“Mr. Church the Minister lodged at our house a year and a half, and left last year at Lady-day.”
“We were in hopes that we were about to have a godly praying minister in our house, and to be sure, the first night he had somewhat like prayer, [21] and that and once afterwards, were the only times he ever went to family prayer in our house. Nor could they have any prayer as he would be frequently out almost all hours of the night, and would lie in bed till ten o’clock in the morning. Several times he and his wife would have skirmishings and fightings between themselves, while their children would be left to run about the streets out of school hours, and allowed to keep company with children, that would swear in our hearing most shockingly. His children were always left to be very dirty, and would be sent sometimes three or four times in the morning for spirituous liquors of all sorts, as for reading good books or even the Bible, he scarce ever thought of it, but would spend a deal of his time in loose and vain talk, in walking about, and in fawning on young men, that was his chief delight.”
“Sundays and working days were all alike to them, for they would send out to buy liquors and whatever else they wanted, on Sundays as well as other days.”
“The house would be frequently more like a play-house, (I might say a bawdy house) than a minister’s house, where a set of young people would come, and behave more indecently than ought to be mentioned. Even one Sunday morning they made such an uproar, as that they broke one of the windows, and after that, they would go with him to his Chapel, and after that he would give the sacrament to such disorderly people, let their characters be ever so loose.”
“He was always ready to go fast enough out to dinner or supper, where he could get good eating and drinking; but poor people might send to him from their sick bed, times and times before he would come to them. Seeing so much of his inconsistencies and shocking filthiness in their rooms, (though they always paid the rent,) we were determined to give them warning to quit our house, and we do think that a worse man or woman ever came into any man’s house before; especially as Mr. Church pretended to preach the gospel; such hypocrites are much worse than others, and besides this, we never heard any man tell lies [22] so fast in all our lives. It is a great grief to us, that ever we went to hear him preach, or suffered him to stop so long in our house.”
“GEORGE AND FRANCES GEE.”
I now proceed to relate and comment upon some remarkable circumstances that have occurred since my last publication. During the greater part of Sunday, my office was beset by gangs of fellows who came in successively and threatened prosecutions for what appeared in the paper about Church. In the morning a constable named Holmes (hired no doubt for the purpose) was employed with a ladder, in tearing down the bills that had been posted up, announcing the publication of that morning respecting Mr. Church. About noon, a man of the name of Shawe, who, I understand is a sort of an attorney, residing in St. George’s fields, and who, it appears has also been employed by Church, was standing in the midst of some persons outside the door of the chapel, with the newspaper in his hand, and was commenting on the infamous libels, as he called them, that were published against that most virtuous character, Mr. Church. He seemed as if he wanted to provoke somebody to speak: and he soon had his wish; for a Gentleman of the name of Webster, with whom I am well acquainted, and whom I know to be as peaceable and correct a young man as any in the world, came up, and feeling indignant at the recollection of certain transactions which I shall state presently, declared that every thing stated in that paper (The Weekly Dispatch) was true. This was the tremendous riot which this most dangerous gentleman committed. The peace-restoring Mr. Shawe went immediately for a peace-officer—the same fellow of the name of Holmes who for three hours before had mobs of people collected around him while he was tearing down my bills, gave charge of Mr. Webster as a breaker of the peace, had him dragged like a felon to the watch-house, and afterwards conveyed him to a filthy lock-up-house in the Borough, where he was kept in a state of imprisonment, from his comfortable house and family all that day and night, until 12 o’clock on Monday, when he was brought before the magistrates at Union Hall. Of the proceedings that then took place, the following account appeared in the Morning Chronicle of Tuesday:—
Riots at the Obelisk.—Tuesday, a Mr. Webster, who is employed in the house of Messrs. Evans and Co. eminent hop-merchants in the Borough, was charged by a person of the name of Shaw, with committing a riot and breach of the peace, on Sunday morning, at the Obelisk, in St. George’s-fields, near the entrance of a chapel belonging to a preacher, named John Church. The Magistrates said, that as Mr. Birnie, who had, on a former day, heard another case similar to this, was absent, they wished the case might be deferred until next day, and desired Mr. Webster to attend accordingly. The prosecutor observed, that it would be dangerous to allow Mr. Webster to be at large, and desired that he might either be kept in custody or held to bail. The Magistrate asked if there was any person present ready to be bail for his appearance. Mr. Robert Bell, the Editor of the Weekly Dispatch, who accompanied Mr. Webster as his friend, a housekeeper in Lambeth, said he was ready to bail him. The prosecutor then said, he had also a very serious complaint to make against Mr. Bell, for the article which he published in his last Sunday’s newspaper, respecting Church, and he had one of the papers in his hand. Mr. Bell told the Magistrates that he was ready to meet any complaint of this kind; that he conceived it to be his duty as one of the guardians of public liberty, and public morals, to send forth the statement in question; that he could prove the truth of every thing he had written and published. The worthy Magistrate then asked Mr. Webster if he would promise on his honour to attend next day, which Mr. Webster assured him he would do, and he retired. It is necessary to mention that Mr. Webster had been in a state of imprisonment during the greater part of Sunday, and all Sunday night.—Morning Chronicle, April 20, 1813.
This report is very correct, so far as it goes; but the reporter might have added, that I told the Magistrates I had a volume of documents in my possession to prove Church to be a most infamous culprit, and that it was a disgrace to the moral character of the nation, to suffer such a man to be a minister of the Gospel. I have now a short comment to make on this occasion. I am still at a loss to know what complaint it was that Shawe intended to prefer against me. I had committed no riot, nor did I ever mix in any crowd, (in fact there was no crowd or noise, except what the associates of Church had created). Did he mean to complain to the Magistrates of the publication in my paper? If so, he must be grossly ignorant of law, not to know, that the magistrates for the county of Surrey could take no cognizance of that which I published in the city of London. And if they had, did he imagine that I would enter into any such recognizance as Mr. Theodore Page, the printer, in Blackfriars road, was obliged to do? No, Sir; so long as I continue to live in a free country, I will suffer no Justice of peace to lay an illegal imprimatur on my press. Mr. Page, as quiet and discreet a man as ever existed, who was not seen in any crowd, and who would be the first to get away from any place where there happened to be the slightest disturbance, is now bound in the penalty of 100l. to preserve the peace! and for what, because he printed some hand-bills, giving an account of Church’s infamous practices. And now, reader, mark again the conduct of this immaculate preacher. He adopts no course of proceeding, by which he may be enabled to falsify the accusations made against him. No,—he wants to crush and smother everything by violence; and still continue to levy contributions on some poor fools who go to hear him; or, perhaps, occasionally to convert his conventicle into an accommodating shop for the use of others.
On Tuesday last Mr. Webster again appeared at Union Hall, accompanied by his father, his brother, and some friends. In support of the charge of riot, an old man and an old woman, of the meanest appearance, declared, that Mr. Webster expressed a wish to set the chapel on fire; but their evidence was not believed, and they were turned out of the office. Goff, the officer, had seen no act of riot. Mr. Webster being called on for his statement, said, he had not uttered a word that could provoke any disturbance. When he made the reply to Shawe’s comments on the Newspapers, he did assert, that he could prove Church to be the character therein described, because, about ten or eleven year, ago he had been guilty of most abominable conduct toward, his (Webster’s) brother, then a lad of 16. The moment the Magistrates heard this, they appeared struck with amazement. They stopt all proceedings against Mr. Webster, and desired his brother to be brought forward. The office was cleared of all persons, except the parties immediately concerned; the brother’s deposition was then taken, and a warrant was issued for Church to appear there the next day.
On Wednesday J. Church appeared in consequence of the warrant issued the day before for his apprehension on a charge of abominable practices, attended by a number of his deluded followers. Mr. W. Webster having deposed as to his attempts on him, Church was ordered to find bail for his appearance at the next Middlesex Sessions and Mr. Webster bound over to prosecute. The magistrate observed that from the length of time which had elapsed since the offence had been committed, he thought a jury would not feel justified in finding him guilty. Mr. Johnston, a young Gentleman of the law, who attended for Mr. Webster, replied, that it was not the time for them to discuss what was likely to be the verdict of a jury; that he had recommended Mr. Webster to prefer an indictment against Church, and Mr. W. had come to that resolution; and that whatever might be the result of the trial, the evidence relating to the conduct of Church would be of that disgusting nature as to stamp his name with eternal infamy and disgrace. Church’s attorney observed that it was a conspiracy amongst another sect to ruin Mr. Church’s character. This Mr. Johnston denied, and said that it was only a desire to bring him to merited punishment. Mr. Johnston also said that if Mr. Church acted like a man of prudence, and consulted his own interest, he would desist from preaching until the indictment had been tried, as it would be the means of preventing a breach of the peace, but this he declined; and Shawe his attorney said they should follow their own advice. Mr. Johnston informed Church’s attorney that it was Mr. Webster’s intention to indict, or bring an action against him for assault and false imprisonment.
On that very evening (incredible as it may appear) this very man, held to bail for trial on the most horrid charges given on oath, had the impudence to go into his chapel and preach to a crowded audience. But his is a very convenient conscience-healing system of faith, [27] and perhaps his followers do not like him the worse for his system of practical morality.
R. BELL.
Extract from the Weekly Dispatch of May 2, 1813.
The statements published in the two last numbers of the Dispatch respecting this person have excited a degree of public attention unexampled in the history of newspapers. I am rejoiced at the circumstance; because it serves to shew how large a mass of virtuous feeling prevails among the people of England, and how much alive they are to any transactions that appear to violate the morals, or profane the religion of their country. It is impossible for any one who knows me, or is acquainted with my character, to suppose, that I could have felt any thing like personal hostility against this man. My sole motive for sending forth these publications, has been to defend and preserve the public morals. In doing so, I have disregarded all risks, and set all threats at defiance. The reader may naturally ask whether I have not said enough on this subject already. I thought so this day week. Since last Sunday’s publication, however, a volume of new matter, respecting this prophaner of religion and violator of morality has been communicated to me.