26th April 1813: The Leeds Intelligencer publishes a last word on 'Attentive Hearer' row

On Monday 26th April 1813, the Leeds Intelligencer published a final editorial on the row that had taken up column inches over the past 3 months, ever since the execution of George Mellor. The Leeds Mercury never published a response, and the pseudonymous 'Attentive Hearer' never wrote to the Intelligencer again.

If the "Printer" will be at the trouble to read the "Attentive Hearer's" last letter, he will perceive that his last week’s challenge, is by no means declined. The Attentive Hearer is most willing to go into the proposed investigation when it is rendered necessary;  i.e. so soon as the Printer shall prove what he has twice asserted: "that the "Attentive Hearer" has published a false report of evidence."—If the report he has published be correct, there can be no doubt of the confession of Mellor. If false, let it be proved so; and the "Attentive Hearer" will, with the greatest readiness, immediately accept the Challenge of his Opponent.

24th April 1813: The Leeds Mercury publishes a final editorial on the row with 'An Attentive Hearer'

An Attentive Hearer has declined the challenge we last week gave him to close the dispute, by submitting the evidence on both sides, fairly and candidly collected by impartial persons, without note or comment, to the tribunal of public opinion. The inference is irresistible. He was conscious that such an appeal would admit of no sophistry or false colouring, and that the preponderance of evidence against him would have been overwhelming. But we shall indulge in no exultation, much less repeat the coarse and virulent language that disgraces his last letter; it is the language of an irritated mind writhing under the pangs of defeat. We have no such feeling to gratify; Truth alone was our object, and having secured its triumph, to the satisfaction of every impartial mind, we quit the ungracious subject for ever.

19th April 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' sends his final letter to the Leeds Intelligencer

Mr. PRINTER,—The evidence given by the "Diligent Enquirer’s" Authorities, is already verbatim before the public; I hold a letter from one of them, written after an interview with the Diligent Enquirer, speaking as to his knowledge in terms which were not so decisive as I wished. I wanted to have no ambiguity; if the parties were positive, I wished them to say so, if not, they would allow it; this they all did, not one was certain! The person who wrote the letter above alluded to, signed the paragraph stating he was not positive.

The printer has charged me with falsifying the evidence of his authorities, and not giving their own words. I deny the charge; the evidence I have published is true, the very words of his own witnesses; I can at any time prove this. Let the "Printer" prove his assertion, and I will willingly fall in with his proposition this week; of submitting the whole to two impartial persons. There is no need to do this, until my antagonist has proved his point; if I have already stated the case correctly; why trouble any other person to re-publish it?

He says nothing about himself having falsified the evidence of both mine and his authorities; I before charged with this! I repeat it!

Until he proves his assertion; or acknowledges that he has falsely charged me with an untruth; I shall take no notice of his weekly ebullitions, but leave him to that infamy, his repeated falsehoods deserve.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.
Leeds, April 17, 1813.

17th April 1813: The Leeds Mercury issues another challenge to "An Attentive Hearer"

An “Attentive Hearer" is at his usual work again. He has not, as was required of him, published the words of the person referred to, but he has published expressions foisted into their mouths by others. He had, we know, the testimony of one or more of our witnesses written and signed by themselves, in which it is positively declared that Mellor did not use either of the expressions imputed to him; but this he has suppressed, and substituted in its stead declarations, artfully framed, that they did not write, and that some of them, very prudently, refused to sign! This is what every man of plain dealing, will call a falsification of evidence. He has not, he says, applied to two of the persons we referred him to, because they are parties! What party could the Clergyman who attended the criminals to their last moments be in this dispute? or what possible interest or motive could he have for publicly and positively contradicting an Attentive Hearer, except a wish to prevent the public being imposed upon by fabricated dying speeches? This was, no doubt, the motive that actuated his conduct, and no men of common sense, or of common candour, will attribute to him any other. But the subterfuges of this Attentive Hearer are endless, and if there be a single individual in the county who can still retain a doubt on the subject, we see only one way left to remove such doubt, and to relieve the public from the further annoyance of this uninteresting dispute.

The mode of affecting so desirable a purpose is this:—He shall give up his authorities, and we will give up ours, to two perfectly impartial persons, and they shall, without any leading questions, but in a fair and honourable manner, obtain the testimony of the parties; that testimony, pro and con, with the places the witnesses occupied at the time of the execution, and the official situations they held, if any, shall be published in both the Leeds papers, without "note or comment;" the public will then be able to form an unbiased judgment, and there the matter shall rest. If he accepts this proposal, it will, we are persuaded, appear as we at first stated, that as to one of the expressions an Attentive Hearer was mistaken; and that from a similarity of terms, a few, and only a very few, other spectators, principally standing at a distance of 50 or 60 yards, fell into the same error. But as to the other expression it will be manifest, even on the shewing of his own witnesses, that it is a mere invention. This will appear if he ventures in the way we now propose fairly and finally to commit the point at issue to the decision of the public; but should he shrink from this unexceptionable test, the inference will be obvious, and we shall then feel ourselves absolved from taking any further notice of effusions that affect so much, and exhibit so little of the Gentleman.

On this subject, we last week received a Letter from a Gentleman at York, who was present at the execution, and who heard, distinctly, every word that was uttered, in which the writer says:—"Pray, Sir, who is the Attentive Hearer that has so long insulted the ears of the West-riding with his notorious falsehoods? He is ashamed to sign his name, and well he may; I am astonished at his impudence."

12th April 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes another missive in the Leeds Intelligencer

Mr. PRINTER,—In reply to the "Printer’s" Paragraph this week, I inform him, that my Witnesses do speak positively, they state positively that they distinctly heard Mellor’s Confession. The "Diligent Enquirer" knows this, and he also knows he is the author of a wilful untruth, when he says they contradict one half of what I say: they do not contradict one word of what I have advanced! he is not ashamed, in order to make his defeat appear less complete, to shelter himself behind a battery of falsehood.

And forsooth, unblushingly to charge me with falsifying the Evidence of his Authorities! a charge which I shall prove to be as false, as all his other attempts to prove me in error.

First then I will state what I said respecting them: my words were "Out of seven brought to oppose them, (i.e. my authorities,) six say they cannot positively say how it was; and one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, thinks it was not so." For this my Opponent publicly charges me with falsehood; with having given as evidence what I was not warranted in doing. Let him read the following Paragraph; "We the undersigned were present at the Execution of Mellor, Thorp and Smith, and we believe that Mellor never made use, (in his prayer just before the execution) of the words, "us poor murderers;" and, "Die Game;" and we are of opinion if he had used them, we should have heard him; but we cannot positively say, we should have heard and remembered them." This is a literal Copy of what five of his authorities have affixed their names to, and must consequently be taken as their testimony. The sixth was asked to sign the above, or the following; "We the undersigned, were present at the execution of Mellor, Thorp and Smith, and distinctly heard every word Mellor used in his prayer, just before he was executed; and we are positively certain that no such words as, "us poor murderers" and, "Die Game;" fell from his lips; and we are sure if they had, we should have both heard and remembered them."—He however refused to sign either, but stated, if he were to sign one, it would be the former; he observed, "he was of opinion the words in question were not used," but added "at such times my mind is so taken up with what is passing, that I cannot positively say he did not use them."—The seventh refused to sign either one or the other; and said he was of opinion the words were not used; so that the last paragraph stating that they were positively certain, remains without a single signature—It may be necessary here to observe, that nine persons were named by the "Diligent Enquirer," two of whom had already made themselves parties in the dispute, and consequently have never been treated as Authorities by either party; seven being the number allowed on both sides.

I have now complied with the "Printers" wish, and "published the written and verbal testimony of his seven witnesses;" which he declares, I have falsely stated in my last Letter. The result of my enquiries is correctly given above, as nearly verbatim as possible; and I defy any one, to prove in any one instance, that it is contrary to my last report. Let it be remembered that the above Gentlemen, were declared by the "Diligent Enquirer," to be quite positively certain I was wrong! Has not the result of my enquiries, proved his report to be a falsification of Evidence?—This charge however he has falsely laid on me; I challenge him to prove his assertion; and if he fail, I call upon him publicly to declare himself in error; and confess he has falsely charged me with a Lie. If he refuse to do either, I have no hesitation in publicly declaring him, to be every thing that a Gentleman ought not to be.

In the beginning of this controversy my opponent proved himself to be truly expert in the language of abuse; now, he weakly asserts with the most unblushing effrontery, things which he knows to be false; if in future he should expect me to notice his observations, I must beg he will cease to insult his readers with his palpable falsehoods;—if he will not deviate from truth, I am ready at all times to answer his remarks.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, April 2d, 1813.

3rd April 1813: The Leeds Mercury taunts 'An Attentive Hearer' in an editorial

An "Attentive Hearer" is more invincible than Dr. Goldsmith’s Village Schoolmaster. His witnesses, he says, in his last letter, speak positively. Do they, indeed!—Is it not, then, positively to deny one half of what he produced them to prove, and thereby to cast discredit upon the other half? And has he not, by referring to these witnesses, fixed upon himself, incontestably, the imputation of having put words, and very remarkable words too, into the mouth of a dying man that he never used? Let him answer these questions, and let the answers he is obliged to give, prove to him that he is not quite infallible, and teach him to be [less] dogmatical and more circumspect in future. [Of] the seven witnesses produced by him one, he says, speaks of his knowledge and belief and [illegible] the other six declare that they "cannot positively say how it was." This we know to be an incorrect report of the result of his enquiries; it is, in fact, a falsification of the evidence; and to proof of this, we challenge him to publish the verbal and written testimony of those seven witnesses, and thus to give the public an opportunity of judging how much his assertions are to be relied upon, whether they regard the expressions of the dead or of the living.

29th March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes another missive about George Mellor's last words

Mr. PRINTER,—My Opponent this week declares me dead; had it been so, his paragraph might have passed; I would have to know that I am "Game," and still living, ready at all times to assert the truth.

My adversary would fain be thought learned in the law of evidence. It is not however the first time he has made a great noise about what in reality he is perfectly ignorant of. I will endeavour to make this subject intelligible to him, and suppose a case brought before a Jury, in which four respectable persons shall positively declare they were witnesses of a certain fact, and all agree in the account they give of it: to contradict which, seven persons, equally respectable, shall give the following testimony:—Six shall declare they cannot positively say how it was; one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, it was not stated correctly by the four first witnesses; and every one of the seven, when interrogated as to the real fact, shall each give a different account of it.—I would ask the "Diligent Enquirer" if he were one of the Jury, how would he decide?—This is a plain case, exactly similar to our own, four persons of character declare that they distinctly heard the confession of Mellor. Out of seven brought to oppose, six say they cannot positively remember how it was; and one, to the best of his knowledge and belief, thinks it was not so; and all differ in their opinion as to what really said.

The "Diligent Enquirer" may quibble over this if he can: he knows I can prove it to be fact: his cause seems to stand by quibbling, railing and abusing, in which polite attainments he has indeed eminently excelled in the controversy I have had with him; it would be well for him if he would learn in future to be more cautious how he commits himself. One untruth is in general the father of another, so he has proved it. If it were necessary to answer his paragraph at length, I would do it and prove him again wading in falsehoods. The public must however be tired of this dispute, the subject of it is now for ever settled: that the murderers of Mr. Horsfall were declared by their Ringleader to be "Murderers." I believe none will now dispute excepting the "Diligent Enquirer," who has already declared he will not be convinced.—Well might Hudibras say,

Convince a man against his will,
He’s of the same opinion still.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, March 27th, 1813.

27th March 1813: The Leeds Mercury publishes an editorial about 'an Attentive Hearer'

It must be admitted on all hands that an Attentive Hearer "dies game," or after the figure he has already cut, he would never have written another letter of half column, turning upon a mere verbal quibble—a distinction without a difference. If he he not extremely ignorant of the nature of evidence, he must know that the testimony of witnesses speaking "according to the best of their knowledge and belief" is regularly received in our courts of justice. Indeed knowledge and belief are the only grounds on which a man can with certainty aver any thing. Will his authorities say that his assertions are true according to the best of their knowledge and belief? He knows they will not. But it is vain to reason with a man who has lost both his cause and his temper, and who is now evidently contending not for truth, but for the last word. The public have long been convinced that he is in error, and if any thing would have fixed upon his own mind the same conviction, it would have been the fact of his having produced, with no small difficulty, five witnesses to support his dogmatical assertions, three of whom contradicts one half of what he says! a fourth could not distinctly hear!! and the fifth was not present!!!

22nd March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes his longest piece yet on the last words of George Mellor

Mr. PRINTER.—Sir,—It is indeed painful to trespass on the patience of your readers, by so repeatedly calling their attention, to a subject which at first might appear trifling and unimportant; that the murderers were guilty there can be no doubt: it must however be satisfactory to the public to be assured that they confessed guilt: viewing it in this light, I am compelled again to appear before the public. On the 9th January, I communicated to you my statement of the execution of Mr. Horsfall's Murderers, in which I informed you, that the following sentence was used by Mellor in his prayer: "Thou who cast devils out of Mary Magdalen, thou who pardonest the thief upon the Cross,—thou canst still save thieves, aye and even us poor murderers." The three last words, "us poor murderers," A Diligent Enquirer has continued constantly and positively to contradict.

He confesses he was not present; but has repeatedly boasted of his authorities; and on all occasions drawn up a Noble Phalanx of official Characters, Persons who, from their consequence at executions, must of course hear for all. These, he has always vociferated, were quite positive the words were never used, one would have supposed they would have been equally confident—but No, they will not see him through; they only now, to use his own language, "declare to him that to the best of their knowledge and belief, the words in question were not used;" here am I left without an opponent. After all the vaunting of my adversary, he at last publishes his own infamy; and positively contradicts himself: indeed so fond have my antagonists been of contradiction, they have at no time hesitated pointedly to controvert the testimony of each other.

If the Diligent Enquirer had in the first instance spoken the truth, he would have required no answer. When he so readily showered down such volleys of abuse, and so confidently boasted of his positive information, one would have supposed he had at least some authorities to produce; this week however he publicly confesses he has none—had my report been unaccompanied by the testimony of any other, I have fair claim to public credit; not one who can positively contradict me!!—But my assertion is corroborated by the authority of other persons, "Gentlemen of character" who do not merely state, that, "to the best of their knowledge and belief" they heard Mellor confess himself and his companions to be murderers. No—they state positively that they distinctly heard the words. Here then is a proof positive that I am correct; I do not expect the "Diligent Enquirer" will allow this; when he introduced himself to me, he candidly told me "he would not be convinced." The public however will not be thus duped. The truth of my assertion as far as relates to "us poor murderers" is now most positively established, "the Diligent Enquirer" himself being the reporter. In my letter to you of the 9th January, I also quoted the following passage from Mellor's Prayer: "There are many here who have come expecting to see is die Game, let such know that we the penitent—we acknowledge the heinousness of our sins, and our only hope to be forgiven is in the infinite and boundless mercy of our redeemer."

The "Diligent Enquirer" and his friends have also objected much to the expression, "Die Game," it has however remained the one of their own authorities to be a corroborating evidence to the use of it; he states that he distinctly heard the words "die Game" used when Mellor was praying, but he believes it was not Mellor that used them—I hope my opponent will be convinced that those words did not originate with myself; that they were used is now certain; and that they were not used by Mellor, yet remains to be proved.

The "Printer’s" paragraph respecting the Reverend Gentleman, at York, reflects no credit on its author; had it been necessary to have further proofs of his duplicity, he has furnished me with one. If he chose to notice part, he ought to have mentioned all. When I gave him the names of my references, I mentioned to him that I had just been with a friend who told me a Gentleman had said, that a Reverend Gentleman who resides in York, had mentioned the circumstance, stating that he was on the platform at the time, and that the "Attentive Hearer" was correct. I informed him, I believed that gentleman would corroborate what I said;—it was of course impossible I could have written to him, up having only heard this a few hours before I was with the "Diligent Enquirer;" he cannot say I mentioned the Reverend Gentleman's name, in any other way, than as now stated by me.

I must apologize to your readers for trespassing so long, but cannot take leave of this subject without recommending my opponent, when he again undertakes to contradict any one, to have better grounds for his confident and positive assertions; and not amuse his readers with vapouring about a long list of Authorities, whose testimony in the end, according to his own statement, amounts to nothing. Let him take a view of his abusive language, throughout the whole of this dispute. Let him remember what he has charged me with; then look to his authorities, and after all see himself absolutely obliged to publish my vindication.—Let him do this and refrain from blushing if he can!

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, March 13th, 1813.

13th March 1813: A Leeds Mercury editorial attempts to settle the dispute about George Mellor's last words

THE POINT AT ISSUE.

A dispute of little interest perhaps, except to the disputants, has for some weeks been maintained to the Leeds Newspapers which we hope now to bring to a close, and to this end it is necessary to take a short review of the circumstances in which it originated. It is well known to the public, that on Friday the 8th of January, George Miller, William Thorp, and Thomas Smith, who had on the Wednesday preceeding, been convicted on the clearest evidence of the atrocious murder of Mr. Horsfall were executed at York; at that awful scene, a person from the office of this paper attended, and the report made by him through the columns of the Mercury was that "George Mellor confessed in general the greatness of his sins, but that he made no confession of the crime for which he suffered." This statement an anonymous writer, under the signature of "an Attentive Hearer," contradicted in the Intelligencer on the Monday following, by asserting that Mellor confessed himself a murderer at the place of execution, and that he also used this remarkable expression, "not die game." On such conflicting testimony, a controversy arose in which an Attentive Hearer continued to maintain that Mellor used both these expressions; and in his second letter he insinuated that the Editor of the Mercury had private reasons, "prudent motives" was his expression for concealing the truth; and this attack at once absurd and unfounded, was entirely unprovoked, as a reference to the papers up to that time will show. To contend in person with an adversary without a name, and who had made so free and use of his ægis, and of his spear was to oppose a substance to a shadow; we therefore saw it proper to place the combatants on equal grounds, and with that view, to take the signature of "A Diligent Enquirer." Under these designations the contest continued for some weeks, when by way of bringing this tedious dispute to an issue, the Attentive Hearer was challenged by his opponent to an exchange of authorities, which being accepted, this exchange took place, and the result of the inquiries to which it has given rise, we now submit to the public.

The names of the persons produced by a Diligent Enquirer in confirmation of his assertions amount to seven in number, consisting of the Gentleman who officiated as Under-Sheriff, the Governor of York Castle, the Reverend Gentleman who attended the prisoners in their last moments, and two Sheriff’s Officers, who all stood upon the platform, one of them at a distance of more than three or four yards from Mellor, and some of them at his elbow; in addition to these five authorities, the Diligent Enquirer also verified his assertions by the names of two persons who stood in the place usually occupied by spectators, and all of whom had declared to him, that to the best of their knowledge and belief, the words in question were not used, and to these he might have added the names of a number of other persons, the principal part of whom stood upon the platform; but he selected these as evidences of the most unexceptionable kind, and as amply sufficient to satisfy any man open to conviction.

The authorities produced by an Attentive Hearer amounted to five in number, only one of whom stood on the platform, and such of the others as were present, at a distance of 40 or 50 yards.

The first of these, he that stood upon the platform, says, that he did hear Mellor use the words, "us poor Murderers," but he heard no such words as "not die Game." The second and third make the same declaration. The fourth says, that he thinks he heard the word murderers used in a confessional sense, but he cannot be quite certain, as he stood at so great a distance, that he could only hear a sentence now and then; but as to the words "not die game" he heard no such expression. The fifth and last of an Attentive Hearer's authorities is a Reverend Gentleman at York, and he says, that he was he was never present at an execution in his life, and consequently that he was not present at the execution of Mellor, nor did he ever say that the account given by an Attentive Hearer "was correct."

Such are the authorities by which the assertions of the contending parties are supported, and on a comparison of this evidence, we think no man that will exercise his understanding can fail to arrive at a just conclusion. We have no more doubt that the persons who say Mellor used words amounting to a confession so understood him, than we have that Mellor and his fellow-sufferers were guilty of the crime for which they were executed, but do believe they were murderers, and this belief we ground on the testimony of those whose stations the place of execution gave them an opportunity of hearing distinct every word that fell from the lips of the culprits, and whose official duties required that they should be particularly watchful over the expressions of men dying under such circumstances, and none of whom, it is universally allowed, had up to the moment they came to the fatal tree, made any confession of their guilt, express or implied.

On the other terms are remarkable and so improbable—we mean the expression "not die game," an Attentive Hearer is in effect contradicted by all his own authorities, excepting only that which was not present. Here at least he must admit that he is in error, for not to make that admission would be to impeach the testimony of his own evidence; and this circumstance will, we hope, be useful to him in future life, by inculcating the necessity of being less confident in his own opinions, and more disposed to defer to the opinions of others.

1st March 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' won't let the debate about George Mellor's last words die

Mr. PRINTER—A Diligent Enquirer seems to be rather hurt that I have not allowed myself to be publicly accused, without endeavouring publicly to defend myself; he thinks I ought to have been silenced long since; he will, however, recollect I am not answerable to the Public for the length of this dispute.

In the first instance I stated what passed at the Execution, as nearly as I could remember, which has weekly been disputed by either one or another.—Mr. Brown came forward and positively contradicted my assertion. I believe a Diligent Enquirer and an Attentive Hearer and not the only persons who are willing to waive his authority.—And now, we will consider the matter as resting on the authority of two anonymous writers, one of whom was present at the Execution, and the other some miles distant. Certainly persons unknown to the public have no right to expect credit, unless there assertions can be proved, either by positive or corroborative proof;—but there is a difference even in the character of an anonymous writer. When any one is fairly proved to have published an untruth, we have a right at least to suspect him; if a Diligent Enquirer will take the trouble to refer to my last letter, he will find a blemish on his character, of which he has not even attempted to clear himself. As an anonymous writer, I think I have a [fairer] claim to public credence than my opponent; he has a length, however, come forwards like a gentleman, without either wagers or abuse, and is consequently entitled to my attention.

I am not at liberty to publish names, but if he will be at the trouble of enquiring of my Printer; he will be informed of several Gentleman, whose characters he cannot dispute, to whom I would refer him; and I hope he will not think it too much trouble, candidly to inform the public the results of his further enquiries; this I think I have a right to expect from him.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

15th February 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes another missive on George Mellor's last words

Mr. PRINTER.—Sir, —The Chaplain and the Editor are this week silent, and a “Diligent Enquirer” has once more entered the lists; it must however be confessed his temper is not improved by his retirement. When he first set out on his Enquiry, he declared he wished to ascertain, whether I was right or wrong, and this was as it should be: the public are the best judges whether his published Enquiries have not strengthened my assertion: he has now however fallen from his respectable situation, and instead of remaining a “Diligent Enquirer”, he has degraded himself by turning, a Vile Defamer; he now seems wishful to end this affair in a personal quarrel, and that too, on the same polite terms as one might reasonably expect, from the regular frequenters of a common alehouse. I before told him, I conceived there was no argument in wages, and I now inform him, I am sure there’s none in railing and abuse; that cause must be tottering, which stands in need of such support.

In answer to this week's letter I would refer him to that inserted by himself in the Leeds Mercury of 23d January. He there publishes the report of those of whom he had enquired: he says, some informed him Mellor made use of the following expression, “even to his murderers;” he now calls this, “only hazarding a supposition.” I cannot even give him credit for being “an ingenious quibbler.” It stands published in the form of an assertion, a positive assertion of persons, whom of course he could depend upon, or he would not have been the means of publishing their report; now when Mr. Brown and the Editor say it is false, he wants to get rid of it; he says he merely “hazarded a supposition and that for the purpose of giving as candid a construction as possible to my publication.” The public must here again decide. I agree with a diligent Enquirer that my declaration, “that the Editor of the Mercury has pronounced a “diligent Enquirer,” a false publisher, is as far from the truth, as that Mellor made use of the words “Die Game” and “us poor murderers.” I maintain they are all true. To prove the former to be a fact, I would refer a “Diligent Enquirer” to Mr. Brown's letter of the 30th of January. Mr Brown says that the word was not “murderers,” but “adulterers,” and the Editor remarks his authority is indefinitely superior to that of any other; he then adds if “an attentive hearer” possesses a spark of candour, he will hasten publicly to retract his confident assertion, &c.

I grant he does not link his friend the “Diligent Enquirer,” with the “Attentive Hearer;” he certainly gives me the lie direct, for having introduced the word “murderers” into Mellor's prayer, and if the Diligent Enquirer can pocket this affront, he exercises more charity towards his friends, than from what I know of him, I should suppose him incapable of.

I have not the slightest objection to engage any of my antagonists, when they come forward like gentlemen, but if in future they shall appear clothed in raillery and abuse, I must beg leave to pass their remarks unnoticed.

I am, Your’s, &c.
AN ATTENTIVE HEARER
Leeds, Feb 13th, 1813.

8th February 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' keeps alive the debate about George Mellor's last words

Mr. PRINTER—Sir, when you in inserted my first Letter respecting the execution of Mellor, Thorpe and Smith, the Editor of the Mercury, in a very handsome manner, informed his readers, what I advanced was absolutely false.—To my second he made no reply; his cause was then espoused by “A Diligent Enquirer,” the dispute seemed nearly ended; we had only one word to settle; I was persuaded “A Diligent Enquirer,” if he were also a Candid Enquirer, would decide in my favour. From his silence this week, I must conclude he is now of my opinion. The dispute, in all probability, would have ended here, had not the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle, thought it a duty he owes to the public, tho’ late, boldly to step forward and controvert my assertion.

He first positively contradicts me, and then kindly tells me where I may have been mistaken; he fears I have understood the word “Adulterers” for “Murderers.”—He is just one week too late; had he made his appearance sooner, he might, perhaps, have staggered the belief of many.  “A Diligent Enquirer” has already satisfied the public on that head, he has informed them that the obnoxious word “Murderers” did escape from Mellor's lips; but his printer thinks this ought to be surrendered, that no person is so likely to be right as the Reverend Chaplain; nay, that it would be the height of folly and absurdity to dispute his authority.—The Editor of the Mercury is once more roused—after such strong, such respectable testimony, that both “An Attentive Hearer” and “A Diligent Enquirer” have been the instruments of publishing falsehoods to the world, nothing can protect them from the charge of malice or insanity, if they do not immediately retract all they have said, and bow to the super-eminent respectability of the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle.

So the Editor of the Mercury would have it.—What effect this appeal will have on “A Diligent Enquirer,” I will not surmise; tho’ I am willing to give the Reverend Chaplain all the credit his well-established character deserves, I will not be so credulous as thus to bow at his nod. No, I will even yet dare to inform the public, if I had before been inclined to doubt whether I was right or wrong, the enquiries I have since made of persons who were also present, would have removed every doubt.

One observation more for the Rev. George Brown, Chaplain of York Castle, and I have done:—Two newspapers printed in York (the Courant and the Herald) in the account they gave of the execution, state that the murderers “confessed the heinousness of the crime.” How strange that this Reverend Gentleman, who feels he has such a duty to perform to strangers, should have no regard for his fellow citizens, but will silently allow them to be dupes of “mischievous” Editors; he has no pity for them—what else can be his reason for taking no notice of these gross falsehoods;—did the old proverb ever recur to his mind—“A Prophet is not honoured in his own City?”— I am, &c.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, Jan. [illegible], 1813.

30th January 1813: The Leeds Mercury reprints the Reverend Brown's letter about George Mellor's last words

The following Letter, addressed to the Editor of the Leeds Intelligencer, by the Rev. G. Brown, Chaplain of the Castle of York, is decisive of the point at issue between the “Attentive Hearer” and the “Diligent Enquirer,” and can indeed leave no room for further discussion or doubt upon the subject. It is hardly necessary to observe, that the situation of the Rev. Divine who remained on the fatal platform, close to the prisoners, during the whole of the mournful ceremony, must render his authority, as to what was said by the Prisoners, infinitely superior to that of any hearer, however attentive, necessarily placed at a considerable distance, and where words imperfectly heard might be easily misconceived. And if the “Attentive Hearer” possesses a single particle of candor, he will hasten publicly to retract his confident assertions, and apologise for an insinuation most unfounded, and which can only be protected from the charge of malice by successive folly and absurdity.

25th January 1813: The Chaplain of York Castle intervenes in the war over George Mellor's last words

To the Editor of the Leeds Intelligencer.

SIR,—Having seen your Paper two Letters signed “An Attentive Hearer,” wherein he asserts that Mellor in his prayer begged of God to forgive “us poor murderers.”

I think it a duty I owe to the public to contradict the assertion, as no such expression was uttered by him, neither was any acknowledgement of guilt for the offence, made at any time, by him or his companions, directly or indirectly, either to me or the public; so far from any thing of the sort taking place, when I put the question in their last moments, “I hope you acknowledge the justness of your sentence?” The answer was “I desire you will not ask me any questions on the subject.” Notwithstanding which, no man in his senses can entertain a doubt of their guilt. I am afraid your Attentive Hearer has mistaken the word adulterers (which Mellor made use of in his prayer) for murderers, as there is a little similarity in the sound.

I am, Sir, your humble servant,

G.BROWN, Chaplain, York Castle.
York, 20th January, 1813.

25th January 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes again about George Mellor's last words

Mr. Printer,—“A Diligent Enquirer” has certainly taken great pains to ascertain whether Mellor did or did not acknowledge itself and his companions to be murderers, and it appears that those persons he has communicated with did not notice the confession. I believe there were present a great many more persons who did not hear Mellor make use of the expression alluded to, but this is no proof that what I advance is false.—“A Diligent Enquirer” says that some of the persons whom he enquired said, Mellor's words were, “even to his murderers.” That these persons are mistaken is evident, as he was addressing himself to Christ, and not speaking of him.—His words were—“Thou who cast devils out of Mary Magdalen—thou who pardonest the thief upon the cross—thou canst still save thieves, aye, and even us poor murderers.”

The words us and his, are very similar in sound, so much so, that they might easily be mistaken the one for the other, but their meaning is so very different, it will always be possible to determine which is spoken.—In this instance “A Diligent Enquirer” and the public must, I think, determine it in favor of “the word I have put into Mellor’s mouth,” us. Otherwise the sentence is rendered very unmeaning.

Wagers are in my opinion no argument, and I am astonished that “A Diligent Enquirer” should propose this mode of settling any dispute.—But his wager is particularly objectionable; if I understand it right, in all probability both parties must lose.—If it be necessary, I can produce respectable testimonials of the truth of what I have advanced. “the word of honour of persons of character,” that Mellor did make use of the expression alluded to.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

18th January 1813: 'An Attentive Hearer' writes again about Mellor's last words

CONFESSION OF THE MURDERERS.

Mr. Printer.—The Editor of the Mercury has taken great pains to controvert the account I gave you, of the murderer Mellor’s Confession on the scaffold, by positively asserting “that neither in his prayer not in any other part of his address did he make the confession imputed to him.” In reply to this I will maintain that my public statement is a correct one, and that Mellor did actually make use of the expression “imputed”to him —“US POOR MURDERERS.” Certainly no one who was present and listened with any attention to the culprit, can deny this fact. The Editor of the Mercury may not have heard this expression, (he did hear, however, what nobody else heard, that the Jury recommended Smith to mercy.) Or, if he did hear the confession, he may, for aught I know, have very prudent motives for concealing it from the Public. I was not the only person who heard the confession—it is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, Jan. 16, 1813.

11th January 1813: A dispute begins in the Leeds press about the last words of George Mellor

Along with a very brief description of the execution of George Mellor, William Thorpe & Thomas Smith, the Leeds Intelligencer of Monday 11th January 1813 ran a letter from a pseudonymous correspondent about what he/she claimed to have heard at the scene of said execution. This letter was to spark a war of words over several months:

MR. PRINTER—I think it may be attended with good to the community, but particularly to all those deluded men who are connected in any manner with the unhappy murderers who yesterday paid the debt due to their most inhuman crime—if you will thro’ the medium of your paper give the following to the public; about nine o'clock yesterday morning, Mellor, Thorpe and Smith, ascended the scaffold; after some time being spent in prayer with the ordinary they each addressed themselves to the Almighty, in a manner the most penitent.—The voices of Thorp and Smith were indistinct, few expressions were heard by the spectators.—Mellor spoke in a most audible manner; and if all his accomplices had heard him, they must have hearts harder  than flint, if they had not been melted into tears, and resolved, by spending the remainder of their life in repentance, to atone to their country for the dreadful injuries they have inflicted on her domestic tranquillity.

After dwelling a long time on the sins of his past life, which he confessed to be of the blackest nature, he said—But thou who cast Devils out of Mary Magdalen, thou who pardonest the thief upon the Cross—Thou canst still save thieves, aye and EVEN US POOR MURDERERS! He prayed fervently for those who were connected with him—that they might, from the present awful scene, be lead to repent of their great sins, and cease from pursuing those lawless measures which could only tend to their eventual ruin. He said—There are many here who have come expecting to see us die game! Let such know that we die penitent—we acknowledge the heinousness of our sins, and our only hope to be forgiven is in the infinite and boundless mercy of our Redeemer.

After having thus made his confessions to the Almighty, he rose from his knees and addressed himself to the spectators in nearly the following words—“There are many here whom I know, and many of my enemies, some who have urged me to the commission of the crime for which I am now to forfeit my life. I freely forgive you, and all the world, and I hope the world will forgive me.” These were his last words.

Never was there a sight more awful!—would that every inhabitant of this disturbed district had been there: then surely we should cease to hear of those detestable acts of villany, which have of late been so daringly perpetrated.—I conclude by wishing that the end of these three penitent murderers, may be a warning to all who are disposed to disturb the peace of the country.

AN ATTENTIVE HEARER.

Leeds, January 9th, 1813.