The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-13
For the Central Presbyterian
DR.. Plumer Among the Legis-


l have before me pamphlet of eighty
two pages, octave, with the following
title: The Substance of an Argument
against the Indiscriminate Incorporati on
of Churches and Religious Societies. De-
livered before the Committee of Courts
of Justice of the House of Delegates oil
Virginia, on the evening of the 9Th oil
January, and on subsequent evenings in
A. d. 1916, in reply to James Lyons and
VIM. H. Mcfarland, Esqs. By William
S. Plumer. Baltimore: Printed at the
Publication Rooms, No. Z south Liberty
street. 1S47."
The power of this argument of DR..
Plumer's, and the startling effect of the
delivery of the speech on those who heard
it, and especially on the Legislature, Sc
curing the rejection of the petition for a
general incorporation law for the objects
of charity, ETC., are historical facts with
which all Virginians are familiar, and
traditions of which may be heard in al
most every part of the State. But often
the correct views of DIR. Plumer are not
given as they are set forth in this pamph-
let; and even the very occasion of the
discussion is often misstated. Some of
these incorrect statements have recently
received currency in journals of wide cir
culation. The facts of the case, as l
learned them from Dr. Plumer, and as
they are set forth in this pamphlet, are
these
The General Convention of the Pro
testant Episcopal Church for the Diocese
OF Virginia, for several years, under the
advice and lead of Mr.. Mcfarland, had
applied to the Legislature for the passage
OF a general toaO authorizing the incor-
poration of religious, benevolent, and lit
erary societies, which was contrary to the
previous practice of the State, and as it
appeared, contrary to the popular senti-
ment of the commonwealth Mr.. Mac
tarland and Mr.. Lyons appeared on be-
half OF the petitioners; and DR.. Plumer,
on his own behalf claiming the rights of
a citizen, appeared to oppose the new
law, and to advocate the ancient policy
OF Virginia. The question, as stated by
DIR. PIumer, was this: "Shall the Legis-
lature by general law create as many
religious corporations as there are congre-
cations and religious societies in the
State?' do not discover that this state
ment Of the question before the Legis-
Iature was disputed by the gentlemen
was certainly the subject discussed by
DR.. Plumer. In the same petition the
Episcopal Convention asked for the in
corporation of their theologi=sl seminary
at Alexandria, and also of trustees for a
fund for the widows and orphans of de-
ceased clergymen. With regard to these
petitions, DR.. Plumer said: II shall say
nothing in favor of granting them, at
least until asked to do so. Should / ul-
traneously urge the granting of these
prayers | should expect to hear the cry,
Non tall our5lao l shall certainly say
nothing against granting them" So DR..
Plumer did not oppose the granting of
charters when necessary, for such special
objects as were embraced in this petition.
He was opposed to general taaO, and
opposed to the incorporation of churches
at all The law in Virginia to-day is in
precise accordance with the views advo-
Gated by DR.. Plumer, as set forth in this
speech. He defended the old policy of
Virginia, which is clearly stated in a
resolution of the Synod of Virginia on
this subject, which was presented by him
In his speech, in the following words:
"ResoIUed That this Synod do most respect
fully ask of the Legislature of this Common
wealth that they will make no fundamental
change In the existing laws of this State which
have any bearing upon the subject of religion or
religious institutions; but that they will leave
themselves at liberty to consider each particular
application Wi'ich may hereafter be presented to
them ON It's o.0B merits, and to act on 1t under
sense OF their duty to God and to their country"
The law Of Virginia then and now
secured to churches in cities or incor-
porated towns, the titles to their houses
of worship and to two acres of land, and
IN the country to thirty acres of land and
the house Of worship, which is held for
the church by trustees appointed by the
circuit Judge at the request of the church
They are not.a corporation, but represent
the church in law they can make no
disposition of the property and have no
control over it, holding 1t simply for the
use OF the church TO ALLEVIATE if mort
gage 1T, or involve it in any way. requires
special act Of the Legislature.
DIR. Plumer advocated this law as annie
and safe; and moreover opposed the in
corporation of ecclesiastical bodies, whetb-
er denominations or particular churches
The discussion made such profound i'm
preston on the people of ali classes and
conditions, that at the next convention
Tor the amendment of the Constitution of
the State Of Virginia the views of Dr.