The Sun. — 1844-04-11 (London, England)

THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,—As a friend of the Rev. C. J. Scratchley, and an attentive listener to the wk ole of the evidence adduced in the case of suicide in Fleet-street, last week, I feel it right to express my unqualified dissent from your very harsh attack upon that gentleman. Your reasons for this censure may be thus briefly summed up : First,—That Mr. Scratchlev tried to draw from deceased a confession of a misdeed of which no proof was adduced in the evidence. Secondly,—That his language towards deceased (as overheard through a partition-wall) immediately before she destroyed herself, was of a " brutal and callous" character.  Thirdly,—That the whole story, as given by Mr. Scratchley himself, confirms his heartlessness and cruelty; and, Fourthly,—That he admitted, " coolly deliberately,'having had connexion wit deceased arid previous to his entering the Church. To your first reason I answer, that the words of Mr. S. e‘ If you confess that you have robbed my brother, I will see what I can do for you") were no more than any person would have used, if convinced of the guilt of th 6 party addressed ; that the charge was substantiated by the production of fifteen pawnbroker's tickets found on deceased, all of which were obtained on Dr. Scratchley's property; and that there was no intention to • prosecute deceased, since a sovereign was given her the day before for the purpose of redeeming some of the property.—(See the Coroner's notes.) I may add, that no person in his right senses would prosecute, or allow his brother to prosecute, a person who held his reputation in her hands. Your second motive of censure hangs upon a conversation heard through a wall, the witness acknowledging that the person accused spoke so low that she could not distinctly hear his words. Need I add more on this head ? I will, however, testify that ten years' knowledge of Mr. S. would have made me look narrowly to the evidence of any witness who swore to having heard harsh language from him, even without the intervention of a wall. _ .  . _ To the third point I reply that the story was not given by Mr. Scratchley, but by Rebecca Griffiin, sister to the deceased, a respectable person, mistress of the diocesan school at Canterbury, who, when examined, and cross-examined, stated that Mr. Scratchley's conduct towards her sister had been one of uniform kindness and generosity beyond his means ; she moreover, testified tO that gentleman's going down to Canterbury a week previous to her sister s death, and, after mentioning the unfortunate habits she had fallen, into, conferring with her (witness) on the best method of reclaiming her sister, offering at the same time to provide for her maintenance in any respectable house they should fix upon for her residence. Does this look like heartlessness and cruelty? As to the fourth accusation, that Mr. S. " coolly and deliberately" admitted having had connexion with deceased previous to his entering the Church, I contend that such confession was absolutely necessary, that it was incumbent on him to lay the truth, the whole truth, before the public, and thus clear (!) his moral character as a clergyman, even though by so doing he left a stain on his younger days. It is not my purpose to attack the verdict found by the jury, as I understand that Mr. Scratchley is about to publish the whole of the evidence, and then trust to the opinion of the world for removing the odium cast on him by such public censure. Allow me, however, to mention one fact (omitted in the papers), that after the reading of the verdict one of the jury rose, and protested against " the censure passed on the conduct, of Mr. C. Scratchley;" and I know from subsequent inquiry that he did not stand alone in his dissent. Trusting toyour feelings of justice for the insertion of these remarks, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, London, Aprilliraa,4. E.