THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND DIVORCE SIR,—Mr. Weir must not
evade the question, as he does in his letter of January 9, written with that courtesy and charm for which he is well known.
To recapitulate. Mr. Weir has asserted that there has never been Canon Law in the Church of England and that the claim of Convocation that it is legally possible for it to make canons is without foundation. To this I replied that, if this were indeed the case, did it not follow that the Queen (and her advisers), in issuing a Royal Licence to consider and draft canons, was inciting Convocation to do some- thing illegal?
Mr. Weir replies (if it can be called a reply) by drawing a distinction between making canons (which he considers illegal) and a Royal Licence 'for the transacting of business professedly intended for par- liamentary enactment' (which is legal). But this has nothing to do with the case, for the Royal Licence issued a, few years ago was granted for the specific purpose of discussing and drafting canons. One assumes that the only purpose of drafting canons is that they should receive the Royal Assent and be enacted—which Mr. Weir assures us is illegal. My original question, therefore, awaits an answer.
Mr. Weir would at least agree that, on his original assumption of the illegality of canons, King Edward VIII and his advisers (including the Law Officers) acted quite illegally when, in 1936, two canons re- ceived the Royal Assent and were made, promulged and executed. The fact that the two canons dealt with matters of small importance makes no difference to the principle involved.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
