tion. Now, if it meets the views of the Convention, let it be adopted; if not, let it be voted down. I feel no sort of concern about it.

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. Mr. President, until the Committee on Canons asks some relief I think no legislation is necessary on the part of this House; and for that reason, as I conceive that the House is ready for a vote, I move that the whole subject be laid on the table.

It is moved that the whole

The PRESIDENT subject be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to.

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the next business on the Calendar.

The SECRETARY. The next business is the resolution reported by the Committee on Canons, relative to Canon 4, Title II.

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Section 3, of Canon 4, of Title II., be amended so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommendation of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minister shall refuse to comply with the requirement of the Bishop made in pursuance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the exercise of any ministerial function within the Diocese, until he shall retract his refusal ; or, if the Vestry or congregation shall refuse to comply with any such recommendation, they shall not be allowed any representation in the Diocesan Convention, until they shall have retracted their refusal.""

I have Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. been requested by the Chairman of the Committee to present their action in this matter and to explain it. The subject was referred to the Committee by two resolutions from this House, one coming originally from the Diocese of Massachusetts, and another from the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey (Rev. Dr. Farrington); that from Massachusetts asking that the Committee should take the whole Canon into consideration and report, if any, and what changes might be desirable in it. The Clerical Deputy from New Jersey asked a specific change, that the words "Bishop and," in the third section of the Canon, should be omitted upon the ground that thereby this section would be brought into more perfect consistency with the other sections of the Canon. To explain this, let me refer the House to the action of the General Convention of 1871, at which time this Canon was passed.

The matter was referred to the Committee on Canons at that time on the motion of a Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania. A report was brought in by the Committee, in which a board of reference was proposed to act in the cases for which the Canon is intended to provide--" Of Differences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection"-by which arrangement the board was to consist of the Bishop and five Presbyters. That was the Canon as reported to the House, and accepted by them and sent to the House of Bishops. You will find the report on the two hundred and fifth page of the Journal of 1871. The House of Bishops, by their Committee on Canons, recommended certain alterations, which are to be found on page 372 of the Journal of 1871. Among those alterations was this, "That the words' Bishop and' should be stricken out" of several places in the Canon, not in that section, the object of the Committee on Canons in the House of Bishops being undoubtedly to make the Board of Reference to consist exclusively of the five Presbyters, these Presbyters then to make a recommendation to the Bishop of the Diocese, upon which recommendation the Bishop was to act

in conjunction with that Board of Presbyters. That left the section standing as it does now upon the Digest of 1871: "If any rector or assistant minister shall refuse to comply with the recommendation of the Bishop and Presbyters, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him,” etc.

46

It is thought there is an inconsistency in retaining the words Bishop and " in this section, whereas they had been excluded from the previous ones; but the Committee on Canons thought that there was an intentional change made; that it was intended that, in the first place, the Board of Reference should consist exclusively of the Presbyters appointed, but that, when it came to the actual recommendation and to carrying into effect the recommendation, that should be done by the Bishop and Presbyters, that the Bishop would come in by virtue of his own office in the act. They, therefore, thought that the change proposed was not only not demanded by consistency, but was contrary to one of the principles of the Church, because it would have made the recommen lation of the Presbyters directly binding upon the recalcitrant clergyman without the intervention of the Bishop. The Committee on Canons, therefore, rejected_the change proposed by the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey.

But furthermore, the Canon as a whole was committed to the Committee to report what changes they might think desirable in it, Taking this section into consideration, they supposed that it would be better to express a little more definitely the position of the Bishop himself in the matter, and at the same time to avoid the anomaly of appointing a penalty upon a clergyman for refusing to obey recommendation merely. They therefore propose, in the language which has been read to you just now by the Secretary, to substitute this for the section as it stands upon the Digest of 1871. This is the only change the Committee propose to make in this Canon at present:

a

"If the Bishop approve the recommendation of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minister shall refuse to comply with the requirement of the Bishop, made in pursuance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the exercise of any ministerial function," etc.

You will perceive that the Bishop's approval of the recommendation is required, and then, if the minister refuses to comply with the requirement of the Bishop made in pursuance of the recommendation, the penalty is to be inflicted. This is, I believe, the substance of the Committee's reason for proposing the alteration which has been sent in.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I have no objection whatever to, and I believe the Convention of the Diocese of Massachusetts would agree very well with, this alteration which has been proposed by the Committee on Canons; but I think the alteration does not touch the substance of the Canon sufficiently, and does not touch the points which probably influenced the Convention of Massachusetts in proposing the resolution which they did propose. I am not prepared at the present moment to speak definitely upon it; but I should like to look a little more into the subject. I will therefore move that the report be laid upon the table, and I will promise to call it up at some future time.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. May I be allowed to say a word?

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I withdraw the motion for that purpose.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think I represent the Committee correctly when I say that there being no definite proposition coming with the reference from Massachusetts, and being unable to

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. No such invitation was extended; and hence we have been obliged to wait until the report should be presented, thinking that possibly the Committee might see the same objections which have been seen by others, and propose to correct them. If the Committee make no objection, I should be glad to have the resolution laid on the table at present, to be taken up at some future time.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Would it not be better to recommit it? There are grave objections to the Canon as it stands. I think if it were recommitted, and those objections heard, the Committee might change the Canon.

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. There is a single suggestion which I should like to throw out for the consideration of the Committee on Canons, if this matter goes back to them, if they have not already considered it. If I caught the language of the Canon as reported, correctly, in a certain contingency it proposes to disfranchise a parish. The question I should like to suggest is whether the representation of a parish is not a constitutional right, and if it be so, whether it can be abridged or taken away by canonical legislation. It may be that the Committee on Canons have considered this point; but if they have not, I desire to call their attention to it, in case the subject is recommitted.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I can state to the gentleman that that matter was not brought before this present Committee, but I think it was before the Committee of 1871 who introduced that provision.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. With the consent of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I move to recommit this matter to the Committee on Canons. Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. I think the question I have suggested ought to go to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Probably the object which the gentlemen have in view by recommitting this Canon would be better reached by letting the report come up when it is called up, and when these gentlemen will be prepared to discuss it, and then let it be debated before the House, and recommitted with such instructions as the House may think proper. Then the Committee will understand the feeling of the House, and by this course we shall probably avoid two discussions upon the same subject. Of course it will be the duty of the Committee on Canons to obey the instructions which the House may finally, on the presentation of the views of the gentlemen who have spoken on this Canon, agree to.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If there is to be a Canon, the matters that I wish to bring before the Committee I prefer to bring before the Committee alone in the first place. Upon conference with the Chairman of the Committee I find that we shall be invited before that Committee at its next meeting, and I hope the House will recommit the subject and allow us to be heard by the Committee. I think if the reasons were laid before this House they would see the propriety of this course. Already matters have arisen under this Canon that I do not desire to bring before this Convention, but do desire to bring before the Committee; and then

a Canon framed after these facts are known to the Committee, I am satisfied, will be acceptable to the Convention without their knowing the exact facts.

Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to express the hope that this matter may be recommitted for the same reason given by the Deputy from Texas. Difficulties have arisen in the Diocese of Kentucky under this Canon which it is not necessary to specify here, but which might be stated before the Committee on Canons, and which would show them that there is reason why the Canon should be amended otherwise than in the way already proposed.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is it necessary to recommit this report to the Committee on Canons? Why cannot this amendment be passed, since it seems to have received general approbation, and then let any other proposed amendment to the Conon be referred to the Committee on Canons ?

The PRESIDENT. I suppose it is deemed better to act upon the whole subject together.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. If the proposals which are to come from Massachusetts and from Texas are contradictory of that which has already been done, then of course the whole matter had better be recommitted; but, as it appears that they are not contradictory of what has been reported by the Committee, I ask again, Why send that back to the Committee? Why not pass what the Committee recommend, if you approve of it, and then let the other subject be sent to the Committee?

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to say that the late Bishop Armitage, of Wisconsin, was so completely convinced of the unfairness of this Canon in all its essential matters that he would not act under it. Why should there be such legislation as this? There is a dispute between a minister and his congregation. That dispute prima facie cannot be a moral dispute for which the minister is tried, but it must be a dispute under which he is incapable of being tried; and what legislation have we?

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point of order. The motion before the House is to recommit, and it is not debatable.

The PRESIDENT. It is not debatable, and I intended to so decide.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Then I move to recommit, with instructions to the Committee to substitute for this whole Canon the old Canon of 1832.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise again to the question whether this subject is debatable. The PRESIDENT. I think that the motion to recommit with instructions is debatable.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. My motion is to recommit, with instructions to the Committee to substitute for this present Canon the old Canon, Ne. 34, of 1832. Such legislation as this-that the contending parties should nominate a certain number of Presbyters, and that the number should be reduced to five by striking off-is the most uncertain of anything. It falls to reason that this matter, not being a question of morality, the contending parties simply nominate those Presbyters who they think are most favorable to themselves, and then, when they come to strike off, each strikes off those that he thinks most hostile to himself. The consequence is that the whole thing is left in the hands of the Bishop and his three Presbyters.. The old Canon that we had was a Canon under which the Bishop issued his notice to all the clergy of the Diocese, and they assembling made a board in which the Presbyter had a chance of fair treatment in every way. How this original Canon was repealed no man knows. It was at the tail of the Convention of 1859, when a great portion of the men who were

interested in the matter had gone, and some one gets up and says he has no great objection to that Canon, because Dr. Hoffman said it was very good and a beneficial Canon on the whole, but he thought it was not perfect, and so he proposed to repeal it, and it was repealed, and we were left without any light upon the point at all. Then by and by, a few years afterwards, this new Canon was added, and by this Canon the whole weight is put against me, while under the old Canon the trial, if it could be called such, was by my fellow-Presbyters, and I had some chance of fairness, but under this Canon, I have no chance of fairness at all, and every man that looks at the thing and goes over its provisions must see that it is nothing but a weapon put in the hands of any one who chooses to silence an individual Presbyter of a Diocese. It is simply a contrivance to get rid of a man against whom a person may have a quarrel.

I move that this subject be referred back to the Committee on Canons, with instructions to substitute for it bodily the old Canon 34 of the year 1832.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I understand that the Chair has decided that the motion to commit with instructions allows something further to be said.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Permit me to rise to a point of order. I ask the Chair to reconsider that decision, from the very fact that, if a motion to recommit can be amended by a motion to recommit with instructions, we might as well have no rule at all on the subject, because it opens up the whole question; and all that a member has to do in order to throw the whole matter before the House, and do away with the rule, is simply to add to the motion to recommit certain instructions which may occur to him at the moment.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I would be glad if Dr. Adams would withdraw that amendment.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I would ask if any one has seconded my motion? [Laughter.] Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The instructions not being seconded are not before us.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think we ought to have a decision of the Chair on the point I have stated, as it is an important one, and the precedent is important.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would like to have his judgment informed on that question whether a motion to recommit with instructions is debatable.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is not the point I make, but whether, when a motion to recommit has been made, any motion to amend it can be made; whether the House must not be brought to a vote without debate. If they recommit it, the matter is not before the House; if they refuse to recommit it, then a motion will be in order to recommit with instructions, but you cannot have a motion to recommit amended.

The PRESIDENT. Will some of the learned gentlemen upon rules of order enlighten the mind of the Chair upon that point?

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I do not see that that question is legitimately before us. The motion to recommit with instructions was not seconded, and the question simply stands on my motion to recommit generally.

The PRESIDENT. Then, of course, the other question need not be decided now. It will be decided hereafter when it arises. The question is on the motion to recommit the report to the Committee on Canons.

The motion was agreed to.

ORGANIZATION OF NEW DIOCESES.

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Calendar will be stated by the Secretary.

The SECRETARY. The next business is the re

solution reported by the Committee on Canons upon the proposed amendment to Section 2, of Canon 6, of Title III., relating to the organization of new Dioceses. The resolution is:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Section 2, of Canon 6, of Title III., be amended, so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. In case there should be no Bishop who can call such Primary Convention, pursuant to the foregoing provision, then the duty of calling such Convention for the purpose of organizing, and the duty of fixing the time and place of its meeting, shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the Diocese within the limits of which the new one is erected, or of the Standing Committee of the eldest of the Dioceses by the junction of which or parts of which the new Diocese may be formed; and such Standing Committee shall make such call immediately after the ratification of a division by the General Convention."

The

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Convention will perceive that the only change suggested here is the introduction of a clause whereby the Standing Committee of a divided Diocese can call a Primary Convention. The case supposed is that of a Diocese divided, and the Bishop dying subsequent to the division. In the Canon as it stands there is provision in that case for the calling of the Primary Convention by the Standing Committee of the eldest of two or more Dioceses by the union of parts of which the new Diocese is formed, but there is no provision for the calling of a Primary Convention where the Diocese is divided. This simply makes provision for that case.

The resolution was agreed to.

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS.

A message (No. 12) from the House of Bishops announced the passage by that House of the following resolution:

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That Subsection 4, of Section 7, of Canon 12, of Title I. of the Digest be amended by inserting after the words 'General Theological Seminary' these words, viz.: professors and tutors in any university or college which is maintained and governed by two or more Dioceses associated for that purpose.'

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, the message was referred to the Committee on Canons.

A message (No. 13) from the House of Bishops announced the passage by that House of the following resolution:

Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That Section 1, of Canon 4, of Title I. be amended by inserting after the word 'Diocese' the words 'and Missionary District.'"

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, the message was referred to the Committee on Canons.

A message (No. 14) from the House of Bishops announced the appointment by that House of the Bishops of Nebraska, Central New York, and New Hampshire as members on its part of the Joint Committee to nominate a Board of Missions.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT.

The PRESIDENT. I would here call attention to a point of order that was before us a short time ago, but not for the purpose of deciding it arbitrarily, as it is not before us, but that I may be advised hereafter the views of those having experience in such matters. I perceive that Mr. Cushing, in his Manual, says that "motions to commit or recommit may be amended by instructions to the committee."

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Does he say that that is the case where the motion to recommit must

be decided without debate? A motion to recommit under Cushing's Manual is debatable, but under our rules it is not debatable, and therefore it strikes me that our rule overrides the usual parliamentary rule.

The PRESIDENT. That is a question for the House to consider. I had a very distinct remembrance that a proposition to instruct a committee changed the character of the motion to recommit.

PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON RULES.

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Is it in order now to give notice of a motion to be made to-morrow in regard to the appointment of a Committee on the Rules of the House ?

The PRESIDENT. I suppose the House will by general consent at this late hour agree to receive almost any business which is proposed.

We

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. spend a great deal of time in this body in discussing the rules of the House. I give notice that tomorrow I shall move to amend the rules so as to provide for the appointment by the Chair of a Standing Committee on the Rules of the House.

REMOVAL OF COMMUNICANTS.

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Calendar will be reported.

The Secretary read the following resolution, reported by the Committee on Canons, to whom was referred the proposed amendment to Section 1, of Canon 12, of Title II., so as to require a certificate to be produced by every communicant upon his removal from one parish to another, and forbidding any rector to receive a communicant without such letter or certificate:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed amendment to Section 1, of Canon 12, of Title II., of the Digest."

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that the resolution be adopted.

The motion was agreed to.

EXPENSES OF PRESIDING BISHOP.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the next business on the Calendar.

The Secretary read the Resolutions reported by the Committee on Expenses, the first being :

"Resolved, That the Treasurer of this Convention be instructed to reserve $500, subject to the call of the Presiding Bishop, for the payment of such expenses as may be incurred by him in the discharge of the duties incident to his office during the next three years."

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I move the adoption of the resolution.

The motion was agreed to.

SALARY OF SECRETARIES.

The Secretary read the next resolution of the Committee on Expenses, viz. :

"Resolved, That the Treasurer be instructed to pay to the Secretary of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies the sum of $750, and to the Secretary of the House of Bishops $250."

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not think that for the duties of the Secretary of this House $750 are enough, and I move to amend the resolution by making it $1,000. The Secretary of the House of Bishops has nothing to do with the publication of the Journal or its distribution, while the Secretary of this House has an immense amount of work to do. I am free to say, from my own personal knowledge, as having been Secretary of this House in the years 1841, 1844, and 1847, that as the Church has increased it is impossible for the Secretary to perform his duties and meet his expenses for

a less sum than $1,000. I therefore move to insert $1.000 instead of $750.

The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution as amended was adopted.

ASSESSMENT ON THE DIOCESES.

The Secretary read the next resolution of the Committee on Expenses, as follows:

"Resolved, That in case the assessment of $3 for each clergyman, as provided by Canon for the payment of the incidental expenses of the Convention, should be found insufficient for that purpose, the Secretary of this House and the Treasurer jointly are hereby authorized and directed to make such additional assessments on the Dioceses respectively, and the Treasurer to collect the same, as may be found necessary for the payment of such expenses." Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Mass. I would like to ask whether that has been our usual custom or not. If it has been, I have nothing to say against it; but it seems loose for us to leave a matter so much at odds and ends.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed that it has been the usual custom.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It is neces

sary.

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I will explain that it is impossible now to say exactly what our expenses will be. The Canon provides for an assessment of $3; but it is always found necessary, at least it has been for some time, to provide a little more liberally than that; but exactly how much we cannot tell. The Committee had this under consideration, and on considering the matter thought that this was the best way that we could settle the question.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

THANKS TO TRINITY CHURCH.

The Secretary read the next resolution of the Committee on Expenses, as follows:

"Resolved, That we gratefully recognize the liberality of Trinity Church in its provision for the welfare, comfort, and convenience of the members of this Convention, whereby facilities for doing our work have been so amply provided and our expenses so materially reduced."

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. This resolution we shall all be ready to vote for, but it will come certainly much better towards the close, inasmuch as we are thanking when we have only half received that we are thanking for.

The SECRETARY. I will state to the House that this has reference to the very liberal provision made in behalf of the House of stationery and every possible convenience in the way of conducting our business.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Still, we can receive some more. I have not the slightest objection to thank them now, if you will allow a motion to thank them afterwards. [Laughter.]

The SECRETARY. We will do that.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Calendar will now be reported by the Secretary.

The SECRETARY. The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution reported that the change in the fifth article of the Constitution was not adopted, and the resolution which is now before us is Mr. Burgwin's resolution :

66

Resolved, That the Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject."

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move that that resolution be made the order of the day for Thursday, at two o'clock. My reason is that there is another matter pertaining to the same thing now before the same Committee, which before that time will be reported upon. I desire, as a member of that Committee, and as one interested in this matter, that this resolution lie over until next Thursday, and be then made the order of the day for two o'clock, so that both reports may come before the House at the same time, as they both pertain to the same subject; and I may desire to be heard upon them.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My motion was made, as members will remember, simply for the purpose of bringing what is a very important matter before the House, and that is whether, when this House have passed a Canon or adopted an amendment to the Constitution, and sent it to the House of Bishops, and that House adjourn before the three days have expired within which they may return it with their objections or amend it, such a Canon has the force of law by virtue of the expiration of the term for which the Bishops are in session. I do not propose to discuss the question now. I simply say that, when the Committee made their report and decided that such a Canon or such a proposed amendment fell, I was unwilling that this House should concur in that view without an opportunity of having the matter considered before the House. I therefore concur most heartily in the motion of the gentleman from Texas to fix a time when the matter may come up, and this House can then decide as to whether they will agree with the views of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution or not.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The question at issue is this: There has been proposed a constitutional amendment allowing Dioceses of vast proportions, too large for the supervision of one Bishop, to set off a part of their territory into missionary jurisdictions, with the consent of this Convention. That amendment was proposed by this House three years ago. It went to the House of Bishops. They took no action upon it, by mere accident. Our Secretary sent out the proposition to the several Dioceses. There has been no return from them of any dissent; and now, when it is asked that this Convention ratify that constitutional amendment, the question is referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution; and that Committee report to this House that the initiatory steps never completed. The gentleman from Pittsburgh desires, as well as myself, that further information in regard to this matter should be laid before this House, and further consideration be had. For this reason, I have moved that it be made the subject of our consideration on Thursday next at two o'clock.

were

-The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to postpone the consideration of the resolution to Thursday, at two o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the next business on the Calendar.

The SECRETARY. The report of the Committee on Canons, to whom was referred the subject of so amending Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title I., so as to provide that the testimonials of Bishopselect shall be sent to the several Diocesan Standing Committees and the several Bishops, in all cases, instead of, as now, to the General Convention when within six months of the meeting of that body, reported for adoption the following resolution :

Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be

discharged from the consideration of the proposed amendment to Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title I. of the Digest.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move to make that subject the special order for Friday at two o'clock. Is there

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. any reason why those reports should take precedence of other business? Why should they not go regularly on the Calendar as other reports?

The PRESIDENT. They are on the Calendar now, and we are acting upon them. The question is on the motion to make this subject the special order for Friday at two o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think my point is well taken, on further reflection. The point is not whether it has been on the Calendar or not : but why can it not stay on the Calendar, and come up when we regularly reach it again? The PRESIDENT. That is in the discretion of the House.

If we are

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. to charge every hour on Thursday and every hour on Friday, as we are beginning to do, with special orders of the day, it will entirely interfere with the regular business of the House.

The PRESIDENT. The question has been taken on making this subject a special order. If the same motion is made in regard to the next business, your argument will be in order.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was made the special order for Friday.

The PRESIDENT. Did you vote in the majority?

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I voted, inadvertently, in the majority, but I now see no reason why we should postpone the subject until Friday, when we have ten or fifteen minutes to act upon it to-day.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I beg to oppose the motion to reconsider. Many of the reports on the Calendar have been acted upon; but upon those reports as to which there are differences of opinion, I think an opportunity should be given to bring those differences of opinion to the notice of the House, that we may act intelligently. Those

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. gentlemen are charged with that information now as well as they will be on Friday. When gentlemen bring measures before us for adoption, we expect that they have considered them maturely, so that a postponement of one day or two days is not a matter of consequence, and it is fatal to the regular deliberations of this body to have these continual special orders made unless there is some good reason for it.

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. If there is any question proper to be set apart for a particular time, this is one of those questions, and I hope the House will not reconsider the decision it has made.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It was not my intention to shorten debate, but to go on with the matter now, and if we did not get through by four o'clock, to let it come up again tomorrow. But as this discussion is consuming so much time, I withdraw the motion to reconsider. The PRESIDENT. There is nothing more on the Calendar, I am told by the Secretary.

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION.