V. Religious Relations between America and Continental Europe: Professor Philip Schaff, D.D., New York.

Sunday.-Morning.--Sermons by ministers from Europe in all the churches opened to the Alliance. Evening.--Meetings for Prayers and sbort Addresses in various churches and in different languages.

Monday.—Christianity and its Antagonists. 1. Rationalism and Pantheism: Professor Von der Goltz, D.D., Basel, Switzerland. Professor W. F. Warren, D. D., Boston.

II. Materialism and Positivism: President James McCogh, D.D., LL. D., Princeton, N. J.

III. Best Methods of Counteracting Modern Infidelity: Rev. John Cairns, D. D., Berwick, England. . Professor Theodore Christlieb, D. D., Bonn, Prussia.

IV. Harmony of Science and Revelation : General Superintendent W. Hoffman, D. D., Berlin. Professor Arnold Henry Guyot, Princeton, N. J.

V. The Gospel History and Modern Scepticism : Professor J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D., Utrecht, Holland.

VI. The Gospel and Philosophy: Professor Ernest Naville, Geneva.
VII. Reason and Faith: Rev. E. A. Washburn, D.D., New York.
VIII. Christianity and Humanity: Professor F. Godet, D.D., Neuchatel.

Tuesday.--Christian Life. I. Personal Religion—its Aids and Hindrances: Professor Phelps, D. D., Andover, Mass. Rev. Richard Fuller, D. D., Baltimore, Md.

II. Family Religion : Charles Reed, Esq., M. P., England. Rev. W.S. Plumer, D.D., Columbia, S. C.

III. Sunday Schools: Rev. Richard Newton, D.D., Philadelphia. Rev. Edwin B. Webb, D. D., Boston. Rev. J. H. Vincent, D. D., New York.

IV. Religious Aspects of Popular Education in Christian Countries: Honorable Baron Van Loon, Amsterdam (with regard to Holland). President Mark Hopkins, D.D., Williams' College, Mass. (with regard to America). Professor Pfleiderer, Wurtemberg (with regard to Germany).

V. Religious Education in the South: Rev. B. Sears, D. D., Staunton, Va.

VI. Demands of Christianity upon its Professors in Commercial and Public Affairs—The Right Use of Wealth: Bishop Matthew Simpson, D.D., Philadelphia. Pres. Martin B. Anderson, LL. D., Rochester, N. Y.

VII. Revivals of Religion-How to make them productive of permanent good: W. W. Patton, D. D., Chicago, Ill. S. W. Fisher, D. D., Utica, N. Y.

VIII. Christianity and the Press : G. H. Davis, LL. D., Sec. London Rel Tract Society. Rev. W. R. Williams, D. D., New York.

Wednesday.- Protestantism and Romanism. I. Principles of the Reformation-Supremacy of the Bible-Justification by Faith--Christian Liberty : Prof. I. A. Dorper, D. D., University of Berlin.

II. Effects of the Reformation upon Modern Civilization : Prof. I. Lichten. berger, D. D., Strassburg. Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, D. D., New Haven.

III. Present Aspects of Romanism-Ultramontanism--The Ecumenical Council of 1870— Temporal Power of the Papacy-Lessons to be Learned from

[ocr errors]

Romanism: Rev. Edmund de Pressense, D. D., Paris. Rev. R. S. Storrs, D. D., Brooklyn.

IV. The Training required to enable Protestant Ministers effectually to meet the Intellectual and Practical Demands of the Present Age: Rev. Frank Coulin, D. D., Geneva. Prof. Alvah Hovey, D. D., Newton Centre, Mass.

Thursday.—Christianity and Civil Government.} I. Present State of Religious Liberty in the different nations of Christendom: Rev. Edward Steane, D. D., London.

II. Church and State: Rev. Fred. Fabri, D. D., Barmen, Prussia. Prof. Theodore Dwight, LL. D., New York.

III. Constitution and Government in the United States as related to Religion : Pres. Woolsey, D. D., Yale College, New Haven.

IV. Legislation upon Moral Questions: Hon. W. M. Evarts, LL D., Now York.

V. Sunday Laws: Alex. Lombard, Esq., Geneva, Switzerland. Hon. William F. Allen, Albany, N. Y.

VI. The Free Churches on the Continent of Europe: Prof. Astie, Lausanne, Switzerland. Prof. C. Pronier, Geneva, Switzerland.

VII. The Effects of Civil and Religious Liberty upon Christianity: Prof. Daniel R. Goodwin, D. D., Philadelphia.

VIII. Support of the Ministry: Pres. W. H. Campbell, D. D., New Brunswick, V. J. Rev. John Hall, D. D., New York.

Friday.-Christian Missions-Foreign and Domestic. I. Protestant and Roman Catholic Missions compared, in their Principles, Methods, and Results: Rev. Dr. Grundemann, Gotha, Germany.

II. Protestant Missions among the Oriental Churches: Rev. Dr. H. H. Jessup, Beyrut, Syria.

III. Missions among Civilized and Uncivilized Nations: Rev. John Mullens, D. D., Secretary of the London Miss. Society.

IV. Territorial Divisions of Missionary Fields of Labor: Rev. Rufus Anderson, D. D., Boston.

V. Obligations of Science, Literature, and Diplomacy to Christian Missions: Rev. Dr. Van Dyck, M. D., Beyrut, Syria. Hon. Peter Parker, M. D., LL. D., Washington, D. C.

VI. Evangelization of the Masses in nominally Christian Countries—Inner Missions in Germany-City Missions in England and America, etc.-Lay Preaching: Count Bernstorf, Berlin, Prussia. Rev. Dr. Nast, Cincinnati. Dr. L. S. Jacobi, Bremen.

VII. Christian Work among Western Settlers, the Freedmen, Indians, and Chinese in the United States: Bishop Payne, Xenia, Ohio (Freedmen).

VIII. Laws and Modes of Progress in Christ's Kingdom: Rev. Horace Bushnell, D. D., Hartford, Ct.

Saturday.--Christianity and Social Evils. I. Intemperance, and its Suppression: Prof. H. A. Nelson, D. D., Lane Theol. Seminary, Cincinuati.

II. Pauperism, and its Remedy: Rev. W. Muhlenberg, D. D., New York. G. H. Stuart, Esq., Philadelphia.

III. War, and its Prevention: Rev. Henry W. Beecher, Brooklyn, N. Y.

IV. False Theories of Marriage, with special reference to Mormonism: Prof. Daniel P. Kidder, D. D., Chicago.

V. Christian Philanthropy - Hospitals — Deaconesses Refuges — Ragged Schools—Prisons: Rev. Dr. Wichern, Berlin, Prussia. The Earl of Shaftesbury, England. George Hanbury, Esq., London. Count Acenor de Gasparin, Geneva. Rev. Dr. Passavant, Pittsburgh, Pa. Bishop B. Bigler, Lancaster, Pa.

Sunday.--Close of the Conference. Morning.–Sermons in various churches in New York, Brooklyn, and vicinity.

Evening.–Farewell Service of the Conference, with Addresses and Prayers in each language represented.

Congress on Matters of Emigration.—On Monday and Tuesday after the Conference an International Congress will be held for the Discussion and Promotion of the Material, Social, and Spiritual Welfare of the Emigrants, in which Delegates from Europe and America are to take part.

Art. IX.-Minority Representation in the Diocese of New

Jersey. The method of voting by ballot, which gives to respectable minorities their just representation, in a Parliament, a Congress, or a board of officers, has attracted much attention in England, and some in this country, during the last few years. Of the attempts to introduce it, and expositions of its character and tendency, we gave some account in the last October number of this Review.

Our interest in the subject has been not a little excited, by two instances of its application; the one a recent election of a bench of judges in the State of New York, where with a Deniocratic majority of 80,000 against them, the Republicans elected two out of six ; the other in the recent Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the diocese of New Jersey, of which the writer is a member.

The Convention adopted, and forth with applied in action the following canon, of which we have this record: “The Rev. Dr. Garrison of Camden made a very cogent argument

in favor of minority representation, and concluded by introducing the following canon, which was supported by the Bishop, and accepted after a warm, but temperate discussion : ‘In all elections by ballot each voter shall be entitled to as many votes as there are persons to be elected, which votes may be cast all for one name, or may be divided among any number not exceeding the whole number to be voted for,* and any ticket having such excess shall be rejected.

“There shall be a nomination to the Convention, at least three hours previous to any election by ballot, of all persons for whom it is proposed to vote, and no vote shall be counted for

any name not so nominated.'

This was directly put in force in the election of the Standing Committee of the diocese, consisting of four clerical and four lay-members. Tellers having been appointed, and the ballots received, it was found, respecting the vote of the clergy for their order, that 37 votes had been cast (only about one-third of the voters having come in at the time appointed for the election), and that the minority.candidate had 37 votes, while the highest of the majority candidates had only 28. But here, for some who had not grasped the main points of the transaction, came a puzzle. It was found that the lowest of five voted for (while only four could be elected) had 19 votes; and as the tellers, not understanding that, in this mode of election, pluralities turn the scale, had reported 19 necessary to a choice, it seemed that five were equally entitled to be declared chosen. But as soon as attention was called to the plurality feature of the mode of electing, all were satisfied, and the lowest, i. e., the 19 vote name, was dropped.

Then, another result of the new rule was observed, viz., that while the majority in the Convention is about 4, to 1 in the minority, the minority candidate had 9 more votes than the highest of the others. Be it observed too, that 9 voters in the minority would give 36 votes, while the 28 voting against them, giving 112 votes to 4 candidates, could give but an

* This is obscure. The meaning is, that a voter can have only as many votes as there are officers to be elected. So many he can give to one, or distributo among four of those who have been nominated, where only four are to be elected-the candidates might be a dozen.

average of 28. It appeared from the report, that several of their votes were scattered, as the 4 candidates ranged from 28 down to 19.

It is also worthy of note that while pluralities determine the result, if the majority have so scattered their votes as to give no one more than 2 or 3, their part of the ticket would have been perfectly secure, unless, indeed, two of their candidates had the same number of votes ; in which case they would, we suppose, have been obliged to change some of their ballots. So a minority candidate might be elected by a very few votes against large numbers, i. e., if they should happen to be much scattered.

As an illustration of results in this mode of voting, let us suppose 4 officers to be elected by 8 voters. Let the majority be 6, the minority 2. If both parties concentrate their votes, as they naturally would, the ballot will stand thus :—let A be the minority candidate, he of course gets 8 votes. The others may stand thus: B. C. D.

2 1

1 1st voter,
1 2 1 &c.
1 1 2
2 1 1
1 1 2
1 2 1

8 8 8 for each of the majority. It might be 7, 8, 9, hy sufficient care in distributing the votes; and other results are attainable; but the chances would be in favor of the one first stated.

The opposition to this measure in the Convention, was partly under the misapprehension that any minority, however small, must elect one at least of a proposed ticket. This had been inadvertently asserted by one or more of those favoring the canon, and not, for some time, contradicted. But it is easily made to appear that very small minorities can elect no one, , unless, indeed, the majority shonld scatter votes in a reckless way; and this is not, in any ordinary circumstances, to be feared.

But, it is suggested, a large minority may elect the half of

« ElőzőTovább »