The scythe of Whig justice having removed the hardiest and the best from the farming communities, the aftermath included many families shattered by the loss of the winner of what little bread they had had. Of the 45 men who were sentenced (or had had their sentences reduced) to transportation 24 were married ; between them they had
78 children. To many it was no new experience to have to rely on parish relief because their husbands or fathers had for a decade or more been unemployed for at least part of every year. In some areas, when that other weapon of Whig policy, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, was put into effect, out-relief (the equivalent of unemployment benefit) was stopped, and those who were unable to survive without support from the community were "offered the house", i.e.were given no alternative but to enter that Bastille of the Poor, the Workhouse.
Although it was the men of the Kintbury/Hungerford area who were most harshly treated by the Special Commission (nearly a half of the Berkshire men transported came from this part of the county as did the only one executed.), their dependents were, in the main, treated relatively generously.
One woman who was left without even the small shred of hope which the wives of other leading rioters had of ever seeing their husbands again, was the widow of the very first "Victim of Whiggery", William Winterbourn, the "captain" of the Kintbury "congregation". While awaiting execution Winterbourn had learnt that his wife was seriously ill with typhus. He expressed the hope that she would die before she had to be informed of his fate. His hope was not realised for entries in the Kintbury Overseers Accounts refer to relief given to "Winterbourn's wife" after the date of his execution. From the issue of "two loaves and 2s.0d." a week (1) it would appear that she had been left with two children to provide for. Later entries for "Winterbourn's child" suggest that one of these had died in the interim. Not many years later she must have re-married for an entry in the minutes of the Hungerford Union, dated 22nd July,1835, states
"Widow Winterbourn's child - her present husband to maintain." but the Guardians must have had fairly rapid second thoughts because the entry for the following week states "Winterbourn's child to be paid 1s.0d. a week and arrears.".
While those who had been transported were eating the bitter bread of banishment, those they were forced to leave behind had to exist on a pauper's dole. Increases in the amount of relief granted to the wives of William Page and Edmund Steele, in June 1831, suggest that these unfortunate women were pregnant during their husband's trial and transportation to the other side of the world. Mrs. Page and her baby must have died soon afterwards for later entries in the Overseers Disbursements books refer to "William Page's boy". William's brother, Robert, had left behind a wife and three children. To sustain herself and her fatherless family Mrs. Robert Page received each week, from 15th January,1831, four gallon loaves and three shillings.
According to the convict records Edmund Steele was the father of eight children. By 1835, however, some of these must have died or become independent of their mother, for, on 22nd July of that year, Maria Steele was receiving relief for only two children. The wife of Thomas Radbourn, another Kintbury man, had been left alone to fend for herself and five children on a parish dole of five gallon loaves and four shillings per week. Although married with two children (2) of his own Timothy May seems to have accepted responsibility for a third, illegitimate, child. Entries in the Kintbury Overseer's Accounts from 11th December,1830, onwards refer always to "Timothy May's child", and one for July,1835, in the minutes of the Hungerford Union states
"May's child's pay to be discontinued and 1s.0d. to be paid for her (the mother of May's illegitimate child) legitimate child.".
Joseph Smith, a labourer of Hungerford, had been forced to apply for parish relief in every year since at least 1822. While he was languishing in the "York" hulk his wife, Sarah, had to cope with a family of five children. In March,
1831, and in the December of that year, the Hungerford Overseers generously allowed her a pair of shoes for each of her two sons. In July, 1835, she was receiving relief for "her boy" only. That the sentence imposed on her husband had not in fact been carried out, and that he had not been transported with his comrades, was to be of little consolation to Sarah Smith, for he remained in the hulks until he died there in January,1837.
Charles Green's wife, Sarah, was more fortunate than her namesake. She had been left with only one child to provide for. In January, 1833, she was being allowed 5s.0d. a week, and in November of the same year the Guardians generously authorised the issue of "a loaf for herself and one child from St. Michael's last". Sarah Green was the only one of the transported rioters' wives to see her husband again. In the same month that Sarah Smith's husband died in the hulks, January, 1837, Sarah Green sailed in the "John II" to join her husband in New South Wales.
Although a third Hungerford man, David Hawkins, had been in receipt of parish relief for some years prior to the riots, no evidence has been found to show that his wife, Prudence, received any assistance from the parish overseers after 27th November, 1830, though it is certain that she had been left with at least four children to look after. ( According to the convict records Hawkins was the father of five children. If this is correct his wife must have been in the same unfortunate condition as Maria Steele at the time their husbands were taken from them.). A possible explanation is that Prudence Hawkins had moved away from the area, because the Hungerford Guardians continued paying relief to John Aldridge's wife, Rachel, and her three children, at the rate of two loaves and 2s.0d. per week.
Because her husband had failed in his attempt to evade arrest, due to the pertinacity of his pursuer, Farmer Matthew Batten, Mrs. Bennett found herself in the unenviable position of being the sole provider for a six- months old baby and two other children under six years of age. On 22nd July, 1835, the Hungerford Guardians ordered the payment of "10s.0d. for clothes for the eldest child and 3s.0d. per week for the other two children."
As an alternative Mrs. Bennett was to be "offered the house". This did not mean that she could have a rent-free house to live in, but that, if she found it impossible to keep herself and her family on such a pitiful rate of relief, she could enter the Workhouse where, under the beneficent regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners, she would have been separated from her children.
For a short period after the riots all the wives of the Hungerford men transported or imprisoned received help with the payment of their rents. On 13th April, 1831, a Special Meeting of the Hungerford Vestry was held "to consider an application by the wives of the men transported and imprisoned for crimes committed during the riots in November last". It was agreed at the meeting "that the rents of the said persons be paid from 1st December, 1830, to 31st March, 1831, inclusive.".
The Minutes of the Select Vestry of Thatcham show that the Overseers of the Poor of the parish did their best to pass the responsibility for the dependents of transported men on to some other parish. The wife of Thomas Hicks, the leader of the Thatcham rioters, was encouraged to move to Cirencester after her husband was transported. On 21st February, 1831, she was lent 5s.0d. to help towards her travelling expenses. A fortnight later, in response to a request from George Lane, Overseer of the Poor of Cirencester, his Thatcham colleague, Mr. Cave, was instructed to pay Hannah Hicks 2s.6d. per week. About a year later rumours must have been circulating in the parish to the effect that Hannah Hicks was pregnant. On 6th February, 1832, the Select Vestry instructed Mr. Austen to ascertain if the information which they had received was true. Mr. Austen's inquiries must have confirmed the rumour because, on 19th March the Select Vestry agreed that no more money should be paid to Thomas Hicks's family on account of Hannah Hicks's misconduct, and that the Overseer of the Parish of Cirencester should be informed of this decision and of the cause of it.The Select Vestry's lack of charity did not deter Hannah Hicks from returning to Thatcham; the Berkshire Quarter Sessions Order Book for 1833 shows that, on 12th March, she was convicted of being "an idle and disorderly person.".
Daniel Hancock's wife, Ann, was also assisted to leave Thatcham. On 24th January, 1831, Ann Hancock was granted temporary relief of 5s.0d., and the Select Vestry also agreed that the parish should pay the expenses of her trip to relations at Penn in Buckinghamshire. She must have returned to Thatcham before two years had elapsed because an entry dated 15th April, 1833, states that she should "go to prison as soon as a certificate can be obtained from Mr. Arrowsmith (the local medical officer) pronouncing her to be in a fit state" to travel. A fortnight later it was agreed that this resolution should be enforced. She could not have committed any grave crime, nor been imprisoned for very long, because, six months later, she was granted the price of a gallon loaf a week for her child. Perhaps her "crime" was that of producing an illegitimate child, for another order of the Select Vestry, dated 31st March, 1834, allowed her "13s.3½d. to support her bastard child the coming quarter.". The same order also granted her "10s.0d. to enable her to return to her father in Winslow Moreton at Penn near Beckonsfield (sic), Bucks.". Ann Hancock must have died soon after because her husband was granted permission to marry in 1839. The Bucks Record Office was unable to find an entry in the Winslow Moreton parish registers to confirm this.
According to the convict records Thomas Hanson had left behind his wife, Mary, with three children - George, aged 5 years, Thomas, aged 3 years and Eliza a one year old - to feed and fend for. Not very long after her husband had been transported to the other side of the world, Mary Hanson must have sought , or been offered, solace or support from another man for, according to the admissions register of the Bradfield Union Workhouse, she was, in February, 1836, the mother of four children, including a four-year old named Moses. At the time she sought entrance to the Workhouse she was again pregnant. The admissions register states baldly, "Husband transported during (sic) the Riot of 1830. Mother of bastard since, and now with child.". However, in spite of her fallen status Mary Hanson and the children were "very neat and clean" and her behaviour "in the House" was good, though she was, not surprisingly, "continually fretting". After less than a month in the Workhouse she was discharged "at her own request" in order that she might go to live with her grandfather.".
On 1st February, 1836, the Bradfield Union Workhouse admitted two children surnamed Milsom ; Richard, aged 7 and Martha, aged 9. It is fairly certain that these are the children of Charles Millson, who, according to the convict records was married with two children, a boy and a girl. The register notes that their father was "transported in 1831" and that their mother was "living with another man by whom she has had a child, and deserted Richard and Martha.". Martha Millson may have been unfaithful to her spouse, but from what transpired it is clear that she was not guilty of wilfully deserting her children. Only one week after they had been admitted Martha herself turned up at the door of the workhouse "expecting (hoping might have been a better word) to be allowed something for her children rather than keep her in.". Her attempt to avoid the dreaded House failed, and on 8th February she was herself admitted. The register states "Husband transported. Mother of paupers 95 and 96 (i.e. Richard and Martha). Has another child, a bastard." She stood it for just over five weeks and then asked to leave "For fear of leaving her Work till she lost her place altogether.". The discharge register records that the family was "Clean and decent"; that their behaviour in the House was "Good"; and that they were "very industrious".
Richard Milson was to survive the hardships of his childhood, and, in 1857 he arrived in N.S.W. on the "John and Lucy" in order to join his father in Aberdeen.
Priscilla West was five years old when her father was transported. Between that time and November, 1838, when she was admitted to the Bradfield Workhouse, she had lost her mother as well. The register notes, "Father transported for Rioting and Machine Breaking in 1830.", and, laconically, "Mother dead". Fortunately Priscilla, who was "Clean and well- behaved", had a fairy godfather in the shape of an uncle "who promised to maintain her.". Less than two months after being admitted to the workhouse, on 20th January, 1839, she was "Taken out by her uncle at Dorchester.".
So much for the banished rioters' dependants. Was the lot of those who had avoided transportation improved as a result of the revolt, or were the draconian punishments meted out to their comrades suffered in vain ?
The negotiations which took place between representatives of the farm workers and a group of local magistrates at Hungerford Town Hall, on Monday, 22nd November, have been described in a previous section. "The terms required and acceded to were 12s.0d. a week for a man, wife and 3 children, and the price of a gallon loaf for every child above three.". (3) Settlements as to the rate of wages were entered into during the same day "between the farmers and labourers in the several parishes of Welford, Boxford, Chieveley, Frilsham and Hampstead Norris.". (4) In the two most disturbed districts of the county, the Newbury and Abingdon divisions, the magistrates made a formal and explicit recommendation of a higher rate of wages. (5) "In Newbury the rate was fixed at 10s.0d. per week plus 1 gallon loaf for each child above two..". (6) The East Woodhay Vestry met during the evening of the 22nd and it was agreed that the farmers should increase the wages of the labourers to 12s.0d. a week ; to assist them to do this it was also agreed that the Vicar, the Rev. I.D. Hodgson, should return 15% of his tithes. (7)
Time alone was to show whether these agreements negotiated under stress would be kept, or whether, once the threat of the revolt had been removed and the ring-leaders severely punished, the labourers' employers would revert to their old ways and rates of wages. Several days after the highly successful round-up of the rioters in the Kintbury-Hungerford area a local correspondent could write, "We have not come to any determination as yet to what the Farmers' labourers shall be paid per day, but suppose it to be 20d.". (8)
On 3rd December, 1830, the Hungerford Vestry held a Special Meeting at which, inter alia, the following resolutions were agreed to -
(1) That 10s.0d. per week be given to an able-bodied man, for which he is to maintain his wife and 2 children, and a Gallon Loaf to be allowed him for every child above two incapable of work.
(2) That 8s.0d. per week be given to an able-bodied single man above 20 years of age.
The list of signatories reads like a roll-call of those local J.P.s and farmers whose property had received such rough treatment during the recent riots. The list included the following names -
J.Atherton, J.Willes, Wm.Osmond, Thomas Viner, Wm.Anning, Wm.Barnes, Richard Beasley, G.B.Cundell, J.Little, W.Parsons, and J.Stevens.
On the 5th December, John Pearce, M.P., of Chilton Lodge, Hungerford, lamented that the labourers should have obtained an increase in wages by such violent means, but admitted that such was the total want of feeling of the farmers towards the common labourers that he feared they would never have got it without ; their crying wants would never have reached the unfeeling hearts of local employers otherwise.In most of the purely agricultural villages labourers were paid only 7s.0d. per week, and in none were they paid more than 8s.0d. By common consent they were now to receive 10s.0d. He concluded by saying that he had never seen so much happiness as had been produced by the change ; the people were well satisfied with the "expectation of a reasonable rise in wages" and were "as respectful in their demeanour as. to their credit, they are accustomed to be in this part of the county.".(9)
We should take the deep concern which Mr. Pearce showed for the labourers in this letter with the proverbial pinch of salt. As a director of the Van Diemenn's Land Company he had , with indecent haste, sought to turn the misfortunes of the farm workers to the profit of his company. Even before the judges of the Special Commission had handed down their sentences he had written to the appropriate authorities requesting that a number of the Hungerford men should be "assigned" to the company's estates in Australasia. So eager was he to obtain the services of certain men that he included in his list the names of eight men who, in the event, were not transported. We can be reasonably certain that the demonstration of concern for the plight of the farm workers was a case of "crocodile tears", for he was the owner of several large farms and the employer of not a few labourers. No evidence exists to suggest that they were paid wages in excess of the 7s.0d. a week which he so rightly deplored. If in fact they were better off than their less fortunate brothers elsewhere we must conclude that Mr. Pearce's public relations were poor, because, according to the Rev. F.C.Fowle, Vicar of Kintbury, one of his farms at North Hidden was included in the planned itinerary of the Kintbury "congregation". North Hidden being situated well to the north of the Bath Road, and a long walk from their village, the Kintbury men must have had a good reason for including it among their objectives.
In his reply to the query asked by the Poor Law Commissioners in 1834, Mr.William Mount, of Wasing House, Aldermaston, stated that a consequence of the riots was that "The wages of a labourer with a family were, in most instances, raised to 10s.0d. per week, and a single man in proportion."(*) According to Mr Henry Hippesley, of Lambourn Place, however, the rise in wages was only temporary; whereas in 1832 the wages of a married man were 10s.0d. a week the general weekly rate in 1833 was 9s.0d. (*) Even if this was so it was still a big increase on the rate prevailing in 1830.
Nevertheless, in Kintbury in 1833, wages still required supplementing out of the rates if the labourers and their families were not to fall below the mere subsistence level. "Generally every labourer with more than 3 children has an allowance from the parish.An allowance begins on the birth of a fourth child.". [Appdx to the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, 1834. See also "Wages were raised following the 1830 disturbances." J.Comely of Compton, nr Winchester, and "Wages increased immediately following the riots.", R.Hughes, Woodford, nr Salisbury.(Rept S.C Agriculture,1833.)] Like the Speenhamland Scale the allowances were at a rate based on the price of bread - 2 gallon loaves to the father and 1 gallon loaf to his wife and to each child per week when there were more than three children incapable of work.
Thus, though the relatively high wage rates agreed to during and immediately following the riots were not always and everywhere adhered to, wages were not cut back to the totally unacceptable level of 1830. The promise not to re-introduce the hated threshing machines also appears to have been kept to some extent - certainly they "did not return on the old (pre-riot) scale.". (10) Scarcely 1% of the 1830 number of machines were in use in 1833. (11) This much, even if little, the revolt achieved.
As the Right to Work has yet (1993) to be realised it should be no surprise that it was not achieved by the farm workers of the 1830s. Those who were unemployed, and this was, during the winter months, a very large percentage of the able-bodied men and boys, continued to suffer hardship. "From November to March there are always a large number of surplus labourers. The number has grown over the last three or four years. I never remember it greater than in the present period (1833).". (11) In a letter written by a relative of Charles Dundas, and dated 26th October, 1834, it was stated that in "this part of Berks and Wilts a large agricultural population are constantly thrown on the parishes from November until April or May.".(12)
In February, 1831, there were 44 men and boys out of work in Kintbury. This number included several who had been involved in the riots. The following winter of 1831-2 was for many no better than the previous three. A large number of men and boys were engaged in "grubbing" and in working "on the roads". In December and January £69.16s.6d. was expended by the Kintbury Overseers on "grubbing" on the South Side of the parish, while a further £45.10s.0d. was expended in like manner in the north. £32.14s.6d. was also paid out in "Wages" to those employed "on the roads". Even as late as April 14th there were 40 men and boys out of work.
Between October 1832 and February 1833 the Kintbury Overseers distributed relief to unemployed labourers in the form of over 1,000 gallon loaves and cash payments totalling £45.17s.7d. During the same period of the following winter the Bread Bill came to nearly 3,500 gallon loaves, though this included relief to the sick and infirm as well the unemployed.
In November, 1834, a new method of occupying the unemployed poor was tried out at Kintbury. The Overseers Accounts Book for that month includes the following entry :-
"Labour- TRENCHING" for which the workers received a novel form of "wages". They were recompensed for their labour at the rate of so many lbs. of bread and so many ozs. of cheese per pole. For example, in the week ending 22nd November, 1834 - William Woodley and his son dug a trench or trenches 9 poles in length for which they were "paid" 38½lbs. of bread and 84 ozs. of cheese together with a small monetary addition of 2s.5d.
In the months of December to February the unemployed were back "on the roads", though the novel method of remuneration continued. The total expenditure of the Overseers on the unemployed in the months of December and January were 421½ gallons of bread, 240 lbs. of cheese, and £6.19s.11d.
An interesting entry occurs in the accounts for January, 1835, which shows that at least one of those involved in the riots had prospered sufficiently to have become a creditor rather than a debtor of the Kintbury Overseers.
"10th January, 1835. Barlow Page's Bill for Repairs. £2.3s.10d."
The still inadequate rate of wages and the persistence of unemployment in the winter months, would no doubt have resulted in further rioting if the majority of the farm workers had not been stunned into submission by the draconian sentences meted out by the Special Commission. Not that they were all docile. True, the judges of the Special Commission had seen to it that the bolder spirits among them, the natural leaders of future revolts, had been separated like wheat from the chaff of their weaker, more amenable, comrades, but there yet remained some who were prepared to take action as a protest against what they held to be an unnatural and unjust society.
The old tactics of 1830 (i.e. the open perambulation of the villages, drawing support from a wide area, and the public destruction of machinery) were, generally, discarded. The new tactic was the secret, nocturnal, destruction of property, and the new weapon was - what the "Captain Swing" of the threatening letters had always stood for - FIRE !
Even while the trials following the revolt were proceeding local farmers were harassed by arsonists. George Maules, the Treasury Solicitor at the Reading Commission, writing to Lord Melbourne's secretary on 30th December, 1830, wrote, "I understand there were two fires at Kintbury the night before last supposed to have been committed in consequence of what is passing here.". (13) Lord Melbourne himself was addressed by Sir James Fellows of Adbury House, near Newbury, - "about 6 p.m. on the 20th (of January, 1831) a most alarming and destructive fire broke out on my premises which entirely destroyed two barns.". Sir James also referred to "Threatening letters" and fires on the 28th of December, following the Special Assizes at Winchester. (14) Lord Melbourne showed concrete sympathy for Sir James' losses, which were apparently due to the fact that he "had discharged with vigour and firmness his magisterial duty in quelling the disturbances, and in the examination and committal of the persons engaged in (the recent) outrages.". On behalf of the government he "offered a reward of £500 and a free pardon to any accomplice on the conviction of the incendiary." Sir James added another £100 to strengthen the incentive to some local Judas to come forward ; but the Reading Mercury regretted to have to report that "as yet (14th February) no discovery has been made sufficient to lead to the apprehension of the offender.".(15)
On the evening of the 4th February, 1831, " a fire was discovered on the premises of Mr. Brunsden of Burghclere ; it broke out between the barn and the stable and, in a short time, both of these buildings, together with the dwelling house, were completely consumed." The Mercury reporter added, laconically, "Mr. Brunsden was overseer of the parish.", which was, of course, sufficient explanation of the motive. Lord Melbourne thought fit to offer another, though much smaller, reward and pardon to any accomplice for the discovery of the perpetrator of this crime also, but, once again, class loyalty, or community pressure, outweighed the temptation of the reward, for the person, or persons, responsible were not betrayed. (16)
Only the damp state of the straw foiled an attempt to fire a wheat- rick belonging to Mr. Richard Gough of Newbury, but, on the evening of the 19th February, 1831, "between six and seven o'clock a fire destroyed a granary, stables, out-buildings, a labourer's cottage and a wheat-rick, the property of Mr. Halcomb, near Hungerford. The conflagration was visible for more than thirty miles around; certainly it could be seen by the inhabitants of Newbury.". (17)
Two attempts were made in February and March, 1831, to set fire to the property of Mr. Richard Tyrell, a farmer of Steventon, Berks. The second attempt was successful, "nearly the whole of this valuable property being destroyed. The fire was seen at Twyford, near Reading, a distance of about twenty-five miles." (18 and 19).
There was even one unsuccessful solo attempt to destroy a threshing machine. Among those committed to the County Gaol on Saturday, 5th March, 1831, was a certain Richard Critchfield, who had been arrested and committed by Robert Hopkins, Esq., of Basildon, whose machine he had tried to destroy. (19) In the same month the labourers of Ramsbury, Wilts, went on strike, and were on the point of repeating the old procedure of marching round the villages to recruit support when they were dispersed by the yeomanry. (20)
However, until the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 incited a renewal of activity, these were the last sparks of a conflagration which at one point had convulsed the whole of England south of a line drawn from the Wash to the Bristol Channel.
In the area around Hungerford, where the borders of Berkshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire meet, not a few labourers and their wives turned to the consolation of religion. Prior to November, 1830, when the revolt in this part of the country commenced, the people of these parts had resisted the missionary endeavours of Methodist preachers such as Thomas Russell. Russell visited Ramsbury, "which was a great centre of Satan".", on 31st March, 1830. (21) About 300 assembled but the great majority came merely to annoy him, and for twelve months the opposition was so fierce that it was difficult to hold meetings at all. (22) At Hurstbourne Tarrant the cry of many of the inhabitants was "The Church and King ! No Ranters here !"(22), while at Kintbury in October, 1830, "there were no results.". (21)
Less than a year later, however, the situation was quite different. The human soil, having been harrowed by the pitiless instruments of Whig justice, and most of the hardened sinners plucked up like undesirable weeds and transplanted on the other side of the world, was now much more fertile. The Ramsbury congregation had "100 members", at Hurstbourne there were "good congregations", and at Ashmansworth "some of the people wept under the word.". At Kintbury there was "a crowded congregation" and, which was not surprising in view of the terrible punishments which had only recently been inflicted on the community, "tears flowed."
But the moving hand of Fate had already recorded the history of the times and their piety could not "lure it back to cancel half a Line, nor all (their) tears wash out a Word of it.".
REFERENCES for Chapter 7.
(1) Unless otherwise stated the sources for the information in this chapter are the Overseers Accounts Books for Kintbury and Hungerford.
(2) CON. 31-39.
(3) H.O. 52-6. Rev. Fowle to C. Dundas, 22nd November, 1830.
(4) Ibid. Frederick Page to the Home Secretary, 22nd November,1830.
(5) N. GASH. op.cit.
(6) Ibid. Quoted from "The Times", 23rd November,1830.
(7) H.O. 52-6. Rev. Hodgson to C.Hodgson,Esq., 23rd November,1830.
(8) Ibid. J.Westall to Sir P.Freeling, 28th November,1830.
(9) Ibid. John Pearce to Lord Melbourne, 5th December,1830.
(10) H & R., "Captain Swing".
(11) Rept. Select Cttee.on Agric.,1833. Mr.Robert Hughes, Woodford, Wilts.
(12) H.O. 52-24.
(13) H.O. 40-27.
(14) H.O. 52-12.
(15) Reading Mercury. 14th February,1831.
(16) Ibid. 7th February,1831.
(17) Ibid. 21st February,1831.
(18) Ibid. 28th February,1831.
(19) Ibid. 7th March,1831.
(20) Salisbury & Winchester Journal, 7th March,1831. (Quoted by H & R.) (21) Thomas Russell's Journal. (Quoted by H & R.)
(22) J.Petty, "History of the Methodist Connexion."
Part 1 - Berkshire:
Part 2: To "Botany Bay"