Part 2

_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.”