MISREPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING THE EDITOR AND OUR ANNUAL ASSEMBLY.

LAST month we concluded some controversies with the Revs. S. Hulme and W. Cooke, and did not expect, that we should so soon as now have occasion again to defend ourselves, against new attacks made upon us through the pages of the New Connexion Magazine. However, in this we have been mistaken; because we gave the party who has again attacked us, too much credit for sincerity, in his recent declaration of a desire for peace, and as to the truthfulness of his professions in publicly addressing us in the following terms, "Accept our sincere thanks for any good you may at any time have rendered us, or the cause of religious freedom; forgive us, if in any thing we have unwittingly offended you; and receive from us the assurances of good-will, and of an earnest desire to serve you .." ...

We did think those professions of kindness somewhat inconsistent with the conduct which we had just before received from the Rev. W. Cooke, by whom they were made, and printed in the New Connexion Magazine; but we did not expect, that in the very next number of his Magazine, he would, by misrepresentation and abuse, again dishonourably attempt to hold us up to the execration of his readers. If such be fruits of his professions of "good-will," and "earnest desire to serve," the fruits of his "ill-will" and " earnest desire to injure," must be malignant in the extreme! We will, however, as briefly as possible, lay the facts, which he has made the basis of his attacks, misrepresentations, and abuse, before our readers.

Mr. Cooke's article containing his attacks upon us, commences by saying-in reference to the Wesleyan Methodist Association-" This respected community has just closed the sittings of its Annual Assembly. The Rev. W. Patterson was elected President." Mr. Cooke, however, has not informed his readers that the Rev. Robert Eckett was, by an unusual large majority, re-elected Secretary! His "goodwill," of which he had so recently assured us, was not exercised in recording this fact; his good-will was not sufficiently strong to record what might have been regarded by his readers, as a proof that we had the confidence of our brethren. We, however, believe that as much reliance may be placed on his "good-will" to us, and on his "earnest desire to serve us, as on his professed respect for the Association! Mr. Cooke then says, "There are two matters which give us much satisfaction. The first is, that this denomination has been favoured with an increase during the year. . . The second matter of gratulation is the fact, that the Annual Assembly has refused to identify itself with Mr. Eckett's sentiments on certain topics which have been published in the Magazine,..." But many of our readers were present at the Assembly, and they know that Mr. Cooke's statement is not a "fact!" The Assembly did not refuse the identification-for it was never asked so to identify itself; but it did-without one dissentient vote-resolve-"That this Assembly has great pleasure in presenting

to the Editor, the Rev. R. Eckett, the assurance of its confidence in his discretion and judgment; and its sincere and hearty thanks for the able and highly satisfactory manner in which he has discharged the duties of his office as Editor of our Magazines." On the particular topic to which Mr. Cooke refers, an attempt was made to get the Assembly to express its disapprobation-but the proposal, after a lengthened discussion, was almost unanimously rejected, by the adoption of resolutions, which left the subject matter of discussion just as it stood previous to its having been brought under the notice of the Assembly. No refusal, no opinion, was expressed thereon! Mr. Cooke next states to his readers," We are informed, that the lengthy discussions which ensued, brought out from respected and influential members of the Assembly, many remarks expressive of great dissatisfaction with Mr. Eckett's attacks upon ourselves. . At this Mr. Cooke appears to be very greatly pleased! But here again he is in error! We beg to assure him that he has been deluded. No such dissatisfaction was expressed by any "respected and influential member of the Assembly;" nor, so far as we remember, was any such dissatisfaction expressed by any member of the Assembly. By a very few members, regret was expressed, that, recently, so large a portion of the Magazine had been occupied with the controversies with Messrs. Hulme and Cooke; but the opinion generally expressed was, that our opponents had made it absolutely needful, that we should so occupy the pages of our Magazine; and some strong commendations were bestowed on the manner in which we had conducted our controversies with Messrs. Hulme and Cooke. Nevertheless, it was regretted that they had occasioned those controversies.

The next matter to which Mr. Cooke refers, and that on which he lays the greatest stress, relates to a matter which requires from us some explanation. On the last Sabbath in July we were in Manchester, for the purpose of preaching the Grosvenor-street Sundayschool Anniversary Sermons. We were then informed, by two of our Itinerant ministers, that Mr. Martin, of Altrincham, had stated to one of the members of the Grosvenor-street Circuit, "that a friend of the New Connexion had promised 507. for the Reform Fund, but had made it a condition that Mr. Martin must not preach for, or otherwise assist, the Association." We were afterwards told by two other of our Itinerant ministers that this was a matter generally known, and talked about in Manchester. In the Assembly we stated that we had been informed of this matter. A day or two after, we were waited upon by a minister and another member of the New Connexion; who stated that they had been informed we had made the statement before referred to. We immediately admitted that such was the case. They then read us a letter from Mr. Martin, in which he denied having made the statement. We requested to have a copy of Mr. Martin's letter-which we afterwards obtained. We then said, that we would report Mr. Martin's denial to our informants; and if, upon inquiry it appeared that that they had misled us, we would inform the Assembly accordingly. As one of our informants was in Rochdale, we immediately communicated to him that Mr. Martin had denied the statement which had been imputed to him. Our informant

was much surprised at the denial. We then requested him to go and see Mr. Millen, of Manchester, from whom it was said the disputed statement, imputed to Mr. Martin, had been received. Upon the return of our informant from Manchester, he reported that Mr. Millen said, Mr. Martin's words were, "A friend of ours has promised me 501. for the Reform Fund, but says that if I preach for, or in any other way assist the Association, he will not give me a farthing." It appeared, therefore, that there was some variance in the statements; that our informants had received an impression from the reported statement of Mr. Martin, which the words used by him would not literally justify, and, therefore, that our informants had unintentionally somewhat misled us; as there was not sufficient evidence to prove, that Mr. Martin's words, "a friend of ours," referred to "a friend of the New Connexion." This, however, had been inferred from his statement, and from Mr. Martin's family connection with that denomination, and from other circumstances; and this opinion had become fixed in our informants' minds. Under these circumstances-and being desirous of rendering full satisfaction to all who could be affected by the statement which we had made-we brought the matter under the notice of our Assembly. We gave the names of our informants, upon whose authority we had made the statement, imputed to, but denied by, Mr. Martin; we read to the Assembly, the whole of his letter, containing his denial of the statement, and containing also much personal abuse of ourselves; and we also read letters from Mr. Millen explanatory of the affair. Thus we did all that men of honourable feelings could desire from us; and what ought to have fully protected us from any public attempt to damage our reputation on account of this matter. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Cooke,-who had so recently asked us to accept of his assurances of good-will," and professed his "earnest desire to serve" us-appears to have thought this a good opportunity, for again attacking us, and to hold us up, in the New Connexion Magazine, to public scorn, as having been guilty of recklessly making "a foul and injurious imputation"-also to damage us by publishing the malignant letter of his friend Mr. Martin-and a letter from the Rev. A. Thompson, of Rochdale-who, as he had recently retracted misrepre· sentations which he had made concerning us, ought to have been kept silent. Mr. Cooke could not resist the inclination which he felt, to avail himself of the opportunity thus to disparage us, and to represent us as having forfeited the confidence of our own Connexion, and as having been guilty of most dishonourable conduct! Thus he has demonstrated the insincerity of his assurances of his " good will" to us, and of his "earnest desire to serve us, as further appears, by his concluding remarks, which are in the following uncandid, insulting, grossly unjust, and vindictive terms

66

"It is matter of gratulation that the evidence in disproof of Mr. Eckett's slanderous allegations was so clear, so palpable, so conclusive, and so ready of access, as irresistibly to sweep away at once, every vestige of this imputation; else the accused might have borne the odium of the falsehood through life. How powerful is truth! How lovely is candour! How certain are envy and detraction to meet their due reward!"

No doubt, those persons who indulge envious and malicious feelings towards us will be much pleased with Mr. Cooke's unjust remarks; but those who are acquainted with the real facts of the case, and who will form a candid and sound judgment thereon, will be disgusted with his attempt thus to fasten upon us "the foul and injurious imputation" of slander; and especially that he has done so immediately after having publicly requested us to accept of his "assurances of good-will,” and of his "earnest desire to serve us." We will not now offer any further remarks upon Mr. Cooke's shameful conduct; but we will give an extract from one communication-out of many of a similar kind— which we have received, in which our correspondent has expressed his astonishment and disgust at Mr. Cooke's conduct towards us; and then we will insert a communication, which we have received from Mr. Millen, which will set the matter respecting Mr. Martin's statement in a different light to that in which it has been exhibited by Mr. Cooke. The writer of the communication, from which we are about to give an extract, is Mr. O. Ormerod, of Rochdale, who expresses his indignation in the following terms―

"I have just risen (with no small amount of disgust) from the perusal of the article in the New Connexion Magazine for this month. That it contains an exaggerated and a false account both of the proceedings of the Annual Assembly and of your own conduct, all must admit who are conversant with the details as they transpired. Indeed, the whole procedure of Messrs. Cooke and Hulme, in their controversies with you, has borne the impress of dogmatism and unfairness in the extreme; and no controversy can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion with such slimy opponents. If I may venture to express my advice, I should say that they have forfeited all claim to respectful attention, and that the sooner you quit them the better. Still, I should presume, that the attempt to brand you with slander cannot be quietly passed over

Such is the opinion of one who has personal knowledge of what occurred at our Annual Assembly; and who-although not accustomed to correspond with us— from a sense of justice felt compelled to send us his opinion of Mr. Cooke's conduct.

The following is

MR. MILLEN'S LETTER RESPECTING MR. MARTIN'S

STATEMENT.

TO THE REV. ROBERT ECKETT-DEAR SIR,

My attention having been directed to an article in the September number of the Methodist New Connexion Magazine, I consider that the interests of Truth and Honesty require, that I should notice the general tendency of that article, but more especially the letter written by Mr. Martin, which it contains.

The article in question has, evidently, been written, not so much to congratulate the Wesleyan Association on the prosperity of the past year, as to point a bitter attack upon one of its valued and respected ministers.

It was well understood in Manchester, as well as elsewhere, that Mr. Cooke's "Methodist Reform was a bait thrown out to catch Wesleyan Reformers; and the thanks of the Methodist community is due to you, sir,

for discovering and exposing the hook; but by rendering this service you have subjected yourself to a series of unmerited personal attacks. You no doubt remember the anecdote of the case prepared for counsel, on the brief of which was written, "No case-but abuse the plaintiff's attorney." Such evidently is the character of those bitter articles which have appeared in a certain Magazine of late; amongst which the one now before me contains its fair share of the low and personal.

An honest mind can respect a gentlemanly opponent―and there is something noble in contentions for truth, however strong the language used-if unstained by vulgar abuse or the impugning of motive. Such, however, is not the case as to the articles in question; and Mr. Martin's letter, is written in vulgar language, dictated by bitter feeling, and with the evident intention of leading the friends of the New Connexion, and others, to believe that the statement you made, respecting him, in the Annual Assembly, was the pure creation of your own fancy.

66

But, what are the facts of the case? As the Secretary of a Branch Missionary Society connected with the Association, I waited upon Mr. Martin, to request his assistance at our public Missionary Meeting-which was to be held on the Monday following the Sunday, on which the sermons were to be preached by the Rev. James Bromley. Mr. Martin positively declined our invitation, on account of what he designated, "the abusive letter, which," he said, "had appeared in the Wesleyan Times' of the day previous, written by Mr. Eckett." Mr. Martin commenced his remarks by stating, he was disgusted with Mr. Eckett and the Association;” and then characterised the letter as "one of the most scurrilous and contemptible productions he had ever seen," and which he said, gave "the direct lie in almost every line" to Mr. Cooke's statements in his "Methodist Reform."Mr. Martin also said, he "wondered at his friend, Mr. Harrison of London, the Editor of the paper, for inserting the letter; he would, however, write immediately to the Editor, and if he (Mr. Martin) had any influence and he thought he had- he would prevent the insertion of any more!" I urged upon him, the injustice of punishing the Association for the opinions of Mr. Eckett; he admitted that it was not just, and said, "But what can I do? A friend of ours, who has promised me 50l. for the Reform Fund, has declared this morning, that if I preach for, or in any other way assist, the Association, he would not give me a farthing!" Mr. Martin then concluded the conversation, as he had begun it, with declaring his " disgust both with Mr. Eckett and the Association!"

Upon returning home and reading the letter referred to, and which had produced these results, I found the letter so unlike the character which had been given to it by Mr. Martin, that I immediately sent him a letter, from which the following is an extract

"Upon reference to that letter (Mr. Eckett's) I was much surprised, that I could not find any thing to justify the strong expressions you used with regard to Mr. Eckett and the Association.

"There can scarcely be two opinions as to Mr. Eckett's correctness upon the facts of the case; and I think that Mr. Cooke's friends should not blame Mr. Eckett, for the use of strong language, after Mr. Cooke has obliged him, for the third time, to defend the interests of Truth and the Association.

"You thought that a private note might have rectified the mistake—but you forget that a public mis-statement requires a public contradiction.

"You also hinted that to do it now (to correct Mr. Cooke's erroneous statement) would injure the Reform movement. I am sure that Mr. Eckett would be the last man to impede the good work now in progress, but the ultimate good of the Reformers requires, that they should thoroughly understand the constitution of the various sections of the Methodist family, and this cannot be done by partial statements, which are calculated to