Mind, you have "less than six.”

request the General Convention to elect a Bishop for the same; and thereupon the House of Bishops may nominate to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, for their concurrence, a suitable person for the office of Bishop; who shall, in case of their concurrence, be consecrated as the Bishop of such Diocese," etc.

Now, mark the actual number there.

"Sec. 2. In the recess of the General Convention, the Church in any such Diocese may, by a vote of the convention thereof, request the election of a Bishop for such Diocese by the Bishops of the Church; and when such request shall be made known to the Presiding Bishop, who shall communicate information of the same to the other Bishops, a majority of tre Bishops may select a suitable person for such Bishop; and if a majority of the Standing Committees of the churches in the different Dioceses shall consent to the consecration of the person so selected, the Presiding Bishop, with any two Bishops, or any three Bishops, to whom he may communicate the testimonials, may proceed to the consecration."

Now, gentlemen, let me tell you that there was action in 1836 under this Canon, and but for that action and this Canon, at that time, a Diocese in the West, which is now a glory in the land, the Diocese of Michigan, could not have had a Bishop. She had less than six clergymen. The Convention of the Diocese urged the Bishops under this Canon to give them a Bishop, and Bishop White went to work and endeavored first to get the Bishops together, and when he could not do that he collected the suffrages by letter and elected the present Bishop of Michigan. You see at that period of the Church it was all-important. That Diocese is now here asking for a division. What would have been the condition of Michigan if it had not been for this liberality? I say with my brother from Wisconsin-do not, I entreat you, with red-tape choke the progress of the Church. Let well enough alone. It was introduced as a constitutional provision after this action by Canon in 1835, and put in by the Church at that time that there should be six Presbyters and six churches. Let it stand there.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the report of the Committee as it has been amended on motion of Mr. Atwater, striking out "six" and substituting "ten" in the following paragraph of this article of the Constitution.

The Chair put the question on the resolutions as amended, and declared that the ayes prevailed.

that

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I understand that this goes up to the House of Bishops. I would wish, therefore, that the House of Bishops should know by what majority we have passed it, and how great our feeling is, and how complete our consent is in reference to this matter. I therefore call for a division, that the ayes and noes on this question may be understood by the House of Bishops. Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I desire to say there has been a notable misapprehension in the rear of this House of what has been going on immediately around the Chair. It was announced by the reverend gentleman from Connecticut that a vote by orders would have to be taken upon this question, and under that impression the call for a vote by orders was not made formally, as would have been done by Dioceses on this floor. I really do think that on a matter of so much importance the House should be permitted to express its deliberate sentiment. I move, therefore, if it is necessary, to reconsider the vote by which this amendment was agreed to, it having been put without anybody knowing in our portion of the House what was going on, and we were counted as voting for it, although we might have been in sentiment against

it. I submit whether, on so grave and important a matter, we ought not at least to have the opportunity of being able to understand the question that is put to the House?

The PRESIDENT. I will read Article 9 of the Constitution, and it can be determined by the House, or rather custom will determine, whether the vote must be taken by Dioceses and orders. I think it has been usual to do so. Article 9 says:

"This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless in General Convention, by the Church, in a majority of the Dioceses which may have adopted the same; and all alterations shall be first proposed in one General Convention, and made known to the several Diocesan Conventions, before they shall be finally agreed to, or ratified, in the ensuing General Convention."

My own idea is that the requisition of a majority of the Dioceses refers both to the proposal and to the final ratification.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I would state that the Rev. Dr. Hawks, in his consideration of this very article, lays down four propositions, and, I think, proves them. The first is, that in all questions of constitutional or liturgical changes the vote must be by Dioceses and orders.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has decided to that effect, and the vote will be taken in that way. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I conceive that there is a doubt about this matter. The final vote of the next Convention must be by orders, but it has not been the custom heretofore to have the vote on the mere proposition by orders. I refer to the Journal of 1871, page 201. I do not think it is necessary to take the vote by orders, unless it is called for.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I call for the reading of the proposition as it now stands. The Secretary read as follows: "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the fifth article of the Constitution be amended by striking out the following words: And such consent shall not be given by the General Convention until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese,' and that the word 'six' be stricken out in the second line after the words proposed to be stricken out by the Committee, wherever it occurs, and the word ten' substituted in place thereof.

Resolved, That such amendment be ratified and notified to the several Diocesan Conventions in accordance with the ninth article of the Constitution, so that the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next General Convention."

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll.

The roll was called, with the following result: CLERICAL VOTE.-Dioceses voting, 41: ayes 33, noes 5, divided 3.

LAY VOTE.-Dioceses vcting, 35: ayes 31, noes 3. The PRESIDENT. The resolution as amended, proposing to amend Article 5 of the Constitution, is adopted.

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

A message (No. 70) from the House of Bishops, announced the adoption by that House of the following resolution :

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That the matter of preparing an account of the design, history, and Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in compliance with a request of the Executive Committee of the Centennial Commission for an International Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876, to be deposited in one of the departments of the Exhibition, be referred to the Rev. Wm. Stevens Perry, D.D., His

toriographer of the Church, with the request that he prepare such an account as is desired by the Executive Committee of the Centennial Commission."

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that the House concur in that resolution.

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The time has arrived for the recess, and the House accordingly takes a recess until two o'clock.

TRUSTEES OF RELIEF FUND.

A Message (No. 71) from the House of Bishops announced that that House had appointed as members of the Joint Committee to nominate Trustees of the Fund for the Relief of the Widows and Orphans of Deceased Clergymen and of Aged and Infirm Clergymen, in accordance with the requirement of the act incorporating said Trustees, the Bishops of New York, of Long Island, and of Maine.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I move that we concur in that action of the House of Bishops. The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair appoints the Committee on the part of this House, Rev. Dr. Shelton, of Western New York, Mr. Livingston, of New York, and Mr. Meigs, of New Jersey.

FRENCH PRAYER-BOOK.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York, submitted the following resolution, which was agreed to:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Mr. Edward R. Perkins, of Massachusetts, be added to the Joint Committee on the translation of the French Prayer-Book; and that said Joint Committee be continued until the next session of the General Convention.

CHURCHES ABROAD.

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia, from the Committee on Canons, submitted the following report:

.

The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred Message No. 36 from the House of Bishops, proposing certain amendments to Canon 5, Title III., Of Congregations and Parishes, respectfully report that they have considered the same, and recommend that the House of Deputies concur therein, as expressed in the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this House concur with the House of Bishops in the substitution of two new clauses for Clause [11] of Section 3, of Canon 5, of Title III., relating to the organization of churches in Foreign lands, and proposed to this House in Message No. 36,"

The resolution was agreed to.

CHURCH MUSIC.

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia, from the Committee on Canons, submitted the following report : "The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred Message No. 23 from the House of Bishops, proposing the adoption of a Canon Of Church Music,' respectfully report that they have considered the same, and recommend the concurrence of the House of Deputies therein, with amendments, as expressed in the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this House concur with the House of Bishops in the adoption of the Canon transmitted to this House in Message No. 23, and entitled 'Of Church Music,' with the following amendments: "1st. To prefix an additional clause, as follows:

(1.) The selection of the psalms in metre and the hymns which are set forth by authority, are allowed to be sung in all congregatious of this Church before and after Morning and Evening Services, and also before and after sermons, at the discretion of the minister, whose duty it shall be by standing direc

tion, or from time to time, to appoint such authorized psalms and hymns as are to be sung.

"2d. To amend the Canon proposed by the House of Bishops, so that it may read as follows:

"(2.) And further, it shall also be the duty of every minister of this Church, with such assistance as he may see fit to employ from persons skilled in music, to give order concerning the tunes to be sung at any time in his church, and especially it shall be his duty to suppress all such music and all such conduct in its performance as are inconsistent with the design and purpose of public worship.

Resolved, That this House concur with the House of Bishops in their resolution relating to the printing of the Canon' Of Church Music.'" The resolutions were adopted.

HOUSE OF DEPUTIES.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask to take from the table that which comes next in order, the report made on the eleventh day by the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, as found on page 75 of THE DAILY CHURCHMAN, on the resolu tions of Dr. Burr reducing representation in this House. The resolution at the end is that the Committee be discharged, or something to that effect. The Secretary read the report as follows: "The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to whom was referred the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Burr, of Ohio, as to the expediency of proposing an amendment to the Constitution reducing the number of Clerical and Lay Deputies from each Diocese, and the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Beardsley, of Connecticut, as to the expediency of rearranging the same on a new basis of representation, respectfully report that such amendments, in their opinion, would be inexpedient at the present time, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject."

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I was induced to offer the resolution which gave rise to this report, for a reason which must be very obvious to every member of this House. I am very sorry that the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution have not regarded it in the same light as I think a large number of the members of the Convention do. This House has been growing with the number of dioceses, until it has become too large to do the business of the Church with promptness and with safety, in my humble judgment. I think I have seen during this session the evils resulting from having so large a number as at present constitutes this House of the Convention. I have been a member of the Convention for a good many years. The time was when the business of this Convention was despatched with rapidity, at least as much rapidity as was consistent with the safety of the business of the Church; and I think it must be obvious to every man in this House that this body is too large, and that the business has been accumulating in about the same proportion that the dioceses of the Church have increased.

Now, look forward to the fact that this amendment to the Constitution cannot be availed of before six years; that it must go to each Diocese and receive sanction there, and after it shall be sanctioned by the Dioceses, the next General Convention will have to act upon it, and that we shall have not only the number of Dioceses we have now, but ten or twelve added in the mean time. At any rate, look forward six years, until which time the amendment I propose cannot go into operation, and what will be the condition of things with twenty-five more Dioceses! This body would then, with the present number of Deputies from each Diocese, be composed of about 600 members? Does any one suppose that the busi

ness of the Church could be conducted with anything like speed or facility with that number of members in our House? It must be evident to every member of this House that we have too many now for business purposes.

Again, what is the necessity that each Diocese should be represented by eight Deputies, four clerical and four lay? My proposition, perhaps, was not expressed most felicitously, but I proposed to reduce the number one-half. But suppose there were six from each Diocese, three of each order; I would be perfectly willing to agree to that. I hope that the report of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution will not be concurred in. It must seem clear to the mind of every member, I think, that expediency requires a change. I know of no principle whatever that stands in the way. The Constitution does not admit of more than four of each order from each Diocese; it does not say how many under that number shall be sent, but it was supposed that it was necessary that the Constitution should be amended before the measure proposed could go into effect. Therefore my resolution went to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. would be glad if this report were recommitted to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, with instructions to report in accordance with the view I have presented.

I

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I may say, in view of my record in this body, that it would be very inconsistent on my part if I were to acquiesce in the passage of the report just presented. I was in the minority in the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. All the rest of the members, I believe, without exception, differed from myself on this question. I still maintain and assert the opinion which I have asserted in this body at three successive Conventions before, that our members ought to be reduced at once, and that there is no possibility of relieving this House of the pressure upon it, without an immediate reduction as as it can be made. I say it ought to be reduced not to four members from each Diocese, but to six. Eight from each Diocese now makes three hundred and twenty. We are bringing in six new Dioceses, which will add forty-eight more seats to be provided for at the next session; and before this amendment can take effect, we shall have nearly one hundred new seats to provide for, and the crowd will come upon us so fast that I think we are bound to take the matter in time, and now apply the remedy.

soon

That was my proposition, and I urged it before the Committee, but in vain. They held to the contrary that it was valuable to have a large Convention where great bodies of our fellow-countrymen might come together once in three years, and the larger the Convention the better for purposes of fraternity and union. I was voted down all hollow, as I was before; but I still maintain that the only possible mode in which the plethora of this body can be relieved is by blood-letting. Lop off two out of every eight, and with that we can get along possibly for twenty-five years, and then we shall have to take off two more, aud so gradually until the Dioceses will send but one clergyman and one of the laity apiece; and when the last extremity comes in the future we may be obliged to divide the House into two bodies, one clerical and one lay, in order to relieve the pressure. I cannot tell what the enormous increase of our Dioceses may bring upon us; but this will relieve us for one generation to come. I therefore entirely approve of the motion of my friend from Ohio to recommit with instructions.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I beg leave to move an amendment to the Constitution on this

point. I am looking forward to the ultimate General Council of this Church in which the representation shall be one Bishop, one clergyman, and one layman from each Diocese composing this House, and I say also that at this present time it is perfectly manifest that we have too many. Still at the same time, as a measure of justice, I think we should be progressive. I think that instead of cutting off the members at once to what will be the future numbers, we should distinctly take off twenty-five per cent. I know the West, and I tell the clergy and laity of this House that in six years we shall have between ten and twenty new Dioceses, and then our House of Convention, instead of being a deliberative body, will be simply a mere mob-a mob, to be sure, of gentlemen and Christians, but not the less tumultuous, and not the less excitable, and not the less unmanageable in doing the business which we come here to do. I therefore, instead of the resolution which the highly respectable Committee on Amendments to the Constitution have introduced, move this amendment:

"That in the second article of the Constitution in the fourth line the word 'three' be substituted for four' in the two places where it occurs.

I think, having made that motion, you cannot accuse me of verbosity or too much talking. [Laughter.]

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I think it is too late in the session to discuss this question. I move to lay the amendment on the table.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman be willing to let it go over to the next Convention?

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Laying it on the table will take it over.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to lay the amendment on the table.

The motion was not agreed to, there being on a division, ayes, 60; noes, 91.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I should like to move as a test-question to strike out "four" and insert two."

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I move to recommit the report, with instructions to report that the representation of each Diocese be three of each order.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention: I wish to explain the reason why I voted against laying this measure on the table. It was because I think there is a view of the matter which has not yet been perhaps sufficiently considered by this Convention. Many of us came to this Convention with the earnest hope, with the strong desire, that some wise plan might be laid before this body for the creation of a provincial system in this Church which would meet with the necessities of the day as we stand in a country like this of such vast extent, where there are such differences of opinion, of sentiment, and of situation in all respects. In that, for many causes for which no one is responsible, we have been disappointed. I should be sorry that, while this General Convention remains the only Provincial Synod of this Church, the number of its members should be decreased. I think if we should now cut down the number of a Diocese's Deputies from four to three of each order, a few General Conventions hence that precedent would be followed, and then we should have two of each order, and at length one of each order, until this would be brought into the position of an oligarchical institution, attempting to perform functions over the length and breadth of the United States, and wherever our Foreign Missions extend, to which really nobody in the world ever was or will be competent. I trust that this movement may not prevail, for the simple reason that I think it would be the

surest way in the world to prevent the possibility of our having a provincial system established. When the provincial system is established, as necessity demands, I think, already, and as I think our experience is beginning to prove to be necessary, then let the greater body which meets at any intervals at all that may then seem to be wisest be a smaller body; let it be more representative of the highest intellect chosen from the chosen, if you will; but in the mean time let us not cut away the representation of this Church in such a fashion or in such a manner as to prevent the best possible distribution of the Church into provinces.

I hope that the measure may not prevail; not because I am opposed to it, but because I think it will prevent another thing that is more immediately and more pressingly necessary, and which would be put practically out of sight by this measure. There is no time in the history of the world, there never was a time, when any such continent as this was represented in one Provincial Synod.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I rise to a question of order. We have a report lying on the table on the provincial system, and it ought not to be discussed at the present time. Let that be discussed on its merits. We shall show that no provincial system is necessary when that report comes up, and that it would strike at the best interests of this Church.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. My friend says there is a report now on the table of this House in which it is set forth to this Convention that no provincial system is necessary; that it would strike at the best interests of this Church. I am sorry to hear that such a report is on our table; I am amazed to hear that such a report is on this table; and I trust that when that discussion comes up it may be considered in connection with this matter. are never to have a provincial system, then let us, by all means, reduce the number of this House, and if we are to have a provincial system, let us not reduce its number at present.

If we

I am not going to make any more of a speech. I have done. I trust this matter will be postponed until the report on the provincial system comes up.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the motion to have them both considered together. I want them discussed at the same time.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think it must be evident to this whole House that the body itself is unwieldy, it is too large to work well. It is not a place for wise and calm deliberation. Some two or three hundred members in this House have been forced to absolute silence, and I might say to absolute deafness in this House. They have neither spoken, nor have they heard what was spoken, the House has been so tumultuous and so disorderly from about the first day of this session until this moment. I do not think it is a place for work. I do not think the number of three hundred and twenty members here now promote wise deliberation. In six years more we shall probably have six hundred members. I think myself that two delegates of each Order from each Diocese are sufficient. I would prefer that number; but I am willing to yield to the suggestion of the wise old Presbyter from Ohio to reduce it gradually, as it seems to be approved by the reverend representative from Wisconsin, and by the learned lawyer from New York, that a fair reduction is from four to three of each Order. I do not think this question ought to be complicated at all with the question of provincial Synods or provincial anything; but I would say for myself that if I thought the reduction from eight to six in this House would tend to defeat the provincial system, I would sustain it still more strongly than I do now,

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. President, there is one thought that is well worthy of consideration in connection with the proposition now before the House; and that is that by the reduction of the number from four to three, if all the Deputies vote, we can have no divided vote of a Diocese, so that when two of a delegation, either clerical or lay, cast their vote, it cannot be nullified by the single remaining Deputy. The amendment accomplishes this, besides the reduction of the large nuinber that will necessarily constitute the House by the increase of the number of Dioceses

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that we have now forty-one Dioceses, and the next General Convention three years hence will embrace forty-five. Multiplying forty-five by eight will give us three hundred and sixty members, as we shall certainly be then. I do think that one of the most important measures of this Convention will be to start on its progress an amendment to the Constitution to reduce the number from each Diocese represented in this House. I am in favor of two; for I do not think there is any great force in the argument of the gentleman who last spoke, that because there are three the vote cannot be divided. I hope the votes may never be divided. I wish each Diocese to vote distinctly; but if there be three, two of course will be a majority.

I tell you, gentlemen, it is highly important that you set the thing in motion at this Convention; and although I had hoped and wished that we might adjourn to-night, Iam ready to stay another week or two if we can get this. If you delay the initiative of it in this Convention, you will leave us at the end of six years with four or five hundred, probably five hundred Deputies in this House, and the difficulty will increase with each recurring Convention. As we increase the number our difficulties multiply, for it must be said that clergyman and layman, even ecclesiastically, are not free from petty ambition-the ambition to attend a General Convention. I hope, however, that that ambition may be laid so far from them that they will all remember that the interests of the Church are to be the first thing in the view of every Churchman, and those interests decidedly call for a reduction of the number who are authorized now to attend this House. If you do not begin the work now, you cannot accomplish it under six years.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. Mr. President, as one of the Committee who made this report, I believe the time may come when you will have a reduction; but when you begin to reduce this House, I conceive that you begin to destroy this Convention, and you begin to destroy this Church. Gentlemen may not see it in the light I do ; but if you now reduce this House to two laymen and two clergymen from each Diocese, the very reason on which this is proposed will carry to one layman and one clergyman, and your House of Bishops, constituting a separate House, will be double the number it now is. You can concentrate more wisdom in four hundred men than in two hundred. Although you may have more folly, still you have more wisdom.

Gentlemen say we are tumultuous. What has made us tumultuous? I say we have been tumultuous because we cannot hear. It is the place in which you have been assembled which has operated to cause tumult; nothing else. Men cannot attend when, by all their exertions, they cannot hear. That has been our position here. If every man when he came here would have spoken naturally as he speaks at home, he would have given what he had to say without rhetoric, perhaps; he

would not have preached; he would not have sought to beat the air; but actually coming here to this rostrum, where I now stand, he is enticed to do it because he has to elevate his voice so high. Give us a place of assembly where we can hear each other, and I venture to say all these difficulties will disappear. You never can be orderly in any assembly where you cannot hear. That has been the great difficulty at the present time.

You say that four hundred is too large a body. Well, how large is the House of Commons? They have managed to get along for a great many years with over six hundred members, nearly double your number now, and they have managed a great nation. Do you tell me that you gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, who come here, cannot be otherwise than tumultuous ? I do not believe it. I will not concede it. If you can hear, you will attend. You may depend we shall find more wisdom in four hundred men here than in two hundred. But at all events, what I say is, if you diminish the number now because you cannot stand four, you must diminish it at the next session to three; and because you cannot stand that you will come to two, and you will go on, and once you break this body to only two representatives from each Diocese, I tell you you have lost almost your whole value on the Dioceses of this Church. You may not agree with me in my views, but I think I have as much experience as almost anybody here, and I do not think that I am very far wrong in telling you that if you diminish your numbers so much, you will carry less sympathy home. You will gather less sympathy here, and therefore you will carry less home. We have all agreed that it is the sympathy which this body creates among those who are assembled from such distant parts of our country, and which they carry back, that encourages the heart of the Church. Diminish the streams by which that is carried out, and you will very soon diminish the supply.

I must confess that I am also desirous that the provincial system should be adopted, because I believe that if you knit provinces together, and they are concentrated in a body that shall not meet so often as this, you will have then something which will always unite the whole, and there will be a continual stream of sympathy and good feeling going through the whole. I stand alone on the subject of provinces in the Committee of which I am a member; but I believe you cannot help it; you cannot resist it. If you are driven to diminish your numbers, you ought to be driven to your provincial system.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It seems to me, sir, that this is a very simple matter, and therefore, of course, I only wish to say two or three words about it.

if I am not mistaken, of so-called Deputies to the provincial synod.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Only one.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Once. "The sober second thought" of the Church has certainly decided the question that the Church is not yet prepared for the provincial system, although we all feel that it will come whenever the Church in this country is so organized throughout its whole area in Dioceses, and it can then be done satisfactorily to all concerned; and I am quite prepared to say that I am myself entirely ready to give my vote and support to that organization, if it should come in my day, whenever the time is ripe. But, meantime, this question comes up in reference to what may be called the popular branch of the legislature of the Church. Our body by the multiplication of Dioceses is becoming very large, and I think it will be admitted by all who have indulged in any observation upon the conduct of legislative assemblies that all very large bodies are, of necessity, turbulent bodies. The necessity of making one's self heard, as has already been spoken, aside from any other consideration, gives a certain character of turbulence to the body. It is a matter of the greatest importance that a religious body assembled for the purpose of legislating for the interests of Christ's Church should not be chargeable with any such element of maladministration. We ought to have the utmost decorum and solemnity in all of our deliberations; and I appeal to the religious sensibility of every member of this body if he has not been shocked more than once by scenes in this assembly when in the midst of tumult resort has been had to parliamentary tactics for the sake of defeating or carrying a measure which could not be fairly comprehended by the body and which was sought to be rushed through in one direction or the other by the mere tricks of legislation. From all this, as has been before said in this body, as applied to another matter, "good Lord, deliver us."

We ought to be free from any such characterization as this implies, and we can only be free from it by keeping this body within limited numbers. In my humble judgment, it is already too large. I am not in favor of reducing the number by one-half, for I think that is too great a jump at once; but I am strongly in favor of the reduction by one from the clerical and one from the lay deputation of every Diocese, which, bear in mind, cannot take effect under six years, during which time there will be new Dioceses represented, probably twenty

and before we can fairly have the benefit of this change of the Constitution we shall find ourselves so large a body as to be quite unmanageable; and I hope I would remark here incidentally-that while we are so large a body, the gentlemen to whose wisdom the matter of preparing rules for the next General Convention shall be committed will take into consideration the matter of restoring the previous question, so that we can have that most valuable, as I think in all legislative assemblies, of all rules, which has here been characterized, I think, very unfairly as a gag rule, but which has another alternative operating in this body to precisely the same effect, to wit: laying on the table, except to the disadvantage that we have no opportunity under that rule of resorting to and acting upon the main question.

I only indicate this as a part of what we shall be compelled to do in consideration of the largeness of our numbers. If, in the course of six, twelve or fifteen years, we find it is important for us to have the provincial system established in this country, we can, with very great farestore to the different Dioceses a