Part 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jury immediately found the Defendant GUILTY.

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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