We have first to insert an article from the weekly paper called The Observer; to which paper the public will be in great part indebted for the knowledge of the horrible affair which the article describes. We shall then offer a few observations, that may serve just for the present on the manner in which the thing has been and is likely to be illustrated by the circumstances of the transaction alluded to; and then we shall lay before our readers an account of the conduct of the “respectable” and infamous part of the press, upon this occasion; naming the several papers; and making them as notorious; as it is in our power to make them.
From the Observer Sunday Newspaper, July 21, 1822.
HORRIBLE OCCURRENCE.—Saturday.
“It is our painful and disgusting task this day to notice a charge which has been made against a Right Reverend Bishop, at Marlborough-street police office, at which human nature revolts. The circumstances are of such public notoriety at the west end of the town, that it would be in vain, if any delicacy were due to the party accused, to attempt to keep them from general observation. The individual to whom we allude was recently promoted to an Irish bishopric, and is nearly related to a Peer in Parliament. He is an elderly man, and we understand was much respected in that class of society to which he belonged. On Friday night it appears that he was detected in a back room of the White Lion public-house, in St. Alban’s place, St. James’s, in a situation with a private in the Foot Guards, to which we will not more minutely allude, but which led to his instant apprehension and removal with his companion to the watch house. There were not fewer than seven witnesses to the fact; and it would seem that the Reverend Prelate with difficulty escaped the vengeance of the populace, who, if not prevented by the peace-officers, would have sacrificed him to their indignation on the spot. As it was, he was severely beaten. On being secured in the watch-house, he offered bail any amount for his liberation; but this was very properly refused, and he remained locked up in the cell during the night in a state of mind which may be more easily imagined than described. Yesterday morning he was conveyed in a hackney-coach to Marlborough street, and was soon afterwards followed by the soldier. They were both pursued by the execrations and revilings of the crowd which had been collected on so extraordinary an occasion. Mr. Dyer, the presiding magistrate, determined on a private examination, at which Mr. Alley, who attended for the Bishop, was present. The witnesses were called in separately, but their testimony was in all respects consistent, and the case established was to a certain extent of the clearest nature. Mr. Alley, however, submitted that as the capital charge had not been borne out, his client was entitled to bail; a proposition to which we understand Mr. Dyer was obliged to accede; and the wretched offender was permitted, in the course of the day, to go at large, upon finding sureties to the amount of one thousand pounds. The soldier, not so fortunate, was committed to take his trial.—For reasons which are obvious, we decline entering more minutely into the details of this most shocking affair; but we ought in justice to a worthy prelate, whose name has unfortunately been mentioned by mistake, in connection with the charge, to request our readers to reflect before they come to a positive determination as to the party really implicated.”
When our readers have gone through this article, and have heard us declare our perfect conviction of its truth; when they have heard us say, that it is agreeable, as far as it goes, with the enquiries which we have made, when they have further heard, that the scene of the brutal transaction was in a back room of the public-house above mentioned; that the parties had drawn the curtains of the room, but had left a part that the curtains did not cover but that might be seen through; that a little girl (vindicatress of her sex!) happening to go into the back court into which the window looked, wondering to see the curtains drawn, had the curiosity to look in, where she saw the parties engaged in that way not to be described, that the little girl (better guardian of public morals than the respectable part of the press) ran to the landlord, who came out with other persons with him, who were all witnesses of the fact, to that certain extent, at least, of which the Observer speaks; that after this, the landlord and others laudably went, dashed in the door, took the parties in the state of Achilles as far as nakedness was necessary to their intentions; that they then dragged them to the watch-house, in that very same state: when our readers have heard all this, they will naturally cry aloud, “why is the name of this Bishop suppressed?” It is a Bishop the article says. It is a “venerable prelate;” it is a Right Reverend Father in God; and why then, is his name suppressed? The Observer informs us that another “worthy prelate” has been named; and unfortunately named; and the Observer requests its readers to reflect before they come to a positive determination as to who the party is. What, are all the Bishops then, to live under this imputation or suspicion? Are all the Bishops to be suspected for the sake of this wretch, as the Observer itself justly calls him? This would be injustice towards the Bishops in general, equal to that which the most respectable and most infamous part of the press has been guilty. We shall do our duty. And we here inform our readers: without anticipating the decisions of courts of justice; without pretending to know whether the alledged crime can be proved or not; without pretending to anticipate any thing of this sort, we inform our readers of that which they all ought to know, that the person, who was taken from the White Lion public-house above-mentioned to the watch-house, and who was afterwards taken from the watch-house to Marlborough-street, and who was held to bail as above-mentioned; we here inform our readers that that person who was so taken along with the soldier of the guards was the Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God, PERCY JOCELYN, Lord Lord Bishop of Clogher, (lately translated to that Bishopric from the Bishopric of Ferns,) a Commissioner of the board of Education (“education of the country!”) brother of the late Earl of Roden.
Having performed this duty, a duty due not less to the Bishops than to the public, we have further to observe, that a man was tried in Ireland, no great while ago, on the charge of having threatened this Bishop to accuse him of such a crime; and, our readers will hear it with shudderings of horror, this man was condemned to death, and, of course, upon the oath of this Bishop! We believe the man was respited and transported. Upon this we shall make no further observations for the present. Our readers will need no observations from us, indeed, to convince them how well things like this are calculated to excite the envy of surrounding nations and the admiration of the world.
To return to the article in the Observer, we are somewhat surprised, if it be true, that Mr. Dyer should have “found himself obliged,” and so quickly, too, and without any remanding, to let the prisoner loose upon bail; and the public will not fail to observe, and to reflect a little upon the amount of this bail of a thousand pounds, in such a case, and relating to such a party. The public will recollect the bail, the sureties to which Mr. Carlile is sentenced, and compare that case with this. A thousand pounds, not, probably, a tenth part of one year’s produce of his Bishopric. The Observer may be in error about this. The fact has not been officially announced. If all the other facts stated by the Observer be true, what is the sum of a thousand pounds! How is that to hold such a person to stand trial! What sureties are there in a thousand pounds in such a case! Whether he ever take his trial or not; the thing will take its trial before the English people; and on that trial the thing is now put.
The Observer tell us, that the soldier was not so fortunate. He could not get bail! and was COMMITTED TO TAKE HIS TRIAL! Well said, THING! it was very hard that those who bailed the Bishop would not bail the soldier. The Bishop himself might have been bail for him. His Bishopric of Clogher was sufficient surety for a whole battalion. Very hard, indeed, that he was not to be bailed too! But there will be time enough to talk about this. The main thing is for us to keep a sharp look out, and see how the THING; to see how the “education of the country;” how the envy of the surrounding nations and admiration of the world will work this matter!
In the mean while, let us look at the conduct of the respectable and infamous part of the press of this day, just looking back in one instance to yesterday.
Our readers will observe, that the articles which we have quoted were in the Observer of yesterday, consequently the thing was known to the editors of all the morning papers. If such a thing had taken place between two labourers, mechanics, or tradesmen, how it would have been blazoned about through the morning papers of this day! What a cry would have been set up by these respectable and infamous guardians of the public morals! But now, what has been their conduct? The Morning Post, the British Press, the Morning Herald, and the Morning Advertizer, have given a part, and a part only, of what they found in the Observer.