May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—My learned Friend has
almost admitted the case on the part of the Prosecution, in the nature of
his address to you, by saying, in effect, that if you believed Mr. Church
to have gone into the boy’s chamber at that unseasonable hour of the
morning, he could hardly come there for any purpose but that ascribed to
him by this Indictment. At least, if my Learned Friend did not make that
confession in terms so explicitly as I have given them, certainly he has
not offered in his address to you the smallest explanation of so very
suspicious a purpose. And although I invited him, when I first had the
opportunity of stating this case, to assign any possible reason, except
that which is imputed to the Defendant as matter of crime, why he should
be in the Boy’s room under such circumstances, we have had no motive
assigned, nor any suggestion of apology or excuse offered for such
conduct.
There is an improbability in this case it is contended; because there had
been no overture of the same description made to the lad before this
period, nor any circumstance, by which an indication of the Defendant’s
unnatural propensities, prior to this transaction, could be inferred.
Gentlemen, we have lived some time in the world, and we have seen that
men, with these diabolical passions, make those overtures, not
unfrequently, to persons they never saw in the whole course of their
lives, until some occasional meeting—sometimes in the Parks—nay,
sometimes, even at public assemblies; and yet so extraordinary is the
phrenzy with which men of these propensities are hurried, there is no
accounting for their conduct on these occasions: certainly there is no
amounting for the conduct of this Defendant in going into the boy’s
chamber, except that which his abominable and unnatural lusts can
suggest, and which are imputed to him by this indictment. Gentlemen, in
the first place, was he there? Why it is suggested that the boy’s fright
had magnified the powers of his vision, and that he must have mistaken
the Defendant for his mistress, or for the maid servant, who slept with
his sister. Now, Gentlemen, we have it in evidence that Mr. Church is a
man near six feet high: a man of considerable size, and distinguishable
from the boy’s mistress, who is a little feminate figure; and also very
distinguishable from the maid servant, whom my learned friend, Mr.
Gurney, wishes you to infer was the person who entered the prosecutor’s
room, because the maid’s chamber door was not shut; although there was no
question asked by the Defendant’s Counsel, as to the intimacy of this
young man with that servant maid. I admit that the servant’s door was
not fast; but my Learned Friend did not inquire whether the servant’s
door had been left open or fastened, when the servants went to bed; nor
was any inquiry made whether the lock of that door was defective, as
sometimes happens to be the case with the servant’s rooms in a
gentleman’s house; for deficiencies of that description are not so
immediately remedied as in the more preferable rooms of the house.
Gentlemen, could the young man by any possibility mistake the female
figure of the maid servants or of his mistress, for the man he
described—a man that is of considerable size—near six feet high, and a
very striking object in point of height? Most unquestionably there is no
pretence for supposing, that there could be any body else but Mr. Church
in the room at that time. Now what is the conduct of the young lad on
that occasion? He goes down to West, the potter, immediately, and states
to him, that Mr. Church had behaved indecently. I admit that, in the
course of conversation, he mentioned some of the particulars of what
occurred, which the potter says he does not recollect. The boy goes on
further, and states particulars that he had related to the man, which the
latter says had not been mentioned to him; and what is more probable,
than that in giving an account of a conversation which took place so long
ago as the month of September last, that the one may add half a sentence
which the other does not remember? But was not the statement that the
lad made at the time to the second witness, West, (though the latter does
not recollect the whole of what passed) that Church came into his
chamber, and conducted himself with indecency towards him? They then
return to the house; the lad and he examine the house for the purpose of
ascertaining whether any body else is there; no other male person
sleeping in the house; and they find all secure and safe; and yet it is
to supposed, that they went in search for thieves! Why the result of the
search would decide whether the object of the search was to see whether
there were any thieves in the house—for neither a door nor a window had
been opened, nor was there any aperture at which a thief could gain
admittance. It is clear, therefore, that there was no other male in the
house except Church, the party indicted; nor is there now any colour for
supposing that there was any body else there of his sex but himself.
But, it is said their object was to search for thieves, and that the
alarm was for thieves, and that the Boy, when he went before the
Magistrate, gave some account about searching for thieves. Why, in his
examination here to-day, when he was asked whether he and West did not go
back together to the house and search for thieves, he very naturally
said, “Yes, Sir:” but why did he give that answer?—Because there was
another proposition put to him, which appeared as material as that with
respect to the search for thieves, and accordingly he answered in the
affirmative. It is true that he did admit at first, that he went to
search for thieves; but when he came to give the explanation to the
answer, he states that he did not particularly search for thieves; and
after a little cross-examination by the same Learned Counsel, it appeared
that the object was not to search for thieves, but merely to ascertain
that there was no other man in the house that could possibly commit this
indecency, this outrage against religion, morality, and nature. But the
man who was called last, named Wood, is called to state something that
passed before the Magistrate; and, according to his representation, there
was something said about going to search for thieves. It is observable,
however, that he did not take up the whole story told in the testimony of
the lad, nor did my Learned Friend examine him as to the anterior part of
his statement: and from this it must fairly be inferred, that the most
material part of the boy’s testimony given to-day, and that given before
the Magistrate, was consistent, and not to be shaken. For you may be
quite certain, Gentlemen, that when my Learned Friends on the other side
content themselves with catching at the smallest variance in the
testimony of the witness from his original statement; it is a decided
proof that the most important part of the case is not to be shaken, and
is incapable of contradiction. The material part of the evidence remains
untouched by any shadow of doubt as to its credibility. My Learned
Friend rests satisfied with the contradiction upon the subject of what
passed between the Potter and the Boy, but which, I say, is wholly
immaterial as it affects his credit; and the only further objection he
makes to his testimony is, that his evidence of to-day does not
correspond, in some minute particular, with his examination before the
Magistrate. For the reasons, however, which I have given you, Gentlemen,
you will dismiss these trifling matters from your serious consideration.
But it seems that Mr. Patrick has been guilty of some mis-statement as to
what occurred in the early stage of this proceeding; and we have Mr.
Thomas called, as it is said, for the purpose of contradicting him, as to
the result of some conversation which passed between them after the
interview at Mr. Church’s house. Gentlemen, it is some what singular
that Mr. Thomas, who was one of the Defendant’s hearers, and interested
himself so much in this case, that when the boy is brought to give him
information as to the complaint which he had to make against Mr. Church,
he does not make the least inquiry into the lad’s account of the
transaction, nor does he express any desire that the lad should be
introduced to Mr. Church. We have it in evidence from himself, that on
the day when Mr. Patrick called upon Mr. Church, he waited with the lad
on the outside of the house; and although Mr. Patrick brought the boy for
the express purpose of having him confronted face to face with the
Defendant, still Mr. Thomas does not ask a single question of the lad,
nor does he go into any examination upon the subject.
Gentlemen, that this case was immediately blazoned about very early is
clear, though it was not carried before the magistrate so soon; because
we find that when Mr. Patrick came home on the Thursday night, though he
did not speak to the boy until the next day, the Friday, yet the subject
was generally mentioned to his wife before he returned, and therefore the
matter might have got wind before it was fully explained by the boy to
his master on the Friday morning. It is quite clear that it was known to
the congregation on the following sabbath, and according to that letter
which has been read to you, (upon which I make no comments, except so far
as it bears on Mr. Patrick’s testimony), the Defendant, Mr. Church, had
written on the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter, Mrs. Hunter having
previously written to him on the subject, for he begins by referring to
the letter which Mrs. Hunter had addressed to and expresses regret that
he shall lose her as a hearer in future: so that Mrs. Hunter therefore,
amongst other persons, was acquainted with the rumours, because from him
this letter comes, from which it appears that she had written to him
before; for it begins by stating—“My heart is already too much affected:
your letter only added affliction to my bonds.”—Gentlemen, I only dwell
upon this circumstance in confirmation of Mr. Patrick’s statement, that
Mr. Church could contradict, not the whole of the report, but three
points of the boy’s statement. This letter having come to the knowledge
of Mr. Patrick, in which these three points are alluded to, and being
desired by some of the congregation to pay the Defendant a visit, he
accordingly resolves to call upon him. On that occasion he introduces
himself by stating, as the apology for his calling, that he had seen a
letter from the Defendant, in which he stated that he could contradict
certain points of the boy’s story. The Defendant you will observe does
not contradict the fact of his having written such a letter, but he goes
into an explanation with the witness as to what are the points of
contradiction; and then he states that so far as his having laid hold of
the boy, and his having told the lad that the person who addressed him
was his mistress, the whole was a mis-statement; and these, Gentlemen,
are the only points of denial upon which the Defendant rested in his
interview with Mr. Patrick, to whom, however, he admitted distinctly that
he was in the boy’s chamber, though he denies the subsequent part of the
transaction, which the boy to-day has solemnly sworn to have taken place.
Now, gentlemen, I ask again, if he was in the boy’s chamber, for what
reason or proper purpose could he by possibility go there? And if he was
in that room, can you have any doubt of the truth of all the
circumstances which the boy has positively sworn?—If it was a person of
the male sex who entered that apartment, it must clearly have been the
defendant; for there was no other man in the house. It appearing
distinctly that Mr. Patrick was absent from home on that night. Then I
ask you, whether there is any ground for disbelieving the boy’s story,
who, immediately after the disgusting scene he has described, goes to the
pottery, tells his story to the workman, and stays there the remainder of
the night, chusing rather to lose his rest than stay in the house with
Mr. Church, under the liability of a further encounter for the same
detestable purpose. The reason which the boy has given for not alarming
the house, is not an unnatural one. We have it in evidence that Mr.
West, feeling a manly indignation at what had happened, manifested a
disposition to pull the unnatural offender out of his bed, and turn him
into the street. But the boy, apprehensive that such an occurrence might
give an alarm to his mistress, persuaded the potter to abstain from his
purpose, and they accordingly did not enter the defendant’s door.
Thus, gentlemen, the testimony of the prosecutor is consistent in all its
parts; for although Church denied some circumstances of the transaction
as stated in his letter read to-day, yet every main and important feature
of the transaction is confirmed by collateral circumstances. Mr.
Patrick’s evidence is a direct corroboration of the boy’s story, from the
moment that the transaction first took place down to his examination of
to-day. But if, gentlemen, as I said before, you feel any reasonable
doubt of the purpose for which the defendant came into the boy’s room, it
is your duty to acquit him; but, on the other hand, if all the
circumstances of the case conspire to imprint upon your mind that the
defendant had clearly no other purpose, but a guilty and unnatural one
when he entered that apartment, it is your bounden duty, disgusting as it
may be, to pronounce a sentence of condemnation, whatever consequences
may result to the defendant in the judgment which he shall hereafter
receive.