Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1877-05-25
capable of doing either the subject or my

AN and has been carried on up to now. Ii
my member Of the Council thinks am
ensitive about my prerogative, he does not
Know me. and if am do not know my
elf. The constitution makes the consent |
If three parties necessary to the erection
If new diocese, and the first is that OF the
Bishop. 1t is singular fact that, what
ever have been the reasons for it, this dl-
vision has never been voluntarily mention
ed to me by any of the clergy OF lalty en-
gagged in advocating it, except one clergy
man in Petersburg, who said he hoped L
would not feel sensitive about the meet
ing to consider it being held there. Not
one word has been said to me on their own
motion, except in reply to something L
may have said. I appeal to this council
to say if thiss was not a singular mode of
proceeding!
L call the attention of the Council to who
are the leaders of this movement. Who
are they? Who are the leaders? 1t has been
stated that the first wall came from neg
lected parish in Cumberland. / ask the
rector of that parish to stand up in the
presence of this House and in the presence
of God, and say if he accuses me or my
predecessor of having neglected our duty.
If so I stand convicted in the face of God
and this House.
Rev. J. H. Morrison, the rector men
toned, rose and said:
I have no complaint to make. The YES
try of my church drew up the petition and
the rector merely followed the wishes OF
the laity in regard to it.
Col. Randolph Harrison of Cumberland
Does not the honored Bishop recollect my
calling ON him at his home in Richmond.
before the last Council at Alexandria and
asking his consent and receiving from him
| the assurance that his veto power would
not be interposed? The expression ''pri-
NAL wail'' came first from the opposition
| to it.
Mr.. c. Fl. Blackford-No that expires
sion in my pamphlet was not quoted it wa
original there.
| Bishop Whitfield do remember the con
versatlon spoken of by the brother. ha'
forgotten it. If I have forgotten any 9th
| er conversation I would be glad to be re
minded Of it.
Rev. G. J. Gibson of Petersburg-Y
referred to a conversation with me. O
that occasion I asked your views about til
division of the diocese and you said yo
would have no objection if the laity de
sired it.
The Bishop-Yes. and that is my pos
ton now!
Mr.. G.. E. Cosby Of Fluvanna -Bisho
do you recollect that l wrote you a lette
ON the subject Of the division of the dit
cese.
The Bishop-I do recollect that lette
If there are any other instances [ shout
like the brethren to remind me of then
Here the Bishop paused and looked aroun
the audience for an answer.) Well thes
are all the instances of those engaged
where have been spoken to about divi
ion. The general drift of the movers hs
been to keep away from me on the subjec
And now about the leaders. With fe
exceptions they are all from the cite
which Lave had no cause to complain {
lack cf Episcopal visitation. For ten yea
every city on the Southsde of James Ri
er has had an annual visit from my pred
cessor or myself and they haYe had just F.;
many visits beside as they wanted So
is a significant fact that all this complain
have had enough of it. When Mr.. Jone
of Brunswick, told me he was opposed
1iT1zi IN hof0i /; W6hru he your. Takin
into account intelligence and plety, th
head and the heart, if there is any man i
Southside Virginia who has right to f.
vor division 1t is John Ravenscroft Jones
| Mr.Jones is a lay reader in Brunswick
whose labors are onerous, but 50 accepta
bic to his parish that they do not call
minister. REP.l Here brethren you hav
the case appeal to you to say if thos
who complain are as capable of Judging 70
the country parishes as I am
can tell Mr.. Blackford, the author O
the pamphlet, that 1 can instruct him, a
he has Instructed me upon my duty her
today can tell him and the other laity f,
give me more money and more men and
can supply the waste places of which he
speaks. Or if division would bring NOR,
money and men would agree to that
PoWhatan on the Southside is here with {
prot est against division. Enough has beer
said on this floor to show that division is
not the desire of the people by large ma
jorlty. The intelligent and informed peo
pie, (not those informed by Mr.. Black
ford'S pamphlet which is full of errors, in
facts and figures, [ think unintentional,
which have misled many,) do not desire it.
If the facts had been put before the PEG.
pie to set right Mr.. Blackford's pamphlet,
there would not be one in twenty fayorinp
division
Another fact worthy of comment! Has
there been any movement of the people ex-
cept where the clergy have been leaders :?
This is a significant fact.
"A vestryman.-My vestly is in favor of
division and my minister opposes it.
The Bishop-We have several instances
here where the ministers favors division
and the vestry opposes it. 1t appears that
where the people have thought for them
selves they have opposed it. I have not
a thought of imputiug to the clerical
brethren unworthy m otives or means in
this matter. 1 claim as Bishop of the do
cese to have the means of knowing the SER
timent of the people and on thai account.
and that solely, claim to know more than
the author of that pamphlet who does not
go among them.
Some one or two delegates at the conclu-
sion of the Bishops remarks called for the
ayes and noes, but by general consent it
was dispensed with. The petition for the
new diocese was rejected by large major
THE EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY OF THE