THE TRIAL, &c. &c. (continued 2)

But it seems that Mr. Patrick has been guilty of some mis-statement as to what occurred in the early stage of this proceeding; and we have Mr. Thomas called, as it is said, for the purpose of contradicting him, as to the result of some conversation which passed between them after the interview at Mr. Church’s house. Gentlemen, it is some what singular that Mr. Thomas, who was one of the Defendant’s hearers, and interested himself so much in this case, that when the boy is brought to give him information as to the complaint which he had to make against Mr. Church, he does not make the least inquiry into the lad’s account of the transaction, nor does he express any desire that the lad should be introduced to Mr. Church. We have it in evidence from himself, that on the day when Mr. Patrick called upon Mr. Church, he waited with the lad on the outside of the house; and although Mr. Patrick brought the boy for the express purpose of having him confronted face to face with the Defendant, still Mr. Thomas does not ask a single question of the lad, nor does he go into any examination upon the subject.

Gentlemen, that this case was immediately blazoned about very early is clear, though it was not carried before the magistrate so soon; because we find that when Mr. Patrick came home on the Thursday night, though he did not speak to the boy until the next day, the Friday, yet the subject was generally mentioned to his wife before he returned, and therefore the matter might have got wind before it was fully explained by the boy to his master on the Friday morning. It is quite clear that it was known to the congregation on the following sabbath, and according to that letter which has been read to you, (upon which I make no comments, except so far as it bears on Mr. Patrick’s testimony), the Defendant, Mr. Church, had written on the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter, Mrs. Hunter having previously written to him on the subject, for he begins by referring to the letter which Mrs. Hunter had addressed to and expresses regret that he shall lose her as a hearer in future: so that Mrs. Hunter therefore, amongst other persons, was acquainted with the rumours, because from him this letter comes, from which it appears that she had written to him before; for it begins by stating—“My heart is already too much affected: your letter only added affliction to my bonds.”—Gentlemen, I only dwell upon this circumstance in confirmation of Mr. Patrick’s statement, that Mr. Church could contradict, not the whole of the report, but three points of the boy’s statement. This letter having come to the knowledge of Mr. Patrick, in which these three points are alluded to, and being desired by some of the congregation to pay the Defendant a visit, he accordingly resolves to call upon him. On that occasion he introduces himself by stating, as the apology for his calling, that he had seen a letter from the Defendant, in which he stated that he could contradict certain points of the boy’s story. The Defendant you will observe does not contradict the fact of his having written such a letter, but he goes into an explanation with the witness as to what are the points of contradiction; and then he states that so far as his having laid hold of the boy, and his having told the lad that the person who addressed him was his mistress, the whole was a mis-statement; and these, Gentlemen, are the only points of denial upon which the Defendant rested in his interview with Mr. Patrick, to whom, however, he admitted distinctly that he was in the boy’s chamber, though he denies the subsequent part of the transaction, which the boy to-day has solemnly sworn to have taken place.

Now, gentlemen, I ask again, if he was in the boy’s chamber, for what reason or proper purpose could he by possibility go there? And if he was in that room, can you have any doubt of the truth of all the circumstances which the boy has positively sworn?—If it was a person of the male sex who entered that apartment, it must clearly have been the defendant; for there was no other man in the house. It appearing distinctly that Mr. Patrick was absent from home on that night. Then I ask you, whether there is any ground for disbelieving the boy’s story, who, immediately after the disgusting scene he has described, goes to the pottery, tells his story to the workman, and stays there the remainder of the night, chusing rather to lose his rest than stay in the house with Mr. Church, under the liability of a further encounter for the same detestable purpose. The reason which the boy has given for not alarming the house, is not an unnatural one. We have it in evidence that Mr. West, feeling a manly indignation at what had happened, manifested a disposition to pull the unnatural offender out of his bed, and turn him into the street. But the boy, apprehensive that such an occurrence might give an alarm to his mistress, persuaded the potter to abstain from his purpose, and they accordingly did not enter the defendant’s door.

Thus, gentlemen, the testimony of the prosecutor is consistent in all its parts; for although Church denied some circumstances of the transaction as stated in his letter read to-day, yet every main and important feature of the transaction is confirmed by collateral circumstances. Mr. Patrick’s evidence is a direct corroboration of the boy’s story, from the moment that the transaction first took place down to his examination of to-day. But if, gentlemen, as I said before, you feel any reasonable doubt of the purpose for which the defendant came into the boy’s room, it is your duty to acquit him; but, on the other hand, if all the circumstances of the case conspire to imprint upon your mind that the defendant had clearly no other purpose, but a guilty and unnatural one when he entered that apartment, it is your bounden duty, disgusting as it may be, to pronounce a sentence of condemnation, whatever consequences may result to the defendant in the judgment which he shall hereafter receive.

THE CHARGE.

Lord Ellenborough delivered his charge to the jury as follows:

Gentlemen of the Jury—This is an indictment against John Church for an assault upon the person of Adam Foreman, with intent to commit an unnatural crime with him. There has been a considerable body of evidence laid before you, against him as well as for him: and it is for you to say in the result, after giving that evidence due consideration, whether the defendant has committed the assault with intent to perpetrate the atrocious crime imputed to him by the indictment.

Now, assuming the fact to be that Mr. Church was in the room at the time this offence was supposed to have been committed, that alone imposes upon him the necessity of giving some explanation for the occasion which brought him there. If, in addition to the fact of being there, which he admits, himself, to be true, you should believe the boy further in his statement that such an overture was made to him, and that the hand of a man was put upon his private parts in bed, you will have to say with what other purpose than as an inducement to the commission of an unnatural crime, it had been placed there. That is, supposing you believe the facts as stated by the young man. I should apprehend that no reason can be suggested for such an indecent intercourse (supposing it did take place) with this man’s person unless it was a prelude or inducement to the committing of the crime imputed to the defendant. Now the main question for your consideration will be, whether that which is sworn by Foreman, and confirmed by Mr. Patrick, is truly sworn. I think too much stress has been laid upon the circumstance, stated about the searching for thieves, which it is said, on the part of the defendant, was the avowed object of Foreman in returning to the house. It was very natural and highly probable when he apprehended, if he did truly apprehend, that a male person had come into his room and had accosted him in the manner he stated, that he should be clearly satisfied before he went farther in communicating to the potter the indecencies offered to his person, that there was no other male in the house, and seeing that no other male could come into the house at that time of night, unless he came for this purpose and no other. In this point of view, I think it is not at all unnatural or improbable in his conduct, even if he had said that he had gone in search for thieves; and, if you recollect, his evidence was, “that he had searched the house, not for thieves in particular, but to see if there was any body in any of the rooms.” “I did not think of thieves,” says he, “because I knew who it was,” and so on. He now says, that at that time he knew it was Mr. Church, and therefore he did not think of searching for thieves, his object being, in searching the house, to ascertain whether there was any other male in the house besides the one to whom he attaches the crime imputed by this indictment.

Gentleman, I shall now proceed to state to you the evidence as it has been given on both sides.

Adam Foreman, the first witness, states, that he shall be twenty years of age the first day of December next. “I am an apprentice to, Mr. Patrick, the potter, of Vauxhall; I have been with him about five years. I have known the defendant, John Church, by sight about two or three years. He is a preacher, and I have attended as one of the congregation in the chapel where he preaches; I have often seen him. I sleep generally at my father’s house, but when my master goes out of town I sleep at his house. The defendant Church lives near his chapel in St. George’s Fields. The defendant came to sleep at my master’s on the 25th of September last.” It seems, Gentlemen, he came there by invitation from Mr. Patrick, having weak health, and it being more convenient for him to sleep in better air. “He slept there on the night of the 25th September; I slept there also, that night. I don’t know whether the defendant had been there before; I cannot say whether I had seen him there before. My master was out of town that night, but where I cannot say. The persons who slept in the house that night were Mr. Church, my mistress, the children, and the two maid-servants; there was no other man in the house except Church and myself. My bed-room was the front parlour on the first floor, over the kitchen. It was not usually a bed-room, but I slept there because there was no other bed-room that I could sleep in. A temporary bed was put up there for me. I went to bed at near one o’clock. There was a kiln burning, and I was obliged to sit up to let the man in to the kiln when he came. It was necessary for me to sit up to attend that kiln, and to give the man the key. That man’s name is Thomas West. I went to sleep directly I went to bed. I had not been asleep more than half an hour, before I was awoke by some one putting his hands under the bed clothes, and laying hold of my private parts. He laid hold of me very tight. I put my hand out of the bed clothes and caught hold of him, and asked him who he was. I said, who are you? I laid hold of him, as near as I can guess, by the upper part of the arm; and I felt lower down, and found by the sleeve that he had got a man’s shirt on. I had a hold of him by the upper part of the arm, and running my hand down to the wrist, I found he had a man’s shirt on. The wrist was buttoned. I knew very well it was man, because he had got a man’s shirt on. The person, whoever it was, said, in a feint voice like a woman, “Adam, don’t you know me? I am your mistress.” It was not Mrs. Patrick’s voice. I knew the voice directly I heard it to be Mr. Church’s. He fled from the room directly; he went out of the room in a hurried step. I got out of bed and put on my small clothes and shoes, and went out to the door. As the man opened the door, I saw by the lamp that it was Mr. Church, and he had only his shirt on. The lamp is outside of the street door, on the Terrace, and throws a light through the fan-light of the hall door. It is a parish lamp. At the time I saw Church by the light of the lamp I was sitting up in bed: I had not then left my bed. I saw that the person who went out through the door had a man’s shirt on. I did not see his face at all; his back was to me. I then got up and put my small-clothes on and shoes, and went to the pottery to get the man to come up to the house. I told Thomas West what had happened. He was in the pottery, and was there I before went to bed. The person who went out at the door shut it after him. I saw him by the light of the lamp when he opened the door. There was no light in the room; the light came from a lamp on the terrace. That lamp is about five or six yards from the door of the house on the terrace. The terrace, on which my master’s house is situated, is a row of houses raised above the road. The lamp is upon the terrace opposite to the door. The light from the lamp is given to the passage through the fan-light over the door. When the man opened the door and went out, I saw him by the light from the lamp. I could not see the face of the person, but I saw that he had a shirt on. I was rather alarmed. It all took place in a minute. It was not long about. I don’t know how long he had been there before I awoke. From the moment I awoke it took place as fast as possible. I immediately went to West. We did not know whether any body had got in or not. West and I directly came and searched the house for thieves. We went and looked at every chamber door in the home except Mr. Church’s and my mistress’s. We looked at the door of Mr. Church, and that of my mistress. They were both shut. We found all the doors in the house shut except the servant’s, which we found on the jar.”

Now, Gentlemen, great stress is laid by the learned counsel for the Defendant upon this circumstance. It is suggested that it might be Mrs. Patrick, or one of the maid servants who entered the room. It appears that one of the servants was the prosecutor’s own sister, and it was not likely to be her that went in. It is said the prosecutor’s counsel ought to have called the maid servant and Mrs. Patrick to negative the supposed circumstance of their having gone into the room. Now, this observation is to be made, that it was open to the one side or to the other to have called the maid servant, and have proposed that question to her. It was clearly open to the Defendant, if he chose to call the maid, and to have asked her that question; and it was equally open to the counsel for the prosecution. It was also open to both sides to have called Mrs. Patrick. It is probable that the prosecutor’s counsel did not like to expose her to the pain of an unnecessary examination, because the Defendant might have called her as a witness for himself.

“I went and told West that Mr. Church came down into my room, and behaved in a very indecent manner. I told him that Church had been there and laid hold of my private parts. I did not search the house for thieves in particular, but to search if any body was in any of the rooms. We searched the house. We looked all over it to see if there was anybody in any of the rooms. We searched the house, but not for thieves in particular. I did not think of thieves, because I knew who it was. We did not go into the maid servant’s room; we only looked in. We found the door open and looked in. The maids were in bed. One was my sister. The door being a-jar, we pushed a little, and we saw that they were a-bed. We did not speak to them. We did not search the house for thieves, because I knew who the person was. The reason of my searching the house was because I wished to be quite right before I made the accusation against Mr. Church. We found that there was no other man in the house but Mr. Church. There was no door, no window open, at which any other man could have come in. The light from the Terrace came through the fan-light over the door. The lamp gives a pretty fair light to the hall, and shews a little light up the stairs. The time when the person opened the door and went out, was the time that I got a view of his person. I did not hear him when he first came into the room. I was awakened by the application of his hand to my person. He was standing by the bed-side on the floor. I did not call to him by name, or give him to understand that I knew who he was. I did not see any part of his face, but I saw his back as he went out of the room. He was a person that appeared to be the height of Mr. Church. I cannot say what height he is. I cannot say exactly whether he had a night-cap on. I think it was a handkerchief tied round his head. I could not tell what sort of a handkerchief it was, whether coloured or not.”

He does not say positively whether it was a light or a coloured handkerchief, but he says he could not tell. He did not see whether it was coloured or not.

“We went to Church’s door, but we did not touch it, nor did we go in. West wanted to go into the room and pull him out.”

That is confirmed by the testimony of West himself.

“I objected to West’s pulling him out, because I was afraid of disturbing my mistress. She would have been very much alarmed.”

That was the account he gave in his original examination before the magistrate, as the reason for his not going into the room.

“Church never had any conversation with me, nor did he ever make any overture of this sort to me before this time. There was nothing particular in his manner or in his conduct towards me before this time. I have never spoken to him at all since. I saw him attend before the magistrate. There I spoke in his presence, but not immediately to him. I did not hear him speak before the magistrate. I have given the same account before the magistrate that I have now done here. I know no other circumstances from which I could collect that it was a man. The hand was withdrawn when I awoke. By the height of the person I saw, I could ascertain whether it was or was not the height of my mistress or any of the female part of the house. Mr. Church was a great deal bigger than any body there. I don’t think he is quite six foot. He is a tall and stout man. There was light enough by the lamp to see the outline of the man, so as to be able to say that he was a tall person. Mrs. Patrick is quite a little woman, she is quite different person from the person I saw in the room. I am quite clear of that. The maid who slept in the room with my sister, is about as tall as I am; not quite so tall. I am quite sure it was not her. There was no other maid in the house.”

This is the evidence of the first witness; and you observe he says, he is quite sure it was not any of the females of the house who came into his room; and he is quite sure that there was no other male person in the house besides himself and the Defendant Church; and he is certain that it was not the maid nor his mistress.

The next witness examined is Thomas West. He says, “I am workmen to Mr. Patrick, the potter. On the morning of the 26th of September last, I relieved Adam Foreman at the Kiln. I relieved him about half past twelve o’clock in the morning: he left me shortly afterwards for the purpose of going to bed. I saw him again in about half an hour. He was only part dressed. He had his small clothes, his shoes, and one stocking on. He came to me in a very great fright, and bid me light my candle. He appeared very much alarmed, and bid me light my candle and come along with him up to the house. He told me, as we were going along the garden, that Mr. Church had been to him, and behaved in a very indecent manner. He did not explain how. He unlocked the door, and we went into the house together. When we got into the house he put the remainder of his clothes on. We then went and searched every room in the house, beginning at the bottom and going upwards to the top, except my mistress’s room and Mr. Church’s. We went into all the rooms except Mr. Church’s and Mrs. Patrick’s. We did not go into Mr. Church’s room or that of my mistress. We did not open the door of either of those two rooms. When we came to Mr. Church’s door, I said, “I’ll go and pull him out; shall I?” The Lad said, “No, for fear of disturbing my mistress.” In consequence of that observation of the lad’s, I forebore going into the room. Foreman then came along with me into the Pottery. He came down stairs; locked the back door, and staid with me the whole of the remainder of the night at the Pottery ’till the morning. We searched in all the rooms of the house for the purpose of seeing if there was any other person in the place. We found no window or door open at which any body could have got into the house. I saw them all secure and fastened. When Foreman came to me, he did not explain what Church had done to him; he only told me that Church had behaved in a very indecent manner to him. I did go to search for thieves in the house. When he told me that Church had behaved in a very indecent manner to him, I went to see if there was any other person in the place. Foreman did not tell me he believed that there was thieves in the house. I am quite sure he did not explain in what way Church behaved to him. He did not tell me that Church came to his bed side, and laid his hand upon his private parts; he never from first to the last, either in the course of the morning when staying with me, or after we had been to the house, tell me what Church had done, and that he had laid his hand upon his private parts. I went before the Magistrate some time after this; I believe it was six or seven weeks.”

Gentlemen, there would be a great deal in the observation upon the circumstance of the parties not going before the Magistrate until six or seven weeks afterwards, if the matter had been kept a secret. But it is not kept a secret; so far from that, it was quite notorious. And here is a letter, in the hand-writing of the Defendant himself, dated the 6th of October, in answer to a letter of Mrs. Hunter; and it appears that the subject had been ventilated and circulated, for some days before, and had become the topic of general discussion amongst the Defendant’s congregation; because it appears that Mrs. Hunter had written a letter herself to the Defendant upon it. There is nothing, therefore, in the observation of the Learned Counsel for the Defendant as to the tardiness of going before the Magistrate.

He says, “The Lad then went with his father. The Lad generally slept at home at his father’s house. The father lives about a quarter of a mile from Mr. Patrick’s. The Boy did not sleep at his father’s the next night; but he did the next night after that. We did not go to the Justices until about six or seven weeks afterwards. I did not communicate with Mr. Patrick upon the subject before I went to the Justice.”

The next witness called is Mr. Patrick. He says, I am a Potter, at Vauxhall; the boy, Foreman, lived with me all the time I have been in the pottery business; that is, between five and six years. He slept in my house only occasionally, and that was whenever I went out of town. As there was no other male in the house on those occasions, he used to sleep there for the purpose of giving the key to the Potter in the morning. I was absent from home on the 25th of September; and on that occasion the Boy slept in my house; he slept upon a chair bed in the front parlour; it was a temporary bed for a nurse occasionally. I knew the Defendant, John Church; I first became acquainted with him when I came to reside at Vauxhall; he is a Baptist Preacher, and I attended his chapel; and that was the way I became acquainted with him. His residence is adjoining to the Chapel. In the month of September, the Defendant came to sleep at my house. He complained occasionally of ill health; and thinking that he was ill, I asked him, out of friendship, to take a bed at my house, as I thought the air would be of service to him. I returned home on the evening of the 26th of September, and on the morning of the 27th the Boy made a communication to me respecting this transaction.

So that you see, Gentlemen, the Boy makes this communication to his master at the earliest moment he has an opportunity of speaking to him.

“Several of the congregation afterwards applied to me, and at their request I went to Mr. Church on the 9th of October.”

But, Gentlemen, the 9th of October is not the first time that this matter was mentioned; for it appears to have been in circulation at the time that Mr. Church wrote the letter which has been given in evidence.

“That was the first communication I had with Mr. Church on the subject. Church said he took it extremely kind of me in calling upon him. I said he might take it as he pleased, as I did not come willingly, but that some of his congregation thought that I ought to see him on the business.”

You observe, Gentlemen, that it was at the request of some of the congregation that he went; and, in a subsequent part of the evidence, it appears that Mr. Thomas, one of the congregation, had expressly desired him to call upon the Defendant.

“I told him, I waited upon him, having seen a letter, wherein he denied three particular points in the Boy’s statement. He then denied, in the fleet place, having taken hold of the Boy, and in the second, his having said to the Boy that he was his mistress. The third point I didn’t particularly recollect; but in the course of conversation he admitted that he had been in the Boy’s room. He denied that he had had hold of the Boy, and that he had told the Boy that he was his mistress. I told him that of these two points the Boy was positive, and I had no reason to doubt any thing that he said. The Defendant said ‘that he was very sorry for it; the worst of it was, it confirmed ancient reports.’”

Gentlemen, this is the language of Church himself. What those antient reports were we have not heard; we are only left to guess at what the expression alluded to.

Upon which Mr. Patrick said, “It did so, and of course,” says he, “I told him that I should believe all that I had heard heretofore: and I wished him a good morning. I have never spoken to him since; but I have seen him.—This is an exact copy of the letter dated the 6th of October, addressed to Mrs. Hunter.”

Gentlemen, this letter is afterwards read in evidence. Mrs. Hunter being called as a witness, she stated that she believed, from the knowledge that she had of the character of the Defendant’s hand-writing, she believes the original from which this copy is taken, was written by him; and Mr. Patrick swears that the letter from which he took this copy was, in his belief, in “the hand-writing of the Defendant.”

Now, Gentlemen, upon reading this letter, one is very much struck, not by what it contains, absurd as it is in some respects, and containing something like a profane use of the sacred name of the Saviour, but at the absence of what one certainly might naturally expect to find in the letter of a person writing to a friend, and one of his own congregation, upon this subject. What is so natural as that he should most explicitly and peremptorily deny the whole accusation and charge, and rest with confidence upon his own innocence and the character which he bore amongst his congregation. But instead of that, he envelopes the matter in a sanctified discussion, such as has been read to you, dwelling upon the sacred name of our Saviour in a very indecent manner. I shall read this letter to you again; and if you find any thing in it which can be construed into an express denial of the circumstances charged against him, I am sure it will make a proper impression upon your minds. I confess I can find no such denial. He says, “I am able to contradict three things”—one of which is laying hold of the boy’s person, and the other the speaking of his mistress. The third point, Mr. Patrick does not recollect. But, you will observe, he did not deny being in the room: that seems to be a fact now undisputed. The letter is in these words:—

Oct. 6, 1816.

“Dear Mrs. Hunter—My heart is already too much affected. Your letter only added affliction to my bonds; but I forbear. I would have called on you this morning, but I was too low in mind to speak to any friend but Jesus. There I am truly comfortable. Pardon me. But I make no remarks on what you have been told. I must bear it. Though I am able to contradict these things, I would rather not. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick have always dealt kindly to me. I am only grieved that dear Mrs. P. whom I really love, that she should try to injure me in the estimation of those who are real friends to my dear children. The thought affects me, Why hurt my poor family? But I am too much depressed to enlarge. I shall never forget their kindness. God will reward them, as he has many who have dealt well to me. But he will resent cruelty in those who have and are still trying to degrade me. Mrs. P. will live to see it. Dear Mrs. Hunter, I am grieved at heart. I can not relieve your mind. I am truly sorry to lose you as a hearer, because your soul has been blessed, and you know both the plague of the heart and the value of Jesus. May he be increasingly precious to you!—in his person, love, and grave. Farewell, my dear kind friend. The Lord Jesus will reward you for your love to me and kindness to mine. God is not unrighteous to forget your work of faith and labour of love. With many tears I write this. May we meet in glory, when no enemy shall distress my mind, nor sin, nor death shall part us more. I need not remind my dear friend that I am a child of peculiar Providence.”

This is very extraordinary. Whether he considers himself as privileged above the rest of mankind, I know not: but it should seem that he does. He says:

“I am a child of peculiar providence: and that Heart of Eternal Love, and that Arm of Invincible Power, has protected me—has called me to himself—and for every act of straying, will correct me.”

Therefore, he admits that he is subject to the punishment of the Divine Being. Whether he is exempt from the temporal jurisdiction for his crimes or not, seems to be a matter of doubt with him: for he says,—

“In every act of straying, God will correct me with his own hand; but will resent every other hand sooner or later.”

So that he admits that for his offences, or his “acts of straying,” as he is pleased to call them, God will punish him with his own hand; but that no other hand will punish him. The letter concludes—

“This you will live to see. Adieu, dear friend: accept the starting tear, and the best wishes of an heart sincere.

“Your’s, truly,

“Till we shall meet above.”

Gentlemen, this is his letter. If it had been a full and explicit denial of the whole charge, it would have been more favourable to him. One is sorry to see the name of the Divine Being mixed up with so indecent and abominable a story.

Mr. Patrick goes on to state that he denied having had hold of the boy, but he admitted that he was in the room; upon his saying to the Defendant that as to the two points in question, the boy was positive, and that he had no reason to doubt any thing that the boy said, the defendant replied that he was sorry for it, because it confirmed ancient reports. The witness said, “it did so;” and he told him that he should now believe all that he had heard heretofore, and he wished him a good morning. He says, “I never saw him afterwards to speak to him. This is an exact copy of the letter dated 6th October, 1816, addressed to Mrs. Hunter. I took an exact copy of it myself. I did not read the copy of the letter to the Defendant, for I had not the copy with me at that time. With respect to the letter I told him that I wished to know what the three things were that he could deny. I do not recollect the third point; it is not material, he admitted being in the room, but denied the laying hold.”

He is asked in what terms the Defendant admitted that he was in the room, and he said the Defendant said, “I was in the room, but I did not lay hold of the boy.” He did not say why he was in the room. “I returned the letter of the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter, from whom I received it.”

On his cross-examination he says:—“I mean to say that the Defendant said distinctly that he was in the room. I never said to any person after I had seen Mr. Church that I thought he was not implicated at all in the charge. I gave a person named Thomas an account of the conversation I had with the Defendant, but I never accompanied that account with the observation “he is not implicated”—nor to any person. Mr. Thomas went with me to Mr. Church’s house, but he did not go in. Mr. Thomas is not a friend of mine. Mr. Thomas walked with me to the door. It was his wife’s wish and my wife’s that I should make the application to the Defendant. Mr. Thomas walked with me as far as the door of the Defendant, but he did not go in. After I came out from Mr. Church’s I had some conversation with Mr. Thomas, and I told him partly what had transpired. It was very short what did transpire. I think I told Mr. Thomas that the Defendant admitted his having been in the boy’s room, but I am not very positive as to that point. I know I told him that Mr. Church said he did not lay hold of him. I never made any such answer to Mr. Thomas as that I thought Mr. Church was not at all implicated”—nor any thing conveying that meaning. I never told him directly or indirectly that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Church. I never told Mr. Thomas or any other person that I would prosecute Mr. Church for this crime, because he had said disrespectful things of my wife: but I think I told Mr. I would prosecute the Defendant for the defamation of my wife’s character. But this was a considerable time after the transaction in question. I think I did inform Mr. Thomas that I would prosecute the Defendant for the defamation of my wife’s character.

The next witness called is Mrs. Hunter, and she says—“I am one of the congregation and a hearer of Mr. Church. I received a letter, dated the 6th of October, but it had no name subscribed to it. I cannot tell from whom it came. It had no place of abode or signature, except the day of the month. I put that letter into the hands of Mr. Patrick, at least I gave it to Mr. Patrick’s daughter, who gave it to her father. That letter was returned to me, but I took no further notice of it. After the letter was returned to me, I put it into a drawer, and I do not know what is become of it. I looked for it on the Thursday morning before I came here, but I was unable to find it. I searched diligently for it, but I could find no trace of it.”

Under such circumstances, Gentlemen, the original letter having been searched for, and not being to be found, that, in point of law, lets in the copy of it, which could not be admitted as evidence as it existed. She is then asked whether the letter received was in the hand writing of Mr. Church? and she says, “I have seen his writing. I have seen him write in different hands. He does not write always the same. I don’t mean to say exactly that he wrote in different hands; but there was such a difference in the same hand-writing that one would hardly think it was the same. I rather think that letter was in Mr. Church’s hand-writing, but I could not be positive as there was no name to it. I cannot say positively whether it was or was not his hand-writing. I believed then it was his hand-writing, and I still believe the same. I did not communicate the letter to any body but Mr. Patrick, and I told him that I had received a letter from Mr. Church. The search I made for the letter was last Thursday. I know nothing of it, and I have no reason to believe that it is now in existence. I did not leave a drawer or a place unsearched.”

Mr. Patrick is again called, and says that he knew the hand writing of the Defendant in October last. “I copied this letter from the letter I had from Mrs. Hunter. I believe that the letter from which I made this copy was in Mr. Church’s hand writing.”

Gentlemen you have had that letter read to you; and this is the Case on the part of the Prosecution.

On the part of the Defendant, Gentlemen, it is observed as matter of surprise that the Prosecutor’s Counsel have not called the female servant as a witness. It is very true she was not called, but it was open to the Defendant to have called her, and undoubtedly if his Counsel thought that any examination of hers would have been beneficial to him, we must presume that she would have been called. The Bed-room door of the servants, it is observed, was ajar; and it is contended that one of the servants might have been the person who went down stairs to the young man’s room: and it is further contended that there was such a deficiency of light that it was impossible for the Prosecutor to identify with certainty the person who entered his apartment. Now whether there is any thing in the observation as to the deficiency of the light, it for you to judge; but this remark fairly arises from the circumstance of the maid’s Bed-room door being a-jar. It is most likely that if either of them came out of the room for any improper purpose, she would have shut the door after her: and it is to be recollected that one of the servants was the Boy’s own Sister. It is observed likewise as matter of surprise, that Mrs. Patrick is not called. Gentlemen, it would be very disrespectful to Mrs. Patrick to put such a question to her, as whether she offered these indecencies to the Boy; but if the Defendant’s Counsel thought that she could not have stood that examination, as I have repeatedly told you, they might have called her.

On the part of the defendant, they called Mr. Thomas, and he says, “I live in Prospect Place, West Square, St. George’s Fields. I am by business, an appraiser and undertaker. I know the defendant Mr. Church. I was one of his hearers. I was acquainted with Mr. Patrick, but not until the report was made respecting Mr. Church. I can’t say that I have ever seen him attending Mr. Church, as one of the congregation. I went with Mr. Patrick the day he went to Mr. Church’s house. It was the 9th of October, a few days after the report. I did not go into the house with him. I stood outside the door. I learned from Mr. Patrick, that he was going to Mr. Church upon the subject of this business. He told me he had a letter of Mr. Church’s, and was going to him to make inquiries. He called upon me at my house too with him, and he told me he was going upon the business of this inquiry. Indeed, it was at my request that he should.”

So that you see, Gentlemen, it was not the voluntary intrusion of Mr. Patrick upon Mr. Church, when he went to his house; but it is in compliance with the request of some of the Congregation. He says “Mrs. Thomas went to speak to his wife, and it was at my wife’s and his wife’s request that he went.—The interview with Mr. Church lasted near an hour. It seemed to be a long while, not much less than an hour, as near as I can guess the time. When he came out I put some questions to him respecting what had passed between him and Mr. Church:—I asked him what Mr. Church had said? and he replied that Mr. Church did not say anything.”

Now, Gentlemen, it is impossible that Church could have said nothing, for it is not very likely that Mr. Patrick would be occupied for an hour hearing himself.

“He said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded on account of the cause, but said noting.”

Certainly, Mr. Thomas, from the nature of things, must be incorrect, for it is impossible that Mr. Patrick could be an hour in conversation with Mr. Church, and that the latter should say nothing. Mr. Patrick could not be an hour in conversation with himself.

“He said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded on account of the cause. He (Patrick) seemed to insinuate that it would be injurious to the cause God. He did not say, “the cause,” but I only suppose he meant the cause of God. I asked whether Church had said any thing, and Patrick said “No.” He said he seemed very much confused. I said, what do you mean? If there is any thing against the man, do you think I would not have been faithful to him and have charged him with it? Mr. Patrick said, he did not know any thing about that, and that he was not the proper person. He said, “I don’t know,—I am not so proper as you.” I said to him, “what did he say respecting the report?” He said it was false.—Patrick himself said the report was false. I then said, “what did Mr. Church state respecting its having been reported that he was in liquor?” Mr. Patrick replied, “that that was false, and that there had been a great deal of exaggeration. I never put the question to Mr. Patrick, “whether he thought that Church was implicated in the transaction or not?” I never used these words or any to the same effect. I put these words to him, “Why,” says I, “You did nothing. Did Mr. Church acknowledge nothing to you?” “No, Sir,” says he, “he did not.” I said, “as you can bring nothing against him, let us pray for him, if he was under any such temptation.”

The phrase which the witness uses seems to signify that the Defendant’s disposition was not very proper. What occasion was there to pray for him not to be guilty of such an offence? What temptation could there be to a moral man to excite him to the commission of so unnatural a crime?

“Mr. Patrick never delivered any opinion to me, whether he thought Church was implicated in the transaction or not. Nothing more passed at the meeting.”

On his cross-examination he said, “I heard of this business two or three days after it happened. My wife and I were desirous that Mr. Patrick should go to Mr. Church’s. Mr. Patrick brought the boy to me, in order to have him brought face to face with Mr. Church. Mr. Patrick said that the boy was outside. He did not particularly wish me to see the boy; but I certainly supposed that he brought the boy for the purpose of going to Mr. Church’s house. Mr. Patrick and I went together, and the boy followed. The boy did not go in with Mr. Patrick. He staid outside the door. He walked on the other side of the way. He waited whilst I waited. We both waited outside.”

Now, gentlemen, there is something in the manner in which this person gave his evidence, which leads me to conclude that he has not given a correct representation of all that had passed between him and Mr. Patrick; in the first place he says, that Mr. Patrick told him that Mr. Church now said nothing. Now that is most extraordinary. Can it be believed that Mr. Church had said nothing, or that Patrick had told the witness so? Well, then, as to the rest of his conduct, Mr. Patrick had brought the source of his own information, namely the boy, to the witness, in order that the person who brought forward the accusation might by examined by Mr. Thomas himself, if he chose to inquire into the subject. Mr. Patrick brought him to go to Mr. Church’s, and the boy and Mr. Thomas were left outside the door; for he says, “He and I waited outside of the door:” but Mr. Thomas never thinks it worth his while to ask the boy a single question. He never troubles himself to examine into the extent of the charge, or inquire into the foundation of it. But he says, “Mr. Patrick was to go in and learn what Mr. Church said; and then the boy and I were to go in too. Mr. Patrick took the boy with him, in order that he might be taken in to see Mr. Church face to face. He brought the boy with him, and I suppose that was his intention. I declined introducing the boy to Mr. Church, because I had no particular acquaintance with Mr. Church. I was only one of his hearers; and I thought it was too great a liberty for me to speak to him upon the subject. Mr. Patrick wanted me to go into Mr. Church first.”

Why, Gentlemen, who was more proper to inquire into such a subject, than a person who attended the defendant in the celebration of divine worship? But Mr. Thomas says, he thought it would be an obtrusion for him to go into Mr. Church’s house. What obtrusion could it be in a case of such momentous consequence, where the character and honour of his spiritual teacher were at stake? Why send Mr. Patrick if it was an obtrusion, and if the matter was of so delicate a nature?

Well,—he goes on to say, “I suppose the purpose of bringing the boy was, that he should be introduced to Mr. Church—I have no doubt about it. I don’t know any other reason for his being brought—I don’t know that Mr. Patrick said that was his reason. I don’t know that he said any thing about inviting me to go to with the boy—I don’t recollect that he did. I don’t remember declining to go in with Mr. Patrick. I had told him that I had no particular interest in the business. I had no more intimacy with Mr. Church except hearing him—I thought that being only a hearer, my visit would be obtrusive. I had no particular interest in the affair, and therefore I declined going in, or taking the boy with me. I saw no necessity, if the defendant did not acknowledge himself guilty of any thing bad. Though the boy was there, I had not the curiosity to examine him, it being a delicate subject. I did not see the importance of coming at the truth of the case, as Mr. Church did not confess any thing; but if Mr. Church had confessed any thing, I should have thought it my duty to take the boy in, and have them face to face.”

This, Gentlemen, is a most extraordinary account which Mr. Thomas gives of himself. If he found Mr. Church guilty, he would have confronted the boy with him! But if he denied his guilt, he would not think it necessary to examine the boy! One would have thought that a sense of justice to the defendant, in such a case, would have prompted him to enquire whether the charge was not founded in malice. But no; with the opportunity of questioning the boy on the spot, he leaves the matter untouched.

He says, “When Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge any thing of it, he did not think it necessary then to have the boy in.” He says, “I never spoke to the boy; I never asked Mr. Patrick, nor did he give any opinion about whether Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction; but in answer to particular parts of the transaction, he said Mr. Church asserted that it was false. I never saw the letter sent to Mrs. Hunter about the three points of denial.”

The next witness called is James Reeves; and he says, “I was the Clerk attending the Magistrate when this charge was made at Union Hall. The Magistrate was Mr. Serjeant Sellon. The examination took place on the 19th November. This being a charge of misdemeanour, no account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said. It was merely an entry of the names of the parties and the result. In the first instance, the depositions were taken down upon which the warrant was granted, but I had no instructions to bring the book in which that examination appears. There was an examination afterwards, when the defendant was ordered to find bail, but the evidence was not then taken down.”

Mr. Wood is the last witness, and he says, “I was present at the examination of Church before the magistrate, I am a hatter near the Elephant and Castle. I did not take down the testimony of the witness in writing. Freemantle’s boy said that he went into the Pottery and told the Potter that there were thieves in the house; and the Potter and he came to search the house. He was asked by Mr. Sellon whether or no he searched the room where Mr. Church slept, and he said no, he did not search that room. Mr. Sellon said “why not search the room?” and the answer he gave was “that the Potter wished to break the door open.” Mr. Sellon said “did you try the door to see whether it was open before you talked of breaking it open?” he said “no, he did not wish to disturb his Mistress.” I cannot charge my memory whether, whilst the Potter was examined, he said any thing about what the alarm was, that the boy Foreman gave him.”

Now, gentlemen, this is the whole of the evidence on both sides, if you don’t find any material inroad in the examination of either the boy or Mr. Patrick, you will have to say whether the Defendant be or be not guilty, upon their evidence you will have to say whether you believe the boy’s statement, which is in substance this,—that when he was asleep he was awakened by the indecent application to his person and his private parts, of some person’s hand, who said, in a feigned female voice, “Adam don’t you know me, I am your Mistress.” The boy swears most positively that the voice was that of the defendant, and he also swears to his person,—taking this along with you, that there was no other male in the house. The point for your consideration is, supposing this attack to be made upon his person, was it made with the abominable intention charged in this Indictment? If you are of opinion that the person who made this attempt made it with an intention to commit the crime alledged, then the next question for your consideration is,—was it made by the defendant Mr. Church? The prosecutor says, that he had an opportunity of observing the person who entered the room: he was a man of the defendant’s size; it was not the person of Mrs. Patrick nor of the maid, and there was no other man in the house. The other material evidence is, that of Mr. Patrick, who states the communication which he had with the defendant—he says, the defendant contradicted three particulars of the boy’s statement: but, the contradiction does not go to the fact of his having been in the room. He admits that he was in the room. Then if he was in the room for what purpose was he there? What excuse is there to be found for his being in the room? If he was in that room, for what other object could he be there than that which this boy states?—Can you suppose that the boy’s story is the mere invention of his own brain, or the creature of his own imagination? If you find the fact admitted on all hands, that the defendant was there, for what earthly purpose could he be there, than that imputed to him? Gentlemen, the whole is for your consideration. I have no doubt you have paid great attention to the proofs both on the part of the prosecution and that of the defence. You will lay your heads together, and I am persuaded, you will pronounce that verdict, which your conscience dictates, and the evidence requires.

The Jury immediately found the Defendant Guilty.

Just published, price Fourpence (entered at Stationers’ Hall), HAY AND TURNER’S GENUINE EDITION OF

THE INFAMOUS LIFE OF JOHN CHURCH, the St. George’s Fields Preacher, from his Infancy up to his Trial and Conviction. With HIS CONFESSION, sent in a letter to the Rev. Mr. L—, two days after his Attack on Adam Foreman, at Vauxhall; with Remarks on it, by the same Gentleman. To which are added, HIS LOVE EPISTLES TO E— B—; with various other Letters, particularly one to Cook, of Vere-street Notoriety!

Printed and published by Hay and Turner, No. 11, Newcastle-street, Strand; and may be had of all Booksellers.—None are Genuine but those published by Hay and Turner, they having the Original Letters in their possession.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hay and Turner, Printers, Newcastle-Street Strand.