Mr. Fletcher.
The Times, 1824-10-27T00:00:00

[We ave really lhcartily sick of this person and his concerns, but at thecrequest and oan the authority of Ir. Alexander Dick, we pub. lish the following statement.1 Illr. Fletchcr's correspondence having been published not only without the consent, but in opposition to the earnest entreatiesof Dr. Dick's famuilv, the folloving statement is submitted conceraing this unauthorized proceeding:- This painful business was at first brought before the public in consequence of very peculiar and aggravated circumstances, the na- ture of whiclh would have been fully explained, had not a complete vindication of Miss Dick's conduct and that of her friends been ten. dered by iUr. Fletcher, in the Court of King's Bench. rith that vindication tiie family were satisfied; but tfie matter having been previously introduced into the Presbytery by Mr. Fletcher himself, who desired an investigation of his conduct, an official application was made by that body for a statement of the case. Consistently witlh the duty which every member and minister of the clhurch owes to the ecclesaswical courts, this statenient could not be withheld, and it was accordingly furnisbed, with thie express understanding that no other uzse woutld be mnade of it. A clergyman, at present in liondon, tlhough settled in Scotland, being desirous to publish the proceedings, requcsted a friend of the family, about three weeks ago, to write to IMr. Peddie, of Edin- I burglh, son-in-law of Dr. Dick, to obtain their permission. Alr. Peldie immediately wrote a letter in answer. statitig very fully his reasons against the publcation, whichl were generally-that after the procee(lings, both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, there was no necessity for the proposed measure; and that the family, who had been compelled to commence the proceedlings fbr the vindic-ationi of Mlliss Dick's conduct, would never authorize the ex- postire of the correspondence, wvhere no object could be gained. A copy of this letter having been transmnitted to Dr. Dick, tie also wrote to London by the next post, expressing in decided terins hi- !opposition to the puiblication. The required consent having been 'thus refused, it was not supposed that the measure would be per- sisted in, but no answer having been returned to Dr. Dick's letter, and thte public papers still announcing the publication, two more Ictters were written ill similar terms with the tbrmer. On Thursday morning Last, a coaMsiunication was at length re- ceived, stating that though these several letters had been all sab;nitted to the clergyman, vwho had, of his own al thority, undertaken the publication. he was yet inclined to disregard them ron a sense of pivblic dlty. In con,sentuence of this commurnica- tion, Dr. Dick wrote again to London, in course of post. remonstrat- irg against the nieasure, and expressieg his surprise that, while nei- thter the SynolI nor Presbytery considered it incumbenst on them to interfere, an individual but slightMy intetested ad who had Previoo,sly proposed to consult hinsm shoul(l still pcrh6st in obtruding ;iihsiself in a issatter of so delicate a nature. Before, howeve-, this letter could reach London part of the cor- respondeince hias been officiously made public ; anru n?s otber course therefore remains. bu; to make rhe presrum; statement to vindicate the latinly froman. connexion witl a publication. vhich they have Iso decidedly condcained, and in which so :ittle rtgLrd lhas berTI paid -to their feelings. MR. FLETCHEP.