less to lose? What counted for them was a sensed call of God to continue the evangelistic work of John Wesley. In taking the name "Primitive Methodist", the Prims looked back to the original and unspoiled Christianity of both John Wesley and (Wesley's reference) of the Book of Acts. By contrast to the academic treatises on Primitive Methodism, original Primitive Methodist sources included definitive histories by Holliday Bickerstaffe Kendall, early biographies of Hugh Bourne like that by Jesse Ashworth from personal acquaintance, and Joseph Ritson's classic The Romance of Primitive Methodism. These illustrate a vibrant movement which the establishment was unwilling to entertain, due partly to weariness of persecutions in the 18th century, and to political upheavals after the French Revolution and various wars in which Britain was engaged. In fact Bourne was much concerned that things be done decently and in order, and worked hard to build up the official (Wesleyan) Methodist Circuit of which he had once been a member. He had founded and built at least one Chapel, largely at his own expense, given to the Circuit. It was the issue of Camp Meetings, which Bourne and his companions saw as blessed by God, that led to their expulsion. They had not sought to found a new and separate denomination or put revivalism ahead of expediency. They had less to lose. So the Primitive Methodist movement can be seen as a reaction to the Wesleyan drive towards respectability and denominationalism. It was led by the poor and for the poor. Similarities and differences Perceived irreconcilable differences led to the schism in the Methodist movement and the formation of Primitive Methodism, but in the early 20th century, the Wesleyans and Primitives were reconciled and reunited. The structure of the Primitive Methodists, though broadly similar to the Wesleyan Connexion, showed some pronounced differences. Both Primitives and Wesleyans employed a connexion system, employing a combination of itinerant and local preachers. Both included an array of local, circuit, district, and connexion officials and committees. According to James Obelkevich, Primitive Methodism was more decentralised and democratic. Julia Werner concurs that the movement was decentralised. Most decisions and day-to-day policy were decided at a local level. The circuits were virtually autonomous and their administration was not dominated by church officials, but by the laity. The expansion of the movement through commissioning new missions was directed by individuals or circuits, not by a central