P. S. Since I wrote the above, I have consulted with friends, and find it best to come through Gloucester to Abergavenny.—God willing, I hope to preach with you on Tuesday between seven and eight at night. Be pleased immediately on the receipt of this to send word to brother Adams to meet me without fail at Gloucester on Tuesday, to confer about our assize affair. I heard yesterday from Wales. I bought a second-hand suit of curtains to-day, so you need not send any thing to Abergavenny. “Poor, yet making others rich,” shall be my motto still.
LETTER DXLIX.
London, March 12, 1744.
My dear Friend,
THIS leaves me just returned from Gloucester assizes, where it has pleased the great Judge of quick and dead to give us the victory over the Hampton rioters. You remember I informed you, that I thought we should be obliged to appeal unto Cæsar. A solemn day of fasting and humiliation was kept on that account; and accordingly last term we lodged an information against them in the King’s-Bench. Matters of fact being proved by a variety of evidence, and the defendants making no reply, the rule was made absolute, and an information filed against them. To this they pleaded Not guilty, and therefore, according to the method of the Crown-office, the cause was referred to the assizes held in Gloucester the third instant. Our council opened the cause by informing the court, that rioters were not to be reformers, and that his Majesty had no where put the reins of government into the hands of mobbers, nor made them either judge or jury. One of them in particular, the Recorder of Oxford, with great gravity, reminded the gentlemen on the jury of the advice of Gamaliel, “Refrain from these men and let them alone, for if this council, or this work be of man, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, least haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Our witnesses were then called. Mr. Adams and four more, three of which were not reputed Methodists, so clearly proved both the riot and the facts, that the judge was of opinion, there needed no other evidence. The council for the defendants then rose up, and displayed a good deal of oratory, and I think said all that could be said to mend a bad matter. One urged, “that we were enthusiasts, and our principles and practices had such a tendency to infect and hurt the people, that it was right, in his opinion, for any private person to stand up and put a stop to us; and whoever did so, was a friend to his country.” He strove to influence the jury, by telling them, “That if a verdict was given against the defendants, it would cost them two hundred pounds; that the defendants rioting was not premeditated, but that coming to hear Mr. A——, and being offended at his doctrine, a sudden quarrel arose, and thereby the unhappy men were led into the present fray, which he could have wished had not happened; but however, it did not amount to a riot, but only an assault.” Their other council informed the jury, “That they would undertake to prove, that the Methodists began the tumult first.” He was pleased to mention me by name, and acquainted the court, “That Mr. Whitefield had been travelling from common to common, making the people cry, and then picking their pockets under pretence of collecting money for the colony of Georgia, and knowing that Gloucestershire was a populous county, he at last came there; that he had now several curates, of which Mr. Adams was one, who in his preaching had found fault with the proceedings of the clergy, and had said, that if the people went to hear them, they would be damned.” He added, that “there had lately been such mobbing in Staffordshire, that a regiment of soldiers was sent down to suppress them; insinuating, that the Methodists were the authors; that we had now another cause of a like nature depending in Wiltshire, and that we were not of that mild pacific spirit, as we pretended to be.” This, and much more to the same purpose, though foreign to the matter in hand, pleased many of the auditors, who expressed their satisfaction, in hearing the Methodists in general, and me in particular, thus lashed, by frequent laughing. But our Lord not only kept me quite easy, but enabled me to rejoice in being thus honoured for his great Name’s sake. To prove what the defendants council had insinuated, they called up a young man, who was a brother to one of the defendants, and one of the mob. He swore point blank, “That Mr. Adams said, if people went to church, they would be damned, but if they would come to him, he would carry them to Jesus Christ.” He swore also, “that the brook into which Mr. A—— was thrown, was no deeper than half up his legs.” He said first, that there were but about ten of them that came to the house of Mr. A——; and then he swore, that there were about threescore. He said, there was a bell, and that one of the defendants did ask Mr. A—— to come off the stairs, but that none of them went up to him: upon which Mr. A—— willingly obeyed, went with them briskly along the street, and as he would have represented it, put himself into the skin-pit and brook, and so came out again. He said also some other things; but through the whole, his evidence appeared so flagrantly false, that one of the council said, “It was enough to make his hair stand [♦]on end.” The judge himself wished, “That the man had so much religion as to fear an oath.” So he went down in disgrace. Their second evidence was an aged woman, mother of one of the defendants; she swore, “That her son did go up stairs to Mr. A——, and that Mr. A—— tore her son’s coat;” but she talked so fast, and her evidence was so palpably false, that she was sent away in as much disgrace as the other. Their third and last evidence, was father to one who was in the mob, tho’ not one of the defendants. The chief he had to say was, “That when Mr. A—— was coming from the brook, he met him and said, Brother, how do you do? Upon which he answer’d, that he had received no damage, but had been in the brook and came out again.” So that all their evidences, however contrary one to another, yet corroborated ours, and proved the riot out of their own mouths. The book was then given to a justice of the peace, who had formerly taken up Mr. C—— for preaching near Stroud, and had lately given many signal proofs that he was no friend to the Methodists. But he intending to speak only about their characters, and the council and judge looking upon that as quite impertinent to the matter in hand, he was not admitted as an evidence. Upon this, his Lordship with great candor and impartiality summed up the evidence, and told the jury, “That he thought they should bring all the defendants in Guilty; for our evidences had sufficiently proved the whole of the information, and also, that the riot was premeditated.”—He said, “That, in his opinion, the chief of the defendants evidence was incredible; and, that supposing the Methodists were heterodox, (as perhaps they might be) it belonged to the ecclesiastical government to call them to an account; that they were subjects, and rioters were not to be their reformers.” He also reminded them “of the dreadful consequences of rioting at any time, much more at such a critical time as this; that rioting was the forerunner of, and might end in rebellion; that it was felony without benefit of clergy, to pull down a Meeting-house; and for all as he knew, it was high treason to pull down even a bawdy-house.—That this information also came from the King’s-Bench; that his Majesty’s justices there, thought they had sufficient reason to grant it; that the matters contained in it had been evidently proved before them; and consequently they should bring in all the defendants guilty.” Upon this the jury were desired to consider of their verdict, and for a while there seemed to be some little demur among them. His Lordship perceiving the cause of it, immediately informed them, “they had nothing to do with the damages, (that was to be referred to the King’s-Bench) they were only to consider, whether the defendants were guilty or not.” Whereupon in a few minutes they gave a verdict for the prosecutors, and brought in all the defendants guilty of the whole information lodged against them. I then retired to my lodgings, kneeled down, and with my friends gave thanks to our all-conquering Emmanuel. Afterwards I went to the inn, prayed and returned thanks with the witnesses, exhorted them to behave with meekness and humility to their adversaries; and after they had taken proper refreshment, I sent them home rejoicing. In the evening I preached on these words of the Psalmist, “By this I know that thou favourest me, since thou hast not suffered mine enemy to triumph over me.” God was pleased to enlarge my heart much. I was very happy with my friends afterwards, and the next morning set out for London, where we had a blessed thanksgiving season, and from whence I take the first opportunity of sending you these particulars.
I remain, Sir, your very affectionate friend,
G. W.
[♦] “an” replaced with “on”