Transcribed from the [1817] John Fairburn edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]

                              FIFTH EDITION,
         _Church burnt in Effigy_!  _Rev. J. L. Garrett’s Vindi-_
             _cation_, _the Whole of the Evidence_, _&c. &c._

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   HAY & TURNER have had the affrontery to call their Scribble the only
                                 Genuine
   Edition! whereas, it is not so correct as FAIRBURN’S.—_John Church_.

                                * * * * *





                                   THE
                                  TRIAL
                                   AND
                                CONVICTION
                                 OF THAT
                           _INFAMOUS HYPOCRITE_
                               JOHN CHURCH,


                     The SURREY TABERNACLE PREACHER,
                    BOROUGH-ROAD, ST. GEORGE’S FIELDS,
                                  FOR AN
                           Abominable Offence;
                          INCLUDING THE WHOLE OF
                              THE EVIDENCE;
     Tried before LORD ELLENBOROUGH, at the Surrey Assizes, Croydon,
                        Saturday, August 16, 1817.

                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                           TAKEN IN SHORT HAND.
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                            TO WHICH IS ADDED,
                                HIS LIFE,
                CONFESSIONS, NOTES OF ONE OF HIS SERMONS,
                               THE WHOLE OF
                        THE LOVE-LETTERS, &c. &c.

                                * * * * *

    “_Woe unto you_, Scribes and Pharisees, _Hypocrites_! for ye compass
    sea and land to make _one Proselyte_; and, when he is made, ye make
    him _two-fold more the child of Hell_ than yourselves.”

    “Ye Serpents! ye generation of Vipers! _how can ye escape the
    damnation of Hell_?”

                                     ST. MATTHEW, CHAP. xxiii. v. 15 & 33.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
          Published by JOHN FAIRBURN, 2, Broadway, Ludgate-Hill.
                           (_Price Sixpence_.)

                                * * * * *

                 Marchant, Printer, Ingram-court, London.

                                * * * * *




SURREY ASSIZES, CROYDON,
_Saturday_, _August_ 16, 1817.


                         THE KING v. 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 and detestable crime, (among
Christians not to be named,) 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. BOLLAND; 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 inquire whether he be Guilty or Not Guilty.
Hearken to the evidence.

_Mr. Marryatt_ then stated the case on the part of the Prosecution; after
which the court proceeded to call witnesses: the first witness called was



ADAM FOREMAN _sworn_.


_Examined by Mr. Bolland_.—Will be twenty the first day of December next.
Is an apprentice to Patrick, the potter, of Vauxhall.  Has been with him
about five years.  Knows the Defendant, John Church, by sight.  Has known
him about two or three years.  Church is a preacher.  He, Witness,
attended the congregation in the Chapel where Church preaches and has
often seen him.  Witness sleeps generally at his father’s.  There are
occasions upon which witness sleeps at his master’s house when he goes
out of town.  Church lived by his chapel, in St. George’s Fields, the
Borough-Road.  Came to take up his abode at Mr. Patrick’s the 25th of
September, he came to sleep there that night.  Witness slept there that
night.  Does not know whether he (Church) had been there before.  Cannot
say whether he had seen him there before.  Knows that he slept there on
the 25th September, and that he, witness, was there.  Witness’s master
that night was out of town; but where he cannot say.  Mr. Church,
witness’s mistress, the children, and the two maid servants, slept in the
house that night.  There was no other man in the house except himself and
Church.  Witnesses bed-room was the front parlour on the first floor over
the kitchen.  It is not a bed-room in common in the house.  Witness slept
there, because there was no other bed-room that he could sleep in.  There
was a temporary bed, therefore, put up for him there.  Witness retired to
rest about one o’clock.  The reason for his being up so late was because
there was a kiln burning, and he (witness) was obliged to sit up to let
the man into the kiln when he came.  It was necessary for him to sit up
to attend that kiln, and to give the key to the man, Thomas West.
Witness went to bed about one o’clock,—went to sleep directly he went to
bed.  Had not been asleep more than half an hour before he was awoke by
some one putting his hands under the bed clothes, and laying hold of his
private parts very tight.  Witness put his hand out of the bed-clothes,
and caught hold of him and asked him who he was? and laid hold of him, as
near as he could guess, by the upper part of his arm; felt lower down,
and found by the sleeve that he had got a man’s shirt on; found the wrist
was buttoned; knows very well it was a man; could not tell that from the
feel of the flesh.  Witness was here asked by _Lord Ellenborough_ by what
circumstance? and answered because he had got a man’s shirt on.  The
person, in answer to what he said, answered—“Adam, don’t you know me?  I
am your mistress,” in a faint voice, like a woman; it was not the voice
of his mistress, Mrs. Patrick; witness knew the voice directly he heard
it; it was Mr. Church’s voice; Church fled the room directly, that is he
went out in a hurried step.  Witness then got out of bed, and put on his
small clothes and shoes, and went to the man up at the kiln.  As he
opened the door witness saw by the lamp that it was Mr. Church, and he
had only his shirt on.  The lamp that enabled witness to see the person
of Church is outside of the front street door, on the terrace.  The lamp
throws a light through the fan-light of the hall door.  Witness was here
asked by _Lord Ellenborough_ whether the lamp was at the street door? and
he answered, yes.  It is a parish lamp; not one of the new lights; nor a
gas light.  Question by _Lord Ellenborough_—Where were you standing at
the time?—I was getting up, my lord.  Witness went out of his room.  In
answer to a question by _Lord Ellenborough_, witness answered, he saw it
was Church by the lamp at the street door.  Witness was then in bed,
sitting up; had not then left his bed; did not open the door; Church did
that.  Witness saw him go out through that door; and then observed that
he had a shirt on.  The shirt or dress of a man is much shorter than that
of a woman, and, therefore, he must have seen whether it was a shirt or a
shift.  It was the shirt of a man witness is sure.  Did not see his face
at all; his (Church’s) back was towards witness.  When he was gone,
witness got up and put on his small clothes and shoes, and went into the
pottery to get the man to come up to the house; told Thomas West of it.
Witness was here asked by _Lord Ellenborough_ whether West was in the
pottery?—and answered, he was; it was the Thomas West that was in the
pottery before witness went to bed.

_Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney_.—The person, whoever it was, opened the
door and went out, afterwards shut the door after him.  Saw him when he
opened the door.  There was no light in the room.  The light came from a
lamp on the Terrace.  The lamp is between five and six yards from the
door on the Terrace.  The Terrace on which witness’s master’s house is
situated, is a row of houses raised above the road.  The lamp is upon the
Terrace opposite the door.  About five or six yards from the door.  The
light which it gives to the passage is through the fan-light over the
door.  Did not see the face of the person.  Saw that the person had a
shirt on.  Was rather alarmed, waked out of his sleep in this way.  It
was not long about.  Witness don’t know how long he (Church) had been
there before witness awoke.  Witness went directly to West, who directly
came with him and searched the house for thieves.  Did not know whether
any body had got in or not.  Looked at every chamber-door in the house
except Mr. Church’s and witness’s mistress’s.  Looked at the door of Mr.
Church and that of his mistress, but did not open them.  They were both
of them shut.  Did not find any door open.  Looked at all the doors in
the house, and found them all shut.  The maid servant’s door was on the
jar.  All the other doors were shut.  After that witness and West
searched the house all over.  West stopped while the witness put on the
remainder of his clothes, witness then went back with West to the
pottery, after having locked the door.  Told West this story directly,
told him that Mr. Church came down into his (witness’s) room and behaved
in a very indecent manner, that he had laid hold of his private parts,
&c.  Did not search the house for thieves in particular; but searched if
any body was in any of the rooms.  _Mr. Bolland_ here said, 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?—Witness answered, we searched the house: we looked all over it, to
see if there was any body in any of the rooms, but not for thieves in
particular.  Witness did not think of thieves, because he knew who it
was.  Did not go into the maid servants’ room; only looked in; having
found the door open, looked in.  The two maids slept in that room; one is
witness’s sister.  The door being ajar, witness pushed it in a little,
and saw they were abed.  Did not speak to them.

_Re-examined by Mr. Bolland_.—Witness did not search the house for
thieves because he knew who the persons was.  The reason of his searching
the house was because he wished to be quite right before he made the
accusation against Mr. Church.  Witness and West found there was no other
man in the house but Mr. Church.  There was not any door or window open
at which any other man could have come in.  The light from the Terrace
struck through the fan-light or window over the door.  It gives a pretty
fair light to the hall, it shews a little light up the stairs.  It was at
the time the person opened the door and went out that witness got this
view of his person.

_Examined by Lord Ellenborough_.—Did not hear Church when he first came
into the room.  Was awakened by the application of his hand to witness’s
person.  He was standing upon the floor.  Witness has not any difficulty
in hearing.  Witness did not call to him by name, or give him to
understand that he knew who he was.  Witness saw his (Church’s) back as
he went out of the room.  It appeared to be the height of Mr. Church.
Cannot say what height he is.  He had a night-cap.  Cannot exactly say
whether it was a man’s night-cap or no.  Thinks it was a handkerchief
tied round his head.  Cannot tell what sort of handkerchief it was.  When
witness and West searched the house and examined the different doors they
went to Mr. Church’s door, but did not touch it, nor did they go in.
West wanted to go into the room and pull him out.  When West wanted to
putt him out, witness did not call to him because he was afraid of
disturbing his mistress; she would have been very much alarmed.  Church
never had any conversation with witness, nor did he ever make any
overture of this sort to him before this time.  There was nothing
particular in his manner or conduct towards witness before this time.
Witness has not spoken to him at all since.  Has attended before a
Magistrate with him; spoke in his presence there, but not to him; did not
hear him speak before the Magistrate.  He did not speak at all before the
Magistrate.  Witness gave the same account before the Magistrate that he
has now done here.  Did not know whether it was a handkerchief or a
night-cap that was upon his head.  There are not any other circumstances
from which he, witness, collected that it was a man.  The hand did not
continue upon witness’s person after he awaked at all.  The hand was
withdrawn then.  He said that he was witness’s mistress.  By the height
of the person he saw, witness could ascertain whether it was or was not
the height of his mistress, or any of the female part of the house; Mr.
Church was a great deal bigger than any body there; witness does not
think he is quite six foot; he is a tallish stout man.  There was light
enough by the lamp that witness has spoken of to see the outline of the
man so as to be able to say that he was a tall person.  Mrs. Patrick is a
very little woman, quite a different person from the person witness saw
in the room.  The maid, who slept in the room with witness’s sister, was
about as tall as witness—(_The Witness was about five feet seven_)—not
quite so tall.  Witness was sure it was not her.—_The Witness withdrew_.



THOMAS WEST, _sworn_.


_Examined by Mr. Marryatt_.  Is workman to Mr. Patrick, the Potter.  On
the morning of the 26th September last relieved Adam Foreman at the kiln.
It was about half past twelve o’clock.  Went to the pottery to relieve
him.  Foreman left witness shortly afterwards, for the purpose of going
to bed.  It was about an hour before witness saw him again, when witness
did see him again he was only part dressed.  He had on his small-clothes,
his shoes, and one-stocking.  He came to witness in a very great fright,
and bid him light his candle; he appeared very much alarmed, and bid him
light his candle, and come along with him up to the house.  He told
witness, as they were going along the garden, that Mr. Church has been to
him and behaved in a very indecent manner.  Did not explain how.  He
unlocked the door and witness went into the house with him; it was the
back door of the house; the outer door; the garden door.  When they got
to the house he went and put the remainder of his cloths on and they went
and searched every room in the house, beginning at the bottom and going
to the top, except witness’s mistress’s room and Mr. Church’s; they went
into all the rooms except Mr. Church’s and Mrs. Patrick’s.  Did not open
the door of either of those two rooms.  When they came to Mr. Church’s
door witness 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, witness forbore going into the
room.  Foreman came along with witness into the pottery; became down
stairs, locked the back door, and staid with witness the whole of the
remainder of the night; he returned with witness to the pottery, and
staid till the morning; searched all the rooms of the house, to see if
there was any other person in the place; did not find any window or door
open, at which any body could have got into the house; they were all
close and fastened.

_Cross-examined by the Common-Serjeant_.—When Foreman came to witness, he
told him that Mr. Church had been there; but did not explain what he had
done; is quite sure of that.

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

Witness had never any intimation that there were thieves in the house;
did not go to search for thieves in the house.  When Foreman told him
that Mr. Church had behaved in a very indecent manner to him, witness
went to see if there was any other person in the place.  Foreman did not
tell witness he believed there were thieves in the house.  Witness is
quite sure Foreman did not explain in what way Church behaved to him.  He
did not say any thing like—That he came to his bed-side and laid his hand
on his private parts.  This was on the night of the 25th of September;
witness afterwards went before the magistrate, at the same time with
Foreman, the apprentice.  To Union Hall.  Foreman did not, in the course
of the morning, when staying with witness, and after he had been to the
house, tell witness what Church had done to him, and that he had laid has
hand upon his private parts; never told him so, from first to last.
Witness cannot say at what time it was that he went before the Magistrate
with Foreman; cannot say the day of the month; it was some time
afterwards; believes it was six or seven weeks after; the lad then went
with his father; the lad generally slept at home at his father’s; his
father’s is about a quarter of a mile from his master’s; he slept at his
father’s the next night but one; it was not till about six or seven weeks
after that, they went to the justice; witness did not communicate with
Mr. Patrick upon the subject before he went to the justice.



MR. PATRICK _sworn_.


_Examined by Mr. Bolland_.—Is a potter at Vauxhall.  The boy, Foreman,
has been with him ever since he has been in the pottery business, between
five and six years.  He only slept in witness’s house occasionally; that
is, whenever he (witness) leaves town; and then he has the key of the
pottery, there being no other male in the house.  Witness was absent from
home on the 25th of September last.  The boy on that occasion was to
steep in his (witness’s) house.  The bed that had been put up for him was
a chair-bed in the front parlour; a temporary bed for a nurse
occasionally.  Witness knows the Defendant, John Church.  He is a Baptist
preacher.  Witness first became acquainted with him when he came to
Vauxhall.  Witness attends his chapel, and so became acquainted with him.
His residence is adjoining the chapel.  In the month of September he came
to sleep at witness’s house.  Witness put a bed up for him.  He had
complained of ill health occasionally; and thinking that he was ill,
witness asked him out of friendship to take a bed at his (witness’s)
house, supposing that the air would be of service to him.  Does not live
very close the river.  Witness was out from home on the 25th of
September.  Did not return till the evening of the 26th.  The boy,
Foreman, made a communication to him the next morning when he saw him.
Witness 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.

Did not see Foreman on the night of witness’s return—not to speak with
him.  On the morning of the 27th he made the communication to witness
respecting this transaction.  Witness told Foreman he was extremely sorry
for what had happened.  Witness had had many applications from the
congregation, to whom he made it known.  It was in consequence of the
information they had received from general report, that they applied to
witness for authentic information.  Several of the congregation made
those applications.  There was a meeting upon the subject.  In
consequence of applications made to witness from the congregation, he
went to the Defendant, Church.  Thinks it was on the 9th of October.
There had not before that been a meeting of the congregation, at which
witness was present.  Did not take any steps between the 27th of
September to see Church, and the 9th of October, upon the subject.  That
was the first communication witness had with Church upon the subject.
Church said to him, he took it extremely kind of witness in calling upon
him.  Witness told him he might take it as he pleased; that he did not
come willingly, but that some of his congregation thought that witness
ought to see him on the business.  Patrick cannot say Church, appeared to
be apprized of the subject before witness began; but believes he was
apprized from what afterwards occurred.  Witness told him he (witness)
waited upon him, having seen a letter wherein he denied three particular
points of the boy’s statement; and witness wished to know what those
points were.  He said that he denied having hold of the boy, or the boy
having told of him; or he, Church, saying that he was the boy’s mistress.
He admitted he was in the room, but denied laying hold of the boy’s
private parts; did not state any reason for being in the room at all.  He
said that he denied three particular points, two of which witness had
already named.  The other was something that did not occur to witness to
be important, and which he did not take any notice of, consequently does
not remember it.  Witness told him that, of these two points mentioned,
the boy was positive, and witness had no reason to doubt any thing that
the boy had said, as he had never known him to tell a lie.  He said that
he was sorry for it, because that confirmed _antient reports_; witness
told him it did so; and, of course, that now he should believe all that
he had heard heretofore.  Witness then wished him a good morning.  Did
not see him at any time afterwards to speak to him; has seen him, but not
spoken to him since.  The letter that witness had seen, which he spoke to
Church about, was a letter dated the 6th of October, addressed to a Mrs.
Hunter.  Witness took an exact copy of it.  Mr. Harmer has it.  Is that
the copy?  (_A paper put into the witness’ hand_.)  Yes; it is an exact
copy.  Witness did not read that copy of the letter to Church; he had.
not the copy at that time; only told him he wished to know what the three
things were which he could deny, as asserted by the boy; does not
recollect the third point; it is not material.  He admitted being in the
room, but denied the laying hold,—he said, “I was in the room; but I did
not lay hold of the boy.”  Did not say why he was in the room.  Witness
returned the letter of the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter.  He got it from
Mrs. Hunter, and to Mrs. Hunter he returned it.

_Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney_.—Meant to say that Church said distinctly
to witness that he was in the room.  Did not mention to any person, after
he had see Mr. Church, that he was not implicated in the affair at all.
Never said any such thing.  Did not 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.”  Mr. Thomas went to the door
of Mr. Church with witness.  Thomas is no friend of witness’s; witness
had only seen him at the door.  It was _his_ wife and witness’s that
wished witness to make the application to Mr. Church.  Mr. Thomas went
with him as far as the door, but did not go in with him.  Witness told
him briefly what had transpired; it was very short what did transpire.
He told Mr. Thomas what had transpired at the interview with Mr. Church,
when he came out.  Think he told Mr. Thomas that Mr. Church admitted
having been in the room, but is not positive as to that point; knows he
told him that Mr. Church said he did not lay hold of the boy.  Did not
answer, on Mr. Thomas asking, “Well, is there any thing against Mr.
Church, or not.”—“No; he is not at all implicated.”  Never told him,
directly or indirectly, that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Church.
Witness did say he would prosecute Mr. Church because he had said
disgraceful things of witness’s wife, but not for this crime, but for
defamation of his wife’s character.  Don’t know that he ever told Mr.
Thomas so, but believes he said that, or words to that effect, to other
persons.  Did not mention that, amongst other things, on that very
morning that he had the interview with Mr. Church; some other time he
might.



MRS. HUNTER _sworn_.
_Examined by Mr. Marryatt_.


Is an attendant amongst the congregation, and a hearer of Mr. Church.
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, nor any thing except
the day of the month; could not tell from whom it came; gave it to Mr.
Patrick’s daughter, who gave it to her father; it was returned to witness
again, who took no further notice of it.  Witness had a subpœna _duces
tecum_ so produce it, but was impossible to produce it.  After the letter
was returned witness took no further notice of it, but put it into a
drawer; knows no more than his Lordship what is become of it; looked for
it on the Thursday morning before she came, but could find no scraps of
it; was not able to find it; was wholly unable to find it; witness
searched diligently to find it; is convinced there was no name to it.
Has seen Mr. Church’s hand-writing, and has 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 she would hardly think it the same; has seen it so
different, at times, that she should not at all times, think, it was the
same; thinks it was Church’s hand-writing, but could not be positive, as
there was no name to it; cannot say whether it was or was not; it is not
in witness’s power.  Witness believed, at that time, that it was his
hand-writing, and believes it still.  When she opened it she was very
much struck with the similarity, for it had very much the appearance of
his hand-writing; but, as their was not a signature, could not be
certain.  It had the appearance of his handwriting.  Witness’s belief
now, whether it was or was not his hand-writing, is exactly this same now
as it was then.  Cannot say.  She firmly believes it was his
hand-writing, because it was not signed.  Did not communicate it to any
body but Mr. Patrick.  Communicated to Mr. Patrick that she had received
a letter from Mr. Church.

_Cross-examined by the Common Serjeant_.  The search which witness made
for this letter was not until last Thursday.  Witness has no reason to
believe that it is in her house, for she did not leave a draw 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_.—Was acquainted in October
last with the hand-writing of Mr. Church.  The letter from which he made
this copy, and which he returned to Mrs. Hunter, was, in his belief, the
handwriting of Mr. Church.

_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.  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.

MR. GURNEY, on the part of the Defendant, most eloquently addressed the
Jury, endeavouring, by observations, to throw some doubt on the testimony
of the prosecutor, because he had searched the house after the attack:
this, the learned Counsel urged, evinced an uncertainty in the boy’s
mind, as to the person who had been in his room.  That his conduct was
unaccountable, in not going into Church’s room and questioning him, when
he had West to assist him.  The learned Counsel also commented on the
delay which had taken place before any complaint had been made to a
magistrate, and contended, that this circumstance threw discredit on the
prosecutor’s case, and concluded by observing, that if his client was
guilty, his crime was greatly aggravated, because he, as a Minister of
the Gospel, was bound to set an example of morality, and intreated the
Jury, that as the offence was of so shocking and heinous a nature as to
render it improbable that a man in Mr. Church’s station could have
committed it, that, before they consigned him to eternal infamy, they
would be fully satisfied that the testimony against him was
unquestionable and conclusive.

_The first witness called for the Defendant was_



Mr. JOHN THOMAS _sworn_.


_Examined by the Common Serjeant_.—His name is John Thomas; lives in
Prospect-place, West’s Square, St. George’s Fields; is an appraiser and
undertaker; has known Mr. Church a long time; is one of his hearers; is
acquainted with Mr. Patrick, but not till the report was made respecting
Mr. Church; cannot say he knew him as one of the congregation attending,
Mr. Church; was with Mr. Patrick when he went to Mr. Church’s house, the
9th of October, a few days after the report; did not go into the house
with him, staid outside; had learnt from Mr. Patrick that he was going to
Mr. Church’s upon the subject of this business; he called upon witness,
at his house, to go with him, and told witness he was going to Mr.
Church’s upon the business of this inquiry; indeed, it was witness’s
request that he should; Mrs. Thomas went to speak to his wife, and it was
at Mrs. Thomas’s request and Mrs. Patrick’s that he went; he seemed to be
a long while in Church’s house, not much less than an hour; it was near
an hour; when he came out witness put some questions to him, respecting
what had passed between him and Mr. Church; witness asked him what Mr.
Church had said; he said that Mr. Church did not say anything; that he
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_, witness only supposed he meant the cause
of God; did not use the words “cause of God;” he said Mr. Church seemed
very much confounded or confused.  The rest is all imagination of
witness’s; both imagined alike; don’t know that these were exactly the
words; cannot call to his (witness) mind what he (Patrick) did say, but
it was conjectured the cause of God, and which they heard afterwards was
abused abroad; does not recollect all that passed; Mr. Church had not
said anything to Mr. Patrick which Mr. Patrick related to witness; he
said Mr. Church seemed very much confused; witness asked Mr. Patrick
“what do you mean; why; if you know anything against the man, did you not
charge him with it;” he said he did not know; he was not the person; he
(Patrick) said, “I don’t know: I am not so proper a person as you,” or
words to the same effect.  Witness said to him, “What did he (meaning
Church) say respecting the report respecting this transaction?”  Witness
said to Mr. Patrick, says he, “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.”  Patrick said that the report was false.  Witness
never saw Church upon the subject.  When Patrick made witness the answer,
he understood that answer to be, that Patrick himself said the report was
false.  Witness then put other questions to Mr. Patrick.  He said, says
he, 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?  Mr.
Patrick said it was false.  He said there had been a great deal of
exaggeration.  Did not after this put any question to Mr. Patrick,
whether he, Mr. Patrick, thought that Mr. Church was implicated in the
transaction or not.  Witness put these words to him—“Why,” says he, “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 not make any observation to him, or he to witness.  Don’t
recollect any thing in particular witness said, says he, “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 he was under any such temptation.

Mr. Patrick did not after that deliver any opinion to witness whether he
thought Church was implicated in the transaction or not.  Did not at any
other time see him, and hear him say any thing about this transaction.
Nothing more passed at this meeting than what witness has told.  Witness
afterwards recollected, and asked pardon: he met Patrick in June last,
coming over Waterloo-bridge.  Did not at first know him; and he spoke to
witness, and he said, “My name is Patrick.”  Witness said, “Mr. Patrick,
why what are you doing with Mr. Church?”  “Why,” says witness, “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_.—Believes it was the Sabbath after the
27th of September that he first heard of this.  It was within two or
three days after.  Heard of the report two or three days after the thing
happened.  Witness was desirous that Mr. Patrick should call on Mr.
Church.  He did so, at witness’s desire.  Believes Mr. Patrick brought
the boy to him, and offered to have him brought face to face with Mr.
Church.  Mr. Patrick called at witness’s house in the course of the
morning, and he sent him, he said the boy was outside.  Mr. Patrick did
not particularly wish witness to see the boy; believes he brought the boy
to go to Mr. Church’s; witness was to go with him, and, therefore, the
boy followed.  The boy staid outside the door.  He walked on the other
side of the way, opposite to where witness was.  He waited whilst witness
waited, they both waited outside ready to go into Mr. Church’s when they
were wanted.  Mr. Patrick was to go in and hear what Mr. Church had to
say; and then they were to go in too.  He took the boy with him, in order
that he might be taken in and see Mr. Church face to face.  Witness
supposes that was his intention.  Witness had no particular acquaintance
with Mr. Church, was only one of his hearers, and thought it would be too
great a liberty for him to go to him.  Mr. Patrick wanted witness to go
in alone to Mr. Church first.  Don’t recollect any thing that he did.
Don’t know any other reason he had than that for bringing the boy.  Don’t
know that he said that that was his reason.  He said he had the boy
there.  Witness told Patrick he had no particular interest in the
business; had no intimacy with Mr. Church, except hearing him: thought he
had no business to be interested in the knowledge of the fact, being only
a hearer.  Thought, therefore, what his visit would be obtrusive;
certainly had no interest in it.  Saw no necessity for going in and
taking the boy, as he, Church, did not acknowledge himself guilty of any
thing bad.  Did not examine the boy, it being a delicate subject.  If Mr.
Church had confessed any thing, witness should have it thought it his
duty to take the boy and have them face to face.  Mr. Church not having
confessed any thing, he would not examine the boy; that was his reason
for not examining the boy.  If he had confessed any thing witness would
have taken the boy to have them face to face; his object was to take the
boy and have them face to face, if Mr. Church acknowledged the crime.
When Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge
any thing of it he did not think it necessary to have them face to face.
Never spoke to the boy.  Never asked the boy about this transaction.  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.  Did not see the letter
sent to Mrs. Hunter; about the three points of the boy’s statement which
Mr. Church said he was able to contradict.



Mr. JAMES REEVES _sworn_.


_Examined by the Common Sergeant_.  Was the Clerk attending the
magistrate when the charge was made before him; must refer to the
book—Witness produced a book to tell who was the magistrate; it was the
minute book in which the entered the proceedings of the day.  Mr.
Serjeant Sellon appeared to have been the Magistrate on the 19th
November, as it appears by the book.  Being a charge misdemeanor no
account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said; it was
merely a note or entry of the names, as follows; “Warrant for a
misdeameanor, parties appeared by the Officer, and ordered to find bail.”

_Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt_.—Mr. Serjeant Sellon was the magistrate
by whom the warrant was granted.  The oath was administered before the
warrant was granted; there had been an _ex-parte_ examination to grant
the warrant on the oath of the party;—that is in another book left
behind; does not know any thing of it.  There is a deposition on oath
prior to the granting of the warrant.

_Re-examined by the Common Serjeant_.—Don’t take the depositions in cases
of misdemeanor in detail.  Is not aware of depositions taken in writing
in any book which he had not here; was not told to bring it.  There was
nothing taken down in writing before the warrant was granted.  After the
warrant was executed, and at the time of the examination, when the
Defendant was there, witness took no minutes further than the names of
the parties, and what he now produced.



Mr. WOOD _sworn_.


_Examined by Mr. Gurney_.—Was present at the examination of Mr. Church
before the magistrate; is a hatter, near the Elephant and Castle, in St.
George’s Fields; did not take the testimony of witnesses down in writing.
Foreman, the boy, in the account he gave before the magistrate, said he
went out to the potter and told the potter that there were thieves in the
house, and that the potter and he said the came to search the house.  He
was asked a question by Mr. Sellon, whether or not he searched the room
where Mr. Church slept.  He said, no, he did not search that room.  Mr.
Sellon said, “Why not search the room?”  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.

_Mr. Gurney_.—My lord, this is the case of the Defendant.

_Mr. Marryatt_ then replied to the Defendant’s case.

_Lord Ellenborough_ proceeded to sum up the evidence on which he
commented most ably.  With respect to the up the evidence, on which he
commented most ably.  With respect to the young man searching the house,
his Lordship said it shewed a precaution which was highly creditable to
the boy, who had also given a good reason for not going into the
Defendant’s room, namely, that it must have disturbed and alarmed his
mistress at that unseasonable hour of the night, and that as to the
alleged delay, this seemed to have arisen from the interference of the
Defendant’s friends; but, although a considerable time elapsed before the
prosecutor went to a magistrate, it was clear that he made instant
complaint to West, and to his master.  His Lordship then adverted to the
admission of the Defendant as to being in the boy’s room without
assigning any reason or motive, and his Lordship asked, what earthly
purpose could the Defendant have for visiting this youth in his bed-room
in the dead of the night? and, if no honest reason appeared, it was for
the jury to say whether the lad’s account was not irresistably confirmed
by this admission.  His Lordship read the letter, before alluded to,
throughout, and most emphatically expressed his indignation at sacred
names, which ought never to be mentioned but with reverence, being used
with disgusting familiarity in such a shocking transaction.

The Jury almost instantly returned a verdict of GUILTY, which gave
universal satisfaction to a crowded Court.  The trial occupied four
hours.




_LIFE OF JOHN CHURCH_.


    The nearer to CHURCH the further from GOD!!  _Old English Proverb_.

Dr. Jortin, in his _Adversaria_, very justly remarks, that “a sudden rise
from a low station, as it sometimes shews to advantage the virtuous and
amiable qualities, which could not exert themselves before, so it more
frequently calls forth and exposes to view, those spots of the soul which
lay lurking in secret, cramped by penury, and veiled with dissimulation.”

JOHN CHURCH, better known as the Obelisk Parson, it appears, was
abandoned by his parents, when he was scarcely six weeks old, and left
exposed in a basket, with little covering to protect him from the
inclemency of the weather, on the steps of St. Andrew’s Church, Holborn.
In this pitiable state he was found by the overseers of the parish, and
sent to the Foundling Hospital; and it was from this circumstance he
derived the name of CHURCH.  Here he remained until he was nine years
old, when a complaint to the Governor’s having been made against him by
the nurses that he was addicted to improper and disgusting practices, it
was thought prudent to apprentice him out at that early age, in order to
prevent the morals of the boys being corrupted from so dangerous an
example.  He must have quitted the hospital at an earlier age than usual,
from his evident illiteracy, and the badness of his writing.  In general
the boys from this institution are distinguished as good scholars.
Church was accordingly placed out as an apprentice to a carver and
gilder, in the neighbourhood of Blackfriar’s Road; but before his time of
servitude had expired, he married, and abruptly quitted his master.  For
a short period he followed his business, and worked for a composition
ornament maker, in Tottenham-Court-road; but being of an artful
disposition, of lazy habits, and with much hypocritical cant, he at
length succeeded in imposing upon several religious persons his great
anxiety and desire to become a minister of the Gospel.  It appears, he
commenced his _pretended_ religious career, by taking upon himself the
office of a teacher of a sunday school, at that time established in
Tottenham Court-road.  Thinking that preaching was a more lucrative
employment than that in which he was engaged, this hypocritical wretch,
together with two other young men, who were also candidates for the gown,
hired a garret in Compton-street, Soho, in order to acquire the method of
addressing a congregation with confidence.  He made a rapid progress in
dissimulation, and even at this early period of his religious studies, he
laughed in his sleeve at the credulity and ignorance of those persons who
were induced to listen to his _pious_ harangues.  An old chair was the
substitute for the pulpit.  He now began, as he termed it, “to gammon the
old women.”  Good luck procured him the notice of old Mother Barr, of
Orange-street, who being interested in his behalf, allowed him the use of
a room of her’s, in which he treated her and a few choice labourers in
the field of piety, with his rapturous discourses.  From this he used to
hold forth more publicly.  He became acquainted with one GARNET, of
notorious memory, who procured him the situation of a preacher at
Banbury.  It was at this place that he first became obnoxious.  But
before we proceed further, it may be necessary to inquire by what
authority such a man as CHURCH presumed to take upon himself the
functions of a minister of the gospel.  A man so profligate—so
notoriously criminal—come forth to instruct others in religion.  It
seems, the practice among Dissenters is, that when any man feels a strong
desire to become a preacher, he communicates the same to several
ministers, who make a strict inquiry into his qualifications as to piety,
learning, morals, &c. and if they find these established on satisfactory
evidence, they then confer on the candidate a sort of ordination, without
which he can have no authority to officiate as a minister of the Gospel.
It is evident he must have played the hypocrite in a masterly style, as
he did receive an _ordination_ at Banbury, in Oxfordshire.  But his
_real_ character soon made its appearance, from his having made several
violent attempts upon some young men while at the above place, he was
driven out from thence, by the trustees of the chapel in which he
preached, and the magistrates, and ordered never to shew his face there
again.  He hastily decamped, leaving behind him his wife and children,
and the police-officers having been sent in pursuit of him, their
searches proved fruitless, and it was a long time before he was heard of.
He then threw off all controul, and acted _in defiance of all the
ordinances of the Dissenting Church_! preaching doctrines tending to
encourage licentiousness, and foster the worst of passions.  At
Colchester he turned the whole congregation against their minister.  The
mode of healing the consciences of profligate men was practised by the
Romish Church before the Reformation, and when it flourished in its
rankest state of corruption—when indulgences for sins to be committed,
and pardons for sins past, were openly sold for money.  The manner in
which the Obelisk Preacher conducts the affairs of his chapel bears some
resemblance to this practice.  He has filled his pockets, it appears,
from the money which he has raised by inflaming the passions, and
exciting hopes and fears; this _pretender_ of piety has even administered
the sacrament to persons who were nearly intoxicated with gin!  It is
said that Church belongs to that sect called ANTINOMIANS, which is thus
described by the Rev. John Evans, in his “Sketch of the Denominations of
the Christian World:”—“The Antinomian derives his name from ANTI and
NOMOS; simplifying, against, and a LAW, his favourite tenet being, that
the law is not a rule of life to believers.  It is not easy to ascertain
what he means by this position, but be seems to carry the doctrine of
imputed righteousness of Christ and salvation faith, without works, to
such lengths, as to injure, if not wholly destroy, the obligation to
moral obedience.  Antinomianism may be traced to the period of the
Reformation, and its promulgator was John Agricola, originally a disciple
of Luther.  The Papists, in their disputes with the Protestants of that
day, carried the merit of good works to an extravagant length; and this
induced some of their opponents to run into the opposite extreme.”—“This
sect (says the Encyclopædia) sprung up in England during the protectorate
of Oliver Cromwell, and extended the system of libertinism much further
than Agricola, the disciple of Luther.  Some of their teachers expressly
maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the
divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor
are they to be considered as instances of their violation of the Divine
Law; consequently, they have no occasion to confess their sins, or to
break them off by repentance.  According to them, it is one of the
essential and distinctive characters of the elect that they cannot do any
thing displeasing to God, or prohibited by law.”  It may easily be
inferred from such doctrine as the above, the dreadful crime men may be
induced to commit, without the horrors of conscience or fear of
punishment.  From his retreat in the country, it seems, he was called to
use his influence in town, by a man of his own disgraceful kind,
designated _Kitty Cambric_; and well known at the Swan, in Vere-street.
It is notorious from the public exposure of the wretches, who were
detected in this street, and brought to punishment, that many of them
assumed the name of women, and were absolutely married together, and it
appears Church was actually the parson who performed the blasphemous mock
ceremony of joining them in the ties of “_holy matrimony_,” he being
nominated their _chaplain_.  He now settled himself at Chapel-court, in
the Borough, when his old friend _Garrett_ publicly charged him with a
wicked and diabolical offence, as the law says, “not to be named amongst
Christians,” and he was obliged to run away from the accusation.  By some
fortuitous event he, at length, got possession of the Obelisk Chapel,
where he began again to deliver his abominable doctrines; and several
young men were obliged to leave him, in consequence of his having used
them in a manner too indecent to be mentioned or hinted at.  The first
document we have is letter dated March 7, 1810, from a person, at
Banbury, named Hall, of which the following is a copy:—

    “Honoured Sir—in reply to your letter concerning Mr. C. I can only
    inform you, there was a report against him of a very scandalous
    nature; but how far his culpability extends, it is quite out of my
    power to determine.  He was absent from hence when the rumour first
    spread.  The managers of our chapel took great pains to inquire into
    the origin of such reports, and the result was, they sent Mr. C.
    positive orders never, on any account, to return to Banbury again;
    which advice he has hitherto wisely observed.  Now, sir, after giving
    you the above information, I beg leave to conclude the subject by
    referring you to your own comment hereon.

                                                         (Signed) S. HALL.

    _Banbury_, _March_ 7, 1817.”

Then follows a letter from William Clark, of Ipswich, a young man between
19 and 20 years of age, which contains an account of attempts to horrid
to be published.  The written confession (frightful indeed it is) of this
poor simple young man, whose mind was bewildered by the canting
exhortations of Church; and the whole of his statements corroborated by
the oral testimony of Mr. Wire, who resides at Colchester, and knows
Clark very well.  The circumstances related by Clark would have furnished
ample grounds for a criminal prosecution had he made his complaint
_immediately_ after the _assault_ was committed:—but, suffering under the
influence of ignorance and fear, he kept it a secret too long, and
afterwards accepted of a pound note from Church.  A case was laid before
two eminent barristers, to have their opinion whether such a prosecution
could be carried on with any prospect of conviction.  Their opinion, in
writing, is, that after the long concealment of a charge, a jury would
pay no attention to his evidence, unless he was confirmed in his story by
other evidence.



_Extract from the confession of William Clark_, _of Ipswich_.


    “Having been called by Providence to Colchester, I went to hear John
    Church preach in a barn, was invited to Mr. Abbot’s; was prevailed
    upon to sleep with John Church; I did sleep with him three nights;
    after being enticed to many _imprudencies_, I was under the necessity
    to resist _certain attempts_, which, if I had complied with, I am
    fearful must have ruined _both soul and body_: the crime is _too
    horrid_ to relate.

                                                                Wm. Clark.

    Richard Patmore, J. Ellisdon, C. Wire, H. T. Wire.  Witnesses.

    P.S.  This took place in March last, 1812.”

The peace of this poor lad’s mind is completely destroyed, so fatally has
the event preyed upon him;—so far as to fill the bosom of his aged father
with such a spirit of indignation and revenge, that he actually came up
to London with a full determination to be the death of him who had thus
ruined the peace of his beloved son, while the mother’s mind was not less
distracted than that of the father’s.  In consequence of this, the father
entered John Church’s meeting-house, with two loaded pistols, one in each
pocket; but, under the excess of agitation, he fainted away, and was
carried out of the place.

The following will cast some light on the preceding:—

                                      “_Colchester_, _September_ 16, 1812.

    “SIR,

    “Last evening I had an interview with Clark’s father, who wishes him
    to comply with your wishes.  I mentioned to him respecting Church’s
    conduct, and I find the last night to be the worst.  Likewise that he
    would have committed the act had not Clark prevented him.  The
    particulars I told you when in London, but find them worse than what
    I described to you.  They are not able to be at any expense; but if
    the gentlemen wish to prosecute, and to pay Clark’s expenses up to
    London, &c. he will have no objection to come when you please to
    send.  I need only say I wish you to inform the gentlemen, and give
    me a line.

                                               I am, dear Sir, your’s, &c.
                                                                 C. WIRE.”

In addition to the above testimonies, a very long narrative of atrocities
committed by JOHN CHURCH; while he resided at Banbury, has been written
by a minister at that place; but the facts are too disgusting and
shocking to be published.

In the month of April, 1813, a Mr. Webster, who was employed in the house
of Messrs. Evans and Co. eminent Hop Merchants, in the Borough, having,
this being the time the first public exposure of Church’s character took
place, asserted his readiness to prove Church’s infamy, was immediately
seized upon by a fellow of the name of Holmes, and another creature of
the name of Shaw, a sort of attorney in St. George’s Fields, who had been
employed by Church, and dragged to a lock-up-house in the Borough, on a
charge of riot, of which the following account appeared in the Morning
Chronicle.

_Riots at the Obelisk_.—Tuesday, a Mr. Webster, who is employed in the
house of Messrs. Evans and Co. eminent Hop-Merchants, in the Borough, was
charged at Union-Hall, by a person of the name of Shaw, with committing a
riot and a breach of the peace, on Sunday morning, at the Obelisk, in St.
George’s Fields, near the entrance of a chapel belonging to a preacher
named John Church.  The magistrate said, that as Mr. Birnie, who had, on
a former day, heard another case similar to this, was absent, they wished
the case might be deferred until next day, and desired Mr. Webster to
attend accordingly.  The prosecutor observed, that it would be dangerous
to allow Mr. Webster to be at large, and desired that he might be kept in
custody or held to bail.  The magistrate asked if there was any person
present ready to be bail for his appearance.  Mr. Robert Bell, the Editor
of the _Weekly Despatch_, who accompanied Mr. Webster as his friend, a
housekeeper, in Lambeth, said he was ready to bail him.  The prosecutor
then said, he had also a very serious complaint to make against Mr. Bell,
for the article which he published in his last Sunday’s newspaper,
respecting Mr. Church, and he had one of the papers in his hand.  Mr.
Bell told the Magistrates that he was ready to meet any complaint of this
kind, that he conceived it to be his duty, as one of the guardians of
public liberty, and public morals, to send forth the statement in
question; that he could prove the truth of every thing he had written and
published.  The worthy magistrate then asked Mr. Webster if he would
promise, on his honour, to attend next day, which Mr. Webster assured him
he would do, and retired.  It is necessary to mention that Mr. Webster
had been kept in a state of imprisonment during the greater part of
Sunday, and all Sunday night.

April 7, 1813, Mr. Webster having appeared again before the magistrates,
disclosed, in the course of the examination, the fact of Church having,
some years since, made an attempt of an abominable nature, on the person
of his younger brother, the magistrate, struck with horror, immediately
stopt all proceedings against Mr. Webster, and desired his brother to be
brought forward.  The office was cleared of all persons, except the
parties immediately concerned; the brother’s deposition was taken, and a
warrant was issued for Church to appear there the next day.

On Wednesday, J. Church appeared, in consequence of the warrant issued
the day before for his apprehension on a charge of abominable practices,
attended by a number of his deluded followers.  Mr. W. Webster having
deposed as to his attempts on him, Church was ordered to find bail for
his appearance at the next Middlesex Sessions, and Mr. Webster bound over
to prosecute.  The magistrate observed that from the length of time which
had elapsed since the offence had been committed, he thought a jury would
not feel justified in finding him guilty.  Mr. Johnston, a young
gentleman of the law, who attended for Mr. Webster, replied, that it was
not the time for them to discuss what was likely to be the verdict of a
jury;—that he had recommended Mr. Webster to prefer an indictment against
Church, and Mr. Webster had come to that resolution; and whatever might
be the result of the trial, the evidence relating to the conduct of
Church would be of that disgusting nature as to stamp his name with
eternal infamy and disgrace.  Church’s attorney observed that it was a
conspiracy amongst another sect to ruin Mr. Church’s character.  This Mr.
Johnson denied and said that it was merely a desire to bring him to
merited punishment.  Mr. Johnston also said that if Mr. Church acted like
a man of prudence, and consulted his own interest, he would desist from
preaching until the indictment had been tried, as it would be the means
of preventing a breach of the peace, but this he declined; and Shaw; his
attorney, said they should follow their own advice.  Mr. Johnston
informed Church’s attorney that it was Mr. Webster’s intention to indict,
or bring an action against him for an assault and false imprisonment.

On that very evening (incredible as it may appear) this very man held to
bail for trial on the most horrid charges, given on oath, had the
impudence to go into his chapel and preach to a crowded audience.

On the 6th of June, 1813, the Grand Jury for the county of Middlesex
found a bill of indictment against John Church, for his attempt, some
years ago, on a lad, named Webster.  On the 12th of July following, he
was tried and _acquitted_.—If any surprise is manifested at this
acquittal, let it be recollected, that this prosecution was ordered by
the magistrates, and did not _originate_ with the prosecutor, William
Webster, on whom the abominable attempt was alleged to have been made
(now fourteen years ago).  The very mention of the attempt was a mere
incidental circumstance arising out of another proceeding then before the
Magistrates.  Let the reader also take notice of the following
sentence:—“The magistrate observed, that from the length of time which
had elapsed since the offence had been committed, he thought a Jury would
not feel justified in finding him guilty.”  This William Webster,
therefore, must be considered, in all respects, as an unwilling
prosecutor.  He was supported only by one counsel, then of young
standing, (Mr. Adolphus,) who had to struggle against two of the most
able advocate (Messrs. Gurney and Alley) in the criminal courts.  It
appears also that Webster gave his evidence with embarrassment and
trepidation, and that he suffered himself to fall into some
inconsistencies.  With this _solitary_ and confused evidence, and after a
lapse—after a _silence_ of ELEVEN YEARS, was it possible to suppose that
a Jury would have found any man guilty?  But the verdict did not, in the
slightest degree, affect any of the numerous accusations, of a more
recent date, which have been made against John Church.  From the reports
that had gone abroad, that he was addicted to certain abominable
propensities, gentlemen in the neighbourhood of the Surrey Theatre,
dreading the disgrace of pollution which Christianity might suffer from
the immoral character of any of its teachers, investigated these rumours,
and the following fact came to light.—James Cook was released from his
two year’s imprisonment, on the 21st of September, 1813, the landlord of
the infamous house in Vere-street.  They accidentally met and recognized
each other, and a correspondence took place between these _old_
acquaintances, on the 13th of October following.  A _fac simile_ of the
letter has been published, in Church’s own hand-writing, offering Cook
assistance to set up another house, as may be perceived:—

    “Dear Sir,

    “Lest I should not have time to call or converse with you, as I shall
    not be alone to Day, I thought it But right to Drop you a Line.  I
    wish you all the success you can desire in getting a house _fit for
    the business_ in the public line; and, as you had a great many
    acquaintances, they ought not to fail you; if every one acted right,
    according to there ability, I am sure you would soon accomplish it.
    As I am By no means Rich, but rather embarrassed, I hope you will
    accept my mite towards it, 1l. 1s. and you shall have another as
    convenient, wishing you all prosperity,

                                               “I Remain Your’s sincerely,
                                                               J. CHURCH.”

    For Mr. Cook, at Mr. Halladay’s, Richmond: buildings, Dean-street.

There is another letter bearing the two-penny post mark of the 20th of
October.—It is as follows:—

    “Dear Sir,

    “I received your note this morning in Bed, as I have contracted such
    a Dreadful cold Being wet on Tuesday I am very much grieved i have
    not been able to comply with the request concerning Mr. C—  But I
    shall certainly keep my eye upon him and Do him all the Good it lays
    in my power where ever he is he knows my Disposition too well to
    impute any remissness to my conduct But I cannot do impossibilities
    as I have Lately had and have now Got so many Distressing cases in
    hand Beside, I will Be sure to call on you as soon as I can—But am
    not able to day

                                               “I remain Yours, J. CHURCH.

    “32 hercules Buildings”

    Badly directed to Mr. Oliver, (or Holloway,) No. 6, Richmond’s
    Buildings, Dean-street, Soho.

The following is a narrative which Cook has given of his acquaintance
with _Parson Church_; and which was taken down from his own dictation by
Mr. E— B—:

    “In May, 1810, I was in company with Mr. Yardley and another young
    man by the name of Ponder.  I found after that the said Ponder was a
    drummer in the Guards; I called at a house in the London-road, where
    I saw Mr. Church the first time in my life: there was at this house
    about twelve or fourteen altogether, drinking gin, and Mr. Church
    handed me a glass of the same, which I took; Church behaved very
    polite to me, and said what a fine fellow I was; he pressed me very
    much to stop and get tea with them, for he said he would call and see
    me when I was settled in the house in Vere-street.  I stopped a
    little while, and was about to leave them, when Church said I should
    not go before I had tea, and flung down, a dollar; and a man, by the
    name of Gaiscoin, took the money and went for the tea and other
    things, but I would not stay: Church came out of the room with me,
    and walked with me as far as the turnpike; there he met another
    gentleman, which I never saw before, and I went on and left him for
    that time; I think it was six or eight days.  I went to live at the
    Swan, and saw Church again; he came about three o’clock in the
    afternoon, and Mr. Yardley accosted him, “Parson, what are you come
    to see the chapel?”  He said “Yes, and to preach too.”  Church asked
    me how I was; I said I was not very well: he asked me why I went away
    in that shy manner; I told him he was a stranger to me, and I did not
    like to be intruding on strange people: he said I was shy—he did not
    know what to make of me; he also pressed me very much to take a walk
    with him, but I declined it: he said I must go, but I still declined,
    and did not go with him; he staid some time, and joined the company
    in the back parlour—persons by the name of Miss Fox and Miss Kitty
    Cambrick was among them, and the Queen of Bohemia.  As Mr. Church was
    going away, he came to the bar and spoke to me, and said I must take
    something to drink, which I did, and he paid for it, and left the
    house for that time.  In a few days he called again, in the
    afternoon, and there was not many people there; he asked if Yardley
    was at home; I said he was not; he said he was very sorry for it; I
    asked him what he wanted; he said he came on purpose for me to take a
    walk with him, but I did not go: he said he would wait until Yardley
    came in.  Church said I should do him a great favour if I would take
    a walk with him; I would not go—he still pressed me very much to go:
    I said I would if he would wait till I had cleaned myself: he waited
    more than two hours for me; I went to sleep because I would not go
    with him; and in the mean time he waited so long that he was tired;
    he sent the waiter to call me, which he did, and said the Parson
    wanted me, and had been waiting two hours for me; I said, let him
    wait, for I should not come; he returned, and said if I would but
    speak to him, he should go away happy; I found I could not get rid of
    him—I went down stairs; he said, well, sir, I hope your nap has done
    you good; I said, I don’t know, don’t bother me.  He said I was very
    cross to him; I told him there was other men without me; if he wanted
    to preach, not to preach to me about crossness.  He said, well, if
    that was the case, he was very sorry he had offended me; I told him
    he had not offended me nor pleased me; but as I was not well, the
    less any one talked to me the better I liked it; he said, if I was
    but friends with him, and shake hands with him, he should go away
    happy.  Mr. Yardley said, he never see such a fellow as I was, for I
    had affronted every body that came to the house.  I then shook hands
    with the Parson, for at that time I did not know his name.  He shook
    hands with me, and we had something to drink, and Mr. Church paid for
    it and went away.  I never saw him till I came out of Newgate; I was
    talking to Mr. and Mrs. Holloway, and telling them there was a Parson
    somewhere about St George’s Fields, but his name I did not know.  He
    asked me if I should know him if I saw him, I said I should; by that
    I went to the chapel and saw Mr. Church, and then I asked the people
    what was the Parson’s name; they told me his name was Church.  I said
    he ought to be ashamed of himself to preach there, a ******** and
    rascal, and left the place, and went home in the greatest pains I
    ever felt in my life, and was resolved to see him, which I did the
    next day, and give him one of the hand-bills; and the manner he
    received me, was like a young man would his sweetheart;—I began my
    conversation; Well, sir, I suppose you do not know me?  He said he
    did not.  I said my name was Cook, that kept the Swan, in
    Vere-street.  He said he thought so, but was not sure: he said why
    did I not call before and shake hands with a-body.  I told him I did
    not know where he lived, nor I did not know his name until I went to
    the chapel and found him out.  He told me not to make it known that
    he ever came to my house, for he and Rowland Hill had daggers drawn,
    and that he should be obliged to indite Hill to clear up his
    character, and for God’s sake do not expose me.”—(_Here the narrative
    breaks off_.)

As an orator, he delivers himself in a full, clear, articulate, tone of
voice; but, to criticise his style, or analyse the _substance_ of his
discourse, would be a fruitless labour; it would be like dissecting a
cobweb.  Unmeaning rhapsodies and unconnected sentences, through which
the faintest gleam of morality is not to be traced, must, from their
evanescent nature, set the powers of recollection at defiance, they even
escape the lash of contempt.  But, to gratify the reader, the following
_notes_ of a SERMON was taken down in short-hand as he delivered it:—

    “God is frequently going forth, and we also are often going to the
    window to look for him; the more _vile I am_ made to appear to the
    _world_, the more God will _assist_ me.  Every citizen is a
    free-born.  Many have wondered how I could go through so much
    trouble.  There have been a great many that have wished to see me—I
    can inform them, I had much rather they had wished to see Christ.
    People may be laughed at for being fools, but, you may depend upon
    it, the more God will like them.  All that believe not will certainly
    be damned.  The duties of christianity are not to be preached to an
    ungodly world.  John Church is very much spoken of, but they had much
    better speak of Jesus.  The people of the established church feel no
    spiritual joy.  Spiritual discourse is enlivening to the senses. &c.
    The bread of life is not to be given away to _dogs_.  I am not going
    to turn auctioneer, but I am going to inform you, that, next Lord
    day, I am going to publish a book, proving that God, the Son, and the
    Spirit, are all one great God.  My sermon will be good news and
    comfort to all poor sinners.  Satan and all his spirits never sleeps;
    the power of life and death is only in the hands of our Lord Jesus
    Christ.  Devils are allowed to harass the people of God day and
    night,—no wonder they perplex those they can’t destroy.  People are
    mostly liable to fall, in their first love, into awful heresies and
    temptation.  All the Lord’s people do not see into the glory of my
    text—’tis like a jewel in a rock of adamant.—The worst sin was the
    murdering of God’s saints.  When I sit in darkness the Lord will be a
    light unto me.  I am never tired of preaching, and, I believe, my
    dear brethren are never tired of hearing me.  Many men laugh at the
    doctrine of the new birth—are there not many learned doctors that
    know nothing of it?  Let a man come under any circumstances, I will
    receive him—Don’t laugh at the doctrine of inspiration; be wise, it
    has often been preached by our church.  If every one that is saved
    should be as bright as the sun, what a place heaven must be, where
    there will be so many millions!  Angels beckon me away, and Christ
    bids me come.  The sight of Christ, you may depend on’t, will be
    worth suffering for.  O that I had the voice of an archangel, I would
    indeed do wonders.  I doubt the superiority of one angel over another
    in heaven—Christ is entirely independent of or with God.  We must
    have the spirit of God before we are his people.  Believe in the
    predestination of eternal life, but not in eternal death; people that
    suffer were before-hand predestined so to do _by God_.  Bad or horrid
    is the religion of a proud pharisee.  The MOB is seldom stirred up
    but through priests; there is now a case of the very kind: envy
    bursts forth through jealous and envious neighbouring _priests_, and
    published by _deists_, there can be nothing to fear; and, I verily
    believe; that any thing prayed for to Christ will certainly be
    granted, as has always been the case with me.  Let us for ever
    endeavour to turn every thing, whether good or bad, into good.  I do
    not care who hears me, whether _God_ or _man_, _friends_ or _foes_,
    _devils_ or _angels_, or any thing else; and let them call me an
    Antinomian again if they please.  There must be spiritual life in the
    soul.  I do not believe that God begot Jesus Christ—they say too that
    Joseph was an impostor, at this very day:—everything that is done
    against the church is done against Christ; also, that which is done
    against Christ is done against the church; and anything done against
    the people of God is done against Christ.  It is a most blessed thing
    that we can throw our burthens upon Christ.  That religion that is
    preached by the people of God is God himself.  There can be no going
    forth until the spirit of God has entered.  The Lord Jesus Christ and
    the people of God are all one.  Christ has no sorrow but the people
    of God must sympathise with him; and the people of God have no
    affliction but that Christ sympathises with them.  This monster—when
    he was about to preach, would frequently say to his
    _favorites_;—“Well, I am going tip ’em a gammoning story, my old
    women would believe the moon to be made of green cheese, If I was to
    tell them so.  And I must tell them something.”

In consequence of a respectable young tradesman, in the Borough, Mr. E—
B—, who was one of his hearers, becoming disgusted with his hypocrisy,
and some attempts he had made upon him, leaving him altogether, he wrote
the following beastly epistles:—

Had this wretch received a classical education, one might suppose he had
been writing a paraphrase on Virgil’s eclogue, beginning with the
line—_Formasum_ Pastor Corydon _Ardebat Alexin_.

Copy of a letter, written by the Rev. John Church, Minister of the
Obelisk-Chapel, Blackfriars’-Road, to Mr. E— B—, Rodney-Street,
Kent-Street, Borough, dated March 3, 1809.

    “Dear Ned,

    “May the best blessings be yours in life and in death, while the
    sweet sensations of real genuine disinterested friendship rules every
    power of your mind, body, and soul.  I can only say I wish you as
    much captivated with sincere friendship as I am; but we all know our
    own feelings best.  Friendship, those best of names,—affection, those
    sweetest power,—like some powerful charm that overcomes the mind.  I
    could write much on this subject, but dare not trust you with what I
    could say, much as I esteem you.—You would consider it unmanly and
    quite effeminate; and having already proved what human nature is, I
    must conceal even these emotions of love which I feel.  I wish I had
    the honour of being loved by you as much and in as great a degree as
    I do you.  Sometimes the painful thought of a separation overpowers
    me; many are now trying at it; but, last night, I told the persons
    that called on me that, let them insinuate what they would, I would
    never sacrifice my dear Ned to the shrine of any other friend on
    earth; and that them you did not like, him should have none of my
    company at all.  I find, dear Ned, many are using all their power to
    part us; but I hope it will prove in vain on your side: the effect
    all this has upon me is to make me love you ten times more than ever.
    I wish opposition may have the same effect upon you in this
    particular; but I fear not.  However, I am confident if you love me
    now, or any other time, my heart will ever be sat upon you, nor can I
    forget you till death.  Your leaving of me will break my heart,—bring
    down my poor mind with sorrow to the grave, and wring from my eyes
    the briny tears, while my busy meddling memory will call to
    remembrance the few pleasant hours we spent together.  I picture to
    my imagination the affecting scene, the painful thought.  I must
    close the affecting subject; ’tis more than my feelings are able to
    bear.—My heart is full, my mind is sunk.—I shall be better when I
    have vented out my grief.  Stand fast, my dearest Ned, to me: I shall
    to you whether you do to me or no; and may we be pardoned, justified,
    and brought more to the knowledge of Christ.  O help me to sing—

    When thou, my righteous judge, shall come
    To fetch thy ransom’d people home,
       May I among them stand;
    Let such a worthless worm as I,
    That sometimes am afraid to die,
       Be found at thy right hand.

    I love to be among them now,
    Before thy gracious feet to bow,
       Though vilest of them all;
    But, can I bear the piercing thought,
    What if my name should be left out,
       When thou for them should call.

    Learn these two verses by heart, and then I will write two more, as
    they are expressions of mind, fears, sensations, and desires.—I must
    close, I long to see your dear face again, I long for Sunday morning,
    till then God bless you.

                                            I remain unalterably thy dear,
                                                        thy loving friend.
                                                               J. CHURCH.”

Another letter was received by Mr. E— B— on the 15th of March, 1809, from
Church, without a date, as follows:

    “Dear Sir,

    “Is this thy kindness to thy once professed much loved friend, surely
    I never, never, did deserve such cruel treatment at your hands; why
    not speak to me last night in James-Street when you heard me call,
    stop! stop! Ned! do, pray do; but cruel, cruel, Ned, deaf to all
    intreaties—O why was I permitted to pass the door of Mr. Gibbons when
    you and West were coming out.  Why was I permitted to tramp up and
    down the New Cut after you; I only wanted to speak one bitter,
    heart-breaking, painful, distressing, word, farewell: I only wanted
    to pour my sorrows into your bosom, to shake hands with you once
    more, but I was denied this indulgence.  I never, never, thought you
    would deceive me—O, what an unhappy man am I; the thing that I most
    feared is come upon me, no excuse can justify such apparent
    duplicity; O, my distress is great indeed.  O my God! what shall I
    do?  O Christ!  O God! support me in this trying hour, what a night
    am I passing through; I cannot sleep, its near three o’clock; alas!
    sleep is departed, how great my grief, how bitter my sorrows, the
    loss of my character is nothing to the loss of one dearer to me than
    anything else.  O let me give vent to tears; but I am too, too, much
    distressed to cry; O that I could.  I feel this like a dagger; never,
    never, can I forgive the unhappy instrument of my distress in
    Charlotte-street.  Why did my dear friend Edward deceive me?  O how
    my mind was eased on Wednesday night; alas, how distressed on
    Thursday.  I have lost my only bosom friend, nearest, dearest,
    friend, bosom from bosom torn, how horrid!  Ah, dear Suffolk-court,
    never surely can I see you again.  How the Philistines will triumph;
    there, so would we have it: how Ebeir, Calvin, Thompson, Edwards,
    Bridgman, all will rejoice, and I have lost my friend, my all in this
    world, except the other part of myself, my wife, and poor babes;
    never did I expect this from my dear E— B—.  O for a calm mind, that
    I might sleep till day-light; but no, this I fear will be denied me.
    How can I bear the piercing thought, parted; a dreadful word, worst
    of sensations, the only indulgence, the only confident, the only
    faithful, the only kind and indulgent, sympathising, friend, to lose
    you.  O what a stroke; O what a cut, what shall I do for matter on
    Sunday; O that I could get some one to preach for me; how can I lift
    up my head.  O sir, if you have a grain of affection left for me, do
    intreat of God to support me; this is a worse affliction than the
    loss of my character nine months ago.  A man cannot lose his
    character twice.  O, I did think you knew better; I did think I had
    found one in you that I could not find elsewhere; but no, the first
    object presented to you, seen suddenly, gained your mind, gained your
    affections; and I, poor, unhappy, distressed, I, am left to deplore
    your loss.  O for submission, but I am distressed; woe is me.  O that
    I had never, never, known you, then I should never feel what I do;
    but I thank you for your company hitherto, I have enjoyed it four
    months exactly, but this is over for ever; miserable as I am, I wish
    you well for ever, for ever.  I write in the bitterness of my soul
    which I feel.  May you never be cursed with the feelings I possess as
    long as you live.  What a day I have before me!  I cannot go out of
    my house till Sunday morning.  How can I conceal my grief from my
    dear wife?—how shall I hide it?—what shall I say?—I am miserable, nor
    can I surmount the shock at all.  I have no friend to pour out my
    sorrows to now, I wish I had; I am sorry you are so easily duped by
    any to answer their purposes: my paper is full, my paper is full, my
    heart is worse; God help me!  Lord God support me!  What shall I do,
    dear God!  O Lord have mercy on me!  I must close; this comes from
    your ever loving, but distressed,

                                                               J. CHURCH.”

In addition to the confession made to Mrs. Hunter, the following
confessional letter from Church, was sent to the great surprise of the
Rev. Mr. L—, two days after the offence had been committed.  It appears
that Church was but very slightly known to the above gentleman, in
consequence of some money transactions having passed between them:—

    DEAR SIR—Surely upon the reception of this short note you will say,
    ah, _Church_ is like all the rest of the parsons, promise much and do
    little, yea nothing: to your note I can only with a pained heart
    reply _I cannot indeed_—I can scarcely write this note, my soul is
    too deeply pierced.  About eight or nine years ago Dr. Draper left
    the church in the Borough and God opened Chapel-court for me, many
    attended and have been blest, now a singular providence, but a most
    distressing one, has occurred to take me shortly from my dear, dear
    family and beloved congregation.  But God has sent Mr. L— to preach
    all the truth to my poor dispersed flock, at least so it appears to
    me, and I would do all the good to promote the success of Mr. L— that
    my poor people might not be starved till I return to them in peace,
    which may be many months.  My heart is broken, my enemies have ruined
    me at last, and I shall never, never surmount it, an unpleasant
    affair happening at Vauxall, is added too, and I must take the
    consequences: no arm can help, relieve, or deliver, but the Lord’s,
    and I feel persuaded the Lord will _not_: judge my feelings if you
    can.  I shall secretly come and hear you, to get all the good I can
    to a heart deprest, disconsolate, and full of woe.  Oh, the joy of my
    enemies!  Oh the distress of my friends!  Oh, my poor heart!  Let a
    sigh go up to God for me when you can.

                       Your’s, in the utmost distress,

                                                                     J. C.

The following bad character has been given of Church by Mr. and Mrs. Gee,
of the New Cut, who keep a cake-shop, where he once lodged:—

    “Mr Church, the minister, lodged at our house a year and a half, and
    left last year at Lady Day.

    “We were in hopes that we were about to have a godly praying minster
    in our house; and to be sure the first night he had somewhat like a
    prayer, and that once afterwards were the only times he ever went to
    family prayer in our house.  Nor could they have any prayer, as he
    would be frequently out almost all hours of the night, and would lie
    in bed till ten in the morning.  Several times he and his wife would
    have skirmishings and fightings between themselves, while the
    children would be left to run about the streets out of school hours,
    and allowed to keep company with children that would swear in our
    hearing most shockingly.  His children were always left to be very
    dirty, and would be sent sometimes three or four times in a morning
    for spirituous liquors of all sorts.  As for reading good books, or
    even the Bible, he scarce ever thought of it, but would spend a deal
    of his time in loose and vain talk, in walking about, and fawning
    upon young men, that was his chief delight.

    “Sundays and working days were all alike to them, for they would send
    out to buy liquors, and whatever else they wanted, on Sundays as well
    as other days.

    “The house would be frequently more like a playhouse (I might say a
    bawdy house) than a minister’s house, were a set of young people
    would come and behave more indecently than ought to be mentioned.
    Even one Sunday morning they made such an uproar as that they broke
    one of the windows, after that they would go with him to his chapel,
    and, after that, he would give the sacrament to such disorderly
    people, let their characters be ever so loose.

    “He was always ready to go fast enough out to dinner or supper where
    he could get good eating and drinking, but poor people might send to
    him from their sick bed times and times before he would come to them.
    Seeing so much of his inconsistencies and shocking filthiness in
    their rooms, (though they always paid their rent,) we were determined
    to give them warning to quit our house, and we do not think that a
    worse man or woman ever came into any house before, especially as Mr.
    Church pretended to preach the gospel; such hypocrites are much worse
    than others, and, besides this, we never heard a man tell lies so
    fast in all our lives.  It is a great grief to us that ever we went
    to hear him preach, or suffered him to stop so long in our house.”

                                                   GEORGE AND FRANCES GEE.

It appears from the testimony of George Tarrier, and James Russell, of
Redcross-street; of Richard Jessop, of Castle-street; and William
Williams of the Mint; that the _Rev. John Church_, on the 16th of
November, 1809, also attended at the funeral of Richard Oakden, a clerk
in the Bank, who was hung before Newgate, for an abominable offence, on
14th November, 1809.  This _pious_ minister and his partizans returned to
the Hat and Feathers, Gravel-lane, kept by a Mr. Richardson, where the
funeral set out from, to partake of a jovial dinner.  His conduct here,
it seems, was beyond description.

It is averred, that his wife, upon hearing the infamy of his conduct took
to drinking, to avoid reflection, which soon occasioned her death.  But,
within the last three months since, he has been charged with the above
detestable offence, in order (we presume under the mask of hypocrisy,) to
rescue, in some degree, his character from the public odium with which it
had been marked, he has been induced to marry a respectable woman, who
kept a seminary for young ladies at Hammersmith.  The verdict of “Guilty”
had been scarcely pronounced, when the relatives of the children, with
the greatest promptitude possible, took them all away from the said
school.

Some time previous to the commission of the offence for which Church has
been at last convicted he made an attempt, in the open street, on the
person of a poor Frenchman, who had him conveyed to the watchhouse, where
a long examination took place, but the proof not being very conclusive,
the affair was hushed up.

Since his conviction, Church has resided at the house of _a friend_,
where _his followers_ are admitted to see him on producing a card signed
by himself, on which are inscribed certain texts of scripture.  Will this
wretch never cease blaspheming the holy scriptures by his appropriation
of them!

It may not be improper to state one of the tricks made use of to threw
the prosecutor off his guard.  A limb of the law, it appears, of the
_Jewish_ persuasion, _gratuitously_ offered to conduct the prosecution
for the young man; but upon a refusal being given him, on account of Mr.
HARMER being selected for that purpose, it was ultimately discovered that
this _philanthropic_ Israelite had been exerting himself towards
exculpating Church, with all the ingenuity he was master of in his
defence, from the heinous offence alleged against him.  The “laws delay”
was resorted to, but only to put off the trial till the next assizes, but
the expenses materially increased, as a means of deterring the prosecutor
from proceeding.  It is, however, lamentable to observe, that the charges
in bringing such a wretch to justice, should amount to eighty or ninety
pounds!

From the acknowledgement of this monster himself, the profits of this
_precious_ recepticle produced him from £1000 to £1200 annually.

At length, this precious hypocrite, who has so long set all decency at
defiance, by public preaching, notwithstanding his diabolical well known
propensities, has been found guilty of the crime he has so long (and so
numerously) been charged with.  Much as it might be wished that such a
monster, under the disguise of that sacred habit, which at all times is
entitled to reverence, should be consigned with his crimes to oblivion.
But such suppression would be doing a serious injury to public morals.
Delicacy at all times ought to be a paramount consideration, but there
are cases in which a great deal more injury both to morals and liberty
may arise from the suppression than the exposure of indecencies.  This we
apprehend to be one of that sort, and great care has been taken to avoid
entering into any disgusting particulars.  It is due to the community at
large that such a dangerous character should be exposed to society, and
it is equally important to that sacred body, who can only rise or fall in
public estimation from their good conduct.

He will be brought up the first day of next term to receive judgement in
the Court of King’s Bench.  Mr. Gurney we understand, although he so ably
and eloquently defended the guilty monster, Church, undertook his cause
with the greatest reluctance.




APPENDIX.


Since the publication of our third edition, we have received the
following curious epistle, in _print_, from the Rev. J. L. Garrett, whose
name is mentioned by us, p. 29 and p. 31.  This letter, we understand,
has been very industriously circulated amongst his friends and
acquaintance.  Although we cannot comply with the reverend gentleman’s
request, to erase his name from our pages, as it does not appear that we
have stated any thing materially incorrect, we will do him the justice to
print his vindication of himself, a mode of proceeding which we think
will serve the reverend gentleman’s interests more than any other, our
work having so unprecedented a sale, that it must carry it into every
channel necessary for the Reverend Professor of Natural Philosophy’s
vindication, of whose _reformation_ we are truly happy to hear.



THE REV. J. L. GARRETT’S VINDICATION.


_Letter addressed by the Rev._ J. L. GARRETT, _Professor of Natural
Philosophy_, _&c. to the Publisher of a Six-penny Pamphlet_, _intituled_,
“_The Life and Trial of_ Mr. JOHN CHURCH.”

DEAR SIR,

As bigotry, superstition, and misguided zeal, those dreadful sources of
violence, wasting, and destruction, which once too often actuated both my
tongue and pen, have now, through divine Grace, for several years, ceased
to form any trait in my deportment; you will, I trust, allow me the
humble claim, of having that erased from your pamphlet, which a better
use of my reason has so evidently erased from my conduct.

Rest assured, I most sincerely wish success to every laudable effort you
can exert to suppress vice, but particularly vices so extremity
disgraceful to human nature—but have the goodness, Sir, to understand
that I never, in my life, was what your pamphlet calls me, a friend or
acquaintance of the person you allude to, nor _never_ had any thing _to
do with him_, but what was _forced on me_ by _his own insinuations_,
which principally were carried on with some of my people in Lant-street
while I was out of town.

I also remark that I had no hand in getting him into Banbury; and can
only say, would to God that those things which drove him out had been
followed by sincere repentance, then I think I should have been one of
the first to have administered the consolation of the gospel; but as
things are, I shall leave the detection and suppression of vice in abler
hands than my own, with this prayer, that “That truly wretched man, may
yet be brought with sincere repentance to the feet of Jesus, obtain
mercy, and, under the influence and operation of the holy spirit, gain
the completest mastery over a nature so awfully depraved, and thus prove
that nothing is too hard for God.”

                             While I remain,

                                                      Your’s respectfully,
                                                            J. L. GARRETT.

Philosophical Museum,
      Mile End, Aug. 28th, 1817.

P.S.  Since I sent my note to the press, my friends have manifested some
objections to the gentleness of my remonstrances, under circumstances so
truly aggravating, as that of having my name at all mentioned in the
details of such a filthy concern; and as I have occasionally the
instruction of noblemen’s sons, of the first respectability, I must,
under every consideration, insist on its being immediately
withdrawn.—But, if humanity should dispose you to dispense with my name,
in this instance, without further trouble, it shall certainly be at your
service, whenever you feel disposed seriously to argue the possibility of
one bigot in a hundred being brought to the right use of his reason.

You will, I trust, excuse the shortness of this address, as my own
paralytic debility, accompanied with a death in my family, which has not
yet advanced to interment, forbids me to say more.

_To Mr. J. Fairburn_,
      _Publisher_, _&c._



CHURCH BURNT IN EFFIGY!


We are informed by a most respectable follower of and believer in, John
Church, one who gave evidence on his trial in his favour, and whose name
we will, if required, give up to satisfy the most credulous of its
authenticity, that on Monday evening last, after a visit to his
residence, adjoining the Tabernacle, in the Borough-road, he returned to
Rock-House, Hammersmith, which he had no sooner entered than the mob,
having gained a knowledge of his being there, attacked with mud, filth,
and other missile annoyances, and presently broke all the windows,
expressing their indignation at Church’s most abominable atrocities;
meanwhile, by groans, hisses, and all sorts of execrations, they having
previously drest up an effigy of him, in a black silk gown, with a
painted _Church_ placed on each side, that the most dull might be
informed whom it was meant to represent, paraded with it all through the
village, when they finally burnt it to typify those _Gomorrah fires_,
which, in the absence of a timely and sincere repentance, we are taught
to believe will be the lot of the original in that place where fire is
never quenched.  Of this repentance we are sorry to observe no signs at
present, but we trust the forth-coming punishment (most probably
_solitary confinement_) will give him leisure to reflect on his
atrocities and awaken him to a due sense of their enormities: truly happy
shall we be to hear that the retribution of an earthly judge has shewn
him the greater danger in which he stands with regard to his heavenly
one.



AN EPISTLE


_From the_ DEVIL _to his Friend mid Follower_ JOHN CHURCH.

   OH, say not, JOHN CHURCH,
   I’ve left you _in the lurch_,
      When _your life in my service you’ve past_;
   Though _I seem to forsake_,
   My dear John, do not _quake_,
      I’ll be sure to _stick to you at last_.

   You know that _Old Nick_
   Still is sure those to _trick_,
      Who think they _as deep are as he_;
   And _he_, still, John, it proves,
   _Chaseneth_ those he best loves,
      And _he loves none so dearly as thee_.

   Besides, John, I thought
   If I let you be caught
      _In your tricks here on earth_, ’twould be well;
   For ’twould serve for a taste
   Of the joys you must haste
      To enjoy with me, Johnny, in h—.

   And then, John, your _preaching_,
   And _spiritual teaching_,
      Had almost grown _too great a joke_;
   To those who knew you,
   And they were not a few,
      Who still laugh’d as on gospel you spoke.

   True, you still rail’d at me,
   John, _sans ceremonie_,
      And no one thought me your sworn brother;
   Like rouges in-grain true,
   Who their tricks to pursue,
      Still behind their backs backbite each other.

   _Like me you wear black_,
   My dear John, on your back,
      Then, hasten, dear John, to come down;
   Guilt’s ne’er look’d on so well,
   My dear Johnny, in h—,
      As when _clad in a minister’s gown_.

   _We are hypocrites both_,
   To deceive nothing loth,
      In short we’re just form’d for each other;
   Then _come Johnny_, _do_,
   _Or I must come for you_,—
      Oh, come to Old Nick, your dear brother.

   You shall be treated well,
   Dearest Johnny, in h—,
      You on _sulphur and brimstone_ shall feast;
   We’ll with _fires keep you warm_,
   And do all things to charm;
      As befits so illustrious a guest.

   In h—, John, you’ll meet
   Many friends from _Vere-Street_,
      Which quite cosey and handy will be;
   For their _chaplain_ in h—
   You may be, John, as well
      As on earth you us’d one time, be.

   True, John, scripture you quote,
   Like a parrot, by rote,
      So too many other men do;
   And then ’tis well known
   Almost to every one,
      I, the devil, can quote scripture too.

   Thy locks all so lank,
   And thy chops all so blank,
      And thy hoarse nasal twangings to boot;
   Finely humm’d all the folks;
   But adieu to such jokes,
      For, like me, you’ve now shewn _cloven foot_.

                                 THE END.

                                * * * * *




ADVERTISEMENT.


_Irish Gallantry_!
EIGHT EDITION, WITH ADDITIONAL TIT-BITS!!!


             _This Day it published_, _Price only Sixpence_,
                            FAIRBURN’S EDITION
                                  OF THE
                             _UNPRECEDENTED_
                                  TRIAL
                                 BETWEEN
                            MARK BROWNE, Esq.
                                PLAINTIFF,
                                   AND
                        MARTIN JOSEPH BLAKE, Esq.
                                DEFENDANT,
                                   FOR
                                Adultery;
                                INCLUDING
                              MR. PHILLIPS’s
                    ELOQUENT SPEECH FOR THE PLAINTIFF
                             At Full Length;

 _With the whole of the_ CURIOUS EVIDENCE _on both sides_, _of which the_
                          _Judge_ (LORD NORBURY)

                      SUPPRESSED THE PUBLICATION!!!

    Comprising such a Body of _Piquante_, _Unique_, and Extraordinary
                                 Evidence
             of IRISH GALLANTRY, as was never before brought
                         into a Court of Justice.

                                * * * * *

                           TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND.
                      BY T. FINNERTY, ESQ.  DUBLIN.

In this Edition is given a complete detail of the Plaintiff’s incredible
and unprecedented Bet of £5,000 respecting his Wife; his Whimsical Crim.
Con. Rehearsal; His Amours with his House-Maid in the Parlour, and Lady’s
Maid in the Carnage; his acting of the “Gallant Gay Lothario;” Horse
Imitations; Adventures of “Trusty Roger;” Entertainment of the
“Plenipotentiary;” extraordinary Wish concerning a _certain distinguished
Female_; Whimsical alteration of Dr. Shadwell’s Name by the substitution
of a Letter; New Mode of educating a Daughter; the modern Don Juan, whose
Amours would take up a Month in telling; the darling _Piece_, or little
Kitty Tierney; Galway _undrest Delicacy_; or, never mind your Clothes;
shut your Eyes, and come to those you like best; a Wife’s good Qualities,
with a Husband’s Prowess; Michael Tully and Honour Brenan, or _knowing a
Woman_ “VERY WELL;” the prudent Nursery-Maid, _up to spoiling a Bed_, but
not to _spoiling Sport_, &c. &c. &c.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
          Published by JOHN FAIRBURN, 2, Broadway, Ludgate-Hill,

                                * * * * *



_Price Sixpence_.


FAIRBURN’S EDITION of the whole Proceedings on the TRIAL OF ROGER
O’CONNOR, Esq. the celebrated Irish Patriot, Friend and Associate of Sir
Francis Burdett, Bart. on a Charge of robbing the Galway Mail-Coach, in
December, 1812.  Tried at the County of Meath Assizes, before Mr. Justice
Daly, on Monday, August 4, 1817, and following Day.—_Taken in Short Hand
by T. Finnerty_, _Esq._  _Dublin_.



_Price 3s. 6d. neatly done up in boards_, _illustrated with Engravings_,


FAIRBURN’S CORRECT EDITION of the TRIAL of JAMES WATSON, Senior, for HIGH
TREASON, including the whole of the Evidence, Speeches of the
Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Mr. Wetherell, and Mr. Serjeant
Copley, with the Charge to the Jury, &c. &c.  _This Edition contains
nearly double the Information of any other_, and may be had in
Twenty-four Numbers, at Three-Halfpence each.



_Price One Shilling_.  _Embellished with a Coloured Plate_—“_Scene in the
Red Bed-Room_.”


THE TRIAL between LORD ROSEBERRY and Sir HENRY MILDMAY, for CRIMINAL
CONVERSATION with the Plaintiff’s Wife.  Including the Attorney-General’s
Speech, and Mr. Brougham’s Reply, at full length.  Tried at the Sheriff’s
Court, Bedford-street, on Saturday, December 10th, 1814.  Fourth Edition,
including the Love-Letters.



_Price Threepence_.


THE TRIAL between LIEUTENANT TRELAWNEY, Plaintiff, and CAPTAIN COLEMAN,
Defendant, for CRIMINAL CONVERSATION with the Plaintiff’s’ Wife;
including the Amorous Love Letters, &c. &c.  Tried in the Court of King’s
Bench, Westminster, before Mr. Justice Holroyd, and a Special Jury, July
9, 1817.

THE LOVE-SICK LAWYER; being the Trial between Mr. GOODALL (Admiral of
Hayti), Plaintiff, and Mr. FLETCHER (Attorney at Law), Defendant, for
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION with the Plaintiff’s Wife; containing the curious
Love-Letters at full length.  Tried at the Court of King’s Bench,
Westminster, before Lord Ellenborough and a Special Jury, on Monday, July
19th, 1813, when a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff—Damages, _Five
Thousand Pounds_!  _Price Sixpence_.

                    THE BLACK DWARF.—By T. J. WOOLER.
         A few _Complete Sets_ of this Popular Work may be had of
                JOHN FAIRBURN, 2, Broadway, Ludgate-hill.



In the Press,
AND WILL BE PUBLISHED DIRECTLY


                              PRICE SIXPENCE

                                FAIRBURN’S

                                  ANSWER

                                    TO

                              JOHN CHURCH’S
                                 PAMPHLET
                               AGAINST HIM

                                 ENTITLED

                               “_AN APPEAL_
                                  TO THE
                             CANDID READER.”

                                * * * * *

                “Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee.”

                                * * * * *

           PUBLISHED BY J. FAIRBURN, 2 BROADWAY, LUDGATE HILL.

                                * * * * *

            Marchant, Printer, Ingram-Court, Fenchurch-Street.