10 10 668 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grants of Precedence Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Description An account of the resource Materials relating to grants of precedence to various groups and individuals. Miscellaneous This is used for instruments that don't fit any other categories. Transcript A transcript of the document. Whereas Sir Almeric William Fitz Roy, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Clerk of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council hath by letter bearing date the second day of June last, signified that one the thirtieth day of May last past His Majesty was pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to declare and ordain that the Speaker of the House of Commons should henceforth upon all occasions and in all meetings except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament have hold and enjoy place, pre-eminence and precedence immediately after the Lord President of the Council. I, Sir Edmund Bernard Talbot (commonly called Lord Elmund Bernard Talbot) Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Deputy to the Most Noble Bernard Marmaduke, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal and Hereditary Marshal of England, to the end that the same may be observed and kept and thar you and all others upon occasion may take full notice and have knowledge thereof, do hereby authorize and require you to cause His Majesty’s said Proclamation [sic], the Letter of the Clerk of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council and these Presents to be recorded in the College of Arms accordingly. For which this shall be your Warrant. Given under my hand and the seal of the Earl Marshal this thirtieth day of July 1919. Edmund B. Talbot D. E. M. To the Kings Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. This text is taken from a handwritten transcript of the document and may not reflect the formatting of the original. Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. The second paragraph erroneously refers to a Proclamation instead of an Order in Council. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miscellaneous - Deputy Earl Marshal's Warrant for Recording the Order in Council Declaring the Precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons [1919-07-30] Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Parliament Description An account of the resource Warrant of Lord Edmund Talbot directing the Officers of Arms to record the Order in Council of King George V declaring the precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lord Edmund Talbot (Deputy Earl Marshal) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived College of Arms I78/121 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1919-07-30 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mark Scott Relation A related resource <a href="https://cbaionline.org/corpus/items/show/579">Order in Council</a> <a href="https://cbaionline.org/corpus/items/show/580">Letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council</a> Deputy Earl Marshal Officers of Arms Procedure Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grants of Precedence Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Description An account of the resource Materials relating to grants of precedence to various groups and individuals. Letter This is used for general correspondence that doesn't fit into a specialized category (e.g., ministerial submissions). Transcript A transcript of the document. 2 June 1919 Sir, I am directed by the Lord President of the Council to transmit to you, for the information and guidance of all whom it may concern, the enclosed Order of His Majesty in Council of the 30th ultimo with regard to the Precedence to be enjoyed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. <div style="text-align:center;">I am, Sir</div> <div style="text-align:center;">Your obedient servant</div> Almeric Fitz Roy. To Sir Henry Farnham Burke, K. C. V. O., C. B., &c, &c, &c Garter King of Arms, Herald’s College, Queen Victoria Street E. C. 4. Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. Sir Almeric FitzRoy (Clerk of the Privy Council) Recipient(s) Sir Henry Burke (Garter Principal King of Arms) Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. This text is taken from a handwritten transcript of the document and may not reflect the formatting of the original. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter - Transmitting the Order in Council Declaring the Precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons [1919-06-02] Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Parliament Description An account of the resource Letter of Sir Almeric FitzRoy to Sir Henry Burke transmitting the Order in Council of King George V declaring the precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sir Almeric FitzRoy (Clerk of the Privy Council) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived College of Arms I78/121 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1919-06-02 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mark Scott Relation A related resource <a href="https://cbaionline.org/corpus/items/show/579">Order in Council</a> Clerk of the Privy Council Garter Principal King of Arms House of Commons Precedence Procedure Speaker of the House of Commons Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grants of Precedence Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Description An account of the resource Materials relating to grants of precedence to various groups and individuals. Order in Council Orders in Council are made by the Monarch with the advice of the Privy Council. Transcript A transcript of the document. <div style="text-align:center;">At the Court at Buckingham Palace</div> <div style="text-align:center;">The 30th day of May 1919</div> <div style="text-align:center;">Present</div> <div style="text-align:center;">The King’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council</div> Whereas it has been represented to His Majesty that there should be assigned to the Speaker of the House of Commons a place in the Order of Precedence in accord with the great dignity and importance of the high office to which he is called. Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to declare and ordain that the said Speaker of the House of Commons shall henceforth upon all occasions and in all meetings except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament have, hold and enjoy place, pre-eminence and precedence immediately after the Lord President of the Council. Almeric Fitz Roy. Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. This text is taken from a handwritten transcript of the document and may not reflect the formatting of the original. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Order in Council - Declaring the Precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons [1919-05-30] Subject The topic of the resource Precedence Parliament Description An account of the resource Order in Council of King George V declaring that the precedence of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource King George V Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived College of Arms I78/120 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1919-05-30 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mark Scott Clerk of the Privy Council House of Commons Monarch Precedence Speaker of the House of Commons https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/8806e6d206fd94a33c435d62419360ae.pdf 681703cf5bfef4c0aab9adf4fd870f15 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource No. 10 and the See of Liverpool Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource In 1997, Tony Blair rejected the Crown Appointments Commission's initial slate of nominees for the See of Liverpool. These documents shed light on No. 10's assessment of the candidates as well as the attitude of senior figures in the Church such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Letter This is used for general correspondence that doesn't fit into a specialized category (e.g., ministerial submissions). Transcript A transcript of the document. <div style="text-align:center;">Lambeth Palace London SE1 7JU</div> <div style="text-align:center;">26 June 1997</div> <div style="text-align:center;">STRICTLY PERSONAL</div> Dear John, The Prime Minister’s decision regarding the Liverpool See I really must express my considerable dismay on learning that the Prime Minister has asked for more names to be considered. I can only surmise that your own personal influence has been too strong. It was clear that the Commission was content with the names it had to consider and it was equally clear that the first name came through very strongly. The ratio of votes at the end led none of us to believe that there was any question concerning the capabilities of both men doing a good job. Furthermore, there is always an element of risk and faith attached to any selection of names. No one can be absolutely sure that a Commission will not make the occasional mistake but the Prime Minister (who is not present at the Commission) must rely on the judgement that comes from its Chairman who offers to the Prime Minister his view concerning the two names given. In short, I regret what has happened but accept that the Commission will have to meet again to begin its worth afresh. I must ask – through you – to have a private meeting with the Prime Minister when we meet, to discuss this. I don’t expect anyone else to be with us when we do so. <div style="text-align:center;">Yours sincerely,</div> <div style="text-align:center;">(Sgd.) + George Cantuar</div> <div style="text-align:center;">ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY</div> Mr J H Holroyd CB Secretary for Appointments to the Prime Minister 10 Downing Street LONDON SW1A 2AA Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. George Carey (Archbishop of Canterbury) Recipient(s) John Holroyd (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. Printed in Times New Roman Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter - Relaying the Archbishop of Canterbury's Unhappiness With the Prime Minister's Decision to Ask the CAC For More Names For the See of Liverpool [1997-06-26] Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource Letter from George Carey to John Holroyd stating that Carey was disappointed that Tony Blair had decided to ask the Crown Appointments Commission for a new slate of names and asking for a private meeting with Blair. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource George Carey (Archbishop of Canterbury) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-26 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Diocese of Liverpool Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop of Liverpool Church of England Crown Appointments Commission Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/3d4b9c1b1be46a637984783ed8c96737.pdf 4d09013e7bd57861549e143bd376ff2f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changes to the Office of Lord Chancellor Subject The topic of the resource Constitutional Reform Description An account of the resource In 2003, the Government announced that the office of Lord Chancellor would be abolished. While this ultimately did not happen, the Lord Chancellor's duties were adjusted as part of the Government's wider program of constitutional reform. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. [illegible] Your advice to me has been sound up to now! So let it revert to the Crown From: W E Chapman Date: 3 December 2003 cc: Jeremy Haywood Justin Russell PRIME MINISTER THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE I attach a submission from Lord Falconer, who recommends handing over this patronage to the Church. As you know, the patronage is handled from within my office, almost all by my deputy Nick Wheeler. Although separate from Crown patronage, also handled here, the procedure is virtually identical. I would recommend that the Lord Chancellor’s patronage revert to the Crown. I apologise for the length of my explanation. The facts By a modest majority individual respondents to the consultation (all drawn from the Church) did not want the patronage to transfer to the Church. Just over 50% wanted it to stay with the State, either reverting to the Crown (43%) or (8%) remaining with a Minister. 43% wanted the Church option. When the Church was consulted institutionally via the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, it expressed no clear preference-see the resulting letter from both Archbishops at flag A. This reflects, in particular, the clear majority in the House of Bishops which favoured reversion to the Crown. In addition, most deans favour the Crown option. These are all senior voices in the Church.  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 2 The Archbishop of Canterbury personally favours transfer to the Church. I believe the Archbishop of York sees the value of the Crown taking on the role, because it provides a level playing field to those who belong to a Church minority (in his case, the traditionalist Catholic wing). The Crown tries to work above Church politics. It is incorrect to say that the current system interferes with reorganisation, as Lord Falconer suggests. Under Nick Wheeler, proposals for reorganisanisation are always co-operated with. Indeed, the consultation has confirmed the high regard for Nick’s sensitive and collaborative working of the system. Transfer to the Church would make my job in advising you more difficult, as I rely on Nick’s networks in the Church to help me reach a rounded view in giving you advice and in ensuring a good field of candidates for senior posts. Modernisation I appreciate of course that abolition of the Lord Chancellor is part of the government’s modernisation programme. But there is nothing inherently un-modern about a variety of Church patronage, of which the Crown’s patronage is part. Trusts, colleges, private individuals exercise Church patronage, as well as bishops. Diversity is increasingly recognised, as you know, as a vital and valuable part of the modern world-a point made by the Chief Rabbi in his book “The Dignity of Difference”. The Bishops already exercise about 48% of patronage; adding the Lord Chancellor’s would take it into the early 50s. There is nothing conceptually modern in moving toward greater uniformity. In addition, variety of patronage maintains checks and balances within the Church, particularly important now when passions run high on such matters as the gay issue. For example, had Jeffrey John’s appointment to Reading been more directly in the Crown’s hands, it would arguably not have been derailed. Some bishops do “pack” </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 3 their dioceses with clergy of a particular churchmanship, or overrule a parish which has requested a particular sort of priest. In exercising patronage from here we try to avoid such things and are widely recognised to do so. Implications for establishment I do not think Charlie Falconer’s submission does justice to this part of the argument. Lord Chancellor’s patronage is operated on behalf of the Crown (it was originally the Crown’s patronage entirely). The transfer of such a substantial chunk of “state” patronage (around 450 posts) to the Church would be seen as a significant disengagement and could trigger a move to disestablishment. If disestablishment is to be on the agenda, it ought to be there as a result of proper debate, not as a side produce of a piece of bureaucratic tidying up. It is true that this was not a major factor in the consultation responses but, if the transfer actually happened, I believe people would see the issue more starkly. Given the implications for Establishment, I understand the Palace may have a view. I wonder whether you might want to touch on this at an Audience. Conclusion Practical implications of reversion to the Crown would be minimal. The system would still be worked from here. The Lord Chancellor would no longer play a part. You would have 5 minutes more work a year, signing 25 or so extra formal submissions. If the Church had voiced an overwhelming preference for transfer to the bishops I would have advised you to acquiesce. But the Church did not-far from it. In these circumstances I believe the wider issues point to reversion to the Crown. Are you inclined to opt for transfer to the Church—or reversion to the Crown? </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 4 If the former I should welcome a chance to discuss this with you before you finally decide. If the latter, and if you wanted to make an accommodating gesture to those who hold the opposing view, we could offer to discuss with the Church the detail of the way the system is operated, in case those discussions threw up improvements. This would underline our existing willingness to keep the system flexible and up-to date. Whichever option you choose, change could probably be effected administratively. Bu Lord Falconer recommends a section in the Constitutional Reform Bill, given the significance of the issue. Clare thinks this is right. Agree? Finally, I gather from Lord Falconer’s office that this is not something on which he would want to die in the last ditch, should you disagree with him. (Sgd.) William W E CHAPMAN </div> Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. William Chapman (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. Jeffrey John's proposed appointment to the Suffragan See of Reading provoked considerable backlash due to the fact that John was in a (celibate) same-sex relationship, and he ultimately asked that it not proceed. Although the Sovereign formally appoints suffragan bishops on the Prime Minister's advice, it has long been the case that the Prime Minister invariably recommends whoever the diocesan bishop has nominated (see s. 1 of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen8/26/14/section/I">Suffragan Bishops Act 1534</a>). Document has a handwritten annotation by Tony Blair indicating that he agreed with Chapman that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should revert to the Crown. In the end, this didn't happen. These appointments remain a cancellarial duty to this day (some of the instruments involved can be seen elsewhere on the CBAI). Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Recommending That the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical Patronage Revert to the Crown [2003-12-03] Subject The topic of the resource Parochial Appointments Cathedrals Description An account of the resource Minute from William Chapman to Tony Blair recommending that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should revert to the Crown instead of the Church of England. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Chapman (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived PREM 49/3579/3 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-12-03 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Cathedrals Church of England Lord Chancellor Parochial Appointments Prime Minister Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/0092241735ed32bd71fcc666e9c25f2e.pdf f0601aa4b61f4dfdd15b71e3dacb5316 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changes to the Office of Lord Chancellor Subject The topic of the resource Constitutional Reform Description An account of the resource In 2003, the Government announced that the office of Lord Chancellor would be abolished. While this ultimately did not happen, the Lord Chancellor's duties were adjusted as part of the Government's wider program of constitutional reform. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. <div style="text-align:center;">RESTRICTED-POLICY</div> <div style="text-align:center;">From the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor The Right Honourable Lord Falconer of Thoroton</div> The Department for Constitutional Affairs Selborne House 54-60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW [Phone and fax numbers] November 2003 PRIME MINISTER THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE 1. This minute seeks your agreement to my proposal that the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage should be transferred to the Church, as part of our work to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor. The remainder of Crown patronage (administered through the Ecclesiastical Office in No 10) would be unaffected. The transfer would be included in the forthcoming Constitutional Reform Bill. Background 2. For historical reasons dating back to Edward III the Lord Chancellor exercises patronage on behalf of the Crown in relation to 157 livings in England where he is sole patron and in 285 livings where the patronage is shared with other patrons. He also appoints to 12 Canonries at 4 cathedrals. In addition, the Crown is also the patron in respect of a further 210 benefices and some 25 Canonries, where The Queen acts on your advice. In practice the work in relation to all these livings is carried out through the Ecclesiastical Office based in No 10. 3. With the decision to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor we need to settle how his patronage should be handled in the future. Our Consultation Document in September invited views on three options: that the patronage be carried out a/ by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (or another Minister); b/ in the same manner as other Crown livings (i.e. with the PM advising The Queen); c/ by transferring the patronage powers to the Church (with sub-options as to which part of the Church). Outcome of Consultation 4. Opinion of respondents to the consultation was divided evenly between those who wish the patronage to be handled in the same way as other Crown livings and those who wish it to pass to the Church in some form (43% of respondents to this question supported each of the options). There was little support (8%) for it passing to another Minister (eg the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs). The Archbishops of Canterbury and York consulted the House of Bishops in Synod and the Archbishops’ Council. They note that both options have their advocates, but ultimately left the <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 2 decision to Ministers. Seven Bishops responded to the consultation separately, each advocating that the patronage remain with the Crown. However I understand that privately the Archbishop of Canterbury would welcome the Church taking on these appointments, but he is asking that no particular importance should be attached to his personal views. My approach 5. I believe that we should take this unparalleled opportunity to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s patronage to the Church. We would need to discuss the details with the Church itself, but in practice I would expect the transfer to be to the most appropriate Diocesan authority: either the Bishop himself, or the Diocesan Board of Patronage, where it is active and effective. I set out my reasons below. 6. It is scarcely appropriate or necessary in the modern world for any Government minister to deal with individual parish appointments, especially where there are arrangements to ensure that the Bishop’s and the parish’s views are taken into account. I do not believe that tradition or historical antecedents are sufficient justification. It is said that any move to alienate appointments from the Crown could be a seen as a sign of disengagement of State from Church and could give rise to fears of disestablishment. This does not seem borne out by the consultation, where this is mentioned by only a handful of respondents. Questions of Establishment rest on far more than Crown appointments to a small proportion of all parishes. Nevertheless, in announcing any change I think we should make clear that the Government does not see this as disengagement from the Church or the thin end of the wedge on the way to disestablishment. 7. We are engaged in a programme of substantial constitutional reform to ensure that our national institutions are fit for purpose at the beginning of the 21st century. Those institutions must include the national Church, which should be able to make its own appointments and manage its own affairs at parish level, subject to the law. The point has been made to me by some Bishops that the existence of a parish where the Lord Chancellor is patron can interfere with sensible parish re-organisation. I think we should be seeking to remove such difficulties where we can sensibly do so. I am not persuaded by the argument that the, frankly serendipitous, historical pattern of patronage is essential to the balance of authority within the Church. That is not borne out by the divided views in the consultation and seems to be an argument simply for those who wish to maintain as far as possible the status quo. 8. I am aware of the argument that the Lord Chancellor’s patronage is Crown patronage and that, if there is to be any change, then it should revert to the Crown. However, that is not a compelling argument. Put differently, it amounts to saying that because of its historical provenance we should not be considering a change which otherwise seems desirable as part of our reform agenda. We have refuted that argument in connection with the office of Lord Chancellor and we should similarly do so here. It would be a nonsense to say that we are intent on abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor with its quaint antiquities, only to shift them onto the Prime Minister. 9. Some will raise the question of why not transfer all Crown patronage to the Church, not simply that exercised by the Lord Chancellor. In practice this was not a major concern in the responses to the consultation. However, we are not engaged in a review of Crown patronage or of patronage in the Church more widely. We are seeking simply to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor (and the historical </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 3 anomalies he embodied). We are seeking to dispose of his functions in the most sensible and efficient ways to meet modern circumstances. We do not wish to perpetuate unjustified legacies of history, but nor do we want to raise wider questions by embarking on further reforms than those to be addressed in bringing to an end the office of the Lord Chancellor. Canonries 10. I recognise that the case for the transfer of Lord Chancellor’s 12 Canonries is arguably less clear cut. There was very little comment on these in the consultation responses. You advise The Queen on the appointment of some further 25 Canons, as well as more senior ecclesiastical appointments. However, I think the principles are the same as for parish appointments and I see no reason not to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s rights to appoint Canons to the Church as well. Other patronage issues 11. The Lord Chancellor has powers to exercise the rights of a patron of unsound mind under the Mental Health Act 1983. I propose that these powers should pass to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (who would act on advice from the Ecclesiastical Patronage Office in No 10). The Secretary of State already has responsibilities for the affairs of those of unsound mind. I would not propose any shift in the default arrangements for exercising the patronage of the Duchy of Cornwall where the Duchy is vacant or held by a minor. With the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor all this patronage would ultimately be exercisable by the Crown acting on your advice. Means of transfer 12. Our lawyers advise that, under existing legislation relating to the transfer of advowsons, it may be possible to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s patronage to the Church by means of an instrument under the Great Seal. However, I believe that we should make use of the forthcoming Constitutional Reform Bill to do so. Such an important change should be the subject of proper scrutiny and (if required) debate in Parliament. The size and antiquity of the Lord Chancellor’s patronage, its provenance from the Crown and the obscurity of the nature of the original delegation from the Crown all point to the certainty which primary legislation would provide. In any event there are a number of references to the Lord Chancellor’s patronage in statute which would need consequential amendment even if transfer were to be accomplished in some other way. Next steps 13. Subject to your views, I will include provisions relating to the transfer of the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage, with my other proposals for the Bill when I seek formal DA approval shortly. When I have your views and those of DA, I will provide formal advice to The Queen on how we intend to proceed before the Bill is published. I expect to be announcing the outcome of consultation in relation to the office of Lord Chancellor and other constitutional changes when the Bill is introduced. That would include our proposals in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage and would allow us to make clear the Government’s view that such a change would not affect the fundamental status of the Church of England. 14. I am sending a copy of the minute to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster because of his responsibility for Crown patronage in relation to the Duchy. I am </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 4 also sending a copy of this minute to Sir Robin Janvrin for information, so that he is aware of the advice being offered. </div> Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. Black and white Lesser Royal Arms in the upper left of the first page. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Recommending That the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical Patronage Be Transferred to the Church of England [2003-11] Subject The topic of the resource Parochial Appointments Cathedrals Description An account of the resource Minute from Lord Falconer of Thoroton to Tony Blair recommending that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should be transferred to the Church of England. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lord Falconer of Thorton (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived PREM 49/3579/3-4 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Cathedrals Church of England Lord Chancellor Parochial Appointments Prime Minister https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/eda7c0543442388fa7d44311f6377971.pdf 9e9eff85b2a1bc859a77d7a74bed220a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource No. 10 and the See of Liverpool Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource In 1997, Tony Blair rejected the Crown Appointments Commission's initial slate of nominees for the See of Liverpool. These documents shed light on No. 10's assessment of the candidates as well as the attitude of senior figures in the Church such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Letter This is used for general correspondence that doesn't fit into a specialized category (e.g., ministerial submissions). Transcript A transcript of the document. 10 DOWNING STREET LONDON SW1A 2AA [Phone Number] <div style="width:100%;font-size:1em;line-height:1.2;"> <div style="vertical-align:top;">From the Secretary for Appointments</div> <div style="float:right;text-align:right;">24 June 1997</div> <div style="clear:both;">J H Holroyd CB</div> Dear David, See of Liverpool I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 16 June about the outcome of the meeting of the Crown Appointments Commission on the See of Liverpool. The Prime Minister was most grateful to you for setting out the outcome with such care. However, having studied the papers, he has concluded that at this stage he is not prepared to recommend either of these names to The Queen for appointment as Bishop of Liverpool. As you will, I am sure, understand the Prime Minister wishes to recommend to The Queen someone who will not only meet the perceived needs of the Diocese of Liverpool, but whose present standing or future potential is commensurate with the importance of the See of Liverpool, particularly as demonstrated during the episcopate of Bishop David Sheppard. He has accordingly asked me to request you to reconvene the Crown Appointments Commission in order to provide him with further names for his consideration. <div style="text-align:center;">Yours</div> <div style="text-align:center;">(Sgd.) John</div> <div style="text-align:center;"> J H HOLROYD</div> The Most Reverend and Right Honourable The Lord Archbishop of York IN CONFIDENCE APPOINTMENTS </div> Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. John Holroyd (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Recipient(s) David Hope (Archbishop of York) Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. Black and white Lesser Royal Arms at the top. Lettehead features Downing Street's address and "From the Secretary for Appointments John Holroyd CB". Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter - Informing the Archbishop of York That the Prime Minister Wanted the CAC to Come Up With More Names [1997-06-24] Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource Letter from John Holroyd to David Hope stating that Tony Blair had decided to ask the Crown Appointments Commission to come up with a new slate of names for the Bishopric of Liverpool. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Holroyd (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-24 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Relation A related resource <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen8/25/20/section/III" title="Appointment of Bishops Act 1533">Appointment of Bishops Act 1533</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Diocese of Liverpool Archbishop of York Bishop of Liverpool Church of England Crown Appointments Commission Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/6c6adc768886bdd967218333084bed14.pdf 412465f741d7094b5dec000c731394f2 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource No. 10 and the See of Liverpool Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource In 1997, Tony Blair rejected the Crown Appointments Commission's initial slate of nominees for the See of Liverpool. These documents shed light on No. 10's assessment of the candidates as well as the attitude of senior figures in the Church such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. No 10 Duty Desk 22/6/97 From: ALEX ALLAN Date: 21 June 1997 JOHN HOLROYD DIOCESE OF LIVERPOOL The Prime Minister saw your note and wants to go for more names. He is not against Cassidy or Reid but would like more names at least to test the water. (Sgd.) Alex Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. Alex Allan (Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Relaying the Prime Minister's Decision to Ask the CAC For More Names [1997-06-21] Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource Minute from Alex Allan to John Holroyd stating that Tony Blair had decided to ask the Crown Appointments Commission for more names. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alex Allan (Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-21 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Relation A related resource <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen8/25/20/section/III" title="Appointment of Bishops Act 1533">Appointment of Bishops Act 1533</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Diocese of Liverpool Bishop of Liverpool Church of England Crown Appointments Commission Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments Private Secretary to the Prime Minister https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/d7371c773f648ec565642e7f49c4bd54.pdf 21672c599036574d7941cb80089d6fa3 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource No. 10 and the See of Liverpool Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource In 1997, Tony Blair rejected the Crown Appointments Commission's initial slate of nominees for the See of Liverpool. These documents shed light on No. 10's assessment of the candidates as well as the attitude of senior figures in the Church such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. From: John Holroyd Date: 20 June 1997 PRIME MINISTER Diocese of Liverpool The letter from the Archbishop of York reporting the outcome of the Crown Appointments Commission (CAC) for Liverpool has come to hand. It is attached to this note. The key parts are on the second and third pages, carefully drafted passages that I have marked. Their effect is to depress the case for going for Bishop Gavin Reid and also to cast doubt on whether the second name, that of Archdeacon George Cassidy, is good enough for Liverpool. The Archbishop’s letter does not change things compared to the previous notes that I have sent you, ie it opens the way for you to set aside Reid and to make a choice between (a) Cassidy and (b) asking the CAC to provide more names. Going for Cassidy is the lower risk in the short term, ie neither Archbishop could argue with your choosing him and the CAC would not have to be reconvened, but, if George Cassidy is not up to the job, then in the longer term the Diocese of Liverpool will suffer. I have profound doubts about Reid’s suitability and the same sort of doubts as the Archbishop of York about Cassidy. I would be ready to brave a resumed CAC! Do you want to go for Cassidy OR I am not against Cassidy or Reid but [illegible] like more names at least to test the water More names? ✓ [If, before you decide, you want to talk to the Archbishop of York he will not be available until you are back from Denver] (Sgd.) John JOHN HOLROYD Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. John Holroyd (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. Minute has a handwritten annotation from Tony Blair stating that he would like to ask the CAC for more names. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Recommending That the Prime Minister Ask the CAC For More Names [1997-06-20] Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource Minute from John Holroyd recommending that Tony Blair ask the Crown Appointments Commission for a new slate of names for the Bishopric of Liverpool. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Holroyd (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-20 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Relation A related resource <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen8/25/20/section/III" title="Appointment of Bishops Act 1533">Appointment of Bishops Act 1533</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Diocese of Liverpool Bishop of Liverpool Church of England Crown Appointments Commission Prime Minister Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/7591d183dec0c18c9dbead25d3158df7.pdf 099802051e2310454da3528037b097ad Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource No. 10 and the See of Liverpool Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource In 1997, Tony Blair rejected the Crown Appointments Commission's initial slate of nominees for the See of Liverpool. These documents shed light on No. 10's assessment of the candidates as well as the attitude of senior figures in the Church such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Letter This is used for general correspondence that doesn't fit into a specialized category (e.g., ministerial submissions). Transcript A transcript of the document. Page 1 <table style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="width:33%;vertical-align:top;border:none;">From: Archbishop of York</td> <td style="width:33%;vertical-align:top;text-align:center;border:none;">BISHOPTHORPE PALACE BISHOPTHORPE YORK Y02 1QE</td> <td style="width:33%;vertical-align:top;text-align:right;border:none;">[Phone and fax numbers]</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> 16 June 1997 Dear Prime Minister See of Liverpool Following the resignation of the Right Reverend David Sheppard, this vacancy in See was considered by the Crown Appointments Commission at a meeting on 5/6 June. The Commission elected for your consideration the two names of the Venerable George Cassidy, Archdeacon of London and Canon Residentiary of St Paul’s Cathedral London and the Right Reverend Gavin Reid, Bishop of Maidstone in the Diocese of Canterbury. George Cassidy is 54. Having read for his first degree at Queen’s University, Belfast he took an M.Phil at University College, London. He was initially employed as a civil servant in Northern Ireland and then spent two years in Kenya as a town planner. He trained for the Ministry at Oak Hill and began his ministry in Bristol Diocese with a curacy in Clifton, followed by an incumbency in Bristol. In 1982 he became Vicar of St Paul’s, Portman Square and was appointed to his present post ten years ago. George Cassidy was well regarded as a parish priest and people like his warmth and encouragement. He proved a good administrator and was not afraid to take initiatives. With his qualification and experience as a town planner and in his interest in financial matters, he brought unusually broad and relevant experience to the Archdeaconry of London. He has the considerable mastery of detail that the City Churches continuously demand and a good style and sense managerially. He is known and liked by distinguished figures in the City. He also makes an important and well regarded contribution to the Chapter at St Paul’s. George stands in a traditional evangelical context, with a concern for orthodoxy but an openness to other Anglican traditions. He has a keen and critical mind and his interests are by no means confined to the Church and its immediate concerns. He reads widely and keeps up his theological and biblical study. He accepts the ordination of women, albeit without great enthusiasm, yet has always been affirming and encouraging of women’s ministry in general. The Bishop of London warmly commends George Cassidy for his very real achievements and loyal contribution and confirms that he is able to work with all churchmanship traditions in the Church of England. He envisages that his gifts could be very useful indeed at the present juncture in the life or one or other of our great cities. George Cassidy is married and has two grown up daughters. His wife is a trained school nurse. They are a most hospitable and kind couple, very welcoming in their home to a wide range of people. /cont'd.....  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 2 Gavin Reid is 63. He was educated at London University and trained for the ministry at Oak Hill. After curacies in East Ham and Rainham, Essex, he was appointed Publications Secretary for the Church Pastoral Aid Society in 1966. After some years there and then a period working for the United Society for Christian Literature, he returned to CPAS as Director of Evangelism, a post he held until 1990. As part of that task he played a key role in the Billy Graham Missions of the 1980s. From 1990 he was seconded to advise the Board of Mission on the Decade of Evangelism, until his present appointment as Bishop of Maidstone in 1992. His most recent contribution to the wider Church is his chairmanship of The Archbishops’ Advisory Group on the Millennium. Gavin Reid’s great strength is as an inspirer and he is something of a visionary. In his publications he shows himself to be a man of ideas and a first class thinker. He has considerable gifts as a communicator, whether that be as a speaker at public conventions, as a debater in General Synod or in the media. His evangelical work has taken him all over the country, giving him a feel for parish life which has stood him in good stead as a Bishop even though his direct parochial experience is limited. Before becoming a Bishop he was known and respected as an uncompromising, open evangelical. He has nevertheless been able to minister to all without in any way denying his roots; though not all those from other traditions have found it easy to relate to his views. But all would acknowledge that he is an enthusiast for the Gospel, a godly priest, and an outstanding national figure in evangelism. He relates well to the leaders of the community in Kent and is valued, for example, by the King’s School in Canterbury. Bishop Reid is married and has three grown up children. His wife, Mary, is a teacher and has taught in primary schools with children with special needs. She also has experience as a magazine editor. She is a strong supporter of her husband’s ministry. The Crown Appointments Commission did not express a clear preference for either candidate, the voting being seven votes to Gavin Reid and five to George Cassidy. It was quite clear that the diocesan representatives were very definitely pressing for his name, and it would be only right for me to add also that the Archbishop of Canterbury was similarly supportive. However, the Commission as a whole was less persuaded, both on the grounds of age as well as perhaps more importantly on the grounds of compatibility, for there seemed to be a number of discrepancies between on the one hand what was written in the Diocesan Statement of Needs together with the Secretaries’ Memorandum, in comparison with the information to hand about Bishop Reid. It would be true to say also that whilst the name of George Cassidy gained the necessary majority as a second name to be placed before you for consideration, and whilst he undoubtedly has the many qualified, recited above, yet quite in spite of these there were as well misgivings shared in the Commission about whether his proper archdeaconal [sic] qualities really have the capacity to develop more fully into the qualities needed for this particular episcopal ministry. /cont'd.....  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 3 In differing ways therefore each of the two persons concerned have their comparative strengths and weaknesses, given the profile of the Diocese of Liverpool at this important juncture and in succession to Bishop David Sheppard. With greetings and all good wishes. Yours sincerely (Sgd.) + David Ebor: The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA </div> </div> Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. David Hope (Archbishop of York) Recipient(s) Tony Blair (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) Ornamentation Describe any ornamentation. Printed in Times New Roman. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter - Archbishop of York's Views on CAC Nominees for the See of Liverpool [1997-06-16] Subject The topic of the resource Archbishops and Bishops Procedure Description An account of the resource Letter from David Hope to Tony Blair setting out his views on the candidates the Crown Appointments Commission had recommended for the Bishopric of Liverpool. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David Hope (Archbishop of York) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-16 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Diocese of Liverpool Archbishop of York Bishop of Liverpool Church of England Crown Appointments Commission Prime Minister