The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-05-28
MEETING OF THE
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CONVENTION,
OF THE DIOCESE OF MARYLAND.
THIRD DAY.

At eight o'clock the Holy Sacrament of the Lords
Supper administered, Bishop Whittingham
and Rev. Mr.. Stewart officiating At nine o'clock
morning prayers read Immediately after
which the Bishop called the Convention to order.
The calling of the roll was dispensed with. The
Secretary then proceeded to read the minutes of
the proceedings of tae previous day, which were
approved.
The Bishop announced W. F. Chambers, John A.
Sellman, and G. w. Dobbin, ESQ.,, as the Commit
tee to memoriaize the Legislature for the passage
of an act empowering the diocese to hold real estate
property.
Mr.. Waters offered resolution that the next
session of the diocese meet in Chrst's Church, Bal
timore.
A member proposed that it meet in St. Peters
Church. Baltimore.
The Church of the Epiphany, Washington, was
also proposed.
The motion selecting the last named Church was
put and lost Also the motion selecting St. Peters
Church. Baltimore.
DR.. kerfoot took the floor and said that on yes
terdav when the question dividing the diocese was
carried by such small majority of the laity, he
had concluded in his own mind that it would be
impolitc to press the matter further. 1t would be
wrong for the clergy to carrya measure which did
not possess the confidence of large majority of the
laity. He then proceeded to review the action of
the Committee who presented the report He sta
ted that every means had been employed to
secure full expression of opinion on the
question. lie DeHeVed that 1t had been fairly
discussed, and that it was the will of God
that for the present the diocese should not be di-
vided. He believed that the diocese would be di-
vided at no distant day, but for the present the
question was settled in the negative. He gave
tice to the Convention that in few minutes he
would move to lay the two remaining resolutions
which accompanied the report on the table,
The Rev. Mr.. Barbour said that he had come
here in favor of the division of the diocese, but
convinced of the mpolicv of the proposition by
the small majority which il had on the vote of the
laymen.
Gen. Tilghman rose to explain his motion of the
previous evening, with regard to reconsidera-
ton. He did so to settle the preliminary resolu-
ton, and not for the purpose of deprvng those op-
posed to the division of the right of discussion.
DR.. kerfoot then moved to lay the resolutions on
the table which accompany the report of the Com
mittee on a division of the diocese. Carried
DR.. kerfOot called the attention of the Conven-
ton to the following extract from the report of the
Committee:
"The Committee cannot conclude this Report
without calling the attention of this Convention to
the proposed amendment of Article Y. of the Con-
stitution of our Church in the United States offer
ed by the Bishop of this Diocese, and to be found
page POS of the Records of the House of Bishops,
in the journal of the last General Convention.
Views nearly similar were presented to the Com
mittee by of its members, as the independent
result of his own study of this whole question. AS
earnest minds will be turned more and more to the
consideration OF this great question of the increase
of the Episcopate, it may be only the duty cf your
Committee to call your attention to this mode of
relief, one which by its evident wisdom as
well for the consideration due here to the source
of the suggestion, is entitled to the very serious
consideration of this body, and it may be to their
special commendation of it to the attention of the
next General Convention"
DR.. kerfoot said that the idea was in keeping
with the views of the Bishop, and he therefore
offered the following resolution:
Resolved. That this Convention respectfully recommend
to the attention of the General Convention the proposed
amendment to Article Fifth Of the Constitution, which
presented to that body by the Bishop this
Hugh Davy Evans, Esq, said that if the resolu-
ton intended to request the House of Bishops
to send the question to the different dioceses, it
was nullity-for that was the duty of the House
of Bishops. But if it was intended as instructions
to the delegates from this body, he was utterly OPP
posed to it; and if it adopted he could not
serve as delegate.
| DR.. Cummins asked that the Bishop might ex-
| plain the question.
The Bishop stated that he had not offered any
amendment At the last meeting of the House OF
| Bishops he had asked permission of that body to
have placed on the journal motion of his intention
to offer an amendment to the 5th article of the
! Constitution. The proposed amendment did not
embody his views. 1t was a compromise measure,
which was intended to meet the views of those who
differed with him. There was no amendment of
| fered as yet
DR.. Cummins said he therefore moved to lay the
| resolution on the table.
Judge Tuck said he fully coEcurred in the pro-
position which had been offered. and which embo
| died, the views of the Bishop. He advocated the
adoption of the resolution on the ground that il
would fully meet every emergency.
| DR.. Kerfoot modified his resolution as follows:
Resolred, That the attention of the General Convention
is respectfully requested the plan which will be sub
mted to that body by the Bishop of Maryland for thu
amendment Of Article v of the Constitution of the Church
in the United States.
| DIR. Cummins said it met his views, and he there
| fore seconded it.
DR.. Smyth Pyne said that he concurred in tn,