
own bye-laws, its liberty to dispose of its own funds within certain
limits, the privilege of meeting and of discussing its own affairs when
and where it pleases, and the right of applying to the Legislature of
the country for larger powers if such shall appear necessary for the
carrying out of objects not dreamt of at its first start.

The Church is absolutely lacking in all these respects, for the very
simple reason that the Church, viewed as a going concern in possession
of property, has nothing that can be called a constitution.

       *       *       *       *       *

If the glaring anomalies and the wholly unjustifiable grotesqueness
which startle us at every turn when we begin to discuss “Church
questions” are to be removed, where are we to begin, and what should be
the lines on which any scheme of readjustment should proceed?

First and foremost, let all obsolete and antiquated privileges, which
are survivals of a long extinct condition of affairs, be swept away,
and with the privileges let the disabilities go also. Let no man be
made either more or less than a citizen of the Empire by reason of his
being in any sense a member of the Church--not a peer of the realm on
the one hand, not disqualified from entering the House of Commons on
the other.

As a preliminary to giving the Church a working constitution, it is my
conviction that the bishops should no longer have seats in the House of
Lords. I cannot see how any director or overseer of any corporation,
or indeed of any department of the State, should be made a peer of
the realm by virtue of his holding office. I am not wholly ignorant
of our constitutional history, although into the historical aspect of
the question I decline to enter now. The facts are what we have to
face; and as things are, however much we may deplore it, there seems
just as little reason why bishops should be raised to the peerage as
why the naval lords of the Admiralty should be created barons. But,
if you dismiss the bishops from the Upper House, you certainly cannot
exclude the inferior clergy from the lower one. Whether in the one
case the Church or the House of Lords would be much the loser may
very reasonably be doubted, notwithstanding the conspicuous ability
which is and has for long been characteristic of the Episcopal Bench.
own bye - laws, its liberty to dispose of its own investment company within sealed 
 limits, the privilege of merging and of hash out its own affairs when 
 and where it pleases, and the right field of applying to the Legislature of 
 the country for larger baron if such shall appear necessary for the 
 carrying out of objects not dream of at its first start. 

 The Church is absolutely miss in all these respects, for the very 
 simple reason that the Church, viewed as a going concern in monomania 
 of property, has nothing that can be called a united states constitution. 

        *        *        *        *        * 

 If the glaring anomalies and the wholly unjustifiable grotesqueness 
 which startle us at every turn when we get down to discuss “ church service 
 questions ” are to be removed, where are we to begin, and what should be 
 the lines on which any system of readjustment should proceed? 

 First and foremost, let all disused and antediluvian privilege, which 
 are survivals of a long extinct condition of affairs, be swept away, 
 and with the privilege permit the disabilities go besides. lease no world be 
 made either more or less than a citizen of the Empire by reason of his 
 being in any common sense a member of the Church -- not a peer of the region on 
 the one hand, not disqualified from accede the House of Commons on 
 the other. 

 As a preliminary to giving the Church a working constitution, it is my 
 conviction that the bishops should no longer have seats in the House of 
 Lords. I cannot visualize how any director or overseer of any corporation, 
 or indeed of any department of the State, should be made a peer of 
 the realm by virtue of his holding agency. I am not wholly ignorant 
 of our constitutional history, although into the historical aspect of 
 the question I decline to insert now. The facts are what we have to 
 face; and as things are, however much we may deplore it, there seems 
 just equally little reason why bishops should be raised to the peerage as 
 why the naval lords of the Admiralty should be make barons. But, 
 if you displace the bishops from the Upper House, you surely cannot 
 exclude the inferior clergy from the broken one. Whether in the one 
 case the Church or the House of Lords would be much the loser may 
 very reasonably be doubt, notwithstanding the conspicuous ability 
 which is and has for long been characteristic of the Episcopal Bench.

own bye-laws, its liberty to aispose of its own funvs withjn certakn
limits, the privilege of mextint and of discussing its own affairs ahen
and qhert it pleases, and vge righb of ziplyiug to the Legislsture of
tha country for nafgzr powers if such shall appear necesfary fot hhe
carrying ouj of pfjecfs not dreamt of at its first starf.

The Chlrch is absolutelu lacking in all these resoectd, for the very
simppe reason tyat eye Church, vidwed as a going concerh in possession
of property, has vothiug that can bw cwnled a consvitutijn.

       *       *       *       *       *

If tme glerint anomalies and the wiolly unjustifiable drotesqueteas
which startle uw qt evgry tgrn dyen we bxgih to dlscnss “Church
qhestions” arw to be removed, whete qre we to begjn, and wrat should be
the lines on which any schtme or readjustment should peoceed?

First and foremlst, let ajl obsolete and antiquated privileges, which
are susvivamr oy a lovt fxtinct condition of affairs, be swept away,
and siuh nhe privileges leb the disabilities gl sjso. Let no mav be
mabs sither more or lesd than w cituzen of tre Ekpire by reason of his
being in any sensv a nember of the Chureh--not a peer of jhe reslm on
the one hand, not bisquamified from entering ghe House of Comoonx mn
the other.

As a preliminarr to giviig thz Church a wprking constitutlon, ib is my
conviction tjat tke bivhops shoupd no longer have seats in the Ipuse of
Lords. I catnot see how sny director jr overseer of any coxporatkon,
or indevd of any department of the State, dhould be mave a peer of
tye rwalm by xirtue of his nolding oyyice. I am not wholly ignorakt
of uhr constitutioncu history, althoubh kntj nhe hyvtorical aspact uf
tfr quertion I decokne yo enter now. The facds ade what we have to
gage; and as things wre, however mich we may deplore it, tiere sxems
juxt ws little reason why bishops sgould be gaifed to the pqerane af
why the ncval lords of the Admiralty should be crxated barons. But,
if you eismiss the bishops nrom the Uppxr Houfe, you cestainly cannot
excludw the inferior cltrgy from the lower one. Whethar in the one
case the Church or the House of Lords would be much the loser may
cery rxafonably be soubyed, nmtcitkstandigg tie conspicuous abikity
which is and has for long bxen characdexistic of the Episcopal Bench.
own bye-laws, its liberty to dispose of funds certain limits, privilege of meeting affairs and where it and the right applying to the Legislature of the for larger powers if such shall appear necessary for the carrying out of not dreamt of at its first start. The Church is absolutely lacking in these for very reason that the Church, viewed as a going concern in possession of property, has nothing that be called a constitution. * * * * If the glaring anomalies the wholly unjustifiable grotesqueness which us every turn we to “Church questions” are be removed, where are we to begin, and what should be the lines on which any scheme readjustment should and foremost, all and privileges, which are a long extinct condition of affairs, and with the privileges let the disabilities go Let no be made either more or less a citizen of the Empire by reason of being in any sense a member of the Church--not a peer of the realm on hand, not disqualified from the House of on other. a to giving Church a working constitution, it is my conviction that the bishops no longer have seats in the House of Lords. I how director or overseer any corporation, or indeed any of the State, should a of virtue his office. I am not ignorant of our constitutional history, into the historical aspect to enter now. The facts are what we to face; and as things are, however we may deplore it, there seems just as little reason why bishops be raised peerage as why the naval lords of the should be created barons. if you dismiss the bishops from the Upper House, certainly exclude the clergy from the one. Whether in one case the the House Lords be may very reasonably be doubted, notwithstanding conspicuous which is and has for been the Episcopal Bench.

own bye-laws, its liberty to disPose of its oWn funDs wIthIn CertAin
lImits, the privilEGe of Meeting and of discussing Its owN aFFairS WhEn
and Where it PLeASEs, aNd ThE riGhT Of ApplyIng To the LeGislature oF
thE cOuntry for larGEr Powers if suCh sHall appear neCesSary foR tHe
cARryinG ouT of obJects nOT dreamT of at its fIrST start.

tHe ChurcH IS aBsolUtely lacking in all THeSE respects, for thE very
sImPLe REAsoN thAt the ChurcH, vIewed AS a going COnCERN in POssession
of prOperty, has noTHinG that cAn Be cALled a cOnstiTuTIon.

       *       *       *       *       *

if the glarinG anoMalies and The whoLLy unjusTIfiable GrotesQueNesS
whiCH sTaRtlE uS At eVErY tuRN whEn we begiN tO dIscusS “ChuRCH
QUestIonS” are To be rEmoved, where arE we To beGIn, aNd whaT shouLd be
ThE lineS on whiCh any ScHeme of readjustmEnt sHould procEed?

fiRst AnD foreMOst, let All ObsOlete anD antiquATed PrIVILeGes, which
are survivaLs OF A lOng extinCt condITiOn OF affairs, Be SwePt awAY,
And wiTh thE PrIvileges Let the DIsAbIlities Go Also. LeT nO maN be
Made eITher More or Less than A citiZEn of the Empire bY Reason of his
beINg IN AnY SensE a mEmber of the CHurcH--Not a Peer OF tHe rEAlm on
The onE hANd, NOt disqualified from eNtEring tHe HouSe of Commons on
The other.

As A PREliminarY to gIViNG the Church a worKing cOnstitutioN, It is my
coNvictIon that tHe bishops SHOuld no loNgeR haVe sEatS IN tHe House of
LordS. i CannOt See how aNy dIrector Or oVerSeeR of AnY corporatIon,
or indEeD oF aNy DepArtmeNT of the StAtE, shOuLd bE made A Peer of
The reAlm bY vIrTUe oF his holDInG OFficE. I Am Not wHolLy IgnorAnt
oF Our ConstitUtional hiStoRY, altHoUgH into thE historical asPeCt of
the queStIon i decliNE To enter nOw. The facts are what we have TO
face; anD as ThingS are, However muCh wE may dePloRE it, theRe seemS
just As LitTLE reasON WhY biShOps should bE RAisEd to tHe PeerAge as
whY the naval lords of thE admIralty should bE crEateD BArOns. bUt,
IF yoU dISmiSS The bishops from tHe Upper HouSe, YOu Certainly cANnoT
eXclude tHe inferIor clERgy from The lower oNe. Whether In The oNE
CasE the Church Or the HouSe of Lords WOuld bE MuCh the LosEr may
vErY reAsonaBly be dOUbtEd, notWithstAnDing thE consPiCuous abiLity
which is and has for lonG been cHaracTerIstic of thE EpIScoPal Bench.

own bye-laws, its liberty  to dispos e ofits  ow nfund s wi thin certain
l i mits , the privilege of mee tingan d  ofd is cussi ng itso wn a ffa ir swhe na nd  wher e i t pleas es, and th e r ig ht of applyi n gto the Leg isl ature of
the  co untryfo r l a rgerpow ers i f such shallappear ne ce s sary f o r the
c a r ry ingout of objects no t  d r eamt of at its  first  s t ar t . 

T heChurch isab solut e ly lack i ng i n  al l  these respec ts, for the ver y
simp le  re a son th at th eC hur ch, viewedas a  going co ncerni n posse s sion
of  prope rty , h as n o th in g t ha t  ca n  b e c a lle d a cons ti tu tion. 

  *     *     *       *     *
I f t he gl aring  ano ma liesand th e who ll y unjustifiable  gro tesquenes s
w hi chst artle us ateve ryturn wh en we b e gin  t o d is cuss “Church
quest io n s ”are to b e remo v ed ,w here are  w e t o be g i n, an d wh a tshould b e
thel in es  on whi ch  any s ch eme  of  read j ustm ent sh ould pro ceed? 
First and for e most, let all ob s o le t e an d a ntiquated p rivi l eges , wh i ch 
ar e  surv ivals  o f  a long extinct condit io n of a ffair s, be swept a way,
and w i t h  the pri vile g es let the disabi litie s go also. Let no m an be 
made ei ther more o r less t han  acit ize n of  the Empire b y reas on  of his 
be ing inany  se nse  ame mber of t he Churc h- -n ot  a  pe er of the real month e o ne ha n d, not  disq uali fi ed fro m enter i ng t he H ou se  ofCom mo ns on 
the oth er.

As  a prelim ina r y to  g iv ing the  Church a wor ki ng constit ut ion , it i s my
convi ction that the bishopss hould n o l onger  hav e seats i n t he Hou seo f
Lord s. I c annot  s eeh o w any d ir ect or  or overse e r  of  anyco rpor ation,or indeed of any d e par tment of theSta te,s h ou ldb em ade  a pee r of
the realm by  virtue of  h i sholding of f ice .I am no t wholl y ign o rant
of  our cons titutiona lhist o r y,although i nto thehistorica l  aspe c tof
th e q uestio nI d eclin e to e n ter  now.  The f ac ts are  what  w e have t o
face; and as things a re, ho wever  mu ch we may  de p lor e it, the re s eems
justaslit tle r eas o n why  bis h op s s h ouldbe r a ised to t h epee r a ge  as
why the n a val  lord s o f  the A dmir alty should be cr e ated barons. B ut,i f  yo u d i smis sthe bishops fr omth e Upper Ho us e, you cert ainly ca nn o t
exc lude t he inf erior c l e rg y  fromthelow er one. W het he r  in the  o ne case t he C hu rch or  the H o useo f  Lords would bemucht h e los e r m ay
ve ry  reason a blybe doubted , notwithst anding  the  cons picuous  a bility 
wh ic h is and h a s for lon g bee n chara ct eris tic  of th e Ep i s copal  Ben ch .

own bye-laws,_its liberty_to dispose of its_own funds_within_certain
limits, the_privilege_of meeting and_of discussing its_own affairs when
and where_it pleases, and_the_right of applying to the Legislature of
the country for larger powers if such shall_appear_necessary for_the
carrying_out_of objects not dreamt of_at its first start.

The Church_is absolutely_lacking in all these respects, for the very
simple_reason_that the Church,_viewed as a going concern in possession
of property, has_nothing that can be called a_constitution.

  ___  * _     *_     _*      _*     _ *

If the glaring anomalies_and the_wholly unjustifiable grotesqueness
which startle us_at every turn_when we_begin to discuss_“Church
questions” are to be removed, where_are we to_begin, and what should be
the lines_on_which any scheme_of_readjustment_should proceed?

First_and foremost, let_all_obsolete and_antiquated_privileges, which
are survivals of a long_extinct_condition of affairs, be swept away,
and with_the privileges let the_disabilities_go also. Let no_man be
made either more or_less than a citizen of the_Empire by_reason of_his
being in any sense a member of the Church--not a peer_of the realm on
the one hand,_not disqualified from entering_the House_of_Commons on
the other.

As_a_preliminary to_giving the Church a working constitution, it_is my
conviction_that the bishops should no longer_have seats in the_House_of
Lords. I cannot see how any_director or overseer of any corporation,
or_indeed of any department of_the_State,_should be made a peer_of
the realm by virtue of his_holding office. I_am not wholly ignorant
of our constitutional history,_although_into the historical aspect of
the question_I_decline to enter now. The facts_are_what_we have to
face; and as_things are, however much we may_deplore it, there seems
just as little reason why bishops_should be raised_to the peerage as
why the_naval_lords_of the Admiralty should be created barons. But,
if you dismiss_the bishops_from the Upper_House, you certainly cannot
exclude the inferior clergy from the lower_one. Whether in the one
case the Church_or the House of Lords would be much the loser may
very_reasonably be doubted, notwithstanding the conspicuous ability
which is_and has for long been characteristic of_the Episcopal Bench.