Transcribed from the 1817 Hay and Turner edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]





                                   THE
                           TRIAL AND CONVICTION
                                    OF
                               JOHN CHURCH,


                                   THE
                                 Preacher
                                  OF THE
                     SURREY TABERNACLE, BOROUGH ROAD,
                                  AT THE
 _Surrey Assizes_, _at Croydon_, _on Saturday_, _the_ 16_th_ _of August_,
                                  1817,





                 FOR AN ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT AN


                             Unnatural Crime.

                                * * * * *

                           TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND,
                             BY A BARRISTER.

                                * * * * *

The profits arising from this Publication will be given to the Prosecutor
         to assist in defraying the expenses of the Prosecution.

                                * * * * *

                                 London:
                _PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HAY AND TURNER_.

                      11, NEWCASTLE STREET, STRAND;

        AND MAY BE HAD OF W. WRIGHT, MARSH-GATE, LAMBETH, AND ALL
                     BOOKSELLERS IN TOWN AND COUNTRY.

                                  1817.

                          _Price Two Shillings_.

                                * * * * *




TO THE PUBLIC.


IN presenting to you the following account of the Trial of JOHN CHURCH,
for an attempt to commit one of the foulest crimes recognized by the law
of nature, the Publishers have no wish to echo the triumphs of a
party—they are actuated only with a desire to hold up the abominable
wretch to general observation, that innocent youths may not unguardedly
become the victims of his brutal passion—the occasion calls for sorrow
rather than joy; and the Christian Philanthropist will feel more inclined
to shed the silent tear, than indulge in exultation, while he peruses
this record of human degradation.

In some cases, it appears desirable not to suffer trials of a criminal
nature to appear in print, particularly when the facts are too indecent,
lest the tender feelings of any should be injured, or that information
given which had better be withheld; but when the subject of conviction is
a creature, who pretends to be the guide of hundreds in the paths of our
Holy Religion, and under its sacred name, is not only ruining the bodies,
but the souls of many of his hearers, than silence becomes a crime, and a
full exposure an imperative duty.

We regret, that among the followers of this wretch are to be found many
young men, who not only countenance his cause by their presence, but
advocate it with their talents;—that charity, which covereth a multitude
of sins, leads us to indulge the hope, that hitherto they have acted
conscientiously and from principle—that they have believed their leader
was the object of cruel persecution—that he suffered for righteousness
sake—and under this impression, we pity rather than condemn them; but can
they be of the same opinion now?  We request their attentive perusal of
the following pages; we beg of them to notice the evidence produced for
the prosecution, particularly the copy of a letter to Mrs. Hunter, the
original of which was artfully suppressed, and the admission of Church
himself, and then say, whether this _conviction_ does not “_confirm
ancient reports_?”  Let them read the contradictory evidence of Thomas,
and the observations made thereon by the learned Judge who tried the
prisoner; let those who were present remember his agitated appearance in
Court, and the manner in which he unwillingly confirmed the evidence of
the prosecutor’s master, and then say on which side the _truth_ appears
to preponderate.  If the hearers of Church do not wilfully close their
eyes, and pervert their judgments, they can have but one opinion, viz.
that the verdict of the jury is the verdict of every one who values the
cause of religion, morality, and virtue.

If however, the hearers of this creature still continue to frequent this
“Tabernacle of Iniquity,” every person will naturally believe, that other
motives, and not a desire to be edified by the ministrations of their
_convicted_ pastor, actuate them—they will ever be looked upon with a
suspicious eye, and their character, and every thing that is dear to them
in this life, will be sacrificed for ever, in the opinion of every good
man.

It may be expected that something should be said of the conduct of those
females who have so long patronized this deceiver of their souls.  How
can they longer listen to a wretch who must _detest_ them in his heart,
and nothing but his love of gain makes him court their friendship?  Can
they now, in the presence of a disgusted public, enter the doors of his
“den of thieves?”—If they can, friends must blush for the inconsistency
of their conduct: most sincerely do we hope that all who respect their
reputation will never approach “the Surrey Tabernacle” until the present
occupier and all his associates have left the place.

Much praise is due to those who have at last brought JOHN CHURCH to
justice: every thing that could be done by bribery and persuasion were
resorted to by his friends; but they found the Prosecutor, in this
respect, invulnerable.  The youth has acted nobly; and the praises of the
Public are due to him for his resistance to the wishes of that wretch,
who would have gloried in being the murderer of his peace for ever!

One fact however, as it reflects considerable _credit_ on the
_respectability_ of the Defendant and his legal friend, must not be
omitted—the person employed to _defend_ the Prisoner was a Jew Attorney,
very well known to many.  He applied to the Prosecutor’s father several
times, and tendered his services to conduct the prosecution, assuring him
he should not expect any pecuniary remuneration for his exertions in
bringing such a character to justice.  He advised the Father, as he was a
poor man, to accept a sum of money, if it were offered, and compromise
the business: this proposal was indignantly rejected, and the man treated
as he deserved to be—with merited contempt.  We regret also that a man,
whose duty is the apprehension of transgressors against our laws, should
have interfered most unjustly to hush up the matter.

Some, perhaps, may think that too much severity appears in our
observations against the Prisoner—but, can this be the case?  Can any man
feel too indignant at the conduct of such miscreants?—We cordially agree
with the learned Counsel for the Prisoner, that if a wish would sweep
such characters from the creation, that wish would be immediately
expressed by every true British heart.—Are we too severe?  _Remember the
conduct of the Almighty_, _who sent fire and brimstone from Heaven_, _and
consumed the GUILTY Inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah_, _lest their
filthy bodies should pollute the grave_.

The friends of the Prisoner have publicly supported him in his defence by
their Subscriptions.  The Prosecutor has stood almost alone; but,
confident that the liberality of the Public was never appealed to in
vain—that they will always assist the injured poor in bringing their
oppressors to punishment, this Publication is submitted to them; and they
may rest assured that the profits will be devoted towards defraying the
expenses which have been necessarily incurred in bringing this “Monster
of Iniquity” to Justice.

21_st_ _August_, 1817.




THE TRIAL, &c. &c.


THE KING _versus_ JOHN CHURCH.


THE Indictment charged, “That the Defendant, late of the parish of St.
Mary, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, on the 26th day of September, in
the fifty-seventh year of the reign of George the Third, with force and
arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in and upon one
Adam Foreman, in the peace of God and our said Lord the King, then and
there being, did make an assault, and him, the said Adam Foreman, then
and there did beat, wound, and ill treat, so that his life was greatly
despaired of, with intent, that most horrid, detestable, and sodomitical
crime (among Christians not to be named) called Buggery, with the said
Adam Foreman, against the order of nature, then, and there feloniously,
wickedly, and devilishly, to commit and do, to the great displeasure of
Almighty God, to the great damage of the said Adam Foreman, and against
the peace.” &c.

The second count charged a common assault.

The Defendant pleaded—NOT GUILTY.

Counsel for the Prosecution—Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. BORLAND; Solicitor, Mr.
HARMER.

Counsel for the Defendant—Mr. GURNEY and the COMMON SERJEANT.

The Jury being sworn:—Mr. BORLAND opened the indictment, as follows—

May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—The Defendant, John
Church, stands indicted for a misdemeanour.  He has pleaded Not Guilty,
and your charge is to enquire whether he be Guilty or Not Guilty.
Hearken to the evidence.

Mr. MARRYATT then stated the case on the part of the Prosecution, to the
effect following:—

May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—I am extremely sorry
to have occasion to state to you that the offence imputed to the
Defendant (which my Learned Friend, Mr. Bolland; simply opened as a
misdemeanour) is an assault, with the intent to commit an unnatural
crime; and I am sure, on an occasion of this nature, it would be
unnecessary for me to bespeak your serious attention to a charge so
serious in its consequences to the Defendant.  The Prosecutor in this
case is a youth, about eighteen or nineteen years of age, the apprentice
of a Potter at Vauxhall, whose name is Patrick.  He had been apprenticed
to him some time, and resided in his family.  The Defendant is a
preacher—not of the Established Church, but of a Dissenting Chapel, not
far distant from Vauxhall, and Mr. Patrick and his family had been in the
habit of attending that Chapel and hearing Mr. Church’s discourses.
Their apprentice used frequently to accompany them to the Chapel, and by
that means he became perfectly acquainted with the person and voice of
the Defendant, Church.  He knew him extremely well by name and
description.  In the month of September last, Mr. Church complained to
Mr. Patrick that he was in ill health, and attributed that circumstance
to the confined situation of his apartments near to the Chapel.  Being
ill, Mr. Patrick, as a matter of civility and attention to the Preacher
of the Chapel which he frequented, invited him to come to Vauxhall, where
he had a spare bed, much at Mr. Church’s service.  Upon this invitation,
Mr. Church came, and he slept there on Monday, the 23d of September, for
the first time.  I am not quite certain as to the precise night he came;
but on the night of the 26th day of September, the transaction occurred
which gave rise to the present proceeding.  Mr. Patrick had left town on
business, but not before Mr. Church came in the first instance; but
during Church’s stay he departed for the country.  During the master’s
absence, it became necessary for Foreman, the apprentice, to sleep in the
house.  The only spare bed was occupied by Church, the Defendant, and
therefore a temporary bed was made up for the apprentice.  He had a
resting place made up for him in one of the parlours of the house.  It
happened that on the evening when this transaction took place, the
Prosecutor had been staying up to attend a kiln which was at work on Mr.
Patrick’s premises.

Mr. GURNEY.—I am told one of your witnesses is now in Court.

Mr. MARRYATT.—I am not aware of that circumstance.  If he is, he must
certainly go out of Court.

Mr. GURNEY.—I am told Mr. Patrick is in Court.

Mr. MARRYATT.—Then I beg he will go out; and that all the witnesses will
remain outside until they are severally called.

Gentlemen, I was stating to you, that on the night in question, Mr.
Patrick went out of town on some business.  An occasional bed was made up
for the apprentice.  Mr. Church occupied the only spare bed-room in the
house.  The apprentice, I believe, was not in the habit of sleeping in
Mr. Patrick’s family, except when his master went out of town; for
otherwise there would be no occasion to make up a temporary bed for him,
if he was in the practice of sleeping there.  Between twelve and one
o’clock in the morning, the apprentice retired from the burning of the
kiln, to take his rest in the bed thus assigned him.  He got into bed,
and went to sleep almost immediately; and at no very great distance of
time, he was awakened by the approach of Mr. Church in his bed-room.  Mr.
Church was not ignorant where the young man slept and the manner in which
he was accommodated.  The apprentice was alarmed, and certainly had no
doubt of what Mr. Church’s intention was in coming to his bed-chamber.
You must hear the circumstances from the witness; and I have very little
doubt that you will be satisfied from his evidence, and that of the other
witnesses I shall have to call, that the intention of the defendant was
that imputed to him by this indictment.  The advances and overtures made
to the apprentice in the way that he will describe to you, must leave
very little doubt in your mind of the intention of the person who went
into that room.  Indeed it would be very difficult to assign any good
reason for Mr. Church’s coming there.  The lad was surprised.  He awoke
and laid hold of the person by the arm, and called out, “Who is there?”
The Defendant said, in a feigned feminine voice, “Don’t you know me,
Adam?  I’m your mistress.”—The lad was extremely surprised at this; he
knew that it was not his mistresses voice; and he knew by having caught
hold of the shirt sleeve of the person who addressed him, that it was not
a woman, but a man.  In consequence of this, he endeavoured to lay hold
of him; the Defendant however retired from the room and went up stairs.
I told you that the lad had a temporary bed made up for him in the
parlour; and upon the defendant’s retiring from the room, the prosecutor
had a distinct opportunity of seeing his person; for it seems that the
door of the parlour was opposite the fan-light over the street door,
through which a light was given by the lamp in the street; and upon the
Defendant’s retiring, the prosecutor had a distinct view of him, and knew
him extremely well to be Mr. Church.  He hardly knew how to act.  He was
unwilling to alarm his mistress at that hour of the night; not indeed
that it was a story fit to be mentioned, or stated to her at any time by
him.  He, however, went out of the house to the person whom he had left
at the kiln in the pottery when he retired to rest.  That person’s name
is West; and he gave him an account of what had passed.  West was for
going into the house and turning the Defendant Church immediately out;
but the prosecutor said it would occasion an alarm to his mistress, and
he thought it better to postpone the business until the morning.
Accordingly, Mr. Church was not disturbed for that night; but in the
morning some inquiry was made by Mrs. Patrick, who asked whether the
prosecutor and the servants had not been disturbed in the course of the
night, by some persons coming up or down stairs?  Some explanation was
given her of the cause of the disturbance, but not to the full extent, it
being thought adviseable not to explain the whole to her, as Mr. Patrick
was returning home that night, when the prosecutor determined to detail
the whole transaction to his master.  The prosecutor had given his
mistress some account of what had occurred, but withholding from her that
part which he thought improper for female ears to hear.  Mr. Patrick
however came home the next day, and the prosecutor told his story to him;
and on the following day several of Mr. Church’s friends having heard
that the boy had told his master what had occurred, came to Mr. Patrick
to inquire what was the extent of the information he had received.  Mr.
Patrick communicated to them the whole of the information which the boy
had given, and said he thought it necessary that Mr. Church should
explain his conduct.  By this time the thing was generally known and
buzzed about.  Some of the congregation were desirous that no proceeding
should be instituted against the Defendant, as the public investigation
of such a transaction would be a disgrace to the individuals of the
congregation and to the cause of religion itself.  Whilst Mr. Patrick and
some of his friends, who were of the same religious persuasion, were some
days hesitating about what course to pursue, the boy’s father came to the
knowledge of the transaction; and he without any sort of ceremony took
him before a Magistrate and laid the complaint which has given rise to
this prosecution against the Defendant, Mr. Church.

Much inquiry has since taken place; and the Defendant has endeavoured to
explain; the transaction as well as he could; and he has written various
letters upon the subject.  Those letters are here, and they are much at
Mr. Church’s service if he thinks there is any thing contained in them
which will afford him any defence; because I do not think it right to
withhold any thing which can throw light upon such a transaction.

Amongst other things which Mr. Church urged by way of explanation, in
these letters, was a contradiction of some of the particulars stated the
prosecutor.  He said, that there were some matters in the statement of
the boy which he was able to contradict.  This declaration of Mr. Church
having come to the knowledge of Mr. Patrick, he was induced by the
application which was made to him, on the part of some of Mr. Church’s
congregation, to make some inquiry of Mr. Church upon the subject.  He
accordingly took occasion to have an interview with the defendant, for
the purpose of enabling himself, if he could, to explain his conduct to
the satisfaction of the persons who are in the habit of attending his
chapel.  At that interview, he contradicted some of the particularities
stated by the boy, but which are some of the most disgusting parts of the
narrative.  He, however, admitted, most distinctly, that he had gone into
the lad’s room.

Now, when you shall have had it proved in evidence, that part of the
conduct ascribed to him was admitted by the defendant, I should like to
know if he really did go into that bed-room, for what possible purpose
could he go there in the middle of the night?  It will appear, still
further, that Church was the only male person who slept in the house; for
there was no other individual of the male sex to take up his abode there
that night.

The question, then, will be, whether, upon the evidence I shall produce,
you can have any reasonable doubt of the defendant’s intention to commit
the offence imputed to him by this indictment?  If you have no doubt of
the truth of the boy’s story—if you have no doubt that it was the
defendant’s intention to commit the atrocious crime charged upon him by
this prosecution, then, however painful your duty may be, you must not be
deterred by the enormity and apparent impossibility of such a crime
existing in society, from the fair and honest discharge of it.  There are
two questions for you to determine:—_First_, whether the defendant was
the person who entered the prosecutor’s room?—and, _Secondly_, if he did,
whether the atrocious intention, alleged in the indictment can clearly be
inferred from his conduct on that occasion?  But, gentlemen, if you have
any reasonable doubt upon either of these questions, I should not, as
Counsel for the prosecution, desire you to pronounce a verdict of guilty.
But, whatever conclusion you may draw from his statement, submitted to
your consideration, I trust you will take care that your indignation
against the offence itself shall not carry you to the conclusion of
guilt, unless the evidence I shall lay before you warrants the conviction
of the defendant.



Adam Foreman, _the first witness was then called and examined by_ Mr.
BOLLAND.


How old are you?—I shall be twenty the first day of December next.

I believe you are an apprentice to Mr. Patrick, the potter, of
Vauxhall?—Yes.

How long have you been with him?—About five years.

Do you know the defendant, John Church?—Yes, by sight.

How long have you known him?—About two or three years.

What is he?—A preacher.

Have you attended the congregation in the Chapel where he preaches?—Yes.

And have you often seen him?—Oh, yes.

Do you sleep generally at your masters house, or at your fathers?—At my
father’s generally.

Are there any occasions upon which you do sleep at your master’s
house?—Yes.

When is that?—When he goes out of town.

When your master goes out of town, then you sleep at his house?—Yes.

Where did Church reside?  Where did he live?—He lived by his chapel.

Where is that?—In St. George’s Fields.  It comes out of the Borough-road.

There he lived?—Yes.

Now, did he at any time come to take up his abode at Mr. Patrick’s?—Yes.

When was that?—The 25th of September, he came to sleep there that night.

Do you know what was the occasion of his coming?

Mr. GURNEY.—That must be of his own knowledge.

Mr. BOLLAND.—Mr. Patrick will tell us.—I believe he came—

Mr. GURNEY.—You must not tell us, Sir, unless you know it of your own
knowledge.

However, he came to sleep there?—Yes.

Did you sleep there that night?—Yes.

Was that the first night he came?—I don’t know whether he had been there
before.  I cannot say whether I had seen him there before.

You know that he slept there on the 25th of September, and that you were
there?—Yes.

Where was your master that night?—He was out of town; but where, I cannot
say.

Who slept in the house that night?—Mr. Church, my mistress, the children,
and the two maid servants.

Was there any other man in the house, except yourself and Church?—No.

Where was your bed room?—The front parlour on the first floor.

That is the ground floor?—It is over the kitchen.

Is that a bed-room in common in the house?—No, it is not.

Then how came you to sleep there?—Because there was not any other
bed-room that I could sleep in.

Was a temporary bed therefore put up for you there?—Yes.

Now, at what time did you retire to rest?—Near one o’clock.

What had kept you up so late?—There was a kiln burning, and I was obliged
to sit up to let the man into the kiln when he came.

Was it necessary for you to sit up to attend that kiln?—Yes; and to give
the key to the man.

Who was that man?—Thomas West.

And you went to bed about one o’clock?—Yes.

Did you go to sleep?—Yes; directly I went to bed.

After you had been asleep, did any thing happen to you?—Yes.

State what it was?—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.

In what way?—Laid hold of me very tight.

Did you say any thing, or did the person, whoever it was, say any thing
to you?—Yes.  I put my hand out of the bed clothes, and caught hold of
him, and asked him who he was?

What did you say?—I asked him who he was—I said who are you?

And you say you laid hold of him?—Yes.

By what part did you lay hold of him?—As near as I can guess it was the
upper part of his arm.

Upon laying hold of him, what observation did you make?  What did you
ascertain from laying hold of the person?  Could you tell whether it was
a man or a woman?—I laid hold of his arm, and felt lower down, and found
by the sleeve that he had got a man’s shirt on.

How far did you feel lower down?—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.

Could you tell whether the wrist was buttoned?—Yes.

Was it buttoned?—It was.

Could you tell at all by the feel of the arm itself, whether it was the
arm of a man or a woman?—I knew very well it was a man.

Could you tell that from the feel of the flesh?—I could not tell that.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You knew it was a man—By what circumstance?—Because
he had got a man’s shirt on.

You knew it was a man by the shirt?—Yes.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Did the person say any thing to you in answer to what you
said?—He answered—“Adam, don’t you know me?  I am your mistress,” in a
faint voice, like a woman.

And was it the voice of your mistress, Mrs. Patrick?—Oh! no, sir!

Could you tell whose voice it was?—Yes; I knew the voice directly I heard
it.

Whose voice was it?—Mr. Church’s.

What did you do afterwards, and what did he do?—He fled from the room
directly.

When you use the word _fled_, what do you mean by that?—He went out of
the room.

The word _fled_ indicates more than merely going out of the room; did he
go out in a hurried manner?—He went out in a hurried step.

Upon his going out what did you do?—I got out of bed, and put on my small
clothes and shoes, and went to the man up at the kiln.

What did you do first—when he went out of the room—what did you first
do?—I got out of bed, and put on my small clothes and shoes.

Did you see him go out of the room?—Yes.  As he opened the door I saw by
the lamp that it was Mr. Church, and he had only his shirt on.

Where is that lamp that enabled you to see the person of Church?—Outside
of the door.

What door do you mean?—Outside of the front street door.

In the street?—Yes; on the Terrace.

And that lamp throws a light through the fan-light of the hall door?—Yes.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—The lamp is at the street door?—Yes, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Is it a gas light or a parish light?—It is a parish lamp.

It is not one of the new lights?—No.

It is not a gas light?—No.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Where were you standing at the time?—I was getting
up, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Did you go out of your room?—Yes, I did.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You say that when he went out of the room, you saw
it was Church, by the lamp: what lamp do you mean?—The lamp at the door.

What door?—The street door.

Where were you when you saw Church at that time by the light of the
lamp?—In bed, sitting up.  I had not then left my bed.

You must have opened your door?—No, my Lord; Church did that.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Whoever the person was, he left the door open, and you
saw him go out through that door; and then you observed that he had a
shirt on?—Yes.

The shirt or dress of a man is much shorter than that of a woman, and
therefore you must have seen whether it was a shirt or a shift?—It was
the shirt of a man, I am sure.

Did you see his face at all?—No, I did not.  His back was to me.

When he was gone, what did you do?—I then got up and put my small clothes
on, and shoes, and went into the pottery.

What for?—To get the man to come up to the house.

Did you inform any body of what had happened?—Yes; I told Thomas West of
it.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—He was in the pottery?—Yes.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Was that the Thomas West that was in the pottery before
you went to bed?—Yes.

                     _Cross-examined by_ Mr. GURNEY.

The person, whoever it was, you say left the door open behind him?—No; he
opened the door and went out.

Did he shut the door after him?—Yes.

Is that so?—Yes.

Then, if he shut the door after him, how did that enable you to see any
thing by the light?—When he opened the door I saw him.

There was no light in the room?—No.

The light, as you say, came from a lamp on the Terrace?—Yes.

How far is that lamp from the door?—Between five and six yards from the
door on the Terrace.

The Terrace on which your master’s house is situated, is a row of houses
raised above the road?—Yes.

And the lamp is upon the Terrace opposite the door.—Yes.

And about five or six yards from the door?—Yes.

The light which it given to your passage is, I suppose, through the
fan-light over the door?—Yes.

Then you mean to say that the light which came through that fan-light
into your passage enabled you to see who it was, before the person had
left the room?—When he opened the door and went out I saw him.

You say that the person, whoever he was, shut the door immediately
afterwards?—Yes; but I could see him when he opened the door.

Did you see the face of the person?—No.

How then can you pretend to say that you knew who that person was?—I saw
that the person had a shirt on.

Do you mean to say that you can distinguish a shirt from a shift or a
bed-gown?—I saw that it was a shirt.

I should imagine that on an occasion of this sort you were a little
frightened?—Yes, I was rather alarmed.

Waked out of your sleep in this way, you were of course rather
alarmed.—Did it not take place all in a minute?—Yes, it was not long
about.

Did it not take place almost instantaneously?—I don’t know how long he
had been there before I awoke.

From the moment you awoke, did it not take place as fast as
possible?—Yes.

Now, you say you went directly to West?—Yes.

West and you directly came and searched the house for thieves?—Yes.  We
did not know whether any body had got in or not.

And went and looked at every chamber door in the house?—Yes; except Mr.
Church’s and my mistress’s.

Did you not look at the door of Mr. Church and that of your
mistress?—Yes; but we did not open them.

I suppose therefore they were both of them shut?—Yes.

Did you find any door open?—No.

You looked at all the doors in the house and found them all shut?—Yes;
the servant’s door was on the jar.

You mean the maid servant’s door?—Yes.

The other doors of the house were all shut?—All the other doors were
shut.

And after you and he searched the house all over, you went to bed and he
went back to the pottery?—No; he stopped while I put on the remainder of
my clothes, and I went back with him to the pottery, after having locked
the door.

You went with him to the pottery?—Yes.

And you say that you told West this story directly?—Yes, I told him that
Mr. Church came down into my room and behaved in a very indecent manner.

You told him, I take for granted, that Church had been there, and laid
hold of your private parts?—Yes.

You told him that Mr. Church had laid hold of your private parts?—Yes.

How came that to be a reason for you and be searching the house for
thieves?—I did not search the house for thieves in particular; but to
search if any body was in any of the rooms.

But I asked you before whether you did not search the house for thieves;
and you answered “Yes.”—Are you right or wrong in that?—I asked you
before whether you and he did not search the house for thieves, and you
told me that you did?—We searched the house: we looked all over it, to
see if there was any body in any of the rooms.

And therefore I asked you expressly whether you and he did not search the
house for thieves? and did you not say expressly that you and he had
searched the house for thieves?—We searched the house; but not for
thieves in particular.

Then you did not think of thieves?—I did not think of thieves, because I
knew who it was.

You did not go into the maid servant’s room?—No, we looked in.

You did not go in?—No; we found the door open, and looked in.

They were, of course, in bed?—Yes; one was my sister.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did the two maids sleep in that room?—Yes, my Lord;
one is my sister.

Mr. GURNEY.—The door being ajar, you pushed it in a little, and you saw
they were abed?—Yes.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you speak to them?—No.

                      _Re-examined by_ Mr. BOLLARD.

You say you did not search the house for thieves?—No; not for thieves.

Because you knew who the person was?—Yes.

Was the reason of your searching the house because you wished to be quite
right before you made the accusation against Mr. Church?—Yes.

And you found that there was no other man in the house?—We found there
was no other man in the house but Mr. Church.

Was there any door or window open at which any other man could have come
in?—No.

Now this light from the terrace, did that strike through the fan-light or
window over the door?—Yes.

Does it give a pretty fair light to the hall?—Yes; it shews a little
light up the stairs.

And at the time the person opened the door and went out, was it at that
time you got this view of his person?—Yes.

                     _Examined by_ Lord ELLENBOROUGH.

Now, you say that he came into the room—Did you hear him when he first
came into the room?—No.

You were awakened, as I understand you, by the application of his hand to
your person?—Yes.

Was he on the bed, or standing by the side of the bed on the floor?—He
was standing upon the floor.

When he assumed a feigned voice, and said, “I am your mistress,” and when
you observed it to be a feigned voice in which he was speaking, did you
not speak to him by name, and say, “It is you, Mr. Church”—(_The Witness
seemed to hesitate_, _as if he had not understood the question_)—Have you
any difficulty in hearing?—No, my Lord.

You did not call to him by name, or give him to understand that you knew
who he was?—No.

Did you see any part of his person or any part of his face from which you
knew, in addition to the knowledge you derived at hearing his voice, that
it was the Defendant, Church?—Yes, I did.

What part of his person did you see that led you to believe it was Mr.
Church?—I saw his back as he went out of the room.

Did it appear to be the height of Mr. Church?—Yes.

What height is he?—I cannot say.

What had he upon his head: had he a night-cap?—He had a night-cap.

Was it a man’s night-cap?—I cannot exactly say whether it was or no; I
think it was a handkerchief tied round his head.

What sort of a handkerchief was it; was it a coloured handkerchief?—I
could not tell that.

When you and West searched the house and examined the different doors,
did you go to Mr. Church’s door?—Yes; but we did not touch it, nor did we
go in.

Why did you not call to Mr. Church; and, as you were with West, why did
you not require that Mr. Church should appear, in order that you might,
by an immediate view, ascertain whether he was the person who had entered
your room, and acted in the way you have described?—West wanted to go
into the room and pull him out.

Then, when West wanted to pull him out, why did you not, at least, call
to him?—Because I was afraid of disturbing my mistress; she would have
been very much alarmed.

Had he ever any conversation with you, or did he ever make any overture
of this sort to you before this time?—No, my Lord.

There was nothing particular in his manner or in his conduct towards you
before this time?—No, my Lord.

There was nothing particular in his manner or conduct towards you before
this time?—No.

How soon did you see him after this to speak to him?—I have not spoken to
him at all since.

Have you never spoken to him since?—No, my Lord.

Has he not attended before a Magistrate with you?—Yes.

There you spoke in his presence, but not immediately to him?—I spoke in
his presence, but not to him.

Upon hearing him at the Office before the Magistrate, did that confirm
the opinion you entertained of his being the person who entered your
room?—I did not hear him speak before the Magistrate.

You did not hear him speak before the Magistrate?—He did not speak at all
before the Magistrate.

Did you give the same account before the Magistrate that you have now
done here?—Yes, my Lord.

You do not know whether it was a handkerchief or a night-cap that was
upon his head?—I don’t know whether it was a handkerchief or a night-cap.

Are there any other circumstances from which you could collect that it
was a man?—No, my Lord.

Did the hand continue upon your person for any length of time, and for
how long?—Not after I waked at all.

The hand was withdrawn then?—Yes.

And did the person say any thing to you?—He said that he was my mistress.

By the height of the person you saw, you could ascertain whether it was
or was not the height of your mistress, or any of the female part of the
house?—Yes; Mr. Church was a great deal bigger than any body there.

What is the size of Mr. Church?—I don’t think he is quite six foot to my
knowledge.

Is he a tall man or a short man?—He is a tallish stout man.

Was there light enough by the lamp that you have spoken of to see the
outline of the man so as to be able to say that he was a tall
person?—Yes.

What sort of a person is Mrs. Patrick?—She is a very little woman.

Quite a different person from the person you saw in the room?—O yes, my
Lord, quite so.

The maid, who slept in the room with your sister, what was her person and
size?—She was about at tall as I am—(_The Witness was about five feet
seven_)—not quite so tall.

You are sure it was not her?—O yes, my Lord.—_The Witness withdrew_.



THOMAS WEST _was next sworn_.


                       _Examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Are you workman to Mr. Patrick, the Potter?—Yes.

Did you, on the morning of the 26th September last relieve Adam Foreman
at the kiln?—I did.

About what time of that morning did you relieve him?—About half-past
twelve o’clock.

You went to the Pottery to relieve him?—Yes.

Did he leave you shortly afterwards for the purpose of going to bed?—Yes,
he did.

How long had he left you before you saw him again?—About an hour.

When you saw him again, was he dressed or only part dressed?—Only part.

What part of his dress had he on?—He had his small-clothes, his shoes,
and one stocking.

When he came to you in that condition, did he state to you any thing that
had passed since he left you?—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.

Where were you to go with him?—Up to the house.

What did he state to you that had passed?—He told me, as we were going
along the garden, that Mr. Church had been to him and behaved in a very
indecent manner.

Did he explain how?—No, he did not.

Did you go into the house with him?—Yes; he unlocked the door, and we
went in.

The door of what?—The back door, where we went into the house.

The outer door?—Yes.

The garden door?—Yes.

When you got to the house, what did you and he do?—He went and put the
remainder of his clothes on.

Well; what did you and he do?—We went and searched every room in the
house, beginning at the bottom, and going on upwards to the top, except
my mistress’s room and Mr. Church’s.

Did you go into all the other rooms; did you open them all?—We went into
all the rooms except Mr. Church’s and Mrs. Patrick’s.

You did not go into Mr. Church’s room, or into that of your mistress?—No.

Did you open the doors of those two rooms?—We did not open the door of
either of those two rooms.

When you came to Mr. Church’s door, did you say any thing?—Yes; I said,
“I’ll go and pull him out; shall I?”  The lad said, “No,” for fear of
disturbing his mistress.

Upon that observation of the lad’s about disturbing his mistress, did you
forbear going into the room?—Yes, I did.

What became of Foreman for the rest of the night?—He 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; he returned with me to
the Pottery, and staid ’til the morning.

Now, for what purpose did you search in all the rooms of the house?—To
see if there was any other person in the place.

Did you find any window or door open, at which any body could have got
into the house?—No; I saw them all close and fastened.

                 _Cross-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

When he came to you, he told you that Mr. Church had been there; but did
not explain what he had done?—No.

That you are quite sure of?—Yes.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—What words did he use?—He only told me that Church had
behaved in a very indecent manner to him.

COMMON SERJEANT.—You had never any intimation that there were thieves in
the house?  You did not go to search for thieves in the house?—When he
told me that Church behaved in a very indecent manner to him, I went to
see if there was any other person in the place.

Did he not tell you he believed there were thieves in the house?—No.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—I think you are misled by what the witness, Foreman,
said.  It is a mere form of expression.  You are going upon a wrong
scent.  The witness did not say, in terms, that he believed there were
thieves in the house.

COMMON SERJEANT.—That was particularly mentioned by Foreman in his
examination.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—He might have used the word thieves; but it is very
unimportant.  It is giving a consequence to a phraze that is in very
common use, and means very little.

Mr. GURNEY.—I put the question to him in terms, whether he did not go to
search for thieves in the house.

Mr. MARRYATT.—He adopted the whole of the sentence certainly, in the
answer he gave to the question.

Mr. BOLLAND.—There were two propositions in the question, which was,
whether West and the witness did not go directly in search of thieves?
and the answer applied to the first part of the question—“as to going
together.”

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—It is a very common expression, and no consequence
ought to be attached to it.

Mr. GURNEY.—We had heard before that he had made use of that phrase, and
therefore we were desirous of questioning him about it.

COMMON SERJEANT.—You are quite sure he did not explain in what way this
man behaved to him?—No.

Did he say any thing like this:—“That he came to his bed-side, and laid
his hand upon his private parts?”—No, Sir.

This was on the night of the 25th of September?—Yes.

You, I believe, afterwards went before the Magistrate, at the same time
with Foreman the apprentice?—Yes.

To Union Hall?—Yes.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he not in the course of the morning, when staying
with you, and after you had been to the house, tell you what Church had
done to him, and that he had laid his hand upon his private parts?—No.

Never, from first to last?—No.

COMMON SERJEANT.—Pray, at what time was it that you went before the
Magistrate with this young man?  Was it at all earlier than the 12th of
November following?—I cannot say the day of the month.

Was it not six or seven weeks afterwards?—It was some time afterwards.

Was it not six or seven weeks after?—I believe it was.

Mr. MARRYATT.—Did the lad then go with his father?—Yes.

COMMON SERJEANT.—The lad generally slept at home at his father’s?—Yes.

Now, how far was his father’s off from his master’s?—About a quarter of a
mile.

Did he not sleep at his father’s the next night?—The next but one he did.

And yet it was not till about six or seven weeks after that, you went to
the justice?—No.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you communicate with Mr. Patrick upon the subject
before you went to the Justice.—No, my Lord.

             Mr. Patrick _sworn_.  _Examined by_ Mr. BOLLAND.

You are a potter at Vauxhall?—Yes.

How long was the boy, Foreman, with you?—Ever since I have been in the
pottery business, between five and six years.

Did he sleep in your house?—Only occasionally.

Upon what occasion is it that he does sleep in your house?  Whenever I
leave town; and then he has the key of the pottery, there being no other
male in the house.

Were you absent from home on the 25th September last?—Yes.

Was the boy on that occasion to sleep in your house?—Yes.

Where had the bed been put up for him?—It was a chair-bed in the front
parlour; a temporary bed for a nurse occasionally.

Do you know the defendant, John Church?—Yes.

What is he, and when did you become acquainted with him?—He is a Baptist
preacher; and I first became acquainted with him when I came to Vauxhall.

Did you attend his chapel?—Yes.

And you so became acquainted with him?—Yes.

Where was his residence?—Adjoining the chapel.

Now, in the month of September, upon any occasion, and what, did he come
to sleep at your house, and did you put a bed up for him?—Yes.

On what occasion was it?—He had complained of ill health occasionally;
and thinking that he was ill, I asked him out of friendship to take a bed
at my house, supposing that the air would be of service to him.

You live near the river?—No; not very close.

You say you were out from home on the 25th of September.  When did you
return?—On the evening of the 26th.

Upon your return, did the boy, Foreman, make any communication to you?—He
did the next morning when I saw him.  I returned on the evening of the
26th.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Then it was the day but one after, namely, the
morning of the 27th that the boy made the communication to you?—Yes, my
Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Did you see Foreman on the night of your return?—Not to
speak with him.

But on the morning of the 27th he made the communication to you?—Yes.

Respecting this transaction?—Yes, respecting this transaction.

What did you do upon the boy’s making that communication?—I told him I
was extremely sorry for what had happened.

You need not tell us what you told him.  Did you make it known?—I had
many applications from the Congregation, to whom I made it known.

Did the communication come first from you, or did they apply to you for
information?—In consequence of the information they had received from
general report, they applied to me for authentic information.

Several of the Congregation made those applications?—Yes.

What request was made to you, and in consequence of that request was
there any meeting upon the subject?—Yes.

Mr. GURNEY.—Unless Church was present, this cannot be received as
evidence.

The COMMON SERJEANT.—And even if he was present I apprehend it cannot be
received, unless it is evidence of a fact.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—It is no evidence of a fact; but in consequence of
something said by the Congregation respecting this subject, the witness
did something.  The question may be put in that shape.

Mr. GURNEY.—If my learned Friend goes to that, I have no objection to
that question.

Mr. BOLLAND.—I was going on to put that question, if I had not been stopt
by my learned Friend.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—In consequence of applications made to you from the
Congregation, did you go to the Defendant, Church?—I did.

What did you state to Church; and when did you go to him upon this
subject?—I think it was on the 9th of October.

Had there not before that been a meeting of the Congregation, at which
you were present?—No.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you take any steps between the 27th of
September, to see Church, and the 9th of October, upon this subject?—No,
my Lord.

That was the first communication you had with Church upon this
subject?—Yes.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—What did you say to him, or he to you, upon your going to
him?—He took it extremely kind of me in calling upon him.  I told him he
might take it as he pleased; that I did not come willingly, but that some
of his Congregation thought that I ought to see him on the business.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he appear to be apprized of the subject before
you began?—I cannot say that, my Lord, exactly.  But I believe he was
apprized from what afterwards occurred.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—What passed on that occasion between you and him?—I told
him I waited upon him, having seen a letter wherein he denied three
particular points of the boy’s statement; and I wished to know what those
points were.

You told him you had seen a letter that he had written upon the
subject?—Yes.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You told him you had seen a letter upon the
subject, in which he denied three particular points of the boy’s
statement?—Yes.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—What did he say to that?—He said that he denied having
hold of the boy, or the boy having hold of him; or he, Church, saying,
that he was the boy’s mistress.

He denied the boy having hold of him, or that he, Church, having said
that he was the boy’s mistress?—Yes.

Did he say whether or not he was in the room?—He admitted that fact.

But denied the laying hold of the boy’s private parts?—Yes.  He denied
the laying hold.

Did he state any reason for being in the room?—Not at all.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—When you say that he admitted being in the room,
will you, as far as you can, state the words: state what he said?—He said
that he denied three particular points, two of which I have already
named.  The other was something that did not occur to me to be important,
and which I did not take any notice of, and consequently I do not
remember it.  I told him that of these two points, that I have mentioned,
the boy was positive, and I had no reason to doubt any thing that the boy
had said, as I had never known him to tell a lie.  He said that he was
sorry for it, because that confirmed _ancient reports_.  I told him it
did so; and of course I told him that now I should believe all that I had
heard heretofore; and I wished him a good morning.

Now did you see him at any time afterwards?—Not to speak to him.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You have seen him, but not spoken to him since?—I
have not spoken to him since, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—What letter was it that you had seen which you spoke to
him about?—A letter dated the 6th of October, addressed to a Mrs. Hunter,
I took an exact copy of it.  Mr. Harmer has it.

Is that the copy?  (_A paper put into the witness’s hand_.)

Mr. GURNEY.—I cannot see how this can be evidence, until they prove the
original to be destroyed.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—This is only _a provisional_ question.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—Is that the copy?—Yes, it is an exact copy.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you read that copy of the letter to him?—No, my
Lord, I had not the copy at that time.

By Mr. BORLAND.—What did you state to him respecting the letter?—I told
him I wished to know what the three things were which he could deny, as
asserted by the boy?

You don’t recollect the third point?—No.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You say it is not material?—No, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—And you say he admitted being in the room, but denied the
laying hold?—Yes.

In what terms did he admit that he was in the room?—He said, “I was in
the room; but I did not lay hold of the boy.”

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he say why he was in the room?—No, my Lord.

What did you do with the letter of the 6th of October?—I returned it to
Mrs. Hunter.

From whom did you get it?—From Mrs. Hunter.

And to Mrs. Hunter you returned it?—Yes.

                     _Cross-examined by_ Mr. GURNEY.

You mean to say that he said distinctly to you that he was in the
room?—Yes.

Did you mention to any person after you had seen Mr. Church, that he was
not implicated in the affair at all?—No.—That _I_ said _he_ was not
implicated?—No!  I never said any such thing.

Did you give any person an account of the conversation you had with him,
and accompany that account with this observation, “He is not at all
implicated”?—Never.

Not to any person?—No; not to any person.

Did any person go with you to Mr. Church?—Mr. Thomas went to the door
with me.

Is he a friend of your’s?—He is no friend of mine.  I had only seen him
at the door.  It was _his_ wife and mine that wished me to make the
application to Mr. Church.

Then Mr. Thomas went with you as far as the door, but did not go in with
you?—No.

Do you recollect having any conversation with Mr. Thomas, in which you
told him what had taken place between you and Mr. Church?—I told him
briefly what had transpired; it was very short what did transpire.

And you told Mr. Thomas what had transpired at the interview with Mr.
Church, when you came out?—Yes.

Then did you tell Mr. Thomas that Mr. Church admitted having been in the
room?—I think I did; but I am not very positive as to that point.  I know
I told him that Mr. Church said that he did not lay hold of the boy.

The question I wish to put to you is this—whether Mr. Thomas did not ask
you this question, “Well, is there any thing against Mr. Church, or
not?”—and whether you did not answer, “No, he is not at all
implicated?”—I never made any such answer to him.

Neither that, nor any thing conveying that meaning?—Never.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—You never did tell him, directly or indirectly,
that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Church?—No, never.

By Mr. GURNEY.—Did you either tell Mr. Thomas, or any other person that
you would prosecute Mr. Church, because he had said disgraceful things of
your wife?—I did; but not for this crime, but for defamation of my wife’s
character.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—You told Mr. Thomas that you intended to prosecute
Mr. Church for defaming your wife’s character?—I don’t know that I ever
told Mr. Thomas; but I believe I have said that, or words to that effect,
to other persons.

By Mr. GURNEY.—Did you not tell Mr. Thomas that you were determined to
prosecute Church for having said disrespectful things of your wife?—I may
have told him amongst other persons.

Did you not mention that, amongst other things, on that very morning that
you had the interview with Mr. Church?—No; certainly not.  Some other
time I might.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—Was it after that morning?—Yes, my Lord, it must
have been a considerable time after that.

                      _Re-examined by_ Mr. BOLLAND.

What did you inform him that you intended to institute a prosecution
against Church for?—For defamation of my wife’s character.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—That I suppose is your case?

Mr. MARRYATT.—No, my Lord, I am going to call Mrs. Hunter.

Mrs. HUNTER sworn.

                       _Examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

I believe you are an attendant amongst the congregation, and a hearer of
Mr. Church?—Yes.

Did he at any time write to you, early in the month of October last?—I
received a letter in the beginning of the month of October, but there was
no name to it.

There was no place of abode given, or any thing except the day of the
month?—No.

Did you know from whom it came?—I cannot tell.

Did you put that letter into the hands of Mr. Patrick?—I gave it to Mr.
Patrick’s daughter, who gave it to her father.

Was that letter returned to you again?—It was; but I took no farther
notice of it.

Was that letter returned to you again?—Yes.

You had a subpœna _duces tecum_ to produce it?—I had but it is impossible
to produce it.

Why is it impossible to produce it?—I will tell you why.  After the
letter was returned to me, I took no further notice of it.  I put it into
a drawer; but I know no more than his Lordship what is become of it; I
looked for it on the Thursday morning before I came, but I could find no
scraps of it.  I was not able to find it.

Then you were wholly unable to find it?—I was.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you search diligently to find it?—I did,
indeed, my Lord.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Are you convinced there was no name to it?—I am.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Church’s hand writing?—I have seen his
writing, and I have seen it written in a different hand: not always
alike, but sometimes very different: not to say exactly two different
hands, but such a difference in the same hand writing, that you would
hardly think it was the same.  I have seen it so different, at times,
that I should not at all times think it was the same.

Upon receiving the letter in question, whose hand writing did you believe
it to be, and state it to be?

Mr. GURNEY.—I submit to your Lordship, that this is not a legal question.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—It is not evidence of the fact: but it is a proper
question to refresh her recollection, as to whether she did not receive a
letter which she believed to be the hand writing of the defendant.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Whose hand writing did you think that letter to be?—I
rather think it was Mr. Church’s, but I could not be positive, as there
was no name to it.

Do you now believe that letter to be Mr. Church’s writing.—I cannot say
whether it was or was not.  It is not in my power.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You are not asked whether it was or was not: but
what your belief was then, and what it is now?—I believed at that time, I
must own, that it was his hand writing, and I still believe the same.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Did you not then believe it to be Mr. Church’s hand
writing?—I did rather think it was.

Did you, or not, believe it was?—Is there any difference between
_thinking_ and _believing_?

That is a phrase we sometimes use in courts of justice.

I could not be positive; but I rather think it was his hand writing.

When you opened it, did you read it as a letter coming from him?—I was
very much struck with the similarity, for it had very much the appearance
of his hand writing; but, as no name was subscribed at the bottom, I
could not be certain.  It had the appearance of his hand writing.

Is it your belief now, that it was or was not, his hand writing?—It is
exactly the same as it was then.

And it is now your belief that it was his hand writing?—I cannot say I
firmly believe it, because it was not signed.

You are only asked whether you so acted as if it was his hand writing?—I
did not communicate it to anybody but Mr. Patrick.

Did you communicate to Mr. Patrick that you had received a letter from
Mr. Church?—I did.

                 _Cross-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

The search which you made for this letter was not until last
Thursday?—Exactly so.

For any thing you know, might it not be in your house now?—I have no
reason to believe that it is, for I did not leave a drawer or place
unsearched.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—As far as evidence can go of the loss of an original
letter, to let in the copy, we have it in this case; for I asked her
whether she made diligent search after the original, and she says, she
has made diligent search.

              Mr. Patrick _examined again by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Were you acquainted in October last with the hand-writing of Mr.
Church?—Yes.

You told us you made this copy from the letter you had from Mrs. Hunter.
Was the letter from which you made this copy, and which you returned to
Mrs. Hunter, in your belief, the hand-writing of Mr. Church?—It was.

Mr. MARRYATT.—Now, my Lord, I propose reading this copy of the letter in
question.

The following letter was then read in evidence:—

                                                       “_October_ 6, 1816.

    “DEAR MRS. HUNTER,

    “My heart is already too much affected.  Your letter only adds
    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 _three 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 loved, 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 cannot relieve your mind.  I am truly sorry to lose you as a
    hearer, because your soul has been blest; and you know both the
    plague of the heart and the value of Jesus.  May he be increasingly
    present to you in his person, love, and grace!  Farewell, my dear
    kind friend!  The Lord Jesus will reward you for your love to me, and
    your 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_; 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 with _his own
    hand_, but will resent _every other hand_, sooner or later.  This you
    will live to see.

    “_Adieu_, _dear friend_, _accept the starting tear_,
    “_And the best wishes of a heart sincere_.

                               “Your’s, truly,

                                               “Till we shall meet above.”

Mr. MARRYATT.—My Lord, that is the case on the part of the prosecution.



DEFENCE.


Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant, as
follows:—

May it please your Lordship—

Gentlemen of the Jury—Gentlemen, I must agree with my Learned Friend, in
entreating you to bestow your most serious attention upon this case, and
in requesting you to consider (which, indeed, my Learned Friend fairly
confessed you ought to bear in mind), that as the charge is heavy the
proof ought to be clear; and that you will take care that your
indignation against the crime shall have no influence upon your judgment
respecting the person accused.  That is a duty, Gentlemen, which is one
of the most important, for a Juryman to attend to in this species of
case, but it in one of most difficult performance; for such is, and such
I trust ever will be, the feeling of abhorrence which Englishmen
entertain against this detestable crime, that it is extremely difficult
indeed, when a person is accused of it, to consider the case which in
laid before us, in that dispassionate and unprejudiced manner, which is
essential to the administration of justice.  We all wish that no such
occurrences could exist; and if a wish could blot them out of existence,
we should be almost tempted to form that wish: but, Gentlemen, when these
cases do come before us, they claim our very serious attention; and more
particularly on this account, that it is a charge which, whenever made
upon an individual, depends almost always upon the testimony of one
witness, and where there is but one witness to make the accusation,—I
mean one witness to the fact charged, so that the person accused can have
no witness in his defence;—that, however innocent a man may be who is
accused of this crime, provided the party is in a situation in which he
cannot shew that he was fifty miles off at the time, it is quite
impossible for him to have a witness to negative the fact.  It must stand
or fall upon the testimony of the principal witness, whose testimony,
however, I need not tell you, is to be watched most scrupulously, and to
be compared with the evidence of other witnesses; and if found
inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses, it is hardly then to
be carried to the extent of full credence and of conviction.

Now, Gentlemen, the story which this young man has told you, is, upon his
statement, a very extraordinary one, of the attack made upon him.  Were
any attack made upon him by Mr. Church, it would indeed be most
extraordinary under the circumstances which he has stated.  He represents
himself to have been previously acquainted with him—that he had been one
of his hearers—and yet from the hour of that acquaintance commencing, to
the moment of this supposed abominable attack, that Mr. Church had never,
either by word or gesture, made any indecent overture to him of any kind,
signifying his intention, or had done any thing whatever to ascertain if
he, the prosecutor, was ready to gratify any brutal of unnatural passion
he might form.  Now, it is a very extraordinary thing, that it should be
supposed, that a person should get out of his own bed, and go to the bed
of another, and commence the attack with the indecencies described by the
witness, without any preparation of any kind whatever, without having any
reason to believe, that the object of his attack would accede to his
base, and unnatural purposes, with the full knowledge, (one should
think,) that he was encountering certain detection and punishment, by the
resistance that every man would be likely to make, to such an abominable
attack; and it is, to be sure, most extraordinary to observe in what
manner this is done.  The young man states that he did not see the face
of the person—that he felt the arm, and found that it was a shirt sleeve;
but he did not feel any part of the flesh, so as to make any distinction
between male und female; but he concludes that it was the shirt of a man,
because the arm was covered down to the wrist.  And when my Learned
Friend, Mr. Marryatt, supposed that females are not covered down below
the elbow, I have only to say, that I certainly always thought that
females in their night clothes were covered down to their wrists.  I ever
understood that was the case; and therefore a person awakened out of
sleep, in the fright that such a circumstance was likely to produce, and
finding the arm of the person making the attack covered down to the
wrist, would not, I think, be very well able to say whether it was the
sleeve of a shirt or that of a woman’s bed-gown; and that is all the
means of knowledge which the witness has, as far as regards feeling the
person.

Now I go on to the next evidence of identity.  The next is the voice of
the person who, he tells us, said in a feigned female voice, “Don’t you
know me, Adam?  I am your mistress.”  Now, recollect, Gentlemen, the
voice, it is thought, is a female voice; and whether it be feigned or
not, depends upon his judgment and capacity of forming an opinion at a
moment when he was in the greatest alarm and agitation; because if it was
a female voice, then the voice was not feigned, and it could not be Mr.
Church who was in the room.  Now, I don’t mean to suggest (far be it from
me) that it was Mrs. Patrick; but it is rather extraordinary and somewhat
remarkable, considering the industry and the acrimony with which this
case has been got up against Mr. Church, that they should not have
produced Mrs. Patrick as a witness, and that they should think it right
to withhold from your observation the other maid servant, who slept with
Adam Foreman’s sister.  I think it is rather remarkable, that considering
the industry with which I know this case was got up, they have not
thought fit to produce that other female before you as a witness in order
to say, “I was not out of my bed room that night, and I did not go into
the apprentices bed room.”  Now, I think, that considering that the
Prosecutors must have been aware of the powerful effect of such evidence,
it is most surprising that they did not call forward the other persons in
the house that night as witnesses, for the purpose of shewing, by their
testimony, that they remained in their beds during the whole of that
night, and for the purpose of giving some colour of probability to this
very extraordinary and incredible story.  But, no, Gentlemen, they choose
to leave the case to the testimony of a frightened young man, wakened out
of his sound sleep, and who, without seeing the face of Mr. Church,
ventures to swear that the feigned female voice which he heard was that
of the Defendant.  I think, Gentlemen, in a case in which every thing
depends, not so much upon his veracity, but upon the accuracy of his
judgment in the course of his observation upon circumstances, with
respect to which he was very little likely to draw any very accurate
conclusions, that that servant ought to have been produced here, the more
especially when the young man from the Pottery, going afterwards through
the house for the purpose of seeing who was there, did find the female
servant’s door ajar; a circumstance not observable with respect to any
other room in the house.

Now, I come to the next observation of identity; and I do think it is a
most extraordinary one.  There is a lamp, it seems, in the footpath of
the terrace, five or six yards from the door.  My Learned Friend, Mr.
Bolland, inquired what sort of a lamp it was—whether it was a parish
lamp, or a gas light?  And he found by the answer, that it was the worst
kind of lamp in the Metropolis—a parish lamp.  Well, then, there is a
dull parish lamp, five or six yards from the door, which gives a light
through a large window—No, through a fan-light! and the person, whoever
it is, opens the door to go out, and, as the door is opened the Lad sees
that the person has a shirt on.  Now, I beg to ask you, as men of sense
and of experience in the world, whether it was possible for him to see
whether that garment was a shirt, a shift, or a bed-gown—was it possible?
Recollect, the light is not in the room—there is some light in the
passage.  The back of the person is towards him; and he is to tell you
that it is Mr. Church, although he only saw his back!  But then the next
observation after the shirt, is as to the height of the person.  Why,
Gentlemen, nothing magnifies more than fright: nothing!  We, all of us,
have often heard the descriptions of persons in great fright.  They
always magnify the objects they see.  If a person is robbed, the thief is
a _monstrous tall man_!  Why, Gentlemen, fright does magnify every
object; and, therefore, we must make allowances for the situation in
which this young man was placed at the time.  He is disturbed in his
sleep—the thing happens in a moment—and he sits up in his bed in a great
fright—and he tells you it is Mr. Church, because of the height of the
person he saw.  Now if you can say that a person in that station is
capable of distinguishing between a tall and a short person, I think it
is a great deal too much in a case of this sort.  But what has the person
on his head?  My Lord Ellenborough asked the question, _whether it was a
man’s_ or woman’s night-cap? and he says, “I cannot tell whether it was a
night-cap or a handkerchief.”  And upon being asked the colour, he says,
“I cannot tell.”  And there does not seem to be light enough to
distinguish whether it was white or coloured.  From this circumstance,
therefore, Gentlemen, you will judge what sort of light there was to
distinguish objects.

Now, Gentlemen, we come to the confirmation of this extraordinary story,
particularly by Mr. Patrick.  It is quite clear that Mr. Patrick has
conceived some great anger against Mr. Church, on account of supposed
slander of the character of his wife.  Mr. Patrick himself is quite
satisfied that his wife is not guilty, any more than the maid servant.
But Mr. Patrick is angry, because he says, that Mr. Church has slandered
the character of his wife.  Why then, Mr. Patrick goes to Mr. Church, and
he has some conversation with him.  He tells him that he has seen some
letter, but he does not mention what letter—he has seen some letter in
which he, Mr. Church, has said that he could deny _three points_ in the
boy’s story: and he puts questions to him, and he states to you, that Mr.
Church having distinctly denied the indecent attack upon the boy, yet
that he nevertheless admitted that he was in the room.  Now, Gentlemen,
upon that subject I must necessarily give you some evidence, as well as
upon another part of this case; for I understand that Mr. Patrick
distinctly stated to Mr. Thomas, who accompanied him as far as the house
of Mr. Church, and whom he joined directly after he came out, that Mr.
Church was not at all implicated; for on that occasion Mr. Thomas said to
him, “Well, is there any thing against Mr. Church?”  Upon which Mr.
Patrick answered “No: Mr. Church is not all implicated.”  Mr. Patrick has
denied it.  I am told that Mr. Thomas will positively state that to have
occurred.  I am told so.  Then, Gentlemen, if Mr. Patrick be contradicted
in that most material circumstance—if you discredit him upon that part of
the case, how can you give him credit in that part upon which my leaded
friend fastened, as the confirmation of the story of the boy—“that he
admitted to Mr. Patrick, that he had been in the boy’s room.”  But the
contradiction will not end there, Gentlemen.  You have already one very
important contradiction in the case; for the boy went directly to the
Pottery, and he made a communication to West; and I asked him distinctly,
and more than once, whether he stated to Mr. West that the person who
attacked him in the manner he had described, had his hand upon his
private parts? and he said that he had distinctly told Mr. West, that Mr.
Church had laid his hand on his private parts: but, when West came to be
examined, he told us that the boy did tell him that Mr. Church had
behaved in a very indecent manner to him: but that he never, before the
search was made, nor in the course of the night, nor from first to last,
said a word to him about that circumstance.

Now, Gentlemen, that is a very strong contradiction of the story told you
to-day by this man; and if that induces you to disbelieve him, or to
doubt respecting his evidence, it will be impossible for you to find the
Defendant guilty of this charge.

Gentlemen, I asked the boy at first, whether, instead of going to search
in request of Mr. Church, he and the potter, West, had not gone to search
for thieves? and he answered me, “Yes.”  But afterwards, he gave us some
explanation, and said, “that he did not search the house particularly for
thieves, but made a search to find if any body was about.”  Now,
Gentlemen, upon this subject I am also enabled to give you some evidence,
because I understand that both the boy and West distinctly stated, when
they were before the Magistrate, that they did go and search the house
for thieves, and that they made no other search but for thieves.  Now, if
there was any search made for thieves—if there was any notion in the mind
of this boy that thieves were in the house, it would be quite impossible
that he could be correct in the story he has told you to-day.  And
whether he has not magnified the thing—whether something which he has
supposed to have happened between sleeping and awake that never
happened—whether he has not been giving you a connected account now of
what he had a confused notion then—is for your consideration.

But there is another circumstance respecting the case which is very
important.  The transaction, if it ever did take place, took place in the
night of the 25th of September.  On the 9th of October, and not until the
ninth of October, does Mr. Patrick go to Mr. Church.  There is a lapse of
a fortnight.  The witness whom I shall call to you will state, that after
coming out from Mr. Church’s, Mr. Patrick expressed himself satisfied
that Mr. Church was not implicated.  Now let us try that by the conduct
of Mr. Patrick and of this boy.  This is the 9th of October, and until
the 12th of November no charge before a Magistrate is made.  I beg to ask
you whether the conduct of Mr. Patrick, in forbearing to make any charge
before a Magistrate until the 12th of November, is not the strongest
evidence that what my witness will state to you is true?  That he was
then satisfied that Mr. Church was not implicated in this abominable,
odious, and unnatural transaction.  Gentlemen, such charges ought never
to be slept upon.  No, not for an hour.  If there be such a charge as
that, and if it be really true that such things have taken place, no man
ought to rest on it for a single hour.—The charge ought to be made
directly.  But, what excuse is urged for this delay?  “Oh,” says my
learned friend, “At last the transaction reached the ears of the
apprentice’s father.”  Why, you wont suppose that the apprentice’s father
had just returned from an East-India Voyage, and that the transaction
coming to his ears on the 11th of November, he brought forward the
charge.  Gentlemen, there is no pretence for such an excuse.  The boy
slept at his father’s.  He did not sleep at his master’s.  Did he return
to his father’s house?  His father lived within a quarter of a mile of
Mr. Patrick, and he was in daily intercourse with his father, and had
abundant opportunities of conferring with him upon the subject; and yet,
for six weeks, no steps whatever are taken to bring Mr. Church before a
Magistrate.  My learned friend then told you that the father was the
person who made the charge: but he has not called the father.  The only
person who appears here as the prosecutor is Mr. Patrick, and not the
father; and they have not ventured to call the father as a witness; and
there is no pretence made for the delay of this charge, unless it was
that at this interview with Mr. Church, the prosecutor, Mr. Patrick, was
satisfied, as I am told he expressed himself to be to the person who
accompanied him, and waited at the door till he came out, that there was
no ground for implicating the Defendant in this charge: and, Gentlemen, I
say that his sleeping on the charge for upwards of a month after that
interview with Mr. Church, is the strongest evidence that at that time he
was satisfied of his innocence, and that this charge is brought forward
on account of some anger, or some supposed declaration respecting Mr.
Patrick’s wife, which would make him extremely angry.  If you find,
Gentlemen, that there were no other motives than this to induce a charge
of this kind, I have no doubt you will immediately acquit the Defendant.

Gentlemen, I have no further observations to make.  The charge is most
odious.  The crime is most odious; and if it can be more attrocious in
one person than another, it is in a person who is a public teacher of
religion.  If such a person, in defiance of every law human and divine.
In contravention of those Sacred Scriptures, which it is his duty to read
and expound, and having read and expounded them he can be found so far to
forget every law of human nature and every principle of virtue, by the
commission of this crime, he must be the most monstrous and attrocious of
the human race, and no punishment can be adequate to his offences.  But
the punishment which must await him, would be infinitely worse than
standing in the Court below to receive sentence for the completion of
this attrocious crime; because I think that compared with instant death
for the consummation of the crime, the being doomed to live the object of
scorn, of hatred, and abhorrence by every human being, must be a
punishment infinitely worse.  Gentlemen, that is not too great for such
monsters: but before you find the Defendant to be such, be satisfied by
the whole of the evidence of his guilt.  Compare the evidence on one side
and on the other; and if it raises a doubt in your mind, the Defendant is
entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and you will find him not guilty.

Mr. John Thomas _was the first witness called for the Defendant_, _and
being sworn_, _was examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

Is your name John Thomas?—Yes.

Where do you live?—In Prospect-place, West’s-square, St. George’s-fields.

In what way of business are you?—An appraiser and undertaker.

Have you known Mr. Church long?—Yes.

Were you one of his hearers?—Yes.

Were you acquainted with Mr. Patrick?—Not till the report was made
respecting Mr. Church.

Did you know him as one of the congregation attending Mr. Church?—No, I
cannot say I did.

Were you with Mr. Patrick on any day that he went to Mr. Church’s house—I
mean on the 9th of October?—Yes, a few days after the report.

Did you go into the house with him?—No, I did not.

You were at the door?—I staid outside.

Had you learnt from Mr. Patrick that he was going to Mr. Church’s upon
the subject of this business?—Yes.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he tell you that he had a letter, and was going
to make inquiries of Mr. Church?—He called upon me at my house to go with
him.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—And told you he was going to Mr. Church’s upon
the business of this inquiry?—Yes; indeed it was my request that he
should.  Mr. Thomas went to speak to his wife; and it was at my wife’s
request and Mrs. Patrick’s I believe that he went.

Your wife joined in her request?—Yes.

How long might his interview with Mr. Church last—how long was he in the
house?—He seemed to be a long while; not much less than an hour.

As near as you could guess, the time, was it near an hour?—Yes.

When he came out did you put any questions to him respecting what had
passed between; him and Mr. Church?—Yes.

What questions did you put?—I asked him what Mr. Church had said.

What answer did he give you?—He said that Mr. Church did not say any
thing.  He said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded on account of the
cause, he supposed, but he said nothing about it; that it would be
injurious to the cause of God.  He did not say the _cause of God_, but I
only supposed he meant the cause of God.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he use the words “cause of God?”—No, he said
Mr. Church seemed very much confounded or confused.

Then the rest is all imagination of your’s?—We both imagined alike.  I
don’t know that these were exactly the words, for I cannot call to my
mind what he did say; but it was conjectured the cause of God, and which
we heard afterwards was abused abroad.

You are now called, Sir, for the purpose of contradiction.  You are
recollecting the effect, you know, of a conversation and communication
with Mr. Patrick, and you must say truly what passed, if you can
recollect it.—I don’t recollect all that passed.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—When you were stopt in your account of what
passed, you were going to say something.  You were asked whether Mr.
Church had said any thing to Mr. Patrick which Mr. Patrick related to
you.  What did he say?—He said, No.  He said Mr. Church seemed very much
confused.

What did you ask Mr. Patrick next?—“Why,” said I, “what do you mean.
Why, if you know any thing against the man, did you not charge him with
it?  I would have been very faithful with him, and charged him with it.”

What answer did Mr. Patrick make to that?—He said he did not know; he was
not the person.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Repeat that in Mr. Patrick’s own words.  Attend,
and wait to hear the question.  Be so good as to suppose that you were
narrating the conversation as it occurred with Mr. Patrick.  Instead of
saying, _He_, say _I_.  Attend now.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—What further did he say? and give his own
words.—He said, “I don’t know: I am not so proper a person as you,” or
words to the same effect.  I said to him, “What did he (meaning Church)
say respecting the report?”

What had the report reference to that you spoke of?—The report respecting
this transaction.

What answer did Patrick make to that?  What did Patrick say to you when
you put the question, as to what Church had said respecting the report?—I
said to Mr. Patrick, says I, “what did he say respecting the
acknowledging the report”—that is, what did Mr. Church say to Mr. Patrick
about acknowledging the report that had gone abroad respecting him.  He
said, “It was false.”

Do you mean that Church said it was false?—I mean that Patrick said that
the report was false.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—That is not the answer to the question put by the
Gentleman.  Did Church say that it was false?—I never saw Church upon the
subject.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—When Patrick made you an answer, did you
understand that answer to be, that Church had said the report was false,
or that Patrick himself said the report was false?—Patrick himself.

Patrick himself said that the report was false?—Certainly.

Did you then put any other question to Mr. Patrick?—I did.

What other question did you put?—I said, what answer did Mr. Church give
respecting its having been reported that he was in liquor—that he made an
excuse that he was in liquor?

What answer did Mr. Patrick give to that?—He said it was false.  He said
there had been a great deal of exaggeration.

Did you after this put any question to Mr. Patrick, whether he, Mr.
Patrick, thought that Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction or
not?  Did you put any such question to him?

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you use those words, or words to the same
effect?—No, I did not 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.”  Then he said Mr. Church had not mentioned a word about
it.

Did you make any observation to him, or he to you?—I don’t recollect any
thing in particular.  I said, says I, “As you can bring nothing against
him, let us pray for him, and if he had the least idea of such a thing;
and as you say you cannot bring any thing home to him, and can’t prove
any thing, that is all we can do.  Let us pray that he may not be guilty
of such sin.”

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you say, pray for him, if he was under any such
temptation?—Yes; pray for him, if was under any such temptation.

THE COMMON SERJEANT.—Did Mr. Patrick after that deliver any opinion to
you whether he thought Church was implicated in the transaction or
not?—No, he did not.

Did you at any other time see him, and hear him say any thing about this
transaction?—No.

Did any thing more pass at this meeting than what you have told us?
No.—Yes, Sir.  I ask pardon: I met him in June last, coming over
Waterloo-bridge.  I did not at first know him; and he spoke to me, and he
said, “My name is Patrick.”  I said, “Mr. Patrick, why what are you doing
with Mr. Church?”  “Why,” says I, “I hear you have brought something else
against him: what is that?”

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—There is no contradiction of Mr. Patrick in this.  He
was not asked to this (continuation of the answer).  “Why,” says he,
“Sir, I should not have done it, but that Mr. Church has spoken more
disrespectful things respecting Mrs. Patrick.”  He said he should not
have done it, but that Mr. Church had said many disrespectful things of
Mrs. Patrick.

                    _Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Was it the Sabbath after the 27th of September that you first heard of
this?—I believe it was.  It was within two or three days after.

I think we have learnt that upon the Thursday night Mr. Patrick came
home, and that on the Friday morning the boy communicated to him what had
happened.  Now on the Saturday, was not this matter currently talked of
about Mr. Church?—No, I believe not.

You mean that you heard of the report two or three days after the thing
happened?—Yes.

You then heard of the report?—Yes.

You told us that you were desirous that Mr. Patrick should call on Mr.
Church?—Yes.

Then he did so, at your desire?—Yes.

Did Mr. Patrick bring the boy to you, and offer to have him brought face
to face with Mr. Church?—I believe he did.

Mr. Patrick said the boy was outside?—Mr. Patrick called at my house in
the course of the morning, and he sent him, and he said the boy was
outside.

Did he wish you to see the boy?—Not particularly, I believe.

For what purpose did he bring the boy?—To go to Mr. Church’s?—I supposed
so.

To go with you or with him, or with both of you to Mr. Church’s?—I was to
go with him, and therefore the boy followed.

Did the boy go with him into Mr. Church’s house?—He staid outside the
door.  He walked on the other side of the way, opposite to where I was.

But he waited whilst you waited?—Yes: we both waited outside.

Ready to go in to Mr. Church’s when you were wanted?—Yes: Mr. Patrick was
to go in and hear what Mr. Church had to say; and then we were to go in,
too.

And he took the boy with him, in order that he might be taken in and see
Mr. Church face to face?—He brought the boy with him, and I suppose that
was his intention.

Did you decline introducing the boy to Mr. Church?—I had no particular
acquaintance with Mr. Church?—I was only one of his hearers, and I
thought it would be too great a liberty for me to go to him.  Mr. Patrick
wanted me to go in alone to Mr. Church, first.

Did he not invite you to take the boy in with you?—He said nothing about
that; I don’t recollect any thing that he did.

Why did you tell me, then, that you supposed the purpose of bringing the
boy was that he should be introduced to Mr. Church?—No doubt about that.
I don’t know any other reason he had than that, for bringing the boy.

Did he say so?—I don’t know that he said that that was his reason.  He
said he had the boy there.

Do you remember your declining to go in with Mr. Patrick to Mr.
Church’s?—I told him I had no particular interest in the business.  I had
no intimacy with Mr. Church, except hearing him.  I thought I had no
business to be interested in the knowledge of the fact, being only a
hearer.  I thought therefore that my visit would be obtrusive.

Because you had no particular interest in the business?—Why, I certainly
had no interest in it.

And therefore you declined going in and taking the boy with you?—I saw no
necessity of so doing, as he did not acknowledge himself guilty of any
thing bad.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.  But the boy being there, had you not the curiosity
to examine the boy?—I did not, it being delicate subject.

Did you not think it important to come at the truth upon the subject, as
the boy was there and you might have examined him yourself?—If Mr. Church
had confessed any thing, I should have thought it my duty to take the boy
and have them face to face.

But I should have thought that the circumstance of his not confessing
would be the reason why you would take them face to face; or else why
should you take the boy at all.  But Mr. Church not having confessed any
thing, you therefore would not examine the boy.—Was that your reason for
not examining the boy?—Yes, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—But if he confessed any thing, you would have taken the
boy to have them face to face?—Yes.

Your object was to take the boy and have them face to face, if Mr. Church
acknowledged the crime?—Yes.

But surely when you found that Mr. Church had acknowledged his fault,
then there would be no reason for taking the boy to have them face to
face?—I should have thought it proper to take the boy in, if Mr. Church
acknowledged his crime.  I wished the boy in fact to come in with us; but
when Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge
any thing of it, I did not think it necessary to have them face to face.

Then you did not think it right to have the boy in?—I never spoke to the
boy.

You never asked the boy about this transaction?—No.

Mr. Patrick never gave any opinion whether Mr. Church was implicated in
the transaction; but in answer to a particular part of the transaction,
he said that Mr. Church asserted that it was false?—Yes.

Did you see the letter sent to Mrs. Hunter?—No.

I mean the letter about the three points of the boy’s statement which Mr.
Church said he was able to contradict?—No.

                        Mr. JAMES REEVES _sworn_.

                    _Examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

Were you the Clerk attending the Magistrate when the charge was made
before him;—I was.

Who was the Magistrate?—I must refer to the book—(_Witness produced a
book_.)

That is your minute book in which you enter the proceedings of the
day?—Yes.

Who was the sitting Magistrate on that day?—Mr. Serjeant Sellon appears
to have been the Magistrate on the 19th of November, as it appears by the
book.

This being a charge of misdemeanor, do you find by your book that any
account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said?—No; it was
not.  It is merely a note, or entry of the names, as follows: “Warrant
for a misdemeanor, parties appeared by the Officer, and ordered to find
bail.”

                    _Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Was that the Magistrate by whom the warrant was granted?—Yes.

Was the oath administered before the warrant was granted?—Yes; there had
been an _ex-parte_ examination to grant the warrant on the oath of the
party.

That is in another book?—It is; that is left behind; I do not know any
thing of it.

But there is a deposition on oath prior to the granting of the
warrant?—Yes.

                  _Re-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

The depositions in cases of misdemeanour you don’t take in detail?—No.

Were the depositions taken in writing in any book which you have not
here?—I am not aware of that.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You were not told to bring it?—No.

Was that the only information upon which the warrant was granted?—There
was nothing taken down in writing when all the parties were before the
Magistrate.

Were the depositions taken down before the warrant was granted?—Yes.

Then, after the warrant was executed, and at the time of the examination
when the Defendant was there, you took no minutes?—No farther than the
names of the parties; and what I have here.

                            Mr. WOOD _sworn_.

                        _Examined by_ Mr. Gurney.

Were you present at the examination of Mr. Church before the
Magistrate?—I was.

What are you?—A hatter, near the Elephant and Castle, in St. George’s
Fields.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you take the testimony of the witnesses down in
writing?—No.

Mr. GURNEY.—Did Foreman, the boy, in the account he gave before the
Magistrate, say for what purpose he searched the house?—He said that he
went out to the Potter and told the Potter that there were thieves in the
house, and that the Potter and he came to search the house.  He was asked
a question by Mr. Sellon, whether or no he searched the room where Mr.
Church slept.  He said, No, he did not search that room.  Mr. Sellon
said, “Why not search that room?”

What answer did he give to that?—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 the Potter talked of breaking it open?”
He said, No: he did not wish to disturb his mistress.

Whilst the Potter was examined, did he say what was the alarm that
Foreman gave to him; did he say what was the alarm?—I cannot charge my
memory as to that.

Mr. GURNEY.—My Lord, this is the case of the Defendant.

Mr. MARRYATT then replied to the Defendant’s case, as follows:—

May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—My learned Friend has
almost admitted the case on the part of the Prosecution, in the nature of
his address to you, by saying, in effect, that if you believed Mr. Church
to have gone into the boy’s chamber at that unseasonable hour of the
morning, he could hardly come there for any purpose but that ascribed to
him by this Indictment.  At least, if my Learned Friend did not make that
confession in terms so explicitly as I have given them, certainly he has
not offered in his address to you the smallest explanation of so very
suspicious a purpose.  And although I invited him, when I first had the
opportunity of stating this case, to assign any possible reason, except
that which is imputed to the Defendant as matter of crime, why he should
be in the Boy’s room under such circumstances, we have had no motive
assigned, nor any suggestion of apology or excuse offered for such
conduct.

There is an improbability in this case it is contended; because there had
been no overture of the same description made to the lad before this
period, nor any circumstance, by which an indication of the Defendant’s
unnatural propensities, prior to this transaction, could be inferred.
Gentlemen, we have lived some time in the world, and we have seen that
men, with these diabolical passions, make those overtures, not
unfrequently, to persons they never saw in the whole course of their
lives, until some occasional meeting—sometimes in the Parks—nay,
sometimes, even at public assemblies; and yet so extraordinary is the
phrenzy with which men of these propensities are hurried, there is no
accounting for their conduct on these occasions: certainly there is no
amounting for the conduct of this Defendant in going into the boy’s
chamber, except that which his abominable and unnatural lusts can
suggest, and which are imputed to him by this indictment.  Gentlemen, in
the first place, was he there?  Why it is suggested that the boy’s fright
had magnified the powers of his vision, and that he must have mistaken
the Defendant for his mistress, or for the maid servant, who slept with
his sister.  Now, Gentlemen, we have it in evidence that Mr. Church is a
man near six feet high: a man of considerable size, and distinguishable
from the boy’s mistress, who is a little feminate figure; and also very
distinguishable from the maid servant, whom my learned friend, Mr.
Gurney, wishes you to infer was the person who entered the prosecutor’s
room, because the maid’s chamber door was not shut; although there was no
question asked by the Defendant’s Counsel, as to the intimacy of this
young man with that servant maid.  I admit that the servant’s door was
not fast; but my Learned Friend did not inquire whether the servant’s
door had been left open or fastened, when the servants went to bed; nor
was any inquiry made whether the lock of that door was defective, as
sometimes happens to be the case with the servant’s rooms in a
gentleman’s house; for deficiencies of that description are not so
immediately remedied as in the more preferable rooms of the house.
Gentlemen, could the young man by any possibility mistake the female
figure of the maid servants or of his mistress, for the man he
described—a man that is of considerable size—near six feet high, and a
very striking object in point of height?  Most unquestionably there is no
pretence for supposing, that there could be any body else but Mr. Church
in the room at that time.  Now what is the conduct of the young lad on
that occasion?  He goes down to West, the potter, immediately, and states
to him, that Mr. Church had behaved indecently.  I admit that, in the
course of conversation, he mentioned some of the particulars of what
occurred, which the potter says he does not recollect.  The boy goes on
further, and states particulars that he had related to the man, which the
latter says had not been mentioned to him; and what is more probable,
than that in giving an account of a conversation which took place so long
ago as the month of September last, that the one may add half a sentence
which the other does not remember?  But was not the statement that the
lad made at the time to the second witness, West, (though the latter does
not recollect the whole of what passed) that Church came into his
chamber, and conducted himself with indecency towards him?  They then
return to the house; the lad and he examine the house for the purpose of
ascertaining whether any body else is there; no other male person
sleeping in the house; and they find all secure and safe; and yet it is
to supposed, that they went in search for thieves!  Why the result of the
search would decide whether the object of the search was to see whether
there were any thieves in the house—for neither a door nor a window had
been opened, nor was there any aperture at which a thief could gain
admittance.  It is clear, therefore, that there was no other male in the
house except Church, the party indicted; nor is there now any colour for
supposing that there was any body else there of his sex but himself.
But, it is said their object was to search for thieves, and that the
alarm was for thieves, and that the Boy, when he went before the
Magistrate, gave some account about searching for thieves.  Why, in his
examination here to-day, when he was asked whether he and West did not go
back together to the house and search for thieves, he very naturally
said, “Yes, Sir:” but why did he give that answer?—Because there was
another proposition put to him, which appeared as material as that with
respect to the search for thieves, and accordingly he answered in the
affirmative.  It is true that he did admit at first, that he went to
search for thieves; but when he came to give the explanation to the
answer, he states that he did not particularly search for thieves; and
after a little cross-examination by the same Learned Counsel, it appeared
that the object was not to search for thieves, but merely to ascertain
that there was no other man in the house that could possibly commit this
indecency, this outrage against religion, morality, and nature.  But the
man who was called last, named Wood, is called to state something that
passed before the Magistrate; and, according to his representation, there
was something said about going to search for thieves.  It is observable,
however, that he did not take up the whole story told in the testimony of
the lad, nor did my Learned Friend examine him as to the anterior part of
his statement: and from this it must fairly be inferred, that the most
material part of the boy’s testimony given to-day, and that given before
the Magistrate, was consistent, and not to be shaken.  For you may be
quite certain, Gentlemen, that when my Learned Friends on the other side
content themselves with catching at the smallest variance in the
testimony of the witness from his original statement; it is a decided
proof that the most important part of the case is not to be shaken, and
is incapable of contradiction.  The material part of the evidence remains
untouched by any shadow of doubt as to its credibility.  My Learned
Friend rests satisfied with the contradiction upon the subject of what
passed between the Potter and the Boy, but which, I say, is wholly
immaterial as it affects his credit; and the only further objection he
makes to his testimony is, that his evidence of to-day does not
correspond, in some minute particular, with his examination before the
Magistrate.  For the reasons, however, which I have given you, Gentlemen,
you will dismiss these trifling matters from your serious consideration.

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.