The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-05-25
Bishop Hughes and his Lettsr-The Close OF
the Controversy.

NOUS report of the proceedings IN Carroll Hall in
1871, on which occasion Bishop Hughes made the
celebrated speech which laid the foundation Of all
the unhappy mngling Of religious preludices and
feelings with political affairs, that has produced
such bitter fruits in this city and elsewhere. We
give this report from the F}semans Journal"-
the Bishops own paper-a report which was sub
jected to his revision, and was published with bis
full appreciation ard that of his friends. And in
parallel columns we give the report which appeared
IN the Herald the same morning, by which every
reader VIII be enabled to perceive that the two
ports are precisely IDENTICAL with the exception Of
two or three words in the description of the APP
plause, and which were probably struck out of the
report furnished to the Bishop. These reports were
both made by the same gentleman, as we have al
ready stated, and we present the ncontroverti-
bic proof that they are word for word the same
at the report which the Bishop has so distinctly
and vehemently denounced as "buresque report"
is, TO the very letter, the same that published in
his own paper, after having received his sanction
1t will be perceived that the whole controversy
on this subject hinges upon the accuracy of this
report-upon the Judgment of he public mind on
those proceedings which it descnbed-and upon
the subsequent controversy and movements which
grew out Of the extraordinary poltico-rellgous
movement in Carroll Hall in ls4l The whole
force and momentum of the Bishops letter is d-
rected against the accuracy of that report. He
says that that report the basis and the foun-
tain - of all the opposition made TO him by the
newspaper press, and of all that which he desig-
mates as " malignant abuse" poured out on him
ever since from all quarters. Thus, with degree
Of hardihood unparalleled, the Bishop, in The full
consciousness that the report was literally correct
that it had been made by the same gentleman for
the Herald and for himself for his own paper-with
all this consciousness, this Bishop, this holy man,
this servant of the most high God, has, we say,
the audacity to come forward before this commu-
nifty and declare, in the face of Heaven and all
men, that his own report-the report which he had
ordered to be made, and revised, and approved,
and published-is false, burlesque, fabricated re-
port, "studded with ribadry" If ever there was
an individual who has stultifed, and disgraced, and
covered himself with confusion, it is this same
Bishop Hughes. All the otherportlons of his letter
his snatches of personal history, incidents about
O'Connell, references to the American Republican
meetings. and the various illusions to sundry
names and personages-all amount to nothing.
They are mere "leather and prunella." The
whole of this controversy rests on this point,
and on this point alone. The Bishop has been
convicted of uttering deliberate-a most gross
and atrocious falsehood He has been proved
TO be guilty of circulating this falsehood through
the journals of this city. And now we affix it up
on his forehead. We brand this burning disgrace
upon his cheek, and dare him to come before the
public in any capacity for the purpose of impugning
the accuracy of the report which we published,
and which we have shown to be Identical with his
own. This broad, lncontrovertible and truly start
ling fact, sweeps away at one blow the whole of
the Bishops elaborate supersructure of points and
postulates, and propositions, and assertions and d.
alectics. 1t strips him OF every rag, and exposes
him in all the nakedness of convicted falsehood to
the burning indignation of all veracious and hon
orabe men.
Such was the speech-such were the proceedings
al Carroll Hall-and such the effect produced by
them on the public mind All along we have con-
tended that to this memorable movement-which
it seems the Bishop is determined neither nor
the public shall ever forget-was to be attributed all
those bitter religious animosities which have cha
racterised the last two or three years-that that
speech at Carroll Hall was, indeed, the Bishop,
with more than his usual felicity of expression,
has said, "was the basis and the fountain" Of
the "Native American movement " in this city
and that but for the strength of our city govern
ment and the omnipotence of that practical good
which characteristics our citizens commu-
nifty, our streets also might have been watered with
blood, and the smoke and flames of buildings con-
secrated TO the worship of the true God, might
have called down the powers of offended Heaven
on maddened and Infatuated mobs here as well as
in Philadelphia
Bishop Hughes takes vast credit to himself that
his arrival i'll this city in his official capacity,
he undertook to do something for the promotion of
the education of the children of his parshioners.
Well, that was undoubtedly proper and noble
object of ambition. But subsequent events have
shown that the aim and purpose of the Bishop was
perverted to bad purpose. If the public school
law of this city required amendment-ifit un-
just towards any class or sect-who dares to doubt
that rational and enlightened appeal to the good
sense and moral equity of both parties in the Lee
gislature, would have produced the necessary re-
dress? But to prostitute this noble cause to the
of political ends, was utterly at vari-
ance with all the ideas which we Justly en-
terrain of ecclesiastical propriety-it was dis
graceful--it was more, 1t was criminal in the
highest degree on the part of Bishop Hughes,
and never, never can he obterate that disgrace
never, can he get rid of that guilt. So long
as Bishop Hughes conducted the controversy be-
fore the Common Council Of the city-so long as
he sought in his own sphere, and by the only APP
propriate weapons, reason and argument, to con-
vince men of the accuracy of his views and the
Justice of his projects, he not liable to censure
And SO long as he thus conducted the agitation,
Bishop Hughes received no censure from us. We
might have differed with him; but we should, in
deed, have merlted the full walls Of his wrath and
that of all men, had we denounced him, or inter
tered with him, so long as he kept in his own
sphere, and within his Legitimate limits, as the
religious guardian of his people. But from the
very moment when he first departed from the
place Of Christian Bishop, and adopted the dis
reputable weapons of mere political gladiator,
from that moment he became amenable to the