The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-03
TFur the DIspatch.l
- vs~-<~~-ss a ssA nP PIN 10 err.


4, the New York Observer Of the 18Th OF
1anuary there appeared a very interesting
tv;bute 10 the memory Il the late Rev. Dr.
riuner from the pen OF "Iren@us gre
Pew. DIR. Prmel. Referring TO the subject
~ tho sketch ms an able debater. as he was,
he rcnresen,s that "when he was settled IN
Rlchmond, Va, legal question, IN regard
N f0yofion of n,inistersu), came Up" Vhe
itaJic. are the writer's Of this nofe,) "aqd
tho clergy appointed DIR. Plumer to repre-
cent IN. m in resistance TO the proposed mea'
sure,r &c.
Another writer for the northern press,
shortly after Dr.. Plumer's death. made
statement IN reference to the measure on
wbtcb the debate occurred, but stated that
II was In relation TO another question.
Both Of the writers were in error; and II
is not doubted that both would be very un-
willing 10 send out, even In so unimportant
n matter, any inaccurate statement.
II was about 1876 Ubis writer is not very
certain as to the date) committee OF tue
Convention OF tue Protestant Episcopa'
Church NJ Virginia consisting OF messrs.
". n. Macfarland, James lyons, I'd. Fon-
tame. and u. May) presented 10 the General
Assembly OF Virginia petition OF their
cons,it,eu,s for ga fa,c authorizing the re-
iioious congregations Of this State TO hold
,,ronertu 10 q limited amount" The Bap.
lists also presented similar petition. The
nape,. il a calm, dignifed. and able presen'
tstiop OF the views Of the petitioners. The
first sentence states "thal, in common
with al other denominations In The Com
mopwealtb. they suier manifold ana great
injuries for the want OF some adequate pro-
vision Of law to enable them TO hold ana
transmit property" IL asked that the Lee
,islolure would pass law af0rdiDg tDe
protection desired. Among the enumerated
objects of protection, one asked ior Iunds
donated 10 the foundation OF a theological
seminary, and one for the relief OF WIDOWS
and orphans Of deceased ciergymen.
The petitions were referred 10 The Com
miliec OF Courts OF Justice. who held meet
ines in the hail OF the House OF Delegates,
ana Or. Plumer was heard in opposition to
The netjtion.. and Messrs. w. II. MIcfarland
and james Lyons I've are not sure as 10 the
la>t-named worthy gentleman, WHO "stlll
lives honored and respected by all who
know aud greatly esteem HIM advocated
the PRAYER Of the petition.
Mi. Macfarland's speech tprintcd in 1916
by MIR. II. X ElIyson) is before the writer,
and Is one OF great clearness and ability.
The prayer Of the petition was not
granted, and the views Of DR.. Plumer were
sustained by popular opinion, while Many
Of all denominations did not at all concur
in the opinions OF The majority OF the Lee
gislature.
II viii -not he inappropriate to contribute
q historical fact or two in connection win
this matter without discussing the merits OF
the questions Involved.
SO strong was the opposition to the incor'
pOration Of religious associations and lnsti-
tons that at The period mentioned about
lS46) the trustees Of theological semlnaries
Ia Virginia would not apply for acts Of in
Large funds belonging to
Union Theological Seminary "a Presbyterian
divinity school in Prince Edward) were
he'd in the names Of A. h, and &. &c.,
.E0nd their SurUiuOrS in trust, for the use
and benet'' Of this seminary OF learning.
Twenty years thereafter, in the Assembly
of 1861 an act OF incorporation OF "the
trustees Of Union Theological Seminary IN
Virgins" (such is the title OF The corpora
tom was passed by The Legislature OF Nir-
gip'a a,NL5aineOuSly!! " ItmporG mutdn'
tuY." DC.
Tue sole object Of this note is to correct
the errors of Dir. Prime-of course unin-
tentionaliy committed. His tribute 60 the
memory OF the good DR.. Piumer is worthy
OF the subject and OF its gifted author.
A PGESBYTERIAS.