Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-05-23

fricad std Baptist brother and stei!Dg
Ctv.aaptr shcss that 10 hav, 90 R:nlsb
prac!icts.
The Bishop-I must decide that you arc cot
10 order.
difference TO yGur decision.
The motion OF Col. Lamb was adopted.
Bishop Whittls announced the Grptiosme1t
Of he following committees:
Ga that part Ct his address which referred
to colorcd Work-Ilevs. DR.. Hanke. 4: White,
R. 4. Goodwin, E. B. Jones, W. Z. Hui!lhen,
Messrs. J. L. Williams. j. K. Jcnes, WIh'm
| Nelson, ". y. Brockenbrousb, and W. Il.
M!rin.
| referred to n the circular letter, ritualisn DIS.
| Reys. Dr.. Merton, Peodetol, MinDigerode,
| HankeI, Hubbard, r. Z. Davis, j. G. Arm
strong, II. NJ. jackson, Col. Lamb. Col. s: s.
| Brectcrl, judges Morcu?c Sheftey, Boiling.
| Mcs7Is. JOAN Stewart and 5. ID. DAVIS.
The time having arrived f5r the consdera,,
ton Of the question rs TO whethtr there shall
be an assistant bishop. DR.. Mnngerode said
hs would make mction that ths convention
yotc upon the question without debate
Mr.. Moore offered the following, which
brought up the question before the body:
Regarding more frequent E2iscopa'e vista
ton desirable aud q division Of the Diocese IN.
ezpcdcut, therefore
RssoIved, That application be nado to the
Bishop AID standing committees Il the several
| Dioccsss IF tho church f,r permission to elect
IA Assistant Bishop OF Ills piooeS, gu account
| OF Inc tx eat OF territory.
Judge Moncurc zeal a resolution ia7oiias
tho election 0: 90 Assistant Bishon. tu: he did
not press II.
| Sanc discussion eu.uei as IT, tbs atii ute OF
The question before the body.
Dr.. Mirnigerode's motion t, v5!o Fithou!
debate Wrs Seconded
MIR. Cha'.s NJ. Backiorl. Of Llnchburs,
earnestly oppo'rd The Eloiioa &c vote OF the
Uue:ti,n without d.biLc.
| DR.. MiuaigProde WlthCr,~ his motl00.
There seemed to tr no disposition 10 debate
tho resolution aud the vote Has called By syes
ard nocs, aud Alr MoCro's resolution was lost.
Tho vote OF the cleric,i mem oers stood-Ayes
10, noes 80. L,g deIega;eS-Ayes IS. noes42
| Rev Il. Melville Jackson offered the ioDw'
irg:
R.c,sa;2ios tic desire OF msty that thtra
shall De a division O. this Gijcesa, anl whereas
the Council hes tx pressed itself as desiring ad-
di.ioosl services, uni whtr.as this CJunci! is
unwiIIiu, to divide this Diocese cootrsry to the
wishes of the same or Of either part thereof,
aud ratrsas the se1tment OF the Diocese On
This sui ,ct is not TO" authoritailvey kua"n
therefore DO it
Resolved Th1! O committee Of enquiry be
aod the snmo hereby il appointed to ascerta'n
the s,nso Ct the Diocese ou this sui c..
That tbs manner in which this c)ulmitec
SHALL prccaed is as follows:
They shall! as SOON alter tho &C )dfnm oct OF
tie PRESENT Ctu0cii as possible notify the re
tor aud registrars Of each several parish that
SUITS Guautiy to tho tl.cti3n OF restrles at max.
Easter tie scuso Of hs VtstTy thereof shall be
takar.
Immediately after the election Of v*s.rics at
next Easier the I.li committee shall propose
10 tho registrar Of eech p:r,s!i the following
qupsi,Es. to Wit:
Is the r:c.or OF your parish 10 iavor OF tieii.
iop, opposed to divIsoD, or undecided?
l.; the ves!ry CT your parish 10 favor Of dIvis.
ion. opposed 10 division, or undecided?
Give tbs such OF some of your voStIymeu as
ere in favor of division; Of those who are o. !
posed to division, end of those undecided.
That the aforesaid committee shall tabUlaic
there returns and report tho rtsu!t 10 The n! x:
Ccurc.
Peudins the discussion ct these TITO Council
t0lk RECESS until four o'clock.
EVENING SESSION.
Up0a The assembling CT Ice CUuIcil lt2V.
DR.. Newton made q mctijn 10 reconsider the
vote BIZ Witch tho resolution ia7ctiag sn As
sistapt Bishop was defeated.
Gap. b. L. Johnston mo7ad to lag The mo-
lion to reconsider on the tube.
Tho moion to Icy Oh The table wsS lost by
ic ioiIoHiog vote: CIe,ical-ayes a.. noes 4S
L,y-lycs 40, noes is.
Thia ;ci,n iaG:c,tes a decided change 10
favor OF tho Assistant Bishop. The tvcniaH
scssioo VAS taken up ir tho discussion Ct the
question OF Assistant Bishop or not. Dr.. Min
n,scrodo opposed tho Assistant Bishop PROMO.
sitioa. Judge ShefFry favored il. Rtv Dr..
Norwood tsv;rcd it. Rev. VIM. N. Wsrl and
Rev. DR.. Petcrkin favored it, and it vas or,
posed by DR.. Bsr,cu, Of Norfolk DE-. Murtah,
Ct Fredericksburg, and Rsv. II. NJ. Jackson, of
Richutn6
Pending The discussoa the Council al.
i3uracd.
| TO DAYS PROCEEDINGS
[By Telegraph
! tEEpZEICKsrURu, Va, Msy 23i.-The com-
IL i:.eu to whom was referred that portion Of tho
| Bishops address concerning tho use Of flowers,
rtusls!ic practices, &C.. submitted u report re-.
| commanding that tbs Bishop bs accorded cheer
| iul and willing obediencs. Among the sgners
Of the Iepor. was Rev. H. M. Jackson, OF Rich
| moad.
A minority report wks presented, signed by
Rev. Mr. HUBBARD, OF Winchesttr and Judge
Boiling, of Wythevilie, declaring that while
they sgreed to the rest OF tho report they did not
| consider that the use of flowers was wrong.
| DR.. Armstrong declined to sign either report,
and will explain his position this evening.
VIRGINIA .rEH,S.