ZCbe (Bolbsmftbs' Xibrarp. A LETTER TO THE REV. T. R. TAYLOR, M It. HENRY FORRES, OP BRADFORD, YORKSHIRE. BY THE REV. (^S, BSjLL, Incumbent nf Byerley. Let Love be without dissimulation.”— St, Paul, Horn, xit\ 9. ' Xu mischief worthier of our fear, In nature can he found : Than Friendship, in pst lnirr, sincere. But hollow and unsound. For. lull'd into a dangerous dream, Who strikes, when most secure we seem, TIT inevitable blow.”— Cwrper. iSratiforh; riUNTED BY T. INKERSLEr St CO. EIKKOITE. LETTER Sins,— I Uvl it to lii! my duty, to request ot’yon thus publicly ail explanation of your very extraordinary and unfair conduct towards mu*. 'Sou arc two very zealous Dissenters—and you, Mr. Forbes, are a proselyte to Dissent ‘-on principle:” and you assured us at the Bradford Dissenters’Meeting, on December :20th, 1S33, that you became a Dissenter, for tbe better security of your salvation, and \our advancement in holiness and spirituality. ^ on also recommended verv great patience towards such as myself, who cannot yet behold things in the “ clear light,”* which you represented yourself as enjoying; and you also pro¬ fessed great respect for us, still benighted, Churchmen. On the whole, by the report of the Leeds Mercury and ’Limes, your “words were smoother than oil;” and vou were presented to us certainly in a very amiable light, saving and excepting that you were reported to say, that, you left tbe Church, that you might bear the Gospel. This I do not believe—do [you? Now, Sir, after these solemn professions of sincerity, for¬ bearance, and “cr.EWt eioiit” on your part, surely I might have expected a different line of conduct from you, than that you have pursued. Very shortly, after all this profession, you embarked in a Newspaper concern, “ The Bradford Obser¬ ver," the great object of which has been, to bring the Church of England, and her Ministers, into contempt. You, Gentlemen, and with you, the chief political Dissenters in Bradford, allowed yourselves to be put upon a Committee for tbe management of that Paper; and you hired an Editor, at, I believe, L'g.10 a year, for three years, to do your work for you. That Editor, allowed an anonymous attack upon me, and other clergymen, in his first paper ; and since then, has indulged bis readers, with very gross vituperation of my public character, and personal integrity in particular. I will quote one short passage as a sample, from your paper of July 31 :— “His (Mr. Bull'sJ great labours as a Tory Demagogue, rx dee the mask of pleading for the Factory Children, §c." If I am a “Demagogue,” I deserve to be degraded from my f dliee ; and if I am a ".l/u v/red”character, I merit, in addition to * ItYjinrU’d in the Times of December 2N, 4 the deprivation of my ollice, the avoidance and rebuke of every good man. Now, Sirs, the Editor whom you pay, allows me to be charged with these two hateful things, and does his nine u*orsl, (thank God in rain J to bring my character into public con¬ tempt ; and yon, his Masters, look on, read, and of course approve: for if you did not approve, you would certainly use your influence, to prevent such attacks upon me. And if you did not hdiere these charges, you would, of course, protest against your Paper being made the vehicle of slander and defamation. I have referred to the paper of July 31. The Letter from which I gave the extract above, was signed by “ a well wisher of the church of england! !!” and besides being personally scurrilous and abusive to me, was a very dishonest and uncharitable attack upon the Church, and upon a Letter of mine published in the Leeds Intelligencer. Of course, I had a right, when personally attacked, to demand the name of my antagonist, that we might each bring the real weight of our characters to the controversy. I made this just demand, and promised a Reply. In your next paper, Aug. 7, yonr Editor allows the justice of my claim, to know this “Well Wisher’s” real name; and the Editor doth indeed rant him, most wooingly, to divulge it, as the following extract will shew:— NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. “We *lo not think that in justice wo cun publish the letter of “A Well wisher to the Church of England.” Mr. Hull hits distinctly stated, that if our Correspondent will give his name, he (Mr. lfullj) will answer his former epistle. The challenge is a fair one, and must lie either refused or accepted. To insert a second anonymous letter from our Correspondent, alter this statement of the rev. gentleman’s, would he exceedingly paitial and unfair. We cannot entertain a doubt as to the disposition of " A Well-Wisher,” to divulge his name—indeed, in his last letter, he confesses (ruorEssi-.s) his determination so to do. Of this, however, our Correspondent may rest assured, that the mask which he has chosen to assume sutu. not in; withdrawn uv es, until we have his permission.’’— lirittlfvnl Observer, August 7. Thus, after all his canting, and after reminding “ Well Wisher,” that he had “confessed (professed) his determina- 5 tion” to give his name, he closes the farce , by assuring this magnanimous champion of Dissent—this unchristian vitupe- rator, that if he is ashamed to appear in his real name, the said Editor, ( your Editor, Messrs. Taylor«.and Forbes), will guard his “Mask,” by the /Egis of his Editorial protection, from being plucked off! Now, Messrs. Taylor and Forbes, you saw, you read all this, you must have known it ; lor report charges you, Mr. Taylor, whether truly or not, you can say, with the Authorship of the letter in question, so that your attention must have been called to it. You lay yourself open to such reports. And now 1 demand to know, why you have not interfered to see that justice be done to me? 1. If you tell me, as one of your Committee did, that “the Committee have nothing to do with the conducting of the Paper, that it is left entirely to the Editor,” I reply, by asking, who pay the Editor his salary? You do. He is your servant; and I have as much right to pay a man for breaking your windows or your heads, as you have to pay a man for defaming my cha¬ racter. What would you say to me, if I employed a servant, and made it his weekly business, to damage your property, or defame your reputation ? Do not think to shift from your shoulders your responsibi¬ lity for your Editor’s doings in this way. 2. But if you tell me, that the Newspaper trade is like all other Trades, and that having bought your Shares, you con¬ cern yourselves no further than to receive your Dividends, (when there are any paid, J then, I ask, where are your religious principles? —where the “clearer light” which distinguishes Mr. Forbes and the Dissenters, from their benighted neigh¬ bours, the Churchmen ? Does your “ clear light ” allow you to pay down your money for the defamation of your neighbours, or to receive profits (when you can get them), derived from a trade in slander and detraction of myself and other members of the Church of England ? r. You, Mr. T. R. Taylor, stood up at the Bradford Dis¬ senters, Meeting, of Dec. 20 , 1S33, and said, “ Between our¬ selves and our pious brethren of the .Episcopal Church, we are most, anxious that brotherly love should continue.” t Is (his, then, “ Brotherly Love t" 3. Perhaps yon will say, you have no wish to do me harm. But it is quite “ clear” you have no wish to 'prevent harm being done to me. They who do not prevent evil when in their power, and they, who, seeing it, do not protest against its commission, are liable to be charged as accessories. ■1. But, Sirs, what was my surprise, last Monday evening, at the Temperance Meeting, at hearing i/ou, Mr. Forbes, as Chairman, say, in public, that “you had (treat pleasure in introducing to the Meeting, as Mover of the first Resolution, the Rev. G. S. Bull”!! and to hear i/oit, Mr. Taylor, call me, in your speech, your “ Reverend Friend !!” What, Mr. Forbes ! “ great pleasure in introducing” “a Tory Dema¬ gogue!!” What, Mr. Taylor! is a “ Masked pleader” for sacred humanity ! a vile hypocrite ! (if vour Editor's protected correspondent be right.) Is this man i/onr “Reverend Friend?” And yet, you are on the Committee of the Bradford Ob¬ server, which pays an Editor to abuse and traduce your “Reverend Friend!” O, Mr. Taylor, “Is this tiiv kino- nkss to thy KUi kxd ?” O, Mr. Forbes, is this thy “ clearer light!” thy patience and sweet charity? Where in your Bibles will you find a justification for such conduct as this—Is this “simplicity and godly sincerity? Is this “ Love without dis¬ simulation?” Now, Mr. Forbes, you appeared to treat me at the Tempe¬ rance Mcetingwith great respect—the “ Tory Demagogue!” of whom (curiousenough) Mr. Wm. Cruikshanks, a“ Dissenter,” was pleased to say, in his address, “he was glad to find that the people of Bradford had a minister who dared to tell them the truth; there were but too many who dared not for fear of their characters but he was right glad to find that we had a minis¬ ter who was bold enough to risk all consequences, and give us a little unvarnished truth.”* This is not the usual practice of } See Mr. Taylor’s Speech, I .reds Times, December gS, 18:53, § “ Poimhmhi," was the word used. * I'rom the linnl/urd Obst-n cr'i Report of the Mccliny. . 7 “Demagogues.” Now, Sir, if the Editor tchom you pay, could have got belief for his own assertions.about me, or those of his protected “ masked” correspondents, I, instead of being allowed to move the first, Resolution at that Meeting, should have been hissed domi. \ on and Mr. Taylor have permitted every effort to be made to blast my character, and destroy my public influ¬ ence ; and when you cannot etlect this—when the “ Tory Dem¬ agogue” “ risks his popularity,” in rebuking sharply the dis¬ gusting sins ot the poor, as lie lias done aforetime the detestable tyranny and hypocrisy of the rich; then, you, Mr. Forbes, begin to gain a little “clearer light,” and you, very courteously can ask Mr. Bull’s opinion of a certain proposition, before a large Public Meeting, and you, Mr. Taylor, can move, that my pro¬ position to address the Sick Clubs and Benefit Societies be accepted;—as if the opinion of a “ Tory Demagogue,” and the Lecture of a “ Masked pleader” for humanity, was worth asking for ! If, instead of this, you had stood up and said, “ Mr. Bull’s character as a ‘ Tory Demagogue’ and a ‘ Masked pleader’ for Humanity, unfits him to be a public Instructor,” I should have liked it better. Really, I do hate this deceit at Public Meetings. IIow often have I been present, and heard such “ Dear Brother ”— ing, and “ liecerend Friend ”— ing, and “ Esteemed Colleague”— ing, at Bible Meetings, and Tract Meetings, &c. till I have been sick and disgusted. The next day, perhaps, the Dissenters get “ clearer light,” as Mr. Forbes said, and go and abuse our Church, as the mother of Harlots — ourselves, as the “Priests of Diana,”f—and “bless the hands that would burl'’ our Church “ to-, there to honour, and be honoured by the Devil!”* I do feel thankful, Sirs, that all Dissenters are not pleased with your ways, all are not ol' your spirit. Referring, once more, to my Letter, which Mr. “Well- Wisher” so misrepresents, in your Bradford Observer, of July 31, what a lesson do you teach us ! f Mr. Godwin’s Speech, I.ceds Times, Dee. 2$. * Speech of a Minister, at the Dissenting Meeting at Cottcnhain. 8 You are alwaya^crying out against the great abuses in the Church of England, aud when f, a Minister of that Church, seek to remove those abuses, you pay an Editor to shield a “ Well-Wisher” to laugh such attempts to scorn. Is not this a clear proof, that you do not wisli the Church to be purged from her abuses, but you wish them to remain, that you may rail at them, and in mockery, thus lament them. I am sure you want “clearer light,” Mr. Forbes. And now, what have I done, to be subjected to the malice of you Bradford Observer Shareholders ? I have exposed the unspeakably hateful character and working of the Factory System, and of many who have since become the Shareholders and Committee of that Paper. I have also pub¬ licly withstood the most ruthless and uncharitable attacks of the Dissenters upon the Church of England. Thus I have “risked, (forfeited) my popularity,” with t/om in boldly speak¬ ing the truth, to the professedly pious, as well as the avowedly impious Millowners and Dissenters of Bradford. Many of the former were once very friendly to me. Now they scorn me— except at Public Meetings, and there they scorn me twt — there I am Mr. Taylor’s “Reverend Friend,” and the object of Mr. Chairman Forbes’s special notice and attention ! Is not this enough to sicken any one ? Now, Messrs. Taylor and Forbes—let the Public have your defence, and let them judge between us. I am ready to answer you, if necessary. For the present. Farewell. I will not call you “Friends,” you are my foes. And “am I become your enemy, because I tell you tiietruth ?” No! I have no enmity. But I love sincerity, and hate duplicity. Henceforth, be not like Joab, who carried the tender word “Brother,” on his lips, and hid “a sword” under his mantle. Carry the sword. Sirs, in your Hands, then I can see it; and until you prove your sincerity, CALL ME “FRIEND” NO MORE. Byerley, August 28 th, 1834. G. S. BULL. P. S. Since this went ta press, I have learned that you have turned off your Editor for calling the Kcv. R. Newton of the Wesleyans, a “ Bonner.” So it seems you can and do interfere with the Editor’s doings when it suits your interest. I wish he may get his three Years' Salary. (i. S. 15. AND CO. PRINTERS, KIRKC.ATE, (KERSLEY BRADFORD.