The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-05-28

Elkton his headquarters. | have also lately been
engaged professionally in Queen Anne's county, and
although have seen and talked with many of her
church people, | found none there who advocates
the movement.
1t is true that those of the southern section of the
Shore are in favor of it. because like the Cecil
man, they expect the Bishop to become a resident
among them.
Mr.. Barbcr-There is no authority for that asser-
ton.
Judge Chambers-How can You undertake to To-
cate the Bishop for the Eastern Shore?
Mr.. Barber-You have no authority for saving we
expect him to settle with us.
Judge Chambers-llave you not yet heard that
it was expected that lie would locate in Cambridge?
Mr.. Barber-No.
Judge Chambers-Then am wiser than YOU of
your own town matters. | hear it all around the
Shore that such is the The gentleman must
remember the old adagc-"you must go from home
to hear your own news"
do not think the people of the Eastern Shore
are prepared to break those ties and bonds of unity
which years have formed. Ny knowledge of them
precudes such an impression. 1t has been said that
the RAPID increase of the Church demands division
OF the Diocese. Now / claim that this very pros
perity denies the policy of change in our church
government, when institution or organization
increases rapidly as we have been shown our Do
cese to have increased it is indeed doubtful policy
10 thnk OF making any alterations, and | would
warn the members of the Convention to keep their
hands OFF OF so sacred relic and landmark of pros
perity The great truths of Religion could no moro
change, than could the love of Him who proclaimed
them; but the interests of organizations such as this
should be touched carefully. | warn you to tread
carefully upon this consccratcd ground-to be eau
tious how you change your church regulations
The reasons of the gentleman Mr.. Crosdae) WHY
change should be made, refute themselves He
details the prosperity under existing regulations
which shows the clergy to have increased, in cigh
teen years, from seventy to one hundred and fifty
and congregations in proportions and yet asks to
have them changed. Under stWh PROSPEROUS state
OF things. why propose change? Other States
nave divided, but have yet to learn that any in
creased prosperity have followed such divisions
1t is urged that the Bishop has too much labor TO
| perform. Now do not think he will complain of
too much labor, for think we have the best Bishop
| in the world.
| Bishop Whittngham-I must call Won to order
as expressed the hope, in my address, that any
consideration OF myself might not enter into the
| discussion.
Judge Chambers will not then offend again.
but you cannot charge with originating any re-
| terence to yourself. L will not offend again by
naming the Bishop, though may be allowed /
hope to say that there is one Bishop who will never
! shrink from any duty devolvng upon him, and one
who is equal to all the work that this Diocese can
! deyove upon him. Such man cannot be bound
by small Diocese, and there is no use to attempt
to cramp him thus. Others might need a great
| proportion OF duties to prevent idleness and con-
sequent mischief. | am not one who would burthen
| our Bishop with duties. If need be, give him an
assistant. | am not opposed to small Dioceses but
| do not now deem it practicable or desirable that
Ilie Nlilte De mus UNlueu-Our organization
| changed, in the face of the prosperity of past
| years.
If the Eastern Shore is assigned Bishop. he will
have to be provided for and have yet to learn that
! the Cambridge Convention has made any such pro-
| vision, or even considered this question During
the past eighteen years that section of the State has
subscribed but $1,000 to the permanent fund for the
support OF a Bishop. This certainly does not give
much assurance that it will give desirable and re-
spectacle support to an Episcopate.
| Our Diocese contains fifteen thousand nine hun
| dred and htty-nne square miles. We are told this
is too large territory for one Bishop to have the
charge OF. Why, if an Eastern Shore Bishop was
going to visit his own Diocese, he would as a mat
ter OF convenience come over to the other Diocese
and then take the route so dolefully described as
| pilgrimage calculated to physically exhaust him.
The Virginia Diocese contains siXtv-one thousand
| three hundred and fifty-two square miles, and vet
| they do not propose division. There is another
consideration, Mr.. President, in this connection.
would IN the first place, regret to the bench of
blshops increased to any very great extent, and if
the precedent is established, of allowing bishop to
every 1000 square miles of territory, what would
that body in short time amount to. | have not as
implicit faith in such large bodies as in small select
ones. Again, would the bench of bishops consent
to our doubling our representation there, when
MARYLAND is among the smallest of the Dioceses
Unfortunately there has sprung up in our coun-
| try strong political authorizations. 1t has so gone
abroad and the political caudron so boiled and bub
bled, that the fingers of Maryland had. too, been
scorched. Now while are grateful as a church.
! mt possessng&he influence of cementing our whole
! State by her teachings in one great cause shall we
consent to throw her into the boiling cauldron
which has created such heart-burnings? Is this the
time to sever the bonds which so bind US together?
Let us pause and reflect well upon the result before
we act.
The churchmen and laymen of our State have of
late evidenced an unusual zeal in the interests of
the church, and it is proposed that the work shall
be startled and not only retarded but crippled by
the severance of the bonds uniting the two Shores
| There is nothing demanding such change as to
justify the risk that the act carries with it,
Mr.. Brice GoldSborOugh conceived that the dis
cusslon had taken too wide range: the merits of
| the whole question having been gone into upon a
! resolution to refer the matter to a committee. He
did not deem the issue upon this resolution as set
! ting the question, which is an interesting one to
| the Eastern Shore. After the clergy had shown
the spiritual wants of that section, it would have
been time enough for the laymen to come forward
in the discussion, and also to state how far they
| would be prepared to support Episcopate.
| Though in favor of the division, if he could be
! convinced that majority of the churchmen on the
Eastern Shore were opposed to it, he would stamp
the movement under foot by vote of dsapproba-
ton. lie was, in part, in favor of the resolution,
but would like to see it modified by having the sub
Ject referred to a committee of three.
Rev. Mr. Nelson hoped that it might be so fur
Their amended that the roll of the clergy and the
laity of the Eastern Shore be called at once upon
the subject If they are opposed to the DIVISION he
for one would urgeit. He concluded by of
fering resolution to that effect
Mr.. Evans-I gladly accept the amendment.
Mr.. GOldsborough-Andl too.
Judge Chambers hoped the gentleman from Bal
| tmore, (Alr. Evans would reflect before adopting
it, as there was now number of laymen present
who could vote the wishes of their Pensioners
Rev. DR.. Kerfoot offered substitute. declaring it
expedient that the Diocese of Maryland be divided
| If it adopted he said, the Convention could
then select Committee to report the line of divs-
ion, &c, at the next Convention; but if rejected
the whole question would be disposed Of When he
| came here he was of the opinion that the Eastern
Shore was united upon the question He found
they were not and he hoped the Convention might
be better informed thereon, before decisive vote
! is had.
Rev. Mr.. Crosdale considered the proposition of
Rev. DR.. Kerfoot as calculated to crush out the
whole question, and not directly respectfully an
| swerino the memorialists.
| Mr.. f. w. Bruno deprecated the adoption of the
substitute, as it would call upon the Convention to
vote directly upon the question of division Hehad
no doubt many prepared to vote now, but there
were those who were not prepared. He did not re-
card the question as being smplv-Shall the Eastern
shore have a Diocese? 1t comprised only one-thrd
of the present one, and in all probability, should
division even be declared, other metes and bounds
than the dividing line between the two shores nigh
be adopted.
Rev. DR.. Kerfoot then withdrew his resolution
until vote had been taken upon the proposition of
the Rev. Mr.. Nelson, but reservng the right to af
forwards renew it in a modified form.
The resolution of the Rev. Mr. Nelson was then
adopted.
The roll of lay delegates for the Eastern Shore
was then called, and they were desired to answer
to the wishes of their several Parishes, with the
| following result:
For the Division-Messrs. Dashiell, Dennis, b. J.
Goldsborough, NJ T. Goldsborough, Hayward, Hol-
liday, Johnston, Ryall and Dougherty-9.
Against the Division essrs. Chambers, Beck
l. T. Earle, Geo. Earle, Kennard, Massey, Veazey
and Matthew's.
The clergy of the same section were then called,
and answered as follows:
1EAs-Rev. Messrs. Barber, Crosdale, f. F. Da-
shlei, Gould, Mason, Moore, Spencer, Stewart,
! White, Curtis, Parkman, Clarke and Bryan-13.
NAYs-Rev. Messrs. Atkinson, Knight, Stokes,
| Berry and Bevan-4.
| Rev. DR.. Kerfoot then offered a resolution that
the whole subject be referred to committee of
nine of the clergy and laity, who shall report to