Part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is your name John Thomas?—Yes.

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

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

Have you known Mr. Church long?—Yes.

Were you one of his hearers?—Yes.

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

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

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

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

You were at the door?—I staid outside.

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

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

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

Your wife joined in her request?—Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you use those words, or words to the same effect?—No, I did not I put these words to him—“Why,” says I, “you did nothing! Did Mr. Church acknowledge nothing to you?” “No, Sir,” says he, “he did not.” Then he said Mr. Church had not mentioned a word about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

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

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

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

You then heard of the report?—Yes.

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

Then he did so, at your desire?—Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. JAMES REEVES _sworn_.

_Examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

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

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

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

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

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

_Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

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

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

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

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

_Re-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WOOD _sworn_.

_Examined by_ Mr. Gurney.

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

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

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

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

What answer did he give to that?—The answer he gave was that the Potter wished to break the door open. Mr. Sellon said, “Did you try the door to see whether it was open, before the Potter talked of breaking it open?” He said, No: he did not wish to disturb his mistress.

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

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

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