Part 3
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.
Among the recent communications that have been made to me in the course of the week, the following are the more remarkable, and ought to be proclaimed through all parts of the kingdom. Several persons have been at a loss to know by what authority this man presumed to take upon himself the functions of a minister of the gospel. They have asked how could a man so profligate—so notoriously criminal, come forth to instruct others in religion. The question was natural, and I will answer it. The practice among Dissenters is, that when any man feels a strong desire to become a preacher, he communicates the same to several Ministers, who make strict enquiry into his qualifications as to piety, learning, morals, &c. and if they find these established on satisfactory evidence, they confer on the candidate a sort of ordination, without which he can have no authority to officiate as a minster of the gospel. I understand that Church did receive some ordination of this kind at the town of Banbury, in Oxfordshire; from which place, as I stated in a former number, he was driven away for his mal-practices. Since then he has not been under the control, and has acted in defiance of all the ordinances of the Dissenting Church. He has in fact gone about as a mere isolated adventurer; and I am informed that no minister will preach in any pulpit belonging to him. Yet he continues to preach, in defiance of Christian, as well as of moral ordinances; because he cannot be silenced by any legal authority, and because he rejects all ecclesiastical government. This is the reason why I labour to rescue religion from the disgrace which he throws upon it. And I again ask if it is to be tolerated in a Christian, in a moral country, that a man ordered by the magistrates to be tried for the basest of all crimes, alleged against him on oath, should be suffered to collect an assembly of English subjects around him under pretence of giving them religious instruction? Is the government to suffer its subjects to be thus contaminated? The magistrates of Sparta and of Rome (which were heathen nations) would have permitted no such sacrilege as this.
One character peculiar to the person I am speaking of is, that wherever he has been admitted as a preacher, he has disturbed the religious system, and upset the order of the place. No later than Wednesday last, a gentleman from Colchester called at my office, and told me that he has done so in that town; that he turned the whole congregation against their minister, by preaching doctrines tending to encourage licentiousness, and foster the worst passions. All persons acquainted with history will recollect, that this mode of healing the consciences of profligate men was practised by the Romish Church before the reformation, and when it flourished in its rankest state of corruption—when indulgences for sins to be committed, and pardon for sins past, were openly sold for money. The manner in which the Obelisk Preacher conducts the affairs of his chapel bears some resemblance to this practice. In other places of worship, the practice is, for persons, who have been appointed as trustees, to take charge of all the money collected once a mouth, and after allowing a reasonable remuneration to the minister, apply the remainder to the relief of the poor, and to the repairs of the place. Hitherto, however, Mr. C— has been in the habit of putting into his own pocket all the money which he has raised by inflaming the passions and exciting hopes and fears. I am informed that for the purpose of encreasing his revenue, he has even administered the sacrament to persons who were nearly introxicated with gin!! At present my pen is unable to proceed any further on this most disgusting subject.
R. B.
_Extract from the Dispatch of May_ 9, 1813.
The promise made in last Sunday’s Dispatch, that a description should every week be given of some conventicle preacher noted for ignorance and absurdity, was at the time rather premature, and the fulfilment of it must be suspended for two or three weeks longer; because I wish to mark out a boundary of separation, like an impassable chasm, between the character I have hitherto been developing, and those I intend hereafter to criticise. However great may be the mass of folly, ignorance, and fanaticism, which prevail throughout most of the low conventicles of this metropolis, and however injuriously they may operate on the human mind, their effects are innocence and virtue, compared to the influence of that guilt which I have exposed, and which I am prepared to expose still more effectually in any Court of Justice. I believe that the poor silly visionaries who deal in pictures, in miracles, and monstrous conceits, are not wilfully or practically vicious, and that they have _lashed_ themselves into a belief, of what they preach; therefore I cannot think of dragging them forward so close upon the heels of Mr. John Church, as to hold out an appearance of their belonging to the same society. Some interval of time, therefore, is necessary for the distinction which I wish to draw. When I come to speak of them it shall be in a spirit of playfulness, and not with a feeling of abhorrence. Respecting the last mentioned person I should have been silent ever since the 18th ultimo, had he preserved that _silence_ which a sense of common decency would have pointed out to any other person, except himself. After having been held to bail for the purpose of being tried on charges not to be named among Christians, he ought to have abstained from entering his pulpit, and shunned the very light, until his character was cleared to the satisfaction of his congregation, who ought to have deemed it a sacrilege to be present while he attempted to promulgate the doctrines of Christ in a place of divine worship. But one would think there was a congeniality of sentiment and of _sympathy_ between the pastor and the flock! Indeed this latter remark is founded upon something more than conjecture: for a great number of persons who are in the habit of frequenting the obelisk chapel, have taken up the cause of their preacher with a zeal that cannot easily be accounted for in any way but _one_. They will investigate no charge; they reject all evidence. Their _Temple_ is open, and their _High Priest_ is in as much _favour_ as ever he was. They are, I am told, raising money to carry on prosecutions against those whom they call his calumniators; but it is probable that the money will be expended in _some other place_, besides Westminster Hall. I have been threatened with an action as will appear by the following notice, which was left at my office last Friday se’nnight, and which for the amusement of the reader I publish _verbatim_ and _literatim_.
To Mr. R. Bell the Editor and Proprietor and also—to Mr. Robt Barber—the Printer, of a Certain Weekly Publication or Newspaper Calld the Weekly Dispatch and to all others whom It doth shall or may Concern.
My name appearing In some of the Above-named Newspapers and In other Publication Issued by Some of you or by your Directions I do hereby—give you and Each of you, Notice from, henceforth to Desist from the further Printing or Circulation—of Such Papers and that In Case My Name, or any (thing) Respecting (me) or Tending, to Inflame the Public Mind against me, Shall appear In any future Publications Sanctioned or Authorisd by you or Under you Direction’s I shall Commence Such Legal measures, against you for the Same As the Law Enable Me and Counsel shall advise and I Do hereby—give you and Each of you further Notice that (as) I am about to Commence—and acxtion against you for the Publication above alluded to, that you do not Part with or alter, or In any manner mutilate the manuscripts from which Publications were Printed.
Date—this 30 Day of April 1813 John Church.
This precious composition (no attorney could write any thing like it) bears the real signature of John Church which exactly resembles that of the letter he wrote to Cook of Vere-street. I now then call on him to put his threat into execution; I call on him to bring his action against me; and he may depend on it, I shall be prepared with my _proofs_ and my JUSTIFICATION. I repeat what I said in my last, that I bear this man no resentment of a personal nature, I can have none towards one I never spoke to, and never saw but once, and then in his pulpit. My sole object is to do that which the civil power seems unable to do—to prevent one of the most horrid of vices, from being propagated through the medium of pretended sanctity. The person of whom I am speaking, has called at my office, and expressed a wish to see me (_this was very like bringing an action_!) fortunately I was not there at the time; and I now desire that neither he nor any of his associates may call on me, for I will speak with none of them except in a Court of Law.
* * * * *
_To the Editor of the Weekly Dispatch_.
Banbury, May 5, 1813.
SIR,—In your Paper of the 25th ult. in an article relative to John Church, you say, “The Magistrates sent him away from Banbury.” As some persons might, from this erroneous statement, conceive that the people to whom he preached then, heard with indifference of his vile propensities; we beg of you, in justice to them, to correct this error. It was the Trustees of the Chapel who gave him his immediate dismission from their place, on the first intimation of his destestable practices, to which they could attach any credit.
We are, Sir,
Your humble Servants, JOSEPH GARDNER. THOMAS GARDNER.
* * * * *
_The following are the letters referred to in pages_ 8 & 9.
Honoured Sir,—In reply to your letter concerning Mr. C. I can only inform you, there was a report against him of a very scandalous nature; but how far his culpability extends, it is quite out of my power to determine. He was absent from hence when the rumour first spread. The Managers of our Chapel took great pains to enquire into the origin of such reports, and the result was, they sent Mr. C. positive orders never, on any account, to return to Banbury again; which advice he has hitherto wisely observed. Now, Sir, after giving you the above information, I beg leave to conclude the subject, by referring you to your own comment hereon.
(Signed) S. HALL.
Banbury, March 7, 1810.
The next extract exhibits the confession of Wm. Clarke, of Ipswich.
Having been called by providence to Colchester, I went to hear John Church preach in a barn, was invited to Mr. Abbott’s; was prevailed upon to sleep with John Church; I did sleep with him three nights; after being enticed to many imprudences, I was under the necessity to resist certain attempts, which, if I had complied with, I am fearful must have ruined both soul and body; the crime is too horrid to relate.
WILLIAM CLARK.
RICHARD PATMORE J. ELLISON C. WIRE H. T. WIRE Witnesses.
P.S. This took place in March last, 1812.
* * * * *
The third letter casts still further light on the dark business of the former.
_Colchester_, _September_ 16, 1812.
SIR,
Last evening I had an interview with Clark’s father, who wishes him to comply with your wishes. I mentioned to him respecting Church’s conduct, and I find the last night to be the worst. Likewise that he would have committed the act had not Clark prevented him. The particulars I told was when in London, but find them worse than what I describe to you. They are not able to be at any expence; but if the Gentlemen wish to prosecute, and to pay Clark’s expences up to London, &c. he will have no objection to come, when you please to send. I need only say, I wish you to inform the Gentlemen, and give me a line.
I am, dear Sir,
Yours, &c. C. WIRE.
* * * * *
The following is the narrative which Cook has given to his acquaintance with _Parson Church_; and which was taken down from his own dictation by Mr. E— B—:
In May, 1810, J. Cook was in company with Mr. Yardley and another young man by the name of Ponder. I found after that the said Ponder was a drummer in the Guards; but Cook went to call at a house in the London Road, where I saw Mr. Church the first time in my life; there was at this house about twelve or fourteen altogether drinking gin, and Mr. Church handed me a glass of the same, which I took; Church behaved very polite to me, and said what a fine fellow I was, he pressed me very much to stop and get tea with them, for he said he would call and see me when I was settled in the house in Vere-street. I stopped a little while and was about to leave them when Church said I should not go before I had tea, and flung down a dollar, and a man by the name of Gaiscoin took the money and went for the tea and other things but I would not stay, Church came out of the room with me, and walked with me as far as the turnpike, there he met another Gentleman which I never saw before, and I went on and left him for that time, I think it was 6 or 8 days. I went to live at the Swan, and saw Church again, he came about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and Mr. Yardley accosted him, ‘Parson what are you come to see the Chappel?’ he said ‘yes, and to preach too:’ Church asked me how I was, I said I was not very well, he asked me why I went away in that shy manner, I told him he was a stranger to me, and I did not like to be intruding on strange people, he said I was shy, he did not know what to make of me, he also pressed me very much to take a walk with him, but I declined it, he said I must go, but I still declined, and did not go with him, he staid some time and joined the company that was in the Back Parlour, persons by the name of Miss Fox and Miss Kitty Cambrick was among them, and the Queen of Bohemia. As Mr. C. was going away, he came to the bar and spoke to me, and said I must take something to drink, which I did, and he paid for it, and left the house for that time. In a few days he called again in the afternoon, and there was not many people there, he asked if Yardly was at home, I said he was not, he said he was very sorry for it, I asked him what he wanted, he said he came on purpose for me to take a walk with him, but I did not go, he said he would wait until Yardly came in, Church said I should do him a great favor if I would take a walk with him, I would not go, he still pressed me very much to go, I said I would if he would wait till I had cleaned myself, he waited more than two hours for me, I went to steep because I would not go with him, and in the mean time he waited so long that he was tired, he sent the waiter to call me, which he did, and said the Parson wanted me, and had been waiting two hours for me, I said him wait, for I should not come, he returned and said if I would but speak to him, he should go away happy. I found I could not get rid of him, I went down stairs, he said well, Sir, I hope your nap has done you good, I said I dont know, dont bother me, he said I was very cross to him, I told him there was other men without me, if he wanted to preach, not to preach to me about crossness. He said well if that was the case he was very sorry he had offended me, I told him he had not offended me nor pleased me, but as I was not well and the less any one talked to me the better I liked it. He said if I was but friends with him, and shake hands with him, he should go away happy. Mr. Yardly said, I never see such a fellow as I was, for I had affronted every body that came to the house. I then shook hands with the Parson, for at that time I did not know his name. He shook hands with me, and we had something to drink, and Mr. Church paid for it and went away. I never saw him until I came out of Newgate, I was talking to Mr. and Mrs. Holloway, and telling them there was a Parson somewhere about St. George’s Fields, but his name I did not know. He asked me if I should know him if I saw him, I said I should, by that I went to the Chapel and saw Mr. Church, and then I asked the people what was the Parson’s name, they told me his name was Church. I said he ought to be ashamed of himself to preach there, a *** and rascal, and left the place, and went home in the greatest pains I ever felt in my life, and was resolved to see him, which I did the next day, and give him one of the hand-bills, and the manner he received me, was like a young man would his sweetheart, I begun my conversation:—Well, Sir, I suppose you do not know me. He said he did not. I said my name was Cook, that kept the Swan, in Vere street. He said he thought so, but was not sure: he said, why did I not call before and shake hands with a body. I told him I did not know where he lived, nor I did not know his name until I went to the Chapel and found him out. He told me not to make it known that he ever came to my house, for he and Roland Hill had daggers drawn, and that he should be obliged to indite Hill to clear up his character, and for God’s sake do not expose me.
(_Here the Narrative breaks off_.)
POSTCRIPT.
In addition to the above testimonies, the Editor has received a very long narrative of atrocities committed by JOHN CHURCH while he resided at Banbury, which has been written by a Minister at that place; but the facts are too disgusting and shocking to be published.
On the 6th of June 1813, the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex found a Bill of Indictment against _John Church_ for his attempt some years ago on a lad named Webster.
* * * * *
Printed by and for R. BELL, Bride Lane, Fleet Street.
SECOND POSTCRIPT.
_July_ 15.