MEETINGS OF CONVOCATION. (Hansard, 10 July 1899)

LORD KINNAIRD
My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether a joint assembly of members of the two Convocations is not in fact a meeting of the Convocations, and therefore illegal without a licence from the Crown. I understand that those who summoned the special meeting of the Convocations referred to anticipated that there would be some difficulty, because the public Press had referred to the assembly as an irregular meeting. They thought, however, that by not meeting as Convocation, but as individuals, they could evade the custom or the law by which it is necessary to obtain a licence from the Crown before they met. It may be that the 295 affair is not of much importance in itself, but, in view of recent events in the Church, it is desirable to look rather closely into these matters. Questions of considerable importance may have been discussed at the meeting, but as it was held in private, the public do not know what went on there. I wish to know whether the Government consider that the proceedings were irregular.

§ * THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saving that his question is not whether these proceedings were or were not irregular. The question is, whether the proceedings were illegal. The noble Lord is quite right in suggesting that it is a question of fact, and certainly no Member of Her Majesty's Government could give an answer to the question without knowing more about the facts than the noble Lord has disclosed. I know nothing more about the proceedings than what the noble Lord has just mentioned, and these facts do not appear in the question on the Paper. The fact that some gentlemen met together in private and discussed questions of interest, although they had reference to important matters which had lately been discussed elsewhere, does not necessarily in point of law make that a meeting of the Convocations; and whether that constituted such a meeting I, as an individual Member of Her Majesty's Government, am not prepared to affirm. I should hesitate to answer such a question until I knew absolutely what was done; in what character these gentlemen came together, and whether or not they were invested with any particular mission from anybody else, or purported to act themselves in any official character. I should hesitate to express any opinion upon a subject which might become a matter of debate in a court of law; but if the noble Lord were to ask me, even as an abstract point of law, whether a sitting of convocation without Her Majesty's licence was illegal, I would have no difficulty in answering him; but he would not require my assistance as to the answer to that question. In these circumstances I can only say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the facts which the noble Lord has brought forward are insufficient to enable them to form a judgment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I am a little astonished at the profound ignorance 296 of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to what has taken place, because I thought the noble and learned Lord, in common with most of us, read the newspaper reports of what took place at meetings of Convocation. I should have thought that he would have known that after the regular meeting of Convocation there was, according to the intelligence which has reached the public, a meeting of the two Convocations together. It is said that that was only a meeting of the members of the two Convocations. I do not wish to impute to those gentlemen any desire to evade the law, but to the ordinary mind it looks uncommonly like it. I do not pretend that anything very serious would arise from the meeting, and I certainly should not have said a word about the subject except for the fact that I could not help thinking, when I read the account which appeared in many newspapers, that this was part and parcel of what is going on in the Church, and of an ardent desire on the part of a good many people connected with the Church of England to pass by, if they can, the civil power. It is only from that point of view that I attach any importance to this question. I have not the least objection to the two Convocations meeting together, but I do feel jealous of anything being done by a side wind, especially at the present moment, which is not authorised by the law of the land. Therefore I have a certain amount of sympathy with the question which the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) has asked. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has asked that a case should be drawn up. I do not feel competent to do that, and I do not think it is necessary that a case should be laid before the Government. It is the business of the Government to watch everything of this kind, and to see that nothing is done which in any way passes by the prerogative of the Crown.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I am 10th to confess that I do not study ecclesiastical literature with the devotion of the noble Earl, and I was utterly ignorant that this awful thing had taken place. I thought the Convocation of York met at York, and the Convocation of Canterbury at Canterbury, and how both could possibly meet together immediately afterwards I fail to imagine It is a very terrible thing which the noble 297 Lord has discovered, but I think, when he has discovered a gunpowder plot of this kind, he ought to go further into it, and supply us with more detail. It is impossible for this Assembly to recover from the shock it has sustained unless we know the precise nature of the conspiracy against our civil law to which the noble Lord has alluded in his question. I would suggest to the noble Earl for his comfort, if this thing disturbs his sleep, that this confusion has arisen from his not sufficiently dwelling upon the word "meetings," and the different meanings of it. I doubt very much whether it is illegal for the members of Convocation to meet if they come across each other in a room, but, if they meet for the purpose of exercising any of the powers which belong to Convocation, I suppose they would be assuming powers which they did not possess, and would be acting, if not illegally, in a highly unconstitutional manner. I doubt exceedingly whether the members of Convocation do not put more value on their own time than to go through a process which would be entirely destitute of result. Quarter sessions cannot meet without a licence from the Crown; but if the magistrates meet together in the county town no one would ever dream of calling it un-constitutional. The doctrine laid down by the noble Earl is that all Englishmen are at liberty to meet where they please unless they happen to be invested with some ecclesiastical authority. That is a limitation of our rights which the noble Earl will have to explain more clearly. So far as I can see, I am afraid the noble Lord has discovered a mare's nest, which I suppose is something like a bishop's nest.