Chapter 1: Introduction
|
| 1. |
The last decade has seen important legislation relating
to the Church of England, in particular two major pieces of legislation
relating to cathedrals. These were the Care
of Cathedrals Measure 1990 and the Cathedrals
Measure 1999 . Neither of these included the Royal Peculiars, which
are not cathedrals and which have independent status, in that they are
not subject to diocesan structures but only to Her Majesty The Queen.
A third major piece of legislation, the draft Clergy Discipline Measure,
and the related amending Canon, which potentially affect all clergy,
are not yet law. Here again, the clergy in Royal Peculiars were excluded
from this Measure's predecessor, the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure
1963. |
| 2. |
The history of Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel,
Windsor, has set them apart legally from the main jurisdiction of the
Church of England, and more recently from legislation which has been
enacted by the General Synod and approved by Parliament. The status
of the Chapels Royal is different again, and equally distinct. There
are two reasons why this continued separation has been questioned, and
which lie behind the present Review. |
| 3. |
In the first place it seems increasingly anomalous, notwithstanding
their direct accountability to The Queen, that such great institutions
as Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel, Windsor, with their immense
importance for the national life, should remain exempt from the degree
of scrutiny and accountability which is now extended to cathedrals.
Heritage and Renewal (1994), the report of the Archbishops' Commission
on Cathedrals, chaired by Lady Howe, is a valuable study of 42 cathedrals
which discusses many areas of activity in which the Royal Peculiars
can be usefully compared with them, while still allowing for their important
differences.(1) That Report led in due
course to the Cathedrals Measure 1999, which is now being put into practice.
The fact that Westminster Abbey in particular was not included in the
Measure gave rise to question, even though the Abbey's role and governance
make it distinct from the cathedrals included in the remit of the Archbishops'
Commission. An appeal to the Visitor and subsequent judgement after
the dismissal of the Abbey Organist in 1998 attracted much media coverage
and hostile comment still continues. It is not our task, nor would it
be appropriate, to revisit those events. Nevertheless it is clearly
timely to ask how far it might now be appropriate to apply the recommendations
of the Howe Commission to the Royal Peculiars, and in what aspects their
cases justify continued separate treatment.(2)
|
| 4. |
In the second place, it may be argued that isolation
from the procedures now in place for comparable institutions is unhelpful
to the institutions themselves. A considerable amount of expertise has
by now been accumulated in relation to good practice in the many areas
with which these bodies must be concerned, and much of it is the subject
of lively and useful debate.(3) It can
only be beneficial for the institutions themselves to be more fully
drawn into the discussion, and to share in formulating the outcomes. |
| 5. |
In that it refers to cathedrals, which are subject to
their diocesan bishop, it would not have been appropriate to include
the Royal Peculiars in the legislation mentioned above as it stands.
However the arguments for initiating a review to cover the Royal Peculiars
in question have been accepted by the Deans themselves. They therefore
themselves petitioned Her Majesty The Queen to commission this Report,
which is presented to The Queen through the Lord Chancellor, and on
the basis of which any necessary action may be taken. |
Return to contents page