Page images
PDF
EPUB

home; but of what is said in open session he has a report made, he has the volume in his library at home, he has the whole thing before him, and that he stands by, and that he is willing to stand by.

I close with moving that the whole subject of rule seventeen, with the pending amendments thereto, be indefinitely postponed, and hope we shall adopt the other rules.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Mr. President, I am opposed to this rule reported by the Committee, but I shall vote for the substitute of the reverend gentleman from Wisconsin; and I will briefly give the reasons for my vote.

said

I agree heartily with what has been about secret sessions being obnoxious, and I agree further that it must be a very rare and extreme case where we should have a secret session at all; but every one must admit that there may be occasions, and it seems there will probably be one occasion, at least, during this session, when, not on our account, but on the account of the characters of some gentlemen whose names will be brought here, we should be able to give our reasons to each other without the public being present.

The gentleman from Illinois has given pretty fully the reasons for secret sessions, but he has omitted to state a very material reason which caused them to exist, commencing as far back as the origin of the grand juries of the country. There is no exception; they all sit secretly. Why so? Not only for fear of prosecution for the words used in debate in those bodies, but in all large bodies there are always timid men, men who will not speak out and avow their opinions openly and above-board as they would do when in secret session. To some extent, I think, this has been carried too far, and I hope the day is not far distant when our own House of Bishops will sit in open session under a general rule. I say, let the rule be for both Houses open sessions, except when the necessity is great upon us for secret sessions. What does the report of the Committee say? The report makes the rule of secret sessions apply whenever action on a Missionary Bishop is to take place. It makes it a rule that we shall necessarily go into secret session on such a nomination. To that I am opposed. I say it is an aspersion in advance on the character of every gentleman whose name shall come down to us as a missionary bishop. It presumes in advance that something obnoxious is to be said about that gentleman, whoever he may be, whose name is sent to this House; and therefore it is necessary in advance to declare that we will go into secret session to hear it. I am opposed to any such rule.

But what does the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin say! It leaves it in the discretion of the House, if, perchance, any question may come up which, according to the sense of the House, the intelligence of the House, the decency of the House, the respect for the character of other persons in the mind of the House, requires a secret session, to have a secret session.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Let me ask a question. Can we not do that at any time without a rule?

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Iam coming to that. It is really unnecessary to have any rule on the subject; but the matter should be left to the discretion of the House, and it should require a separate vote on each occasion to say that we shall close our doors. I take it that even without any rule on the subject, without this 17th rule as ported by the Committee, or the substitute offered by the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin, this House at all times by a vote-probably it would require two-thirds-can have a secret session. I am told by a gentleman that it has been done heretofore,

re

Any man's common sense should tell him that it can be done.

The great thing I want to get at is to leave this question on the necessity of the case. I do heartily hope that the substitute will be adopted, and that the report of the Committee as Rule 17 will be voted down.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President, it seems to me that the question in this case in regard to closing the doors is very easily adjusted. I understand the question is, whether we shall sit with closed doors when a nomination comes here for a missionary bishop; that is to say, shall we consider the nomination with closed doors in reference to the character of the nominee? There is a way of settling the matter, which, it seems to me, will remove the necessity for closed doors, and that is by the ballot; and I submit that the ballot of this body in regard to a candidate for a missionary bishopric will not be changed essentially by discussion. Members of this body, when they come to consider the propriety of agreeing to the nomination of a missionary bishop, will have made up their minds without having heard discussion. The information of each member in regard to any one who is nominated is usually full. It does not require discussion; there is sufficient information without it; and the effect of balloting is really and effectually equivalent to acting with closed doors. I am opposed to the principle of closed doors, usually because I think it is not a necessity. I think it is contrary to all our previous practice, and contrary to the principle recognized by this Church in giving publicity to everything it does; and every man who represents the Church here should stand up faithfully and assume the responsibility, if necessary, of saying such things as he ought to say conscientiously in each case. Therefore I hope we

shall not sit with closed doors.

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. Mr. President, before this substitute is acted upon I should like to improve it a little by a slight amendment. It says "whenever the discussion of personal character." Now, sir, a man may have a very good character indeed, but may lack qualification. I move, therefore, after the word "character" to insert the words "or fitness."

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Is a substitute amendable?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not understand that the pending question is a substitute, but an amendment to an amendment.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I wish to say that the first action was the moving of this article or Rule 17. Then there was an amendinent brought forward to that by Gov. Stevenson, of Kentucky, I understand, and then I moved a substitute for the whole, and I understand that is a substitute, not an amendment. Then I understand that the gentleman from Illinois, Judge Otis, moved an amendment, which is now before the House.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. No, I moved an indefinite postponement.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would like to know whether the gentleman from Delaware is right, whether the discussion is on an amendment or a substitute, whether Dr. Adams' proposition is regarded as an amendment or substitute. The Secretary will read the record.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. a substitute last night.

It was taken as

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It cannot be a substitute, as the reading of the record will show. The SECRETARY. The journal reads: "The 12th rule of order being under consideration,

"Mr. Stevenson, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same by inserting after the word 'Bishop,' in the

second line, the following words: 'Or the subject of approving the testimonials or assenting to the consecration of any Bishop of a diocese.'

"Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, moved to amend the said amendment by striking out all after the number of the said rule, as reported, and inserting instead thereof the following words, to wit:

"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. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I want to say a few words, Mr. President, because it seems to me that, in the hurry of taking this question, it is placed on the wrong basis. I think this is the most important rule of order that has been submitted to us for adoption.

I do not understand with the gentleman from Maryland that this Church owes any allegiance at all to the outside world. I do not understand that the country has resolved itself into a jury, or into a political body to watch our conduct in this General Convention. Nor do I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that it is more proper to take an individual case, and make that case odious by moving a suspension of the General Rule and putting the House in secret session, thereby inviting the suspicion of the country on the candidate for the Episcopacy, than it is to have a standing fixed rule to which all must yield alike. I understand that the assent of this body on certain occasions is necessary to the consecration of a Bishop, and I understand that the duty of giving a certificate on that question implies a duty to inform ourselves as to the qualifications, the fitness, the wisdom, the gravity, the learning, the piety, the eloquence, the prudence, and the good sense of the gentleman who is named; and on such an occasion as that, what is it that we are to certify?

66

'We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how important it is that the sacred office of a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality or affection, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable to evil report, either for error in religion or for viciousness of life, and that we do not know or believe there is any impediment on account of which he ought not to be consecrated to that holy office; but that he hath, as we believe, led his life for three years past piously, soberly, and honestly."

This recognizes the duty on our part to enquirenot to enquire for the satisfaction of the outside world, but to enquire for the satisfaction of our own consciences, and so as to perform our duty to the Church; and we cannot enquire satisfactorily-we cannot put gentlemen upon their honor on the stand here before the world and a thousand reporters. We do not invite the world to come into these family councils of ours. It would be as absurd to invite the world to come and hear our discussions upon the learning and personal qualifications and personal fitness of a candidate for the Episcopate as it would for a gentleman who has a marriageable daughter, and a proposition is made for a union with her, and he has a council with his wife at night on the question, to invite the public to hear what each says to the other in regard to the fitness of the man who proposes to become a member of their family. A gentleman's name is sent down to us in nomination for the Episcopacy. One may think he has not learning; another that he has not sobriety of conduct; another that he has not prudence and discretion; another that he has not wisdom; another that he has not the unction that belongs to a Bishop. Must A man be called upon to arraign his friend here,

was

it may be his bosom friend? Must he be called before the world to make an attack upon him? I say this is a family of brethren, under the highest obligation of fidelity to each other, but at the same time the highest obligation of fidelity to the Church; bound to speak the truth, but to speak in love, and not proclaim it to the world. Many a man is not fit to be a Bishop who, nevertheless, has a good character. A friend might be compelled to say, upon his conscience and his honor, in secret session, that he did not believe his friend best fitted for that high office. I do not understand that the veil of secrecy is drawn over this body for the purpose of protecting it against prosecution for libel. It is to protect our actions for the good of the Church, and not for our personal selves, in order to get at the truth. Gentlemen who speak of a brother under such circumstances must know that when they utter a word it will not be printed in the newspapers and telegraphed over the face of Christendom. Therefore I say that this rule touches us more nearly than any other rule which has been offered for our adoption, and it is a rule, in my opinion, calculated to preserve the purity of the Episcopate.

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Mr. President, the gentleman who has last spoken has anticipated me in some things that I intended to say. I quite agree with him that this is one of the most important rules of order which we can have.

do?

During the recess of this General Convention testimonials in favor of Missionary Bishops-elect and Diocesan Bishops-elect go before the different standing committees throughout our country. Do those standing committees open their doors and let into their councils the outside world as spectators? And will this larger body think of doing what the standing committees do not I am in favor of the rule as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Kentucky. I do not like the ingenious mosaic piece which the gentleman from Wisconsin has introduced here. If it be important to have a rule of order, let us have it in plain Saxon language so that everybody can understand it, and that we shall not be misled. This rule of order is not one which concerns our general deliberations. We may well open our Convention generally to spectators. We have admitted various persons here, but we have not admitted them to a conference upon the personal character of gentlemen who may be proposed for the Episcopate. I trust we are making a rule of order not for this Convention alone but for future Conventions. I know nothing about what may come up under this rule of order at the present Convention, and I care nothing about it. What I want is a rule of order to guide us now and hereafter, and guide us in wisdom.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I desire to say, Mr. President, that I shall advocate some rule which will enable this House to consider candidates for the episcopate in secret session; and I say that because it lies within my own knowledge, and I am happy to say within the knowledge of very few other members of our Church, that there is now a member of the Clerical Order of our Church who in long years gone by was guilty of a grievous crime, and, I will add, grievously has he answered for it. I would not willingly bring up that heinous offence from its dead forgetfulness of years; but if the name of that gentleman were before this Convention to be confirmed as a Bishop of our Church, I should feel it my conscientious duty to lay before this House what I know of the past years of his life. If I am compelled to be put in a position of that kind, I desire to communicate the fact to as few members of the Church, and to only members of the Church, as may be necessary to pre

vent his assuming the office of Bishop. I have no doubt he has repented, and sincerely repented, of the offence of his early years; but if he were before us as a candidate for Bishop, I should say he was unfit, and if the time should come my lips must be unsealed, and I should announce to this House the reasons why I should oppose him.

For this reason, I say, I desire to vote for some rule-and I do not care whether the one proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky, or the one offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin-some rule which will enable this House to sit in secret session upon the character of candidates who come before it.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, before I begin, I should like to state clearly what I want to speak about. In the first place, I am entirely opposed to the amendment introduced by my brother from Wisconsin (Rev. Dr. Adams). In the next place, I am entirely opposed to the amendment to the amendment of the Deputy from Kentucky (Mr. Stevenson); but I am not opposed to the rule of order, which I am prepared to vote for. The rule of order provides that this House shall go into secret session with regard to the election of a missionary bishop. That rule has prevailed in this House. I believe it has been the rule of this House to go into secret session whenever a missionary bishop was to be voted upon; but whenever a man has been elected by a diocese and his name has come before the House, it has always been acted on in open session, and there is a reason for this difference. The one is the confirmation of a man already elected to an office, and the other is the election, and the two states are altogether different. To confirm is one thing, and to elect is another. Of course, when we go into an election for a bishop, it is very necessary that many things should be entered into. It is not only his doctrinal qualifications, his personal qualifications, his moral qualifications; but when a man is called upon to vote for a bishop he may have a great many other things to think of. Various things may come in question. Therefore, it is very proper that when a bishop is to be elected, his qualifications should be freely discussed; but when a man has been already elected by a diocese, when all these discussions have been gone through with, when he is sent up to this House not for election but for confirmation, the whole range of enquiry is narrowed down. It seems to me it is narrowed into these two things-first, his doctrinal qualifications; and, secondly, his moral qualifications. Is he a heretic? or is he unfit morally? and those are very grave questions. When those things do come up, if ever they do, for discussion, it seems to me they ought to be discussed in the very light of day. The discussion ought not to be in secret session. It ought to be with the eyes of the whole world upon us, with the eyes of the Church upon us, with the sunshine shining in. If the person cannot be here to defend himself, at least he ought to have an opportunity of knowing what is said against him. I believe there were only two bodies in this world that ever discussed such questions with closed doors, and those were the Star Chamber and the Inquisition. If we are going to discuss the qualifications of a man as to heresy or as to moral fitness, let it be done openly and in the presence of all men; and what my brother from the Diocese of Georgia said a moment ago is the more convincing. He said that there is somebody somewhere among the clerical orders who has been guilty at some time in his life of a terrible crime. He said, if that gentleman were to come up here for discussion, it would be his duty to bring forward something like that. What! Is a clergyman to be put on trial here without anybody to defend him, subject to what may be said in secret, with nobody to take his part excepting those who

may chance to be here, no lawyer to defend him or anything of that sort? In such matters, let the charge be made in broad daylight and above-board. But, Mr. President, the rule of order provides that, in the case of the election of missionary bishops, the action shall be with closed doors, for the reason that it is an election and not a confirmation. The House of Bishops nominates to us, and we elect; and therefore, it seems to me eminently proper that in the one case we should sit with closed doors, and that in the other case we should sit with open doors; and so I am going to vote for the rule of order and for no amendments to it; and particularly I am opposed to the amendment of the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin for this reason. A rule of order, if I understand it, is a rule that is made for the daily orderly governance of the House. It is that our business may be facilitated and that it may be done with the more readiness. Now, do we want a rule of order which says that whenever this House goes into the consideration of questions affecting a man's personal character we shall sit with closed doors, as though that was generally one of the ordinary businesses of this House? We do not come here for any such purpose. We may have to do it, I suppose; but it is a very rare exception, and we do not want any rule of order on the subject, because this House can always go into secret session if it wants to do so.

Therefore I oppose both amendments, and am prepared to vote for the original rule of order.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I have during the course of my life seen the great evil of discussing personal questions in relation to the Episcopate in the House of Deputies, with a promiscuous assemblage. I expect auditors on ordinary occasions to be present; but not on such an occasion, for I have felt from time to time the necessity of these discussions taking place with closed doors. I felt it at the last General Convention when a nomination was sent us.

I would ask my Rev. Brother from Wisconsin if an election by dioceses is the conclusion of the matter, what do we do here? I would, moreover, ask him, is a diocese more competent to make an election of a bishop than the whole House of Bishops? He is willing to draw a distinction between a missionary bishop nominated by the House of Bishops and a diocesan bishop nominated-that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"elected," he calls it, I say "nominated," because every man nominated by a diocesan convention has to pass two other bodies, either the standing committees, who always meet in secret session, or this House and the House of Bishops.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Do you want an answer?

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not ask an answer; but, when I am done, if you want to give any light on the subject, you may do so. [Laughter.]

Now, sir, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Rev. Dr. Adams), simply because of one word in it. If he would consent to change that word, it would entirely alter my whole course. I never want a rule of order in an important matter of this kind which has "may" in it. I want a "shall," and that takes away all the odium of the motion to close the doors which I had to endure at the last General Convention; but, thank God, I scarcely heard a dissenting voice then. But when the orders of the day came up the day after, a motion was made to act with open doors. Why? Because it was said of the outside public they wanted to be present and hear all that was said. A motion was made to reconsider that resolution for the purpose of having it rescinded.

That motion, by a tremendous majority, I believe, was voted down. It happened that the House of Bishops withdrew the nomination because the Rev. Brother who was then nominated for Africa was an important member of the Board of Missions, and especially of the Committee on Foreign Missions, and he was retained, until at last wisely the Bishops sent him to the Indian district; and then how was their action met? In secret session, by standing committees. Take the elections of diocesan bishops, as they are called elections; if they had been elected six months before this Convention met, how would they have been disposed of? In secret session by the standing committees; but now forsooth we are the committee to act, and we are afraid to act ourselves.

Another thing I want to say to my reverend brother from Wisconsin, and to every gentleman who has objected to this rule; and it is, that I have a conscience, and, so help me God, I never will sign the testimonial of a man for a bishop until I am clear and conscientious in saying before God, in whose presence I may very soon appear, that I believe him fit for a bishop.

We have had in the House of Deputies three instances of men elected as Bishops being sent back. There was the case of Mr. Ogden, of Trinity Church, elected the first Bishop of New Jersey in 1795. A question arose and in this delicate way it was brought up; and finally the House wisely got rid of it by sending him back to his own diocese, and nothing was afterwards heard of him. A similar case took place in 1844, quorum_pars fui. I was much censured for the course I pursued, I know, but not by my conscience, and, I trust, not by my God. It was the case of one of the dearest friends I had in the Church, and I thank God that the course I then pursued never lost me his friendship, but he had the magnanimity to honor me for it, and to the day of his death he was my bosom friend. I loved him, and I love his memory. I allude to the late Dr. Francis L. Hawks. In 1844 his name came before the Convention. All of us who ever heard him know his eloquence-the silver tones united with the diapason of his voice-and we know also his ingenuity. He made a speech, and if the question had been taken at that moment the House was not in a condition under his speech to act upon it. It adjourned wisely. I went to my lodgings and communed with none but my God. I knew facts which I thought ought to be fatal to my friend, so that he should never be consecrated Bishop of Mississippi or a Bishop in the Church, with all his talents. I deliberated; I spent a sleepless night. I came to the House next day, sitting in St. Andrew's Church, Philadelphia. I was Secretary of the House at the time. I said to the President, "Sir, as soon as the House is ready for business and the order of the day is to be taken up, will you give me the floor?" "I will, sir," he replied. I performed my duty as Secretary, and then came down from the vantage-ground of the platform to the middle aisle, and I said what I knew and what would prevent me from signing the testimonials. Nay, in my usual forcible way when I want to express a thing strongly, I said, "Sooner than I would sign those testimonials I would lay my hand upon the block and let a butcher with his cleaver sever it from my body." I am not calculated for a stump-orator. [Laughter.] "Then," said 1, "I would hold up the bleeding stump and say, 'Forbear! forbear. Do not sign the testimonials of this man. He was my friend. My heart bled that I had to say it; but I had a conscience, and I have a conscience yet, I thank God, and I trust I shall carry it clear and pure as possible, sanctified by the blood of the Redeemer, at the last day before the judgment-seat of Christ.

On these grounds, I say, let us have a rule which shall make it imperative; and if a case be so clear and distinct as not to require a session with closed doors, a two-thirds vote of the House will suspend the rule for the occasion; but let us have a rule so that others shall not be put to the necessity which I have been put to, of standing forth to be censured by many persons as a bold, daring, impudent man, because I have a conscience and I am sent here to exercise that conscience in behalf of the Church. I would lay down my life for the Church; but I will never sacrifice my conscience while the Church requires me to act for it.

The Senate of the United States, when the President sends them a nomination, close their doors. Why? Because the character of the individuals, their fitness for office, is to be discussed. I hold, further, that in all deliberative bodies acting in secret session, everything transacted is sub rosa, and no man, without violating every principle of a deliberative body in secret session, can whisper to his dearest friend outside what was said inside. I want to have the opportunity to express my opinions—if I have them adverse to a nomination, freely; if I have them in favor, freely-before I sign a testimonial either for a missionary or a diocesan bishop. Therefore, I say that, if my brother from Wisconsin (Rev. Mr. Adams) will alter his proposition to "shall" in all cases, I will most cheerfully accept his substitute and vote for it, and entreat every member of the House who has a conscience, and feels that he has it, to act, not before oi modo, the multitude, although they be the families of clergymen. It is said of the families of clergymen that sometimes they make the worst citizens in the world [laughter], but because they are the families of clergymen and we have authorized them to come here during our public sessions, it will not do to say that we cannot have any secret, private conference. That is a perfect absurdity, and it must commend itself to every man present as an absurdity, and I hope that, by a large vote, that principle will be voted down, and that we shall adopt this rule of order.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I am perfectly willing to accept the verbal alteration proposed by the Rev. Dr. Mead.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, when aged men recount the exploits of their youth, it becomes younger persons to keep silence and to wonder and admire; and yet I have no doubt that a marvelling and wondering Church has, ever since the year 1844, marvelled that any body of men should have rejected from its Episcopacy, even though the reverend gentleman from Connecticut was the leader of the movement, a man who holds so high an estate in the memories of the Church as the Rev. Francis L. Hawks, LL.D., who sometime was the historiographer of this Church. But the reverend gentleman from Connecticut did not mention one fact which made his argument not quite as plausible as it seemed. All that bravery of his was exhibited in open session. If he had a conscience, he was not afraid to speak it out; and so I say, Mr. President, let us follow his good example in that respect, even if we cannot agree with his judgment in the other.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, I understand that the suggestion made by the Clerical Deputy from Connecticut has been adopted. Am I right?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. (Rev. Dr. Williams, of Georgia, in the Chair.) Yes, sir.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then, as a rule, it will be obligatory in every case, if it be passed? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Unless twothirds dispense with it.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I will omit the

word upon motion," so as to read "shall sit with closed doors."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be so modified.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I chanced to be in the Convention referred to by the Clerical Deputy from Connecticut. The impression made there upon the community was such that I am satisfied every gentleman present in this Convention will vote for sitting with closed doors on such occasions. I remember the argument then, and especially do I remember the argument of Horace Binney. It made a deep impression, and one of the most painful character.

But I think the House is prepared to vote. I will merely ask them to recall the experience of three years since when we decreed to sit with closed doors. Those who were present can easily recall the testimony that was borne there to the character of the gentleman who was under consideration, but whose health was such that we concluded to ask the House of Bishops to withdraw his name. All that discussion is fresh to the minds of many here, and I am sure the experience we gained three years since, that induced the Committee to bring in this amended rule, will enable us now to vote in favor of making it a permanent rule.

Mr. BRUNE, of Maryland. Mr. President, I would say a word or two on this subject. I am very unwilling to speak upon any question, as this House may understand, for I am sure I am very little known to most of the members. But there is a point that has not been presented by the able gentle men who have already spoken, clerical and lay, to which I beg to call the attention of the House; and that is this: We have first the choice of the present amendment of the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin. That has been changed this morning at the last moment, whether rightfully or wrongfully, according to parliamentary usage, is a matter of no importance to me; it has been changed in a most important respect by the substitution of a single word, "shall" for "may," changing the whole aspect of the question, as will be seen at once. Now, what is the effect of this change? The effect is to completely overturn the rules that we have hitherto been governed by. The objection, before the change, to the measure of the Rev. gentleman was that it seemed to be unnecessary, because we may by a special resolution or order provide for closing the doors on any occasion, and do it by a simple majority, whereas to change a rule, according to the rules we have begun to adopt to-day, would quire two-thirds. If we had adopted his substitute with the word "may " in, I presume it would authorize us, as a rule of order, when a question of character was before the House, by a simple majority vote, to sit with closed doors. And what would be the effect of that? has been described by the learned Deputy from Illinois. Look at the broadness of the question. Whenever character is involved, we shall sit with closed doors. It seems to me the answer to such a

re

It

proposition is the mere statement of it. Suppose it is "may," the objection to that is that the rule can be suspended; we can sit with closed doors by a vote of two-thirds upon any question whether of character or not. Then why shall we have a standing rule upon the subject. That presents the question as it stood under the old rule, and as it is proposed to be amended by my distinguished friend from Kentucky; and it seems to me, in spite of the eloquent language of the Deputy from Wisconsin (Rev. Dr. De Koven) that the Deputy from Kentucky was wise in his amendment. In spite of the language of the most eloquent gentleman from Wisconsin, I think there is no fair, clear distinction between our action upon a bishop

elected from a diocese and coming here with the endorsement of a diocese, and upon the nomination by the House of Bishops of a missionary bishop. I, for one, say that either is not a recommendation to me, but is conclusive, unless there are some hidden circumstances, such as have been touched upon by the venerable gentleman from Connecticut, that would induce the House to go against such certificates.

But now we come to the question whether there should be any rule at all upon the subject; and on that point I say that I occupy a different ground from the most eloquent member from Wisconsin. I see no substantial distinction between the case of a missionary bishop and the case of an elected diocesan bishop, and therefore the enquiry is whether we should have a standing rule at all which makes it imperative that we should sit with closed doors whenever we have to deal with such a question. We ought not to assume that any diocese will elect any man without going fully into his qualifications; and we are, as it were, bound to accept that as the most substantial, if not conclusive, proof of fitness. So in the other case, when a missionary bishop is sent down to us from the House of Bishops, you and I are to enquire as to the propriety of that nomination. We can do either one of two things on such an occasion. We can provide, when it arises, for an emergency. I would not anticipate it now, and I would not provide any general standing rule for such an extraordinary case as has been touched upon. I was not old enough to be in the Convention which dealt with the case of that most distinguished Presbyter, who perhaps has had honor in the Church quite as large as if he had been upon that occasion confirmed as Bishop. But I say, if there should such a deal with it in

a

case occur

one

can

again, we of two ways, which are both simple and without the slightest difficulty. If two-thirds of the House think upon such an occasion that we should sit with closed doors, either in reference to a missionary bishop or in reference to a diocesan bishop, we can do so; but I for one cannot see why the bold, independent, eloquent, and revered Presbyter from Connecticut cannot just as well do his duty in the sight of God and before this Church with this House sitting on such an occasion with open doors, as after a motion to sit with closed doors. If there should be such an occasion againwhich I trust there never will be-I should say it was a case where everything that should be said should be openly said, and not be liable to the slightest misconstruction.

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Mr. President, I had intended to say one word in relation to the memory of the venerable and beloved Dr. Hawks. The absence of the Deputy from Connecticut prevents my adding a few words of a historic character relative to that convention to which he referred. Not wishing to prolong this discussion, and he being absent, I forbear the remarks I had intended to make.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, I have no purpose of entering into the character, canonically speaking, of the action of the House of Bishops or of this House in the election of a missionary bishop. Neither do I intend now to call the attention of this House to the decided distinction there is between the election of a bishop by a diocese, and his subsequent confirmation by this House, as distinguished from the gift of jurisdiction which can only be conferred by the Provincial Synod of Bishops of this National Church. These things I shall pass over. I also pass over all the reasons why at the election of bishops secrecy ought to be maintained, at least during the session of those who elect him. That I may speak of hereafter, but not now.

« PreviousContinue »