Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. We do not offer any resolution.

The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the next General Convention meet in the city of Boston. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the vote just taken be communicated to the House of Bishops at once.

The motion was agreed to.

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I now ask for action on the other matter reported by the Committee.

The Secretary read the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Convention adjourn at five o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and that the House of Deputies meet the House of Bishops at 7:30 P.M., to unite in the closing devotional services, and to listen to the Pastoral letter."

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I move as an amendment Friday afternoon.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. The clergy have expected to have this Church as usual on Saturday afternoon at three o'clock.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. It is not proposed to hold the evening session here.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I move to amend the resolution by striking out "five" o'clock and inserting "three." Before the question is put, I ask the consent of the House to make one or two remarks, very brief and yet important.

The Deputies from New York, upon whom devolved the duty of allotting seats for the representatives of the Dioceses, found this difficulty, that by the constitution every Diocese was entitled to eight seats, and we were obliged to allot eight seats to every Diocese, although we were conscious that some of the Dioceses from distant parts would not send their full delegation. Now if the Deputies from Massachusetts have permission to appropriate such number of seats as in their judgment shall be sufficient, we shall be brought closer together than we have been here under the resolution which was passed in 1871, whereby the Deputies from New York were compelled to allot eight seats to each Diocese. I therefore at the proper time-it probably will come in after this resolution-will move a resolution that the Deputies from the Diocese wherein the next General Convention holds its meetings shall have power to appropriate sufficient seats for the Deputies as to them shall seem meet. You observe this gives them a discretion which perhaps the House would not be willing to give.

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I only want to say to the Deputy from New York, that I wish at the proper time to push the amendment I proposed, that Friday shall be substituted for Saturday. The reason is obvious, I think, to all the gentlemen present. Even during the Saturdays when we have been in session here, the House has been thinner than on other days, and I fancy that by Saturday evening there will hardly be a corporal's guard left. Gentlemen must go home, clergymen especially, to attend their parishes for Sunday.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I think it is inexpedient that the House should not resolve to adjourn on Friday. We want a day for the transuction of the real business of this House. Having finished these measures which have led to long debate, in the course of to-morrow I do not doubt many messages of considerable importance can be sent to the House of Bishops, and if this House adjourns on Friday, the Consti

tutional time for the concurrence or non-concurrence of the House of Bishops will not have elapsed, and if that House shall not act upon our messages

sent to them to-morrow, they will fall to the ground entirely. I think, therefore, for this reason, it is better for the House, if it can, to remain in session until Saturday afternoon.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. There is a great deal of work yet to be done by this Convention, work that has been referred to the committees, which have been laboriously engaged in their duties, and it is work, moreover, of no mean importance. In the course of the Ritual discussion, it was brought out that there was a strong feeling in favor, among other things, of a Rubrical Commission to revise the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer in a large-minded, comprehensive, catholic spirit. To that end, if the Convention adopts that report of the Committee on Canons, it will be necessary that a commission should be raised with extreme care. Not only must we have men of learning, but we must have men of candor and breadth of view on that commission. I consider that the selection of that commission will be one of the greatest acts of this Convention.

Again, there are other matters to be brought before the Convention. Our Committee on Canons has now many things ready or on the point of being ready. I do not think that unless we have a night session we can rightfully adjourn before Saturday afternoon. I therefore trust that this Convention will either determine to sit at night, or sit till Saturday afternoon, or both, in order that the work may be done, and well and maturely done, with the full voice of a full House.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I would ask the Secretary to state the matters that are now before us that have to be acted on before we adjourn.

The SECRETARY. There are twenty-six items on the Calendar. There are twenty-two reports from the Committee on Canons yet to be acted on; there are ten reports, it I am right in a hasty reckoning-six came in this very day-from the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. We have to take a vote by Dioceses and Orders on ratifying the change in Article 4 of the Constitution; and we have now five special orders of the day yet undecided.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to ask the Chairman of the Committee on Canons how many matters they have before the House not acted upon?

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I cannot answer that question, but I am perfectly confident that the Committee on Canons can get through their docket, without any difficulty, by Friday night.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move an amendment to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Central Pennsylvania. I believe his motion was that we should adjourn on Friday evening at ten o'clock.

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. Friday afternoon at five. I should be very glad to add to that, that we have one night session in the meantime as well.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I was going to move that we have two evening sessions, one on Thursday and one on Friday.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Why not take the question on agreeing to adjourn at five o'clock on Saturday Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I wish the Convention could adjourn on Friday night, but if there be anything in the point which has been submitted to us by the gentleman from Central New York, it is impossible that we can adjourn even on Saturday. The Constitution requires that the House of Bishops shall have three days to act upon anything we send them, and therefore whatever we do to-morrow may not

necessarily be completed by the House of Bishops if we adjourn on Saturday. They require three full days. It seems to me that if the questions before us are to be settled by this Convention. it is impossible for us to adjourn this week. I wish we could. Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I wish the Convention would stop this discussion and go to work on the Calendar. If we finish our work before Saturday and the House of Bishops advise us that they are ready to adjourn, we can then adjourn; but if we go on spending our time in this discussion now, we shall certainly not adjourn on Saturday.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We certainly have a very large amount of work upon our docket, and it depends on the Convention whether that work shall be done at all; whether it shall be done carelessly or negligently, which would of course be a great deal worse than doing it not at all; or whether we shall stay here and spend our time as we ought to do. I do not think the Convention is now prepared to fix a time when we shall adjourn. I believe that during to-day and to-morrow, after having worked upon our docket and seen what we have cleared off and what will still remain, we shall then be able to decide whether we can, in justice to the Church that we represent, adjourn this week. So far as adjourning on Friday is concerned, we might as well adjourn now. The greater part of the work which the different committees have presented to you still remains to be considered, and a great portion of it ought to be well and deliberately considered, or else be thrown over to the next General Convention.

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I am quite convinced by what has been said since I moved the amendment, and I now withdraw it.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to postpone the consideration of the question of the time of adjournment until to-morrow at four o'clock.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. It is evident to all members that it is necessary to give the House of Bishops three days' notice, that they may act with knowledge. I think, therefore, it is better to stick to five o'clock on Saturday.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It is suggested to me that the motion proper to be made is to lay this question on the table. If that be done, it can be taken up at any time we think proper. I make that motion.

The motion was agreed to.

THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. According to the order of the day, beretofore fixed, the report of the Committee on Canons on Baptismal Service was to be taken up immediately after the disposition of the Hymnal, but the time is so near for taking up the confirmation of the Missionary Bishops, that it has been suggested that that be postponed until tomorrow at twelve o'clock, and made the order of the day then. I make that motion.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I ask if there is not an order already made for that hour?

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. This has the preference. But if you choose to make it the order of the day for eleven o'clock, it will satisfy me.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think we had better stop making special orders, and go on and clear the Calendar.

The PRESIDENT. The motion, as I understand it, isto make the report of the Committee on Canons, in regard to the Baptismal Office, the special order for to-morrow at eleven o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

LIMITATION of debate.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. In view of the fact that there is so heavy an amount of work to be

done, which will require carefulness as well as promptness, and promptness no less than carefulness, I move that, with the exception of Chairmen of Committees representing proposals coming from Committees, this House, hereafter limit all speeches to ten minutes.

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I would make one exception, and that is the discussion of the Baptismal question.

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. That is too important a question to be limited to ten minutes.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I am appealed to to except the question of the Baptismal office. I do so. My motion, therefore, will be that in all business to be transacted hereafter, with the excep tion of the Baptismal Office, speeches shall be limited to ten minutes, except only chairmen representing committees.

The PRESIDENT. Is there to be no limit of time on the baptismal question?

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It appears to be acceptable that twenty minutes should be the rule during the discussion on the Baptismal Service, and I will incorporate that.

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. I know many that will be limited by that at the time the debate is going on.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Deputy from Alabama that debate on all questions that come before this House during the session, except the Baptismal question, shall be limited to ten minutes to each speech, and that on the Baptismal question they shall be limited to twenty minutes, with the exception of chairmen of committees.

The motion was agreed to.

VOTE ON THE RITUAL CANON,

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Is the Calendar now in order? If so, I call for it.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will state the first matter in order on the Calendar.

Mr. FORSYTH, of Albany. I rise to a question of privilege. In the report of the vote taken upon the Canon on the Ritual, as appears in the official or semi-official paper of this House, THE CHURCHMAN, the Lay Deputies from the Diocese of Albany are reported as voting in the affirmative for that Canon. The fact is that they all voted the other way. desire to have the record corrected in that respect. The SECRETARY. The record of the Secretary is correct. I am informed by the proprietors of THE CHURCHMAN that they have discovered the error alluded to and other errors in the statement of that vote, and intend to make a correction.

We

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. There was a sufficiently small minority, and we wish to have the benefit of it.

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.

A message (No. 57) from the House of Bishops announced the adoption by that House of the following preamble and resolution :

"Whereas, The Chief Magistrate of the United States has asked the co-operation of this Church, and of other religious bodies, in promoting the civilization of the Indians by procuring for them moral and intelligent agents, by supervising their work, and by assisting those agents to industrial pursuits and

"Whereas, The Indian Commission of the Board of Missions has acceded to the request of the President of the United States so far as to nominate agents for certain tribes of Indians; and

"Whereas, It is expedient that the hands of these should be upheld by the Churches, and that the Indians thould be protected in their rights; therefore, "Resolved, That this House, with the concurrence of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, will ap

point a Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, composed of six laymen, to co-operate with the Board of Missions by supervising the secular work of the agencies under their care, by procuring such civilizing agencies as the Government does not provide, and by invoking the aid of the Government, and, if need be, the assistance of the courts, in protecting the rights of the Indians.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is not that just what we did!

The SECRETARY. We have passed by the action of this House a similar resolution. This now makes it the work of the General Convention, instead of this House.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then I move that the message of the House of Bishops be concurred in; and that will settle the matter.

The motion to concur was agreed to.

DELEGATES FROM MISSIONARY DISTRICTS.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the Calendar, on which the first business was the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons :

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed amendment to the standing order of Delegates from Missionary Jurisdictions.""

The resolution was agreed to.

PRESIDING BISHOP.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is the report of the Committee on the Prayer-Book relating to the Nicene Creed, to which is appended the following resolution :

Resolved, That this Church ought not to enter upon any consideration of the proposition to revise | the Nicene Creed until it can be done in united council of all those autonomous churches using the English rite and in communion with this Church and the Church of England."

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I presume from the tenor of this report it is intended to be entirely disinterested, dispassionate, and it is therefore not an ex parte one. I call attention, however, to the ambiguity of a certain word in this report, that is to say, the word "orthodox." It is therein stated that the use of the Filioque in the creed is capable of an orthodox interpretation, thereby giving rise to the inference that the ordinary, literal interpretation of the term is not orthodox. It would strike many readers reading this report that the word "orthodox" here is used in a technical sense, as used by those who speak of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church. I think the report should not be ambiguous, and should not seem to give any meaning to one side or the other of this controverted question, which, under the present phraseology, it strikes me it does seem to do. I therefore would

like to move the substitution of some other word, or at least that this report be recommitted, in order to be amended in this particular.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Is the word "orthodox" to be found in the resolution or in the report?

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. It is used in the report.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. This House is not bound by the language of the report; it is only bound by the language of the resolution.

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. The report will go on the Journal, and therefore it would seem to have been in the mind of this Convention that the word "orthodox" in this particular does mean what is not in accordance with the literal interpretation of this word.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. That is a matter the House has nothing to do with, but only the Committee who drafted the report. What we have to do with is the resolution. I move that it be adopted. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. I have been trying to get the eye of the Chair. I only want to say that the word can be used in two senses; and if the whole Convention should say that our creed was correct in that respect, that would be no authority. I want to express my opinion. I know I cannot change the determination of this body. No one who has ever examined the question tells us that it is historic; and who can say that that word "proceeded" has not the two literal senses and cannot be accommodated to any sense at all?

ARTICLE 4 OF CONSTITUTION.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is a resolution respecting Article 4 of the Constitution, reported on the 14th day, by the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to wit :

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the alteration of Article 4 of the Constitution proposed in the last General Convention, and made known to the several Diocesan Conventions, and printed on page 160 of the Journal of the last General Convention, be and the same is hereby finally agreed to and ratified, as provided by Article 9 of the Constitution."

This requires a vote by Dioceses and orders.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move that we proceed to vote.

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Will the Secretary read the amendment?

The Secretary read as follows:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Article 4 of the Constitution be amended by omitting the last seven words, by any Church destitute of a Bishop,' and substituting the words in another Diocese by the ecclesiastical authority thereof,' so that the Article shall read:

"Article 4. The Bishop or Bishops in every Diocese shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the Convention of that Diocese, and every Bishop of this Church shall confine the exercise of his Episcopal Office to his proper Diocese, unless requested to ordain or confirm, or perform any other act of the Episcopal Office, in another Diocese by the Ecclesiastical authority thereof."

The PRESIDENT. The question has to be taken by Dioceses and Orders.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. If we get a unanimous vote, that will include all the Dioceses. I move that the resolution be adopted unanimously.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Cannot the Secretary just call the Dioceses by name, Alabama, etc., without taking the vote of each individual?

The PRESIDENT. The Dioceses will be called, and will vote as they are called. It is supposed that the action of the House will be unanimous, so as to save calling so many names.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I hope I may be allowed to explain this vote. This amendment most certainly ought to pass. As the law now stands, no Bishop has a right to exercise Episcopal functions beyond the limits of his Diocese, except in the case of a vacancy. This law provides that he may so act on the invitation of the Diocese. That is simply the provision. It was referred to the Committee on Canons last Convention, and I believe unanimously reported in favor of.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll of Dioceses.

The Dioceses were called with the following result :

CLERICAL VOTE.-Aye.-Alabama, Albany, California, Central New York, Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvaina, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin

-40.

LAY VOTE.-Aye - Alabama, Albany, Central New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin-38.

The PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment of the Constitution is finally ratified, so far as depends on this House.

LECTIONARY FOR LENT.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is the report of the Joint Committee to prepare the new Lectionary for week-days in Lent, copies of which will be distributed.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. That report has never been read. I call for its reading.

The SECRETARY read as follows:

"The Joint Committee, to whom was assigned by the last General Convention the preparation of a Table of Lessons for the week-days of Lent, beg leave to report the accompanying table and resolution : "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Table of Lessons reported by the Committee be authorized for use till the next General Convention, provided the same shall be approved by the Bishop of each Diocese or Missionary Jurisdiction, respectively.

Resolved, That the Joint Committee be continued in charge of this matter for its more thorough consideration, and to afford opportunity for such improvements as may be suggested by its actual use.

"The Committee would add that whilst engaged in the duty assigned to them they have also prepared a table of lessons for the Ember and Rogation days, regarding this, though not specified, as embraced in the spirit and aim of the resolution under which they were appointed, and recommend the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Table of Lessons for the Ember and Rogation Days, herewith presented by

condition as the Table of Lessons for Lent."

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Is the report signed? Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It is signed by all the members of the Joint Committee. I ask the Secretary to read the names. The Secretary read as follows: "ALEX. GREGG,

J. FREEMAN YOUNG, M. A. DE W. HOWE, T. W. COIT, ALFRED B. BEACH, E. E. BEARDSLEY. ISAAC G. HUBBARD, CHARLES R. HALE.” Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Under the action of the Convention the other day upon the resolution offered by the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, as I understand, it will be impossible for us to get the use of this Lectionary under three years. Am I right in that?

The PRESIDENT. I do not recollect the decision of the House.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Is this Lectionary part of the Prayer-Book? If it is, nothing but a constitutional amendment would reach it.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Now I have the answer for that question. Under the action of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, it is impossible for us to pass this first resolution, inasmuch as they have decided that this cannot be altered under three years.

Rev. Dr. CADŸ, of New York. That has not passed this House. Their report simply goes on the Calendar, to come up in its order.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It will do no harm, at any rate, for me to move the passage of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Joint Committee be continu-. ed in charge of this matter for its more thorough consideration, and to afford opportunity for such improvements as may be suggested by its actual

use.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I make this suggestion: The report from the Committee on Canons, which will be made the order of the day on Friday, provides for a commission to revise the Rubrics of the Prayer-Book, and many other things to prepare a new Lectionary especially for Lent. If that be adopted, it will undoubtedly cover the resolution which the gentleman now offers, and I presume it will be adopted; but inasmuch as it may miscarry by press of time or for other reasons, and inasmuch as we all admit that we do require a new Lectionary, and it is conceded that it will require three years to give us that Lectionary, I am prepared now to move that this Lectionary be proposed by this General Convention for adoption at the next. It does not require a change of the Constitution. That is a misconception. The Constitution itself, in Article 8, provides that alterations and changes in the Prayer-Book may be made (and of course a Lectionary is a portion of the Prayer Book) at one General Convention, and adopted at the other. We therefore by such action do not touch the Constitution; we simply act under the Constitution. It is Article 9 which provides how changes in the Constitution may be made.

Of the Lectionary which has now been presented I know nothing, but am willing to take it from the Committee as they have presented it; and if it be the sense of the House that this Lectionary should be at all events proposed for adoption, if they have such confidence in the Committee as to be willing to propose it for adoption and thereby save three years, the only way in which it can be done is now by action of this House to propose it for adoption at the next General Convention, and if then it be adopted it will become final.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I wish to say on behalf of the Committee

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I shall be through in one moment. I wish simply to say that a Lectionary for the whole Christian year has been prepared by this Committee. It was a Joint Committee, appointed in 1868. If the Committee on the revision of the Rubrics

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee on Canons have presented a report, asking this House to raise a Commission to revise the Rubrics, and to take into consideration the adoption of a new Lectionary as a portion of the measure, which they are now prepared to advocate. Of course, we may prepare a Lectionary without touching the Rubrics, except in that particular, but the object of the Committee was to have a general revision of the Rubrics, and especially that that Commission have in charge the preparation of a new Lectionary, especially for Lent; but the members will perceive that that will postpone action for six years, because that Commission cannot report until the next General Convention.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The Committee on Constitutional Amendments have prepared a report extending the Constitution in such a general manner that we can pass the Lectionary at the next General Convention without proposing it at this. Adopt it first by this Convention, and then ratify it by the next Convention, and then any Convention will have it in its power, without its being proposed to the previous Convention, to adopt what you suggest.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I understand that; but that depends on two contingencies. It depends upon the contingency of our proposing that amendment or agreeing to it, if it should ever be reached; and, in the second place, whether it will be acted upon favorably by the next General Convention, which are two very doubtful contingencies; but as a Lectionary for the whole year which this Committee has prepared, I for one am willing to vote for it now, without knowing anything of it more than that it has come from that Committee, and let it rest for three years, so that independently of all other contingencies, if we approve it, we may finally agree to it and ratify it and make it the Lectionary of the Church, of which we all know the great want.

Rev. Dr. PÅRET, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Beach gave way to the gentleman from Pittsburgh.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. That explanation has involved me in so much talk in connection with the whole subject that I propose to leave it. I take it for granted this Convention does not propose to leave two committees engaged on one and the same work.

were

This Joint Committee which was appointed in 1868 will have to be discharged from this whole matter, and then the work which they have accomplished can be passed over to this Committee, if is raised or created; and it strikes me that on the Calendar we are getting somewhat mixed. If we knew what these propositions to be, and what action would be taken by this Convention upon them, then we should be enabled to go over this matter with something like order. But as it stands now, I am forestalling, it seems, by this report some work which it is proposed to do hereafter touching the same subject. I move that this report be laid on the table until the report of the Committee on Canons touching the Rubrical revision is reached, and that it be taken up in connection with that subject.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. This Committee have prepared a portion of a Lectionary, and they submit it to us. Why not let that go down to all the Dioceses and return here at the next Conven

tion? If you do that, you can act upon this portion of their report at all events. We need not discharge the Committee. They remain to perfect their work, and, so far as they have gone, we can act on it in 1877. Now, it is not well to trust to what is to be done by this House as to amendments to the Constitution or the Prayer-Book, because there is a difference of opinion about that even in our own Committee, and I shall certainly be very loth to see this House adopt such a resolution as is said to have been reported by the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, and I shall ask a hearing on that subject. This Committee can now act directly and act securely if they will only send down this Lectionary as a proposal that the Lectionary shall be so amended in the particulars which they have named, and hereafter, when they have completed their labors, send the rest. You act upon the Prayer-Book, you do not act upon the Constitution.

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. It is four o'clock, and I call for the order of the day.

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. That is out of order. There is a motion to lay this report on the table.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If the gentleman making the report will allow me to offer a substitute for his motion, I desire to introduce two resolutions, which send this Lectionary down. I wish to move that this Table of Lessons be sent to the Dioceses for consideration. I wish to move, second,

Resolved, that the said proposition be made known to the several Diocesan Conventions."

Because it has to be sent down by resolution. That places it before the Dioceses, and it may be acted upon at the next General Convention.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Will you include in that the Table of Lessons for the Rogation Days and Ember Days?

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. And the Lectionary for the whole Christian year?

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Yes, as you have reported them.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It may be proper for me here to state that this is to all intents and purposes the same with the new Lectionary of the Church of England. I will withdraw my motion for that of the gentleman from Texas.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Then I move that the Lectionary as just reported be proposed, and I move this resolution-"That the Secretary be directed to transmit said proposition to the several Dioceses." That conforms to the eighth article exactly.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I submit there will be an interference with the other measures proposed by the Committee on Canons, which proposes to take up this very subject. The Commission on the Revision of Rubrics will be acting upon this very question at the same time that this precise form of it is presented to the Dioceses.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. This only allows us to act upon both three years hence. That is all it does, and if we do not do this we may be compelled, and shall be compelled, to go six years. That is the only difference.

The PRESIDENT. The time has now arrived for the order of the day.

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I think we can vote on the question before us now.

The PRESIDENT. Is the House ready for the question on the resolution? "Yes."

Mr. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina. Must we not take the vote on that by Dioceses and orders: Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I call for the order of the day.