The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-10-31 00:00:00

held after the Meeting in the Coll
this my letter was called for by one of tl

ate Institution, that

embers pre-

,
sent, and then read by the secretary. I must also state
that my letter to Mr. Boutflower was written in answer
to one from himself, in which he alluded to the "annoy-
ance" which I had experienced at former meetings. I
leave this fact to speak for itself. I have no copy of my
letter, for I thought I was writing to friends ; but the
secretaries can, of course, publish it if they think it right
to do so.

2.—1 feel bound to recal to Dr. Sl'Neile's memory,
that at a previous meeting of the Jew's society, in the
Amphiteatre, (the Chancellor of the Diocese being in
the chair,) he (Dr. M'Neile) made, in my present
most pugnacious speech

in favour of his own peculiar
views. In the course of it he gave a public challenge to
all gainsayers. " I have spoken," said he : " let them

Chancellor, that I was quite willing, though unprepared,
there and then to accept the challenge, It was thought
better that a renhr shnuid not then he made and I

willingly acquiesced, on the understanding, that at the
more private breakfast, on the ensuing morning, I should
have an opportunity of stating my sentiments. Ac-
cordingly, after breakfast, I rose, and requested leave
from the Chancellor, who occupied the chair, to say
something in answer to the challenge. The Chancellor
requested me not to speak on the subject. I certainly
was disappointed; but I bowed to the Christian gentle-
ness of the Chancellor's request, stating, at the same
time, that I should feel bound

on some future oppo

tunity, to state my sentiments publicly. Dr. 111`Neil
will remember that he, the challenger, sat next to th
Chancellor, when all this took place. I recal t'
to his recollection ; and I think that
it, he will feel sorry for some of t

when he rememb

I leave it to the public to decide, whether Dr,
WisTeile could have been ignorant of my wishes upon the
subject, notwithstanding his ignorance of my late letter

to the secretary

letter which can be deemed more than a mere contradi
tion of my assertion of it. It appears to me
thing, that a committee of any society Am
their power not only to propose themselves f
at a public meeting, but also, by their appointment of a
chairman, who is ready to put down any subscribing
's -ewer of an amendment, to secure that re-election, whe-

thcr the subscribers wish it or no. Common sense is
against it, and I have not yet heard my right even ques-
tioned by any one, except Dr. M'Neile.
4.—My idea of the duty of a chairman is the following :
He is placed iu the chair to pronounce on points of order.
If a speaker give utterance to any observations which have
no reference to the proper subject of the meeting, ( just
Dr. M'Neile himself did at this very meeting, by intz
ducing his irrelevant dispute with the editor of t
Mail.) the chairman has a right to make him speak (
derly to the subject in hand. My amendment ( I
in my first letter) was strictly in consonance with t
ject of the evening's proceedings : I

Unless it can be aov'ed that the chairs

out of order land I beg it to 'be observed, that, in the
correct report in the Standard to-day, the chairman

- .
never gave to the meeting any reason to prove that I was

that, in the face of such palpable injustice, my attempt to
obtain a fair hearing wasjudicious.
I now dismiss Dr. M'Neile's letter, and proceed to
comment very shortly on the resolutions with which it
stands connected.

Secondly, I.—l have to complain that the notices by
which that committee meeting was summoned, although

it was intended by certain members of it to move a series
of resolutions condemnatory of my conduct, and laudatory
of Dr. M`Neile's, did not contain, as they ought to have

2.—Of the seventeen, who constituted the majority, I
understand that the secretary, on being asked the ques-
tion, could only state, that twelve were members of the
society. It ought to be known that a minority of seven

•esisted the Passing

the rezolutions, bec

they ilia

not touch the real point at issue.
With respect to the resolutions themselves I observe,
that they " pronounce no opinion on my right to address
the meeting ; but this is a capital point in the argument,
and ought not, in such resolutions, to have been unpro-
nounced on.

Dr. M`Neile never, in my hearing, nor according to the
correct report of the Standard, either said that I was out
of order, or gave any reason to show that I wa.,, out of

I did not intend to " discuss theological subjects" at
the meeting. I simply wished (and all this was stated
beforehand) to state our reasons for supporting the Jews'
Society.

I wish the committee had stated the name of the anti-
Millennarian clergyman who was asked to speak on Mon-
day evening, and whether he was asked in order that he
might give an anti-Millennarian statement; and, also,
whether it was known, when he was asked, that he did
not believe in the restoration of the Jews to Palestine.
These are important questions.
I am thankful for the kind expressions which occur in
the resolutions. Having met with so much unkindness
from those with whom I wished most courteously to dis-
agree, every little word of charity is pleasing. But men
must be judged by their acts, and not by their expressions.
I asked for justice, and could not get even that,
Thirdly—With reference to some observations by the
editor of the Standard, I think he has quite failed to
prove that the account in his paper was any thing but
what I stated it to be, "an untrue one." Had he wished
to suppress all notice of the scene, he should, at all events,
have omitted my name. The introduction of my name
forced me to write in explanation. I make no observation
on the unkindness of his remarks, because it is not
argumentative.
Fourthly—l observe a letter written by Mr. Griffith,
the reporter, on the same painful subject. I feel it right
to state that I never intended to charge him with inten-
tional untruth, nor did Ido so. But the report, as it ap-
peared, was certainly, as any one can see, incorrect in the
extreme, and, therefore, I was obliged, in simple justice
to my friends and myself, to explain. if I have hurt Mr.
Griffith's feelings, I am very sorry for it ; and I hope that
he will be sorry for having sarcastically remarked on the
paleness of my face, which, I can assure him, did not pro-
ceed from passion, but from ill health, from which I have
suffered for some months. May he always preserve the
roseate blush of the most perfect healthiness !
Before I conclude, I must state that a report, which has
been rather industriously circulated, that I was on bad
terms with Dr. M`Neile before this affair, is utterly untrue.
—I am, dear sir, your's faithfully,

WM. WITHERS EWB..A.NK
Everton, 24th October, 1848.
* The documents referred to we published last week.

THE REV T. NOLAN'S EXPLANATION

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL MAIL

Six,—l am at length compelled, by a strong sense of
duty, most reluctantly to notice the Rev. Mr. wbank's
letters to the Editor of the Liverpool Courier. Charges
have been advanced in them, directly implicating my
fidelity to my trust as Senior Secretary to the Liverpool
Auxiliary to the Society for Promoting Christianity
amongst the Jews. Upon Mr. Ewbank's version of the
case, public opinion has been founded hitherto. In
common fairness then to the committee, to the chairman,
and to the secretaries, I must beg a space in your columns,
while I trespass on the patience of the public with a few
needful explanatory observations.

Mr. Ewbauk's charges, interspersed through both his
letters, are
Ist, As against the committee, of unfairness in their
arrangements for the anniversary meetings, whereby ex-
clusive prominence is intentionally given to a certain class
of prophetical views.
2dly, As against the secretaries, for neglecting to sum-
mon him to the meeting at which the report was adopted,
and the arrangements concluded for the last annual
meeting ; and also for not specifying the object of the
last committee meeting on the 20th instant, and
3dly, As against the chairman for discourtesy in refusing
him an opportunity of addressing the meeting.
I will endeavour to be as brief as is compatible with a
clear statement on each of these heads ; and, first, as to
the alleged intentional one-sidedness of the arrangements.
In selecting our deputation, invitations are forwarded to
those who are most likely to accept them, being at the
same time deemed most competent to interest our friends
in behalf of Israel. By these two principles only, and
without the slightest reference to any peculiarity in their
religious sentiments, have the committee been guided in
providing deputations from a distance, and speakers from
amongst the local clergy. In making choice from amongst
the latter body, the committee have always desired to
avoid what must have been very offensive, but, notwith-
standing, is inseparable from Mr. Ewbank's plan, viz., a
catechetical investigation of the opinions of each
clergyman, previously to determining the side he
was to occupy at each recurring anniversar:4 Looking
over the reports for the last few years, I find the names
of the late lamented Dr. Tattershall, Reverends John
Jones, W. W. Ewbank,'J. Cordeaux, amongst those who
moved or seconded resolutions ; and with reference to the
late meeting, acting on the same principle, the first. invi-
tation was to the Rev. Mr. Rawson ; upon his declining,
we applied next to the Rev. Dr. Carpenter, not as Mr.
Ewbank asks, because his views on prophecy were sup-
posed to be of a certain caste, but for the reasons already
mentioned ; and when he also failed us, we fell back on
the Rev. Frederick Parry, whose appreciated and charac-

teristic kindness, invariably causes him to postpone every
personal consideration to the wishes or convenience of
others. So much for the alleged unfairness of our anni-
versary arrangements.

Secondly,---We, the secretaries, are charged by Mr.
Ewbank with having neglected to summon him to
the committee meetings, Sc:3. The agent who issues
the notices for such meetings has the list before
him of all the members lay and clerical, and
his duty is to summon all, without exception, upon
each occasion. I have never heard a complaint from any
quarter of his having omitted to do so, with the single
exception of the last committee meeting held on the 13th
instant end so the tree_

Our agent had suddenly left tis
surer undertook kindly to write and iss

the notices

himself, and it is not much to be wondered at, if under
the circumstances he was not very careful to
those who had not been very careful to attend wl
mooed ; and Mr. Ewbank's name do

TIMOII

,ear as hav-

attended any Jews' committee meeti

But I r

,tain that it was q

[to corny