Updated to add link to House of Commons library briefing.
The Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, who is a Roman Catholic, today made the written statement below.
Statement made by
Andy Burnham
Prime Minister
Labour
Makerfield Commons
Statement
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention steps the Government is taking regarding Church appointments.
Restrictions set out in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 prevent persons professing the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths only from advising the Sovereign on appointments to the Church of England and Church of Scotland. I have therefore transferred my constitutional responsibility to advise the Sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor.
It is, however, unacceptable for there to be a legislative bar against people of any faith performing all the functions of my office. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill at the earliest possible opportunity to correct this antiquated and archaic anomaly.
Update: There is also this House of Commons library briefing: Historic restrictions on members of the Catholic and Jewish faiths.
This seems decidedly odd, possibly initiated by the PM’s own Roman Catholic faith. How much, if any, advice does the PM now give to the Sovereign on church (C of E) appointments? They are announced through his office; possibly that is an anomaly which concerns him. Interestingly, section 12 of the 1829 Act precludes Roman Catholics from holding the office of Lord Chancellor. An interesting conundrum. I don’t think speculation; is out of place on this subject: possibly total repeal of both Acts would achieve an acceptable status quo without this (unnecessary?) delegation.
The ban on RCs holding the office of lord chancellor was repealed 52 years’ ago: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/25 (at Section 1). The Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 also permits the ecclesiastical duties of an RC lord chancellor to be discharged by another minister (at Section 2). Burnham has almost certainly been advised of this by the law officers and the appointments secretary (Jonathan Helewell), whence the framing of the announcement that he has delegated his ecclesiastical patronage power to the lord chancellor. The background to the 1974 statute is described here: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1974/jun/11/lord-chancellor-tenure-of-office-and Note especially that… Read more »
Thank you. A misreading of section 12 on my part. I have a recollection from early studies of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen, a practising Roman Catholic, investigating the possibility of becoming Lord Chancellor and taking Counsel’s Opinion on the point, to be told that it was not possible. That was very long ago, but I have a particular memory as Lord Russell and his legal and family descendants are in a small private cemetery close to my parents’ grave. My legal studies began 66years ago, but no excuse for missing something a mere 52 years… Read more »
Many thanks. Charles Russell – founder of a great legal dynasty, including successive appellate judges and a law firm – was appointed LCJ in July 1894 by Lord Rosebery. His only real chance for preferment to the woolsack had come in August 1892 when Gladstone retook the premiership. Gladstone and Russell were very close, sharing legal and other interests in Liverpool (Russell had acted for the Gladstone family), and Gladstone had made him attorney general in 1886 and 1892, which gave him the informal right of first refusal for the office of LCJ were it to become vacant whilst the… Read more »
As you doubtless know, Lord Russell’s son and grandson inherited the barony and both became Lord Justices of Appeal. I remember seeing the son in action in the grandeur of the old Court of Appeal court rooms at the Royal Courts of Justice He was an impressive and commanding figure.
Many thanks again. If you will forgive my pedantry, the barony of Russell of Killowen was not hereditary. The original Charles Russell was appointed a lord of appeal in ordinary in 1894, shortly before becoming lord chief justice. In 1929 his son Frank was also made a lord of appeal, and his grandson (also Charles) in 1975. In 1960 Charles Russell (the future law lord) was found guilty of drink driving, and this might explain why he was passed over for the appellate committee in 1971: evidently Elwyn-Jones and Wilson were more indulgent than Hailsham and Heath. Hailsham viewed the… Read more »
Did Sunak, a practising Hindu, ever exercise his right to advise the King on church appointments? He wasn’t in office for very long but there must have been some bishoprics and deaneries filled in his time. And was Starmer the only prime minister ever to declare himself an atheist?
I confess to total ignorance of what, if any, advice prime ministers have given the King or the late Queen in recent times. As far as diocesan bishops are concerned, my understanding is that both the PM and the King are bound by the CNC’s first nominee, with the second as a reserve, as it were. It was the Presbyterian Gordon Brown who initiated this to become a firm arrangement. Tony Blair had previously vetoed a candidate – not sure, without checking, whether Blair’s conversion to the RC church was after he ceased to be PM. It seems, in the… Read more »
I don’t think PMs are “bound” to do this. Rather, they agree to do so, whilst specifically noting that they do not bind their successors.
As for the names, the agreement now is that only one name is given from the CNC to the PM. A second name (if agreed by the CNC) is kept in reserve by the secretariat and only comes into play if the first name drops out. Otherwise, the second name is not given to the PM. Gordon Brown, as a Scots Presbyterian, wanted to ensure that he did not have any discretion over the choice.
What you describe is what I meant by “with the second as a reserve”. I felt sure I had read that this arrangement, or convention, had become formalised. Further research about that now necessary.
Blair’s de jure conversion was after he left office. De facto? Anyone’s guess.
The difference is that the law specifically bars Roman Catholics and Jews from advising the crown, but not Hindus, Atheists, Satanists or anyone else. Hence the proposed revision.
Digressing a little, I used to wonder whether any diocesan bishops were appointed during the very short reign of King Edward VIII. AI says Rawlinson of Derby was appointed in the reign of Edward VIII. Edward became king on 20th February 1936, and Rawlinson was appointed four days later. So fairly clearly George V had ‘signed and sealed’ the appointment to Derby. I am not aware of any other episcopal appointment, diocesan or suffragan, by King Edward VIII. That was not very long after the monarch chose bishops for three of the Indian dioceses, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. I had… Read more »
There is an error in this. Rawlinson’s appointment was announced on 21st December 1935. The date given above was his consecration.So without doubt he was appointed by George V (who, by December 1935, was a very ill man).
It doesn’t affect your conclusion but George V died on 20 January 1936 not 20 February.
Thank you for the correction. So Edward was King from 20th January to 11th December 1936. (I am aware that it is sometimes held that the abdication was 10th December because that is when it was signed). I am not sure on exactly what day Lang broadcast to the nation and evoked the well known response: My Lord Archbishop, what a scold you are And when your man is down, how bold you are Of Christian charity how scant you are And, Auld Lang Swine, how full of cant you are (Cantuar). I expect most readers of TA know about… Read more »
The king’s declaration was made and signed on 10 December, and the Act received Royal Assent on 11 December. It provided that the demise of the Crown should take effect immediately Royal Assent was given.
The Archbishop’s broadcast was on the following Sunday, 13 December, according to https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/28-april/features/features/cosmo-lang-and-the-last-king — which also quotes this rhyme.
OK.
The “antiquated and archaic anomaly” is that the monarch or politicians should be involved in Church appointments in England or Scotland. Senior Clerical appointments should wholly a matter for the church involved as happens in the Anglican Church in Wales. British Jews would be rightly outraged if an Anglican was involved in the appointment of senior Rabbis. Appointments to a denomination should be wholly a matter for the denomination. In a multi cultural and religious British the whole concept of an established church is anachronistic and offensive.
The patronage of parish appointments vested in the Crown and Lord Chancellor should be transferred to the diocesan bishops. I have less strong views about the patronage vested in the Duchy of Lancaster. From what I can gather, this is largely exercised by the Chaplain of the Savoy Chapel who seems to be quite effective.
I would like to see the role of patrons abolished altogether and appointments made by representatives of the diocese and parish working together. However, this would be fiercely resisted by the various patronage trusts.
Ok for you but… My own parish has just come out of vacancy and I was one of the Parish Representatives. The patron was excellent, enabling the Representatives to resist the quite strong moral pressure brought to bear by the relevant hierarch to choose between three nice but unsuitable candidates as the best available. Both the other PR and I went into the shortlisting meeting feeling anxious and expecting a fight: the patron’s intervention was decisive, the hierarch retreated, and we ultimately recommended a decent appointment on the second time around. The patron also paid for the Parish Profile to… Read more »
this – I have bever yet had an experience on the PCC (across multiple interregnums in multiple parishes) where I’ve not had more sense and support out of whoever the patron was than the diocese. I’d rather abolish dioceses than patrons…!
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to share your experiences. My views on the role of bishops in the appointment of clergy may be rather rose- tinted.
When my father was a parish representative, the diocesan bishop ( Michael Adie of Guildford) was patron. The vacancy was not advertised, but he suggested suitable candidates. I realise not everyone is so fortunate.
Clearly, the concentration of more power in episcopal hands is an unquestionable good in the life of the church.
Oh just great so Bishops can mess that up as well!!
I do sympathise with your view on this Simon, which is what I used to share. Many years ago I put the point to a diocesan bishop, who has now departed this life and who I regard as having been very wise. He made the point that the patronage system helps to guarantee some diversity in churchmanship across the CofE. Without it, there is more of a danger of a wholesale takeover by one theological view. I thought he had made a good point.
Agreed. The obvious next step to take is to disestablish. This can be done in a single measure as effected with Wales. The House of Lords is long overdue for reform. And if the CofE were not established by law, the Anglican Communion could be led by any Archbishop from any country. The current arrangement requires the ABC to swear an oath of alliance to the monarch, and be a member of the Privy Council, and so support the national interests. This is an absurd position for a church claiming to be a global Communion. Only British persons loyal to… Read more »
Remember that Disestablishment in Wales was also accompanied by very substantial Disendowment. I believe that this was also the case with the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in the 19th century. I seem to remember that in Wales all assets held to have belonged to the Church before 1660 – excluding places of worship – were secularised. The Church of England is not, of course, a ”global Communion”: it is part of a global communion. I don’t think the Scottish Episcopalians were at all enthusiastic when the Church in Scotland was handed over to the presbyterians in 1689. Is… Read more »
The patronage system does – or used to – ensure some continuity of churchmanship in parishes. If they were all in the bishop’s gift, would there be any evangelical churches left at all in Chichester diocese by now?
This sounds like a great opportunity to explore disestablishment which is long overdue in England.
Where does it say that in the bible?
Not every opinion I have is solely based on Scripture but I am for them not to be in opposition to it. A few reasons why disestablishment could be useful. – The CofE isn’t really a national church any more with just north of 700k weekly worshippers. – The CofE would no longer be constrained by the state and the government. – The prime minister wouldn’t have to do things like be involved in church appointments in a church he’s not a member of. – Likewise the monarch wouldn’t have to profess Christian faith if he or she didn’t believe… Read more »
The Sovereign has to be a descendant of Sophie, Electress of Hanover, and a Protestant. Strictly speaking, that is nothing to do with the CofE being the established Church of England, although the Sovereign does have to be in communion with the CofE following the ejection of the Catholic James II in 1688. But remember that the the established Church in Scotland was taken over by the presbyterians at the same time, and to the best of my knowledge the presbyterian Church of Scotland is not in communion with the CofE. And yet the royal family always seems to have… Read more »
Where does it say in the z bible that a church should be established? For that matter, where in the Bible does it say Christians should worship in dedicated buildings, have pipe organs in churches, belong to denominations, or drive cars to get to church?
Don’t know where the ‘z’ came from – sorry!
Presumably the simplest thing to do would be to bring that part of the law into line with the Patronage (Benefices) Measure which requires that patrons be actual communicant members of the Church of England, and that if they are not they must appoint a representative who is. The Prime Minister’s statement seems rather unnecessarily intemperate.
The Patronage (Benefices) Measure already has the force of law. Is further legislation necessary? I expected the disestablishment argument to surface swiftly!
Thanks Roland, yes I realize the status of the Patronage (Benefices) Measure. My suggestion was that similar requirements should apply to the Crown and to those who advise the Crown in the appointment of bishoprics (and some deaneries and canonries) — namely that those involved should be communicant members of the Church of England. Those who are not should not be involved in the appointment.
I agree with the principle but I think it should include anyone welcome to a Church of England Eucharist as that I think would include Roman Catholics but your suggestion would probably exclude them.
But doesn’t Roman Catholicism refuse to recognise Anglican Holy orders as valid… why would they take part?
‘I expected the disestablishment argument to surface swiftly!’
And the predictable defensive responses to it.
To be honest, I haven’t found them, but perhaps I have missed them in the much wider and relevant discussion of patronage, the subject of this thread.
Mr Burnham comes from a northern working class background and represents a constituency very much in that vein. Perhaps he’s just the man to cut through some of the flimflam that surrounds the CofE. Dame Sarah seems to accept that the CofE is too snooty and has taken recent steps to encourage working class vocations. With so many former archbishops in the ministerial wilderness, it seems apposite that the systems that produced them are under scrutiny.
His place of upbringing (large dormitory village) and parents’ occupations would make him decidedly middle class. Perhaps slightly lower middle class than his predecessor, but definitely middle class. He never clams to be working class – just northern.
Unacceptable, antiquated and archaic are words which might describe the fact that some positions in maintained schools are only open to Roman Catholics.
Mr Johnson claimed to be a Roman Catholic when he married his third wife Miss Johnson in Westminster Cathedral. How did he circumvent these requirements? Mr Sunak is a Hindu I believe, what were the arrangements then? I think that Lady May is probably the most devout PM in recent years.
This would appear to be Mr Johnson’s cakism at it’s finest. He was baptised a Catholic in New York, the city of his birth. In the eyes of the Catholic church he is and always will be a Catholic. While at Eton, he was confirmed in the C of E. In the eyes of the British establishment he is an Anglican and therefore was entitled to advise Her Late Majesty on matters of ecclesiastical preferment. I assume that the third Mrs Johnson is of the Catholic persuasion. That is why their children were baptised and they were married in Westminster… Read more »
My recollection is that after his third marriage, Mr Johnson was no longer involved in advising Her late Majesty whom to nominate to ecclesiastical office. I don’t recall him whinging about it in the way Mr Burnham is.
Simon, For some possible context here I read PM Burnham’s comments through a political lens and possibly sociological. Given that Bishops hold seats in the HoL and can vote against bills from the Commons, is his difficulty perhaps linked to Governance ? Could it also be linked to being part of a minority in the UK and family background ? I see this as a well meaning commentary on the difficulties, and the links to both possible disestablishment as well as possibly future changes to the power of the HoL. As I am Australian based I may have missed some… Read more »
Theresa May’s father was a Mirfield trained clergyman.
I am baffled by the reference in this statement to the Church of Scotland. All appointments, including Moderator of the General Assembly, are made by the Kirk itself.
It’s purely to take account of the original wording of the 1829 and 1858 Acts, and I think your point has already been made that they are effectively redundant in relation to the Church of Scotland. Also, there is official recognition of that in the following, as quoted in the current House of Commons Library briefing note: “It is unclear whether the reference to the Church of Scotland has any continuing practical relevance, as appointments within the Kirk are made independently of the Monarch. Lay patronage, which previously gave landowners (including, where relevant, the Sovereign) a say in ecclesiastical appointments,… Read more »
The spat reveals again the many anachronisms and improprieties of Establishment. Burnham’s response is the wrong one; the whole system of Crown appointments of senior clergy should be ended. But that is not so simple to achieve. The power of Crown appointments, even though reduced to a procedural formality by Gordon Brown, depends on the larger constitutional apparatus of Establishment rooted in the Act of Supremacy 1534 and its associated statutes. If you try to end Crown appointments, that whole constitutional foundation will come under an embarrassing spotlight. In my view, bring it on (see my Beyond Establishment 2022). But… Read more »
There has been no review of the church/state relationship since Chadwick in 1970. The Church of England always took the view, correctly in my view, that serving the nation (it’s rather lost the plot on that) meant that any initiative on establishment should only come from Parliament. The appointment of bishops are Crown appointments under the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533. That means that Burnham (or now for a period the Lord Chancellor) advises the monarch. Chadwick achieved little, save for the creation of the Crown Appointments Commission. Callaghan was cautious, and wanted to receive two names to preserve the… Read more »