The following transcription was also kindly shared with me
Coad’s comments in his copy of Neatby:
p.14 See letter to Prof Tholuck in Darby’s “letters” vol. 3 p.297 for this period. Neatby had not, it would seem, seen this.
p.16 See also “letters” vol.1 p.397
p.18 ‘we’ is circled - My ?printed copy has “he (Cronin) had” This seems to be correct when compared with ?Cronin’s? own notes (see quote opposite. - In this case Bellett did not actually break bread until late 1829 in the Fitzwilliam Square gathering – see p.20 of this book.
p.20 on ‘as Hutchinson had disputations’ – my printed copy says “was willing”.
p.21 on ‘winter of 1827-8’ – NO. Bellett’s letter seems to make it clear that the Fitzwilliam Square gathering was in Nov. 1829 [see quotes p.20 opposite and p.22
? But Congleton (see next page) sailed with him to St Petersburgh.
p.38 Aldbury corrected to Albury. Then on Lady Powerscourt’s attendance – This is not certain, from the History of Irvingism -but this comment appears crossed out with: Yes – see RF ? letter of 6/8/66 with 314.
p.50 No – it was FW Newman.
On 1831 – In his letter to Prof Tholuck (see “letters” vol.3 p. 301) Darby says it was 1830.
p.51 ? But he relinquished his fellowship on marriage very early on.
p.53 NO! The first editor was Borlase.
p.67 Muller and Craik were also invited to join, but declined after prayerful consideration – see Pierson’s “George Muller of Bristol” p.102 [re missionary trip to Bagdad]
p.81 NO. It was L’Amienne Residence (the early ‘gen’ assemblies). L’Eglise Libre Vaudoise was not formed until 1847 – see Rebret.
p.102 see 112 (b) (lii) This indicates that JND’s account is far from trustworthy!
p.109 See also 407 c (iv)
p.115 1. Sir Alexander Campbell. 2. Potter. 3. Code. 4. Rhind. 5. Wigram. 6. Naylor. 7. Lord Congleton. In addition there would appear to be three of the following: - Chapman*, Moseley, Walker, Pickard, Morris. (Pickard and Morris later gave testimonials to Newton) See notes from Fry Mss. At my notes 112 (xvi) (There was a Morris later excommunicated for views on non eternity of punishment – see Darby’s letter of May 1848 vol.III pp.248+).
*Those of this five who were not at meeting apparently were ? privately.
p.116 – but see preface, p. vii.
p.131 pp. 44 & 45 of Vol. 15 of Letters Hill edn. Of “Collected Writings”
p.148 Neatby misreads Trotter here. The words which he has omitted in the extract from Trotter’s tract first quoted are “and whose confessions have been noticed.” Trotter is clearly referring to the confessions of doctrinal war at Plymouth (see pp. 138 & 140) which he has first related in his pamphlet, or is saying that now they made additional confession of wars of (aption/opinion?). Nevertheless, Neatby’s judgment of his tract is first [fair?] and Trotter had no first hand knowledge and wrote entirely from hearsay. Tregelles and Congleton took a formal part in the Plymouth proceedings.
Remember that Congleton had been formally involved in the Plymouth trouble, and the remaining correspondence shows that Darby had been guilty of considerable prevarication in correspondence with him. Congleton had every reason to suspect the truth of Darby’s pamphlet – and if he was not able to “shake” them in debate it proves no more (as Neatby rightly implies) than that Darby was the better debater!