The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-20 00:00:00

A DIVISION AMONG THE RITUALISTS.

A correspondence published which has passed
between Archdeacon
is
n Denison,
chairman of the
R itualists' meeting on the 12th, and the Rev. C. F.
. Lowder, of St. Peter's, London Docks. It is very
long, but the substance of it may be stated in a few
words. Archdeacon Denison complains that Mr.
Bennett and Mr. Lowder (who was formerly Mr.
"Bennett's curate) "should. while holding their posi-
tion under the law, refuse to declare that they owe
obedience to the law when it decides against them
upon a matter not of faith, but of ceremonial." Mr.
Lowder, in replying, says " You could scarcely sup-
pose that when you had placed so trusty a weapon
(the memorial) thus carefully wrought, tempered,
and sharpened, into the hands of earnest men, who
are in the thick of a very serious warfare, that having
admired its workmanship, we should wilfully destroy
its beautiful edge and point by casting it to the
ground." He concludes by hoping that nothing may
hereafter occur to hinder the Archdeacon and himself
from " fighting together the Church's battles for free-
dom from State oppression." The Archdeacon answers
that it is a strange way of uniting men to ask one side
to sacrifice the principle upon which they stand. He
adds : " The effect of your proceeding is necessarily
the contrary one. It has already done damage in
this respect which I do not look to live to see
repaired. It has sadly weakened our hands, because
it has formally disunited us. I will not, for one, act
with men who hold their position by law, but
will not submit to law. When the connection
of the Church of England with the Church
Primitive and Catholic is in terms denied by
the law of England, or when we, its bishops and
clergy, are forbidden by law to teach primitive and
catholic doctrine, we can, by God's help, unite in
leaving that position." He admits that " certain
links which bound the Church of England as esta-
blished by law to the Church Primitive and Catholic
have been broken by the Ittw ;" but, he asserts, "many
links remain untouched. Bishops and clergy are
allowed by law to teach some of the worst heresies,
but the liberty of teaching the truth of the Church
Primitive and Catholic is not denied by law. It is
a bad position, doubtless, but it is not the worst.
These being the facts of the case, I hold my position,
and obey the law. You hold your position, and
resist the law. How is it possible for us to unite in
any course of action for amending the law ? Which
of us is bound by the religion we teach to give way, I
leave to yourself and to others to judge." There
can scarcely be a difference of opinion as to which of
the two correspondents occupies the more logical
position. Both are ministers of a Church in which
certain laws prevail. The laws may be bad laws, and
it is competent in that case for both to remain in the
Church and endeavour to get them altered. But
until ihese are altered they must be obeyed. If con-
science forbids obedience, conscience should counsel
secession. Conscience can, under no circumstances,
counsel disobedience so long as a man has power to
get biuisclf free from the obligation to obedience.

The dinner at DELMONICO'S to Professor S. F. B.
MORSE was made the more interesting, from the his-
tory he took that opportunity of telling the world, of
the invention which associates his name for ever with
that great wonder of our age—the telegraph. Mr.
MORSE made no uncertain sound, yet he advanced
only the statements and actsof others while proving
that to him, and to his country belong the invention
of the telegraph. Doubts could only have arisen
on the subject from confounding two things—the
semaphore and the telegraph., The former conveys
a signal, which vanishes when made ; the latter
gives a mark, which remains on permanent record.
The one is a semaphore, the other a telegraph, both
widely differing, as theirnames indicate. Let people
understand this, and then they will know the ground
on which Professor MORSE claims for himself and his
country the credit of the invention. Mr. COOK'S sys-
tem, improved by Professor WHEATSTONE, and esta-
blished in Great Britain in 1837, is a semaphore, but
as a long step towards the perfection of this new
power, Professor MORSE'S invention superseded it
in all other countries, and in a great measure in the
United Kingdom also. It has been, then, only by con-
fusing two things so distinct, awsignalling and writing,
that men managed to confound a subject so simple
in this aspect, and thus to do an injustice to the dis-
tinguished American. The idea of the telegraph ori-
ginated on board a ship then on her voyage from
Havre to New York in 1832. Three years afterwards
the instrument was so far perfected as to be tried
in the New York City University, though then
a feeble, ungainly, and stammering child, and it
was indebted to Mr. ALFRED VAIL, of New Jersey,
for being able even to make that appearance.
It looks but a small thing to assist with encourage •
meat and with money the efforts of a successful in-
ventor when the world has elevated him into a great
man, and his name is associated with a marvel
which in a measure is revolutionizing society. So
difficult is it truly to compare, that it is almost im-
possible not to be unjust to men like Mr. VAIL, for
we see the wealthy, the titled, the decorated and
distinguished individual set up on high as an ex-
ample for others, as an honour to his country ; and
we turn to the man who takes the credit for having
aided him, with the sneer in look, if not in words.
which says, " You might as well proclaim your libera-
lity in lending ROTHSCHILD a hundred pounds." But
to a ROTIISCHILD stArving in the streets a hundred
pounds might not only have been a generous loan,
but the turning point from a pauper's death on
the one hand to enormous wealth on the other, and
it is not the rich ROTHSCHILD who is to be grateful,
but the poor ROTHSCHILD, and so with the inven-
tor. It is not the figure set up on high men should
picture when they hear of the generous aid ten-
dered, but what the world regard's as a crazed
monomaniac, a bore, who can see but one object
in life, and that no object at all —but the mere
creation of a distempered brain—in pursuit of wh'.ch
all else is sacrificed ; they must see one who looks
like a man smitten with this disease, sinking into
hopeless poverty, and carrying down his family
with him as victims to an idle whim. When this
is thoroughly understood, those will be appreciated
who have saved to the world many of its greatest
inventions. Could we but learn the statistics
buried with the conceptions of generations of in-
ventors, we would learn how our race has been de-
layed in its scientific progress by the want of such
men. There is no lack of prejudice, opposition, open
undisguised hostility ; but there may be the need of
a friend, of a look, of a word of encouragement, above
all of the means, and a genius freighted with a grand
conception sinks into the pauper's grave, realizing the
very prediction of his opponents, who sing the old
tune " I told you so; the man was a mere visionary,
mad upon one point, making that one point his all
in all." At the same time we are bound to confess
that it is only in the exceptions that the world is
wrong, and being nearly always right, it assumes
an air of the greater confidence in its suppression of
inventors. But while people sneeringly point to
the poverty-stricken deaths of the crazed fools, the
unsuccessful inventors, the successful inventors
an retaliate with the bitterest sarcasm. There
never was such a story told as the English opposition
to STEPHENSON'S railroads. Men read it, and won-
der whether England is like other nations or idiotic,
at least on particular subjects. A whole nation had
taken up the role of the unsuccessful inventor, and
gone mad tu its opposition to a threatened benefit, and
they marvel more than ever when informed that these
people on the contrary are held to be advanced in ci-
vilization and liberal in their notions. In answer to
the assertion that it is Toryprejudice which is always
found blocking_ the way, it can be stated with truth
that the most stubborn opposition to improvement
comes from the labouring classes, and that the most
Republican assembly is at least as likely as the most
aristocratic to bar the road. Those who doubt this
have but to read the speech of Professor MORSE.
Thirty-two years ago that gentleman proposed to
the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington the
attachment of the telegraph to the Post-office
Department, and though backed by the Secretary of
the Treasury the late Judge WOODBRIDGE in a letter
to the Speaker of the Representatives, dated Dec. 6,
1837, the suggestion was suffered to lie dormant till
Dec. 30, 1842, when it was again reported on by
the House Committee of Commerce, which during
the two years 1837 and 1838 had come unanimously
to a favourable agreement on the subject. The
proposal of the:Hon. C. G. FERRIS was brought up
for discussion on the motion of Mr. KENNEDY of
Maryland, on a bill appropriating $30,000 to be
expended in experiments to test the merits of the
invention. Mr. CAVE-JOHNSON of Tennessee did
not wish to see the science of mesmerism neglected,
so he proposed that half the sum be given to Mr.
PISK, then lecturing in Washington, to expend on
mesmeric experiments. SAM HOUSTON of Texas
thought that " Millerism" should have a slice of
the appropriation • Mr. STANLEY "of North Caro-
lina then came in with a little more " chaff." He
would votelor the mesmeric experiment, provided
the gentleman from Tennessee was the subject,
to which CAVE-JOHNSON quickly replied he had
no objection if the gentleman from North Carolina
was to be the operator. Amidst loud laughter the
amendment was read, when Mr. MASON, of Ohio,
not considering it bona fide, rose to order, urging
that it was calculated to injure the character of the
House, but the Chairman sustained CAVE-JOHN-
SON'S amendment on the ground that he could not
undertake to settle its bona fides, as it would require
a scientific analysis to determine how far the magnet
of mesmerism was analogous to that to be em-
ployed in telegraphS. Yet this occurred in 1843,
showing even at that date how the House regarded
the invention. The Hon. CAVE-JOHNSON in 1845
held the office of Po3tmaster-General, and the ex-
perimental line between Washington and Baltimore
was put under his control. Here then was the very
individual selected officially to report on an inven-
tion which two years before he had openly en-
deavoured to discredit in the eyes of Congress, and
through it, of the nation. No notice was taken by the
Government of the patriotic offer made by Professor
MORSE to surrender his whole invention to the coun-
try for $lOO,OOO, which, considering the 13 years
of labour, and the large sums expended, was but a
trifle, while it absolutely sinks to nothing when
contrasted' with the enormous interests now in-
volved. Yet his letter did not even receive a re-
ply, and it was then that the Professor, through
the Hon. AMOS•KENDALL, formed joint-stock com-
panies to work his instrument. Still unwilling to
shut the door on the Government, Mr. MORSE