Dear Sir,
I received your note this morning in Bed, as I have contracted such a Dreadful cold Being wet on tuesday I am very much grievd i have not been able to comply with the request concerning Mr. C— But I shall certainly keep my eye upon him and Do him all the Good it lays in my power where ever he is he knows my Disposition too well to impute any remissness to my conduct But I cannot Do impossibilities as I have Lately had and have now Got so many Distressing cases in hand Beside, I will Be sure to call on you as soon as I can— But am not able to day
I remain Yours J CHURCH
32 hercules Buildings
Badly directed to Mr. Oliver, or (Holloway) No. 6, Richmond’s buildings, Dean Street, Soho.
The next document is a letter dated March 7, 1810, from a person at Banbury named Hall, who says that there was a report there against Church of a very scandalous nature. And that the managers of the chapel, after making enquiries into it, sent him positive orders never to return to Banbury again.
Then follows a letter from Wm. Clarke of Ipswich, a young man between 19 and 20 years of age, which contains an account of attempts too horrid to be published in this paper. I have within the last four days seen the written confession (frightful indeed it is) of this poor simple young man, whose mind was bewildered by the canting exhortations of Church; and I have heard the whole of his statements corroborated by the oral testimony of a Mr. Wire who resides at Colchester, and knows Clarke very well. The circumstances related by Clarke, would have furnished an ample ground for a criminal prosecution had he made his complaint immediately after the assault was committed:—but suffering under the influence of ignorance and fear, he kept it a secret too long, and afterwards accepted of a pound note from Church. A case was laid before two eminent barristers, to have their opinion whether such a prosecution could be carried on with any prospect of conviction. Their opinion, which I now have before me in their own hand writing, is, that after the long concealment of a Charge, a Jury would pay no attention to his evidence, unless he was confirmed in his story by other evidence.
The peace of this poor lad’s mind however is completely destroyed, so fatally has the event preyed upon him:—so far so as to fill the bosom of his aged father with such a spirit of indignation and revenge, that he actually came up to London with a full determination to be the death of him who had thus ruined the peace of his beloved son, while the mother’s mind was not less distracted than that of the father. In consequence of this, the father entered J. Church’s meeting house, with two loaded pistols, one in each pocket, but under the excess of agitation, he fainted away, and was carried out of the place.
There are various other documents which are too voluminous to notice at present. The point to which I now wish to direct the attention of the public is, the extraordinary circumstance of a man continuing to exercise the functions of a christian pastor with such heavy imputations as these hanging over his head. He knows that the whole neighbourhood rings with accusations; he knows that some hundreds of publications containing charges so severe, that my statements compared to then, are “lenity and compassion,” have been sold in St. George’s-fields; and why has he not brought his action against the printer in order to let the world see that they are false.
The printer is a respectable and responsible house-holder residing in the neighbourhood. He has sent forth from his press many hundred sheets of paper filled with direct allegations of criminality against Church: and I again ask, why does not Church take that step which an honest innocent man would take in vindication of his character, namely—that of bringing an action for damages, wherein evidence to their truth or falsehood may be legally admitted? Why has he gone to Union Hall with a counsel at his elbow, and called on the magistrates to do no more than require the printer to suppress the publication of these printed papers, which request the magistrates have complied with, on the ground that such publications tended to a breach of the peace? I hope that no person—and I am confident that no reader of the Weekly Dispatch will be so foolish as to join in any riotous proceedings. But is Christianity, in the mean time, to continue suffering under such a slander as that of being promulgated by a man who is even suspected? A Clergyman of the Church of England, under similar circumstances, would be immediately suspended by the Bishop of his diocese. And is there no power in the state that can impose a temporary silence on a dissenting minister, until an investigation shall take place respecting accusation publicly exhibited against him? Is not the ruling power of the state as interested in preserving the morals of dissenters as of any other class of subjects?
The reader may probably have some curiosity to know what sort of a preacher this person is. I have gone to hear him; and I pity his poor deluded followers. He does indeed deliver himself in a full, clear, articulate tone of voice; but to criticise style, or analyse the substance of his discourse, would be a fruitless labour: it would be like dissecting a cobweb. Unmeaning rhapsodies, and unconnected sentences, through which the faintest gleam of morality is not to be traced, must, from their evanescent nature, set the powers of recollection at defiance: they even escape from the lash of one’s contempt. [11] In his countenance there is none of that dignified mildness, none of that subdued expression of piety which one often observes in Christian preachers whose habits of life are conformable to their precepts. His manner is forward and imposing; and his eyes are continually employed in staring at some person among his auditors. But these being people of the very lowest description, and, to all appearance, wrapt in a cloud of superstitious stupor, scarcely ever examine the physiognomy of their idol.
I have a word or two, to add on the subject of riotous proceedings. On Sunday evening last there was a large crowd of people assembled near the entrance of the Obelisk Chapel. There were several groupes of persons holding arguments on the merits of the preacher, but not the slightest indication of riot. And the only noise or disturbance that I observed, was created by a gang of fellows who rushed through the crowd in the character of peace officers with drawn cutlasses in their hands.
Extract from the Weekly Dispatch of April 25, 1813.
When the late Lord Chief Justice Mansfield promulgated his doctrine “that truth was a libel,” he went upon this principle,—that no man could be justified in publishing any thing respecting the character or conduct of another, which should appear, whether true or false, to be of so abusive and defamatory a nature as to provoke him to commit a breach of the peace;—that if the person so defamed had committed any offence against the law, he should be dealt with according to law; and that no unauthorized individual had a right to become his judge. But Lord Mansfield little thought at that time, that about thirty or forty years afterwards, a case would occur, wherein, although the “offence was rank and smelt to heaven,” the arm of the law was powerless; and wherein an appeal to public opinion became indispensible towards arresting the havoc which the most destructive of all vices that can exist in society was making upon the public morals. We have now before us a case precisely of this nature. Here is a man of the most infamous character—a man notoriously addicted to the most horrible of all vices—a man who has been in the constant habit of corrupting youth, by the instrumentality and under the mask of religion—this man is exercising all the functions of a Christian minister of the Gospel—such as reading prayers, preaching sermons, baptizing, and administering the holy sacrament;—a man at the very idea of whose guilt, every body, except his deluded or sympathetic auditors, shrinks back with feelings of disgust and agony;—and yet there exists no power either ecclesiastical or civil to arrest his career of blasphemy and guilt! Under such afflicting circumstances, is the press to continue silent, because the law tells me that I am not to speak reproachfully of another, although I should speak the truth? If I see my neighbour’s house on fire, am I to look on with cold-blooded indifference, without trying to save the whole street from being involved in flames, because a law may have declared it a crime for any man to stir, until the beat of a drum or the ringing of a bell shall have called the people together? If I see that sort of moral contagion that has been the ruin of Empires, spreading around me while all the engines that were intended for its suppression, remain motionless, am I to refrain from raising my feeble voice against it, because I run a risk of offending against the letter of the law? The law in this case is, in some manner at a stand, as will appear from the report I give of the recent proceedings before the Surry magistrates. It is supposed be unable to act here, because it was not called into action when the crime, that has been sworn to, was perpetrated. Yet the enormity of the crime not only remains undiminished and unatoned for, but the criminal is going forward in the same career, and is in possession of the same influence, that gave scope to his criminality: and what is still worse, the Christian religion is suffering under disgrace and pollution! In such a case then, the press is the only power that can act: and is that power to be suspended by cold calculating timidity? The chief duty of a Journalist is to check the progress of any public evil, by giving activity and force to the LAW OF OPINION, when the municipal law cannot reach the same. This duty I am now exercising; and I do it without fear, because I feel conscious that I am serving the public; and because I may be instrumental in saving a large portion of the rising generation from ignominy and ruin.