The times., 1897-06-17

o'clock with a prayer and litahy service
OF an hours duration Rev. Thomas ).
Childs, D. D., conducted the service and
adm nistered holy communion to the
clergy and laity present.. He was assisted
by Rev. Charles Hayes, OF ST Marx s. VINO
read the cspistIe, and by the sub dearon,
who read the gospel.
The devotional service was largely at
tended by the members of the congrega-
tion, who likewise remained and watched
the proceedings OF the convocation
The business OF the session WAS taken
UP at 1880 O'Clock; Rev Thomas >
Childs presided over the meeting asdean, ana
Rev Arthur S. Johns was the secretary
Rev, J. II. Elliot, s T. D., offered
resolution to suspend the rules OF the
conyocation so as to admit the laity that
were present to virtually represent their
respective parishes that had not been
duly accredited. The resolution was car
ried by unanimous consent
The report Of the archdeacon was reads
and many instances Of progress in the
various parishes were cited lie bao
visited thirty churches in -four counties
He said that the point of greatest II" er-
est was the recent reopeaing OF the historic
old church at Bladensburg.
The question to be discussed was that
of the division OF the convocation into sew
cral narts. The convocation has not au-
thority In the matter at all, as this only
belongs to the work OF the annual diocesan
convention. but il was desired To voice
the sentiment of the clergy present, Dy
recommending ertan plan TO the com
mitsee in charge, to be presented to the
convention.
Rev. Thomas A Johnstone, u. d., de-
liycred the address of the day. He said. in
part: "Thc opposition to the recommends
ton of the committee on canvas was not 70
any extent sentimental expression OF at
tachmcn, 20 an institution OF many years
existence in the old diocese OF Maryland,
nor a deliberate Judgment upon the general
question OF theyalue OF oonyocation. ft was
simply the very general, II not unanimous,
desire Of the members OF the convocation
that bona fide effort should be made In
tie line of division or modification before
seriously considering its abolition.
.It was In the nature OF plea FOR
such deliberate, well-considered treat
ment OF the subject as would enable the
next annual convention TO dispose or it
definitely In such a manner as would
be satisfactory to both the conservative
and the progressive sentiments OF the
dioceses. 1t Is hoped that the discussion
viii furnish to the special committee iip
pointed 10 report on the question or
convocation to the next annual CON
yentiou some clear indication OF what
is desired and what is most practicable
| in the modification of the present con
| vocational system of the diocese. Some
| of tie possible ways in which the division
may be made are:
I'VE may make what would seem The
| most natural division by setting off the
| District OF Columbia as one convocation
| and the four Maryland counties Of the
| dioresc as another This would be un
| desirable, as it would mean a separation
| or city from county without any com
pensatng advantage to either. An entirely
urban convocation would be a diocesan
| soIecisrn There is not one convenient
| center OF the four counties which would
| be accessible TO clergy and iaity OF the
| different parishes where conversational
| meetings could be held, and the visitation
| work by the archdeacon would be attended
| to with much inconvenience. A meeting
| place Washington would be much more
| convenient for the villages than any II
| the towns and villages within their hounds =
| At the conclusion of Mr.. Johnstone's
| address, q resolution recommending the
| division OF the conventional system was
| introduced, as follows:
THAT this convocaton recommends the
| division of the diocese into three convo-
| cations, one TO be conterminous with the
| District or Columbia; the second, or north
| ern, to be composed of Montgomery
| county and the parishes in Prince George $
county along the B. o. Railroad; the
| third, or southern, to be composed OF The
| remaining parishes in Prince George S
county and of st. Mary's and Charles
| counties"
Rev Charles E. Buck offered a substi-
! tute providing that the convocatioa be
| divided into three, four or five deaneries
| as the convOcation should see fit to Sc
| lect.
A long discussion followed, which was
| participated in by DR.. Elliot, DR.. Buck
| Dr. Williams, DR.. Johnstone, MIR. Meioy
and others, AT O'Clock lunch was served
pen6ing II continuation of the discussion
At2 O'Clock the session was resumed, ant
Mr. William A. Meloy offered a resolu
ton as an amcndmentthat the diocese bi
divided into two convocations, each Ol
which should include portion of Wash
ington.
l. nr Albert r. Stuart, D. D., moved tina
the whole matter be referred to the com
mittee now in charge of the sub iect to re
pert at the fall meeting of the convocatio
but this was subsequently withdrawn. 4
vote was finally taken on the resolution
of Dr. Buck and Mr. Meloy, and each wa
lost
DR. Elliott then proposed as an amend
ment TO his resolution that fdIr or fly
rural deanerieS bcsestablished at the pleas
ure of the bishop This was carried but hi
original resolution, when taken up, wa
voted on in sections and lost
Rev John A. Aspinwall introduced
resolution recommending that the cor
vocation he continued as before, with
yearly meeting in the fall, and that suits
BILE provision be made for the transports
tion OF all members OF the diocese, and wa
carried
The following officers were elected
Archbishop Rev. Thomas s. Childs, DIR
secretary; Rev. A. s. Johns, treasure
, and s. w Tulloch.
; The meeting was then, at o'clock, az
! journed.
The delegates to the convocation, Were
, Rev John A. Aspin wall, Rev. David Bar
, Rev Obre r. Bourne, Rev. Charles E. Buck
: Rev. James A. Buck, D. D., Rev. ThoIna
, g. Chilis, d. D., Rev. James W. Clark, Re,
James B. Craighill, Rev william L. Dew
rtes. Ph D., Rev. John H Eliot, s.. T D
4,