The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-05 00:00:00

Curate of that parish. This witness stated that Mr. Speer was in
the habit of going to his house to read the newspapers—that
lie appeared on several of those oc:•asion.s in a state of intoxcx::

—that he often came there under the influence of liquor and that
from what he took in addition at tha Swan he became intoxicated;
that that intoxication was evident to all who saw Mr. Speer, as he
reeled about the house when he attempted to walk. It appeared
that the Swan was a very respectable establishment, and that the
landlord was a very respectable person. The A rounds upon which
his evidence was impeached could not by any means Ise sustained.
The fact of his receiving a letter which he had forgotten, having
same reference to the prosecution, was not sufficient ground to im-
peach that evidence. The next witness, the master of the national
school, in his evidence stated that he had seen Mr. Speer fre.
quently, at least twenty times, in a state of intoxication. 'Thai
was tne evidence by which the third article of that allegation,
which charged Mr Speer with habitual drunkenness, was sus-
tained. If the charge of habitual drunkenness was not proved
by those witnesses, at least it "Vas shown that he was vety fre-
quently drunk. The fourth article referred to the conduct of Mr.
Speer while performing Divine Service in the church, and charged
him with having been in a state of intoxication, or under the in-
fluence of liquor, so as to render him unable to perform Divine
Worship in a decent and edifying manner. He was also
charged in this article with having been furnished during
the heurs of Divine Service, with a bottle of wine
on each Sunday from the Swan. 'The person who cony( yed the
wine was the beadle of the parish. No less than 13 witnesses were
examined in support of the charge. Those witnesses consisted of
persons of at least apparent respectability, and of rank and station
in the parish —persoss not likely to lend themselves to a prosecu-
tion of this description unless there were serious grounds for it.
One of those witnesses was the landlord of the Swan. That wit-
ness stated lie was in the habit of sending every Sunday morning
to the Church a bottle of wine for the use of Mr. Speer. He
could not state who it was that drank the wine, but it was Mr. Speer
who paid him for it. The beadle who attended on Mr. Speer
during divine service for the purpose of assisting him to change his
dress for the diffbrent parts of the service, was examined, and the
witness stated that a bottle of wine had been brought from the
Swan about every second Sunday morning, but the landlord, who
was likely to be more correct, stated, that the wine was sent almost
every Sunday morning. The beadle, however, stated in his evidence
that the bottle of wine was usually deposited in the Vestry room, and
that Mr. Speer, during some interval of the service was accustomeu
to take a half.piiit of wine and water warm, and that at another in-
terval, between the Communion and the Sermon, he usually took
another half-pint of wine and water warm. Now as to whether
Mr. Speer drank the whole of the bottle of wine himself or not
the question was not as to the quantity drank but as to
the effects produced by the portion of wine and water which
was drank. It was said in extenuation that Mr. Speer
was a gentleman of a sickly constitution, and was under the necessity
of havilig recourse to some such stimulant as wine, to enable him
to go through his duties on Sunday, and that without such a stimu-
lant he would be unable to go through his duties. Probably tha
was true, and that the quantity was very sinal. which produced the
effect of intoxication on Mr Speer, but it was not, therefore, to be
attributed to the witnesses that they deposed falsely in stating
that he appeared under the influence of liquor during
service. It was probable that some of the witnesses might be mislea
by appearances, and attribute to the use of that wine and water, or
wine in its simple state, the appearance of a drunken man, which
Mr. Speer seemed to them to exhibit. They stated the facts as
they appeared to them, and it was for the Court to believe that they
were at least capable of judging in such a case. The first witness

was Captain Williams, of her 'Majesty's Dragoons•; and a.though

that witness was examined de bone esse, and was not subjected to
cross-examination, still the Court must look at tha evidence of a
witness of such respectability. He attended the church since
182 S, and he said Mr. Speer performed the service in a very in.

decorous manner ; and on one occasion he gave great offence and dis.
g est, and he attributed the whole to the effects of intoxication. Ano-
ther witness was Lord de Roos, WOO resided in the parish in the years
1837, 1838, and 1839, and he gave evidence as to the general con-
duct of Mr. Speer. He said it was very unusual, and his manner
of performing the service was very irreverent, and gave occasion to
great scandal in the parish—he stated, at the same time, that other-
wise his conduct was not offensive, and that he was very popular
among the lower classes in the parish. From this it was abundantly
clear that the aristocracy of the parish were nut in league against
him—they spoke of him conscientiously, and gave him praise when..
ever they could. His Lordship said on many occasions Mr. Speer
was intoxicated during the time he was performing Divine Service,
sometimes so much so as to be hardly able to get through. his duty.
Then, again, Captain Manners, of the Royal Navy, gave similar tes.
timony, and said the service was performed in so slovenly a manner
and so irreverently, that it gave great offence to his notions. Then
came the evidence of Mr. Clark, who stated that the service was
performed in such a manner as to drive him from the Church to an
Independent Chapel. Sir Charles Sullivan corroborated all
that had been said before, asid he stated that the conduct of
Mr. Speers was so bad that he would not allow his children
to go to church, and would have refrained from attending
himself had it not been for the sake of example. Then there was
the evidence given, most unwillingly, by the parish clerk; he got
out of the way so as to avoid being interrogated. It was evident
that he was an unwilling witness, but he corroborated the whole of
the evidence given by the former witnesses. He spoke to long
pauses in the service as if Mr. Speer had lost the place, and he
spoke most unwillingly but strongly to the general manner of hi;
performing the service, and Mr. Speer was in such a state that
the witness was obliged on some occasions to read the service for
him. That formed a body of evidence which could leave no doubt
in the mind of the Court as to the real state and condition of Mr.

Speer curing the general periods alluded to. He was supplied with

wine on all occasions : he was constantly in the habit of drink-
,ing some portion of the wine; he was very frequently in a state of
great confusion, and he generally performed Divine Service most
improperly and indecorously. Now how was this body of general
evidence met P—First, the evidence of Dr. Booth, who never at-
tended church, but was the medical adviser of Mr. Speer. He
stated that he never had reason to consider Mr. Speer addicted to
drinking : he Has of a highly nervous temperament, and easily
excited, and generally he was of a bad constitution, and required
some stimulating medicine or wine, but he had never ordered hint
to take wine that he remembered. He said that when in a state
of excitement, which very little would put Wm in, many persons
might think him labouring under a state of intoxication. In
1836, he expressed a fear that he would break down in his duty,
when witness recommended him to take something stimulating.
Witness only spoke generally. He could not speak to anything that
went to a contradiction of the other witnesses. Other witnesses spoke to
the same facts as to the nervous state of Mr. SF.eer, and some or them
proved that he was sometimes very hoarse at the altar ; and it was
proved that he Wa, subject to a swelling of the uvula ; and others
stated that they had not seen any indecent conduct in the church ;
and one female witness said the parishioners were very particular,
arid were cissatistied with the manner in which the service was per.

formed before Mr. Speer came into the parish, but nothing turned
upon that. The curate who was employed by Mr Speer said
that he had never seen anything indecorous or irreverent in his
manner, but he was in the parish only three months in 1537, and
did not come back to it till March I 539 ; so that during the greater
part of the time covered by the allegations, he had no knowledge of
the habits of Mr. Speer. He said he had often dined with him,
and vice versa; and that in his opinion Mr. Speer was not fond of
either wine or spirits; that he had seen two glasses of home made
wine take as much effect upon him as a bottle would do upon some
other parties. All that proved the allegations and the evidence
given iir support of them, for it was proved that he drank wine
several times during the Service, and if it tock such effect upon him
it was his duty to have abstained from it. In his opinion the alle-
gation had been proved. Then came the fifth Article, which
charged Mr. Speer with having, on the sth August, been in such a
• state of intoxication as to be unable to perform the Service of the
day, and that he did not preach on that day, being dissuaded
from it by Sir Charles Sullivan and Mr. Seely. No witnesses had
been called to prove this allegation, because it was found that what
was charged to have taken place in August, actually took place in
September. The counsel for Mr. Speer had made some strong ob.
set vations on that fact, but he (Sir H. Jenner) did not think they
were warranted by the facts. The next charge was, that while
the church was under repair in 1836, Mr. Speers called upon
Captain Williams in a state of intoxication, and that whets leaving,
in attempting to mount his horse he overbalanced himself, and fell
on the other side. Mr. Speer attributed the fall to the horse shy-
ing on being mounted, and attempted to prove it by the evidence of
a coachman of Lady Liverpool, but he could only say that when
the horse was fresh it was rather frisky. The fact of intoxication
was clearly proved by Captain Williams and his butler—that allega.
Lion he thought proved. He now came to the most serious charge;
it was contained in the seventh allegation, and was supported by
two witnesses, against whom no suspicion had been attempted to be
raised. Tagg, the churchwarden, was at a christening in March
1838, when he thought Mr. Speer would have fallen down ; he
read the service in such a manner as to render it unintelligible and
ridiculous. That witness was corroborated by Carnes, the father of
the child, who said further that Mr. Speer after the ceremony, said in
a kind and jocular manner, " It is said clergymen rob the poor—
this is my tremendous fee," and then gave it back for the child. Inn
his opinion this allegation was made out, and he thought the obser-
vation clearly irreverent. The next charges were drunkenness in
July, 1838, and August 12, 1839, when Mr. Speer performed the
services in a most irreverent manner, making many mistakes, and
sometimes shouting, at other times speaking so low as not to be
heard. In his opinion the weight of evidence was in favour of the
facts charged against Mr. Speer. Having disposed of all the evi-
dence, he said his opinion was that Mr. Speer was often proved to
have been in a state of intoxication, and wholly unfit to perform
Divine Service In such circumstances what were the parishioners
of Thames Ditton to do ? Were they to remain quiet, taking no
notice of such conduct ? No doubt Mr. Speer was kind and chari-
table to the poor, but that was no reason why the other parishioners
should put up with such indecorous conduct. The Learned Coun.
sel at very considerable length defended the motives which had ac-
tuated the parties who had instituted the proceedings ; the evidence
proved that theytwere perfectly justified in doing so, and he must
say, that Mr. Speer had been very ill advised in attributing the pro-
m cution to malicious and private motives, He was clearly
of opinion that it was proved that if Mr. Speer
was not tin habitual drunkard, at least that he had upon many
occasions, been in a state of drunkenness, and it was
clearly proved that in consequence of that habit he had been some
times unable to perform Divine Service; and it was clearly proved
that he had upon many occasions performed that service in an inde-
cent and irreverent manner; the consequence of which was that
several of the parishioners had withdrawn themselves from attend-
ance on the parish church ; and he felt quite certain
that if some steps were not taken to remove Mr
Speer from the parish, and put an end to such inde.
cency, it would lead to an entire deserticn of the church. It
would be necessary, therefore, for the Court to pronounce a
sentence which must remove, at least for a time, Mr. Speer from the
parish in question, and he was very sorry to be obliged to do so on
a gentleman who had been proved to be kind, humane, and cha-
ritable to the poor. He had endeavoured to find out some
tigating circumstances, but he could find none, for Mr. Speer denied
every thing, and attributed the prosecution to malice; there was
nothing, therefore, for him to amend. The sentence, therefore,
must be the usual one, which was suspension for three years,
both official and beneficial, from the time the sentence was commu.
Warted to him, and he felt bound to condemn him in the costs.