The Trial and Conviction of That Infamous Hypocrite John Church: The Surrey Tabernacle Preacher, Borough-road, St. George's Fields, for an Abominable Offence; Including the Whole of the Evidence; Tried Before Lord Ellenborough, at the Surrey Assizes, Croydon, Saturday, August 16, 1817. To Which Is Added, His Life, Confessions, Notes of One of His Sermons, the Whole of the Love-letters, &c. &c.Anonymous
Religion
The Trial and Conviction of That Infamous Hypocrite John Church: The Surrey Tabernacle Preacher, Borough-road, St. George's Fields, for an Abominable Offence; Including the Whole of the Evidence; Tried Before Lord Ellenborough, at the Surrey Assizes, Croydon, Saturday, August 16, 1817. To Which Is Added, His Life, Confessions, Notes of One of His Sermons, the Whole of the Love-letters, &c. &c.
Anonymous
Church, J. (John), approximately 1780-approximately 1825 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Sodomy) -- England
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. On the 12th of July following, he
was tried and _acquitted_.—If any surprise is manifested at this
acquittal, let it be recollected, that this prosecution was ordered by
the magistrates, and did not _originate_ with the prosecutor, William
Webster, on whom the abominable attempt was alleged to have been made
(now fourteen years ago). The very mention of the attempt was a mere
incidental circumstance arising out of another proceeding then before the
Magistrates. Let the reader also take notice of the following
sentence:—“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, must be considered, in all respects, as an unwilling
prosecutor. He was supported only by one counsel, then of young
standing, (Mr. Adolphus,) who had to struggle against two of the most
able advocate (Messrs. Gurney and Alley) in the criminal courts. It
appears also that Webster gave his evidence with embarrassment and
trepidation, and that 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? But the verdict did not, in the
slightest degree, affect any of the numerous accusations, of a more
recent date, which have been made against John Church. From the reports
that had gone abroad, that he was addicted to certain abominable
propensities, gentlemen in the neighbourhood of the Surrey Theatre,
dreading the disgrace of pollution which Christianity might suffer from
the immoral character of any of its teachers, investigated these rumours,
and the following fact came to light.—James Cook was released from his
two year’s imprisonment, on the 21st of September, 1813, the landlord of
the infamous house in Vere-street. They accidentally met and recognized
each other, and a correspondence took place between these _old_
acquaintances, on the 13th of October following. A _fac simile_ of the
letter has been published, in Church’s own hand-writing, offering Cook
assistance to set up another house, as may be perceived:—
“Dear Sir,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account