CONVOCATION ON LAY REPRESENTATION.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
Sm,—I beg leave to make a few observations on Dr. Trevor's letter of December 26th.
1. He says, that to admit laymen to Convocation is like admit- ting the Commons to the Lords' House. This, of course, assumes all the disputable points in the question. Crown, Lords, and Commons are the three separate and integral parts of a complete Parliament. As I have maintained, but shall not again argue, Parliament plus Convocation was a complete Church representa- tion, but is so no longer. Convocation stands alone, or for cer- tain purposes, Convocation plus the Crown. Therefore, as I say, provide a new Lay body. But the Association to which I belong, as we have recently again stated, does not insist on laity and clergy forming only one Chamber. That might be done, even as in some of the the Colonial Legislatures it has not been thought unconstitutional that there should be only one Assembly. So Convocation, or whatever we may call the Church Assembly, might consist of either one or more Chambers. 2. I deny that all I have done, when asked to define a Church layman, has been to shake my head and "fall to" lamentation. I have said repeatedly that such a general definition is needless for my purpose, and that for that purpose I am content with a declaration. Certainly I do "fall to deploring" whatever is bad, but 1 hope I do not always stop there. When I say that the divergence of clergy and laity is "matter of ordinary observa- tion," Dr. Trevor construes "ordinary" as equivalent to "super- ficial," and sneers thereupon. It is difficult to find words in which an old hand like D. Trevor cannot pick holes, but I will substitute "accurate." 'Whether the statement is then true, Dr. Trevor will probably agree is hardly matter for argument.
3. I shall not fall into the trap which Dr. Trevor provides for me by bringing the matter before Parliament. I do not say it is ripe for it. My business is agitation, and every one knows that such a question is brought before Parliament at a great disadvan- tage by any private Member. Dr. Trevor, however, may be glad to hear that I do mean to lay on the table of the House, on the first day of next Session, a Bill for the increase of the Episco- pate. Here the particular circumstances, which I shall not now detail, seemed to justify that step.
4. I meant no such foolishness as that Dr. Trevor's being a "logical person" was an objection to his argument. I merely meant the common-place that when a logical argument leads to false or questionable conclusions there is reason to suspect the premisses.
5. It is true that I said Dr. Trevor's view led to the position that the Church must be unchangeable, but, as I need not remind you, it was your own saying, which I only adopted. Dr. Trevor knows his business quite well enough to select the weaker of two opponents, and ignore the existence of the other.
But I—perhaps I might say we—never meant to make so absurd a statement as that no changes could be made anyhow. It is an old saying that Parliament can change anything, except a man into a woman. What I mean is that, except in very peculiar circumstances, in the supposed state of things, Parliament would become more and more reluctant to meddle with Church matters, and that in questions at all touching on doctrine it neither would. nor ought to meddle at all.
6. I decline to answer Dr. Trevor's historical questions, which in my opinion are much too minute. What I hold is that there was a time, and that not so very long ago, when Parliament, in intention, and to a very great extent in fact, was composed of Churchmen only, and that that has totally ceased.
7. Finally, I deny that I propose a revolution in the constitu- tion of the Church, Or that I meddle with that constitution at all. I do propose a revolution in the constitution of the Church Assembly, but I think it would be easy to secure that the quali- fication which should be admitted for that single and specific object should not be held to extend further.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
