Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That opens it to discussion.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not care to discuss it, but I do not propose to commit the Convention against a Court of Appeals.

Several DEPUTIES. Move to lay it on the table, then.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to lay it on the table.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman mean to call it up again?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir; I merely wish to let it die with this Convention. It is too late to discuss it.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

SHORTENED FORMS OF PRAYER.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Now, I leave the Convention to judge for themselves which shall come up next. Our report is on shortened forms of prayer, and offering a change in the Constitution in order to provide for it, and the other on the provincial system. The first on shortened forms of prayer I will read :

The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to whom was referred a resolution asking a report upon the expediency of proposing an amendment to Article VIII. of the Constitution, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report the following resolution:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the following be proposed and made known to the several Dioceses as an Amendment to Article VIII. of the Constitution, to be added at the end of the Article as it now stands, to wit, the words, 'Provided that the General Convention may, by Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled wholly from the Book of Common Prayer; or may authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its

own use." "

At the last Convention the House of Deputies did pass a resolution to that effect, but the House of Bishops con-concurred in and defeated it. As I understand it, the House of Bishops have sent down something in the form of a change of Lectionary, so that it seems it was proper for us to lay the matter before the Convention that they might decide whether it is expedient to reach shortened forms of prayer in this method, or in any other method. That question and the question of the provincial system, whichever the Convention choose to consider first, I will now call up.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. So the Committee report that we may provide for shortened services without altering the Prayer-Book?

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. No, sir; a former report was made that we could not.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Is the Lectionary included in it?

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Lectionary will be included in the form of prayer made by Canon if this change be made. Will the Convention take up that subject? If so, I will offer the report.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I understand that this report proposes that the Constitution shall be so amended as that shortened forms of morning and evening prayer can be set forth either by the General Convention or by any of the Dioceses. I do not wish to say anything about it, but simply to remind the Convention that at present we have a Prayer-Book, which leaves it to be inferred that we ought to say morning and evening prayer_every day, and the daily services of the Protestant Episcopal Church has become an impossibility except in certain places. In England they had the same difficulty

and not long ago they amended the act of uniformity so as to permit shortened services to be put forth and those shortened services are in use at this present time in the Church of England. The Morning Prayer in the Church of England consists of the saying of one sentence of the Sentences, the Confesfession, the Absolution, the Lord's Prayer, the Versicles that follow, one Psalm or more from the Psalter, one Lesson, one Canticle, the Creed, the Versicles, three Collects, and the Prayer of St. Chrysostom. That is the shortened service, which can be said, if it is said without being sung, in twelve minutes, and can be sung, say, in fifteen minutes. We cannot do this, it seems, because it is contrary to our Constitution; and in order to get at it in the shortest way possible it is proposed that the Constitution of the Church shall be so amended as to permit this very necessary and desirable thing. I trust this House will unanimously adopt the proposed amendment to the Constitution which this Committee has brought in.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I should like to ask whether it is for Sundays as well as week-days? ("Yes," "Yes" "No," "No.")

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I answer that I understand it is not for Sundays; on the contrary, Sundays, Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, Ascension Day, and Good Friday, are all excepted. Mr. KING, of Long Island. That was my own impression.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I wish also to ask-and perhaps the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin can answer-whether in the case of the Church of England it is not so ordered that there is one uniform order of shortened prayer throughout the kingdom?

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Certainly. Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Whereas the proposal before us would leave it a standing discord and confusion, in that it leaves it to each separate Diocese to elect as it chooses, and instead of uniform shortened services it gives liberty to each Diocese, as I understand.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. That difficulty may be met by striking out that clause, so as to leave it to the General Convention instead of the Diocese.

Rev. Dr. DUDLEY, of Maryland. I can answer that there is no proposal that at this time we shall do this on Sunday or any other day. It is to leave it to be done by Canon. The amendment is merely that the Constitution shall give the power to the Convention. That settles all these questions.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That is the elemental principle, that this matter shall be canonical. You passed a Canon in the last Convention in this House, and the Bishops refused to concur in it because it was unconstitutional. We now declare it to be constitutional by proposing to amend the constitution so that this change, and no other, can be made canonically.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina, obtained the floor.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I hope the report will be read before the gentleman goes on.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The report has been read, but I will read Article 8 of the Constitution as it will stand if amended as we propose:

"A Book of Common Prayer, Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, Articles of Religion, and a Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, when established by this or a future General Convention, shall be used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dioceses which shall have adopted this Constitution. No alteration or addition shall be made in the Book of Common Prayer or other Offices of the Church, cr

the Articles of Religion, unless the same shall be proposed in one General Convention, and by a resolve thereof made known to the Convention of every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent General Convention: Provided, that the General Convention may, by Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled wholly from the Book of Common Prayer or may authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its own use."

It is simply giving to the Convention that much

power.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I must beg leave to say that while I desire that there should be a mode of shortening the services as much as any one here, I object to this mode, and think it can be done in a better mode. I submit my view to you and you can judge.

It is to be remarked that here you are getting a change in the Prayer-Book by changing the Constitution. I am opposed to that entirely. It is easier for you to change the Constitution and get command of the Prayer-Book very often, than it would be to change the Prayer-Book itself in the allowed mode.

The way to change the Prayer-Book is marked out for you in the Constitution. You do not go to that, you do not try to change the Prayer-Book, but you seek to change the Constitution so as to give this body power to change the Prayer-Book. That is a very serious thing. Once let the Convention discover that they can, without changing the PrayerBook in the manner the Constitution provides, change the Constitution so as to get at the PrayerBook, and you leave everything in doubt. This same thing can be accomplished by a Rubric. It is the Prayer-Book you want to alter. It takes no more trouble to put in a Rubric than it does to amend the Constitution; but the other is straightforward, and goes directly to the object, and then, when it is put there, it is not left open afterwards to be changed by Canon. You do not give this body or any other body power to do just what they please, for remember now that when this question came up, and when the question about the Lectionary was brought up, the gentleman from Western New York said that that would be covered by this proposition. Then is this Convention to have power at any time to change the whole of the Lectionary? Are you ready to do that? I am not willing to do that. I am not willing to allow this Convention to direct a change in our Lectionary every three years, and to make alterations whenever they please. What I want to do is to fix the thing so that it may be done, but to put the limit saying where they must stop.

I have drawn this Rubric relative to the order of Morning Prayer. Listen to it; and if I can get no more than this, I ask you to allow this to go down to the different Dioceses along with the other, and let us think three years on it and see which is the best way to do it.

"Order how the Morning and Evening Prayer, Litany, and Occasional Prayers shall or may be said, and how the Psalms and Lessons for the day may be changed."

What is the title of the Rubric?

"On Sundays and on all fasts and festivals appointed by the Church, no change shall be allowed in any organized church, parish, or congregation, within any organized Diocese. On all other days, and all other occasions on those days other than the regular morning and evening service, each Dioсебе"

I confine it to the Dioceses, they knowing best their own wants

"may, by the action of its Convention, approved by the Bishop, allow to its Presbyters and organized

churches and parishes and congregations such liberty by the omission of some and substitution_of lessons and psalms as each Diocese shall see fit. But nothing shall be added thereto except that the Bishop may set forth special prayers to be used on special occasions, and may also set forth special service for extraordinary occasions.

"Liberty in all these respects may be given to Missionary Bishops by the House of Bishops for all occasions, under such limitations and restrictions as the House of Bishops may, by their solemn order, declare."

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. May I ask the gentleman how long it would take to accomplish this purpose?

Mr. MCCRÁDY, of South Carolina. The very same time it will take to accomplish the other, and I am very willing that both propositions should go down, and let three years' deliberation pass upon them. If this be approved, after examination, I am sure it is better than the other.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I ask the gentleman if he meant to deny this power of shortening on Fridays? He speaks of fast days. All the Fridays of the year are fast days.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. No; I did not mean to do that.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. They ought to be excepted.

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. I ask if this is not new business brought in after the sixteenth day?

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. This was before the Committee when they considered the matter, and is the way I proposed to get at the subject.

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. Let me ask whether the gentleman includes Deacons as well as Presbyters?

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. No; I confine it to Presbyters.

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. It will not do.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask the gentleman whether this proposition has ever been introduced into the House?

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. No. Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then it is too late.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I offer this as an amendment to that. But it is to gɔ

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. down with that.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. I am willing it shall go down with that if you choose. I offer it as an amendment, and that brings it fairly before the House.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not insist on the point of order, but you cannot bring up a different proposition entirely from the report of the Committee.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. It is not a new proposition; it is in relation to shortening the services, and I put on limitations.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. One is a change of the Constitution, and the other a change of the Prayer-Book. That is the difference.

The PRESIDENT. I think one is a fair amendment to the other.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I submit it to the House. I do say that when there is set forth and marked out a way to alter the Prayer-Book, for you to go around it and not alter the PrayerBook at all, but alter the Constitution, and put it in the power of another body to alter the PrayerBook, is not, according to my idea, the proper course to pursue. Why are different modes prescribed? You try to get around the provision of

the Constitution by altering the Constitution so as to thereby get an alteration of the Prayer-Book.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I wish to ask the Deputy from South Carolina a question: How does this proposed alteration change the PrayerBook, when we have a limitation which requires all the shortened prayers to be taken out of the PrayerBook? There is no change in the Prayer-Book by this report, because where a Presbyter or Bishop is allowed to use a shorter form of prayer, he is limited by the very amendment which says it shall be taken from the Prayer-Book. I therefore do not see the force of the argument of the learned Deputy, that this proposed amendment changes the PrayerBook at all.

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. Is it not intended to be a compilation from the Prayer-Book? The PRESIDENT. The Deputy from South Carolina must not be further interrupted.

as

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. What I have to say is that if you can give the power to anybody to alter the Prayer-Book in any other way, it is an evasion of the Constitution. What does your Canon say to the use of the Prayer-Book when you pass it? They will tell you that this is the manner of using the Prayer-Book. The difficulty is that the way to use the Prayer-Book is presented here. The fact that you allow these shorter services to be taken out of the Prayer-Book does not affect that at all. You have not even put in here that they shall not add to it. It is true, you have said they may be taken out of the Prayer-Book. That is your Constitutional amendment, but still that does not answer the other objection, that you get at the Prayer-Book by giving a power to this body when you have not tried to alter the PrayerBook itself. I hope that the next Convention will be defeated in that effort anyhow. But I am very willing to give the shortened services, but I want to give them in the right way.

it

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I have a very few words to say, and I speak in the name of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, being one of them. The learned gentleman who has just resumed his seat is a member of that Committee, and he alone refused to sign this report. I join issue with him as to his position, that you may obtain the desired end, namely, a shortened service for Morning and Evening Prayer, without the Constitution being amended at all, and for this reason: In order to obtain the end as the Constitution now stands, you must prepare that service, verbatim et literatim, and send to the several Dioceses, and only after it has been before the Dioceses three years can the General Convention act upon it and make it a law. For this reason the Committee on Constitutional Amendments proposed this amendment to the Constitution. They saw that there was no time at this session of the General Convention, with the mass of business before it, to prepare that shortened service, and to send it down to the Dioceses, so that at the next General Convention this thing could be consummated, and there were no two opinions in the Committee, and I believe there are no two opinions in the House that it is desirable to attain this end. There was but one mode, therefore, of accomplishing that object at the next General Convention, and that was to propose this amendment to the Constitution. That we had time to do, that we have done.

Now, if that proposition meets the approbation of the two Houses, it can go to the Dioceses, and then next Convention some of your learned clerical gentlemen will come here already prepared to make the proposition and let it be acted upon and passed at once. If you do not pass this constitutional amendment, you cannot attain a shortened service

until six years from now, instead of three. Therefore my learned friend is mistaken in supposing that end can be attained in the same length of time. If we had the shortened service, and could pass upon it at this session, I should agree with him, but we have not got it, nor have we time to prepare it.

Now, where is the danger, I ask, in allowing this House the constitutional privilege of making a shortened service-for that is all the amendment proposes? It is no general amendment or alteration of the Prayer-Book or Rubrics; but this House simply desires to make a shortened service, which the Church throughout the entire length and breadth of the country requires. Is my learned friend afraid to trust this House to make that shortened service? There must be power somewhere; there must be confidence somewhere. If he cannot trust that to this House, I would like to know to whom he would trust it; because it is this House that must pass upon it, and when it has acted upon it, it has to be passed upon by the House of Bishops before it can become a law. I therefore think, with great respect to the source from which the objection to the proposed constitutional amendment emanates, that there is very little in it, and that this House ought to pass upon it.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move that the amendment presented by the Deputy from South Carolina be laid on the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Rev. Dr. Geer, of New York, in the chair). I do not think it has had a second.

Rev. Dr. DE, KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Then the motion is not necessary.

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I move that the last clause in the resolution of the Committee, giving the privilege to Dioceses to make this change, be stricken out.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask the gentleman to consider exactly what that is. The words are, 66 or may authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its own use." This Convention will authorize it, not the Diocese.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I second the motion to omit the last change in the proposed amendment. I cannot conceive of any circumstances under which it would be desirable for this House to give permission to a Diocese to have a special shortened service. I am in favor of one shortened form for the whole Church being passed upon by this body, if we are going to have anything. It is proposed that this Convention shall have the power to authorize, by Canon, any Diocese to put forth a shortened service for its own use. I do not think they ever would do it, and therefore I see no necessity for having this last clause retained in the proposed amendment. I have no doubt the Bishops will strike it out if we do keep it in.

I

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I hope this amendment will not prevail. We all agree there ought to be shortened services. What the learned Deputy from Wisconsin says I heartily endorse. live in a State which is one of the oldest of the new States, I believe the second admitted into the Union, and there are nine or ten counties where an Episcopal Bishop, Priest, or Deacon has never put his foot. Look at this Church. Do gentlemen want to bind her hand and foot? Look at the Dioceses bounding upon the Indian frontier, and where is this Church, the instrumentality of so much good? Are those Missionary Bishops and Diocesan Bishops to have no discretion?

The Clerical Deputy from New Jersey says that he does not want to leave it to the power of the Diocese. Sir, I am amazed at such an enunciation. Is he afraid to trust a Bishop or a Diocese, or is the

Prayer-Book to become such an idol that it shall be said that the Prayer-Book was not made for man, but man for the Prayer-Book? Which is it? I trust we shall cling to this Prayer-Book. This Constitutional amendment does not propose to touch it, and the provision is that every form of service shall be taken from the PrayerBook; but let us accommodate this Church to the demands of the times. If the use of these shortened services in the estimation of the Diocesan Bishop will be productive of good, let us allow it. That is my idea, and there is no danger in it.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Let me add one word to what the Deputy from Kentucky has said. He has mentioned the Indians. I live in a country where another class of population exists, the proper service for which we may find to be best adjudged by the Diocese itself, and I urge that their claims on this Convention be not forgotten.

was

we

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am very glad indeed to hear one change in this direction proposed, for ever since I have been here I have heard nothing but the whistle, "Down brakes." From the very beginning of this Convention have been putting on the brakes, and I to very glad hear my friend from Kentucky whistle another quaver. It is really encouraging to me to hope that I have been in this Convention long enough to find one practical thing brought up. It is a mere question whether we shall sanction it or not. I do think these Dioceses, with the Prayer-Book in their hands, can be trusted with their Bishops.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. This report presents a very important question for our consideration, which is new to me to a certain extent. So far as the leading idea is concerned, as to giving the Convention power by Canon to provide for shortened services, I have as yet not made up my own mind. My inclination is to go in favor of it; but giving the Dioceses that right is entirely a different question, and unless their amendment prevails, striking out that clause, I shall certainly go against the whole of it, and I believe that the feeling of the House will be in the same direction. Therefore, I call upon the friends of the leading idea to vote to strike this out, if they wish to save the whole measure. Otherwise, the whole will be lost. I only judge of others by my own feeling, not committed at all to the matter, but as it strikes me on first presentation.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. One word more, if you please. Let the Convention remember that this does not fix to whom this power is to be given, but only that the power is to be placed in the hands of this Convention to decide at the next meeting how it is to be done. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently explicitly just now when I referred to the colored population of the Southern States. I entreat you at least to reserve the power to leave it to the Dioceses. In that country a great deal has to be done by this Church. We do not yet see our way; we are trying to feel and find our way; and if you withhold that power from us, you may shut the door upon the things that we so much seek for. To us who live among that population, and who know them, it is apparent that there should be something left in the way of discretion to the Diocese. Therefore, I ask you only to leave the power, to be judged of at the next Convention. Reasons may be given for it, and reasons may be given against it; but I tell you it is a serious consideration to us, and on that ground I ask you to retain it.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I only want to say, Mr. President and gentlemen, that perhaps it will make the matter a little more clear if it is remembered that in the English Church they were in

the same situation that we are. They had a PrayerBook, and they had these long services. They, too, felt the need of shortened services, and what did they do? Did they go to work and try to alter the Prayer-Book by Rubric, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McCrady] proposes? No; they simply amended their Act of Uniformity, and having amended the Act of Uniformity, then the shortened services were legal. So what we propose to do is not to amend the Prayer-Book, but to amend that which corresponds to the English Act of Uniformity, namely, our Constitution.

And now let me say one word with respect to the other thing. It is not proposed, at this time, to give this power to the Dioceses; it is only proposed to put it in the power of this Convention to give that authority to the Dioceses at some future time, if it thinks proper. The whole question of whether it is best or not to give it to the Dioceses may be debated at some future time. So I say, let us pass this Constitutional Amendment just as it has come to us, and then we shall have the power of making shortened services, and then the question will remain open yet whether we shall give it to the Dioceses or not. Therefore let us pass this, and leave the question which the Deputy from Pittsburgh speaks of to be settled when it comes before us at the proper time.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I do not propose to occupy more than a moment. If I understand the last clause of this report, it authorizes, when adopted as part of the Constitution, the General Convention to confer not upon all Dioceses generally but upon any particular Diocese it pleases, the authority to use such shortened services as it may advise. But, Mr. President, we must remember that the danger of this thing is very trifling when it is qualified by the rule that they shall use nothing but what is in the Book of Common Prayer. They shall add nothing to it whatever. are to be bound entirely by the Book of Common Prayer; and where is the danger of giving the power to this General Convention to authorize a Diocese on the frontier, which needs peculiar services adapted to its peculiar population, or a Diocese which is composed of a major portion of ignorant colored people, to select from the Book of Common Prayer by its Convention such services as it thinks peculiarly adapted to their locality and people, if they desire?

They

Mr. President, there is no trenching upon the Pray er-Book here. Many men of sound mind believe even that it could be done without any amendment of the Constitution. They doubt whether it be an alteration of the Prayer-Book to take the services and arrange them in a different form or leave out some. Reading it here, I at first thought it did not require any amendment of the Prayer-Book, but I am persuaded that the words "no alteration shall be made " except in this way would require that we should not alter the form of Morning Service even by omitting a single paragraph without this process of amendment. But I say that the danger apprehended is imaginary. It is feared, first, that this Convention, representing, as it does, the entire Church, will give that power when it ought not to. The second distrust is that if this Convention do give a particular Diocese, having special needs, that special power, it will not exercise it discreetly. Now, it seems to me this is over-carefulness. We may safely trust to this great principle, that the Prayer-Book itself being unaltered and every prayer remaining the same, we may safely give to a Diocese the privilege of selecting such prayers as on special occasions shall be suited to special people and special audiences.

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina, The ques

tion on laying my proposition on the table has not yet been voted on. Let that be done.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I do not think your proposition had a second.

Mr. MCCRADY, of South Carolina. It was seconded.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I understood that proposition was not seconded. Since then I am informed it was, and I therefore renew my motion to lay the amendment of the Lay Deputy from South Carolina on the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay the amendment on the table. The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment offered by Rev. Dr. Farrington, of New Jersey, to strike out these words: "Or may authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its own use."

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I earnestly hope those words may not be stricken out. That is the very thing in the resolution which commends itself to me. I will take it without that if I cannot get it with it, but I desire that particularly, because it seems to be going back to primitive usage. You would not find in ancient times forty or fifty Dioceses all with precisely the same use. Bishops had then some power. The Primitive Church was willing to trust its chief officers, and never suffered harm in so doing; and if the needs of different Dioceses vary, why should we not be willing to meet those wants? The wants of South Carolina are entirely different from the wants of the Diocese of New York. Why not recognize such a fact in our legislation? I earnestly trust, therefore, that we will keep this clause in, simply because we are following the safeguard of primitive custom, and are recognizing the universal use of the early Church.

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I move to lay the amendment on the table.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If that prevails the resolution remains as it was originally proposed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri to lay the amendment on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now arises on agreeing with the Committee in their resolution, and I am instructed that the vote must be taken by orders.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move that the vote of each Diocese be given by some Deputy selected as the name of the Diocese is called, which will avoid the calling of the names of individual members.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That course will be pursued, if there be no objection.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. Let the Secretary read the proposition.

The Secretary read the resolution of the Committee.

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. Does that include Sundays or not?

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. say anything about Sundays.

It does not

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. Does this proposition say anything about Sunday services? Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It leaves this Convention by Canon to do as it pleases.

The Assistant Secretary (Rev. Dr. Williams, of Georgia) proceeded to call the list of Dioceses, and was interrupted by

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is a misunderstanding about a single point, and I wish to have the report read so that gentlemen can understand it. It is said positively by some members

that there is a restriction in this proposition with regard to Sunday services, and certain festivals of the Church. I did not understand that to be in the report, and I would like to have it read.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. There is nothing of the sort in it.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. It is in the power of the Convention at any time.

The Secretary read the resolution as follows: "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the following be proposed and made known to the several Dioceses as an amendment to Article VIII. of the Constitution, to be added at the end of the article as it now stands-to wit, the words, 'Provided, That the General Convention may, by Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled only from the Book of Common Prayer, or may authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its own use."

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I can never give my vote "ave" on that.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama (having voted in the affirmative). Alabama changes its vote, and votes "nay."

The Secretary resumed and concluded the call of the Dioceses, with the following result:

CLERICAL VOTE.-Aye-Albany, Arkansas, California, Central New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin-37. Nay -Alabama, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Texas-4. Divided-Central Pennsylvania-1.

LAY VOTE.-Aye-Albany, California, Central New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin-25. Nay-New Jersey, Pittsburgh,

South Carolina-3. Divided-New York-1.
So the resolution was agreed to.

PROVINCIAL SYSTEM.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I now beg leave to offer the next report, and the last, I am happy to say, from the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

The report was read as follows:

"The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to whom were referred memorials and other papers presenting the question of the expediency of devising a "Provincial System for the Church," having had the same under consideration, respectfully report:

"1. Your Committee assume that the terms 'provincial system' are used in the resolution in their full ecclesiastical and primitive sense. In the early Church there were: 1, the Parish; 2, the Diocese; 3, the Province; 4, the Patriarchate. The Parish had its Priest, the Diocese its Bishop, the Province its Archbishop, the Patriarchate its Patriarch. Among these, the dominant and most active power was the Province, with its Archbishop. Speaking generally, we may say that it possessed the powers of this body and of the House of Bishops, and many of the powers of our Diocesan Councils. The Provinces were disconnected and independent, except as, by very slender ties, they were united in the Patriarchate. Such a system would dismember this Church, and out of this now compact, and now united body, create five, or seven, or ten separate Churches. The ties which