The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1856-10-11
THE DAILY DISPATCH.


PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CosvEkrfoN--S<ven,A
Day.-A resolution was read inviting the attention
Of the house to the subject of church music, and
asking the opinion Of the House Of Blahops ,,s
The Rev DR.. Hawks advocated IL passage. stat.
Ing that church music'had 90 dsgensrased that he
frequently listened to sounds that might well
be tsrmeda livery march. The resolution was
adopted. s lg.3 s.
The order of the DAY being the confederation of
the majority and minority reports of the commit.
tee on the Judicial Systen of the Church, Hon
Murray Hoffman Of New York advocated the ma.
jority report He made an extended argument,
during which no criticised the report ofthe minor.
ity, pointing out its defects.
Rev. Mr.. Conrad, Of Virginia. replied, defending
the report OF the minority. He objects to the
twelfth section of the majority report, which pro-
vdes that the court OF inquiry established by the
previous sections, shall be governed by the same
rules as govern ecclesiastical courts and by all
such rules of procedure and practice as shall have
been provided for boards of inquiry under the au.
.hority of this church, and by such rules 60 pro-
vided for the government of ecclesiastical courts
established In this church, as may be applicable to
any question before them. He considered grand
jury was far more preferable for the purpose of
making presentment. The plan of the majority
was to make the trial of bishop hard one while
he thought that justice should alone be required.
He also objected TO section fifteen, which required
the refusal Of the court of inquiry to find pre-.
sentiment, be transferred to the House of Bshops
MT Williams of Virginia, thought that Courts
OF inquiry, as proposed would not have the DOW.
er to compel the attendance of witnessed The
minority report, which he preferred to the majority,
proposed to submit the power of presentmeut to
three Bishops and three Presbyters If Bishop
in Oregon should be charged with offences how
would the presence of witnesses be procured
how would the expenses be metz The question
was, whether Bishop should be protested by q
preliminary court, rs proposed by the majority, or
whether the six persons, specified by the mi
nority report should make the presentation. He
said the latter plan would avoid double trial. and
for one, he could place more confidence In these
men. than in Court composed of such compIica.
ted materials. 80 ~
Rev. DIR. Vinten, of New York, advocated the
majority report He contended that It was found
ed the principles of the civil law and also upon
the modes prescribed for Courts Martial. He OBJ.
jected to the minority report contrary to the
principles of justice, and examined it at length,
and pointing out the provisions. He characterized
1t as Erastanism in its worst FORM tending to the
union of church and State, ever to be deprecated.
The proper title should be canon for the hunt
ing down of Bshop its provisions rendering it
impossible that the accused should escape. He
suggested an amendment, that Bishop should be
allowed to demand a court of enquiry.
MIR. Williams, of Virginia, explained that the
provisions of the minority report were prepared
by member of the House of Bishops, and If there
was any Erastianism it should not be attributed to
himself alone. -r..
The Rev. Mr.. Trapier, of South Carolina, hay
ing obtained the floor, the debate was adjourned
till this morning, and after few notices were Civ
"a. motion for adjournment prevailed