But it may be fairly questioned whether these high authorities, were they living to-day, would not concur in the judgment of a more recent writer when he says--in language which, _mutatis mutandis_, applies to our own case: "The most weighty plea in favor of timely inquiry into the subject is that the process of revision is actually going on piecemeal, and with no very intelligent survey of the bearings as a preliminary to any one instalment. The New Lectionary of 1871, the Shortened Services Act, the debates in the Convocation of Canterbury on rubrical amendments, none of them marked by any sufficient care or knowledge, and all fraught with at least the possibility of serious consequence, are examples of formal and recognized inroads on the Act of Uniformity; while such practical though unauthorized additions to the scanty group of Anglican formularies as the Three Hours' Devotion, Harvest Thanksgivings, Public Institution of Incumbents, Ordination of Readers and Deaconesses, and Children's Services prove incontestably that the narrow limits of the Common Prayer Book are no longer adequate for the spiritual needs of the Church of England . . . "It is evident, then, that contented acquiescence with the old state of things already belongs to the past, and that a return to it is impossible. We must perforce advance, for good or ill, in the path of revision, and cannot even materially slacken the pace nor defer the crisis. One choice, however, is left in our power, and that is the most important of all, namely, the direction which revision shall take--that of conservative and recuperative addition, or that of further evisceration, ceremonial or devotional." [5] A measure looking in the direction towards which this reviewer points was actually passed by the General Convention of our own Church at its late session in October, 1880. The wording of the Resolution referred to was as follows: "_Resolved_: That a Joint Committee, to consist of seven bishops, seven presbyters, and seven laymen be appointed to consider and report to the next General Convention whether, in view of the fact that this Church is soon to enter upon the second century of its organized existence in this country, the changed conditions of the national life do not demand certain alterations in the Book of Common Prayer in the direction of liturgical enrichment and increased flexibility of use."[6] In the present article the writer proposes to inquire, in connection with this measure: (1) What motives may fairly be supposed to have actuated the Convention in allowing so important an initiatory step to be taken? (2) What measure of authority was conferred on and what scope given to the Joint Committee then constituted? (3) What reasons exist for considering the present a happy moment to attempt liturgical revision, within certain limits, should such a thing be determined upon?