there was another convict, belonging to another class of society,
who secured his pity and attentions. Robert Tilling, coachman to Mr.
Lloyd, a merchant living in Devonshire Square, Bishopsgate Street, had
presented himself at the bedside of his master, at four o’clock in the
morning of February 19; pointed a pistol at his head; demanded the keys
of his escritoir; and threatened to blow out his brains, unless the
demand was granted. The keys were given up; the merchant was robbed
of his money; the coachman was arrested; was tried at the Old Bailey;
confessed his crime; was sentenced to be hanged; and, in company with
three others, was executed, at Tyburn, on Monday, April 28. The body
was conveyed to Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields, where, _horresco
referens!_ it was exposed to the public view. On April 30, it was
carried to Tindall’s burying ground in Bunhill Fields. The rest of
the story may be told by an extract from _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of
the 5th of May:――
“We are informed that there was a prodigious concourse of people
to hear Mr. Whitefield speak in Bunhill Fields, at the grave
of Robert Tilling; some think not less than twenty thousand.
There was no burial office read; but, after the corpse had been
laid in the ground some time, Mr. Whitefield came, and, in a
declamatory way, shewed how the wages of sin was death,――gave
some account of the malefactor’s penitence,――exhorted all
in general to turn from their vices and come to Christ,――and
pressed all servants in particular to take warning by the
criminal’s execution, and shew all fidelity to their masters.”
Having “spent all the last winter in London,” Whitefield set out, in
the month of May, on another of his evangelistic tours. First of all,
he went to Gloucestershire; in June he went to Wales; in July, to
Bristol; and in August came back to London. In September and October,
he had “a ramble of two months in Yorkshire;”[470] after which, as
usual, he returned to his “winter quarters,” in the metropolis.[471]
Hardly anything is known of these preaching journeys. The following are
extracts from his letters:――
“Bristol, July 5, 1760. When in the fields, ten thousand,
perhaps more, assemble here. When under cover, there are more
than the Tabernacle will hold; at least, in the evening. Every
time, the house is a Bethel, a house of God, a gate of heaven. I
thought my wife’s illness would have hastened me to London; but,
as she is now recovering, I would fain proceed in my summer’s
campaign. I am persuaded I am the better for your prayers. Never
were they more charitably bestowed. I am a worm, and no man.
O blessed Jesus, how good Thou art! With all Thy other mercies,
give, O give me an humble and a thankful heart!”
“Bristol, July 8, 1760. I have sympathised with you, in respect
to your fears about the _Indian_ war. Lord Jesus, grant the
Indians may not come near Bethesda! In heaven, all alarms will
be over. I long for those blessed mansions. But nothing kills
me. My wife was lately just got into harbour, but is driven back
again. Blessed be God, we are sure of getting in at last. Jesus
is our pilot. I am going on in my old way, saving that I grow
fatter and fatter every day. Lord, help me to work it down! But
it seems working will not do it.”
“London, August 15, 1760. How do I long to hear of God’s
appearing for Georgia and Bethesda! I trust the Indians will not
be permitted to disturb a family planted by God’s own right hand,
and for His own glory. But the Divine judgments are a great deep.
I trust some Bethesda letters will soon put me out of suspense.
I wrote to you by the convoy that took your new governor. I hope
he will behave friendly to the Orphan House. If we make the Lord
Jesus our friend, all will be well. Many here are seeking His
friendship. Satan is angry. I am now mimicked and burlesqued
upon the public stage. All hail such contempt! God forbid that
I should glory, save in the cross of Jesus Christ! It is sweet!
It is sweet! What a mercy is it, that we have got an abiding
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven! Of this we can never be
robbed. _Hallelujah!_”
It is a remarkable fact, that, though the burlesquing of Whitefield, in
1760, was a most disgraceful, and almost unparalleled outrage against
all propriety, the above and another introduced hereafter are the only
instances, in Whitefield’s published letters, where he mentions it. The
subject is disgusting; but it must be noticed.
Samuel Foote was born at Truro, in Cornwall. His father was member of
Parliament for Tiverton. Young Foote was educated at Worcester College,
Oxford. On leaving the University, he became student of law in the
Temple. He married a young lady of a good family and some fortune;
but, their tempers not agreeing, harmony did not long subsist between
them. Foote now launched into all the fashionable follies of the age,
gambling not excepted; and, in a few years, squandered all his money.
His necessities led him to the stage. In 1747, when about twenty-six
years of age, he opened the little theatre in the Haymarket, taking
upon himself the double character of author and performer. His first
dramatic piece was called “The Diversions of the Morning,” and was
chiefly a description of several well-known living persons. For years
after, Foote continued to select, for the entertainment of the town,
such public characters as seemed most likely to amuse the attendants
at his theatre. In 1760, he published and performed “The Minor,” a
filthy and profane burlesque of Whitefield and his followers. Six
years afterwards, he broke his leg, and was compelled to undergo an
amputation. His last piece was brought out in 1776, and was called
“The Trip to Paris.” In this, he made a pointed attack on the character
of the Duchess of Kingston. The Lord Chamberlain interdicted the
performance. Foote made some alterations in the play, and brought it
out under the title of “The Capuchin.” In this, he levelled his satire,
not only against the Duchess, but against her bosom friend, Dr. Jackson,
the editor of a newspaper. Foote grew in wickedness, as he grew in
years. He was charged with an unnatural crime, but was acquitted. The
man, however, who had been stigmatizing public and living persons,
for the last thirty years, was annoyed at being stigmatized himself.
His spirits sank; his health failed; and, while on the stage, he was
seized with paralysis. Soon afterwards, he set out for France; but died
suddenly, at Dover, on October 21, 1777. He was privately interred in
Westminster Abbey.[472] “Foote,” said Boswell to Johnson, both of whom
were well acquainted with the zany, “Foote has a great deal of humour.”
Johnson: “Yes, sir.” Boswell: “He has a singular talent for exhibiting
character.” Johnson: “Sir, it is not a talent――it is a vice: it is what
others abstain from. It is not comedy, which exhibits the character of
a species, as that of a miser gathered from many misers: it is a farce,
which exhibits individuals.” Boswell: “Pray, sir, is not Foote an
infidel?” Johnson: “I do not know, sir, that the fellow is an infidel:
but if he be an infidel, he is an infidel as a dog is an infidel; that
is to say, he has never thought upon the subject.”[473]
This profane and filthy-minded comedian was the author of the infamous
production, which brought upon Whitefield an unequalled torrent of
abuse and ridicule. Its title was, “The Minor, a Comedy, written by
Mr. Foote. As it is now acting at the New Theatre in the Hay-Market.
By authority from the Lord Chamberlain.[474] _Tantum Religio potuit
suadere malorum._ London, 1760.” (8vo. 91 pp.)
“The Minor” was first acted early in July, 1760.[475] It would be
far worse than offensive to give an outline of it in a work like this.
How educated and respectable people could listen to such ribald and
blasphemous outpourings it is difficult to imagine. The whole thing
is so steeped in lewdness, that it would be criminal even to reproduce
the plot. Suffice it to say, that Foote was not only the author of the
piece, but its chief actor. He performed the three characters, “Shift,”
“Smirk,” and “Mrs. Cole.” He declaimed against “the Itinerant Field
Orators, who are at declared enmity with common sense, and yet have
the address to poison the principles, and, at the same time, to pick
the pockets of half our industrious fellow-subjects.” He lays it down,
that, “ridicule is the only antidote against this pernicious poison.
Methodism is a madness that arguments can never cure; and, should
a little wholesome severity be applied, persecution would be the
immediate cry. Where then can we have recourse but to the comic muse?
Perhaps the archness and severity of her smile may redress an evil,
that the laws cannot reach, or reason reclaim.” Such, forsooth,
were the virtuous motives which prompted Foote, in the profanest
language, and in the character of a _bawd_, to ridicule the greatest
evangelist of his age, and one whom all men now delight to honour. In
a literary point of view, “The Minor” is despicable; in a moral, it is
_unquotable_.
The Countess of Huntingdon waited on the Duke of Devonshire, the Lord
Chamberlain, and requested its suppression; but was told her request
could not be granted. She had an interview with Garrick, who professed
to be offended with the comedy;[476] and yet, shortly after, admitted
it into his own theatre in Drury Lane.
In the very month when it first appeared, even the _Monthly Review_, no
friend to the Methodists, condemned it. Hence the following:――
“The spirit of puffing, which so strongly characterizes the
present age, is become so universal, that almost every class
seems to be moved by it. In time past, it was chiefly confined
to quack doctors, booksellers, and advertising tailors; but
now even the wits of the town are seized by it, and every
farce-writer ostentatiously styles his _petit piece_ of three
acts, a comedy. This of Mr. Foote’s is one of the number;
but it no more deserves the title of a comedy than ‘The Stage
Coach,’ ‘The Devil to Pay,’ or any of those inferior dramatic
productions, which usually appear as the humble attendants upon
works of the higher order――the tragedies and comedies of _five
acts_.
“The success of the present performance, during the
representation, arose from the author’s extraordinary talent
at mimicry; but it is not calculated to please equally in
the perusal. The satire levelled at the great leader of the
Methodists seems to be extremely out of character. It is no
less unjust to Mr. Whitefield, than absurd, to suppose a man
of his penetration, either conniving at, or being the dupe of,
an old bawd’s hypocrisy, in continuing to follow her iniquitous
occupation, while she frequents the Tabernacle, and cants about
the new birth. And when we are told that an occasional hymn
is given out, and a thanksgiving sermon preached, on occasion
of Mother Cole’s (Douglas’s) recovery from sickness, who can
forbear smiling――not with approbation of the conceit, but,
with contempt for the author of such improbable scandal? We
despise and abhor all enthusiastic flights, and high pretentions
to extraordinary sanctity, as much as Mr. Foote can do; but,
without entering into the enquiry whether or not these are
proper objects of playhouse ridicule, it is most certain, that
no man, or body of men, ought to be charged with more than they
are guilty of; and that there is not a juster maxim in the moral
world, than, ‘_Give the devil his due[477]_.’”
In the month of August,[478] 1760, there appeared a pamphlet with the
title, “Christian and Critical Remarks on a Droll, or Interlude, called
‘The Minor,’ now acting by a Company of Stage-Players in the Hay-Market,
and said to be acted by Authority; in which the Blasphemy, Falsehood,
and Scurrility of that Piece are properly considered, answered, and
exposed. By a Minister of the Church of Christ. London, 1760.” (8vo.
41 pp.) The writer says Foote “has gone beyond any of his competitors
in debauching, if possible, and debasing the stage. He has done this,
by doing that which nobody else in these kingdoms had the confidence to
attempt; I mean by the introduction of real and living characters into
his pieces.” And then, it is correctly added, “The name of the Spirit
of God is bandied about from the mouth of vagabond to vagabond, in
order to raise a laugh in honour of the devil.”
A month later, was published a 4to. shilling pamphlet, entitled, “A
Satyrical Dialogue between the celebrated Mr. F――te and Dr. Squintum,”
which the _Monthly Review_ pronounced, “Dirty trash: intended to vilify
Mr. Whitefield.” Also, a folio publication (price 1s.), with the title,
“A Letter of Expostulation from the Manager of the Theatre in Tottenham
Court, to the Manager of the Theatre in the Hay-Market, relative to a
new Comedy, called ‘The Minor.’” In this infamous and lewd production,
Whitefield is represented as being jealous of Foote in gulling the
public, and, therefore, proposes that they become partners. Much of it
cannot be quoted. The following are among the less objectionable lines.
Addressing Foote, Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, is made to say:――
“Your talent of humour shall have its full swing,
Here pleasure and profit are both on the wing:
Love-feasts――and ladies intriguing――and cash――
Keep on but the vizor,――have at ’em slap-dash――
No bait shall be wanting the trade to advance,
We’ll now and then tip ’em a drum and a dance.”
In the month of October, the storm was continued, and, if possible,
became more furious. A long letter was inserted in _Lloyd’s Evening
Post_, in which, after praising Foote for his mimicry in “The Minor,”
the writer adds: “Religion is too sacred (be it exercised in ever so
absurd a manner) to become the butt of public mockery. If the exercise
of it should be unwarrantable, the laws will check it, without calling
theatrical buffoonery to their assistance.”
Three months before, as soon as “The Minor” appeared, there was
published, a shilling pamphlet, with the false title: “A Genuine
Letter from a Methodist Preacher in the Country, to Laurence Sterne,
M.A., Prebendary of York.” Now, in the month of October, the same
“nonsensical and profane” thing was re-issued with an altered title:
“A Letter from the Rev. George Whitefield, B.A., to the Rev. Laurence
Sterne, M.A., the supposed Author of ‘The Life and Opinions of Tristram
Shandy.’” Even the _Monthly Review_ now became indignant, and said,
“The impudence of our low dirty, hedge-publishers is risen to a most
shameful height. To take such scandalous liberties with names, as is
here done with that of Mr. Whitefield, is surely insufferable in any
well-regulated community. If it is not in that gentleman’s power to
procure redress of such a flagrant injury, it is high time to provide
the means of punishing such audacious proceedings for the future.”
The volatile Foote also added to his previous crime, the publication
of an 8vo. pamphlet, of 40 pages, entitled, “A Letter from Mr. Foote
to the Reverend Author of the Remarks, Critical and Christian, on ‘The
Minor.’” The mendacious reviler writes:――
“I am extremely puzzled in what manner to address you; it being
impossible to determine, from the title you assume, whether you
are an authorised pastor, or a peruke-maker,――a real clergyman,
or a corn-cutter.”
Again:――
“I have heard George Whitefield’s mother frequently declare that
he was a dull, stupid, heavy boy, totally incapable of their
business at the ‘Bell,’ a principal inn at Gloucester.
“The force and miserable effects of Whitefield’s mystic
doctrines are obvious enough. _Bedlam_ loudly proclaims
the power of your preacher, and scarce a street in town but
boasts its tabernacle; where some, from interested views, and
others――unhappy creatures! mistaking the idle offspring of a
distempered brain for divine inspiration, broach such doctrines
as are not only repugnant to Christianity, but destructive even
to civil society.
“I believe Whitefield is too cunning to let anybody into the
secret as to the quantity of wealth he has amassed; but, from
your own computation of males fit to carry arms, who are listed
in his service, and the price they are well known to pay for
admittance, even into the gallery of his theatre, I should
suppose his annual income must double the primate’s. To this
may be added private benefactions and occasional contributions.”
One more specimen of Foote’s audacious scurrility must suffice. He
concludes his pamphlet thus:――
“You a reformer! Are these the proofs of your mission? Repent,
and, by way of atonement and mortification, summon your
misguided flock; reveal your impious frauds, and restore the
poor deluded people to their senses and their proper pastors.
If you still persist, I must, after your example, conclude
with wishing that those teachers amongst you, who are mad, were
confined closely in _Bedlam_, and those who are wicked, were
lodged safely in _Bridewell_; and then, I think the public would
get rid of you all. But, whilst you continue triumphantly at
large, spiritualized and divine as you may think yourselves,
I shall still take the liberty to follow you, as the boy did
Philip, with a loud memento that you are merely men.”
The reader must pardon these long extracts from such a writer; for,
without them, it is difficult to convey an adequate idea of what a
sensitive man like Whitefield must have suffered from the publication
of such falsehoods and abuse. Unfortunately more must follow.
In the month of November, Garrick permitted “The Minor” to be acted in
Drury Lane Theatre, but with some insignificant alterations, the chief
of which was, in lieu of a filthy and profane sentence, which cannot be
quoted, Mrs. Cole, the bawd, was represented as saying, “Dr. Squintum
washed me with the soap-suds and scouring sand of the Tabernacle, and
I became as clean and bright as a pewter-platter.”[479] The theatre was
crowded, and thus even Garrick, as well as Foote, began to make money
by holding up Whitefield to the ridicule of the large and fashionable
assemblies of the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. It was now that one
of the personal friends of Whitefield stepped into the lists. The
Rev. Martin Madan[480] published an 8vo. pamphlet of 48 pages,
entitled, “A Letter to David Garrick, Esq.; occasioned by the intended
Representation of ‘The Minor’ at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane.” In
an advertisement, Mr. Madan states that the first performance of ‘The
Minor’ in Drury-Lane had been fixed for October 25, but the sudden
death of King George the Second, on the morning of that day, occasioned
a short postponement. Madan refrains from discussing “the absolute
unlawfulness of stage entertainments,” because that point had been
“ably and unanswerably proved by the masterly pen of the Rev. Mr.
William Law.” He says, “Mr. Whitefield knows nothing of the writing of
this letter;[481] and I will not say one word in behalf of him. I shall
put him as much out of the case as if there was no such man breathing.
I profess no attempt to defend anything but the truths of the Bible,
and consequently the religion of this country, as by law established.”
Madan declares that, instead of “The Minor” being styled a comedy, it
deserved the name of “A Dramatic Libel against the Christian Religion;”
and, by quotations, proceeds to state his reasons, for this assertion,
adding:――
“Does Mr. Garrick think such language as this is fit for the
entertainment of polite ears? Would any one imagine that these
speeches, if weighed one moment in the balance of reason (to
say nothing of religion), could possibly be introduced, with the
least degree of approbation, before any audience, except the
inhabitants of Bridewell or Newgate? I blush for my countrymen,
when I recollect, that even this _vile stuff_ was attended to in
the Hay-Market, by crowded audiences, for above thirty nights,
and that with applause; whereas it was dismissed, with deserved
abhorrence, after being _one_ night _only_ offered to the people
of Ireland, at one of their theatres. This I have been credibly
informed of, and believe it to be true.”
After furnishing other quotations from “The Minor,” Madan again
addresses Garrick thus:――
“Now, sir, give me leave to appeal to your own _good sense_ and
_judgment_, whether, upon the foregoing view of ‘The Minor,’
you think it a proper entertainment for his Majesty’s comedians
to exhibit, or his Majesty’s subjects to attend to; whether
you think there is such a veneration for our holy religion
among the people, as to need any retrenchment; and whether
making the language of the Scriptures and the doctrines of the
gospel ridiculous, can be likely to answer any other end, than
increasing the daily growth of impiety and infidelity amongst
people of all degrees?”
“As to Mr. Foote, I would charitably think, that all the
knowledge he has of the several expressions and doctrines he
has ridiculed, is, in consequence of his attendance upon the
preaching of Mr. Squintum, in order to laugh at him. Hence
he thought (as he had not been used to such language) that
they were the vapours of a distempered brain, and treated them
accordingly; so that, like Solomon’s madman, he has been casting
about firebrands, arrows, and death, and saying, ‘Am I not in
sport?’ I hope, however, Mr. Foote will endeavour to inform
himself better, and then make what amends he can to the public,
for having been the promoter of an open attack upon the truths
and _language_ of the _sacred volume_, by the mouths of the
most profligate and wicked of the people; for we can hardly walk
the streets, but we hear ballads, in which the _very words_ of
our blessed Saviour are blasphemed, and treated as the _rare
doctrine_ of Dr. Squintum.”
It is hoped that quotations like these will justify the treating of
this subject at so great a length. To say nothing of Foote, and his
lewd audiences in the little theatre in the Haymarket, it was a serious,
almost a national, crime and evil when such profanity and pollution
were introduced into His Majesty’s Theatre Royal, in Drury Lane; and
when, prompted by such a high example, Grub Street began to supply
ballads, of the same horrible description as the farce of Foote, to
the boys and girls, the drunkards and profligates, of England’s great
metropolis.[482]
Besides Mr. Madan’s pamphlet, another was published, in Whitefield’s
favour, in November, 1760, namely: “A Letter to Mr. Foote, occasioned
by his Letter to the Reverend Author of the Christian and Critical
Remarks on ‘The Minor;’ containing a Refutation of Mr. Foote’s Pamphlet,
and a full Defence of the Principles and Practices of the Methodists.
By the Author of the Christian and Critical Remarks.” (8vo. 28 pp.)
This was a well-written pamphlet; but another, by the same author,
published in the same month, was not so prudently composed. Its title
was, “An Exhortatory Address to the Brethren in the Faith of Christ.
Occasioned by a Remarkable Letter from Mr. Foote to the Reverend Author
of Christian and Critical Remarks on ‘The Minor.’ With a serious word
or two on the present Melancholy Occasion. By a Minister of the Church
of Christ.” The “serious word or two” spoilt all the rest; for the
author rashly insinuated that the encouragement given to Foote was the
sin which had brought upon the nation a Divine judgment, in the recent
sudden death of George II. As might be expected, this gave an advantage
to Foote and to his friends. On reading the pamphlet, the _Monthly
Review_ exclaimed, “_O thou wrong-headed leader of the wrong-heads!
Fie on thee! Fie on thee!_”
On the other side, a long letter, filling nearly a page, was inserted
in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of November 14. It began as follows: “We now
have the pleasure of seeing Methodism ushered in in comic characters,
and the ridiculous gesture of the Tabernacle Impostor mimicked in the
easier attitude of the stage.” The writer proceeds to criticise what
he calls Methodism’s “favourite tenet, the _grace of assurance_, good
works being not significant;” and then wishes “we had some formal
Court of Judicature, to detect the cunning cant and hypocrisy of all
pretenders to sanctity and devotion, for then we should be able to
guard against those who preach to us salvation with a view to make us
undergo a _temporal fleecing_.” With a sneer, he concludes thus:――