ASSOCIATION OF THE LAITY 
 
 OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 HOUSE OF LAYMEN 
 
 IN ALLIANCE WITH 
 
 THE SYNOD OF TORONTO 
 
 SUBMITTKD 
 
 TO THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 COMPILHD BY 
 
 THE HONORARY SECRETARY, s^ 
 
 I' y 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 Thk Williamson Book Co. 
 
 6 King St. Wkst, 
 
 1893. 
 
ASSOCIATION OF THE LAITY 
 
 OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS 
 
 ON THfi 
 
 HOUSE OF LAYMEN 
 
 IN ALLIANCE WITH 
 
 THE SYNOD OF TORONTO 
 
 SUBMITTED 
 
 TO THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 COMPILFI) BY 
 
 THE HONORARY SECRETARY. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 Thk Williamson Book Co. 
 
 6 Kino St. Wkst, 
 
 1893. 
 
I" '4. ' 
 
 
 »fc." 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 We have to expresH our gratification at the interest felt l»y 
 the Laity generally in the first presentation to their n» iice of 
 the su^Tfrestion to establish a House of Laymen, in alliance with 
 the Synod of To^'onto — an interest vviiich has increased in pro- 
 portion to the kno\vle<lge of the su)>ject treated on, and which 
 we are sure will be accelerated by a perusal of the following 
 evidence and opinions so readily and handsomely given to us by 
 all classes of the Laity. In the change proposed there are no 
 doubt some difficulties to encounter, but the advantages which 
 the following synopsis of letters shows, are of such extraordinary 
 importance and value to the best interests of the Church, that 
 they will surely be overcome ; and we have good hope that all 
 orders in the church will accord to the movement their earnest 
 and active support. 
 
 The one great object of the Institution is to enable Lay 
 Representatives to acquire such knowledge, not only of the sub- 
 jects which ordinarily engage the attention of the Synod, but 
 also all sucli as may be referred to them by the Bishop, the Pres- 
 ident of the Synod, or originated by themselves ; so that they 
 may better and more intelligently, than at present is possible, 
 discharge their duties to their constituents, to the Synod and to 
 the Church. 
 
 The proposed House of Laymen is, we submit, well adapted 
 to this end. The Lay Representatives having knowledge months 
 before hand, of at least some pf the subjects to be discussed, are 
 likely by previous reading and enquiry to fit themselves for the 
 crucial test of debate, when by comparing the opinions of one 
 with those of another, by rubbing them together as it were, by 
 seeing which is the harder and best stands the friction of prac- 
 tical utility, truth by such means is separated from the numer- 
 ous sophisms that surround it, and will be afterwards employed 
 in carrying out the well thought of conclusions to the general 
 advantage of our beloved Church. 
 
 20th May, 1893. 
 
PROPOSAL 
 
 To Establish a House of Laymen in Alliance with the 
 
 Synod of Toronto. 
 
 1. Tlie institution now suggested is of recent origin. The first 
 one WR9 inaugurated hy the present Archbishop of Canterbury on July 
 8, 1885, by virtue of resolutions agreed to by both Houses of Convo- 
 cation of the Province of Canterbury. His Grace, in the course of his 
 address on opening the first House of Laymen, said : "This House is 
 therefore a body purely representative of the laity, and its realization 
 at this day with simpler, freer, larger aims than those of faction or 
 political party, is full of strong and happy promise. The moral efTects 
 of its discussions must, from the first, be great, and we cannot doubt 
 that if its conclusions are arrived at by patient debate in fully attended 
 meetings, the moral effect will, in due time, take material and practical 
 form.'' And at the present day, after seven years' experience of the 
 working of the organization, it is understood, and, as indeed its annual 
 reports of proceedings show, that his Grace's hopef have btsen fully 
 realized. 
 
 2. It has met with such high approval by the various parties in 
 the churci;, tiiat the Province of York has recently followed the lead 
 of the provnce of Canterl)ury, and now England and Wales are repre- 
 sented on church matters by two representative Lay Houses. 
 
 3. The House of Liymen is not, in any way, a legislative or 
 political body, with any definite powers, but is simply a consultative 
 or deliberative body of laymen, meeting when the Synod meets, but 
 sitting and acting apart from it. The House will meet on one or two 
 evenings during the time the Synod is in session, so as not to interfere 
 with their duties as members of the Synod. (See resolutions 2 and 5, 
 page 8.) 
 
 4. The resolutions 7 and 8 will show the class of subjects the 
 House will deal with. First the motion, notices and business before 
 the Synod will be considered, and then, if there is time, general objects 
 and matters of actual or proposed legislation, and subjects both ecclesi- 
 astical and civil affecting the interests of the church ; and they may 
 also discuss matters of philanthropy, such as the best mode of increas- 
 ing largely the Superannuation Fund, the better housing of the work- 
 ing classes, the investigation and relief of poverty, and such like. 
 
6. Thv House of Laymen in London and country districts claim 
 th»!ir discussionH and reports are read with interest, and that the clergy 
 and church generally attach some weit^lit to tiieir resolutions, and their 
 expressions of opinion, and we doulit not that having repjard to the 
 numbers and intelligence of our laity, the same results will attend their 
 deliberations when authorized to ni(( t in their own House. And we 
 submit that tlie present is a most favorable time to inaugurate oui 
 House of Laymen, in alliance with the Synod of Toronto. 
 
 6. It may be objected that the lay members of tlie present Synod 
 are quite satislied with the position they occupy. Many of them, no 
 doubt, are, but there are some who are not, yet all without a di-ssenti- 
 ent voice, putting on one side the diverse opinions, will venerate the 
 memory of the good Bishop Strachan wlio gave them that position. 
 Before his time, l)Oth her<i and in England, tliey were almost entin ly 
 ignored as co-operators with the clergy. 
 
 7. We would just observe in passing, that we ffel it necessary 
 to refer frequently to English church precedents. We acknowledge 
 with thankfulness the many blessings and benefits we derive from our 
 beloved mother church, yet we are not insensible of the fact that we 
 inherit some of her faults and disadvantages, which our own church 
 has long labored under, and which we are now trying to remedy. 
 
 8. We say the laity were almost entirely ignored, and the clergy 
 in England were supremely indifferent as to the waning prosperity of 
 the churci), and wliat was the result? One of the able authors of the 
 Bampton lectures says: "under the exclusive regin\e oi an endowed 
 clergy, niore than one-lialf of the religious people of England were 
 alienated from the church. Other denominations rapidly rose on our 
 decline, and it is only witliin the present generation that the ground 
 then lost has been, to some extent at least, regained by the exertions of 
 a more devout and intelligent clergy, and we owe to them whatever 
 advance the church has made during recent years." 
 
 9. Looking to the results of our late census, so disappointing to 
 Churchmen,* it is evident that there is still some ground left which we 
 ought to recover. Numerically our church is far below the position 
 her prestige and great advantages warrant her in holding, and which 
 she is only prevented holding by, we are sorry to say it, tlie super- 
 cilious apathy of a large portion of her laity, from whatever cause it 
 m ayhave arisen 
 
 10. Bishop Strachan's invitation to them to sit in Synod with 
 the clergy was a well-chosen effort to arouse them ft-om that lethargy. 
 It was, indeed, a great advance towards placing them in their true 
 position. It has, for forty years at any rate, offered them a good 
 
 *The church population in the Diocese of Huron has decreased (j.60 per 
 cent. In the Diocese of Niagara 3.81 per cent. These ai]ti[the loss in other rtio- 
 cesea, are not at all agreeable reading. 
 
school for ac(]uirin^ an insight of the tinnnciiil contlition and manage- 
 ment of the various depnrtments of cliurch work. Hut here we must 
 stop. There are questions at tlie present day, beyond this gratefully 
 acknowledged privilege, of vastly greatfr importtinco to the laity and 
 the church generally, on which they desire and ought to have better 
 facilities than they now possess, for acquiring such information as will 
 enable them in Synod to deal with them in an intelligent and an effec- 
 tive manner. 
 
 12. Representatives to the Synod, especially those from the 
 country, with few exceptions, know nothing of the merits or demerits 
 of any question until it is placed before them at the end of a session, 
 when they are absurdly expected to give an almost instant decision 
 upon it. It is then introduced and supported by a few hurried re- 
 marks, anything like debate which would bring out facts necessary to 
 be known is not practicable, and it is then summarily disposed of by 
 postponement, withdrawal, or reference to the Executive Committee, 
 and little more is heard of it. This has unfortunately been the ex- 
 perience of many of the laity on questions Vjefore the Synod of late 
 years.* 
 
 12. As to the composition of the Synod. We think if enquiry 
 were made, it would bo found that the spenking power of the clercy is 
 as two to one, and the voting is in about the same proportion. It is 
 sometimes put forward as a very liberal concession, that each parish 
 sends three representatives to the Synod and oidy one clergyman. As 
 a beginning of a brighter era for laymen, it was perhaps, in Bishop 
 Strachan's time a wise provision. For then the laity had to be edu- 
 cated to fill satisfactorily their new position, and so they might sit and 
 listen to the remarks of the clergy, but were not to vote. Now that 
 they are allowed the privilege, it should be stated that three repre- 
 sentatives in voting only count as one, which provision therefore is 
 now only liberal in appearance, as in fact the clergy, some of their 
 parishes sending two and three, far outnumber the lai^y in voting. 
 This fact may perhaps account to some extent at least, for the ill-suc- 
 cess of motions brought before the Synod of late years by laymen. 
 The point however we do not lay much stress upon, inasmuch as there 
 is no record, as far as we know, of the speeches made during any ses- 
 sion, 80 as to form a correct opinion. Our estimate is based on the 
 motions made in the Synod, 1890. 
 
 13. It may be further objected that in Canada we have Synods 
 where the laity sit with the clergy, whilst in England there are no 
 Synods. This last assertion may not be qu'te correct,! but assuming 
 that it is, it should be stated that in England all or most of the Dio- 
 
 *VVe refer to motions made by Dr. Hodgins, Rev. E. Baldwin, in the inter- 
 est of the laity, Mr. Symons, Mr. Motheraill, Mr. Cumberland. 
 tSalisbury, we are informed, has a Diocesan Synod. 
 
8 
 
 ceses have conferencts wIkmh tli(3 laity sit and vote with the clergy as 
 our Synods do, and it is from these conferences that members are 
 chosen and sent to the House of Laymen in London, whilst in Canada 
 we have no conferences,* and therefore it is proposed to choose our 
 members at the Easter vestries. 
 
 14. And we tliink we are correct in stating, as an instance of 
 the value of debate, however constituted, that it was owing to the de- 
 bates, resolutions and suggestions of the House of Laymen,! that the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury was prevailed on earnestly to support the 
 Bills for the Reform of Church Patronage and the Promotion of Church 
 Discipline, and which latter Bill became an Act of Parliament during 
 the late session. 
 
 At the proper time the following, or some such resolutions, may 
 be agreed on : 
 
 HOUSE OF LAYMEN FOR THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO. 
 
 \. That it is desirable that a House of Laymen, l)eing communi- 
 cants of the Church of England, be formed for the Diocese of Toronto, 
 to confer with the Bishop and Clergy of such Diocese. 
 
 2. That the members of the House of Laymen be appointed by 
 the lay members of the various parishes in the Diocese, and who shall 
 be the same members as are appointed representatives to the Synod, 
 and that they continue to hold their seats until the then next Easter 
 vestries. 
 
 3. 1 hat additional members, not exceeding ten, be appointed by 
 his Lordship the president, if he see fit. 
 
 4. That the House of Laymen be in all case convened by his 
 Lordship the president, simultaneously with the convening of members 
 of the Synod. 
 
 5. That the said House be convened to sit only during the first 
 two evenings the Synod is in Session, or on the evening before and the 
 first evening the Synod is in Session, and be opened by his Lordship 
 the president. 
 
 6. That the said House, or any committee of the House, may be 
 requested by his Lordship the president to meet in conference the 
 clergy, or any committee of the clergy, upon such occasions and at such 
 place as his Lordship the president may think fit. 
 
 7. That the subjects on which the House of Laymen may becon- 
 
 *\Yhil8t this pamphlet is going through the press, we iearn that it is pro- 
 posed to hold a Church Couference in Toronto ihortly. It will be, we believe, 
 the first of the kind ever holden in Canada. It is j, move in the right direction 
 and we wish it every success. 
 
 t8ee their proceedings of Session 1891, page 11. 
 
suiter), shall be all subjects which ordinarily occupy the attention of 
 Synod, saving only the definition or interpretation of the faith and 
 doctrine of the church. 
 
 8. That his Lordship the president, in opening the House of 
 liRymen, or at any other time in their session, may lay before them 
 any subject (with the limitation provided in resolution 7) on which he 
 desires their counsel, and that the results of all the deliberations of 
 the said House on any suVyects, whether thus referred to them, or 
 originated by themselves, be communicated to the president. 
 
 9. That if the a'.ove resolutions be adopted by the Synod, a joint 
 committe of the clergy be appointed to confer with any committee that 
 may hereafter be appointed by the House of Laymen, in order to frame 
 such rules and orders as may be found necessary. • 
 
 10. Provided that nothing in the scheme shall be held to pre- 
 judice the duties, rights and privileges of the Toronto Synod according 
 to the laws and usages of the Church of England in the Dominion of 
 Canada. 
 
 We will suppose the Synod agrees to some such resolutions as the 
 foregoing, and that under resolution 9, committees of clergymen and 
 laity are appointed, when the following or other rules may be adopted. 
 
 Rules for Proceedings : 
 
 1. The proceedings of the House shall begin with prayers selected 
 from the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 2. In the absence of the chairman and vice chairman, a chairman 
 shall be elected by the members present, ard fifteen shall be a quorum 
 of the House. 
 
 3. After prayers the minutes of the last meeting shall be read, 
 confirmed and signed. 
 
 J^TIT" 4. The procedure of the House of Commons, as regards the 
 organization and conduct of debate shall, as far as possiV)le, be adopted 
 by the House of Laymen, except where otherwise ordered by these 
 rules ; but, this rule shall not be held to preclude the chairman from 
 the right of taking part in the debate. 
 
 5. The chairman fchall determine all points of order, the manner 
 of putting questions, and order in which members shall speak. 
 
 6. Notice of business intended to be brought before the House 
 on any day, must be given before 4 15 p.m. of the preceding day, to 
 the honorary secretary. 
 
 7. Votes shall be taken by show of hands, unless six members 
 shall demand a formal division, which shall be taken at once and in 
 such manner as the chairman shall appoint. 
 
10 
 
 8. No business not entered on the agenda paper for the day shall 
 be entered, unless voted urgent by the House. 
 
 9. The chairnmn shall decide the order in which business shall be 
 entered upon the agenda paper. 
 
 10. Each member shall contribute one dollar towards the annual 
 expenses, and a treasurer shall be appointed. 
 
 15. The advantages of the proposal just explained, while they are 
 obvious to every reflective mind, are of such extraordinary importance 
 at the present juncture of the cliurch'a position, that some further allu- 
 sion to tliem seems absolutely requisite. Many great and important 
 church questions are passing and others will very soon pass before us, 
 and it is KtMng and proper that the laity should be able with facility 
 and perfect freedom to consider them, and that the church authorities 
 and all interested in the verities of religion and the best means of 
 inculcating them, should know what the solid opinion of the laity is 
 upon all such questions. We regret to point to the fact which we deem 
 indisputable, that no one in the Synod or out of it, with measurable 
 accuracy, knows what the opinion of the laity is, on any given church 
 question This ignorance is destined to disappear. The dark ages are 
 passed, and the prospect begins to brighten. We look forward with 
 hope, and now firmly believe, when permission is authoritatively given, 
 that at the Easter vestries the best and most capable men will lie 
 chosen in the double capacity, as representatives to the Synod and as 
 members to their own House. They will then be, as the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury said, " A body purely representative of the laity, and its 
 realization at this dry, with simpler, freer, larger aims than those of 
 faction or political party, is full of strong and happy promise. The 
 moral effect of its discussions must from the first be great, and we can- 
 not doubt that if its conclusions are arrived at by patient debate in 
 fully attended meetings, the moral effect will in due time take material 
 and practical form." 
 
 16. In the new organization we are happy to know (1) That there 
 will be nothing which will wear an antagonistic aspect. In debate 
 there is, and always will be differences of opinion, but when various 
 minds are brought into contact, such differences are likely to be lessened, 
 if not entirely removed, and particularly when all have but one distinc- 
 tive obiect in view, the promotion of our holy religion and the best 
 means of inculcating it. (2) In this, their first aim will be, to assist 
 and CO operate with the clergy, in all that appertains to church work, 
 spiritual and temporal, leading to closer relations, warmer sympathy, 
 and increased mutual respect. (3) There will be no destroying the 
 just rights and privileges of one order in church government for the 
 benefit of another, but rather the greater and more equal diffusion of all 
 those blessings and happy surroundings of all orders in the church now 
 enjoyed, and which should tend to her advancement and prosperity. 
 
,11 . '■.':'.,'■ 
 
 (4) Every Churchman, clerical and lay, would be materially benefitted 
 and instructed by the stimulus which free discussion on church work, 
 from a layman's point of view, would be certain to engender and 
 encourage. (5) The discussions on motions, rules, resolutions and 
 reports and final expressions of opinion thereon by intelligent laymen 
 in a well-ordered debate, must have some weight with all Churchmen 
 throughout the diocese and beyond. (6) And we hop<i we are not pre- 
 sumptuous in saying, that we think they would be especially valuable 
 to the clergy and all our church governors, and we gladly include, in 
 anticipation, the proposed inauguration of the mugh needed " General 
 Synod," when, and if it is desired to know on any occasion the correct 
 opinion of the laity on any question of church interest. (7) Admirably 
 as were the arrangements of Bishop Strachan, suited to the more 
 immediate exigencies of the laity of his day, and successful, as we 
 gladly admit they have been, in many respects ever since, there is still 
 a yearning, an absolute necessity, for the adoption of some more compre- 
 hensive and perfect system of lay-representation, a system which will go 
 far to remove apathy and ignorance amongst so many of our Church- 
 men. A system in short which will carry out the earnestly expressed 
 words and wishes of the liberal-minded bishop reff^rred to. A system, 
 an educational institution ; the " House of Laymen," which shall " tear^^ 
 our people energy, self-reliance and enterprise in the cause of religion." 
 
 17. The foregoing Pioposal to establish a House of Laymen, 
 in Toronto, we now commend to the favorable consideration of every 
 Churchman. It is we know a departure from an old synodical in- 
 stitution originated by Bishop Strachan, but which has now out- 
 grown its usefulness. It no longer acts up to or satisfies the spirit 
 and intention of the good Bishop. We say advisedly that Laymen 
 who now attend our Synods learn there little beyond the mysteries 
 of ecclesiastical finance. They have no power or influence, on any 
 matter brought before them that concerns the externals of religion 
 on which they are or ought to be deeply interested, and which 
 power the Bishop of Manchester said they ought to have. The 
 Archbishop of Canterbury has set the church a good example. He 
 has pointed out a remedy for this injustice and moreover has proved 
 its success — a way by which the Laity may have simpler and freer 
 opportunities for discussion on all such matters, which, said His 
 Grace, " by patient debate could not fail to have a great moral 
 effect." Let the Laity now do their duty to their church. Let 
 them make the cause we advocate their own, banish from their 
 ranks all apathy and indifference, talk over and promulgate their 
 views among their brethren, and assert themselves by their numbers 
 and intelligence fit and worthy to possess the great boon oi their own 
 House of Laymen, in alliance with the Synod of Toronto. 
 
 Toronto, 14th Nov. 1892. 
 
 8 
 
12 -. ^" >"'■ 
 
 HOUSE OF LAYMEN. 
 
 ^ 
 
 J. Symons, Esq., 
 
 68 Avenue T.toad, Toronto, Canada. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your Letter of the 6th of July reached me some 
 time ago, but the General Election and pressure of engagements 
 generally prevented my attending to it until now. The enclosed 
 paper showing the origin and constitution of our House of Laymen 
 at its commencement in 1886, will, I think, best answer some of your 
 questions. I may further explain that we are not in any way a 
 legislative or political body with any definite powers, but are rather 
 looked upon as a consultative or deliberative body of Laymen, meet- 
 ing when the Houses of Convocation meet, but sitting and acting apart 
 from them. 
 
 You will observe that members of the House of Laymen are to 
 be appointed by the lay members of the Diocesan Conferences (see 
 Resolution 2). I should perhaps explain, that the members of the 
 Diocesan Conferences are themselves appointed by Ruri-Deconal 
 Conference throughout each Diocese, and such R. D. Conferences 
 are elected by the church members of each parish in vestry Iti every 
 Rural Deanery so that indirectly the members of the House of 
 Laymen represent every parish in the Diocese. I may add that the 
 Province of York has recently followed the lead of the Province of 
 Canterbury, and now England and Wales are represented in Church 
 
 matters by two representative Lay Houses. 
 
 As to our " General Objects," you will gather these partly 
 from Resolutions 7 and 8, and from the paper (of proceedings) 
 of 1886, enclosed, which shows you to some extent the class of 
 subjects with which we deal. Since that time we have been chiefly 
 occupied with matters of actual or projected legislation in matters 
 aflfecting the church, and in matters of philanthropy such as 
 "Thrift," "Houses of the Poor," and such like. And [ think 
 it may fairly be claimed for the House of Laymen, that its 
 discussions and reports are read with interest, and that the clergy and 
 church people generally attach some weight to our resolutions and 
 our expressions of opinion. But I am bound to confess that with a 
 church established like ours, and carrying on its legislation through 
 Parliament, I do not think that our doings can be expected to have 
 much practical importance. I shall be glad if this letter gives you 
 the information you seek. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) Charles J. Blagg. 
 
 Greenhill, Chendle, Staffordshire, 
 July 29th, 1892. 
 
18 
 
 PrOVINCB OF CaNTKRUUBY, HOUSK OP L. YMEN, 
 
 CnuiiCH HousK, Dean's Yard, 
 
 Westminstbb, S. W., Ist Sept., 1892. 
 J. Symons, Es(^., 
 Toronto. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your inquiries as to the constitution, etc., of this 
 House I have great pleasure in answering. 
 
 The House of Laymen was instituted Vty Resolutions agreed to 
 by both Houses of Convocation of the Province, on July 8th, 1885, 
 to confer with the members of Convocation. One of the resolutions 
 reads as follows : "That the subjects on which the House of Laymon 
 may be consulted, shall be all subjects which ordinarily occupy the 
 attention of Convocation saving only the definition or interpretation 
 of the faith and doctrine of the church." 
 
 The House is composed of rather more than 100 members selected 
 by the Lay Members of the Diocesan Conference, the JJiocese of Lon- 
 don returning ten members, Winchester, Rochester, Lichfield and 
 Worcester, six each. 
 
 The House meets only when Convocation is in session when 
 any subjects referred by His Grace, the Archbishop, or originated 
 by members of the House, are discussed and communicated to the 
 Archbishop. 
 
 In the words of the present Archbishop of Canterbury in opening 
 the first House of Laymen : 
 
 " This House is therefore a body purely representative of the 
 Laity, and its realization at this day with simpler, freer, larger aims 
 than those of faction or political party is full of strong and happy 
 promise. The moral effect, of its discussions must from the first be 
 great, and we cannot doubt that if its conclusions are arrived at by 
 patient debate in fully attended meetings, the moral effect will, in due 
 time, take material and practical form." 
 
 And I think His Grace's hopes have to a large degree been 
 realized. 
 
 I send you by separate post a summary of the proceedings of one 
 of the sessions which will give an idea of the method of procedure, 
 and the names of the members, rules for procedure, etc. And if I can 
 answer any further questions which you may wish to be informed on, 
 I shall be only too pleased. 
 
 I may add that a House of Laymen has also this year been 
 instituted for the Province of York, in this kingdom, on the lines of 
 this House. 
 
 I am, dear sir. 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) J. Larcombb, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
14 
 
 NOTICE OF MOTION BY WALTER A. GEDDES, ESQ.,* 
 FOR THE SYNOD ON JUNE 13th, 1893. 
 
 That it is desirable to afford the Lay Heproaentatives to the 
 Synod the privilege of meeting in conference during its session under 
 the name, style and title of " The House of Laymen in alliance with 
 the Synod of Toronto." 
 
 That the resolutions and rules governing the said Houne of Laymen 
 shall be in the main the same as those approved of by the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury for the London House of Laymen. 
 
 That his Lordship the President of the Synod in opening the 
 House of Laymen, or at any other time in their session, may lay before 
 them any sulyect on which he may desire their counsel, and that the 
 results of all their deliberations on any subjects whether thus referred 
 to them or originated by themselves bo communicated to the President 
 by the chairman of such House. 
 
 *Col. Boulton, of Cobourg, it was expected would have introduced this 
 motion to the Synod, but he writes expreasing his sincere regret that he cannot 
 fill his place at the Synod on 13th .lune, as he is under orders to take his regiment 
 on that day into the annual camp of military drill at Kingston. Mr. (ieddes has, 
 therefore, kindly consented to supply liis place. 
 
COMMENTS ON THE "PROPOSAL." 
 
 WITH 
 
 REMARKS IN A FEW OASES. 
 
 1. •' There is much in the pr«ainl)lo or statement of the case with 
 which I concur, e. g. paragraphs 9, 10 and 11. I have noticed that 
 the reporters ignore all hut the stock speakers, generally the clergy. 
 When a country delegate gets up to speak the reporters carefully place 
 their pens behind their ears, and lean back in their seats for a " recess," 
 and that they are to some extent supported in this by the indifference 
 of the gentlemen on the raised platform. The lay delegates, it is true, 
 have neither time nor opportunity to study the questions brought before 
 the Synod. In this connection I may say in answer to the question 
 occasionally raised in Synod, "Why are the country parishes so poorly 
 represented 1 The delegates feel that they are merely wanted as voting 
 machines, that their opinion \re rather resented as presumptuous than 
 listened to as contributions t the vote." 
 
 If any thing were wanting to show the little interest taken 
 by laymen in important matters before the Synocl, we refer to 
 the fact that of 64 country representatives present in the Synod 
 of 1890/ only three took part in its five days' proceedings. 
 
 " In England there is a raison d etrh for the House of Laymen 
 that we have not here, (Houses of Convocation). Previous to the 
 Institution of that body, the Laity was not represented at all in the 
 National Church Courts, and even now they do not rank as the Lower 
 House of Convocation or take part in the work of the Church as that 
 body does. They help to mould opinion or rather they strengthen or 
 rectify (modify) the opinions of the two clerical bodies by the 
 expression of opinion of a picked body of the Laity, but they cannot 
 do more than that." 
 
 We are quite aware of all this. There a vast difference be- 
 tween the Clerical Courts of England and Canada, but the prin- 
 
 15 
 
16 
 
 ciple of admitting the laity into the confidence of the ruling 
 powers is, or should be, the same in lx)th countries True we 
 have no convocations, but this will likely be remedied in Sep- 
 tember next by the organization of a General Synod which will 
 do the work of convocations. Our House of Laymen wouKl Ihj 
 useful now, it will then be an essential. The General Synod 
 will effect no great and durable changes unless they have the 
 well ascertained opinion of the laity. Just as the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury failed year after year to get passed his Church Dis- 
 cipline Bill, until he established his House of Laymen and had 
 the clear opinion and support of that body. We have no two 
 Houses of Convocation, which is alleged as the reason for the 
 establishment of the House of Laymen in London, there being 
 no Synods there such as we have hero. But they have and had 
 long before the establishment of such House what was far better, 
 as stated in the pamphlet Diocesan Conferences To these con- 
 ferences the laity are elected at the Easter vestries. Church 
 (juestions are discussed and freely and fully debated and in a 
 manner wholly at variance with the hurried slipshod discussions 
 witnessed in our Synods, and so instructed and equipped are the 
 members in the art of debate that there is great rivalry as to 
 who shall be selected to adorn the House of Layman in London. 
 And so would it be with laymen here when they know that a 
 way is open to them, that they have the boon of their own 
 House of Laymen conferred upon them, where they can stand 
 upright as intelligent men, where they will be under no restraint 
 or surveillance as regards the freedom of speech where they can 
 converse freely, compare the opinions of one with those of an- 
 other, and see which is the harder and best stands the friction 
 of practical utility. Depend upon it when such a state of things 
 is brought about there will be emulation among churchmen, and 
 the very best men in every parish will be proud to represent it 
 in their own House when the Synod meets. The status of an 
 elected layman will be greatly raised and honorable in the esti- 
 mation of the whole Church. 
 
 " The time for debate, two evenings of the session, is too short. It 
 should be at least a week before the Synod meets." 
 
17 
 
 This would be (juite in order and denirable if we were or- 
 ^raiiizin^ an institution de novo. Hut wo liavo to deal witli 
 things as they are, with customs venerable for their age, and it 
 would hardly do to be too exacting or too sweeping in the change 
 proposed. 
 
 " I would suggest that it would bo better to choose one of your 
 own body as PresidHnt than ask the Bishop to act as President." 
 
 One word of explanation. The House of Laymen is not 
 an independent organization. It is in fact part and parcel of 
 the Synod and is presitled over by its own elecleil chairniiin. 
 The Bishop merely opens it and then retires. He takes no part 
 in its deliberations and is simply President of the whole Synod. 
 Just as the Archbishop of ('anterbury opens tlu; two Houses of 
 (Convocation and then the House of Laymen and retires. 
 
 Though laymen may with the greatest freedom meet and 
 deliberate, yet may take no part in the Jictual legislation, their 
 influence is felt on various occasions. Take for example a recent 
 case in the London House of Laymen. The Archbishop in 1885-0 
 introduced into the House of Lords two bills relating to Patron- 
 age and Discipline. They were opposed and nothing was heard 
 of them for several sessions. The House of Laymen considered 
 their objects most important in the interest of the Church. They 
 were reforms much needed, and in 1891 passed unanimously the 
 following resolution : — " That this House while regretting the 
 failure of the eHbrts which were made in the Parliament of 
 1885-86 and the early sessions of the present Parliament to effect 
 legislation on the subjects of Church Patronage and Clergy Dis- 
 cipline, respectfully presses upon His Grace the Archbishop the 
 importance of these subjects not being allowed to drop, and 
 hopes that Bills dealing with them will be introduced into Par- 
 liament during the pi'esent session." In conse<iuence of this reso- 
 lution His Grace reintroduced the Bills and had the satisfaction 
 of passing the Bill on Clergy Discipline during last year and has 
 promised that he will direct his earnest attention to get the Bill 
 on Church Patronage passed during the present year. 
 
 If we had a House of Laymen in Toronto might not a similar 
 resolution be appropriately and usefully passed in relation to 
 
IS 
 
 Mr. Cumberland's motion on ('hurcli Patronage — " That this 
 House while regretting the failure of the efForts made (hiring 
 the last seven years to eHc:;t a reform in the inod(! of making 
 appointments to Rectories, lespectfully presses upon His Lord- 
 s!np the Bishop, the importance of not allowing the subject to 
 drop, and hopes that the Executive Committee will be able to 
 report their final decision in time for the present Synod.' 
 
 2. "Your's of the 4th to liand, pamphlet received on Friday. 
 The * Proposal ' meets with my uuquiilitied approval, and it is tny 
 opinion that country dnlegatcs as u whole will also approve of it, 
 when they come to realiza the fact that a House of Laymen will 
 afToi'd an opportunity tor full discussion among laymen, impossible in 
 the Synod, where motions introduced by laymen, if they seem in any 
 way to encroaci: on the irresponsible position of the clergy, are not 
 allowed to be even discussed, in a word the mover is ostracised. Now 
 if such motions were discussed by laymen before they were submitted 
 to Synod, much of the odium now attached by the clergy to the movers 
 of such mouons would disappear." 
 
 3. " I have carefully considered the proposal of a House of Lay 
 men, submitted by you, sections 9, 10 and 11 set forth the prominent 
 reasons for the movement. Why should not the lay delegates appoint a 
 Committee to sit apart, as occasion may call for, under regulations, to 
 discuss such matiars as affect the proceedings of Synod or to originate 
 subjects for Synodical action." 
 
 A very good suggestion, but it asserts the principle of an 
 independent House of Laymen. Our desire is to be in alliance 
 with the Synod if possible. 
 
 " Impromptu motions made by members in Synod on important 
 matters ofttimes make little impression and reasonably so in so large an 
 assemblage." 
 
 •• I observe that the House of Laymen in England was formally 
 instituted by resolutions agreed to by both Houses of Convocation, and 
 that the House was composed of 100 members of the Conference 
 selected from each Diocese of the Province." 
 
 " I take it that the movement contemplated in your proposal must 
 originate in Synod to be of service." 
 
 " Should I again represent ray parish in Synod to be elected next 
 Easter, I would gladly enter upon a discussion of matters affecting the 
 usefulness of Synod's welfare of the Church." 
 
 4. " I am favored with your circular of 27th ult., enclosing a 
 
10 
 
 second copy of proposal aiui fully H^^rco with tlio oJijectg coiitomplated 
 in th« estal)lislinient of a ilouse of Liynu'n for tlm DiocPHeof Toronto." 
 
 " Tliiit tho opinion of tlio country Uity would be favoraWIe to th« 
 project 1 think thei*' is littlo (|'ic-.tii'ii." 
 
 " The ponition of tho country uiiHsionH particularly, and some o^ 
 the pari»thHii from whatever cause arisin<; has heconie deploralile." 
 
 " Having regard to the financial condition of the Synod, improve- 
 ment f'om extraneous source* must at hest prove slow, and judging 
 froui the results of the last few years cannot in any dej^ree he 
 anticipatHl." 
 
 "To attain the desired end at least two conditions seein indis- 
 pensalile, viz., a radical chani»e in the supervision and visitation of 
 rural districts, in conjunction with tho adinisiion to holy orders of only 
 such candidates, as, in addition to scholastic attaintnents, may atTord 
 relial)le indi(;ations of the possession of a measure of energy which 
 would conduce in u reasonable degree to success in a secular calling." 
 
 " There are, of course, other matters of great nioinent which should 
 be legitimately considered by a House of Liyinen, but may be well left 
 to its collective wisdom rather than dealt with in the medium of 
 correspondence." 
 
 5. " I am in receipt of your circular, etc. Tn reply I beg to sug- 
 gest to yourself and your associates that it would be Itetter to attend 
 regularly the meetings of the Synod and insist thereupon the rights of 
 the laity being respected, than to separate ourselves into a cave of 
 aduUam or lay caucus. JJut if your scheme was carried out, I should 
 most strongly object to the Bishop being the presiding otticer, for 
 obvious reasons." 
 
 The Bishop is not t\\v presiding officer 'J'he Hinise of Lay- 
 men elect tlieir own presiding officer under the name of Chair- 
 man. The Bishop is President only of the Synod. (See remark 
 on page 6). 
 
 " Could not your object be equally well attained by a fuller and 
 more regular attendance at Synod ?" 
 
 These two requirements are fully attained at present. The 
 laity are numerous enough, but when in Synod with a few rare 
 exceptions, they have no will of their own, arising from the fact 
 that they have had no opportunity such as the clergy have had, 
 of informing themselves on the subjects discussed, and are obliged 
 to vote just as the clergy wish them to vote. Tliey liave no free- 
 dom or choice whatever owing to the want of previous instruc- 
 tion. 
 
20 
 
 " I do not understand an apparent contradiction in your proposal. 
 In clause 7 of your constitution, on pnge 5, you except from the sulijects 
 which may occupy the attention of the House, • the definition or inter- 
 pretation of the faith and doctrine of the church,' and then on page 9, 
 in section 17, you complain that the Laity ' have no power or influence 
 on any matter brought before them that concerns th« externals of 
 religion.' If you mem that externals in IJivine worship have nothing 
 to do with t.ie definition and interpretation of the faith and doctrine 
 of the Church, I entirely disagree with you.'' 
 
 The writer labors under some misconception. He assumes 
 that all extei-iials are essentials. Bread and wine in the Holy 
 Communion, and water in baptism are external emblems and 
 essentials as ordained by our blessed Lord. But e.Kcessive bow- 
 in^^s, lighted candles,^) ncen.se, crosses in the church, processions 
 with banners, man-inillinery and innumerable other puerile de- 
 vices are non-essentials. It may be asked why did the Jews in 
 their worship use various emblems ? because their priests had to 
 deal with and instruct very ignorant people. 
 
 In the early ages of the world people mentally walked in 
 gross darkness. We do not (piite agree witli Dryden's line 
 
 " Since wild in witodj the noble iavagre ran." 
 
 Yet it is undoubted that the Jewish people long remained in a 
 condition of ignorance and al)ject slavery. Their mental facul- 
 ties and ideas were not fitted for such instruction as could be 
 given them when they had become more enlightened and edu- 
 cated. It was therefore necessary that many thini,'s had to be 
 conveyed to their minds in such a manner as was suited to their 
 capacities at that time, and in language best suited t(j their 
 understandings. And thus ornaments, decorations, customs and 
 ceremonies contained symbolical and eml)lematical signiHcations 
 which the priest no doubt fully explained to them.* But we 
 claim, and it is a just claim, to live in more enlightened times. 
 The New Testament teaches us to worship Cod in spirit and in 
 truth — " to serve Him, not in bondage of the figure or siiadow, 
 but in the freedom of the Spirit." It is only the indifferent and 
 the very ignorant of the present day who are satisfied in their 
 worship to copy the puerile practices of the eai'ly Jewish nation. 
 
 * The Jews and their Customs, by Rev. E. M. Myers : New York, 1879. 
 
21 
 
 Some of the ceremonies oF the C^hurch which had an emble- 
 matical meaning were at tirst very few and of godly intent, but 
 we ai-e told they had so increased up to the time of the Refor- 
 mation — there was such an excess of them, and that they had 
 led to so many abuses, that the burden of them was intolerable.* 
 They were at that time — being non-essentials, — "cut away and 
 clean rejected " for ever it was thou<^ht. Is it wise, in the in- 
 terest of a pure and intelligent theology, to wink at their being 
 brought back again, — undoing the work of our great reformers, 
 and slowly but surely enticing us, nay where it can be done, 
 compelling us to be familiar and approving of the ever-to-be 
 deplored dark ages of the church, both Jewish and Christian ^ 
 A reaction of barbarianism from a religion of civilization is not 
 in the interest of our church. 
 
 If the clergy, more especially the younger clergy, decline, 
 as they have done so far, to effectually consult their congrega- 
 tions as to the introduction of symbols and emblems which are 
 nonessentials, it will then become the duty of the laity to remon- 
 strate, and if no heed be taken, to appeal to the Bishop, or after 
 September next, to the General Synod. 
 
 "But I am entirely at one with you in a desire to see our Synod 
 reformed. It is about as slovenly and unbusinesslike a deliberative 
 body as we could tia»l. The rea.son being, that the laity leave matters 
 too much to the clergy, and do not take the trouble to remind them, as 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury did his clergy, that there is such a thing 
 as an abuse of independence. I should like to hear the matter discussed 
 in Synod, and will do my bc^t to secure for it a good hearing." 
 
 6. " I beg to state that I cannot help feeling that the country 
 delegates, as a rule, find it difficult enongh to attend the ordinary meet- 
 ings of Synod regularly and conscientiously ; and it would be a very 
 serious addition to their liurdens (both mentally and physically) if they 
 were required to meet on two extra evening.s, or to come up a day 
 sooner than usual." 
 
 " In principal the idea is most excellent, and the need for it very 
 great, but I fail to see how it could be carried out vvith the materials 
 at present at your disposal. Parishes in the back country have such 
 difficulty as it ia in securing men of sufficient time, education or means 
 for Uy deleg.ite^, thvt miny of them avail theiuielves of tItA priviUge of 
 obtaining proxies in the cities." 
 
 * Prayer Book. Preface. 
 
22 
 
 This is an important fact and shov/s in a clear light the 
 hollowness of the representative system in the Synod as applied 
 to country parishes. Here are between forty and fifty gentle- 
 men, all most respectable, who sit as representatives of congre- 
 gations of whom they know nothing. Here they sit year after 
 year clothed with the honor and enjoying the privileges of being 
 members of the Synod without knowing their constituents and 
 never giving any account of their stewardship. Here they sit 
 incurring no trouble, expense or inconvenience of any kind, in 
 perfect independence. It is absurd to expect that these men, 
 with a few exceptions, will promote any change which will de- 
 prive them of the peculiar privileges which this unique system 
 of proxy representation confers. It is (juite as bad as the sys- 
 tem known in England half a century ago as the rotten borough 
 system. Agents there, living in small towns like Old Gatton 
 and Sarum, arranged for the election of members or for proxies 
 to members wdio never saw their constituents, and the shameful 
 practice at last aroused the people to such a pitch of excitement 
 at the wrong they had so long endured that King William nearly 
 lost his crown. The great Reform Bill saved it. And yet there 
 were bishops in the Hous .1 of Lords and clergy throughout the 
 land who saw many advantages in the system, and persuaded 
 themselves that it was the perfection of Parliamentary repre- 
 sentation ! Just as laymen holding proxies will contend that 
 our Synod sy?tem is faultless. 
 
 7. " I beg to .state that I think the establishment of a House of 
 Liyiiien for tlie Dioces« of Toronto would be a very good thing, as 
 then should laymen have anything to bring to the notice of the Synod, 
 it could be done in proper form, and any suggestion they have to make 
 would receive better attention as coming from the whole body of 
 laymen, than as at present from one individual. I am sorry to say 
 that I am unable to give any definite opinion as to the feelings of the 
 country laity on this subject, as it U very difficult to get the farmers 
 to take any interest in church matters, and when it comes to paying a 
 dollar a year towards keeping up the Housp, I feel certain many of 
 them would object to doing so. There is such a vast difference between 
 the city arid town parishes. We ar« so scattered, and are so far apart, 
 it is imposible to get any nuiiilmr together except on a fink Sunday 
 afternoon. We cannot then talk these matters over." 
 
 Country laymen having a House of their own in Toronto 
 
23 
 
 would feel that the office of representative was one of some 
 importance ;\nd i-esponsibiiity. There would be emulation 
 among them, and a much superior class, both in point of wealth 
 and intelligence, would be elected, and the >?1.00 fee would be 
 no objection. 
 
 It might be provided that at the Easter vestries only two 
 instead of three country representatives to the Synod should be 
 elected, but then their attendance as a rule should be required. 
 This would raise the status of a representative, and proxies 
 would cease. 
 
 8. " As to the establishment of a House of Laymen for the 
 Diocese of Toronto, the proposition has my cordial sympathy, and T 
 believe that a like feeling is lield by the country laity as a whole." 
 
 9. " As to establishing a House of Laymen in alliance with the 
 Synod of Toronto, I am quite in accord with what is suggested, 
 especially number 16 and 17, and feel satisfied my brother laymen 
 who have attended Synod are equally so." 
 
 " When attending Synod my feeling has always been that my 
 time has been wasted. The vital matters of the Church omitted as 
 appears to the mind of a layman." 
 
 10. " In reply would say, I have met quite a number of lay 
 members, and they think it is a move in the right direction, and that 
 it should have V)een introduced before. It is likely that I will be with 
 you at next delegate meeting." 
 
 IL "In regard to the establishment of a House of Laymen for 
 the Diocese of Toronto, on the lines indicated by you and your com- 
 mittee, I beg to say I consider it is a movement in the right direction, 
 I cannot do other than give it my most favorable consideration, and by 
 the blessing of God accompanying your feeble efforts I cannot doubt but 
 that the issue shall be a general benefit to our beloved Church." 
 
 12. " Replying to your circular, etc., I may say that I would 
 consider the establishment of a House of Laymen most desirable, and 
 further, that from such experience as I have had of country parishes, 
 I am confident that such a movement would have the effect of awaken- 
 ing much greater interest among the country representatives, and that 
 they would feel in coming to the Synod sessions they would be able to 
 take a more active part and accomplish more than at present is possible. 
 It is very evident also that very little weight attaches to the remarks 
 of individual lay members in the Synod as at present constituted, and 
 the proposed House would certainly enable the lay opinion to be pre- 
 sented in a proper and weighty manner. I h«artily concur in the pro- 
 posed establishment on the lines suggested." 
 
24 
 
 After speaking of his illness, etc. : 
 
 13. "With regard to the House of Laymen I cannot say much 
 as I liave not l)een able to talk to any one about it. T cannot see any 
 great good it would be to the Church in this Diocese. I think the 
 better way would be to call a meeting of the laymen some evening when 
 the Synod is in session and talk the matter over and then take a note 
 of what the laymen say. There are a few words in the pamplet, Sec. 
 9, page 6, after the words, ' we are sorry to say it,' which I think will 
 not suit the laity too well. It will set them thinking." 
 
 The suggestion of an unauthorized meeting of the laity dur- 
 ing the sitting of the Synod is not desirable under present cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 14. "I think the establishment of a House of Laymen would be 
 in the interest of the Church and in the cause of God. I am greatly 
 in favor of this move and think it is in the right direction." 
 
 15. " Have read the circular on the proposal to establish a House 
 of Laymen for the Diocese of Toronto with much pleasure." 
 
 " The proposal is a step in the right direction I think, and if 
 wisely and judiciously organized and directed would give much more 
 power and value to the opinions and v'ews of the laity in the deliber- 
 ations of the Synod. There is no opportunity for laymen to hear the 
 views of their brother laymen on any question that may come up in 
 the Synod, whereby unity of action might be secured and thus are ill 
 prepared to vote intelligently on the question. I believe it would 
 Ijroaden our views on all questions connected with our Church, and 
 lead to more active and aggressive work l)y laymen cooperating with 
 our clergy for the building up of Christ's Kingdom here in Canada." 
 
 Apology for not writing sooner. 
 
 16. "The project meets with my heartiest sympathy. In my 
 humble opinion one of the causes, if not the chief cause of the lack of 
 progress of our Church in this Dominion is the fact that the laity have 
 not received encouragement to take active interest and responsibility 
 in all matters temporal and spiritual pertaining to the Church, and 
 which, together with the general composition of our Synod, and the 
 methods of procedure therein account in large measure for small attend- 
 ance of lay representatives at its conventions." 
 
 17. " In reply to your circular enclosing, 'Proposal to establish 
 a House of Laymen in alliance with the Synod of Toronto,' I beg to say 
 that I cannot see n»y way to support it. I think it is iu the best 
 interests of the Church that there should to the most extent be joint 
 action on the part of the clergy and laity. The Synod as constituted 
 
25 
 
 » 
 carries out this idea, giving most ample rights and privileges to the 
 laity, whose opinions and suggestionH have so far as my experience goes, 
 been accorded due weight both at the meetings of Synod and in the 
 committees. And I fear that the proposed scheme might unfortunately 
 lead to disunion and distrust." 
 
 If our church authorities will tread in the footsteps of the 
 Arclibishop of Canterbury there can be no " disunion or distrust." 
 Of a number of letters received, this is the only one which gives 
 the scheme a negative. We quite agree that it is desirable that 
 there should be joint action on the part of the Clergy and Laity, 
 that is if botli classes have fair information on any question be- 
 fore them. But what are the facts. The clergy have every 
 cpportunity to study the (questions brought before them. 'J'hey 
 are in constant communication with each other, and they have, 
 in most cases, good libraries at tlieir command. The laity, with 
 a few rare exceptions, have no such opportunity or advantages. 
 Not one in ten probably of even city and town representatives 
 have adequate knowledge of the questions they vote on. And 
 of the country representatives, one fact already referred to alone 
 will suffice. Out of G5 present in the Synod of 1890, only three 
 took part during its tive days sittings. Surely that is conclusive 
 evidence that for want of opportunity to gain information, the 
 laity are silent, and when recjuired to vote, are almost necessarily 
 compelled to vote as the clergy tacitly desire them to vote. The 
 laity of the London House study all questions, and by debate 
 impart and gain useful information, and they have been of great 
 service to the Church. But for their suggestions and advice the 
 important Clergy Discipline Bill would never have become law. 
 
 18. "1 have read with care your pamphlet, etc,, I would say, it 
 has been a long felt want, as the laity should have some knowledge of 
 the motions to come before the Synod before the meeting thereof. I 
 would say that there are many points in church work that the laity in 
 cities know nothing about Since I have been here 1 have come in 
 contact with church matters which should be discussed by right-think- 
 ing men, wishing you every success in the work, etc." 
 
 19. "In reply, etc., I may say, as far as I can at present judge, 
 such an organization would surely be a benetit, and 1 would bo in favor 
 of it, and without doubt it would meet with approval of laymen in this 
 vicinity." 
 
26 
 
 m 
 
 20. " I received ycur circular, etc., a,n<\ have been thoughtfully 
 considering it. I fully coincide with all that the pamphlet contains. 
 It will he a great advance in bringing the lay element of the Church in 
 closer communion with the powers that be. What struck me very 
 forcibly the lirst time I attended Synod, a decade ago, was that lay 
 delegate.*!, especially those from rural parishes had but a small share in 
 the proceedings of the House. The discussions were all confined to the 
 clergy and a few city laymen, who, being by their professions used to 
 addressing public audiences readily took part in debate with the clergy. 
 Many delegates from rural districts do not like to rise before a large' 
 body of talented men to give expression to their views, but meeting 
 together as laymen, they would have more sol f-posse.ssion and confidence 
 than in attempting to address the whole Synod. That 1 am not alone 
 of that opinion I know, because some of my friends have declined to 
 act as delegates as thoy could not speak if they went to the Synod." 
 
 " I believe the proposed scheme will be the means of infusing new 
 life into the laity. It will bring them into closer relation with His 
 Lordship, and the rulers of the Church. I have given much earnest 
 thought to the paragraphs 1.5 and Hi, and fully concur in what is 
 therein set forth. 1 believe it will be the means to teach our people 
 to have more energy and enterpris(> in the cause of the Church." 
 
 ?1. "I have carefully read your circular letter and proposal, and 
 in my opinion feel that as an auxiliary, the House of Laymen will do 
 much good. Sec. 11 of the Proposal is particularly true, and if only 
 the House of Laymen could remedy that, it would have served a good 
 purpose." 
 
 23, " Your circular and pamphlet duly received. In reply : The 
 composition of Convocation, and our Synod being so unlike, makes me 
 conclude, that what may be advantageous there might be quite the 
 contrary here. I have also several objections to the argument in favor 
 of and the plan for carrying out the ' Proposal.' The speaking power 
 of the laity is but little, if any, inferior to that of the clergy. We have 
 many clever business men whose besetting fault is speaking too often, 
 and on every matter brought up. Again the small majority of the 
 clergy vote vanishes when the voting is not by orders, as is generally 
 the case." 
 
 " As regards the plan as proposed, the Tuesday evening at present 
 is taken up with the opening service, and Wednesday night is devoted 
 to the missionary meeting, therefore there is no available time, but on 
 the Monday, and as there were objections raised to the * opening service' 
 being held at that time, the same objections would hold good to a meet- 
 ing of the ' House of Laymen.' " 
 
 •' I think everything might be discussed with advantage in Synod 
 if we had more time, and certainly evening sessions for the Synod should 
 he the rule and not the exception, so that we might have more time for 
 real church work, other than routine "business." 
 
27 
 
 The first paragraph is a mere Jissuniptioii of a fact for the 
 existence of which there is not a shadow of likelihood. Then 
 we have a list of objections, which the writer answers (to him- 
 self) most satisfactorily in the last paragraph. Re-organize the 
 whole Synod — extend its sittings — alxjlish the " opening ser- 
 vice " and the "missionary meeting," and then everything might 
 be discussed with advantage in Synod. 
 
 Our object is not to pull down but to build up If only the 
 Laity were required to meet, and we are satisfied they would 
 willingly do so, on the Monday from two to five and from eight 
 to eleven, the objects of the House of Laymen would be fully 
 answered, and without in the least interfering with the present 
 composition and arrangements of the Synod. 
 
 23. " Replying to your favor, etc., I am quite in favor of the 
 establishment of House of Laymen, although I have had no opportunity 
 of discussing this proposal with my colleagues or other laity. I would 
 venture the opinion, that it would meet with the approval of the laity 
 as a whole." 
 
 24. " I have considered the matter you suk my opinion about 
 I think it is a step in the right direction. The delegates from country 
 parishes could bring up matters connected with the Church, and debate 
 among themselves, better than they can if they are sitting with the 
 clergy. Many are afraid to speak before men so highly educated, and 
 yet our objects and meaning may be as good." 
 
 25. *' I beg to say that I am favorable to the establishment of a 
 House of Laymen for the Diocese of Toronto, and believe that it would 
 meet with the approval of a majority of the country laity." 
 
 26. " If our constitution was changed, and instead of the present 
 election of delegates, a House of Laymen should be formed to confer, 
 etc., the Bishop could have no difficulty in giving his support to the 
 movement."