larger representation here, if it be thought desirable, and in anticipation of such action which is said to require six years, we could have concurrently this other action restoring to the Dioceses the same representation to go into effect at the time the provincial system went into effect. So I do not see the force of that argument.

This is a matter for our present convenience, for preserving dignity, for securing prompt, intelligent consideration of the business brought before us, and for accomplishing the purpose of our assembling directly and quickly, instead of circuitously and very slowly.

I commend the measure, therefore, to the consideration of this House without indulging in some other allusions in which the distinguished Deputy from South Carolina has anticipated me, and which I think were very well. Our debates, when we are a large body, are entirely different in tone and temper from that which they ought to have, which they have had in days that are passed, and which they will again have if this body is reduced in its membership by twenty-five per cent.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I be allowed to make the motion, on the understanding that if it passes three is recommended, that the report be recommitted. If it be recommitted, we understand that we are to report three. I make the motion in order to get an end of the question.

The PRESIDENT. That is the motion already. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move simply that the report be recommitted.

The PRESIDENT. Without instructions? Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Understanding that the recommitment is an instruction.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. The gentleman says the vote to recommit, if carried, will be understood by the Committee as instructions to report three. With that understanding we may safely vote.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I hope it will be understood that if we vote not to recommit we shall then vote at once to concur in the report of the Committee.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. If we take the vote now and vote down the proposition, that is an end of it. If we recommit, it will come back and be just as debatable then as it is now.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That is true; I withdraw the motion.

The PRESIDENT. The motion to recommit is withdrawn.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I should like to have an opportunity of saying something more on this point. I have a reason which I think will open the minds of this Convention to something more important. We have before us a proposal, and have had for years, of what is called the provincial system. That provincial system, in its plans, is a means for destroying this General Convention. It is a means to compel us to commit suicide.

It is

a means whereby we shall meet only once in ten years, and then, being perfectly unacquainted one with another, we shall go home, having done nothing. It is a means of breaking this Church up into four, five, or seven great accumulations of States, each of which is to be called a province.

Now, sir, to this proposal of a provincial system, so called, I am opposed. It is proposed that each of the Confederate provinces shall have the same power that the General Convention has; that is to say, equal with us. I believe that this so-called General Convention, which gentlemen have called the great Provincial Council of the Church, but which I call the great National Council of the Church, is one of the greatest means of maintaining catholic union, pureness of living, and vanity of doctrine, and I wish it not destroyed by any means in the

world. I want the State council of all the Dioceses within the State, and this great national council, to remain just as they are. That is my doctrine.

Now, I want to complain a little with regard to my distinguished friend, Dr. Fulton. I have a good temper, and I hope I do not get angry, but it did make me feel bad to see the reverend doctor get up here and propose in his speech, which was, like all the speeches he makes, a very good speech, that this institution of a national council could be permitted to grow so big, so unwieldy, that finally it would spread out so that it should become so enlarged and unmanageable that the provincial system, in order to avoid the difficulties, would be absolutely possible. I say that it is hard to hear that on the floor of this House, and yet at the same time that was solely and exclusively the warp of the woof of his speech.

I have told you before, and I will tell you now, that there is an ultimate shape in which this great national council of the Church shall come, in which it must come, and that is the mode of the Primitive Church, in which one Bishop, one clergyman, and one layman were the representatives of each Diocese in the Church. Members of the Convention must look upon the fact as I do, that this is a Church of the whole nation, and I say, if in every city there shall be a Bishop and the Dioceses shall be six hundred, if you please, I am perfectly content that that modus of representation should prevail. I fully and entirely agree with my distinguished friend, the Lay Deputy from South Carolina, that to a council of six hundred and fiftyeight there is no objection, and I can tell this great council of the Church that I know, and every man who knows Church history knows, that there have been councils of one thousand. 1 have no objection to numbers, therefore I do not desire to reduce the members in any way; but I see the time coming when in the State of New York there will be from sixteen to twenty Dioceses, and when in the State of Illinois there will be from ten to twenty. Look forward to that time, and you will see that, if we reduce gradually the proportion, we shall not reduce the numbers in any way; but at this present time we must look out for the future, we must look out for a time which is rising upon the Church. We must have the eye of statesmen and not of politicians. Therefore I think that perhaps at this present time the reduction of numbers by twenty-five per cent. will be a thing preparing for the future-a thing to which all men will agree, and in which no man will be done injury to in any one way.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that in the discussion of this vast question, the provincial system, which involves the ruin of the Church, should be presented now. My learned friend from Long Island says it is a foregone conclusion that we are to have a provincial system. I deny the fact, unless it is a foregone conclusion, at the same time, that we are to dissolve the American Union, for the division of this Church into provinces is the same thing as the division of the American political Union into seven separate nations. That is proved by a report lying on your table now, which I could have wished might have been taken up deliberately, and examined proposition by proposition, to draw the attention of each member, for it reaches to the irresistible conclusion that the proposition can lead to nothing but disruption, dismemberment and total ruin. I would no more permit the division of the Church in this way than if I were in Congress. I would agree that the Union should be dissolved, for both measures would involve ruin, and I say the ruin of this Church would be a greater

calamity to mankind than the ruin of the Union itself. In the future consequences it is more important that the Church should be preserved united than that the Union should be, great as the calamity of a dissevered Union would be.

We are therefore on a most important question, and we ought to have time to discuss it. A report lies on your table embracing, I think, eleven successive propositions, each one of which received the assent of that Committee with one exception. Each one of those propositions by its weight and gravity requires to be separately disengaged, and of which you cannot inform your minds sufficiently in a discussion like this.

Let me call your attention to another thing: This is a mode of temporarily relieving this body; and it would relieve it for twenty-five years to come, probably, for the Dioceses would not become so numerous but what we could still get along in that time. But it has been proposed to leave the number as it is; not that it is proper, but for the purpose of making this body so unwieldy as to compel us to consent to the provincial system, in which there lurks a hierarchy. I wish gentlemen to attend to what I say. That scheme is a great plan, with Archbishops and Archdeacons and all the gorgeous hierarchies, to be crowned at last in a Patriarchate, which we do not want. That is the object, and the ambitious gentlemen who pursue that object with untiring tenacity throw obstacles in the way, and have for the last two Conventions, of every effort which seeks to apply the true remedy.

I propose to relieve the weight of this body by throwing a quarter of it overboard, and when necessary throwing over another quarter, so that we may not be compelled to adopt a provincial system which would lead to our certain dismemberment and ruin, and we should be repeating the ecclesiastical history of the Old Word. The thing is fraught with the most serious consequences, and I stand bere, if it was the last act of my life, to implore and beseech you that you will not withhold this relief, but that you will act upon the hope of living at least twenty-five years longer, that we may not do that which would surely end in the dissolution of this Church.

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I am in favor of the amendment of the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin reducing the number of the members of this House. I am so much in favor of that principle that I would be quite willing to make this assembly still more a popular one, and I was prepared, had this proposition been recommitted to the Committee on Amendments to theConstitution, to propose also to them to take into consideration another proposition, namely, that of allowing each Diocese a representation in this body of two clergymen and two laymen, and an additional Clerical Deputy and an additional Lay Deputy to every fifty, seventy-five, or one hundred clergymen, as the Convention might decide.

But while I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin, I do object that this be mingled up with a discussion of the idea of the provincial system. The arguments adduced here are, I think, fallacious, for the term "provincial system," in one man's mind means one thing and in other man's mind it means another thing. In my mind it does not bear that sense which has been given to it by the speaker who last occupied the floor. I hold that the provincial system in the past did not spring Minerva-like from the brain of any one individual. It was not an idea which was conceived in any one's mind, and which the circumstances of the Church were thereafter made to fit. I hold, rather, that it grew up with the necessities

of the Church and was indicated by the wants of the Church; that indeed the Church itself is no fixed framework into which circumstances must be thrust. Rather it is of infinite flexibility. Rather it is capable of adapting itself to the individual in all his wants, to human society in all its conditions. Therefore, while I am in favor of a certain kind of provincial system, I am not in favor of reviving any mediæval idea, but rather I am in favor of such a provincial system as is indicated by the wants of the Church in the United States, and therefore any act of ours looking in that direction is a mere experiment, and only tentative. It is in order that we may meet something of the wants of the Church that I would have a commission to plan and contrive some means whereby Dioceses may be confederated, for the time is coming, sooner or later, in which some such action as is proposed by my reverend brother will be necessary. This body must be reduced in number; otherwise, before twenty years are over, it will be double the number it is now.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi dent and gentlemen, I did not want to speak on this subject, but unfortunately the debate has widened down into the question of the provincial system. I did want to have something to say concerning the report which was presented here by the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, which seemed to me a perfectly reactionary report, and going back in every respect; but the discussion has come up, and so I must say a few words on this very important subject.

66

I begin by saying that I have not the slightest objection to the amendment proposed by the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin (Dr. Adams), and I shall vote for it, only I must not be understood to vote for it on the ground that it goes against the provincial system. And yet I do not like to say goes against the provincial system," because there is an ambiguity in this House with regard to those words, some men meaning one thing by the provincial system, and some men meaning another, and arguments are used against the one system which probably would not apply to the other. I think I can bring this properly to the mind of the House by recalling the history of the provincial system, and what has been done in some of the General Conventions heretofore.

The PRESIDENT. Doctor, you disclaim having any objection to the proposition which is before the House, and formally announce your intention to discuss the provincial system on its own merits. Now I hardly think that can be in order.

That

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Certainly, if the Chair tells me it is not in order and I can make my remarks when that report comes up, I shall be glad to do so; but I know the habit here of discussing questions in the wrong order, and when the time comes for discussing them regularly, the whole thing goes by the board, and as I found everybody saying something about the provincial system, I naturally wanted to get in my say." The PRESIDENT. But you have disclaimed any objection to the proposition before the House. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. shows what it is to be too frank. [Laughter.] Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Mr. President and gentlemen, as I moved to lay this business on the table, perhaps it will be proper for me to say a few words touching the general question. I had hoped to have avoided this subject, because it is my experience in this House that where a committee representing its sentiments so generally as this Committee does, reports against a measure, it is a waste of time to discuss it. I supposed that that was the sense of the House, and that

I was saving the time of the House when I made the motion to lay it on the table. With that explanation, which I hope will excuse me, I intend to make a few observations upon the general subject.

I think it is always time enough to meet a difficulty when it arises. As my good friend, Mr. Lincoln, used to say, "Do not attempt to cross the river until you get there." I have not experienced that inconvenience which other gentlemen so much complain of with respect to the numbers of this body. It has been one of the most gratifying experiences of my life to have been mingled with this body. I have not seen any turbulence, any disorder, anything calling for cutting down its numbers. On the contrary, I think that if it could be increased a little of the same material, it would be all the better for it. There is a safety in numbers, and debate is useful. My experience and observation of legislative matters is generally that the best service that is done is in defeating legislation very often. That has been my observation, and it has been considerable, as many of you may suppose.

When you have a great body of intelligent men coming together, you are not subject so much to the influence of individual talents and individual powers. A great effect is produced by having a large, respectable, and numerous representation. I believe in numbers. I believe in numbers in Church and State. It is the safety of the State and of the Church.

We have inconveniences here, I know. I have a voice that enables me to speak out of doors to very large crowds, and therefore I can speak easily in this House; but 320 or 400 men is no number to speak to in a house that had any sort of property for speaking in at all. This is the most wretched place that any human being ever tried to articulate in. [Laughter.] and so it has proved to me. In any proper place, where gentlemen could consult at all, your numbers would not be an objection. If you had only fifty men here you would have the same difficulty in such a place as this. I hope, therefore, the House will not be precipitated into a measure of this kind by the inconvenience which we have had here.

Another matter I wish to suggest. We are very full in this Convention, because we have had a great subject which interests people to come here from all quarters of the country, and our delegations have been full; but in less exciting times, perhaps the House would not be so full. If you cut down the numbers, you may reduce the body more than would be convenient.

Altogether, I do not see any pressing necessity for consuming the time of this body at this period of the session in debating the subject, and hence I tried to get rid of it. You see we have the provincial system behind it, and that is to be hitched on, and we are to have that subject brought up, although the gentlemen who are most in favor of that scheme tell us in advance that the time is not ripe for it. I hope somebody will move to lay that on the table when it comes up, and let us do the practical, the pressing work of the Church in the last hours which we can possibly sit.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I only want fifteen seconds to ask three questions. It is very often urged against this Church that it is not a Church of the people, that the popular voice has no great effect in it, that the people have no representation in the government of its affairs. My first question is, How will this proposed legislation affect that charge? The next question is, How comes it to pass that men have only come to a knowledge of the unwieldy character of this General Convention, when the idea of a province or provinces has got into their heads? The third question is, If the affairs of great

empires can be taken care of in a decorous, orderly, dignified manner, as in Great Britain, by seven hundred legislators, by a larger number than the French Assembly, by an equal number in Germany, how comes it to pass that four hundred or five hundred or six hundred men in this country must be a riotous, turbulent assembly? These are the three questions.

Mr. BARTHOLOW, of Kansas. I suggest that we have but little time. Our numbers have already thinned out. I move to lay the whole matter on the table.

The PRESIDENT. Is the gentleman aware that that motion was taken half an hour ago and decided in the negative?

Mr.

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. President, I have not troubled the Convention heretofore, but I hope I shall be permitted to say a few words on this subject. I am very much in favor of laying this subject on the table; but, inasmuch as the gentleman from Maryland, who made that motion a little while ago, has himself made some remarks on the subject, I think it is fair that some other remarks be heard.

I am in favor of laying it on the table because I think it is a dangerous motion at this time, and I would like to get rid of it. I con

sider it dangerous for the reason that it militates and strikes at the very Constitution of our body. The Constitution of the General Convention has followed the wise principle which is adopted in the organization of all society-the balance of power. We have the House of Bishops, and then we have the Lower House, consisting of equal numbers of clergy and laity. Reduce that number to its minimum, and we shall have the House of Bishops overriding us more than it can do now. Increase the number of Bishops to six hundred, as my honored and venerable friend from Wisconsin said, and the Church is presbyterianized and the Presbyters of the Church are nowhere. I think that we ought to retain the balance of power. It may be said that three members of each Diocese are sufficient. There are sufficient for numbers I agree, but they prevent a divided vote of Dioceses, and thereby rob the minority of its rights.

Further, say to the Dioceses, "Send only two members of each order," and I would much rather see two members from each order than three, because then the rights of the minority are gone-say each Diocese sends only two members, and you will have pretty much the same representatives from every Diocese all the time, and the whole business of the Convention will be carried on in the old way, and no new ideas, no new measures, can be presented. I think, too, that the minorities in the Dioceses will be better protected in their rights if they have four members, and we thus allow the different Dioceses to send a member of the minority, as we see is done in a great many of the Dioceses represented on this floor.

I further think that at these triennial meetings the Church meets not only for legislation, but the members from the North and the South and the East and the West should become acquainted with each other, and should realize that brotherly feeling which is the very essence of the communion of saints on earth, and join their prayers and join their counsels for the advancement of God's glory and the progress of His Holy Church.

I move that the whole subject be laid on the table. The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the whole subject be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Now, as everything has to be discussed at such length, I respectfully ask general consent to bring up one report a

little in advance of its order. The next report in order is

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I enquire whether the other subject has been disposed of.

The PRESIDENT. I thought so. The motion was to lay on the table the whole matter-the resolution from the Committee and the amendment. Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The Chair is mistaken. The motion was merely to lay the amendment on the table. ["No." "No."] I appeal to the gentleman who made the motion. The PRESIDENT. The whole subject was laid on the table.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I want a ruling of the Chair. I say, and I say upon personal knowledge, that the motion was to lay only the amendment on the table.

The PRESIDENT. I put the question on laying the whole subject on the table.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I voted for the motion under the impression I have stated. Let us have the vote again, understandingly. Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin.

Mr. President,

you stated distinctly before the vote that we were to lay the whole subject on the table.

The PRESIDENT. That is what I heard the motion to be. But a call is made that the vote be taken over again.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest to the Deputy from Central New York that the same result is obtained that he desires. What is the differ ence between laying the amendment and laying the whole subject of the report of the Committee on the table? That carries the report.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. If you lay the report of the Committee on the table, you do not approve it.

We can

Mr. STEPHENSON, of Kentucky. It certainly coincides with the action of the Committee. No amendment is then proposed. This Convention takes no action to amend the Constitution, and this is the substance of the Committee. lay the whole subject on the table, and then if we want a substantive vote on the report of the Committee we can reach it. Knowing that my honorable friend agrees that the report of the Committee should be sustained by the House, he will accomplish that result most certainly by laying the whole subject on the table.

The PRESIDENT. It seems to me we are losing a great deal of valuable time in disputing about nothing.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I acquiesce.

PARTS OF DIOCESES TO BE MISSIONARY DISTRICTS.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The report next in order is the alteration of the Prayer-Book, that it cannot be done without constitutional action, which, of course, affects a measure here. There is afterwards a report coming up on the same subject on a different phase of the matter not relating to that one point; but as we probably shall debate that here, and as we are under a kind of compact from what we have done to accomplish one thing certainly, I ask unanimous consent to bring up now the report on the change of Article 5, which was as it were agreed upon in the Committee of Conference between the House of Bishops and this House. We passed those acts by which Texas and California were relieved finally in a Committee of Conference, by a kind of understanding that the Constitution should be amended so as to prevent the difficulty hereafter. This change of the Constitution was passed in the last General Convention, and was the one in which there was a

first report made, that it had failed or fallen to the ground by our not giving the Bishops three days to answer in. The last Convention has agreed to this change of the Constitution, and I presume every man has his mind made up upon it, and I would respectfully ask unanimous consent to bring that up now out of its order. The report was made on the nineteenth day of the session on page 159 of THE DAILY CHURCHMAN. It is merely re-enacting what was done at the last Convention, but requires a vote by orders, which will give us all a chance to rest a little.

The resolution was read as follows:

:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That it be recommended and proposed that the following addition be made to Article 5 of the Constitution, to wit Insert at the end of the article the words, 'The General Convention may, upon the application of the Bishop and Convention of an organized Diocese, setting forth that the territory of the Diocese is too large for due Episcopal supervision by the Bishop of the Diocese, set off a portion of such Diocesan territory, which shall, thereupon, be placed within or constitute a missionary jurisdiction, or a part thereof, as the House of Bishops may determine.'"

The SECRETARY. May I suggest the change of the word "jurisdiction" to "district," in accordance with our present provision ?

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Very well. The PRESIDENT. The vote on this amendment to the Constitution must be taken by Dioceses and orders.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I should like to ask a question. I understand that according to the decision just made in initiating a change in the Constitution, a vote by Dioceses is necessary. I would most respectfully suggest that it is not necessary as I read the ninth article. It is only when the change is finally to be ratified.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I call the gentleman to order on this point. The House has decided this very morning that this is the proper way. Therefore this question has been settled.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I am asking the Chair whether it be not that the final ratification is the change on which a vote is to be taken by Dioceses and orders?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair decided the other

way this morning, and the House have acted upon that decision. The Clerk will call the roll of the Diocese, and members will answer to their names. Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Allow me to ask whether, if there be no objection, the Dioceses cannot be called, and answer by a single vote, instead of calling the names of the several Deputies?

The PRESIDENT. I presume that can be done if there be no objection. The Chair will direct that the vote be taken in that way, no objection being made.

The question being taken, the result was as follows:

CLERICAL VOTE-40 Dioceses represented, all voting in the affirmative.

LAY VOTE-33 Dioceses represented, 32 voting in the affirmative; and one divided.

The PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment to the Constitution is adopted for the present, to be sent down to the Diocesan Conventions.

THE PRESIDING BISHOP.

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Expenses, submitted the following report, which was read:

"The Committee on Expenses, to whom was referred the report of the Special Committee in relation to the Senior and Presíding Bishop, respectfully

report that they have given careful consideration to this matter, which is of great moment.

"It is now proposed, for the first time in the history of the Church, to make an appropriation for the support of the Presiding Bishop. The Committee on Expenses are opposed to such action, which imposes upon this body the duty of providing a retiring pension. Each Diocese is bound to take care of its own Bishop when overtaken by age or infirmity. An appropriation for the expenses of the Presiding Bishop was made for the first time by the last Convention. These expenses are in stationery, postage, and clerkhire. The travelling and other expenses of the Presiding Bishop are paid by the Diocese for which he acts as consecrator.

"This Convention has passed a resolution, providing for the payment of $500 for the three years intervening until the meeting of the next General Convention. Your Committee recommend the passage of the following resolution, by which more ample provision for the expenses of the Presiding Bishop will be made, and the payments will be annual.

"Resolved, That the Treasurer of this Convention be authorized to pay the sum of $250 a year to the Presiding Bishop for expenses incurred in the discharge of his duties, in lieu of the sum of $500 for three years as provided in a former resolution."

I suppose

subsequent

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. that the House understands the matter which is thus brought before it and the ground of action. I will only mention that it comes before us at a very late period, when really we have spent all our money by previous appropriations, and we shall have to make a new assessment upon the Dioceses to provide for any expenses which are imposed upon us by any action of this Convention. I merely mention this incidentally; but it is the opinion of the Committee, while the circumstances of this case are acknowledged to be very pressing, that this Convention is not bound to provide retiring pensions for Bishops; and many are of the opinion that the present rule and custom, by which the oldest Bishop is necessarily the Presiding Bishop, is not one which it is for the interest of that House should be continued, and we should be sanctioning and endeavoring to continue it if we enter on this principle. If we begin now to provide a retiring pension we shall have to do it in other cases.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The hour for the order of the day has arrived. It is after four o'clock.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I hope there will be unanimous consent to act on that resolution once.

at

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I have no objec tion if it does not lead to discussion.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I am in favor of the resolution reported by this Committee. At the same time I think it due to the Diocese of Kentucky that a brief statement shall be made in connection with this matter.

The PRESIDENT. Then it will have to go over. Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. Very well. Then I will simply say that the statement would relieve the Diocese of Kentucky from any suspicion of not having discharged its duty to its Bishop. The resolution was agreed to.

MISSIONARY BISHOP TO SHANGHAI.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I wish to present a resolution for a recess to-day until halfpast seven o'clock, the House to resume its session at that hour.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The order of the

day is called, and this. cannot be received. The Committee on Canons meet to-night with the Committee on Canons of the House of Bishops.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution cannot be received. The House will be cleared. The order of the day is action on the nomination of the Missionary Bishop to Shanghai, and persons not members will retire from the chapel.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I move that that order be suspended. I understand that when we get into secret session we shall have no nominee before us to act upon. If that is the

case

Several DEPUTIES. We do not know that. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has no understanding on the subject.

The PRESIDENT. The House will be cleared. The chapel having been cleared, the House proceeded to consider with closed doors the nomination of a Missionary Bishop to Shanghai.

While the doors were closed a message (No. 72) was received from the House of Bishops announcing the adoption by that House of the following resolution:

"Resolved, The Rev. William Pendleton Orrick having declined the nomination to the Missionary Episcopate of Shanghai and parts adjacent, that this House requests the House of Deputies to return to it the nomination committed to it in Message No. 37 from this House."

The doors were opened at half-past five o'clock, when the vote on the election of Rev. Mr. Orrick as Missionary Bishop of Shanghai and parts adjacent was announced to be as follows:

CLERGY-41 Dioceses voting-Ayes, 40; nay, 1.
LAITY-32 Dioceses voting-Ayes, 32.

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. I move to now concur in the message of the House of Bishops withdrawing the nomination to the Missionary Episcopate of Shanghai, and parts adjacent.

The PRESIDENT. That is not necessary. The election is the best answer we can give. Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. Very well.

THE NEW HYMNAL.

A message (No. 73) from the House of Bishops announced the adoption by that House of the following resolution :

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 1st. That, instead of the matter printed on the third page of the revised Hymnal, there shall hereafter be printed in all authorized copies of the book the joint resolution in relation to the Hymnal adopted by this Convention.

"2d. That hereafter certificates of accuracy in editions of the Hymnal be issued to publishers of the Trustees of the Fund for the relief of the widows and orphans of deceased clergymen, and of aged, infirm and disabled clergymen, in whom the copyright is vested, and by them only.

"3d. That the matter on the fourth page of the revised Hymnal be printed in all authorized copies as a Canon.

ORDER OF DEACONESSES.

A message (No. 74) from the House of Bishops announced the adoption by that House of the following resolution:

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That the Canon Of Deaconesses or Sisters,' reported by the Joint Committee to this Convention, be referred to a Joint Committee consisting of three Bishops, three Clerical, and three Lay Deputies, to report to the next General Convention.

And that the House of Bishops names as such Joint Committee on its own part: The Bishop of Alabama;