(G. F. Z.)
1The illustrations in this article are taken, by kind permission, from theProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
1The illustrations in this article are taken, by kind permission, from theProceedings 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 theCommune Conciliumof 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.
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 theirContest between spirituality and crown.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.
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 datesFive characteristic periods.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. Thefourth 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 meetpro 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).
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 aFirst period.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.
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.,Second period.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 theSheldonian compact.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,1there 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 separatestatus, 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.
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,Third period.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,Claim of Lower House to sit independently.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 printedby the king’s command, the Lower House, which was offended by the sermon and had also been offended by a treatise on theBangorian controversy.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,Fourth period.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,Fifth period.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 (seeLaymen, 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 theconsuetudoof 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 Letterto 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).
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 theconsuetudoof 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 Letterto 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.)
1It had always been the practice, when the clergy voted their subsidies in their convocation, for parliament to authorize the collection of each subsidy by the same commissioners who collected the parliamentary aid.
1It had always been the practice, when the clergy voted their subsidies in their convocation, for parliament to authorize the collection of each subsidy by the same commissioners who collected the parliamentary aid.
CONVOLVULACEAE,a botanical natural order belonging to the series Tubiflorae of the sympetalous group of Dicotyledons. It contains about 40 genera with more than 1000 species, and is found in all parts of the world except the coldest, but is especially well developed in tropical Asia and tropical America. The most characteristic members of the order are twining plants with generally smooth heart-shaped leaves and large showy white or purple flowers, as, for instance, the greater bindweed of English hedges,Calystegia sepium, and many species of the genusIpomaea, the largest of the order, including the “convolvulus major” of gardens, and morning glory. The creeping or trailing type is a common one, as in the English bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), which has also a tendency to climb, andCalystegia Soldanella, the sea-bindweed, the long creeping stem of which forms a sand-binder on English seashores; a widespread and efficient tropical sand-binder isIpomaea Pes-Caprae. One of the commonest tropical weeds,Evolvulus alsinoides, has slender, long-trailing stems with small leaves and flowers. In hot dry districts such as Arabia and north-east tropical Africa, genera have been developed with a low, much-branched, dense, shrubby habit, with small hairy leaves and very small flowers. An exceptional type in the order is represented byHumbertia, a native of Madagascar, which forms a large tree. The dodder (q.v.) is a genus (Cuscuta) of leafless parasites with slender thread-like twining stems. The flowers stand singly in the leaf-axils or form few or many flowered cymose inflorescences; the flowers are sometimes crowded into small heads. The bracts are usually scale-like, but sometimes foliaceous, as for instance inCalystegia, where they are large and envelop the calyx.
The parts of the flower are in fives in calyx, corolla and stamens, followed by two carpels which unite to form a superior ovary. The sepals, which are generally free, show much variation in size, shape and covering, and afford valuable characters for the distinction of genera or sub-genera. The corolla is generally funnel-shaped, more rarely bell-shaped or tubular; the outer face is often marked out in longitudinal areas, five well-defined areas tapering from base to apex, and marked with longitudinal striae corresponding to the middle of the petals, and alternating with five non-striated weaker triangular areas; in the bud the latter are folded inwards, the stronger areas being exposed and showing a twist to the right. The slender filaments of the stamens vary widely, often in the same flower; the anthers are linear to ovate in shape, attached at the back to the filament, and open lengthwise. Some importance attaches to the form of the pollen grains; the two principal forms are ellipsoidal with longitudinal bands forming theConvolvulus-type, and a spherical form with a spiny surface known as theIpomaea-type. The ovary is generally two-chambered, with two inverted ovules standing side by side at the inner angle of each chamber. The style is simple or branched, and the stigma is linear, capitate or globose in form; these variations afford means for distinguishing the different genera. The fruit is usually a capsule opening by valves; the seeds, where four are developed, are each shaped like the quadrant of a sphere; the seed-coat is smooth, or sometimes warty or hairy; the embryo is large with generally broad, folded, notched or bilobed cotyledons surrounded by a horny endosperm.Cuscutahas a thread-like, spirally twisted embryo with no trace of cotyledons.
The large showy flowers are visited by insects for the honey which is secreted by a ring-like disk below the ovary; large-flowered species ofIpomaeawith narrow tubes are adapted for the visits of honey-seeking birds.
The largest genus,Ipomaea, has about 400 species distributed throughout the warmer parts of the earth.Convolvulushas about 150 to 200 species, mainly in temperate climates; the genus is principally developed in the Mediterranean area and western Asia.Cuscutacontains nearly 100 species in the warmer and temperate regions; two are native in Britain.
The tubers ofIpomaea Batatasare rich in starch and sugar, and, as the “sweet potato,” form one of the most widely distributed foods in the warmer parts of the earth. Several members of the order are used medicinally for the strong purging properties of the milky juice (latex) which they contain; scammony is the dried latex from the underground stem ofConvolvulus Scammonia, a native of the Levant, while jalap is the product of the tubercles ofExogonium Purga, a native of Mexico. Species ofIpomaea(morning glory),ConvolvulusandCalystegiaare cultivated as ornamental plants.Convolvulus arvensis(bindweed) is a pest in fields and gardens on account of its wide-spreading underground stem, and many of the dodders (Cuscuta) cause damage to crops.
CONVOY(through the Fr. from late Lat.conviare, to go along with, from Lat.cum, with, andvia, way; “convey” has the same ultimate origin [seeConveyance], neither word beingconnected, as has sometimes been supposed, with Lat.convehere, to carry together), a verb and noun now almost exclusively used in military and naval parlance. As a verb it signifies in the first instance to accompany or to escort; and in the 17th century we even hear of cavalry “convoying” infantry, but its meaning was soon complicated by the growing use of the word “convey” in the sense of “to carry,” and as the usual task of an escort was that of accompanying and protecting vehicles containing supplies, the noun “convoy” (Fr.convoi) was introduced and has thenceforward in land warfare meant a train of vehicles containing stores for the use of troops and its guard or escort. Sometimes even the word is found in the meaning of the train of vehicles without implying that there is an escort, so far has the original meaning become obscured; but the idea of military protection is always present, whether this protection is given by a separate escort or provided by the weapons of the drivers themselves.
In naval warfare the term is used to describe a method adopted for defending merchant ships against capture. It was usually applied to the vessels to be protected—as for example “the Baltic convoy,” or “Captain Montray’s convoy.” Until the 17th century the English term was “to waft” and the warship employed to guard the traders on their way was called “a wafter.” The practice of sailing in convoy for mutual protection was common in the middle ages, when all ships were more or less armed and the war vessel was not entirely differentiated from the trader. Thus the ships of the great German confederation of cities known as the Hanseatic League were required to sail in convoy. So were the six trading squadrons which sailed yearly from Venice. The masters of all the vessels were required to obey the authority of an officer who had the general command. In the 16th century the Spanish trade with America was compelled by law to sail in convoys (flotas), in order to avoid the danger of capture by pirates to which single ships were exposed. In the 17th and 18th centuries the use of convoy was universal. Dutch, French or British ships were collected at a rendezvous, and were accompanied by warships till they reached the point at which they were compelled to separate in order to go to their various destinations. The main danger was near the enemy’s ports. An example of the way the duty was discharged may be found in the Newfoundland convoy. They sailed from England under the direction of a naval officer and the protection of his ships, commonly a forty- or fifty-gun ship with a smaller vessel in attendance. The convoy sailed to the banks of Newfoundland. When they had filled up with stock fish, they were escorted across the Atlantic by the same officer. He accompanied those of them bound to the Mediterranean to the port of Leghorn, and, when they had unloaded and reloaded, saw them home. All cases were not so simple. The ships engaged in the East and West India trade, for instance, sailed together. In the Channel they were protected by the main strength of the fleet. When beyond the Scilly Islands they were left to the care of a smaller force, and continued together till in the neighbourhood of Madeira, when they separated. Convoys were subject to attack in two forms, by strong squadrons which overpowered the guard, and by privateers, corsairs and isolated cruisers. This latter peril was much increased in the case of British commerce by the reluctance of the merchant captains to obey the naval officers. They were very much inclined to separate from the convoy as they approached their destination in the hope of forestalling rivals. As a natural consequence they were frequently captured by hostile privateers. French naval officers had authority and large powers of punishment over merchant skippers. The British naval officers had not. In 1803-34, on the renewal of the war with France, the British government saw the necessity for regulating convoy more strictly than had hitherto been the case. It therefore passed “an act for the better protection of the trade of the United Kingdom during the present hostilities with France.” By this act (the 43rd Geo. III. Cap. 57) all vessels not exempted by special licence were required to sail in convoy and to conform to strict regulations, under penalties of £1000 (or, when the goods included government stores, of £1500) and the loss of all claim to insurance in case of capture.
(D. H.)
The object of convoying is to attach an official public character to the convoyed ships,i.e.a sort of assimilation of them to the escorting ship or ships of war. Thus European states and jurists hold that the declaration of the commander of the convoy, that there is no contraband of war on board the convoyed ships, pledges the national good faith, and must be assumed to be correct in the same way as it is assumed that the convoy itself is carrying no contraband of war. Great Britain has never taken this view. Down to 1907 she had maintained that it is materially impossible for any neutral state to exercise the necessary supervision to secure absolute accuracy of the ship’s papers. Number 29, however, of the instructions given by the government to the British plenipotentiaries at the Hague Conference of 1907 stated that “H.M. government would ... be glad to see the right of search limited in every practicable way,e.g.by the adoption of a system of consular certificates declaring the absence of contraband from the cargo....” As the greater includes the smaller, we may assume that, if a consular certificate might suffice to exempt from the exercise of search, the state guarantee of a convoy would certainly suffice. The London Convention on the Laws and Customs of Naval War has laid down the rules as to convoys in the following terms:
Neutral vessels under national convoy are exempt from search. The commander of a convoy gives, in writing, at the request of the commander of a belligerent warship, all information as to the character of the vessels and their cargoes, which could be obtained by search.—Art. 61.If the commander of the belligerent warship has reason to suspect that the confidence of the commander of the convoy has been abused, he communicates his suspicions to him. In such a case it is for the commander of the convoy alone to investigate the matter. He must record the result of such investigation in a report, of which a copy is handed to the officer of the warship. If, in the opinion of the commander of the convoy, the facts shown in the report justify the capture of one or more vessels, the protection of the convoy must be withdrawn from such vessels.—Art. 62.
Neutral vessels under national convoy are exempt from search. The commander of a convoy gives, in writing, at the request of the commander of a belligerent warship, all information as to the character of the vessels and their cargoes, which could be obtained by search.—Art. 61.
If the commander of the belligerent warship has reason to suspect that the confidence of the commander of the convoy has been abused, he communicates his suspicions to him. In such a case it is for the commander of the convoy alone to investigate the matter. He must record the result of such investigation in a report, of which a copy is handed to the officer of the warship. If, in the opinion of the commander of the convoy, the facts shown in the report justify the capture of one or more vessels, the protection of the convoy must be withdrawn from such vessels.—Art. 62.
(T. Ba.)
CONVULSIONS,the pathological condition of body associated with abnormal, violent and spasmodic contractions and relaxations of the muscles, taking the form of a fit. Convulsions may be a symptom resulting from various diseases, but the term is commonly restricted to the infantile variety, occurring in association with teething, or other causes which upset the child’s nervous system. The treatment (plunging into a hot bath, or administration of chloroform) must be prompt, as convulsions are responsible for a large part of infant mortality.
The name “Convulsionaries” (Fr.Convulsionnaires) was given to certain Jansenist fanatics in France in the 18th century, owing to the convulsions, regarded by them as proofs of divine inspiration, which were the result of their religious ecstasies (seeJansenism). The term “Convulsionists” is sometimes applied to them, as also, more loosely, to other religious enthusiasts who exhibit the same symptoms.
CONWAY, HENRY SEYMOUR(1721-1795), English field marshal and statesman, was the second son of Francis Seymour, of Ragley, Warwickshire, who took the name of Conway on succeeding to the estates of the earl of Conway in 1699 and was created Baron Conway in 1703 (seeSeymourorSt Maur). Henry Seymour Conway’s elder brother, Francis, 2nd Baron Conway, was created marquess of Hertford in 1793; his mother was a sister of Sir Robert Walpole’s wife, and he was therefore first cousin to Horace Walpole, with whom he was on terms of intimate friendship throughout his life. Having entered the army at an early age, Conway was elected to the Irish parliament in 1741 as member for Antrim, which he continued to represent for twenty years; in the same year he became a member of the English House of Commons, sitting for Higham Ferrers in Northamptonshire, and he remained in parliament, representing successively a number of different constituencies, almost without interruption for more than forty years. Meantime he saw much service in the army abroad, where he served with conspicuous bravery and not without distinction. In 1745 he became aide-de-camp to the duke of Cumberland in Germany, and was present at Fontenoy; in the following year he had command of a regiment at Culloden. In 1755 he went to Ireland as secretaryto the lord-lieutenant, a position which he held for one year only; and on his return to England he received a court appointment, having already been promoted major-general. In 1757 he was associated with Sir John Mordaunt in command of an abortive expedition against Rochfort, the complete failure of which brought Conway into discredit and involved him in a pamphlet controversy. In 1759 he became lieutenant-general, and served under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick in the campaigns of 1761-1763. Returning to England he took part in the debates in parliament on the Wilkes case, in which he opposed the views of the court, speaking strongly against the legality of general warrants. His conduct in this matter highly incensed the king, who insisted on Conway being deprived of his military command as well as of his appointment in the royal household. His dismissal along with other officers was the occasion of another paper controversy in which Conway was defended by Horace Walpole, and gave rise to much constitutional dispute as to the right of the king to remove military officers for their conduct in parliament—a right that was tacitly abandoned by the Crown when the Rockingham ministry of 1765 reinstated the officers who had been removed.
In this ministry Conway took office as secretary of state, with the leadership of the House of Commons. In the dispute with the American colonies his sympathies were with the latter, and in 1766 he carried the repeal of the Stamp Act. When in July of that year Rockingham gave place to Chatham, Conway retained his office; and when Chatham became incapacitated by illness he tamely acquiesced in Townshend’s reversal of the American policy which he himself had so actively furthered in the previous administration. In January 1768, offended by the growing influence of the Bedford faction which joined the government, Conway resigned the seals of office, though he was persuaded by the king to remain a member of the cabinet and “Minister of the House of Commons.” When, however, Lord North became premier in 1770, Conway resigned from the cabinet and was appointed to the command of the royal regiment of horse guards; and in 1772 he became governor of Jersey, the island being twice invaded by the French during his tenure of command. In 1780 and 1781 he took an active part in opposition to Lord North’s American policy, and it was largely as the result of his motion on the 22nd of February in the latter year, demanding the cessation of the war against the colonies, when the ministerial majority was reduced to one, that Lord North resigned office. In the Rockingham government that followed General Conway became commander-in-chief with a seat in the cabinet; and he retained office under Shelburne when Rockingham died a few months later. On Pitt’s elevation to the premiership, Conway supported Fox in opposition; but after the dissolution of parliament in 1784 he retired from political life. He was made field marshal in 1793, and died at Henley-on-Thames on the 9th of July 1795. Conway married in 1747 Caroline, daughter of General Campbell (afterwards duke of Argyll), and widow of the earl of Aylesbury. He had one daughter, Anne, who married John Darner, son of Lord Milton, and who inherited a life interest in Strawberry Hill under the will of Horace Walpole.
Conway was personally one of the most popular men of his day. He was handsome, conciliatory and agreeable, and a man of refined taste and untarnished honour. As a soldier he was a dashing officer, but a poor general. He was weak, vacillating and ineffective as a politician, lacking in judgment and decision, and without any great parliamentary talent. In his later years he dabbled in literature and the drama, and interested himself in arboriculture in his retirement at Henley-on-Thames.