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