Star.
London, England, 1816-01-11 00:00:00

AEII~CF'('I'EBTANTs•

.

• .
The kftei front IL i>tid to have been ad-
a., •
lthed to M. M. Of the Coalthittee fiw the affairs of
the French protestants," which a Morning Paper
charged the Steritaries of the Petiteitait Society for, the
Orotation of liekious Liberty, smith having suppressed,
it now appeari was never seen by them till published
in the Paper alluded to I gg M. M. of the Coneisittee"
is a most convenient Address. The public May thus
have seven or seventy lima ieies *6 important docu.
meats" offered to their Consideration, al evidences
of culpability imputable to gg the Secietaries" in
'4l suppressing information :"—and when the false
hood of the charge is established, instead of apology
from the publisher of calumny, the rublic are to be
told,' as in the Man of this morning, that the charge
was merely gill misfaie, and nothing more : that it was
aholly accidental and unintentional 1"—In addition to
this we may also be told that their charging II the
Secretaries" with what was unfounded 44 EVIDENTLY
rhesus an unwitting:, unpremeditated error on the part of
the Editor"-s-for, 44 the result of the correction is—
the diffusion of the guilt of suppression over a larger
portion of men linked in these proceedings I" What
is this but to calumniate in wholesale, in the same
II breath with' which the Meer affects to be correcting
1,, a mistake."

It may be necessary to state, that the preceding
quotations are from an article with which the Times
of this morning prefaces the subjoined letter from the
Secretaries to the Protestant Society for the Protec-
tion of Religious Liberty, to the Editor of that paper.
The purity of the sonrte whence the flood of calumny
flows, with which the friends of Religious Liberty are
threatened to be inundated, may be judged from the
frankness and candour with which the Editor has thus
acknowledged his 66 anon:doss: unpreinataied error 1"
and from the deep contrition he has thus expressed
for his unintended calumny.
To suspect the motives of any person who in his
strictures, on so trivial a subject as the killing of a
few Hogonott, exhibits so much candour and pliihin-
thropy, might savour of illiberality : we shall there-
fore only reinat k that is M. M. of the Committee,"
/Ice. is a most convenient mode of address when cer.
rain purposes are intended to be answered ; for no-
thing more is necessary than to say that 46 M. M."
means 44 the Secretaries" of any particular Society—
to connect this wit'a mud, some of which may chancel
to stick; and then, by way of recantation, to'state,
that is M. M." his no such narrow meaning, but
ehabraces—whoever else thy may wish to inaplicats
in 66 the guilt of suppression."
The mistake which has been in frankly icknow.,
lodged by the Tunes, and the manner in which the
acknowledgment has been made, serves to explain
the sotiree of the communication—though not intend-1
' ed. The itithority which. procured the writing of
the letter 'lined 66 MARON," could easilt furnish the
copy ; and it May be easily conceived that the ac-
companying iastructiods were, owing possibly to a
defect of grammar, or some other cause, misunder-
stood by the Editor of the 'limes. That M. MA ROW
was enjoined to write the letter by some. zuthotity
which he durst not oppose, we have a right to
conclude, from its contents standing in diametri;
cal opposition to another letter of his own, ad-
dressed to a friend of his own, in which he assures
him that the efforts of the Committee of Dissenting
Ministers had caused a strong sensation in Paris; that
he expected by then- perseverance they would produce
very beneficial results; and that he was tenderly and.
gratefully impressed by them. The plain inference
is that M. MAIION wrote his public letter under the
*direction of the police—the private one from his own
Motion.—We have only to state farther On this point,
that the priitate lettek was brought before the public
in a monthly journal oh the Ist instant—that is, he-
fOre the appearance of the public letter. When deal-
ing with some men, it ii necessary to state such a fact,
that they may not charge others withforgint, as well
as suppasins, documents, to serve a particular puts
pose. The following is the refutation of the charge
exhibited by the Times against the Secretaries :
sa TO TUE EDITon OF THE yam.
4.6 As Secretaries so The Prete:Mit Suiet'y for the 'Protection q
Religiose Liberty' we most reluctantly rooddress you. We have
no', personal malty* which we seek' to gratify; and Vain tidied.
must they be whose vanity flan be gratified by Newspaper con.'
crannies, and by any publicity' which inch dim aim* can
eider. As to the chaise of the suppression of a Letter from
the Duke of Watuttozon :—the accused= and the defence
have been submitted to the public. A desire of 6 vengeance' we
tfid rot fed—'threats of vengeance, we sheidd bare clisdalited
plittp—sod we were prepared to await, uafearful, the dicidon
Whidion enlightened and impartial public might pronounce. -
DU pew calemales compel a new reply: The same accuser
has now ventured to charge On us the Suppreidon of anotLerl
latter. Its your Paper of this day we are accused of coma:Meal
a Letter-which you publishll,on2 the original)Frenci; es he I
been written tons by M. blazon, President *of the Piorestant
Consistery of Paris. Ow reply shall be brief—but distinct. Of
she nettse of that gentleman we are informed. We hive seen it in
" The Naiveties dream Drente," piblisbed by " Haut m MA RIA
Witatams"---aid•in the celebrated Dictionary of Weathercocks
(se dee Gitelfain.) We have heard of kins Si the successive pane-
gyrist of every sameitive occupier Of power at Paris —end as i
Gentleman Who; on a retest "vide to England, complained of
the insensibility of some of the prindpd members of the Bet.
slab Government to thb Interests of the Protestants of France.-
-But from M. Wee* we have not, individually or oldally,
nor hes " The Protestant Society," ever received the Letter
which you have published from " the original French,' nor any
other communication of any kind; nor have we heard thy by
ahy other person any similar at other Letter from hies was re-
adved...-After contradiction so direct—" The most outmaeinar
desire of 'lt vengeance we could fed would be eisumisedy "WI
Ned; te the revengeful man weablorint that his urinesilni