- fendants; 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
