hood. The restored Government of Louis XVIII. shewed little disposition either to punish the offenders or to take the necessary steps for protecting the oppressed. During several subsequent months in that and the following year, the whole Protestant population of the South of France continued to live in a state of terror, their places of worship closed, their persons often insulted, and their houses frequently disfigured by their enemies during the night time by emblems of destruction. The Government of this country were appealed to by the Dissenting ministers of the Three Denominations and other public bodies to use their all-powerful influence in behalf of religious liberty, but with little effect. It was supposed that the French Protestant party in the Southern provinces looked with no favour on the restoration of the Bourbons, and therefore they were denied the sympathy of the English Government and their Tory adherents. An attempt was made by the ministerial journals first to discredit the existence of the persecution, and then to conceal its severity. Odium was heaped on those who stepped forward as the advocates of the persecuted.* The difficulties of the case were greatly increased by the time-serving duplicity of some of the leading Protestants of France. It was Mr. Aspland's painful duty to expose one notable instance of this. Mons. Marron, President of the Protestant Consistory, wrote (probably at the instigation of the French Government) an official letter to the Dissenting ministers of London, disclaiming and rebuking their interposition as unnecessary and mischievous. Little did he know the character of his correspondent when he enclosed this false and heartless letter in a private communication to Mr. Aspland, dated Dec. 11, 1815, in which he stated that the proceedings of the London ministers had created in France a strong sensation, that the French Protestants were consoled and gratified by them, and that the result was likely to be highly beneficial. It was deemed necessary, therefore, to rouse the public mind of England by public meetings, resolutions and speeches, and by a subscription in behalf of those of the Protestants of France who had suffered loss. In the labour and responsibility of these measures, Mr. Aspland took his share, and was rewarded by being brought into personal communication with Lord Holland, a nobleman whose sympathies were throughout life on the side of the oppressed, and with whom attachment to religious freedom was a first principle. In the English House of Commons, the cause of the French Protestants was pleaded with all the ardour of benevolence by Sir Samuel Romilly; and although Lord Castlereagh, relying on an obsequious majority ever ready to uphold any ministerial measure, derided his plea and maligned his motives in introducing the subject, his object was answered, and public opinion coerced the lethargic Cabinets of England and France to do what was necessary for the protection of the Protestants of the latter country. To this subject reference is made in the following letter.

In one ministerial journal the ministers of the Three Denominations were stigmatized as "treble-faced rogues.'

In the Morning Chronicle of Feb. 3, 1816, it is stated that M. Marron "acknowledges that he wrote to the Rev. R. A, and with a profligacy of expression unworthy of a minister of religion, and especially when connected with the calamities of his brethren, he says, he might have gilded the pill' and 'have softened the crudity of his refusal' (disclaimer)."

Mrs. Cappe to Rev. Robert Aspland.

66 York, Jan. 4th, 1816. "Dear Sir, I am very glad to find, from a notice in the last number of the Repository, that the Sermons, of which I have so lately been the editor, will be reviewed in the number for the present month. It is not that I wish them to be praised beyond their merit, of which different persons may probably think very differently, and which no one can appreciate so highly as the editor; but, as I think them eminently qualified to stimulate the reader to high degrees of moral excellence, and to raise the tone of religious sentiment, I certainly do wish that they should not fall lifeless to the ground, of which there may be some danger, from the want of patronage on the one hand, and the operation of prejudice on the other. Had they been recommended by a certain portion of orthodoxy, how great would have been their celebrity!

"I have now decided to venture upon a second edition of the former volume on devotional subjects, it having been long out of print and frequently inquired for, and shall put it into the hands of the printer as soon as the paper, already ordered, shall arrive. The great discouragement is the immediate expense and the long-protracted accounts with booksellers, so harassing to persons unaccustomed to business, and especially if from age the memory becomes incorrect. I avail myself of an opportunity, by the reports, of sending you another paper, a sort of sequel to the former, which you will be so good as to insert as soon as is convenient. I rejoice in the increasing respectability of the Repository, and, as I hope, in its increasing circulation and celebrity also. What a singular fact it is that such a torpor should prevail in our establishment respecting the persecutions of the Protestants in France! Mr. Welby has done his utmost in our small congregation (small, being overshadowed by a magnificent cathedral, &c. &c.), and the contributions have been as ample as could be expected; but I do not yet hear of any other effort. I wish the Methodists would come forward. I ought, indeed, to have excepted the Quakers, many of whom here are liberal and enlightened, as well as most actively benevolent.

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Essex Street, July 22, 1816. "Dear Sir,-The enclosed letter from Mr. Vanderkemp was given to me this morning by Miss Joyce, as appertaining to the Unitarian Society; but I see it contains something intended for the Monthly Repository, and therefore I transmit it to you. I rather suspect that the paper signed Crito, a copy of which, if printed, is desired to be sent to the American ambassador for his father, was drawn up by the old President himself. But I only judge so from that circumstance: and I think that I recollect having heard, many years ago, that his sentiments were similar to those of the enclosed paper, which, however, cannot be called Christian.

"I also enclose a little pamphlet by Sylvanus Gibbs, of Plymouth Dock, which he sent to me for you: and with every good wish for your health, comfort and success, I am, dear Sir, very sincerely yours,

T. BELSHAM."

The remarkable paper to which Mr. Belsham alludes was published in the Monthly Repository (XI. 574–576), under the title of " Syllabus of an Estimate of the Doctrines of Jesus compared with those of others." There can be no doubt of the correctness of the conjecture of Mr. Belsham, that it was the production of John Adams, the seconder in Congress of the Declaration of Independence, and the successor, in 1797, of Washington in the Presidency of America. The son of this distinguished man, John Quincy Adams, was at this period

residing in England as the representative of his republic, and occasionally honoured Mr. Aspland with an exchange of visits.

The letter that follows is inserted as the only memorial found in Mr. Aspland's papers of one for whom he entertained great respect, and of whom he wrote (1817) in the following terms: "This intrepid man was Secretary to the Corresponding Society. He was the first whose life was sought on pretence of high treason by Mr. Pitt. An honest jury delivered him from the fangs of his persecutors; and he is still living, an example of enlightened patriotism, unimpeachable virtue, and the unostentatious profession of religion."

Thomas Hardy to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"30, Queen's Row, Pimlico, Nov. 15, 1816. "Dear Sir,-With this I send you a letter of mine to a few friends who meet annually to commemorate the Fifth of November, but not merely for the acquittal of Thomas Hardy on that day, but for the acquittal virtually of thousands.

"The Corresponding Society (which has been so basely calumniated) began in the latter end of 1791, in consequence of a conversation I had with a friend respecting the unequal representation of the people in Parliament. That conversation suggested the propriety of instituting a Society with the view of ascertaining the opinion of the people on that question by corresponding with other societies that might be formed, having the same object in view, as well as with public-spirited individuals.

"The first meeting of the London Corresponding Society was held on the 25th of January, 1792, consisting of eight persons. How strange and

how very amusing it was for me to see a plan exactly similar recommended to the adoption of the British and Foreign School Society, by a Royal Duke, five-and-twenty years afterwards,- -a plan which is now also in full practice by Missionary and Bible Societies! The same means that were used to promote the success of Parliamentary Reform in 1794, were charged as a crime against the London Corresponding Society.

with

"The first address and resolutions which the Society printed, and which were published very extensively, were dated April 2, 1792. From that time the Society became known to the public. Societies were then formed in different parts of England, Scotland and Ireland, in quick succession, for the same laudable object. A constant correspondence was afterwards kept up each of these societies. The London Corresponding Society was considered the Parent Society. This was the reason why Burke, in one of his mad rants in the House of Commons, designated it as the mother of all mischief." At this period the numbers increased rapidly, and political knowledge was diffused generally throughout the nation by means of small tracts, which were well adapted for giving information to persons of every capacity, and also by political discussions and conversations in the various meetings. The members increased in about two years to an amount far exceeding all the electors by whose suffrages the House of Commons is at present chosen. The popular societies becoming so numerous, and petitioning for Reform also becoming so general, began now to attract the notice of Government, and created an apparent alarm, which was fed and increased by the lying and interested misrepresentations of the agents of the Ministry. After many efforts to suppress the rising spirit of the country for a Reform of Parliament, the prosecution, imprisonment and banishment of individuals for what they termed sedition, proving ineffectual, the Ministry at last had recourse to a still more iniquitous measure, that of charging us with HIGH TREASON. * Twelve men, among the many thousands in the nation who were equally engaged in the same benevolent and patriotic cause, were now singled out as the first victims. The State Trials, as they are called, began on October 25, 1794, with the trial of

myself (who was supposed to be the most helpless of the band), which lasted nine days, and on another memorable 5th of November I was honourably acquitted. The then Attorney-General, Sir John Scott, now Lord Eldon, took nine hours to deliver his opening speech on that trial. The trial of John Horne Tooke was next in order, which lasted five days; and on the 21st of November he was also honourably acquitted. The trial of John Thelwall next succeeded, which lasted three days, and he was also honourably acquitted on the 5th of December. The other prisoners whose names were included in the same indictment, were two days afterwards brought to the bar and honourably discharged. Thus ended the momentous trials of 1794. I cannot help mentioning here the names of our excellent advocates on that trying occasion, Erskine and Gibbs, now the Right Hon. Thomas Lord Erskine and Sir Vicary Gibbs.

"Perhaps you may desire to know how many of those twelve men who were destined in the councils of erring mortals to die on a certain day still survive. I shall only mention the names of those who have already paid the debt of nature. The first of them who died was Thomas Holcroft; the next, John Augustus Bonney, Stewart Kyd, John Horne Tooke, Thomas Wardle, and lately, Jeremiah Joyce. If the recapitulation of the above circumstances shall have communicated any interesting information or recalled any pleasing or useful recollections, it will add to the happiness of, dear Sir, yours with great respect, THOMAS HARDY."

The year 1817 opened gloomily. The war was at an end, but its enormous cost bowed the nation down, and there was a general stagnation of trade. Social distress engendered political discontent, and led to an angry cry for Reform. The Government and their party, unused to popular control, endeavoured by harsh prosecutions and other threatening proceedings to keep down the expression of discontent. In one or two instances, political antipathy fomented religious animosity, and led to results which seemed for a time to endanger toleration. At Liverpool, some proceedings of a very extraordinary character took place, the mention of which will serve to shew how great has been the progress of liberal feeling in the last thirty years.

Mr. John Wright (a brother of Rev. Richard Wright) had opened a room for preaching and religious lectures in Marble Street, in that town. An advertisement on the subject of these lectures, inserted in the Liverpool Mercury, March 28th, 1817, attracted the jealous attention of the Mayor (whose name also was John Wright), and he sent an informer to watch the services at Marble Street. In the following month, proceedings were taken against Mr. Wright, in the first instance on a charge of holding meetings for worship in a place not duly licensed, and subsequently on the more serious charge of blasphemy. The alleged blasphemy was the delivery of a lecture, in which the doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement were discussed and denied, and also the doctrines of an intermediate and of any future state. The magistrates, under the guidance of Mr. Statham, the Town Clerk, notwithstanding the production of secondary evidence proving that the room in Marble Street had been licensed in the Bishop's Court at Chester twenty years previously, on behalf of the congregation then assem

For the latter part of the charge there was no evidence. The informer, little acquainted with theological discussions, probably confounded the denial of a separate or intermediate state with the denial of man's immortality. The lecture which led to this charge was, in fact, a printed one, and formed No. 14 of the volume of "Evangelical Discourses" published by Rev. R. Wright in 1811.

bling in it, convicted Mr. Wright on the minor charge, and committed him for trial at the ensuing assizes at Lancaster on the more serious charge of blasphemy. In reply to the prisoner's demand to know under what law he was charged, the Town Clerk informed him that it was "under the common law."

These proceedings awakened immediate and anxious attention. Mr. Aspland brought them without delay under the notice of the Committee of the Unitarian Fund,* and it was resolved that the solicitor of the Society should at once put himself into communication with Mr. Wright and his friends, and make an early report of his opinion on the case. It was matter of regret and animadversion that the Committee, at a subsequent meeting (May 12), in the absence through illness of their Secretary, received and resolved to act on the advice of their solicitor, not to interfere by supporting Mr. Wright, in the state of the question for which he was under prosecution.

Mr. Belsham, greatly to his honour,† remonstrated against the decision of the Committee, in the latter part of the following letter.

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Essex Street, May 26, 1817. "My dear Sir,-I am much obliged by your communication, and am glad

Minutes of Unitarian Fund Committee's proceedings, April 22, 1817.

+ Mr. Belsham reiterated his views still more urgently on Mr. Rutt in the following letter. The incidental mention of the absence of both the Secretary and Treasurer at this critical moment, may explain, though it does not justify, the inaction of the Unitarian Fund Committee.

"Tuesday, June 10, 1817.

"Dear Sir, I take so little part in the administration of the Unitarian Fund, that it may seem officious in me to obtrude any advice. But I cannot help fearing that, by neglecting as a body to take up the cause of Mr. Wright, they are not consulting their reputation or their interest. To profess, as one main object of the institution, to protect Unitarian missionaries, and to shrink back in the very first instance from supporting a respectable teacher against a malicious prosecution, appears to me and to many others inexplicable. I wonder not at the conduct of the Protestant Society; but I am a little surprised that the Deputies have not taken up the cause. This, however, gives a very glorious opportunity for the Unitarian Fund to come forward, to take up the cause, to offer to defend Mr. Wright to the utmost extent of their means, to open a correspondence with the Committee at Liverpool, and to request the assistance of the friends of Christian truth and of religious liberty. Î have no doubt that these resolutions, if properly circulated, as they should be, and the sooner the better, would immediately raise a sum of money much larger than would be necessary, and would leave a large balance in the hands and for the purposes of a Fund so liberally and judiciously applied. Whereas, if the Fund as a body deserts the cause of Mr. Wright, I have no doubt that many will take great offence, and the consequences will be injurious both to the character and the revenue of the Fund.

"I have given Mr. Aspland my sentiments upon the subject; but I hear he is out of town, and Mr. Christie is also absent. I write to you upon the supposition that you are an active member of the Committee; and the case admits of no delay, this being the proper time for the Unitarian Fund to take it up, as the Deputies have declined. And if the Fund still continues to decline interfering, some other method must be thought of to support Mr. Wright's cause, as money is wanted immediately.

"Though not of the Committee of the Unitarian Fund, yet, as an old subscriber, I have presumed to give an opinion, which you, my dear Sir, and the managers, will adopt or reject as you and they may see to be expedient.

"I am, very sincerely yours,

T. BELSHAM."