The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire: His Life and Work
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire: His Life and Work

Author: Lawrence Foushee London

Author of introduction, etc.: Edwin A. Penick

Release date: September 1, 2022 [eBook #68887]
                Most recently updated: November 10, 2022

Language: English

Original publication: United States: The University of North Carolina Press

Credits: Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISHOP JOSEPH BLOUNT CHESHIRE: HIS LIFE AND WORK ***

Transcriber's Note:

Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been
rationalised.

Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are
indicated by _underscores_.




 Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire


 [_Photograph by Bayard Wootten_
 BISHOP JOSEPH BLOUNT CHESHIRE
 _From a portrait by Mrs. Arthur Nash, in the possession of Miss Sarah
 Cheshire, Raleigh, North Carolina._]




 Bishop
 JOSEPH BLOUNT CHESHIRE
 His Life and Work

 BY LAWRENCE FOUSHEE LONDON, PH.D.
 _Historiographer of the Diocese of North Carolina_

 Chapel Hill
 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
 1941




 COPYRIGHT, 1941,
 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS


 DESIGNED BY STEFAN SALTER
 MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 BY THE AMERICAN BOOK-STRATFORD PRESS, INC., NEW YORK




_Foreword_

By EDWIN A. PENICK, Bishop of North Carolina


One of the many characteristics for which Bishop Cheshire is remembered
by his friends and admirers was his uncompromising adherence to the last
letter of truth. An inaccurate or careless remark often brought forth
from him a startling correction. His own historical papers were loyal to
such facts as patient research could discover. His official documents
were models of lucidity and precision. His counsel was penetrating and
true and bracing like fresh air in a stuffy room. His conversation,
particularly when he was describing the very human traits of men and
women he had known, was full of delightful surprises because of his
breathtaking forthrightness. He even carried in his pocketbook an exact
paper pattern of a huge mountain trout he once caught as documentary
evidence of his best fish story.

This characteristic of Bishop Cheshire must have been in the author's
mind when he wrote the following pages. I believe that the good Bishop
would approve this biography for its restraint and disciplined
faithfulness to the record of a true life.

 Ravenscroft
 Raleigh, North Carolina
 February 10, 1941.




_Preface_


From my earliest memories I can recall the annual visits of Bishop
Cheshire to the home of my parents. As very young boys my brothers and I
were fond of looking at him, for with his flowing white beard and rather
stocky figure, he appeared a perfect embodiment of Santa Claus. He
readily gained our confidence with his frank and open manner and his
keen understanding of the sort of things children were interested in. As
I grew older he won my complete affection and admiration. With his many
relatives and friends throughout North Carolina, I felt particularly
honored when he wrote me letters from England during his visit there in
1920. The multiplicity of such personal attentions was one of his
characteristics which gained for him the lasting affection of his
people.

Although I have felt inadequate to the task of writing Bishop Cheshire's
life, I have found the work a labor of love and a distinct privilege.
Some persons will undoubtedly be disappointed that more stories of and
about the Bishop have not been included. The use of many of his
anecdotes has purposefully been avoided, since most of them are much
more delightfully told by the Bishop himself in his charming volume of
reminiscences, _Nonnulla_. My primary object has been to present his
accomplishments as deacon, priest, and bishop. His work in these periods
of his career merits preservation in some permanent form for its own
sake as well as for the benefit of future churchmen. Also, an attempt
has been made to portray the Bishop's dynamic personality and its
striking influence upon the character of his work and of his human
contacts.

I wish to gratefully acknowledge the kind assistance given me by Mr.
Joseph B. Cheshire, Miss Sarah Cheshire, and Mr. James W. Cheshire in
reading this work and for the generous loan of invaluable manuscripts. I
also wish to express my appreciation to my wife, Emily Dewey, for her
untiring help in criticizing and reworking the manuscript, and to Bishop
Edwin Anderson Penick and Rev. Alfred S. Lawrence for reading the work.

 _Lawrence F. London_

 Chapel Hill, North Carolina
 December 1, 1940.




_Contents_


                                                                    PAGE

     FOREWORD, BY BISHOP EDWIN A. PENICK                               v

     PREFACE                                                         vii

CHAPTER

   I YOUTH AND MANHOOD                                                 1

  II DEACON AND PRIEST                                                18

 III SAINT PETER'S PARISH                                             27

  IV ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE                                       46

   V FIRST YEARS IN THE EPISCOPACY                                    55

  VI MAN AND BISHOP                                                   77

 VII HISTORIAN                                                        88

VIII WORK AMONG THE COLORED PEOPLE                                    99

  IX DEVELOPMENT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BISHOP'S WORK                109

     NOTES                                                           127

     PUBLISHED WRITINGS OF JOSEPH BLOUNT CHESHIRE                    131

     INDEX                                                           135




CHAPTER I

_Youth and Manhood_


It was eleven o'clock one morning in the middle of September, 1869, when
Joseph Blount Cheshire stepped into a classroom to teach a course in
Latin. Before him sat six boys, several of them older than himself. He
was only nineteen years old, and he was about to begin his first job.
The school was St. Clement's Hall at Ellicott City, Maryland, and the
assignment for that day was one in Sallust. About all young Cheshire
could recall of that particular passage was its being one of the most
difficult he had ever tried to translate. He was faced with the
alternative of bluffing his way through or frankly confessing to the
boys that he was thoroughly unprepared to teach the assignment. So,
boldly facing his class, he declared: "Young gentlemen, it is many years
since I last looked into Sallust, and this passage, Caesar's speech, I
remember as the most difficult passage in this book. I am not prepared
to deal with it today, but I will endeavor to be ready for you
tomorrow."

This was a rule of life which he followed consistently, to deal frankly
and honestly with every situation, no matter what it might cost him
personally. Complete fearlessness was one of Bishop Cheshire's most
pronounced characteristics. In his announced views on public questions,
in the administration of his diocese, and in his historical writings,
his courage was often manifested. His was not, however, a character
which could be described in a few striking phrases. The man can best be
understood by observing his deeds as they developed from early youth
until the end of a long life of four score and two years.

In the mid-nineteenth century the quiet little town of Tarboro, North
Carolina, was like many other small towns to be found in the Old South.
It was one of the oldest places in the state, having been founded in the
colonial period and given the distinction of a borough town. Tarboro
contained a fairly large number of old established families and a few
persons of some prominence in the state. Not the least of these was the
Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, a man
who exemplified in his life and work the best traditions of the
Episcopal clergy.

Dr. Cheshire came of an old North Carolina family which for several
generations had lived in the Albemarle section. One of his ancestors was
Joseph Blount, who was a member of the first vestry of St. Paul's
parish, Edenton. His parents, John Cheshire and Elizabeth Blount, lived
in Edenton, where he was born in December, 1814. He received his
education at the Edenton Academy and at the Episcopal School for Boys.
The latter school had just been founded by Bishop Ives and was located
in Raleigh on the site where now stands St. Mary's Junior College. After
completing his course at the Episcopal School, he took up the study of
law in Raleigh under the supervision of Thomas P. Devereux. In 1836 he
was admitted to the bar, but he evidently did not find the law congenial
to his tastes, for he soon abandoned it. He decided to enter the
ministry, and in 1838 began his studies for that field of work under the
direction of Bishop Ives.

During his preparation for the ministry he made the acquaintance of the
botanist and clergyman, Dr. M. Ashley Curtis. The interest which Dr.
Curtis stimulated in him for plants and flowers bore abundant fruit. The
beautiful grounds surrounding Calvary Church stand today as a living
expression of his love for flowers and shrubs.

By February, 1840, Dr. Cheshire had advanced sufficiently far in his
theological studies to be ordained deacon by Bishop Ives. The Bishop
placed him in charge of the parishes at Halifax and Windsor. The next
year he was ordained priest and was given Calvary Church, Tarboro, in
addition to his other work. Shortly after taking over this work he
organized a mission at Scotland Neck, which in time became Trinity
parish. Three parishes and a mission was a large assignment for a young
clergyman, but Dr. Cheshire was not daunted by the extent of his duties.
From the first his chief interest was in the work at Tarboro. In
consequence of this and the desire of the Calvary Church people for more
of his time, he gave up the church at Halifax in 1848 and the one at
Windsor the following year. He retained his work at Scotland Neck,
however, until 1869. His pastorate at Calvary Church continued for more
than half a century. During this long rectorship a beautiful new church
was built, to which he himself contributed generously.

Dr. Cheshire will probably be best remembered in the history of the
American Episcopal Church for the part he played in healing the breach
between the northern and southern branches of the church following the
close of the Civil War. He waged a determined fight in the diocesan
convention of 1865 to send deputies to the General Convention to be held
that fall in Philadelphia. The advocates of reconciliation were
successful, and Dr. Cheshire was elected one of the deputies to the
General Convention. At Philadelphia he used all his influence in helping
to bring about the reunion of the church.

Two years after he took charge of Calvary parish, Dr. Cheshire was
married to Elizabeth Toole Parker, daughter of Theophilus Parker, his
senior warden, and Mary Toole Parker. The next most important event in
his life was the birth of his son and namesake, Joseph Blount, who was
born on March 27, 1850. In the course of time Dr. and Mrs. Cheshire had
five other children, Theophilus Parker, John, Elizabeth, Annie Gray, and
Katherine Drane. John and Elizabeth, however, died in their second year.

Joseph Blount was born in the house built many years before by his
grandfather, Theophilus Parker. His father and mother had lived in it
since their marriage and had come into its possession after the death of
his grandfather. When Joseph was born his parents' household consisted
of themselves, his grandmother, an aunt, and two cousins. With the
subsequent births of his brothers and sisters his family was indeed a
large one. The give and take of a large family probably played some part
in the development of the tolerant and unselfish character which so
distinguished him in manhood.

Young Cheshire received his earliest education under the direction of
his mother, who taught him reading, writing, and something about
numbers. He did not attend a formal school until he was nine years old.
However, he found himself to be "quite as far advanced in the knowledge
of books as the most forward" of his companions. The school he first
attended in Tarboro was taught by Rev. and Mrs. Owen. It was while
attending this school that he and Richard Lewis met one another and
formed a friendship which grew and continued for more than three-score
years.

In the fall of 1861 Cheshire entered the Tarboro Male Academy, whose
sole teacher at that time was Mr. Frank S. Wilkinson, a graduate of the
University of North Carolina. In this school Wilkinson took boys of
every age, from beginners to those preparing for college. Cheshire later
tells us that Wilkinson was devoted to the profession of teaching,
laboring "faithfully to interest his pupils, and give them the best that
he had himself." The school usually numbered between thirty and
thirty-five boys, but when it included as many as forty, Wilkinson
engaged an assistant. During Cheshire's attendance at the Academy, Mr.
William Henry Johnston was employed as an assistant. He was also a
graduate of the University and, as Cheshire says, "a very good scholar
after the standards of the day." In this small school, which never
boasted more than two teachers at any one time, Joseph Cheshire prepared
himself for college.

Since the summer climate of Tarboro did not agree with Dr. Cheshire's
health, he purchased in 1850 a home in Franklin County, about four miles
from Louisburg. This place was named Monreath and on it stood an old,
well-built house surrounded by one hundred and sixty acres of land. Here
the Cheshires spent their summers. These pleasant vacations at Monreath
caused Joseph to lose about two months of school each year, since the
fall term began the middle of July. Therefore, in the summer of 1864 he
asked his father if he could not attend the Louisburg Academy from July
to September. His father readily agreed, and each day young Cheshire
walked the four miles into Louisburg to conjugate Latin verbs and pursue
the other fields of learning which made up the curriculum of the average
classical school of that day.

During the Civil War the Cheshires did not suffer from molestation by
the enemy or from severe deprivation as did many southern families. They
gave shelter and comfort to many refugees from the eastern part of the
state, which was occupied by federal troops. Writing of his impressions
of the war years, Cheshire observed: "It is strange that almost all my
memories of those tragical days seem to be of bright and happy
experiences. I do not remember any atmosphere of gloom or depression.
The spirit of all was brave and buoyant."[1] The abolition of slavery
did not greatly affect the economic status of his family, since his
father owned only a few domestic servants whom he had inherited.

Cheshire's religious education began, of course, at home. Every Sunday
afternoon he and his brother stood before their mother with the Negro
children and repeated their assigned part of the catechism. He did not
attend Sunday school until after he had learned all the catechism, that
is, all but the "Desire." He later remarked that he never learned it "so
as not to forget it," and that it was the only thing he ever tried to
remember and failed.

By the fall of 1865 Cheshire was ready to enter college. It had been
originally planned that he should go to the University of North
Carolina. But when the time arrived his father did not have the money to
send him. Dr. Cheshire, however, had already decided not to send his son
to the state University; he did not think the environment there would be
suitable for a boy of fifteen, for a good many young soldiers, fresh
from the careless life of the army, were entering the University that
fall. Cheshire's best friend, Dick Lewis, and several others of his
class-mates went in the fall of 1865 to Mr. Graves' school in Granville
County. He was left in a class by himself at the Tarboro Academy, where
he continued his studies under the direction of Mr. Wilkinson.

During this period of study at the Academy Cheshire wrote an amusing and
original essay on the subject of honesty. Launching into his subject
with the statement that there had already been so much written upon it
that it was about worn out, he declared that he chose the topic for want
of a better one. This introduction was succeeded by the following:

 "I have been thinking for a long time what else to say about 'Honesty,'
 but can't think of a single thing which some other boy has not said in
 his composition since I have been going to school: and I think that I
 had better practice what I have here attempted to preach, and tell you,
 Mr. Wilkinson, that it is Monday morning, and that composition never
 entered into my head Saturday, and so you need not expect much. Instead
 of a composition I will give you an account of my doings Saturday
 evening, which I hope you will take as an equivalent."

Cheshire then gave an interesting description of a delightful horseback
ride he had had with a young lady. He concluded his essay by saying: "I
hope this will be taken as a composition. If it is not I hope you will
return it as there is enough clean paper on it to write another one."[2]
The composition is not only worth quoting for its originality, but also
because it brings out a pronounced characteristic of the later man.
Complete honesty with himself as well as others, under all conditions,
was one of his most outstanding qualities.

Joseph continued his studies under Mr. Wilkinson until February, 1866.
By that time Dr. Cheshire had secured sufficient funds with which to
send his son to college. He was still opposed to sending him to the
University for the reason already mentioned and because he felt the fate
of that institution at the time was most uncertain. He decided,
therefore, to send Joseph to Trinity College at Hartford, Connecticut.
Trinity was an excellent school, under the management of the church, and
Dr. Cheshire was personally acquainted with its president.

Before his son left home for college, Dr. Cheshire told him that he must
decide while in school what he wished to do for his life's work. He
explained that since he had other children to educate, he would not be
able to help him after graduation. His father went on to say that it
would be a great happiness to him if his son should decide to go into
the ministry, but that was something he must determine for himself.
Cheshire later remarked that this was the only time in his memory that
his father ever spoke to him of the possibility of making the ministry
his life's work.

In late February of 1866 young Cheshire left home for Hartford. An
inexperienced boy, having traveled little beyond his section of the
state, he now set out to enter a strange school among people with whom,
less than a year ago, his people had been at war. Such a prospect would
have filled an older heart with trepidation. He traveled as far as New
York with a stranger who had been in Tarboro on business, and from
thence he went alone to Hartford.

Cheshire was allowed to enter the Freshman class with conditions only in
Greek and Latin composition, which was a tribute to the work done under
Mr. Wilkinson that fall. He learned upon arriving at school that he was
the first man from the Confederate States to enter Trinity since the
close of the war. He was treated kindly by his fellow students, and
never complained of any hostility or unfriendliness on the part of the
northern boys. His closest friends, however, were among a group of
students from Maryland.

Shortly after he entered college, his father wrote to President Kerfoot
asking him to suggest someone on the faculty who would be willing to act
as an advisor and friend to his son. Dr. Kerfoot proposed Rev. William
W. Niles, Professor of Latin at Trinity, who gladly took Cheshire under
his care. In time the two became fast friends. Professor Niles and his
wife often entertained him and always made him feel at home in their
house. Under Professor Niles' direction Cheshire was prepared for
confirmation, and in May, 1866, he was confirmed in the college chapel.
In later years he said of the Nileses: "I can never be sufficiently
grateful to Professor Niles and his good wife.... I enjoyed from that
time—from my Freshman days in college to the end of their lives, the
friendship and confidence of these most admirable people."[3]

Dr. Cheshire had a good deal of difficulty in maintaining his son at
college. The years immediately following the war were hard ones for
almost all southerners, and the Cheshire family was no exception. When
Cheshire came home for the Christmas holidays of 1867, his father told
him that he would be unable to send him back to college. He accepted
this decision as final, and wrote his roommate, Robert F. Bixby, that he
was not returning to college after the holidays. Not long afterwards,
Dr. Cheshire received a letter from Professor Pynchon, a member of the
Trinity faculty, who informed him that a friend, who wished to withhold
his name, would be happy to advance the necessary money for his son's
monthly board if that would be sufficient to make his return to college
possible. After talking the matter over with his son, Dr. Cheshire
accepted the generous offer, since he believed he would be able to repay
the full amount by the end of 1868. In this way young Cheshire was able
to resume his work at Trinity, receiving each month through Dr. Pynchon
the money for his board. As he had anticipated, Dr. Cheshire was able to
repay the whole debt at the end of 1868. Although he never knew,
Cheshire suspected that the money, so badly needed at the time, came
from the father of his friend, Robert Bixby.

During his first two years at Trinity, Cheshire had come to know Rev.
John Williams, Bishop of Connecticut and one-time Presiding Bishop of
the Episcopal Church, who often visited the college. When school closed
in June, 1868, Cheshire found that he was not financially able to go
home for the summer vacation, and that he would have to remain in
Hartford. Bishop Williams heard of his plans and thereupon invited him
to his old home in Deerfield, Massachusetts, for a month. The Bishop
said that he could serve as his secretary, and on this condition
Cheshire gladly accepted the invitation. As it turned out, he had very
little to do. He spent the month most delightfully, meeting many
interesting people and visiting near-by historical places. After leaving
Bishop Williams, he spent a pleasant month in Maryland visiting two of
his college friends. Thus most of the summer passed rapidly, and he
returned to Hartford greatly refreshed, ready to begin the last year of
his collegiate work.

While at Trinity Cheshire became a member of the Phi Kappa fraternity,
now the Alpha Delta Phi. He was the only member of his class who
belonged to this fraternity. Consequently, Cheshire modestly explains,
whenever an honor fell to a Phi Kappa of his class he was the only one
to receive it. Whether this was the reason or not, he was made president
of the Senior class, and was elected a marshal for the commencement of
1868. As for class and college prizes, he never entered a contest until
his last year. At this time he entered the competition for the "Tuttle
Prize," which was an award of thirty dollars for the best essay by a
senior on a subject to be chosen by the faculty. The topic selected for
Cheshire's class was "The Causes of the French Revolution." Cheshire
submitted a paper of forty-eight foolscap pages. Much to his
gratification, and somewhat to his surprise, his essay won the prize.
With the money he purchased "Pratt's Complete Works of Bishop Hall" in
ten volumes as a gift for his father. For himself he bought a set of
Chaucer's works in eight volumes and a few other books. Indeed, he seems
to have made his prize money go far and to much advantage.

In June, 1869, Cheshire's college days came to a close. During his three
and one-half years at Trinity he made many close friendships which
continued throughout his life. He was not an outstanding student, but
did creditably in all his courses. At the commencement exercises he
delivered an original address, which was required of all graduates. He
chose as the subject of his senior oration "The Strength of Republican
Governments," a topic characteristic of that period. Cheshire had been
influenced in the choice of this subject by De Tocqueville's _Democracy
in America_, in which he had become interested. Following his graduation
he returned to North Carolina, where he spent the summer of 1869 with
his family at Monreath. This was his last long vacation. He was soon to
take over his first position and to begin earning for the remainder of
his life his own way.

In the course of graduation week at Trinity, Cheshire had the good
fortune of making the acquaintance of Rev. John Avery Shepherd of
Maryland. Dr. Shepherd had organized a few years before a private
school, which he called St. Clement's Hall, at Ellicott City near
Baltimore. Being favorably impressed with Cheshire's personality and his
record at Trinity, Dr. Shepherd offered him a position in his school
teaching Latin and Greek for the scholastic year 1869-70. His salary was
to be six hundred dollars a year in addition to board and lodging.
Cheshire gladly accepted the position, since he wished no longer to be a
burden on his father. His younger brother was then ready to enter
college and was only waiting for him to finish.

In the middle of September Cheshire left Monreath to take up his duties
at St. Clement's Hall. Before he left home his father gave him fifty
dollars to aid him until he should receive a part of his salary. This
was the last time he ever gave him any money, that is, from a feeling of
responsibility for his son's support.

At St. Clement's Cheshire was given all the upper classes in Latin and
Greek, and in addition taught some arithmetic and algebra. In
consequence of his rather poor beginning in Latin and Greek at the
Tarboro Academy, he never became a scholar in these fields. While
teaching Latin he became more interested in this subject and read rather
widely in Tacitus and other Latin authors. In the course of his busy
life of teaching he found time to continue "a kind of study" of
Blackstone which he had begun in his senior year at Trinity. He also
read through Kent's _Commentaries_ and a good deal of English poetry.

Cheshire came to know a number of people in the neighborhood of the
school who helped to make his life at St. Clement's more interesting and
pleasant. He spent a good many week-ends in Baltimore with some of his
Trinity friends. When his oldest and best friend, Richard Lewis, came to
Baltimore to study medicine in the fall of 1870, his visits became more
frequent. On the whole, his life at St. Clement's was happy, and the
experience he gained, worth while. He never, however, became fond of
teaching, but he enjoyed his students and took a warm personal interest
in them. After two years at St. Clement's he decided to abandon teaching
for the law profession, which he thought would be more congenial to his
tastes.

When Cheshire returned to North Carolina in June, 1871, he went with his
family to Hillsboro to spend the summer. Here he began the study of law
under the eminent lawyer, William K. Ruffin, son of Chief Justice Thomas
Ruffin, who coached law students since he was too crippled to do much
active practice. Ruffin was a "devotee" of the common law and always
gave his students a thorough drilling in it. He made Cheshire devote
almost all the summer to the study of Second Blackstone and Cruise's
_Real Property_. When he left Hillsboro in September, Ruffin made him
promise that he would secure an old folio edition of Coke's
_Commentaries on Littleton_ and read it carefully. Some time later
Cheshire bought a copy of this work in Baltimore and read it from cover
to cover as he had promised. He once remarked that he believed he was
the last man in North Carolina to have completely read the old folio
edition. Cheshire found Mr. William Ruffin "a most interesting man as
well as a stimulating and helpful teacher."[4]

Upon returning to Tarboro Cheshire continued his study of law, now in
the office of Howard and Perry. In this office he "read law," for he
says that Judge George Howard would not agree to give him any
instruction. Cheshire, however, maintained that he learned much law from
Judge Howard, and "a good deal of sound practical wisdom."

After his summer's work under William Ruffin and some three months'
study in Judge Howard's office, Cheshire was ready to try for his
license. On January 1, 1872, he went to Raleigh to be examined by the
Supreme Court Justices. It was an oral test and, in Cheshire's own
words, was "a very slight and superficial examination" in comparison
with those given today. The day after the examination he was informed
that he had passed and was granted his license.

Shortly afterwards George G. Hooper, a Trinity College friend, wrote
Cheshire to come to Baltimore and join him in a law partnership. He did
not particularly care to leave North Carolina, but he feared if he
remained he might be a burden on his father while establishing himself.
He accordingly accepted Hooper's offer, and the two men formed a
partnership under the firm name of Hooper and Cheshire. Hooper agreed to
pay him a salary for the first year, at the end of which time they would
make a new agreement.

Cheshire had not been in the office long before he learned that Hooper
had "little real law practice." His work was almost entirely confined to
drawing up conveyances and examining land titles. After some fifteen
months of this sort of work, Cheshire realized there was little future
for him in such a partnership. It was, therefore, with much pleasure
that he received, in May, 1873, a letter from his friend, John L.
Bridgers, Jr., asking him to return to Tarboro and join him and his
father, Colonel John L. Bridgers, in the practice of law. Cheshire
readily accepted this proposal, and the following month came back to
North Carolina where he was to make his home for the remainder of his
life.

Cheshire was happy to be living in Tarboro once again with his family
and among his old friends. Thus was formed the firm of Bridgers,
Cheshire, and Bridgers. This connection continued until January, 1875,
at which time Cheshire was offered the position of secretary and
treasurer of the Pamlico Banking and Insurance Company, a corporation
organized to solicit fire insurance. He accepted the offer because it
gave him an office and a small salary and did not interfere with his law
practice. The company's business was not extensive, and required only a
few hours of his time each day. While holding this position he was also
treasurer of the Tarboro Building and Loan Association. Again this
office demanded little of his time, merely requiring that he receive the
money from the secretary weekly and pay it out upon his order.

Cheshire continued the practice of law until the early part of 1878. In
summing up his work at the bar, he observed: "I made a living and saved
a few hundred dollars. I had no very interesting or important cases, so
far as I recall."[5] During his last year of practice, however, he made
a little over fifteen hundred dollars, which, for a young lawyer of that
period, was doing quite well.

Since leaving St. Clement's Hall in June, 1871, Cheshire had not by any
means devoted all of his time and thought to the study and practice of
law. He accomplished a great deal more in the summer of 1871 than the
study of common law under Mr. William K. Ruffin. It was then that he
renewed his acquaintance with his cousin, Miss Annie Huske Webb, who
lived in Hillsboro. He had seen this cousin but little since her visit
to Tarboro in December, 1865. He always remembered the first time he saw
her upon her arrival in Tarboro for that visit and described the meeting
thus: "When I looked at her, as she came in out of the rain, and lifted
the veil from her face, I thought her the most beautiful person I had
ever seen. I think that first impression was never effaced."[6]

In the course of the summer spent in Hillsboro Cheshire saw a good deal
of his cousin. It was not long before he realized that he was in love
with her. While not possessing a particularly romantic nature, Cheshire
was a man of deep emotions and fine sentiments. During his courtship of
Miss Webb he composed for her this little poem:

A. H. W.

  My Love is a fair white Lily,
    And she loves not the day's full glare,
  But she seeks out a quiet valley,
    And she lifts up her sweet face there.
  The blue heavens through the branches
    Look down with their kindly light;
  And she smiles back a gentle greeting
    When the stars look through at night.
  The song-birds sing to her sweetly,
    And she's rocked by the gentle breeze;
  And she hides from the storms of Winter
    'Midst the roots of the giant trees.
  She peeps in the crystal streamlet,
    As she nods in the breezes light:
  And she knows not her own fair beauty,
    But is glad that she's pure and white.[7]

By May, 1872, Cheshire and Annie Huske Webb were engaged; but it was not
until 1874 that he felt he was financially able to marry. On December 17
of that year they were married in St. Matthew's Church, Hillsboro. They
had a simple wedding with Richard Lewis as his best man. The following
day Cheshire and his wife went to Tarboro, where for the next four years
they made their home with his family.

With this, the greatest event in his life up to that time, we close the
first phase of Cheshire's career. During the period he had grown to
manhood, received his scholastic and collegiate education, taught for
two years, studied law and practiced it for six years, and had some
little part in the business world. All of this training and varied
experience gave him a rich background for the great work which lay ahead
of him.




CHAPTER II

_Deacon and Priest_



Ever since he left college Cheshire had been conscious of a growing
desire to become a candidate for Holy Orders. Not long after his
marriage he spoke to his wife of this aspiration, and told her he had
now decided to present himself to the Bishop. He had not come to this
decision earlier because he was determined not to go into the ministry
until he had made a success of what he was doing at that time. He would
not enter the ministry as a failure from another field of work. By the
middle of 1876 he decided that he was making a respectable living for
his wife and himself. He thereupon told his father of his decision and
sent Bishop Atkinson his application. Shortly afterwards the Bishop
accepted him as a candidate for Holy Orders, and Cheshire began
preparing himself for his new work.

It was Cheshire's original plan to attend the General Theological
Seminary in New York for a year or two, but Bishop Atkinson and his
father dissuaded him from this course because they objected to the Dean
of the Seminary and because they felt that its ritualistic influences
were too strong. Bishop Atkinson thought that, since Cheshire had had a
good classical education, had pursued intellectual interests, and had
been reared in a clergyman's family, he could quite adequately do his
preparatory work at home. Cheshire accepted the Bishop's advice, and at
once began a well laid-out course of reading. He had already read a good
many ecclesiastical works, since he had been contemplating this step for
some time.

At the end of 1877 he gave up his connection with the Pamlico Insurance
and Banking Company, and soon afterwards concluded his legal affairs. In
September, 1877, he went to Raleigh to stand his examinations for the
diaconate before Rev. Dr. Matthias M. Marshall and Rev. John E. C.
Smedes. Having passed his examinations acceptably, Cheshire was ordained
deacon by Bishop Atkinson on April 21, 1878, in Calvary Church, Tarboro.
His father presented him for ordination. The following Sunday he
assisted his father in the morning service and preached his first
sermon. Thus he was launched upon a new career in which he was to rise
to heights far beyond his modest dreams.

When Dr. Kemp Plummer Battle, President of the University of North
Carolina, heard that Cheshire was studying for the ministry, he asked
Bishop Atkinson to send him to Chapel Hill. Dr. Battle was a native of
Edgecombe County and had known Cheshire and his family for many years.
Since the revival of the University in 1875, Rev. Robert B. Sutton, of
Pittsboro, had from time to time held services in the Chapel of the
Cross. The Chapel Hill churchmen, however, felt that the parish needed a
regular and resident minister. The Bishop complied with Dr. Battle's
request and informed Cheshire that he was to serve his diaconate in
Chapel Hill under the direction of Dr. Sutton. This was a disappointment
to Cheshire, for he had hoped he would be able to remain in Edgecombe
County and strengthen the church's position there. The Bishop also
directed him to hold a regular appointment in the rapidly growing town
of Durham, where as yet there was not even an established mission. This
was a difficult assignment for a young deacon just beginning his
ministry. In Chapel Hill he had to revive an old parish which had fallen
somewhat into decay during the hard years of the reconstruction period,
while in Durham he had to build from the ground up, commencing with only
a handful of church people.

Cheshire came to Chapel Hill in May, and on the nineteenth of that month
held his first service in the Chapel of the Cross. President Battle
invited him to make his home at his house until he could find a suitable
place. Cheshire accepted this generous offer and spent several weeks
with the Battles. In consequence of a long illness, contracted soon
after his arrival, he did not hold another service in Chapel Hill until
the last Sunday in June. The next Sunday he was able to keep his first
appointment in Durham, but following this service, he had a serious
relapse and was unable to continue his work until early fall.

For a few weeks that fall Cheshire boarded at the hotel, while his wife
visited her family in Hillsboro. This gave him an excellent opportunity
to come into close contact with the students, many of whom took their
meals at the hotel. In this way he came to know a number of students who
were not members of his church. Throughout his rectorship in Chapel Hill
he made it a point to know all the students who were in any way
connected with the Episcopal Church. In a comparatively short time he
was on friendly terms with most of the small student body.

Cheshire frankly confessed that in the first exercise of his ministerial
duties among the students he felt "great embarrassment" and even some
"timidity." He explained: "I had not been accustomed to speak much of my
own religious feelings; and I was at a loss how to make a proper
approach to the subject of another person's religious duties and
convictions."[8] He visited the boys in their rooms when he thought they
liked it, but never sought to force himself upon them. Cheshire later
declared he did not remember ever approaching a student on the subject
of religion without receiving a serious and courteous hearing. Many
students seemed to appreciate the interest he took in their religious
life. Cheshire himself was only a few years older than many of the
undergraduates and, therefore, could understand their point of view and
enter sympathetically into their problems. The effectiveness of his
first year's work in Chapel Hill was demonstrated when Bishop Lyman made
his visitation to the Chapel of the Cross in May, 1879. Cheshire
presented to the Bishop for confirmation nine students and two girls of
the village. In later years he remarked that this was "one of the most
interesting and satisfactory classes I ever presented."

When he first began preaching, Cheshire took great pains in the
preparation of his sermons, writing them out in full. He freely admitted
he had "no special gifts or talents as a speaker." In discussing the
problem of preaching with Cheshire just after his ordination, Bishop
Atkinson said he would give him the same advice which Bishop Johns, of
Virginia, used to give his young deacons: "Choose a pretty long text, so
that if they persecute you in one city, you may flee to another."
Cheshire began, in time, to memorize his sermons and then to attempt to
preach extemporaneously, but he always felt that his written sermons
were better. Concerning the reception of his sermons in Chapel Hill, he
stated: "My Chapel Hill congregation seemed to me most considerate and
appreciative of my attempts at preaching, even the students of the
University, so far as I could judge."[9]

In his congregation Cheshire had some of the most distinguished members
of the University faculty. President Battle was his senior warden and
sincere friend, who gave him "judicious praise" as well as sound advice
as to the pitfalls which a young clergyman might expect to encounter.
Dr. J. de Berniere Hooper, Professor of Greek, was in Cheshire's
opinion, "the most scholarly and highly cultivated" member of his
parish. Professors Ralph Graves and George T. Winston, both young men
who were later to win fame, were also members of his congregation. He
lived on friendly relations with these and other members of the small
faculty.

When Mrs. Cheshire came to Chapel Hill, she and her husband moved to the
home of Dr. William P. Mallett, where they lived until the early part of
1879. They then took over the parish rectory, a small four-room house
with a kitchen in the back yard. It faced Rosemary Lane and was situated
on a two-acre lot, on part of which stands the present rectory. Their
families and parishioners furnished the house for them quite
comfortably. There was a small debt on the rectory, and, prior to
Cheshire's coming to the parish, it had been rented to assist in
retiring the obligation. When he moved into the rectory, he agreed to
pay the interest on the debt, notwithstanding that his salary was only
five hundred dollars a year. It was not easy, even in those days, to
live on such a small income, but Cheshire often remarked that his years
in Chapel Hill were "as happy, I believe, as possible in this world." He
was fortunate in realizing his happiness at the time and often spoke of
it to his wife. To make their happiness complete, a second child,[10]
Elizabeth Toole, was born to them in the summer of 1879.

Although the parish in Chapel Hill was his chief charge, Cheshire did
not think that it had an exclusive claim upon him. He regarded it as a
center from which to work. In the fall of 1878 he began to lay definite
plans for what was to be an important missionary work in Durham. After
surveying the prospects there Cheshire, with the co-operation of his
little flock, was able to rent a hall on Main Street which was
ordinarily used for public entertainments. Here he held services on the
first Sunday in every month. The work in Durham prospered remarkably,
considering that the congregation had no church building of their own.
Cheshire and his congregation soon realized, however, that if much
progress was to be made, they must have a church. The greatest
difficulty at first was to find a lot within their means. Finally, one
was purchased at a low price because of its undesirability from a
business standpoint. In the spring of 1880 the foundations of the little
church were laid.

Since his congregation could bear only a small part of the cost of
building a church, Cheshire had to ask for assistance elsewhere. His
family and friends in Edgecombe County contributed about one-fourth of
the total cost. In a communication to the _Church Messenger_ Cheshire
requested the rectors of the larger parishes of the Diocese to
contribute one Sunday's offering to the completion of the Durham church.
On the general subject of soliciting aid for religious purposes, he
declared: "Indiscriminate begging from anybody and everybody to the
neglect of every consideration, except the chance of getting a dollar,
is not becoming to the cause of religion, and is a positive
discouragement to Christian liberality." This was the kind of soliciting
which he never practiced. Throughout his ministry he requested aid for
the church of only those who he felt were rightfully responsible for its
support.

By the spring of 1881 the church was completed at a cost of about
twenty-five hundred dollars. In a remarkably short time, less than a
year and a half, the money had been raised and the building erected.
Cheshire named it "St. Philip, the Deacon," feeling it to be the "fruit"
of his work as a deacon. It was with much pride and happiness that, on
July 24, 1881, he assisted Bishop Lyman in the consecration of St.
Philip's—a fitting close to his work in that mission.[11]

Cheshire never expected, nor did he ever receive, any compensation from
the Diocese for his missionary activities. Concerning extra parochial
work, he said: "I did not look upon work outside the parish as extra
work, for which I should receive extra remuneration or special
commendation."[12] Shortly after Cheshire began his work in Durham, the
Treasurer of the Diocese sent him a check for twenty dollars, which he
promptly returned, saying that he "did not desire to receive anything
from the Diocesan Treasury."[13] During his three years of service in
Durham the little mission paid him small amounts from time to time,
which approximately covered the expenses he incurred. He looked upon his
labors for this mission as "a pure work of love and missionary
enterprise." In recalling this experience, he declared: "I believe I
worked harder and with more enthusiasm in my Mission of St. Philip's,
Durham, and afterwards in establishing St. Mark's Church, Mecklenburg
County, than in any other work I ever undertook...."[14]

While carrying forward his constructive work in Chapel Hill and in
Durham, Cheshire did not overlook his preparation for the priesthood,
although, as he remarked, he did not "feel that impatience to get out of
the Diaconate," which he often observed in young clergymen. During his
leisure hours he read widely and thoroughly, and was well prepared when
the time came for his advancement. At the close of the diocesan
convention, held in Winston-Salem, he was ordained priest by Bishop
Lyman in St. Paul's Church on May 30, 1880. He was presented for
ordination by Rev. John E. C. Smedes, and the sermon for the occasion
was preached by Dr. Alfred Watson, later Bishop of East Carolina.
Commenting upon the ordination service, the _Church Messenger_ said of
Cheshire: "thoroughly active, he will do a work that will tell in the
diocese."

During his ministry in Chapel Hill Cheshire received calls from several
parishes, all of which offered him a better salary than he was then
receiving, but he usually declined them by return mail. In the winter of
1881 the vestry of St. Matthew's, Hillsboro, and the church in
Burlington asked him to take charge of their parishes. This prospect
appealed to him strongly, since he would live in Hillsboro, his wife's
old home, where they had many kinsfolk and friends. Before taking any
action, however, he consulted Bishop Lyman, who replied that he
preferred Cheshire to remain in Chapel Hill where he was doing a good
work. He accepted the Bishop's decision and declined the call to
Hillsboro.

About two months later Cheshire received a call from St. Peter's,
Charlotte, which he declined immediately. Hearing of this action, Bishop
Lyman wrote him that he wished him to accept the charge of St. Peter's.
Cheshire replied that he had refused to go to Charlotte because the
Bishop had instructed him, only a few months earlier, to remain in
Chapel Hill. Bishop Lyman, however, answered that he had directed the
vestry of St. Peter's to call him again "_and he would see to it_" that
Cheshire accepted. The call was accordingly renewed, and Cheshire went
to Charlotte to interview the vestry. He told them that he accepted the
charge because he felt it his "duty to respect the wishes of the
Bishop." Cheshire often remarked that during his ministry he never
accepted a call to any parish, explaining that the Bishop had directed
him to go to Chapel Hill and later to the parish in Charlotte. This was
not said in a spirit of criticism of his Bishop but merely as a
statement of fact, for he also declared that he "preferred" to have his
work given him. Throughout his long life of service he always had the
feeling of doing a work assigned to him.

Cheshire quite naturally regretted leaving Chapel Hill, for he had been
happy in his work there. He was also reluctant to part with his mission
in Durham, which was created in a very real sense by his own labors.
Recalling the first three years of his ministry, he declared: "I look
upon my life at Chapel Hill as my pupilage, the completion of my
training for my life work."[15]




CHAPTER III

_Saint Peter's Parish_


Cheshire entered upon his work in Charlotte with a feeling that here he
had an excellent opportunity for extending the influence of his church,
particularly in the missionary field. He did not feel any fear or
trepidation at the thought of this larger and more difficult work,
although he had no great confidence in his own ability. He went to his
new parish with the determination to give to it his best, and throughout
his rectorate there he never lost sight of that ideal. When some of his
friends heard that he was going to St. Peter's, they told him he was
taking over one of the hardest and most undesirable parishes in the
Diocese. This was indeed a discouraging description of his new work, but
after serving twelve years at St. Peter's, Cheshire remarked that he had
found nothing which would justify such a characterization of that
parish.

Cheshire did not bring his wife and children to Charlotte at once but
left them in Chapel Hill for the summer. During this time he lived with
Mr. John Wilkes, the senior warden of the parish, and took his meals at
a boarding house. Finding no parish rectory in Charlotte, he bought a
house on North Church Street. This purchase took all he had saved from
his law practice, plus an additional thousand dollars which he had to
borrow. His salary from St. Peter's being twelve hundred dollars a year,
he was able to carry a debt of this amount. With a salary this size he
felt that he had been "raised to a condition of affluence." In an
exuberance of generosity he offered to become responsible for the
support of an orphan in one of the foreign mission orphanages. For some
reason his proposal was not accepted. It was not long, however, before
he found that his salary was little if any above his actual needs.

When Cheshire became rector of St. Peter's there were one hundred and
thirty-seven communicants in the parish. Mr. John Wilkes and Colonel
Hamilton C. Jones were his senior and junior wardens, respectively.
These men were quite different in temperament, but both were sincerely
devoted to the welfare of the church. The young rector found in them
staunch friends and helpful advisors. One of the first tasks Cheshire
set for himself was to visit and become acquainted with each member of
his congregation. After making a careful study of the parish register,
he purchased a small memorandum book in which he wrote down the full
name, age, and church status of each person connected with St. Peter's.
By the end of his first summer in Charlotte he had become fairly well
acquainted with most of his parishioners.

One of Cheshire's predecessors at St. Peter's was the Rev. Benjamin S.
Bronson, rector of the parish from 1867 to 1878. He had been greatly
interested in institutional work, and had begun several enterprises in
the course of his ministry in Charlotte. None of these, however, was
carried to a successful conclusion under his direction. Mr. Bronson's
capacity seemed to be limited to merely initiating worth-while projects.
His efforts were not futile, for he instilled in his congregation a deep
interest in this type of work. Cheshire often said that what he was able
to accomplish in Charlotte was due in part to the enthusiasm for
institutional work which Mr. Bronson had aroused in his parishioners. He
confessed that he did not have the type of mind which readily produced
original ideas: "I think I can only methodize and put into practice
ideas I get from others."[16] Although he exaggerated his lack of
originality, he was strikingly successful in taking a good idea or
suggestion and making it work.

When Cheshire came to Charlotte he found one of Mr. Bronson's charities
still in existence, although in a sadly neglected condition. This was a
four-room house which was known as St. Peter's Home and Hospital. The
good work which was being done in a very small way by this institution
strongly appealed to Cheshire. He regularly visited the sick there, and
soon began to lay plans for enlarging its usefulness. For this purpose
he enlisted the aid of a retired clergyman, Rev. Lucian Holmes, who was
then conducting in Charlotte a small school for boys. Mr. Holmes visited
the people of the city, soliciting contributions ranging from ten cents
to one dollar a month. His efforts were successful, and in a
comparatively short time the little hospital was assured of a modest
monthly income. It was planned that the women on the Board of Managers
of the hospital should collect the pledges. Thus, under Cheshire's
direction, St. Peter's hospital was firmly established and has continued
to grow in usefulness to the community from that time to the present
day.

Shortly after becoming rector of St. Peter's, Cheshire began to take an
active interest in the church's work among the Negroes. He found among a
large Negro population only one communicant. Prior to the Civil War
Negroes had worshiped with the whites, sitting in galleries erected for
their use. Following the war and reconstruction, however, the church had
of necessity been forced to curtail its work among the Negroes. He
recognized in this condition an opportunity for a great work. Since his
parish was large and demanded the greater part of his time, he asked
Bishop Lyman to send him an unmarried clergyman who could devote all his
efforts to the Negro work. The Bishop complied with his request, and in
the spring of 1882 sent Rev. Charles C. Quin to Charlotte. Quin received
a stipend of two hundred dollars a year from the Diocese, which Cheshire
supplemented with fifty dollars out of his own pocket. In addition, Quin
lived with the Cheshires, who gave him his room and board.

After securing an assistant for the Negro work, Cheshire's next step was
to find a place in which to worship. He found an old house in the Negro
section of Charlotte, which he bought and remodeled sufficiently to make
it serve as a mission. He named the little chapel St. Michael and All
Angels. Although Quin was placed in charge of this mission, Cheshire
held an evening service there every second Sunday. In this way he was
able to keep in personal contact with the congregation.

The work progressed so well that it was not long before the need for a
larger church was apparent. Seeing this need, Cheshire solicited
contributions for a new church from his parishioners and from various
churchmen throughout the Diocese. He sent Quin to Pennsylvania, New
York, and Connecticut with letters to his friends in those states,
asking for assistance. Cheshire and Quin were fairly successful in their
efforts to raise funds for the new church, and in the spring of 1883 the
cornerstone was laid. In the course of the year the nave and chancel
were completed, while the transepts were left to be finished at some
future time. It was a well-built brick church and large enough to allow
for considerable growth in the congregation. It stands today as a
testimonial to Cheshire's zeal in advancing the work of the church.
Shortly after it was built, Quin resigned and was succeeded by Rev.
Primus P. Alston, a colored clergyman, who remained in charge of the
parish for over twenty years. St. Michael and All Angels was now
practically independent of St. Peter's, although it was still under
Cheshire's general direction.

While in the process of establishing St. Michael's, Cheshire was at the
same time engaged in another missionary enterprise. He found in a
section of Charlotte, known as Mechanicsville, a number of families who
were members of the Episcopal Church but were not connected with St.
Peter's parish. Seeing an opportunity to extend the work of the parish,
he determined to bring the services of the church to these people. He
began by establishing a Sunday school in an abandoned schoolhouse in
this section. The Sunday school gradually expanded into a little
mission, which he called St. Martin's. Not long after the mission was
started, the building in which the services were held was destroyed by
fire. Not permitting this misfortune to discourage him, he began almost
at once to lay plans for the erection of a chapel on the same location.

After negotiating with the Charlotte school board, he was able to buy
the property for fifteen hundred dollars, to be paid in three
installments. Cheshire himself paid the first installment of five
hundred dollars, while two of his parishioners guaranteed the remainder.
He procured his part of the cost by selling a lot in Tarboro which his
father had given him. When the land was bought, he began the work of
raising money for the erection of a chapel. His loyal friend, Mr. John
Wilkes, came forward as usual and supported him generously with both
time and money. Other friends came to his assistance, and work was soon
started on the building. Cheshire organized the Guild of St. Martin to
help him in carrying forward the work on the chapel. Some time before it
was completed, he began to hold a service in the little church every
Sunday night. This service was in addition to three others which he held
each Sunday at St. Peter's. Thus, Cheshire had literally built from the
ground up the mission of St. Martin's. It maintained a steady growth and
in time became one of the larger parishes of the Diocese.

There seems to have been almost no limit to Cheshire's missionary
fervor. He was not content to confine his labors to the bounds of
Charlotte. Shortly after coming to St. Peter's he visited Monroe, and
there he found a number of churchmen who at one time had been served by
the rector at Wadesboro. At the request of these churchmen Cheshire gave
them a monthly service, being assisted for a time by Mr. Quin. In 1885
the work at Monroe was turned over to Rev. Edwin A. Osborne. During his
rectorate at St. Peter's Cheshire also held services from time to time
at Rockingham, Mooresville, Mount Mourne, and Davidson College. He did
not, however, succeed in establishing a permanent mission at any one of
these places. If he had had more time to devote to this distant
missionary work, he might have met with better success.

In the fall of 1883 there came to Cheshire an opportunity to do what he
later characterized as "the most entirely gratifying and successful work
of all my missionary undertakings."[17] Columbus W. McCoy, of Long Creek
Township, Mecklenburg County, invited Cheshire to hold a service in his
community, stating that a number of people in his neighborhood had
manifested an interest in the Episcopal Church. McCoy had formerly been
a Presbyterian, but having become acquainted with the Book of Common
Prayer, he expressed a desire to join the Episcopal Church. Cheshire
accepted the invitation, and on November 18 held his first service there
in the community schoolhouse. He passed the night with Mr. McCoy and
spent the next day in visiting the people of the neighborhood. He felt
that "very little can be accomplished in a new field by merely having a
service, even a Sunday service, unless time is given to personal
familiar visiting from house to house, to know the people, and to
establish some influence among them."[18] He held a second service that
night, and returned to Charlotte the following morning. This same
procedure was followed in his subsequent visits.

In December Cheshire went again to Long Creek, but in consequence of bad
weather, he did not return again until the spring. Beginning in May,
1884, he held monthly services in the Long Creek community. Observing
the growing interest of the community in the church, he decided to hold
a series of services for them from August 12 through the 16th. He
secured the assistance of Rev. Dr. George B. Wetmore and Rev. Mr.
Osborne. The services were held in Beach Cliff Schoolhouse and were so
well attended that part of the congregation was forced to sit
out-of-doors. Cheshire and his assistants took turns in preaching in the
morning and evening. In the afternoons they visited those families who
had shown an interest in becoming members of the church. In the course
of the week they baptized sixteen persons, for the most part children,
and at the end of the services fourteen adults signified their desire to
be confirmed. At the close of the week's preaching Cheshire was
presented with a petition signed by eleven persons who asked that they
be organized as a mission under the name of St. Mark's Chapel. This was
indeed a successful conclusion to the week's work.

On October 25 Bishop Lyman visited Long Creek and confirmed sixteen
persons. Following the confirmation he organized the congregation as a
mission to be known as St. Mark's. Cheshire continued his monthly visits
to the new mission until January, 1885, at which time he turned this
work over to Rev. Edwin A. Osborne, who had already taken charge of
Cheshire's congregation in Monroe. Upon assuming this work Mr. Osborne
moved from Henderson County to Charlotte. During the remainder of
Cheshire's rectorate at St. Peter's, he and Mr. Osborne became intimate
friends and co-operated generously in each other's work.

Although Cheshire devoted most of his time and energy to St. Peter's
parish and its missions, he did not neglect his duty to the Diocese. He
attended all of the diocesan conventions and took an active and
significant part in their deliberations. Probably the most important
action taken by any convention during his ministry was that relating to
the division of the Diocese. The question of dividing the church in
North Carolina into two dioceses had been discussed from time to time by
the conventions since the election in 1873 of Bishop Lyman as assistant
bishop. Bishop Atkinson had favored a division at one time, but when the
question was placed squarely before the convention of 1877, he came out
strongly against it. The large number of clergy and laity who favored
division dropped the proposal for the time-being out of deference to
Bishop Atkinson, who, they felt, did not have much longer to serve. Upon
his death in January, 1881, the question was again brought forward. At
the convention of 1882, held in Calvary Church, Tarboro, Dr. M. M.
Marshall, rector of Christ Church, Raleigh, introduced resolutions
declaring the sentiment of the people on division and calling for a
committee to consider proposals for the erection of a new diocese. The
convention approved Dr. Marshall's resolutions, and the Bishop appointed
a special committee to report upon the subject.

After some study of the proposal this committee submitted a majority
report calling for a division of the Diocese. Bishop Lyman, who during
Bishop Atkinson's life-time had advocated the formation of a new
diocese, now reversed his position. Upon hearing the report of the
special committee, the Bishop delivered "an impassioned attack upon the
report."[19] The opposition of the Bishop led to a long and, at times,
acrimonious discussion. When the question was finally voted upon, the
committee's report was adopted by a large majority of the clergy and
laity. The convention appointed a committee of clergymen and laymen to
confer with the Bishop upon the details of the division, to obtain his
consent, and to report to the next diocesan convention. Cheshire was
made a member of this committee.

St. Peter's parish, Charlotte, was host to the diocesan convention of
1883. The most pressing and important business of this convention was
the question of forming a new diocese. On the second day the Committee
on Conference with the Bishop made its report. The committee stated that
after a consultation with the Bishop it found that he was opposed to a
division of the Diocese because he felt that one bishop in good health
could do the work for the entire state, and that the church in North
Carolina was not financially able to support two bishops and two
diocesan organizations. The Bishop told the committee, however, that he
would consent to the erection of a new diocese provided a large majority
of clergy and laity desired it, the line of division to be satisfactory
to him, and the permanent funds to be divided equally between the two
dioceses. Following the report the convention voted on the question:
forty-two clergymen voted for division, and eleven against; twenty-nine
parishes voted for, and ten against. Cheshire voted for the creation of
a new diocese, as he had done in the convention the year before.

When the question of a territorial division came up for discussion,
Cheshire moved that the new diocese be composed of the counties of
Hertford, Bertie, Martin, Pitt, Greene, Wayne, Sampson, Cumberland, and
Robeson, and all that part of the state located between those counties
and the Atlantic coast. Cheshire later withdrew his motion when the
special Committee on a Line of Division presented an amended report
which embodied in substance his recommendation. The convention
unanimously adopted the amended report. Cheshire was in favor of placing
the counties of Edgecombe and Halifax in the eastern Diocese and
retaining Cumberland in the old Diocese. When he saw, however, that
Bishop Lyman would not give up Edgecombe and Halifax, he recommended
that Cumberland should be included in the new division. This was the
arrangement finally adopted.

After an agreement had been reached on the line of demarcation, Cheshire
offered the following resolutions: (1) that the convention of 1883
ratify the work of the convention of 1882 relative to a division of the
Diocese; (2) that the Bishop of the Diocese and the General Convention
of the church be requested to give their consent to this procedure; and
(3) that all the securities and properties of the church in North
Carolina be equally divided between the two dioceses, as should be
agreed upon by a committee representing both. Cheshire's resolutions
were voted upon separately, and were all adopted. Following their
approval the convention received a letter from Bishop Lyman announcing
his consent to the formation of a new diocese. Thus was decided an
important, and vexing, problem of the church in North Carolina.

The convention of 1883 was the first in which Cheshire had taken a
significant part, but from that time forward his influence and counsel
became increasingly important. He was made chairman of the committee on
the division of diocesan properties. His committee had a difficult task
in dividing the permanent funds of the church to the satisfaction of
both dioceses. The problem caused a few very bitter discussions in
several succeeding conventions. Cheshire usually led the discussions,
often taking the side of the new diocese against Bishop Lyman and a
majority in the convention. More often than not he won his point, since
his opponents rarely took the pains to make themselves fully acquainted
with the facts. Cheshire was sometimes accused of being discourteous in
his manner towards the Bishop when they disagreed. It can be fairly
said, however, that he was never intentionally so. In a letter to the
Bishop he remarked that he often spoke excitedly and impetuously upon
any subject about which he felt very strongly, and that this
characteristic was sometimes interpreted as discourtesy.[20] Cheshire
had the highest respect for Bishop Lyman and admired him both as a
bishop and a man. Nevertheless, it was almost inevitable that two such
decided and forthright characters as Lyman and Cheshire should have
pronounced disagreements.

One of Cheshire's most valuable contributions to the diocesan
conventions was his services on the Committee on Canons. He was a member
of this committee from 1884 through 1893, with the exception of 1887-88,
serving as its chairman for several years. He made himself thoroughly
acquainted with the canons of the church, and while serving on the
committee, he did most of its work. During these years debates on the
canons occupied much of the time of the annual conventions. Long after
becoming bishop, Cheshire remarked that he was happy to observe that
this was no longer true, and that "We have come to be interested in more
important business." He did not mean to belittle the value of canonical
law, but rather to emphasize the importance of other work.

In 1887 Cheshire made a revision of the canons, expecting the convention
of that year to call for a revisal. He also carefully annotated the
canons and the articles of the diocesan constitution. The convention of
1887 did call for a revision to be made and be presented to it the next
year. However, Cheshire was "surprised and disappointed" when the Bishop
did not reappoint him to the Committee on Canons. Hearing of the work
Cheshire had already done on the canons, Dr. Kemp P. Battle suggested
that he should present to the next convention his revision as a
substitute for the one to be proposed by the committee. Cheshire decided
to follow this suggestion. When the committee presented its report to
the convention of 1888, he rose to say that he had prepared a revision
of the canons the year before and had been advised by some of his
friends to offer it as a substitute. Several requests were made from the
floor that he should explain his work. Following his explanation a
motion was made that his revisal be adopted in place of that of the
Committee on Canons. The motion was carried by a large majority, and
after making several minor changes, the convention adopted Cheshire's
revision. Its action was a signal tribute to the high character of
Cheshire's work.

From time to time Cheshire served on other regular and special
committees. He was a member of the Executive Missionary Committee from
1885 to 1891, and a member of the Board of Managers of the Thompson
Orphanage from 1886 through 1893. In all his activities he manifested a
zealous interest in the affairs of the Diocese. In consequence of his
work in the diocesan conventions and his productive ministry in
Charlotte, he came to be recognized as one of the outstanding clergymen
of the state.

Cheshire's first personal contact with the work of the church outside of
North Carolina was with the University of the South at Sewanee,
Tennessee. Feeling that the churchmen of his Diocese displayed an
unwarrantable lack of interest in the welfare of the University of the
South, he resolved to bring to their attention the needs and
opportunities of the institution. In 1885 he made an appeal for support
of the school in the columns of the _Church Messenger_. He wrote
personal letters to prominent churchmen, and made addresses on behalf of
the University in as many parishes as he could conveniently reach. His
voluntary efforts met with some success. Perceiving Cheshire's active
interest in the school, Dr. Jarvis Buxton, clerical trustee for the
University from the Diocese of North Carolina, resigned this position at
the convention of 1885. Dr. Buxton then nominated Cheshire to succeed
him, and the convention unanimously confirmed his nomination. From 1887
until he was elected bishop he attended every meeting of the trustees.
During this period Cheshire formed many lasting friendships with the
trustees and professors he met at Sewanee. These associations gave him a
better understanding of the church's work outside of his Diocese.

The diocesan convention further recognized Cheshire's ability by
electing him one of the clerical deputies to the Triennial General
Convention of 1886. He was re-elected a deputy to the succeeding
conventions of 1889 and 1892. As far as the journals reveal, he did not
take an active part in any of these meetings. It was characteristic of
him to have little to say in a body of which he was a new member until
he had become thoroughly acquainted with its personnel and procedure. At
the General Convention of 1889 he was made a member of the Missionary
Council and was re-elected to the Council in 1892. Attendance upon these
conventions further broadened his knowledge of the work of the national
church and brought him into contact with many of its prominent figures.

In consequence of his energetic parochial work and his active
participation in diocesan affairs, Cheshire received, during his
rectorate at St. Peter's, several calls to other parishes. In September,
1888, the vestry of Calvary Church, Tarboro, asked him to become their
rector to succeed his father, who wished to retire. Cheshire refused the
call. It is to be supposed that he preferred the larger opportunities
offered in Charlotte, but his personal papers do not reveal why he
rejected the invitation. Writing to him concerning his refusal, Bishop
Lyman stated that he was pleased to learn that Cheshire was to remain in
Charlotte, and that he recognized "how great a calamity it would have
been to the interest of the Church, in your own, and in the adjacent
counties, had you decided to resign your present position. I am sure,
too, that your determination to remain will greatly strengthen the
hearts of those around you, and greatly increase your powers of
usefulness."[21] This commendation of his work by Bishop Lyman, who was
not inclined to give excessive praise, must have been encouraging to
Cheshire. Three years later he received a call from the vestry of St.
Paul's Church, Macon, Georgia. They offered him a rectory and a salary
of sixteen hundred dollars a year, but he also declined this call.

The most complimentary consideration Cheshire received, prior to 1893,
was in the summer of 1891. At that time Rev. Henry Lucas, rector of St.
Mark's Church, Brunswick, Georgia, in behalf of himself and several
other clergymen, wrote Cheshire to ask if he had any objection to his
name being used as a nominee for bishop of Georgia. Lucas stated that
the diocesan convention of Georgia was to meet on July 1, in Macon, to
elect a bishop. Cheshire replied that if he were elected by the
convention he would be "on the whole unwilling to accept." The Georgia
convention met and elected a bishop, but Cheshire's name was not placed
in nomination because the delegates did not wish to risk a refusal. Rev.
A. W. Dodge, a member of the convention, wrote Cheshire: "I think we
could have elected you without any great difficulty if you had been
willing to serve us."[22] In none of his writings examined does Cheshire
give an explanation of his unwillingness to become bishop of Georgia.
His love for North Carolina and its people and a sincere conviction that
he should devote his life to the work of the church in this state is
probably the best explanation of his decision.

During these years in which Cheshire was assuming a greater share of
diocesan work, his parochial and missionary duties in and outside of
Charlotte were not neglected. The only serious criticism of his services
which was brought to his attention by his parishioners was that the
missions in Iredell and Mecklenburg counties demanded too much of his
time. Cheshire, however, maintained that in serving the rural missions
he was at the same time building up St. Peter's, since the missions
would eventually furnish many new members to the town parish. In spite
of this criticism, he continued his missionary and institutional work.
In 1885 and 1886 he gave wholehearted assistance to Rev. Edwin A.
Osborne in establishing the Thompson Orphanage in Charlotte as a
diocesan institution. The last parochial enterprise of St. Peter's
Church in which he participated was the founding of the Good Samaritan
Hospital for Negroes. The movement for the hospital was initiated by
Mrs. John Wilkes, with whom Cheshire co-operated in every way. He
devoted much time to raising the money for the purchase of a lot. In
1888 he laid the cornerstone of the hospital and three years later
officiated at its formal opening. The Good Samaritan was the first
hospital for Negroes to be established in North Carolina.

In the course of his pastorate in Charlotte Cheshire was on the
friendliest of terms with the ministers of the other denominations,
although he sometimes strongly differed with them. He was a member of
the local Ministerial Association, serving for a time as its
vice-president. The association often passed resolutions inviting
popular preachers to hold revivals in Charlotte. Cheshire, not in
sympathy with professional revivalists, customarily opposed this
procedure.

When the association once invited the well-known preacher, Sam Jones, to
hold a series of services in Charlotte for ten days, all the ministers
except Cheshire closed their churches during the revival. At the time,
he was criticized rather severely for his lack of co-operation. Some
eighteen months later Jones announced he was returning for a second
revival, although he had received no invitation. Hearing of his plans,
the Baptist pastor, at the next meeting of the Ministerial Association,
proposed a resolution that the ministers of the town should not close
their churches during Jones' visit, nor co-operate with him. He declared
that, while his church had gained a good many members immediately
following the revivalist's services, most of them had by this time
deserted him, and the whole effect of Jones' preaching had been to lower
and demoralize the religious life of his congregation. The other
ministers concurred in his opinion. Cheshire, however, objected to the
resolution on the grounds that he would not oppose any man who, as far
as he knew, was "honestly trying to preach the Gospel as he understood
it." He opposed it also as a matter of policy, since, in his opinion,
nothing would please Jones more than to be able to say that "a lot of
little two-by-four preachers got together, and voted to keep Sam Jones
out of Charlotte."[23] Cheshire's argument convinced the other clergymen
that he was right, and the resolution was dropped. The incident well
illustrates his keen sense of fairness and good judgment.

Cheshire's domestic and social life in Charlotte was happy and
interesting. Although his salary was not large, he was able to make his
family reasonably comfortable. When he and Mrs. Cheshire left Chapel
Hill, they had two children, Elizabeth and Sarah. During their twelve
years in Charlotte four other children were born to them—Joseph Blount,
Annie, Godfrey, and James Webb. This was a large family to support on a
clergyman's salary, but by good management they were able to make their
life pleasant. The Cheshires were hospitable people and enjoyed
entertaining their friends. The Dean of the Convocation of Charlotte and
the Diocesan Evangelist, as well as many other visiting clergymen,
usually stayed with them when visiting St. Peter's parish.

Cheshire made many friends in Charlotte outside of his congregation as
well as among his parishioners. He accomplished a great deal in building
up a more friendly attitude on the part of the other denominations
towards the Episcopal Church. The fearless and positive stand he always
took on questions involving the principles and policies of his church,
while antagonizing some people for a time, in the end won him many
admirers and the respect of all.

When Cheshire resigned his rectorate of St. Peter's in 1893 to become
assistant bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina, he left in the parish
a record difficult for any future rector to equal. In the course of his
twelve years at St. Peter's he had increased its membership from one
hundred and thirty-seven to two hundred and sixty-three. He organized
and established St. Martin's parish, St. Michael and All Angels' mission
for Negroes, St. Mark's mission at Mecklenburg, and St. Paul's mission
at Monroe. He sponsored the building of St. Peter's and the Good
Samaritan hospitals, and assisted Rev. E. A. Osborne in establishing the
Thompson Orphanage. These were significant accomplishments for a
rectorate of twelve years. But as almost everyone else, Cheshire also
experienced some failures. In his attempts to establish missions at
Rockingham, Mooresville, and Mount Mourne, he had not been successful.
However, balanced against his successes, these failures seem small.




CHAPTER IV

_Election to the Episcopate_


Theodore Benedict Lyman was elected assistant bishop of North Carolina
in 1873, and upon the death of Bishop Thomas Atkinson in 1881 he assumed
the control of the Diocese. In 1891 he celebrated in Christ Church,
Raleigh, the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.
By this time the Bishop had begun to show signs that the duties of his
office were becoming too arduous for his failing strength. It was not
until two years later, however, that he felt that he must ask for
assistance in his Episcopal duties. When the diocesan convention met in
Christ Church, Raleigh, on May 17, 1893, Bishop Lyman brought to the
attention of the body his failing health and the necessity of conserving
his strength. He stated he would welcome any suggestions on the subject
the convention saw fit to make. The subject of assisting the Bishop was
taken under consideration immediately, and a committee was appointed to
study how best this might be accomplished.

The following day this committee recommended, in the form of several
resolutions, that Bishop Lyman should be relieved of a part of his
official work by the election of an assistant bishop; that when the
convention completed its present session it should adjourn to meet again
in Raleigh on June 27 to elect an assistant bishop; and that the present
convention should take steps towards determining a salary for the new
office. The resolutions were adopted in their entirety.

Before taking up the proceedings of the adjourned convention, it is
interesting to consider here some views Cheshire once expressed on the
Episcopate in North Carolina. In 1891 a friend wrote him asking who he
thought would make a good successor to Bishop Lyman. In reply to this
query, Cheshire remarked that he did not approve of anyone's expressing
an arbitrary opinion as to the choice of a bishop for this Diocese, but
since that was what his friend desired, he would offer some suggestions.
He declared that Dr. Francis J. Murdoch, Rector of St. Luke's,
Salisbury, was his first choice, and characterized him as a learned,
noble, and lovable man. His second and third choices were the Rev.
Robert S. Barrett, of Atlanta, and the Rev. Mr. Winchester, of
Nashville. Above everything, said Cheshire, "We want a plain man—one who
can come down to the plain people of our country." He did not suggest
anyone above the age of fifty, since he thought it was better to choose
a clergyman "rather under than above his prime." Speaking in general of
the election of bishops, Cheshire observed: "I really, and in all
seriousness, think that there is something providential in the choice of
a man to the office of Bishop. The best men are so often those who were
hardly thought of beforehand—sometimes hardly heard of."[24] To
illustrate his point, he cited the elections of Bishops Ravenscroft, of
North Carolina, Whipple, of Minnesota, and Jackson, of Alabama. These
observations are particularly interesting, coming as they did only two
years before the proposed election of an assistant bishop.

When the adjourned convention convened in Christ Church on June 27,
Bishop Lyman gave his canonical consent to the election of an assistant
bishop. The convention then provided that the new office should carry
with it an annual salary of twenty-five hundred dollars.

At the afternoon session the doors of the convention were closed, and
nominations for an assistant bishop by the clergy were in order. The
clergymen nominated were Rev. Nathaniel H. Harding, Dr. Joseph Blount
Cheshire, Jr., Rev. T. M. N. George, Dr. Francis J. Murdoch, Dr.
Matthias M. Marshall, and Rev. Robert S. Barrett. It is significant that
all of these candidates, with the exception of R. S. Barrett, of
Atlanta, were clergymen resident in North Carolina. It is also of
interest that Murdoch and Cheshire, who were to be the two most
important candidates, nominated each other. In his nomination speech Dr.
Murdoch said: "The good shepherd knows his sheep. This is pre-eminently
true of Dr. Cheshire. He knows the people of North Carolina, their
history, their relationships, better perhaps than any other person
living."[25]

Under the rules of the convention the clergy elects a bishop by a
two-thirds vote of their number. Their choice is then submitted to the
laity, who either ratify or reject it. In this convention twenty-nine
votes was the necessary majority for election.

On the first three ballots, although all candidates received some votes,
Cheshire led each time. But after the third ballot, the contest was
narrowed down to Cheshire, Barrett, and Murdoch. Cheshire remained ahead
through the sixth ballot; Murdoch then took the lead, which he held,
with the exception of five ballots, through the twenty-fourth. During
this balloting, Barrett led all candidates twice and tied with Murdoch
for the highest number three times. After the twenty-fourth ballot
Cheshire asked to be excused from further attendance. He explained that
he had expected the convention to last only one day and had accordingly
promised to marry a friend on the twenty-eighth.[26] He was excused, and
without further balloting the convention adjourned at eleven-thirty in
the evening.

The following morning balloting was resumed, with Murdoch continuing to
hold his lead. On the twenty-ninth ballot the Rev. Arthur S. Lloyd, of
Norfolk, Virginia, was nominated and remained in the contest until the
end. From the thirty-second through the thirty-fifth ballots Cheshire
did not receive a single vote; while from the thirty-sixth through the
thirty-eighth he received only one vote on each. Before the
thirty-seventh was taken, Rev. W. S. Barrows moved that if no one was
elected within the next two ballots, the clergy should retire from the
convention for a conference. His motion was carried. Since no election
took place, the clergy repaired to Christ Church chapel for prayer and
conference.

There was a small minority in the convention, numbering ten or twelve
clergymen, who were opposed to electing anyone from the Diocese of North
Carolina. This minority held the balance between the stronger candidates
and thus prevented an election. All attempts to compromise with the
minority on some candidate other than Murdoch or Cheshire failed.
Thereupon, when the clergy met in the chapel, it was agreed that they
should arrive at a choice by the process of elimination. After several
votes were taken, the selection lay between Cheshire and Murdoch. The
supporters of both men then agreed to vote in the convention for the one
who received the highest vote in this conference. When the votes were
counted, it was found that Cheshire led by a majority of one. The clergy
then re-entered the church and took the thirty-ninth ballot, which
resulted in twenty-nine votes for Cheshire, seven for Lloyd, and five
scattered. The laity quickly confirmed the choice of the clergy by a
vote of twenty-four to seven; whereupon the Bishop declared Rev. Joseph
Blount Cheshire, Jr., elected assistant bishop of the Diocese and
appointed a committee to notify him of his election.

After performing the promised marriage ceremony, Cheshire went to High
Point to spend the night. When he arrived, he found several telegrams
from friends congratulating him upon his election. Describing his
reaction to the news, he said that he "could not comprehend what they
meant, and thought there must be some mistake. I was more deeply
agitated than I could have anticipated." The following day he wrote his
father: "The one thing in the election at Raleigh which gives me unmixed
satisfaction is the knowledge that it would be a happiness to you and to
mother. In every other respect my feelings are of so confused a kind
that I hardly know myself what to do or say.... I feel that this
election has its human cause and origin in your life-long labor for the
church, and in the name and good will of our people which I have derived
from you and not made for myself."[27] This sincere statement of his
thoughts about his election was characteristic of Cheshire. He felt
profoundly the great responsibility which had been placed upon him, and
wrote a friend that he could never have undertaken it had he not felt
that he had the "sympathy, co-operation, and prayer"[28] of his people.

The month following his election Cheshire received more than two hundred
letters and telegrams of congratulation. They came from clergymen and
laymen in and outside of North Carolina, and a great many were from
persons who were not members of the Episcopal Church. One of the most
common sentiments found in these letters was the pleasure and
gratification expressed at the election of a North Carolinian as
assistant bishop. It is a noteworthy fact that Cheshire was the first
native clergyman of the state to be elected to the Episcopate of the
Diocese of North Carolina.

Dr. Francis J. Murdoch, as well as many of his adherents, sent their
sincere congratulations. In a circular letter to his supporters,
thanking them for their efforts in his behalf, Dr. Murdoch said of
Cheshire: "The election has ended as I wished. Other men may tremble as
to the outcome. I have not one misgiving. Neither love for Dr. Cheshire
nor prejudice against any man can warp my judgment in this matter. I say
now (as I said when I nominated him) that we have made no mistake."[29]
This warm praise from a man of Dr. Murdoch's high character and ability
must have been very encouraging to Cheshire.

An amusing and interesting tribute to Cheshire's election as assistant
bishop were some verses by Rev. John E. C. Smedes. Dr. Smedes, a former
clergyman of the Diocese, had been one of Cheshire's examiners for
deacon's orders and had presented him for ordination as priest. His
lines are as follows:

CONGRATULATIONS TO A BISHOP-ELECT

  News sweeter and fresher
  I ask not, Joe Cheshire:
  You are bishop assistant
  Elect; though too distant
  For love's fondest issue,
  Alas! or I'd kiss you.
  'Twas my joy to examine you
  And find no mean sham in you;
  For deep did they ram in you,
  At Berkeley and Trinity,
  A full charge of divinity.
  'Twas my joy, mine eye feasted,
  To see duly priested
  The youth I presented.
  And now I'm contented:
  They will make you a bishop.
  I send a meek wish up
  To the Shepherd above,
  That in wisdom and love
  You may long feed His sheep,
  While the Faith you still keep,
  And then, crosier laid down,
  May at last wear a crown.

Shortly after his election Cheshire received an invitation from the
vestry of Calvary Church, Tarboro, to have his consecration service held
there. He accepted the invitation and selected October 15 as the date.
It was indeed fitting that he should be consecrated in the church which
his father had served for a half century and in which he himself had
been brought up and ordained to the diaconate.

On the day of Cheshire's consecration the little town of Tarboro was
taxed almost to its capacity to take care of the out-of-town people who
had come for the service. About thirty clergymen from the dioceses of
North Carolina and East Carolina were present. The service began at
eleven in the morning. The ecclesiastical procession, headed by seven
bishops and the bishop-elect, entered the church singing the hymn "The
Church's One Foundation." Rt. Rev. T. U. Dudley, Bishop of Kentucky,
preached the sermon. Bishop Lyman was the consecrator, assisted by
Bishops Watson, of East Carolina, and Capers, of South Carolina.
Cheshire was presented by Bishop Weed, of Florida, and Bishop Sessums,
of Louisiana. The venerable Bishop Quintard, of Tennessee, also took
part in the service. All of the bishops joined in the laying on of
hands. During the service the choir sang the anthem "How Beautiful upon
the Mountains are the Feet of Them that Publish Good Tidings," composed
by Rev. Dr. M. A. Curtis. It is interesting to note that this anthem was
sung at the ordination of Dr. J. B. Cheshire, Sr., in 1840 and at the
ordination of Rev. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., in 1880. The service closed with
the singing of the recessional "Holy, Holy, Holy." It was a beautiful
and impressive ceremony, but its beauty was marred for Cheshire by the
absence of his father, who was not well enough to attend.

Bishop Cheshire's first episcopal act was to hold an evening service in
Tarboro, the night of his consecration, at St. Luke's Chapel for
Negroes. He did not lose any time in assuming the duties of his new
office. While in Tarboro he made several visitations in Edgecombe and
Halifax counties. On October 23 he and his family returned to Charlotte,
but he did not tarry long. A few days later he set out for the mountains
of North Carolina, where he spent a month visiting the scattered
churches and missions in that section. Returning from the mountains, he
continued his visitations until he was suddenly called to Raleigh on
December 13 by the death of Bishop Lyman, who had been in greatly
enfeebled health for the past few months.

The death of Bishop Lyman placed the Assistant Bishop in full charge of
the Diocese of North Carolina. The few weeks of work Bishop Cheshire had
had under the direction and advice of the senior bishop stood him in
good stead now that he had the sole responsibility for episcopal
guidance of the Diocese.




CHAPTER V

_First Years in the Episcopacy_


When Bishop Cheshire assumed the episcopal oversight of the Diocese of
North Carolina, he felt little confidence in his ability to fulfill the
duties of the office. He did feel that by sincere and diligent
application he could accomplish much for the welfare of the church. When
elected assistant bishop he was, in his own words, "constrained to
accept the call, not from any sense of fitness in myself, but simply
because such a call seems to me to carry with it an imperative
obligation to accept, unless the hand of God should plainly point in
another direction: a dispensation was laid upon me."[30] Notwithstanding
his expressed views, Bishop Cheshire was, in the opinion of most
churchmen, better fitted for his office by ability, temperament, and
training than any other man in North Carolina.

Bishop Cheshire met his first diocesan convention in May, 1894, at St.
Paul's Church, Winston. He opened his annual address by saying: "I
cannot bring into any order or method in my own mind, much less can I
put it into words, the feelings which this occasion calls up. To no one
can it seem stranger than it does to myself that I should occupy this
place, and thus address you from the chair of Ravenscroft, of Atkinson,
and of him so lately taken from us." He made no recommendations for
important changes in the policy or work of the church, since he wished
to become more thoroughly acquainted with the problems and needs of the
Diocese before doing so. The Bishop urged upon the clergy then, as he
was to do many times in the future, the necessity of keeping their
parochial records in proper order, and observed that no businessman
would employ a clerk for a week if he kept his books as many of the
parish registers were kept. In concluding his address, the Bishop
touched on three subjects which were to be collectively the theme of his
episcopate: namely, the importance of regarding the Diocese rather than
the parish as the unit of the church; the necessity of supporting all
diocesan institutions; and the great need for continuing and expanding
the missionary work of the Diocese. Time and time again he drove home
the spirit and essence of these subjects, until the clergy and laity
alike caught some of the fire of his enthusiasm and translated his ideas
into living reality.

One of the first diocesan projects Bishop Cheshire undertook was the
revival of the old mission of Valle Crucis, established by Bishop Ives
about fifty years before. At the same time he planned to revive the
mission work along the Watauga River. For this difficult work the Bishop
had one man in mind who he thought was eminently qualified—Rev. Milnor
Jones. His first meeting with Jones had been at the convention of 1883.
Shortly afterwards, Bishop Lyman had asked Cheshire if he would carry to
Jones a sum of money which had been raised to aid him in erecting a
church at Tryon. The Bishop had added that he hoped Cheshire would spend
a few days with Jones to observe his work. Cheshire complied with the
Bishop's request, and spent a few unforgettable days with Jones, driving
with him over the hills and valleys of Polk County to visit his
scattered missions. At the time, he had been greatly impressed with
Jones' influence with the mountain people. When he began to plan the
revival of Valle Crucis, he remembered his experience with the
picturesque mountain missionary.

Milnor Jones, however, was in Oregon when the Bishop was ready to
commence his mountain work. In January, 1894, Cheshire wrote asking him
to return to North Carolina. In replying to Bishop Cheshire, Jones wrote
this characteristically laconic letter: "Where do you want me to go?
What do you wish me to do? And what salary will you give? Not that the
_amount_ of the salary makes any difference; I only wish to know just
what I have to go on." The Bishop answered as concisely: "I want you to
go to Valle Crucis, on the Watauga River. I want you to revive the old
Valle Crucis Mission, as your special work; and I give you for your
field of operations Watauga, Mitchell, and Ashe Counties, to do what you
can in them. I will give you six hundred dollars a year, payable
monthly."[31]

Milnor Jones was a rough, plain-spoken individual with a remarkable
faculty for understanding and winning the confidence of the simple
mountain folk. He had a deeply religious nature, and a complete
fearlessness in preaching the Gospel as he understood it. Bishop
Cheshire found him an unusually effective man in laying the foundations
of missionary work, but from that point he seemed to lack the power to
build further.

Jones entered with enthusiasm upon his work in the mountains of North
Carolina. When the Bishop began his visitations to the western counties
in June, 1895, he found that Jones had made a promising beginning.
Bishop Cheshire spent several weeks with him, visiting one mission
station after another in the counties of Mitchell, Watauga, and Ashe.
They preached, baptized, and confirmed in the most out-of-the-way places
and under the most varied conditions. When they first visited
Bakersville they held services in the courthouse, but upon their return
for a second service some time later, they were refused the use of the
building on the grounds that the courthouse was not safe for large
crowds. The local newspaper, however, gave as the reason for the refusal
the fact that the Methodists and Baptists held that "the Episcopalians
had been preaching uncomfortable doctrine." The Bishop and Jones were
not to be daunted; they held their service on the street in front of the
courthouse. A large congregation gathered for the service. When the
Bishop began preaching he did not think his voice would reach the
assemblage, but after a few minutes he felt as if he could make himself
heard "a mile away." He afterwards declared that "I never spoke with
more ease, freedom, and enjoyment, or with a greater sense of the high
privilege of being a servant and ambassador of my Lord."[32]

Another interesting episode in Bishop Cheshire's mission work in the
mountains took place at Beaver Creek, Ashe County, in the summer of
1896. Here the Bishop and Jones were maintaining a mission school with
two teachers in a building which had been leased for two years. When the
Bishop went to the schoolhouse to hold a service, he was met by a mob of
more than fifty men who "forcibly prevented" him from entering. The mob
declared that the reason they were preventing him from holding his
service was that they did not like "Mr. Jones' doctrine" and they
understood that he, the Bishop, taught the same doctrine. In reporting
the incident to the convention of the Jurisdiction of Asheville, the
Bishop described it as "an experience which I certainly had never
thought a possibility in my native state of North Carolina."[33]

In reviving the old mission at Valle Crucis Bishop Cheshire did not
intend to follow the plan of Bishop Ives, which had been to establish a
boys' school and a training school for the clergy. His primary motive
was to evangelize the people of the mountain counties. He wanted to make
Valle Crucis "an associate mission from which preachers and teachers
should go out and keep up the work of evangelizing, instructing, and
educating wherever an opening might be found or made."[34]

Milnor Jones, carrying letters of introduction from his Bishop, in the
fall of 1895 visited the northern states to raise funds for his mountain
work. He was successful in his efforts and, with the money thus raised,
mission schools were established at Valle Crucis and at Beaver Creek. In
the course of 1896 and 1897 a mission home, consisting of an eight-room
house, was erected at Valle Crucis at a cost of twelve hundred dollars.
It was built to accommodate a missionary, a teacher, and several pupils
attending the mission school. Shortly after this constructive beginning
Milnor Jones gave up the work at Valle Crucis. He confined his efforts
to the small mission stations scattered over Mitchell, Watauga, and Ashe
counties. The Bishop placed Rev. Samuel F. Adams in charge of Valle
Crucis, and under his guidance and that of his successors the work
progressed steadily.

Milnor Jones left North Carolina towards the end of 1897. He, with the
assistance and encouragement of Bishop Cheshire, had laid the
foundations of a missionary work which was to be a credit to the church.
Referring once to the character of Jones' work, the Bishop remarked: "If
I had a wild mountain country full of moonshiners, I think I would like
to have him, but for anything more civilized he is too savage."[35] With
all of Jones' crudeness and faults, Bishop Cheshire believed him to be
"really a more Godly man than many an one whose life is perfectly
conventional and blameless." The Bishop often remarked that the visits
he made to Milnor Jones in the mountains of North Carolina were among
the most interesting experiences of his career.

Coinciding with Bishop Cheshire's efforts to expand and revive the
missionary work of the church in the mountains, a movement was initiated
to create a missionary district from the western counties of the Diocese
of North Carolina. At the diocesan convention of 1894 a committee was
appointed to study the advisability of requesting the General Convention
to organize the western counties of the state into a missionary
jurisdiction. It was felt by many that the present Diocese was too large
to be adequately administered and supervised by one bishop. In his
address to the convention of 1895 Bishop Cheshire substantiated this
view when he reported that during the past year he had been able to
devote only nine weeks to the western section of the state, which
embraced nearly thirty counties.

The Bishop was "in sentiment" strongly opposed to a division of his
Diocese, for he disliked seeing the church in North Carolina divided
further. Also, he had become deeply interested in his mountain missions
and was loath to relinquish them. He realized, however, the
impossibility of properly serving such a large territory. Moreover, he
was determined not to make the mistake which he thought Bishop Atkinson,
in 1877, and Bishop Lyman, in 1882, had made when they opposed the
formation of a new diocese. In his opinion, a bishop "makes a mistake,
when he opposes the well-settled convictions of his clergy and people
upon a matter affecting the development of the Diocese."[36]

When the diocesan convention met in May, 1895, the Committee on the
Proposed Missionary Jurisdiction recommended that the General Convention
be requested to set apart the western section of the Diocese of North
Carolina as a missionary jurisdiction. It was further recommended that
the line of division should be the eastern boundaries of the counties of
Alleghany, Wilkes, Alexander, Catawba, Lincoln and Gaston. Bishop
Cheshire had suggested to the committee this territorial division.
Although it meant a great loss of strength to his own Diocese, the
Bishop believed that the missionary jurisdiction should be made large
enough to be of importance, and that it should be created with the view
of its becoming a diocese at some future date. The convention adopted
the committee's recommendations, and instructed its deputies to present
them to the General Convention.

When this body met in the fall of 1895, Bishop Cheshire presented in the
House of Bishops the memorial of the Diocese of North Carolina
requesting the erection of a missionary jurisdiction. The memorial was
referred to the Committee on Domestic Missions. A few days later the
Bishop of Florida, chairman of the committee, reported the memorial
unfavorably, stating that his committee did not believe the reasons set
forth were sufficient to justify an affirmative action. He further
reported that the legal and constitutional requirements had not been
properly provided for. Bishop Cheshire then introduced a resolution
calling for the erection of a missionary district and providing that it
should be under the limited jurisdiction of the Bishop and Convention of
the Diocese of North Carolina until such constitutional amendments could
be adopted to remove the objections advanced by the Bishop of Florida.
The House of Bishops adopted the resolution with little discussion, and
two days later it was approved by the House of Deputies. Following this
action Bishop Cheshire moved that the House of Bishops should proceed to
the election of a missionary bishop for the newly created district. His
motion met with opposition and was postponed to a future meeting of the
House of Bishops. The district, which was to be known as the
Jurisdiction of Asheville, was temporarily placed under the episcopal
care of Bishop Cheshire.

Only a few weeks after the close of the General Convention, Bishop
Cheshire, on November 12, 1895, met the first convention of the
Missionary Jurisdiction of Asheville. He outlined to the clergy and
laity what would be expected of them as a missionary jurisdiction, and
gave much helpful advice on setting up the machinery for carrying on
their work. The Bishop called to their attention the almost incalculable
opportunities for extending the influence of the church in the mountain
counties. The next year he greatly expanded this idea in a charge to the
clergy of the Jurisdiction. The Bishop pointed out that nine-tenths of
the work in the Jurisdiction of Asheville was to evangelize people who
were almost wholly ignorant of the church. Such material aids as
rectories, schoolhouses, and even churches, while undoubtedly helpful,
were not necessary adjuncts to the primary object of the church: "to
catch men." He urged the clergy to know the people, to preach to them in
words they could understand, and to make religion an integral part of
their lives.

After completing his first year in charge of the Jurisdiction of
Asheville, and after a careful study of the manifold problems peculiar
to it, Bishop Cheshire was convinced that the erection of the missionary
jurisdiction was "an act of wise and prudent statesmanship." He thought
that a missionary who had the oversight of three or four counties sorely
needed regular visitations from the bishop, and in his opinion the work
could be more effectively carried on if the bishop were able to remain a
week or more with each missionary. He pressed these points upon the
members of the House of Bishops in strongly advocating the election of a
bishop for the Jurisdiction. Finally, in the fall of 1898, the House of
Bishops elected the Rev. Junius Moore Horner, a native North Carolinian,
as missionary bishop of the Jurisdiction of Asheville. He was
consecrated on December 28, 1898, in Trinity Church, Asheville, with
Bishop Cheshire as the consecrator. After this service Bishop Cheshire
formally turned over to Bishop Horner the full administration of the
Jurisdiction.

Turning now to a wholly different phase of Bishop Cheshire's work, we
take up one of the most important achievements of his long episcopate,
the establishment of St. Mary's School for girls as a church
institution. This school had been founded in Raleigh by Dr. Aldert
Smedes in 1842, and had been nurtured and maintained, through good and
hard times, by its founder and his son and successor, Dr. Bennett
Smedes. St. Mary's was not a church school, but its two rectors had been
Episcopal clergymen, and thus the institution had been under the
exclusive influence of the Episcopal Church. By 1896 Dr. Bennett Smedes
was finding it very difficult to compete with publicly supported and
privately endowed schools. At this time he made it known that he could
no longer continue St. Mary's as a private school.

The Alumnae Association of St. Mary's at once took action to preserve
the school for the church. It sent a memorial to the diocesan convention
of 1896, in which it appealed to the Episcopal Church in North Carolina
"either to endow the School, or to erect for it suitable buildings in
Raleigh or elsewhere, and thus relieve it of one great drain, its heavy
rent." The appeal met with sympathetic attention from Bishop Cheshire.
Only the year before, he had remarked to the convention: "I have been,
from earliest childhood, brought up to look upon St. Mary's School, at
Raleigh, as the most valuable of all our church institutions or agencies
in North Carolina.... I cannot too highly recommend this school to the
confidence of all the people of North Carolina."

After careful consideration of the St. Mary's Alumnae memorial, the
convention adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a
committee of six, to include the Bishop, with the authority to buy
suitable buildings for a girls' school or to purchase land and erect new
buildings. In direct reply to the memorialists, Bishop Cheshire offered
a resolution, which the convention adopted, assuring the alumnae that
the church in North Carolina "will do all in its power to place St.
Mary's School upon a permanent foundation as an institution under the
charge and patronage of the Church throughout the entire State...."

At the convention of 1897 the special committee on a diocesan school for
girls reported that it had procured a charter of incorporation for the
Board of Trustees of St. Mary's School from the state legislature, and
had turned over to this corporation all further negotiations. The newly
constituted Board of Trustees, of which Bishop Cheshire was chairman,
then made its report. It recommended that not less than one hundred
thousand dollars be raised for the purchase of a location, the erection
of buildings, and an endowment of St. Mary's School. The Board announced
that it had contracted to purchase for fifty thousand dollars a site
known as the St. Mary's Tract. The convention adopted the report as it
was made.

During the past year, at the request of the Trustees, Bishop Cheshire
had spent a month visiting many towns throughout the state in an attempt
to interest the people of the church in the needs and potentialities of
St. Mary's School. His efforts met with gratifying success. He appealed
to the women of the state, and especially to the alumnae of St. Mary's,
to raise fifty thousand dollars for an endowment which should be known
as "The St. Mary's Alumnae Association Fund." To stimulate the interest
and increase the activity of the women in this plan, Bishop Cheshire
organized the "Order of the Patrons and Daughters of St. Mary's." He
proposed to find fifty women who would give five hundred dollars each
towards the endowment, and two hundred and fifty others who would each
contribute one hundred dollars. He reported to the convention of 1897
that he had raised a substantial amount in this way.

Thus, St. Mary's was established as the official school of the Episcopal
Church in North Carolina. The Diocese of East Carolina and the
Jurisdiction of Asheville had agreed to contribute to the maintenance of
the school and were given representation on the Board of Trustees. Dr.
Bennett Smedes was retained as rector of the school and continued in
this position until his death in 1899. The first year the school was
under the control of the church the number of boarding students
increased fifty per cent. To a great extent the enlarged enrollment was
due to the renewed interest which Bishop Cheshire had aroused.

In the course of his negotiations to establish St. Mary's as a church
school, the Bishop discovered that the churchmen of South Carolina had
been for some time loyal and generous supporters of the school. After
reflection upon this fact, he determined to ask the Diocese of South
Carolina to co-operate in the maintenance and management of St. Mary's.
When he discussed the subject with the Board of Trustees, it was decided
to appoint a committee of the Board to meet at Saluda to confer with
representatives from South Carolina. The conference was held in August,
1898. After a friendly and constructive discussion, the conference
resolved that St. Mary's School should be placed under the "control and
patronage of all the Carolina Dioceses."

Bishop Cheshire met with the convention of the Diocese of South Carolina
in the spring of 1899 and presented the advantages and possibilities of
St. Mary's as a church institution. The resolution of the Saluda
conference was reported to the convention and was unanimously adopted.
Bishop Capers, two clergymen, and two laymen were appointed to the Board
of Trustees to represent South Carolina. After patient and diligent work
Bishop Cheshire was able to unite the church of the two states in the
support of one church school for girls. In a comparatively short time it
was to become the largest Episcopal school for girls in the United
States.

In the winter of 1897 Bishop Cheshire suffered an irreparable loss in
the death of his wife. Their married life of twenty-two years had been
remarkably happy. Mrs. Cheshire had been a great help to him in his work
as deacon and priest and later as bishop of the Diocese. She gave him
encouragement, devotion, and the benefit of her sound common sense. The
Bishop often spoke of how much she meant to him in his work, and of
their happy life together.

It was a fortunate coincidence that the Lambeth Conference came in the
summer of 1897, for it enabled him to have a complete change, removing
him from those associations which reminded him so strongly of his wife.
The Lambeth Conference, which convenes approximately every ten years at
Lambeth Palace, London, is composed of all the bishops of the Episcopal
Church throughout the world. Bishop Cheshire decided to attend,
believing it would be broadening and an exceedingly worth-while
experience. The object of the Conference was to discuss religious
questions of world-wide interest. In the course of its sessions it would
be divided into groups which would discuss problems relating to
particular countries.

The Bishop sailed from New York on June 2, arriving in England six days
later. Since the Conference did not commence until July 1, he spent the
intervening time sight-seeing. This was the summer of Queen Victoria's
Diamond Jubilee, giving an additional interest to his trip. He attended
the Jubilee service at St. Paul's, and remarked that the Bishop of
London preached "a good sermon" for the occasion.

The Lambeth Conference was formally opened at Westminster Abbey by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, who was to preside over its sessions. There
were present for the Conference one hundred and ninety-four bishops from
all parts of the world. Forty-nine of these represented the Episcopal
Church of the United States. The sessions of the Conference continued
through July 31. Bishop Cheshire was a member of the committee on church
unity, and, as far as his journal reveals, this was the only committee
on which he served. Reporting upon the Lambeth Conference to his
diocesan convention the following year, Bishop Cheshire said: "The first
message which we bring home from the Lambeth Conference of 1897 is that
God in His Providence is opening the world to us; and to prepare us for
the work we are to do, He is drawing all parts of the world-possessing
Anglo-Saxon race into a closer union of common interest and sympathies,
and of mutual confidence." He declared that the American bishops, while
receiving much benefit from the Conference, had also contributed
constructively to its work.

Shortly after the Conference closed, Bishop Cheshire visited the
Archbishop of York for a few days. Upon leaving York he spent about a
month traveling in England, Scotland, the Orkneys, and Ireland. In early
September he left England for the Continent, where he visited in
succession Antwerp, Brussels, and Cologne. Of his reactions to the
cathedrals of these three cities, the Bishop observed that they "do not
seem to me to be really so full of interest and beauty as even the
inferior English cathedrals. They do not so abound with evidences and
symbols of their connection with the life and history of the country and
people, and so in spite of all their ornamentation they have a barren
look."[37] The Bishop did some further sight-seeing in Germany,
Switzerland, and France. While in Switzerland he saw the famous Lion of
Lucerne, which he thought possessed "a dignity, nobleness, and beauty
about it which exceeds anything of the kind I have ever seen before."
Leaving from Southampton, he arrived in New York on September 24,
feeling much refreshed and ready to return to the work of his Diocese.

Two years after his visit to England Bishop Cheshire married Miss
Elizabeth Lansdale Mitchell, of Beltsville, Maryland. She was the
daughter of Rev. Walter A. Mitchell, an Episcopal clergyman. The
marriage proved to be happy and successful in every way. Mrs. Cheshire
was a splendid mother to the Bishop's children, and they all became
devoted to her.

When a friend heard that Bishop Cheshire was to be married, he remarked
to the Bishop that with his large family he needed a wife. With his
characteristic honesty the Bishop replied: "I don't need any such thing.
My daughters take the best care of me and want me to have the best of
everything. I don't need a wife; I am marrying again just because I want
to."[38]

From the General Convention of 1895 to that of 1931, Bishop Cheshire
attended every triennial meeting of this body. In the first three or
four conventions, he did not take an active part in the discussions of
the House of Bishops. For that matter, he never participated as
prominently in its deliberations as some of the other bishops. At the
1895 convention he was appointed to the committees on the Admission of
New Dioceses and on the Consecration of Bishops, and at the next
triennial meeting he was made a member of the Joint Commission on the
Revision of the Constitution and Canons. This last appointment pleased
him, since it was the kind of work for which he was well prepared. His
legal training influenced his partiality for this type of work. In 1904
he was appointed to the Committee on Canons, on which he served for
almost every convention until his death. As a member of this committee
he made his most important contribution to the work of the General
Convention. It will be recalled that it was in this capacity that he had
done his best work in the diocesan conventions. From time to time he was
made a member of other regular and special committees.

When Bishop Cheshire assumed the office of bishop of the Diocese of
North Carolina, he felt it his duty to exercise the full authority of
that office. In deciding upon this course of action he did not intend to
be arbitrary or despotic in administering the Diocese, although at times
some clergymen and laymen seemed to think so. But when they became
better acquainted with him and his methods, they admired and respected
him the more. The Bishop had a forthright, and sometimes decidedly
blunt, manner of speaking, which, to those who did not know him so well,
seemed arbitrary or overbearing. He had disagreements with his
clergymen, but they felt that they could always count upon receiving a
fair hearing from him. When the Bishop realized he was in error upon any
point, no one was quicker than he to admit it.

In 1895 Bishop Cheshire, for the first time in the history of the
Diocese, issued to the clergy "Visitation Articles," as called for by a
canon of the church. After employing them for a year he found they were
useful and "calculated to make the visitations of the Bishop of more
real value to the Clergy and to the people. The Bishop has for so long a
time ceased to exert any real influence or control in the ordinary life
and work of the parish in all parts of the United States, that the
assertion of that authority, which in theory our Bishops are supposed to
possess, is perhaps impracticable at present."[39] He thought that if
the bishop would make himself acquainted with the affairs of each
congregation during his visitation, it would strengthen the influence of
the episcopate, and would go far towards the "breaking up of our present
congregational parochialism." One of Bishop Cheshire's customs which
endeared him to his people was that of calling upon the members of a
congregation during his visitation. Of this practice he once remarked:
"People like the attention and it makes Bishop and people feel nearer
together, but in most cases they do not want very long visits."[40] The
Bishop's keen understanding of human nature was one of his most notable
qualities.

Bishop Cheshire thought that southern bishops had a great deal to be
thankful for, particularly that in the South "as much as anywhere in the
world, I believe, the Bishop may still be in some real and personal
sense, the pastor of his flock, can live in familiar and confidential
relations with his people." He deplored the tendency, which seemed to be
growing in some quarters, of making the bishop simply an administrator
of ecclesiastical affairs.

While Bishop Cheshire was in no sense a ritualist, or what is commonly
known as high church, he believed in a strict adherence to the rubrics
of the Book of Common Prayer. He had a great reverence and admiration
for the services of the Prayer Book, and consequently little patience
with those clergymen who attempted to alter their order or length. He
was not a dogmatic formalist, but was thoroughly convinced that the
canons and rubrics of the church should be obeyed and not disregarded by
those individuals who might take exception to them.

In a charge to his clergy on the subject of Public Worship, Bishop
Cheshire pointed out that the church was established and is sustained by
Christ for two purposes: "first, to be the depository and source of
spiritual Truth and Power; and second, to bring men into living contact
with that spiritual Truth and Power." The Prayer Book is a means by
which the church can diffuse and extend the truth, and it is also a
means of developing and conserving the influence of the church. In his
opinion, extemporary methods of worship had a tendency to weaken and
finally destroy the concept of common public worship. The public worship
of the Episcopal Church was not left to individual whim or judgment, but
was definitely prescribed. He maintained that the participation of the
congregation in the services and sacraments of the church is its
principal means of cultivating its oneness with Christ. The Bishop
enjoined the clergy to follow the services as they were set down in the
Prayer Book, and warned them that they would gain nothing, but rather
would injure the church by seeking to make their services more
attractive through short cuts or innovations.

In a Pastoral Letter to the clergy and laity of the Diocese, Bishop
Cheshire further developed the subject of public worship and the use of
the Prayer Book. He gave much sound instruction as to how the minister
and congregation should conduct themselves in any of the church's
services, particularly emphasizing the importance of correct kneeling
and audible and intelligent responses. He stressed the value which the
clergy and laity would receive from a regular observance of the feast
days and fast days. The Bishop expressed his strong disapproval of
decorating the church for any purpose other than "for God's honor." The
sacred character of the church should not be sacrificed to gratify the
vanity of men and women. He referred particularly to the extravagant
excesses often indulged in when decorating the church for weddings.

This Pastoral Letter is just as applicable to churchmen today and is
worthy of as much consideration from them as when it was first issued in
1912. It would be of great value to them to hear it read annually in the
churches of the Diocese.

Bishop Cheshire never went to extremes in anything. In spiritual as well
as in material matters he believed in preserving a sense of proportion.
He advised his clergy to use practical judgment in the observance of
Lenten services. Very few clergymen were capable of preaching good
sermons for forty or more consecutive days and, in his opinion, few
congregations desired them. Even in those cases where a preaching Lent
had been successful, he thought that a change would have a salutary
effect upon the people.

On the subject of church music he tried to preserve an equilibrium of
opinion. The Bishop was very fond of good ecclesiastical music and
thoroughly enjoyed singing himself. While his standards of church music
were high, he did not at all approve of too elaborate arrangements of
the old chants and hymns. He wanted them sung properly, but also in such
a way that at least a part of the congregation would be able to join in
with the choir. On several occasions he was known to have stopped the
organist and choir in the middle of a hymn or chant because the tune was
either too difficult or too decorative.

Bishop Cheshire's interest in domestic missionary work was by no means
limited to the zeal which he had displayed when working in the mountains
of North Carolina. In his report on missionary work to the convention of
1898, he made a strong appeal for domestic missions and missionaries. He
called to the attention of the convention the fact that the growth of
the church in the Diocese was chiefly through its missions. Since there
were no large city parishes, its strength lay in the towns, villages,
and country districts. "In these," said he, "has been our growth, and in
these is our hope and strength for the future." The missionary clergymen
had presented for confirmation during the past year more than half of
the total number of persons confirmed. He concluded these remarks with
an urgent plea for adequate salaries for the missionaries.

Up to 1901 the administration of the diocesan missions was in the hands
of the Bishop and the Executive Missionary Committee of the convention.
Bishop Cheshire reported that under this system the missionary work
usually showed an annual deficit of from four to five hundred dollars,
even after he had used funds for it which should have been reserved for
special work. With the advice and approbation of Bishop Cheshire, the
convention of 1901 divided the missionary work of the Diocese into three
divisions—the Convocation of Raleigh, the Convocation of Charlotte, and
the Convocation for Colored Work. These convocations, each with an
archdeacon at its head, were given full control of diocesan missions.
The archdeacons, under the supervision of the bishop, had the direction
and control of the missionaries in their respective convocations. Under
this new organization the diocesan missions progressed steadily, and the
treasurers of the convocations seldom reported a deficit. Some fifteen
years after this plan was inaugurated, Bishop Cheshire declared that the
missionary work had been "prosecuted with greater vigor and system than
ever before in my knowledge of the Diocese."

At the close of the first decade of Bishop Cheshire's episcopate, a
large number of clergy and laity gathered at Good Shepherd Church,
Raleigh, on the evening of October 14, 1903, to celebrate the occasion.
At this service the Bishop made an address in which he reviewed his work
for the period. During the decade he had held more than 4,000 services,
preached 1,400 sermons, delivered 500 addresses, confirmed 4,400
persons, consecrated 27 churches and chapels, and ordained 27 clergymen.
To him the greatest achievement of the past ten years was the
acquisition of St. Mary's and its establishment as the church school of
all the Carolina dioceses. In 1897 his Diocese had assumed in behalf of
St. Mary's an obligation of fifty thousand dollars to be paid in twenty
years. At the end of six years only eighteen thousand dollars of the
debt remained, and in addition ten thousand dollars had been spent upon
permanent equipment for the school. Since the Diocese took over St.
Mary's, the number of boarding pupils had increased threefold. In
conclusion, he declared that they should not look too much to the past
but should press on to the future with the work of the church.

Representatives of the clergy and laity congratulated the Bishop upon
his tenth anniversary, pledging their loyalty and devotion to him, and
expressing the appreciation of their respective bodies for his splendid
work. Mr. Richard H. Battle, in behalf of a number of the Bishop's
friends, presented him with a beautiful pectoral cross and a silk
cassock. In acknowledging the kind expressions and gifts, the Bishop
remarked: "I have one single desire, it is to serve God in this Diocese.
It was the interest that I took in the work here that brought me into
the ministry, and I have no desire to labor elsewhere. I love my people,
and I appreciate the kindness, sympathy and aid that has been given
me...."[41]

The following day the colored clergy and laity honored the Bishop in a
service at St. Ambrose Church, Raleigh. Resolutions expressing the
confidence and affection of the colored churchmen were presented to
Bishop Cheshire by Rev. Henry B. Delany. Rev. Primus P. Alston, on
behalf of the colored clergy, gave the Bishop a handsome stole,
accompanying it with an address expressing the gratitude of the colored
people for his work among them. Afterwards, the Bishop observed that
nothing during the past ten years had been more gratifying to him than
"the unvarying respect, courtesy and loyal support" which he had
received at the hands of his colored clergy and laity.




CHAPTER VI

_Man and Bishop_


In addition to his accomplishments as a clergyman, prelate, and scholar,
Bishop Cheshire attained considerable skill and reputation as a
sportsman. Fishing and hunting were the sports he liked best and the
only ones he indulged in. He once remarked that he had been fond of
fishing from his boyhood, but he thought his liking for it increased
with age. His prowess as a fisherman was well known to his churchmen
from the coast to the mountains of North Carolina. During the 1890's,
when he was building up his mountain work, he would sometimes allow
himself a few hours of relaxation to fish for the fine trout in the cold
mountain streams. As a good fisherman should, he always carried his
tackle with him when traveling near promising streams. In later years,
whenever he had the opportunity, he returned to the mountains for a
brief vacation of fishing.

On one of these trips, accompanied by his son, Joseph B. Cheshire, Jr.,
he was fishing in the Watauga River. When they came to a ford, the
Bishop recalled that he had an old friend, Bill Holler, living a short
distance away, whom he would like very much to see. Accordingly, they
walked up the road about a half mile. Pausing at the foot of a
mountainside, the Bishop asked his son to climb up and tell Mr. Holler
that an old friend wanted to see him, but not to mention his name.
Shortly afterwards, his son returned accompanied by a little old man,
with long white hair and beard and a pleasant, wrinkled face. As soon as
the old man saw his visitor, his face lit up with a smile, he threw open
his arms, rushed up to the Bishop, and embraced him, crying: "Lord! It's
the old Bishop, the old Bishop, the old Bishop!"

The Bishop's fondness for hunting was almost as great as that for
fishing. He began hunting in early boyhood but, according to his own
statement, he never became a good shot. Many of his hunting companions,
however, would undoubtedly contest the point. Among the people of his
Diocese he was famous for his skill in wild turkey hunting. Strange as
it may seem, he did not kill a wild turkey until he was sixty-four years
old. Up to that time he had hunted partridges a great deal, but as he
grew older, he had to give it up because it required so much walking.
Hunting wild turkeys, although strenuous enough, was better suited to
his years. After his first kill, scarcely a season passed that he did
not bag at least one turkey. As the Bishop's enthusiasm for this sport
grew, he made an interesting collection of turkey calls. They ranged
from several varieties made from the wing bone of the turkey to the box
type, which was usually made of cedar.

 [Illustration: _Bishop Cheshire fishing in the French Broad River,
 September, 1912._]

 [Illustration: _Photograph by Bayard Wootten
 The Parker-Cheshire House in Tarboro, birthplace of Bishop Cheshire.
 The house was built by Theophilus Parker, the Bishop's grandfather._]

Less than a month before his death Bishop Cheshire went turkey hunting
in the Roanoke River swamp, near Scotland Neck. On this occasion, at the
age of eighty-two, he killed a fine gobbler. About a week later he was
to go to St. Stephen's Church, Oxford, for a visitation and planned
while there to go turkey shooting with his friend, Rev. Reuben Meredith,
rector of the church. His son Godfrey was to join them for the hunt on
Monday. A few days before leaving home, however, he did not feel at all
well and, after consulting his physician, informed his daughter, Miss
Sarah Cheshire, he would give up the hunt. But by Saturday the Bishop
was feeling so much better that on his way to Oxford he wrote his
daughter the following letter:

 "Dear Sarah:

 When Godfrey comes to Oxford tomorrow have him bring my gun and the bag
 in which I keep my hunting clothes and turkey calls. I am going turkey
 hunting on Monday.

 'When the devil was sick the devil a monk would be, When the devil was
 well the devil a monk was he.'

 Your affectionate father,
 Joseph Blount Cheshire"

Bishop Cheshire had an enviable reputation throughout the state as a
raconteur of rare charm. Some of his best stories came from his fishing
and hunting experiences, but they covered many other subjects as well.
Most of his best anecdotes of personalities and events in North Carolina
history are found in his book _Nonnulla_. It was not always the content
of his stories which caught and held the interest of his listeners, but
quite as often the manner in which the Bishop told them. For this reason
they sometimes lose their color and charm when read or repeated by
someone else. When he told an amusing story, which he often did, one of
its best features was his own enjoyment in the telling and his hearty,
contagious laughter. Another characteristic of the Bishop's stories was
the natural way they appeared in his conversation, usually graphically
illustrating or emphasizing a point. He never dragged a story into his
conversation merely for the pleasure of telling it.

As a conversationalist, however, he did not depend upon his ability to
tell a good story. He could talk interestingly to persons from any walk
of life, seeming always to know just the right thing to say to each. He
never flattered, but gave freely his candid opinion whenever requested.
Although he talked a great deal himself, the Bishop made his listener
feel that he was interested in his ideas and wanted to hear them.

In his role as a preacher of sermons Bishop Cheshire did not resemble
his modern prototype, who quite often is more of a brilliant lecturer
than a preacher. The Bishop employed no oratory in his sermons, but
preached very much as if he were talking to a group of friends. He took
a text from the Bible, most frequently from the New Testament, and
proceeded to expound and interpret it, seldom using stories or anecdotes
to illustrate his ideas. They were unadorned, straightforward
expositions of religious truth. Of his sermons, the Bishop remarked to
one of his clergymen, "Because a man is not converted to Christ through
my teaching and preaching, I do not on that account conclude that he has
rejected Christ; he has only rejected my representation of Christ."

Dr. Robert B. Drane, for more than fifty years rector of St. Paul's
Church, Edenton, once wrote of a rather typical reaction to the Bishop's
sermons. He invited a man, who scarcely ever came to church, to come to
St. Paul's to hear Bishop Cheshire. The man said he would be glad to,
that he had heard the Bishop preach several times, and that he "always
talked sense." Dr. Drane remarked that if the thousands of persons who
belonged to no church could be made to realize that "preachers did
really talk sense," the membership of the churches would increase and
religion would be more respected.

While not meaning to belittle the value of sermons, Bishop Cheshire
sincerely felt that the prayers, responses, chants, and hymns of the
church's service, climaxed by the supreme act of Christian worship, the
celebration of the Holy Communion, held a greater significance for
mankind and better satisfied spiritual needs.

Bishop Cheshire's interest and activities extended to all phases of the
church's life in his Diocese. There was scarcely any work or endeavor of
his people too small to attract his attention. He often remarked that it
is "the little things that count." It was his capacity to understand and
sympathize with the everyday problems of his people that so greatly
endeared him to them. Although the Bishop never in any way permitted
himself or his clergy to become involved in controversial political
affairs, he displayed at all times a vital interest in the social
problems of his state. When he felt it to be the duty of the church to
take a positive stand on a social question, he did not hesitate to make
clear her position and to take what action he believed best suited to
the occasion.

The increasing number of divorces in North Carolina and the growing
laxity of the laws on that subject was a problem which gave the Bishop
much concern. In 1904 he called the matter to the attention of his
diocesan convention and suggested a remedy for the situation. The Bishop
asserted that there had been sufficient talk and theorizing upon the
divorce question and that now was the time for positive action. The
apathy of the public conscience, which had permitted the divorce law to
be greatly modified, was, in his opinion, the cause of the divorce evil.
Bishop Cheshire believed there was only one true reason for divorce:
adultery. For many years it had been the only cause recognized by the
state law, but in recent years frequent changes in the law to meet
individual cases had created an unjustifiable condition. Not one of
these modifications of the law had been adopted upon "any general
principle of morals or of social science."

The Bishop called upon the convention to express its condemnation of the
present legislation on the divorce question, and to issue an address to
the people of the state urging the necessity of reforming the divorce
laws. He also suggested that the convention appoint a committee to
communicate with the other Christian bodies of the state in order to
secure united action on the subject. After serious deliberation, the
convention indorsed the Bishop's position. It authorized him to appoint
a committee, of which he should be chairman, to publish an address to
the people of the state expressing the sentiment of the Episcopal Church
on the divorce question; and to prepare a memorial to the General
Assembly requesting that the divorce laws be restored to the status of
the code of 1883. The convention sent a request to the Diocese of East
Carolina, the Jurisdiction of Asheville, and all the other denominations
of the state to join in this memorial.

Bishop Cheshire lost no time in forwarding to every church conference or
synod, meeting prior to January, 1905, the resolutions of his diocesan
convention. Favorable action was taken on the resolutions by the
Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Methodist Protestant churches. The
Bishop attended the Presbyterian Synod and the Conference of the
Methodist Church, and was cordially received.

When the General Assembly met in 1905, Governor Robert B. Glenn
recommended that the divorce laws be restored to the form as found in
the code of 1883. After a close consideration of the memorial of the
North Carolina churches, the legislature enacted a law which embodied in
substance the request of the memorialists.

Bishop Cheshire once more concerned himself with the divorce problem
when the legislature of 1931 was considering several bills for modifying
the conditions for granting divorces. At the time the bills were under
discussion he was visiting his daughter in Louisiana. In order to place
his views on the subject before the legislature, the Bishop addressed a
letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives. It was published in the _News and Observer_ of February
12.

He again attacked the practice of enacting special laws for
particular persons, and asserted that in some incidents the laws were
unconstitutional. He reviewed the efforts which he and many other
citizens had made about twenty-five years before to restrict the causes
for granting divorce. With public opinion behind them, their efforts had
been successful, but since that time many of the old abuses had
reappeared. The Bishop declared that from his knowledge of public
opinion in North Carolina, sentiment against relaxing the divorce laws
was as strong then as it had been twenty-five years before. In his
letter he confined himself to one principal idea, "the will of the
people of the State against personal influence in behalf of individual
parties," believing that it would produce a greater effect than if he
merely reiterated the usual moral and social arguments.

It cannot be said with certainty how much effect the Bishop's letter had
on the members of the legislature, but coming from a man whose character
and opinions were held in such high regard by North Carolinians, it must
have had some influence upon the outcome. The proposed measures were
defeated by large majorities in the General Assembly.

On one of the most controversial questions of the twentieth century,
national prohibition, Bishop Cheshire held very definite views. He
believed that each state should be allowed to decide the question for
itself, and that a federal prohibition law would breed more evil than
good.

Several years before the passage of the national prohibition law, Bishop
Cheshire attended a meeting in Raleigh which was considering various
aspects of social welfare work. He was present as an invited guest. The
business of the meeting was moving along smoothly, when someone
introduced a resolution to the effect that the meeting should
memorialize Congress with a demand that the manufacture and sale of
alcoholic beverages be made illegal in the United States. The resolution
was received with much enthusiasm. Many speeches were made advocating
its passage and all were applauded. After the enthusiasm had somewhat
subsided and the question was about to be put, Bishop Cheshire asked
permission to say a few words. He stated that he deplored excessive
drinking and its evil consequences, suffered as much if not more by the
innocent as well as the drinker. He sympathized with the purpose of the
resolution to achieve more widespread temperance, but, he reminded them,
good intentions unless intelligently directed often did more harm than
good. Under the American system each state or community had the
authority to outlaw liquor, as had already been done in North Carolina.
So long as the prohibition of liquor was confined to those states whose
public opinion was behind it, he believed it could be enforced. He did
not think, however, that a federal law could be enforced in those states
where public opinion and the state authorities were in opposition. He
maintained that what had already been accomplished in some states in
behalf of temperance would be jeopardized if an attempt was made to
impose prohibition upon those states which were not yet ready for it.

Upon the conclusion of the Bishop's remarks, there was for a few moments
complete silence. It was as if someone had thrown cold water over the
entire meeting. When a member moved that the resolution be laid on the
table, not a voice was raised in opposition to the motion, and the
subject was dropped. The Bishop was never one to allow his intelligence
to be overruled by emotionalism, and in stating his views on national
prohibition he not only displayed his sound judgment but also proved
himself a very good prophet.

Bishop Cheshire exercised a remarkable influence upon the people of his
Diocese. One aspect of the effect of his character upon them is seen in
the ready co-operation and assistance they gave him in his work for the
church. The inspiration they caught from him was not a transient
enthusiasm, but one which carried over from one endeavor to another.
Above all, the Episcopalians of the Diocese loved their Bishop as a
man—a vital, interesting personality who possessed none of the unctuous
pompousness of the commonplace ecclesiastic. Miss Nell Battle Lewis once
aptly characterized the Bishop as "much more than a Churchman, able
Churchman though he is. Foremost, he is a man—a gentleman—of the most
unswerving honesty, conviction, courage, kindness, humor, and
charm."[42]

Throughout almost all of his Episcopate Bishop Cheshire had no
secretary. By choice he attended to his correspondence himself, writing
all of his letters in longhand. Towards the end of his life he employed
a secretary for a short time, but soon found that he preferred to do the
work himself. He kept letter-books in which he entered a record of every
letter he wrote, giving the name of the person written to, the date, and
the place he was writing from. According to his own records, he wrote
during his Episcopate 66,778 letters. The Bishop never liked any help in
doing something which he felt he was able to do for himself.

As a father Bishop Cheshire won the admiration of everyone who knew him.
Each of his three daughters and three sons gave him their wholehearted
love, obedience, and respect throughout his lifetime. He gained and held
their devotion by his kindness, intelligence, and sympathetic
understanding. He was a strict disciplinarian, but always preserved a
tolerant and open-minded attitude towards the desires and weaknesses of
youth. He treated his sons as men and expected them to act the part.

The Bishop gave his children all the advantages he could afford. Two of
his sons were educated at the University of North Carolina, and the
third attended the University of the South. His three daughters all went
to St. Mary's School. When one of his sons was leaving home to enter
college, the Bishop told him that he would not ask him to promise to
refrain from forming bad habits at school, such as drinking and
gambling, nor would he accept such a promise if his son offered it. He
went on to say that he had tried to teach him right from wrong and that
his son well knew what things he could do that would make his father
happy and proud and those which would make him unhappy and ashamed. He
wanted his son to conduct himself as a gentleman, not because of any
promises made, but for the sake of decency. The Bishop asked him to
remember that he would always stand up for him as long as he was in the
right, but he would not defend him for a moment if he were ever guilty
of misconduct. This straightforward, manly counsel made a lasting
impression upon the son. It was typical of the Bishop's uncompromising
and practical way of thinking on moral questions.




CHAPTER VII

_Historian_


From his youth Bishop Cheshire had been fond of history, and as he grew
older, his interest in it developed into a serious avocation. While
practicing law in Tarboro, he saw a good deal of his uncle-in-law,
ex-Governor Henry Clark, who had a decided taste for history. He had an
excellent library to which he made his nephew welcome. Cheshire spent
many happy hours browsing among the old books and manuscripts and
listening to the conversation of his uncle. Governor Clark had a
thorough acquaintance with the early history of North Carolina,
particularly that of his own section. In later years Bishop Cheshire
said of his uncle: "I have often felt that he had a greater influence
than any other person in developing my tastes and inclinations in the
direction of historical inquiry."[43]

For his first serious historical composition Cheshire chose a subject
with which he was intimately acquainted, the history of the church in
Edgecombe County. In a series of articles, under the title, "An
Historical Sketch of the Church in Edgecombe County, North Carolina,"
which appeared in the _Church Messenger_ from August 17 through
September 21, 1880, he traced the history of this parish from the
colonial period through the rectorate of his father. The sketch is
superior to the usual parish history in that it concerned itself with
the growth and development of the church in Edgecombe rather than with
the genealogy of the families in that county.

When Colonel William L. Saunders was in the process of compiling the
_Colonial Records of North Carolina_, he asked Cheshire to make a
collection of documents relating to the colonial Episcopal Church.
Cheshire secured from Bishop Perry of Iowa, Historiographer of the
Episcopal Church, a large body of material, which he had copied under
his personal supervision. Colonel Saunders found the material so
interesting and valuable that he incorporated it in its entirety in the
several volumes of the _Colonial Records_. In appreciation of his
contribution Cheshire was given a full set of this work. In 1893 Judge
Walter Clark, when he began to edit the _State Records of North
Carolina_, wrote Bishop Cheshire: "I beg that you will aid me with your
advice, suggestions and information as to what should be published and
the best means of procuring materials."[44] This statement well
illustrates the high regard in which the Bishop's historical acumen was
generally held.

In 1883, in the course of collecting materials for Colonel Saunders,
Cheshire visited Philadelphia. While there he examined the records of
the Pennsylvania Quakers for information concerning the early Quaker
settlements in North Carolina. From his examination of these records he
found sufficient evidence to disprove the long-held thesis that the
early settlers of North Carolina were religious refugees from New
England and Virginia. His conclusion was that the first settlers of the
Albemarle section came there primarily for economic reasons and not for
religious freedom. He embodied his findings in a pamphlet called "The
First Settlers of North Carolina Not Religious Refugees." After reading
the monograph, Colonel Saunders wrote Cheshire: "You have not only
_proved your proposition_; _You have demonstrated it._"[45] Saunders
adopted the same interpretation in his preface to the first volume of
the _Colonial Records_. Cheshire's original thesis was further expanded
and substantiated by future historians of the state.

In 1882 Cheshire edited and published the documents relating to the four
conventions, held between 1790 and 1794, which had made the abortive
attempt to set up a diocesan organization in North Carolina. The
documents of three of these conventions had never been published before.
They threw much light upon an important phase of the early history of
the Episcopal Church in North Carolina.

The Diocese recognized Cheshire's ability as an historian by electing
him historiographer at the convention of 1884. The convention of 1876
had created this office, and had elected Dr. M. M. Marshall, Rector of
Christ Church, Raleigh, the first historiographer. It had also passed a
resolution requiring each clergyman to compile a history of his parish.
When Cheshire became historiographer eight years later, only a few of
the clergy had complied with the resolution. After examining the
histories which had been written, he found that, with a few exceptions,
they were of no value. Several months after his election, in an article
for the _Church Messenger_, he stressed the importance of preserving
local church history. He announced that he was making a collection of
old documents and pamphlets on church history for the Diocese, and he
requested anyone possessing these materials to send them to him. One of
Cheshire's chief contributions as historiographer was the interest he
aroused among the churchmen in the history of the church and of their
respective parishes.

The publication of the _Colonial Records of North Carolina_ further
stimulated his interest in historical research. He planned and began to
write the "Annals of the Church in the Province of North Carolina." He
worked upon this history whenever he found an opportunity, but after his
election as bishop his duties were so pressing that he had to abandon
the project. He had made considerable progress, however, before laying
it aside. His research was not done in vain, for he was able to use much
of it in one of the papers he presented before the centennial convention
of the dioceses of East Carolina and North Carolina in 1890.

Probably Cheshire's most productive act as historiographer of the
Diocese was to initiate and successfully direct the celebration of the
one-hundredth anniversary of the convention of 1790. This convention,
held in Tarboro, had made the first, although unsuccessful, attempt to
form a diocese in North Carolina. As the centennial of the event drew
near, Cheshire thought that it should be commemorated in some
appropriate manner. Accordingly, at the diocesan convention of 1889 he
introduced a series of resolutions calling for a joint convention of the
dioceses of North Carolina and East Carolina to be held at Tarboro the
following year. The resolutions were adopted and a committee on
arrangements appointed, with Dr. Jarvis Buxton as chairman. Commenting
on the proceedings, Cheshire frankly remarked: "I took care, however, to
get myself elected Secretary of the Committee; and the Committee
cheerfully allowed me to do all the work."[46]

The Committee on Arrangements decided that the most fitting and
profitable manner of celebrating the occasion would be to present a
series of papers on the history of the Episcopal Church in North
Carolina. Cheshire organized the program, selecting the writers and the
subjects of the papers.

The joint convention met in Tarboro May 16-18, 1890, and was well
attended by churchmen from both dioceses. The papers covered the history
of the church in the colony, its decay following the Revolution, and its
revival after 1817. Cheshire read a paper on "The Church in the Province
of North Carolina." At the close of the proceedings, the convention
resolved that the addresses should be published in book form under
Cheshire's editorial direction. Upon the motion of the Rev. Robert
Strange, it was also resolved: "That the thanks of the joint Convention
of North and East Carolina be extended to the Rev. J. B. Cheshire, Jr.,
for conceiving and carrying to so successful an issue the reunion which
has been so delightful and edifying to us all."

Since there was not sufficient time, all of the addresses prepared for
the joint convention were not delivered. In addition to the paper
Cheshire read, he also wrote two others—"Decay and Revival, 1800-1830"
and "White Haven Church and the Rev. Robert Johnston Miller." These
papers, as well as all the others written for the centennial
celebration, were published in a volume entitled _Sketches of Church
History in North Carolina_. Besides the three papers and his editorial
work, Cheshire wrote the introduction to this book. The volume is a
distinct contribution to the history of the Episcopal Church in North
Carolina. Prior to this time little of any value had been written on the
subject. Cheshire's articles are probably more scholarly than any of the
others, and they definitely reveal more research in original sources.

In recognition of Cheshire's achievements as a clergyman and his
contributions as a historian, the University of North Carolina at its
commencement of 1890 conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of
Divinity. Four years later the University of the South bestowed upon him
the same honor, and in 1916 his alma mater, Trinity College, Hartford,
Connecticut, also gave him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He was not
one to seek honors, but when they were conferred upon him he appreciated
them, particularly the thought which motivated the bestowal. Bishop
Cheshire became an honorary member of the North Carolina Society of the
Cincinnati in 1897 and a few years later an hereditary member. He served
for a time as chaplain of the North Carolina Society and later of the
national organization.

Although his diocesan work occupied most of his time, the Bishop found
the opportunity now and again throughout his episcopate to write
articles for ecclesiastical and historical publications. The subject
matter of most of his writings was drawn chiefly from North Carolina
history. One of his most interesting departures from this practice was
the editing of George Herbert's _A Priest to the Temple or, the Country
Parson, His Character and Rule of Holy Life_. This work, first published
in 1652, had attracted his attention when he was a young lawyer in
Baltimore. He was greatly impressed at the time with its earnestness and
its spiritual character. When in 1905 Professor Palmer, of Harvard
University, edited the complete works of Herbert, the _Country Parson_
was again brought to the Bishop's attention. He decided to bring out a
special edition of the _Country Parson_ in order to make it available to
all of the clergy. The work appeared in 1908 and was dedicated to his
father, whose sixty years in the ministry splendidly illustrated
Herbert's ideal of a country parson. In his introduction to the book
Bishop Cheshire commented: "It is not too much to say of it that for
beauty and truth to nature, for its combination of the ideal and the
practical, for its presentation of an almost heavenly perfection in
terms of human experience, it has not its equal in the religious
literature of our language." Whenever sending out a young clergyman as a
country parson, he always tried to supply him with a copy of this work,
believing that it would be of great value to him and his parishioners.

At the request of the editor of the _Carolina Churchman_ Bishop Cheshire
wrote, in 1910-1911, a sketch of the life of each of his predecessors,
Bishops Ravenscroft, Ives, Atkinson, and Lyman. He did not make the
sketches serious biographical studies, but tried to present intimate
pictures of the four bishops, including a few amusing anecdotes. The
sketch of Bishop Ravenscroft is probably the best and the most
interesting.

In the course of 1910 and 1911, at the invitation of the Episcopal
seminaries at Sewanee, Alexandria, New York, Philadelphia, Cambridge,
and Middletown, Bishop Cheshire delivered a series of lectures on the
history of the Episcopal Church in the Confederate States. The lectures
were well received, and upon their conclusion the Bishop was urged to
put them in permanent form. Realizing that the interest in the subject
was fairly widespread, he decided to arrange the lectures for
publication. In 1912 Longmans, Green, and Company published them under
the title, _The Church in the Confederate States_.

In this work the Bishop describes the organization of the Episcopal
Church in the Confederacy, the church's work among the soldiers, its
attitude towards the Negroes, its trials and burdens, its publications,
and, finally, the reunion of the northern and southern branches of the
church. Following the last chapter he included a brief study of the life
of Thomas Atkinson, Bishop of North Carolina, 1853-1881, who had been
one of the most important exponents of the reunion of the church in
1865.

In general, the critics praised the Bishop's work as a significant
contribution. Of it the _Outlook_ remarked: "His account of the attitude
of the Church in its political relations throughout those sad and trying
times is free from any tinge of bitterness. Its narrative of the work of
bishops and councils, and of the ministries of the church to the
soldiers and to the slaves, deserves to be widely read for the
little-known facts it records." _The Churchman_, of New York, declared:
"The temper of Bishop Cheshire's narrative is admirable, his account of
perplexing constitutional questions that arose from the relations of the
Church to the Confederacy and to the Union is clear, his analysis of the
issues is penetrating and acute, his conclusions will be generally
accepted." The church periodicals, North and South, were unanimous in
their praise of the Bishop's work. They felt he had done the American
Episcopal Church a great service in preserving this phase of her
history. _The Church Times_, of London, thought that while the book was
interesting and informative, it was not fair to the northern church.
Many of the reviewers considered the last chapter of the work, which
discussed the reunion of the church in 1865, the most interesting and
significant. The Bishop was able to write of this particular subject
with intimacy, since his father had taken an active part in the reunion.

_The Church in the Confederate States_ is Bishop Cheshire's most
important historical contribution. In it his style is direct, simple,
and restrained. It describes and interprets a phase of Civil War history
which had never before been adequately treated, and since its
publication no work on the subject has superseded it. For his
information Bishop Cheshire relied almost entirely upon original
sources. Some of the more personal incidents, however, were gained from
actual participants in that stormy period.

On one of his visitations to Milnor Jones' missions in Watauga County,
Bishop Cheshire told Jones that if he should outlive him he would see
that some recognition was made of Jones' work. Many years later the
Bishop fulfilled his promise by writing the volume, _Milnor Jones,
Deacon and Missionary_. The greater part of this biography is devoted to
the years 1894-1897, which Jones spent in the mountains of North
Carolina. It is an interesting picture of that most unique character,
and a good description of both the difficult and sometimes amusing sides
of missionary work in the mountains. Although the Bishop liked and
admired Jones, he did not fail to bring out his faults as well as his
many virtues.

Bishop Cheshire's last important literary work[47] was his reminiscences
of personalities and incidents in North Carolina history. He gave these
memories the title _Nonnulla_, meaning "Not Nothings." The Bishop began
this book on his seventy-fifth birthday, and completed it five years
later. He included in it stories and anecdotes about people and places
not customarily found in the serious histories, but which are not
entirely without significance "as illustrating, in an informal and
familiar way, the life of our State and our people." _Nonnulla_ is
replete with human interest to North Carolinians, and contributes much
to their understanding of some of the characters who helped to build
their state.

In recognition of Bishop Cheshire's contributions to North Carolina
history, the State Literary and Historical Association elected him its
president for 1931. In his presidential address the Bishop discussed the
religious provisions of the Fundamental Constitutions prepared by John
Locke for the Lords Proprietors of Carolina. Although Locke's document
was never put into effect, its provisions for religious freedom, in the
Bishop's opinion, "perhaps found lodgment in the life of the people and
attained a better development in their subsequent history."[48] While
the Church of England was made the established church of the colony,
liberty of conscience was permitted to all except atheists. Elaborating
upon the theme of religious freedom, he demonstrated that the colonial
government did not practice religious intolerance even though laws were
enacted for the support of an established church.

With his presidential address to the State Literary and Historical
Association, Bishop Cheshire concluded his work as an historian. It was
a fitting close to this phase of his life. Although history had been to
him a pleasant avocation, no professional historian ever took his work
more seriously or had a higher ideal of historical accuracy. In the
words of Dr. A. R. Newsome, of the University of North Carolina, "Native
ability, industry and self-discipline enabled him to achieve a degree of
historical scholarship seldom encountered among laymen." The Episcopal
Church in North Carolina owes him a debt of lasting gratitude for his
pioneer work in its history.




CHAPTER VIII

_Work Among the Colored People_


Bishop Cheshire's active interest in the church's work among the Negroes
began when he was rector of St. Peter's Church, Charlotte. His
organization of the colored mission of St. Michael and All Angels and
the part he took in helping to establish the Good Samaritan Hospital
have already been related. When he became bishop he continued and
greatly enlarged his activities in behalf of the Negro work.

In the early part of his episcopate the Bishop made an address to the
Conference of Church Workers Among Colored People, in which he expressed
some interesting ideas on the colored work. He first pointed out that
the reconstruction acts had failed to accomplish for the Negro many of
their designed objectives. Although those acts were for the most part of
a purely political character, he realized many sincere people in the
North had advocated them in the belief that they would help the Negro.
In his opinion, the legislation of the reconstruction period had not
accomplished for the colored people what its sincerest advocates had
confidently expected. If the Negroes are to play a significant role in
the future of this country, the Bishop declared, "it will be only
because they shall have become fitted for that part. No theories of
predominant political equality will avail for preserving privileges
which are not exercised for the benefit of the community...." He
believed that the disabilities of the Negro could not be removed, nor
the disadvantages under which he worked conquered, by legislation
against particular evils, "but simply by changing the actual conditions
of the race itself." Those who are interested in the welfare of the
Negro must work for the elevation of his ideals of living, of working,
and of self-restraint. The Bishop emphasized the importance of
developing a spirit of self-reliance and self-help among the colored
clergy and laity, believing this to be the best means by which they
could strengthen their economic and social position.

The colored churchmen of the Diocese soon learned that in Bishop
Cheshire they had a staunch friend and one from whom they could count
upon receiving a fair and sympathetic hearing. He reciprocated this
confidence with a like faith in them. It was a regular practice of the
Bishop to attend only the first day's session of the annual meetings of
the white and colored convocations. He did this in order to give the
clergy an opportunity of "speaking their mind freely." He always
remembered an observation of George Eliot that "the first thing the
clergy do, when they get together in convocation, is to abuse the
Bishop." In this connection Bishop Cheshire once remarked: "I do not
know what the white clergy may do, but I do not believe my black clergy
will have anything to say against me even in my absence."[49]

At the opening of the twentieth century one of the most important
questions facing the Episcopal Church in the South was the separation of
the Negro work in each diocese from that of the white. Bishop Cheshire
was strongly opposed to any separation of the church's work founded
solely on the racial feeling. He disliked to see the unity of the
Diocese disrupted, and believed the ideal situation was "a church and a
diocese which in its annual gatherings should represent visibly the
oneness of all races and colors in Christ."[50] He realized, however,
that he could not be guided entirely by his personal feelings on a
question of such importance. A large body of the Negro clergy and many
white churchmen throughout the South felt that the welfare of the church
demanded some sort of separate organization for the colored work.

When he met his diocesan convention in the spring of 1907, Bishop
Cheshire announced his position on this question. Since the colored
people seemed to desire an organization of their own, he believed the
time had come for the church to take some definite action. He asked the
convention to make known its views on the question of separation, since
it would come up for discussion in the General Convention that fall. The
Bishop stated that two plans of organization for the Negroes were being
considered. One provided for the consecration of suffragan bishops who
should have charge of the colored clergy and laity and should be under
the diocesan bishop. The other called for the consecration of missionary
bishops who should have charge of the colored work in contiguous
dioceses and who should be responsible to the General Convention. The
Bishop declared that he was heartily in favor of the latter plan,
believing that it met the needs of existing conditions much more justly
and adequately than the former. Moreover, the colored people themselves
seemed to favor the plan of using missionary bishops. If they were used
they would be under the direct control of the General Convention and
would be given more independence than suffragan bishops, who would be
under the administrative jurisdiction of the white diocesan bishop.
Bishop Cheshire felt that if the colored work was to be made independent
of the white, the Negro bishops should be given some administrative as
well as spiritual responsibilities.

When the convention took up the question of the colored work, it
referred the whole matter to a special committee. After careful study,
the committee recommended that the Negroes be given a separate
organization, that the plan of missionary bishops be adopted, and that
the deputies from the Diocese should present these recommendations to
the General Convention. The committee's report was adopted.

At the General Convention, which met in the fall of 1907, the Conference
of Church Workers among Colored People presented a memorial in which it
advocated a separate organization for the Negroes and the election of
suffragan bishops. A joint committee of the House of Bishops and the
House of Deputies, of which Bishop Cheshire was made a member, was
appointed to consider the memorial. This committee recommended the
adoption of the principal features of the memorial. Bishop Cheshire and
one other member of the committee presented a minority report in which
they urged the use of missionary bishops. Their report was defeated in
the House of Bishops by a vote of fifty to thirty-four, while that of
the majority was carried, forty-five to thirty-three. After the defeat
of his proposal, Bishop Cheshire voted for the majority's report,
believing it preferable to no action on the subject.

The question of the racial episcopate was, however, far from being
settled. During the next three meetings of the General Convention Bishop
Cheshire and a few others continued to work for the adoption of the plan
of missionary bishops. In 1913 they succeeded in getting the plan
approved by the House of Bishops, but it was defeated by the House of
Deputies. The southern bishops and clergy were the most undecided as to
what plan they wanted to put into effect. Up to 1918 the Diocese of
North Carolina had taken no action towards electing a suffragan bishop
for the colored work. In 1917 Bishop Cheshire advised his diocesan
convention to consider the question. The next year the convention voted
to proceed to the election of a suffragan bishop.

Before nominations for the office were called for, Bishop Cheshire
gathered together the colored clergy and laity of the convention for an
informal discussion. He told them that, in his opinion, Rev. Henry B.
Delany, who was then archdeacon of the colored convocation, was the best
man for the office. Rev. M. A. Barber strongly represented the
qualifications of the Rev. Mr. Baskerville, who had been recommended by
Bishop Guerry, of South Carolina. Mr. Delany then withdrew from the
conference, and Bishop Cheshire asked the colored clergy to express
themselves frankly on their preference. Every one of them expressed the
opinion that, while they thought Baskerville was an excellent man, they
did not think he could compare with Delany in qualifications for the
office of bishop. Of this unanimity of opinion, Bishop Cheshire
remarked: "It was something of a surprise to me—for I really did not
know how strong their feelings were."

When the convention proceeded to the election of a suffragan bishop,
Delany was the only man nominated. He received every vote of the clergy
and laity. When he was presented to the convention and asked to say a
few words, he simply remarked: "I cannot speak. I cannot utter what I
feel. I thank you." Bishop Cheshire characterized his laconic expression
as "about the best speech he could possibly have made."[51]

Archdeacon Delany was highly esteemed by both white and colored
churchmen, and his election met with general satisfaction throughout the
Diocese. Bishop Guerry wrote Bishop Cheshire that he thought Delany was
"the logical man and I believe you have made a wise choice.... I envy
you the privilege of having been the first Diocese in the Carolinas to
take the lead in so far reaching a policy."

It will be remembered that while rector of St. Peter's, Bishop Cheshire
had established in Charlotte a mission for Negroes, St. Michael and All
Angels. Shortly after it was well started, Rev. Primus P. Alston, a
colored priest, was placed in charge of the mission. Alston was an
energetic and progressive man. He soon began a manual-training school
for Negro boys and girls, which he called St. Michael's Industrial
School. In time he erected buildings at a cost of about eight thousand
dollars, raising almost all of the money by himself. After some twenty
years of splendid work as head of this school, Rev. Mr. Alston died in
1910. Bishop Cheshire at once decided that something must be done to
preserve the valuable work which Alston had carried on so successfully.
Realizing the high regard which the people of Charlotte had for the man
and his work, the Bishop determined to lay the question of the future of
St. Michael's School before a body of representative citizens of
Charlotte in the hope of making it a civic enterprise, irrespective of
denominational interests but still under the official administration of
the diocesan bishop. Acting upon this decision, the Bishop called
together in Charlotte a group of progressive men representing different
denominations. He pointed out that the school was the property of the
Diocese of North Carolina, that it had for more than twenty years done a
great work for the community, and that no religious test was made an
entrance requirement, although religious training was a part of the
school's work. The Bishop then asked the group if it would act with him
as a board of managers for the direction and maintenance of the school.
The men displayed a sympathetic interest, and promised to co-operate
with him in any plan for making permanent the work of the institution.
The Bishop thereupon organized the Board of Managers of St. Michael's
Industrial School, under whose control it continued to operate.

When Bishop Cheshire met his diocesan convention in 1912, he reported
what he had done and asked for its endorsement of his action and its
assent to the new plan for operating the school. The convention
confirmed the Bishop's work and consented to his plan for continuing St.
Michael's School. Thus, by his promptness and resourcefulness, he
preserved for the church and the community of Charlotte a valuable
institution.

Bishop Cheshire's work among the Negroes of his Diocese received
recognition from the national church when, in 1911, he was elected
chairman of the Advisory Council of the American Church Institute for
Negroes. The Institute had been organized in 1906 for the purpose of
aiding the larger Episcopal schools for Negroes, such as St.
Augustine's, the Bishop Payne Divinity School, and others. From this
time forward he received a number of invitations to speak in the
dioceses of the North on various phases of the church's work among the
Negroes of the South. One of his most interesting addresses on this
subject was made before the Woman's Auxiliary of the Diocese of Long
Island at its annual meeting in 1915.

In this address the Bishop declared that the fact the Negro was
increasing in population meant to him that "God is not done with him. He
has something for him to do." The Negro had not only survived his
contact with a higher civilization, but had made in it a place for
himself. "Protected and trained by his two and a half centuries of
American slavery, the greatest blessing which up to this time he has
ever known," the Negro had lived through emancipation and the
"incalculable injustice of his premature enfranchisement." He was
turning from false political and social aspirations and attempting to
lay sound foundations for his moral and material development. Referring
to the religion of the Negro, Bishop Cheshire observed that he found it
very little different from that of the white man. He spoke of the
Negro's gift of religious emotion, which might be dangerous, "yet it is
a gift; and it is needed to give power and life to faith." The Bishop
declared that the church set up a standard for the Negro to live by, it
acknowledged him as a brother, and it gave him a definite place in its
organization.

In answer to the question of what the Woman's Auxiliary could do for the
Negro, Bishop Cheshire replied it should try to teach the colored
churches to support themselves and to be willing and able to aid others.
As for a particular work the organization could undertake, he emphasized
the importance of hospital care. This was a vital need and one which the
Negro by himself could not supply.[52]

The address was well received, although a few of the ideas contained in
it were doubtless a little disturbing to some of the listeners. The
Bishop was fearless in expressing his convictions, and was ever ready to
defend them when necessary.

St. Augustine's School for Negroes was founded in 1867 by North Carolina
churchmen. It was built and maintained, however, by northern churchmen
and agencies. While the school was not a diocesan institution, Bishop
Cheshire throughout his episcopate gave it his full co-operation and
support. He had a personal interest in the school, for his father had
been one of the original incorporators. As ex-officio president of the
Board of Trustees he kept in close contact with the development of St.
Augustine's. Realizing that his state benefited most from the school,
Bishop Cheshire time and time again urged his people to give it every
encouragement and assistance within their means.

In appreciation of his services to St. Augustine's, the authorities of
the school resolved to name a proposed new building for Bishop Cheshire.
Of this decision, the presiding bishop, John Gardner Murray, remarked:
"I can conceive of nothing more splendid that the Church or community
could do than to erect at St. Augustine's a building in honor of Bishop
Cheshire. The work itself is most deserving in every way, and the Bishop
whose name you propose to have associated with it, is one of the
greatest Bishops in our Church in his every relationship thereto."[53]

The dedication of the Cheshire Building at St. Augustine's College took
place on Bishop Cheshire's eightieth birthday, March 27, 1930. In the
course of the ceremony the Bishop delivered an address in which he
traced the history of St. Augustine's from its establishment as a simple
normal school to its present collegiate status. He touched upon the
development of Negro education in the South since 1865, and emphasized
the importance of this fact in the growth of a better relationship
between the races. St. Augustine's, said the Bishop, in a larger sense
represents the church's attitude towards the Negro problem in America
and what it has done to solve that problem.

Dr. A. B. Hunter, principal of the school for twenty-five years, made a
short talk in which he spoke of the Bishop's loyal support of St.
Augustine's. He ascribed much of the institution's success to the
"unfailing sympathy and material assistance of the Bishop." Towards the
end of the ceremony a portrait of Bishop Cheshire, hanging in the hall
of the new building, was unveiled.

Coming as it did towards the end of his life, this expression of
appreciation from the colored people was a fitting close to the Bishop's
work among the Negroes. He understood and respected his colored people,
and in return they loved him and gave him their loyalty and confidence.




CHAPTER IX

_Development and Conclusion of the Bishop's Work_


In the first decade of his episcopate Bishop Cheshire laid the
foundation for almost all of his future work. The remainder of his life
was devoted to expansion and improvement. This program demanded all of
his thought and energy and, as it progressed, became almost more than
one man could administer. The Bishop never complained of being
overworked, but when he realized he was no longer physically able to
meet the demands of his office, he did not hesitate to ask for
assistance.

A pleasant and interesting interlude in the routine of the Bishop's busy
life was a trip to England in the summer of 1908. The object of the trip
was to attend the Pan-Anglican Congress and the Lambeth Conference. The
Bishop and Mrs. Cheshire sailed from New York and landed at Liverpool on
May 28. Since the Pan-Anglican Congress was not to open for about two
weeks, they spent the intervening time sightseeing and visiting friends.
Among the many interesting places they visited was the old Abbey of
Valle Crucis in Wales for which Bishop Ives had named his mission school
in the mountains of North Carolina. The Bishop observed that here,
however, there was no natural cruciform arrangement of valleys and
streams which so distinguished his Valle Crucis mission.

The Pan-Anglican Congress was opened on June 15 by an impressive service
held in Westminster Abbey. The Congress was composed of bishops,
clergymen, laymen, and laywomen representing the Anglican communion from
all parts of the world. There were six thousand delegates present, but
they were divided into a number of sections for the discussion of every
phase of church work. Bishop Cheshire attended the sessions of one of
these sections every day, but he did not have time to enter in his
journal much about the proceedings. On one occasion, when the topic for
discussion was the church's work among the Negroes of North America, he
was one of the speakers. He later remarked that he had scarcely warmed
to his subject before his allotted time was gone.

On another occasion the Bishop was invited to a breakfast given by the
Church Temperance Society. At the breakfast he was seated next to the
Bishop of London, who was to preside over a meeting of the Society
following the meal. In the course of conversation Bishop Cheshire
remarked to the Bishop of London that "in America at least as far as
concerned my part of it, drinking was unknown among women." The English
prelate seemed to be greatly impressed by this statement. After the
breakfast there were several scheduled speakers who talked on the
problem of intemperance. They all agreed that the use of intoxicants in
England as a whole had improved, but that the discouraging feature of
the situation was the increased use of them by women. The Bishop of
London announced that the meeting would like to hear from the United
States, and he would, therefore, call upon Bishop Cheshire for a few
words. As he rose to speak, the Bishop of London said to him, "Tell them
what you have been telling me." After commenting on the work of the
Church Temperance Society, he complied with the request and added: "I
believe it to be true of all parts of the United States that among the
descendants of the original English, Scotch, and Scotch-Irish settlers
of America, intemperance or the use of intoxicating drinks among the
women is unknown, or so extremely rare as to amount to nothing in
looking at the situation in its general aspect."[54] His audience
displayed a keen interest in his views.

The Pan-Anglican Congress closed on June 24 with a service in St. Paul's
Cathedral. Bishop Cheshire thought that the Congress was "the most
remarkable religious gathering of recent times." He was particularly
impressed by the deep interest the British public and press took in the
proceedings of the Congress. The capacity of the great Albert Hall was
taxed to hold the average daily attendance of twelve thousand persons.

The Lambeth Conference, which opened on July 5, did not attract as much
attention as usual, since it followed so closely upon the Pan-Anglican
Congress. Its work, however, was none the less significant in the life
of the church. Bishop Cheshire considered its proceedings more
interesting than those of 1897. He noted that the younger bishops took a
more active part than they had in the previous Conference. He served as
a member of the Committee on Foreign Missions.

Bishop Cheshire returned to England in the summer of 1920 to attend his
third and final Lambeth Conference. He was then seventy years old but in
good health and still capable of doing a full day's work. He regularly
attended the sessions of the Conference, and manifested as much interest
as ever in its work.

The Bishop was made a member of the Committee on Christianity and
International Relations, which was to deal in particular with the League
of Nations. He found the work of the committee very interesting, but
later remarked that the American bishops on the committee found
themselves in an embarrassing position, since the League of Nations had
been made a political issue in the presidential campaign of that
year.[55] Bishop Cheshire felt that this Lambeth Conference surpassed
the two previous ones in the importance of the work accomplished and in
the probable results. The Conference took much "wider and freer views"
of the questions discussed. The Bishop observed that some of the
speeches which were received with decided approval were strongly opposed
to all that had been the traditional policy of the church.

Upon the close of the Conference Bishop and Mrs. Cheshire, accompanied
by their friends, Dr. and Mrs. A. B. Hunter, spent a few weeks traveling
on the Continent. The Bishop particularly enjoyed his visit to
Switzerland, whose mountain scenery greatly impressed him. He always
thought, however, that his North Carolina mountains were more beautiful
and appealing than the more spectacular Alps. On one Sunday which the
Cheshires and Hunters spent at Gletsch, Switzerland, the Bishop took his
little party out into the country. In the presence of the great Rhône
glacier with his "congregation" sitting on rocks about him, he read the
Morning Prayer, omitting not one part of it.

In addition to his three visits to Europe, Bishop Cheshire made one
other trip beyond the borders of the United States. In 1910 the
Archbishop of the West Indies invited a number of American bishops to
Jamaica to assist in the consecration of the churches which had been
rebuilt on the island after the disastrous earthquake of 1907. Bishop
Cheshire accepted the invitation and, as it turned out, was the sole
representative of the American Episcopal Church. The consecration
ceremonies took place in January, 1911. During his stay of about two
weeks the Bishop participated in the consecration of five or six
churches. Describing the ecclesiastical procession at one of the
ceremonies, the _Daily News_ of Kingston, Jamaica, commented: "There was
then the stern Prelate of North Carolina just south of Mason and Dixon's
line; Prelate of a vast domain many, many times the size of this island,
and with a problem something like ours." This exaggerated description
amused the Bishop a great deal. He enjoyed his visit, particularly
riding about the island observing the customs and manners of the
natives. He always took a keen pleasure in learning about new places and
their people.

Turning now to diocesan affairs, we find Bishop Cheshire preparing to
begin a long campaign to free St. Mary's School from its burdensome debt
and to raise an adequate endowment for the institution. When he
addressed the convention of 1912 he reminded the members that on October
15, 1913, he would complete twenty years as bishop of the Diocese of
North Carolina. In his opinion, the most important work accomplished in
this period was the establishment of St. Mary's as a diocesan school.
The Bishop declared that he would like to celebrate his twentieth
anniversary by paying off the debt on St. Mary's and by raising one
hundred thousand dollars towards a permanent endowment. He wished,
therefore, to devote much of his time for the next eighteen months to
this end, and asked for the convention's support. The convention
indorsed his suggestion and promised its co-operation.

At the convention of 1913 a special committee on an endowment for St.
Mary's was appointed to work with the Bishop. Notwithstanding the
efforts of Bishop Cheshire and the committee, very little money was
raised by the anniversary of his consecration. Thus, the matter stood
until 1916, when Bishop Cheshire proposed an exceedingly ambitious
program. The plan called for raising fifty thousand dollars to retire
the school's funded debt and to meet certain necessary expenses, one
hundred thousand dollars as an endowment, and another hundred thousand
for additions and improvements. It was further suggested that the
dioceses of East Carolina, South Carolina, and the Jurisdiction of
Asheville should be asked to co-operate in this endeavor. The convention
adopted the plan, and the quota for Bishop Cheshire's Diocese was set at
seventy-five thousand dollars.

The Bishop was untiring in his efforts to interest his people in the
needs and promising future of St. Mary's. The program for raising the
endowment was progressing well when the war disrupted its work, but the
campaign was by no means abandoned. By the end of 1921 more than one
hundred and forty-six thousand dollars had been pledged. Two years later
the Bishop reported that St. Mary's School was free of all debt. The
generous gifts to the school by Mr. Lawrence Holt and Mr. William A.
Erwin, which followed shortly afterwards, gave the Bishop much pleasure
and made him feel that the work which he considered the most important
of his episcopate was now permanently established.

When America entered the World War in 1917, Bishop Cheshire felt that
President Wilson was fully justified in asking Congress for a
declaration of war. Of the conflict he observed that, while America as a
nation had committed errors and evils in the past, he believed that as
far as the present war was concerned, "we know that we have no selfish
purpose or desires." The Bishop was upholding a cause which was brought
close home to him, for he had two sons who volunteered and later saw
service in France. He had very definite ideas on duty to one's country,
and little patience with those pacifists who held that a Christian could
not go to war. In his opinion, such an argument was no more valid than
it would be to say that one should not protect one's home and family
against thieves and murderers. "We owe everything that we are—" declared
the Bishop, "all that we have to our Country. We owe her ourselves."[56]
In the course of the war he gave voice to these views in many of his
sermons.

When the Bishop heard that a camp for training soldiers was to be
established in Charlotte, he called together the Episcopal clergy of
that city for a discussion of the problem of caring for the needs of
thirty or forty thousand soldiers who were expected there. They devised
plans for keeping open the parish houses of the several churches for the
use of the soldiers, and the best means of caring for their religious
life. The Bishop addressed a letter to the people of the Diocese asking
them to give every possible assistance to their friends in Charlotte in
this great responsibility.

       *       *       *       *       *

As Bishop Cheshire was about to complete a quarter of a century as head
of the Diocese of North Carolina, it was planned to celebrate the
occasion with a special service in Calvary Church, Tarboro, on October
15, 1918. But when the time came for the celebration, it had to be
postponed because of the influenza epidemic. It was finally held in
Raleigh at the closing session of the convention of 1919. The Bishop
delivered an address in which he traced the history of the Diocese
during his episcopate. The convention then by a unanimous rising vote
adopted the following resolution introduced by Dr. R. D. W. Connor:

  "That gratefully acknowledging our obligations to Almighty God for the
  many evidences of His Divine guidance in the affairs of His Church
  throughout this period of its history, we are especially grateful to
  Him for the love and care with which He has preserved the physical
  strength, the mental vigor and power, and the spiritual grace and
  consecration of our beloved Bishop. Resolved further, that this
  Diocese is greatly indebted to Bishop Cheshire for the sympathetic
  spirit, the unflagging zeal and never-failing wisdom and the
  statesmanlike vision with which, under God, he has directed its
  affairs, shaped its policies, and guided its growth and development;
  that we hope and pray he may long be spared to lead us in full
  strength and vigor of body, mind, and spirit; and that we take this
  opportunity of pledging to him our unswerving loyalty and undivided
  support in the prosecution of his labors for the spread of the Kingdom
  of God on earth."[57]

Dr. A. Burtis Hunter, for the clergy, and Governor Thomas Bickett, for
the laity, brought to the Bishop messages of loyalty and affection. Mr.
William A. Erwin presented the Bishop with a purse of gold from the
people of the Diocese as a token of their love and esteem. Bishop
Cheshire was deeply moved by these expressions from his clergy and
laity. It would be difficult to find in any diocese a more sympathetic
relationship between bishop and people.

As Bishop Cheshire advanced in years, changes were taking place in the
church as in almost every other institution. Some of these he advocated,
while others he accepted with regret. When the diocesan convention of
1919 met, a plan was introduced placing the administration of the
affairs of the Diocese in the hands of the bishop and an executive
council. Of the proposed plan Bishop Cheshire said that he thought it
had "some advantages," but he earnestly hoped that the administration of
the diocesan missions by the archdeacons would not in any way be
changed. The archdeacons were a great assistance to the bishop in
carrying on missionary work, and were invaluable in overseeing vacant
parishes and missions. He referred to them as "the eyes of the Bishop in
all matters of practical work," and stated that he wished to take this
occasion to express his appreciation for the relief they had afforded
him. In his opinion, whatever shortcomings could be ascribed to the
present system of convocations under archdeacons were largely due to the
lack of co-operation by the laity.

After considering several proposals, the convention adopted a plan of
diocesan organization which provided for an executive committee to be
elected by the convention. It was to be composed of the bishop as
ex-officio chairman, three clergymen, three laymen, and three laywomen.
The executive committee was to act as a co-ordinating and co-operating
agent in diocesan work. The convention also provided the bishop with a
secretary who should likewise serve as secretary of the executive
committee. The functions of the archdeacons were not at this time
altered. Several years later, however, the personnel of the executive
committee and the scope of its influence were enlarged. Also, a field
secretary, who was to oversee missionary work, was employed. These
innovations made the old system of convocations and archdeacons
unnecessary, and it was accordingly abolished.

The Bishop observed with regret the abolition of the office of
archdeacon but acquiesced in it, since the majority of the clergy and
laity preferred the new system of administration. In his annual address
of 1929 he paid a final tribute to his archdeacons. He asserted that the
missionary work had never been so well looked after as under their
supervision, and that he would not have been able to advance this phase
of his work without their invaluable assistance.

When Bishop Cheshire was entering upon his seventieth year, he felt
little impairment of his physical strength and had no desire to diminish
his episcopal duties. He realized, however, that others might feel he
was growing too old to carry on the work alone. Placing the affairs of
the church above any personal considerations, he asked the convention of
1919 whether he should continue to administer the Diocese without
assistance or adopt some other course. The Bishop then retired, and the
convention sitting as a committee of the whole considered its reply. Dr.
Richard H. Lewis introduced a resolution which was unanimously adopted.
It declared that the affairs of the Diocese had in no way been
neglected; that there was no evidence of failure of the Bishop's
physical or mental faculties; and that the convention was confident that
he would ask for assistance when he felt it was necessary. The
confidence his people placed in him, as expressed in this resolution,
gave Bishop Cheshire much pleasure and encouragement.

In the spring of 1922 the Bishop informed the Standing Committee of the
Diocese that he had been urged by several physicians and laymen to
curtail his work and to request the convention for assistance. The
Standing Committee promptly advised him to propose the election of a
bishop coadjutor. Accordingly, on April 21, he addressed a letter to the
clergy in which he announced his intention to ask the approaching
diocesan convention to consider the question of electing a bishop
coadjutor. The Bishop felt the clergy and laity should be informed of
his purpose in order that they might give this important subject
thoughtful consideration before the meeting of the convention.

On May 16, at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Raleigh, the convention
met and immediately took up the question of giving the Bishop assistance
in his work. After consideration it resolved that a bishop coadjutor
should be elected. Bishop Cheshire then gave his consent to the
election, and assigned to whoever should hold the new office the
episcopal oversight of the Convocation of Charlotte and the personal
supervision of all postulants and candidates for Holy Orders of the
Diocese.

The nominations for bishop coadjutor took place on the evening of the
second day. After six ballots were taken, the Rev. Edwin Anderson
Penick, Rector of St. Peter's Church, Charlotte, was elected. He
received thirty-two clerical votes and twenty-four from the laity. The
choice of the convention met with general satisfaction throughout the
Diocese. Concerning the election, Bishop Cheshire declared: "We believe
that the Spirit of God effectuates with His presence, His guidance, His
blessing, the solemn functions of the Body of Christ. And never, I make
bold to say, did we feel more sure of the Divine presence, guidance and
blessing, than in the solemn hour of the choosing of our Bishop
Coadjutor. Among the many happy and helpful experiences of my
Episcopate, and of my life, I remember that as one of the best."[58]

On October 15, 1922, the twenty-ninth anniversary of Bishop Cheshire's
consecration, Rev. Edwin A. Penick, D.D., was consecrated bishop
coadjutor in St. Peter's Church, Charlotte. He entered upon the duties
of his office almost immediately thereafter. From that time until the
death of Bishop Cheshire the two men worked together in perfect harmony.
Although they did not always agree on diocesan policy, they never
allowed a difference of opinion to mar their affectionate relationship.

Bishop Cheshire gradually placed more responsibility on Bishop Penick as
he became better acquainted with the work of the Diocese. A
characteristic act of Bishop Cheshire's, and one which claimed the
admiration of his people, was the turning over of the work at Chapel
Hill to Bishop Penick's supervision. The Chapel of the Cross at Chapel
Hill had been the Bishop's first parish and he had always retained for
it a deep affection. Therefore, it was a personal sacrifice for him to
relinquish it to another. He felt that, due to the peculiar nature of
the work at Chapel Hill, it should be under the guidance of a younger
man.

As Bishop Cheshire grew older he began to plan how best he could provide
for his wife and daughter when they would no longer be able to live at
Ravenscroft, the Bishop's house. He decided to build a small apartment
house in Raleigh, which would produce an income as well as provide a
home for them. When the house was completed he advertised the apartments
for rent only to families with children. He thought the frequent
practice of denying apartments to persons with children was most unfair
and, therefore, determined to make his house an exception. This was
typical of the Bishop, who loved children and large families.

In building his apartment house Bishop Cheshire had to borrow a part of
the cost of its construction. Speaking of this to Bishop Penick, he
remarked he hoped to live four years longer since by that time his loan
would be retired. Recalling this observation Bishop Penick decided to
raise a sum of money from among the people of the Diocese to relieve the
Bishop of this care. The money was raised by the time the diocesan
convention met in the spring of 1924 at Winston-Salem. It was a fitting
time and place for the presentation of the gift, since it was at
Winston-Salem thirty years before that Bishop Cheshire presided over his
first convention. The gift, which amounted to $4,273, was presented to
the Bishop from the people of the Diocese by Dr. Richard H. Lewis, who
said in part: "My dear Bishop: By your strong and vigorous intellect,
your wide and accurate learning, your public spirit, your unspotted
character, and a personality of unaffected friendship, you have come to
be—in the words of another—'one of the best known and best loved men in
our State.'" Referring to this generous expression of affection, Bishop
Cheshire remarked that he could never "cease to feel grateful to him
whose generosity conceived the idea, and to the many kind friends who
responded to his suggestion, and transmuted his thoughts into act."

At this convention the Bishop delivered an address in which he briefly
reviewed the high points in the thirty years of his episcopate. He
declared he wished to repeat a major point he had made in his first
episcopal address in 1894, namely, the importance of realizing the
"common bond of union in the Diocese by becoming interested in common
Diocesan work." During the past three decades Bishop Cheshire had
accomplished more than any of his predecessors in breaking down
parochialism by arousing in his people a lively interest in diocesan
enterprises. The Bishop concluded the review of his work by saying that
the past thirty years had been happy ones, "years in which I have
received much love, consideration, and kindness from all our people,
clerical and lay."

The unusual and praiseworthy feature of the general esteem in which
Bishop Cheshire was held in North Carolina was the demonstration of that
esteem during his lifetime. The churchmen did not wait until his death
to eulogize him and to erect memorials in his honor. On many occasions
and in many different ways he was made to realize the high place which
he held in the hearts of his people.

After completing thirty-five years as bishop of the Diocese of North
Carolina, a longer period than any of his predecessors, Bishop Cheshire
felt that he must give up the greater part of his work. He therefore
informed the convention of 1929 that he was turning over to Bishop
Penick the general administration of the entire Diocese. He thought that
the ever-increasing and more complicated work of the church required a
younger and more vigorous man, one, as he expressed it, "more adaptable
and more in sympathy with changing conditions and methods." Of Bishop
Penick he said: "We have one whom we all believe to be eminently fitted
to carry on the Diocese with success and with the confidence, sympathy
and affection of all." Bishop Cheshire did not intend, however, to
relinquish all of his duties. He retained for himself the episcopal
oversight of about one-third of the parishes and missions, the keeping
of the diocesan register, and the requisite business before the Standing
Committee. The parishes which he reserved for his own visitations were
all located within a convenient distance from Raleigh.

Bishop Cheshire was not present at the convention of 1929 because of the
serious illness of Mrs. Cheshire. Bishop Penick read his address. It was
the first diocesan convention that he had failed to attend since 1876
when he had been present as a lay delegate. Mrs. Cheshire died before
the convention adjourned. Accordingly, resolutions of sympathy for the
Bishop were adopted, and a committee was appointed to represent the
convention at Mrs. Cheshire's funeral. The death of his wife was a great
loss to the Bishop; their life of thirty years together had been happy
and congenial. Mrs. Cheshire had been a generous mother to his small
children, and a helpful and devoted wife.

Although his strength was gradually failing, Bishop Cheshire displayed
during the next three years a remarkable activity. For one of his years
he preserved an unusually tolerant attitude towards the many religious,
social, and political changes of the day. When, on his eightieth
birthday, he was asked what he thought of the youth of today, the Bishop
replied: "The world is a much better place than it was when I was a
young man.... Young people today have more personal religion than they
did then."[59] While he disapproved of much that was done by the youth
of today, he thought that his parents must have had much of the same
sort of disapproval of his own generation. "When people talk," said the
Bishop, "of the degeneration of the morals and manners of the present,
and praise the good old times and old time religion, as being so much
superior to the present, they do not know what the old times were, and
in my opinion, they are often speaking nonsense. That is my very serious
opinion."[60] In making this observation he did not mean to depreciate
the religion of his forefathers, for no one had a greater respect and
veneration for the past.

During the last year of his life Bishop Cheshire filled almost all of
his regular visitations in the eastern part of the Diocese. In addition,
he spent ten days, in the month of July, visiting the country churches
in the counties of Rowan, Mecklenburg, Davie, and Iredell. In the course
of these visitations he called on forty families in the several parishes
and missions. Such activity in midsummer would have taxed the strength
of a far younger man, but it did not appear to trouble the Bishop. At
the time, he wrote his son that although the heat was very severe, he
noticed it no more than if he had been doing nothing. In June of 1932
the Bishop went to Hartford, Connecticut, to assist in the consecration
of a new chapel at his alma mater, Trinity College. He enjoyed the trip
thoroughly, renewing some of his old friendships and making new ones.

By the fall of 1932 Bishop Cheshire's health was greatly impaired, but
he continued his visitations through December 11. On that day he
performed his last service. He confirmed a class of fifteen persons in
the Church of the Good Shepherd, Raleigh, but was not able to preach the
sermon. A few days later he went to Charlotte for treatment by a
specialist. Shortly after entering the hospital, however, he became
gradually worse. On December 27, at six-thirty in the evening, the
Diocese of North Carolina lost its beloved Bishop.

It was unusually difficult for the people of the Diocese to realize that
Bishop Cheshire would no longer be with them. He had possessed such a
lovable and dynamic personality, had so largely molded the character of
the Diocese, and had been its Bishop for so long that his people found
it hard to associate the idea of death with him. He had baptized,
confirmed, or married many of them, had entered sympathetically into the
pleasures and problems of their secular as well as their spiritual
lives, and thus endeared himself to them to an extent far beyond the
capacity of most men. In the words of the Presiding Bishop, James DeWolf
Perry: "It is impossible to foresee a time when his influence will not
be felt, his penetrating mind will not be esteemed or when his name will
cease to be held in grateful and loving remembrance."

 [Illustration: THE CHAPEL OF THE CROSS, CHAPEL HILL
 _From a drawing by Mary de B. Graves_]




_Notes_


CHAPTER I. YOUTH AND MANHOOD

1. Joseph Blount Cheshire, "Some Account of My Life for My Children,"
_Carolina Churchman_, March, 1934. Hereafter, this work is cited simply
as "Some Account of My Life."

2. This manuscript was written on February 12, 1866. It is owned by Mr.
J. B. Cheshire, Jr., of Raleigh.

3. Cheshire, "Some Account of My Life," _Carolina Churchman_, May, 1934.

4. _Ibid._, December, 1934.

5. _Ibid._

6. _Ibid._, February, 1935.

7. _Ibid._


CHAPTER II. DEACON AND PRIEST

8. Cheshire, "Some Account of My Life," _Carolina Churchman_, May, 1935.

9. _Ibid._, April, 1935.

10. The first child was born in March, 1878, but died only a few days
after birth.

11. _Church Messenger_, August 4, 1881.

12. Joseph B. Cheshire, "Autobiography," pp. 229-230, a manuscript work
owned by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr.

13. _Ibid._, p. 230.

14. _Ibid._, pp. 231-232.

15. _Ibid._, p. 256.


CHAPTER III. SAINT PETER'S PARISH

16. Cheshire to his wife, November 23, 1905, Cheshire Manuscripts, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

17. Cheshire, "Autobiography," p. 315.

18. _Ibid._, p. 322.

19. _Ibid._, p. 345.

20. Cheshire to Bishop Lyman, April 6, 1886, Joseph Blount Cheshire
Papers, University of North Carolina Library.

21. Bishop Lyman to Cheshire, October 17, 1888, Joseph Blount Cheshire
Papers, University of North Carolina Library.

22. A. W. Dodge to Cheshire, July 6, 1891, Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire
Papers, North Carolina Historical Commission.

23. Cheshire, "Autobiography," p. 382.


CHAPTER IV. ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE

24. Cheshire to Nannie C. Hoke, February 16, 1891, Bishop Joseph
Blount Cheshire Papers, North Carolina Historical Commission.

25. Rev. Robert B. Owens to L. F. London, July 8, 1938. Mr. Owens
was a member of the adjourned convention of 1893. This letter contains
a description of the proceedings of that convention.

26. Dr. Stephen B. Weeks was the friend Cheshire referred to. The
wedding took place in Randolph County.

27. Cheshire to Dr. Joseph B. Cheshire, Sr., June 29, 1893, Bishop
Joseph Blount Cheshire Papers, North Carolina Historical Commission.

28. Cheshire to Sallie Badger Hoke, July 3, 1893, Bishop Joseph
Blount Cheshire Papers, North Carolina Historical Commission.

29. Rev. Francis J. Murdoch in an open letter to Rev. E. A. Osborne,
1893, Bishop Joseph Blount Cheshire Papers, North Carolina Historical
Commission.


CHAPTER V. FIRST YEARS IN THE EPISCOPACY

30. _Journal of the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina_
(1894), p. 64.

31. Joseph B. Cheshire, _Milnor Jones, Deacon and Missionary_, p. 28.

32. _Ibid._, p. 53.

33. _Journal of the Convention of the Missionary Jurisdiction of
Asheville_ (1896), p. 51.

34. _Ibid._, pp. 50-51.

35. Cheshire to his wife, October 2, 1901, Cheshire Manuscripts, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

36. Joseph B. Cheshire, _Fifty Years of Church Life in North Carolina_,
p. 6.

37. Joseph B. Cheshire, Journal of 1897, p. 96, a manuscript account of
his visit to England and the Continent in the summer of 1897, owned by
Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

38. Nicholas Collin Hughes, "Some Memories of Bishop Cheshire." This
manuscript was written for L. F. London and is in his possession.

39. _Journal of the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina_ (1896),
pp. 61-62.

40. Cheshire to his wife, November 7, 1899, Cheshire Manuscripts, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

41. The Raleigh _News and Observer_, October 15, 1903.


CHAPTER VI. MAN AND BISHOP

42. _Carolina Churchman_, April, 1931.


CHAPTER VII. HISTORIAN

43. Cheshire, "Some Account of My Life," _Carolina Churchman_, January,
1935.

44. Walter Clark to Cheshire, May 24, 1893, Bishop Joseph Blount
Cheshire Papers, North Carolina Historical Commission.

45. Cheshire, "Autobiography," p. 360.

46. _Ibid._, pp. 414-418.

47. For a complete list of the Bishop's published writings, see pp.
131-133.

48. The Raleigh _News and Observer_, December 4, 1931.


CHAPTER VIII. WORK AMONG THE COLORED PEOPLE

49. Cheshire to his wife, August 25, 1905, Cheshire Manuscripts, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

50. _Journal of the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina_ (1907),
p. 72.

51. Bishop Cheshire to Bishop Guerry, May 17, 1918, Joseph Blount
Cheshire Papers, University of North Carolina Library.

52. Joseph B. Cheshire, Manuscript Address, Cheshire Manuscripts, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

53. _Carolina Churchman_, May, 1929.


CHAPTER IX. DEVELOPMENT AND CONCLUSION OF THE BISHOP'S WORK

54. Joseph B. Cheshire, "Our Summer, 1908," a journal of his visit to
England for the Pan-Anglican Congress and the Lambeth Conference, owned
by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

55. Joseph B. Cheshire, "England, 1920," a journal of his trip to
England for the Lambeth Conference and of his visit to France and
Switzerland, owned by Mr. J. B. Cheshire, Jr., Raleigh.

56. Sermon on Patriotism and the War, Joseph Blount Cheshire Papers,
University of North Carolina Library.

57. _Journal of the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina_ (1919),
p. 51.

58. _Ibid._ (1923), p. 84.

59. The Raleigh _News and Observer_, March 28, 1930.

60. _Carolina Churchman_, April, 1930.




_Published Writings of Joseph Blount Cheshire_


_Address of the Right Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, Bishop of North
Carolina, on the Occasion of the Dedication of the Memorial Vestibule in
Christ Church, Raleigh, to the Glory of God and in the Memory of Richard
Henry Lewis, December 18, 1927._ Charlottesville, Va., n.d.

"Baptism of Virginia Dare," anniversary address, delivered on Roanoke
Island by Rt. Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, D.D., August 18, 1910, _North
Carolina Booklet_, Vol. X, no. 4.

_Bishop Atkinson and the Church in the Confederacy._ Raleigh, 1909.

"The Bishops of North Carolina—When the State Was One Diocese," _The
Carolina Churchman_, November, 1910-February, 1911.

_The Church in the Confederate States: A History of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the Confederate States._ New York: Longmans, Green
and Co., 1912.

"The Church in the Province of North Carolina," in _Sketches of Church
History in North Carolina_, edited by Bishop Cheshire.

"Decay and Revival, 1800-1830," in _Sketches of Church History in North
Carolina_, edited by Bishop Cheshire.

"Dr. Richard H. Lewis; An Intimate Sketch by a Life-long Friend," _The
Carolina Churchman_, October, 1926.

_The Early Conventions: held at Tarborough Anno Domini 1790, 1793 and
1794. The first effort to organize the Church in North Carolina.
Collected from original sources and now first published. With 
introduction and brief notes_, Raleigh, 1882.

"The Early Rectors of Christ Church," _Centennial Ceremonies held in
Christ Church Parish, Raleigh, North Carolina, A.D. 1921. Including
Historical Addresses._ Raleigh, 1922.

"Entries in an Old Bible which was Formerly in the Possession of Miss
Chloe Coward," _North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register_,
July, 1903.

_Fifty Years of Church Life in North Carolina_, an Address by the Rt.
Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, D.D., Bishop of North Carolina, on the
Fiftieth Anniversary of the Rev. Robert B. Drane, D.D., as Rector of St.
Paul's Church, Edenton, N. C. All Saints' Day, 1926. Edenton, n.d.

"First Settlers in North Carolina Not Religious Refugees: A Study in
Origins," _North Carolina Booklet_, Vol. V, no. 4.

_Fragments of Colonial Church History: 1. Public Libraries._ n.p., 1886.

"The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, and Religious Liberty in the
Province of North Carolina," _Historical Magazine of the Protestant
Episcopal Church_, Vol. I, no. 4.

_An Historical Address Delivered in Saint Matthew's Church, Hillsboro,
N. C., on Sunday, August 24, 1924. Being the One Hundredth Anniversary
of the Parish._ Durham, 1925.

"An Historical Sketch of the Church in Edgecombe County, North
Carolina," _Church Messenger_, August 17-September 21, 1880.

"How Our Church Came to North Carolina," _The Spirit of Missions_, May,
1918.

_Milnor Jones, Deacon and Missionary._ Raleigh, 1920.

_Nonnulla: Memories, Stories, and Traditions, More or Less Authentic,
About North Carolina._ Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1930.

"The Office of Solicitor General of North Carolina," _University of
North Carolina Magazine_, May, 1894.

"The Personnel of the North Carolina Convention of 1788," _Publications
of the Southern History Association_, Vol. III, 1899.

_A Priest to the Temple or, The Country Parson, His Character and Rule
of Holy Life_, by George Herbert, with an Introduction and brief notes
by the Bishop of North Carolina. New York: Thomas Whittaker, Inc., 1908.

_Public Worship in the Church._ A Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of
North Carolina delivered at the meeting of the Convocations of Raleigh
and Charlotte, in October, 1912. Also a Pastoral Letter to the Clergy
and Laity of the Diocese, n.p., n.d.

_Saint Peter's Church, Charlotte, North Carolina—Thirty Years of its
Life and Work, 1863-1893._ Charlotte, 1921.

"A Sermon; Preached in St. John's Church, Fayetteville, the Sunday next
before Advent, November 24, 1889, at the Centennial of the Fayetteville
Convention of 1789," _University of North Carolina Magazine_, Vol. XI,
no. 4.

_Sketches of Church History in North Carolina, Addresses and Papers by
the Clergymen and Laymen of the Dioceses of North and East Carolina._
Wilmington, 1892.

"Some Account of My Life for My Children," _Carolina Churchman_,
January, 1934-May, 1935.

"White Haven Church and the Rev. Robert Johnston Miller," in _Sketches
of Church History in North Carolina_, edited by Bishop Cheshire.

"Why Judge Haywood Left North Carolina," _University of North Carolina
Magazine_, January, 1895.

"Wilmington, the Free Town of the Cape Fear," in _Historic Towns of the
Southern States_, by Lyman P. Powell. New York: The Knickerbocker Press,
1900.




_Index_


A

Abbey of Valle Crucis, 109

Adams, Rev. Samuel F., 59

"A. H. W.," poem, 17

Albemarle section, 2, 89

Alpha Delta Phi, 11

Alston, Rev. Primus P., 31, 76, 104

Alumnae Association of St. Mary's School, 64

American Church Institute for Negroes, Cheshire elected to, 105

"Annals of the Church in the Province of North Carolina,"
  MS by Cheshire, 91

Archdeacons, Cheshire's estimate of, 117-118

Ashe County, 57-58

Atkinson, Bishop Thomas, 18-19, 21;
  on division of Diocese, 35;
  sketch of by Cheshire, 94-95


B

Bakersville, N. C., 58

Baltimore, 13;
  practices law in, 14-15

Barber, Rev. M. A., 103

Barrett, Rev. Robert S., 47, 48

Barrows, Rev. W. S., 49

Baskerville, Rev. Erasmus L., 103

Battle, President Kemp P., 19, 22, 39

Battle, Richard H., 75

Beach Cliff Schoolhouse, 34

Beaver Creek, 58-59

Bickett, Gov. Thomas, 116

Bishop of Georgia, Cheshire considered for, 41

Bishop Payne Divinity School, 105

Bixby, Robert F., 10

Blount, Elizabeth, 2

Blount, Joseph, 2

Bridgers, Cheshire, and Bridgers, firm of, 15

Bridgers, Col. John L., 15

Bridgers, John L., Jr., 15

Bronson, Rev. Benjamin S., institutional work in Charlotte, 28-29

Burlington, N. C., Cheshire is called to church at, 25

Buxton, Rev. Jarvis, 40, 91


C

Calvary Church, Tarboro, 2, 3, 35;
  Cheshire receives call to, 41;
  Cheshire consecrated in, 52-53

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 67

Capers, Bishop Ellison, 53, 66

Chapel Hill, 19-20;
  Cheshire gives work in to Bishop Penick, 120

Chapel of the Cross, Cheshire becomes rector of, 19-20

Charlotte, Cheshire begins work in, 27

Cheshire, Annie, 44

Cheshire, Annie Gray, Bishop's sister, 4

Cheshire, Annie Webb (Mrs. Joseph Blount), 17, 22, 44;
  death of, 67

Cheshire, Elizabeth Mitchell (Mrs. Joseph Blount), 69;
  death of, 123

Cheshire, Elizabeth Toole, 23, 44

Cheshire, Godfrey, 44

Cheshire, James Webb, 44

Cheshire, John, the Bishop's grandfather, 2

Cheshire, Dr. Joseph Blount, Sr., 2, 3, 4, 7, 10

Cheshire, Bishop Joseph Blount, birth, 4;
  early education, 4-6;
  practices law, 14-17;
  marries Annie Webb, 17;
  ordained deacon, 19;
  rector, Chapel of the Cross, 19-26;
  ordained priest, 25;
  rector, St. Peter's, Charlotte, 27 ff.;
  Negro work in Charlotte, 30-31;
  in diocesan conventions, 34-39;
  views on episcopate, 47;
  elected assistant bishop, 50;
  on Missionary Jurisdiction of Asheville, 60-63;
  St. Mary's School, 63-66;
  death of Annie Webb Cheshire, 67;
  marries Elizabeth Mitchell, 69;
  in the General Convention, 69-70;
  on public worship, 71-72;
  on fishing and hunting, 77-79;
  on divorce question, 81-84;
  on national prohibition, 84-85;
  as a father, 86-87;
  on racial episcopate, 101-104;
  asks for assistance, 119;
  death of Elizabeth Mitchell Cheshire, 123;
  on youth of today, 123-124;
  death of, 125

Cheshire, Joseph Blount, Jr., 44, 77

Cheshire, Katherine Drane, 4

Cheshire, Sarah, 44, 79

Cheshire, Theophilus Parker, 4

Cheshire Building, St. Augustine's, 107

Christ Church, Raleigh, 48

_Church in the Confederate States_, discussion of, 94-96

_Churchman, The_, 95

_Church Messenger_, 23, 25, 90

Church of the Good Shepherd, Raleigh, 75, 119;
  Cheshire's last service, 124

Church Temperance Society, of England, 110-111

_Church Times_, 95

Clark, Gov. Henry, 88

Clark, Judge Walter, 89

_Colonial Records of North Carolina_, 89, 91

Connor, R. D. W., resolution on the Bishop, 116

Convocation for Colored Work, 74

Convocation of Charlotte, 74, 119

Convocation of Raleigh, 74

Curtis, Dr. M. Ashley, 3, 53


D

Davidson College, 33

Deerfield, Mass., 10

Delany, Rev. Henry B., 76;
  elected suffragan bishop, 103-104

Devereaux, Thomas P., 2

Division of the Diocese, 35-36

Dodge, Rev. A. W., 42

Drane, Dr. Robert B., on Cheshire's sermons, 80-81

Dudley, Bishop T. U., 53

Durham, N. C., 20;
  Cheshire organizes church in, 23-25


E

Edenton, N. C., home of Cheshire's ancestors, 2

Edenton Academy, 2

Edgecombe County, 19-20;
  history of church in, 88-89

Eliot, George, quotation from, 100

Ellicott City, 1, 12

Episcopal School for Boys, Raleigh, 2

Erwin, William A., 114, 116

Executive council, formed, 117-118


F

France, Cheshire visits, 68

Fundamental Constitutions, Cheshire discusses, 97


G

General Convention, Cheshire elected deputy to, 40;
  on racial episcopate, 102

George, Rev. T. M. N., nominated assistant bishop, 48

Glenn, Gov. Robert B., 83

Gletsch, Switzerland, 112

Good Samaritan Hospital, 42-43, 99

Graves, Professor Ralph, 22

Graves' school, Granville County, 7

Guerry, Bishop William A., 103, 104

Guild of St. Martin, 32


H

Halifax, 3

Harding, Rev. Nathaniel H., nominated assistant bishop, 48

Hartford, Conn., 8, 10

Herbert, George, 93, 94

Hillsboro, N. C., 20;
  Cheshire studies law in, 13-14

Historiographer, Cheshire elected, 90

Holler, Bill, 77-78

Holmes, Rev. Lucian, 29

Holt, Lawrence, 114

Honesty, Cheshire writes essay on, 7

Honorary degrees, given Cheshire, 93

Hooper, George G., Cheshire's law partner, 14-15

Hooper, Professor J. de Berniere, 22

Hooper and Cheshire, firm of, 15

Horner, Bishop Junius Moore, consecrated bishop, 63

Howard, Judge George, 14

Howard and Perry, firm of, 14

Hunter, Dr. A. B., 108, 112, 116


I

Iredell County, 42

Ireland, Cheshire visits, 68

Ives, Bishop Levi Silliman, 2, 3;
  work at Valle Crucis, 56, 59;
  sketch of by Cheshire, 94


J

Jackson, Bishop Henry M., 47

Jamaica, Cheshire visits, 113

Johns, Bishop John, advice to young clergymen, 21

Johnston, William H., 5

Joint convention of 1890, 91-92

Jones, Hamilton C., 28

Jones, Rev. Milnor, mission work in the mountains, 56-59;
  Cheshire's estimate of, 60;
  life of by Cheshire, 96

Jones, Sam, 43-44

Jurisdiction of Asheville, formation of, 61-63


K

Kerfoot, President of Trinity College, 9


L

Lambeth Conference, Cheshire attends, 67-68, 109, 111-112

Lenten services, Cheshire on, 73

Lewis, Nell Battle, tribute to the Bishop, 86

Lewis, Dr. Richard H., 5, 7, 13, 118;
  Cheshire's best man, 17;
  tribute to Cheshire, 121

Lloyd, Rev. Arthur S., nominated assistant bishop, 49

Long Creek Township, 33-34

Louisburg, N. C., 5

Louisburg Academy, Cheshire attends, 6

Lucas, Rev. Henry, 41

Lyman, Bishop Theodore Benedict, 21, 24, 25, 34, 53;
  on division of Diocese, 35;
  estimate of Cheshire's work in Charlotte, 41;
  asks for assistance, 46, 48;
  death of, 54;
  sketch of by Cheshire, 94


M

McCoy, Columbus W., 33

Mallett, Dr. William P., 22

Marshall, Dr. Matthias M., 19, 35;
  nominated assistant bishop, 48

Maryland, 9, 12

Mecklenburg County, missions in, 42

Meredith, Rev. Reuben, 79

Methodist Church Conference, 83

Missionary bishops for Negro work, 101-102

Mitchell, Elizabeth Lansdale,
  marries Bishop Cheshire, 69;
  death of, 123

Mitchell, Rev. Walter A., 69

Mitchell County, 57-58

Monreath, summer home of the Bishop's father, 5, 12

Monroe, N. C., Cheshire organizes church in, 32

Mooresville, N. C., 33

Murdoch, Dr. Francis J., Cheshire's estimate of, 47;
  nominated assistant bishop, 48;
  nominates Cheshire, 48;
  on Cheshire's election as bishop, 51

Murray, Bishop John Gardner, estimate of Cheshire, 107

Music in the church, Cheshire on, 73


N

Negro, religion of the, 106

Newsome, A. R., estimate of Cheshire as an historian, 98

Niles, Professor William W., 9

_Nonnulla_, vii, 79;
  discussion of, 97


O

Orkneys, Cheshire visits, 68

Osborne, Rev. Edwin A.,
  takes work at Monroe and Long Creek, 32, 34;
  founds Thompson Orphanage, 42

_Outlook_, 95


P

Palmer, Professor George H., 94

Pamlico Banking and Insurance Company, 15, 19

Pan-Anglican Congress, 109-111

Parker, Elizabeth Toole, 4

Parker, Mary Toole, 4

Parker, Theophilus, 4

Pastoral Letter, by Cheshire, 72-73

Penick, Bishop Edwin A., elected bishop coadjutor, 119;
  proposes gift for Cheshire, 121, 122

Perry, Bishop James DeWolf, tribute to Cheshire, 125

Phi Kappa, Cheshire's fraternity, 11

Pittsboro, N. C., 19

Polk County, 57

Portrait of the Bishop, 108

Presbyterian Synod, 83

Pynchon, Professor at Trinity, 10


Q

Quaker settlements in North Carolina, 89

Quin, Rev. Charles C., 30-32

Quintard, Bishop Charles T., 53


R

Racial episcopate, 103

Ravenscroft, Bishop John Stark, 47;
  sketch of by Cheshire, 94

Ravenscroft, Raleigh, home of the Bishop, 120

Roanoke River swamp, Bishop hunts in, 78

Rockingham, N. C., 33

Ruffin, Chief Justice Thomas, 13

Ruffin, William K., Cheshire studies law under, 13-14, 16


S

St. Ambrose Church, Raleigh, 76

St. Augustine's School, 105, 107-108

St. Clement's Hall, Cheshire teaches at, 1, 12-13, 16

St. Luke's Church, Tarboro, Cheshire holds first service
  as bishop in, 53

St. Mark's Church, Mecklenburg County, 25;
  organized, 34

St. Martin's Church, Charlotte, organized, 31

St. Mary's School, founded, 63-64;
  Cheshire's opinion of, 64;
  established as a church school, 64-66;
  Cheshire's daughters attend, 87;
  debt on, 113-114;
  endowment for, 114

St. Matthew's Church, Hillsboro, Cheshire married in, 17;
  Cheshire is called to, 25

St. Michael and All Angels, Charlotte, organized, 30, 31, 99

St. Michael's Industrial School, Charlotte, 104-105

St. Paul's Church, Edenton, 2, 80

St. Paul's Church, Macon, Ga., Cheshire receives call to, 41

St. Paul's Church, Winston-Salem, 25, 55

St. Peter's Church, Charlotte, 28, 36;
  Cheshire is called to, 26

St. Peter's Home and Hospital, organized, 29, 30

St. Philip's Church, Durham, 24-25

Saluda conference, 66

Saunders, Col. William L., 89-90

Scotland, Cheshire visits, 68

Scotland Neck, 3

Sermons, Cheshire discusses, 21-22

Sessums, Bishop Davis, 53

Shepherd, John Avery, 12

Smedes, Dr. Aldert, 63

Smedes, Dr. Bennett, 63, 64, 66

Smedes, Rev. John E. C., 19, 25;
  verses to Cheshire, 51-52

Society of the Cincinnati, Cheshire becomes member of, 93

State Literary and Historical Association, Cheshire elected
  president of, 97

Strange, Rev. Robert B., 92

Suffragan bishops, for Negro work, 101-104

Sutton, Rev. Robert B., 19, 20

Switzerland, Cheshire visits, 68, 112


T

Tarboro, N. C., 14-15, 17;
  description of, 2

Tarboro Building and Loan Association, 15-16

Tarboro Male Academy, Cheshire attends, 5, 7, 13

Thompson Orphanage, Charlotte, 42

Trinity Church, Scotland Neck, 3

Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., Cheshire enters, 8-9;
  graduates from, 11-12;
  confers degree on Cheshire, 93;
  Cheshire visits, 124

Tryon, N. C., 56

"Tuttle Prize," Cheshire wins, 11


U

University of North Carolina, 5, 6, 8, 19, 87;
  confers degree on Cheshire, 93

University of the South, Cheshire made trustee of, 39-40;
  Cheshire's son attends, 87;
  confers degree on Cheshire, 93


V

Valle Crucis, Cheshire revives work at, 56-57, 59


W

Watauga County, missions in, 57-58

Watauga River, 56, 77

Watson, Bishop Alfred A., 25, 53

Webb, Annie Huske, Cheshire meets, 16;
  marries Cheshire, 17;
  death of, 67

Weed, Bishop Edwin G., 53

Weeks, Stephen B., 49 n.

West Indies, Archbishop of, 113

Wetmore, Rev. George B., 34

Whipple, Bishop Henry B., 47

Wilkes, John, 27-28, 32

Wilkes, Mrs. John, 42-43

Wilkinson, Frank S., 5, 7-8

Williams, Bishop John, 10-11

Wilson, President Woodrow, 115

Winchester, Rev. J. R., 47

Windsor, N. C., 3

Winston, Professor George T., 22


Y

York, Archbishop of, Cheshire visits, 68




*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BISHOP JOSEPH BLOUNT CHESHIRE: HIS LIFE AND WORK ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.