There is also a reform needed in the form of Convocation as at present constituted, for it is by no means a representative assembly of the Priests of the Church, and has neither voice nor weight in the settlement of ecclesiastical questions which are discussed in the councils of the nation. It is true that the members of the Upper House of Convocation have seats in the House of Lords, and therefore they might be able if they were willing, to bring their united influence to bear upon measures of Church Reform when discussed in that august assembly, but we all know how divided our spiritual Fathers are upon the most important Church questions of the day, and considering how conspicuous many of them are by their absence from Parliament when some weighty ecclesiastical question is presented for debate, it becomes a very serious question whether the cause of the Church's progress and welfare is advanced in any way by the Bishops being spiritual peers.

But convocation does not represent the strength of the clergy: far from it, it is not a complete ecclesiastical Parliament, for a large portion of the clergy have no voice whatever in its constitution, the licensed curates and those engaged in educational work have neither power nor influence in securing a single representative in Convocation, and this I regard as a gross injustice and a serious infringement of their rights as Priests of the Church of England. For indeed when we examine the present consti

tution of Convocation, and set apart those members of it who are the nominees of the Crown, a very small number remains (those who are called proctors) to represent the clergy, and those only who are fortunate enough to hold preferments.

I would suggest therefore that some course should be pursued either to abolish Convocation, as it is at present constituted, being practically useless and effete, or to make it what it ought to be, an assembly, the members of which should be elected by the whole body of the clergy throughout the land, and in whose deliberations not only the few would take an interest (if even there are any who do), but every Priest would feel he had some voice at least in its constitution, and would then regard it as a representative assembly of the Church at large, and not look upon it as it really is, a hollow farce, a mere sham, a ridiculous appendage to the State.

There is a crying abuse in the Church of England which ought to be at once swept away, and that is the custom of beneficed clergy holding Canonries in our Cathedrals. These are positions of dignity and trust, having a fair emolument attached to them, and they are frequently conferred upon Priests whose whole time ought to be taken up in the work of their respective parishes. By all means let there be Canonries, but let men be appointed to them who are able and willing to give all their time and attention to the work.

At present that work consists in residing three months of the year in the Cathedral Close rent free, attending the daily services, and occupying the Cathedral Pulpit once a week (perhaps not so often) during that period, and drawing a year's stipend.

Many of the Residentiary Canons, to their praise be it said, create work for themselves, and are often the chief supporters of every good work that is carried on in the Cathedral City, but it is a monstrous abuse that such a system should exist, in which a Priest already beneficed is able to secure a well-paid office without being compelled to do a commensurate amount of work.

Moreover these dignities and emoluments are oftentimes bestowed upon men who have little or no pulpit ability, and have no special recommendation for the stalls they occupy, but have managed to secure them either through the influence of family connection or political intrigue.

The Canons of our Cathedrals, instead of being Rectors or Vicars of parishes, ought to occupy in person their stalls all the year round, and