mind that, while the Secretaries, in their Reports, speak of nothing but "progress," some of the Delegates in their speeches refer to the number of Delegates sent, as a proof of that "progress." Thus Mr. Coultas, from York, says,

It has been said that York is going back in the matter of Reform. This is simply an unmitigated falsehood, by whomsoever it was uttered. One proof to the contrary is found in the facts, that, whereas at each of the previous Meetings we have sent but three Delegates, this time we have sent four.

Now, according to the Report of the first Meeting, on Tuesday, March 12th, "Delegates to the number of above four hundred from all parts of the country, met together" in Albion chapel, London. And this number, we are told, was further increased on the following day. All these, it was said, actually assembled. How many more might have come, if they had had the means, we cannot tell. But, for the Newcastle Meeting, it appears that only three hundred and eight Delegates were "appointed,"-not, let it be observed, were present, but were “appointed,”—many of those thus "appointed" never going near Newcastle. Their "appointment" took place; and, being satisfied with that honour, and, in some cases probably, not knowing so well how their expenses would be paid as did some of their friends from London, like wise men, they stayed at home. From an official list supplied to us, we are able confidently to state, that a very large number of those said to be "appointed" were absent. And of the "appointed" ones present, the reports inform us that eighty-eight came from the neighbourhood of Newcastle alone,-Newcastle and Gateshead, which are in reality but one town, sending thirty out of that number.

Our readers may now form some conjecture, from these statements, of the way in which this Delegate-Meeting was "made up ;" and will at once determine, that it was decidedly inferior, as a gathering, to the one held in March, 1850. But we should like to know, how it is to be accounted for, that while "Reform" is making such prodigious progress, the number of Delegates, who were "appointed" in 1851, should be one hundred less than the number that actually assembled eighteen months before. If we were asked for our own explanation, it would be something to this effect: "In March, 1850, four hundred dissatisfied men met together to combine for the destruction of Methodism; but, in the course of the next year and a half, one half of them growing ashamed, or getting weary, of the attempt, only about two hundred were left to carry it on." If to this be added, that these dissatisfied men collected or gave, on an average, about £5 apiece, we have a short, but pretty definite, history of the "movement," as it is called. But it may be thought that we are not doing justice to the Delegates," because one of the Reports states, that a larger number of Circuits were represented at Newcastle than had been represented in the previous Delegate-Meetings. Now, in March, 1850, one hundred and twenty-eight Circuits were said to be represented by "Delegates;" in August, 1851, one hundred and thirty-one Circuits were said to be so

represented, being an increase of three in eighteen months; and one of these three being the town adjoining Newcastle, that is, Gateshead, which, according to the list, we find, contributed its quota of nine members to the Delegate-Meeting.

So much, then, for one view of "the progress of the movement." In eighteen months the "Delegates" have gained a clear loss of about two hundred members; while three small places in the neighbourhood of Newcastle have sent representatives to their Meeting that had sent none before. What the “Delegate-Meeting" will be in eighteen months more, if it "progresses " at this rate, it is not difficult to perceive.

But we have other and abundant evidence, from the proceedings and talk of the "Delegates" themselves, that they are constrained to regard their "movement" as a failure. It appears that, notwithstanding the unceasing efforts of Mr. Everett and his colleagues to excite the pity of the nation by a narrative of their sorrows, both real and sham; notwithstanding Mr. Dresser's boast that the Corresponding Committee have circulated 200,000 hand-bills, and 200,000 addresses, the people are not yet sufficiently moved, or alive to the necessity of "Reform." And so, one speaker proposes a "Reform Tract Society;" another suggests that a "Bill of Rights" should be printed and distributed "without delay;" a third, that the "Wesleyan Reformer" should be more "extensively circulated;" a fourth, that the expelled Ministers should be again employed at a reduced salary of £150; a fifth, that twenty-four Lecturers should be engaged at a salary of £80! while another advises that the offer of £150 per annum should be made to all the Wesleyan Ministers who were willing to enlist in the service of "Reform." Now, all these plans the Delegates would, doubtless, like to carry out, if they could. But then the means! the means! It is notorious that, though they have several wealthy men amongst themselves, and though no such attempt at drainage was ever made in this country as they have made to carry on their " movement," the money did not " come tumbling in" quite so fast as Mr. Alderman Schofield said it would. Let Mr. Child, one of the Treasurers of the "Reform Fund," be heard on this subject. He said,—

We must take a lesson, in these matters, from past experience.. Now, it was proposed some time ago to raise a sum of £20,000 for the Reform Fund; and the Circuits were all communicated with. It was expected that we should have been enabled to raise £5,000 of it within six months; and I find this among other things that we then proposed,-to employ a portion of it in sending out Lecturers. I wish now to tell you that we only received, from April, 1850, to the 31st of July, 1851, the sum of £1,821; and it has been very hard work to get even that. Well, in looking at Mr. Cutts's plan, we must know how we stand, in order not to deceive ourselves. I have been looking at the item for employing twenty-four labourers at £80 a year; and I am quite satisfied you will never get men to serve you for that sum, or for less than £120 a year. That will come to a round sum of £2,880, in addition to the stipends of the four expelled Ministers, £720, and the expenses of the office in London. You are attempting more than you will be able to perform, unless, indeed, you have made up your minds to a most vigorous effort for the future; for you will want to carry on these extensive operations no less a sum than between £7,000 and £8,000 per annum.

This speech of Mr. Child, as it may be supposed, was very unpalatable; and, as in the case of Mr. Chalkley, Mr. Gandy, who seems to have acted the part of general extinguisher when any brother told the truth too plainly, put him down. An attempt was subsequently made to get over Mr. Child's difficult facts, by handing a note up to the Chairman, that “one penny per week, from fifty-six thousand Reformers, would raise £12,133. 6s. 8d.;" but the disappointed Treasurer, who had been promised £20,000, and only received £1,821 in sixteen months, replied, in his own straightforward way, "Such calculations are worth nothing. I hope the Meeting will not delude themselves with respect to money matters." So that we learn from this brief conversation, part of which, however, is suppressed in the official report, that "Reform" has not spread quite so extensively as the "reports" intimate; that the Delegates, with all their agents and agencies, have not been able to raise even one tenth of the sum they proposed to raise; and that all "calculations" as to what they may raise, in time to come, are worth nothing."

66

In reading the entire account of their Meeting, it is impossible to resist the conviction, that the "Delegates" themselves know that this "Reform” of which they talk is a great cheat; and that, while they have resolved to practise the "imposition" upon others for another year, they are fully conscious that it is already a failure."

66

We may just observe, in conclusion, that wonderful accounts reached us respecting the gathering of the "Delegates" in Newcastle, before it took place. It was confidently stated, that the Preachers were at their wits' end to find accommodation for the Conference; and that, consequently, less than two hundred Ministers would be present on the occasion; whereas, there was no end to the houses that were offered for the entertainment of the "Delegates," the inhabitants of that great town vying with one another in their desire to receive them and do them honour; and that more than four hundred Delegates, therefore, would share their hospitalities. We have seen what sort of a figure the “Delegates" cut, as to number; and we could tell, as we hinted in our last, some queer stories about their entertainment also.

FALSEHOOD EXPOSED AND REBUKED.

We present our readers with the following Letters, which, in the main, will explain themselves. One of them is a most telling rebuke administered to the Rev. Samuel Dunn, by an accomplished and powerful writer in the "Cornish Telegraph" newspaper; and the other is a Letter addressed to the Editor of the "Guardian," (a HighChurch party newspaper,) by the Rev. Thomas Jackson. The two Letters relate, in some of their parts, to one subject, and will serve to shed light on each other. For some months past, Mr. Dunn and his friends have been seeking to serve the interests of their "reforming" cause, by publishing most flagrant falsehoods concerning the alleged alteration and mutilation, by Mr. Jackson and others, of the standard

Works of Mr. Wesley, and of Methodism.

He will find in these

Letters rather a sharp correction of his conduct. It will be seen, that the writer of the Letter in the "Guardian" has shown himself an honourable gentleman, who is ready to correct an erroneous statement, when informed of it, and to rejoice in the truth. Will Mr. Dunn show himself to be such? We trow not.

TO THE REV. SAMUEL DUNN.

REV. SIR,—If I were to follow the example you set, of calling even venerable men by their plain names, instead of giving them those titles of courtesy or honour by which they are commonly distinguished, I might address you merely as "Samuel," or perhaps "Sammy," Dunn. But I have yet to learn that because of any difference with others in opinion or sentiment, we may be vulgar or contemptuous in our mode of addressing them. The spirit of a gentleman blends, by natural affinity, with the spirit of a Christian; and it may fairly be suspected whether the latter is in a very flourishing condition, when it divorces itself from the former.

My personal recollections of you go back more than thirty years, to the time when you entered upon your ministry. There then seemed every probability that in that ministry you would acquit yourself with credit. You had more than ordinary talent; your style of address was fervent and impressive; and I believe your heart was devoutly engaged in the solemn duties of your profession. You read much, thought much, laboured much. Nor, for a long period, did your after-years disappoint the promise of your youth. I believe I speak only the sense of your late brethren, and thousands among whom you laboured, when I say that, throughout your ministry, you sustained the character of an able, zealous, and faithful Preacher and Pastor. Even in the minds of those who regard your subsequent career with severest reprehension, nothing can blot out the remembrance of a part of your life, on which you may always look back with satisfaction and delight.

I do not know whether it ever occurred to you, that with your good qualities there were mingled some faults. If you were not conscious of them, your friends were. It was generally thought, by those who knew you best, that you were inclined unduly to magnify your own abilities; that you formed your opinions with too absolute an independence of the opinions of others; and asserted them in a dogmatic and unconciliatory tone. You were apt to mistake harshness of temper for strength of principle, and to act upon impulses of passion as though they were decisions of the intellect. There is a story current, that when you were appointed to Shetland, Dr. Clarke, (to whose authority you are fond of appealing,) in speaking of your qualifications for that Missionary station, instanced as one, that the devil himself could not turn you. Though the events of the last two years have given a melancholy confirmation to the Doctor's opinion, it would seem, from the strong form of his expression, that, even then, to his practised eye, it was perceptible that the Christian zeal proper to the office was backed up with a good deal of dogged obstinacy peculiar to the man.

I believe, in my heart, it was this infirmity of temper, growing with your years, which mainly led to your expulsion. You are aware to what an extent, in cases of dispute, our impressions of the parties are decided by their manner and deportment; and how imperfect often is any written report of the case, wanting this living commentary of looks, tones, and gestures. Now, if the people who have heard only your version of the proceedings at the Conference of 1849, could have actually witnessed them, to what different conclusions would they come! By the concurrent testimony of men whose words admit no shadow of doubt, I am as sure as I can be of any fact beyond the evidence of my senses, that during the sitting of that Conference your general conduct was uncourteous in the extreme,-your language rude, petulant, offensive. I could mention the name of a brother Minister, (but your memory will supply it,) who, happening to meet you out of the Conference, volun

teered some information which he thought would be of deep interest to you, but was instantly met with such tart, snappish replies, as made it painful for him to stay in your presence. In short, the impression on the minds of the whole Conference was, that they were dealing with a thoroughly-impracticable man, upon whom all attempts at conciliation would be utterly wasted. We have it upon high authority, that there are tongues which no man can tame; and, unfortunately, they are sometimes heard in the church as well as out of it.

It forms no part of my purpose, in these remarks, to go into the particulars of your case with the Conference. I will admit even, for the sake of argument, that your expulsion was unjust; that you were, in reality, one of the meekest, humblest, most forgiving of men; and that your brethren forced you out of their ranks only because they could not endure the lustre of your superior virtues,—which, I think, tallies pretty nearly with the account you give of the affair. Admitting all this, I ask, What, upon every principle of right, should have been your course, when severed from your old connexion? Ought you not then to have joined some other community, or become the Pastor of some Independent church? In either way you might have passed the remainder of your life with honour to yourself, and benefit to others.

Unfortunately, your angry passions led you in another direction. With the first expelled you took for your motto, "Evil, be thou my good!" and most faithfully have you acted up to it. For two years you have been engaged in disturbing the peace of the Wesleyan Societies,-in scattering the seed of envy, hatred, and strife throughout the land. The result of your labours, with the aid of your friends, Everett and Griffith, has given us a new conception of what may be accomplished by the humblest instruments, when strengthened by the deadliest passions. In that brief period fifty-six thousand souls have been rent from the Wesleyan community. What part of them have united themselves to other churches I have no means of ascertaining; but I fear a great part are now in connexion with no Christian society whatever. The religious peace and comfort of multitudes have been destroyed; and a torrent of angry passions let loose, the traces of which will hardly be effaced for a generation. And for what has all this been done, but to gratify a revengeful feeling against the Conference? Your professed object has been to gain your former position, by the power of the people exerted against the authority of that assembly. But you could not have been sincere in this. You never really thought such a thing was possible. You must be aware that no recantation, however ample; no penitence even, however abject; could restore you to your forfeited place in the Wesleyan ministry. Your severance is complete and final. The Conference must lose all respect for itself, and for the Connexion, before you can again be admitted into it.

Is it possible, however, that while inflicting such irreparable injury upon others, you can, yourself, escape unhurt? Allow me to draw your attention to one particular. When you were down last year you indulged, in your addresses, in a recklessness of assertion which surprised and pained those who remembered your best days. In your recent tour you seem to have given proof of this habit having acquired a fatal ascendancy. Do you ask for instances? It is impossible, within ordinary limits, to expose all the liberties you have taken with facts; but I select two of the most prominent of your statements, and, when they are scrutinised, any dispassionate man may place what faith he can in the others.

In your address at St. Austle, as reported in the "West Briton," you endeavoured to persuade your hearers that the Minutes of Conference have been garbled and mutilated by Dr. Bunting and Mr. Thomas Jackson. Speaking of the volume containing a Digest of the Minutes, which is given to every Preacher on his ordination, you said, "On comparing it with the copy presented some twenty years ago, there were omissions, additions, interlineations, inversions, and mutilations." This you moreover said you solemnly declared," and added that you did so "with great grief of heart." Now the only "grief of heart" which you need to feel, is for