His apprehensions about the interference of the Legislature were by no means groundless. It was evidently necessary to open the eyes of the country to the flagrant imposition which was carrying on, and to which poor Whittington most innocently and unintentionally had made himself a party. The _brave_ man, however, began to feel a few fears, which had hitherto been strangers to his _great_ heart: testimonies of his enchantress's charlatanerie were forthcoming from every quarter, of which she was perfectly aware, but advised Matthew to put a good face upon the matter and brave it out, assuring him, that if it came to evidence, she could produce a great many more witnesses of her innocence than her opponents could bring forward of her guilt. This mode of exculpation has been recorded by a very popular writer of much later days.[43] He relates an anecdote where a murder was clearly proved against a prisoner by the concurrent testimony of seven witnesses: when the culprit was called on for his defence, he complained of want of evidence against him; for, said he, "My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, you lay great stress upon the production of seven persons who swear that they saw me commit the crime. If that be all, I will produce you seven times as many who will swear that they did not see me do it." Much on a par with this was the favourable evidence on which this eminent piece of injured innocence relied for exculpation.[44] The most singular part of the story is, that with all Matthew's well-known intelligence, good sense, prudence, amiability, and virtue, his zeal got the better of his consistency. He and his friends who most warmly espoused the cause of the great impostor, were those who from time immemorial had upheld the democracy of the constitution, had rung the changes upon all the virtuous attributes of low life, "Honest Poverty," and "The Sovereignty of the People;" but, strange to say, in their excessive zeal for their new idol, these equalizing politicians decided unanimously, that all the witnesses who were to prove her misdeeds, were perjured villains and infamous rogues, even before they had said a syllable on the subject, because, forsooth, they were poor and shabbily clothed, as if a line coat were essential to truth and justice, or that a poor man could not speak truth. Now really to me their poverty (if one may judge by the accounts which have been handed down of them,) appears one of the strongest proofs of their honesty; for, had they been tampered with as Whittington insinuated, it is not improbable that some part of their earnings would have been expended in the purchase of such habits as might at least have protected them from insult in the streets.