SD749. James Martin to Editor of The Hereford Journal
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 372 (in part).
Old Colwall,
17th Dec. 1831.
Sir,
Mr. Luxmoore having in your last Journal impeached my correctness by asserting that the Letter I sent to him “differed” from that published, I request you to allow me to point out the amount of such “difference,” together with the real cause of the slight variations to be found in your copy.
The original letter is as follows, with the alterations in Italics:
Sir—I have to acknowledge your letter of the 23d inst. and in so doing, beg to state that in the discharge of that which I conceive to be my duty to myself and fellow-subjects, I am unconscious of having calumniated any man, alive or dead; however sorry I may feel that I have been compelled to point out those neglects and immoralities which have already produced great injury to the community, and the continuance of which will probably destroy an Establishment, in the preservation of which you are most interested.
Allow me to say, that however much I respect and admire the warmth of your filial feelings, I think you have allowed them to misconstrue my letter. I have neither said nor insinuated that the conduct of the late Rector of Coddington was reprehensible, when he was presented to that living, or appointed to this curacy; that it was so to a shameful degree when I came into this parish, and had been so for many years previous, is very notorious, and is all that I have stated. My opinion, and the inference intended, is, that with such conduct his continuance in those situations ought not to have been permitted by those who had most power to remove him, and who were most interested in the respectability of the Church Establishment.
Your attention to your respective parishes I have not arraigned, but, when you establish your domicile in one, I may fairly state that you do not reside in the other, without incurring the charge of mis-statement either express or implied.
I beg to add that I feel no regret or shame in having aided in obtaining the removal of Mr. Hocken from this Curacy, the beneficial results of which are as apparent as my motives were pure. The same interference I consider entitled me to the thanks of his relations rather than to their reproaches, inasmuch as it diminished the notoriety of his vices, as well as the means of gratifying them.
In conclusion, allow me, Sir, to express to you my thanks and admiration of the mild and gentlemanly manner in which you have addressed me on the above subject, and which stands in such brilliant contrast with the silly, vulgar, and abusive publications which have emanated from the Rector and Curate of Bosbury.
I am, Sir, &c. &c.
James Martin.
To the Rev. the Dean of St. Asaph.
P.S. As my meaning and motives seem to have been much misunderstood by others, as well as yourself, I shall have much pleasure in sending this explanation to the press, which I presume you will not object to.
_________
The first variation you will observe consists in substituting the words “various and distant” for that of “respective.” This I made in consequence of the following list of Church Preferments having been communicated to me subsequent to my writing the above letter, and which also caused the alteration of the “superscription:”—
The Rev. C. S. Luxmoore,
1. Dean of St. Asaph’s Cathedral,
2. Chancellor of that Diocese,
3. Vicar of Henllan, in Denbighshire,
4. Vicar of Guilsfield, in Montgomeryshire,
5. Rector of Dar Owen, ditto,
6. Portionist of Bromyard,
7. Prebend of Hereford,
8. Vicar of Bromyard,
9. Rector of Cradley.
The next consists in substituting the appellation of “Rector of Coddington” for that of “Mr. Hocken.” This “verbal” alteration was made at the express request of Mr. Luxmoore, for reasons he justly thought it unnecessary to explain.
The last and most important is the substitution of the word “polite” for that of “gentlemanly,” and the omission of the term “abusive;” the unwarrantable motives for which were (to the best of my recollection) the desire to enhance a compliment to the Dean, and at the same time soften a censure on the conduct of others.
Trivial as this explanation may appear, I feel myself forced into it by the injustice of holding back an original letter, whilst the discrepancy of the copy is publicly complained of! At the same time I trust it will have the effect of removing from the minds of your readers any credence in the charge of “misstatement” so unfairly imputed to me, throwing back the odium of “misrepresentation and calumny” on those to whom it justly belongs.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
James Martin.
Text: The Hereford Journal, 21 December 1831, p. 3.
___________________
