them not theoretically but practically. I have had a great deal of experience upon the Committee on Canons, and I am certain that the legislation of the Church will be better conducted by dividing the Committee, or having the Committee on Canons as it is now a Committee on Canons, consisting of 13, and appointing a new committee for the purpose of considering all proposed constitutional amendments. I therefore hope that the motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will prevail.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Let this resolution lie on the table.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD. If we want rules of order, we must adopt them to-day; but we can to-morrow make a new rule of order which shall refer to a standing committee all proposed alterations or amendments to the Constitution; and that is covered by the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I yield with great deference to what my venerable and experienced friend from Connecticut says; but I think the proper way to reach the thing at the root is to refer, and I move now to refer this resolution to a committee of five clerical and five lay deputies.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I did not hear what the reverend gentleman from Connecticut said; but I would suggest, as it is proper for us to have settled rules to begin with, that it would be better to take the rules as reported by the Committee of the last General Convention, as they are now printed in the Journal where every member can see them, and then have this other question, which I think is a very important one, discussed afterward. We must have a set of rules to begin business with. I therefore second the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, that we adopt the rules as they appear upon the Appendix to the last Journal, and then let the matter be referred either to a special committee or to the Committee on Canons, and I would prefer the latter Committee, because they are more familiar with the subjects that come before them and with the necessities for an increase of their number, than any special committee can be in the short time they will have to consider the matter. And I propose, therefore, that the whole subject be referred to the Committee on Canons, to report immediately to this House such rules of order as may strike them as proper for the convenient transaction of business. Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I suggest that the question may be divided, and the first question taken on the adoption of the rules without regard to enlarging the Committee on Canons. That would relieve us from all embarrassment. The ordinary committees will be announced to-morrow. A division being called for, we shall take the question on the first resolution; and there is no objection to it. The other point I care nothing about just now.

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. We ought to proceed with deliberation and care. I therefore move the appointment of the delegation of New York to see if we cannot find a better room to deliberate in. It is impossible here.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Before that motion is put it is perhaps proper that the deputies from New York should be heard, that they may state why this building was selected. It has been selected for many years as the best and most appropriate building for the Diocesan Convention.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman is discussing a subject foreign to the one before the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. I think so. I was about to say that the proposition made by Mr. Hanckel was entirely out of order, and could not be considered until we dispose of the question as to the rules of order. The question now is on the adoption of the rules of order as reported by a Committee at the

last Convention, printed in the Journal, and now appearing there as Appendix 16, No. 2.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I moved an amendment. I presume the first question that comes up is on the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. Yes; but I understood Judge Otis to say that you had agreed to let the question be divided, and take it first on the main proposition to adopt the rules. I would suggest to Judge Otis to withdraw his exception.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I withdraw the exception, and that leaves it simply a resolution to adopt the rules of order.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I withdraw, then, my amendment, with this understanding: that no committees will be appointed in this body at all until the rules have been adopted.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The usual practice after the election of officers is to adopt the rules of the last Convention as the rules of this Convention until they are amended. I would remind the gentlemen also of the fact that the rules of the last Convention are not the rules proposed at present to be adopted; but they were referred to a committee of three, and that committee reported, and by a vote by dioceses and orders, the rules reported were adopted as the rules of order of the General Convention by a large majority. It would be wisest for us to adopt them now, and then, if you want any amendments to-morrow, it will be proper to introduce amendments. But there are various committees which ought to meet to-morrow. Otherwise we are losing a day, and time is too precious for us to lose when we have so much apparently to come before us. I move, therefore, that the resolution offered by Mr. Otis, of Illinois, be adopted, that the rules of order of the last Convention be the rules of order of this Convention.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I rise to make an enquiry. What do the rules of order provide as to a change in the rules? If we adopt these rules of order as proposed, a modification of any committee will be a change of the rules. Do the rules limit the right of the Convention to change them by requiring a day's notice? Are we at liberty as much to make a change as we are to adopt these rules now?

The PRESIDENT. There is nothing in the rules concerning that matter.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Then we can amend at any time?

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Yes, sir. The Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It is important to know what rules of order we are to adopt. Are they the rules printed in the Journal of 1871, as of the thirteenth day's proceedings? As I understand, they were not acted upon at the last Convention, but a motion was made that they should be deferred to be acted upon at this Convention. That action will be found under the proceedings of the nineteenth day.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The last Convention could not pass rules for this Convention. Every Convention adopts its own rules. This Convention now may adopt the rules of the last Convention.

The Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The question I wish to get at is this: In adopting the rules of order of the last Convention, do we adopt the rules of order printed under the proceedings of the thirteenth day?

The PRESIDENT. The resolution specifies which set of rules we adopt---specifies that it is the set contained in Appendix 16, No. 2. Number 1 is the old rules under which we acted last time; Number 2 is the new rules reported by the Committee; and the question now is whether we shall adopt these new rules.

The Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think members of the House all understand that the rules governing the last Convention were the rules of 1868, and the rules printed as No. 2 of Appendix 16 are simply proposed rules lying over from the last Convention into this; so that, if we vote to adopt the rules of the last Convention, we adopt the rules of the Convention preceding, which we acted under at the last Convention; while the second part of Appendix 16 consists merely of proposed rules, printed for the consideration of members during the recess, to be acted upon at this session.

The PRESIDENT. But it is now proposed to adopt those rules, and the question is on the resolution offered by Judge Otis, adopting the rules proposed at the last House.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Withdrawing the exception as to the Committee on Canons ? The PRESIDENT. That is withdrawn.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I want the House to understand what the question is, for I think it is a very important one. Are we voting on the proposed rules that were not acted upon three years ago, or are we adopting the rules which governed this Convention at its last session?

The PRESIDENT. The new rules.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. On the proposed rules?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I call for the reading of the resolution of the deputy from Illinois, as amended. That will explain the whole thing.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read as it now stands modified.

The SECRETARY read as follows:

Resolved, That the rules of order of the House of Clerical and Lay D. puties as proposed to be amended and reported at the last General Convention, and printed in the Journal as Appendix 16, No. 2, on pages 621, 622, and 623, be adopted as the rules of order of this Convention.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. That amounts to a resolution which will put in force a body of new rules which have never yet been in force in this House, and rules that nobody has had any opportunity that I am aware of, except by reading the Journal, to know anything about. I therefore move now to amend the resolution, by adopting the rules of order which were in force at the last Convention until otherwise ordered by the House; and, having done that, we can take up these new rules at our convenience, and adopt them, if necessary, as a substitute for the old ones. It seems to me that the true thing to do, under the present circumstances, is to take up the body of the old rules in force at the last Convention, and afterwards we can act upon any amendments to them.

the

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I hope the motion just made will not be carried. The Committee that reported these rules was composed of the Rev. Dr. Mead, Rev. Dr. Haight, and Judge Sheffey. A more experienced Committee could not possibly have been selected in this House. They took the question under advisement, reported on the thirteenth day of the last session what rules they recommended, adopting substantially all the rules of former House, with four or five important additions. That report was not acted upon finally, because of the late season at which the rules were reported, but by vote of the House they were directed to be printed in the Journal for the examination of the members who might be here. to-day, so that they could act intelligently upon them, and thus obtain at an early period of the session (which of course is a very important matter), a set of rules carefully devised by a competent committee, such as that of which I have spoken. I will state for the information of the House, that I have examined very carefully the rules as reported by the Committee, and compared them with the old rules. Almost all the old rules

are adopted in the new, but they are systematized and arranged in better order, because the old rules had grown up year by year, as a kind of patchwork, without any order or arrangement. This Committee applied those rules and arranged them systematically, in the first place, and they then made, I believe, substantially five changes, of which I have made a note.

In the first place, they provide for the appointment of Committees. Previously the appointment of the standing committees of the House had been by resolution; but now, by Rule 4 of the revised rules, it is made the duty of the President to appoint the regular standing committees, with the addition of one on memorials of deceased members.

In the second place, they provide for a calendar, to be made out by the Secretary of the House, upon which all motions, resolutions, and reports shall go down in their order, to come up in their order for discussion, which calendar is to be taken up every day at 12 o'clock, unless there be a special order which would take its place. In the third place, it is provided that upon all nominations sent down from the House of Bishops for Missionary Bishops, this House shall sit with closed doors.

The next addition is, that where a matter is brought before the House with a view to its being referred to committee, no debate shall take place upon the question of reference; but it shall go to the Committee, reserving debate until the Committee has been heard from, so as very properly to prevent two discussions or two debates on the same subject-matter.

In the next place, where an amendment is offered to a matter pending before the House, a motion to lay that amendment on the table can be carried without carrying the whole subject-matter. Under the usual parliamentary law, where a question is before the House and an amendment is moved, if any one move to lay that amendment on the table, that motion being carried, the whole subject-matter is carried with it, sometimes to the very great surprise of the House, who have just given the vote. This alteration of the rules provides that such a motion may be made, where an objectionable amendment is moved, and when carried the original matter still remains before the House, as if that amendment had not been moved.

These, I believe, are the substantial changes which the Committee, from their experience, thought proper to suggest for the adoption of the House, so that if we agree to the motion of the lay gentleman from Illinois, the effect will be simply to adopt the old rules, with the additions I have now stated to the House.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I wish to call attention to another change which the gentleman has not pointed out; but it may have been an accidental omission on the part of the printer. According to Rule 19 of the last Convention, two amendments were allowed; an amendment and an amendment to an amendment, and then a substitute for the whole matter. In the proposed rules of order that clause is thrown out. It says, "No after amendment to such second amendment shall be in order." Nothing is said about a substitute. Now, the question is whether a substitute will still be in order?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think under the general parliamentary law a substitute is always in order after there have been two amendments.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Why not have it so stated in the rules of order?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I cannot say what reason induced the Committee to leave it out, but probably it was because they thought it unnecessary.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. That is already the law, and there is no necessity for repeating it. You can always move a substitute.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. well.

Very Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is one other amendment which I omitted to state, and that is that no new business shall be introduced after the 18th day, unless upon a vote of two-thirds of the House.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I desire to say a single word. I have as much respect for the opinion of the learned Deputy from Pittsburgh as anybody else. He tells us that he has read these rules. Who else has read them? They were proposed by the last Convention to this. Is it wisdom for this Convention to take rules that they have not looked at? Is it parliamentary to take rules that you have never looked at? Suppose the learned deputy from Pittsburgh has read them; suppose half a dozen others have read them; I want to read them, I want to reflect upon them. I suppose other gentlemen want to reflect upon them. There is always wisdom in multiplicity of counsel, and there might be other amendments which might be suggested.

Now, why not adopt the old rules that we have been acting under, and let this subject come up for debate to-morrow? That is usual. Even in the statement, for which the Convention is obliged to the learned gentleman from Pittsburgh, he omitted some of the proposed changes, and we have difficulties already as to whether a substitute is, under general parliamentary law, always in order or not. Ought not that to be considered? Why not. As these rules were referred to this Convention, and as this Convention is the only body that can adopt them, as this Convention is the body to be regulated by them, is it not usual, proper, and parliamentary to let this report come up for consideration to see whether it is perfect, and if not perfect, that it may be made so by amendment, and let us to-day simply adopt the old rules? That seems to me wise, and sanctioned by parliamentary law. I hope this Convention will only to-day adopt the old rules, and let this subject of proposed changes come up afterwards.

One word further. The learned deputy said that the rules had been revised by distinguished gentlemen. I agree with him. I know two or three of those gentlemen, and I would confide myself any subject of rule-making to them; but even the work of that Committee is to-day shown not to be perfect by the recommendation made by the learned Deputy from Illinois to increase the Committee on Canons from 13 to 19. That shows that the members of this Convention had not yet considered the subject fully, and I beg gentlemen on both sides to agree that we shall to-day simply adopt our old rules, and not make haste too fast in adopting new rules that the members of the Convention have not even read or heard.

I move to amend the resolution by simply adopting to-day the old rules.

The PRESIDENT. That is the motion before the House made by Mr. Meads, to amend the resolution offered by Judge Otis by adopting the old rules.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I withdraw my amendment if it has been moved already.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I think it would be better if all these resolutions were withdrawn, and we proceeded as we did at the last Convention to authorize the President to appoint certain committees and afterwards provide for rules. Meanwhile we are under the usual parliamentary rules. When we meet to-morrow we shall be under those rules as a body.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I think this amendment would meet both views that

we adopt these rules provisionally until we can make some that we are satisfied with. The usual order in such cases is to adopt the rules of the last House "until otherwise ordered by this House." I move to amend by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and putting in the words “until otherwise ordered by this House."

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. That was part of my proposed amendment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Then I do not see that we shall gain anything by adopting one set more than another if the reservation is contained in the body of the resolution that we may change the rules when we have more intelligence in the subject; and as between the two, those which have been proposed by a committee who have given the subject careful consideration, and those which have been acted upon by this Convention formerly, I think the House would much prefer the intelligent result of an examination by a committee. I hope therefore the original resolution will not prevail.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I have never read these rules.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The question is on adopting the old rules of order, I understand?

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the amendment of Mr. Meads to adopt the old rules as the rules of this House, until they are amended. The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution as amended was agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES,

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move now, as there is no provision made in the old rules for the appointment of committees, that the following resolution be adopted:

Resolved, That the President appoint the following Standing Committees: 1st, A Committee on the State of the Church, to consist of one member from each dioce-e; 2d, a Committee on the General Theological Seminary; 3d, on the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society; 4th, on the Admission of New Dioceses; 5th, on the Consecration_of Bishops; 6th, on Canons; 7th, on Expenses; 8th, on Unfinished Business; 9th, on Elections; 10th, on the PrayerBook; 11th, on Christian Education, and 12th, on Memorials of Deceased Members, each, except the first, to consist of thirteen members.

The Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I move to amend by adding, "except the Committee on Canons, which shall consist of nineteen members."

The PRESIDENT. That introduces the matter which gentlemen wanted to defer the discussion of until to-morrow. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.

The Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolution of Dr. Mead.

The resolution was agreed to.

RULES OF ORDER.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I move that the rules of order reported at the last Convention be made the special order of this House for tomorrow, at 12 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

The SECRETARY announced the appointment of the Rev. William C. Williams, D.D., of the Diocese of Georgia, as Assistant Secretary.

PLACE OF MEETING.

The Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I rise to renew the motion I sought to make a while ago, and the confusion of to-day shows the absolute necessity of it. I noticed that the Chair was obliged to

put a motion twice because the House did not understand the question. Just now the delegate from Connecticut proposed the appointment of a committee, and, before he took his seat, another gentleman, half a dozen pews off, proposed to do just the same thing. It seems, therefore, that we are going to do business several times over in this House if we attempt to go on in a place so utterly unsuited for deliberation. I am satisfied that this is not a proper hall for deliberation. Where I sit not a syllable has been heard of what many speakers have said. I move that it be referred to a committee of three of the New York delegation to enquire whether we cannot find, in the city of New York, a place better adapted for the deliberations of this body.

the

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Livingston) referred to this building having previously been general house of meeting. I grant it; but since we met here before a chancel has been added, and the sound is entirely destroyed. I would just as soon go back to Trinity Chapel as stay here. I would propose that the committee should consist of lay gentlemen to enquire and report whether we can get "the little church around the corner" again. That is the place I want to go to. Members are located in that direction, and if we meet there they will stay there during the sittings; but we have to come two or three miles down-town to this build- | ing.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I ask gentlemen to give it a trial of one day.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. We have had a trial of half an hour already, and scarcely an individual can hear my voice, though it sounds like thunder. [Laughter.] I do not want to exhaust my lungs at the age of nearly eighty.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Mr. President and Gentlemen, before you decide that you will not have this house, Lask you to hear from the delegation upon whom you devolved the duty of providing a house for you. You say that this room is unfit. It will not do for us to deny it; but have you tried it? I think not. This building was provided for the religious services of this morning, and it was supposed that very little of the business of the Convention would be attempted to be done to-day after the religious services were performed. It was intended to prepare the seats appropriated for each delegation, which has not been done, so that to-day the delegates are all mingled up; but that matter will be looked after as soon as an adjournment is had. It was intended to provide rostrums, and they are ready, so that members desiring to address the House in any lengthy remarks may stand in a position where they may be heard with ease by members in any part of the House. You have not yet tried this. If you go into another church building, you must go to one that is large enough to receive and accommodate not only the Deputies to this Convention, but very many persons who have come from a distance to attend as spectators and auditors. You must have a building sufficiently spacious to receive and accommodate them. This building was selected not only as an auditorium, but on other accounts. It was the duty of the delegation from New York to provide accommodations for the Bishop, and a building adjoins this chapel which is admirably adapted for that purpose. Committee-rooms had to be provided, and they are ready at hand. One gentleman suggests to me that a lunch-room was needed. It is ready at hand, and arrangements have been made to provide a lunch for the Bishops and for the Deputies every day. Then we have here committee-rooms conveniently at hand. Perhaps there are better auditoriums in the city than this, but I know of no

building that commands all the advantages of this. It was the decided opinion of our revered and very efficient colleague, Dr. Haight, that this was almost the only building in the city of New York adapted for the purposes of this Convention.

Now, gentlemen, of course we have no objection to your searching the city, and I trust you may find a better building; but my opinion is that you had better go on with what you have got, and give it at any rate a trial for to-morrow, and then send out a committee and search through the city if you are not satisfied.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask the deputy from New York, while he has the floor, whether it would not be possible to have a curtain put over the recess of the channel? Twelve years ago when we sat here, we had not the difficulty which has been experienced to-day. An attempt has been made to improve the hearing capacities of the hall by wires across the ceiling, and yet there are difficulties which we did not experience twelve years ago, but it may be that we have become old and feeble, and that our voices are weak; but there are some young men here, and I fear they would find difficulty in being heard.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. If the Convention are decidedly disposed to accept the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that matter could be arranged within a day or two. Undoubtedly, this House ought to have the best auditorium that can be found in the city. The delegation from New York believed that this was the best; but if a majority of the Convention think that a better one can be selected, surely we shall make no objection to your doing it.

In regard to the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I will say that that matter was considered, and it was stated by some members who attended one of the former Conventions that the curtain did not avail for the purpose intended, and that therefore it was not worth while to provide a curtain now. I will state that men worked all night one night to construct the wires which gentlemen see under the ceiling. It was stated that an invention of that kind had been tried in two or three rooms in the United States, and also in a cathedral abroad, and had been found to work successfully in improving the acoustic properties of the building. I am sorry to say that I do not think it has been a success here. The attempt was made, however. If it is the decided opinion of the body that a curtain should be placed in front of the chancel, it will be prepared as soon as it can be.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The argument is very simple; twelve years ago, we had not the diffculty that we experience to-day. The change that has been made has been in the chancel. If the gentleman says the New York delegation will try the experiment of a curtain before it, I hope the resolution will not be pressed.

The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move that this question be postponed until two o'clock to-morrow. The New York delegation evidently have made very great efforts to accommodate this body. It is, however, perfectly apparent that persons can be heard here only with great difficulty. The suggestion that there be a rostrum, at which members who intend to speak at any considerable length may stand, will probably remove that difficulty. Then, when we consider the very great kindness of our New York friends, I think we ought to stay in the building provided for us, if it can be made sufficiently convenient. Certainly, I think the argumentum ad hominem, which is a knock-down argument commonly, is ten times as strong when it assumes the phase of the argumentum ad stomachum; and hence I think that after lunch to-morrow we shall be in a humor to meet

this question candidly and fairly. [Laughter.] My i motion is to postpone the consideration of the subject until two o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I suggest that we try to-morrow's session in this hall.

The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The Lay Deputy from New York suggests to me to move to postpone until Friday morning, so that we may try this hall to-morrow. I accept that suggestion and make that motion.

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I would remind members that the principal discussion which has taken place to-day has been in a narrow circle immediately around the Chair, and the gentlemen who have spoken, with scarcely an exception, have faced the Chair, so that they spoke from the great body of the delegations in this house, and that was one reason why they could not be heard. Another difficulty has been, though I do not mean to criticise, gentlemen, that it has certainly not been uncommon to-day that more than one has been speaking at the same time. I believe that does not facilitate hearing very much. [Laughter.] I suppose that between now and the hour of assembling to-morrow morning the seats of the delegations from the several dioceses will be set off for them, or at all events so marked that each delegation will know its own place. The effect of that will be that the gentlemen who most prominently and most frequently address the Convention will be distributed all through the house, and some system will be adopted. It does seem to me that we are acting quite prematurely when we act upon the hypothesis that we cannot be heard successfully in this house as twelve years ago we were heard here. I believe when we get into working order, and the Deputies of the respective dioceses are seated to gether in their assigned places, and gentlemen have accustomed themselves to the acoustic qualities of this building, we shall get along very satisfactorily. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is anything be

fore the House now?

The PRESIDENT. A motion to postpone.

The Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. I move that the proposition for the appointment of a committee to procure another place of meeting be laid on the table.

The PRESIDENT. That motion takes precedence. The motion was agreed to.

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS.

The following message (No. 2) was received from the House of Bishops:

The House of Bishops informs the House of Deputies that it has received the following communication by cable telegraph: "Presiding Bishop General Convention, New York. Church Congress of the Church of England, assembled at Brighton, greets the General Convention, and prays that, through the Divine blessing on its deliberations, union between the Churches of America and England may be strengthened." (Signed) Bishop of Chichester.

And that it has unanimously adopted the following resolution :

Resolved, Thit the despatch received from the Bishop of Chichester, conveying the greetings of the Church Congress at Brighton. England, to the General Convention, be communicated to the House of Deputies, and that, if that House concur, a joint reply be sent to the Bishop of Chichester, communicating our hearty thanks and the assurance of our best wishes for the success of their meeting.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move the concurrence of this House in the action of the House of Bishops, and that a committee of three be appointed to unite with the House of Bishops in sending a reply.

The motion was agreed to; and Rev. Dr. SHELTON of Western New York, Rev. Dr. BURGESS of Massachusetts, and Mr. LIVINGSTON of New York, were appointed the Committee.

FAMILIES OF DEPUTIES.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I offer the following resolution:

Resolved. That one of the galleries be reserved for the families of Deputies.

I will state that this is the usage; but the Committee did not feel free to reserve a gallery without the action of the House.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. We have already done more than the ordinary business of the first day of the session. I move, therefore, that this House do now adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow. The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned.

SECOND DAY.

THURSDAY, October 8. The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 10 A.M.

Morning Prayer was said by the Right Rev. Henry Adams Neely, D.D., Bishop of Maine, assisted by the Right Rev. Alfred Lee, D.D., Bishop of Delaware. The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read and approved.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. The Secretary announced yesterday that he had appointed the Rev. William C. Williams, D.D., of the Diocese of Georgia, First Assistant Secretary. That nomination was not confirmed by the House. I now move the selection of Dr. Williams by the Secretary as Assistant Secretary, be confirmed by the The motion was agreed to unanimously.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE HALL.

The PRESIDENT. There is one matter which I suggest to the House should precede the ordinary conduct of business. Communications from the President are first in order, and I am prepared to announce some of the committees; but the Deputy from New York who is taking care of us here wishes to make some explanation at once with regard to the arrangements of the House. Will the House hear that explanation now? ["Yes."]

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that the rules of order be suspended for that purpose. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. The deputation from New York desire to make an explanation, or, perhaps, an apology, for not having their arrangements perfected, as it was thought they would be, yesterday. Orders were given for the construction of a curtain, to be hung in front of the chancel, and as it involves two or three hundred yards of sewing, and requires many women to work pretty much all night, the curtain has not been finished, but it is expected that it will be finished by to-morrow morning. Then as to the rostrums, which were intended to be used-one in front of the President's chair, as is the one where I now stand, and the other near the bar, at the lower end of the middle aisle, so as to give facilities at both ends of the room-they have been, to a certain extent, condemned by gentlemen who have looked at them, and orders have been given for the construction of a small stage in front of the President's chair; that also will be prepared to-morrow morning. I trust, therefore, that gentlemen will exalt their voices somewhat more to-day (if they speak from their seats and condemn the rostrums), so that they may be heard a little more distinctly. I think that, by gentlemen rising and turning partially towards