Production Note
Cornell University Library produced
this volume to	replace	the
irreparably deteriorated original. It
was scanned using Xerox software and
equipment at 600	dots per	inch
resolution and compressed prior to
storage using CCITT Group 4
compression. The digital data were
used to create Cornell's replacement
volume on paper that meets the ANSI
Standard Z39.48-1984. The production
of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of
Library Research Materials and the
Xerox Corporation.	Digital	file
copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.IN REGARD TO THE
DIPPIG ULTIE8
ST. ANDREW’S PARISH,
STAATEN ISLAND, N. Y.
BT ■	;	-	'
THE COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE.
"D. CT*a\v( .	ct.Kf.TS '
NEW YORK :
BAKER & GO D W IN, PR I N T E R 8,
CORNER NASSAU AND SPEVOS STREETS.
1857.A
Word to the public.
Whereas the public in many quarters^ has been misled by news-
paper accounts and false reports, as regards the difficulty between
Rev. Theodore Irving and the people of St. Andrew’s Parish,
Staten Island, it seems proper to the undersigned to make known
through the following medium, how the difficulty originated, and
how when once begun it has been kept alive. The following
statement is therefore made, by which it will be seen upon whom
lies the responsibility of destroying the peace of our hitherto
undisturbed communion, who it is that keeps fanning into flame
the brands of discord, and scatters scandal broadcast through
society.
In a pamphlet entitled “Facts against Rumor,” that appeared
some weeks since, there was a statement, very fair and impartial,
of the most important facts in the difficulties in St. Andrew’s
Parish, which had transpired up to the institution of Rev. Theo-
dore Irving, It was therein shown how, notwithstanding the
known opposition to this gentleman, he and a “ small knot of
friends ” procured his secret call and hasty installation, an instal-
lation which, in fact, took place before he had entered upon the
duties of the Parish. It is not known to the undersigned that4■
there is another case in the history of this diocese, where an in-
stallation of this kind ever took place ; and here we ask, Why ?
Because they who made the call supposed that, in this way, all
their acts would be confirmed and their proceedings could in no
wise be upset.
It is not necessary here, to repeat the objections that were made
to Mr, Irving, at and before the time of his institution ; but as it
has been industriously and widely circulated that he was not
aware of any opposition to his call till the time of his institution,
it will not be improper here, to republish one or two of the letters
which were sent to that gentleman before the unfortunate 5th of
February last. ( Vide pamphlet,—“ Facts,” &c., p. 9, letter 0.)
C.
Staten Island, January 30th, 1857.
Rev. Theodore Irving.
Dear Sir,—It has come to our knowledge that the vestry of
St. Andrew’s Church have given you the call as their Pastor, and
that you have accepted the same. Having remonstrated with those
gentlemen against this course without effect, we feel it incumbent
upon us to lay the facts before you, so that you may be the judge as
to the propriety of your filling the position. Numbers of the con-
gregation named several prominent gentlemen that they wished to be
invited to preach to us; but the vestry would not do it. The vestry
have acted in such a summary manner, and in total violation of our
rights and wishes, that we are sure the waning fortunes of our parish
will be followed by almost entire desertion if their course is persisted
in. Petitions signed by upwards of fifty-jive heads of families, attend-
ants of the church, have been presented to the vestry, remonstrating,
but to no effect. And we assert without fear of contradiction that
three quarters of the whole congregation consider it a high act of
usurpation. The vestry have always pretended to act in accordance
with the wishes of the congregation. Yet we find this call has been
made when only three of that body had ever heard you preach, and
before the congregation had the least intimation of any such design.
Immediately on receipt of such intelligence remonstrances were drawn
up, signed and presented to them; when we were coolly informed we
were too late.	Respectfully yours,
[Here follow the names of twenty persons, heads of families
belonging to St. Andrew’s Church, Richmond.]
On p. 10 of the same pamphlet is the following letter and protest.5
D.
Staten Island, K F., Jan. ZOth, 1857.
Rev. Mr. Irving.
Dear Sir,—Inclosed you will find-a statement, and protest to an
illegal and summary action of the Yestry of St. Andrew’s and Trinity
Parishes in endeavoring to elect a Rector. Hoping that, in the con-
sideration of it and of the consequences that will ensue in any attempt
to carry it out, your course will be such that we shall not have to
resort to the extreme measures provided by the Rubric and Canon.
We remain, yours, &c.,
Protest, &c.
We, the undersigned, having learned that the Vestry of St. An-
drew’s and Trinity Churches have secretly and without the knowledge
of the Church members given a call to the Rectorship, do consider
ourselves aggrieved in having nothing to say as to the person who
shall be our Pastor; and this the more as it is well known that it is our
wish and the almost unanimous wish of the church, &c., &c.
* * * * * * * * * * *
[Here follow the names of fifty members and pewholders of
Trinity Chapel.]
The date of these letters it will be perceived is in January,
while his institution did not take place till the 5th of February.
There were also other letters sent to Mr. Irving, two or three days
before these here given, to the same effect. So, any attempt to
maintain the idea that he was not aware of the state of feeling on
the Island, is perfectly useless.
His call was made on the 29th of December ; but, for reasons
known to those who made it, it was kept secret for nearly a month,
and publicly given out only a few days before the time appointed
for the institution. On its discovery by the people, immediate
action was taken in opposition, as the pamphlet referred to will
show (see pages 5, 6, and 7), and such action, that had Rev. Mr.
Irving been possessed of even a moderate share of good taste, not
to say self-respect or the welfare of the church, he would have
said immediately to the persons who waited upon him, Gentlemen,
I cannot come under such circumstances.
As a matter of course, after Mr. Irving was instituted, his friends
made every effort to smooth things down and to add to their
number as many as possible. In trying to build up his cause6
they resorted not only to honorable, but to what the world calls
dishonorable means, viz., by traducing the good name of those
who were opposed to their conduct. There were, indeed, honor-
able exceptions, but reference is now made to the chief wire-pul-
lers. The newspapers were flooded with articles in which the
“character and motives” of those who opposed these sudden and
hurried proceedings of the Vestry were traduced, and statements
made in which there was not a particle of truth. False reports as
to what was done on the day of institution were industriously and
widely disseminated. In this way many who. had been all along
opposed to the proceedings of the Vestry, were secured as his
friends, under the impression that Mr. Irving was ignorant of the
opposition to him ; they were made to believe a wrong would
therefore be done him, not to sustain him. The circulators of
these reports and their newspaper writers did not stop to say
that the people had been wronged, that the Rev. Mr. Travis had
been wronged, and that the effort to stop the institution was only
that the people might be fairly represented, or at least consulted
in so important a matter as the selection of a rector. They did
not stop to say that the majority of the communicants of the
church were not in favor of being saddled with a second or third
rate man, to gratify the prejudices of a few interested persons,—no,
but by creating a false issue, sought through sympathy to build
up an opinion which is now being fast dissipated by the light of
facts. Scouring every part of the Island, and going into almost
i?very house where Episcopalians were supposed to live, certain
of the Vestry tried to smooth matters over. Exalting Rev. Mr.
Irving as one of the greatest lights of the age, and endeavoring
to leave the impression that all ought to congratulate themselves
on being so fortunate as to procure him, many were in this way
deceived, and were induced to side with the Vestry. He was the
nephew of Washington Irving, and therefore must be a great
man, say they. But who heard of him before this? A certain
Rector in New York, who is said to be a relative of one of the
chief wire-pullers of this Vestry, and who sent more than
one letter to the Vestry urging the claim of his quondam
brother, who only found out a little more than two years
since, that the Ministry was the profession for which na-
ture had fitted him. St. Andrew’s parish can command a
clergyman of the first class of talent. But shall a few individ-7
uals gratify themselves at the expense of the community ?—shall
no one have a chance but the relative of certain friends ?
Had Rev. Mr. Irving, when these letters given above were sent
to him, signed by so many of our most respectable and influential
citizens, staid where he was, he might have saved himself the re-
proach of being the instrument, to say the least, in disturbing the
peace and quietness of God’s Church. But nay, he persisted in
coming, and was backed by his most injudicious friends. He was,
according to his own statement, doing very well at Bay Ridge,
L. I. He was receiving a fair salary—not so great, however, as
represented by certain of his friends. These stated that it
amounted to $2,700 per annum, He must be a great man, be-
cause he commanded so large a salary, say they. How, every one
who knows any thing about Bay Ridge, knows how the Church
there was established, and for whose especial benefit the small
building in which the congregation worshiped, was erected a few
years since. The size of the congregation, the wealth of the parish,
and the number of communicants, are well known among
churchmen. But the clap-trap answered partly the end for
which it was set. We will not pretend to say how much
Mr. Irving may have received privately, or from particular
friends, or from teaching in their families. This, however, is a
fact which cannot be disputed, if we may rely on those who
are now connected with this church,—that it is not able of
itself to give his successor but a small portion of the above-
mentioned sum.
He was also enjoying the respect of his people. Why did he
choose to leave them and seek another field, when by so doing
he was certain of plunging himself into a sea of trouble, and de-
stroying the harmony of a large and quiet community? Where
shall we find an answer ? We would not seek to doubt his word
as to his felicitous position at Bay Ridge ; but the unavoidable
necessity of circumstances compels us to point to the income of
Ellis Duxbury’s plantation, as the magnet that drew him across
the waters of the Bay to the quiet little village of Richmond.
Had Mr* Irving been in St. Andrew’s a long time and a difficulty
arose, not so much blame could be attached to him in trying to
quell it and to hold on; but when he leaves his own church and
comes into another, knowing that when he does so he is going to
make trouble, and then persists in carrying out his scheme, what8
can be said in palliation ?. Not one word. Community cries out
sbame.	■
The excitement has continued to increase from the day of the
installation, those out of the church as well as those in it taking an
active interest. The newspapers have had almost every day, one
or more articles from scribbling individuals who found no other
way to relieve the inward pressure of the increasing excitement.
As the time for the election of the new Board of Vestry drew
near, the excitement became intense. The Church was the topic
of conversation in every circle. Some of the old Vestry fearing
that other men might be elected, went around themselves from
house to house electioneering in their own behalf, and entreatingly
besought this one and that one to vote for them. Such language
as this was used: “ If you will only vote for us this year, that is
all we ask. Next year and after that, you can do as you please.”
Why, we ask, this year, and not afterwards ? For this reason:—
They saw that if they were put in again, they would, along with
Mr. Irving, have their own way for another year, and by the time
the succeeding Easter rolled round, they hoped to have all things
smoothed down and so fixed together, as to fit the mould they
had made. One of the Vestry on his electioneering tour, was
asked by a gentleman, y^hose vote he wished to secure, “Why
were you so hasty ? Why did you not in some way consult the
people?” He answered, “ We were afraid that if we did, we
should not get Mr. Irving ”—and then after acknowledging that
they had been too hasty, contended that the best way now would
be to elect the old Vestry, and the opposition would, after a
while, die away. ~But it has not died away, nor will it so long as
he is in St. Andrew’s parish. In order to be sure, they began to
work immediately. Certain individuals of this Vestry, made
themselves busy in circulating false reports regarding this one and
that one, who had hitherto been opposed to their action, viz.—
that they had already, or were soon coming over to them. In
this way they hoped to lead over-the weak-minded.	And, with-
out looking into the matter further, some were led over. They
published in the papers that their opponents were few in number
—a “small knot” of people.	Relying, no doubt, partly on the
truth of these statements, the public mind has been somewhat
prejudiced ; and it is now sought to remove that prejudice by the
public statement of facts. Eminent counsel had been obtained on9
both sides, as to who were the rightful corporators in this ancient
parish. And it was ascertained that only those who were in com-
munion with the Episcopal church, were the legal corporators.
Pewholders and attendants, unless they “were in communion,”
had no voice; and this, because this parish, founded before the
State laws were enacted, was governed by its original charter,
given in the reign of Queen Anne, which recognized none but
those who were “ in communion,” as voters on Easter Tuesday.—
Counsel gave as their opinion that by the words “ in communion,”
included those who were baptized in the church, who were con-
firmed in it, or who were communicants of the Eucharist. When
this opinion was made known* many who supposed they had a right >
as corporators, as is the case in other parishes established since
the Revolution, found themselves cut off from having a voice, and
so stayed away from the polls on the day of election.
A day or two' before Easter Tuesday, a gentleman who had
taken an interest in having the election fairly conducted, called
on Rev. Mr. Irving, and learned from him that he should adhere to
the provisions of the charter, and allow none but those “ in com-
munion” with the church to vote at the coming election for
church officers.
On Easter Tuesday, at the opening of the polls, Mr. Irving read
a paper which was said by him to be the opinion of Judge Hoff-
man, in which the corporators of this parish were declared to be
those who were baptized in the Episcopal church, and who were
stated attendants ; and persons who had been confirmed, and were
stated attendants ; and persons who were communicants, and who
were stated attendants. He said that he should be governed by
this opinion. None dissented. The opposers of Mr. Irving were
perfectly satisfied with this opinion. It agreed with that of Win.
C. Noyes, their counsel ; and they were confident that under its
ruling they would, a large majority, elect the anti-Irving
ticket. It was soon discovered, however, that the rule was de-
parted from in the case of those who were adherents of the old
Yestry, who had called Mr. Irving; while those who were for a
change, must be able to answer strictly to the letter of the above*
mentioned opinion or be rejected.
In addition to the rightful corporators, the following classes of
persons were pressed in, notwithstanding protests, and acknowl-
edgement on the part of some of them, that they came only as10
lookers-on, and had no idea they had a right to vote ; but seeing
others who had no more right than they brought forward, thought
they might vote too. The most of these illegal voters were kept
back till towards the last, and when the greater number present
having voted, it was quite evident that the old vestry were not re-
elected, these persons were brought in despite all protest, viz.:—■
1.	Those who were not in Communion of the Episcopal Church
by any of her rites and ceremonies.
2.	Those who were in Communion of other Christian Denom-
inations.	'
3.	Those who though in Communion of the Episcopal Church
were yet stated attendants, communicants, and officers, of other
parishes, and not of St. Andrews.
4.	Those who though baptized in the Church of England, in
England or Ireland, or in the Episcopal Church in this country,
had notbeen stated attendants—of whom some had not even, accord-
ing to their own showing, ever attended Church ; some who had
absented themselves for three and five years-—some who had ab-
sented themselves for ten and fifteen years, and yet were living in
the Parish close by the Church.
By the addition of these classes of persons, the old vestry, who
had rendered themselves obnoxious to the great part of the Con-
gregations of St. Andrews and Trinity, were enabled to count up
some seventeen majority out of one hundred and forty-nine who
presented themselves’at the polls, of which one hundred and forty-
one were allowed to vote. The whole proceeding aided and car-
ried out by the attorney of Mr. Irving, who, present at the election,
was continually contending for or urging against the validity of
this and that man’s claim to vote, is considered to be a high act
of usurpation. It is but confirming the protest made at the time
of the institution, that the Rev. gentleman was looking after the
temporalities of the Church, and not her spiritual advancement.
When these persons were brought forward, a gentleman said to
Mr. Irving, “ You have sprung a trap upon us.” Relying on his
candor, no effort was made on the part of those who opposed Mr.
Irving, to bring any but such as counsel said were legal voters.
Had it been known that these classes of persons were to be admit-
ted, enough could have easily been brought who would by their
votes, having placed Mr. Irving and his party in the minority, by
a much larger difference than they succeeded in gaining over the11
opposite ticket; * or if this trap had not been sprung, the Anti-
Irving ticket would have been elected by some twelve majority *
Besides, the day was very stormy, and many were deterred from
coming who otherwise would have been there. As it was, one
party polled 79 and the other 62 votes.
The scene in the church was a disgrace to our Christian com-
munity. Amid loud talking and disputings, there sat the chair-
man of the meeting in his clerical robes, deciding in favor of those
who came to vote for the old vestry, whether members of the
Episcopal Church or not, and deciding against those who came
to vote against them, if they chanced to have attended some
other Episcopal Church on the Island lately more regularly than
St. Andrew’s, although pewholders and communicants in it. Now
we ask, How could a Christian Minister, under the circumstances
that transpired in his presence, act as he did f How could he be
so partial, so unfair* so unjust. Would not a man of taste, not to
say of honor, of justice, and Christian spirit, have conducted such
an election without the least partiality, upon the principles of
right, giving to each party the same opportunity ? There sat the
Chairman, only lately come into the parish, well knowing that it
was probable that the first act of the new vestry would be to re-'
quest him to resign, perverting justice, violating his own word,
given to a gentleman a few days before, as to the persons who
were to be allowed to vote, violating his own ruling, given at the
opening of the polls, from the opinion of Judge Hoffman; and alt
this when he himself was the subject of the dispute. Why were
those who were not in communion of the Episcopal Church, and
many belonging to the other classes above mentioned (p. 9), kept
back till towards the last—-till after two thirds of the voting was
over? It was evident that the election had gone against the old
* To show the state of feeling that actuated many who opposed Mr. Ir-
ving, who had as just right to vote as many who were brought forward
by his party, the following circumstance is narrated.
Two gentlemen, opposers of Mr. Irving, owners of pews, stated attend-
ants (one of whom has not probably been absent from Church five times in
five years), and who pay for the support of the assistant minister (one
of them as much as any other man in the Church), when asked while they
stood near the poll, why they did not vote, replied, loudly in the hearing
of Mr. Irving, that according to the Charter they had no vote, and there-
fore they would do nothing illegal although the opposite party did, and
though by refusing they should not gain their cause.12
vestry, and a desperate case needed a desperate remedy. But,
alas the remedy was worse than the disease, The scandal that
has thus been brought upon the Church is incalculable; the in-
jury done her many years cannot make good.
At the close of the election the tellers announced that one
party had polled 79, and the other 62 votes. Now we ask again,
How can Mr. Irving, under these circumstances, still persist in
staying in St. Andrew’s parish ? He must perceive that his
usefulness is at an end. As a Christian Minister we ask him is he
willing to be the means of keeping alive the difficulties in St.
Andrew’s parish ? Has he the good of the Church at heart, or
does he love more the God of this world ?	“ Yerily, the love of
money is the root of all evil.”
D. L. CLAWSON.
J. H. BENNETT.
JAMES GUION.
A. J. BEDELL.
HENRY MOULTON,
SAMUEL MALLERD.