster_. In 1624 the Upper House sat _at Christ Church_, Oxford,
and the Lower _at Merton College_. On May 16, 1661, the Convocation met
in "the Collegiate Church _at Westminster_." The first Convocation of
William III. had its amended commission brought to it on the 4th of
December, while both Houses were sitting together _in Henry VII.'s
Chapel_. The last Convocation of the same king met on the 10th of
February, 1701, at St. Paul's, where they heard divine service, and then
went to the chapter-house, where they chose for their prolocutor Dr.
Hooper. On the 25th of February, the Lower House was sitting in Henry
VII.'s Chapel; and on the 6th of March they were both sitting _in the
Jerusalem Chamber: where_ twice in this present year it has sat. It is
true that the writ which summoned James I.'s first Convocation called
the clergy to appear before the archbishop "in our cathedral church of
St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of March then next ensuing, or
elsewhere, as he should have thought it most convenient;" and it seems
that they did assemble "at the time and place before-mentioned;" yet,
supposing they were not at Westminster then, they were in almost equal
danger from the Popish Plot, as it is not likely they would have
received any greater mercy at the hands of the conspirators.
I have always imagined that it was still a moot-point as to whether all
the Estates ever _deliberated_ together in the presence of the
sovereign. It is not generally known, I think, that they all re-assemble
for the formal passing of every act: and with respect to the authority
of all three being recited in the preamble, I beg to point out to CANON.
EBOR. the following exceptions:--In the Act of Uniformity, the style of
"Lords Spiritual" is omitted throughout, as every one of the bishops
voted against it. It has also been ruled by the judges that the King
may hold a parliament without any Spiritual lords; and, in fact, the
first two parliaments of Charles II. were so holden.
I will presume CANON. EBOR. intended to say that Prelates do not sit in
the Upper House as _Peers_, otherwise the charge of "mistake" will fall
upon Blackstone, _Comm._ book i. ch. 2.:
"The next in order are the Spiritual lords. These consist of two
archbishops and twenty-four bishops; and at the dissolution of
monasteries by Henry VIII. consisted likewise of twenty-six mitred
abbots, and two priors: a very considerable body, and in those
times equal in number to the temporal nobility. All these hold, or
are supposed to hold, _certain ancient baronies_, under the king:
for William the Conqueror thought proper to change the spiritual
tenure of frank-almoign, or free alms, under which the bishops
held their lands during the Saxon government, into feodal or
Norman tenure _by barony_; which subjected their estates to all
civil charges and assessments from which they were before exempt:
and in right of succession to those baronies, which were
unalienable from their respective dignities, the bishops and
abbots were allowed their seats in the House of Lords."
Sir Matthew Hale divides the king's extraordinary councils into two
kinds: 1. Secular or temporal councils; 2. Ecclesiastical or spiritual:
the king's extraordinary secular councils being the Houses of the Peers
and of the Commons; and the extraordinary ecclesiastical, the Upper and
Lower Houses of Convocation.
Some illustration of this may be perhaps found in the following extract
from an appendix to _A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House
of Convocation_, published by T. Bennet, London, 1701, in which
_Prelates_ are Spiritual Lords, whether Bishops or Abbots; and the
phrase "full Parliament" seems equivalent to the ones used in the
Gunpowder Treason Service:--
"When the several Estates were assembled in _full Parliament_, and
received the King's commands concerning the business which they
were to consider, and were adjourned by him to another day of
_full Parliament_, in which they were to meet, and give their
answer: the Clergy, and Lords, and Commons consulted in the mean
time separately, ... Instances of this are not necessary, but one
may be seen among the Records in the appendix to a late book
call'd _Essays concerning the Balance of Power_, &c., and 'tis
this: 6 Edw. III. Part 3. N. 1., on Tuesday in Full Parliament the
King charged the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Great Men, and
the Knights of the Shires, and the Commons, that having regard to
the honor and profit of his Realm, they should give him their
counsel. The which Prelates with the Clergy by themselves, and the
Earls and Barons by themselves, and the knights and others of the
counties and the Commons by themselves, treated and consulted till
Friday next, the day assigned for the next session, and there _in
full Parliament_, each by themselves and afterward all in common,
answered."
The formation and development of Convocation, at least that of
Canterbury, presents a great analogy to the English Parliament; as that
of York does to the Scottish Parliament.
We must remember that before the Norman times, the clergy were exempt
from all taxation; inasmuch as "they held in Frankalmoigne," that is,
held their lands, &c., on free alms "in liberam eleemosynam." Littleton
(lib. ii. c. 6. s. 135.) says:
"And they which hold in Frankalmoigne are bound of right before
God to make orisons, prayers, masses, and other divine services
for the soul of their grantor or feoffer, and for the souls of
their heirs which are dead," &c.
The king's succeeding William the Conqueror tried to make the clergy
contribute to the public exchequer, but were effectually resisted. In
order to surmount the difficulty, King John (A.D. 1206) summoned all the
priors and abbots _to parliament_, and obtained from them a vote of a
_thirteenth_: and then wrote to the archdeacons to get the same from the
clergy generally. Edward I. rendered this scheme for the taxation of the
clergy complete. He applied to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to
assemble, by _their canonical authority_, the convocations of each
province; and these Metropolitans, moved by the King's writ (the same
practice is settled now), summoned these bishops and clergy.
The earliest royal writ, summoning a provincial synod, is dated Nov. 24,
1282, and calling them to meet at _Northampton_: "Venire ... _coram
nobis_ apud Northampton."
This Convocation assembled at Northampton; and we find another mandate
from the Archbishop to the dean of the province, directing him to summon
the bishops and clergy to a Convocation for the 9th of May, 1283, at the
_New Temple_ (now the Inner and Middle Temples), pursuant to a
resolution of the Convocation of Northampton. At this Convocation, the
proctors of the clergy refused to pay the tenth. Eleven years after, we
find Edward summoning the whole body of the bishops and clergy to
_Westminster_ on St. Matthew's day, 1294. His writ orders "The dean and
archdeacon to appear in their proper persons, the chapter by one, and
the clergy of the diocese by two procurators." The clergy objected to
this writ as uncanonical, and claimed to be convoked only by their
Metropolitans; as tending to abolish their provincial synods convened by
regular ecclesiastical authority, and to establish in their place a
parliamentary chamber under secular authority. The King, finding them so
opposed to his project of thus making them a part of the Third Estate,
reverted to the established practice, and addressed his writs to the
Archbishops; whereupon the Metropolitans issued their mandates,
Convocations met, and subsidies were voted.
An important result followed this struggle (see 2 Lingard, p. 375.),
viz., that the procurators of the common clergy of each diocese (in
compliance with the direction on the Kings writ) were admitted as
_constituent members_ of these and all subsequent Convocations; the
archdeacons, before this time, being considered as their
representatives, who probably were furnished with letters of procuration
from them.
The constitution of the English Convocation may be said to be finally
established in the reign of Edward I., and it has so continued to the
present day; except that in 1665 the clergy in Convocation gave up the
privilege of self-taxation, and received in return that of voting for
the House of Commons, losing thereby one distinctive sign of their being
"an Estate of the Realm."