Ill \ THE CONSPIRACY, ETC. I NEVER knew by sight the Rev. Paul Trapier of South Carolina, until the last day of the last General Convention. I then inquired who he was, on account of an excellent speech which he made ; and for the same reason procured an introduction. I never spoke to him, nor wrote a letter to him, nor received one from him, nor communicated with him in any way whatever in the matter of the late trial ; nor did I ever converse with him five minutes in all my The last time I spoke with the Rev. Dr. Hawks, was in the Convention of 1840 or 1841, when I opposed the rumors which I then thought he was circulating ; and some persons present at that Convention, will remember that I said em- phatically, when Dr. Hawks sat just before me, " it is the duty of every true son of the Church, sir, to support the BishopJ* Since that time, I have not spoken, nor commu- nicated in any way with Dr. Hawks, in regard of this trial, or of the Bishop of New-York ; and the few words which I did whisper in his ear at the late General Convention were concerning himself, i. e., " now take out your name yourself, be a great man, and bide your time. If you are fit to be a Bishop, well, if not, you do not desire it." We have not spoken, nor written to each other, nor sent messages, nor done any thing together on the subject of this trial. I was in Dr. Anthon's house in November, 1841, before I started on my voluntary mission to the Turks ; and never spoke, nor wrote, nor communicated in any way with Dr. Ajithon from that time until October 14th, when I bowed to life. 2 THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE him. After sentence was pronounced, I spoke to him. I nod^ ded to him once across some pews ; and scarcely saw him at a distance since 1841, until yesterday, Sunday, January 5th. Therefore, I conspired alone. I neither asked, nor took any body's advice on the subject. On the contrary, I acted in direct opposition to the wishes of my nearest relatives and friends in Rhode Island and in New- York ; and scarcely any one ever encouraged me to go on ; and I asked no one to help me. In November, 1841, 1 sailed for England ; on a Thursday evening in December, I arrived in London; on Friday morn- ing, at 8 o'clock, went to divine service in St. Paul's Cathe- dral, and at 1 1 o'clock, was on my way with Bishop Gris- wold's letter to Lambeth Palace. On that day, or the follow- ing, (but after 1 had been at Lambeth,) the letter of the Bishop of New-York, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning me, arrived by the Caledonia. Of this I was not then aware. I reached Oxford, December 31st, 1841, in the evening, and the next day dined with Mr. Newman and his friend C. at Trinity. Mr. Newman approved of my Turkish enterprise, and placed the parchment letter of Bishop Griswold in a conspicuous place in his study. I saw much of him. He bears no resemblance to a New- York Puseyile. He walked (with me) seven miles to read prayers before fifteen people, or less, and is a hard student, a self-denying man, who takes up the cross. There is a very respectable Christianity at Oxford. Soon after leav- ing that city, I was at breakfast in London with Sir Robert Harry Inglis and the Rev. Mr. Harrison, chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and this was after Mr. Harri- son knew that my bishop, and the meddling Dr. Doane had written about me to his Grace. Dr. Dealtry was to have been at the breakfast, but was not well ; and the object was to consult with, and advise me. I did not know at that moment that my bishop was opposed to my enterprize, and of course had never seen the letter which is said to be the cause of hostility on my part. At that breakfast, Mr. Har- rison said to me, " What do you think of your bishop ?" I replied, " He is my bishop." *' But what do you think of him ?" I shrugged my shoulders and said again, " He is my bishop." But he pressed me and I replied, " We have twenty bishops, and I think less of him than of the other nineteen." To Sir Robert Harry IngUs, I said, " He is in the habit of being overcome with wine ;" and I confess here LATE BISHOP OF NEW^YORK, UNRAVELLED. U 1 made a mistake out of tenderness, for I ought to have said brandy. The Bishop of Connecticut has seen him drunk, and when Dr. Seabury denies that he himself has seen him in a state of inebriation, it be time enough (for I shall have to write another pamphlet) to introduce the other cler- gyman who was present with the Editor of the Churchman, and witnessed that frequent sad exhibition. From that breakfast I went to the rooms of my friend, Henry Crabbe Robinson, Esq. 30 Russell-square, and for the first time saw in the Churchman which that morning arrived (about Jan- uary 20th,) the letter which is now talked so much about, as having been the cause of my enmity, so called, to the Bishop. Bishop Doane can write to his friend the Rev. Mr. Harrison, or to Sir Robert H. Inglis, and cross-examine this statement. Then he can write to my friend H. C. Robinson, Esq. 30 Russell-square, London, and find out whether I had seen the copies of the Churchman, which Mr* Robinson had left unopened in his room, when he came to join us at Sir Robert's after breakfast. I wrote to Sir R. H. Inglis, inquiring if his advice to me had been prompted by " non- Anglican interference," and have his answer. Soon after I went with the letter in my hat to Lambeth, and pointed out to the Rev. Mr. Harri- son, the Archbishop's Chaplain, in what way he should ex- plain to his Grace, (which he promised to do,) that it was a letter of **** without any falsehoods, i. e., that the letter was true in words, but conveyed a false impression. That letter never had the slightest influence in advancing or in retarding my purpose, which has since been consum- mated by the appointment of the Rev. Horatio Southgate. as Bishop to the dominions and dependencies of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, so worded, I have more than good reason to suppose, for the express purpose of shutting me out of Turkey. And verily, there seems to be enough for me to do at home. But being no schismatic, I shall still go to the Patriarch. On Easter day, 1842, I arrived in Boston, and on the fol- lowing Tuesday was in New- York, and called immediately on the Bishop, and scarcely on two persons beside, saying to the Bishop, I have come to report myself, and mention- ing my high reverence for Episcopal authority. I then said, " Bishop, did you know that I called three times at your 4 THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE study to see you before I sailed for England ; that I shew- ed Bishop Griswold's parchment letter to your lady ; that I wrote a note and left it in your portfolio, which you might have answered ; that I had serious thoughts at one time of riding even on Sunday morning, as far as Yonkers to see you ?" " Yes," he replied, " he knew this," or most of it. " It did not appear in your letter to the Archbishop of Canter- bury," was my answer — " O that was not necessary," said he. Nor was it necessary for a letter that conveyed the idea that I avoided him. I have always understood that the Bishop has since frequent- ly expressed his admiration of the Christian manner in which I treated him, and I challenge any individual to point to a single expression that ever fell from my lips indicating hos- tiHty to the Bishop on account of the unwise course he pur- sued in that sublime undertaking of mine, which the whole Church has now sanctioned. It seems to be my business to plant acorns, that another generation may sit down un- der the shadow of the oaks. Illinois is another case in point ; relevant or irrelevant, I care not. I'm writing my own pamphlet, and have some idea of writing it to suit my- self. If the public like it well enough to pay for it, they are welcome to it ; and may criticise it and me to their hearts' content. I invite the newspapers to the onset. I like abuse much better than praise. Bishop Delancey will bear in mind, that very soon after my return, I met him at my friend's house in Bond street, where Miss F. MuUigan, the admirable Missionary from Greece, and others were present. Did Bishop Delancey, or any one there present, hear an unkind word from me, about the Bishop's course in my great enterprize ? To tell the disagree- able truth, I considered both his letter and that of Bishop Doane, who would be wiser if he meddled with his own matters, as too small a business to get angry about. I re- serve my indignation for great occasions. Some thirteen or fourteen months after my return from Eng- land, and I think in May, 1843, 1 was, for the first time after my arrival, at the house of Mr. R. ; and nearly up to that time had supposed the inmates of that household unfriendly to me. I arrived in the evening. By some trifling remark, which I do not remember, but which arose in the course of our conversation about the most glorious enterprize of my life, the Turkish mission, I mean, (since endorsed, for I hke to remind the church, by the same church which laughed at LATE BISHOP OP NEW-YORK, UNRAVELLED. 6 me 9 years before, when I proposed it in 1835, — see my speech at the General Convention as reported in the Ep. Recorder, Chm-chman, &c.,) a suspicion darted across my mind, corroborating to me what I had not dared in 1841 to beheve possible, and I turned round full and abruptly upon one of those admirable, and heroic, and Christian ladies, and said suddenly, " What did the Bishop do to you in the waggon when I was driving ?" " Mr. R., did you know V she re- plied, " I thought I should have jumped from the carriage ; but I feared exposing him to you." The thing was then evident, and I proceeded to demand a full disclosure ; but all was not told me till long after, even if all has been told me yet. Now, confirmed in my belief that the inward man is often stamped upon the outward, I retired. The next morning the sexton of St. Michael's church, Bloomingdale, happened to call, and I wrote to my brother the following letter, without date, and charged Mr. Twine to run as soon as he had delivered it : — My dear Brother^ — 1 wish you to make no further inquiries in lefer- ence to my information or its source, but I can now prove by several competent, trustworthy and undoubted witnesses, that the O. T. B. is and has been often and ofteyi guilty of the grossest indecency. I can- not prove the actual, legal breach of the seventh commandment; but am fully satisfied, beyond all cavil, that if any woman were to be found assenting, this man is guilty. I am satisfied, too, that it is now a mat- ter of notoriety in the female portion of the Diocese, here, there, and everywhere. I know no man whom I would watch so closely, every minute in ray house. No lady is safe from the grossest, most palpable, and almost open insult. — If he is not admonished, he must blow up. I write this only for the sake of the Church, and because there are female candidates for confirmation who will not be confirmed by him, &c. This alas ! is too true. Do as you think best. I leave for home this P. M., at 5. Love to all,* Yours aflTectionately. Bloomingdale, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 1845, 1-2 past 1, P. M. — I have just seen this letter for the first time since I sent it in 1843, by the hands of the sexton of St Michael's, Mr. Twine. It was certainly written in May, if not earlier. My impres- sion is that I had spent a week or more at Saratoga, (in a family which had also been insulted,) and that I came down the North river on May 1st, and spoke with Gulian C. Ver- planck, about the church then building at Saratoga. I think ii was after this, and within a few days, that the letter was written. It might have been, but scarcely, before my visit 6 THE CONSPIRACY AGAIN3T THE to Saratoga, whore I was, on, before, and after Easter day, ~ 843. In my brother's absence, I have found the letter among his papers. He has seen neither this copy, nor a word of this manuscript for the pamphlet. Doubtless, how- ever, he will shew the original to the curious. Mr. Twine, the sexton, remembers the letter and the circumstances of his bringing it, and where he brought it from, &c. Ask him. From that time, I simply waited for an opportunity to move, when I could move with certainty, and he sure to suc- ceed. When the Carey ordination took place, and my father in Providence observed, " They will break up the Bishop of New York." " For what V' said I. " For this ordina- tion," he replied. " No sir, never ; he cannot be touched for that ; he's right about that ; for the Bishop alone can ordain, but he ought to be broken for his life ; and when they begin upon the ordination, they will end upon his im- morality, and I shall be obliged to assist." When the sad news came from Pennsylvania, I was convinced that the time was drawing near; that now I might make myself heard; that the two brothers had better go together ; that one vol- cano would be better than two. Besides, I was rather weary of the perpetual din upon ministerial power, Episco- pal prerogative ; and remembered that when at Oxford the cry was " Preach to the poor," " Provide for the fatherless." The Oxford men nearly starved themselves ; whereas New York witnessed fat dinners, and good wines in Lent. On the whole, I concluded that the New York Puseyism (so called,) was at best but a contemptible echo from Oxford, and that an egg-shell, without any meat in it, would better be broken to pieces. I could not stand quiet under the Po- pery of the cry, " sit down, sir ;" nor see the set teeth that voted " No," without saying to myself, it ought to be broken to pieces. Yet I should have voted No, also ; except in those cases where party devoured truth. Therefore, when I came to New York for the purpose of writing and pub- lishing the Introduction and Notes to the Controversy* be- tween the Rev. Drs. Potts and Wain wright, I began the work * This republication of the controversy, " No Churcli without a Bishop," with my Introduction and Notes, which I here challenge any man under the moon to answer, even that great challenger but non-accepter. Dr. Potts, whom in those notes I have fairly minced to pieces ; or that sublunary man, Dr. Cox, &c., &c — this republication I say, was made with the consent of Dr. Wainwright that I should pursue my own course and walk at liberty in that matter ; he intending to have nothing more to do with the controversy so far as Dr, Potts was concerned, but handing him over to me. as it were. It was LATE BISHOP OF NEW- YORK, UNRAVELLED. 7 by publicly declaring " If I were a presbyter of this diocese I would rise in my place and say, " I impeach the Bishop of New York for licentiousness and intemperance." Many persons, and at least one Bishop, viz., of Michigan, (who was not at the trial,) heard me so speak ; and once I spoke thus at the bookstore of Messrs. Stanford and Swords. At a dinner table during the sitting of the New York Conven- tion, I declared openly in the presence of the Rev. Drs. Wain Wright and Jarvis, the Rev. Messrs. Williams, South- gate, and Wm. Richmond, Prof. Clement C. Moore, Dr. Rhinelander, Messrs. John A. King, Henry Van Rensselaer and Gen. Lee, that I saw no reason why we should not have Pope Gregory XVI, as well as Pope Benjamin I ; and that I had a respect for the character of the Bishop of Rome, but that the other was a bad man. Here I was interrupted by attempts to silence me, and by cries of " order, order." I looked through my fingers, and said to one and another * you know;' * you know^ and some of them did know. " Bad man," said Mr. King, " how is that ?" " Don't ask him," said a clergyman, " for he will tell you." And yet I could not move with certainty, for that very day, one of the ladies had declared she never could testify. The next day, as I was leaving St. John's chapel, with a bundle of cor- rected proof-sheets, to take to the Harpers, the Rev. Mr. Forbes, sitting by the chancel w^ith the Rev. Mr. Williams, said to me " Richmond, what are you doing here ?" Are you supervisor-general ? Looking on with the rest. " But what are you about ?" Writing a book ; here are the proofs. " But what rumors are these about the Bishop, that you are circulating ?" Rumors ? said I : FACTS, very emphati- cally. " If you don't take care, we'll haul you up." Haul away ; now is always the best time ; but if you really wish to know, I'll tell you — and away went the trio into the upper also done without any change or mutilation of Dr. Potts' language, notwith- standing the falsehoods on that subject as well as on this, in the so-called re- ligious newspapers. By the way, what is become of Dr. Potts ? Is lie in the city now ? I am very much in the position of the race-horse, who walks round the course for a match. Those who wish to see how he will be hand- led when he comes, can dip into the aforesaid notes, &c. It has never been so said or wi'itten in the Anglo-Saxon tongue before. Lest the mantle of some Pharisee should he ruffled by the magnificent figure about the race-horse, I will smoothe down the broad borders thereof, by adding, I hate races, and never saw one of any kind in my life, excepting the poor, terrified, unbacked colts who flew riderless, gunpowder-driven, and self-goaded, through the Corso, in the Carnival at Rome. / THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE chamber, back of St. John's ; where, after a very emphatic locking of the door, Mr. W. proceeded to write, and I leaned on the table. My story was soon told, but not writ- ten, the door w^as unlocked again, and I was at liberty. When I found how things were going, at first, I told them I was rather tired of staying up there, as it was somewhat lonesome, and believed 1 would go down. After that they grew more respectful, and I went on. Mr. Forbes and Mr. Williams will here remember my express declaration that I believed the Bishop had a right, if he chose, to ordain Mr. Carey. But lest their memory on this point should be less tenacious than mine, I will give the details. Mr. W. was walking up and down the room ; Mr. F. stood at the window ; I stood before him and said, " And I ' go' the Carey ordination too^ Those were the exact words. Now then, it is evident enough that my course has not been prompted by party-spirit ; for through the whole of the controversy about that ordination I always said, *' The Bishop is the ultimate judge of the fitness or un- fitness of a candidate for holy orders. If he will ordain, who can let him ? If he do so uncanonically, let him be tried." The Bishop knew his strength on that point well enough, and therefore invited Bishops Chase and Hopkins and Mcllvaine to present him for the ordination. But he did not invite me to cause his presentment for an immoral life, when I went to his study, July 4th, and gave him the opportunity by remarks which I made. And on another occasion when I went to tell him that it seemed best for the church to begin to "preach the gospel to the poor" by taking up the cause of the 100,000 degraded ones in this city who scarce- ly enter a place of worship ; those to whom the Master would first go, and whom we chiefly neglect ; for if Jesus were on the earth now he would be as much blamed, for preaching to the publicans and harlots and sinners, by the modern, as he was by the ancient Pharisees ; — when I oflfered to attempt to wipe out this blot, (by doing as I have done for two years, in the summers, under the Catholic Oak, and elsewhere in Rhode Island ;) i. e. by preaching to the Germans who congre- gate around Tompkins Square ; I concluded with an appli- cation of the 3d motto on the title page, (from St. Sophias') which reads backwards and forwards alike, and both ways well, " Wash your iniquities, and not your face only," Bishop. But did the Bishop really think that by raising such a hue and cry about his Puseyism and Popery he could throw dust LATE BISHOP OF NEW-YORK, UNRAVELLED. 9 in all our eyes, and that nobody would dream of looking under that cloud into his irregular life ? The very bones and marrow^ of a true high churchman are hearty endeavors after a blameless and holy life. The way was now prepared. I returned to Providence, intending to come back immediately and go on to the Gene- ral Convention, but hstened to the earnest entreaties of my father, wife, brother, and sister, and only went on Monday, Sept. 30, to the Rev. Dr. Crocker, and the Bishop of Rhode Island, stating the case, and saying if I were sent for I should go. They expressed no opinion and gave no advice. In ten days a letter without signature came. It is lost. I knew the handwTiting, and know that it was from a clergy- man, and not from a bishop, but I have no right to reveal the name of one who withheld it from me. It was, of course, from neither of the conspirators. I spent a day and a half in contending against my dearest relatives, and then left home according to my own decision. Nobody ever decided anything for me in this whole matter. Nobody can be named as acting with me. I consulted myself. When I reached New York, I called on several persons and sim- ply told them what I had resolved to do. I went to Mr. R.'s house. I saw the young ladies, and said, " you must now perform the greatest service which can be rendered to the church," or words with this meaning ; conveying the idea that we were to begin in that room the most important business that had ever been transacted in the church in this country ; proving that the church was able to apply DIS- CIPLINE to the highest and strongest offenders. They shrunk back at first, but at length saw their duty plainly, and went on bravely to the end ; yet with tears, with lamen- tations, sometimes one of them with absolute refusal, for her own sake,?iS any lady can comprehend. And here 1 declare solemnly that whoever attacks those true-hearted ladies, at- tacks me ; and I will defend them with every energy. Wo unto the man that touches a hair of the heads of the four wit- nesses whom I procured. Their lofty and delicate behaviour was such, that I was more and more convinced that their testi- mony would be invaluable. And yet they entreated that others might begin. " Ladies," I said, " you know me inti- mately ; you have been under my pastoral care ; you were communicants in my church ; who will move first if you re- fuse ?" and when at last I turned away and said, somewhat contemptuously, " I have heard the ladies of New York call iO THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE the clergy a set of poltroons long enough. Look at me. I'm no poltroon. I have discharged my conscience in this matter, and in my person I wipe out the stain. I represent the clergy, and 1 will publish to the world that the clergy are not guilty. Let the ladies bear the blame forever. Keep your Bishop. My wife is in Rhode Island. What care I hereafter how the ladies of New York are insulted ? Let them thank themselves." This capped the climax ; and the paper was signed. But still the evidence was unsworn, and here the high spi- rited brother came to my aid. To him they dared not reveal the insults, when they were perpetrated, lest an igno- minious if not bloody vengeance should speedily visit the anointed offender. I first revealed the fearful story to him, and even then, after the long lapse of time, he was hardly restrained. He solemnly declared it to be their duty in the sight of God and man to go on. And they are worthy of crowns. If any one asks now, what two Presbyters did ask me in Philadelphia, how ladies could reveal such a thing to me ; I have only to answer, it revealed itself; for it must not be forgotten that I was so confounded by what I saw in the carriage, that I said to the Bishop as I took him from that house in the afternoon, "Bishop, the^e are very old friends of yours V " O no," he replied, " only passing ac- quaintance." He had a different story, as I have heard, on another occasion. But the answer I gave those Presbyters was this: — " I presume the ladies knew whom to confide in ! It does not occur to me that they would have told you. They would understand the difference between you and me, at a glance. Did you ever know what it means when a lady speaks to you as she would to a sister? No ! Well, go then and be made over again, and betray yourself no more by ignorant questions." From this time, I believe, they never faltered. One affidavit was sworn before the Mayor, and another before John M'Cahill, public notary, who was also to call at the house of Mrs. L., whither the ladies went with me, as I thought there was no doubt that that lady's testimony- could be obtained ; for I was under a promise to return the affidavits, if no others could be procured. That lady's tes- timony was not obtained ; but other circumstances pre- vented the courageous girls from demanding the papers back. In short, I heard that the work was already begin- LATE BISHOP OF NEW-YORK, UNRAVELLED. 11 ning, from other quarters ; but it was a rumor only, and I heard no names. Thus prepared, I visited one of the most Christian persons I know in this world, and simply stated, "lam going to Philadelphia to overthrow the Bishop of New York." (I give the substance of remarks, observa- tions, &c., and often the words.) " Thank God !" she calmly replied ; and I went on. Monday morning, Oct. 14. I took the 5 o'clock boat for Philadelphia ; met the Rev. Dr. Taylor, and the Rev. L. Van Bokkelen on board. I stated my purpose, and that I had the affidavits. Dr. Taylor replied, Richmond, I knew it must come, but I did not think it was coming so soon." The other asked, — "If we could assist each other." Both seemed to agree in the necessity. On reaching Philadelphia, I went at once to St. Andrew's Church, consulted no one ; spoke in passing to two or three clergymen only — said to the man at the divid- ing bar, " Let me in ;" and in ten minutes had placed a letter (I kept no copies) in the hands of Bishop Meade ; and the following, which I remember word for word, in the hands of Bishop Chase. To the Secretary of the House of Bishops, or the Presiding Bishop : — Right Reverend Fathers, I accuse the Bishop of New York, and hold sworn evidence of his licentious conduct. When shall we be confronted ? How shall I go on ? Yours in sorrow, James C. Richmond, Presbyter of Rhode Island. House,