Ittterg to tht
ME. KINGSLEY'S CASE.
23 Russell Phee, 25th _November 1851.
Ste—May I request that you will do me the favour to insert in your next number the following remarks upon a letter headed " The Christian Social- ists," which, although published on the 15th of November in your journal, I have only just seen. The statements in that letter to which T. C. D. "pledges his word" are not only untrue, but as nearly as possible they are in each case the exact opposites of the truth. It is not true that the Bishop of London forbade Mr. Kingsley to preach in his diocese in consequence of " representations made to him on the part of Mr. Drew." Neither is it true, that " immediately" on receiving a copy of Mr. Kingsley's sermon the Bishop reversed his judg- ment. Before that tookplace, another very important circumstance occur- red, of which T. C. D. before writing on the subject ought to have been in- formed. And lastly, the statement which intimates that I received from my diocesan a communication disapproving the course which I had taken, is most emphatically untrue. Either T. C. D. knows nothing of the facts of the case, on knowing them, a heavier charge than that of ignorance must be alleged against him, and he has wilfully made false statements, being at the same time aware that I have documentary proofs of their falsehood in my possession.
He need not have added that Mr. Kingsley was quite " uncognizant" of his letter : I am sure he was. Would that all Mr. Kingsley's friends had acted as honourably, and with as much candour and kindness, as he has done in that most painful affair which connected so unhappily our names to- gether.
Previous page
