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.”