Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. meet it squarely. If it is simply understood that the House decline to take action on this proposition because they consider their action upon the Rubrical commission upon baptismal regeneration, and upon the election of Bishop Seymour, sufficiently significant, I will submit. The PRESIDENT. We cannot tell the motives. Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. If we were all to give our reasons, it would take a long time. Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. May I not be allowed to refer the matter to the next Convention? '[No, No."] Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Excuse me. I have some right. I have moved to lay this resolution on the table and I do not withdraw that motion. I insist upon my right to have the question taken. Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I hope the proposition will be withdrawn. It involves an important doctrinal question; and how can you have an expression of opinion when there is not a full House here ? Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I discover from what is said that the feeling is that the House has already taken sufficiently significant action. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the resolution. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I move that leave be granted. The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was withdrawn. PRAYER FOR AUTHORITIES. The next business on the Calendar was the resolution offered by Mr. Cornwall, of Kentucky, relative to the Prayer for the President, etc. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move that it be laid on the table. The PRESIDENT. Perhaps it would be better to refer it to the next General Convention. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. I submit the motion that it be referred to the next General Convention. The motion was agreed to. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. The next business on the Calendar was the resolution offered by Rev. Dr. Stringfellow, of Alabama, asking leave to withdraw certain papers in the keeping of the House. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. The doctor is not here; but I will, in his name, withdraw the resolution. The PRESIDENT. If no objection be made, the resolution will be considered as withdrawn. CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY. The next business on the Calendar was communications from the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, England; and the Secretary of the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I offer the following resolution : "Resolved, That the Secretary of this House be instructed to convey to the Rev. Dr. Frazer and the Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation the grateful recognition of their courtesy in transmitting copies of their official proceedings, and that he also forward to the proper officer of the Convocation copies of our Journal and formal proceedings so far as may be in his power." The resolution was agreed to. SYNODS OF DIOCESES. The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons. "Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed Canon Authorizing the Formation of Synods of Dioceses." The resolution was agreed to. STATE OF THE CHURCH. The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons. "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Sections 4 and 5, of Canon 15, of Title L., be amended so as to read as follows: "Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Convention of every Diocese, or of the person or persons with whom the Journals or other ecclesiastical papers are lodged, to forward to the House of Deputies at every General Convention, on or before the first Monday of the session, the documents and papers specified in this Canon. "Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Church in every Diocese, or, if there be no Bishop, of the Standing Committee only, to prepare, previously to the meeting of every General Convention, a condensed report and a tabular view of the state of the Church in their Diocese, comprising therein a summary of the statistics from the parochial reports, and from the Bishop's addresses, specifying the capital and proceeds of the Episcopal Fund, and of all Benevolent and Missionary associations of Churchmen within the Diocese, and present the same to the Secretary of the House of Deputies on or before the first Monday of the session, for the purpose of aiding the Committee on the State of the Church, appointed by the House of Deputies in drafting their reports." Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. This is a very important aid to the Committee on the state of the Church. The resolution was agreed to. CANON ON DIVORCE. "1. Strike out Section I. "2. Strike out Sections III., IV., and V. "No minister of this Church shall solemnize matrimony in any case where there is a divorced wife or husband of either party still living, and where the divorce was obtained for some cause arising after marriage; but this Canon shall not be held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of adultery, or to parties once divorced seeking to be united again." Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The only change in the present Canon there is the introduction of the clause, "cause arising after marriage." The Committee thought it was inexpedient to introduce, at all events at this time, the penal arrangements which were provided in the Canon as sent from the House of Bishops. In order to understand the matter, perhaps Message No. 21 from the House of Bishops had better be read. The SECRETARY read Message No. 21 from the House of Bishops. un Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The House will perceive that the changes proposed by the Committee on Canons on the action of the Bishops are these: In the first place, we leave out the first section proposed by them, "if any persons be joined together otherwise than as God's Word allows, their marriage shall not be lawful," simply on the ground of its being necessary. That is in the marriage service, and it is thought better not at present to burden the Canon by putting the paragraph in. Section 2, the Committee propose to adopt exactly as it comes down to us in the message of the Bishops. The amendment of the present Canon is that the divorce must be for cause existing previous to marriage. That amendment is made in the Canon as it stands in the Journal of 1871. That is all the change proposed in the second section, or in the existing Canon. Then the third, fourth, and fifth sections of the Canon coming down from the House of Bishops, it is proposed to strike out entirely. These sections provide for inflicting penalties for violations of the Canon, and providing the machinery by which the facts of the case may be reached. We thought it inexpedient at this time to legislate on these subjects. Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. Is there any provision made for restoration ? Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The new matter is the introduction of the words: "And where the divorce was obtained for some cause arising after marriage." The first was too sweeping, and this a qualification. Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I think the difficulty with regard to the old Canon was that it gave no protection to us, the clergy of the Church, in these cases, and this Canon as it comes down from the House of Bishops gives us protection; that is to say, it says what we are to do in reference to such persons coming forward to Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. I think that the laity and clergy of this Church on examining the Bishops' Canon, will see that it is a right step in the divorce legislation of this Church. As to the reason for omitting the first clause of the Bishops' Canon because it cumbers us, I think that is a mistake. I think that every Christian man will see that the only proper basis of divorce is the judgment decreed by Christ Himself, and I am proud to say that in this great State of New York that still remains the basis of legislation, and in nineteen cases out of twenty when a divorce is sued for in this State it is what we call the minor divorce, that is to say, a judicial separation of the parties, instead of breaking the bond of union. I think, as I say, that the Bishops' Canon is the more appropriate; it protects us; it defines the matter more clearly; it takes the thing out of the vagueness which was the general understanding of the initial step that we took in 1868, and which was universally censured by every one who desired that this subject of matrimony and divorce should be put upon proper and suitable ground. I therefore would move as an amendment that this House concur in the Canon that has come down from the House of Bishops. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that this subject be referred to the next Convention. If we make a change in the Bishops' Canon, it will lead to debate there, and this is a difficult and delicate subject. I am as much opposed to the report of the Committee almost as I am to the Canon sent down by the Bishops; and I am perfectly certain that in a full Convention there would be a very exciting debate. I do not think we are at all prepared for it, and I do not think we can do more than refer it to the next General Convention. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. How will that affect the present Canon? Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. It will leave it just where it is. It is moved to refer the mat The PRESIDENT. ter to the next General Convention. The motion was agreed to. POSTURES IN THE COMMUNION OFFICE. The next business on the Calendar was the report of the Committee on Canons, on a resolution requesting the expression of their opinion as to postures in the Communion Service. The resolution of the Committee is as follows: "Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed resolution in regard to postures in the Communion Service." The SECRETARY. The following resolution was offered by Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, to be placed on the Calendar in this connection: "Resolved, That this House re-enact the preamble and resolution passed at the session of the General Convention in 1829, viz. : "Whereas, In the celebration of the Communion Office there is a variety of posture observed, and it is desirable that uniformity as far as practicable should be obtained in this respect. Therefore, "Resolved, That this House do respectfully request of the House of Bishops the expression of their opinion as to the proper postures to be used in the said Office, with a view of effecting uniformity in that respect during the celebration. Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. The resolution never belonged to the Committee on Canons at all. It was introduced on the sixth day of the session, and in the remarks which I made on introducing it, I closed with the words : "I only offer it now that it may take its place on the Calendar.” And the President said: At any "The resolution will go on the Calendar." How the Committee on Canons succeeded in getting hold of it after that, I am unaware. rate, they got it, sat on it, and incubated the resolution which has just been reported, the shell of which I shall be very happy to crack, if there is anything in it, because I do not think it ought to be before the House in that form. I introduced the resolution on the sixth day of the session, in order that early action might be had upon it, because I understood that many members of the House of Bishops wanted the resolution before them, but it was in the Committee on Canons during the long period we were discussing the Confirmation of Professor Seymour, and it was only after that that I began to look after it, and found it was not on the Calendar. So after a ramified search I succeeded in unearthing it and got it placed on the Calendar, and that is the way it is before us now. I beg therefore to suggest that the report of the Committee on Canons is a mistake, and is not in order, and ought not to receive any action from this House; but that we ought to consider the resolution simply upon its merits. I am very well aware that if I were to press the resolution now I should be answered by the trite complaint of the thinness of the House. I beg to say that there is no such complaint as that on the part of the Deputies from Long Island. Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. As far as I know, the Committee on Canons are willing to withdraw their report. of Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I would like to submit this resolution for passage. It is a very simple thing, and I know that the House of Bishops have been looking for it for some time, and I know that it will be very gratefully received there. I do not propose to discuss it. It is simply to re-enact resolution which a was passed in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, at the General Convention 1829. The resolution I now offer is precisely in the words of the resolution of 1829, and the House of Bishops received that resolution and acted upon it, and in the General Convention of 1832 they set forth and expressed the unanimous opinion of the House of Bishops touching the proper postures in the Communion service. We know very well that the most of those postures are regulated by Rubric. It is only proposed that the Bishops would express their opinion where the Rubrics are vague and uncertain, or where they give no special direction. The opinion, as set forth then, has been, as a general thing, complied with, and the consequence is that there has been a general use of the Church, until within the last few years; and now that we have passed the Canon on Ritual, which is designed, like the Public Worship regulation bill, passed in England lately, to facilitate proceedings, touching the irregular practices, it seems to me important, that as supplementary to that action there should be a reassertion of the aggregate or unanimous opinion of the House of Bishops touching the proper postures to be observed in the Communion Office, that Bishops having cases brought before them for their consideration, can be guided, if not governed in their action by such opinion as may be set forth by the House of Bishops, so that we may have adjudications under a common use throughout the whole country. Otherwise we may find complaint made in one Diocese touching postures assumed in the Communion Office that may be adjudicated in one way, and in another Diocese in another way, which will make a conflict of decision that is certainly very undesirable. To those who, if it be possible that there are any such in the General Convention, may not have looked beneath the surface of this thing, I would simply say that the very essence of the action taken by this body is in regard to Eucharistic adoration; and we know very well that the time that is offered is after the consecration of the elements; and we know that in 1832 the Bishops unanimously set forth that the proper posture of the singing of the hymn, and the Gloria in Excelsis was the standing posture for the priest and people; and we know that has been forgotten or ignored, and that therefore that very question of posture as indicating the adoration is the question of the most importance to be adjudicated. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I want to make a motion in regard to this resolution of the Reverend Doctor from Long Island; but I should like, in the first place, to say that I think he has quite misunderstood the purport of our action in this House in the Ritual Canon, as I think I can show. The Ritual Canon presents four different kinds of Ritual acts. First, bowing; second, genuflections; third, kneelings; and fourth, prostrations. It approves of one of these-kneelings; it forbids three of them-bowings, genuflections, and prostrations. Now, it is very evident that bowing and genuflections are not as reverential as kneeling; and prostrations may be said to be excessive kneeling. Now, I take it that that Canon forbade prostrations in the interest of forbidding transubstantiation, and it forbade bowings and genuflections in the interest of forbidding things less than that which kneeling typifies. Kneeling typifies the doctrine of the real presence. I take it, therefore, that bowings and genuflections probably typify Zwinglianism and Calvinism, and, therefore, that these three things are aimed at. I do not believe that the difficulties which the Reverend Doctor speaks of are ever going to be met by anything issued by the House of There are difficulties, but Bishops on this subject. they will be settled by and by. I, therefore, move that the resolution of the reverend gentleman from Long Island be laid upon the table. Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long. Island. I hope the same respectful consideration which has been given to other matters will rather cause its postponement to the next Convention. The PRESIDENT. The resolution can be introduced at any time when the Convention meets. Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. would be a more graceful go-by. That The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolution be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. CLOSING SERVICES IN CALVARY CHURCH. A message (No. 100) from the House of Bishops informed the House of Deputies that it had adopted the following resolution: "Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That the Pastoral Letter be read in Calvary Church this Tuesday evening at half-past seven o'clock." Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The House of Bishops propose that the closing services to-night be held in Calvary Church. I will state why. They say, on election day, this is a part of the city that they would not like to invite people to at night. If notice be given now, it can be in the afternoon papers. On behalf of the Committee on Closing Services, I move that the message of the House of Bishops be concurred in. The motion was agreed to. CLERGYMEN CHARGEABLE WITH MISDEMEANOR. A message (No. 101) from the House of Bishops informed the House of Deputies that it concurred in Message No. 96 from the House of Deputies, concerning amendments of Section 1 of Canon 3 of Title II. of the Digest. COMMITTEE SERVICE. A message (No. 102) from the House of Bishops informed the House of Deputies that it concurred in Message No. 104 from the House of Deputies, continuing the Joint Committee on the Lectionary; and in Message No. 102 from the House of Deputies, enlarging the Joint Committee on the Spanish PrayerBook. INFORMATION ASKED. A message (No. 103) from the House of Bishops informed the House of Deputies that it had adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That this House respectfully asks the House of Deputies for information whether it has taken any action on the subject of Message No. 21 from the House of Bishops communicating a Canon of Divorce, or of Message No. 27 from the House of Bishops communicating an addition to Canon 19 of Title I., as to Pastoral teaching concerning family worship, light and vain amusements, and, if so, what in the respective cases. SYNODS OF DIOCESES. The next business on the Calendar was the follow ing resolution, submitted by Rev. Dr. Kidney, of Minnesota: "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That a joint commission, to consist of three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three laymen, be appointed to report to the next General Convention a Canon, or a constitutional amendment, or whatever legislation may be necessary, to authorize the formation of Synods of Dioceses, or some kind of ecclesiastical union of Dioceses, within the same State or Commonwealth." It Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I do not propose to say anything, Mr. President, upon the merits of this question, but I observe that the matter of the provincial system was debated on the day before yesterday, during my absence. Had I been here, I should have desired to obtain the floor to say something upon it. I hope, however, that the House will allow this measure to pass, namely, the appointment of a Joint Commission to take under consideration the subject named in the resolution. will relieve a want which is felt by every Diocese which has divided or which proposes to divide. Some may think that the existing Canon allowing the federation of Dioceses is all-sufficient, but it does not meet all the wants of those who desire this thing. To say no more about it, I will mention one or two deficiencies in it. In the first place, there is no provision made by that Canon for unanimity or uniformity of action in this particular. Every federation of Dioceses under that Canon may be different from any other federation. There is no similarity It is best therefore, I contend, that this House should determine what are to be the powers of any such synodical body which may be formed, rather than that, according to the terms of the existing Canon, they shall present the powers to the General Convention which they propose to exercise. More than that, it is a desired thing that when Dioceses propose to divide, they shall be able to retain a symbol of their union before such division has actually been accomplished; in other words, that they may still be one as a Synod before division takes place. It is well that such a commission should take into consideration the propriety of appending such a clause to any Canon or other document which may be thought necessary. Unless this is done, we shall have schemes originating in individual minds, and I contend that it is better that there should be a commission composed of thoughtful men who shall supplement each other's thoughts, and who will be able to mature a better scheme than is likely to originate in any one individual mind. It is a want that is felt; it is a relief that is desired to be granted. In some shape or other, it will come up before every Convention that meets hereafter. It is proposed that we shall now take the initiative, and obtain, if possible, a commission of wise men who shall deliberate upon this matter together, and mature some scheme which sooner or later will meet with our assent. I say nothing more whatsoever upon the merits of this question, but simply express my hopes that the House will allow the appointment of a Joint Commission, to consist of three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three laymen who probably ought to be selected from the Dioceses at the East, that they can readily meet together without trouble or great expense, who shall take up this matter and endeavor, if possible, to relieve the wants which have been felt or expressed. Then we shall have some scheme matured worthy of our consideration rather than that schemes less carefully matured shall be brought up by individuals to be rejected. Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the motion. I am very willing to have such a commission, and to have them exhaust all their efforts to produce something that will work. What we have now certainly does not work. If they can make anything that will work without doing harm, I have no objection. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. This subject has been before the General Convention, more or less, since the year 1862, but it has never had the advantage of being before any General Convention in such a matured shape as to give it any fair chance of decent consideration. It has been left to individuals to bring in their schemes now at one time and now at another. The very magnitude of the subject has swamped it in the Committee on Canons; and when it has been brought up it has been in so imperfect a shape, in such a puzzled way, and so late in the session that it has amounted to little or nothing. The very magnitude of the question is so great that all the thought and all the care that can be given by a joint commission during the recess of the General Convention is none too much to give to a thing which we must have sooner or later, and the sooner we get it in a well-matured shape the better. Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Only one word. When the diocese of New Jersey determined to divide there was a general expression in the Convention of regret that there should be a division where there had been so much harmony and so much unity; and in order to avoid it a plan was proposed somewhat similar to this suggested synod, that is to say, that there should be an organization which should keep the two Dioceses somewhat together under some such plan, and it was advocated very earnestly by a great many of our people, and among the rest by myself. I regret very much that it was lost by a small majority. But there is no doubt in my mind that something of this kind would promote harmony and unity in the Church more than anything else we can accomplish. I trust therefore the resolution will pass. The resolution was agreed to, and the President appointed as the Joint Committee on Synods of Dioceses, on the part of the House of Deputies, Rev. Dr. Cady, of New York, Rev. Dr. Kidney, of Minnesota, Rev. Dr. Paret, of Central Pennsylvania, Mr. Forsyth, of Albany, Mr. Meigs, of New Jersey, and Mr. Redfield, of Vermont. ABANDONMENT OF COMMUNION. The House next proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on Canons upon Message No. 29 from the House of Bishops, proposing an amended Canon "Of the Abandonment of Communion of this Church by a Bishop." The Committee reported the following resolution: "Resolved, That this House concur with the House of Bishops in their proposed amendment to Canon 8, Title II., with the following amendments: "1. Insert after the word Church,' in the fourth line of the amended Canon, these words, either by an open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same or otherwise.' "2. In the thirteenth line of the same, strike out 'shall' and insert 'may.' "3. Insert after the word 'deposition,' at the end of the first clause of said amended Canon, these words, And in case the Bishop so abandoning the Communion of the Church be the Presiding Elder, the Bishop next in order of seniority shall be deemed to be, and shall act as, the Presiding Bishop under this Canon.' "4. After the word 'false,' in the second clause, insert these words, 'and shall demand a trial."" Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move to concur in the amendments. This provides for such a case as that of Bishop Cummins, who recently left this Church. It has been carefully perfected by the Committee on Canons of this House and of the House of Bishops. It is important that it should be acted upon. Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I make objection simply to one phrase in the proposed amendments of the Committee on Canons. I make objection to the idea that the Presiding Bishop of this Church should in any case abandon the Church. I think it is a great wrong to make such a supposition, and I think it would go out to the Church that this Committee on Canons has been rather tired out, and wanted to amuse themselves with a solemn joke on the Diocese of Kentucky. [Laughter.] That is to say, they seem to have the idea that, as the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky has gone and left us, so possibly the Senior Bishop of Kentucky may go and do the same. [Laughter.] Having made that jest (which I suppose is unconstitutional on my part), I would mention one thing that I object to in a constitutional way. There is such a thing as illegality, and lawyers are well acquainted with it. In drawing up a marriage settlement, for instance, if the man contemplates the possible divorce of the parties, the settlement is invalid, because there are certain things which we must not suppose. I, as a member of this House, do most solemnly protest against the Committee on Canons sitting down and placing on the face of our Canons the supposition that in any case whatsoever the Presiding Bishop may abandon the communion of this Church. The Presiding Bishop is a Bishop, and therefore we get to the bottom of the matter by a general statement that embraces all Bishops whatsoever; but to put in the consideration of the Presiding Bishop abandoning the Communion of this Church is, I think, undignified and improper. Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I entirely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, and hope this will not pass. I do not propose to suggest to any more Bishops the possibility or feasibility of their withdrawing from this Church. We have legislated and legislated looking to nothing else, it seems, but the abandonment of the ministry, or our doing something that ought not to be done. I think, as the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin has said, that it is undignified for us to take this action. I hope this resolution will not pass. Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The House of Bishops themselves, in perfecting the present Canon, put in a provision requiring the certificate of the fact of the abandonment of the Communion of this Church, to be made by the Standing Committee of the Dioceses to which the Bishops belonged. In the case of Bishop Cummins, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky must make the certificate. The Canon provides that the certificate shall be sent to the presiding Bishop. Now, you see it is important to provide that all the Bishops shall be treated alike; therefore it is provided that, in case the presiding Bishop is the one abandoning, it shall be sent to the Senior Bishop. Otherwise your Canon is ineffective. We do not legislate at all with reference to the present Bishops. It is a law for this Church for all time to come. I say, of course, that there is no idea of reflecting upon any Bishop now in our House of Bishops. It is a permanent law for the future, and to have a law on our Statute-Book that you could drive a coach and four through would be entirely improper. Make it so that it shall apply to all Bishops; treat them all alike, and the one who happens to be Presiding Bishop is provided for as well as others. Therefore if any Presiding Bishop hereafter shall abandon the communion of the Church, under the proposition of the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey, there would be no law for him. He could go on and do all the mischief he chose as Presiding Bishop, because there would be no law to dispose of him. We propose that in his case the matter shall go to the next Bishop in seniority under the Canons we have reported. The canon has been carefully perfected, in view of the recent case we had in our Church, by the Committees of both Houses, and I think it is wise, and should be adopted. The resolution was agreed to. The next business on the Calendar was the following report from the Committee on Canons : "The Committee on Canons have had under consideration Message No. 39 of the House of Bishops, proposing an amendment of Section 1, Canon 6, Title II., Of the Abandonment of the Communion of this Church by a Presbyter or Deacon,' and recommend the adoption of the following resolution : "Resolved, That the House of Deputies concur with the House of Bishops in the proposed amendment of Section 1, Canon 6, Title II., with the following amendment : "Strike out the word 'and' after the word 'discipline' in the sixth line, and insert the word 'or.'" Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the resolution be passed. Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. What does it amount to ? Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I will tell you. After the Cheney and Cummins schism, a Presbyter of the Diocese of Pittsburgh declared that he had not abandoned the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church, though he favored that movement, because, he said, he had done nothing, and there was a technical difficulty in getting over that word "and." We propose to insert "or" in its place, which seems to be necessary to make it harmonious. It now is: "Abandon the doctrine, discipline, and worship." It requires the three to concur, and he denied having done so, though, in fact, he had gone into that movement, and we could not reach him. By inserting the word "or" in place of "and," it relieves it of the difficulty, and makes it in harmony with our legislation. The resolution was agreed to. ORDER OF DEACONESSES. The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution reported by the Joint Committee on Canons: "Resolved, that the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed 'Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters."" Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I would say that there has been a joint committee since appointed to take that matter into consideration and to report to the next General Convention. Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, it is one of the inestimable privileges of Deputies not members of the Committee on Canons, that they are able to criticise the proceedings of those who are members of that Committee; and without any intention whatsoever of opposing the passage of the resolution now before the House, I do wish to call the attention of the members to the very in structive history of this measure. Whence did it come? From individual impulse? Not at all. It was introduced here by a committee appointed three years ago, composed of three Bishops, three clergymen, and three laymen, who considered the subject for three years and brought in a unanimous report, and unanimously recommended the passage of the proposed Canon. This Committee, be it remembered, in |