The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-10-14
8 The RITUAL Question.
Especial Correspondence Of the Philadelphia Ev
. ssss- I=.1s. ming RnJIpttn I 'AFstEat-.a

Especial Correspondence Of the Philadelphia Eve
ming Bulletin.l
/ New YORK, October II, 1S74.-The dele
gates to the Triennial Convention are pre-
sumably gathering spiritual strength to-day
for their work tomorrow. The discussion,
|; which is to begin with closed doors, over the
approval or otherwise by the House of Depu-
| ties of the two bisbops-elect, Drs. Wells and
ESeymour, is evidently regarded BY the greater
number of deputies, clerical and lay, with
considerable anxiety. hMingling with them,
it is not difficult to ascertain that there is in
the House.a majority opposed ITO rituaistic
doctrines and practices, but it is very doubt.
full if majority Of those SO believing can be
found to enforce that opposition by the adop-
tion Of a new canon. The difficulty Of deal
ing with this subject has not lessened since
the Baltimore Convention There is among
the strongest opponents of the rituaistic
school so sincere a respect for the vigorous
earnestness of its devotees and leaders that
it has marked influence on their judy
ments, and impedes their way to decisive nc.
ton. ~ ~ .
It is noticeable that a majority of the elder
clerical deputies who have expressed them
selves in any way are anti-rituaistic while,
judging by action and expression during the
last week, the Older lay delegates are about
evenly divided. Take central New York,
for instance; Samuel B. Ruggles and Cam
bridge Livingstone were both delegates to
Baltimore in 1871, as they are to the present
Convention. They voted-Ruggles against
| the anti-ritualistic canon proposed by the
Rev. DR.. Mead and the mider, resolutions Of
censure framed by the Bishops; while Liv-
| ipgstone voted for the Mead canon and
against the Bishops substitute. The Rev..
Drs. Haight and Cady, Of New York and
PoughkeepSie, are the only clerical deputies
of the present delegation who were at Balti-i
more. They voted against both the pro-,
posed canon and the Bishops resolutions
DR.. Haigbt is too sick to attend the sessions.
HE Is believed to be in favor Of allowing the
Issues involved to work out their own cure.
| The canon proposed yesterday by the Rev.
Meyer Levin, D. D., Of Port Tobacco, Md,
| is the condensed rendering of the more
elaborate one offered at Baltimore by the
Rev. William Cooper Mead, D. D., Of Con-
| necticut, the vote on which was divided as
| follows: Forty dioceses were represented in
the clerical, and s. in the lay vote. Of the
clerical votes, Il dioceses voted afirma.
lively, 20 in the negative, and 6 were
| divided. OF the lay votes, II diOceses voted
afirmatiyely, 20 in the negative, and were
divided. On that vote the vote of the do
cese of Pennsylvania was cast in the mega
tive, as follows: Clerical, the Rev. George
Emlen Hare, D. D. ); Rev. Daniel Goodwin,
D. d.; and the Rev. A. Augustus MARBLE
voted nay. The lay delegates, Messrs.
Welsh, Harrison, Coffin, and Franklin, all
voted nay. III ii .,s.a
OF these gentlemen the Rev. Dr.. Goodwin
and MesSrs. Harrison, Coffin, and Welsh are
members of, the Pennsy lyania delegation in
the present House of Deputies. On the mo-
ton to concur in the Bishops resolutions, the
delegation, clerical and lay, all voted affirma.
| lively. This proposition was lost for want
of concurrence Of both orders, the result
being divided as follows: .g
Forty dioceses were represented by cleri-
| cal votes, 30 voting afirmatiyey, IS mega
lively, and dividing. III ~ T.
| Thirty-four dioceses were represented in
the lay votes, is afirmatively, "A negatively,
and dividing. -a.rs
The votes on these two propositions will
| bear :analyZing. ] find that there are ST
clerical deputies of those now present who
voted. at Baltimore, for DR.. Mead's proposed
canon. OF the lay deputies who are now
| present ] find there were but Il who voted
atfirmatively. The negative vote stood in,
this wise Clergy, 40; laity, q, making 90
affirmative aud 50 negative-in all l09.
There are about 40 others, both clergy and
laity, now present who did moi vote at Balti.
more. - s..s@sa ''"~ III q t. a,%
The vote of those now present on the
Bishops compromise of 1871 stood as .fol-
| Flows:
| Laity-22 alternatives, II negatives, making
| ,,,,o t,,a x,otcc apd ppp9ti vpS-1U0 in
all, or a change of 1G votes in favor of the
moderate plan. ..,..lpg.y!. ;.
Still further analysis of the vote by locai-
ties of the 100 delegates voting at Baltimore
| who are in the present Convention will
show that of the cergyTotiDg for the Mead
canon eight were from New England, nine
| from southern dioceses, two from western,
two from The northwest, and one each from
the dioceses of Long Island and Marylands
the latter vote being that of the Rev. Ut.
| Levin, the mover of the proposed anti-rltu-
alistic canon In the present House.
! IN the vote upon the Bishops proposition
the affirmative vote stood as follows: From
the central diocese of Pennsylvania. Pitts,
h t Ohio. Delaware, Maryland, and
Easton, six; New England, ten; New ! ork
| dioceses, FIVE; southern, twelve; western,
! three: and northwestern, four.
ON the Mead canon the negative clerical
vote stood as follows: The middle dleceses
named and including New jersey, six;
sonthern. eleven; New York dioceses, ten;
New England, one; northwestern, SIX; anu
western four.
vote Of the clergy was thus divided: Inc
middle dioceses GncudiDg two from New
Jerseyl. i've: New England, one; southern,
twelve: New York, five; northwestern,
| two; western, one. - ~
The votes Of the laity ran in about the
same divisions. and it is not necessary 10
rive them, As there is majority OF the
delegates present who served at Baltimore,
and at least one.thirdwho have been in con-
MENTIONS preceding that, tits fair to presume
that thew will exercise controlling influence.
! The vote on Friday inviting the Greek cler-
oy to seats in the Convention does not seem
| 10! GROW in favor with the Low.Chlrchmen.
There are three Greek priests-or, at least,
one priest and two deacons-residentl 10 new
York. They have not as yet appeared IN Inc
Convention, and the invitation, though put
in the form of a courtesy that could not be
refused, is now openly censured as tending
10 unnecessarily (by its failure to recognize
then,) excite the feelings OF the Prot ds 2
clergy of other denominations.
on the proposed canon of Or. Levin ana
1.-THE Virginia memorial the issue 10 )oinea.
with the discussions over the approVal
If Dr. seymour's election the contending
forces will be disciplined and arranged Tor
4 ti,e open debate which must ensue when
/ the LEVIN proposition comes before the e
One Of the most moderate and prominent
4 az the clerical deputies stated In converse