Part 6

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

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

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

That is confirmed by the testimony of West himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Oct._ 6, 1816.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Your’s, truly,

“Till we shall meet above.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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