substance of what I said is correctly given.

Mr Vizetelly proceeds to put into my mouth a curious account of
the polity of the Wesleyan Methodists. He makes me say that,
after John Wesley's death, "the feeling in favour of the lay
administration of the Sacrament became very strong and very
general: a Conference was applied for, was constituted, and,
after some discussion, it was determined that the request should
be granted." Such folly could have been uttered only by a person
profoundly ignorant of the history of Methodism. Certainly
nothing of the sort was ever uttered by me; and nothing of the
sort will be found either in The Times or in the Unitarian
report.

Mr Vizetelly makes me say that the Great Charter recognises the
principle of limitation, a thing which everybody who has read the
Great Charter knows not to be true. He makes me give an utterly
false history of Lord Nottingham's Occasional Conformity Bill.
But I will not weary my readers by proceeding further. These
samples will probably be thought sufficient. They all lie within
a compass of seven or eight pages. It will be observed that all
the faults which I have pointed out are grave faults of
substance. Slighter faults of substance are numerous. As to
faults of syntax and of style, hardly one sentence in a hundred
is free from them.

I cannot permit myself to be exhibited, in this ridiculous and
degrading manner, for the profit of an unprincipled man. I
therefore unwillingly, and in mere self-defence, give this volume
to the public. I have selected, to the best of my judgment, from