Page images




tion. Now, if it meets the views of the Convention, in conjunction with that Board of Presbylet it be adopted ; if not, let it be voted down. ters. That left the section standing as it does feel no sort of concern about it.

now upon the Digest of 1871 : “If any rector or asRev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. Mr. President, sistant minister shall refuse to comply with the until the Committee on Canons asks some relief i recommendation of the Bishop and Presbyters, the think no legislation is necessary on the part of this Bishop shall proceed to forbid him," etc. House ; and for that reason, as I conceive that the It is thought there is an inconsistency in retaining House is ready for a vote, I move that the whole the words “ Bishop and " in this section, whereas subject be laid on the table.

they had been excluded from the previous ones; The PRESIDENT It is moved that the whole but the Committee on Canons thought that there subject be laid on the table.

was an intentional change made ; that it was inThe motion was agreed to.

tended that, in the first place, the Board of RefeDISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION.

rence should consist exclusively of the Presbyters
appointed, but that when it

to the The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the actual recommendation and to carrying into effect next business on the Calendar.

the recommendation, that should be done by the The SECRETARY. The next business is the Bishop and Presbyters, that the Bishop would come resolution reported by the Committee on Canons,

in by virtue of his own office in the act. They, relative to Canon 4, Title II.

therefore, thought that the change proposed was not "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), only not demanded by consistency, but was contrary That Section 3, of Canon 4, of Title II., be amended to one of the principles of the Church, because it so as to read as follows :

would have made the recommen lation of the Pres". Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommenda

byters directly binding upon the recalcitrant clergytion of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant man without the intervention of the Bishop. The minister shall refuse to comply with the require- Committee on Canons, therefore, rejected the ment of the Bishop made in pursuance of such change proposed by the Clerical Deputy from New recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid Jersey. him the exercise of any ministerial function within But furthermore, the Canon as a whole was comthe Diocese, until he shall retract his refusal ; mitted to the Committee to report what changes they or, if the Vestry or congregation shall refuse to might think desirable in it. Taking this section into comply with any such recommendation, they shall consideration, they supposed tbat it would be better not be allowed any representation in the Diocesan to express a little more definitely the position of the Convention, until they shall have retracted their Bishop himself in the matter, and at the same time refusal.""

to avoid the anomaly of appointing a penalty Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I have upon clergyman for refusing to obey been requested by the Chairman of the Committee recommendation merely. They therefore to present their action in this matter and to explain propose, in the language which has been read to you it. The subject was referred to the Committee by just now by the Secretary, to substitute this for the two resolutions from this House, one coming origi

section as it stands upon the Digest of 1871. This is nally from the Diocese of Massachusetts, and an

the only change the Committee propose to make in other from the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey

this Canon at present: (Rev. Dr. Farrington) ; that from Massachusetts "If the Bishop approve the recommendation of asking that the Committee should take the whole the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minisCanon into consideration and report, if any, and

ter shall refuse to comply with the requirement of what changes might be desirable in it. The Clerical the Bishop, made in pursuance of such recommenDeputy from New Jersey asked a specific change,

dation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the that the words " Bishop and," in the third section of exercise of any ministerial function,” etc. the Canon, should be omitted upon the ground that

You will perceive that the Bishop's approval of thereby this section would be brought into more

the recommendation is required, and then, if the perfect consistency with the other sections of the minister refuses to comply with the requirement Canon. To explain this, let me refer the House to of the Bishop made in pursuance of the recommenthe action of the General Convention of 1871, at dation, the penalty is to be inflicted. This is, I bewhich time this Canon was passed.

lieve, the substance of the Committee's reason for The matter was referred to the Committee on proposing the alteration which has been sent in. Canons at that time on the motion of a Lay Deputy Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Mr. from Pennsylvania. A report was brought in by President, I have no objection whatever to, and I the Committee, in which a board of reference was believe the Convention of the Diocese of Massachuproposed to act in the cases for which the setts would agree very well with, this alteration Canon is intended to provide--"Of

Differ- which has been proposed by the Committee on ences between Ministers and their Congrega- Canons ; but I think the alteration does not touch tions, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Con- the substance of the Canon sufficiently, nection"-by which arrangement the board was and does not touch the points which probato consist of the Bishop and five Presbyters. That bly influenced the Convention of Massachuwas the Canon as reported to the House, and ac- setts in

proposing the resolution which cepted by them and sent to the House of Bishops. they did propose. I am not prepared at the present You will find the report on the two hundred and fifth moment to speak definitely upon it; but I should page of the Journal of 1871. The House of Bishops, like to look a little more into the subject. I will by their Committee on Canons, recommended cer- therefore move that the report be laid upon the tain alterations, which are to be found on page 372 table, and I will promise to call it up at some future of the Journal of 1871. Among those alterations was time. this, "That the words · Bishop and should be strick- Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. May I en out” of several places in the Canon, not in that be allowed to say a word ? section, the object of the Committee on Canons in Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I withthe House of Bishops being undoubtedly to make draw the motion for that purpose. the Board of Reference to consist exclusively of the Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think five Presbyters, these Presbyters then to make a re- I represent the Committee correctly when I say that commendation to the Bishop of the Diocese, upon there being no definite proposition coming with the which recommendation the Bishop was to act reference from Massachusetts, and being unable to


have anything more than an incidental knowledge a Canon framed after these facts are known to the of what might be their motive, it was almost impos- Committee, I am satisfied, will be acceptable to the sible for us to act upon it.

Convention without their knowing the exact facts. Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. That is Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to experfectly true; but some of the Deputies from Mas- press the hope that this matter may be recommitted sachusetts had hoped they would receive notice of for the same reason given by the Deputy from a session of the Committee, and would be permitted Texas. Difficulties have arisen in the Diocese of to attend, to present some matters connected with Kentucky under this Canon which it is not necesthis Canon.

sary to specify here, but which might be stated beRev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. We fore the Committee on Canons, and wbich would were not aware of that.

show them that there is reason why the Canon Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. No such

should be amended otherwise than in the way invitation was extended; and hence we have been already proposed. obliged to wait until the report should be presented, Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is it necessary thinking that possibly the Committee might see the to recommit this report to the Committee on Cansame objections which have been seen by others, ons ? Why cannot this amendment be passed, since and propose to correct them. If the Committee it seems to have received general approbation, and make no objection, I should be glad to have the res- then let any other proposed amendment to the Conolution laid on the table at present, to be taken up on be referred to the Committee on Canons ? at some future time.

The PRESIDENT. I suppose it is deemed better Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Would it not be to act upon the whole subject together. better to recommit it? There are grave objec- Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. If the propotions to the Canon as it stands. I think if it were sals which are to come from Massachusetts and recommitted, and those objections heard, the Com- from Texas are contradictory of that which has mittee might change the Canon.

already been done, then of course the whole matter Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. There is a single sug- had better be recommitted ; but, as it appears that gestion which I should like to throw out for the they are not contradictory of what has been reconsideration of the Committee 'on Canons, if this ported by the Committee, I ask again, Why send matter goes back to them, if they have not already that back to the Committee? Why not pass what considered it. If I caught the language of the the Committee recommend, if you approve of it, Canon as reported, correctly, in a certain con- and then let the other subject be sent to the Comtingency it proposes to disfranchise a parish. mittee ? The question I should like to suggest is whether the Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to say representation of a parish is not a constitutional that the late Bishop Armitage, of Wisconsin, was right, and if it be so, whether it can be abridged or so completely convinced of the unfairness of this taken away by canonical legislation. It may be Canon in all its essential matters that he would not that the Committee on Canons have considered this act under it. Why should there be such legislation point ; but if they have not, I desire to call their as this? There is a dispute between a minister and attention to it, in case the subject is recommitted. his congregation. That dispute prima facie cannot

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I can state to be a moral dispute for which the minister is tried, the gentleman that that matter was not brought be- but it must be a dispute under which he is incapafore this present Committee, but I think it was be- ble of being tried ; and what legislation have we? fore the Committee of 1871 who introduced that Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point provision.

of order. The motion before the House is to recomRev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. With the consent mit, and it is not debatable. of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I move to re- The PRESIDENT. It is not debatable, and I incommit this matter to the Committee on Canons. tended to so decide.

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. I think the question Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Then I move I have suggested ought to go to the Committee on to recommit, with instructions to the Committee to Constitutional Amendments.

substitute for this whole Canon the old Canon of Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Probably the 1832. object which the gentlemen have in view by recom- Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise again to mitting this Canon would be better reached by let- the question whether this subject is debatable. ting the report come up when it is called up, and The PRESIDENT. I think that the motion to rewhen these gentlemen will be prepared to discuss commit with instructions is debatable. it, and then let it be debated before the House, Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. My motion is to and recommitted with such instructions as the recommit, with instructions to the Committee to House may think proper.

Then the Committee substitute for this present Canon the old Canon, Ne. will understand the feeling of the House, and by | 34, of 1832. Such legislation as this—that the conthis course we shall probably avoid two discus- tending parties should nominate a certain number of sions upon the same subject. Of course it will be Presbyters, and that the number should be reduced to the duty of the Committee on Canons to obey the five by striking off—is the most uncertain of any. instructions which the House may finally, on the thing. It falls to reason that this matter, not being presentation of the views of the gentlemen who a question of morality, the contending parties have spoken on this Canon, agree to.

simply nominate those Presbyters who they think Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If there is to be a are most favorable to themselves, and then, Canon, the matters that I wish to bring before the when they come to striko off, each strikes off Committee I prefer to bring before the Committee those that he thinks most hostile to himself. alone in the first place. Upon conference with the The consequence is that the whole thing is left in Chairman of the Committee I find that we shall be the hands of the Bishop and his three Presbyters. invited before that Committee at its next meeting, The old Canon that we had was a Canon under and I hope


House will recommit which the Bishop issued his notice to all the clergy the subject and allow us to be heard by the Com- of the Diocese, and they assembling made a board mittee. I think if the reasons were laid before this in which the Presbyter had a chance of fair treatHouse they would see the propriety of this course. ment in

every way. How this original Already matters have arisen under this Canon that Canon was repealed no man knows.

It was. I do not desire to bring before this Convention, but at the tail of the Convention of 1859, do desire to bring before the Committee; and then when a great portion of the men who were

interested in the matter had gone, and some one sets 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. BÜRGWIN, 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.

Tho PRESIDENT. The Chair would like to have his julgment 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 iecommit amended.

The PRESIDENT. Will some of the learned gentiemen 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 recominit 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 shou 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."

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 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 RCCOMMIT, 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 a less sum than $1,000. I therefore move to insert under Cushing's Manual is debatable, but under our $1,000 instead of $750, rules it is not debatable, and therefore it strikes me The amendment was agreed to. that our rule overrides the usual parliamentary The resolution as amended was adoptou. rule. The PRESIDENT.

ASSESSMENT ON THE DIOCESES, That is a question for the House to consider. I had a very distinct remem- The Secretary read the next resolution of the brance that a proposition to instruct a committee Committee on Expenses, as follows : changed the character of the motion to recommit. Resolved, That in case the assessment of $3

for each clergyman, as provided by Canon for the PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON RULES.

payment of the incidental expenses of the ConvenRev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Is it tion, should be found insufficient for that purpose, in order now to give notice of a motion to be made the Secretary of this House and the Treasurer jointto-morrow in regard to the appointment of a Com- ly are liereby authorized and directed to make such mittee on the Rules of the House ?

additional assessments on the Dioceses respectively, The PRESIDENT. I suppose the House will by and the Treasurer to collect the same, as may be general consent at this late hour agree to receive al- found necessary for the payment of such expenses." most any business which is proposed.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Mass. I would like to Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. We ask whether that has been our usual custom or not. spend a great deal of time in this body in discuss- If it has been, I have nothing to say against it ; but ing the rules of the House. I give notice that to- it seems loose for us to leave a matter so much at morrow I shall move to amend the rules so as to odds and ends. provide for the appointment by the Chair of a The PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed that it Standing Committee on the Rules of the House. bas been the usual custom.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It is necesREMOVAL OF COMMUNICANTS.

sary. The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I will esendar will be reported.

plain that it is impossible now to say exactly what The Secretary read the following resolution, re- our expenses will be. The Canon provides for an ported by the Committee on Canons, to whom was

assessment of $3; but it is always found necesreferred the proposed amendment to Section 1, of sary, at least it has been for some time, to proCanon 12, of Title II., so as to require a certificate vide a little more liberally than that ; but exactly to be produced by every communicant upon his re

how much we cannot tell. The Committee had this moval from one parish to another, and forbidding under consideration, and on considering the matter any rector to receive a communicant without such | thought that this was the best way that we could letter or certificate :

settle the question. “Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be The PRÉSIDENT. The question is on the adop(lischarged from the consideration of the proposed tion of the resolution. amendment to Section 1, of Canon 12, of Title II.,

The resolution was of the Digest."

THANKS TO TRINITY CHURCH. Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that the resolution be adopted.

The Secretary read the next resolution of the The motion was agreed to.

Committee on Expenses, as follows:

“Resolved, That we gratefully recognize the EXPENSES OF PRESIDING BISHOP.

liberality of Trinity Church in its provision for the The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report

welfare, comfort, and convenience of the members the next business on the Calendar.

of this Convention, whereby facilities for doing our The Secretary read the Resolutions reported by

work have been so amply provided and our exthe Committee on Expenses, the first being : penses so materially reduced.

“Resolved, that the Treasurer of this Conven- Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. This resolution tion be instructed to reserve $500, subject to the

we shall all be ready to vote for, but it will come call of the Presiding Bishop, for the payment of certainly much better towards the close, inasmuch such expenses as may be incurred by him in the as we are thanking when we have only half received discharge of the duties incident to his office during

that we are thanking for. the next three years."

The SECRETARY. I will state to the House Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I move the adop

that this has reference to the very liberal provision tion of the resolution.

made in behalf of the House of stationery and every The motion was agreed to.

possible convenience in the way of conducting our


Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Still, we can reThe Secretary read the next resolution of the ceive some more. I have not the slightest objection Committee on Expenses, viz. :

to thank them now, if you will allow a motion to “Resolved, That the Treasurer be instructed to thank them afterwards. [Laughter.] pay to the Secretary of the House of Clerical The SECRETARY. We will do that. and Lay Deputies the sum of $750, and to the The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adopSecretary of the House of Bishops $250."

tion of the resolution. Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not think The resolution was agreed to. that for the duties of the Secretary of this House


to amend the resolution by making it $1,000. The Secretary of the The PRESIDENT. The next business on the CalHouse of Bishops has nothing to do with the publi- endar will now be reported by the Secretary. cation of the Journal or its distribution, while the The SECRETARY. The Committee on AmendSecretary of this House has an immense amount of ments to the Constitution reported that the change work to do. I am free to say, from my own person- in the fifth article of the Constitution was not adopal knowledge, as having been Secretary of this ted, and the resolution which is now before us is House in the years 1841, 1844, and 1847, that as the Mr. Burgwin's resolution : Church has increased it is impossible for the Secre- “Resolved, That the Committee be discharged tary to perform his duties and meet his expenses for from the further consideration of the subject.


Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move that discharged from the consideration of the proposed that resolution be made the order of the day for amendment to Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title Thursday, at two o'clock. My reason is that I. of the Digest. there is another matter pertaining to the Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move to make same thing now before the same Committee, that subject the special order for Friday at two which before that time will be reported upon. I o'clock. desire, as a member of that Committee, and Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is there

one interested in this matter, that this reso- any reason why those reports should take precelution lie over until next Thursday, and be then dence of other business? Why should they not go inade the order of the day for two o'clock, so that regularly on the Calendar as other reports ? both reports may come before the House at the The PRESIDENT. They are on the Calendar same time, as they both pertain to the same sub- now, and we are acting upon them. The question ject; and I may desire to be heard upon them. is on the motion to make this subject the special

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My motion was order for Friday at two o'clock. made, as members will remember, simply for the The motion was agreed to. purpose of bringing what is a very important mat- Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think my ter before the House, and that is whether, when this point is well taken, on further reflection. The point House have passed a Canon or adopted an amend- is not whether it has been on the Calendar or not ; ment to the Constitution, and sent it to the House but why can it not stay on the Calendar, and come of Bishops, and that House adjourn before up when we regularly reach it again? the

three days have expired within which The PRESIDENT. That is in the discretion of they may return it with their objections or the House. amend it, such a Canon has the force of law by vir- Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. If we are tue of the expiration of the term for which the Bi- to charge every hour on Thursday and every hour shops are in session. I do not propose to discuss the on Friday, as we are beginning to do, with special question now. I simply say that, when the Commit- orders of the day, it will entirely interfere with the tee made their report and decided that such a Canon regular business of the House. or such a proposed amendment fell, I was unwilling The PRESIDENT. The question has been taken that this House should concur in that view without on making this subject a special order. If the same an opportunity of having the matter considered be- motion is made in regard to the next business, your fore the House. I therefore concur most heartily in argument will be in order. the motion of the gentleman from Texas to fix a Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I time when the matter may come up, and this House move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution can then decide as to whether they will agree with was made the special order for Friday. the views of the Committee on Amendments to the The PRESIDENT. Did you vote in the maConstitution or not.

jority ? Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The question at issue Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I is this: There has been proposed a constitutional voted, inadvertently, in the majority, but I now amendment allowing Dioceses of vast proportions, see no reason why we should postpone the subject too large for the supervision of one Bishop, to set until Friday, when we have ten or fifteen minutes off a part of their territory into missionary to act upon it to-day. jurisdictions, with the consent of this con- Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I beg to opvention. That amendment

proposed pose the motion to reconsider. Many of the reby this House three years ago.

It went to ports on the Calendar have been acted upon; but the House of Bishops. They took no action upon those reports as to which there are differences upon it, by mere accident. Our Secretary sent out of opinion, I think an opportunity should be given the proposition to the several Dioceses. There has to bring those differences of opinion to the notice of been no return from them of any dissent; and now, the House, that we may act intelligently. when it is asked that this Convention ratify that Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Those constitutional amendment, the question is referred gentlemen are charged with that information now to the Committee Amendments to the as well as they will be on Friday. When gentlemen Constitution ; and that Committee report bring measures before us for adoption, we expect to this House that the initiatory steps were that they have considered them maturely, so that a never completed. The gentleman from Pitts- postponement of one day or two days is not a matburgh desires, as well as myself, that further ter of consequence, and it is fatal to the regular information in regard to

this matter should deliberations of this body to have these continual be laid before this House, and further consideration special orders made unless there is some good reason be had. For this reason, I have moved that it be for it. made the subject of our consideration on Thursday Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. If there is next at two o'clock.

any question proper to be set apart for a particular - The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion time, this is one of those questions, and I hope the to postpone the consideration of the resolution to House will not reconsider the decision it has made. Thursday, at two o'clock.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. The motion was agreed to.

It was not my intention to shorten debate, but to

go on with the matter now, and if we did not get TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT.

through by four o'clock, to let it come up again toThe PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report morrow. But as this discussion is consuming so the next business on the Calendar.

much time, I withdraw the motion to reconsider. The SECRETARY. The report of the Committee The PRESIDENT. There is nothing more on the on Canons, to whom was referred the subject of so Calendar, I am told by the Secretary. amending Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title I.,

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. so as to provide that the testimonials of Bishopselect shall be sent to the several Diocesan Standing Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I offer the Committees and the several Bishops, in all cases, in- following as an additional section to Canon 4 of stead of, as now, to the General Convention when Title II., “Of the Dissolution of Pastoral Connecwithin six months of the meeting of that body, tion,” to be referred to the Committee on Canons : reported for adoption the following resolution : “Whenever any minister of this Church shall

Resolved, that the Committee on Canons be absent himself from his parish for a period of time



« PreviousContinue »