THE following statements will fully explain the motives which induced the
Editor to expose the crimes of the individual who is the subject of them.
The demand for those numbers of the WEEKLY DISPATCH in which they
appeared, was so great, that many hundreds of persons were unable to
procure the papers, as no more could be printed than those which were
called for on the days of publication. The Editor, therefore, wishing to
extend his efforts in defence of religion and morality as widely as
possible, by holding up to all mankind a true picture of a blasphemous
hypocrite who is a contemner of the one and a violator of the other, has
thought it advisable to publish the whole of his narratives and remarks
in a separate pamphlet; to which are subjoined many additional facts that
could not appear in a Sunday Paper. The reason this publication has been
so long delayed was, in expectation that JOHN CHURCH would have been
brought to trial in the beginning of June, for an abominable offence with
which he stands charged and committed, but as there is some reason to
suspect that this trial will be put off even at the ensuing Sessions for
the County of Middlesex, the public curiosity cannot be kept any longer
unsatisfied.
_June_ 30, 1813.
JOHN CHURCH,
_THE OBELISK PREACHER_.
_Extract from the Weekly Dispatch of April_ 18.
AMONG the various duties of a newspaper editor, one of the most arduous
is, that of determining what sort of domestic events it may be useful to
cover over with a veil of silence, and what sort are they, of which the
concealment would operate as an injury to the public. Occurrences will
often take place in private life, which, on every principle of moral
expediency and justice, ought never to be born beyond the threshold of
the place where the parties reside. And, on the other hand, there are
certain acts, which, if passed over without notice by civil authority, or
animadversion on the part of the press, may produce evils destructive to
society. Another laborious task imposed on a journalist is the dilemma
in which his duty to the public and his fear of offending the delicacy of
individuals, frequently places him, when he is about to record events
which cannot be suppressed without doing a serious injury to public
morals. {5} I am well aware that things must not be related in all that
naked grossness of truth, which a legal tribunal requires for promoting
the ends of justice; and that as much delicacy as is consistent with
correctness of information, is necessary in narrations of the sort to
which I allude. This has been the principle on which I have uniformly
acted in the conduct of this paper. But to suppress in a newspaper the
publication of a fact which meets the eyes and ears of all people would
be at once absurd and mischievous. For instance, in the month of
October, 1810, 6 or 7 miscreants were placed in the pillory in the
presence of many thousand spectators; they were then conveyed through the
most public streets in an open cart, during which time they were pelted
with mud and dirt by an indignant populace: all the inhabitants of the
streets viewed this disgusting exhibition from their windows; and could
it have been possible—nay, must it not have been mischievous to conceal
from any body the crime for which these culprits were then punished? How
foolish then would it have been for any reader of a newspaper to be
offended at seeing it mentioned in print?
I have thought it necessary to preface with these remarks, the narrative
of facts which I am now about to relate; and which I should at present
abstain from noticing were it possible to give them publicity through the
medium of any court of justice. But as two eminent counsellors {6} have
given an opinion against the _legal practicability_ of such a procedure,
for reasons which I shall presently state; and as in the mean time the
public morals may suffer;—the press must on this occasion interpose as
their guardian.
The readers will recollect having seen in last Sunday’s Dispatch, a
report of the proceedings before the magistrates at Union Hall, when a
conventicle preacher of the name of Church complained of a riotous mob
having assembly near the entrance of his Chapel at the Obelisk in St.
George’s fields, and attempted to commit violence upon him and his
congregation. That report was copied from a daily paper, and was very
imperfectly stated. I have since then, made a full enquiry into all the
circumstances of this case; and I shall now briefly state them from
_authentic documents_, _that are ready to be produced if necessary_. For
a considerable time past, the person just named has been getting a living
by preaching as a Minister of the Gospel in an obscure conventicle close
to the Surrey Theatre. In the mean time, reports had gone abroad that he
was addicted to certain abominable propensities, and certain gentlemen in
the neighbourhood, not actuated by any jealousy towards a successful
“rival in the vineyard,” as the Union-hall report falsely stated, but
dreading the disgrace and pollution which Christianity might suffer from
the immoral character of any of its teachers, investigated these rumours;
and the facts I shall now relate came to light. James Cook, who kept the
infamous house in Vere Street, was released from his two years
imprisonment in Newgate, on the 21st of September last. In the course of
a few days after, I understand, he accidentally met John Church, and
recognized him as the _gay parson_, whom he had formerly seen at a
certain house in the London Road, and at his own house in Vere Street. A
friendly correspondence then took place between these two old
acquaintances. About the 13th of October, Cook received a letter, of
which a fac simile has been published in St. George’s fields, {7} and of
which I have seen the original in Church’s _own handwriting_, (having
compared it with other writings of his). In this the _Minister of the
Gospel_ offers his assistance to the “Vere Street Culprit,” to enable him
to set up another public house, as the reader will perceive from perusing
the letter itself:—
Dear Sir,
Lest I should not have time to call on you or converse with you as I
shall not be alone to Day I thought it But Right to Drop you a Line I
wish you all the success you can desire in getting a house fit for
the Business in the public Line and as you had a great many
acquaintance, they ought not to fail you if evey one acted right
according to there ability I am sure you would soon accomplish it.
As I am By no means Rich, But rather em barrassed I hope you will
acept my mite towards it 1l. 1s. and you shall have another as
convenient wishing all prosperity,
I Remain Your’s, sincerely,
J. CHURCH.
for Mr. Cook, at mr. halladays Richmond Budgs Dean St.
There is another letter bearing the two-penny post mark of the 20th of
October, which I have also seen.—It is as follows:—
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