Transcribed from the [1822] J. L. Marks edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                     [Picture: Pamphlet front cover]





                            A CORRECT ACCOUNT
                                  OF THE
                          _HORRIBLE OCCURRENCE_


        Which took place at a Public-house in St. James’s Market,
                     in which it was discovered that

                      _The Right Rev. Father in God_

                                   THE
                            BISHOP OF CLOGHER,

             Lately transferred from the Bishopric of Ferns,

                        WAS A PRINCIPAL ACTOR WITH

                            A Common Soldier!

To the disgrace not only of the Cloth, to which he was attached, and as a
Commissioner of the Board of Education, and a Dictator of Public Morals,
but as a Member of that Nation which gave him Birth!

                                * * * * *

                                _LONDON_:
               PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY & FOR J. L. MARKS,
                    23, RUSSELL COURT, COVENT GARDEN.

                                * * * * *

                            _Price Sixpence_.




PREFACE.


TO hold the vicious up to odium and contempt should be at all times a
particular care of the Press; but when every powerful engine is exerted
to veil the vices of the privileged ranks, and to make it appear that
crime is peculiar to those who constitute what _are called_ the lower
classes, it becomes a sacred and _imperative duty_.

We know there are some who, from a pretended regard to religion, would
suppress every fact that exposes the licentious conduct of its ministers,
but, nine times out of ten, this is mere hypocritical cant to support
those who “bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay on men’s
shoulders.”  The mistaken infidel may connect religion with the conduct
of its professors, but the truly religious person makes no distinction of
vice but its comparative enormity, and the more he venerates the doctrine
of Christianity, the greater abhorrence he feels towards the wretch who
violates every principle of the religion which it is his duty to
inculcate.

We see a certain Association evincing a most scandalous partiality, by
SELECTING the objects of their prosecution from those most unable to
defend themselves! we participate in the general feeling of censure
against them, and believe that they have done more injury to the cause
they profess to support, than the united efforts of the persecuted
parties could possibly have effected.  This will ever be the case when
exertions are influenced only by feelings of _policy_ instead of
_principle_, for if as much pains were taken to keep improper characters
_without_ the pale of the church, as there is art exerted to defend them
through thick and thin, when they have _entered_ it, the CLOTH would
probably never have been disgraced by the “Rev. Father in God,” whose
notoriety promises to eclipse that of all former brothers in divinity.

The name of the Prelate may have appeared in the subscription columns of
a newspaper, the only place where the charity of many is heard of.  Nay,
we have little doubt but it might be found in the list of subscribers to
the _highly respectable association_ the “_Bridge street gang_” or the
“_Society for the suppression of vice_.”  We would not rob _him_ of any
action of _merit_ on this score, or them of any claim to _respectability_
in the eye of the public; for ourselves we would say, “Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye—also outwardly appear righteous
unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”  Any comment
on the case itself must be superfluous, we therefore give it to the
reader as extracted verbatim from the Statesman.




From the Statesman.


                                                          _July_ 22, 1822.

OUR readers have often had to oblige us by their attention to what we
have said of the blessed THING.  We are now going to trouble them upon an
extraordinary occasion indeed, and are going to give an instance of the
baseness and infamy of the London newspapers, such as we never before had
it in our power to give; and such as we are quite sure will, before we
have done with it, implant the character of everlasting infamy upon that
corrupt press, which has so long been boasting of its independence and
its honour.  What a deal we have heard about the press being the
_guardian of public morals_!  What volumes have we read about its powers
of correction of evil!  We have, indeed, heard a part of it condemned,
the unstamped part of it; that part of it has been pointed out the refuse
part; as the vile part; as the part which required laws to restrain it,
to cramp it, to load it, to destroy it if possible.  We have heard
honourable Members in the honourable House, make a distinction between
the _respectable_ part of the press and another part, which they
denominated disrespectable.  We have heard volumes upon volumes of
commendation, praise and puffery, about this respectable part of the
press.  We have always denominated it infamous; we have always said that
that part of it which was not absolutely in the pay of Corruption was
engaged in a sham warfare, quite as serviceable to Corruption as the
efforts of her own hirelings; and that with perhaps a trifling exception
or two, it was a mass of infamous fraud carried on under the name of
impartiality; sending forth lies, endless in number, and boundless in
magnitude, vomiting forth calumnies on the defenceless, and suppressing,
through the means of bribes, directly or indirectly received, every fact
that could tend to expose the thing, and give the common people their
fair chance in society.  This has been the character of this infamous
press ever since we have known it; but we shall presently have to show
our readers, that it has now surpassed even its own infamy, and done a
deed so black as to make its former infamies turn pale.

We have first to insert an article from the weekly paper called _The
Observer_; to which paper the public will be in great part indebted for
the knowledge of the horrible affair which the article describes.  We
shall then offer a few observations, that may serve just for the present
on the manner in which the thing has been and is likely to be illustrated
by the circumstances of the transaction alluded to; and then we shall lay
before our readers an account of the conduct of the “respectable” and
infamous part of the press, upon this occasion; naming the several
papers; and making them as notorious; as it is in our power to make them.

          _From the Observer Sunday Newspaper_, _July_ 21, 1822.

                      HORRIBLE OCCURRENCE.—SATURDAY.

    “It is our painful and disgusting task this day to notice a charge
    which has been made against a _Right Reverend Bishop_, at
    Marlborough-street police office, at which human nature revolts.  The
    circumstances are of such public notoriety at the west end of the
    town, that it would be in vain, _if any delicacy were due_ to the
    party accused, to attempt to keep them from general observation.  The
    individual to whom we allude was recently promoted to an Irish
    bishopric, and is _nearly related to a Peer in Parliament_.  He is an
    elderly man, and we understand was much respected in that class of
    society to which he belonged.  On Friday night it appears _that he
    was detected in a back room of the White Lion public-house_, _in St.
    Alban’s place_, _St. James’s_, in a situation with a _private __in
    the Foot Guards_, to which we will not more minutely allude, but
    which led to his instant apprehension and removal with his companion
    _to the watch house_.  There were not fewer than _seven witnesses_ to
    the fact; and it would seem that the Reverend Prelate with difficulty
    escaped the _vengeance of the populace_, who, if not prevented by the
    peace-officers, would have sacrificed him to their indignation on the
    spot.  As it was, he was _severely beaten_.  On being secured in the
    watch-house, he offered bail any amount for his liberation; but this
    was very properly refused, and he remained locked up in the cell
    during the night in a state of mind which may be more easily imagined
    than described.  Yesterday morning he was conveyed in a hackney-coach
    to Marlborough street, and was soon afterwards followed by the
    soldier.  They were both pursued by the _execrations and revilings of
    the crowd_ which had been collected on so extraordinary an occasion.
    Mr. Dyer, the presiding magistrate, determined on a _private
    examination_, at which Mr. Alley, who attended for the Bishop, was
    present.  The witnesses were called in separately, but their
    testimony was in all respects consistent, and the case established
    was to a _certain extent_ of the clearest nature.  Mr. Alley,
    however, submitted that as the capital charge had not been borne out,
    his client was _entitled to bail_; a proposition to which we
    understand Mr. Dyer _was obliged to accede_; and the wretched
    offender was permitted, in the course of the day, _to go at large_,
    upon _finding sureties_ to the amount of _one thousand pounds_.  The
    soldier, _not so fortunate_, was committed _to take his trial_.—For
    reasons which are obvious, we decline entering more minutely into the
    details of this most shocking affair; but we ought in justice _to a
    worthy prelate_, whose name has _unfortunately been mentioned_ by
    mistake, in connection with the charge, to request our readers _to
    reflect_ before they come to a _positive determination_ as _to the
    party really implicated_.”

When our readers have gone through this article, and have heard us
declare our perfect conviction of its truth; when they have heard us say,
that it is agreeable, as far as it goes, with the enquiries which we have
made, when they have further heard, that the scene of the brutal
transaction was in a back room of the public-house above mentioned; that
the parties had drawn the curtains of the room, but had left a part that
the curtains did not cover but that might be seen through; that a little
girl (vindicatress of her sex!) happening to go into the back court into
which the window looked, wondering to see the curtains drawn, had the
curiosity to look in, where she saw the parties engaged in that way not
to be described, that the little girl (better guardian of public morals
than the respectable part of the press) ran to the landlord, who came out
with other persons with him, who were all witnesses of the fact, to that
certain extent, at least, of which the _Observer_ speaks; that after
this, the landlord and others laudably went, dashed in the door, took the
parties in the state of Achilles as far as nakedness was necessary to
their intentions; that they then dragged them to the watch-house, in that
very same state: when our readers have heard all this, they will
naturally cry aloud, “why is the _name_ of this Bishop suppressed?”  It
is a Bishop the article says.  It is a “venerable prelate;” it is a Right
Reverend Father in God; and why then, is his name suppressed?  The
_Observer_ informs us that another “worthy prelate” has been named; and
unfortunately named; and the _Observer_ requests its readers to reflect
before they come to a positive determination as to who the party is.
What, _are all the Bishops_ then, to live under this imputation or
suspicion?  Are all the Bishops to be suspected for the sake of this
wretch, as the _Observer_ itself justly calls him?  This would be
injustice towards the Bishops in general, equal to that which the most
respectable and most infamous part of the press has been guilty.  We
shall do our duty.  And we here inform our readers: without anticipating
the decisions of courts of justice; without pretending to know whether
the alledged crime can be proved or not; without pretending to anticipate
any thing of this sort, we inform our readers of that which they all
ought to know, that the person, who was taken from the White Lion
public-house above-mentioned to the watch-house, and who was afterwards
taken from the watch-house to Marlborough-street, and who was held to
bail as above-mentioned; we here inform our readers that that person who
was so taken along with the soldier of the guards was the _Honourable_
and _Right Reverend Father in God_, PERCY JOCELYN, Lord _Lord Bishop of
Clogher_, (lately translated to that Bishopric from the Bishopric of
Ferns,) a _Commissioner of the board of Education_ (“education of the
country!”) brother of the late _Earl of Roden_.

Having performed this duty, a duty due not less to the Bishops than to
the public, we have further to observe, that a man was tried in Ireland,
no great while ago, on the charge of having threatened this Bishop to
accuse him of such a crime; and, our readers will hear it with
shudderings of horror, this man was _condemned to death_, and, of course,
upon the oath of this Bishop!  We believe the man was respited and
transported.  Upon this we shall make no further observations for the
present.  Our readers will need no observations from us, indeed, to
convince them how well things like this are calculated to excite the envy
of surrounding nations and the admiration of the world.

To return to the article in the _Observer_, we are somewhat surprised, if
it be true, that Mr. Dyer should have “_found himself obliged_,” and so
quickly, too, and without any remanding, to let the prisoner loose upon
bail; and the public will not fail to observe, and to reflect a little
upon the amount of this bail of a thousand pounds, _in such a case_, and
relating to such a party.  The public will recollect the bail, the
sureties to which Mr. Carlile is sentenced, and compare that case with
this.  A thousand pounds, not, probably, a tenth part of one year’s
produce of his Bishopric.  The _Observer_ may be in error about this.
The fact has not been officially announced.  If all the other facts
stated by the _Observer_ be true, what is the sum of a thousand pounds!
How is that to hold such a person to stand trial!  What _sureties_ are
there in a thousand pounds in such a case!  Whether he ever take his
trial or not; the thing will take its trial before the English people;
and on that trial the thing is now put.

The _Observer_ tell us, that the _soldier_ was not so fortunate.  _He
could not get bail_! and was COMMITTED TO TAKE HIS TRIAL!  Well said,
THING! it was very hard that those who bailed the Bishop would not bail
the soldier.  The Bishop himself might have been bail for him.  His
Bishopric of Clogher was sufficient surety for a whole battalion.  Very
hard, indeed, that he was not to be bailed too!  But there will be time
enough to talk about this.  The main thing is for us to keep a sharp look
out, and see how the THING; to see how the “education of the country;”
how the envy of the surrounding nations and admiration of the world will
work this matter!

In the mean while, let us look at the conduct of the respectable and
infamous part of the press of this day, just looking back in one instance
to yesterday.

Our readers will observe, that the articles which we have quoted were in
the Observer of yesterday, consequently the thing was known to the
editors of all the morning papers.  If such a thing had taken place
between two labourers, mechanics, or tradesmen, how it would have been
blazoned about through the morning papers of this day!  What a cry would
have been set up by these respectable and infamous guardians of the
public morals!  But now, what has been their conduct?  The Morning Post,
the British Press, the Morning Herald, and the Morning Advertizer, have
given a part, and a part only, of what they found in the Observer.

The Morning Herald and the British Press gave nearly the words of the
Observe but inserted the article in as obscure a manner as possible.  The
Morning Post curtails the article of the Observer to about a fifth part,
and puts it at the bottom of a column, in a part of the paper likely to
escape observation.  The Morning Advertiser curtails the article still
further; bestows no expression of horror upon the deed, and merely says,
“That a person of consideration and a soldier were taken to the office,
charged with a _gross misdemeanor_.”

We now come to the Morning Chronicle, which fills four columns of its
paper with Mr. Hume’s nonsensical resolutions about the National Debt and
the operations of the Sinking Fund; but which can spare only just seven
lines, put in the obscurest part of all of the paper, to say that “two
persons” (and not a word about a bishop!) were discovered in a public
house, and so forth.  But we will take the very words of the Chronicle.
They will not fill up much space; and they will enable the public to
judge of the real character of this paper.

    “A Sunday paper states that on Friday night, _two persons_ were
    discovered at public-house in St. James’s market, in a situation
    which left no doubt respecting the nature of their crime, that they
    were taken to watch-house, and brought to a Police-office on Saturday
    morning, when it appeared from papers in the pocket of the one, that
    he filled a high station, which we will not name.  The magistrate is
    said to have admitted them to bail.”

“Two persons!”  And the _Chronicle_ could find out nothing but two
persons; though it had read the _Observer_ as well as we, and though it
would not take us much to prove that the _Chronicle_ must have heard all
about the matter on _Saturday night_, seeing that an Evening paper in the
neighbourhood _had the intelligence actually composed and going to the
press on Saturday afternoon_, and had stopped the press to cancel the
matter!  From what motive this cancelling took place, let the indignant
public judge.  The _Chronicle_, had this been an affair between two
persons in common life, would have rung us such a peel upon the subject
as would not soon have been forgotten; and let our readers judge how
powerful must have been the motive that could have induced it, not only
to abridge the article of the _Observer_, not only to tell less than it
had read in the Sunday paper; not only to cram this important matter into
seven lines and hide it at the bottom of a column; not only this, but to
talk of _two persons_; not to name a Bishop or a soldier at all; and to
be guilty of the infamous injustice of imputing by implication the crime
indiscriminately to all classes of Englishmen!

Let us now come to the elect of the respectable part of the press: _John
Bull_; the _New Times_; and the OLD TIMES.  We have already told our
readers, that these were all of the same stamp; and now we shall see.
_John Bull_ is quite silent.  _John_ came out very late on Sunday
morning.  There was a rumour on float on Saturday, and we have already
related, that an evening paper had actually got the matter set up; that
is to say the types composed for printing an account of the transaction!
and that it was induced to stop the press, take out the article, scatter
the types and put in another article in its stead, probably an article
from the Vice Society or from some Bible Society.  What happened to John
Bull we do not know precisely; but something seems to have seized John
all at once early on Sunday morning, or in the middle of the night
before.  For, we sent to get John’s paper, on Sunday morning about ten
o’clock; and the vender of the paper informed us, that it would not come
out till very late, because an _accident had happened to the machinery_
in the office.  This was the story told to those who went to buy the
paper!  Yes, our readers will see that John’s machinery had been operated
upon by something perfectly accidental, and yet of a very potent nature.

Now. we come to that brace of brothers, the _New_ and _Old Times_.
Perfectly silent both!  Not a single word upon the subject,—not a single
allusion to it, though the Old one has actually put forth this day two
papers, which it _sells for one_, in pursuance of those desperate efforts
which it is making to sustain itself.  It has two papers, measuring
nearly two feet square, containing 16 square feet of print, one and a
half square foot of which consists of an advertisement of the Irish
Subscription.  In the whole of this 16 feet of square print, room was not
to be found for the insertion of one single word about the Bishop and the
Soldier! not a single allusion.  Nothing that could let its readers
suppose that such a thing had taken place.  The _cause_ of this need not
be stated to our readers: they will all see the cause at once; and they
will all despise the man that they shall in future see with one of these
papers in his hand.

We could here, if we had time, refer to the statement of Dr. O’Meara, or
rather to what the Times has said about the bribe of £3000, the evidence
of which Buonaparte found amongst the papers of the run-away Bourbon.  We
must leave that to be noticed another time; and in the mean time request
our readers to pay attention to the facts which we have now stated, never
forgetting the sentences on JOSEPH SWAN, Mr. CARLILE, his wife and
sister.  We have said before and we repeat it, that the THING is now
fairly on its trail.  In former cases, there may have been doubts and
difficulties in the way; there may have been that which blinded and
deluded honest and well-meaning people; but here the matter lies in a
nut-shell.  Here the question is too plain to admit of being obscured and
too monstrous to admit of palliation.  The time cannot be distant when
the decision shall take place; and in the mean time we beseech our
readers to keep watch; to look at the conduct of all these papers, to
contrast that conduct with that which they shewed in the case of the
Vere-street gang, to compare their present conduct; their present silence
with the unsparing, but just and laudable abhorrence which they then
expressed: our readers are requested to make this comparison, at the same
time that they make a comparison between the rank and riches of the party
now offending, and the obscurity and comparative poverty of the parties
then offending.  They are requested to do this, and we are sure they will
exclaim with us, that this “respectable part of the press” is surely the
most infamous thing that ever existed in any country in the world.

We must quit the subject for the present; but not without assuring our
readers that, strong as corruption is, great as are her powers of
smothering and stifling, she will not have it in her power to stifle the
truth in this case.  We care not how the THING acts.  Let the THING do
what it pleases; and let the public watch it; look sharp after the
movements of the THING, and see what it will do.  Thus we close our
remarks for the present, leaving the public, as we trust it will, to
congratulate itself on the existence of one newspaper that cannot be
_hushed_ into silence.

We cannot dismiss this article without observing that it is with great
and unfeigned _sorrow_ that we have to record this degradation of rank
and dignity; but the way to uphold rank and dignity is not to be guilty
of such base partiality as that which we have noticed; and the best way
is to single out, as we have done, the guilty, and leave it to be
supposed that it forms an exception to the mass.

                                * * * * *

                                 _FINIS._

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

        Printed by J. L. Marks, 23, Russell-court, Covent Garden.