to hear that the good cause is going on so prosperously on the other side the Atlantic.

"I dare say that Mr. Taylor's anecdote of Bishop Seabury may be correct.* But it does not at all militate against mine, which relates a private communication between Bishop Seabury and Dr. Styles, communicated in a private letter from Dr. Styles to Dr. Price, and by Dr. Price to Mr. Lindsey or Dr. Priestley, and upon their authority inserted in Mr. Lindsey's Memoirs from a letter now in my possession. This occurred previously to the public meeting, and is not at all inconsistent with what Mr. Taylor relates as having occurred at the meeting, and in which, to do Bishop Seabury justice, it does not appear that he took any part, the application being probably made by some officious

friend.

"I am very much concerned to find that your health is still in so precarious a state as to prevent your attending the Fund meeting on Wednesday. I should rejoice to hear that you had determined to lay aside all business and all care for the present, and to take a journey into the country on horseback for a month. This, I should hope, would set you up completely. But if you do not mend soon, and that very materially, I beg you would have other, if not better advice; and do not trifle with any complaint which threatens to affect the lungs.

"I will take care that Mr. W. S. shall see your review of Southey. At present he is at Norwich, condoling with Pratt and Co.

"I am surprised to hear from Edgar Taylor that the Unitarian Fund, by the advice of Mr. Wilks, have determined not to support Wright. I do not wonder that the Protestant Society will not take up his cause, nor should I be surprised if the Deputies rejected it; but as to the Unitarian Fund, it seems to me to be completely a casus fœderis, the defence of a man who is prosecuted for being a Unitarian teacher. I think Mr. Wilks's advice should be received with caution. I have been told that he is solicitor to a confederacy of Calvinists who threaten to eject all the Unitarian ministers in Staffordshire from their chapels and their glebes, under pretence that they were given or bequeathed by Calvinists. They have begun with Wolverhampton.

"With my best compliments to Mrs. Aspland, and with the most earnest wishes and prayers for the speedy restoration of your health, and for the long continuance and increase of your comfort and usefulness, I remain, dear Sir, very sincerely yours, T. BELSHAM."

Lord Holland made the prosecution of Mr. Wright the subject of conversation in the House of Lords, and attributed it to a very repre

In a letter dated Philadelphia, Jan. 24, 1817, Mr. James Taylor had thus written to Mr. Aspland:-"In Mr. Belsham's Memoirs of Mr. Lindsey (Chap. ix.), there are two anecdotes of the late Bishop Seabury, one of which is incorrect; the facts, as lately received from a respectable friend, are as follow: At a commencement, after the gentlemen had assembled and taken their seats, it was announced to Dr. Styles, the President of Yale College, that Bishop Seabury was in the meeting-house, or place where the commencement was held, and a request was made that the President would invite him to take a seat on the stage, which had been appropriated for the accommodation of the Trustees and Governors of the College and other distinguished characters. Dr. Styles replied that there were already one hundred Bishops in the house who had not been invited to take seats on the stage.-My authority is Dr. Freeman, of Boston. I was induced to make the inquiry which led to Dr. Freeman's communication, in consequence of a conversation with Bishop White, the Episcopal Bishop of Pennsylvania, a most excellent man, who complained that injustice had been done to Bishop Seabury, and related the circumstances referred to. The other fact, relative to Dr. Seabury's breathing on a candidate for ordination, I believe to be correctly stated by Mr. Belsham. It is of more importance than the other. The late Rev. Dr. Lathrop, of Boston, was present and saw the Bishop act thus."

hensible circular which had been a short time before issued by Lord Sidmouth from the Home Office. Finding that public attention was aroused by their proceedings, the Magistrates and Town Clerk of Liverpool adopted the prudent course of dropping the prosecution.

But the doctrine laid down by the Town Clerk of Liverpool, that the denial of the Trinity was still an offence at common law, singular as it appeared to be, when viewed in connection with the Act recently passed by the legislature "to relieve persons who impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity from certain penalties," was shortly afterwards revived in another court, with an appearance of authority which naturally alarmed every true friend of religious liberty.

In the month of July, 1817, the case of the Wolverhampton Chapel was argued in the Court of Chancery. This chapel had been erected about the year 1701, in John Street, Wolverhampton, by a congregation of English Presbyterians. The trust-deed declared that the building was intended as a "meeting-house for the worship and service of God." The founders probably held orthodox opinions. About the year 1770, the minister, Mr. Cole, was an Arian. He was succeeded by Mr. Griffiths, an Unitarian. A secession of some members of the congregation holding Calvinistic opinions then took place. Some pecuniary benefactions were made to the chapel by certain worshipers therein between the years 1770 and 1800, the donors holding Arian or Unitarian opinions. In 1813, a Mr. Steward, then professing Unitarian opinions, was appointed minister for a term of three years. In 1816, he renounced the profession of Unitarianism and avowed himself to be a Trinitarian. The congregation were unwilling to renew the engagement of Mr. Steward, but gave him three months' residence to afford him time to find another situation. At the end of that time he refused to quit. Mr. Benjamin Mander, one of the seceders in 1780, now reappeared to support Mr. Steward against the trustees. A "Case" was drawn up and circulated amongst the Independents as one "of great importance to orthodox Dissenters," inviting pecuniary aid on behalf of Mr. Steward. This Case was sanctioned by the names of nine Independent ministers. Thus supported, Messrs. Mander and Steward filed an information in the name of the Attorney-General to restrain the trustees and the congregation from ejecting Mr. Steward. Amongst the grounds on which the judgment of the Court of Chancery was solicited against the trustees, were-1, That Unitarianism was now illegal, and therefore that an Unitarian congregation could not lawfully hold any property; 2, That, Unitarianism not being tolerated at the time of

The names of these nine gentlemen who thus violated the first principle of Protestant Dissent were, J. A. James (Birmingham); Thomas Scales (Wolverhampton); John Steward, John Hudson and James Cooper (West Bromwich); James Dawson (Dudley); John Berry and John Hammond (Handsworth); and John Richards (Stourbridge). Having mentioned their names, it is right to add that one Independent minister, Mr. James Robertson, of Stretton-under-Fosse, came publicly forward and rebuked these nine patrons of the Case, characterizing their proceedings as "an attempt to revive the laws of persecution against the abettors of religious opinions different from their own." "This," he added, "is the real but disgraceful character which belongs to them." Mr. Robertson's pamphlets were entitled, “Religious Liberty applied to the Case of the Old Meetinghouse, John Street, Wolverhampton," and "Infringements on Religious Liberty Exposed," &c.

the erection of the meeting-house and the date of the endowments, Unitarians could not be the lawful possessors of the property.

The case of the relators was argued by Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Hart and Mr. Shadwell. What was the opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly will presently be stated in his own words.* Mr. Shadwell denied the legality of impugning the Trinity. He referred to the case of Mr. Wright at Liverpool, reminding the Court that a prosecution was at that time pending against an individual for impugning the doctrine of the Trinity. He further declared that Unitarian doctrines were blasphemous and wicked, and the professors of them ought not to be protected by the Court. Lord Chancellor Eldon, while he declined to state, sitting as he did in a Court of Equity, what would be the effect on the common law of the passing of the Acts for relieving Unitarians, confidently affirmed that in the House of Lords, at least, it was never intended by them to alter or affect the common law.

It is not necessary for the purpose of this Memoir to enter at present any further into the history of this tedious and harassing suit, which, after two long periods of inactivity, was only recently finally decided, and the enormous costs of which swallowed up the entire value of the property. It was, however, necessary to give a brief outline of the suit, which led to very important results, and made a very material change in the position of the English Presbyterians relatively to the two other denominations. In anxious councils how best to meet and ward off the disastrous consequences of religious litigation, Mr. Aspland took a full share with the friends of religious liberty in both England and Ireland till very near the close of his life.

His first step was to call the attention of the Committee of the Unitarian Fund to the doctrines laid down in the Court of Chancery with regard to Unitarians. A resolution was immediately passed recom. mending the ministers who were members of the Committee to confer with the other Antitrinitarian ministers in London and the neighbourhood upon the propriety of convening a meeting of Unitarians to deliberate upon the measures necessary to be taken in the present juncture for the protection of their civil rights. Of the result of the deliberations thus recommended mention will hereafter be made.

The subject of Blasphemy, and the propriety of regarding it as a civil offence, engaged his earnest attention. Finding no work in which the subject was fully discussed and in a liberal spirit, he prepared first for his congregation, and afterwards for the public through the press, a

It is due to the memory of this distinguished man to add, that in the course of the argument in the Court of Chancery, he clearly indicated what he thought of the spirit which had put the law in motion against persons holding Unitarian sentiments. "God forbid that any persons, whether Unitarians or Jews, or holding any description of religious opinions, should be prosecuted on that account! can be no person so illiberal as to cherish such an idea, and in my opinion it would be most illiberal to attempt any legal interference on such subjects; but, at the same time, I apprehend that a Court would be bound to say that it would not carry any trust for such purposes into effect."

There

The hapless lot of the relators should be a warning to those who are tempted to go into Chancery for the gratification of their bigotry. The costs of the Trustees were ordered to be first paid, and the residue of the estate was far from being sufficient to cover the costs of the promoters of the suit!

Minutes of Unitarian Fund Committee, Aug. 1, 1817.

series of discourses on it. From a careful collation of those scriptures which relate to the sin of blasphemy, he shewed that, according to its etymology, it meant no more than evil-speaking, against whomsoever directed; that, in a religious sense, the Hebrew word was restricted by the earlier Israelites to evil-speaking against God; that in this sense, and this sense only, blasphemy was a capital crime by the Jewish law; that in this its most rigid meaning, the word is rarely, if ever, applied by our Lord and the apostles; that it is never applied by them to thoughts or opinions or simple error; that they have not given any sanction to its being considered as a civil offence and avenged by temporal punishment; that constructive blasphemy (or the holding of opinions from which an opponent may draw a conclusion that he thinks dishonourable to God) was an artifice of the Pharisees in order to ensnare and destroy our Lord and the first disciples; and that the history of the doctrine is a narrative of the progress of uncharitableness, the charge of constructive blasphemy having been often brought against the holiest men, and advanced with the most zeal by men the most depraved and wicked. With regard to real blasphemy, he stated that, though he held it in utter abhorrence, he would leave it on earth to the punishment of the prompt, bold and stern indignation of all virtuous minds. He proved it to be the effect of the doctrine of constructive blasphemy to convert every church and every court of justice into an Inquisition.

To these discourses, when published, Mr. Aspland added an Appendix on the state of the Unitarians with regard to legal protection. He thus confutes the dogma that the Trinity Act had no effect on the common law, by which it was alleged that Unitarianism was an indictable offence.

"It might with equal propriety be contended that nonconformity is still an offence at common law, notwithstanding the Toleration Act. What that Act did for Dissenters at large, the Trinity Bill has done for Unitarian Dissenters. Lord Mansfield's argument, in his celebrated speech in the House of Lords, in the case of Evans, is as applicable to the latter as the former: he contended, and the Lords unanimously concurred with him, that the Act, by repealing the penalty, had abolished the crime.

"The Act of 1779, for relieving Dissenting ministers from a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, was a virtual extension of legal toleration to Antitrinitarians, who were chiefly contemplated by it, and who reposed in security under its shelter, until the Trinity Bill (Act) converted what might have been called an indulgence into a right.

"On what principle the common law can be said to be against Unitarians, it is impossible to imagine. No one, however adverse to them, dares to charge them with the direct blasphemy of reviling Almighty God, or with the indirect blasphemy of casting abuse upon Jesus Christ. They can be convicted of blasphemy only by the schoolmen's definition of the crime, which is so loose that every religious error may be shewn to be involved in it, and every sect may use it against every other sect."

In this Appendix, Mr. Aspland thus alluded to the opinion said to have been given by Sir Samuel Romilly, that by the common law Unitarianism was still indictable:

"It is rumoured that Sir Samuel Romilly does not admit the correctness of the report. His general character makes this credible. There is no lawyer or statesman living from whom the public would less expect an intolerant

VOL. V.

Y

sentiment. Whatever doctrines the interests of his clients may make it necessary for him to advance in his pleadings, every one is confident that both his judgment and his feelings are on the side of liberality."

Subsequently, Mr. Aspland possessed better evidence than mere rumour as to the personal sentiments of Sir Samuel Romilly, as the two following letters shew. They were found in Mr. Aspland's papers. Every objection to their being made public time has removed.

Sir Samuel Romilly to Dr. Charles Lloyd.

*

"Russell Square, Aug. 2, 1817.

"Dear Sir,—I am much obliged to you for calling my attention to the account given in the Monthly Repository of what passed lately in the Court of Chancery relative to a chapel at Wolverhampton. The gentleman who has given an account of these proceedings is certainly mistaken in stating that I argued, that impugning the doctrine of the Trinity was an offence at common law originally, and has continued so after the repeal of the Acts. I maintained no such doctrine; and it was with great surprise and some indignation that I heard from Mr. Shadwell that there were some prosecutions now depending, which proceed upon the notion that there is such a common-law offence. All that Î argued (and I cannot but think that it was necessary to the decision of the case) was, that a legacy for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of Unitarianism would not be established by the Court of Chancery, and to that proposition the Chancellor, as I understood him, assented. It was decided by Lord Hardwicke, and his decision has been acted upon by succeeding Chancellors, that legacies given by Jews for reading lectures on the Hebrew Law in their synagogues would not be established by the Court of Chancery; but there is a great difference between this and maintaining that a Jewish priest is indictable for teaching the Jewish law.

'I remain, dear Sir, with great respect and esteem, your most obedient servant, SAMUEL ROMILLY."

"Russell Square, Aug. 10, 1817. "Dear Sir,―There is nothing I wish less than to have it established that the opinion which, as counsel in the case of the Wolverhampton Chapel, I expressed, is correct. It would, on the contrary, give me very great pleasure to find that I was mistaken. I am sorry, however, to say Mr. E. Taylor's arguments have not convinced me that I was. He cannot understand how it can be maintained that the Court of Chancery will not administer a trust for Unitarian worship, unless Unitarianism be an offence indictable at common law. But surely, as a lawyer, he must know that there are many acts which are so illegal that courts of justice will give no countenance to them, although they do not amount to indictable offences. It is illegal to trade with an enemy's country during time of war, and courts of justice refuse on that ground to enforce contracts which arise out of such a trade; and yet no one imagines that a man could be indicted for engaging in such a trade, or for underwriting policies of insurance on goods or ships employed in it. I am, however, not at all disposed to enter into any argument in defence of my opinion. When I said that I thought the Chancellor assented to it, I alluded, not to any thing

*The report was communicated by Mr. Edgar Taylor, who was accidentally in the Court of Chancery on the opening of the case of Attorney-General versus Pearson, and whose sagacious mind at once perceived the long train of mischievous consequences which those proceedings might entail. He took very copious notes of the proceedings and communicated them to the Monthly Repository, where they will be found, Vol. XII. 432, 441.

Mr. Taylor's views on the subject were printed in the Monthly Repository, XII. 535-547. What Sir Samuel Romilly received was probably a much less elaborate statement. The article in the Magazine is dated" September 10."