in requiring that this limit shall be the thirteenth day. Our sessions generally are prolonged to the twentieth day. I have attended Conventions where its sessions have been longer than twenty days.

We are not, Mr. President, a parliamentary body, we are not a legislative body in the sense in which we speak of legislative bodies as connected with our States. It is true we are the legislative body of the Church. Are we to be governed, then, by the principles which prevail in Parliament: I know perfectly well that in many of the legislative bodies of our various States it is provided that new business shall not come in after a certain day. In some of them it is provided that if any person is going to petition the legislature he shall have his petition printed in a certain paper for a certain number of days before the session of the legislature is held at all. There are a great many bars put around to prevent business from coming in, except such business as must necessarily be passed upon. But we are not only Deputies from Dioceses who have come here to make laws, but we are brethren, representing brethren throughout the whole Church, brethren who are willing to do anything which shall really promote the glory of Christ and advance the interests of our Church.

Now, I can see very many instances in which, if we put such bonds upon us as this, we shall cut ourselves off, perhaps, from doing that which we ought to do, and which we would desire to do. It may be said, and it will be said, that two-thirds of the House may allow business to be introduced, but we all know that we cannot tell at once whether the business is important. We cannot present the business in such a way that it will appear important to twothirds of the House, unless there has been considerable discussion upon it; and we know, moreover, that this would cut off a great many persons who are modest from bringing forward new business at all.

Besides this, there is the point which has been presented by one of the Deputies who has just spoken-I did not notice who he was-with reference to business coming down from the House of Bishops. The House of Bishops have no such rule as this, but they may have their new business come in on any day of the session. They generally are not ready to adjourn as soon as the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies is. Business coming down from the House of Bishops must be considered here, must be acted upon in some way. We may at any time be flooded with business from the House of Bishops; and yet you cut off every member of this House from presenting any new business.

There are various ways in which this new business may be turned aside. We may lay it upon the table; we may postpone it to the next Convention; we may postpone it indefinitely. We are not ourselves, because the new business is introduced, required to consider it at length, and debate it, and act upon it immediately. I would therefore suggest to the Convention that this rule, which may be parliamentary, and may be necessary for legislatures, is not necessary for this House; and being a new rule, we should go on through one session more without its adoption, for it will tie our hands in such a way that they cannot be untied except by this mysterious two-thirds of the House, and it may cut us off from very much business of importance.

As I said in the beginning, I should not attempt to say a word on the subject if this were not a new rule, and I can understand how my reverend father from Connecticut will immediately arise with a great many instances in which it would have been very desirable that we should not have had new business come in at a late hour, but I hope he will be more merciful in this matter.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut.

Mr. President,

re

I hold that after this House have informed the House of Bishops, directly or indirectly, that they have completed their business and will be ready to receive them and to hear the pastoral letter and have the concluding ligious exercises, the whole business of this House has been completed; and I am free to say that I have been shocked at the fact occurring no later than the last General Convention, that after a vote asking the House of Bishops when they would be ready to give the pastoral letter and to have the closing religious exercises, and after many members had gone away, not supposing any business would be transacted, some very important business was transacted. I know after I had left the House, and after several others had left, supposing no business was to be done, one canon was passed which had been negatived, but it came in a new form from the House of Bishops after the pastoral letter was read. It was a canon on the restoration of a clergyman who had been deposed, but that canon never has been acted upon, and I presume never will be acted upon; but I was shocked that at that late period of the session and after, according to usage, the House had resolved virtually to adjourn, any new business of that kind should come up. I must contend that there should be some limitation of the time when new business shall be started. I am not the man that will start up at the last moment to bring forward any new business. I do not know that I ever did it, although I now stand here for the sixteenth successive General Convention, since I first entered the House. I have seen the evil, and I say that there should be a line drawn. I would not say "after the thirteenth day," because we generally sit at least twenty days, but I would say that after the sixteenth day no new business should be considered except by a vote of twothirds.

Bear in mind, Mr. President and gentlemen, that you have the power on the part of two-thirds to bring in new business at the last moment, and that is reasonable; but where new business is brought in by a bare majority, after that majority has been thinned out, you see the result of it. The result is that a Canon was passed at the last General Convention which would have been an evil-a gross evilin the restoration of one man in one of the Western dioceses who had been deposed, and, I presume, will continue in his present deposition; but that Canon was made specially to reach that case. I protest against such legislation. I think it is dangerous to the Church. We must have some limitation.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Connecticut move to change the time from thirteen to sixteen days?

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that amendment.

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I move an amendment to that. I move that the rule be amended by inserting, after the word "the" in the second line, "after notice has been given by the House of Bishops that they are ready to adjourn."

The PRESIDENT. That would come under the principle of accumulating amendments.

Rev. Dr.. MEAD, of Connecticut. The usual course is to send notice that we will receive the Bishops at a certain hour. The legislation to which I refer was at eleven o'clock at night, when I had left the hall, and a large number of Deputies had left, not supposing any other business would be attempted.

The PRESIDENT. The last amendment proposed entirely changes the character of the rule and is inadmissible. The question is on the amendment of the Deputy from Connecticut to strike out "15th" and insert "16th."

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the adoption of the rule as thus amended.

The rule as amended was adopted.

The Secretary read the next rule of order, as follows:

17. Whenever any nomination for a Missionary Bishopric, sent down from the House of Bishops, shall be under consideration, the House shall sit with closed doors."

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I think this rule also requires amendment. I know of no reason why we should sit with closed doors on a Missionary Bishop and not sit with closed doors on a Diocesan Bishop. When action is sent down from the House of Bishops upon the nomination of a Diocesan Bishop, and we have to consider it, it seems to me that the same reason which requires closed doors in the one case, should require closed doors in the other. Therefore, I move to amend by adding the following words after the word "bishops" in the second line, the subject of approving the testimonials or assenting to the consecration of any Bishop of a Diocese." Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment that has been offered; on the contrary, quite favor it; but there is still a very important matter behind this that I think ought to be considered at the same time. Though this Convention must sit in accordance with ancient Canons with closed doors when the characters of men are under discussion, as they are apt to be on such an occasion, still it is desirable that as manly men in the presence of our brethren we should have and expect to have the word of love made matter of perpetual record. On such occasions, if we sit with closed doors, it will always be possible for men to speak and not go on the record, unless we take some means to provide that they shall remain and be compelled to remain by the record which they have made for themselves. While in the Lambeth Synod, if it may be so called, as I trust it may, the Bishops there assembled felt that it would not be well that the record of their proceedings should be immediately made public, they took this course, that a stenographic report was made, and having been made it was kept until the time should arrive when it might with propriety be made public. Now, if we sit with closed doors, I believe the sense of this Convention is that though it may not be desirable that all that is said and done should immediately be reported to the world, yet in some way or other I think every word spoken here ought, as a matter of right to the candidates whose names may be under consideration, as a matter of historic verity and truth, to be recorded, to be preserved in some form. I do not know how to put what I desire in form, but what I ask is that this particular rule should for the present be postponed ; that it should be remitted to some committee to frame an express rule for the order of this House at the time of the consideration of the confirmation of a Bishop-elect. I trust that whatever is done by this House will be done with closed doors in such a case, but with care that the record be preserved usque ad literam.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, with regard to this matter, I propose to move a substitute for the whole-for the original seventeenth article of the rules of order, and also for Governor Stevenson's amendment. The substitute that I move is this: "When any subject whatsoever comes before this House necessitating the discussion of personal character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit with closed doors."

The reason that I move this is because there are two matters on hand. In the first place, when we examine the qualifications of any gentleman for any office in this Church, we have a perfect right to discuss his character in every way that we, as the

legislature of the Church, choose to do under the common rules of order; that is to say, under the rules of order and decency that become gentlemen. In the second place, it is perfectly manifest that all discussion of personal character of the candidates for any office whatsoever ought not to be open to the general public. I must honestly say that my soul has revolted at seeing the comments of the press upon gentlemen who came before various conventions as candidates for the Episcopate, and as candidates for other offices, for which they were scorned, despised, spat upon by men who were not fit to speak to them. I think that when a gentleman, clerical or lay, comes before us as a candidate for any office, or where his nomination has to be confirmed by us in any way, we should protect him from the remarks of the outside public, which outside public at the present time is largely irreligious, largely scorns not only the Church, but all belief in Christ. Therefore, Mr. President, not from any desire of speaking on the matter publicly, but simply from the desire to protect us of the clergy and us of the laity from that possibility, at the same time that we wish the most full discussion of character for all persons that come before us, I move this substitute:

"When any subject whatsoever comes before this House necessitating the discussion of personal character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit with closed doors."

I put it in the most general way because I am confident that this subject which I have started goes to the heart and feeling of all the clergy and laity that are in this Convention, and I do not believe that this, my substitute, will be the final form which the proposition will assume under the manipulation and discussion of the clergy and laity of this House, and therefore I put it in the widest way. I am satisfied that the whole thing is to be discussed here, and it ought to be decided on because I may honestly say that for the last twenty years I have seen reports of the discussions of the characters of men that came up as candidates for the episcopate by the nomination of their friends, and to my mind the way the characters of those gentlemen have been treated was perfectly disgraceful in every aspect in which you can look at it.

I will also say another thing that if we, the General Convention, or the great National Council of the Church in the United States, could pass such a resolution as this, it would largely go down to the Diocesan Conventions, and would modify their action in a very great degree and cause a good deal more feeling of gentlemanly conduct among our diocesan conventions, and of the sense that each Christian and each gentleman ought to have of the character of any one who is a brother baptized and in communion with him in the Church.

I would say to the Convention that two things are by this resolution of mine attained in the first place, the right to have the fullest discussion of the character of those who come up for office in the Church; in the second place, the right to keep off altogether the outside world. I look at it as one movement only towards that feeling that they had in primitive Christianity, that there were two great bodies on this orbit globe of ours, the World and the Church, and that with regard to the Church she should do her own business within her own borders, and keep out the world from interfering either with the scalding tongue or the sneering serpent-like sting with which the world both now and ever has been accustomed to treat all circumstances connected with the Church. My resolution is :

"When any subject whatsoever comes before this House necessitating the discussion of personal character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit with closed doors."

That I move as a substitute for the whole matter. Several DEPUTIES. The hour of adjournment has arrived.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The hour of adjournment has arrived, and I move that we adjourn. The PRESIDENT. It is not necessary to move an adjournment, but a motion may be made to continue the session.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I make the motion. Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. But that motion must be made before the hour is reached. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The motion was made after four o'clock.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. No one but the Chair has a right to announce that the hour of four has arrived. Our watches may be different. Before the announcement was made, a proposition was offered to continue the session.

The PRESIDENT. I think the motion was made after the hour of four. The House now stands adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o'clock A.M.

THIRD DAY.

FRIDAY, October 9. The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 10 A.M.

Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Horace Stringfellow, D.D., of Alabama. The Lessons were read by Rev. J. H. Hobart Brown, D.D., of Albany. The Litany was said by Rev. Robert W. Trimble, of Arkansas. The Benediction was pronounced by the Rt. Rev. William R. Whittingham, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Maryland.

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read and approved.

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.

The Secretary announced that he had appointed Rev. G. S. Mallory, D.D., of Connecticut, and Rev. C. L. Hutchins, M.A., of Massachusetts, second and third Assistant Secretaries respectively.

FOREIGN VISITORS.

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York, submitted the following report:

"The Committee appointed to wait upon the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, and other English and Colonial clergy, now in attendance, beg leave to report that they have waited on his Lordship and the other clergy, and have received from them notice that they will be present in this House at two o'clock this afternoon."

LIST OF DEPUTIES.

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following report:

"The Committee on Elections respectfully report that certificates of election of Clerical and Lay Deputies of this House have been received from every diocese in union with this Convention, fortyone in number, and from the missionary jurisdiction of Oregon and Washington Territory and Dakota; that they have found the certificates to be in due form, and have given to the Secretary a list of the names of those entitled to sit as members of the House, being the same as have been entered on the roll by the Secretary."

NEW DIOCESE IN NEW JERSEY.

The Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, from the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses, submitted the following report:

"That the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses, to whom was referred the memorial of the

Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of New Jersey, asking the consent of the General Convention to the erection of a new diocese within the limits of the present Diocese of New Jersey, respectfully report,

"That, having examined the documents submitted to them, and found them to be correct, they recommend the adoption of the following preamble and

resolution:

"Whereas, A request has been presented to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, from the Diocese of New Jersey, that a new diocese be erected within the limits of the present diocese of New Jersey, the said diocese to be composed of the counties of Sussex, Warren, Morris, Passaic, Bergen, Hudson, and Essex, together with the township of Summit in Union County; and

"Whereas, It appears by the official documents laid before this House that the Bishop and Convention of New Jersey have consented to the erection of the said new diocese, and that the requirements of Article V., of the Constitution, and also of Section III., Canon 6, Title 3, have all been met; therefore "Be it Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies do hereby consent to the erection of the proposed new diocese within the limits of the present Diocese of New Jersey, and that this House (the House of Bishops concurring) do also hereby ratify the formation of the proposed new diocese, and hereby recognize the union of said diocese with the General Convention, to take effect on the 1st of November next."

The PRESIDENT. What action shall be taken on this report?

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I do not presume, sir, that it is necessary to go into the details as to compliance with the requirements, but one provision of Article V. is that the new diocese shall contain at least six parishes and six presbyters. The territory which it is proposed now to admit contains in the new diocese forty presbyters and fifty parishes. The old diocese must contain twelve presbyters and twelve parishes. The old diocese in this case contains fifty-six parishes and thirty-five presbyters. Provision is also required to be made for the adequate support of the Episcopate. Within a fraction of $10,000 annual income is provided for the support of the Bishops of both the dioceses.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I move, sir, that the report of the Committee be adopted as the action of this House, and that the proposed division be agreed to. There is no doubt whatever of the necessity of it. The diocese is too large for a healthy Bishop, and I am sorry to say that our present Bishop is not in health to perform the duties properly, so that the division is a real necessity. I think, as a delegate from that diocese, as well as a member of the Committee on New Dioceses, that the request ought at once to be granted without hesitation.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask for the reading of that portion of the report which speaks of the 1st of November?

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. No specific time was mentioned in the application, and the report was therefore at first couched in general language, "whenever duly organized and named in Primary Conventions:" but it was thought better by the Bishop and the Committee who had the matter in charge, and as meeting the provision of the Constitution more perfectly, to name a specific date, as is usually done, and the date selected was the 1st of November next.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask whether the Committee, in acting upon this matter, had under consideration the canon which was passed at the last General Convention? That provides that the Committee shall name the time, and that the

Diocese shall become united with the Convention as soon as its Primary Convention has been organized. Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Exactly; and the first report we drew up was to that effect.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Will the gentleman read the latter part of the resolution? I thought myself it was open to objection.

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. We could not introduce both provisions.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I suggest to the Chairman of the Committee that, although we have not finally disposed of the whole list of rules, yet we have adopted many of them, and I suppose the House, as a matter of practice and convenience, will recognize the binding obligation of one rule already acted on, that reports from committees shall go upon the Calendar when made, and be taken up in the order in which they have been submitted after all the committees have been heard from. It will produce a great deal of confusion if, when reports are just made, debates spring up on them.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. [Rev. Dr. Beardsley, of Connecticut, in the Chair]. We are acting under the old rule. We have not yet adopted the report of the committee proposing new rules.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I know we have not adopted the whole body of rules; but the practice of the House ought to conform to the idea suggested in the new rule, of which I have spoken, as a matter of convenience.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I nove that this report be placed upon the Calendar in anticipation of the adoption of the new rules, probably to-day.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I submit that we cannot act under a rule which is but part of a series of rules for the government of this body, until the whole series has undergone consideration. Any rule already passed upon may be altered before we complete the series of rules.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then, Mr. President, as it is likely the rules will be adopted to-day, providing, among other things, for a Calendar, and providing that that Calendar shall be taken up each day at 12 o'clock, I move that the further consideration of this report be postponed until to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and then it will properly come up on the Calendar.

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. That amounts to the same thing as my motion.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I hope that this mat-. ter will not be postponed. There is no difficulty in regard to this case; it is very plain. It is a division of a Diocese containing 120 or more parishes, extending over a wide expanse of country, and the necessity of the division must be apparent to every clergyman on this floor; and unless some objection can be raised to it-and I have not heard a single one yet named-I think we can readily get rid of this matter and save the time of the House. I hope it will not be postponed.

The PRESIDENT pro tem.

The question is on the motion to pospone this report until to-morrow, and place it on the Calendar.

The motion was agreed to.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I hold a copy of record from the Diocese of Texas, which is brought here in the shape of a memorial, accompanied by a resolution, referring to the proposed constitutional amendment allowing Dioceses too large to set off a portion into missionary jurisdictions. I do not propose to read the memorial, but will simply state that it commands the Deputies of Texas to urge the completion of this action and the amendment of the Constitution, so that a Diocese of vast territory may, by its own action when completed in

1

Convention, set off portions thereof into missionary jurisdictions. The resolution I will read:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the proposed alteration of Article V. of the Constitution, proposed in the last General. Convention, and made known to the several diocesan conventions, and printed on page 360 of the Journal of the last General Convention, be, and the same is hereby, finally agreed to and ratified, as provided in Article IX, of the Constitution."

I move the reference of this memorial and resolution to the Committee on Canons, and I move it this morning because all other action pertaining to this matter must lay aside until this action is had.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. From the remarks made yesterday, there is no doubt in my mind that the House will this morning appoint a Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. I would therefore respectfully advise that the memorial be laid on the table until that committee be appointed, and that then it be referred to that commit

tee.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I am willing to take that course.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Whenever it is the proper time, I shall make a motion to the effect that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. I now move that it lie on the table for the present.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS. of Mississippi. I have a memorial of the Diocese of Mississippi to present, and as it simply regards the so-called Nicene Creed, I ask to present it without reading, and move that it be referred to the proper committee.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The time for the order of the day has come.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move to suspend the order of the day, in order to receive memorials.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest that it requires a two-thirds vote to suspend the order of the day.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on suspending the order of the day, for the purpose of receiving and referring memorials.

The motion was not agreed to, there being, on a division, Ayes, 106; Noes, 64;-not two-thirds voting in the affirmative.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS, of Mississippi. Have I leave to present this memorial?

The PRESIDENT pro tem. No, sir; the order of the day will now be proceeded with, being the consideration of the rules of order which were under discussion at the adjournment yesterday. The Secretary will read the pending rule and the amend

ment.

RULES OF ORDER.

The SECRETARY. The 17th Rule of Order, as reported, being under consideration, Mr. Stevenson, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same by inserting after the word "bishop," in the second line, the words, "or the subject of approving the testimonials or assenting to the consecration of any Bishop of a diocese." The Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, moved to amend the amendment by striking out all after the number of the rule as reported, and inserting instead thereof the following words:

"When any subject whatsoever comes before this House necessitating the discussion of personal character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit with closed doors."

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I rise, Mr. President, to express the hope that the House will not adopt any rule of order which will require any portion of its proceedings to be carried on with closed doors. It seems to me that any such resolution or

rule of order is against the spirit of the age. The Clerical Deputy whose substitute is now immediately before the House, in the course of his remarks yesterday evening expressed the hope that our personal matters would be excluded from the world. Now, Mr. President, we cannot afford to disregard the world. Our mission, if I understand it, is to the world, and to the whole world, and nothing that we do can be indifferent to the world.

Another reason is, that publicity in our age and country is a great security. We all act under a sense of higher responsibility when we act in the presence of the public; and that is a guarantee of due consideration on the part of our body of the subject-matter of the character of those whose personal qualifications for positions in the Church may come before this House.

Again, I object to any rule of order demanding secrecy by this House, because we are well aware practically that the public will know, and does know, everything that the public cares to know. It is utterly futile to attempt to

con

ceal from the public anything that is of sufficient importance for it to care to know. There is a constitutional provision by which the Senate of the United States has power to enforce its secrecy; but every man conversant with public affairs knows that it is utterly nugatory. The secret action of that body is divulged every hour, and transpires almost as soon to the public as it takes place, and the attempt at secrecy is only a source of misrepresentation, and adds to the embarrassment which the body is under. We know (contrary to the idea which a learned Lay Deputy expressed yesterday) that this rule of secrecy was introduced into the Senate for the purpose of having free discussion. It was not to prevent it. It was not to prevent an analysis, and a severe analysis, of the character of those who might be presented for office. It was to secure that very end. It was to encourage freedom of discussion with regard to everybody who should be presented for public trust.

Now, I regard our Bishops, or any other persons who are to hold relations with this Church, as holding a public trust; and, instead of excluding, we ought to invite the public to take an interest in our affairs and help us to do our work. The most efficient way to do this, as I understand the conduct of public affairs, is to act in the face of the public. Secrecy is at an end. If a subject is excluded from the public that the public cares to know about, it will be sure to find out all about it. A nomination ought not to be secret. Publicity is a guarantee of the best conduct. It is a responsibility under which everybody who holds public trust ought to act.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Mr. President, when this rule was first proposed, I was inclined to favor it; but upon subsequent reflection I am decidedly opposed to it, and for reasons which I will state briefly.

After the Revolution, the Church of England, in America, was organized under our present Constitution; and the House of Bishops from the beginning has always sat with closed doors, and this House has always sat with open doors. We have had one House sitting with closed doors all the time. That is sufficient to protect the Church in every department where we require secrecy. This is a legislative body. Each Diocese sends eight Deputies, four Clerical Deputies and four Lay Deputies, to this House to represent and legislate for the Church in this country. There is no reason why we should sit in secret session. They wish to know what we are doing. We have invited reporters here to make accurate reports of what we say and do. We wish, every one of us, that our constituents shall know what we say and do. We

do not wish to do anything behind the curtain, especially if that act should be the most important of any act during the entire session of the Convention. As has been well said by the honorable and learned Deputy from Maryland, the public opinion of the Church is the great guide of the Church; and how shall we know that public opinion, and how is it formed, except by our constituents reading and knowing what we say and do?

It is contrary to the whole spirit of our Church for this House to attempt to close its doors. The House of Bishops closes its doors, with no one inside but themselves and their Secretary. Suppose this House attempts to close its doors? The very first or second day of our session we adopted a resolution that the families of the Bishops and the families of the Clerical and Lay Deputies should have a gallery for their use during the entire session. We adopted a resolution that the representatives of our Mother Church of England, and of the Church in Canada, should come here and attend the sittings of this Convention. We adopted a resolution that all the ministers of Trinity Church in the city of New York should be invited to seats in this Convention, and to attend its sittings. We have invited the representatives of the Greek Church, who may be here, to attend our sittings. We have invited all the clergymen of this Church, all professors of the General Theological Seminary, and all the students, to attend all the sittings of this Convention. Now will you close the doors with all these in! [Laughter.] You cannot turn them out. It would be indecorous to turn our backs on our guests. We may close our doors here and involve ourselves in a discussion that may last one hour, one day, or one week. Where are our guests all the while? [Laughter.] It is entirely impracticable. If anything is to be done under such a rule, it must be referred to the Committee on Canons, and drawn out with details for executing it, and that may cover an entire page of the Journal. It cannot be done under a rule of three lines. It is entirely useless to attempt it. It requires details to carry out the idea.

The

Then, again, are we going to remove every member from that responsibility to the Church which we are under as to what we shall say here? only reason for secret sessions of any body in this country and England is to remove members from liability for prosecution for slander and libel. That is the foundation of the whole thing. Do you wish to exempt yourselves from responsibility to God and to the Church and to the members of this Church for what we shall say here? No; I want to be responsible myself for all I say, and I want every other member to be under the same responsibility.

It has been suggested that we have a private reporter to report what we say, and that that report shall be laid away in the archives. Then we never could get at it; we never could produce his report ; and the consequence would be, that each one would come out telling what his neighbor said, and every man would be misunderstood and misrepresented, whereas the reporters we have here will tell just what occurs, and we have something to protect us in the record they make.

I do not want A and B from each diocese to go and tell all I shall say in secret session; neither does any other Deputy want me to go out and state what.he says. He and I would rather have the report of the reporters. That is accurate, and that is what we are willing to stand by. It is an easy thing for a clergyman to be misrepresented outside of a secret session, and to have it understood that he said so and so inside here, with nothing to protect himself except a report filed away in the archives where he cannot get at it, it being a thousand miles from his