IN presenting to you the following account of the Trial of JOHN CHURCH,
for an attempt to commit one of the foulest crimes recognized by the law
of nature, the Publishers have no wish to echo the triumphs of a
party—they are actuated only with a desire to hold up the abominable
wretch to general observation, that innocent youths may not unguardedly
become the victims of his brutal passion—the occasion calls for sorrow
rather than joy; and the Christian Philanthropist will feel more inclined
to shed the silent tear, than indulge in exultation, while he peruses
this record of human degradation.
In some cases, it appears desirable not to suffer trials of a criminal
nature to appear in print, particularly when the facts are too indecent,
lest the tender feelings of any should be injured, or that information
given which had better be withheld; but when the subject of conviction is
a creature, who pretends to be the guide of hundreds in the paths of our
Holy Religion, and under its sacred name, is not only ruining the bodies,
but the souls of many of his hearers, than silence becomes a crime, and a
full exposure an imperative duty.
We regret, that among the followers of this wretch are to be found many
young men, who not only countenance his cause by their presence, but
advocate it with their talents;—that charity, which covereth a multitude
of sins, leads us to indulge the hope, that hitherto they have acted
conscientiously and from principle—that they have believed their leader
was the object of cruel persecution—that he suffered for righteousness
sake—and under this impression, we pity rather than condemn them; but can
they be of the same opinion now? We request their attentive perusal of
the following pages; we beg of them to notice the evidence produced for
the prosecution, particularly the copy of a letter to Mrs. Hunter, the
original of which was artfully suppressed, and the admission of Church
himself, and then say, whether this _conviction_ does not “_confirm
ancient reports_?” Let them read the contradictory evidence of Thomas,
and the observations made thereon by the learned Judge who tried the
prisoner; let those who were present remember his agitated appearance in
Court, and the manner in which he unwillingly confirmed the evidence of
the prosecutor’s master, and then say on which side the _truth_ appears
to preponderate. If the hearers of Church do not wilfully close their
eyes, and pervert their judgments, they can have but one opinion, viz.
that the verdict of the jury is the verdict of every one who values the
cause of religion, morality, and virtue.
If however, the hearers of this creature still continue to frequent this
“Tabernacle of Iniquity,” every person will naturally believe, that other
motives, and not a desire to be edified by the ministrations of their
_convicted_ pastor, actuate them—they will ever be looked upon with a
suspicious eye, and their character, and every thing that is dear to them
in this life, will be sacrificed for ever, in the opinion of every good
man.
It may be expected that something should be said of the conduct of those
females who have so long patronized this deceiver of their souls. How
can they longer listen to a wretch who must _detest_ them in his heart,
and nothing but his love of gain makes him court their friendship? Can
they now, in the presence of a disgusted public, enter the doors of his
“den of thieves?”—If they can, friends must blush for the inconsistency
of their conduct: most sincerely do we hope that all who respect their
reputation will never approach “the Surrey Tabernacle” until the present
occupier and all his associates have left the place.
Much praise is due to those who have at last brought JOHN CHURCH to
justice: every thing that could be done by bribery and persuasion were
resorted to by his friends; but they found the Prosecutor, in this
respect, invulnerable. The youth has acted nobly; and the praises of the
Public are due to him for his resistance to the wishes of that wretch,
who would have gloried in being the murderer of his peace for ever!
One fact however, as it reflects considerable _credit_ on the
_respectability_ of the Defendant and his legal friend, must not be
omitted—the person employed to _defend_ the Prisoner was a Jew Attorney,
very well known to many. He applied to the Prosecutor’s father several
times, and tendered his services to conduct the prosecution, assuring him
he should not expect any pecuniary remuneration for his exertions in
bringing such a character to justice. He advised the Father, as he was a
poor man, to accept a sum of money, if it were offered, and compromise
the business: this proposal was indignantly rejected, and the man treated
as he deserved to be—with merited contempt. We regret also that a man,
whose duty is the apprehension of transgressors against our laws, should
have interfered most unjustly to hush up the matter.
Some, perhaps, may think that too much severity appears in our
observations against the Prisoner—but, can this be the case? Can any man
feel too indignant at the conduct of such miscreants?—We cordially agree
with the learned Counsel for the Prisoner, that if a wish would sweep
such characters from the creation, that wish would be immediately
expressed by every true British heart.—Are we too severe? _Remember the
conduct of the Almighty_, _who sent fire and brimstone from Heaven_, _and
consumed the GUILTY Inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah_, _lest their
filthy bodies should pollute the grave_.
The friends of the Prisoner have publicly supported him in his defence by
their Subscriptions. The Prosecutor has stood almost alone; but,
confident that the liberality of the Public was never appealed to in
vain—that they will always assist the injured poor in bringing their
oppressors to punishment, this Publication is submitted to them; and they
may rest assured that the profits will be devoted towards defraying the
expenses which have been necessarily incurred in bringing this “Monster
of Iniquity” to Justice.
21_st_ _August_, 1817.
THE TRIAL, &c. &c.
THE KING _versus_ 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, detestable, and sodomitical
crime (among Christians not to be named) called Buggery, 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. BORLAND; Solicitor, Mr.
HARMER.
Counsel for the Defendant—Mr. GURNEY and the COMMON SERJEANT.