In a conciliatory spirit, the majority present of the Church of England assented to the intolerant spirit manifested by their Dissenting Brethren. At a subsequent meeting, it was reported that neither of the two gentlemen nominated to the chair, would occupy that position, and that the Bishop feared that, having due regard to his position in the diocese, and his office as Vice-President of the Parent Society, he could not attend the meeting in any other capacity than that of chairman. Failing in the search of a chairman, it was agreed to solicit his Lordship to preside, but the honorary distinction of President was still objected to, whereat the meeting broke up without any definite arrangement being made. We are truly sorry to find the Bible Society selected as the arena, in which the several religionists composing the population of this town might contend for superiority. We have no objection that Presbyterians and Wesleyans should guard their privileges with the utmost watchfulness, but we cannot help thinking, that in opposing the occupancy of the chair of a neutral society, by the Bishop of the Anglican Church, they disputed without a cause, they contended with a shadow.

Meanwhile, we hope the committee will again meet, before the public meeting is held, so that arrangements might be perfected, and the interests of the British and Foreign Bible Society preserved from injury, and so that the public meeting, to be held next week, might be as heretofore, an assembly where the different sections of the Christian Church might assemble in love for a common object, even the more extensive diffusion of that Book, in whose pages, each party agree, are to be found the words of truth.

To the Editor of the Geelong Advertiser

SIR, - It was with great surprise that I read in your paper of March 31st, a paragraph referring to the meetings of the Committee of the Bible Society. I think that the writer has acted very improperly in making known the conversation which was held in a committee room. I was not aware that it was the practice in Geelong to send reports to the public papers of such familiar and friendly conversation. Had the writer confined himself to the statement of facts, I should have taken no notice to his production. He has, however, so united comment upon what took place, the intentions of certain persons, and the language made use of by those present, as to give a misrepresentation of the whole matter.

I deny his statement that the Wesleyans showed an intolerant spirit, and I believe that in so doing I shall if necessary be supported by every gentleman present. I saw nothing like intolerance manifested by the Presbyterians present, and all with whom I have conversed upon the subject, repudiate the charge in the most decided manner. I call upon the writer to point out the specific acts, or to quote the words which indicated an intolerant spirit. It is very desirable that as he makes such serious charges, calculated to hurt the feelings of so many persons, that he should favor the public with his name and address.

I have mentioned the subject to several persons who were present at both meetings, and they all expressed their regret at the appearance of the article referred to.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,
W. C. CURREY

To the Editor of the Geelong Advertiser

SIR, - The Rev. Mr. Currey, Wesleyan Minister, has thought it fit to impugn the correctness of the report of two committee meetings of the Geelong Auxiliary British and Foreign Bible Society, which I did myself the honor of furnishing you, and charging me with acting improperly in making known the conversation held in a committee room.

In reply, I deny that I was guilty of the slightest breach of good faith; I was no member of a secret conclave: the committee meetings were no assemblages of Orange or Freemasons' Lodges, but the assembly of the executive of a public religious society, and, as such, when its proceedings were sufficiently important, the public ought in justice to be made acquainted therewith. I could easily adduce precedents to support my act in making known even such familiar and friendly conversations as that used, which had a tendency to hurt the feelings of the Protestant Episcopalians of this town by refusing to their Bishop, a position they believed him so well entitled to, and to injure the Bible Society by the likely, and naturally to be expected, consequences to be feared in the Episcopalians of this town withdrawing from the Society the warm support they had hitherto given it. The facts are perfectly correct, and, as an inferrible evidence, I would appeal to those present at the glorious meeting of Wednesday, who could not fail to observe that there was something wrong, it being manifest that there were no previous arrangements to go by; shewing that there was truth in the statement, that the last committee meeting broke up without adopting any fixed plans. That the Bishop did occupy the chair, was not the result of the deliberative judgement of the committee, but of the circumstances stated in the report. But now that he did preside, I am sure neither the Rev. Mr. Currey, nor anyone else whose fears were expressed, have the slightest feeling of regret; I am sure that all would now been sorry to have seen him subjected to the indignity of occupying a less important position, or compelled, by a sense of self-respect, to absent himself from a meeting where he was intended to appear in a subordinate capacity.

Having vindicated my veracity as to the facts stated, and refuted the charge of acting improperly, I leave my comments and inferences without further notice. I have too much respect for the Ministerial office, to desire any further collision with a Minister of Religion, and shall not add anything further.

As to publishing my name, there can scarcely be a doubt as to my identity amongst those interested. I shall, therefore, subscribe myself

Your obedient servant,
A FRIEND OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

April 7, 1848.

To the Editor of the Geelong Advertiser

SIR, - When I addressed my letter to you in reference to the Bible Society, I did it under the impression that the writer of the paragraph referred to, would upon consideration perceive that he had committed an error in charging the Wesleyans with intolerance, and would retract it. This he has not done, but instead of so doing, he has reinerated the charge and drawn inferences from the proceedings of the public meeting to confirm his former statements. In his letter he states "that the Bishop occupying the chair was not the result of the deliberative judgement of the Committee, but of the circumstances stated in the report." What the circumstances stated in the report were that could induce his Lordship uninvited to take the chair, I am at a loss to discover.

I have read the report carefully through, and can find in it nothing that would have justified him in acting in such an extraordinary manner.

What must be thought of the veracity of the writer, when it is stated, that at the last meeting of the Committee, it was proposed and carried unanimously, that the Bishop of Melbourne be requested to preside at the public meeting.

I called on his Lordship on the Monday previous to the public meeting; while I was with him a letter was brought from the Rev. Ebenezer Collins, which his Lordship handed to me, in which the vote of the Committee was transmitted.

If, then, the letter of the President, and the records of the Committee are to be depended upon, it was in consequence of a deliberative vote of the Committee that his Lordship occupied the chair. I cannot hold any controversy with an individual who shows himself either so ignorant of the subject, or so regardless of the truth.

As a charge of intolerance has been made against the Wesleyans, I will in answer give a statement of what took place at the Committee meetings, in reference to the appointment of a Chairman, and leave the public to judge whether I was not bound in justice to myself and the body of Christians to which I belong to deny such a charge.

At a meeting of the Committee held to make the preliminary arrangements for the public meeting, in the conversation which took place about the appointment of a Chairman, I stated that some persons with whom I had been conversing on the subject thought it desirable that a layman should preside. After it had been decided that the meeting should be held in the Presbyterian Church, it was proposed by Mr. Forster (a Wesleyan), that the Bishop of Melbourne be requested to preside, and I voted for that motion. Mr. Forster expressed himself in very strong terms; he said "that if the Bishop was not asked to preside, he would propose that the meeting be adjourned until the departure of the Bishop, as he considered that it would be an insult to hold the meeting while he was in the town, unless he was called to the chair." The members of the Church of England present, in the kindest manner, and the most concilatory spirit, said that they would rather that Dr. Learmonth should be called to preside, than that offence should be given to any person. At a subsequent meeting of the sub-committee, I maintained that as Dr. Learmonth had refused to preside, a Chairman ought to be appointed, and I voted for the proposition, which was carried unanimously, that "the Bishop be requested to take the chair."

I subsequently proposed "that his Lordship be requested to accept the office of Patron to the Society." These facts require no comment, and must, I think, convince every unprejudiced person that the charge of intolerance is without foundation.

I must apologise for speaking so much of myself, but as I and Mr. Forster were the only Wesleyans present at the first meeting, and I was the only Wesleyan at the second meeting, if intolerance was manifested by the Wesleyans it must have been by one of us.

I remain, yours, &c.,
W. C. CURREY

Geelong, April 12, 1848

To the Editor of the Geelong Advertiser

SIR, - The Rev. Mr. Currey, Wesleyan Minister, has again attempted to deprive of credibility, the report of two committee meetings of the Geelong Auxiliary British and Foreign Bible society, that I furnished you with, - and how? By doing that, he so unjustly charged me with as being an improper act, he furnishes you with a new report of the meetings; but on comparrison of the two versions of the proceedings referred to, I can discover no discrepancy as to the facts, that the committee decided the Bishop should not preside at the ensuing public meeting, and that at a subsequent meeting it was agreed that the Bishop might preside.

Mr. Curry, however, gives a little more information, he tells of himself what I did not divulge; he says, it was he who raised the objection to the Bishop, and in a most disingenuous form; some persons, said he, with whom I had been conversing on the subject, thought it desirable that a layman should preside. And so effectual was his declaration concerning some persons with whom he conversed, that the motion of having the Bishop to preside, which a little before seemed to give the greatest delight - was abandoned, and it was only by an amendment moved by other parties than those who at first proposed the Bishop to the chair, that it was ascertained that, amongst the committee of the Geelong British and Foreign Bible Society, were found persons so intolerant as to refuse Dr. Perry, the Bishop of Melbourne, the very humble compliment of being called to the chair of a Bible Society Meeting.

But Mr. Currey says, after it was carried that the meeting should be held in the Scots Church, I voted for the motion, - rather amendment. Most inconsistent, to talk one way and vote the other. What had the place of meeting, which was decided before Mr. Currey raised his objections, to do with the proposition? Did that intention of holding the meeting in such a place necessarily lower the Bishop to the position of a mere layman? It would be well for Mr. Currey did he partake of the same liberality that characterised Mr. Forster, the other Wesleyan present, and not so attempt, in Mr. Forster's language, to insult the Bishop, by raising objections to Dr. Perry because he was not a layman.

In Mr. Currey's more veracious account of the second meeting, a few of my statements would be an improvement, viz., the fear that the Bishop entertained of being compelled to absent himself from a meeting, where, in the opinion of his admirers, he was required to submit to insult. The fact, that not only did Doctor Learmonth refuse to preside, but also so did Mr. Somerville Learmonth, nor could either Mr. Haines, Mr. Willis, or Mr. Hopkins be found so presumptious as to occupy a position so naturally and fittingly the place of the Bishop of the Diocese, being in the town, and being willing thereto. Such circumstances being kept in mind, it was a sorry compliment of the part of Mr. Currey to vote that the Bishop be requested to take the chair. - Mr. Currey tells us, by way of eliciting praise, (may I presume) for his great toleration, that he proposed that his Lordship be requested to accept the office of Patron to the Society; but he conceals that it was in opposition to the proposition that the Bishop be President. Slight as is the difference, yet, it was considered sufficient in the opinion of the tolerant Wesleyan Minister to risk the consequence of offence being taken, and consequent injury to the Society; and so acutely did this continuation of insult seem to be felt, that I again assert the meeting broke up without any fixed proposition being agreed to.

The sneer of reading the Report carefully through, and finding nothing that could justify the Bishop in acting in such an extraordinary manner by taking the chair, would be obviated by once again only cursorily reading that part of the Report of the second meeting, where it is stated, that failing in the search of a Chairman, it was agreed to solicit his Lordship to preside. That his Lordship did magnanimously disregard the repeated insults offered to him, and accept the poor distinction of Chairman and Patron, resulted, I believe, from the possession of that principle of heaven-born charity, "that vaunteth not itself, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, beareth all things, thinketh no evil," coupled with a devoted attachment to that Society, who have made such stupenduous efforts to disseminate that Book, in which the Bishop believes are to be found the doctrines, and to which the discipline and practices agree of that Church, which in the good providence of God, Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen has appointed him to the office of Bishop, and which Church John Wesley declares to be truly scriptural and Apostolic. See sermons 40, 41, 80, 119, 130, and in general throughout all his writings.

I am pleased to observe, the unwillingness to submit to the charge of intolerance manifested by the reverend gentleman, on the part of the Wesleyans. It indicates, on his part, a regret for giving any grounds for such a charge; it encourages a hope, that in his future conduct he will not merit such an appellation, but the justness and applicability of the charge is apparent, notwithstanding the truthful statement respecting the other Wesleyan present, from the words of the objection,

Who were they? Can it be supposed they were other than members of his Church. In my former letter, I accorded to Mr. Currey the belief, that he did not regret it so happened that the Bishop did preside at the public meeting; but what, may I ask, would be his feelings did he succeed in his opposition, and did the Bishop of Melbourne take offence and absent himself from the meeting? Would he join in the unholy exultation sometimes exhibited, that the support of the British and Foreign Bible Society was left in the hands of the Dissenters? Would he also point to the defection from the post of duty, as a mark of a fallen or insufficiently reformed Church? Would he join in the outcry of Puseyism, Puseyism? But, blessed be God, Dr. Perry will yield to no one in attachment to the Word of God, and to the Society whose object is to put into the hands of every created intelligence; and I would hazard an opinion, that if even he had to submit to insult, he would have been found at the late glorious meeting.

Thinking that your readers will see that I am neither ignorant of the subject, nor regardless of truth, yet freely admitting I do not desire further controversy.

I remain, your obedient servant,
A FRIEND OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

April 21, 1848

To the Editor of the Geelong Advertiser

SIR, - Your correspondent, who signed himself "A Friend to the British and Foreign Bible Society," is, it appears, determined to have the last word. Although I have proved the falsehood of his former statements, he will not acknowledge his error, but still continues to reiterate them, and in his last production makes up by abuse of myself what he wants in argument. The close of his letter is most amusing; he charges me with falsehood, with disingenuousness, with intolerance, with inconsistency, and then says, "I do not desire any further controversy." He scatters firebrands, arrows, and death, and then says, "Am I not in sport? I wish no one to expose my malice and wickedness."

If your correspondent is stating the truth, why does he not sign his name to his productions? why anonymously slander a body of Christians, misrepresent what I said and what I wrote, and thus in every possible manner endeavor to wound the feelings of one who is not concious of having given him any reason for manifesting such a malignant spirit? In his last he retorts upon me the charge which I made against him, of impropriety, in sending, without a sufficient reason, to the public papers what took place in a Committee room. Can he not perceive that his position and mine are very different. He, uncalled for, gave a garbled report; he mixed up with that report many reflections of his own; he charged the Presbyterians and Wesleyans of this town with intolerance. I was forced to state all that took place in reference to the subject of discussion, viz., the appointment of a chairman of the public meeting, in order that I might prove the incorrectness of such a charge. He says that I now tell what he did not divulge. Must not every one see that he now admits that his was a garbled report. Why did he not tell the whole truth at the commencement of this controversy? Why, because it would not have answered his purpose.

In a former letter he stated that the Bishop did not preside in consequence of a vote of the Committee; he made no distinction between first and second meetings. In his last he admits that at a subsequent meeting it was agreed that the Bishop might preside. What! the Committee agreed that the Bishop might preside, and yet no vote on the subject. Does your correspondent suppose that a committee composed of gentlemen would agree or vote that his Lordship might preside. Did they expect that he would come and force himself on the meeting, and that in the event of his so doing he might take the chair. No, no. They had too much respect for themselves and for the Bishop to be guilty of such an absurdity. After all the evidence I adduced to prove that there was a vote of the Committee, he says, "I again assert the meeting broke up without any fixed proposition being agreed to." I will now furnish you with an extract from the minute-book of the Committee. It requires no comment:

"Tuesday, 28th of March, 1848. - An adjourned meeting of the Committee was held in the house of the Rev. Mr. Collins. It was proposed and carried unanimously, that the Bishop of Melbourne be requested to preside at the meeting, on Wednesday the 5th of April." - EBENEZER COLLINS

Your correspondent says that I raised the obection to the Bishop. I deny it, I did nothing of the kind. I related a conversation I had had with a person the previous afternoon, and I did this because I thought it right, as I do still, that before persons come to a decision upon any subject they ought to have all that bears upon it before them. In another part of his letter, he asks whether it can be conceived that the person I referred to could be any other than a member of my own church, and that I thus in a disengenuous manner made an objection which I dared not openly to make. I pity the meanness of spirit of the man who could make such an insinuation. Does he judge me by his own standard? If I had wished to make an objection would I not have done it openly? Can he point out the man or the body of men that I would not tell if necessary what I thought on any subject? Have I sheltered myself behind an anonymous signature to slander my fellow-christians, to endeavour to prove that one engaged in preaching the gospel is not to be believed, instead of confessing my own mistake? When he can point out to me one single instance of such meanness on my part, then will I admit that he has some foundation for such an insinuation.

I am not only disingenuous, but also inconsistent; I talked one way and voted the other. No, I did not. I stated the objection that had been made, and when a member of the Committee said, "As the Bishop, if he presides, will go to a Presbyterian Church, that will be an evidence of his liberality." I said, "I think that will satisfy those who made the objection, and I shall vote that the Bishop be requested to preside."

Your correspondent says, "so effectual was his declaration (that is, mine) that the motion of having the Bishop to preside was abandoned, and it was only by an amendment moved by other parties than those who at first proposed the Bishop to the chair, that it was ascertained that amongst the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society of Geelong, were found persons so intolerant as to refuse Dr. Perry, the Bishop of Melbourne, the very humble compliment of being called to the Chair of a Bible Society Meeting." We have the truth at last. From this statement, it appears that the persons who were so intolerant were amongst the Committee, and then we are told, 1st, - That the act of intolerance was, refusing to appoint the Bishop chairman. Then, secondly, - we have the parties who performed this act. - The persons who did this were intolerant. I do not know the names of all the parties who were present at the first meeting, but I remember that Messrs. Sladen, Roadknight, Hill, Woolley Shaw, voted for Dr. Learmonth, therefore against the Bishop.

Does he mean to say, that these gentlemen are either Wesleyans or Presbyterians? Does he expect that he will be able to persuade the public of Geelong, that they were intolerant either to the Church of England or Bishop Perry? And all this is done with the full concurrence of the Rev. Ebenezer Collins, who presided at the meeting. - Shame on the man who can thus libel the members of his own church. I have proved that Wesleyans are not intolerant, by his own confession, and now I am satisfied.

There is also a great deal said about the insults offered to the Bishop. It is a pity that the person who scribbles away at such a rate, will not allow the Bishop to speak and act for himself, and that he will force himself before the public, into a position for which he is totally unfitted.

In the latter part of his letter, he asks a great many questions, insinuating throughout all of them, that dissenters (as he calls us) have by their conduct driven the Bishops of the Church of England from the Bible Society, and then exulted that they were absent from the Society, stating that it was by choice, and that this absence was a mark of a fallen church, an indication of Puseyism, &c. Why ask me these questions? - Have any persons ever done so? Have I ever acted in such a manner? Why put such questions, except, in that disingenuous manner, to insinuate that which he cannot prove, and has not the slightest foundation for saying? Does your correspondent suppose, because I came at great disadvantage before the public, to repel a charge of intolerance, ( a thing which I hate ) that I am, therefore, bound to answer every impertinent question he may think proper to ask me? If so, he is quite mistaken.

He has likewise made a notable discovery, viz., that it is the object of the Bible Society to place the Bible in the hands of every created intelligence. Indeed! I thought it was intended for the lost sons of Adam. Are angels not created intelligencies? Do angels require the Bible to be circulated amongst them? Yet, sir, the man who can write such stuff, sets himself up as the deferder of the Bishop, and as the enlightener of the public. I do not know who my antagonist is, but I trust that when he goes to Church next Sunday he will read, and that in his future conduct he will show, that he remembers that commandment which says, - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

I remain, your's, &c.
W. C. CURREY

Geelong, April 24th, 1848.

P.S. - I know of no second Report. I never attended any meeting of the Bible Society subsequent to that held in the Scotch Church.