After-Effects—Charges against Tilton—Advisory Council—Investigating
Committee called by Mr. Beecher—Its Report—Dropping Mr.
Moulton—Council called by Plymouth Church.
In October, 1873, formal charges were preferred against Theodore Tilton,
by Plymouth Church, for slandering his pastor. He replied to the clerk
of the church, that he was not, and for four or more years had not been,
a member of the church. The church then voted to drop his name from the
rolls, agreeably to the provisions of its manual, relating to such
cases.
Most of the sister churches were content that Plymouth Church should
attend to her own affairs in her own way. Not so the Church of the
Pilgrims (Dr. Storrs) and the Clinton Avenue Church (Dr. Budington).
They felt themselves outraged by this action of Plymouth, in omitting to
try the charges preferred against Tilton.
Special meetings were called in these churches, and a committee of seven
appointed in each, to formulate, and send, a letter of remonstrance to
Plymouth Church. After a considerable, but ineffectual correspondence
between the churches, and consultations between the pastors, looking to
an amicable adjustment of their differences, the two dissatisfied
churches called the “Advisory Council” of 1874, to advise them as to
their course toward Plymouth Church.
While the correspondence and conferences referred to were going on, a
very serious difficulty broke out in Dr. Budington’s church, which at
one time threatened to split it asunder. A large number of influential
members denounced the manner of calling the special meeting, at which
the committee of seven was appointed, and by which the church was
committed to its position of hostility to Plymouth, as being irregular,
and in violation of their own rules.[13] This led to a number of stormy
meetings, in which great bitterness was felt and expressed on both
sides.
-----
Footnote 13:
They presented a formal protest, which, after rehearsing the action of
their pastor in calling the special meeting, concluded:
“WE PROTEST,
“Because the committee was not appointed by the church;
“Because its action has never been approved by the church;
“Because the substance and form of the documents it has prepared have
not been authorized even by the instructions given at irregular and
invalid gatherings, until it was too late to offer criticism or
objection;
“Because these documents, neither authorized in advance nor
subsequently approved by this church, have apparently committed it to
an attitude, and pledged it in advance to acts of antagonism and
censure towards a near and beloved sister church, never contemplated
or desired, still less resolved upon, by this church;
“Because the question of discipline, originally raised as a matter of
controversy, is one upon which the record of this church is such as to
make it especially necessary that we should proceed with great
circumspection when seeking to advise or censure other churches—_it
being our own practice to drop members for absence, without censure,
at every annual meeting_ (Manual, sec. 6, art. 2), and the practice
having extended in the past, as we are informed, _to members at the
time currently reported to be under grave charges_.
“The whole management of this case has misrepresented the spirit of
this church, defeated its just right of self-government, suppressed
the honest and free expression of individual opinion, and tended to
subject the church to the control of a few members, without regard to
the convictions of the remainder.
“We, therefore, denounce the action of the committee as a dangerous
attack upon Christian liberty and Congregational polity; and we
declare it to be, and to have been from the beginning, _null_ and
_void_.”
-----
Mr. Beecher, instead of fomenting this difficulty—which might easily
have been made the means of turning the tables upon his clerical
critics, and forcing them from the attack to the defensive—or even
sitting still, to await any advantages that might accrue to him or his
church, came at once to Dr. Budington’s relief. On January 12th he wrote
to a prominent member of the latter’s church, urging in the strongest
terms that both the doctor, and the protestants, should seek for some
intermediate ground on which they could meet in peace, and that the best
men of the church should join to avert the catastrophe which seemed
impending. He also wrote an earnest letter to Dr. Storrs, that he should
join with him in seeking the peace and unity of Dr. Budington’s church.
[Illustration: Mr. Beecher and his Sister, Mrs. H. E. B. Stowe.]
At the same time he wrote a long letter directly to Dr. Budington, in
which, among other things, he said:
“ ... I pray you not to think that I am intruding on your affairs, or
that I am indelicate in offering to do anything I can. ... Now let me
assure you, my dear friend, that my first and last desire, as God sees
my heart, is to see your church harmonious, and to see you more honored
and firmly seated in the affection of your people than ever. I suppose I
do not exaggerate in saying that there is a large number of your people
who are aggrieved, and that they, like yourself, stand upon a sincere
conscience. Ought there not to be a way among those who have the
humility of Christ to conciliate and to reconcile difficulties? And, my
dear brother, ought not you, as teacher and leader of this flock, to be
a leader in _self-abnegation_, in tender regard for those who differ
with you, in overcoming evil with good, in subduing opposition by love?
“Pardon me, I pray you. I long to see your power augmented and your
name, now honorable, still more honored.... I count the integrity of
your church and your continued usefulness in it as a blessing, which
cannot be lost without great blame somewhere, and if I can help you I
will do it with all the earnestness of my nature! I long for restored
peace in our churches.
“The peace which love brings is full of the fruits of the Spirit. I
think much of you; I pray for you in the watches of the night! If I
could help you effectually I should count it worth all that I have
suffered! I pray you do not put me from you, but let my heart be
strengthened and comforted by the reciprocal love of yours.
“I am, dear brother,
“Truly yours,
“HENRY WARD BEECHER.”
He also advised such of his friends in Dr. Budington’s church as he met,
to the same effect. Ultimately the storm blew over, though a feeling of
soreness remained in the Clinton Avenue Church for a long time.
On March 24, 1874, the Advisory Council convened in Dr. Budington’s
church. Plymouth Church had been invited to be present at the council by
pastor and committee, “to correct any statement of fact that may seem to
them erroneous, and to furnish any further and special information the
council may request.”
To this Plymouth Church replied “that the calling of this _ex-parte_
council to consider the affairs of a church which has not declined a
mutual council is the consummation of a course of proceedings against
which, as irregular and unwarrantable, we have felt bound to protest
from the beginning. That we recognize in the statement, the
letter-missive, and the invitation as in former communications addressed
to us, a persistent attempt to put this church under accusation and on
trial, and that we cannot accept the invitation of these two churches to
appear before a council in the calling of which we have been permitted
to take no part, in which we have not been offered the right of equal
members, and in which we are not even allowed to be ordinary defendants,
but only to be witnesses to correct errors and answer questions
propounded to us.”
On the 28th the council made its “deliverance,” but so like a Delphic
oracle that neither its friends nor its foes seemed able to agree upon
its exact meaning.
As nearly as we can make out from the “deliverance” itself, and the
comments made upon it by members of the council, it was to the effect:
1. That Plymouth Church was not _en regle_ in its disposal of Mr.
Tilton’s case; 2. That the two sister-churches were unwise and hasty;
and 3. That Plymouth Church should not be read out of fellowship.
Very shortly after the adjournment of the council a series of letters
were written by Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, and published in the
_Independent_, which reflected very strongly upon Mr. Tilton, who, in
the latter part of June, published a statement in which he made an open
charge; in this he declared that Mr. Beecher had committed an offence
against him which he forbore to name. This was the first public charge
made by Mr. Tilton. Up to this time the stories afloat were vague and
indefinite, impossible of tracing to their source.
Mr. Beecher was absent from the city when Tilton’s statement was
published, but, returning the next day, at once sent the following to
the gentlemen named therein:
“BROOKLYN, June 27, 1874.
”GENTLEMEN: In the present state of public feeling I owe it. to my
friends, and to the church and the society over which I am pastor, to
have some proper investigation made of the rumors, insinuations, or
charges made respecting my conduct, as compromised by the late
publications made by Mr. Tilton. I have thought that both the church and
the society should be represented, and I take the liberty of asking the
following gentlemen to serve in this inquiry, and to do that which truth
and justice may require. I beg that each of the gentlemen named will
consider this as if it had been separately and personally sent to him,
namely:
“From the Church—Henry W. Sage, Augustus Storrs, Henry M. Cleveland.
“From the Society—Horace B. Claflin, John Winslow, S. V. White.
“I desire you, when you have satisfied yourselves by an impartial and
thorough examination of all sources of evidence, to communicate to the
Examining Committee, or to the church, such action as then may seem to
you right and wise.
”HENRY WARD BEECHER.“
These names were selected after conference with the Examining Committee
of the church, most of them being suggested by that committee. Two of
the gentlemen named were members of the Examining Committee, which
immediately ratified the selection, and by formal vote made them a
sub-committee of its own.
After the committee had been organized and begun its examination Mr.
Beecher wrote and sent the following letter:
”GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: In the note requesting your appointment I
asked that you should make full investigation of all sources of
information. You are witnesses that I have in no way influenced or
interfered with your proceedings or duties. I have wished the
investigation to be so searching that nothing could unsettle its
results. I have nothing to gain by any policy of suppression or
compromise.
“For four years I have borne and suffered enough, and I will not go a
step further. I will be free. I will not walk under a rod or yoke. If
any man would do me a favor, let him tell all he knows now. It is not
mine to lay down the law of honor in regard to the use of other persons’
confidential communications; but, in so far as my own writings are
concerned, there is not a letter nor document which I am afraid to have
exhibited, and I authorize any and call upon any living person to
produce and print forthwith, whatever writings they have from any source
whatsoever.
“It is time, for the sake of decency and of public morals, that this
matter should be brought to an end. It is an open pool of corruption,
exhaling deadly vapors.
“For six weeks the nation has risen up and sat down upon scandal. Not a
great war nor a revolution could more have filled the newspapers than
this question of domestic trouble; magnified a thousandfold, and, like a
sore spot in the human body, drawing to itself every morbid humor in the
blood. Whoever is buried with it, it is time that this abomination be
buried below all touch or power of resurrection.”
The committee commenced their sittings on the 28th of June and did not
complete their report until the 28th day of August. The committee
requested the attendance of thirty-six witnesses, and endeavored to
obtain such facts as were relevant to the inquiry from all attainable
sources of evidence. In their report they stated that “most of the
persons named have attended as requested before the committee. One
notable exception is Francis B. Carpenter. Francis D. Moulton promised
to testify fully, but has failed to do so. He has submitted three short
statements in writing to the committee, consisting chiefly of reasons
why he declined to testify, and of promises to testify at the call of
the committee. The committee have called him three times, with the
results stated. In addition to the evidence of the persons named, we
have examined a considerable number of letters and other documentary
evidence which, in some way, were supposed to relate to the
subject-matter of inquiry. We have held in the prosecution of our
investigations twenty-eight sessions.”
Mr. Tilton appeared and presented a partial statement, finally refusing
any further examination. Mrs. Tilton was examined, and most emphatically
and solemnly denied the charge which her husband had made. Mr. Beecher
was also examined; the substance of his statement we have already
presented. While the committee was in session, and on the 21st of July,
Mr. Tilton published a statement in the Brooklyn _Argus_, in which for
the first time he made the specific charge of adultery. Up to this time,
in his private statements, he had charged “improper proposals”; this
statement he had made repeatedly, in confidence, to many different
persons, and had incorporated in his so-called “true statement,” which
he had shown to several; in this, in the most positive manner, he had
denied that his wife had been guilty. The reason for this change of
position will be made apparent later.
The committee in their report, after exhaustively reviewing the
evidence, concluded:
We find from the evidence that Mr. Beecher has never committed any
unchaste or improper act with Mrs. Tilton, nor made any unchaste or
improper remark, proffer, or solicitation to her of any kind or
description whatever.
“If this were a question of errors of judgment on the part of Mr.
Beecher, it would be easy to criticise, especially in the light of
recent events. In such criticism, even to the extent of regrets and
censure, we are sure no man would join more sincerely than Mr. Beecher
himself.
“We find nothing whatever in the evidence that should impair the perfect
confidence of Plymouth Church or the world in the Christian character
and integrity of Henry Ward Beecher.
“And now let the peace of God, that passeth all understanding, rest and
abide with Plymouth Church and her beloved and eminent pastor, so much
and so long afflicted.
“HENRY W. SAGE, }
“AUGUSTUS STORRS, }
“HENRY M. CLEVELAND, } _Committee of_
“HORACE B. CLAFLIN, } _Investigation_.
“JOHN WINSLOW, }
“S. V. WHITE, }
“Dated BROOKLYN, Aug. 27, 1874.”
This report, with its conclusions, was presented to the church on Friday
evening, the 28th, and accepted with great enthusiasm by a _unanimous
vote_, the immense throng, nearly three thousand in number, rising _en
masse_ when the vote was put.
The terrible struggle in silence had passed, and to Mr. Beecher the
relief at feeling that he could speak out in his own defence was
unutterable. He spoke of it often and strongly:
“And what was most singular was that when the church came into the
eclipse I came out of it. I had had my time when I was dumb and opened
not my mouth, and was led as a sheep to the slaughter; but when the
trouble came upon the whole church, with its intense suffering, there
came to me emancipation. God was pleased to uphold me as I walked alone
and in silence, and afterwards He gave me such relief that during the
two or three years in which the church was shrouded in great anxiety I
was filled with trust and courage, and was enabled all the time to lift
up the church and carry it hopefully along from Sabbath to Sabbath.”
“ ... I have rolled off my burden; I am in the hands of God; I am
certain of salvation and safety in God, and I do not give it any lower
application; but I am hidden in His pavilion, I am surrounded by His
peace, and I have got back, through storms and troubles, to the
simplicity and the quiet enjoyment which belonged to me many years ago.
My thought, my feeling, and my soul run very quiet; and it is the
result, not so much of any visible and external thing, as that I am sure
I am surrounded by the hand of my God. I live in Him, and He lives in
me, and He gives me the promised peace.”
The publication of Mr. Beecher’s statement (a short time prior to the
committee’s report) was as great a relief to Mr. Beecher’s friends, as
the opportunity to make it had been to him. Many who trusted him
implicitly, believing that there was some reason for his silence, could
not but wonder what it might be; and when they learned that he had
suffered reproach in silence, rather than open the doors to the vile
flood which would deluge the land, bringing sorrow to hundreds of homes,
unwilling to violate the pledge he had given to Tilton and Bowen until
the former’s treachery at last compelled him, their loving confidence
and sympathy were only intensified.
The clouds of mystery had been cleared away, and all was plain as
noonday. We have room to quote but one of the many letters received, as
an apt expression of the feelings produced by the statement. We give
entire the letter of President Porter, of Yale College:
“LAKE PLACID, NEW YORK.
”MY DEAR MR. BEECHER: I have been on the point of writing to you for the
last few weeks, from time to time, to express my unabated confidence and
my increasing sympathy for you in your great trial; but I have
refrained, knowing that you were too much occupied to listen to anything
except necessary advice. But I have just read your statement, and am
more than satisfied with it. It would be a slight thing to say that I
believe it to be true. I do not read for myself, but for the world at
large. I believe it will be accepted as true by all, except sons of
Belial, and those who have been committed against you in decided
partisanship. More than this: I think that it will secure you the warm
sympathy of multitudes whom you have not reached, or only slightly,
before this, and that you will be held in higher honor than ever for
integrity of purpose and generosity of self-sacrifice, and that your
example, while it will teach discretion from your weakness, will
enforce, in a manifestly more impressive way, the dignity and strength
of a willingness to suffer in silence, that others might be spared. I
believe the Lord will make your latter days better than in the beginning
(as is said of Job), and if you are willing to stop doing twice as much
as any mortal should attempt, your pulpit and pastoral influence will be
more blessed than ever.
“Most affectionately, your friend,
“NOAH PORTER.”
Early in the sessions of the committee Mr. Tilton withdrew—as
we understand, not liking to be followed up on
cross-examination—threatening to institute legal proceedings against Mr.
Beecher, and, as preliminary thereto, published his statement of July
21.
We have alluded to the fact that at this stage Tilton wholly changed the
nature of his charge. In all the stories which he and Moulton had told
to various friends at different times, and in the statements which he
had prepared and shown in confidence, the charge was always “improper
proposals” and an emphatic assertion of his wife’s innocence. Now he
proposed to stake all on one cast of the dice. He would bring a suit,
and, if he could get no more help, he would at least, so his vanity and
Mr. Beecher’s evil-wishers assured him, crush Mr. Beecher. Indeed, he
and Moulton were cornered, and must resort to some desperate measures or
surrender themselves to everlasting infamy. Had they been left to
themselves, it is perhaps doubtful if they would have attempted so
desperate a remedy, even in self-defence; but there were those, not a
few, who egged them on, contributing to the expense of the suit, glad to
keep up the attack on Mr. Beecher, provided only their names were not
brought out.
But an action at law would not lie for merely “improper proposals”; it
must go further than that. The case must be reconstructed. In no
_published_ statement, up to this time, had Tilton made any definite
charge. Now he would put his charge in such shape as would serve the
purposes of a suit; hence the statement of July 21, followed by a
similar statement from Moulton published in the _Graphic_ on August 21.
The same day Tilton began his action against Mr. Beecher, placing his
damages at $100,000.
On the 3d of October both Tilton and Moulton were indicted for criminal
libel by the Grand Jury of Kings County, on Mr. Beecher’s complaint.
(After the failure of the jury to agree in the civil suit, this was
_nolle-prossed_.)
Tilton’s suit came on for trial the 6th of January, 1875, before Judge
Joseph Neilson, of the Brooklyn City Court. It is not necessary to go
into the details of this trial. The same evidence, substantially, was
presented as was received by the investigating committee, and as
appeared in the published statements. For six months the case occupied
the time of the court and jury, the testimony covering several thousand
pages of printed matter.
The case was submitted to the jury the 24th day of June. For nine days
the jury strove to reach an agreement, finally being discharged the 2d
day of July, standing three for plaintiff and nine for defendant.
We are informed, on the authority of one of the jurors, that several
times they stood eleven to one in defendant’s favor, and _once all
agreed on a verdict_ for defendant, when a juror unfortunately remarked
that his son had wagered a large sum on a verdict for the defendant;
this statement split the jury at once, and from thence on they remained
three to nine, until they were discharged. The case was never brought to
trial again, the plaintiff wholly abandoning it. It is well known that
after plaintiff had abandoned his case, his leading counsel, Hon.
William A. Beach, frequently and publicly declared that the trial of the
cause had convinced him of Mr. Beecher’s innocence, and that he felt as
though they had been a pack of hounds trying to pull down a noble lion.
Five years later he expressed similar views to the writer.
In the course of the trial Mrs. Moulton took the stand against Mr.
Beecher. With downcast eye, and hesitating voice, she corroborated her
husband.
Before the trial she withdrew from the public service of Plymouth
Church, and became a constant attendant at the Church of the Pilgrims
(Dr. Storrs).
Plymouth Church could no longer tolerate her within its membership. It
was fully believed that, under the coercion of her husband, she had
committed perjury during the trial, and had grossly slandered her
pastor. This would have been the ground of charges against her, but the
church was advised that to try her on any charge based upon her
testimony in court, while the suit was still pending (plaintiff’s
attorneys had renoticed the cause for a new trial, shortly after the
disagreement), might involve them in a contempt of court, and, in any
event, would be construed as an attempt to intimidate one of plaintiff’s
most important witnesses. But, since she had persistently absented
herself from the services of the church, she could be dropped under the
seventh rule of the church manual. She was accordingly notified of the
proposed action of the church and invited to be present on the 4th of
November. After hearing her defence through her legal counsel, her name
was dropped from the rolls by a vote of the church.
She at once demanded a mutual council, to be called by Plymouth Church
and herself. Plymouth Church protested against Drs. Storrs’s and
Budington’s churches participating therein, both of whom she had named,
on the ground that they were obviously committed to her side and could
not be impartial, but at the same time stated that they would go on with
the council. Mrs. Moulton declined unless the protest were withdrawn.
This being refused, she withdrew.
About this time it was being rumored in certain circles, and notably in
Boston, that Mr. Beecher and his church had some great secret that they
were concealing from the world, and for this reason had declined the
mutual council which Mrs. Moulton had proposed—forgetting that Mrs.
Moulton was the one who had abandoned the council, and further
forgetting that an opportunity had been offered to any who knew anything
detrimental to Mr. Beecher, to testify against him, first before the
committee, that sat for two months, and then in the trial, that lasted
over six months. Friends of Mr. Beecher wrote to him from Boston of this
feeling. He sent word at once to a friend to get the doubters together,
and that his brother, Dr. Edward Beecher, would meet them and answer all
questions. From this friend we received the following account of the
meeting:
“Immediately I set about the work of collecting those who, I thought,
were honorable men, but misinformed into believing many things in the
case which I knew to be false.... I did not invite a man who had given
signs of being a friend of your father, but I asked every man of weight
in the community whom I had reason to believe was prejudiced against
him, and every man, to whom I had access, who had expressed to my
knowledge a judgment hostile to him.
“The majority accepted.... My parlors were filled.... At the appointed
hour a hack arrived from the depot, and out stepped your father,
followed by his brother. He entered the parlors, and said in substance:
“‘Gentlemen, I have been told that some of you feel that there is a lack
of frankness on my part with reference to the painful matter in
controversy, and that there is a desire, either on my part or on the
part of my friends, to cover up and conceal facts. If you think so you
are in error. Our first desire is to make everything known. But it is,
we find, impossible to do so, because so many false rumors are flying
about, and everything we say gets into the papers twisted awry. I have
come here to beg you to ask any questions you desire. Do not spare my
feelings. Do not be restrained by any consideration of delicacy. The
more searching, the more crucial your questions are, the kinder you will
be. I will answer _any question_ you can ask pertaining to this affair.’
“Hour after hour questions were asked. They were put one at a time,
slowly. Some seemed but slightly relevant. Some made my blood boil to
hear. Some seemed such as a judge might ask of a convicted criminal
before pronouncing sentence. But every question was answered
categorically, when that was possible, but always fully and
exhaustively, so that the questioner pronounced himself entirely
answered by the reply.
“During the entire session there did not fall from your father’s lips
one impatient word, one harsh rejoinder. Not by a gesture did he give
evidence that he suffered. Only the quick flush that came at times upon
his cheek, showed the keenness of the torture caused him by this
inquisition.
“Before he left I asked each one present, privately, if there was any
question he could think of, an answer to which would, in his opinion,
throw light upon the matter, which had not been asked. In every case I
received a negative reply.”