gap* 
 
 ^$M»MlliSP 
 
 
 
 ^> 'fer? 
 
 
 IV A 
 
 
 ^Mi 
 
 
BISHOP WHITEHOUSE 
 
 DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 BT 
 
 S^IMI' LH. KERPOOT, 
 
 OF CHICAGO. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 THOMPSON & DAY, BOOK, JOB AND ORNAMENTAL PRINTERS, 86 DEARBORN ST. 
 
 I860. 
 
BISHOP WHITEHOUSE 
 
 DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 BY 
 
 SJLl&'JL, T£. KBRFOOT, 
 
 OF CHICAGO. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 THOMPSON & DAY, BOOK, JOB AND ORNAMENTAL PRINTERS, 86 DEARBORN ST. 
 
 I860. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following Pamphlet was written shortly after the late. Diocesan Con- 
 vention of the Episcopal Church in Illinois, and before the arrival of the 
 Bishop and his family in Chicago. 
 
 The Bishop has rented a house here, and is now with his family occupying 
 the same. 
 
 In addition to the Bishop's own furniture which he has there, he uses, under 
 a chattel mortgage given by the owner and former occupant of the dwelling, 
 a part, if not a large part of the furniture of that former occupant and 
 owner. 
 
 I hope sincerely, though a bold hope, that the future now will do more for 
 the Church in Illinois than the past has ; how, I do not know, nor can I im- 
 agine. 
 
 The Bishop has been here upwards of a month, and yet no demonstration 
 has been made on his part of a desire for reconciliation with his Clergy here, 
 and that there has been an estrangement, no one, of course, pretends to deny. 
 Some of the Clergy and their wives have called on him, but I believe, none 
 have gained admittance, the family of the Bishop being out or engaged at the 
 time of the visit. 
 
 And now one word in justice to myself. The task of writing this document, 
 which, though self-imposed, was imperative, and has been anything but a pleas- 
 ant one to me. 
 
 I am a good Churchman ; I reverence the office of Bishop ; I hold that the 
 Church is the true repository of " the faith once delivered to the Saints," and 
 that her Bishops are the only due and legitimate channel for the transmission 
 of authority. The man cannot affect the validity of the official acts of the 
 functionary. 
 
 His laying on of hands, when duly done, is good, let his own private faults 
 be what they may. 
 
 His ww-official acts, however, his secular operations, even when springing 
 out of his Holy calling, must be in keeping with Christian standards, in order 
 to receive our sanction. 
 
 And I cannot approve of wrong plans or devices, even when conceived by a 
 brain covered by a mitre. 
 
BISHOP WHITEHOUSE 
 
 AND THE 
 
 DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 I am hazarding nothing in saying that all who know anything 
 regarding the history of Ecclesiastical affairs in the Diocese of 
 Illinois for the past nine years will agree with me, that the 
 present position or situation of the Bishop of the Diocese is 
 far from being either a pleasant or an enviable one. 
 
 Let the fault, let the sin, lie at whose door it may — still, that in 
 some place or other, from some cause or other there exists a great 
 wrong here, none can deny. My present purpose is, if possi- 
 ble, to trace home that fault, according to my mind, to charge 
 that wrong where according to my mind it belongs. To 
 this end I will give facts and figures, and with such comments 
 on the same as may be necessary to elucidate those facts, and 
 to link together the documents and their history showing them 
 to be facts, to send them forth to the world to speak for them- 
 selves. 
 
 And giving my conviction at once, I will afterwards show 
 the ground of that conviction. My readers will thus see for 
 themselves, and will of themselves be able to judge of the 
 correctness or falseness of my conclusion. I make, then, the 
 
 general charge, that to Bishop "Whitehouse in the mam belongs 
 
 2 
 
6 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE A> T D 
 
 the fault of the present condition of affairs in the Diocese of 
 Illinois. The main prime cause or source of the constant and 
 unceasing difficulties, of one kind after another, one scarcely 
 being settled before a new one would spring up, being the 
 nature of the man. To his intimates I make no new announce- 
 ment here. All who know him, and will be frank enough to 
 bear testimony on the subject, will agree with me and endorse 
 my position. 
 
 The development of this peculiar nature or disposition was 
 not reserved for the time at which he assumed the mitre. His 
 New York friends knew it before we called him. It has made 
 him liable to objections on the part of those who have been 
 connected with him at all times, and I will publish documents, 
 if necessary, to prove this. The peculiar turn of his mind — 
 the tendency to close framing of bargains and contracts — the 
 mind at all times leaning towards the accumulation of money — 
 the peculiar interpretation of language when embodied in 
 secular or pecuniary bargains, an acuteness in framing agree- 
 ments as touching the subsequent circumstances under which 
 those agreements would be used, unfulfilled or carried out, mark 
 the man. A singular degree of shrewdness in this line, so 
 unusual in a clergyman, and I may say so dangerous to the 
 singleness or purity of the sphere of thought and mind of one 
 given to holy things, has so characterized the outward life of 
 Bishop Whitehouse, that we must of necessity infer that the 
 inner life has been of this kind to an extent uncommon in 
 Ecclesiastics. 
 
 Even for argument's sake, admitting that the sole cause is 
 not by any means in Bishop Whitehouse — that there have been 
 wrongs done by those in his Diocese, who should not have 
 been guilty of them; still, is it not strange that a Bishop 
 should not have to-day, should not have had in all the ehanges 
 of clergy during the past nine years in the metropolitan city of 
 his Diocese, one clergyman to stand up in his defence against 
 
THE DIOCESE OP ILLINOIS. 
 
 the general charge of a strong tendency to wrong doing — to 
 shrewd management — to financial scheming, to skill in baffling, 
 
 to concentrating in himself power and control, to exercising 
 judgment ih every thing, save in that one glorious line, which 
 stilus to engage the heart and sonl of every other Bishop of 
 the Church, namely, the winning of souls to Christ, hy plant- 
 ing and nurturing churches in his Diocese, by devising schemes 
 for schools, by having Church-homes, hy enlisting the hearts of 
 the generous in Orphan Asylums, and doing good in the various 
 methods to which Christ's Church is so admirably adapted. 
 But no, there is no such champion or defender, and there has 
 not been at any time, and if ever any one undertook the task, 
 he soon found it one his ability and his conscience would not 
 allow him to perform. 
 
 Not one Church scheme is on foot to-day in the whole 
 Diocese; not one has been attempted, save that of the 
 Cathedral. And that was no sooner conceived, that the ten- 
 dency of which I have spoken began to show itself. Hearts, 
 warm with the desire to aid their Bishop grew cold and chilled 
 with the plain and palpable evidence of a nature which the 
 world in its dealings shuns, and which, when shown in a Bishop, 
 turned back to their sources, soured and disappointed the 
 warm out-gushings of generous souls. And, I speak what I 
 know, when I say that the result of that dampening is that 
 men who then stood ready to give to the Church — men who 
 were then (eight years since) young in years, being now com- 
 paratively old, and not having in the meantime had the school- 
 ing they would have had in the art of giving, being now, as 
 then, not professed followers of Christ, attribute to religion the 
 wrong they conceive to have been done by the Bishop. 
 
 The initiatory scheme or plan entered into by the Bishop 
 was one, as the world knows, to furnish for himself what he 
 knew the Diocese could not pay him, a salary. That failed 
 because Trinity Parish coidd not in some way meet his require- 
 
BISHOP AVHITEIIOUSE AM) 
 
 meats. The next was a Real Estate operation, to which the 
 hearts of Churchmen responded with a promptness and liber- 
 ality, at that time, more creditable to their generosity than to 
 their pecuniary prudence or closeness. This not only failed, 
 by reason of the early development of the turn which the 
 Bishop was giving to the matter, but became an " issue of 
 blood," and having stood for nearly "ten years," we have 
 ahnost " wasted our living " in trying to cure it. 
 
 It* has become, during eight years agitation, very compli- 
 cated. One Bishop has had charge of one side of the ques- 
 tion all the time, wiiile various Conventions, various standing 
 committees, various committees of conference, various self- 
 constituted letter-writers, have made as many various reports, 
 as many various proposals and as many various concessions, 
 all with and without formal authority, simply for the purpose of 
 healing the breach. During all of which time the Bishop, 
 while he has not taken even one short step towards doing what 
 he, the Church at large, and the Diocese of Illinois all knew 
 he should have done has been treasuring up these reports and 
 proposals and concessions, and is now using them as they were 
 not at all designed to be used, and as it is not fan- to use them 
 for a cloak and defence to his prolonged absence and his other 
 steps to which so many of his clerical and lay friends take 
 exceptions. 
 
 Now, I know these arc hard sayings. I know what 
 the kind-hearted ones will say. My mind's ear hears the 
 loyal and loving sons and daughters of revered Bishops of 
 other Dioceses exclaim: "Oh, that is too severe; that is 
 unfilial ; how can he, a good Churchman, speak thus of his 
 Bishop ?" Ah, my friends, you look through a glass darkly. 
 I see the facts face to face. You are, as I, with other Church- 
 men and Churchwomen of this Diocese, were once, under a 
 Bishop whose coming is known and welcomed by your whole 
 
THE DIOCESE OP ILLINOIS. 9 
 
 Parish ; who comes and goes as one of your own ; who, when 
 he comes ami goes does not travel far, especially does not go 
 to his home in another Diocese ; who does not think that a final 
 promise to take up bis social home in your midst all that is 
 necessary to wipe out, what his people think, a continued wrong- 
 doing of nine years standing ; who could not have clone any 
 Buch thing even if a technical defence could have been made 
 to his conduct ; who would not have made necessary the 
 enactment of a Canon never dreamed of before by our Eccle- 
 siastical law-givers ; and who would not, after the passage of 
 such law have lived in defiance of it to the tightest tension of 
 the courtesy, forbearance and shrinking of those with whom 
 alone rest the steps to be taken in order to the remedying of 
 this evil. These things have been done by our Bishop till our 
 whole social-ecclesiastic system is so aggravated and dis- 
 eased on the subject that any irritation is likely to develop 
 boils and blotches which must mar its fair beauty. 
 
 Those nine years have gone. And while our Church-loving 
 hearts have had yearnings for some work in which to engage 
 in our Diocese, and our Longings have been goino; forth in the 
 dark, stretching themselves out, feeling as it were for some- 
 thing to do, so that we might play "follow leader" in those 
 things which as faithful sons and daughters of the Church we 
 know to be our privilege to do, alas ! we find no plans laid 
 for us by our head — no leader to follow. 
 
 And I argue that, falsics in uno, falsus in omnibus, holds good 
 here. A Bishop, who for any cause (especially the alleged 
 wrong-doings of his Diocese towards him, urged as I will 
 show, after he had given other excuses,) will for nine years 
 absent himself from the field of labor, to which he was called 
 " according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ," and will 
 battle demands, resist inducements, skillfully use reasoning 
 against exhortations to duty, and maintain his grounds against 
 all, trusting to the natural unwillingness of Churchmen to 
 
10 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE AXD 
 
 thrust their grievances before the world by presenting him for 
 . trial, will do other wrongs differing only in kind, not in degree ; 
 at least not shrinking from those of equal enormity. 
 
 And now, what justified his non-residence ? Nothing. 
 
 The lack of salary Avas not the reason. He expected none from 
 the Diocese when he was elected. The Diocese was not pay- 
 ing her venerable Bishop Chase at the time, and, of course; 
 could promise no salary, and did promise none to the assistant 
 Bishop. Before he was consecrated, he arranged with Trinity 
 Church, Chicago, for his salary — as Rector. Twenty-five hun- 
 dred dollars a year (a good salary at that time,) were to be paid 
 him, and before he was consecrated he was elected to and 
 accepted the Rectorship of that Parish. His salary, then, was 
 to supply what he knew the Diocese could not furnish. His 
 scheme there failed. His Cathedral plan was begiui — that 
 failed. But these plans failed because that Chicago men, 
 prompt, active and generous, soon saw that some second thought 
 was at work in the Bishop's mind, and that these means were 
 to be used for his benefit, and not as they designed it for the 
 benefit of the Church at large. They repudiated the plans 
 entered into because delay and lack of good faith on the part 
 of the Bishop warned them. 
 
 Lack of a dwelling-house was not the cause — at least failure 
 on the part of the Diocese to furnish one Avas not the reason 
 of the beginning of his non-residence or the assigned ground 
 of the delay in coming here. The Diocese would have been 
 surprised at any such reason, had it been assigned, as in the 
 first place it had not the means to build one, and in the next 
 place it had never promised one, nor had the Bishop originally 
 asked one. Bishop Whitehouse himself bears early testimony 
 to the truth of this, as in December, of 1852, he agrees to build 
 for himself a residence. The only part the Diocese Avas to 
 lake in it Avas to lend him the ground, which, under a plan 
 begun by him after he became Bishop, it AA T ould become the 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 11 
 
 owner of. The Diocese agreeing that in order that he might not 
 jeopardize the money he invested in his own residence on its 
 land, he could temporarily and in trust take the title in his 
 own private and individual name, with an agreement verbally 
 made, and the written minutes of which to be afterwards 
 amplified, were drawn up by E. C. Lamed, Esq., that 
 when the Diocese would refund to him the cost of the dwelling 
 he would convey the property in toto to the Right Reverend 
 Henry J. Whitehouse, Bishop of Illinois, and his successors in 
 office. 
 
 The whole transaction there shows that Bishop Whitehouse 
 at first contemplated neither salary or dwelling as conditions 
 precedent, or as duties incumbent on the Diocese prior to his 
 coming into it to live. Hence all the arguments are, in my 
 mind, of no avail towards the justification of the beginning of 
 the Bishop's non-residence. Of course, these as reasons for 
 his continued non-residence are worse than sand foundations. 
 The original being baseless, the secondary have nothing to rest 
 on. The truth of the matter is, the Bishop began to non-reside, 
 and having begun it, and the necessarily consequent evils having 
 grown out of it, he continued to non-reside and the evils in- 
 creased. Time has widened the breach — has increased the 
 evils and made concession on the part of the Bishop more 
 difficult. 
 
 It rests with the Bishop now at this late day to remove the 
 exciting cause of this one great wrong. This he promises 
 now to do. But it rests w T ith an overruling Providence to 
 undo the harm already done by that exciting cause — that pro- 
 longed non-residence. Of the many advantages lost to the 
 Diocese of Illinois by the non-residence of the Bishop no due 
 estimate can be formed. When we know that in the last 
 decade the population of Illinois has gone from nine hundred 
 thousand to twice that number, and that during that time rail- 
 roads and improvements of various kinds have developed the 
 
12 BISHOP WHITEII0USE ANT) 
 
 State at a rate and to a degree unprecedented, that towns have 
 sprung into existence, and now numbers hundreds and thou- 
 sands of people, where not one house stood in 1850; and that 
 in every one of these towns the Church could have owned free 
 of cost, the gift of the proprietors, a site for a Church build- 
 ing and parsonage had the same degree of devotion and keen- 
 ness been used by our Bishop in relation to these matters, that 
 he exercised towards others, and of a private nature, we may 
 imagine, with a partial degree of justice, where the Church 
 would now stand, compared with what she does show to-day 
 in the way of growth. 
 
 Had he been here in our midst, resident among us, learning 
 our ways and seeing our movements ; had the rule been that 
 he was in Illinois, and the exception that he was in New York ; 
 had his name appeared in the Chicago Record, and his resi- 
 dence in Chicago been given with the names and residences of 
 the clergy living here, and had there been no occasion for the 
 New York Churchman in giving the list of names of the 
 clergy residing in New York City to place that of our Bishop 
 on it for nine years, over one-fourth of the average of human 
 life, then all of these things woidd not have occurred ; results 
 would have attended the ministrations and planningS of a faith- 
 ful and zealous Bishop, which the Diocese of Illinois now can 
 never see. No matter who is Bishop, or howsoever faithfully 
 he may work, the day has gone by for those results. The day 
 isin store, however, for great ones yet ; and Christ's promise to 
 his Church is too reliable to admit of our despairing. "We 
 have a great field socially, politically and ecclesiastically in the 
 Diocese of Illinois. 
 
 Nor must it be said — But why rub this sore any longer? 
 The Bishop is now coming, and why not let the matter drop 
 here and let us have peace? This, to a certain extent, is true 
 reasoning, and is good Christian advice. But must the wrong 
 be done us, ami we be "thrust out privily?" Who was a 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 13 
 
 Roman citizen and demanded his proper and just discharge V 
 We, too, are Roman citizens, and like our example in this par- 
 ticular, we demand a proper release. The escutcheon of the 
 Diocese does not stand untarnished before the world, her Bishop 
 having laid serious short-comings to her charge, and I, for one, 
 will not rest till I have shown to the Church at large that the 
 Diocese of Illinois has never been unfilial to her Bishop, or 
 lacking in loyalty to him so long as, and wherever he deserved 
 it. Pie has had it to the fullest measure of his claim. More- 
 over a sore healed over is not gone ; a hollow peace is not per- 
 manent ; a temporary bridge is not reliable. The promise, or 
 even the fulfilment of that promise, to come and reside is not 
 like charity. It cannot cover a multitude of sins. Experience, 
 the lamp that guides our feet, must not be ignored by 
 us, and we must profit by the past. From this great 
 wrong we must be prepared for the correctness of the 
 view of many of the best Clergy and Laity of the Diocese 
 relative to the other great wrong which we think the Bishop 
 has done regarding the six thousand dollars. 
 
 We will, therefore, now look into that matter, and the inci- 
 dents connected with its history, the documents and letters 
 relating to the transaction from its conception to its birth, and 
 up to its strangulation and inglorious issue. After that we will 
 turn our attention to the fact of the Bishop appending to the 
 journal of the late Convention documents, not part of nor rela- 
 ting to the business of the same, among which we find one, 
 the publication of which — even were the charges in it true — 
 is a most unchristian and unbishop-like act — heralding to the 
 world the remissness of a part of his sons — but which being 
 untrue, makes the publication libelous and wholly unpardonable. 
 
 "We may have occasion to touch upon the " corporator 
 sole " enactment, and show how the Diocese of Illinois should 
 not have her Bishop hold titles to and deal in real estate, when 
 the Illinois State Legislature clearly did not intend he should 
 
14 BISHOP WHITEIIOUSE AMD 
 
 do so, and as that Legislature did not design making him an 
 Incorporated Land Company. 
 
 And, as this pamphlet is the work of an individual and not 
 of a body of men, I beg that the facts and the truth of what I 
 say may be properly regarded, well weighed, and not dispa- 
 raged at all by what may seem like harshness to those who 
 dislike "plain English," and who prefer that mild style of lan- 
 guage which sometimes fails to convey fully all that is intended 
 to be said. If what I say is trice, and the arguments I may 
 use are well-founded, if the documents I publish and the infer- 
 ences we draw from them are conclusive, let justice prevail, no 
 matter that its enunciation may be made in a manner perhaps 
 too plain for the tender and loving hearts which are accus- 
 tomed to constant association with their paternal ecclesi- 
 astic rulers, and who cannot appreciate the searing effect of 
 the incessant and ever-changing ground of complaint which 
 the Churchmen of the Diocese of Illinois, Clergy and Laity, 
 High Church and Low Church, Pastoral Aid and anti-Pastoral 
 Aid, Cathedral and anti-Cathedral, Residence and non-Resi- 
 dence, Communicants and non-Communicants, all think they 
 have against Bishop Whitehouse. If the Bishop is right and 
 these men are wrong, it shows a most anomalous condition of 
 things — one man right and a whole community wrong. 
 
 And if all that is said be construed into a desire to wage war 
 against our Bishop, it of course is admissible to ask : Why do 
 all shades of Churchmanship unite in thinking him wrong ? 
 Why do Clergy and Laity join hands in attempting to undo 
 wrongs which they consider done? Why do communicants 
 link with non-communicants? Why do those in the Church 
 agree with those out of the Church, and why are professing 
 Christians compelled to agree with non-professing Christians, 
 but high-toned business men, that the transactions of the Bishop 
 are not defensible according to business standards ? 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 15 
 
 THE CATHEDRAL LOT, THE RESIDENCE LOT AND THE SIX 
 THOUSAND DOLLAR MATTER. 
 
 That Bishop Whitehouse had authority to convey to Mr. 
 Beers the Cathedral lot no one questions. He held it as Trus- 
 tee of the Diocese, no conditions being expressedly appended 
 to the trust. The Diocese by her Convention, after his hesita- 
 tion to convey without her consent, had given him such per- 
 mission to re-convey as would cover any question regarding his 
 authority to do so. Such authority was not used at the time it 
 was given, but the Bishop quotes it plausibly as a sanction to 
 his subsequent action in the final conveyance to Mr. Beers. 
 The essence of wrong in the matter consisted not in his re-con- 
 veyance of the lot, but in his taking from Mr. Beers money 
 for that, to which no one but Mr. Beers had any equitable title 
 or claim. The Diocese had none, for the gentlemen who pro- 
 posed to present to it a lot for a Cathedral Church refused to 
 pay for it, and hence the deed which Mr. Beers had made on 
 the good faith of the subscriptions and of the Itishojfs assu- 
 rance that no abuse should be allowed of the confidence 
 reposed in him by Mr. Beers, was obtained without considera- 
 tion, and should have been cancelled at once. The individuals 
 who subscribed had no claim to the property, for they failed 
 utterly to comply with their part of the contract in paying for 
 it. The Bishop had no claim to it, either privately or officially, 
 as it was never intended (as the subscription paper, now for 
 the first time given to the public, will show,) that he should 
 have any individual interest in it, and of course his official 
 interest was limited by that of the Diocese. The latter having 
 none, both by reason of the failure of the consideration, and 
 by reason of the Bishop's failure, as JBishop, to erect on the 
 lot the Cathedral Church according to the verbal agreement, 
 as certified to by all the original contributors, not within ten 
 years, but at once. Hence, it is claimed that Mr. Beers should 
 have received the Cathedral lot back, of course paying nothing 
 for the re-conveyance, all considerations having failed him. 
 
16 BISHOP WHITEIIOUSE AND 
 
 With regard to the residence lot, its plain history will show 
 that privately the Bishop had no claim to it at all, and that 
 officially not even the semblance of a claim, which he had 
 acquired to the Cathedral lot by reason of the deed which Mr. 
 Beers had confidingly made to him, attached to it. He never 
 did hold any paper at all relative to the residence lot, much 
 less one that gave him any shadoto of title to it either officially 
 or privately. Hence there was no need of, and Mr. Beers 
 neither asked or desired any re-conveyance or release of it 
 from Bishop or Henry J. "VYhitehouse. 
 
 Now, of the truth of these statements all may judge from 
 the following history, documents and comments. 
 
 I can best open the history of the matter by giving a copy of 
 the original subscription paper. The italics and capitals are 
 of course my own. 
 
 And right here I. wish to state that this paper is the key to 
 the whole history of the matter. It shews the plan, the inten- 
 tion of the contributors, the amount to be paid, who were to 
 pay it, and what they designed paying it foi\ 
 
 And at the portal of this history, I wish the fact to be made 
 known, that when the deed was made to Mr. Beers, and a sep- 
 arate paper with regard to the residence lot was drawn up — 
 merely for convenience sake ; not supplanting or annuling, but 
 only springing out of this original paper — this original paper, 
 this hey disappeared ami never could be found. It, the basis 
 of the whole transaction ; it, the interpreter of the intention of 
 the donors ; it, the patent from wliich might be gained the in- 
 formation on which Committees and Conventions could reliably 
 make reports and trace titles, and tell whose "were the avails 
 of sales or compromises," never could be found, and these re- 
 ports, these declarations of titles, these defending documents, 
 which the Bishop has been treasuring up so carefully, were all 
 made as the Report of the Convention of 1855, was made 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 17 
 
 (" after the reading and withdrawal of the prepared report,") 
 "on conference icith the B ' is/top." 
 
 And I wish to state right here, that, had these standing com- 
 mittees, these conventions had this paper and others winch I 
 will now publish, they would never have been led to make the 
 statements they did. Had they seen the original subscription 
 list, they would have known that the whole twelve thousand 
 dollars were designed for the benefit of the Diocese — no part 
 for Bishop Whitehouse individually or privately. 
 
 Had they seen the supplemental subscription paper they 
 would have known that the Bishop was not to receive a gift, 
 and the report of 1855 could not have said, as it does, that 
 "the residence lot was intended to be purchased and presented 
 to Bishop Whitehouse." Had they seen his letter to Mr. Beers, 
 of January 17, 1854, they would have known that Bishop 
 Whitehouse did not then think he had a "contract for a deed" 
 of the residence lot, and the Standing Committee of 1856, 
 would not have advised him to " proceed if necessary to en- 
 force performance of the conti'act on the part of Mr. Beers." 
 
 In fine, had these papers not been secreted, and had not these 
 reports been made only after " conference with the Bishop," 
 there woidd not now be any necessity to explain documents 
 which have gone to the world from too great trust in the 
 Bishop's history of matters, and from too great a desire to heal 
 breaches. And I wish to be distinctly understood : These re- 
 ports and recomendations, and interpretrations, and decisions, 
 were made on statements of the Bishop — after " conference " 
 with him — without the documents we now have, and without 
 any information derived from the original subscribers, and 
 hence must not be taken at all in the face of these documents, 
 or against the truth, as shewn by them. We must now, with- 
 out the aid of standing committees, or the explanations given 
 us in " conference " with the Bishop, judge for ourselves from 
 these papers. 
 
BISHOP WIIITEIIOrSE AND 
 
 THE ORIGINAL SUBSCRIPTION PAPER. 
 
 " The undersigned respectively agree to give the sums set 
 opposite to their respective names, for the purpose of purchas- 
 ing lots No. 2 and 3 in block 8, fractional section 15, at the 
 sum of twelve thousand dollars ; lot two for the purpose of 
 erecting thereon a Cathedral Church, and lot three for a residence 
 for the Hishop of the Diocese of Illinois. The amount to be 
 paid, one, two and three years after the purchase, with 6 per 
 cent, interest. 
 
 " It is understood that above donations are made upon the 
 condition that the subscribers hereto shall not be called upon 
 for any future subscriptions, and under the expectation that 
 the Bishop will be enabled to raise from abroad the funds re- 
 quired for the erection of the Church edifice." 
 
 Chicago, Dec. 1, 1852. 
 
 C. Beers, $2,000 
 
 J. F. Ryerson, 1,000 
 
 Wm. Blair, 1,000 
 
 Jas. Morgan, 1,000 
 
 E. C. Lamed 500 
 
 D. Rutler, 500 
 
 J. M. Wilson, 500 
 
 R. F. Hadduck, 50o 
 
 D. J. Elv, 500 
 
 L. F. Billiard, 500 
 
 W. H. Adams, 250 
 
 J. A. Basset, 250 
 
 E. L. Sherman, 250 
 
 D. O. Bradley, 250 
 
 A. Gibbs, 150 
 
 G. W. Lay, 100 
 
 G. Bodges, 100 
 
 Thos. Bale, 100 
 
 Thomas Allen, 1 00 
 
 Together, f9,55Q 
 
 It needs no comment here to show that the subscribers in- 
 tended the whole property for the benefit of the Diocese ex- 
 clusively — " lot two (2) for the purpose of erecting thereon a 
 Cathedral Church, and lot three (3), for a residence for the 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Illinois." 
 
 The closing sentence of this subscription paper, my readers 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 19 
 
 will perceive made it the duty of the Bishop to " raise from 
 abroad the funds required for the erection of the Church Edi- 
 fice," and hence he asked Mr. Beers to make him a deed of the 
 Cathedral lot, so that he could lay the matter before his friends 
 at the East, and raise the funds there. Mr. Beers here protest- 
 ed against making the deed, and closing up one part of the 
 business, leaving the other part, the residence lot, unclosed. 
 He also protested against any variance from the usual custom 
 of taking mortgages on the property as security for the pay- 
 ment of the purchase money remaining unpaid. To both of 
 these objections the Bishop urged as follows : 
 
 First. — The whole transaction was one, and he would com- 
 plete the $12,000 by his subscribing the deficit, with the condi- 
 tion that he might substitute other names for the whole or for 
 a part of his subscription. Any part, however, for which he 
 did not furnish other names, was to stand as an " encumbrance 
 on the other lot." He thus, it will be perceived, not giving any 
 thing toward the fund, but merely borrowing of Mr. Beers on 
 the property of the Diocese the amount of the deficit. 
 
 Secoistd. — The Bishop said that unless he had a clear deed 
 he could not " raise the funds from abroad," and that the pro- 
 ject would succeed or fail at once, and hence though (con- 
 trary to the direct wishes of Mr. Beers,) the deed gave ten 
 years, the success of the project would not stand so long unde- 
 cided, and if it failed he would, acting as it were as Mr. Beers' 
 trustee in the matter, deed the lot back. This agreement was 
 clear according to the testimony of Mr. Larned, who was the 
 unbiased attorney of both the Bishop and Mr. Beers. 
 
 The consideration mentioned in the deed is $4,000, this 
 with Mr. Beers' subscription of $2,000 (to which Bishop 
 Whitehouse alludes in a letter of which I will give a copy 
 in this pamphlet,) makes the sum of six thousand dollars, 
 one half of the original purchase money intended to be raised 
 by subscription. 
 
20 BISHOP AVIIITEHOUSE AMD 
 
 Six thousand dollars of the nine thousand, five hundred and 
 fifty dollars subscriptions to the whole fund were thus applied 
 to the Cathedral lot — and the following paper being a list of 
 the subscribers for the residue of the funds, to wit : — 63,550 — 
 was made with a view to raising the other six thousand for the 
 residence lot. 
 
 SUBSCTIIPTIOX LIST NO. 2. 
 
 "In consideration of the sum of 86,000 to be paid in 1, 2, 
 and 3 years after date, with interest at 6 per cent., by the par- 
 ties hereinafter named, who are to give me their judgment 
 notes therefor, said notes to bear date the 1st day of Dec, 1852, 
 and to be of the respective amounts set opposite their respective 
 names, and payable as hereinafter mentioned ; I agree to execute 
 and deliver to Henry J. Whitehouse a deed of lot 3 in block 8, 
 fractional section 15 addition to Chicago, upon condition that 
 the* said Whitehouse erect thereon a residence for himself, the 
 said lot and house thereon erected, to be subject to an agree- 
 ment for a conveyance from said Whitehouse to Henry J. 
 Whitehouse, Bishop of Illinois, which is to be hereafter exe- 
 cuted, and the minutes of which in substance have been drawn 
 up, and are now in the possession of E. C. Earned, Esq. The 
 sums herein referred to which are to be paid in 1, 2, and 3 
 years, as above stated, are as follows : 
 
 Chicago, Dec. 1, 1852. 
 
 E. C. Lamed, 
 
 J. M. Wilson, 500 
 
 B. F. Hadduck, 500 
 
 M. C. Stearnes, 500 
 
 W. H. Adams, 250 
 
 J. A. Bassett, 250 
 
 E. L. Sherman, 250 
 
 D. 0. Bradley, 250 
 
 Dr. A. Gibbs, 150 
 
 G. W. Lay, Jr., 100 
 
 G. Hodges, 100 
 
 Thomas Hale, ! 100 
 
 Thomas Allen, 100 
 
 3,550 
 H. J. Whitehouse, secured by bond and mortgage on property. .2,450 
 
 $6,000 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 21 
 
 Provided that, instead of the last named security, the notes 
 of other responsible parties may be substituted at any time be- 
 fore the execution of the deed. The Deed to be given on the de- 
 livery to said Beers of the securities for the amount above pro- 
 vided for. 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto, the 1st day of December, 
 
 A. D., 1852. (Signed) Cyrenius Beers, [Seal.] 
 
 In witness whereof, E. C. Laexed. 
 
 It diners somewhat from the original paper, and contem- 
 plates the Bishop's taking the title to the residence lot in his 
 own private name, with, at the same time, a qualifying contract 
 back from him. lie was to take the title in his own name, be- 
 cause the gentlemen who subscribed told him, that the Diocese 
 could not then build a house for her Bishop, and he proposed 
 to build one for himself on the property of the Diocese, now 
 intended to be presented to it by these gentlemen. 
 
 The contract back was to provide for the conveyance of the 
 residence lot by Henry J. Whitehouse to the Rt. Rev'd. Henry 
 J. Whitehouse, Bishop of the Diocese of Illinois, and his suc- 
 cessors in office, at any time within ten years, provided the 
 Diocese would refund to him the cost of the dwelling and in- 
 terest. This, as a matter of course, as the gentlemen who were 
 to pay the $6,000 did not design making to Henry J. White- 
 house a present of the lot. They designed giving to the Dio- 
 cese of Illinois a lot for an Episcopal Residence, and to let 
 Bishop Whitehouse have the use of the same, if he would, as 
 it were, lend the Diocese the money with which to build the 
 house ; of course it will be perceived that the Bishop's sub- 
 scription was in no danger of going to the Diocese, he losing 
 it. He was to make a bond and secure it by mortgage on pro- 
 perty, which, though really belonging to the Diocese, he was to 
 hold in his own name till the Diocese should repay him the 
 
 cost of the dwelling and interest, at which time he was to 
 
 3 
 
22 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE AND 
 
 convey the property to the Bishop of Illinois. But of course he 
 would convey it, subject to the encumbrance, and the Diocese 
 would have to pay the $2,450, in order to have a clear title. 
 And if the Diocese did not within ten years redeem the lot by 
 repaying to Bishop Whitehouse the cost of the dwelling, he 
 would become absolute owner of the lot, at a cost of §2,450. 
 
 This supplemental subscription list was in truth only the re- 
 sult of an arbitrary separating or setting apart of certain names 
 to the purchase of the Cathedral lot, that the Bishop might 
 have his clear deed of it, and the placing the names of the res- 
 idue as the beginning of the list of residence lot purchasers ; 
 the whole transaction, however, being an unit, and some of 
 the subscribers at the time objecting to the dividing of the 
 matter, but Mr. Larned assuming the authority to make the 
 division, and doing it of his own motion. 
 
 This paper, signed by Mr. Beers, was placed in escrow, in 
 the hands of Mr. Larned, till he should receive and hand to 
 Mr. Beers the securities of the subscriptions, to wit : — The 
 judgment notes of the subscribers, and the bond of Bishop 
 Whitehouse, and his mortgage covering the said bond. 
 
 A year passed ; the one year notes, if given, would have 
 been due ; but not only was there no money paid, but only 
 a portion of the notes were given. Bishop Whitehouse's bond, 
 and the security required by the contract was not given. 
 Hence, sometime after the lapse of the year, the equitable limit 
 of the escrow being reached, Mr. Larned, acting under the ad- 
 vice of Hon. John M. Wilson, returned to Mr. Beers the con- 
 tract. 
 
 During the time the paper was, with the minutes of the coun- 
 ter contract, and other papers relating to the matter, in the 
 hands of Mr. Larned in escrow, the Bishop asked permission 
 to examine the papers relating to the business. Mr. Larned 
 thinks he sent all of them to the Bishop. The contract being 
 the most important paper was especially remembered by Mr. 
 
Till: DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 23 
 
 Lamed, audit not being returned, and failing to be returned 
 at Mr. Larned's request, he wrote to the Bishop explicitly, de- 
 manding its return, trusting that it would not be necessary for 
 him to institute proceedings to recover it. Mr. Lamed, unfor- 
 tunately, has no copy of this letter. The Bishop, doubtless, 
 has the original, and if I am at fault, I Avill esteem it a favor if 
 he Avill refer to the document and correct me. The paper 
 came, and was returned to Mr. Beers. 
 
 This was the only way in which the Bishop ever " held a 
 contract for the residence lot." Would the Standing Com- 
 mittee now advise the Bishop to ask a specific performance of 
 that contract from Mr. Beers '? 
 
 The minutes of the contract to be drawn back, I cannot 
 furnish to the world, as I promised I would, as Mr. Lamed 
 thinks it, the orginal subscription list, and others went with 
 the papers to the Bishop, and that he never got back any but 
 the contract. Of this he is not sure ; the Bishop, hoAvever, can 
 inform us with regard to this. But it is of no great import- 
 ance, as the fact that such a paper Avas to be made, and 
 its purport, are both evidenced by the supplemental paper 
 itself. 
 
 Now, on the Cathedral lot, Mr. Beers did, I believe, receive 
 the notes for $4,000. But before December of 1853, the time 
 at which the first notes Avere to fall clue, some of the makers 
 informed Mr. Beers that they would not pay them, the Bishop 
 not having raised any funds, with which to carry out his plan 
 of a church, as he had agreed to do. 
 
 This Avas in December of 1S53, or thereabouts. A meetino- 
 of the makers of the Cathedral notes was held, and Bishop 
 Whitehouse had an interview Avith them. He told them that 
 Chicago would haA'e to raise $30,000 toward the building of 
 the Church. To this the gentlemen with much surprise ob- 
 jected, on the ground that the original subscription stipulated 
 that the Bishop Avas to raise the funds from abroad. The Bishop 
 
24 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE AXD 
 
 differed with them on this point, and told them that such was 
 not the case. But the paper could no where be found. 
 
 The deed of the Cathedral lot had been given, and the supple- 
 mental subscription paper, relating to the residence lot, was in 
 the hands of Mr. Earned, so that the original paper was over- 
 looked. It could at that time be found no where, and it never 
 was found till the 21st day of June, A. D., 1860, when Mr. Beers 
 espied it among the papers of the Bishop, lying on the table, 
 when they were all in the Attorney's office, finally adjusting the 
 matter of re-conveyance. Mr Beers did not think himself enti- 
 tled to the paper itself, but he did take a copy of it, and I now 
 have given it to the world. Mr. Larned thinks the Bishop got 
 it with the other papers years since. 
 
 If the copy which I have given hereinbefore is not a correct 
 one, I will be obliged to Bishop Whitehouse, if he will produce 
 the original and show wherein the copy I have is wrong. 
 
 The gentlemen, however, I am informed, declined raising the 
 $30,000, and the Bishop went home to New York. Some of 
 the notes on the residence lot, including " the bond of It. J. 
 Whitehouse for $2,450," were never signed, nor were the 
 security and the agreement for re-conveyance required by that 
 contract ever executed, and hence were never delivered to Mr. 
 Beers. So that " the deed to be given on the delivery to said 
 Beers of the security for the amount above provided for" was 
 never given as the securities were never made, and of course 
 there was no " delivery." 
 
 And there is the ground on which Bishop Whitehouse sets 
 up his official and private personal claim to the real estate, and 
 for a re-conveyance of which he demanded and obtained the 
 sum of six thousand dollars. 
 
 Noav, then, the Cathedral. Church was never built, so that 
 the lot, according to the verbal compact, should already have 
 reverted to Mr. Beers ; and by the express terms of the deed 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 25 
 
 two years and eight months more would have caused a rever- 
 sion if the church had not been built. 
 
 The spirit of the compact regarding the Cathedral lot was 
 violated wholly and entirely. The spirit, letter and whatever 
 else there was of compact regarding the residence lot was dis- 
 regarded in toto, and hence no claim legal or equitable rested 
 on the property in favor of the Bishop personally or officially. 
 So that in no wise had he any claim to the property ; nor had he 
 any right to ask money for his re-conveyance of that which he 
 had not in good faith obtained, namely the title to the Cathe- 
 dral lot ; nor had he any partnership interest in the profits as he 
 declared to the Rev. Mr. Pratt he had. 
 
 But did the Bishop fully intend building the Church? Did 
 his re-conveyance derange his plans very much? Bead part 
 of his address to the late Diocesan Convention — see one of the 
 reasons which moved him to sell and take the $6,000 ; " and 
 aware that in the lapse of time, and the rapid changes of the 
 city, the expediency of occupying that particular site for a 
 Bishop's Church had materially changed. * * * * I 
 deemed it expedient to accept the terms." 
 
 Why then " make a gain " of the desire which the subscri- 
 bers had entertained seven years before, and which they in 
 March, 1854 — not note in 1860 — told the Bishop had led them 
 to subscribe, but which desire was then disappointed. 
 
 Bishop Whitehouse, I say, went home to New York. We 
 hear from him January 17th, 1854, one month and a half after 
 the maturity of the first set of notes. He writes thus to Mr. 
 Beers. And now mark this letter — see " the nature of the 
 man," as evinced in it. See how he, willing to contemplate 
 a reversion of the Cathedral lot and a failure to give the indi- 
 viduals the Church, for the building of which he agreed to find 
 the funds, still aims to " make a gain " to himself out of a part 
 of the general plan. 
 
20 BISHOP WH1TEHOTJSE AXD 
 
 New York, January 17th, 1854. 
 
 Dear Sir: — I have not heard of the payments having been made to you 
 since I left Chicago, on the lots. If none have been made, I beg to renew 
 my offer of personal purchase of the south lot at $6,000. The terms I then 
 proposed were $2,000 cash, the residue bond and mortgage in Ohio assigned, 
 payable in one, two and three years at six per cent, interest. 
 
 By this plan I shall be in possession of my own ground for building, and 
 the concentration of the subscriptions on the Church lot will probably pay for 
 that, and allow the withdrawal of any who may think they have cause to 
 recede. Your own donation of $2,000 will be refunded, and if there should 
 be a failure in building the Church that lot will revert to you, and its increased 
 value permit the re-payment to the contributors of principal and interest paid 
 by them. 
 
 This appears, after all my reflection, to be the safe and equitable course, the 
 moderate rate at which I shall buy the lot is only about the same I could have 
 obtained a similar one for when I first contemplated building. 
 Faithfully your obliged friend and servant, 
 
 (Signed) ' HENRY J. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 Cyrenius Beers, Esq. 
 
 Now, if you have read the foregoing letter carefully, and 
 have seen all its meaning, its force, and its hearing, you will 
 note what view Bishop Whitehouse took of the matter upwards 
 of a year after the subscription list was dated, and eleven 
 months after he had received the deed of the Cathedral lot, 
 and you will also detect the anxiety he entertained to get a 
 private hold of the residence lot, and to make a good bargain 
 for himself. 
 
 In this letter, it will be scon, he makes a proposal of a private 
 personal purchase of the residence lot, — (it was not then a gift to 
 him) — the amount of the consideration being $6,000; for which 
 $2,000 should be cash and $4,000 in Ohio bond and mortgage. 
 Then see how he proposes to concentrate the notes offered by 
 the purchasers of the two lots on to the one, (the Cathedral lot,) 
 thereby allowing a margin to cover the deficit arising from the 
 defection, then anticipated, on the part of some of the con- 
 tributors ; hoping that at least $6,000 from the two lists would 
 be collected. 
 
 Then see how he suggests to Mr. Beers that by this arrange- 
 ment he (Mr. Beers) would gain $2,000 by the operation, as 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 27 
 
 his subscription of that amount should be refunded to him. 
 See how he still further argues, that if the Cathedral is not built 
 and the Cathedral lot should revert, the rise in value on that lot 
 alone would enable Mr. Beers to refund to any who had met 
 all or any part of their obligations, at the time of such default, 
 the money they had paid and interest, thereby shewing that he 
 contemplated a possible failure to build the church, and in con- 
 sequence a simple reversion, in case of default in building, and 
 without pay for the rise in the value of the property, or any 
 partnership share of such enhancement; the repayment of the 
 instalments met by the subscribers being alone contemplated. 
 
 Then see how he argues that the low price (the property at 
 the date of the letter had risen in value very greatly,) at which 
 he would thus individually purchase the lot would be none too 
 moderate, as he could originally have purchased a similar lot 
 for that price ; when he knows, and the world knows, that he 
 did not dream of purchasing one then for his own use and with 
 his own funds, and when he knows that had the property fallen 
 in value Mr. Beers would have had no claim on him for the 
 price or any part of it, if he had chosen not to take it. 
 
 It requires only a word here in passing to shew that privately 
 no advantage belonged to Bishop Whitehouse at all from the 
 rise in value of the property. If any private advantage was 
 to be had it belonged to the gentlemen who had originally 
 agreed to buy. But they were high-toned business men, some 
 of them members of the Chicago Board of Trade, and such 
 claims did not accord with their own standard of right, nor with 
 that of the Board of which they were members. 
 
 However, Mr. Beers concluded to forego the inducement 
 offered by the $2,000, and to decline the Bishop's offer. 
 
 And now my friends let us stop. Do we need any more 
 conclusive evidence of, or index to "the nature of the man?" 
 I do not think we do. If, however, any of my readers do, we 
 will find it in the document which he finally ashed Mr. Beers to 
 
28 BISHOP WH3TEHOUSE AM) 
 
 sign, and which, with slight modification, he required him to 
 sign before he would re-convey. But I think the letter written 
 nearly seven years since shews plainly the "tendency" of 
 which I have so plainly spoken in the early part of this pamphlet. 
 
 Now, then, read the letter of the subscribers to the original 
 fund, addressed to the Bishop, March, 1854 — two months after 
 the Bishop had made the overtures of private purchase of the 
 residence lot — in which they asked him to re-deed the property 
 to Mr. Beers. 
 
 They were the parties entitled, if any were, except the Dio- 
 cese or Mr. Beers, to the rise in value of the real estate ; they, 
 however, waived this right and authorized the re-deeding to Mr. 
 Beers. 
 
 This is a document not written in 1860. It was written 
 when the subject of re-deeding was first broached. It shows 
 the early views taken of the matter, and is the plainest proof 
 of what the subscribers originally intended. It was signed 
 by men who now have ceased to take any active part in the 
 matter, but whose names are those of some of the best business 
 men Chicago knows to-day. Read it and see what they say. 
 
 Chicago, March 10th, 1854. 
 
 Right JRev'd and Dear Bishop : — We, the undersigned, subscribers to the 
 Cathedral Church, having interchanged our respective opinions with regard to 
 the condition of the enterprise, unanimously resolve, " That the church lot 
 ought to be re-conveyed to Mr. Beers, and the notes surrendered to the par- 
 ties who gave them without further delay." 
 
 "Firstly. — Because the delay, and want of action with which the first 
 movement made by us has been followed up, and the failure on your part to 
 take up your residence, and commence your ministration among us, has oper- 
 ated to cast a damper upon the original feeling and enthusiasm out of which 
 this movement sprung. 
 
 " Secondly. — Because that, although the deed itself gives a period of ten 
 years for the completion of the Church ; yet that time was given at your par- 
 ticular suggestion and request, and with reference to the completion of the 
 entire enterprise in all its parts, but upon the express understanding of the 
 undersigned, that the Church was to be commenced forthwith, and that the 
 subscribers were at once to receive the benefit of their subscriptions ; and fur- 
 ther, that the term of ten years was objected to by Mr. Beers and others, but 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 29 
 
 was inserted upon the ground that the project would either fail or succeed at 
 once ; and the additional time would make no difference, which was so stated 
 by yourself. 
 
 " Thikdly. — Because the whole subscription was a joint understanding for 
 the purpose of buying both lots, and each individual subscribed upon the faith 
 of the payment of all. Now a large number of the subscribers having refused 
 to pay ; and the subscriptions not being in such a condition as to be enforced, 
 it would be unjust to compel the signers of the notes in the hands of Mr. Beers 
 (who refuse payment,) to pay their subscriptions, when the undertaking has 
 been abandoned by their co-contributors; besides Mr. Beers has been already 
 kept too long out of the property for which he has received no consideration. 
 
 And Lastly. — Because there has been a great misunderstanding between 
 many of the contributors and yourself, with reference to your agreement to 
 obtain funds from the East, to build the Church without delay, and also with 
 reference to the nature, object, and execution of the enterprise. Therefore, 
 we have lost faith and interest in the undertaking, for it has not progressed, 
 or in any way wise come up to our original ideas and expectations, or met the 
 ends and objects of our subscriptions ; and, therefore, we consider that in 
 order to carry out that good faith in which the enterprise was commenced, it 
 becomes necessary to place the parties and property in the original condition ; 
 so with that aim and object, we address you this letter ; hoping it will receive 
 your immediate attention. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 JAMES MORGAN, EDWIN C. LARXED, 
 
 J. T. RYERSON, D. 0. BRADLEY, 
 
 CYRENITJS BEERS, GEO. W. LAY, Jr., 
 
 D. J. ELY, M. C. STEARNS, 
 
 B. F. HADDUCK, JNO. M. WILSON. 
 
 P. S. — As it is the wish of a large majority of the contributors, that the 
 church lot should be re-deeded to Mr. Beers, and the notes surrendered to the 
 parties ; and although we have been, and are willing to pay our notes, we 
 cheerfully join in the request that, under all the circumstances, the lot be re- 
 conveyed to Mr. Beers, and the parties placed in their original position. 
 
 WILLIAM BLAIR, 
 L. P. HILLIARD. 
 Addressed to the Right Rev'd Henry J. Whitehouse, No. 54 Eleventh 
 street, New York City. 
 
 Bishop Whitehouse replied to this very positively in the nega- 
 tive. This letter is in my opinion a very important link in the 
 chain of this history. It is entitled to a close reading, as 
 giving not the opinion of one man, or the recollection of an 
 individual as touching the spirit of the compacts, and the col- 
 lateral traditionary history or interpretation of the tangible 
 
30 BISHOP WHITEIIOUSE AND 
 
 written document, but the unanimous view of the whole of 
 the subscribers to the fund as given by them nearly seven 
 years since. 
 
 Read it carefully. I make no comment ; it speaks for itself. 
 I will have occasion to refer to it again. 
 
 Here the matter rested. The special form of the Bishop's 
 plan of a Cathedral being viewed by some as an evidence of 
 the "tendency" on his part " to concentrate in himself power 
 and control," of which I have hereinbefore spoken, the sub- 
 ject was brought up in the Diocesan Convention of 1855. 
 
 The Journal will best convey the history of the matter. I 
 quote the language of it and italicise the parts to which I 
 desire to call attention, and have parenthetically made such 
 explanatory comments as I deemed advisable. Of course my 
 interpolations are easily distinguishable from the language of 
 the report. 
 
 Extracts from the Journal of a Special Convention, in lieu of 
 the Eighteenth Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the Diocese of Illinois, held in St. Paid's Church, 
 Alton, 17th, 18th and 19th October, 1855 : 
 
 " The Committee appointed on the subject of the Bishop's Church and resi- 
 dence, offered a report, which, after reading was withdrawn.'''' [Why was it 
 withdrawn V] " After conference with the Bishop, the Committee offered the 
 following 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 The Committee to which was referred the subject of a Bishop's Church and 
 Residence, beg leave to report that after frequent sessions and much anxious 
 enquiry, they have arrived at the following resufts. 
 
 The facts, a part of which were reported to the last Convention, arc sub- 
 stantially as follows : 
 
 " Some three years since, two valuable lots of ground, situated in a most 
 prosperous and interesting part of the City of Chicago, were purchased of C. 
 Beers, Esq., by subscriptions from several contributors, which we shall denom- 
 inate Nos. 1 and 2. No. 1 was intended for a 'Cathedral Church,' of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Illinois, as is declared ou the 
 face of the Deed of Conveyance ; and. one of the conditions subsequent of 
 the title is, that the lot shall within ten years from the date of the instrument 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 31 
 
 be occupied by a Cathedral Church ;" [The committee knew nothing of the 
 verbal compact on which the deed was given.] "the property is conveyed to 
 
 the ' Right Reverend Henry J. Whitehouse, Bishop of Illinois, and his suc- 
 cessors in office,' as Trustees for the Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 Diocese. An Act of Incorporation for this Trusteeship was obtained during 
 the session of the Legislature in the winter of 1853. 
 
 "The lot was paid for at the time of purchase in judgment notes, given by 
 different persons in Chicago, as subscriptions for this specific object, and were 
 received by Mr. Beers in payment. Mr. Beers acknowledges the validity of 
 the title ; and at the same time it is not questioned that the money may be 
 realized from the subscription notes. Mr. Beers, however, in common with 
 some of the subscribers, is now dissatisfied with the whole transaction. He, 
 on the ground that he has not realized the money, and cannot without litiga- 
 tion with his neighbors and Christian brethren, which he deprecates as a 
 greater evil than the loss of the property. 
 
 " The unwillingness of the subscribers to pay has resulted from untoward 
 circumstances not necessary here to be named, calcidated to bring tlie project of a 
 Bishop's Church into disrepute, [The Bishop's plan would have given him the 
 power to bring any number of assistants to the Convention.] especially among 
 the Churchmen of Chicago. In view of all the embarrassments of the case, 
 Mr. Beers asks that the property be re-deeded, and the whole project on this 
 basis abandoned. This the Bishop has hesitated to do, justly alleging that as 
 he is but the Trustee of the Diocese, lie has not the right to re-deed it without 
 instruction to that effect from the Convention. 
 
 " Of the soundness of the title to lot No. 1 there is no question, provided a 
 Cathedral Church be erected on the ground within the time specified. The 
 conveyance was made in good faith, and Mr. Beers may realize the money on 
 the subscription notes in his possession. 
 
 " The title to lot No. 2 is in question. This was purchased, or intended to 
 be purchased, and presented to the Bishop, to build upon it a house for his 
 own private residence. [The Committee had only been in " Conference with 
 the Bishop ;" they had not seen the documents now published.] The Bishop, 
 in connection with the gift, made a voluntary [It is not so ; the stipulation 
 was made at the suggestion of Judge John M. Wilson.] stipulation to the 
 effect that the Diocese should have the privilege of purchasing, at any time 
 within ten years, the whole, at the cost of the house, and thus make it Dioce- 
 san property for the residence of his successors. No deed, however, was exe- 
 cuted at the time by Mr. Beers of this property ; but certain memoranda 
 are still in existence, [Who had the memoranda ?] showing the agreement of 
 the parties to certain conditions on which the transfer should be made. 
 
 " The Bishop, in different ways, [Yes, he wanted to buy the property, pri- 
 vately, and, as we have seen, for $6,000 for his own individual use.~\ has ten- 
 dered to Mr. Beers the amount necessary to pay the whole price of No. 2, 
 [They, no doubt, intended No. 3 the residence lot.] which Mr. Beers has de- 
 clined receiving. [Of course, he did. Mr. Beers did not design giving Bishop 
 Whitehouse the advantage of the rise. If the Church was not going there, 
 he wanted the advance.] This, however, your Committee regard thus far as 
 
32 BISHOP WIIITEHOCSE AND 
 
 a private rather than an ecclesiastical matter, inasmuch as the Bishop has 
 power to relinquish the lot if he sees tit, and has no disposition to retain it for 
 any personal benefit. [Did the final adjustment show this ? Do Dr. Brainard 
 and Judge Dickey think thus.] 
 
 " It cannot, however, be regarded with indifference whether as the property 
 of our Bishop, or in view of its being in due time transfered to the Diocese. 
 
 " Your Committee has had serious apprehensions whether the whole enter- 
 prise might not have to be abandoned, in consequence of the many difficulties 
 with whieh it is embarrassed. They have no doubt of the compatability of 
 the outline, [Of the Cathedral plan.] if carefully guarded in the details, with 
 the Constitution and Canons of the Church, and with the prevailing sentiment 
 of the people of the Diocese. Yet it might not be judicious, even if legally 
 right, to proceed to occupy the ground without Mr. Beers receiving full compensa- 
 tion according to the contract, nor would it be safe to institute any violent means 
 for the collection of tlie subscription notes, contrary to the wishes of the signers. 
 
 " Most of this feeling, however, at this time so formidable to the enterprise, 
 it is believed might be overcome by giving to the Institution a specific form 
 which would be understood and approved. Your Committee would therefore 
 recommend the Bishop, if consistent with his views, to prosecute the enter- 
 prise, by soliciting aid among such persons as may feel interested in it, with 
 an eye to building as soon as may be deemed practicable, either on the ground 
 purchased of Mr. Beers, or on such other property as may be hereby [That 
 is under this Canon and Report.] acquired in any other part of the city ; and 
 for the government of the Church they recommend the following Canon, 
 which in case tlie Church shoidd be prosecuted, [So that the Canon is not yet 
 in force.] they would have incorporated in the Canons of the Diocese. 
 
 "CANON." 
 
 " The Cathedral or Bishop's Church located in Chicago, shall be for ever the 
 seat of the Episcopate of Illinois, and the Bishop shall be ex-ojficio its Rector 
 and Spiritual Head. The plan and order of its administration shall be the 
 same as that of Parish Churches, with this difference only, that in place of a 
 Vestry, the Standing Committee of the Diocese shall co-operate with the Bishop 
 in its business relations, and in all matters which usually claim the attention of 
 the Vestry of the ordinary Parish Church. It shall, moreover, pay a regular sal- 
 ary to the Bishop, such as tlie Standing Committee shall fix, and declare con- 
 sistent with its ability ; and this sum shall form part of tlie salary of the 
 Bishop assumed by tlie Diocese. 
 
 " Said Church shall have one or more assistants to the Bishop, as shall be 
 approved by the Standing Committee — Priests, or Deacons, who shall be nomi- 
 nated by the Bishop, and approved by the Standing Committee, or by the Con- 
 vention of the Diocese, if referred to it by the Bishop, and one assistant 
 [This defeated the Bishop's idea.] with four lay delegates may occupy a scat 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 39 
 
 in the Diocesan Convention, and exercise the same suffrages as other Presb) 
 ters and Lay delegates from Parish Churches." 
 "Your Committee recommend the following 
 
 "RESOLUTIONS." 
 
 " Resolved, That this Convention heartily recommends the establishment of 
 a ' Cathedral,' or Bishop's ' Church,' in accordance with the above Canon, 
 [Ignoring the project desired by the Bishop.] and will cheerfully make every 
 exertion within its power to promote the object. If, however, the plan here- 
 with recommended shall not meet the approval of the Bishop, it hereby gives 
 him full power as Trustee of the Diocese to-redeed the property to Mr. Beers. 
 
 "Resolved, That incase the Bishop should so far approve the above Canon, 
 as to be willing to proceed under it, but should find in his own estimation and 
 that of the Standing Committee, [The Bishop did not consult the Standing 
 Committee, June, 1860, before he re-deeded to Mr. Beers.] that it is injudi- 
 cious or unadvisable to occupy the lot or lots purchased of Mr. Beers, the 
 Convention will recommend and approve the purchase of other property with 
 such funds as the Bishop may be able to command on which the Bishop's 
 Church shall be erected ; and in this case it recommends the Bishop to re-deed 
 the property purchased of Mr. Beers. 
 
 " Resolved, That in case the Bishop shall not be willing to proceed under the 
 Canon, or the project from any cause should be found impracticable on this 
 basis, the Convention must reluctantly consent to abandon it." 
 
 S. Y. McMASTERS, Chairma.v. 
 
 Now, having read the foregoing report, answer the follow- 
 ing questions : 
 
 First. — Did not the Bishop hesitate until he had the sanc- 
 tion of the Convention to re-deed the property to Mr. Beers, 
 as shown under the report, thereby shewing the necessity of 
 their co-operation and their authority to co-operate ? 
 
 Second. — Did not that report state that the Bishop justly 
 so hesitated, and hence the Convention claimed its right to 
 co-operate ? 
 
 Third. — Did not the Bishop thereby grant that the Con- 
 vention had something to do with the matter ? 
 
 Fourth. — Did not the Convention endorse the correctness 
 of that view, thereby asserting their right to an advisory con- 
 trol over the property ? 
 
 Fifth. — Did not the Convention in the resolutions contem- 
 plate two phases of the matter, under either of which the 
 
34 BISHOP WIIITEIIOUSE AND 
 
 Bishop was recommended to re-deed the property. 1st. In 
 case the plan of the Cathedral recommended by the Conven- 
 tion did not meet the approval of the Bishop, the power was 
 given him to re-deed to Mr. Beers, not re-sell to Mr. Beers, or 
 sell to any one else. 2d. In ease the Bishop and Standing 
 Committee thought it (inadvisable to occupy that particular 
 property, then to re-deed to Mr. Beers — not to sell the property 
 and with the proceeds of it build elsewhere. 
 
 Sixth. — Now, while reports made after " conferences with 
 the Bishop," and " opinions of Standing Committees," made 
 or expressed under the influence of a desire to heal sores or to 
 please the Bishop, have no more weight with me than the 
 opinions of other good men, when I, as well as they, have the 
 facts and documents to judge from, I will say, that if that 
 report is worth anything, (and I think it worth a great deal,) 
 did the Convention of 1855 ever intimeite that any money or 
 consideration was necessary to be paid, or was contemplated 
 to be paid ? 
 
 Clearly not. If that property was not used for a Cathedral, 
 it was to be deeded back. The report even says that though 
 the deed was unqualified to Bishop Whitehouse, still if the 
 notes were not paid they deemed it injudicious to occupy the 
 ground, and they were by no means clear that it would be well 
 to prosecute the collection of the notes contrary to the wishes 
 of the signers. 
 
 The whole report breathes a spirit of fairness and equity, 
 and the resolutions clearly interpret it. 
 
 Here it will be perceived the Bishop hesitated to re-deed to 
 Mr. Beers, without the authority of the Convention so to do, 
 the Committee and the Convention saying that he "justly" 
 so hesitated. 
 
 The one conceding, the other accepting, and asserting its 
 right to such concession, the Bishop at his own time and on 
 his own terms, receiving money where its reception was plainly 
 
Tin: DIOCESB OF ILLINOIS. 35 
 
 not contemplated, does use the authority of the Convention 
 and does re-deed, and yet, when the source of that authority 
 propose to ask if lie has used their permission aright, he tells 
 them: " Gentlemen, you have nothing to do with tin- matter, 
 I am corporator sole. A civil tribunal is the only one which 
 can call me to an account, and none else shall." 
 
 Now, the Bishop says he only acted with the full authority 
 of the Convention in re-deeding the property to Mr. Beers, at 
 the same time says the Convention has nothing to do with the 
 matter, and places himself behind the screen afforded him by 
 the resolutions adopted at the late Convention, as follows, 
 to wit : — 
 
 " Resolved, That this Convention, whiio it does not consider itself charged 
 with the management of the $6,000 received by the Bishop in the compromise 
 with Cyrenius Beers, Esq., concerning the Chicago property heretofore intended 
 for a Bishop's Church and residence, hereby expresses its satisfaction with the 
 declaration made by the Bishop in his address to this Convention, and his 
 subsequent statement that he holds the same in trust, and not for any pri- 
 vate use. 
 
 " Resolved, That this Convention does not consider that at this time any 
 further action is necessary upon its part on the subject of said sum of 
 $6,000. 
 
 He denies the right of the Convention to interfere, and yet 
 defends himself by their authority. He uses the authority to 
 deed, but transcends it by taking $6,000 for the conveyance. 
 He asks the authority of the Convention to deed, and yet takes 
 to use, as he may see fit, the proceeds, telling the Convention 
 it has nothing to do with the money he received for the prop- 
 erty it authorized him to sell. 
 
 Moreover, he takes $6,000 for the deed, and names one dollar 
 as the consideration. 
 
 He comes to the Convention coerced by the overwhelming 
 force of popular feeling, and confesses that though the deed 
 says " One Dollar," he received $6,000 ; and though he told 
 Rev. Mr. Pratt (as stated by Mr. P. in convention,) that the 
 money was as much his as any property he owned upon earth, 
 
36 Bisuor aviiiteiiou.se and 
 
 and that he took the $6,000 on the residence lot so as to avoid 
 even the appearance of a trust, now says it is a trust fund, 
 but he does as he pleases with it. 
 
 Moreover, Mr. Beers was driven to the payment of the 
 $6,000, and was compelled to take the quit claim deed, one 
 dollar consideration, or else have the matter stand along indefi- 
 nitely and undecided. Mr. Beers further had to sign a paper, 
 which contained only enough of the truth regarding the matter 
 to make it possible for him to sign it, and yet not wholly com- 
 promise himself. 
 
 He was compelled to sign this paper or go without his deed. 
 Sick of the delay, sick of the worry, he gave the $6,000, and 
 signed a semi-truthful statement rather than have the contest 
 prolonged. 
 
 On the foregoing grounds, and for reasons springing out of 
 the foregoing statement and facts, the feeling was very gener- 
 ally entertained that Mr. Beers should not have been required 
 to pay anything, save perhaps the taxes, (which he did repay 
 to the Bishop with interest,) in order to regain his title. 
 
 Prompted by this feeling, and by a wish to have the Diocese 
 free from any stain or imputation of having the use or benefit 
 of money, extorted from a generous donor, and the fruits of 
 the mere default of the Bishop of the Diocese in complying 
 with his part of a contract, the large and respectable portion 
 of the Clergy and Laity in the last Convention, who voted for 
 an investigation, did take the ground that, if such were the 
 facts, the money should go back. 
 
 Such investigation was prevented by the adoption of the 
 resolution, which I have just given as the screen behind which 
 the Bishop sheltered himself, as a substitute for the one offered 
 by Judge Otis, asking for the investigation, which would have 
 brought before that Convention all the documents I now give. 
 
 On the evening of Thursday the votes stood eighteen for 
 the investigation to seventeen against, as shown by all the 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 votes on amendments and substitutes. Amotion to adjourn 
 was made and carried. 
 
 The next morning the name of Rev. Mr. Ryall was announced 
 as entitled to a place on the list of Clergy, entitled to scats. 
 His claim to a seat had not been before clear to the Bishop. 
 
 The vote was then taken on a substitute offered that morn- 
 ing, Mr. Ryall voting in favor of it. The name of Mr. Gilbert 
 being called, befcr" the result was announced, his vote was 
 objected to, and I give a copy of the history of the matter in 
 the written language of C. C. Parks, Esq., since gone to his 
 rest with the blessed. 
 
 " Before the vote was announced by the Secretary, the vote 
 of the Reverend Mr. Gilbert Avas challenged by Mr. Parks, of 
 Christ's Church, Waukegan, upon the grounds that he was 
 not entitled to a seat in Convention, he not being ' settled in 
 some Church within this Diocese which is in union with the 
 Convention,' nor was he 'employed as a missionary within- 
 its bounds under the direction of the Convention or of the 
 Bishop of the Diocese.' (See Art. 5th, Constitution of Diocese 
 of Illinois.) The Bishop ruled the challenge out of order, 
 although made before the vote was announced by the Secretary. 
 
 "An appeal was taken from said decision, which appeal the 
 Bishop refused to entertain. The name of the Reverend Mr. 
 Gilbert was placed upon the list of Clergy on the evening of 
 the second day of Convention, after adjournment and after the 
 introduction of Judge Otis' resolution, and after several test 
 votes had been taken upon the resolution, the said Gilbert 
 voting in the affirmative. 
 
 " After the substitute was carried in the manner above spe- 
 cified, Mr. Kerfoot, of the ' Holy Communion, Chicago,' intro- 
 duced a preamble and resolution, a copy of which is hereto 
 annexed, mai'ked ' A,' which the Bishop presiding declared to 
 be out of order, and afterwards modified his decision by stating 
 
 that the subject matter of the preamble and resolution could 
 
 4 
 
38 BISIIOr WIIITEIIOUSE AXD 
 
 not be brought before the Convention, except by consent of 
 two-thirds, thereupon the Rev. Mr. Hodges introduced the fol- 
 lowing resolution, and asked a two-thirds vote thereon : 
 
 "Resolved, That the consent of this House is hereby given to the re-introduc- 
 tion of the subject of the $6,000 referred to in the Bishop's address, with the 
 adjustment of which the Convention this morning by a majority of one cleri- 
 cal vote declared itself satisfied." 
 
 " The Bishop presiding declared said resolution to be out of 
 order, and refused to put the motion, from which decision Mr. 
 Parks took an appeal to the Convention, which appeal the 
 Bishop presiding refused to entertain, stating in his reasons that 
 the Convention had nothing to do with the matter, to which 
 said decision the undersigned protested, and hereby protest 
 and ask that the same may be entered upon the Journal of this 
 Convention." 
 
 The substitute was thus carried, and the investigation pre- 
 vented by the admission of Mr. Gilbert's vote, whose right to 
 a seat being disputed, was not decided by the convention, but 
 by the dictum of the Bishop, contrary to the provisions of the 
 Canon, viz : — " The right of any clergyman of this Diocese to 
 a seat in the Convention, shall, if disputed, be determined by 
 the Convention itself." 
 
 He was ordained to the lay-diaconate on "Wednesday, was 
 present as a spectator on Wednesday and Thursday, and on 
 that evening, after adjournment) (and not during the afternoon, 
 as has been stated,) the Bishop directed the Secretary to put 
 the voter's name on the list. 
 
 An attempt to re-open the matter, after the passage of the 
 resolution declaring it closed, was ruled out of order by the 
 Bishop, as Mr. Park's history shows, and no debate on the ques- 
 tion allowed by him. 
 
 Other resolutions {not touching the subject matter) were ruled 
 out of order before they were read, and not allowed to be de- 
 bated, on the ground of their relevancy to the matter of the 
 86,000. 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 39 
 
 The preamble to a resolution, asking the Convention to in- 
 struct the Secretary to send a petition to the Legislature of 
 Illinois, asking a repeal of the act of incorporation, under 
 
 which the Bishop as Corporator Sole, held properly — on the 
 ground of its not being consonant with the spirit of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church — was not allowed to be read. 
 
 The Bishop insisted upon the reading of the resolution iirst, 
 and then peremptorily decided it out of order, on the ground 
 of its relevancy to the $0,000 matter, which he decided closed. 
 
 Another resolution, in writing, was denied a hearing before 
 it was read, and only after some debate, and a solemn assur- 
 ance that there was nothing in it about the $6,000, was it 
 allowed to be heard. It proved to be a vote of thanks to the 
 people of Quincy for their hospitality. 
 
 A dictatorial use of the presiding power was made by the 
 Bishop, to the exclusion of all proposals, save one to adjourn, 
 and this, of course, made further debate impossible. 
 
 Fortunately, a motion had been made and seconded, that 
 the Rev. Mr. Hodges, of the Church of the Holy Communion, 
 of Chicago, should be allowed to speak. 
 
 The Bishop, with great avidity, being about to put the ques- 
 tion of adjournment, was reminded that such a motion Avas 
 made. On being assured by various members that such Avas 
 the case, the question was put and carried; and Mr. Hodges in 
 a calm, dignified manner, spoke as follows : 
 
 " Mb. President — I rejoice that a man, when he felt impelled by a sense of 
 right and duty to speak out, and when lie thought it would be a sin for him 
 to keep silent, was allowed by this house to give utterance to his conscientious 
 convictions. If I should return to Chicago without having used every possible 
 means to bring this Convention to a sense of justice, and to right action on the 
 matter of this S<3,000, I would feel that my character might justly be assailed. 
 If avc had been allowed to consider the matter, not on its legal and technical 
 relations only, but on the basis of common sense and grounds of equity, I 
 think that the Convention would have come to a very different decision, and 
 that the money would be immediately paid back to Mr. Beers. I do, there- 
 fore, hereby, as a Minister of Christ's Church, a Christian gentleman, and a 
 member of this house, solemnly enter my protest against the action of this 
 
40 BISHOP WHITEHOTJSE A>~D 
 
 house, and against the whole proceedings in the matter of the Cathedral lot, 
 and ask that this protest be entered upon the Journal ; and I hereby declare it 
 to be the conviction of my conscience and ray heart, that this whole matter, 
 from beginning to end — and I want the Convention to understand distinctly 
 what I say — is a dishonest transaction." 
 
 Having finished his short speech, the Rev. gentleman sat 
 down, but with one mind, simultaneously and spontaneously, a 
 large number of clergy, laity and ladies rose and left the church. 
 
 Fully agreeing with the sentiments of Mr. Hodges 7 remarks, 
 and leaving the foregoing documents (especially the letter of 
 the Bishop to Mr. Beers) and statements, to the calm judgment 
 of all persons, I have very little more to say, by way of com- 
 ment, on this subject, save that, do what we may, the world 
 will say, " Why such unusual desire to avoid investigation ? 
 It looks very suspicious and argues very poorly in favor of 
 freedom from wron<*." 
 
 THE BISHOP S EXHIBITS. 
 
 After the close of the late Diocesan Convention, Bishop 
 Whitehouse prepared a species of appendix to the Journal of 
 the same, of which, I believe, he circulated a large number, 
 separate from the Journal. 
 
 There were, also, printed as many of them as there were of 
 the Journal. The Standing Committee, the Secretary, having 
 been applied to by C. C. Parks, Esq., (now since deceased,) for 
 permission to issue his protest with the Journal, not oidy de- 
 clined acceding to the request of Mr. Parks, but excluded 
 the Exhibits of the Bishop, on the ground that they were not 
 documents referred to by the Convention, and hence were not 
 properly admissablc within the cover of the Journal of the 
 same. 
 
 The first is the Deed of Mr. Beers and wife to Bishop 
 Whitehouse, conveying the Cathedral lot. 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 41 
 
 Which being a deed of the usual form, I omit, save the 
 
 special clause to which reference lias hereinbefore been made 
 
 two or three times, as follows : 
 
 Provided, nevertheless, and this deed is upon this express condition, that a 
 Cathedral Church, of the denomination Protestant Episcopal, shall be erected 
 on said lot, within ten years after the date hereof, and Provided further, no 
 building shall be erected thereon, excepting such Cathedral Church, and such 
 other permanent structures of an ecclesiastical, eleemosynary and educational 
 character as shall be necessary or desirable for or appurtenant to said Church. 
 
 The second is the paper which the Bishop required Mr. 
 
 Beers to sign as a sine qua non to the making of the deed for 
 
 the Cathedral lot, as follows : 
 
 Exhibit No. 2. — Memorandum of Agreement, Henry J. "Whitehouse with 
 Cyrenius Beers. 
 
 Memorandum of Agreement, made and entered into this twenty-first day of 
 June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, by and 
 between Henry J. Whitehouse, of the city of Chicago, in the county of Cook, 
 and State of Illinois, party of the first part, and Cyrenius Beers, of the same 
 place, party of the second part. 
 
 Whereas, the said party of the second part, by his certain contract in writing, 
 bearing date the first day of December, A. D., 1852, covenanted and agreed 
 to convey to said party of the first part, lot number three (3), in block number 
 eight (8), in fractional section fifteen addition to Chicago ; which said con- 
 tract is in words and figures following, to wit : 
 
 Here follows the supplemental paper given on page 20 of 
 this pamphlet. 
 
 Now, therefore, this Memorandum of Agreement witnesseth that the said party 
 of the first part, for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements of 
 the said party of the second part, hereinafter contained, and the matters and 
 things hereinafter recited, and also for and in consideration of the sum of six 
 thousand dollars, (§6,000), to him in hand paid by said party of the second 
 part, at the time of the execution and delivery hereof, and the receipt where- 
 of is hereby acknowledged, doth hereby waive and release all the light, title, 
 interest, claim, property or demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity, 
 which he may have in said above recited contract, or which he may have 
 acquired by virtue thereof, in and to the lands and premises therein men- 
 tioned and described, hereby releasing and discharging the said party of 
 second part from all liability on account thereof; [and also at the same 
 time executes and delivers, as Bishop of the Protestant Episcopcd Church, of the 
 Diocese of Illinois, his certain quit claim deed of same date herewith, for the re- 
 conveyance to said parti/ of the second part, of all the right, title, and interest 
 tchicli, as such Bishop, the said party of the first part acquired in and to lot num.- 
 
42 BISHOP WHITBHOTJSB AND 
 
 ber 2, in said block niunbcr 8, in fractional section fifteen addition to Chicago, 
 under and by virtue of the certain indenture of said t 'yreniv* Beers and his wife, 
 bearing date the eighteenth day of February, A. J)., 1853, recorded vn the office 
 of the recorder in and for tlie county of Cook, and State of Illinois, in Book 
 No. 59 of Deeds, on page 265.] 
 
 And the said Cyrenius Beers, party of the second part, in consideration of 
 the premises at the time of the execution and delivery hereof, pay to said party 
 of the first part, the sum of six thousand dollars, the receipt whereof is hereby 
 acknowledged, and further covenants and agrees with said party of the first 
 part, his heirs, executors and administrators, to waive and release any and all 
 claims and demands which he, the said Cyrenius Beers, may have by virtue of 
 said above recited contract, either against the said Henry J. Whitehouse, 
 or against any of the persons whose names are mentioned in said contract, as 
 the makers of the notes therein specified. 
 
 And further to surrender and deliver up to the makers thereof, respectively, 
 all of said notes that have been received in persuance of said contract or in- 
 denture. 
 
 The intent of both parties being to hereby cancel, and annul, and make void 
 and of no effect, said contract, and on the part of the said party of the second 
 part, to save harmless the makers of all said notes from all liability on account 
 thereof. 
 
 This memorandum of agreement is executed in duplicate, each party taking 
 one. 
 
 In testimony whereof, the said parties have hereunto interchangeably set 
 their hands and seals the day and year first above written. 
 
 HENRY J. WHITEHOUSE. [seal.] 
 CYREXIUS BEERS. [seal.] 
 
 I have enclosed in square brackets the clause which the 
 Bishop protested against having inserted, and which was sug- 
 gested by mutual friends as a means by which Mr. Beers might 
 possibly be able to sign the paper. 
 
 A whole day was occupied in adjusting, arranging, and 
 re-arranging this paper. Mutual friends and attorneys were 
 frequently consulted in regard to it. The Bishop endeavoring 
 to avoid any appearance of receiving the funds as trust money, 
 and Mr. Beers declining to sign the bald statement, as it was 
 without the part in brackets. 
 
 The third gives the opinion of the Standing Committee of 
 1856. It appears to differ with the Convention of 1855, and 
 advises the Bishop to keep the property, and go on with the 
 church; and it further advises him to enforce the contract with 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 43 
 
 Mr. Beers regarding the. residence lot. Here is where the 
 Standing Committee had only been in " conference with the 
 Bishop," and had not seen the papers. 
 
 The fourth gives the opinion of the Standing Committee 
 of 1857. I am free to say, that it bears, to my mind, on 
 its very face, evidence of having come from, if not the pen, 
 at least the supervision, if not dictation of Bishop White- 
 house himself! There are in it his peculiar expressions. 
 There is in it his characteristic style of diction. The plans 
 contained in it are very like his plans. They aim alone at his 
 benefit. No men would so far misconstrue the documents I 
 have hereinbefore given, as to say 
 
 "That the title to the lot, designed for a residence, is in the Rt. Rev'd 
 Henry J. YVhitehouse, and that to him belongs of right, the lot or the avail* 
 thereof in any compromise." 
 
 Then follows a shrewd farsightcd plan of adjusting the mat- 
 ter with Mr. Beers, which aims wholly at the benefit of the 
 Bishop, and not at all at that of the Diocese, save in so much 
 as the proceeds were to be applied to the discharge of the 
 claim which the Bishop was making against the Diocese for 
 salary at the rate of $2,000 per annum, from the commencement 
 of his Episcopate, notwithstanding he had begun a plan at 
 the outset of his Episcopate, to furnish his own salary by 
 Parish duties, thereby conceding, as I argue, that he did not at 
 first expect the Diocese to pay him. I pronounce it a plan too 
 well laid to have been devised by any one who was not doing 
 it for his own private benefit. 
 
 Alex. G. Tyng, Esq., of Peoria, one of the signers of this 
 report, repudiated it in open convention in Quincy, a month 
 since, and said he had signed it under a misapprehension. I 
 have no great wonder to express that Mr. Tying could have 
 signed such a document, as I have no doubt but that the same 
 warm impulse and desire for peace, which led the writer of 
 
44 BISHOP WIIITEHOUSE AND 
 
 Exhibit No. 5 to pen it, and to :isk his brethren to sign it, led 
 Mr. Tyng and his associates to sign No. 4. 
 
 Exhibit No. 5 docs credit to the hearts of the signers. That 
 it should have been published to the world, as any ground of 
 evidence against their consistency, is strange to me. It was' a 
 proposal to Mr. Beers, and if I am not mistaken, Mr. Beers 
 was willing to give a part of the property for a Bishop's resi- 
 dence. 
 
 Bishop Whitehonse, if I have not been misinformed, acceded 
 to the arrangement, but the whole matter fell through when the 
 gentlemen who had taken the business in hand found that 
 Bishop Whitehonse insisted upon taking the title to the resi- 
 dence lot in his own private name, and as his property abso- 
 lutely. Dr. Brainard can tell regarding this, as he, I believe, 
 supposed he. had closed the negotiation nicely, and had 
 settled the vexed question finally. But, on the requirement 
 of the Bishop that the title should go to him privately, Dr. 
 asked the Bishop's pardon for doing what he never did before, 
 viz : interfere in other persons private affairs, and he begged 
 leave to have nothing more to do with the matter. 
 
 Exhibit No. 6 has been disposed of by the Clergy. I need 
 say no more than I have said regarding it on page 13 of 
 this pamphlet. In order that my remarks there maybe under- 
 stood, I havs inserted their circular. It does not relate to the 
 Cathedral question, but it shows " the nature of the man," and 
 bears testimony to the general correctness of my ideas, and to 
 the sad fact that we have a Bishop from whose hands his people 
 will not receive or allow their children to receive the Holy rite 
 of Confirmation. 
 
 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE AND THE CHICAGO CLERGY. 
 
 Bishop "Whitehouse has published a document as an appendix to liis address 
 to the late Diocesan Convention, entitled " Bishop's Address, 18G0, Exhibits." 
 
 To the Exhibit No. 6, we ask the attention of all Churchmen. Its design is 
 to show, from statistics, that the Churches in Chicago have contributed but 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 45 
 
 little to the Missionary work of the Diocese, during the last year, and that the 
 number of confirmations in the same period is proportionally less in the city 
 than in the country. From the Bishop's Exhibit we make the following 
 extracts : 
 
 " I. DIOC'KSAN MISSIONS. 
 
 " 1859-GO — whole amount, $1,205 ; amount contributed in Chicago, $189 ; 
 contributed in the rest of Diocese, §1,016. 
 
 " II. CONFIRMATIONS. 
 
 "In '58-59 — whole number, 423 ; in Chicago, 117. 
 
 "In '59-60 — whole number, 860 ; in Chicago, 76." 
 
 The above is what the Bishop gives as the figures from the Journal and the 
 Treasurer's Report. Now we are compelled to say, "frankly, but kindly" 
 that the Bishop's statements are erroneous; and to make our assertion good, 
 wc herewith append an extract from the Report of the Treasurer on Diocesan 
 Missions, and an extract from the Bishop's own list of confirmations, as appears 
 in his address of this year. It will be seen that the amount contributed in Chi- 
 cago to the Diocesan Missionary work for the last years, was $356 40, instead 
 of $189, as the Bishop states; and that the number confirmed in the Chicago 
 Churches during the last year, '59-60, was 98, and not 76 as the Bishop states. 
 
 We ask any person to open the Journal and mark the contrast between the 
 Bishop's statement and the facts and figures there recorded. 
 
 I. DIOCESAN MISSIONS FOR '59-60. 
 
 Bishop's statement— Total, $1,205 ; Chicago Churches, $189 00 ; Country 
 Churches, 1,016 00. 
 
 Treasurer's Report (p. 30, Journal) — Total, 1,205 ; Chicago Churches, 
 $356 40 ; Country Churches, $848 60. 
 
 II. CONFIRMATIONS FOR '59-60. 
 
 Bishop's statement — whole number, 360 ; confirmed in Chicago, T6. 
 
 According to facts in the Journal, 359 ; confirmed in Chicago, 9S. (Sec 
 pages 5 and 6.) 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say anything more. The mere statement is painful 
 enough. That the Bishop should seem even to wrong or find fault with the 
 Chicago Churches or Clergy, on the eve of his advent amongst us, is mysteri- 
 ous enough ; but that he should give such an erroneous tabular view, in face 
 of data to which all can refer, is far more mysterious. That he should seem 
 to disparage the work of any of his clergy is a sad fact, that he has misquoted 
 the records in order to do so is a still sadder fact. 
 
 Of course all the "averages" and "proportions" of the Bishop's Exhibit 
 No. 6, go to the ground, with his figures. 
 
 The Chicago Confirmations for 1859-60, were 37 per cent, of the whole 
 number; for 1858-59 they were only 36 per cent, of the whole number, so that 
 the diminution was not in Chicago, as the Bishop states, but in the country. 
 And on this subject we feel bound to say, what we should not under other cir- 
 cumstances, have felt ourselves compelled to say, viz: That the Confirma- 
 tions in Chicago, though larger in proportion to the whole number than last year 
 
46 BISHOP AVHITEnOUSE AND 
 
 are very much limited, owing to the plainly expressed unwillingness of many 
 to receive the holy rite, or allow their families to receive it from the hands of 
 our Bishop. To this fact, most of us must bear reluctant testimony. As to our 
 Diocesan Missions, we can only hope that this attempt of the Bishop to depre- 
 ciate our efforts, will not add to the difficulty we already contend with, in 
 persuading our people to contribute to the support of the Missionaries he nom- 
 inates. One more suggestion : if the Bishop's statements are erroneous in 
 these relations, may they not be in other particulars ? 
 
 (Signed,) ROBERT H. CLARKSON, Rector St. James. 
 
 JAMES PRATT, " Trinity. 
 
 JOHN 0. BARTON, " Atonement. 
 
 H. ST. BISHOP, " St. John's. 
 
 EDMUND B. TTTTTLE, " St. Ansgarius. 
 
 CLINTON LOCKE, " Grace. 
 
 J. SEBASTIAN B. HODGES, " Holy Communion. 
 
 WILLIAM FULTON, " Ascension. 
 
 CHAS. EDWARD CHENEY, « Christ Church. 
 Chicago, September 29th, 1860. 
 
 No. 1. Extract of the Bishop's Address, delivered at Quincy, September 
 13th, 1860 : 
 
 LIST OF CONFIRMATIONS IN THE PAST TEAR. 
 
 1859— September 18th, Trinity, Chicago 10 
 
 " November 8th, Holy Communion, Chicago, 10 
 
 1S60— February 12th, Grace Church, 15 
 
 " " 19th, Church of Atonement, Chicago, 7 
 
 " " " " " Ascension, " 6 
 
 " March 4th, St. James Church, " 13 
 
 " " " St. Ansgarius Church, " 15 
 
 " June 17th, Trinity Church, " 2 
 
 " " " Christ Church, " 3 
 
 " " St. John's Church, " 17 
 
 Total, 98 
 
 No. 2. Extract from Report of Rev. T. N. Morrison, Treasurer of Diocesan 
 Missions. 
 
 RECEIVED DURING TnE PAST TEAR FROM 
 
 Chicago Atonement $ 37 03 
 
 " Grace, 65 37 
 
 " Ascension, 3 00 
 
 " Holy Communion, 15 60 
 
 " Trinity Church, 10 00 
 
 " St. James Church, 225 40 
 
 Total, $356 40 
 
 The pith of a very sarcastic, and, in my opinion, ill-judged 
 and nn-Episcopal reply which Bishop Whitehouse makes to 
 this Circular is that the suppressed part of the aggregate of 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 47 
 
 confirmations consisted of those whose confirmation had been 
 
 postponed from the Convention year of 1858 and 1859 to that 
 of 1859 and 1860. 
 
 They were not placed to the credit of either year in his 
 Circular, but they were to the latter year in his Report to the 
 Convention. Which year did they belong to ? If to the for- 
 mer, where did he register them ? If to the latter, why does 
 he suppress them in his Circular, and that without any expla- 
 nation with the suppression. 
 
 Sharp reasoning that. 
 
 The Chicago Missionary contribution was decreased by 
 some $167, which the Bishop says was a special donation to a 
 specific object, a Missionary within the Diocese, and which, 
 though included in the aggregate of the Treasurer's Report, 
 the Bishop excludes from his Circular. 
 
 But he does not exclude it from the whole amount which he 
 says the whole Diocese gave ; and hence, in drawing his con- 
 trast between the amount given by the City of Chicago as 
 compared with the amount given by the balance of the Diocese, 
 he takes this $167 which he deducts from Chicago and adds it to 
 the real amount given by the balance of the Diocese. Or, in 
 other words, he swells the amount given by the balance of the 
 Diocese by leaving in the $1,016 the $167, which, though con- 
 tributed by Chicago, he denies to its credit because it was a 
 special contribution. 
 
 Sharp calculation there, too. 
 
 Now, I have no idea that Bishop Whitehouse thinks such 
 things wrong, or he would not do them. But, I am sure, that 
 were an abstract case of the same kind laid before him, he 
 would, as a Christian teacher, be very able to shew that it was 
 at least dangerous to one's morals, if not his religion, to be 
 guilty of them. 
 
 And, his brother Bishops need no evidence or argument to 
 shew them that it is at least a great pity that Bishop "White- 
 
48 BISHOP "WniTEHOUSE AND 
 
 house labors under any need of keeping up such a cross firing 
 with his clergy. 
 
 And if, as he says, we are here in Chicago only a violent 
 phase of Congregationalism, I have only to answer that it is 
 because we have been without any Episcopal head for nine 
 years, and we, like some others, have been spoiled by becoming 
 our own Bishops. 
 
 THE CORPORATOR SOLE ENACTMENT. 
 
 I am wholly at fault if there is in the Church in the United 
 States, a single Bishop, other than Bishop Whitehouse, who is 
 incorporated by the Legislature of his State; one who can 
 to-day stand up in his Contention and tell his Diocese, his 
 Trustees, his Standing Committee, and whatever other Eccle- 
 siastical authorities there may be in the Diocese, " I am Cor- 
 porator Sole; you have nothing to say regarding the real 
 estate which I hold as such, or the proceeds of any sale thereof. 
 A civil tribunal is the only one which can call me to an account, 
 and none other shall." 
 
 Such an act of incorporation is entirely dissonant with the 
 genius and spirit of the Protestant Episcopal Church. It is 
 not compatible with the healthy commingling of the democratic 
 element in our branch of the Church Catholic. 
 
 The representative nature of our organization is opposed to 
 any such feature. Such corporation is wholly unnecessary, or 
 if it is necessaiy, we can have such an enactment as will insure 
 the transfer, by mere operation of laic, of titles from one Trustee, 
 or set of Trustees, to his or their successors in office, as the Con- 
 vention may appoint them. Any malfeasance, or misuse of pow- 
 er, on the part of such Trustees, would be met promptly at the 
 succeeding Convention of the Church by the appointment of 
 others in their stead. 
 
 And were such provision made for the transfer of title, by 
 virtue of the enactment, without the necessity of any deed or 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 49 
 
 conveyance from one Trustee, or set of Trustees, to his or their 
 successors, the question would not arise, at any time, regarding 
 the property of the Diocese, which did last summer arise in 
 the case of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Chicago. 
 
 And here be it known, that with merely the necessary 
 changes in the preamble to the enactment so as render it appli- 
 cable to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of 
 Illinois, the law incorporating the Bishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Illinois is verbatim (saving 
 the mention of the words " of the Cathedral Church,") the 
 same as that incorporating the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
 Chicago. 
 
 The case which ai - ose with regard to some property held by 
 the Roman Catholic Bishop was simply this: — A sale was 
 made of property which had been purchased by the former 
 Bishop, (O'Regan,) who is now in Europe, having resigned his 
 charge here. Bishop Duggan, the present incumbent, was 
 about to make his conveyance, supposing the title had come 
 to him by operation of law. The attorney of the purchaser 
 advised him not to take the land, as it was not clear that the 
 property, not being in actual use for " charitable, religious or 
 literary purposes, or for burial grounds, as provided for in this 
 act," coidd be conveyed by the present Bishop unless his pre- 
 decessor had conveyed it to him by deed. 
 
 Or, in other words, the closing clause of the law does not 
 authorize, it expressly forbids, the Bishop " to hold real estate 
 in trust for any Religious Society except for " the purposes 
 above named ; and hence any land not in use for such purposes, 
 either had not come to the Bishop at all, he not being a legal 
 recipient of the title to such, or else having come to him would 
 have to pass from him by deed, and not by virtue of his ceasing 
 to be Bishop. 
 
 A glance will show where the Diocese might be j>laced by 
 such a decision regarding this law. Unwillingness on the part 
 
50 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE .VXD 
 
 of a Bishop to convey such titles might cause the Diocese 
 some difficulty, and subject her to the necessity of a suit in 
 Chancery. Death of a Bishop, with such titles in him, would 
 of course vest them in his estate, and here even a Chancery 
 suit would not irrevocably divest his minor heirs, of any claim 
 they might have. 
 
 If these evils, or the shadow of the possibility of them 
 exist, let us avoid them, and let us have no " Corporator Sole " 
 enactments. 
 
 In the Roman Catholic Church, where they have *no Con- 
 ventions, no Standing Committees, no Lay element in their 
 legislative department, no Trustees, such an act of incorpora- 
 tion may be necessary, and it is consonant with the general 
 plan and system of their Church. But with us such is not the 
 case, and it should not be allowed that in temporal matters a 
 Bishop should be able to hold his Diocese at bay in this 
 manner. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE FPXAL SETTLEMENT OP THE CATHEDRAL 
 LOT QUESTION. 
 
 The Parish of Trinity Church, Chicago, desiring to purchase 
 from Mr. Beers part of the property which had been talked of 
 as the site of the Bishop's Cathedral, the Rev. Mr. Pratt, the 
 Rector of Trinity Church, was asked to see Bishop Whitehouse 
 and learn from hhn the terms on which could be procured a 
 release of the Cathedral lot. On the 20th day of June, 1860, 
 Mr. Pratt asked of the Bishop the privilege of an interview. 
 By appointment they met at Mr. Pratt's study. On opening 
 the subject, the Bishop said that he did not know that such 
 was the object of the interview, and he, therefore, would like 
 a little time to reflect on the matter. He then went into a full 
 history of the question relating to the property, its title, etc. 
 Mr. Pratt knew nothing of it, save that there had been a mis- 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 understanding, and that the Bishop held the title to one lot, 
 and that Trinity Church desired to purchase part of it of Mr. 
 Beers, and that this could not be done till the Bishop had 
 re-conveyed it to Mr. Beers. 
 
 The Bishop then began to show his claim to the property, 
 and on his including lot three, or the residence lot, Mr. Pratt 
 informed him that Mr. Beers did not admit — he expressly 
 denied — that the Bishop had any claim to this, and asked only 
 a re-conveyance of the Cathedral lot. The Bishop, however, 
 insisted upon including the residence lot in a calculation 
 which he desired Mr. Pratt to put down in writing, as he 
 would dictate it. Mr. Pratt sat down, and taking his pen he 
 made figures as the Bishop directed, and when he had done 
 so he told him to add them up. He did so. He then 
 directed him to divide the sum by two. He did so, and the 
 quotient was ten thousand ($10,000) dollars. 
 
 There, now, said the Bishop, that is my interest in the prop- 
 erty, in addition to taxes, assessments and interest on them. 
 
 To which Mr. Pratt replied : " Well, Bishop, do you mean to 
 say that you require the payment of that amount ; because if 
 you do there is no use of talking any more regarding the 
 matter. Mr. Beers, I know, will not give so much." 
 
 The result of further discussion was, that in reply to the 
 question as to whether he would take $0,000," the Bishop 
 said: "I will not make any agreement to that effect. If, 
 however, $6,000and taxes are offered me, I willentertain the 
 proposal." 
 
 Mr. Pratt said he would submit the matter to Mr. Beers. 
 
 On his leaving, the Bishop said : " Do not name $6,000 to Mi- 
 Beers at once ; ask $8,000, and perhaps he may offer $7,000. 
 I will expect you to get all you can for me." 
 
 To this Mr. Pratt answered : " I cannot ask Mr. Beers to give 
 you any more than $6,000." He then left and saw Mr. Beers. 
 
52 BISIIOP WIIITEIIOUSE AND 
 
 During these interviews, Mr. Pratt asked the Bishop what he 
 intended doing with the lot. lie said he intended building on 
 it. lie had just had the offer of the stone from one gentle- 
 man, and of the plans from another, an architect, and of the 
 services of another in the way of superintendence, and of 
 81,000 from another, and that he would thus so far comply 
 with the requirements of the deed as to bring himself within 
 its limits. 
 
 To this Mr. Pratt answered : " If you do attempt to build on 
 the lot, Bishop, you will be enjoined most surely, as Mr. Beers 
 would resist any such move." 
 
 " Ah, well," said he, " if they do this it will only lengthen 
 the time in which I have to build, in compliance with the 
 conditions of the deed." 
 
 Mr. Beers very reluctantly, and with much feeling of indig- 
 nation, at length assented to the payment of the $6,000. Mr. 
 Pratt informed the Bishop of Mr. Beers' determination, and a 
 time was set for the drawing of the papers. The deed was 
 drawn, and, before it was executed, it was submitted to Mr. 
 Beers. The consideration named was one dollar. Mr. Beers 
 objected to this. The Bishop said that it was a mere matter 
 of form, but that he could not consent to receive the $6,000 
 on the Cathedral lot, as that might give the matter the appear- 
 ance of a trust, and he desired expressly to avoid this. He 
 would not consent to receive the funds on the Cathedral lot — 
 that Mr. Beers might consider the $6,000 given to him on any 
 ground he pleased, " love and affection," or any other basis. 
 To which Mr. Beers very emphatically replied, " that he paid 
 the $6,000 for the deed of the Cathedral lot, and that he would 
 not give him two cents for ' love and affection.' " 
 
 Mr. Beers consulted his attorney regarding the sufficiency of 
 the consideration mentioned in the deed. He was, of course, 
 assured that the one dollar conveyed the title as perfectly as 
 the mention of $6,000 would, and if it was a matter of impor- 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 53 
 
 tance to him to have the deed, he had better take it, and let 
 the Bishop follow the dictates of his own conscience regarding 
 the disposal he would make of the fimds. 
 
 Mr. Beers returned to the Bishop and told him he would take 
 the deed as it was. In order to avoid any question at the time 
 of signing, Mr. Beers drew from his pocket a certified check 
 for the $6,000, and handing it to the Bishop, asked him if that 
 woidd do, or if he would require the funds. The Bishop, 
 examining the check, said it would do, and he put it into his 
 pocket. 
 
 The next morning they met for the signing of the 
 papers. The Bishop then, remarking to Mr. Beers that he 
 believed this was a final adjustment of all the matters between 
 them, asked him to sign the document, which I have given 
 on pages 41 and 42 of this pamphlet, the clause in brackets, 
 of course not yet in it. 
 
 Mr. Beers, at first supposing it merely to be a receipt in full, 
 was willing to sign it ; but on reading it, and finding it to be a 
 declaration that he Was receiving the $6,000 for a release of 
 the residence lot, indignantly declined doing so, on the ground 
 of its being an untruth. 
 
 The Bishop then asked that the Rev'd Mr. Pratt should be 
 called in, as he understood the whole matter. 
 
 Mr. Beers saw Mr. Pratt, and both went at once to the 
 Bishop. 
 
 Mr. Pratt then stated, that he had never intimated that Mr. 
 Beers would pay the $6,000, or any part of it, on the residence 
 lot ; that he had throughout declared that Mr. Beers did not 
 consider the Bishop had any claim to that lot, and that he did 
 not ask any release of it. 
 
 Mr. Pratt, at this stage of the proceedings, proposed, that in 
 order to make it at all possible for Mr. Beers to sign the paper, 
 the clause which I have given in brackets, should be inserted. 
 The attorney, on the Bishop asking how that would do, said it 
 
54 BISHOP WHITEHOUSE AND 
 
 would defeat the very purpose the Bishop had in view. " How 
 so ? " asked the Bishop. To which the attorney replied, " By 
 rendering it debatable as to which lot you receive the money 
 on, leaving it open to construction, and giving room for a claim 
 on you for the funds." 
 
 Then said the Bishop, " I will not consent to the interpola- 
 tion." 
 
 " Well, Bishop," said Mr. Beers, "it appears we cannot trade, 
 please hand me back my check." 
 
 To which the Bishop replied, " Well, sir, I will arrange that 
 with you." 
 
 Mr. Beers says he was at once convinced that the money had 
 been drawn on the check. 
 
 Time was then given for consultation and reflection ; 
 and another meeting was appointed. During the interval, Mr. 
 Beers went to the bank, and meeting Stiles Burton and Jno. 
 H. Kinzie, Esquires, at the bank, he asked them to witness his 
 question, and in reply to his application to the teller, he was 
 informed that Bishop Whitehouse had had the check of Mr. 
 Beers, of $6,000, cashed. 
 
 So that, before the deed was executed, and while Mr. 
 Beers was protesting against signing a paper, the execution 
 of which the Bishop was making a condition precedent to 
 the making and delivery of the deed, the check was cashed. 
 
 This circumstance is mentioned here, not insinuating that 
 Bishop Whitehouse intended any wrong, but to show the 
 avidity with which he receives money, and to show the aptness 
 of the man in pecuniary matters. 
 
 Why such haste to cash the check ? It was certified, and 
 would not have spoiled by keeping. 
 
 Reference was finally made to the Hon. Jno. M. Wilson, who 
 decided, after hearing the statements of the Bishop and the 
 Rev. Mr. Pratt regarding the contract in relation to the lots 
 between the former for himself, and the latter in behalf of 
 
THE DIOCESE OF ILLINOIS. 55 
 
 Mr. Beers, that the recital in the memorandum of agreement 
 between the Bishop and Mr. Beers was not a correct statement 
 of facts, and proposed that it should be changed so as to recite 
 the giving of the deed of lot two as well as the agreement 
 regarding lot three, and that the body of the agreement be 
 changed to correspond with the recital. 
 
 To this the Bishop objected. 
 
 Mr. Pratt then stated that he had before proposed to alter 
 the body of the agreement by inserting certain clauses, the 
 purport of which he stated ; and which Judge Wilson now 
 understands to have been the same in substance, if not ver- 
 batim, as those already given in brackets. 
 
 The Bishop at length assented to the insertion of the clause 
 which had been proposed by Mr. Pratt. 
 
 During these interviews, the Bishop stated expressly to Mi*. 
 Pratt that he considered the proceeds of any adjustment of 
 this matter as much his as any property he had on earth, and 
 that he was by no means sure as to whether he would use the 
 funds to pay his back salary, or to build a church ; and yet in 
 his Circular issued just after the Convention, he says he always 
 intended them to be applied to the purpose of building a 
 Bishop's Church. 
 
 The parties then, Mr. Beers not having gone with the 
 Bishop and Mr. Pratt to Judge Wilson's, but having gone to 
 bank during the interval, convened at the Notary's office dur- 
 ing the afternoon, and the papers were signed and the matter 
 closed. 
 
 The negotiations began on the 20th and closed the 22nd of 
 June, 1860. The Bishop using all the time in counselling and 
 planning to avoid the appearance of the trust, which he 
 announced to the Convention he all the while, from the first, 
 intended to observe. 
 
 For evidence of the correctness of this " History of the 
 Final Settlement," I refer to the Certificate on the next page. 
 
CEKTIFICATE. 
 
 We have read the proof-sheets of the foregoing "History of the Final 
 Settlement of the Cathedral Lot Question," as given by Mr. Kerfoot, and we 
 pronounce it correct so far as we were connected with the same,. and were 
 present a* the interviews therein named. 
 
 JAMES PRATT, 
 Rector of Trinity Church, Chicago. 
 CYRENIUS BEERS. 
 Chicago; November 1860. JOHN M. WILSON. 
 
H 
 
 it