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.”