m 
 
 
 jp$» ,v '^ 
 
 
 AM 
 
 
 PV. xSvi 
 
 
 kA[. 
 
 
 
 %1 
 
 t^
 
 rw; L-^-'->"
 
 j -■ 

 
 SOME QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE 
 
 Clergg, CJmrc&toavtimtf antr &ffleginett 
 
 AKCHDEACONRY OF MIDDLESEX, 
 
 (AT THE EXD OF HIS FIFTH YEAR), 
 HELD AT 
 
 St. Paul's, Covent Garden, April 29th, 1880, 
 
 EY 
 
 JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSE Y, D.C.L., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 THOMAS SCOTT, WARWICK COURT, IIOLBORN. 
 1880.
 
 Several passages in the following Charge were shortened in delivery, 
 and the documents quoted in the course of it were either summarised or 
 wholly omitted. They are printed at length in order that a full record of all 
 matters concerning the recent Election of Proctors may he preserved. An 
 Appendix is given, containing the two Reports of the small Committee 
 appointed by the Bishop to consider the Election of Lay and also of Clerical 
 Representatives at the proposed Diocesan Conference of the Diocese of 
 London. This, in connection with what appeared in the Charges of 1877 
 and 1878, completes the history of that movement up to the present time. 
 
 The Archdeacon takes this opportunity of thanking the Clergy for their 
 very full attendance. He regrets that a mistake on the part of his Apparitor, 
 who, overlooking the clear instructions of the Registrar, summoned some of 
 the Clergy for "Wednesday, April 28th, instead of all for Thursday, April 
 29th, caused a little inconvenience. He has desired a copy of his Charge 
 to be sent to all those whose names appear inscribed in his Visitation Book, 
 to all from whom or of whom he has heard that they were unavoidably kept 
 away, and to all whom, through some miscarriage, no Citation had reached. 
 If any who attended, through mistake did not inscribe their names, he will, 
 on hearing from them to that effect, desire copies to be sent to them. 
 
 At the Election of Proctors, a Committee of the Incumbents of the 
 Archdeaconry of Middlesex was appointed to consider the subject of the 
 representation of the Parochial Clergy in Convocation, with instructions to 
 place itself in communication with a similar Committee of Incumbents of 
 the other Archdeaconry.
 
 3Iy Reverend Brethren, and my Brethren the 
 Churchwardens and Sidesmen of the 
 Archdeaconry of Middlesex. 
 
 The Visitation of the Bishop relieved me from the 
 necessity, or, I should rather say, deprived me of the 
 agreeable duty, of addressing you in your collective capacity 
 last year. I cannot, however, regret this. Our Spiritual 
 Father's well-considered words are more weighty than mine 
 could be even on such subjects as come especially under my 
 cognizance, and they extend to the spiritual as well as to the 
 material organization of the Church. Our Spiritual Father 
 — I rejoice to call him by that old-fashioned, but endearing 
 title. His influence with us and over us is founded in 
 paternal sympathies, and in the correlative feelings which 
 these draw forth, not in harsh legal restraint or in grudging 
 submission. Hence I cannot help congratulating you on the 
 recent assertion, by the House of Lords, for our Bishops, of 
 their true relation to the Clergy, which some had supposed 
 to be lost. It is settled, I trust, for ever, that a Bishop is 
 not a mere functionary of the Law, like a process-server 
 compelled to deliver a writ, or like a police-officer bound to 
 arrest a delinquent. He is rather one who before acting, or 
 before permitting action, may exercise discretion, and who 
 may be expected to weigh all the circumstances of any com- 
 plaint, with tender regard to the welfare of the parties 
 concerned, and to the interests of the Church in general. The 
 settlement of this point has already, in instances which have 
 come to my knowledge, had an excellent effect in bringing 
 back the Clergy to a loyal dependence on the Bishop, and in
 
 inducing them to sacrifice their own prepossessions in 
 accordance with his " godly admonitions." The Bishop took 
 occasion in his Charge to encourage his Archdeacons by 
 speaking kindly of " their placing their offices cheerfully and 
 ungrudgingly at his service and that of the Diocese." Though 
 conscious of many shortcomings when I review the five years 
 I have gone in and out amongst you, I have endeavoured 
 to be useful. No Clergyman has appealed to me for personal 
 comfort or counsel — for advice as to Liturgical or Parochial 
 difficulties — for presence at opening his Schools or Mission 
 Chapels, or on Penitential or Festive or Anniversary occa- 
 sions — for Sermons on all manner of subjects — for Public 
 Induction into his Ministerial position — or for composing of 
 misunderstandings between himself and his Parishioners — 
 or for many other matters — whose wishes I have not met, if 
 I have found it at all possible to do so. And Churchwardens 
 and Sidesmen know that I am always ready to see them and 
 advise with them, to the best of my power, with the assistance 
 of my learned Official Principal. I have experienced a full 
 requital for any sympathy or help which God has permitted 
 me to give in universal welcome by my brethren both 
 Clerical and Lay. I trust I may be henceforth able to 
 render them a more undistracted co-operation, for I have 
 resigned an engagement which occupied a portion of my time, 
 with a view to devoting myself entirely to the business of the 
 Archdeaconry, to the correspondence and other work which it 
 brings upon me, and to the Church Societies which I have to 
 attend. You will pardon my allusion to these points. They 
 have been only noticed because some writers in newspapers 
 have taken upon them to assert that an Archdeacon has really 
 nothing to do, but is induced to finding a reason for his very 
 existence as a Church officer in a sort of Trokvrrpa'yiioavvri, 
 or meddlesome interference with somebody or something or 
 other. 
 
 I feel, to my great joy, that I am surrounded by Clergy who 

 
 are ever mindful of St. Paul's words to Timothy — men who 
 are walking according u to the former prophecies concerning 
 them," t.e, the directions (or prophecies properly so called) of 
 the Holy Spirit spoken concerning them at their original 
 admission to the Ministry by the Trpo^rao in the Church, 
 and carrying on, as their means of defence and confirma- 
 tion, the good warfare in which they have engaged as their 
 life-work. And, wherever I go, I find the Laity risen to 
 a consciousness of their Church Membership — finding that 
 they have something to do for God, and doing it. Them- 
 selves, their time, their influence, their money, and their 
 prayers are at the disposal of His Church. Instances are not 
 far to seek. But I may mention the names of two who have 
 been recently called to their rest and their reward. One, John 
 Torr, who died just as he was completing the Endowment of a 
 Bishopric for Liverpool, to which he had himself contributed 
 £10,000. The other, for private reasons most dear to me, 
 but on public grounds dear to the whole Church, Philip 
 Cazenove. 
 
 The Archdeacon's was originally a purely spiritual office, 
 and was formerly conferred with much solemnity, by inves- 
 titure of ring and a book, but though many of his functions 
 are still spiritual, many are now temporal. So I proceed 
 without further preface to certain subjects which, though 
 on the border-land of the temporal and spiritual, concern us 
 very much as to the exercise of our spiritual office. Some 
 of them have for good or for evil been already before 
 Parliament — and some of them are likely to be before it. 
 Others are scarcely within the scope of legislation — but arc 
 matters of internal ecclesiastical polity. You will understand 
 that what I say is not intended to suggest difficulties, but to 
 state clearly difficulties that exist, and, if possible, to indicate 
 solutions of them. 
 
 These matters are : — 
 
 (1.) The legalizing of Marriage with a Wife's Sister,
 
 6 
 
 (2.) The Marriage of parties, one or other of which has 
 been divorced. 
 
 (3 .) The maintenance of the fabrics of our Churches, and 
 the providing for the expenses of Divine Service. 
 
 (4.) The seeking out of children to be baptized. 
 
 (5.) The right of persons to be married in a Church which 
 is not strictly their Parish Church, and the legal technicalities, 
 more or less affecting the Clergy, which beset the subject of 
 the celebration of Marriages generally. 
 
 (6.) The letting, or appropriation, or absolute freedom of 
 seats in Churches ; questions which are greatly complicated 
 by the shifting of population. 
 
 (7.) The Reform of Convocation. 
 
 (8.) The progress of the movement for a Diocesan Con- 
 ference for the Diocese of London. 
 
 (9.) Our duty towards the more destitute parts of the 
 Diocese. 
 
 (10.) The condition of the Sunday Question, and the 
 attitude which the Clergy should assume in reference to it. 
 
 I will treat of the first two of these together. 
 
 I., II. 
 
 It is, I believe, indisputable that a great deal of the recent 
 trouble which we have had as to matters of Ritual, to which 
 I only allude here for the purpose of illustration, has been 
 produced by an impression that certain Courts have only a 
 temporal foundation, and are not qualified, either in their 
 origin or in the appointment or qualifications of their Judges, 
 to decide in matters spiritual. I am not pronouncing on the 
 correctness of this impression, but merely stating that it 
 exists. Whether rightly entertained or no, it is widely 
 spread, and has led to what appears to be, if not an 
 opposition to the law of the land, yet an opposition to the 
 exposition of it emanating from these Courts. (Of course I 
 am aware that such expositions have been objected to on other
 
 grounds — such as want of historical knowledge, erroneous 
 setting forth of facts, considerations of expediency being 
 admitted which would not have been admitted in matters 
 purely temporal — but I am concerned with principles rather 
 than with incidental considerations.) Well, an analogous 
 state of things is observable in reference to the second of my 
 two questions, in consequence of actual legislation, and may 
 be feared in reference to the first, if the agitation of those 
 who have already broken the law of the Church and the law 
 of the land is permitted to attain its object. 
 
 As to the Marriage of Divorced Persons. You will recol- 
 lect that, when the Divorce Act was passed, an unhappy 
 compromise was entered into in order to conciliate opponents. 
 The Incumbent of a Parish is not obliged to marry such 
 persons, but he is compelled to allow another Clergyman 
 to marry them in his Church. Well, we will suppose that 
 he feels strongly on the point, and, feeling strongly, has 
 told his Parishioners that he docs not consider such a 
 Marriage to be lawful in the sight of God — in fact, that 
 he holds it to be no Marriage at all. But the persons live in 
 his Parish, and present themselves at the Holy Communion. 
 Being, as he holds them to be, not married, he declines to 
 admit them to that ordinance — " as notorious and open evil 
 livers." They appeal, Ave will further suppose, to the Law 
 Courts, and obtain a decision that they are married, and do 
 not come under this category. What is then the Incumbent's 
 position "? I do not know that such a dispute has ever been 
 carried to the bitter end. But I do know that such a case 
 has arisen — that the opinion of eminent Counsel was taken 
 upon it — that it was advised most confidently that the In- 
 cumbent would be cast, if it were tried at law — and that 
 collision has only been avoided by the prudence or the timidity 
 of the Incumbent, or by reluctance of the parties to court 
 publicity and have their former lives discussed anew. It 
 cannot, however, be imagined that things will always be kept
 
 so quiet. Some clay or other, collision must take place 
 between the obligation to obey conscience and to obey 
 temporal law. 
 
 It may, however, be said that the Church has ruled 
 nothing absolutely as to the Marriage of Divorced Persons, 
 and that such a scruple, however widely spread, is of private 
 interpretation ; and, moreover, that before the Divorce Act, 
 the temporal power was allowed to override the spiritual, by 
 permitting the Marriage of such persons in particular 
 instances, the only difference being that greater obstacles 
 were thrown in the way. This is true, but it docs not 
 remove the stress on the minds of conscientious Clergy, or 
 the continual fear that now such Marriages are legalised by 
 wholesale, they may any day be placed in the dilemma sup- 
 posed. 
 
 It seems to be our duty to petition for a removal of any 
 obligation to allow such Marriages with the offices of the 
 Church, and also of obligation to admit persons to the Holy 
 Communion who have not been married in the Church's pale. 
 For be it observed, the removal of such obligations would 
 not, since the repeal of the Tests and Corporation Acts, 
 deprive any one of temporal privileges, which were dependent 
 upon the reception of the Holy Communion, but would simply 
 relieve the consciences of the Clergy. 
 
 It may, however, be said, that it will be very difficult to get 
 such a measure of relief passed through Parliament. Granted. 
 And therefore it is, that setting aside other cogent reasons 
 upon which I have dwelt on former occasions, I would earnestly 
 deprecate the legislative sanction of Marriage with a Deceased 
 Wife's Sister. Such a Marriage is forbidden by the "Table 
 of Kindred and Affinity, wherein whosoever are related are 
 forbidden by Scripture and our laws to marry together." In 
 accordance with this the issue of such a Marriage has been 
 declared by the highest tribunal, that of the House of Lords, 
 to be illegitimate, and incapable of sharing an inheritance
 
 9 
 
 under the general designation of children of a testator. Xo 
 ignorance of the law can be pleaded — in fact the greatest care- 
 has been taken by parties desirous of contracting it to evade 
 the law. And it cannot be pleaded, as might be in the case 
 of divorced persons marrying, that they deserve condonation 
 because Marriage is a life of amendment. They are taking 
 their first wrong step, not retracing a wrong step. Already 
 the agitation has done harm, and shaken the sanctity 
 of the relation between a man and his wife and his wife's 
 sister. Already inconvenient preludes to what would occur have 
 been witnessed. Such for instance as persons persuading the 
 Clergy to admit them to the Holy Communion, to the distress 
 of many devout Church people, or resorting to Churches where 
 they are not known. We should, therefore, surely, pause, 
 before we sanction a measure which would add to the 
 embarrassments already existing from contrariety, real or 
 supposed, of the Law of the Land to the Law of Scripture 
 and of the Church. 
 
 I have noticed the above objections to sanctioning such 
 Marriages, because I think we ought to look fonvard to results 
 more carefully than we did at the time when the Divorce 
 Act was passed, and because also I do not remember to have 
 seen the question distinctly regarded under this aspect. 
 
 III. 
 
 An embarrassment which is much felt by Churchwardens, 
 now that a Church Rate, though it may be voted in Vestry, 
 cannot be legally enforced, is not, indeed, in pari materia, but it 
 exhibits an analogous instance of conflict between a duty and 
 the possibility of its performance. The Churchwardens are 
 bound to keep their Church in fitting repair. Previously to 
 the Braintree decision, it was always supposed that they had 
 a right to demand funds from the Parishioners for that pur- 
 pose. That decision rudely dispelled the illusion of centuries— 
 and the Act which followed it declared, authoritatively, that 
 there should be no grounds for entertaining such an illusion in
 
 10 
 
 future. Still the obligation upon themselves, as men interested 
 n their Parish Churches, remained — and they felt that they 
 might at any moment be told that they should not have under- 
 taken a duty which they could not perform, or that having 
 undertaken it they should perform it at their own cost. 
 This position is so obviously unjust, as well as so inconvenient, 
 that the wonder is that persons are found willing to undertake 
 the office of Churchwarden at all. 
 
 Happily this is the case as a rule. In richer places there are 
 almost always found men who are sufficiently attached to their 
 Church to help their Clergyman in the hard task which might 
 otherwise fall upon him, always unfairly, but it is to be 
 regretted in some cases legally, of keeping up the fabric of the 
 Church and meeting the expenses of its Services. Sometimes a 
 voluntary rate has been levied — sometimes subscriptions have 
 been raised in the Parish — and in many instances, the truer 
 method has been adopted of meeting these difficulties by 
 Offertories in the Church itself. There are also some ancient 
 Parochial Districts in which funds exist for the purposes 
 designated. Still, many Parishes exist in which Churches are 
 going out of repair and Services are inadequately conducted, for 
 want of funds, and for want of opulent persons to contribute 
 funds — and the number of such Parishes is increasing yearly. 
 What remedy can be found for this '? And on what analogy 
 can we justify our demand for it? 
 
 A Eoyal Commission has recently reported that there are 
 considerable Ecclesiastical funds attached to Parishes in the 
 City which are absolutely not wanted there, and which might 
 be applied in aid of the erection or repair of Churches, or 
 generally for the relief of the spiritual wants of the poorer 
 parishes, within the Metropolitan area. The Commissioners 
 recommend that such an application should take place. Let 
 Us petition Parliament to that effect. We may surely adduce 
 the precedent of the re-distribution of Cathedral and Epis- 
 copal property. We may urge that City Churches, not
 
 11 
 
 required, have been pulled down — and their endowments and 
 the money received for their sites diverted to the building and 
 endowment of Churches in districts to which the population 
 of the City has migrated. And we may urge also that if the 
 whole of the Metropolitan area is equitably placed on the same 
 basis for Poor Rates, a similar course of action is not 
 inequitable in reference to repair of Churches where the 
 funds are strictly Ecclesiastical. It is true that a special 
 branch of the Bishop of London's Fund has been recently 
 established for the purpose of aiding poor Churches — but, 
 so great has been the pressure of new work, the result has 
 been by no means commensurate with the extent or depth of 
 the want. I should recommend you to read carefully the 
 elaborate Report of the Commission. It is full of interest. 
 And I would have you remember that even in the West and 
 Xorth of London there are many Churches, either actually 
 in need, or likely, at no distant date, to be in need, of the aid 
 which may thus, by timely representation, be permanently 
 secured. 
 
 IY. 
 
 I have only one word to say on the subject of Baptisms. 
 It has been alleged that the Clergy do not sufficiently seek 
 out children to be baptized. I do not believe this for a 
 moment. But I have received an important return from 
 Archdeacon Jennings, the Incumbent of the Mother Church 
 of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, now divided into 
 six Parishes, which may show how many of the children 
 registered our Clergy baptize into the Church, in a district 
 where Roman Catholic efforts are diligently made to secure 
 proselytes to that communion, and which Cardinal Wiseman 
 professed to claim for his own. An average such as* it 
 presents is an answer to many cavils — and an encouragement 
 to similar exertions, if there are any Parishes to which they 
 can possibly apply. I set it forth at length for your perusal. 
 It embraces the last four years.
 
 12 
 
 "PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 "Population (1871), 38,470. 
 
 "Number of births returned by the Civil Registrar, and of baptisms 
 registered during the years 1876, 1877, 1878, and 1879, in the six Churches 
 situate -within the boundary of the old Parish : — 
 
 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. 
 
 "Births 1,258 ... 1,272 ... 1,205 ... 1,109 
 
 St. John's Church 
 
 ... 303 
 
 ... 344 
 
 ... 317 ... 
 
 311 
 
 St. Mary's 
 
 172 
 
 ... 156 
 
 ... 131 ... 
 
 137 
 
 St Stephen's ... 
 
 168 
 
 ... 222 
 
 ... 176 ... 
 
 177 
 
 St. Matthew's 
 
 130 
 
 ... 103 
 
 ... 113 ... 
 
 96 
 
 Holy Trinity 
 
 129 
 
 ... 130 
 
 ... 140 ... 
 
 148 
 
 St. James the Less 
 
 64 
 
 67 
 
 ... 101 ... 
 
 77 
 
 Baptisms ... 
 
 966 
 
 ... 1,022 
 
 ... 978 ... 
 
 946 
 
 
 ii 
 
 JOHN JENNINGS, 
 
 
 "March. 1880." 
 
 
 
 " Rural Dean 
 
 
 V. 
 
 The next points which I have set down for remark 
 relate to the perplexing position of the Clergy of regularly 
 constituted District Parishes which have been formed, by sub- 
 division and re-subdivision, and also by the method of Con- 
 solidated Chapelries out of older Parishes, in reference to 
 Marriages — and the legal technicalities more or less affecting 
 the Clergy which beset the subject of Marriages generally — I 
 would dwell most on the former of these. 
 
 The position of which complaint is made has been stated 
 to me in this wise. 
 
 " There are three Parishes, which for distinction sake, I 
 will name A. B. C." 
 
 " A. is a Mother Parish, one of the oldest in London, 
 which, though for Ecclesiastical purposes it has been sub- 
 divided again and again, remains, for Civil purposes, one and 
 undivided, with its central Vestry, and other Parochial powers 
 and machinery." 
 
 " B. is a District Parish taken out of that Mother Parish
 
 13 
 
 more than thirty years ago, and formed into a separate Parish 
 for all Ecclesiastical purposes." 
 
 " C. is a ' Consolidated Chapelry ' formed out of portions 
 taken from B n and two other Parishes D. and i?." 
 
 " Now I find that persons residing in B. claim to be 
 married in the Parish Church of A., and I believe that their 
 claim is supported by the Chancellor of the Diocese. But 
 there is a constant difficulty about Marriages between C. and B. 
 
 " The Vicar of B. has tried to meet this difficulty — ■ 
 
 " (1.) By offering to receive Marriages from that portion 
 of C. (the Consolidated Chapelry), which was originally in I?., 
 in his Church, and to give to the Vicar of C. one half of the 
 Marriage fees. This has not been a welcome proposal. 
 
 " (2.) By standing on his (presumed) right to receive 
 persons to be married in his Church from the part of C, 
 which used to be in his Parish, whenever a strong wish to 
 this effect is expressed, though he will not himself put any 
 pressure upon such persons to be married in his Church. 
 
 " Xow the two questions which I should like to have 
 settled are these — 
 
 11 1st. Whether the right of persons resident in B. to be 
 married in the Church of the Mother Parish A. is equally the 
 right of persons resident'in C. (that portion of it, I mean, 
 which belonged originally to i?.), to be married in Parish 
 Church 5.? 
 
 " 2nd. What is understood by a ' Consolidated Chapelry,' 
 and whether it is to all intents and purposes the same as a 
 District Parish? 
 
 " May I also ask whether you think the proposal to give 
 one half of the Marriage fees, in the case mentioned above, a 
 fair one?" 
 
 I wish I could answer these questions fully. But I must 
 honestly confess that they cannot be satisfactorily solved 
 except by Act of Parliament. 
 
 I will give, however, such answers as I can.
 
 14 
 
 1st. A Consolidated Chapelry, if regularly constituted, is 
 to all intents a District Parish. Therefore, whatever rights 
 the inhabitants of a District Parish lose, or whatever rights 
 they retain, those same rights are lost or retained by the 
 inhabitants of the Consolidated Chapelry. 
 
 But, 2»<r%, What are these rights ? 
 
 I told you, in 1878 (with the qualification, that others 
 think otherwise), that it is the opinion of my learned Official 
 Principal that Banns of Marriages should be published not 
 in the Church of the Mother Parish, but in the Church of 
 the District in which one or both of the parties proposes to 
 contract a Marriage reside. For the obvious intention of 
 publication of Banns is that clandestine or unlawful Marriages 
 may be prevented by the knowledge of relations and neigh- 
 bours. In the same way Marriages by License should, in 
 strictness, (for a License is only a permission to dispense witli 
 the formality of Banns), be celebrated in the District Parish 
 Church to which at least one of the parties belong, and not 
 in the Parish Church. The fees would, of course, go to the 
 Minister and Clerk of the Church in which the Marriage is 
 celebrated — at least when all the conditions of separation as 
 well as of legal constitution of the District Parish have been 
 complied with. This diction would carry with it the general 
 principle that the Parishioners of the District Parish are not 
 entitled to the ministrations of the Mother Parish. The 
 Incumbent of the District Parish is their legal Minister ; and it 
 would follow that the only Parishioners of the now diminished 
 Mother Parish would be those who are left in it after legal 
 separation and constitution of the District Parish have taken 
 place. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive that the legalizing of District 
 Parishes for the celebration of Marriages therein could have 
 had any other meaning than this. But another legal principle 
 steps in, that persons do not lose Civil privileges by any Act,
 
 15 
 
 unless it is expressly declared in that Act that they are to 
 lose it. On this principle it is, I suppose, that the Chancellor 
 issues Marriage Licenses for persons residing in what was 
 the Parish of A., though now residing in District Parishes, 
 to be married in the Mother Church A. His interpretation 
 is, I conceive, authoritative, and, hard as it is upon the 
 Ministers and Clerks of the District Parishes to have their 
 Parishioners diverted from them, or their sometimes scanty 
 surplice fees paid elsewhere, I must conclude that the Parish- 
 ioners of B. may be married by License, and, if so, by 
 Banns, in the Parish Church of A. And so, by parity of 
 reasoning, that Parishioners in that part of C. which has been 
 taken out of B. may be married in the Parish Church of B.. 
 and, indeed, of A. also. And I see nothing to prevent those 
 of D. and E. who were taken out of other Parishes, and 
 made contributors to the Consolidated Chapelry (7., from 
 asserting, in a similar way. their civil right to be married in 
 their respective old Mother Churches. 
 
 All this is very perplexing and confusing, and, I am 
 persuaded, is really contrary to what was intended by the 
 constitution of District Parishes. It is also hard upon the 
 Clergy in the way that I have stated. I do not think that a 
 proposal to divide the Fees is at all a satisfactory one. No 
 one should be called upon to surrender remuneration for work 
 that he has actually performed ; and no one likes to receive 
 remuneration for what he does not do. Besides, isolated 
 instances of such an arrangement would produce invidious 
 comparisons between the liberality of one Incumbent and 
 that of another, and misunderstandings which would be 
 stigmatized as disputes about Fees. 
 
 I can suggest no remedy except, for the present, dis- 
 couragement, so far as is possible, of Marriages elsewhere 
 than in the actual Parish Church of one of the parties ; 
 and, prospectively, the hope of a well-considered Act of
 
 16 
 
 Parliament, for which we should petition, and which I 
 understand has been long in view, to put these and certain 
 other matters connected with Marriages on some other 
 footing. We certainly need a reformation of various abuses 
 — the fiction, for instance, of a temporary lodging in a Parish 
 to enable one of the parties to apply for a License in order 
 to be married as a resident. We need to be told by authority 
 whether persons may be married in the Church whose Banns 
 have not been published there, but whose intention has been 
 notified in a Registrar's office. We need liberty to decline to 
 marry persons who are not Christians. We need that it 
 should be set forth clearly that Banns published in Churches 
 of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or in Chapels of the 
 Continent, are not producible as sufficiently published for 
 Marriages in England. We need protection to young women 
 who marry aliens, and whose Marriages, when they reach 
 their husband's country, may be found illegal by the laws of 
 that country ; and many other needs of the same character 
 might be specified — to say nothing of the hardship on the 
 Clergy produced by the Divorce Act, which I have already 
 mentioned. 
 
 No Government has hitherto had leisure or inclination to 
 take up so complicated a subject ; and we of the Clergy are 
 sometimes inclined to fear that whatever remedy may be 
 proposed will be found to be worse than the disease. But 
 surely this is a faint-hearted and timorous policy, and has 
 led to many evils already. I trust that is not true of the 
 Church of England, which Livy pronounced of Rome : — 
 " Ad hcee tempora^ qiribus nee vitia nostra, nee remedia pati 
 possumuS) pervenlum est" The following is a programme 
 of a Bill of which notice was given by Mr. Blennerhassett 
 in the late Parliament. It does not meet all the points of 
 which complaints is or may be made, and I do not see the 
 necessity of the provision mentioned under the fourth head. 
 But, if introduced in the new Parliament, it may be either
 
 17 
 
 amended, or made a stoek on which to engraft other necessary 
 enactments. Its main provisions are : — 
 
 (1.) Relief of the Clergy from the obligation of having anything whatever 
 to do with the Marriage of Divorced persons. 
 
 (2.) Relief of the Nonconformists from the obligation of having the 
 Registrar present at their Marriages. 
 
 (3.) Giving Church people more liberty with regard to the Church in 
 which the Marriage is to be solemnized. 
 
 (4.) Extension of the hours in which Marriage may be solemnized. 
 
 (5.) Validating certain Marriages which would be invalid for wilful non- 
 compliance with forms, although the Marriage may have been actually 
 solemnized, and the parties have believed themselves to be legally married, 
 and have lived together twenty years. 
 
 And we are given to understand by the draftsman of this 
 Bill that it is not proposed to abolish Banns, but only to make 
 one of the persons intending Marriage, when he "puts up" 
 the Banns, sign a written notice and declaration, instead of 
 merely giving a verbal notice. This, he thinks, will assist 
 in preventing false statements and mistakes. He adds, " If 
 Banns were done away with it would be necessary to provide 
 that a book, containing notices of Marriage, should lie at the 
 Clergyman's house for any one to see. And I doubt whether 
 the Clergy would approve of such an arrangement." 
 
 VI. 
 
 I now come to a subject which, considering its difficulty, 
 I would fain avoid, but which, from its intrinsic importance, 
 as well from the practical questions which it involves, and in 
 which Churchwardens and Sidesmen are concerned, I may not 
 pass over": 
 
 I allude to what is so much — and in the abstract with so 
 much reason — agitated for in the present day : the freedom and 
 openness of sittings, or rather kncelings, in the House of 
 God. 
 
 There is no doubt in the world upon two or three points : 
 that the Parishioners are entitled, in the first instance, to be 
 accommodated ; that it is necessary, in order that decorum 
 should be observed, that the Churchwardens and Sidesmen
 
 18 
 
 should see that they are duly accommodated ; and that by the 
 word duly should be understood that they should be able to 
 worship with their families, and not be scattered here and 
 there, so that the domestic union would be broken through. 
 
 These objects, it maybe believed, were originally attained 
 by the Churchwardens and Sidesmen being in attendance 
 before the Service commenced, to perform their office of 
 allotting seats, and by the Parishioners themselves being so 
 regular in their coming to the Church, as to be shown to 
 seats without noise and without interruption. 
 
 Regularity on both parts produced an appropriation of 
 seats, for persons liked to worship, Sunday after Sunday, in 
 the same spot ; and if no selfishness or exclusiveness had 
 stept in, and there had been, in all places, abundance of 
 room, there would not have been much to complain of. 
 
 But these ugly visitants did step in, and the officers 
 found it easier to assign groups of seats, once for all, than to 
 be in attendance always to do their duty. Thus groups 
 of seats took the form of huge pews or pens, which were 
 allotted to persons in perpetuum, and whether they and 
 their families came to Church in good time, or not at all, 
 were reserved to them. The poor were gradually thrust into 
 the more obscure or less eligible portions of the Church, and 
 so in many places ceased to attend altogether. And, especi- 
 ally in large towns, where the population had outgrown the 
 dimensions of the Church, and where the income of the Living 
 was small, or money was not forthcoming to make repairs 
 of the edifice, pews were let for hire, and were locked up* 
 in their renter's absence, or even considered matters of sale or 
 inheritance. Besides this, there grew up a system of pews 
 appropriated by faculty or prescription, and of attachment of 
 
 * There is, I am sorry to say, one Church in the Diocese, that of 
 Staines, built in 1827, under a Special Act of Parliament, 7 and 8 George IV., 
 cap. cvii., where holders of pews have a freehold interest in them, and have 
 refused to allow them to he opened for a third free Service, even when they 
 themselves are not present.
 
 19 
 
 pews to a certain house, which was utterly destructive or 
 the principles that the Church belongs to all, and that 
 persons who will not come to worship in it should not pre- 
 vent those who will. 
 
 In great cities, like London and its suburbs, the evils are 
 complicated by the very remedies which have been suggested 
 or adopted. 
 
 Churches and chapels have been built, in which pew-letting 
 is the system, and in which there is either no accommodation 
 for the poor, or very little accommodation, and that of the 
 worst kind. And since Church Pates have been irrecover- 
 able by law, Churchwardens have sometimes, even in old 
 Parish Churches, entered upon an understanding with the 
 holders of pews or seats, somewhat of the following 
 character. " You, to whom such and such a good seat is 
 allotted, are bound by a sort of honourable understanding to 
 contribute so much to Church expenses. You, to whom a less 
 eligible seat, so much ;" and so on to the end of the chapter, 
 which frequently arrives without any room being found for the 
 poor. Then, again, covenants with the Incorporated Society 
 for Building and Repairing Churches and Chapels, or other 
 Societies, have been frequently forgotten. Parts of the 
 Church which were to be free have been let, and the poor 
 are placed, on various excuses, in parts of the Church 
 where they cannot see or hear. 
 
 No wonder that this state of things excited the attention 
 of the Founders of the Free and Open Church Association, 
 as it is called. If I have not actually joined their ranks, it 
 is not because I do not sympathise with their general objects, 
 but, because, as it appears to me, they do not exercise quite 
 so much forbearance and discrimination, as is required by the 
 difficulties of the Church's position in the present day. 
 
 In Country Churches, the solution of knots in the matter 
 
 is comparatively easy. The pews, so festhetically as well 
 
 as so religiously unsightly, have only to be swept away, and 
 
 b 2
 
 20 
 
 replaced by open benches ; families may still have their 
 appropriated seats — for I would respect the family feeling — if 
 they are in Church a few minutes before the Service com- 
 mences ; and if the Churchwardens are in attendance to sec 
 that under fulfilment of this condition they have them, and 
 at its non-fulfilment, fill up their places by admitting others 
 to them — all arc accommodated and none are aggrieved. 
 Here and there, perhaps, a holder of a tall-sided faculty or 
 prescriptive pew, insists on his right to retain his huge con- 
 struction. But he may be let alone. Bear with him — leave 
 him alone in his isolated selfishness. 
 
 " Si defendere delictum quam vertere malles 
 Nullum ultra verbum aut operam insumebat inanem 
 Quiu sine rivali toque ct tua solus arnares," 
 
 said Horace, of a different matter indeed, but using words 
 much to the vexed Clergyman's purpose. If he will not yield, 
 possibly his successor will. Perhaps he may yield bye and 
 bye.* 
 
 I have everywhere pressed the doctrine that in old Parish 
 Churches payment for scats, or even such quasi payment as 
 is implied in the so-called honourable understanding I have 
 already mentioned, is absolutely illegal. But I cannot join in 
 an ^discriminating cry, especially in London, against 
 appropriation of seats to regular attendants at Church, or 
 against all letting of seats, or against the legalizing of such 
 
 * This may be shown by the following anecdote. A Clergyman, not of 
 this Diocese, reseated his Church. One holder of a faculty pew would not 
 fall in with the plan. The Clergyman let him alone. When everything 
 else had been completed, the great pew was left standing, and very hideous 
 it was. The holder one day brought a friend into the Church, and pointing 
 to the pew said, " There, our Parson with his new-fangled views wanted to 
 level my pew to the rest. I stood on my legal position. Don't you think I 
 am right ? " "Well," said his friend, " you may have law, and right on your 
 side ; I will not discuss that. But the enclosure is singularly like that for 
 strayed animals, which we call the Pound. I should not like to be a subject 
 for it. But that is a matter of taste.'' The mortified owner said nothing. 
 A few days after he called upon the Clergyman with " There, I have asserted 
 my right. And now you may reduce the pew as you please." So the thing 
 was done. The moral is let us, proceed gently and without haste or invective.
 
 21 
 
 letting, by an application of the remnant of the Million Fund. 
 I will tell you why. 
 
 If a Church happens to be what is called a popular one, 
 cither from the nature of the Services or from the ability of 
 the Clergyman, a crowd of people will invade it, and the 
 regular attendants or Parishioners will be ousted, and their 
 families separated. 
 
 In many neighbourhoods unless some seats are let there 
 is at present no means of supporting a Clergyman for large 
 districts Avhere the population has entirely outrun the 
 existing accommodation. There is no prospect of endow- 
 ment — and Churches would hardly have been built at all, 
 unless resort had been made to the much-vituperated Million 
 Fund in order to legalize letting some of the seats. 
 
 Does it follow therefore, that scandal should be allowed to 
 exist — that in Churches, whether of old or of new foundation, 
 with seats appropriated to Parishioners or to Renters, the doors 
 should be besieged before the Service commences, so that the 
 regular worshippers cannot enter in, or the aisles noisily 
 thronged with those who have no regular seats, until a very 
 important part of the Service has been got through. 
 
 I answer emphatically, No. Let us get rid at once of the 
 practice of reserving seats to any one beyond five minutes 
 before the bell stops. 
 
 Let the Churchwardens retain their power which they 
 possess, under the Ordinary, of appropriating seats to indi- 
 viduals and even to families, and let the right of Renters of 
 seats, (where this is a necessity), be preserved. 
 
 But let no seat be appropriated or let, without the condition 
 above mentioned. And let the Churchwardens be in attendance, 
 and, if they want help, Sidesmen and other Church-helpers 
 will be ready to assist them in enforcing this condition. It 
 will be perfectly easy to do this eventually. In the old 
 Churches the Churchwardens will only be resuming their 
 power and exercising it diligently every Sunday, instead of
 
 22 
 
 indolently once for all. In the new Churches, they can 
 exercise it also, if a notice is placed up at the Church-door, 
 or fixed in the seats themselves, that such is the condition of 
 tenure. Where seats are rented, there should, in addition to 
 this, be a memorandum to that effect, printed on the receipt 
 for payment. By degrees persons would find that it is just as 
 easy to come to Church five minutes before the time, as five 
 minutes after. And I am persuaded that, by degrees also, 
 feelings of cxclusivencss will give way, and thoughts for those 
 to whom especially the Gospel is preached will grow up. 
 Besides this, however, there might be Services at which every 
 seat is absolutely free, and at which the poor might be 
 especially encouraged to attend. 
 
 My Brethren of the Clergy, and my Lay Brethren the 
 Churchwardens and Sidesmen, will pardon my free speaking on 
 this matter. And if these words reach the Laity generally, I 
 trust they will second the efforts of those who, while they 
 respect rights, feel bound to inculcate duties. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Another subject upon which considerable interest has 
 been felt amongst us is the Reform of Convocation, so far 
 at least as the adequate Representation of the Parochial 
 Clergy of this Diocese is concerned. 
 
 You will remember that, in my Charge of 1878, I 
 recounted to you, with some particularity, the changes 
 which have already taken place in the constitution of the 
 Convocation of the Northern Province. I then proposed to 
 you that " we should petition our Bishop to urge upon the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury that Archdeaconries should, as in 
 the Province of York, be made the basis of the Representa- 
 tion of the Parochial Clergy, and that at least two Proctors 
 should be elected and sit for each Archdeaconry." 
 
 And I urged that, among other advantages of this 
 arrangement, would be the rectification of the proportion of
 
 23 
 
 Parochial Proctors as compared with the official element ot 
 Deans and Archdeacons and Proctors of Cathedrals. 
 
 My ultimate design in saying this was to promote the 
 efficiency of Convocation, by making it really representative 
 of the Clergy. My immediate object was to obtain a fair 
 representation of the Clergy of our own Diocese. 
 
 I do not think that I mentioned enlargement of the con- 
 stituency, by allowing other licensed Priests than Incumbents, 
 under certain limitations of course, to have votes ; but I did 
 mention the desirableness of allowing them to vote for 
 Members of a proposed Diocesan Conference for London. 
 I need hardly assure you, however, that such a measure 
 would have had my thorough approbation. 
 
 You did not, I regret, adopt my suggestion of addressing 
 the Bishop. (Perhaps I may observe, by the way, that your 
 not having done so is somewhat due to the want of that 
 Diocesan organization which a Diocesan Conference, which 
 virtually includes a Diocesan Synod, or a Diocesan Synod 
 pure and simple would have effected.) The result was that 
 an election of Proctors for a new Convocation came upon 
 us without our having made our convictions and wishes 
 thoroughly and formally known. 
 
 But though we were, I think, unwisely silent, it would 
 seem that the hardship of our case did not altogether 
 escape the Archbishop of Canterbury. Unprepared as His 
 Grace was to adopt the precedent of the Archbishop of York, 
 as to the admission of more Parochial Proctors for each 
 Diocese, and, I suppose, more unprepared still to allow votes 
 to others than Incumbents, he issued the following letter. 
 His feeling, no doubt, was, first, that the Incumbents ought 
 to be induced to take more general and lively interest in the 
 elections than they have done heretofore ; and, secondly, that 
 they should in all cases be directly represented — namely, by 
 the Incumbents most approved by them being selected by
 
 24 
 
 the Bishop. Accordingly, he issued the following letter to 
 
 every one of his comprovincials. It is dated — 
 
 " Lambeth Palace, S.E., 
 " My dear Lord, " 20th March, 1880. 
 
 " I expect witliin a few days to be commanded by her Majesty the 
 Queen to issue, through the Bishop of London, (as Dean of the Province), 
 the writs for the election of a new Convocation for Canterbury. 
 
 " I would venture to suggest to your lordship two improvements in the 
 mode of selecting Proctors to represent your Diocese in the Lower House 
 which might, I think, with advantage be made at the coming elections. 
 
 " 1. I would commend to you a system of ascertaining the wishes of the 
 Clergy by voting papers, which has already been adopted in more than one 
 Diocese. According to this system, the beneficed Clergy appoint a small 
 central body of their own number, to whom the voting papers are returned, 
 and this central body, adhering to the old form, afterwards meets and elects 
 the candidates for whom the largest number of votes has been recorded. 
 
 " 2. I would also submit whether it is not desirable in cases in which, 
 from old prescription, the Bishop has the right of selecting, as Proctors, two 
 out of several names submitted to him by the Clergy, that the Bishop should 
 waive this right and nominate the candidates for whom the largest number 
 of votes has been recorded. 
 
 " Believe me to be, my dear Lord, 
 
 " Your faithful servant and brother, 
 
 " A. C. CANTUAPv." 
 
 It is obvious that two points must have escaped his Grace 
 when he penned this letter. First, that it is necessary that 
 the Incumbents should be cited to elect in the first instance, 
 otherwise the voting papers collected and their result would 
 be due rather to the action of a committee or caucus, than to 
 a formal and solemn meeting of the Clergy ; secondly, that it 
 would be impossible, seeing that the number of Proctors for 
 each Diocese is by custom limited to two, for the Bishop to 
 give effect to the choice of the Clergy in his Archdeaconries 
 unless the Archdeaconries also are two only. For instance, 
 it could not apply to Rochester, where there are three Arch- 
 deaconries, those of Rochester, Southwark, and Kingston-on- 
 Thames. The Bishop of Rochester could not choose the 
 most preferred of every one of his three, and thus one of 
 them must be unrepresented. In like manner, it could not 
 apply to the Diocese of St. Alban's,* where there are also 
 * See Appendix, pnge 43.
 
 25 
 
 three Archdeaconries, those of St. Alban's, Essex and Col- 
 chester. And had the Diocese of London still possessed, 
 as it did until 1838, five Archdeaconries — viz., those of 
 Essex, Colchester, and St. Alban's, besides those of London 
 and Middlesex — it would have been utterly inapplicable 
 to it also. If I may judge from the mandates sent out by 
 the Bishop of London previous to that date, which I have 
 carefully perused in the Register, and which are obviously 
 handed down from remote antiquity, each of the five Arch- 
 deacons was to see that two good and sufficient Procurators 
 were elected. If, therefore, according to the Archbishop's 
 recommendation, the Bishop were to select those for whom 
 the largest number of votes has been recorded, five would 
 have had to be sent up from the Diocese of London. For, as 
 the Archbishop puts it, the Clergymen who received the 
 largest number of votes, would have to be taken. There 
 would be no possibility of comparing the numbers given 
 in distinct Archdeaconries, so as to carry out the suggestion. 
 Still, as it might apply to the Diocese of London under its 
 present circumstances, the Bishop of London, in order to 
 meet, as far as he thought he could at present, the wishes of 
 his Clergy, issued the following letter to each of his Arch- 
 deacons. I give it at length, because, though I have acted 
 upon its suggestions, as to procedure, there are some points in 
 it of considerable importance, from which I am constrained to 
 differ:-— 
 
 " London House, St. James' Square, 
 
 " March 27th, 1880. 
 
 " My dear Archdeacon, — I have received a letter from the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, suggesting the adoption, at the coming election of Proctors for 
 Convocation, of the mode of ascertaining the opinion of the Clergy by 
 means of polling papers. 
 
 " You will infer, from a recent conversation we held together, that I 
 entirely concur in His Grace's suggestion. Great weight is no doubt due to 
 the opinion of eminent lawyers, expressed almost with unanimity, that any 
 structural change in the constitution of the Church's Convocation, whether 
 made by extending the constituency or by increasing the number of 
 Proctors, (excepting the increase which takes place necessarily in strict 
 accordance with the old constitution, when a new Diocese or a new Arcli-
 
 26 
 
 deacoury is created), if made without the concurrent authority of the 
 Legislature or of the Crown, would throw serious doubt on the validity of 
 the acts and proceedings of a body thus altered. But no such objection 
 seems to lie against a modification, for the convenience of the Clergy, of the 
 machinery, so to speak, by which their votes are ascertained, which rests on 
 no enactment, and can affect in no way the character or constitution of the 
 body elected. 
 
 " You will probably, therefore, think it well to summon the beneficed 
 Clergy of your Archdeaconry on a convenient day to elect, or to nominate 
 for election, Clergymen as Proctors for Convocation. If two only are 
 proposed, the election will be at once concluded. If more than two are duly 
 proposed and seconded, j r ou may adjourn the election to a day to be then 
 named ; and polling papers, containing the names of those proposed, can be 
 at once prepared and sent by post to every Incumbent in your Archdeaconry, 
 with directions to fill and sign them and to return them before or to bring 
 them before a certain hour on the day to which the election was adjourned. 
 The papers can then be opened and examined before yourself and a mover 
 or seconder of each of the candidates. The names of the two Clergymen 
 who receive the highest number of votes, together with the number of votes 
 received by them, will be returned to me. 
 
 " I wish the Clergy to be informed that it is my intention to select for 
 Proctor the Clergyman who, in each Archdeaconry, shall receive the largest 
 number of votes, unless informed by that Clergyman himself that he 
 declines to serve. 
 
 " I departed from this rule in the case of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex 
 at the last election only because I was told, on what I considered sufficient 
 authority, that the Clergyman whose name stood first was unwilling to be 
 selected to the exclusion of the second, who had sat in the previous 
 Convocation. In future I shall receive any such intimation only from the 
 Clergyman himself. My wish is to give effect to the choice of the Clergy. 
 
 " You will, no doubt, remind the Clergy that each is at liberty to give 
 one vote to two of the nominated candidates ; but that he cannot give his 
 two votes to the same candidate. 
 
 "Yours truly, 
 
 "JOHN LONDON." 
 Such was the Bishop's letter. Immediately following 
 upon the receipt of it, came His Lordship's mandate to me, in 
 which he set forth the tenour of a mandatory letter which he 
 had received from the Archbishop : — 
 
 ©" JOHN, by Divine Permission, Bishop of London, to Our Beloved in 
 Christ, the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex, or his Official, 
 Greeting, by virtue and authority of certain Mandatory Letters of the Most 
 Eeverend Father in God, Archibald Campbell, by Divine Providence, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, bearing 
 date the twenty-fifth day of March instant ; also of a certain Writ or 
 Mandate therein contained of Our Most Gracious Sovereign, Lady Victoria, 
 bv the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
 
 27 
 
 Queen Defender of the Faith, and so forth, dated at Westminster the 
 twenty-fourth day of March instant, and in the forty-third year of Her 
 Reign, issued out and directed to the said Most Reverend Father for holding 
 and celebrating a sacred Synod and General Convocation of the Prelates and 
 Clergy of the whole Province of Canterbury, We do peremptorily cite and 
 admonish you the Archdeacon aforesaid, that you cause all and singular the 
 Rectors, Vicars, and others as well exempt as not exempt, having and 
 obtaining Benefices and Ecclesiastical Promotions within the Archdeaconry 
 of Middlesex ; and also we enjoin and command you and them that you the 
 Archdeacon aforesaid, personally, and the Clergy of your said Archdeaconry, 
 by two sufficient Procurators lawfully and sufficiently empowered, do appear 
 before the said Most Reverend Father, Archibald Campbell, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, or his Substitute, or Commissary, in the Chapter House of the 
 Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, on the thirtieth day of April next, 
 or on such other day to which the said Convocation shall on that day be 
 prorogued. Moreover we command you as above that you duly certify to 
 us, or our Vicar General, by your Letters Patent containing the tenor of 
 these Presents, and sealed with your seal, the names of all and singular the 
 persons cited or admonished in this behalf, also the names of the Procurators 
 chosen for the Clergy aforesaid, and everything else that you shall do in and 
 about the premises, on or before the twenty-third day of April next, and 
 without further delay. 
 
 " Dated at London, the thirty-first day of March, in the year of Our 
 Lord, One thousand eight hundred and eighty, and in the twelfth year of 
 our Translation. 
 
 " (Signed) JOHN B. LEE, 
 
 " Registrar." 
 
 From the latter of these two documents I gathered that 
 I was to return two Procurators to appear before the Arch- 
 bishop. I found in it no mention whatever of the prescriptive 
 right of the Bishop to select either one out of them, or two 
 out of the four returned from the whole Diocese. This I 
 gained solely from the former of the documents. It was not 
 my business to dispute but simply to obey — and to state what 
 instructions I had received to my Clergy. I did not hold to 
 the distinction made in the Bishop's letter, that alterations in 
 the mode of voting, and waiving of his prescriptive right of 
 selecting, were simply modifications of machinery, while 
 increase in the number of Proctors, and extension of the 
 constituency, were structural changes. I held both classes 
 of alterations to be referable to one and the same category. 
 And I was not at all persuaded that the Archbishop of
 
 28 
 
 Canterbury could not do for the Southern Province something 
 
 like what the Archbishop of York did some time ago for the 
 
 Northern Province. Therefore I caused my Citations to be 
 
 issued as usual, and with them addressed a letter to the Clergy, 
 
 founded, indeed, upon the Bishop's letter, but only mentioning 
 
 what he intended to do — how far he intended to depart from 
 
 the precedent of late years, and how far he intended to abide 
 
 by it. This is the present Citation — 
 
 "No. 
 
 " ARCHDEACONRY OF MIDDLESEX. 
 
 " Convocation, 1880. 
 " To the Bev. of 
 
 in the County of Middlesex. 
 " By Virtue of a Process under the Seal of the Archdeaconry Court of 
 Middlesex, issued in compliance with a Mandate of John, by Divine per- 
 mission Lord Bishop of London, you are hereby cited personally to appear 
 before The Venerable James Augustus Hessey, Clerk, Doctor in the Civil 
 Law, Archdeacon of the said Archdeaconry, or the Worshipful Alfred 
 Waddilove, Doctor in the Civil Law, Official of the said Archdeacon, or his 
 Surrogate, in the Great Room of the National Society for Promoting the 
 Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church, in the 
 Broad Sanctuary, "Westminster, in the County of Middlesex, on Thursday, 
 the fifteenth day of April instant, at the hour of Two o'clock in the After- 
 noon, then and there to Nominate and Elect two sufficient Procurators to 
 appear before the Most Reverend Father in God, Archibald Campbell, by 
 Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, or his Substitute or 
 Commissary, in the Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, 
 London, on the thirtieth day of April instant, or on such other day to which 
 Convocation shall on that day be prorogued. 
 
 "W. L. HARVEY, 
 • " Apparitor to the said Official. 
 
 "3rd April, 1880. 
 " The Registry of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex, 
 
 " 10, Godliman Street, Doctors' Commons, E.C. 
 "3rd April, 1880." 
 
 This is my own letter — 
 
 "41, Leinster Gardens, 
 
 " Hyde Park, W. 
 
 " April 3rd, 1880. 
 " Reverend and dear Brother, 
 
 " It is my duty to send you notice for the election of two Proctors 
 for the Archdeaconry of Middlesex, of whom one will be selected by the 
 Bishop, to serve in the approaching Convocation ; and I wish at the same
 
 29 
 
 time to give j'ou such information as is required in reference to an alteration 
 ■which -will take place in the mode and circumstances of the election. 
 
 " I regret that I am unable to tell you that the constituency of the 
 Proctors to be elected is to be extended on the present occasion, or that the 
 number of Proctors assigned to the Diocese is to be increased. His Grace 
 the President does not yet see his way to these important changes, though 
 I hope they may be effected bye and bye ; but he has sanctioned the method 
 of taking the votes of the Clergy by means of voting papers, to which the 
 Bishop has given his hearty consent. 
 
 " The following are the arrangements which I have made : — 
 
 " On Thursday, April 15, at two o'clock, I request you and all the 
 beneficed Clergy of the Archdeaconry to meet in the Great Eoom of the 
 National Society, Westminster, to elect, or to nominate for election, then and 
 there, Clergymen as Proctors for Convocation. If two only are duly proposed 
 and seconded, the election -will be at once concluded, and I shall only, if 
 necessary, have a further show of hands, that it may appear clearly which 
 of the two elected is the more approved. The result w T ill be reported to the 
 Bishop. If more than two are duly proposed and seconded, I shall adjourn 
 the election to a future day and hour to be then named. In the interval, 
 polling papers will be prepared, containing the names of the candidates, and 
 will be sent by post to every one of the electors, with directions to fill up and 
 sign them, and to return them before — or bring them on — the day and hour 
 to which the election has been adjourned. I mention the alternative, bring 
 them on, because every elector has a right to be personally present at the 
 election. 
 
 " The papers will then be opened and examined before myself and a 
 mover or seconder of each of the candidates. The names of the two 
 Clergymen who receive the highest number of votes, together with the 
 numbers of votes received by them respectively, will be reported to the 
 Bishop. The Bishop desires to have this information, because it is his 
 intention to give effect to the deliberate choice of the electors by selecting 
 the Clergyman who shall appear to have been thus most approved by them. 
 
 " I think it right to remind you that each elector is at liberty to give one 
 vote to two of the candidates nominated, but that he cannot give his two 
 votes to one candidate. 
 
 " Praying that God may direct our course for the good of His Church. 
 " I am, 
 " Reverend and dear Brother, 
 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 " J. A. HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 
 " Archdeacon of Middlesex. 
 " To the Reverend 
 
 I have been asked why I did not issue voting papers before 
 the clay proposed for election of Proctors. My reply is very 
 obvious. It was my business to cite the Clergy to appear
 
 30 
 
 personally. It was not my business to suppose that they 
 would not appear, or that there would be a division in their 
 opinion. If they did appear and agree, there would be an 
 end of the matter. If however, on the day and hour fixed, they 
 thought or any of them thought, on merely two Candidates 
 being proposed, that their pretensions were not sufficiently 
 known in the Archdeaconry, or that the Meeting was not 
 sufficiently numerous to express the general feeling of the 
 Archdeaconry, a third Candidate had only to be proposed — 
 and then, a convenient day of adjournment having been 
 settled, the general feeling might be ascertained by means of 
 voting papers. I was assured that any other method might 
 possibly invalidate the election. This point was fully con- 
 sidered by the Bishop in consultation with his Archdeacons, 
 and hence the method which I adopted. 
 
 Well, our Meeting took place as arranged — a very different 
 one in point of numbers from that described to me by one of 
 our most respected Incumbents, Canon Harvey, who I regret 
 to say is now leaving us, after fifty years spent in the 
 Diocese. 
 
 " In my early days," he says, " not above one or two 
 Clergymen, Dr. Spry, Rector of St. Marylebone, Mr. Tyler, 
 Rector of St. Giles, and perhaps a third, ever came to an 
 election of Proctors. We met in the Vestry of St. Paul's, 
 Covent Garden, and the business was despatched in five 
 minutes." 
 
 Now, men came, fully convinced of the importance of 
 Convocation even as it is, and fully bent, if it might be, on 
 improving it. There were, at least, one hundred and sixty 
 present. 
 
 After Prayers, I addressed a few words to the Meeting 
 stating the circumstances under which it had been called 
 together, and the obviously kind intentions of the Arch- 
 bishop and the Bishop. The alterations conceded were not, 
 indeed, all that we could desire. They did not do away
 
 31 
 
 with the unreality of which we complained. They did not 
 set the representation of the Parochial Clergy on a perfectly 
 satisfactory footing. Still, I urged, they were movements in 
 the right direction, and should be accepted with cordiality. 
 I am happy to say that you agreed with me, and that a 
 kindly and genial tone pervaded the proceedings. Four 
 Candidates were duly proposed and seconded, and I 
 adjourned the Election to Thursday, April 22nd, between 
 eleven and twelve in the forenoon, in the Board Boom of 
 the National Society. Before that time, I informed you, 
 polling papers, of which I showed you the form, might be 
 addressed to me by post at that place, or delivered per- 
 sonally at that time and place by the Electors. I announced 
 also that no one except the scrutineers, a proposer or 
 seconder of each of the Candidates, was then obliged to be 
 present, but that any one might be present if he chose. 
 The Meeting was then dismissed with the Benediction. 
 
 The following documents were issued : — 
 
 "41, Leinster Gardens, 
 
 "Hyde Park, W., 
 
 " April 15th, 1880. 
 " Reverend and dear Sir, 
 
 " You are requested to sign the polling paper on the other side and to 
 return it by post to me at the office of the National Society, Broad Sanctuary, 
 "Westminster, or to bring it with you to the Board Boom thereof, on Thursday, 
 the 22nd of April instant, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock. 
 
 " I am, 
 " Reverend and dear Sir, 
 " Yours very faithfully, 
 
 "J. A. HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 "Archdeacon of Middlesex. 
 
 " X.B. — Each Incumbent may vote for any two of the Candidates; but he 
 must not give more than one vote to either. 
 
 " To the Reverend
 
 32 
 
 "ARCHDEACONRY OF MIDDLESEX. 
 
 " Convocation, 1880. 
 
 'VOTING PAPER. 
 
 1 
 
 The Rev. George Howard Wilkinson, M.A., 
 Vicar of St. Peter's, Eaton Square. 
 
 * 
 
 2 
 
 The Rev. George Hewitt Hodson, M.A., 
 Vicar of Enfield. 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 The Rev. William Cadman, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Trinity, St. Marylehone. 
 
 
 The Rev. James Fleming, B.D., 
 
 Vicar of St. Michael, Chester Square, 
 and Canon Residentiary of York. 
 
 
 " I hereby vote for the Clergyman (or Clergymen) against whose name, 
 (or names,) I have placed my initials. 
 
 "Signed, 
 
 " Incumbent of 
 
 On the appointed day and hour, I held the adjourned 
 Meeting. It was to a certain extent formal, the only persons 
 necessarily in attendance being myself and the scrutineers, 
 and my legal advisers, but several Incumbents also were 
 present, as they had a full right to be. Mr. Wilkinson and 
 Mr. Cadman were found, on examination of the polling 
 papers, to be elected, and were therefore returned under my 
 official seal, to the Bishop. 
 
 The form of return was as follows : — 
 
 To the Right Reverend Father in God, John, ly Divine Permission 
 Lord Bishop op London. 
 " We, James Augustus Hessey, Clerk, Doctor in the Civil Law, Archdeacon 
 of Middlesex, do with all due reverence and obedience certify your Lordship 
 that having lately received your Mandate of the tenour following to wit : 
 {Here is set out the Bishop of London's Mandate veroatim.) 
 " We did by virtue thereof cause all and singular the Rectors, Vicars, 
 and others, as well exempt as not exempt, having and obtaining Benefices
 
 33 
 
 and Ecclesiastical Promotions within our Archdeaconry aforesaid, to he cited 
 and monished to appear before Us or the Worshipful Alfred Waddilove, 
 Doctor in the Civil Law, our Official, or his Surrogate, in the Great Room 
 of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the 
 Principles of the Established Church, in the Broad Sanctuary, Westminster, 
 on Thursday, the loth day of April instant, at the hour of two o'clock in 
 the afternoon, then and there to nominate and elect two sufficient Pro- 
 curators to appear before the Most Reverend Father in God, Archibald 
 Campbell, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, or his 
 Substitute or Commissary, in the Chapter House of the Cathedral Church of 
 St. Paul, London, on the 30th day of April instant, or to such other day to 
 which Convocation shall on that day be prorogued ; and we do annex hereto 
 a list or Schedule of the names of the said Rectors, Vicars, and others so 
 cited, and the Clergy then present rightly and duly proceeding to the 
 election of two sufficient Proctors as aforesaid, did nominate for election 
 the Rev. George Howard Wilkinson, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter's, Eaton 
 Square ; the Rev. George Hewitt Hodson, M.A., Vicar of Enfield ; the 
 Rev. William Cadnian, M.A., Rector of Trinity, St. Marylebone ; and the 
 Rev. James Fleming, B.D., Vicar of St. Michael, Chester Square, and Canon 
 Residentiary of York ; and We did then adjourn the Election or Poll until 
 Thursday, the 22nd day of April instant, at the hour of 11 o'clock in the 
 forenoon, at the Office of the National Society aforesaid, and on the said 22nd 
 day of April instant the said Clergy having recorded their votes, and the 
 same having been carefully scrutinized and the numbers ascertained, We 
 did find that the Clergy aforesaid had manifested by their votes and did 
 choose the said Rev. George Howard Wilkinson and the Rev. William 
 Cadman as two sufficient Proctors for the Clergy of the whole Archdeaconry 
 of Middlesex aforesaid, to appear for them before the Most Reverend Father 
 in God, Archibald Campbell, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, or his Substitute or Commissary, in the Chapter House of the 
 Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, on the 30th day of April instant, or 
 on such other day to which Convocation shall on that day be prorogued. 
 In witness whereof We have caused our Seal to be affixed to these presents. 
 
 " Dated at London this 23rd day of April, 1880. 
 
 " {Signed) CYRUS WADDILOVE, 
 
 " Registrar" 
 
 {Then follows a list of the names of all the Clergy cited.) 
 The numbers of votes were sent to the Bishop, as an 
 extra-official communication.* 
 
 Before I quit this subject, I may mention that the Bishops, 
 
 * The numbers were— Mr. Wilkinson 1 05, Mr. Cadman 1 00, Mr. Hodson 90, 
 Mr. Fleming 82.
 
 34 
 
 as a body, feci themselves committed to enlargement of the 
 number of Proctors for the Parochial Clergy — of this the 
 Bishop of London informed me some time ago. The 
 Lawyers seem to be in the way of action. Some of them 
 suggest that the assent of the Crown and of Parliament is 
 necessary to sanction such a step. Some the assent of the Crown 
 only. My belief is, that as Parliament has never meddled 
 with Convocation,* and, in fact, is only a collateral institution 
 with it, it would be suicidal to invite its aid ; that if any 
 external aid is required it is that of the Crown, but that 
 really the determination of the matter rests with the Arch- 
 bishop. This is evident from old alterations. The Arch- 
 bishop, and the Archbishop only, has admitted Bishops of 
 new Dioceses, and new Archdeacons of old Dioceses, and 
 Proctors for Dioceses newly constituted. Surely these are 
 structural alterations of great gravity in themselves and of 
 great authority as precedents. 
 
 I do not enter at this time upon the consideration of any 
 scheme for the infusion of the Lay element into Convocation, 
 or of the creation of Lay Chambers which should be co- 
 ordinate with it. I have given you in a former year my 
 reasons for thinking that the former proposal would utterly 
 change the constitution of Convocation, and destroy its 
 prestige as an Institution at least coeval with Parliament, 
 and that the latter would be cumbrous and unworkable. 
 
 * I quote the following from Dr. Trevor's Convocations of the Two 
 Provinces: — "Neither William of Orange, nor his English advisers, hail 
 much respect for the clerical function. But on the introduction of a Bill 
 into Parliament for the comprehension of Dissenters within the English 
 Estahlishment, both Houses demurred, and addressed the Crown, that, 
 according to the ancient practice, and usage of this Kingdom in time of 
 Parliament, His Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue forth his 
 writs, as soon as conveniently might be, for calling a Convocation of the 
 Clergy of this Kingdom to be advised with touching Ecclesiastical matters." 
 This seems to show that Parliament had no jealousy of Convocation, that 
 it recognized its position in the Constitution, and desired that its advice 
 should be had on such things as fell specially within its province.
 
 35 
 
 VIII. 
 
 I Avish, however, to assure you that another Institution, 
 the adoption of which I have earnestly urged upon you, that 
 of a Diocesan Conference, by which I believe Clergy and 
 Laity united may be brought en rapport with Convocation, 
 has not ceased to interest me. 
 
 The Bishop, having had laid before him the results of 
 my appeal to the Rural Deaneries in 1878, held a meeting of 
 Archdeacons and Rural Deans in the Autumn of that year. 
 A long discussion took place, in which various provisions of 
 the proposed scheme were subjected to keen criticism. The 
 Bishop then appointed a Committee, consisting of Canon 
 Nisbet, Mr. Capel Cure, and myself, to reconsider and report 
 especially upon the due Representation of the Laity, which, 
 in his opinion, was the main difficulty. The Committee 
 made a Report on that subject in June last to his Lordship, 
 and also on the subject of Clerical Representation.* These 
 the Bishop, in his Charge, commended to the careful con- 
 sideration of the Rural Deaneries, saying that he was not 
 unwilling to carry out their wishes, but that he wished to 
 have their matured views. The Reports of the Rural Dean- 
 eries have been sent in, and his Lordship is still weighing 
 the matter. 
 
 I trust that the result may be the establishment of a 
 Diocesan Conference in our Diocese. It is one of the only 
 three in the Province of Canterbury which, by the beginning of 
 next year, will be without such an organization. The Dioceses 
 of St. David's, Hereford, and Rochester will possess it in the 
 course of this or the next year. In the Province of York 
 every Diocese, (including that of Sodor and Man,) has set one 
 on foot, with the exception of Durham ; this, however, has 
 announced one for September 21st and 22nd. In the whole 
 
 See Appendix, pages 43, seqq. 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 of England and Wales, London, Llandaff, and Worcester 
 will be the only Dioceses without it. 
 
 Perhaps I may mention that in the last group of Sessions 
 of the late Convocation of Canterbury, a Committee was 
 unanimously appointed to receive the Official Reports of the 
 several Diocesan Conferences within the Province, and make 
 such Report from time to time to the House upon the matter 
 of such Reports as might be deemed desirable. I have the 
 honour of being the Chairman of that Committee. Its 
 Report is nearly ready, and I think will be found to possess 
 much interest, though ^_it has been compiled under some 
 disadvantages, and has involved some practical difficulty. 
 Diocesan Conferences are, as a whole, a new institution. In 
 some cases they have been established so recently as hardly 
 to have assumed such form and working order as will bear 
 analysis. 
 
 For instance — 
 
 Though, in some Dioceses, Resolutions have been passed, 
 and carried into effect by means of diligent Committees, 
 which have produced tangible results, 
 
 In others, Resolutions have been simply carried. 
 In others, Papers have been read without discussion. 
 In others, discussions have been raised without Resolutions 
 being passed. 
 
 In others, attention has been merely drawn to wants, 
 gravamina, or defects, no general discussion having ensued. 
 
 In others, the matters under discussion have been chiefly 
 the constitution or reorganization of the Conference itself. 
 
 This diversity of circumstances or of procedure has, of 
 course, rendered the Report of the Committee more unsyste- 
 matic and fragmentary than it might otherwise have been. 
 But, it is believed, the very exhibition of what may, without 
 disrespect, be termed the tentative efforts of Diocesan Con- 
 ferences, will suggest, both to those already formed, and to 
 those which may hereafter be formed, the desirableness of
 
 37 
 
 method, and also of simultaneous discussion of the same 
 subjects. 
 
 Fragmentary and unsystematic as it is, the Report will 
 show how many important subjects are at this time, and have 
 been for some time past, stirring the minds of those repre- 
 sentative assemblages of Clergy and Laity, and, in many 
 instances, the exact direction which their minds have taken. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Since I last addressed you, in this place, an important 
 event has occurred, the appointment of a Suffragan Bishop 
 of London, under the Act of Henry the Eighth, by the title 
 of Bishop of Bedford. He is concerned, as you know, with 
 the Eastern part only of the Diocese, and it may perhaps be 
 supposed for a moment that we arc comparatively little con- 
 cerned with the matter. Really we are deeply concerned. 
 Whatever relieves the hands of our overworked Diocesan, 
 and enables him to give greater attention to the rest of his 
 charge, must be an advantage to us. Then, on the theory 
 that a body, like a rope, is no stronger than it is at its 
 weakest point, the whole Church of the Diocese must be the 
 stronger if the Church, in this confessedly weak part of it, 
 is raised in its tone, and made more felt by the population. 
 Such, I believe, will under God's blessing, be the result of 
 Bishop How's Missionary exertions — Missionary they must 
 be, as all who know the difficulties, the discouragements, the 
 sickness of heart, under which the East End Clergy are 
 labouring, are very painfully aware. 
 
 And here would come in a third reason for our taking 
 interest in this movement. It has long been my own feeling, and 
 I know that a similar feeling has been entertained by others, 
 that a Bishop in the East of London must be comparatively 
 powerless unless he is aided by money, and by men — Presby- 
 ters, in the words of St. Ignatius, attached to the Bishop as 
 strings to the harp — in fact, a personal staff, the members of
 
 which he may send, for a shorter or longer period, to help in 
 the feebler Parishes, or to plant Mission Chapels in aid of the 
 Incumbents. And money also, by which he may provide 
 both for the maintenance of these men, and for the establish- 
 ment of the many Parochial Agencies which richer Parishes 
 enjoy. Can we not, ought we not, to help him, and that 
 systematically and liberally, to meet what he must feel is 
 a great and overwhelming necessity? I know indeed that 
 some of the rich Parishes of the West have, in some cases 
 for years, affiliated each a particular Eastern Parish, and sent 
 pecuniary aid to it. I know that some send aid to many, 
 every year. I know that Christian men and Christian 
 women have, in various instances, devoted themselves, and 
 their lives, to working in the East. But has not the hour 
 arrived when, and has not the Bishop been appointed under 
 whom, these desultory efforts may with advantage be syste- 
 matized ? Are we to go on contented with waging a guerilla 
 warfare with evil, here and there only, where we hear of some 
 great want, instead of moving, like a well-disciplined and con- 
 solidated army, under a competent commander ? The former 
 style of action is, to my mind, painfully like that condemned 
 by the Athenian orator many years ago : — wenrep oi ficip- 
 (3apoi TrvKTevsatv, Srw Trokepbelre ^Ckliriroi' kclI <yap e/ceivaiv 
 6 TrX^yeU, del T))<s ttXj^P]^ e^erac' kuv erepcoae Trarafyj 
 T69, i/ceicre elaiv al pipes' irpofBdWeaOat Be, ?} ^Xeiretv 
 ivavTiov, ht6 olSev, &t i9e\et. k. t. \. This passage may 
 be read at length in the 14th Chapter of the First Philippic 
 of Demosthenes. May we not support on system some well- 
 considered scheme such as I understand that the Bishop 
 of Bedford is preparing, under the title of the East London 
 Church Society ', in order to help him in his work"? His plans 
 arc not yet entirely matured, but they arc on a most com- 
 prehensive scale. The clergy of the more opulent West- 
 End Parishes might advance it, 
 
 1st. By having periodical collections in their Churches
 
 39 
 
 to form a Fund, to be administered at the discretion of the 
 Bishop of Bedford. 
 
 2nd. By devoting themselves, or some of their more active 
 Curates, occasionally, to personal Missions in Parishes indicated 
 by the Bishop, as in special need of such stirrings towards 
 spiritual life. 
 
 3rd. By exciting their individual Parishioners, men and 
 women alike, to employ themselves in the work of district 
 visiting, or holding Mothers 1 Meetings, or giving evening 
 instruction, with regularity and unity of purpose, in connec- 
 tion, of course, with the Incumbent, and beyond him, of the 
 Bishop. 
 
 I have no Parish myself, but I should be very glad to 
 do what I could, and to present a Donation of Fifty Pounds 
 in furtherance of this evangelizing design. 
 
 I have said already, the money has been in many instances 
 given. But its bestowers have confessed themselves scarcely 
 satisfied with the results. In neighbouring Parishes, perhaps 
 equally necessitous, it has produced discontent ; and being 
 lavished on one Parish in particular, it has produced demo- 
 ralisation and abandonment of efforts at self-help. 
 
 As to the second point. Special Missions have taken 
 place. But the effect has been transient, because the move- 
 ment has been transient, and like the memory of a guest 
 who abideth but for a day. 
 
 As to the third point. Experience has already shown the 
 blessings both to the giver and to the receiver of such efforts. 
 But a succession of persons is wanted, and a system which 
 shall permeate the whole of the dreary waste which lies east- 
 ward of London Bridge. 
 
 I have already spoken on the subject to various of the 
 West End Clergy; and I trust that when the Bishop of 
 Bedford's plans are matured, and he is able to take a con- 
 spectus of his territory, some plan like that which is here 
 only indicated may be brought to bear. I am sure that our
 
 40 
 
 own sympathies, and I am sure that the sympathies of many 
 of the Laity, are already with our brethren in the East. Of 
 course there are Parishes in our own Archdeaconry in similar 
 need. They also should be helped. But as a general rule, 
 we have reason to thank Clod that we are generally better off, 
 and in a condition to argue thus with ourselves : How wretched 
 should we be, were our own Churches empty, if we found it 
 impossible to get assistance in our Services; and in our 
 Parochial works, how much should wc miss that band of lay- 
 helpers who collect and contribute to our offertories, or those 
 faithful women who visit our poor districts, and gather our 
 young female Communicants and guard them kindly ! Con- 
 trast with this the lot of a Clergyman, perhaps with no Curate 
 to help him, in the care of five or ten thousand people, and 
 those live or ten thousand, not only not rich, but consisting 
 of families not one of which is able to keep a servant, and 
 with a Church, squalid and destitute of worshippers, devoid 
 of warmth and life, materially and spiritually. I know not 
 how, if we shut our eyes and our ears to all this, we can 
 avoid a humiliating self-application of the text, " Whoso 
 hath this world's goods, and sceth his brother have need, and 
 shutteth up his compassion for him, how dwcllcth the love of 
 
 Cod in him-?" 
 
 X. 
 
 I have detained you, my Brethren, already longer than I 
 should have wished to do ; and, after all, I fear I have set 
 forth some of the topics on which I have enlarged with a 
 feebleness utterly disproportioned to the weight with which I 
 find them pressing upon myself. Forgive me, if I say 
 a very few words more on a subject which has given me some 
 disquietude. I mean what I cannot help calling an unnatural 
 alliance between the secularizers of the Lord's Bay, who 
 would allow all sorts of public lectures to be given and all 
 sorts of exhibitions to be opened upon it, as being no better 
 than other days, and certain of our zealous Clergy, who would
 
 41 
 
 wish exhibitions to be open, for the following reason. They 
 find it almost hopeless, they say, to wean many of the lower 
 classes from the pnblic-honse, and bring them out of their 
 degrading associations, by religious attractions. Therefore 
 they will try what at any rate are humanizing influences, 
 hoping for better things bye and bye. 
 
 While I object to unnecessary interference with the 
 employments of persons on the Lord's Day ; while I press 
 that it was intended for the rest of the body as well as for 
 the rest and improvement of the soul ; while I would promote 
 enjoyment of all by parks and open spaces, I earnestly depre- 
 cate such an alliance, 
 
 \stly. Intellectual tastes cannot be implanted at once, and 
 their objects would not engage the classes intended. 
 
 2ndhj. Opening places of exhibitions would lead to 
 opening other places, such as theatres, which would utterly 
 secularize the Holy Day. 
 
 Zrdly. The attraction of such opening would be a snare 
 to many who at present devote the Lord's Day, more or less, 
 to religious purposes, and who are contented with the parks 
 and wholesome out-door recreations. 
 
 On these grounds, among others, I entreat you pause 
 before you join in such a movement. I respect the intentions 
 of those of my Brethren who have already joined in it ; but 
 I am sure they are mistaken, and I believe they will be sadly 
 disappointed. 
 
 You will not have expected me to treat upon political 
 topics, though a change has just taken place in the Govern- 
 ment which some persons imagine may injuriously affect the 
 interests of the Church. I have not the slightest fear (so long 
 as she is true to herself) for the interests of the Church even 
 as an Establishment. No Statesman wantonly assails or 
 tears to pieces an Institution, the growth of Centimes, to 
 which he is personally attached, or which he cannot help 
 confessing to be doing incalculable good. The chiefs of those
 
 42 
 
 who are now called to the helm of affairs come under the 
 one or the other of these categories. The eloquent Premier, 
 who, only eleven months ago, in advocating the Additional 
 Curates Society, said, " I believe that we who are here as- 
 sembled, and that thousands and thousands and tens of 
 thousands and millions outside these walls, are united in 
 the firm conviction that the Church of England has still a 
 great work to perform for herself, for the people and for 
 Christendom at large :" The son of that great territorial Duke, 
 who is the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, who 
 has munificently subscribed towards the Bishopric of South- 
 well, and who has built I know not how many Churches for the 
 benefit of his dependents, and for the glory of God: The high- 
 minded lawyer who, no long time since, declined aggrandise- 
 ment lest it should involve him in action against the Irish 
 Church: And the religious Nonconformist who said that 
 though not agreeing with her, he acknowledged the benefits 
 which the Church of England conferred upon the Nation, and 
 would not join in a cry against her — These are not men to 
 be feared. And if they were, the Church is day by day 
 becoming stronger in her temporal position, because she is 
 day by clay increasingly in earnest in her work. Her motto 
 is Laborare et orare, and she puts forth the first of these, to 
 her, inseparable, energies, in the Divine strength obtained by 
 the second. So, finally, Let us humbly beseech our Heavenly 
 Father, that His continual pity may cleanse and defend His 
 Church, and that, because it cannot continue in safety without 
 His succour, He may preserve it evermore by His help 
 and goodness through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
 
 43 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Note to page 24. 
 St. Alban's and Rochester are, I think, the only Dioceses in which a 
 custom like that in the Diocese of London prevails, namely, of the Bishop's 
 selecting two from the Procurators elected by the Archdeaconries. Curiously 
 enough, the custom was imported thither from London. Rochester had 
 formerly only one Archdeacon whose title was Archdeacon of Rochester, 
 and two Procurators were elected under his presidency for the Diocese. 
 When, in 1838, the Archdeaconries of Essex, Colchester, and St. Alban's 
 were transferred from the Diocese of London to Rochester, and the Arch- 
 deaconries of Rochester and St. Alban's were united in one person, the 
 following arrangement took place : — Each of the then three Archdeaconries 
 elected two Proctors, and the Bishop following the London custom, selected 
 at his pleasure two out of the six. On the formation of the Diocese of 
 St. Alban's, three Archdeaconries were taken from Rochester, viz., Essex, 
 Colchester, and St. Alban's, and these three elected two Procurators each, or 
 six in the whole, out of whom the Bishop selected two. As for Rochester, 
 it retained the Archdeaconry of Rochester, and had two new Archdeaconries 
 created, those of Southwark and Kingston-upon-Thames. Each of these 
 Archdeaconries now elects two Procurators, and the Bishop selects two out 
 of the six submitted to him. He has done his best for the Clergy, by 
 appointing one Procurator to represent the County of Kent, and another to 
 represent the County of Surrey. The Bishop of St. Alban's has simply 
 exercised his old prerogative, feeling no doubt the impossibility of complying 
 with the Archbishop's suggestion. 
 
 {See page 35.) 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE OX THE ELECTION OF LAY 
 REPRESENTATIVES AT A DIOCESAN CONFERENCE FOR 
 THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 
 
 At a Meeting held at the house of the Archdeacon of Middlesex, on 
 Friday, June 13th, 1879 :— 
 
 Present : — The Venerable the Archdeacon, the Rev. E. Capel Cure 
 
 and the Rev. Canon Niseet, two of the Rural Deans, who had 
 
 been nominated by the Bishop of London as a Committee to 
 
 report upon the above matter : — 
 
 The Rules of eight Diocesan Conferences (viz.: Chichester, Lichfield, 
 
 Manchester, Norwich, Oxford, Ripon, Salisbury, Winchester) were carefully 
 
 examined, and it was found that the mode of Election of the Lay Members 
 
 of such Conferences is almost identical in the several Dioceses, and very similar 
 
 to the plan sketched out by the Archdeacon in his recent Charge (page 36). 
 
 That ordinarily hvo Meetings are held. 
 
 First, a Meeting of Male Adult Members of the Church of England, of 
 each Parish, summoned by the Incumbent, for the purpose of electing two 
 Delegates (being Communicants) to attend a subsequent Meeting convened 
 by the Rural Dean. 
 
 Second, a Meeting of such Delegates convened in each Rural Deanery, 
 by the Rural Dean, for the purpose of electing Representatives of the 
 Deanery at the Conference according to the number allotted to the Deanery.
 
 u 
 
 The Representatives in all cases are Communicants, and their number is 
 determined on the basis of the number of Parishes in each Deanery, 
 qualified to a certain extent by the amount of population and general 
 circumstances of the Deanery. 
 
 Having regard to the precedents thus furnished by the practice of eight 
 Dioceses, It was resolved, in the event of a Diocesan Conference being held 
 in the Diocese of London, to recommend that the mode of election of Lay 
 Representatives at the Conference should be as follows : — 
 
 In every Parish, all Laymen, Members of the Church of England, of full 
 age, resident in the Parish, or worshipping at any one of the Churches or 
 Chapels in the Parish, shall be summoned, as often as may be necessary, by 
 the Incumbent and Churchwardens (or one of them), to a Meeting, for the 
 purpose of electing, by a majority of the persons present thereat, two 
 Laymen who shall be called Parish Delegates. 
 
 Notice of such Meeting shall be given on the preceding Sunday orally by 
 the Minister during the time of Divine Service, in every Church of England 
 Place of Worship in the Parish, and also by a paper affixed by the Minister 
 and Churchwardens to the doors of every such Place of Worship. 
 
 The Lay Members of Conference shall be elected by these Parish 
 Delegates at a Meeting summoned by the Rural Dean. For the purpose of 
 these Rules the word Parish means an Ecclesiastical Parish or District. 
 
 The election of Members of Conference at the Meetings summoned by 
 the Rural Dean shall be by voting papers, each Voter having as many votes 
 as there arc Members to be elected, which votes may be distributed or given 
 cumulatively, at the will of the Voter. But the voting papers of persons 
 not present at the Meeting shall not be taken into account, unless the cause 
 of their absence be allowed by the Meeting. 
 
 Both Parish Delegates and Members of Conference shall be elected 
 tricnnially ; vacancies to be filled up when necessary at intermediate 
 Meetings, summoned as above. 
 
 The Forms for the election of Lay Members which are given below 
 arc recommended for adoption. 
 
 With regard to the number of Representatives from each Deanery in the 
 Diocese of London the following method is recommended : — 
 
 1. — That there should be no official Lay Representatives, and that the 
 Representatives should not be necessarily inhabitants of the Deanery. 
 
 2. — That, there being a large number of Deaneries (25), there should be 
 not less than 200 Lay Representatives, which would give an average of 8 to 
 each Rural Deanery. 
 
 3. — But that, in assigning the number of Representatives to each, regard 
 should be had not merely to the population of the Deaneries but to the 
 circumstances of the various localities. 
 
 The following Schedule has been drawn up on two different plans with 
 nearly the same result — in the one case 205 Members, in the other 204. 
 
 The first plan was to give 5 Members to each Deanery, making a total of 
 125, and adding 10 Members to Kensiugton, Marylebone, Paddington, 
 St. Pancras, St. George, Hanover Square, Islington and Stepney (a total
 
 45 
 
 of 70), making 195, and then 5 additional Members to Hackney and to 
 Spitalfields, making a complete total of 205. 
 
 The other process was the adoption of a general principle — to give five 
 Members to each Deanery which had a population of not less than 50,000 
 and not more than 100,000, and that in those Deaneries where the population 
 was more than 100,000 there should be five Representatives for each 50,000 — • 
 with some slight alterations in regard of a few exceptional Deaneries (such 
 as Stepney, which has a population of 320,000.) The total arrived at by 
 this method is shown to be 204, 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 DEANERIES. 
 
 PARISHES. 
 
 POPULATION. 
 
 REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 
 
 
 Plan 1. 
 
 Plan 2. 
 
 Fulham ... 
 
 12 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Kensington ... 
 
 30 
 
 130,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 Bloornsbnry 
 
 2 
 
 53,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 8 
 
 72,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Ealing 
 
 30 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Enfield 
 
 20 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 St. George, Hanover Square 
 
 10 
 
 90,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 10 
 
 Hampton 
 
 18 
 
 50,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Harrow 
 
 19 
 
 40,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Highgate 
 
 20 
 
 00,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 St. Martin ... 
 
 8 
 
 60,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Marylebone 
 
 20 
 
 160,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 Paddington ... 
 
 20 
 
 100,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 10 
 
 St. Pancras 
 
 27 
 
 225,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 Uxbridge 
 
 13 
 
 25,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 St. James 
 
 5 
 
 30,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 St. Margaret, Westminster 
 
 11 
 
 60,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 East City 
 
 25 
 
 25,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 AVest City 
 
 40 
 
 35,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Hackney 
 
 22 
 
 150,000 
 
 5+5 
 
 15 
 
 Islington 
 
 35 
 
 240,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 St. Sepulchre 
 
 22 
 
 160,000 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 2U 
 
 135,000 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 Spitalfields ... 
 
 25 
 
 196,000 
 
 5+5 
 
 10 
 
 Stepney 
 
 40 
 
 320,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 205 
 
 204 
 
 {Forms to be used in Election of Lay Members.) 
 
 Form A. 
 
 LONDON DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 
 
 Letter of the Bishop to Incumbent and Churchicardens. 
 
 Gentlemen, Fulham Palace, 187 . 
 
 In accordance with the Constitution of the London Diocesan Conference, 
 I have to request you to call a Meeting of the Adult Male Members of the 
 Church of England resident in your Parish, for the purpose of electing two 
 Laymen, being Communicants, to vote, as Parish Delegates, on behalf of
 
 46 
 
 the Parish, for the Lay Representatives of the Rural Deanery in which 
 
 your Parish is situate, at the Diocesan Conference to be held at 
 
 on the and of , 187 . 
 
 Notices to he affixed to the Church door (Form B) are sent herewith. 
 
 The Incumbent, or on his failure (as hereafter mentioned) one of the 
 Churchwardens, will preside at the aforesaid Parish Meeting, and is par- 
 ticularly requested to forward to the Rural Dean, on or before the 
 day of next, the names and addresses of the two Laymen who 
 
 are elected, in order that the Rural Dean may summon them to a Meeting 
 at some convenient place where they shall proceed to elect Representatives 
 to the Conference for the Deanery. 
 
 A copy of this letter has also been this day sent to the Churchwardens in 
 a separate envelope, and they are requested and authorised to summon the 
 Parochial Meeting on the failure of the Incumbent to do so, within twenty- 
 one days from the receipt of this letter. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 To the Incumbent and 
 
 Churchwardens of the Parish of 
 
 Form B. 
 LONDON DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 
 
 Notice to de affixed to the Church Doors. 
 Take Notice, that all Adult Male Members of the Church of England, 
 resident in this Parish, are requested to attend a Meeting, which will be 
 held in on , the 
 
 day of , at o'clock, for the purpose of 
 
 choosing two Laymen, being Communicants, as Parochial Delegates, to vote 
 on behalf of the Parish for the Lay Representatives of the Rural Deanery at 
 the Diocesan Conference. 
 
 Signature of the Incumbent, or of one, ) 
 or both, of the Churchwardens, j 
 
 Dated 187 . 
 
 Form C. 
 LONDON DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 
 
 Letter from the Bishop to the Rural Deans. 
 Rev. axd dear Sir, Fulham Palace, 187 . 
 
 I have requested the Incumbent and Churchwardens of each Parish in 
 your Deanery to return to you, not later than the day of 
 
 , the names and addresses of the two Parochial Delegates 
 chosen by each Parish, When you have received these returns, will you 
 be so good as to arrange for a Meeting of all the Parochial Delegates at a 
 convenient time and place, and then and there proceed to the election of 
 Lay Representatives to the Conference for the Deanery ; a form of letter
 
 47 
 
 (Form D), summoning the Parochial Electors to this Meeting, is sent here- 
 with. 
 
 Immediately after this Meeting you are requested to send to 
 
 the Lay Secretary, a return of the names and 
 addresses of the Laymen elected to be the Representatives of your 
 
 Deanery at the Conference, their names being placed in order according to 
 the number of votes given to each. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 To 
 
 Form D. 
 
 LONDON DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 
 
 187 . 
 Letter from the literal Dean summoning the two Laymen chosen by every 
 Parish in the Sural Deanery (otherwise called the Parochial Delegates) to 
 a Meeting. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I beg to summon you to a Meeting of Parochial Delegates to be held at 
 on the day of next 
 
 at o'clock, for the purpose of proceeding to elect Representa- 
 
 tives to the Diocesan Conference for this Rural Deanery. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 Rural Dean. 
 To 
 
 Instructions. 
 
 The votes at the Meeting to which you are hereby summoned will be 
 given on paper. 
 
 In case you should be unable to attend the Meeting, you may, if you 
 think fit, give your written authority, to the other Parochial Delegate 
 chosen by your Parish to vote on your behalf in the election of Lay Repre- 
 sentatives, on his explaining the cause of your absence. 
 
 You are entitled to vote for Representatives for this 
 
 Deanery, but you may give accumulative votes for the same person, to the 
 extent of that number. 
 
 The Representatives must be Laymen, being Communicants of the 
 Church of England and resident in the Diocese, but not necessarily in the 
 Rural Deanery which they represent.
 
 48 
 
 Form E. 
 
 LONDON DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. 
 
 Return made by Rural Dean. 
 
 Form of Return of Lay Representatives of the Deanery of 
 
 to he sent to the Lay Secretary of the Conference. 
 I hereby certify that the highest number of votes for the 
 Lay Representatives of the above named Rural Deanery has been given to 
 the following persons — 
 
 Names (in full). 
 
 Addresses. 
 
 Signed, on behalf of the Committee, 
 
 J. A. HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 
 Archdeacon of Middlesex 
 
 FURTHER REPORT OF COMMITTEE WITH REFERENCE TO A 
 DIOCESAN CONFERENCE FOR THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. 
 
 My Lord Bisuor, 
 
 Since our Report to you upon the Election of Lay Representatives we 
 have turned our attention to the manner in which Representatives of the 
 Clergy may be elected, the qualification of Electors, and the principles upon 
 which a certain number of Representatives may be assigned to each Rural 
 Deanery. 
 
 As to the manner, we think that there can be no difficulty in the Rural 
 Dean's appointing a day on which all the Beneficed Clergy, and Licensed 
 Incumbents of Proprietary Chapels, and such other Clergy as are hereafter 
 specified,* within his Deanory, may be assembled, and proceed to the Election 
 out of their own body, by signed voting papers, of such a number of 
 Representatives in the Conference as may be assigned to them. 
 
 Each Voter should have as many votes as there are Representatives to be 
 elected, and he should be permitted to distribute these votes, or to accumulato 
 them on one person. 
 
 We have carefully considered the limits within which the privilege of 
 voting should be conferred. After considerable hesitation we propose that 
 it be extended to all Curates in Priest's orders, who have been licensed in 
 the Diocese for not less than four years, or who have held your Lordship's 
 written permission to officiate for at least the same length of time. On the 
 one hand, we desire to avoid the prejudice that would hinder the working of 
 
 * The words " and such other Clerg-y as are hereafter specified," were, through an 
 oversight, omitted in the earlier impressions of this document.
 
 49 
 
 the new Conference, if so large and influential a body of men as the Licensed 
 Curates in your Lordship's Diocese felt themselves excluded from all share 
 in its deliberations. On the other hand, we wish to secure for the Conference 
 the widest possible range from which the Representatives should be selected. 
 It is only by placing it on the firmest and broadest basis, when every Church 
 interest is represented fully, and every Church work is enabled to obtain 
 attention to its wants, that we can hope to gain for the proposed Diocesan 
 Conference vitality and permanence. 
 
 On these grounds also we would suggest that Secretaries of Church 
 Societies within the Diocese, in Priest's orders, if they have held for four 
 years your Lordship's written permission to officiate, should have votes in 
 the Rural Deaneries within which the offices of their Societies are respectively 
 situate. 
 
 We now come to the principle upon which we think that Representatives 
 should be assigned to each Rural Deanery. It is expressed in the following 
 Schedule, of which we offer an explanation. 
 
 We have taken two as the smallest number for any Deaneiy. 
 We have then assumed the principle of one Representative for every four 
 Parishes, qualifying it however, by having regard to the amount of the 
 population and other circumstances connected with them : this has had the 
 result, in some instances of lessening, and in others of increasing, the 
 number of Representatives. (Thus Fulham is a fair case of three Repre- 
 sentatives, there being 12 Parishes and 70,000 people. In the case of 
 Hampton, with 18 Parishes, and only 50,000 people, the principle of one for 
 every four must be modified by abatement. Whereas in that of St. George, 
 Hanover Square, it must be modified by enlargement, as it includes several 
 Proprietary Chapels, and as the constituent Parishes are important.) 
 
 For the sake of comparison we have reprinted the Schedule of Lay 
 Representatives, and annexed to it that of the Clerical Representatives. It 
 will be seen that on our plan the number of the former was to be 205 or 204. 
 The number of the latter will be 102. To these, however, we should be 
 disposed to add, 
 
 The Bishop Suffragan of Bedford. 
 The Dean of St. Paul's. 
 The Dean of Westminster. 
 The Archdeacon of London. 
 The Archdeacon of Middlesex. 
 
 The two Proctors representing St. Paul's and Westminster res- 
 pectively. 
 The two Proctors representing the Parochial Clergy. 
 The Diocesan Inspector of Schools. 
 This would raise the Clerical element of the Conference to 112. 
 We were at first inclined to admit a larger number of Clergy to seats in 
 the Conference in right of their official position. But we find that in most 
 other Conferences this right has been gradually restricted to about the limit.
 
 50 
 
 •which we have now suggested. Objections to its wider adoption have been 
 expressed in many of our own Rural Deaneries. And, it will be recollected, 
 that we have forborne to recommend it at all, in reference to the Lay- 
 element. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CLERICAL 
 
 DEANERIES. 
 
 PARISHES. 
 
 POPULATION. 
 
 LAY 
 
 representatives. 
 
 represen- 
 tatives. 
 
 
 
 
 Plan 1. 
 
 Plan 2. 
 
 Plan.* 
 
 Fulham ... 
 
 12 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Kensington ... 
 
 30 
 
 130,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 Bloomsbury 
 
 2 
 
 53,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 8 
 
 72,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Ealino' ... 
 
 30 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Enfield 
 
 20 
 
 70,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 St. George, Hanover Square 
 
 10 
 
 90,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 Hampton 
 
 18 
 
 50,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Harrow 
 
 19 
 
 40,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 High gate 
 
 20 
 
 G0,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 St. Martin ... 
 
 8 
 
 60,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 Marylebone 
 
 20 
 
 160,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 Paddington ... 
 
 20 
 
 100,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 St. Pancras 
 
 27 
 
 225,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 Uxbridge 
 
 13 
 
 25,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 St. James 
 
 5 
 
 30,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 St. Margaret, Westminster 
 
 11 
 
 60,000 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 East City 
 
 25 
 
 25,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 West City 
 
 40 
 
 35,000 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Hackney 
 
 22 
 
 150,000 
 
 5+5 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 Islington 
 
 35 
 
 240,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 St. Sepulchre 
 
 22 
 
 160,000 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 20 
 
 135,000 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 Spitalfields ... 
 
 25 
 
 196,000 
 
 5+5 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 Stepney 
 
 40 
 
 320,000 
 
 5+10 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 205 
 
 204 
 
 102 
 
 
 Ofi 
 
 -icial Representative 
 
 i 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 Thus the whole number of the Conference would be 317 or 316. 
 
 Signed, on behalf of the Committee, 
 
 J. A. HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 
 Archdeacon of Middlesex. 
 
 To 
 
 The Lord Bishop op London.

 
 
 f .. «-. 
 
 * 
 
 
 D