Lord Ellenborough delivered his charge to the jury as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury—This is an indictment against John Church for an
assault upon the person of Adam Foreman, with intent to commit an
unnatural crime with him. There has been a considerable body of evidence
laid before you, against him as well as for him: and it is for you to say
in the result, after giving that evidence due consideration, whether the
defendant has committed the assault with intent to perpetrate the
atrocious crime imputed to him by the indictment.
Now, assuming the fact to be that Mr. Church was in the room at the time
this offence was supposed to have been committed, that alone imposes upon
him the necessity of giving some explanation for the occasion which
brought him there. If, in addition to the fact of being there, which he
admits, himself, to be true, you should believe the boy further in his
statement that such an overture was made to him, and that the hand of a
man was put upon his private parts in bed, you will have to say with what
other purpose than as an inducement to the commission of an unnatural
crime, it had been placed there. That is, supposing you believe the
facts as stated by the young man. I should apprehend that no reason can
be suggested for such an indecent intercourse (supposing it did take
place) with this man’s person unless it was a prelude or inducement to
the committing of the crime imputed to the defendant. Now the main
question for your consideration will be, whether that which is sworn by
Foreman, and confirmed by Mr. Patrick, is truly sworn. I think too much
stress has been laid upon the circumstance, stated about the searching
for thieves, which it is said, on the part of the defendant, was the
avowed object of Foreman in returning to the house. It was very natural
and highly probable when he apprehended, if he did truly apprehend, that
a male person had come into his room and had accosted him in the manner
he stated, that he should be clearly satisfied before he went farther in
communicating to the potter the indecencies offered to his person, that
there was no other male in the house, and seeing that no other male could
come into the house at that time of night, unless he came for this
purpose and no other. In this point of view, I think it is not at all
unnatural or improbable in his conduct, even if he had said that he had
gone in search for thieves; and, if you recollect, his evidence was,
“that he had searched the house, not for thieves in particular, but to
see if there was any body in any of the rooms.” “I did not think of
thieves,” says he, “because I knew who it was,” and so on. He now says,
that at that time he knew it was Mr. Church, and therefore he did not
think of searching for thieves, his object being, in searching the house,
to ascertain whether there was any other male in the house besides the
one to whom he attaches the crime imputed by this indictment.
Gentleman, I shall now proceed to state to you the evidence as it has
been given on both sides.
Adam Foreman, the first witness, states, that he shall be twenty years of
age the first day of December next. “I am an apprentice to, Mr. Patrick,
the potter, of Vauxhall; I have been with him about five years. I have
known the defendant, John Church, by sight about two or three years. He
is a preacher, and I have attended as one of the congregation in the
chapel where he preaches; I have often seen him. I sleep generally at my
father’s house, but when my master goes out of town I sleep at his house.
The defendant Church lives near his chapel in St. George’s Fields. The
defendant came to sleep at my master’s on the 25th of September last.”
It seems, Gentlemen, he came there by invitation from Mr. Patrick, having
weak health, and it being more convenient for him to sleep in better air.
“He slept there on the night of the 25th September; I slept there also,
that night. I don’t know whether the defendant had been there before; I
cannot say whether I had seen him there before. My master was out of
town that night, but where I cannot say. The persons who slept in the
house that night were Mr. Church, my mistress, the children, and the two
maid-servants; there was no other man in the house except Church and
myself. My bed-room was the front parlour on the first floor, over the
kitchen. It was not usually a bed-room, but I slept there because there
was no other bed-room that I could sleep in. A temporary bed was put up
there for me. I went to bed at near one o’clock. There was a kiln
burning, and I was obliged to sit up to let the man in to the kiln when
he came. It was necessary for me to sit up to attend that kiln, and to
give the man the key. That man’s name is Thomas West. I went to sleep
directly I went to bed. I had not been asleep more than half an hour,
before I was awoke by some one putting his hands under the bed clothes,
and laying hold of my private parts. He laid hold of me very tight. I
put my hand out of the bed clothes and caught hold of him, and asked him
who he was. I said, who are you? I laid hold of him, as near as I can
guess, by the upper part of the arm; and I felt lower down, and found by
the sleeve that he had got a man’s shirt on. I had a hold of him by the
upper part of the arm, and running my hand down to the wrist, I found he
had a man’s shirt on. The wrist was buttoned. I knew very well it was
man, because he had got a man’s shirt on. The person, whoever it was,
said, in a feint voice like a woman, “Adam, don’t you know me? I am your
mistress.” It was not Mrs. Patrick’s voice. I knew the voice directly I
heard it to be Mr. Church’s. He fled from the room directly; he went out
of the room in a hurried step. I got out of bed and put on my small
clothes and shoes, and went out to the door. As the man opened the door,
I saw by the lamp that it was Mr. Church, and he had only his shirt on.
The lamp is outside of the street door, on the Terrace, and throws a
light through the fan-light of the hall door. It is a parish lamp. At
the time I saw Church by the light of the lamp I was sitting up in bed: I
had not then left my bed. I saw that the person who went out through the
door had a man’s shirt on. I did not see his face at all; his back was
to me. I then got up and put my small-clothes on and shoes, and went to
the pottery to get the man to come up to the house. I told Thomas West
what had happened. He was in the pottery, and was there I before went to
bed. The person who went out at the door shut it after him. I saw him
by the light of the lamp when he opened the door. There was no light in
the room; the light came from a lamp on the terrace. That lamp is about
five or six yards from the door of the house on the terrace. The
terrace, on which my master’s house is situated, is a row of houses
raised above the road. The lamp is upon the terrace opposite to the
door. The light from the lamp is given to the passage through the
fan-light over the door. When the man opened the door and went out, I
saw him by the light from the lamp. I could not see the face of the
person, but I saw that he had a shirt on. I was rather alarmed. It all
took place in a minute. It was not long about. I don’t know how long he
had been there before I awoke. From the moment I awoke it took place as
fast as possible. I immediately went to West. We did not know whether
any body had got in or not. West and I directly came and searched the
house for thieves. We went and looked at every chamber door in the home
except Mr. Church’s and my mistress’s. We looked at the door of Mr.
Church, and that of my mistress. They were both shut. We found all the
doors in the house shut except the servant’s, which we found on the jar.”
Now, Gentlemen, great stress is laid by the learned counsel for the
Defendant upon this circumstance. It is suggested that it might be Mrs.
Patrick, or one of the maid servants who entered the room. It appears
that one of the servants was the prosecutor’s own sister, and it was not
likely to be her that went in. It is said the prosecutor’s counsel ought
to have called the maid servant and Mrs. Patrick to negative the supposed
circumstance of their having gone into the room. Now, this observation
is to be made, that it was open to the one side or to the other to have
called the maid servant, and have proposed that question to her. It was
clearly open to the Defendant, if he chose to call the maid, and to have
asked her that question; and it was equally open to the counsel for the
prosecution. It was also open to both sides to have called Mrs. Patrick.
It is probable that the prosecutor’s counsel did not like to expose her
to the pain of an unnecessary examination, because the Defendant might
have called her as a witness for himself.
“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.
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.