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.”