Overview

The accession of the young and remarkably ‘English’ George III, with his distinct Tory leanings, revived hopes that convocation might at last be brought back to life. The archbishop of Canterbury prepared a long speech for the opening session of the new reign, but he fell ill and was unable to deliver it - a portent of what was to come. The United Kingdom was at war until 1763, which made it difficult to contemplate something as potentially complicated as a revival of convocation, but there was no real peace afterwards. One way or another, the country was in turmoil or at war for most of the reign, and by the time victory was secured in 1815, the king had gone mad. As a result, nothing was done and by 1820 the convocation was no more than a shadow of its former self. Even so, it continued to meet with every parliament and offer a loyal address, which kept the ideal alive until such time as circumstances might permit a genuine revival.

The convocation of 1761-8

This met on 6 November 1761, but was unable to proceed because of the archbishop's illness. The paper which he intended to read is of considerable interest, and because it was published shortly afterwards, may appropriately be considered as part of the records of the convocation. Thomas Seeker began his discourse by asking why convocation continued to meet when everybody knew that it had nothing to do. He reminded his readers that things had not always been that way in the past, and might not always be that way in the future; the present inactivity might well turn out to be just a passing phase in its long life. It was the duty of the clergy to keep the institution alive and in a position where it could respond at short notice to the government's call to return to its customary business. He then went on to point out that the church had numerous enemies, ranging from deists to Roman Catholics, and that even its friends were not always particularly helpful. He reminded them that there were many who harboured suspicions that the convocation wanted to impose some kind of religious tyranny on the country, and believed that if there was any need to uphold Christian principles, the king and his government were more than adequate to the task.