there are three or four independent amendments moved to a measure before the House, the vote shall be taken upon those amendments chronologically; that is, in the order in which they are moved. When there is an amendment to an amendment, of course the vote will be taken on the amendment to the amendment first, and then upon the amendment, whether amended or otherwise. I think there can be no difficulty in the practical carrying out of the rule just exactly as it is printed.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. This rule of order provides that there shall be but two amendments at one time. Where, therefore, do the third and fourth amendments come in? I should like the Deputy from Pittsburgh to give us an example.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We had one this morning, made by the gentleman himself, if I recollect aright, when he proposed two amendments to the eleventh rule. One was to insert the previous question, and the other was to strike out a portion of the rule which was printed. There were two independent amendments. If they had been moved by separate persons, of course one would have had to be moved first and the other second. I take it this rule simply means that, in a case of that kind, the vote shall be taken on the first amendment, and then be taken upon the second amendment. There can be, of course, only one amendment to an amendment. That we understand, and it is provided for by this rule. Where there is an amendment to an amendment, the vote is taken upon the second amendment first, and then upon the original amendment. There cannot be a third amendment to an amendment, but there may be as many amendments to the matter before the House as members choose to present for the consideration of the House; and it is to prevent the confusion which may arise when there have been several amendments moved, that it is provided that the vote on them shall be taken in their order as they have been moved.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I would enquire whether it is at all necessary to have that first clause: "All amendments shall be considered in the order in which they are moved"? Would it not be a matter of course under what may be called the common parliamentary law? Would it not be the natural course of proceeding if there were no such provision ?

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest whether, when a gentleman states that he has two amendments, it is not a mere matter of courtesy to allow them to be announced. He cannot offer one until the other is acted upon. I do not understand that we can take up a half-dozen amendments, although a member can notify us of them; but we can vote on one after another. There can be but one proposition before us at a time, and an amendment must be an amendment to that. My friend from Louisiana (Mr. Race) presented two amendments to one rule. He did not offer both so that we had them both before us at the same time; but we voted on one and then the other came up. You cannot offer two amendments to be before the House at once, as I understand, and then have an amendment made to the first amendment and an amendment made to the second amendment. There is but one amendment that can be offered at a time. By strict rule any amendment then that comes before us is an amendment to that, and therefore the language here, I think, should be, "in the reverse order." By courtesy, we had two amendments before us, but it was not by strict rule. We act on one, and then on the other. Now, if I offer an amendment, and a gentleman from another diocese offers another amendment, are the two to remain before us, pari passu, until we choose to decide for one or the other or both? Not at all. Until one amendment is de

cided, nothing is proper but an amendment to that Therefore this should be "in the reverse order."

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, It is not out of order to move successive amendments to a pending proposition. It is the order of parliamentary bodies to consider them in the order in which they are moved; and this rule is as old as Parliament itself. A member may rise and move an amendment. Another member may rise and move another amendment. It is the duty of the speaker to entertain the first amendment, laying the second aside, and when the House is ready to consider that amendment, to proceed to its consideration. Before the House of Representatives of the United States there are oftentimes a dozen amendments pending, or rather submitted for successive consideration.

There is another form of amendment where a blank is to be put in. For instance, a resolution is offered: "Resolved, That the next session of this General Convention shall be held in the city of

-;" to

fill that blank is in the nature of an amendment to the text. The first place named will be first voted on, and the second place named next, and the third and fourth in the order in which they were proposed. It has been the rule of this House since it was organized, I am informed, certainly it is an old rule of the House, merely to guide the speaker or the President in the order in which he shall put questions to the House. It has no respect whatever to amendments to amendments. That class of amendments is provided for in the text of the rule itself. I think the introduction of the word "reverse" here would invert the order of parliamentary proceedings, for, as I say, the estabfished rule of Parliament is, for instance in filling a blank, to take the vote on the first thing named, and so on until you run through them all.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Deputy from Louisiana (Mr. Race) to insert the word "reverse."

The amendment was rejected.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I move to amend the pending rule of order by inserting, after the third sentence ending "shall be in order," the words:

"When an amendment to an amendment is under consideration, a substitute for the whole matter may be received."

The

I called attention yesterday to the change which had been made in these proposed rules by the omission of the words which I have just read; and it was then answered that parliamentary usage recognized the right of a member to propose a substitute for the whole matter. That was given as the reason for its omission. But it seems to me that this is not a reason which should weigh with us so as to prevent these words being restored. I wish simply to have the words restored, and have the rule of order read as it read three years ago. House of Bishops have this as a part of their rules of order, and as far as parliamentary usage is concerned, it seems to me that the doctors are by no means agreed as to what is parliamentary usage; and this rule might be interpreted, I think, as indicating that no such substitute should be received on the ground that this body had formally expunged these words. I am in favor of restoring the words on the ground that they were a part of the rules of order three years ago, and on that account, if on no other, it is desirable to have them put in again.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. That clause which is now proposed to be reinserted was in the old rule, "That when an amendment to an amendment is under consideration, a substitute for the whole matter may be received." The rule just in advance of that declares "no amendment after a second amendment shall be entertained," and that provision of the old

rule was knocked in the head by allowing an amendment to an amendment to an amendment by way of substitute for the whole matter. Now, sir, I say that every evil which the experience and wisdom of hundreds of years have discovered in going beyond the second degree by way of amendment is to be found in this very proposition. What is it? A proposition is introduced; an amendment to that proposition is brought before the House; an amendment to the amendment is brought before the House; and then, when the House is in a condition to vote intelligently upon the entire subject, there is introduced, slap-dash, a grand overslaughing proposition to take the entire subject from before the consideration of the House.

It may be that there is benefit by mere brute force, under the power of an overwhelming majority, in carrying a proposition over the heads of all principles and rules in the manner allowed by the former practice of the House; but on this floor I have seen the deliberate views and intentions of members of the House overwhelmed and crushed by the introduction of what is called a substitute, depriving members of an opportunity of voting upon the propositions as they were debated, as they were understood, in succession, until they reached the grand main proposition.

Now, what is gained by such a departure from all parliamentary law as this? What does the experience of parliamentarians say? for, talk as you choose, a substitute is an amendment in the third degree. Cushing says:

Every amendment which can be proposed, whether by striking out or inserting, or striking out and inserting, is itself susceptible of amendment; but there can be no amendment of an amendment to an amendment; this would be such a piling of questions one upon another, as would lead to great embarrassment; and as the line must be drawn somewhere, it has been fixed by usage after the amendment to the amendment. The object, which is proposed to be effected by such a proceeding, must be sought by rejecting the amendment to the amendment, in the form in which it is proposed, and then moving it again in the form in which it is wished to be amended, in which it is only an amendment to an amendment; and in order to accomplish this, he who desires to amend an amendment should give notice that, if rejected in the form in which it is presented, he shall move it again in the form in which he desires to have it adopted."

There seems to be in the minds of members on the floor some magical idea connected with this word "substitute." Why, sir, there is no such thing as a substitute in parliamentary phrase; it is only an amendment by way of striking out and inserting, and nothing else. If you have an original proposition, you can strike out all after the enacting clause and insert something else. That is a substitute. Or, if it be as an amendment to an amendment, you move to strike out all after the first word in the amendment and insert something else. That is an amendment to an amendment; it is not a substitute in the sense of being at all different from an amendment to an amendment. All parliamentary motions to improve a proposition are by way of amendment it may be by substituting one for another, but it is still an amendment. I say, therefore, that there is no parliamentary propriety or logic in this provision of the old rule which, as all parliamentarians say, tends to pile question upon question and to breed confusion in the mind of the House, instead of deliberation and proper decision. I think that the amended rule ought to be adopted. I move to amend it by striking out the last word "substitute" and inserting "amendment."

text

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should like to

ask the gentleman from Virginia if the language of the last sentence ought not to be corrected so as to read:

"No proposition on a subject different from the one under consideration shall be received under color of a substitute. but a proposition on the same subject may be received."

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move to strike out "substitute" and insert "amendment," and I will state the reason why that clause is there. A proposition may be so totally changed by amendment as to have no shred of the original idea in it. Various examples are given in the books on the subject where the entire purpose and object of an original proposition has been changed by that parliamentary device an amendment. I understand, however, that it has been the rule of this Houseand I consider it a proper rule that amendments shall be germane to the subject under consideration; and this last clause was designed only to convey the idea that no proposition on a subject different from the one under consideration shall be received by way of "substitute," as the word is here, but it should be "by way of amendment.' This is in conformity with the rules of parliamentary proceeding in a large majority of the legislative bodies of the United States. It is not the rule of the House of Commons. If the House choose to fall back upon the principle of the House of Commons, and allow adroit parliamentary manœuvres to withdraw from the attention and consideration of the House the main idea of the original proposition by way of amendment, they will leave out that clause; but if the House intend to adhere to the rule that no amendment which is not pertinent or germane to the original proposition shall be entertained, then they will retain this clause in the rule.

"

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Do I understand that the gentleman from Virginia proposes to change the text of the rule?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Yes. I move to strike out the word "substitute" and insert "amendment."

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It was to that particular point that I was about addressing myself, because the rule which has already been passed, stating what motions may be made when a subject is under consideration, does not mention a substitute as one of those motions. Therefore a motion by way of substitute cannot be entertained at all; and in order to make the rules consistent with themselves, a change should be made in that word.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, striking out the word "substitute," and putting in its place "amendment " in the last line of the rule. The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the adoption of the rule as amended.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Are we to understand that, if this rule be passed, hereafter a substitute cannot be offered after there has been an amendment to an amendment? I recollect that yesterday, when this matter came up, and the question was asked why these words were left out, the answer made-and I believe it received the assent generally of those persons who had thought about it-was, that they were not necessary, because, by all parliamentary rule, a substitute could be offered after an amendment had been made to an amendment. And, if I recollect aright, the gentleman from Virginia, at the last sitting of the General Convention, when called upon in his place, explained and gave the reasons why it was that, where there was an amendment offered to an amendment, another resolution offering a substitute for the whole could be

received, and could be acted upon as a part of the parliamentary law.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I never said "as a part of the parliamentary law," but "as a part of our then existing rules." I certainly never heard of such a proposition in any parliamentary or deliberative body except this.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I recollect differently; but, of course, the gentleman recollects better than I'do what he said. But, Mr. President, it seems to me that we ought to have just such a rule as was provided for by the last House. In my own experience I have seen the necessity of it. I have seen, when a political question was introduced into a church deliberative assembly, that there were amendments offered, and, at last, a gentleman now within the sound of my voice poured oil upon the waters by means of a substitute, and saved that Convention from what many thought would be a most deplorable result, simply by offering a substitute which met the views of the whole House, and was carried unanimously.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentleman from Pittsburgh allow me to explain for a moment? Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Certainly,

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Just at that critical time, when there was an amendment to an amendment, all that that gentleman had to do was to rise in his place and ask the House to vote down the amendment to the amendment and also the amendment, and to state that he would then offer a substitute for the pending proposition. If the House was, when it was held up to it, in favor of taking that olive branch, let it go on decently and in order to reach that grand result. In such a case, I would vote against the pending amendment to the amendment and against the amendment itself, with a view of introducing a final substitute for the whole matter. What I object to is the crushing down of standing rules in order to reach a result before you are ready for it; not that I wish to prevent a substitute being offered. All you have to do is to vote down the amendment to the amendment and the amendment, and then, if your proposition be a substitute for the original proposition, come in with your substitute for it as an amendment; and, if you agree to that, then adopt the proposition as amended and you have achieved the entire result. There is no necessity to violate established rules in order to attain the result indicated by my friend from Pittsburgh.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My answer to the gentleman is, that his proposition would not have met the difficulty in the case stated by me. The object was to avoid bringing the House to a vote on the amendments. It was most desirable that there should be a substitute for the whole which met the views of the whole. If the gentleman had been placed where some of us were then, he would have seen the importance of just such a motion as I now speak of. The gentleman can well understand that it is not always desirable, when a matter is before the House, that there should be a vote upon it. Some persons may wish, properly, to avoid voting in a way that, if the matter be forced upon them, they will be obliged to vote, if they have an honorable way of avoiding a vote. That was just the case which was presented.

I see no reason that the gentleman gives for the view he holds except a merely technical one, and that is that there ought not to be three amendments, that where there has been a second amendment we ought not to have a third, for fear of confusing the House and preventing them from seeing exactly what is before them. Practically, I think there is no difficulty at all. We all under

no

an

stand what a substitute for the whole matter before the House is, and we all understand that where amendments are piled up one on the other, there may be confusion. I think any one of ordinary conception can see the difference between a third amendment and a substitute for the whole matter before the House. Of course that substitute must be germane to the matter then under discussion. We can not introduce a foreign matter under the form of a substitute; but if it is such a proposition as covers the whole ground, and if it is acceptable to the House as a whole, I see reason why they should not have opportunity of avoiding all the other questions which are presented to them and voting for the substitute as a whole. And when I was called upon yesterday to give the reason why this part of the old rule had been left out, I took it for granted (recollecting, according to my previous impression before the gentleman made the correction, what he had himself stated on the floor of the last Convention) that it had been left out simply because it was thought to be unnecessary, that it was the parliamentary law, and that therefore it was not necessary to encumber our rules with putting it in them. But in order to bring the House to a direct vote upon the matter to avoid all misconception with regard to it, I now move to insert that portion of the old rule which provides that, after an amendment to an amendment, a substitute may be offered for the whole matter before the House."

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. That is my amendment which is now before the House. Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I hope the amendment_originally submitted by the gentleman from New Jersey may prevail, and before I take my seat I shall move to reconsider the vote we have just passed, whereby the word "substitute" was stricken out, and, as I understood, "amendment" inserted. Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. That is another matter.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Very well. I want the rule of the House to stand as it has been for years; and, with a great deal of deference, I must say that I differ from the statement of the gentleman from Virginia that the rule he stated is the universal rule. So far as my experience goes, the rule as now proposed is the ordinary rule. True, no deliberative bodies are bound absolutely by it. Different bodies have different rules. If the gentleman from Virginia will allow me to say so, the mistake into which he has fallen is in treating an amendment and a substitute as the same. A substitute is an amendment (all parliamentarians say that), but a substitute is much more than an amendment. It includes a great deal more than an amendment. It covers not only the two amendments that may have been proposed, but it includes somewhat if not all of the original proposition differently expressed. It is a readjustment of the whole subject-matter before the House, the original proposition, the second proposition, and the amendment to it, put in different shape, so that the House vote singly on all the questions, having the whole before them. The gentleman says this may be done in the way he states, but by what circumlocution does he propose to reach it? He says, you have a proposition before the House; you have offered to that proposition an amendment, No. 1; you have offered to that amendment an amendment, No. 2; but he says beyond that you cannot go; parliamentary law and usage do not authorize it, and the practical working of such a rule has demonstrated it not to be effective. He says, first vote down Amendment No. 2. The gentleman from Pittsburgh has most sensibly, in few words, explained that that very often ought to be avoided. It is not desirable often to vote on many questions. But the gentleman from Virginia then says, "Go

on and vote down proposition No. 1, and then you may bring forward your substitute." I ask the gentleman from Virginia, "Why go through that routine of these various votes, by Yeas and Nays, it may be, when, if you present a substitute involving in a different form of expression the whole proposition, the original resolution, and the two amendments, the House sees and understands the whole question in one chapter. It is like amending an act of the legislature by reference, instead of re-enacting the whole.

I say, then, that to save time, and in order that the members of the Convention may understand and know how they are voting, the old rule which we had and which is now proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey to be restored is the proper one, and I hope it will pass.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. 1 would ask my friend from Georgia if he proposes to amend a substitute. See, sir, how it puts the minority in the House in the hands of a majority. They say that they are indisposed to vote upon an amendment to an amendment; they are indisposed to vote upon the amendment as amended, but they will allow somebody to come in with an unamendable proposition springing from his own brain, or as the organ of a previous concerted majority, and throw that in as a log to crush down all pending propositions. I do not understand that any gentleman on this floor undertakes to vindicate this upon parliamentary principles, but it is vindicated upon the principle of carrying out the wills of majorities. I am of the opinion that rules are intended for the protection of minorities rather than the furtherance of the views of majorities. If there be a majority in favor of that which is indicated by a substitute, it is little enough for them to give the opportunity to the minority to record their votes in favor of the amendment to the amendment and the amendment as proposed before coming to the question of a general substitute.

Now, sir, the idea is that it prevents the House from coming to a vote on a delicate question. How does it prevent the House from coming to a vote on a delicate question? Suppose you introduce a substitute, what is that a substitute for? It brings the matter at once to a comparison between the substitute and the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment as amended, and the original proposition thus amended; and the House is bound to choose between them at one time or another; and it is wise to do it at the time when, according to parliamentary usage, the majority has the right to demand its voice to be carried out. I say that this proposition of an amendment to an amendment to an amendment-for it is nothing else-tends to confuse the House, tends to embarrass its judgment, tends to make it rush pell-mell to the conclusion which is sought to be carried by a majority influence or by the surprise movement of some distinguished and influential member.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. May I ask the gentleman from Virginia a question? Is a substitute, after it is adopted, subject to amendment?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. A substitute after it has been adopted may only be amended by way of addition to the text.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Is it not an answer to the argument of the Honorable Deputy that you can amend a substitute? You do away with the evils which the argument supposed would result from the adoption of this rule, because, if you can amend a substitute, then there is no occasion for apprehension.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Perhaps I did not understand what the gentleman's proposition was. Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I ask if a substitute can be amended?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. No, sir. If you adopt a substitute for the entire matter, there is an end of it. You may add a new proposition by an independent movement, but if you adopt it finally as a substitute, that vote ends the question by way of action of the House on the original proposition.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I wish to ask a question of the gentleman. When a substitute has been adopted, is it not necessary to take another vote upon the original resolution as amended by the substitute; and cannot then an amendment to that, or an addition to that, be made by the House?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. You cannot alter the text of a substitute finally agreed to. You may add a new section to your bill, but if the substitute is designed to cover the whole matter the House never will desire to add anything to it.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. This House is asked to change an old rule. The old rule had in it the proposition now moved by the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey. It has been a rule of this House for a long number of years. If you will turn to the rules of the House of Bishops on the next page after our rules, you will see their rules, which have been before them for a long number of years, have in them the same proposition with respect to a substitute which we have always had in this House, and which is now proposed to be restored by the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey. It is a rule among business men, and I believe among clergymen, in case of doubt, to move slowly. The old rule has worked well. Why should we break away from our old rule in this particular? Why break away from the same rule as the House of Bishops? If there is doubt about it, stick to the old rule. It is safe to keep it there. There is no reason why we should adopt any new rule on this subject. It will throw us into confusion in that particular. It is safest to keep where we are. If we adopt this rule as proposed by the Committee, restoring the clause that was dropped out, as the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey proposes, we shall be in accord with the other House; we shall be in accord with the long-established usage of this House, and I appeal to the Convention to stand by the old rule in that particular.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey. The amendment was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. We have already passed a rule that no such motion as a substitute shall be entertained; and what we now witness is a very natural result of this attempt to create new Jefferson's or Cushing's Manuals by the General Convention. I think it is a very great mistake for us to spend our time in this way. We shall, after all, have to fall back on general parliamentary usage on all these subjects, and I think it will be sufficiently safe for us to do so. We have had a discussion on the subject of the previous question, which is recognized in Congress, and I believe there is about as much liberty of debate there as there is in any other deliberative body in the world, and it has never been found to be a "gag-law" there; but I know we have not had it here. I am for sticking to the old rules; but I do not see that we are called upon to make a body of parliamentary law at this time. We are only on the thirteenth rule of this series, and we have twenty-six, so that it will take us the first week of a three weeks' session to discuss the rules. I think this is a mistake.

I make these remarks at this juncture for the sake of deprecating this whole discussion upon questions of parliamentary usage. I can turn the attention

of this House to a record that has been made in the Journal-I do not wish to be too definite whether it was at the last General Convention or the one before-where the ruling is directly opposite to Cush

ing's book on the Practice of Legislative Assemblies. To that decision I, having at the time had something to do with the question, quietly submitted, because one of the most tremendous majorities was against me. I think it is a great mistake for us to continue this kind of debate and legislation. I hope after we act on this rule we shall not consume time on the others. When this is disposed of, I will vote for almost anything in the succeeding rules.

The PRESIDENT. I believe nearly all the other provisions are mere matters of course taken from the old rules. It will be necessary now under the amendment just adopted by the House that the action on the previous amendment in regard to the word "substitute," at the close of this rule, should be reconsidered.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I was about to make a motion that would cover that, and cover a little more ground. I now move to amend the rule by adding after the word "amendment," at the close, the words "or substitute," so as to read, "Under color of an amendment or substitute," because amendments not germane may be offered as well as a substitute. It will then read that a proposition shall not be changed under color of an amendment or substitute not germane to the subject.

The PRESIDENT. That would save the necessity of moving a reconsideration.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. We have now made the rule read.

"No proposition on a subject different from the one under consideration shall be received under color of an amendment.'

I now move to add the words "or substitute," so as to read, "under color of an amendment or substitute."

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment just moved.

The amendment was agreed to.

to reconsider must be made by a Deputy who voted in the majority; or, in case of equal division, by one who voted in the negative."

In that case the same provision is made in voting numerically as in voting by dioceses and orders. Now suppose a question decided by a vote numerically by a majority of one, and suppose one who voted in the majority wishes to change his vote; he moves a reconsideration, but unless he can get another one to second him, so that finally when the vote came to be taken it would be carried by a majority of two on the other side, he cannot make the motion. In the case of a vote by dioceses and orders, a motion to reconsider may be seconded by a diocese or a delegation that voted on either side. Why should there not be the same rule in the case of a numerical vote? It seems to me it should be the same, and I therefore offer the amendment. The amendment was rejected. The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: "15. The Reports of all Committees shall be in writing, and shall be received, of course, and without motion for acceptance, unless recommitted by a vote of the House. All Reports recommending or requiring any action or expression of opinion by the House shall be accompanied by a resolution for the action of the House therein." The rule was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows:

"16. No business shall be introduced for the consideration of the House after the thirteenth day of its session, except by a vote of two-thirds of the members present."

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest an informal amendment that the word "new be inserted between "no" and "business," so as to read: no new business."

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Does not the

The rule as amended was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule as follows: "14. In all questions decided numerically, the motion to reconsider must be made by one Deputy, and seconded by another who voted in the majority; or, in case of equal division, by those who voted in the negative; and in case of a vote by orders, where there is a concurrence of both orders, a motion to reconsider shall be made by a majority of a deputation from any Diocese of either order voting in thre majority; and in case of a non-concurrence of orders, the motion to reconsider shall come from a majority of a deputation from a Diocese of that order which gave the majority in the negative; and in either case a motion to reconsider shall be seconded by a majority of any deputation of either order, without regard to its previous vote. And all motions to reconsider shall be made and seconded on the day the vote is taken, or the next succeeding day."

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to move an amendment. It will be observed here that where a motion for a reconsideration of a vote numerically taken is made, it must be made and seconded by those who have voted in the majority, or where there is an equal division by those who voted in the negative, but where the vote is taken by orders it does not require the same. I think the rule ought to read alike in both cases. Therefore I submit this amendment Strike out in the second line the word "one" before the word "Deputy" and insert in its place the word "a"; also, in the same line, strike out the words "and seconded by another," and also in the third line strike out the word "those "and insert instead the word "one," so as to read:

"In all questions decided numerically, the motion

troduce a thing that has been here before.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Suppose a message were to come down from the House of Bishops, that would be new business. It can do no harm to insert the word; it is the usual expression in all deliberative bodies. Certainly, if a message were to come down from the House of Bishops after the time limited in this rule, it would be new business, and we could not act on it under this rule As the word 66 without a two-thirds vote. clearly carries out the sense, and it can do no harm, I move to insert it.

new

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the rule as amended.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Before this question is taken, I would like to make a single remark, and I would request the Convention to vote against this rule if they are willing to do so. It is an entirely new rule. It is not to be found in the old rules of the House, and, I think, never has belonged to the rules of the House from the beginning of our sessions. If it were not a new rule entirely, I should say nothing on the subject, believing that the House itself, by its own customs and usages, would establish such a modification of this rule that it would not work harshly. But it seems to me now it should not be adopted unless it is very evident that it is a necessary rule very important to the expediting of the business of the House. It is seen that it cuts off an important right to every member of the House, to introduce at any time during this session such business as he believes to be for the good of the Church and the glory of our Saviour. It seems to be harsh even in its provisions