First, there was only one rule for both majority and minority. If either were deprived of liberty, both were; if both were, it might be unwise, it could not be unjust; but if both were not, then neither. The majority spontaneously and freely imposed upon itself the same conditions it accepted for all.
But secondly, the mode of conducting the discussions afforded the amplest liberty of debate.
The subject matter was distributed in print to every Bishop, and a period of eight or ten days was given for any observations they might desire to make in writing.
These observations were carefully examined by the deputation of twenty-four; and when found to be pertinent were admitted, either to modify or to reform the original Schema.
The text so amended was then proposed for the general discussion, on which every Bishop in the Council had a free right to speak, and the discussions lasted so long as any Bishop was pleased to inscribe his name.
The only limit upon this freedom of discussion consisted in the power of the Presidents, on the petition of ten Bishops, to interrogate the Council whether it desired the discussion to be prolonged. The Presidents had no power to close the discussion. The Council alone could put an end to it. This right is essential to every deliberative assembly; which has a two-fold liberty, the one, to listen as long as it shall see fit; the other, to refuse to listen when it shall judge that a subject has been sufficiently discussed. To deny this liberty to the Council is to claim for
