The following is the narrative which Cook has given to his acquaintance with Parson Church; and which was taken down from his own dictation by Mr. E— B—:
In May, 1810, J. Cook was in company with Mr. Yardley and another young man by the name of Ponder. I found after that the said Ponder was a drummer in the Guards; but Cook went to call at a house in the London Road, where I saw Mr. Church the first time in my life; there was at this house about twelve or fourteen altogether drinking gin, and Mr. Church handed me a glass of the same, which I took; Church behaved very polite to me, and said what a fine fellow I was, he pressed me very much to stop and get tea with them, for he said he would call and see me when I was settled in the house in Vere-street. I stopped a little while and was about to leave them when Church said I should not go before I had tea, and flung down a dollar, and a man by the name of Gaiscoin took the money and went for the tea and other things but I would not stay, Church came out of the room with me, and walked with me as far as the turnpike, there he met another Gentleman which I never saw before, and I went on and left him for that time, I think it was 6 or 8 days. I went to live at the Swan, and saw Church again, he came about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and Mr. Yardley accosted him, ‘Parson what are you come to see the Chappel?’ he said ‘yes, and to preach too:’ Church asked me how I was, I said I was not very well, he asked me why I went away in that shy manner, I told him he was a stranger to me, and I did not like to be intruding on strange people, he said I was shy, he did not know what to make of me, he also pressed me very much to take a walk with him, but I declined it, he said I must go, but I still declined, and did not go with him, he staid some time and joined the company that was in the Back Parlour, persons by the name of Miss Fox and Miss Kitty Cambrick was among them, and the Queen of Bohemia. As Mr. C. was going away, he came to the bar and spoke to me, and said I must take something to drink, which I did, and he paid for it, and left the house for that time. In a few days he called again in the afternoon, and there was not many people there, he asked if Yardly was at home, I said he was not, he said he was very sorry for it, I asked him what he wanted, he said he came on purpose for me to take a walk with him, but I did not go, he said he would wait until Yardly came in, Church said I should do him a great favor if I would take a walk with him, I would not go, he still pressed me very much to go, I said I would if he would wait till I had cleaned myself, he waited more than two hours for me, I went to steep because I would not go with him, and in the mean time he waited so long that he was tired, he sent the waiter to call me, which he did, and said the Parson wanted me, and had been waiting two hours for me, I said him wait, for I should not come, he returned and said if I would but speak to him, he should go away happy. I found I could not get rid of him, I went down stairs, he said well, Sir, I hope your nap has done you good, I said I dont know, dont bother me, he said I was very cross to him, I told him there was other men without me, if he wanted to preach, not to preach to me about crossness. He said well if that was the case he was very sorry he had offended me, I told him he had not offended me nor pleased me, but as I was not well and the less any one talked to me the better I liked it. He said if I was but friends with him, and shake hands with him, he should go away happy. Mr. Yardly said, I never see such a fellow as I was, for I had affronted every body that came to the house. I then shook hands with the Parson, for at that time I did not know his name. He shook hands with me, and we had something to drink, and Mr. Church paid for it and went away. I never saw him until I came out of Newgate, I was talking to Mr. and Mrs. Holloway, and telling them there was a Parson somewhere about St. George’s Fields, but his name I did not know. He asked me if I should know him if I saw him, I said I should, by that I went to the Chapel and saw Mr. Church, and then I asked the people what was the Parson’s name, they told me his name was Church. I said he ought to be ashamed of himself to preach there, a *** and rascal, and left the place, and went home in the greatest pains I ever felt in my life, and was resolved to see him, which I did the next day, and give him one of the hand-bills, and the manner he received me, was like a young man would his sweetheart, I begun my conversation:—Well, Sir, I suppose you do not know me. He said he did not. I said my name was Cook, that kept the Swan, in Vere street. He said he thought so, but was not sure: he said, why did I not call before and shake hands with a body. I told him I did not know where he lived, nor I did not know his name until I went to the Chapel and found him out. He told me not to make it known that he ever came to my house, for he and Roland Hill had daggers drawn, and that he should be obliged to indite Hill to clear up his character, and for God’s sake do not expose me.
(Here the Narrative breaks off.)
POSTCRIPT.
In addition to the above testimonies, the Editor has received a very long narrative of atrocities committed by John Church while he resided at Banbury, which has been written by a Minister at that place; but the facts are too disgusting and shocking to be published.
On the 6th of June 1813, the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex found a Bill of Indictment against John Church for his attempt some years ago on a lad named Webster.
Printed by and for R. Bell, Bride Lane, Fleet Street.
SECOND POSTCRIPT.
July 15.
This Pamphlet was printed and ready for publication some weeks since; but the Editor thought proper to keep it back until the trial of John Church, which came on at the Middlesex Sessions on Monday the 12th of July 1813; when he was acquitted. Indeed the Editor never imagined that any other verdict than one of acquittal, would have been given on that particular prosecution. If the Reader looks back to pages [25] and [26], he will find in the account there given of the proceedings at Union Hall, that this prosecution was ORDERED by the Magistrates of that Office, and did not originate with the prosecutor, William Webster, on whom the abominable attempt was alleged to have been made eleven years ago; that the very mention of the attempt was a mere incidental circumstance arising out of another proceeding then before the Magistrates; and that the latter, upon hearing it, dismissed the first complaint, and obliged Wm. Webster to become (what he never until then intended to be) a prosecutor against Church. Let the Reader also take notice of the following sentence in the report in page [26]: “The Magistrate observed, that from the length of time which had elapsed since the offence had been committed, he thought a Jury would not feel justified in finding him guilty.” This William Webster, therefore, considered, in all respects, as an unwilling prosecutor, who was supported only by one counsel of young standing, [38a] and had to struggle against two of the most able advocates [38b] in the criminal courts. The Editor (for he was not present at the trial) understands that Webster gave his evidence with embarrassment and trepidation, and he suffered himself to fall into some inconsistencies. With this solitary and confused evidence, and after a lapse—after a silence of ELEVEN YEARS, was it possible to suppose that a Jury would have found any man guilty? It must here be observed that the decision on this solitary complaint of eleven years standing, does not in the slightest degree affect any of the numerous accusation at a more recent date, which have been made against John Church.