Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T10:56:13.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of Synodical Government in the Church of England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Brian McHenry
Brian McHenry
Affiliation:
Legal Adviser, Government Legal Service; Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, General Synod; Member of the Standing and Legislative Committees of the Synod; Chairman of the House of Laity, Diocese of Southwark
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The General Synod of the Church of England
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 13 , July 1993 , pp. 86 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1993

References

1. General Synod Report of Proceedings (“Report”) Vol. 1 pp. 3 and 4.

2. 1969 no. 2.

3. 9 and 10 Geo 5, c 76.

4. A discussion paper issued on behalf of the Standing Committee of the General Synod. GS Misc 344 paragraphs 3–9.

5. House of Laity of the Synod, GeneralThe Centenary of Lay Participation 1986. Mr Clark's address is at pp. 51–64Google Scholar. Professor McClean's speeches are at pp. 3–7 and 65–68.

6. Report Vol. 1 pp. 1–11.

7. GS 929.

8. Quoted by Bishop Ronald Bowlby at the Southwark Diocesan Synod, 3 March 1990.

9. Bentley, Canon G. B.The Times 13 April 1990.Google Scholar

10. SPCK 1986.

11. Paragraph 10 of the Paper.

12. Report Vol. 21 no. 2 pp. 806–809.

13. Report Vol. 17 no. 3 p. 997.

14. Church Times 17 October 1986.

15. A convenient summary of the relevant history is in “Michael Ramsey: A Life” by Owen Chadwick (Oxford) pp. 333–342.

16. Report Vol. 13 no. 2 pp. 461–530.

17. Report Vol. 16 no. 1 pp. 204–226. See also (1990) 2 Ecc LJ 11 pp. 359–368.

18. Report Vol. 21 no. 3 pp. 989.

19. 1974 no. 3.

20. 1986 no. 4.

21. 1990 no. 1.

22. Schedule 2 to the Synodical Government Measure 1969 (No 2) (‘the 1969 Measure’).

23. Canon H3.

24. Canon H2.

25. Church Representation Rules (“CRR”) rules 29–35.

26. Moore's, Introduction to English Canon Law. 3rd ed. (Mowbray). Page 24.Google Scholar

27. The latter question was raised in debate at the Southwark Diocesan Synod, 8 July 1992.

28. Article 7(2) of the Constitution. See also article 7(3) - (5).

29. GS 866. Report Vol. 20 no. 1 pp. 40–45 and 404–426.

30. Recommendation 9, page 361–362.

31. Report Vol. 20 no. 1 pp. 414–416.

32. CRR rule 9(1B).

33. See Mr Chandler's speech Report Vol. 20 no. 2 pp. 767–768.

34. Canon H2.

35. CRR rule 19(2)(e).See also p.94 below.

36. CRR rules 25(1) and 29(1) and (2).

37. GS 1044 p. 18.

38. Under the pre-Synodical Government system, the House of Laity of the Diocesan Conference was elected at the AGMs of the parishes in the diocese, unless the Conference determined otherwise (eg elections at the Ruri-decanal Conference). See rule 18 of the Rules for the Representation of the Laity in the Schedule to the Representation of the Laity Measure 1929 no. 2. (19 and 20 Geo 5 no. 2).

39. Circulated by the General Synod Office to members.

40. Report Vol. 22 no. 2 pp. 258–259.

41. Report Vol. 23 no. 3 pp. 686–687. A proposal to that effect will be debated at the July 1993 Group of Sessions of the General Synod.

42. Section 1(4) of the 1969 Measure and article 3(2) of the Constitution.

43. C of E Convocations Act 1966 c. 2 section 1(2).

44. CRR rule 25(1).

45. CRR rule 20(1).

46. Report Vol. 12 no. 3 pp. 860–863 and 1138–1139. Mr Ricks' speech is noteworthy for reporting the birth of my younger son.

47. Report Vol. 17 no. 2 pp. 401–409.

48. Report Vol. 19 no. 3 p. 894.

49. House of Laity Minutes of Proceedings HL(84) M1. See also Report Vol. 14 no. 3 p. 868 and 15 no. 1 p. 197.

50. There are two; see the Who's Who in Part 7 of the C of E Year Book 1993. Two others elected under the age of 70 have since celebrated their 70th birthday. CRR rule 33(3) requires nominations to include candidates' year of birth.

51. Quoted by the late Roy Lyon, Report Vol. 18 no. 3 pp. 1027 and 1028.

52. Unnumbered. Church House Publishing 1986.

53. GS 764 and 829.

54. GS Misc 382.

55. Punch 4 October 1890, p. 162Google Scholar, often quoted by Sir Winston Churchill.

56. Church Times 22 January 1993.Google Scholar

57. The 25th report of the Standing Orders Committee, GS 796, para. 39. The Committee's discussion of the Archbishop's points is at paragraphs 40–46. The debate is at pp. 1016–1028 of the Report Vol. 18 no. 3. The relevant procedures have remained largely unchanged but Dioceses and Private Members are encouraged to submit for circulation briefing papers.

58. The “Higton debate” is at pp. 913–956 of the Report Vol. 18 no. 3.

59. Article 7(1) of the Constitution.

60. Church Times 19 October 1990.Google Scholar

61. Firth, Cromwell (Oxford 1972) pp. 12 and 13.Google Scholar

62. Church of England Year Book (1993) p. 18. See also the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 (No 2) (‘the 1947 Measure’).

63. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed.) at 379.

64. Section 12(2) of the 1947 Measure.

65. CRR rule 35(1)(d).

66. Schedule 1 to the 1947 Measure. The ‘laymen’ currently include four women. Five Deans and Provosts are also elected from among their number. The General Synod has called for an increase in the number of lay elected members, Report Vol. 22 no. 2 pp. 490–491.

67. Section 12(3) of the 1947 Measure.

68. See the Vice-Chancellor's judgment in the Lord Bishop of Oxford and others v the Church Commissioners 1991 for a helpful summary of the relevant law.

69. Report Vol. 13 No 2 pp. 684–725. The First Church Estates Commissioner's speech is at pp. 691–695.

70. Report Vol. 22 no. 2 pp. 500–501.

71. See answer to question 15, Report Vol. 22 no. 3 p. 718, and to questions 31 and 32, Report Vol. 23 no. 2 p. 258–259.

72. Report Vol. 20 no. 3 pp. 1288–1290.

73. Section 6(1)(b) of the 1947 Measure, as amended by the Church Commissioners Measure 1964 (no. 8).

74. Report Vol. 22 no. 2 p. 490.

75. Report Vol. 23 no. 2 pp. 397–436.

76. News Release from Lambeth Palace, 8 October 1992.

77. 14 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed.) at 394.

78. See also for the CBF at pp. 12–16 of the C of E Year Book 1993.

79. GS 827 paragraphs 6.24 – 6.28 and chapter 7.

80. Report Vol. 20 no. 1 pp. 244–289. See eg Mr Cooper's speech at p. 279–280.

81. Report Vol. 21 no. 2 p. 843.

82. Report Vol. 12 no. 1 pp. 12–30.

83. Report Vol. 12 no. 1 pp. 17–20.

84. GS 1044 p. 27.

85. GS 929 para. 4.

86. GS 929 para. 12–13.

87. GS 1023 para. 1.

88. GS 1023 para. 4.

89. Report Vol. 22 no. 2, p. 227.

90. Published by Parish and People.

91. Partners c/o the Revd. J. Hamilton-Brown.

92. Section 5(3)(d) and (e).

93. Section 4(2)(c) and (5).

94. Secion 4(2)(a) of the 1969 Measure.

95. General Synod Standing Order 2(iv).

96. Church Information Office, September 1983.

97. “Church and State”, 1985 reprint, Appendix A paragraph 23. I have drawn on paragraph 24 for what follows.

98. Section 3(3) of the Enabling Act.

99. “Church and State”, 1985 reprint, Appendix A paragraph 26, favoured the latter view.

100. Under Standing Order 74.

101. House of Commons Hansard 16 July 1984 columns 126–144.

102. House of Commons Hansard 17 July 1989 columns 174–193.

103. GS 666 and Report Vol. 16 no. 1 pp. 274–305.

104. Report Vol. 20 no. 3 pp. 1064–1105.

105. For example Bishop Colin Buchanan's current private member's motion calling for proposals inter alia to lift ‘direct State Control’ from Synod legislation; and also Mr Simon Hughes' ‘ten minute Bill’ to disestablish the C of E, Church Times, 19 March 1993.Google Scholar