Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

AUSTRIA.

. BOHEMIA.

IRELAND.

CIIURCII PROPERTY AND THE…

[No title]

EMIGRATION.

[No title]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRINCIPALITY.

News
Cite
Share

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRINCIPALITY. A good man's zeal should be ever on the wing; but it should borrow the eyes of discernment, and the hands oi prudence, or it will be blind and extravagant.ANO.-i. SIR,-Allow me to call your attention to that part of thCJ Rev. David Charles's letter in your paper of the 9th inst, where reference is made to an assertion put forth in a pre- vious number of the PRINCIPALITY, touching the resolution passed at Llangadock Association, My friend, Mr. Charles, in his first going off, claims, as a Christian minister and a Welshman," the right of complain- ing with regard to the unfair treatment of his countrymen, in reference to the subject of "Welsh Education;" and whilst he asserts "that unfair means are employed to poison, the minds of Welshmen against their own interest," by those acting assumers of the public weal, we were of course led to expect that no "misrepresentations," no 11 gliossiiig, "no perverting of facts," would again take place, at least so far as my friend, Mr. Charles, himself was concerned; but this, I am sorry to say, although I am prepared to prove it, is not the fact. My friend, alluding to what passed at Llangadock, pounces on the assertion in a style worthy of a Commissioner or a barrister. He not only tells you that your statement is false, but seems to strive hard to make you believe that what was seen, heard, or said, at that Conference, was a delusion and a farce. My friend begins by stating that he now comes to the astonishing assertion." Why, I wonder none of the brethren present thought proper to correct this in the following number of the PRINCIPALITY, if it was such a gross misrepresentation of facts. However, Mr. Charles feels bound to deny its correctness. Yes, this astonishing report of what passed at Llangadock Mr. Charles most positively denies, and he can hardly be brought to believe that there are any two highly influential members of the connexion, who were present at that Conference, who will endorse it. But, Mr. Editor, although I am not one of those highly in- fluential members of the connexion, yet I believe my friend will grant me at once my membership, and also that I was present at the said Conference; and now I feel it my duty to state that the view which I took (let all the other brethren judge and speak for themselves) of matters as expressed there, was quite in unison and in accordance with your report. I was fully convinced in my own mind that there was a general feeling for condemning the Reports; not only this, I was, and am still, fully persuaded, that but for the "meek and quiet spirit" which prevailed, which would not allow the reckless censure of individual friends, that a vote condemning the Reports would have been passed. Why, to me it appears quite evidentâfor if there was not a general feeling lor condemning the Reports, it was not likely that so many of the brethren would express their disapprobation at the inference drawn by Commissioner Symons horn Mr. Charles's correspondence, aud likely to be drawn by the public from Mr. Symons's letter to the Rev. H. Griffiths, in which mention is made of Mr. Charles's opinion. If the brethren in general coincided with the tutor's views, why should it be pronounced from the chair, that what any individual had said or written was only to be considered as the private views and opinions of that said individual? And if this was not done with a view of correcting any false impression which might have gone forth from Air. Charles's evidence and cor- respondence as an individual, why should my friend have got up and said that the Commissioner had done him an in- justice by not publishing the whole of his letter and more than this, why should he have said again, that had the whole of his correspondence with Mr. Symons appeared, the breth- ren would not consider him so much to blame ? And further if my recollection bears me out (1 appeal to the Conference), my friend, Mr. Charles, promised that he would get the Com- missioner to publish the letter in full, by which lie thought most of his brethren would feel satisfied. Hence, Mr. Edi- tor, you will see at once how matters stood. Mr. Charles claimed his right of corresponding with the Commissioner, as any other private individual; the brethren, on the other hand, repudiated the idea of being pinned fast to Mr. C.'s sleeve, by Mr. Commissioner Symons, or any other party; and here came the resolution agreed upon, namely that the censuring or condemning the Reports be left an open question; and that what had been said or written by any individual was only to be considered as that individual's private opinion and doings, and not to be considered in any way connexional." Now with regard to the acceptance of Government grants, I beg leave to say that the subject did not come before the Llangadock Conference; therefore to say that the Llangadock Conference left accepting Govern- ment grants an open question" is something more than glossitying our writings. It is logic, produced no doubt under the impulse of that passion which in clear, calm, and sober reality of things would be better understood and re- presented. With the grant question at issue, I have nothing to do at present. I leave the subject between Mr. C. and Mr. Jones. I merely write thcaboveiu defence of what ap- peared in the PRINCIPALITY as a report of the Llangadock proceedings. I am, dear sir, yours truly, 0 0 y St. Davids. WILLIAMS,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRINCIPALITY.

CHAPTER VIII GUARANTEE OF…

ITALY.

GRAND DUCHY OF POSEN.

.FRANCE.