[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—" A Lay Representative's
" letter in your issue of April 29th gives vent to a serious grievance, but suggests no remedy.,
At present the House of Laymen consists almost entirely of landowners and the wealthy. Professional men with limited incomes, small tradesmen, and artisans, are all of necessity excluded from this body; and, therefore, it cannot be con- sidered to be representative of the Church of England as a whole. However ready they may be to make a sacrifice of time and money, it is impossible for such men under present conditions to attend the meetings of the House of Laymen unless they live in or near London.
So far as I can see, there is only one remedy for this state of things, and that is the guaranteeing of the expenses of can- didates who cannot afford to pay their own. This can be done through the agency of the Church of England Men's Society. Here, in Derbyshire, some of us are trying to stir up interest in the matter, and to induce the members of the Society to attend meetings and elect working men to the various Church Councils, and in this way to secure support for the best candidates for the House of Laymen, and not to elect men of leisure only, because no others can afford to stand. It has been estimated that a rate of -Id. per member of the C.E.M.S. in this diocese will enable us to pay £5 to each of two lay representatives for their expenses in London ; and it is unlikely that so large a sum will be required. It is thought that if a beginning is made by electing working men, it will quickly lead to the inclusion of professional men and tradesmen in a small way of business.
If the attempt proves successful, and is taken up by other dioceses, it may safely be predicted that in a few years the House of Laymen will have become a representative body.
It is not, however, suggested that the wealthier classes are in any way unfit to act as representatives, or that it will be advantageous to place them in a minority in the House of Laymen. On the contrary, if this Council is to be efficient, it is probable that a great preponderance of its members will always he drawn from those classes. All that is desired is that others may not be excluded, and that men of small means who are deeply interested in the welfare of their Church may have the opportunity of rendering their services for her welfare.
Before concluding I wish to say that I cannot agree with your correspondent that " the House of Laymen, as at present constituted, is absolutely useless." A first step has been taken, and in the right direction. It is for those who desire progress and improvement to set to work to ensure that the Councils of the Church shall become more democratic and more useful.
Nor is it true that the members of the House of Laymen " are largely the nominees of the clergy." Their election is wholly in the hands of the laity, who are responsible for the success or failure of the working of the scheme of repre- sentation. And, may I add, we who are electors do expect those who have been elected to have the courage of their opinions, and not to allow modesty to be an excuse for shirking their responsibilities. No progress will ever be made if progressives refrain from speaking out when the oppor- tunity arises, and afterwards satisfy their consciences and relieve their feelings by writing to the Press.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
