Jose Gregorio Paz Soldan, and by the United States of Venezuela, to Don Antonio Leocadio Guzman. And the Plenipotentiaries having exchanged their powers, which they found sufficient and in due form, have agreed herein to the following stipulations: ART. 1. The high contracting parties unite and bind themselves to each other for the objects above expressed, and guarantee to each other mutually their independence, their sovereignty, and the integrity of their respective territories, binding themselves in the terms of the present treaty, to defend each other against any aggression which may have for its object the depriving any one of them of any of the rights herein expressed, whether the aggression shall come from a foreign power, whether from any of those leagued by this compact, or from foreign forces which do not obey a recognized government. ART. 2. The alliance herein stipulated will produce its effects when there shall be a violation of the rights expressed in article 1, and especially in the cases of offences which shall consist

First-In acts directed to deprive any one of the contracting nations of a part of its territory, with the intention of appropriating its dominion or of ceding it to another power.

Second-In acts directed to annul or alter the form of government, the political constitution or the laws which any one of the contracting parties may give or may have given itself in the exercise of its sovereignty, or which may have for their object to change forcibly its internal system, or to impose upon it authorities in the like manner.

Third-In acts directed to compel any one of the high contracting parties to a protectorate, sale, or session of territory, or to establish over it any superiority, right, or preeminence whatever, which may impair or offend the ample and complete exercise of its sovereignty and independence.

ART. 3. The allied parties shall decide, each one for itself, whether the offence which may have been given to any one of them is embraced among those enumerated in the foregoing articles.

ART. 4. The casus fœderis being declared, the contracting parties compromise themselves to immediately suspend their relations with the aggressive Power, to give passports to its public ministers, to cancel the commissions of its consular agents, to prohibit the importation of its natural and manufactured products, and to close their ports to its vessels.

ART. 5. The same parties shall also appoint plenipotentiaries to conclude the arguments necessary to determine the contingents of the force, and the land and naval supplies, or of any other kind, which the allies must give to the nation which is attacked, the manner in which the forces must act, and the other auxiliary means be realized, and every thing else which may be proper to the best success of the defence. The plenipotentiaries shall meet at the place designated by the appended party.

ART. 6. The high contracting parties bind themselves in furnishing to the one which may be attacked the means of defence which one of them may think itself able to dispose of, even though the stipulations to which the foregoing articles refer, should not have preceded, provided the case should, in their judgment, be an urgent one.

ART. 7. The casus fœderis having been declared, the party offended will not have authority to conclude conventions for peace or for the cessation of hostilities without including in them the allies who may have taken part in the war and should desire to

accept them.

ART. 8. If (which may God avert) one of the contracting parties should offend the rights of another one of them, guaranteed by this alliance, the others will proceed in the same manner as though the of fence had been committed by a foreign Power. ART. 9. The high contracting parties bind themselves not to concede to, nor to accept from, any nation or government a protectorate or preeminence

which impairs their independence and sovereignty; and they likewise compromise themselves not to transfer to another nation or government any part of their territory. These stipulations do not hinder, however, those parties which are conterminous to make the cessions of territory which they may deem proper for the better demarcation of their boundaries or frontiers.

ART. 10. The high contracting parties bind themselves to appoint plenipotentiaries, who shall meet every three years, as nearly as possible, to adjust the conventions proper to strengthen and perfect the union established by the present treaty. A special provision of the present Congress shall determine the day and the place at which the first assembly of the plenipotentiaries shall meet, which assembly shall designate the following one, and thus thereafter until the expiration of the present treaty.

ART. 11. The high contracting parties will solicit, collectively or separately, that the other American States which have been invited to the present Congress shall enter into this treaty; and from the moment the said States shall have made known their formal acceptance thereof, they shall have the rights and obligations which emanate from it.

ART. 12. This treaty shall continue in full force for the period of fifteen years, to be reckoned from the day of this date; and at the end of this period any one of the contracting parties shall have authority to terminate it on its part by announcing it to the others twelve months previously thereto.

ART. 13. The exchange of the ratifications shall take place in the city of Lima within the period of two years, or sooner if it be possible.

In testimony whereof, we, the undersigned, Ministers Plenipotentiary, sign the present and seal it with our respective seals, in Lima, this 23d day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five.

P. Å. HERRAN.

The Triennial General Convention of the Church, which is composed of the House of Bishops (consisting of all the Diocesan and Missionary Bishops in the American Church), and of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies (consisting of four clergymen and four laymen from every diocese), met at Philadelphia on October 4, 1865. Long before the meeting of the General Convention, the question of a reunion of those Southern dioceses which, in consequence of the political separation of the Southern States from the Union, had withdrawn from the general convention and organized a Southern General Council," had prominently engaged the attention of the Church. After the close of the war, and the disappearance of the Southern Confederacy, several of the Southern Bishops, and a considerable number of the Southern ministers and laymen, declared in favor of an immediate and unconditional reunion. The diocesan convention of Texas passed resolutions declaring its connection with the Southern General Council terminated, and its reacknowledgment of the authority of the General Convention of the United States. They accordingly elected delegates to the General Convention to meet in Philadelphia, but none to the meeting of the Southern General Council. The Bishops of Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas, likewise expressed themselves in favor of an immediate return, and of an attendance at the Convention in Philadelphia. The

diocesan convention of North Carolina so far agreed with its bishop, as to elect delegates to both the National and the Southern Conventions, and to make the attendance at either, or both of the Conventions, dependent upon the option of the bishop, who decided in favor of the Philadelphia Convention. The diocesan convention of Virginia, while also desirous of reunion, yet declared against attendance at Philadelphia, and in favor of common action on the part of the Southern bishops and dioceses. The diocesan convention of Georgia had also authorized the delegates chosen for the General Conventions, to go to Philadelphia if the bishop should deem this course proper; but Bishop Elliot (the Presiding Bishop of the Southern General Council), while strongly advocating the reunion of the two churches, thought it better to act in common with the Southern dioceses. When the General Conventions met in Philadelphia, the bishops of North Carolina, Arkansas, and the Bishop Elect of Tennessee, and delegations from Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas were present. No objection was made to their unconditional readmission as members of the General Convention. Some opposition was, however, made to the recognition of Bishop Quintard, of Tennessee, on account of his having been involved in the late rebellion, and still more to that of Bishop Wilmer, of Alabama, as having not only been "disloyal," but as having been elected

Scholars,

Missionary and
Charitable
Contributions.

and consecrated since the formal separation of the diocese of Alabama from the National Convention. The General Convention, by an overwhelming majority, recognized both bishops, but with regard to Bishop Wilmer, the House of Bishops waived the examination of "certain canonical irregularities in the election and consecration," and expressly declared that its present action should never be construed or accepted as a precedent. The House also passed the following resolution in regard to a pastoral letter of the Bishop of Alabama, instructing the clergy of his diocese not to use the prayer for the President of the United States until the removal of martial law in the State of Alabama: Resolved, That we do hereby express to the Bishop of Alabama our fraternal regrets at the issual of his late pastoral letter, and assured confidence that no further occasions for such regrets will occur.

This resolution was, however, not entered on the Journal of the Convention. An animated discussion arose in the House of Delegates on the following resolution introduced by the Hon. Horace Binney, a lay delegate of the diocese of Philadelphia.

Resolved, That this house in most cordially concurring, as it has done, in the resolution of the House of Bishops, appointing a day of thanksgiving for the return of peace to the country, and union to the Church, most respectfully express to the House of Bishops its most earnest desire that, in the religious services to be appointed for the day, especial thanks be offered to Almighty God for the reestablishment of the national authority over the whole country, and for the removal of that great occasion of national dissension and estrangement, to which our late troubles were due.

This resolution was defeated, as was also a motion to reconsider the vote of the Convention by dioceses. The question to lay the motion to reconsider on the table (the effect of the passage of this motion being to prevent the question from coming up again during the meeting of this Convention), stood thus: Clerical-20 yeas, 6 nays; Lay-15 yeas, 7 nays. Seven of the Bishops (the Bishops of Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Delaware, and the Assistant Bishop of Ohio) published a declaration to the effect that they had been in favor of the adoption of a resolution touching the restoration of the national authority and the abolition of slavery by the House of Bishops. With regard to the Provincial System, the following canon was adopted by the General

Convention:

It is hereby declared to be lawful for the dioceses now existing or hereafter to exist within the limits of States or commonwealths, to establish for them

selves a federate convention or council representing such dioceses, which may deliberate and decide upon the common interests of the Church within that State, and exercise any delegated powers not inconsistent with the constitution and canons of this Church.

The General Convention also gave its consent to the division of the diocese of Pennsylvania. The Primary Convention of the new diocese, containing twenty-five counties of Western Pennsylvania, met at Pittsburg, on November

15, and, after debate, adopted the name of "Diocese of Pittsburg." The Rev. Dr. John Barrett Kerfoot, President of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, was elected the first bishop.

With regard to Home Missions, it was resolved to increase the number of missionary bishops to five, appointing, in addition to the missionary bishops of Arkansas and Oregon, three others for Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada.

The expectation entertained by many members of the Church, that the course pursued by the General Convention of Philadelphia would induce all the Southern dioceses to consummate the reunion without further delay, was not realized. The Second General Council of the Southern dioceses met at Augusta, Georgia, on November 8th. It was composed of the Bishops of Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama, and delegates from the same dioceses, and from The Council did not take South Carolina. decided action on the reunion question. The resolutions adopted by it, commend "the spirit of charity" exhibited by the Convention in Philadelphia, and declare it proper for any of the Southern dioceses to decide for herself whether she shall any longer continue in union with the General Council, or reconnect herself with the General Convention. They change the term "Confederate States," in the standards of the Church, into that of the United States, and adopt for their organization the name "General Council of the Associated Dioceses in the United States." Charleston was appointed as the place for the next meeting of the General Council. But a few weeks after the meeting of the council, the Bishop of Mississippi issued an address to the clergy and laity of his diocese, in favor of the diocesan return to the normal relations with the General Convention. Bishop Elliot, of Georgia, the Presiding Bishop of the Southern General Council, in a letter dated Jan. 3, 1866, notified Bishop Hopkins, the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, that, on that day, he had given official notice to the bishops

who were for a time united with him in the confederation of the Southern dioceses, of his withdrawal from that confederation, and of the return of Georgia to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.

The 30th annual meeting of the Board of Missions was held at Philadelphia on October 5th. The receipts of the Domestic Committee were larger than in any former year, and amounted to $72,514, against $66,581 in 1864, $37,458 in 1863, and $35,223 in 1862. The expenditures were $70,126. The receipts of the Foreign Committee were $78,504.

In November, 1864, the Rev. Dr. Nicholson, who had for nine years been connected with missionary work in Mexico and New Mexico, started on a tour of exploration through Mexico, and on his return, reported that a reform party in the Roman Catholic Church of that country was favorably disposed toward the adoption

of the distinctive principles of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and that under his advice and supervision a society had been organized in Mexico for assisting the reform party.

The Episcopal Mission to Western Africa, reported seven permanent church buildings, one Hospital, Orphan Asylum, High School, and seven Mission Houses, erected at an expense of over $100,000. There are 21 mission stations, and 316 communicants; 132 boarding scholars, 760 day scholars.

In the Church of England, the case of Bishop Colenso continued to excite a deep interest. On March 29, 1865, his appeal from the decree of the South African Bishops, by which he was, on account of heresy, deposed from his See of Natal, to the Queen's Privy Council, was acted upon. The decision of this court, which is final, was delivered by the Lord Chancellor. The Court on the part of the counsel of Bishop Colenso, had been requested to admit the appeal, and on the part of the counsel of the Bishop of Capetown to "advise Her Majesty to pronounce for protest and against the said pretended complaint and appeal.' On these points the Lord Chancellor decided as follows: "As the question can be decided only by the Sovereign as head of the Established Church and depositary of ultimate appellate jurisdiction, their lordships will humbly report to Her Majesty their judgment and opinion that the proceedings taken by the Bishop of Capetown, and the judgment or sentence pronounced by him against the Bishop of Natal, are null and void in law." It was allowed by the Court that the letters patent to Bishop Gray, of Capetown, gave him the rights of Metropolitan, but it was also denied that the Queen's letters patent had in themselves any authority whatever, not having been authorized by any statute of the Imperial Parliament, nor confirmed by any act of the Legislature of the Cape of Good Hope, or of the Legislative Council of Natal. As in England or Ireland the Queen has no power to create a new diocese, or to appoint a bishop to such, without an act of Parliament, so it was ruled that in a crown colony an act of Parliament is necessary; and in colonies which have their own legislatures, the sanction of those legislatures must be obtained to give validity to the establishment of a diocese. The Queen has the prerogative right to command the consecration of a bishop, but no power to assign him any diocese not constitutionally created. Therefore the colonial bishoprics already founded, with the exception of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, sanctioned by acts of Imperial Parliament, and Jamaica, sanctioned by the local legislation, have no position in the eyes of the English law. The judgment is most sweeping in its consequences, since it renders all jurisdiction in such unsanctioned bishoprics, not only of metropolitans over bishops, but of bishops over the inferior clergy, invalid. While it, therefore, denied the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Capetown over Colenso, it also

denied the jurisdiction of Colenso over the clergy of his diocese. In accordance with this judgment, Colenso resolved to return to his diocese, while on the other hand a large portion of the diocesan clergy pledged themselves not to recognize his spiritual authority, and the Bishop of Capetown declared in favor of appointing another bishop in place of Colenso. In the latter part of the year Colenso returned to his diocese, which was greatly agitated at the new aspect of this important controversy.

The English Order of St. Benedict, in June, 1865, was shaken by a revolt of a majority of the monks against their Superior, Father Ignatius. The latter restored his authority, but his health was so completely prostrated in consequence of the excitement, that he was obliged to retire in September from the monastery of Norwich. In December, 1865, he had not yet been able to resume the direction of the order. The "third order" of St. Benedict made a considerable progress in England, and was also established in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.

The endeavors to bring on a closer union of the Church of England with all those churches which hold to the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession of the Bishops, were eagerly continued during the year, and seemed to call forth a greater attention and a livelier interest than in previous years. An important meeting for the special purpose of establishing a regular and formal intercommunion between the Church of England and the Russian Church was held in London on November 15th, under the presidency of the Bishop of London. Among those present were the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishops-Coadjutor of Edinburgh, Dr. Pusey, Dr. Williams, Canon Wordsworth, and letters of sympathy were read from two archbishops, ten bishops, and a number of eminent men, among whom was Mr. Gladstone. The Bishops of Oxford and Edinburgh urged that, in their opinion, the churches should not content themselves with preparing the ground, leaving the harvest to be reaped by future generations, but, deferring all dogmatical debates, proceed to celebrate the Lord's Supper by intercommunion, if such were the wish of the chiefs of the Russian Church. It was stated, and confirmed by the bishops present, that orthodox Christians might receive the communion in Anglican churches even now. The representatives of the Russian Church at this meeting expressed full sympathy with the movement, but were unable to say how far the heads of their Church were willing to go, and, in general, advised great caution in taking any decisive steps. The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed to Prince Orloff, one of the representatives of Russia at the above meeting, a desire to send two bishops to Russia; but hearing what the Prince had to say against the plans, put it off. (See GREEK CHURCH.) As regards the union with Rome, a great sensation was produced by the appearance of several letters from Dr. Pusey, stating that, in his convic