be left to slumber in the arms of the Committee reporting it. When Connecticut is ready to part with a cherished vestige of her ancient history, or when she can be made to see that her example, or the example of Maryland and Easton, is the least obstruction to the progress of the Church, then pass your Canon, and we will graciously submit to its direction; not before.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, having introduced this proposition, I feel bound to answer some of the arguments of the Deputy from Connecticut. He says that it is a mere theory. Why, sir, if there is a fixed principle in our Church, this is a principle. I would state that before introducing it, it was my privilege to confer with the Bishop of Maryland and the Bishop of Connecticut. The Bishop of Connecticut, while he would have been glad to have this change deferred until after his death, admitted that it was right, and that if made, he would accede to it. The Bishop of Maryland thought that there were constitutional impediments, but he, too, I understood, would be glad to have the change made. I asked him if there were any persons in this House with whom I could confer about the question. He instanced Chief Justice Waite, and two others. I got them together, and they examined it, and saw no difficulty whatever, believing that the power rests with us. I believe we understand that in the early history of the Church, when the approval of Bishops-elect was entirely with the Convention, and it was not expected that the Standing Committees would act, the General Convention was chary about touching this matter; but the moment the Standing Committees become our agents and our representatives, they cannot represent us except they be organized on the very principle of our Constitution. The Dioceses may have Standing Committees for their own purposes and make them all of the laity or all of the clergy; but if they be our Standing Committees, to do our work, to examine the fitness of a Bishop-elect for the office, and if they are to perform the new duty we have just assigned to them in the Canon of Ritual, we cannot, according to my view, give them a power which we have not ourselves. We have no power to say to the clerical members of this Convention, You may examine a person upon any particular thing," and yet we tell the Diocesan Standing Committees that they may be made of all clergy or all laity without any restriction.

66

I think gentlemen can easily see that there is a principle which lies at the very foundation structure of our Church, and when we rise up or ask the dioceses to raise up Standing Committees to perform certain important duties, they should be made to correspond precisely with the principles of our Church. If it be a mere theory, then Connecticut and Maryland and Easton may continue as they are, and if they so continue there is nothing to hinder us from having every Standing Committee in the whole Church composed entirely of clergy or entirely of laymen.

I recollect once visiting an insane hospital, and one of the men inside said to me: "We are not insane; we are sane; but we are in the minority now and we are inside. By-and-by when we get in the majority, you will all be in here and we shall be out."

It may be that in some Dioceses the laity may have the upper hand; in others the clergy may have the upper hand; and so we may have our Standing Committees, composed sometimes altogether of laity and sometimes altogether of clergy. The three Dioceses named, so far as we know, are the only Dioceses that have Standing Committees composed entirely of clergymen; and from what I have heard from their Bishops, I am inclined to believe that if the change be made, if we have the power to make

the change, it will be altogether agreeable to them.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I do not propose to discuss this question; I only wish to say that this is an important question involving the most important rights of Dioceses. There is a very small portion of the Convention here, and I understand even a less proportion present in the House of Bishops. I therefore move to postpone this question to the next General Convention.

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I object to that. The question is on indefinite postpone

ment.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I had not heard that motion.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I desire to say a single word, and it is upon the constitutional question. There are very serious doubts in my mind whether we can do this, notwithstanding the opinion which seems to have been given by Chief-Justice Waite. I differ toto cœlo from him on that point, but perhaps it may be owing to the different legal schools in which we have been brought up. Let me illustrate this matter. Suppose the Congress of the United States propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They refer them to the States; and, as everybody knows, the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States may agree to it, and amend the Constitution. But will it be pretended that Congress can say to those States, You must elect your Legislatures thus and so; you must amend your Constitution as to the mode in which you elect your State Legislatures"? Not at all. It must accept the Legislatures of the States as the means by which it proposes an amendment to the Constitution. There is another mode pointed out, by which the Constitution of the United States may be amended; and that is by calling a convention, which Congress also has the power to do. If they are dissatisfied with the Legislatures of the States, as the States present them, then they must resort to the other method, but they cannot go down to the States and say: "You must elect your Legislatures thus and so." That is an infringement upon the constitutional rights of the States, and Congress cannot do it. So, I apprehend, here we cannot do any such thing; we cannot say to the different Dioceses of the general Church, "You must elect such and such members to your Standing Committees." We must accept the Standing Committees as the Dioceses present them to us. If the objection be raised that the laity ought to be represented in the choice of Bishops, then we must resort to the other alternative which is in our power; we must require all the Bishops, whether elected within six months before the sitting of this General Convention, or not, to be presented to us. That is the only way in which we can act.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I concur with the Deputy last up, except that I am more strong in my convictions that this proposition is clearly unconstitutional. It certainly ought not to be passed without a thorough examination of the question of power. Sir, these Dioceses are confederated Dioceses, within one General Convention, and I say to the Deputy from Pennsylvania, for whom I entertain great respect, that he will fail in his object for the reason that this Convention cannot force any Diocese to choose a Bishop except as that Diocese shall please.

The Fourth Article of this Constitution says: "The Bishop or Bishops in every Diocese shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the Convention of the Diocese." The Diocesan Convention, under its Constitution, may exclude its laity, and why not? Who shall dare to say that

they shall not? Have we any power to force a Diocese to send representatives to this Convention? Clearly not. They will be bound by your acts, but you cannot, unless that Diocese chooses to send representatives here, have it represented. I utterly deny the power of this General Convention, much as I desire conformity and uniformity, to undertake to impose on a Diocese in the exercise of its individual, constitutional Diocesan rights, the giving up of any privilege which they have had once, which has not been taken from them by the Constitution. So far from that being the case, the Constitution recognizes the constitutional right of each Diocese, respectively, to elect a Bishop in its own way; and there is no lawyer and no judge, and no member of this Convention, I think, who will say, looking at that provision, that a Diocesan Convention, if it pleases, by a unanimous vote of its Diocese may not frame a Constitution which shall exclude the laity from representation in their Diocesan Standing Committee. That being the case, I think we stand on tender ground, and we ought not to pass this Canon until the question has been examined. I hope it will be postponed.

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. I concur, Mr. President, most heartily in the opinion expressed by the learned Deputies from Kentucky and Georgia in relation to the constitutional questions involved in the proposition before the House, and I rise, particularly on behalf of the laity of the Diocese of Connecticut, to enter a respectful protest against the action that is proposed here upon this question. I believe I speak the sentiments of the laity of that Diocese when I say that we are heartily in concurrence with the opinion expressed to the House by my clerical colleague from that Diocese, and that this House ought not, under these circumstances, to press this question to a vote, but ought to indefinitely postpone it as has been proposed.

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota.

Mr. Presi

dent, this is not a question of how a Bishop shall be elected by a Diocese, so that the argument of the Lay Deputy from Kentucky is not relevant. It is a question as to the confirmation of a Bishop who has been elected. When a Bishop has been elected by a Diocese, as we know, that election must come before the Standing Committees of the several Dioceses and must be passed upon. Shall those Standing Committees be some of them composed of clergymen alone, or shall they be composed of clergymen and laymen for the sake of uniformity? That is the question. I am clearly of opinion that this is a constitutional question, and that we have not the constitutional right to make this change. Nevertheless, the object desired is, I think, a worthy one; not that we should interfere with the position of the Standing Committees, leaving so their several Dioceses to determine what they shall be, but that we should ensure, by some provision of canonical consent, that the election of a Bishop should be made not only by the clergy, but by the laity of every Diocese in the land. Therefore, I contend that we are not prepared to accede to this proposition, on the ground that it does touch the constitutional rights of Dioceses. I am also prepared to state that we should refer the matter back to the Committee on Canons, in order that they may mature some resolution, some Canon, or some legislation whereby the question may be reached; that is to say, whereby uniformity shall prevail throughout the Church in this land, that in the confirmation of a Bishop-elect, the laity of every Diocese, as well as the clergy, shall be represented, and shall give their consent.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. I would enquire, first of all, whether any memorials have

been sent up to this House, requesting this change, from the laity of the Diocese of Connecticut?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No; the measure came without any memorial.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Have any memorials been sent in from the Diocese of Maryland from the laity?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No, sir. Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Have any been sent in from the laity of the Diocese of Easton ?

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. No, sir.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. We are told the attempt was made in the Diocese of Connecticut, and was voted down by the laity. I have also been informed that the attempt has been made in the Diocese of Maryland, and has been voted down by the laity. And so far as it seems to me now, after the answers to my questions, it would appear that the change is memorialized for in these three Dioceses by no person but the Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania. Under these circumstances, and considering that the two Dioceses of Connecticut and Maryland (Easten being formed out of Maryland and partaking of its usage) are two of our oldest Dioceses, our old historic Dioceses, and a great majority of those represented now on this floor are comparatively mere upstarts in comparison with them. I think it is exceedingly out of character for us to try to force upon those Dioceses a change which they do not desire, and have refused to accept of their own free motion.

One other word. In each of these Dioceses, if I am rightly informed, the members of the Standing Committee, although consisting of clergy only, are elected by the votes of both orders. It needs a con current vote by both orders before any man can be elected on the Standing Committee; and if the laity are satisfied with that mode of representation, there is no call upon the part of any one else that I can see to interfere, and I would especially desire to put down the spirit of meddling where it is none of our business, where there is no call to meddle, and where we had better consider the old question of Lord Melbourne. When people wanted to bring in changes for which there was no use, he would always say, "Can't you let it alone?" I move to lay the whole subject on

the table.

The PRESIDENT. The hour for recess has arrived, but if the House is ready, the Chair will put the question on the motion to lay on the table.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Rev. Dr. Watson desires me to withdraw the motion, and I do so. Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I will renew it in a moment. I desire to express my own dissent, as a member of the Committee on Canons, from the measure reported. It does seem to be an unnecessary interference with Dioceses. If the laity of any Diocese choose to express their will through the clergy of the Diocese, I maintain that they have a perfect right to do so. It is no repression of the voice of the laity whatever, but simply their way of being represented. Now, as bound, I renew the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Let me ask the gentleman who made the motion to withdraw it for a moment that I may renew the motion for indefinite postponement, for this reason: a question laid on the table may be called up, and I do not think this House should hold that power in their hands in regard to the matter.

The PRESIDENT. This will certainly not be called up again at this session. The question is on the motion to lay the subject on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The House will now take a recess until two o'clock.

At two o'clock the House resumed its session.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the House agree to the report of the Joint Committee of Conference in regard to the disagreement between the two Houses in reference to an amendment of Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title III.

The report was read as follows:

"The Joint Committee of Conference, appointed to consider the disagreement between the two Houses in regard to an amendment to Section 1, of Canon 1, Title III., proposed by the House of Deputies, respectfully report that they recommend the adoption of the proposed amendment, with the alteration of the words 'each House of the General Convention,' to 'the House of Deputies,' as expressed in the following resolution:

Resolved, That the following clause be added to Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest:

"[4] The Rules and Orders of the House of Deputies shall be in force in the ensuing General Convention until the organization thereof, and until they be amended or repealed by the said House." The resolution was agreed to.

ABSENCE OF CLERGYMEN.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the next business on the Calendar.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is the following resolution, reported from the Committee on Canons :

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed amendment to Canon 7 of Title II.: 'Of a Clergyman absenting himself from his Diocese."" The resolution was agreed to.

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT.

The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution, reported by the Committee on Canons :

"Resolved, That the subject of procedure of this House, in its action upon the testimonials of Bishopselect, be referred to a Special Committee of five, to consider and report to the next General Convention."

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that that be laid on the table. It is too important a subject to be acted on now.

The motion was agreed to.

STUDENTS IN SEMINARIES.

The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution from the Committee on Canons:

Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from consideration of the subject of pastoral charge of students in Theological Seminaries," etc.

The resolution was agreed to.

INHIBITION OF ACCUSED MINISTERS. The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons:

"Resolved, That this House do not concur with the House of Bishops in the amendment of Canon 2, Title II., proposed to this House in Message No. 40, from the House of Bishops, relating to the inhibition of an accused minister."

The resolution was agreed to.

MISSIONARY BISHOPS.

The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution, reported by the Committee on Can

ons:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Clause 1, of Section 17, of Canon 13, of Title I., is hereby amended by the insertion of the words:

'On the written request of twelve members to the same,' after the word 'shall,' in the sixth line, so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 17. [1.] If during the recess of the General Convention, and more than six months previous to its session, any vacancy arise, either by death, resignation, or other cause, in the office of any Missionary Bishop of this Church (whether domestic or request of twelve members of the same, be convened foreign), the House of Bishops shall, on the written by the Presiding Bishop, or, in case of his death, by the Bishop who, according to the rules of the House vention; and thereupon may proceed to fill any and of Bishops, is to preside at the next General Conevery such vacancy that may then exist, by electing a suitable person or persons to be a Bishop or Bishops of this Church, to exercise Episcopal functions within the district, place, country, territory, station, or jurisdiction, where such vacancy or vacancies by the Presiding Bishop, or by some person or permay exist; and in case of such election, they shall, sons specially appointed, communicate the fact of such election to the Standing Committees of the Churches in the different Dioceses; and each Standing Committee that shall consent to the proposed consecration shall forward the evidence of such consent to the Presiding Bishop, or Bishop aforesaid. And if the major number of the Standing Committees shall consent to the proposed consecration, the Presiding or other Bishop as aforesaid shall forward copies of the evidence of such consent to each Bishop of this Church then within the limits of the United States; and if a majority of such Bishops consent aforesaid, with any two Bishops, or any three Bishto the consecration, the Presiding Bishop or Bishop ops to whom he may communicate the testimonials, may proceed to perform the same.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. That is an important amendment to the Canon in respect to a Special Session of the House of Bishops during the recess of the General Convention. As it now stands, it rests with the option of the Senior Bishop to call a Special Session. This Canon provides that if any twelve members of the House request the Senior Bishop to call a session, it shall be called. Important property rights are liable to be involved and other important matters; and it should not be left to the discretion of one Bishop whether the vacancy be filled or put off to the next General Convention. Therefore, it is wisely provided that any twelve Bishops may require the meeting of the House of Bishops to fill a vacancy in the office of Missionary Bishop.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Does it not now read "shall"?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. It is amended to read "may."

Rev. Mr. HOPKINŠ, of Albany. Then it is not to be convened unless twelve members request it? Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. There must be twelve to make the request. It is a very good amendment.

The resolution was agreed to.

ACTION OF HOUSE OF BISHOPS.

The next business on the Calendar was the following resolution reported by the Committee on Canons :

"Resolved, That this House do not concur with the House of Bishops in the amendment to Section 2, of Canon 13, Title I., proposed to this House in Message No. 42, and relating to the consent of the House of Bishops to the consecration of Bishopselect."

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I hope that will be explained.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The object of the Committee was to avoid making it

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the subject of the status of Missionary Bishops," etc.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I express my gratitude to the Committee on Canons for bringing that matter up so promptly for consideration. [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. We did the best we could.

The resolution was agreed to.

CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS.

The next business on the Calendar was the following resolutions, reported by the Committee on Canons:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the subject of the testimonials of candidates for Holy Orders." The resolution was agreed to

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is through with.

THANKS TO PRESIDENT CRAIK.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. There is a duty devolving on me, of offering a few resolutions of courtesy. I now offer the following:

"Resolved, That the thanks of this House be presented to the Rev. Dr. Craik, its presiding officer, in testimony of its warm appreciation of his eminent services during the protracted sessions of this body, discharging, as he has done, the difficult duties of his office with singular fidelity."

I ask the Secretary to put the question on this resolution.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I suggest that the question be put by a rising vote.

The SECRETARY. Those in favor of the resolution will rise.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to.

SYNODS OF DIOCESES.

A message (No. 104) from the House of Bishops announced that it did not concur in the Message No. 109, from the House of Deputies, appointing a Joint Commission as to needed legislation for the formation of Synods of Dioceses, for the reason that, at this late day of the session, it is impossible for the House to give the matter due consideration. TITLE OF HOUSE OF DEPUTIES.

A message (No. 105) from the House of Bishops announced that that House had concurred in Message No. 113 from the House of Deputies, concerning the striking out of words "clerical and lay" in the Journal.

THANKS TO SECRETARY PERRY.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this House desires to express its sense of the valuable services of its distinguished Secretary, and hereby offers to him, with their salutations, a unanimous vote of thanks."

The resolution was adopted unanimously.

THANKS TO REV. DR. MEAD.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Inow offer the following resolution:

"Resolved, That regretting the absence from the later deliberations and closing services of the Convention of Rev. Dr. Mead, Chairman of the Committee on Canons, the venerable and revered Nestor of this House, we would hereby place on record our testimony to the importance of the great labors he has performed, and the invaluable services he has rendered as a member of this Body to the Church at large.

"Resolved, That after membership in sixteen consecutive General Conventions of this Church until now he is verging on four-score years, we feel it fitting that a record should be made of the gratitude of this Church and the love of the members of this House to him, who we certify is eminently worthy of the one and the other."

The PRESIDENT. It would be eminently proper, much more than the vote you took a little while ago, that this resolution should be adopted by a rising vote. Those in favor of the resolution will rise. The resolution was unanimously adopted.

THE FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the following resolution:

66

'Resolved, That when this House adjourn this afternoon it be to half-past seven this evening, to Calvary Church (Twenty-first Street and Fourth Avenue), and that after the religious services, including the reading of the Pastoral Letter, this House do stand finally adjourned."

The object of the resolution is to avoid the offering of the resolution after the religious services this evening.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Before that resolution is acted upon, I wish the attention of the Convention. I wish to move the reconsideration of a vote which was taken some time since, naming Calvary Church as the place where the final services are to be held. The rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity, of this city, very kindly offered us, a few days ago, the use of his church for these services, and the only ground on which we declined to accept his offer was that we preferred to remain in this church, where we have held our sessions. I think it must be felt by every member of the Convention that something is due as an act of courtesy to the Rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity, if we propose to leave here and go somewhere else. I move, therefore, a reconsideration of that vote, for the purpose of moving that we have our closing services in the Church of the Holy Trinity.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I will merely state that that is impossible. We concurred with the House of Bishops in fixing Calvary Church, and notice was sent to the afternoon papers. It is published, and it will be impossible to make the change now. I agree with the reverend gentleman that something should be done in the matter he mentions, but the Rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity was not within reach at the moment; it was a very sudden thing; the House of Bishops thought that as it was election day they could not well come here to-night, and they then thought of

Calvary Church, and telegraphed and obtained permission to use it, and came to us, and we concurred. I do think that something should be said to the rector of the church who made the previous offer. Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity is present in this building, and has said that we can have the use of his church most certainly.

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I call attention to the fact that we have already taken action that the closing services should be here, and this other resolution was introduced without any motion to reconsider. It seems to me that, according to strict parliamentary usage, the resolution agreeing to go to Calvary Church was not properly presented to this House, and was not really passed. There was no reconsideration of the previous

vote.

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. I wish to say that the New York delegation were quite unaware that this action was to take place. This morning was consulted by one who came to me representing the very kind desire of the rector of Calvary Church that we should hold our closing services there. I objected, and said that if we left this Church we should accept the invitation of the rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity. I was in favor of remaining in this church, and was instrumental in causing, as far as I could, the rejection of the offer from the rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity, because I felt that it was due that we should hold our concluding services here. I was surprised on coming in to-day to find that action had been taken to go from this Church, which I regretted very much, and to go to Calvary Church. I fully agree with the proposition of my colleague, that if we are to go from this Church, we should under the circumstance go to the Church of the Holy Trinity in Forty-second street.

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. In this -matter it seems to me we must follow the House of Bishops. The House of Bishops have chosen their place, and let us obey their voice.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Had the rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity been here at the time, undoubtedly the Bishops would have selected that Church; but it was a very sudden thing; it was about the time of giving notices for the afternoon papers when the House of Bishops sent their action here, and we concurred with thein rather than draw them here on election-day when they did not want to come. All arrangements have been made for Calvary Church, as to music and in other respects; and I will take this occasion to say to the members of the Convention that the middle aisle is reserved for them, the front seats for Deputies, and the rear ones for their families and friends.

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Long Island. I am told that there is abundance of time to correct the notice in the papers, and that there is nothing really in the way of our meeting in Holy Trinity Church this evening; and considering what has been said in regard to the unanimous wish of this Body and the Deputation of the Diocese of New York, it seems to me we shall be guilty of a great discourtesy if we do not accept the invitation of the Church of the Holy Trinity.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I wish to add a word. I heard the other day this invitation brought in from the rector of Holy Trinity Church. We then all agreed that it was best to have our closing services here; but when we cannot have them here, or when it is desirable to the House of Bishops to have them elsewhere, it seems to me eminently proper that we should accept the invitation so courteously extended to us, because I believe when invitations are extended it is always the way

of gentlemen to take the first one that comes. That came to us, and came to us in a very handsome manner some days ago. Inasmuch as we are told that it is not too late to perform this act of courtesy, I hope that we may do it.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is it possible to make the change of notice for the papers in time?

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I am told it can be corrected in the last edition. The fourth edition of the afternoon papers will come out in time.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. If such is the case, I think it is clearly our duty to reconsider the resolution adopted this morning, and go to the Church of the Holy Trinity as a matter of common decency to the rector of that church, who has courteously proffered the use of it to us; and that can be done if it is still in time to send notice to the papers. I would say, while I am up, that if it is not done, and if it is found to be impossible, I think it should be the duty of the gentlemen who represent that Committee here to frame a resolution thanking the rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity, and explaining the reasons why the invitation was not accepted.

Rev. Dr. SMEDES, of North Carolina. Are we sure we can now get the Church of the Holy Trinity? ["Yes."]

The SECRETARY. I am authorized by the Agent of the Associated Press to state that if he can command the services of one of the pages here, as of course he can, he can have the correction put in the afternoon papers in time.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. on my motion to save time.

Then I insist

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I will state that information has gone abroad throughout the city that our services are to be held in Calvary Church, and it would lead to infinite confusion if we depart from the order which we have already taken.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I move that the deputation from New York confer informally with the House of Bishops, and express the wish that we hold the services in the Church of the Holy Trinity, if agreeable to them; and if they agree to that we will make it all right.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of Mr. Montgomery.

The motion was agreed to.

RESIDENCE OF THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORS.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of South Carolina. I should like to call the attention of the Convention to a matter which came up on the fifteenth day of the session, Friday, October 23, with reference to the canonical residence of Professors connected with Theological Seminaries. Those who have THE DAILY CHURCHMAN and will turn to page 102 will find the matter as it was then presented. Allow me to read it. There was reported by the Committee on Canons this resolution:

"Resolved, That this House concurs in the amendment of Subsection 4, Section 7, of Canon 12, Title I., proposed by the House of Bishops in Message No. 18.

The Canon is on page 55 of the Digest.

Judge Sheffey on the part of the Committee remarked:

The Canon as it stands provides that it shall be the duty of all ministers to obtain and present letters of transfer as above, whenever they remove from one Diocese or Missionary Jurisdiction to another, with the exception of Professors in the General Theological Seminary, officers of the Board of Missions, and professors in colleges and universities which are established by the concurrent action of two or more Dioceses associated for that purpose.