Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page


^P 0 N T Y P O O L C O L LEG-R.


P 0 N T Y P O O L C O L LEG-R. Sir,-Having obtained a list of the voters at the re- cent election of President of the above College, we are now in a position to criticize 14 Scrutator's" letter, and we are sorry to find, after carefully examining the re- port of 1876, that Scrutator" is alike inaccurate in his tMory and inaccurate in his facts. Half truths are very dangerous, and are likely to mislead the public. We shall therefore state the whole truth as far as we can, firmly believing that honesty is the best policy for both parties. ltlaCCllrate in tMory. Fightyone voters (for Rev W. M. Lewis, M.A.) representing," says Scrutator,' a 1total of congregational contributions, £ 215 19s 10d. Fifty-one voters (for Rev T. Williams, B.A.) represent- mg a total of congregational contributions, X177 8s 9d." These two statements contain almost as many blunders as words. They involve confusion of thought, a cross division and a misrepresentation of the electoral system of the;College. Rule VII. says Persons subscribing ten shillings or more per annum, and ministers making yearly collections in support of this Institution amount- ing to one gound and upwards (such collections to be calculated from any money raided from the congregation in sums of LESS than ten shillings), are members of the Society." From this rule, it is clear that no minister can repre. 81 sent subscriptions of ten shillings and upwards, and no layman can represent a congregational contribution. Now, of the 81 who voted for Mr Lewis 17 were lay- men, and of the 51 who voted for Mr Williams 31 were laymen. Having the above rule before him, how could Scrutator" say that these laymen were representing congregational contributions," when the principle of lay delegates is not recognised in the constitution of the College ? And, as a. matter of fact, no lay delegate did vote. Again, of the 64 ministers who voted for Mr Lewis, and of the 20 who voted for Mr Williams, many members of their churches were subscribers of ten shil- lings and upwards and were not present. How could the ministers represent these voters? The laymen that at- tended recorded their own votes, but neither the minis- ters nor the layiren could represent the absent qualified subscribers, as in either case one of thp fundamental rules of the College would be thereby violated. We therefore charge Scrutator" with making a. cross division and of jumbling things together which he ought tQ have kept apart. Inaccurate in hivfaets. We have carefully looked over the list of voters and the repo.rt of the College for 1876. The following is the result of our examination 1- (a) CHVKCHKS, Total amount of congresrutional collections made by tbe 64 churches whose ministers voted for Mr Lewis 39 ig Q Total amount of congregational collections made by the 17 churches whose ministers voted for Mr Williams 33 u 2 (0) VOTERS. Voters for Rev lV. M. Lewis, M.A. 64 ministers representing congregational collections, their own subscriptions and all subscriptiors upder ten shillings.164 0 5 17 laymen contributing 215 0 Total £ 18^ 5 5 Voters for Rev Thos. Williams, B-A. I 20 ministers rep-esenting congregational collections, their own subscriptions and all subscriptions under ten shillings 73 19 4 31 laymen contributing 46 0 0 Total £ 119 19 4 1 We have not been aOle to nna out two names—one who voted for Mr Lewis and the other for Mr Williams. With these exceptions the above figures, we believe, are strictly accurate, and the calculations made in table b are based on the electoral system of the College. These, therefore, should be our^guide. We have not tried to turn and twist the constitution of the College to suit our own purpose. We give the whole facts as they stand and what do they signify ? Why this :-That Mr Lewis was elected by a very large majority-60 per cent. of the voters, and that they con tribute (see table b) 55 per cent. more towards the support of the Institution. In the name of common sense, how can any opponent turn these figures against Mr Lewis ? If they have any signifi- cance, they speak strongly in his favour, and demon- strate the high estimation in which he is held by the Baptist Churches of the Principality. FAIR PLAY. [In a letter signed "Another Scrutator," in a late issue, read monied naerv %nd nqt married men.]—ED. F.P.





[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]




Family Notices