ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



to regulate worship, or goes behind a "' present- 

 ment " in case of alleged irregularities in the con- 

 duct of divine service. The election to diocesan 

 synods is made directly or mediately from the 

 congregations: election to provincial or general 

 svnods bv the lay members of diocesan synods. 

 The proportion of lay to clerical members varies 

 from that of the Episcopal Church in Ireland, 

 where the laity are two to one, to that of the 

 Established Church of Scotland, where they are 

 barely as many as the presbyters. Considerable 

 variation in the same respect exists as well in the 

 colonies. Hut what is possible in Scotland, Ire- 

 land, the colonies, and the United States, is, the 

 report sets forth, not necessarily possible in Eng- 

 land, where every Englishman may in some sense 

 claim that the national Church is his own church, 

 even if he is. as a matter of fact, for the most part 

 absent from its worship. 



Deputation to the Archbishops. A large 

 deputation waited upon the Archbishops of Can- 

 terbury and York. Feb. 13, on behalf of the draft 

 of the'ltill recommended by the two convocations 

 for their reform and the 'organization of houses 

 of laymen in connection with them. The Bishop 

 of Rochester, who introduced the deputation, ex- 

 plained that Sir Richard Jebb (not being able to be 

 present) had written a letter in favor of an auton- 

 omy which should not be inconsistent with estab- 

 lishment; speaking then of the objects which the 

 bill was intended to promote, he said that the 

 existing machinery of the Church was virtually 

 that of medieval and prereformed times, and 

 took no account of modern conditions among 

 those conditions being a large body of educated 

 clergy in close touch with life in all classes of the 

 population. Such men were most sensitive to 

 their responsibilities. The present organization 

 did not take account of a highly trained body 

 of laity. Then there was the enormous alteration 

 in Parliament during the past three centuries. 

 Parliament itself recognized its unsuitableness, 

 and its interference was most undesirable. In the 

 present proposal no attitude was assumed antag- 

 onistic to the rights of Parliament. But in the 

 life of the legislature the principle of devolution 

 was regarded as an indispensable element. They 

 were only asking for a certain measure of devolu- 

 tion. There were no disguise, no ephemeral mo- 

 tives, no party spirit in the minds of the pro- 

 moters of the bill. It sought to proceed on the 

 line of concentration, viz., how to reform convo- 

 cation and to associate laymen, and to obtain 

 parliamentary sanction for the scheme. Sir John 

 Kennaway represented that the movement pleaded 

 as its justification the amazing growth of the 

 Church in the nineteenth century. The problems 

 to be confronted were to secure that representa- 

 tive bodies of the clergy and laity should have the 

 authority of a living voice and some power of 



If-government. \Vhile it was hopeless to ask 

 larhament to consider a scheme of self-govern- 

 ment, it was purposed to ask for further power 

 from the houses; and Parliament again would be 

 ble to approve or disapprove. In every step 

 rhament would have power to intervene. There 

 was already the precedent of the Established 

 Church of Scotland, in which was embodied all 



e principle for which they contended. Bishop 

 Harry spoke from his own actual experience in a 

 colonial bishopric of the working in the colonies 

 of full synodical government, with clergy and 

 laity cooperating. Chancellor P. V. Smith, deal- 

 ing with the form of the bill, said that in seeking 

 autonomy, its framers had proceeded bv adopting 



L IStin f-'., rather than creati "S new conditions 

 Ihey did not ask that powers in excess of the 



existing pow r ers of convocation should be con- 

 ferred on the new bodies. But when satisfactory 

 bodies had been created, Parliament should be ap- 

 proached and asked for definite powers. The 

 Archbishop of Canterbury, replying to the repre- 

 sentations of- these speakers, said he had no doubt 

 that it would add to the force and efficiency of the 

 Church if it was intrusted in some effective man- 

 ner with more ample power of governing itself. 

 He could very heartily support the proposition to 

 empower the convocations to reform themselves, 

 and likewise the general principle that a house of 

 laymen ought to be formed. But the formation 

 for the purpose of perfecting real legislation of the 

 two convocations into a single synod they still 

 reserving their separate functions for ordinary 

 convocation work was of even more importance 

 than the formation of a house of laymen. The 

 weak point was the proposed method of forming 

 the house of laymen. The speaker doubted 

 whether Parliament w r ould quite consent to pass 

 a bill in which the formation of a house of laynien 

 was left so entirely in clerical hands, but thought 

 it almost certain that they would insert some pro- 

 visions definitely indicating what they considered 

 to be a proper definition of a lay constituent of 

 the Church of England. For himself, he would 

 prefer a house of laymen which was not simply 

 the offspring of a body of clergy. " I feel that 

 their independence would be a real gain to the 

 Church, and that the sense of independence would 

 depend upon their being formed not u'pon lines 

 laid down by the bishops and clergy, but upon 

 lines which more exactly represent their own 

 minds. I have stated the two things which I care 

 about most: First, the formation of a single 

 synod to bind the whole Church into one, leaving 

 to each of the separate convocations the business 

 of its own province ; then the houses of laymen, 

 without which we shall never have self-govern- 

 ment. But we must be careful how we press- 

 anything upon Parliament which will in any way 

 damage in the eyes of the people of England the 

 independence of those houses of laymen when 

 formed." The Archbishop of York agreed with 

 the Archbishop of Canterbury that a house of lay- 

 men constituted by the convocations would not 

 be likely to command the confidence of the people 

 generally. "We should deal with the laity," he 

 continued, " not as persons who are taking a par- 

 ticular interest in Church matters or occupy a 

 certain position, but as baptismal members of the 

 body of Christ. We need to keep continually be- 

 fore our minds that we are not giving them a 

 privilege, but calling them to the proper exercise 

 of a right as members of the Church. . . . But it 

 is necessary to ask this question: Granted that 

 you have reformed convocation and your house of 

 laymen, what is the law they are going to ad- 

 minister? What is its basis? It is not the basis 

 of what is called Catholic tradition or evangelical 

 tradition. It must be the law of the Church of 

 England itself as it was reformed three centuries - 

 ago. Unless we make that perfectly clear it will 

 be a long time before we obtain such a measure. 

 But ... if we are large-hearted enough and cou- 

 rageous and not too anxious to keep this body of 

 laymen within a Church limit ; if we are not too 

 timid about giving the franchise to those who 

 may seem to stand aloof from the Church, but 

 are still to be reckoned members of the Church; 

 if we remember that the Church .is a national 

 Church, and that the nation as a nation has some- 

 thing to say about it, and will not be dictated to 

 by ecclesiastics, we may entertain some hopes of 

 the success of our legitimate claims upon the na- 

 tional Parliament." 



