[To THE EDITOR Or TEL "SPECTATOR:] Sin,—The writer of the
article on "The Church Reform League" in the Spectator of October 30th seems to have overlooked the fact that the scheme of the League for "the better government of the Church of England" lays quite as much stress as he does on the paramount necessity of securing adequate representation of the laity in any new scheme. "Nothing without the clergy and nothing without the laity" should, I think, be our motto, and it is only when both consent that under our scheme any action will be possible. I think most reformers will fully agree with his appeal for the union, at any rate for general business purposes, of the
Northern and Southern Houses of Convocation and of Laymen ; but equally all, I think, would oppose his proposals to entrust the consideration of Church measures to either a clerical Convocation alone or to a joint House of clergy and laity. The essential characteristics of Convocation forbid the admission of laymen. It must remain a clerical body ; and therefore the only alternative is to work on the existing lines, the consent both of the clerics in Convocation and of the laity in their own House being necessary before any measure can be submitted to Parliament as representing the will of
Previous page
