has, in modern times, been most shamefully broken, on various occasions, by the ruling party of the Conference, and that party has succeeded in placing upon the Conferential Minutes, assertions of clerical power and privilege which virtually absorb all popular right, and amount to a destruction of the system they profess to uphold. One of the most instructive pages of ecclesiastical history is afforded by the laboured schemes which have been devised for the accomplishment of this irresponsible domination, and the special-pleading which has been resorted to in its defence. The worst lines in that page are those recording pretended concessions, which shock every honest feeling of the heart, by the remorseless craft with which they compass purposes the very opposite of those they declare.

The Wesleyan disturbances, with whose report the public has been so frequently startled during late years, are all to be traced, directly or indirectly, to the state of things we have endeavoured to describe; and entertaining, as we do, the views just expressed, our sympathies are on the side of the anti-Conferential movements, though we do not think that the leaders of those movements have always wisely conducted the cause they have espoused.

We have spoken of a ruling party as existing in the Wesleyan Conference. Such a party does undoubtedly exist there, forming an imperium in imperio within the body. This party mainly supports itself by a system of favouritism which is administered to the exclusive advantage of those members of the Conference who uphold its polity. It so far possesses a dominant influence as to be able, with very few exceptions, to carry any measures it may project. The greater portion of those who do not cordially approve of its acts quietly submit to them; and thus the number of persons who bear the burden and heat of opposition is unnaturally small.

Perhaps there is no deliberative assembly on the face of the earth which permits the use of such unscrupulous means for putting down opponents, as this Conference does; and it is therefore an exceedingly hard and discouraging warfare in which those opponents have to engage. Freedom of speech, in consistency with their views, would not, they know well, be conceded to them; and they are obliged to content themselves, within the walls of the house of meeting, with a lame and partial advocacy of their cause, which deprives that cause of much of the power really belonging to it. Under these circumstances, it is not

only natural that the press should be resorted to by them in order to give effect to their statement of grievances; but, on the supposition that they are sincere in their intentions, the adoption of this mode of appeal must become to them a matter of moral obligation.

We are afraid our readers will have some difficulty in crediting the fact, that the following law is to be found in the Wesleyan code. It is nevertheless true, that it is printed just as we shall copy it, in the Minutes of Conference for the year 1796.

"Let no man, nor number of men, in our Connexion, on any account or occasion, circulate letters, call meetings, do or attempt to do anything new, till it has been first appointed by the Conference."

It can, indeed, be clearly proved, that this law was repealed by the subsequent concessions to popular demand, which we have already mentioned; but, though this circumstance makes the atrocity of acting

We

upon such a law in these days the greater, it is still acted upon. can assure the world that it is no dead letter; for it has, in a vast number of instances within our recollection, been enforced to the expulsion of persons from the Wesleyan societies. The spirit of the law, moreover, pervades a very large part of the enactments of modern Wesleyanism. Every one must see that these enactments cannot be strictly carried out, in each case of their application; but they will be in future, as they have in past times been, carried out whenever a sufficient necessity for such proceeding is supposed to exist. Whosoever, therefore, sets himself to produce a reform in Methodism, is liable to be excluded from the Connexion by means of this law, though his reforming efforts should be limited to the publication of his opinions. This danger must be apprehended by every Wesleyan, and especially by every Wesleyan minister, who appeals through the press against what he conceives to be the maladministration of the Conference; and therefore it becomes a matter of common prudence with such a person that he should send forth his appeal anonymously. The Conference itself has imposed this necessity upon him by the utterly unreasonable and shameful extent to which it has stretched its authority; and the inconveniences occasioned by the concealment it thus forces into being, are justly chargeable upon it alone. It is quite ridiculous for that body to complain of such concealment. One of its great objects is to suppress all agitation throughout the Connexion, and its chief method of accomplishing this object is by cutting off the agitators. Conciliation does not enter into its plans. Liberty is regarded by it as an enemy. Expulsion is that to which it looks for escape from annoyance. Like all despotic governments, capital punishment is its panacea. It deprives itself of the benefit of open dealing, by its refusal to concede the commonest rights of association; and every one who wishes still to continue a member of its community while he endeavours to correct the evils of that community, cannot but shield himself from the threatened extinction. Not to do so would be to renounce the possibility of effecting his purpose; and when he thus, in the only way presented to him, avoids the murderous attack to which he is exposed, he consults the interests of his cause, no less wisely than he does his own personal safety. We have no doubt that his yielding to this necessity is, in many respects, injurious to the manner in which he conducts his opposition; but the evils into which he falls are to be fairly attributed to the injustice practised against him. This simple view of the subject affords the true philosophy of that anonymous writing upon which such severe reflections have been cast during the Methodist storm that is now passing over our heads.

We have thus brought ourselves to a point whence we may fairly examine certain strange facts of recent occurrence which have given occasion to the present paper.

A few years ago, there appeared the first number of a publication called the Fly-Sheets. This publication was evidently written by persons connected with the small body of ministers who were accustomed to oppose the ruling party of the Wesleyan Conference. Its object. was to point out the evils consequent upon the policy adopted by that party. It declared, for instance, that the honours of the Connexion were unjustly confined to the heads and supporters of this party; and

that the executive power of Methodism was injuriously centralized in their hands. Various practical abuses were shewn to have arisen from this exclusive mode of administration. We do not think that every allegation of wrong-doing was clearly established; but a very strong case of general grievance was undoubtedly made out.

This could not be done without frequent reference to the names and acts of individuals. The system is, in fact, comprised in the men; and to attack the system was therefore to expose the men. Such exposure was not, perhaps, always made with the most correct feeling and in the best taste; but no larger amount of personality was indulged in than might have been, under the circumstances, reasonably expected. The controversy was conducted quite as equitably as similar controversies are usually conducted; and it is a mere absurdity to affirm, as the Minutes of the last Conference have done, that the personalities were "so grossly offensive and libellous, that the parties issuing them did not dare to affix the name of either printer or publisher." These Minutes convey the idea, that it was the primary object of the writers of these Fly-Sheets" to damage the character of individuals:" but this deceptive notion could not have been believed by those who insinuated it. The primary and pervading object of the whole discussion was to set forth a flagrant case of priestly assumption and tyranny; and the characters of individuals could suffer no damage by what was said, beyond the damage necessarily involved in their own acts of priestly arrogance or subserviency.

It is a fact which speaks highly for the purity of intention with which the Fly-Sheets were projected, that their circulation was almost entirely confined among ministers, to whom they appear to have been sent through the post. This accounts for their having been issued without any publisher's or printer's name.

What we have already said, must have prepared our readers for the information that they were not only published anonymously, as far as authorship was concerned, but that the names of their authors were carefully concealed.

Α

These Fly-Sheets produced, as was natural, a great sensation; and measures to counteract their influence were promptly adopted. The Conference of 1847 launched against them a thundering Resolution, in which they were described as though they only consisted of "imputations on the integrity and disinterestedness" of certain ministers. Declaration, repudiating all connection and sympathy with them, was drawn up for signature by the Ministerial body. Pamphlets were also printed and circulated in reply, which far more than rivalled them in the personal reflections to which they condescended, and which-mirabile dictu-imitated their anonymous form.

Among these different instrumentalities, the Declaration seems to have been most confidently relied upon for putting a stop to the dreaded movement. It was intended to operate as a means of discovery, as well as an utterance of censure, and was as follows:

"We, the undersigned, agree to declare that we regard with indignation and abhorrence the anonymous attacks on the motives and character of our brethren that have recently appeared in certain clandestine publications; that we have never intentionally communicated with the authors of those publications with a view to afford information or assistance, and that we will not

allow their wicked slanders to detract from the esteem and confidence we feel toward those against whom such attacks are directed."

If the signatures of all the ministers who were not concerned in the authorship of the Fly-Sheets could have been obtained to this declaration, the real authors of those Sheets would, of course, have been easily detected. This result, however, could not be thus accomplished. Those who refused to sign were too numerous for the inquisition to take due effect, and the reasons given for the refusal were inconsistent, in many instances, with any possible imputation of the delinquency to be ascertained. It therefore became necessary that some other and more certain method of dragging the supposed delinquents to light should be adopted; and a new and tighter screw was therefore placed upon the table of the Holy Office.

This resort to the extreme torture was the more needful, inasmuch as the authors of the Fly-Sheets had now transferred their appeal from the preachers to the people. The substance of these attacks was sold for the benefit of all mankind in a little book, entitled, The Fly-Sheets Vindicated; and we have pleasure in telling our readers that the accusation about no printer's or publisher's name being affixed, has been wiped away, and that they may procure the volume, for two shillings and sixpence, from James Gilbert, Paternoster Row.

The latest invention for "putting to the Question" was very simple, though very sharp. It consisted of an authoritative inquiry addressed to suspected persons, as to their connection with the authorship of the Fly-Sheets. If the suspected denied the authorship in answer to such inquiry, the suspicion would be brought by that denial more nearly home to its legitimate victims. If an acknowledgment of the authorship was thus obtained, the punishment could without farther trouble be inflicted upon the real criminals. If all reply to the inquiry was refused, the individuals refusing might be condemned for contumacy.

It seems that this notable scheme was prepared for, by certain Minutes passed by the Conference on occasion of the suppression of a dangerous agitation which took place in the year 1835. Those Minutes

state

"That not only the Conference, but all its district committees, whether ordinary or special, possess the undoubted right of instituting, in their official and collective character, any inquiry or investigation which they may deem expedient, into the moral, Christian or ministerial conduct of the preachers under their care, even although no formal or regular accusation may have been previously announced on the part of any individual."

The matter is made worse, rather than better, by the existence of this law, inasmuch as it is notoriously an innovation, by which the Conference, taking advantage of circumstances of special emergency, grasped at a power it had not previously possessed. This, indeed, has been vehemently denied; but the nature of the evidence advanced in support of the denial, establishes the very opposite conclusion to that for which it is urged. The pretended proof consists of a sentence to be found in the Minutes of 1777, relating to an allegation that some of the preachers were not called of God to preach. The sentence is the Answer in the succeeding quotation.

"Q. But suppose they were called once, have not many of them forfeited their calling?

"A. Examine them one by one, and whoever has any objection or doubt concerning any one, let him now speak without any disguise or reserve, or for ever hold his peace."

The examination, in this case, evidently applies only to the particular point with regard to which it was instituted; a point which, as it directly concerned the subject of ministerial fitness, would be allowed by every one to be within the province of Conferential investigation. To bring forward such a direction as the one we have just copied, as expressive of the universal inquisition whose practice it is made to serve, is a fraud which could not impose upon a child; and we have entered into an explanation of this comparatively trifling matter, in order to give one clear illustration of the loose and inconsequential sophisms by which Wesleyan despotism commonly endeavours to defend itself. One cannot but smile at the assumed confidence which must have been placed in the ignorant simplicity of those with whom such patent nonsense was expected to succeed.

There was one person upon whom the suspicion of having written the Fly-Sheets fixed itself with special strength. This was the Rev. James Everett, of York. He has been a Wesleyan minister for nearly half a century, during the whole of which time he has preserved an unblemished reputation. He is a man of considerable talent and attainment, an excellent preacher of the Methodist class, and an author of some literary celebrity. His style of composition, his humour, and, above all, a not very chaste method of analogical statement, betrayed him into the hands of his foes. Upon him, therefore, what has been hypocritically called "the friendly examination" was brought to bear, at the last Conference, with a peculiarly forcible determination. He was summoned to appear before the bar of the house; and the following scene is reported to have taken place.

"The Secretary said, that as Mr. Everett was strongly suspected as the chief author of the Fly-Sheets, he should, with the leave of the Conference, propose to him, without any bitterness of spirit, a short series of questions. Leave being at once granted, Mr. Everett was called forward, when the Secretary, holding a paper in his hand containing a series of questions, asked him first

"Mr. Everett, are you the writer or author of the Fly-Sheets?'

"To this Mr. Everett replied,

"Am I the first on the list of those who have not signed the declaration? When the brethren whose names occur in the minutes before mine have answered the question, then will I. Why am I singled out from all the rest? Till others whose names occur before mine answer, I will not answer, even if my refusal be followed by immediate expulsion.'

"On the question being pressed, Mr. Everett demanded the name of his accuser, the charge against him in writing, and an opportunity to defend himself in a constitutioual way. This only appeared to produce derisive

cheers.

"On being told that he was strongly suspected, and that for this reason he was questioned, he, after several apt replies, which he gave with much selfpossession and dignity, said,

"I will answer no questions. I know the temper of this Conference. An answer shall never be extorted from me.'

"After some remarks from the platform, Mr. Everett asked the Conference what motives induced them to fix on him, merely on suspicion? This called forth tremendous cheers, and on being told he was the most suspected, his reply was,