1 Constitution of the General Synod of the Church of England, Article 1.

2 Synodical Government in the Church of England: a review, GS 1252 (London, 1997)Google Scholar (cited throughout this article as the Bridge Report), para 13(9).

3 Burn, R, Ecclesiastical Law, vol II (London, 1797), p 18Google Scholar. Such ‘diocesan synods’ still exist in every diocese of the Church of England today, by virtue of the Synodical Government Measure 1969.

4 Podmore, C, Aspects of Anglican Identity (London, 2005), p 2Google Scholar.

5 Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol II, p 18.

6 Smethurst, A, Convocation of Canterbury (London, 1949), p 1Google Scholar. Whitehead, B, Church Law, (second edition, London, 1899), p 101Google Scholar, suggests that ‘The reason why there are two convocations is that the clergy objected to meet unless summoned by their archbishop’, although this seems unlikely.

7 Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol II, p 18.

8 Smethurst, Convocation of Canterbury, p 9.

9 Submission of the Clergy Act 1533, s 3.

10 Ibid.

11 Bray, G, Convocation Facts and Figures (Birmingham, AL, 2004), p 16Google Scholar.

12 Report of the Archbishops’ Committee on Church and State (London, 1916), p 234Google Scholar.

13 Bray, Convocation Facts and Figures, p 27.

14 Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, vol II, p 29. Reynolds, A, The Churchman's Guide (London, 1912), p 112Google Scholar, observes that ‘the right of self-taxation has been waived (but not abolished)’.

15 Cripps, H, A Practical Treatise on the Laws Relating to the Church and the Clergy (London, 1845), p 28Google Scholar. Phillimore, R, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (second edition, London, 1895), vol II, para 1538Google Scholar, cites Speaker Onslow: ‘Gibson, Bishop of London, said to me this was the greatest alteration in the constitution ever made without an express law.’

16 Atterbury, F, Additions to the First Edition of the Rights, Powers and Privileges of an English Convocation (London, 1701), p iiiGoogle Scholar. Rodes, R Jr, Law and Modernization in the Church of England: Charles II to the welfare state (Notre Dame, IN, 1991), p 9Google Scholar, suggests that ‘On the wording of the statute, Atterbury had the better case, and if he and his followers had been willing to cooperate with the bishops they might have prevailed.’

17 Report of the Archbishops’ Committee on Church and State, pp 235–236.

18 The Convocation of Canterbury met in November 1852, that of York in 1861. Bray, Convocation Facts and Figures, p 29.

19 Crockford Prefaces (Oxford, 1947), p 6, n 1Google Scholar.

20 Report of the Archbishops’ Committee on Church and State, p 236.

21 Ibid, p 39.

22 Halsbury's Statutes, vol 10: Ecclesiastical Law (third edition, London, 1969), pp 51–52Google Scholar.

23 See Article 6 of the Constitution of the National Assembly of the Church of England, reproduced in ibid, p 53.

24 Podmore, Aspects of Anglican Identity, p 110.

25 Briden, T (ed), Moore's Introduction to Canon Law (fourth edition, London, 2013), p 29Google Scholar.

26 The Church of England Convocations Act 1966, s 1(1).

27 Ibid, s 1(2).

28 Constitution of the General Synod of the Church of England, Article 3(2).

29 The writ also specifies the date and location of the meeting: ‘to appear before you in [here insert the place where the Convocation is to meet] or elsewhere as it shall seem most expedient on the __ day of ______: And this as you love Us, the state of Our Kingdom and the honour and good of the Church of England, by no means omit’ (The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992, Schedule, Part 1, Form C). No archbishop would surely dare to omit to do as instructed, having sworn an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty upon their election (Canon C 13(1)). Quite what would happen if an archbishop were to omit to call a convocation, or alternatively to call one without authorisation, is not clear.

30 Canon H 1(2). Indeed, the Queen may herself seek the counsel of the convocations on matters of ecclesiastical import by issuing letters of business, specifying the matter for discussion and authorising them to report back to her (Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 34 (fifth edition, London, 2011), para 161). The last time this occurred appears to have been in 1904 to consider a revised Prayer Book (ibid, para 161, n 8). However, given that the General Synod is now the representative assembly of the Church of England, whose functions are ‘To consider matters concerning the Church of England and to make [legislative] provision in respect thereof … [and] to consider and express their opinion on any other matters of religious or public interest’ (Constitution of the General Synod of the Church of England, Articles 6(a) and (b)), it seems unlikely that the convocations alone will be tasked again with such a commission.

31 Canon H 3(1)(a) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

32 Canon H 3(1)(b) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury). The Bridge Report recommended that, as the Archbishop of Canterbury delegated ‘the great majority of the episcopal responsibilities for the diocese of Canterbury’ to the Bishop of Dover, they ought also to be permitted full attendance and voting rights, ‘recognising the unique wider responsibilities which the Archbishop of Canterbury has in relation to the Anglican Communion’ (Bridge Report, para 8(12)).

33 Canon H 3(1)(bb) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

34 Doe, N, The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1990), p 195, n 104Google Scholar. The Bridge Report had suggested that, as the archbishop was the ‘episcopal ordinary to the armed forces … he is in a position sufficiently to represent their interests and reflect their concerns’, and so did not recommend that the bishop should sit as of right in the House of Bishops (Bridge Report, para 8(37)). Synod felt differently, and voted to extend membership to the Bishop to the Forces, ‘if chosen by the Armed Forces Synod as soon as practicable after any dissolution of the Convocations’ (Canon H 3(1)(bb) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury)).

35 While ‘suffragan’ is a useful shorthand for describing the bishops eligible to vote in and be elected to this constituency, ‘persons in episcopal orders working in a diocese in either of the provinces who are members of the house of bishops of that diocese’ are also qualified to vote and stand for election (The Convocations (Elections to Upper House) Rules 1989–2014, Rule 1). This provision would therefore have encompassed the previous stipendiary assistant bishops of Newcastle and Leicester, before their replacement with the suffragan bishops of Berwick and Loughborough in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The four provincial episcopal visitors (‘PEVs’, also known as ‘flying bishops’), commissioned to provide ‘extended pastoral care and sacramental ministry’ to those parishes who are unable, in conscience, to receive the ministry of their bishop because of their having ordained women to the priesthood (Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, s(5)(3)), are also eligible for election, as they are suffragans of the archbishops.

36 ‘Report of the Revision Committee for Draft Amending Canon No. 32, The Convocations (Elections to Upper House) Rules (Amendment) Resolution 201-, The Clergy Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 201-, The Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution’, GS 1902-5Y (henceforth ‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57), para 34.

37 Ibid, para 38.

38 The Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield Reorganisation Scheme 2013, Art 9.

39 Renamed ‘Kirkstall’ by Order in Council on 14 March 2018.

40 Canon H 2(2) proviso (a).

41 See the seat allocations prescribed for the 2015 elections by the report ‘General Synod elections 2015: report by the Business Committee’, GS 1975.

42 And, indeed, the number of lay electors entered on electoral rolls for elections to the House of Laity.

43 ‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57, para 8.

44 Burn, R, Ecclesiastical Law, vol I (sixth edition, London, 1797), p 26Google Scholar.

45 ‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57, para 12.

46 Ibid, para 10.

47 Ibid, para 11.

48 Canon H 2(4)(a).

49 In practice, this segment of the electorate is likely only to include retired honorary assistant bishops who – as they are unlikely to be members of their diocesan house of bishops – would otherwise be disenfranchised.

50 Canon H 2(4)(b).

51 Until the establishment of the General Synod in 1970, each diocese sent two archdeacons to the convocation and therefore to the Church Assembly (see former Canon 143) – a total of 85 in 1966 (Government by Synod: synodical government in the Church of England, CA 1600 (London, 1966), p 128Google Scholar). Any archdeacons who were unsuccessful in being chosen as the representative archdeacon of their diocese were permitted to stand for election as a proctor by the diocesan clergy.

52 Bridge Report, para 8.31. The Report of the Archbishops’ Committee on Church and State, p 51, had called archdeacons ‘a body of men who by general admission possess an exceptional knowledge of the clergy and their interests’.

53 Bridge Report, paras 8.32–33.

54 By Amending Canon No 26, promulged on 15 February 2005.

55 Provision was also made to ensure that not more than one archdeacon might be elected per diocese (or electoral area, if the diocese is divided): Canon H 2(1)(e) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury) and Canon H 2(1)(c) (as applicable to the Convocation of York).

56 Whether those elected are the most able, or merely the most well known, in the diocese is unclear.

57 Canon H 2(4)(c).

58 Canon H 2(4)(d), including the collegiate churches of Westminster Abbey and St George's Windsor.

59 Canon H 2 proviso, including both collegiate churches.

60 Canon H 2(4)(e).

61 Canon H 2 proviso.

62 See Government by Synod, p 70.

63 Bridge Report, paras 8.25–27.

64 Canon H 2(1)(a) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury), the deans of Westminster Abbey and St George's Windsor being among the electorate.

65 Canon H 2(1)(a) (as applicable to the Convocation of York).

66 In addition to the cathedral deans, either the Dean of Jersey or the Dean of Guernsey will be a member of the Convocation of Canterbury, but not within the deans’ constituency: rather they serve as the sole clerical representative for the Channel Islands. Rule 4 of the Clergy Representation Rules 1975 to 2014, Rule 4, provide that ‘The Dean of Jersey and the Dean of Guernsey shall agree and, in default of agreement, the Bishop of Winchester shall determine, which of them shall represent the Channel Islands in the Lower House of the Convocation’. The Bridge Report recommended the abolition of the constituency and suggested instead that all licensed or beneficed clergy on the Islands ought to be entitled to vote and stand in the proctorial elections for the Diocese of Winchester. This recommendation was not pressed, however, once the complexities of amending another jurisdiction's legislation were considered (‘Review of synodical government in the Church of England: second report to the General Synod by the follow-up group’, GS 1412 (2001), para 32 and Appendix 3), and the reforms in 2014 did not reopen the issue. Thus the status quo remains.

67 As the Archbishop of Canterbury is the ‘episcopal ordinary’ to the Armed Forces (Bridge Report, para 8.37), and all forces chaplains are licensed by him and serve under his jurisdiction, these seats are in the Convocation of Canterbury, no matter where the chaplain is based or serving. See Briden, Moore's Introduction, p 63. See also (Canon H 2(1)(d) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

68 Canon H 2(1)(d) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

69 All of whom are styled ‘archdeacon’ – of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. See Briden, Moore's Introduction, p 63. Before 2005, the forces archdeacons served ex officio as the only representatives of the armed forces on the General Synod. The Bridge Report recommended that, ‘on the grounds of equity and of proper access to the national councils of the Church’ (para 8.36), forces chaplains and lay service personnel ought to be permitted to elect their own representatives to the Synod (paras 8.38 and 8.49).

70 Canon H 2(1)(d) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

71 Church Representation Rules 2017, Rule 35(1)(d).

72 Canon H 3(1)(bb).

73 Canon H 2(1)(dd) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

74 As with the senior forces chaplains, the chaplain general is styled ‘archdeacon’ – for prisons.

75 Canon H 2(1)(dd) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury).

76 Bridge Report, para 8.41.

77 Canon H 2(1)(f) (as applicable to the Convocation of Canterbury) and Canon H 2(1)(d) (as applicable to the Convocation of York).

78 Clergy Representation Rules 1974 to 2014, Rule 16.

79 Bridge Report, para 8.43.

80 Ibid.

81 ‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57, para 68. This was compared with an estimated 306 in the lay constituency: 244 in Canterbury and 63 in York (ibid).

82 Clergy Representation Rules 1974 to 2014, Rule 19A.

83 Ibid.

84 In 1453, for example, 297 abbots and priors sat with the 18 diocesan bishops in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. This increased to 337 in 1529, but was of course reduced to nil by 1563, while the bishops had increased to 22. In York, 60 abbots and priors sat with the three bishops in 1376, 50 in 1424, and again none by 1563, while the bishops had increased to five. See Bray, Convocation Facts and Figures, pp 105 and 107.

85 Bridge Report, para 8.45.

86 Canon H 2(3)(1) and (2) (as applicable to both Convocations).

87 Clergy Representation Rules 1974 to 2014, Rules 12(4), 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(b). A further condition requires that, where the cleric is employed by the universities of Oxford, Cambridge or Durham, they are a member of Congregation, the Regent House or Convocation respectively, these being the governing bodies of the institutions (Rule 12(6)).

88 Ibid, Rule 12(9).

89 Ibid, Rule 12(5)(c). The Bridge Report, para 8.45, had argued that theological expertise was to be found not only within universities but also in theological colleges. This significant reform was narrowly rejected by the Revision Committee for the draft Synodical Government legislation in 2014 on the grounds that the work of staff at the TEIs ‘would not be peer-reviewed in the same way as that of staff teaching in a university’ (‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57, para 64(g)). Members of the Committee voted 6:4 against extending the electorate (ibid, para 64(g)), a decision which was subsequently overturned by the Synod in 2014.

90 ‘Report of the Revision Committee’, GS 1902-57, para 64(h).

91 Bridge Report, para 8.45.

92 As was suggested in a debate on the Bridge proposals (Revd Canon Bob Baker, General Synod Report of Proceedings July 2001, p 426).

93 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 2(a); Convocation of York Standing Order 2(a).

94 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 2(b); Canon C 17(4). These are the two senior bishoprics in the province, and their holders are automatically afforded seats as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords as a result (Bishoprics Act 1878, s 5).

95 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 2(c).

96 This is the senior bishopric in the Province of York; like London and Winchester, its holder is also automatically afforded a seat as a Lord Spiritual.

97 Convocation of York Standing Order 2(b).

98 This may, however, be an error: Convocation of York Standing Order 13(a)(i) refers to a ‘bishop who has served longest as a diocesan in the Province of York whether in one or more Sees’, so there appear not only to be discrepancies between the two convocations, but also within the Standing Orders themselves.

99 Canon C 17(4). This is in keeping with the fact that ‘In most respects the two archbishops are of equal and independent position and authority; both are alike subject to the Queen as their immediate superior.’ See Halsbury's Laws, vol 34, para 146.

100 These are the terms used in s 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533.

101 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 5(a); Convocation of York Standing Order 5(a).

102 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 3(a)–(c); Convocation of York Standing Order 3(a)–(c).

103 Halsbury's Laws, vol 34, para 161. This analogy can be taken to an extreme, however: Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, p 23, suggests that, in the early convocations, ‘The archbishop sat as king; his suffragans sat in the upper house, as his peers; the deans, archdeacons, and the proctor for the chapter, represented the burghers; and the two proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire.’ Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, vol II, para 1544, calls this ‘a very loose and inaccurate statement’.

104 Convocation of York Standing Order 3(f).

105 It may be that there was a custom in the Convocation of Canterbury permitting the prolocutor to be removed in a similar way which was not codified in the Standing Orders; alternatively the lower house may not have thought it necessary to include such a provision.

106 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 4(a).

107 Convocation of York Standing Order 4(a).

108 Convocation of York Standing Order 13(a)(ii).

109 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 12(a).

110 Convocation of York Standing Order 13(a)(i).

111 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 12(c); Convocation of York Standing Order 13(c).

112 Convocation of York Standing Order 13(b).

113 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 8. In practice, the Standing Committee is likely to be more involved in the ordering of business than this Standing Order would suggest: Standing Order 9A (a late addition to the collection, evidently) gives the Committee authority to determine ‘that an item of business may best be conducted by means of a general discussion’ (Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 9A).

114 Convocation of Canterbury Standing Order 6.

115 Convocation of York Standing Order 6.

116 Convocation of York Standing Order 10(g). In practice, the synodical secretary performs the same task for the Convocation of Canterbury.

117 Canon H 1(1).

118 Canon H 1(2). This provision will be considered in more detail later in relation to ‘Acts of Convocation’.

119 Canon H 1(2) uses the word ‘shall’ rather than ‘may’ as in the previous example, implying a duty rather than a discretion.

120 Ibid.

121 The 1963 Measure makes various provisions concerning the convocations, including permitting the upper house of a convocation to remove a diocesan chancellor (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s 2(4)(a)), or the Dean of the Arches and Auditor (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s 3(5)(b)) from office if it ‘resolves that he is incapable of acting or unfit to act’; and providing for an inquiry into a complaint relating to doctrine, ritual or ceremonial by a ‘committee of convocation’ (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s 42), and, if not dismissed by such a committee, for the complaint to be promoted in the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved by a fit person appointed by the upper house of the convocation (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s 43).

122 Perhaps especially the power of an upper house of a convocation to depose a bishop or archbishop from Holy Orders (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, s 51).

123 Constitution of the Synod of the Church of England, Article 7(1). This power, too, will be considered later as part of an assessment of the business that the convocations have carried out since 1995.

124 Middleton v Crofts (1736) 2 Atkins 650 at 666. The citation in the text to the earlier case – ‘Davis's case, Mich. 5 G. 1 [1718], C. B.’ – appears to be inaccurate.

125 Bridge Report, back cover.

126 Ibid, para 7.14.

127 Ibid, para 7.4.

128 Ibid, para 7.4. The Revd Canon Bob Baker, a member of the review team, argued in the Synod debate on the Report: ‘the elaborate and extremely complex procedure under Article 7 of the Constitution to frustrate or delay business which has been accepted by the three Houses of the General Synod lacks a certain logic’ (Revd Canon Bob Baker, General Synod Report of Proceedings November 1997, p 667). While not wishing to put the case too strongly, it would appear to the casual observer that any argument based on an attempt to introduce logic to the Church of England and its processes would be doomed to failure and, in its own way, illogical, given the inherent illogicalness of the body.

129 Canon H 1(2).

130 Bridge Report, para 7.1.

131 Revd Canon Hugh Wilcox, General Synod Report of Proceedings November 1997, pp 668–669.

132 Government by Synod, p 98.

133 Ibid, p 15.

134 Archbishop of York, General Synod Report of Proceedings November 1997, p 674.

135 ‘Review of synodical government in the Church of England: first report to the General Synod by the follow-up group’, GS 1354 (1999), paras 4.8–4.9.

136 Canon H 1(3). However, the Canon expressly forbids the laity from voting on any matter referred to the convocation under Article 7 of the Synod's constitution, or any matter under which the convocation maintains a discretion relating to the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure (Canon H 1(3)(c) proviso).

137 By which is meant that relating to internal matters, associated with the convocations’ membership, processes and so on.

138 The data was drawn from the minutes of the convocations’ meetings, as well as the Chronicle of Convocation of Canterbury and the Journal of Convocation of York. I am extremely grateful to the Revd Canon Stephen Trott, Synodical Secretary of the Convocation of Canterbury, and the Revd Paul Benfield, Synodal Secretary of the Convocation of York, for furnishing me with these vital resources. Unfortunately the data for the meetings of the Convocation of Canterbury in the 2005 quinquennium are not available.

139 In a debate on the Bridge Report in February 1998, the Venerable Barney Hopkinson, Archdeacon of Sarum, said: ‘We gathered at four o'clock this afternoon as the sacred members of Synod in Convocation to discuss a union matter, Under Authority. We managed just to fill one-third of the time available before going off to see if tea was available anywhere in this part of London. We are spending the rest of the evening discussing whether we should exist or not. If there is reason for us to gather together – I do take all that is said about Convocation – then surely it is not us who have been elected for a legislative purpose, but all of us with our fellow clergy as we do in our chapters and in our dioceses’ (Chronicle of Convocation, February 1998, p 43). In a debate on draft advice from the House of Bishops to clergy on ‘Marriage in church after divorce’, Prebendary David Houlding, one of the pro-prolocutors of the Convocation of Canterbury, said: ‘I feel that if we can use Convocation for a more informal discussion like this from time to time, we can avoid getting ourselves into a mess on the floor of Synod. We do not have to vote this evening; we can have a discussion. It is a way of making sense of Convocation’ (Chronicle of Convocation, July 2002, p 13).

140 The Convocation of York met in Full Synod at 9.15 am in July 2000 in order to transact the formal business of amending its Standing Orders in relation to the election of its prolocutor. The Archbishop of York, from the chair, said: ‘I apologise for having to call the Convocation this morning for this very brief piece of business’, suggesting that this was not a regular occurrence (Journal of Convocation, July 2000, p 3).

141 Which had only been brought fully into force in January 2006 (Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (Appointed Day Instrument 2005) (Church Instruments, 2005 No 6)).

142 Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, s 17.

143 Journal of Convocation, October 2006, p 14.

144 Sadly the transcript for this session has been lost, so it is not possible to assess what the members of convocation themselves felt about it. One hopes, rather than assumes, that on the whole they did not agree with the Archdeacon of Sarum, who claimed in a Convocation of Canterbury debate on the Bridge Report in February 1998: ‘I have seen nothing in admittedly a short time on Synod that could possibly justify the expense and the time of Convocation. (‘Hear, hear’ and applause)’ (Chronicle of Convocation, February 1998, p 43).

145 In a debate on the Bridge Report in the Convocation of Canterbury in February 2000, Prebendary Horace Harper expressed the view that: ‘the kind of meeting we want, [is] where we prefer to talk ourselves into a consensus rather than having ‘for’ and ‘against’ and then fighting it out on a Parliamentary model’ (Chronicle of Convocation February 2000, p 92).

146 Chronicle of Convocation, July 2003, pp 64–70; Journal of Convocation, July 2003, pp 9–28.

147 Chronicle of Convocation, February 2005, pp 77–85; Journal of Convocation, February 2005, pp 5–29.

148 Chronicle of Convocation, February 2000, p 92.

149 Ibid.

150 Chronicle of Convocation, November 2002, pp 29–47; Journal of Convocation, November 2002, pp 4–15.

151 Chronicle of Convocation, July 2005, pp 109–117; Journal of Convocation, July 2005, pp 3–9.

152 Journal of Convocation, February 2006, pp 3–9. Unfortunately the Chronicle of Convocation for this session is missing.

153 Chronicle of Convocation, July 2012, pp 6–9 (Upper House), pp 10–30 (Lower House); Journal of Convocation, July 2012, pp 4–23.

154 The draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration of Women) Measure.

155 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (London, 2015), p ixGoogle Scholar.

156 Venerable Cherry Vann, Archdeacon of Rochdale, Prolocutor, Journal of Convocation, July 2015, p 10.

157 The House of Clergy has, itself, recently begun work on drafting a ‘Covenant for Clergy Wellbeing’: ‘Clergy Wellbeing’, GS 2072.

158 Two bishops served on the Joint Convocations Working Party (Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy, p x), as, it appears, did one lay person.

159 Doe, Legal Framework, p 21.

160 See Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law (third edition, Oxford, 2007), para 1.35Google Scholar.

161 Bland v Archdeacon of Cheltenham [1972] Fam 157 at 166.

162 Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law (fourth edition, Oxford, 2018), para 1.34, n 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163 Made under Article 6(a)(iv) of the Synod's constitution.

164 The best-known Act of Synod was the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which made provision for alternative episcopal oversight of parishes which could not accept the ministry of their diocesan bishop due to his having ordained women as priests. This was rescinded by another Act of Synod, the ‘Act of Synod Rescinding the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993’, in 2014 and replaced with the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests, another form of quasi-legislation. See Doe, N, ‘Ecclesiastical quasi-legislation’ in Doe, N, Hill, M and Ombres, R (eds), English Canon Law (Cardiff, 1998), p 95Google Scholar.

165 Revd Canon Simon Butler, Prolocutor, Chronicle of Convocation, July 2015, p 8.

166 Slack, S, ‘Synodical government and the legislative process’, (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 43–81 at 51Google Scholar.

167 Bland v Archdeacon of Cheltenham [1972] Fam 157.

168 Slack, ‘Synodical government and the legislative process’, p 52.

169 Doe, Legal Framework, p 21. See also Doe, ‘Ecclesiastical quasi-legislation’, p 99.

170 Oath of Canonical Obedience, contained in Canon C 14(3).

171 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, s 1.

172 See Canon C 14(4).

173 The principle being the same, per Hill (Hill, Ecclesiastical Law (third edition), para 1.35, n 135).

174 Doe, Legal Framework, p 345.

175 Resolution VII(a), contained in Riley, H and Graham, R J (eds), Acts of the Convocations of Canterbury and York (London, 1971), pp 117–124Google Scholar.

176 Resolution VII(a)5(a), contained in ibid, p 118.

177 Resolution VII(a)5(b), contained in ibid, p 118.

178 Resolution VII(a)2(a), contained in ibid, p 123.

179 Doe, Legal Framework, p 377.

180 Ibid, p 377, n 137.

181 Historically this had also occurred with Canons: in 1865 the Convocation of Canterbury made a new Canon removing the prohibition on parents acting as godparents to their own offspring. The Convocation of York did not make a similar Canon. As the Canon was never ratified by the Crown, however, it is unlikely to have caused much upset (Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, vol I, paras 487–488).

182 Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, GS 2064.

183 Re St Mary, Tyne Dock No 2 [1958] P 156 at 169.

184 Canon C 17(5).

185 Archbishop of York, Journal of Convocation, July 2015, p 12.

186 Doe, Legal Framework, p 87.

187 Sir Lewis Dibdin, Dean, in Marson v Unmack [1923] P 163 at 168. The case related to the tradition, in a parish, of taking a collection during matins or evensong, as well as at Holy Communion.

188 C Podmore, ‘The seal of the confessional in the Church of England: historical, legal and liturgical perspectives’, lecture for the Bishop of Richborough's Initial Ministerial Education Session, 14 November 2016, p 10, available at: <https://www.forwardinfaith.com/uploads/16_11_The_Seal_of_the_Confessional_in_the_Church_of_England.pdf>, accessed 1 January 2018.

189 There is another instance of custom related to the Convocations. As was observed earlier, the Queen may summon and dissolve the convocations at whatever times she wishes, but this must be ‘Notwithstanding any custom or rule of law to the contrary’ (Church of England Convocations Act 1966, s 1(1).). As there no longer seems to be any such custom or law, the provision would appear to be spent (see judgment of Lord Dunboyne CG in Re St Mary's, Westwell [1968] 1 WLR 513 at 514: ‘that no directive, rule or usage of pre-Reformation canon law was any longer binding on the court unless pleaded and proved to have been recognised, continued and acted upon since the Reformation’).

190 Podmore, C, ‘A tale of two churches: the ecclesiologies of the Episcopal Church and the Church of England compared’ (2008), 10 Ecc LJ 34–70 at 66Google Scholar.

191 Constitution of the General Synod, Article 7(5).

192 Briden, Moore's Introduction, p 32.