The Constitution of "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," established in 1789, provided that, "in every Diocese, the mode of trying Clergymen shall be instituted by the Convention therein." The word "may" was subsequently substituted for "shall."

The General Convention of 1856, by the vote of a majority of the Dioceses, proposed for final ratification by the next ensuing General Convention, in 1859, the following amendment:

"In every Diocese, the mode of trying Presbyters and Deacons may be instituted by the Convention of the Diocese; but the General Convention may establish a COURT OF APPEALS, for the revision of the decision of the Diocesan Courts." "Such Court of Appeals not to revise the determination of any question of fact."

This amendment, coming up for final ratification in the General Convention of 1859, was supported by Mr. Murray Hoffman, Lay Deputy from New-York, and Mr. Hugh Davy Evans, Lay Deputy from Maryland; and opposed by the Rev. Dr. Andrews, Clerical Deputy from Virginia, and Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, Lay Deputy from New-York.

Mr. S. B. Ruggles said, that he held the same opinion as his highly esteemed colleague, Judge Hoffman, as to the right of Dioceses to instruct their deputies. He fully maintained the doctrine, that they should come here unfettered, and free to regulate their action by their own conscientious convictions, aided and enlightened by that mutual interchange of ideas, for which the General Convention itself was instituted. It so happened, however, in the present instance, that his own convictions have led him unhesitatingly, to support the resolution of the Diocesan Convey tion of New-York, just read by the Secretary, expressing its opinion that the proposed change of the Constitution of the Church, which seeks to establish a Court of Appeals to revise the decisions of Diocesan Courts, is of "doubtful expediency." In his individual judgment, the amendment is not only of "doubtful expediency," [3/4] but is absolutely certain, if adopted, speedily to destroy the present organization of the Church, and hurry it rapidly and fatally onward and downward to disruption, schism and ruin. It is with the greatest personal regret that he differs thus widely and fundamentally from his valued colleague, for whom he entertains, after a lifelong friendship, the most unaffected respect and affection. If, in the whole length and breadth of the great Diocese he so ably represents, a Churchman can be found more finely blending the highest and noblest attributes of the enlightened jurist, the polished scholar, and the Christian gentleman, it has not been my good fortune, said Mr. R., to meet him.

The question now before the Convention arises upon the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America--a body pre-eminently distinguished among and above the other ecclesiastical organizations of the Christian world, by two striking peculiarities: first, in possessing a written Constitution, defining and limiting its mode and sphere of action; second, in admitting the Laity to share in its government.

This important body came into the civilized world in the year 1789, almost simultaneously with the present political Government of the United States, and destined, as its twin-brother, under God's good Providence, to be its life-long companion.

For seventy years this Constitution has worked well--very well--most kindly and successfully for the welfare, not only of its Clergy and Laity, but of the great Republic in which it is geographically embosomed. Fortunately and wisely free from any organic connection with the great political structure with which it is thus a co-operator, it has, nevertheless, exerted its full power and whole moral influence to elevate and advance the character of the Republic among the nations of the earth. Nor has it suffered from any internal organic evil of its own. The Laity, well instructed by the teachings of Scripture as to their true and proper office, have wisely, loyally and affectionately trusted to the Clergy, as their spiritual guides, the conduct of affairs purely Spiritual or theological; while, on the other hand, the Clergy have not failed fully and gratefully to recognise the value of that experience in affairs purely secular, which the Laity have cheerfully contributed. I employ the term "secular affairs," said Mr. Ruggles, in no narrow or stinted sense--not confining it to the comparatively petty concerns of finance or architecture, or any material possession--but including the far broader, and wider, and more enduring field of secular institutions of every species, political, social and domestic; and I hold it to be not only the [4/5] privilege, but emphatically the duty of the Laity, to exert and put forth all their powers, in opposition to any measure proposed in the Church, which may seriously menace or disturb our political or social system.

Believing that the proposed amendment, if adopted, will be deeply injurious, if not absolutely fatal, to the highest interests not only of the Church, but of the Nation, to which it is morally attached, if it do not politically belong, I feel myself justified in interposing whatever of resistance I can.

And, in the first place, let us consider for a moment the magnitude of the stake involved in the question. The American Republic, with the American Church, thus co-existing and superimposed, has nearly trebled its area within that short limit of threescore years and ten--marked as the term of human existence, but hardly a day in the great year of the life of a Nation or a Church.

The Church, coming down from the Apostles, through the British and Anglican branches, had existed in the Old World for nearly eighteen centuries, until the memorable year 1789, when it»was solemnly and formally engrafted on the New World, there, we devoutly trust, to continue united and unbroken to the end of time. Within this brief period of its existence, it has pushed its triumphant path through the wilderness, from ocean to ocean, until it now numbers nearly forty Dioceses--while the Nation, its concomitant and local depository, has possessed itself of the most powerful portion of the globe. Upon its three millions of square miles, wholly within the temperate zone, there now stands a population of thirty millions--and no fact in vital statistics or mathematics is more certain, than its possessing at the end of the next, or second period of seventy years, a population at least as large as obeyed the rule of the Roman Empire in its proudest days, from the mouth of the Euphrates to the northernmost extremity of the British Islands. This immense portion of the human race, rich, beyond a parallel, not only in material, but moral force, standing on one, unbroken, continental surface, midway from Asia and Europe, must inevitably exert, if remaining united, a most important, if not a dominant, influence over the future destinies of Universal Christendom.

Such, then, is the stake--such the precious and immense deposit, with which the present generation that rules the Nation and the Church, is now intrusted. Might I not, then, well appeal to my accomplished colleague, who, in opening his argument, so classically likened his despairing and desperate defence of the pending measure, [5/6] to the last frenzied effort of the Trojan hero to save the tottering walls of Troy, rather to follow the pious Aeneas to that midnight couch, from which he was permitted, with prophetic eye and gladdened vision, to behold the future glories of the coming Rome, for so many ages ruling the world?

The philosophical observer who shall trace the history of this past period of seventy years in the life of the Nation and the Church, will be struck with one very remarkable contrast. He will find the political body often agitated, diseased and convulsed, especially in the vital, self-generating process of the birth of its States, while the ecclesiastical body, formed of the same members, remains tranquil and happy, and never more so than in the birth of its infant Dioceses. Kansas the State, after years of convulsion, yet struggles to see the light, while Kansas the Diocese, freshly born and full of infant life, reposes on the bosom of the Church, ready soon to commence its long and majestic march by the parent's side, down the coming ages.

Why, then, this diversity between the State and the Diocese, both children of the Union? The answer, full of instruction, broadly embraces the whole field of discussion occupied by the present question. It is this: The Church has done what the Nation has not done. It has abstained wholly and absolutely from any interference with the local affairs, local interests, local opinions, and local institutions of any of the separate Dioceses.

The skillful architects who reared the Constitution of the Church, well knew the inherent diversity of the various elements to compose the structure. They knew that it was to embrace a wide variety of climate and a still wider variety of race, absolutely requiring numerous local governments to manage elements which would be utterly incongruous and discordant if consolidated under one supreme authority. By the novel and felicitous intermixture of the local or federal with the general or national element, they solved the difficulty, and thus rendered not only possible, but certain, the existence and continuance of a Nation and a Church, covering so large a portion of the surface of the earth.

The Dioceses were left perfectly free and independent to manage all their local affairs, subject only to the one single test and badge of nationality, to which all were required to conform--the Uniform Liturgy, so accurately denominated the Book of Common Prayer. Portions of it had come down from the earliest ages of the Church in the Old World, and most of it had been consecrated by centuries of use by our ancestors, and, with some slight exceptions, it was [6/7] modified only to conform it to the existing political authority of the country, undergoing little alteration beyond the substitution of the President for the British Monarch. It might well have included an humble but fervent supplication for the preservation of the united Republic; but, in its absence, every sound and pious Churchman will mentally supply the omission.

In the matter of ecclesiastical offences, and the discipline of the Clergy, every Diocese was left entirely free, and amenable only to the proper authority of its Bishop. It is true that Canon XIII. of the first General Convention in 1789, specified as clerical offences requiring punishment, certain minor immoralities, such as "resorting to taverns, giving themselves to drinking, riot, base or servile labor, or spending their time idly," and directed their punishment "according to such rules or process as might be provided either by the General Convention or by the Conventions in the different States."

Now, the Constitution certainly did not affirmatively permit the passage of that portion of the Canon giving to the General Convention the regulation of the rules or process, and we find that in 1808 it retraced its steps, by the Canon directing the offenders to be punished "according to such rules or process as may be provided by the Conventions in the different States." They also added to the minor offences specified in the Canon of 1789, the ecclesiastical delinquencies of habitually disusing public worship or the Holy Eucharist.

It was not until 1829 that the criminal code was enlarged to its present unlimited extent, not only embracing every grade and species of moral offence, under the genus generalissimum of "scandalous, disorderly or immoral conduct," but also including the whole class of theological offences, under the generic head of "preaching or inculcating heretical doctrine." The spirit of the Constitution was, however, respected, by re-enacting that part of the Canon of 1808, which directed the proceeding to be according to the rules of process of the respective Dioceses. Their separate judicial independence was further established and fortified by the Canon of 1832, which enacted that the punishment should be in conformity with the Constitutions and Canons of the respective Dioceses. Under those safe and just Constitutional provisions, the Church has hitherto been governed wisely and efficiently down to the present hour, when it is proposed to throw down every Constitutional barrier, by creating and erecting a supreme, judicial, central power, to be placed over the heads of all the Diocesan Courts, degrading them and their Bishops to an inferior and subordinate rank. The proposed amendment strips them, by a single stroke of the pen, of every [7/8] right or pretence to judicial freedom or independence. Under its sweeping and unlimited phraseology, the Appellate Court will possess the paramount right to revise any judicial proceeding at every stage whatever, in any case whatever, for any offence whatever, moral, ecclesiastical or theological, and in any Diocese whatever--and with the necessarily resulting authority to enlarge, diminish, vary or remit any punishment which the Diocesan Court may have prescribed, or to punish any offender that the Diocesan Court may have acquitted. As a further consequence, any Diocesan Court, or its Bishop, venturing to impugn or resist the mandate of the Appellate Court, or neglecting to carry it into prompt and full effect, must either fall under the censure and discipline of the Church, or the Church itself be brought into contempt.

Now, what are the arguments in favor of such an enormous accession of central power? such a total and fundamental revolution in the organic law? They are, first, that by the Canons or usages of the Church, in its primitive ages, continued down to modern times, the decisions of Bishops are liable to review by Synods or Councils; and second, that the proposed Court of Appeals will establish uniformity in the criminal procedure and in the doctrine of the Church.

In respect to the first position, we need only adduce our written Constitution as limiting any power claimed under any pre-existing canon or usage, whether ancient or modern. In respect to the second, asserting the benefit of uniformity of procedure and doctrine, we contend that it is not attainable, nor even desirable.

The mode of procedure in Diocesan trials is now conformed to the modes of procedure in the respective States embracing the Dioceses, just as the mode of procedure in the federal courts of the political Union in the respective States is governed by the rules of practice and evidence in each. No practical inconvenience has yet been experienced from any want of uniformity of procedure in the federal courts in the different States. Nor is it perceived why the mode or the measure, of punishment should necessarily be uniform in all the Dioceses. Surely there are many offences which may be serious in one portion of the country, but comparatively venial in another; and who can judge so well as the local court of the Diocese itself?

But leaving the whole class of secular offences and immoralities, let us examine the purely theological offence of "preaching or inculcating heretical doctrine." And here we meet at the threshold the fundamental difficulty, that the Church itself has not, nor can have, any definite standard of heresy, applicable to every branch of [8/9] doctrine, inasmuch as the Church itself avowedly exists, not in uniformity, but in diversity. It certainly would be presumptuous in any layman to venture to discuss this branch of the subject at all at length, and it is cheerfully left to the learning and acuteness of the accomplished theologians that grace our body; hoping, however, that they will distinctly instruct the Laity whether the Church is now fully agreed on all points of doctrine, especially on the nature of the Holy Eucharist, on the efficacy of Baptism, and even on the inherent authority of the Church itself. Is it, or is it not true, as has been distinctly claimed by one of her ablest and oldest divines, that "the Church has a medium character between Romanism on the one hand and Sectarianism and Calvinism on the other?" Is it, or is it not also true, that in this very Church, and even among its learned, pious and venerable Bishops, differences of doctrinal opinion do exist to some extent--that some of those excellent men do not walk precisely on the medium line, but do deflect their course at least a point or two in the direction of Rome or Geneva? I beg the advocates of uniformity to tell us, if they can, how far apart are the extremes of these various shades? Do they, can they reasonably hope, that by the mere machinery of their proposed Court of Appeals, they can establish and permanently maintain a distinct, unvarying, equatorial line between Romanism and Calvinism--wide as the poles apart--on which the whole Church is hereafter dutifully to walk, looking neither to the right nor the left, to the North or to the South? Let us assure the Constitution-menders, who would thus confine human opinion within Procrustean machinery, hard and unyielding, that the pride and glory and chief attraction of the Protestant Episcopal Church, at least in the eyes of its Laity, are found in its toleration, its comparative elasticity, its gentle and Christian conformity to the varying phases of human nature and human institutions; in its being, in a word, like its Divine Founder, a body, not of wood or stone, but of living flesh and blood. It is this generous and wide-spread toleration, this composite and truly Christian character, which enables it to attract to its fold poor wandering human nature, in all its aspects and all its errors--seeking, not by force, but by love, to elevate and save. Its leaders may indulge the laudable ambition of eventually embracing within its authority the largest portion of the vast and teeming American World; but let them be warned by the example of the Church of Rome, which, in seeking to enforce uniformity on- the comparatively cold and unimpassioned nations of Northern Europe, lost the best, if not the largest, portion of Christendom. Let them not attempt, [9/10] in the vigorous image of the learned and reverend deputy from Virginia, Dr. Andrews, to force on our wide-spread congregations a theological uniform, like that of soldiers in an army, reduced to one common, undistinguishable level--but rather let them encourage the growth of varied beauty, like that of the sisters immortalized by the Roman poet, with faces not the same, but with a becoming likeness,

facies non omnibus una,
Nec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum.

But we further contend, that uniformity is unattainable for want of any adequate, permanent power to prescribe it. Such a power, to be efficient, should unite a weight of authority sufficient to command unhesitating respect. Can it be found in a court, itself distracted by contending differences of opinion? Or, is it hoped that our House of Bishops will consent to entrust the power wholly to any particular portion of their body holding uniform opinions? But, if divided in opinion, the decision of a bare majority would hardly command respect. If placed in equilibrio, with an equal number of theologians of contending schools, the court, by virtue of all the laws of motion, must remain stationary, and unable to act at all. The equilibrium of such a machine, if it could be found, even for a moment, would be liable to constant disturbance by death or infirmity removing or weakening some of its parts. And which of the House of Bishops are to sit inside, and which outside of the Supreme Tribunal? which above and which below? who will undertake, and who can perform the difficult process of partitioning the theological power and theological possessions between the antagonistic parties--a partition, too, where, in legal phrase, quantity and quality must be relatively considered, and where numbers alone are not necessarily equivalent to strength? Can it be wise to introduce such a branch of ecclesiastical politics into the House of Bishops? Cannot those venerated fathers be better employed? Will they not all much prefer their appropriate labors of parental love, in soothing the angry passions of their flocks--in disarming, by their kindly example, the surrounding fury of worldly and political strife? Can it be proper to introduce into their august assembly such a degrading element of angry contention? Rather than such a result, let us have one supreme head at once; better an Archbishop, a Patriarch, a Pope; than the many-headed ecclesiastical tyrant now proposed.

If any laymen think this statement of the mischiefs of theological [10/11] controversy overcharged, let him refer to the printed documents and pamphlets in the case of the Rev. Mr. Carey, brought into the General Convention in 1844. Let him behold the ponderous volume of angry debates and polemical essays to which that single case gave birth. Let him further remember the suggestion, that the House of Bishops should, by common action, set forth the true doctrine in the matters then controverted, and let him inquire whether that difficult and delicate task was ever performed or undertaken.

If such were the bitter fruits of a single case, removed from its legitimate sphere, the local Diocese, what may we not expect, when the erroneous teaching of every Presbyter between the Atlantic and Pacific, already two thousand in number, shall become liable to review in the proposed Court of Appeals? Is it doing any injustice to those spiritual guides, to concur in the statement of our clerical friend, Dr. Andrews, that many of them will be found to court the notoriety, which a review in such a forum would secure? Would they much regret such a public advertisement of their controversial powers? Will trials for heresy be likely to diminish under such a stimulus? The area of angry dispute, now confined to narrow limits, would then become immeasurably enlarged; outside combatants, clerical and lay, paid and unpaid, would be recruited from all parts of the Union, while polemical pamphlets, confusing the brain and obscuring the truth, would wrap the whole continent in mist and fog. The extent of the Union now renders local controversy, whether in Church or State, comparatively of little moment. California may indignantly rise, and temporarily overthrow its regular government; Pennsylvania may, for a time, run riot at Erie; but the local agitation cannot disturb the general mass, which will remain unmoved and immovable. A single Diocese may now be rent by religious strife, and the great body will remain undisturbed; but extend the quarrel from ocean to ocean, and the peace of the Church, its most precious possession, is gone for ever.

In the third place, it will be impossible to enforce uniformity, even if prescribed. Upon this point a mistake has arisen in attempting to conform the appellate power of the Church to that of the National Judiciary. The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered, in the few strictly limited cases which are the subjects of appeal from the decisions of the State Courts, to enforce their mandate, if necessary, by the whole military power of the Union. Such a power is indispensable to the supremacy of the National Government, when exercising its conceded and legitimate powers of sovereignty. The proposed amendment is wholly unlimited as to [11/12] the class of cases; and every imaginable offence, whether of conduct or opinion, is subjected to the authority of a central tribunal, with the fatal defect of being utterly powerless to enforce its decrees. We may be told that its moral power--if not its paper canons and paper bullets--will be sufficient to command obedience and silence objection; but he has read little of the history of schism, who does not know that any attempt to punish a whole Diocese for heresy, would be instantly met by secession, or, what is called in secular affairs, "the sacred right of revolution." The majestic edifice of the Church, resting on the Rock of Ages, would be rent in twain, from foundation to topmost turret, leaving only its broken and mutilated columns to stand as melancholy memorials of a rash and giddy generation, seeking to be wiser than their fathers.

Nor was the omission to give judicial power to the General Church, the fruit either of accident or ignorance. The whole intervening epoch, from the first proposition of the Ecclesiastical Constitution to its final adoption in 1789, had been illuminated by the flood of light shed on the Federal or National Constitution, by its three most distinguished architects--Hamilton and Jay, of New-York, and Madison, of Virginia. Can any one believe that neither of them was consulted? Hamilton, at least--now sleeping in the very shadow of Trinity Church, but then in the very plenitude of his precious life and transcendent genius--was near at hand. His matchless defence in the "Federalist" of his political structure, must have been perfectly familiar to those who framed the Constitution of the Church. Why, then, was the supreme judicial power which he so firmly and carefully incorporated in the one, wholly withheld from the other? Was it not the thorough conviction that the true dignity and welfare of the Church, ruling only by moral, and never by material force, demanded that its organic law should leave the separate Dioceses, in judicial matters, free and independent?

And now, said Mr. R., I will but barely allude to that class of real or pretended offences which may arise in relation to that peculiar portion of our population so long the subject of sectional agitation. Will the proposed Court of Appeals venture to prescribe a code of morals or ethics, embracing all the varying shades of a controverted theme like this? Will they venture to define what is "scandalous or immoral" with one section of the country, holding acts to be scandalous and immoral, which other sections, equally pious and patriotic, hold to be not scandalous or immoral at all, but, on the contrary, justifiable, necessary, and even laudable? Will it [12/13] not be necessary, in reference to cases of that description, to establish in the court a geographical as well as a theological equilibrium? and will human skill suffice to find both these equilibria existing at once in a single court? But why suppose it possible that such a subject would be allowed to be discussed at all? There is not a Churchman, of any intelligence, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who does not know and feel that the first touch of such a spark would rend the Church to atoms.

We ask, then, in conclusion, with these evils thus manifest, is there any adequate necessity for a measure which would bring them upon the Church in any, even the slightest degree? We hold it to be the plain duty of the advocates of the amendment to adduce the clearest affirmative proof of its necessity. We aver that we are now peacefully and happily living in the enjoyment of a sound and healthful Constitution--an unmistakable specimen of the "mens sana in corpore sano." We ask only in three brief words, but they concentrate and embrace the whole of our argument--LET WELL ALONE! If, led away by the desire of change or fancied inconvenience, we resort to the remedy for trifling or imaginary evils now presented, our future history may be written in the epigrammatic words of the Spanish epitaph, and in terms as brief: "I was well--I took physic--and here I lie!"

The fatal character of the attempt to establish uniformity between geographical sections, with climate and institutions essentially different, has been already tried on two of the largest ecclesiastical bodies in the Union. Introducing into their once national organizations the fatal seeds of sectional disease, it has hurried them rapidly down to death and dissolution. With such a handwriting written, not on the wall, but over the broad face of a whole continent, can we not take warning?

Mr. President, the Laity of this American Church hold it among its highest secular duties to do all it possibly can to preserve unbroken the unity of its great depository, the American Republic--to avert from this Western World the most tremendous evil it can ever endure, the dissolution of the American Union--not by mingling in earthly controversy, but by unceasingly inculcating the blessed spirit of justice and moderation, Christian charity and fraternal love.

Guided by that high resolve, may it ever hold itself aloof from the angry but fleeting Contests of the hour, that it may calm, by its pure example, the unhallowed violence of worldly strife. May it ever rise above the frenzied and maddening agitations of earthly [13/14] ambition, like the rainbow spanning the mist and foam of the cataract--or rather, like the sea-girt tower, breasting the wide and wild Atlantic, holding for ever aloft, amid the fury of the storm, its heaven-descended and guiding light, eternally serene, bright and unquenchable.

October 14, 1859.--The final vote was taken by Dioceses on the proposed amendment, and resulted:

Whole number of Dioceses voting, 33

	AFFIRMATIVE.	NEGATIVE.	DIVIDED.
Clergy	2	29	2
Laity	2	30	1

So the proposed Court of Appeals was rejected.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE, OCTOBER, 1874.

For the convenience of historical reference, the following list is now subjoined, showing the members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in the General Convention of 1859, whose names are recorded in its Journal at page 65, as giving the final vote on the proposed amendment establishing a Court of Appeals.

The members whose names are now printed in italics, are members of the present Convention, either as Bishops of the Church, (indicated by asterisks,) or as members of the present House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.

DIOCESES VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

CLERGY.

Vermont.--Rev. George B. Manser, D. D., Rev. David H. Buel--Aye.

Minnesota.--Rev. A. B. Paterson, D. D., Rev. J. V. Van Ingen, D. D., Rev. Ezra Jones--Aye. Rev. E. G. Gear--Nay.

LAITY.

Vermont.--Mr. Thomas F. Canfield, Mr. Sylvester Deming--Aye. Mr. Isaac H. Redfield--Nay,

DIOCESES VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

CLERGY.

Maine.--Rev. Alexander Burgess, Rev. George W. Durell, Rev. Asa Dalton--Nay.

New-Hampshire.--Rev. Henry A. Coit, Rev. James H. Eames, Rev. I. G. Hubbard, D. D.--Nay.

Massachusetts.--Rev. George M. Randall, D. D., Rev. E. M. P. Wells, D. D., Rev. George Leeds, Rev. S. Brenton Shaw--Nay.

[15] Rhode Island.--Rev. Henry Waterman, D. D., Rev. Silas A. Crane, D. D., Rev. W. H. Mills--Nay.

Connecticut.--Rev. William C. Mead, D. D., Rev. R. A. Hallam, D. D., Rev. A. N. Littlejohn, D.D.* Rev. Junius M. Willey--Nay.

New-York.--Rev. William Creighton, D. D., Rev. Edward Y. Higbee, D. D., Rev. Francis L. Hawks, D. D., LL. D.--Nay. Rev. Francis Vinton, D. D.--Aye.

Western New-York.--Rev. Thomas P. Tyler, D. D., Rev. Amos D. Beach, D. D., Rev. William B. Wilson, D. D.--Nay.

Pennsylvania.--Rev. Wm. Bacon Stevens, D. D.* Rev. M. A. De W. Howe, D. D.* Rev. Alexander H. Vinton, D. D., Rev. J. P. B. Wilmer, D. D.*--Nay.

Delaware.--Rev. Charles Breck, Rev. Benjamin Franklin, Rev. Samuel R. Slack, Rev. J. E. Grammer--Nay.

Maryland.--Rev. William Pinkney, D.D.,* Rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.*--Nay.

Virginia.--Rev. William Sparrow, D. D., Rev. Charles W. Andrews, D. D., Rev. Richard H. Wilmer, D. D.*--Nay.

North Carolina.--Rev. Richard S. Mason, D. D., Rev. Robert B. Drane, D. D., Rev. A. A. Watson, Rev. J. Blount Cheshire--Nay.

South Carolina.--Rev. Christian Hanckel, D. D., Rev. Peter J. Shand, Rev. Charles G. Pinckney, Rev. Alexander Glennie--Nay.

Georgia.--Rev. William H. Harison, Rev. William C. Williams, Rev. William N. Hawks--Nay. Rev. E. E. Ford, D. D.--Aye.

Florida.--Rev. J. J. Scott, D. D., Rev. Osgood E. Herrick, Rev. Alfred A. Miller--Nay.

Mississippi.--Rev. Henry Sansom, D. D.--Nay.

Louisiana.--Rev. E. Guion--Nay.

Texas.--Rev. Benjamin Eaton, Rev. William T. B. Balzell--Nay.

Tennessee.--Rev. Thomas W. Humes--Nay.

Kentucky.--Rev. James Craik, D. D., Rev. Robert McMurdy, Rev. J. H. Morrison, D. D., Rev. F. M. Whittle--Nay.

Ohio.--Rev. Erastus Burr, D. D., Rev. Chauncey W. Fitch, D. D., Rev. William R. Nicholson, D. D.--Nay.

Indiana.--Rev. Joseph G. Talbot, D. D.,* Rev. Anthony Ten Broeck, Rev. James C. Runcie, Rev. Almon Gregory--Nay.

Illinois.--Rev. Robert H. Clarkson, D. D.,* Rev. Theo. N. Morrison--Nay. Rev. Thomas N. Benedict--Aye.

Missouri.--Rev. Robert E. Terry, Rev. Francis J. Clerc, Rev. S. T. McMasters, LL. D., Rev. R. H. Weller--Nay.

Kansas.--Rev. C. M. Callaway--Nay.

Michigan.--Francis H. Cuming, D. D., Rev. Daniel T. Grinnell, Rev. Levi H. Corson, Rev. John A. Wilson--Nay.

Wisconsin.--Rev. William Adams, D. D., Rev. George B. Eastman, Rev. J. P. T. Ingraham--Nay. Rev. David Keene--Aye.

Iowa.--Rev. Robert D. Brooke--Nay.

California.--Rev. W. H. Hill--Nay.

LAITY.

Maine.--Mr. Robert H. Gardiner--Nay.

New-Hampshire.--Mr. David Davis--Nay.

[16] Massachusetts.--Mr. Edward A. Newton, Mr. Francis Hilliard--Nay.

Rhode Island.--Mr. Edward Walcott, Mr. Allen M. Thomas--Nay.

Connecticut.--Mr. John Ferguson, Mr. William T. Lee, Mr. William W. Boardman--Nay.

New-York.--Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, Mr. Cyrus Curtiss--Nay. Mr. Murray Hoffman--Aye.

Western New-York.--Mr. Horatio Seymour, Mr. Joseph Juliand--Nay.

New-Jersey.--Mr. Daniel B. Ryall, Mr. John W. Miller, Mr. T. P. Carpenter,--Nay.

Pennsylvania.--Mr. Herman Cope, Mr. John N. Conyngham, Mr. William Welsh, Mr. Felix R. Brunot--Nay.

Delaware.--Mr. S. M. Curtis, Mr. William T. Read, Mr. William Cummins, M. D.--Nay.

Virginia.--Mr. Philip Williams, Mr. D. H. Conrad, Mr. Tazewell Taylor--Nay.

North Carolina.--Mr. William H. Battle, Mr. Thomas H. Wright, M. D.--Nay.

South Carolina.--Mr. Edward McCrady, Mr. C. G. Memminger, Mr. J. J. Pringle Smith, Mr. R. F. W. Allston--Nay.

Georgia.--Mr. George A. Gordon--Nay.

Florida.--Mr. George R. Fairbanks, Mr. John Beard, Mr. James Filor--Nay.

Alabama.--Mr. Henry A. Taylor, Mr. A. W. Ellerbe, Mr. Robert T. Bunker--Nay.

Mississippi.--Mr. George S. Yerger--Nay.

Louisiana.--Mr. A. P. Cleveland--Nay.

Texas.--Mr. Peter W. Gray--Nay.

Tennessee.--Mr. Francis B. Fogg, Mr. J. F. Jett, Mr. Samuel Oldham, M. D.--Nay.

Kentucky.--Mr. J. W. Stevenson--Nay.

Ohio.--Mr. John W. Andrews, Mr. C. B. Goddard, Mr. Bellamy Storer--Nay.

Indiana.--Mr. Ballard Smith--Nay.

Illinois.--Mr. Antrim Campbell, Mr. James G. Wilson--Nay. Mr. L. B. Otis--Aye.

Missouri.--Mr. Alfred Warner--Nay.

Michigan.--Mr. H. P. Baldwin, Mr. P. E. Demill--Nay.

Wisconsin--Mr. A. L. Pritchard--Nay.

Iowa.--Mr. George Greene--Nay.

Minnesota.--Mr. Harwood Iglehart, Mr. John L. Thorne--Nay.

California.--Mr. Edward Stanley, Mr. Joseph W. Winans--Nay,

DIOCESES DIVIDED.

CLERGY.

New-Jersey.--Rev. John Kelly--Aye. Rev. Alfred Stubbs, D. D.--Nay.

Alabama.--Rev. Henry C. Lay, D. D.* Rev. F. R. Hanson--Aye. Rev. J. M. Banister, Rev. J. A. Massey--Nay.

LAITY.

Maryland.--Mr. Hugh Davy Evans--Aye. Mr. Ezekiel F. Chambers--Nay.

So the proposed Amendment was not ratified by the House.

Project Canterbury