them. The Chief Justice had declared his opinion respecting them not to be law, and no one, unless blinded by bigotry, would allow it to be moral truth. In the received sense of the term, Unitarians are not Deists, nor has their system any affinity with Deism. Unitarians, he thus argued, have been zealous defenders of Christianity. "Their ministers have always been accustomed to discuss and enforce zealously from the pulpit the evidences of Christianity. The work of Socinus that is best known is his Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion. This book was translated into English, in 1731, by Combe, a dignitary of the Church of England, with a recommendatory Preface by Bishop Smallbrook, and a dedication to the then Queen. Several volumes of Dr. Priestley's works are devoted to the same subject; and I question whether any book be so well adapted to remove the prejudices and conciliate the affections of a sceptic of superior intellect, as his Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. And (not to multiply authorities, though many more names might be cited) who is it that is universally appealed to as (by way of distinction) the Champion of Christianity? Is it not Dr. Lardner?" The creed of the Unitarian is the New Testament, interpreted by the best lights that biblical learning can supply. Christianity, he argued, was not the religion of a party, but of the universal church. Adducing the testimony of Mr. Charles Butler in his Life of Fenelon, as to what constituted the common Christianity received by all sects, he shewed that it was identical with Unitarianism. In confutation of Mr. Carlile's defence, Mr. Aspland remarked,—“ His pleading the 53rd of the King (the Act for relieving those that do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity from certain pains and penalties) no more implicates them in his cause, than his appealing to the Toleration Act would have identified with himself the whole body of Protestant Dissenters. It is sufficiently clear that it protects the Unitarian Christian in the conscientious avowal of his opinions and observance of his worship; whether it have any collateral operation, it is not for him, but courts of law, to determine. But it is very strange that the Act should be considered, by either Mr. Carlile or the Clergyman, as commixing Deists and Unitarians; when the true state of the case is, that they were confounded in the 9th and 10th of William and Mary, but are separated by Mr. Smith's, which takes Unitarians from under the operation of the statute, but leaves all other persons contemplated by it in the precise condition in which they stood before."

The " Age of Reason" was first published when the statute now repealed was in full force. Unitarians shared the disgust felt by other Christians at its ribaldry and daring falsehoods. From their pens proceeded some of the earliest answers to it, and their societies have habitually distributed the defences of Christianity by Hartley, Clarke and Bishop Law. In commenting on the Clergyman's desire to evoke exploded pains and penalties, Mr. Aspland reminded him of the saying of his predecessor South, that Unitarians "were fitter to be crushed by the civil magistrate than to be merely confuted;" and of Dr. Jortin's comment on the saying-"Such is the true agonistic style or intolerant spirit; such the courage of a champion who challenges his adversary, and then calls upon the constable to come and help him." He quoted also Mr. Fox's remark, that "if the statutes were too bad to be put into practice, they ought not to be suffered to exist." After characte

rizing the alarm respecting the prevalence of Deism as extravagant, he thus expressed his disapprobation of religious prosecutions: "Nothing, in my humble judgment, can give even a momentary triumph to infidelity, unless it be the angry zeal of Christians in prosecuting its advocates, and placing them on the vantage-ground of suffering for their principles. This is, I am aware, an unpopular sentiment; but I trust I may be permitted to say, with the immortal Chillingworth, "I have learned from ancient fathers of the church, that nothing is more against religion than to force religion." The Letters concluded with the quotation of a noble passage in behalf of free inquiry by Bishop Lowth, and by exposing the misnomer of styling Unitarians Socinians.

To these Letters the Clergyman offered no rejoinder, but kept a prudent silence.

In the pages of the Monthly Repository, Mr. Aspland, while he reprobated the prosecutions going on, and declared his conviction that the New Testament sanctioned no other proceeding against unbelievers than the use of argument, remonstrance and persuasion, and that there could be no religious liberty if men were denied the liberty of rejecting religion, felt himself called upon to express his disapprobation of Paine's mendacious and scurrilous book, and the absence of all sympathy with booksellers who braved the law merely for the sake of gain, and courted persecution as the means of notoriety and advancement in business.

By some who failed to observe the distinction between the case of an author publishing that which he believed to be truth, and that of a bookseller trading in a forbidden article, this censure of Carlile and his associates was resented as harsh and inconsistent with true liberality ;* while there were not wanting men of unquestionable candour who entirely approved the course he had thought it right to pursue.

66

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Essex Street, Nov. 17, 1819.

My dear Sir,-I have just been reading your admirable and seasonable Letters in the Times. I rejoice in their extensive circulation and the strong impression they have made, and wish it had been tenfold wider and greater.

"I have just received a letter from Dr. Parr,† in which he says, "I am much pleased with Mr. Aspland's judicious and temperate reply to the clerical accuser.' And he wishes we would republish Bishop Lowth's celebrated Assize Sermon. Qu. Is there any such sermon? I strongly suspect that he means the Visitation Sermon from which you quote so pertinent a passage. What should you think of reprinting it, with a short preface suited to the times, and which you could so well draw up? But I will shew you what he says when I have the pleasure of meeting you at Mr. Le Breton's on Tuesday. I hope your sore throat is quite well. We all very much regretted your absence on Friday.-With compliments to the ladies, I am, dear Sir, very sincerely yours, T. BELSHAM."

Dr. Charles Lloyd published a letter of remonstrance, addressed to Mr. T. T. Clark, of Swakeleys, which he entitled, "Monthly Repository Extraordinary," &c. + Dr. Parr paid to these Letters the remarkable compliment of reading them from his pulpit at Hatton, interspersing the reading with his own extempore comments. This singular substitute for a sermon was given, as the learned and eccentric Dr. afterwards explained, not to gratify a friend of the author of the Letters, who chanced on that Sunday to attend the church at Hatton, but to enlighten the ignorance of a "Birmingham bigot" whom the Dr., after the commencement of the service, observed amongst his audience.

*

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland. "Essex Street, Nov. 26, 1820. "My dear Sir, I return your son's letter, with many thanks. I truly lament the death of that eminently learned man, Professor Young." But what a highly privileged lot was his, to have life protracted to advanced age, in the full possession and exercise of his superior talents and powers, and then to be translated in a moment without any sense of pain! It is evident, however, that he felt something within which reminded him that death was at hand. I heard him say that J. Kenrick was the man best qualified to succeed Dugald Stewart. I am inclined to think that many will be of opinion that he would be the best successor to Professor Young. Dr. Rees told me of what passed at the Library, and Dr. Pett of what happened at the Mermaid. You should have had a Churchman in the chair, even if he were a blockhead. It is the artifice of the enemy to lay all blame upon the Unitarians. Is there mischief in the city, and a Unitarian hath not done it?

"The Professors† must be not a little mortified at the triumph of Jeffrey. As the students possess the power, I am glad they employed it so well. My sister joins in kind respects to you and the ladies, with, dear Sir, yours most sincerely, T. BELSHAM.”

The political condition of England during the last years of George III. and the first years of the reign of George IV., was depressing to every patriotic mind. The Ministers were utterly indifferent to the constitutional liberties of the people; and the mingled severity and imbecility which characterized the administration of public affairs, made the rulers hateful to the mass of the people. As a counterpoise to the very general expressions of discontent, loyal addresses were got up by the supporters of the Government of the day, expressive of loyalty to the King, attachment to the Constitution, and utter abhorrence of the blasphemous and seditious doctrines alleged to have been industriously disseminated amongst the people. An address of this kind, got up at Hackney, was signed by some eminent Hebrew capitalists, who, unlike their sons and successors, were willing, at any cost of profession, to rank themselves amongst the friends of the powers that were. This circumstance led to the following note and letter:

Lord Holland to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Lord Holland presents his best compliments to Mr. Aspland, and many apologies for the abruptness of this application. But he should feel much obliged to Mr. Aspland if he could inform him with certainty of the two following facts: first, if the Christian Religion' is named in the Loyal Address which has lately been signed at Hackney; and, secondly, if Mr. Rothschild and his partners have signed the Address which contains those words? "Lord Holland is really ashamed of troubling Mr. Aspland so suddenly;

Professor Young died suddenly, while taking a warm bath, at Glasgow, Nov. 18, 1820. He had lectured that morning as usual; and in the junior Greek class, in illustrating the lesson of the day, he alluded more than once to death, as if the subject were irresistibly present to his mind. See Mon. Rep. XV. 682.

A few days previously the students of Glasgow College had, very much against the wishes of the Professors, elected by a large majority Mr. Francis Jeffrey (now Lord Jeffrey) as Lord Rector. This office had been previously filled by generals, Tory placemen and obscure merchants. This election was the first of a series-including Thomas Campbell, Sir James Mackintosh, Sir Walter Scott, Lord John Russell, and more recently Mr. Macaulay-which have done honour to a literary and scientific corporation.

but he is very desirous of ascertaining the fact before twelve o'clock; and Lord Holland has no acquaintance at Hackney who is likely to be able to ascertain the fact.

"Old Burlington Street, January 21, 1821."

"Old Burlington Street, Jan. 23. "Dear Sir,-I ought to have thanked you ere this for your obliging attention to my note and for your enclosure, which I assure you diverted even the High-Churchmen of Oxford not a little.*

"I shall, my dear Sir, be most ready and happy to attend to any suggestion from you on the subject of the Education Bill.

"Though a member of the Church of England, I am well aware of the strong tendency of all Establishments to accroach power to themselves, especially over those who are not of their communion, and who consequently ought to be entirely exempt from their interference or authority. For these reasons it is very desirable that the effect of any plan of Education should be well considered by the Dissenters; and I assure you I am disposed to resist any thing, even for so desirable an object as Education, which can in any way be considered as oppressive or vexatious to the Protestant Dissenters. "I am, Sir, with many thanks, your obliged and obedient,

VASSALL HOLLAND."

Lord Holland, with that courage and respect for constitutional rights which marked his whole political course, attended a meeting of the Freeholders of Oxfordshire on January 22nd, and by his eloquence induced the meeting to put aside a very objectionable address which had been prepared by the "mock loyalists," as the Times newspaper termed them. The following passage in his speech, as reported by the Times, will shew the use made by Lord Holland of the information furnished him by Mr. Aspland.

"He was inclined to believe that many signed these addresses without reflecting on the importance of their signatures. As a proof of this, he hoped they would excuse him while he told them a London story, which, cockney like, he had just brought down with him. (A laugh.) There were two loyal declarations now circulating in the metropolis. (Here the noble lord drew copies of them from his pocket and commented on them.) The first was 'from the undersigned inhabitants of Hackney, which complained of the prevalence of blasphemy and sedition, as tending to subvert the faith of Christ.' In looking into the column of signatures, the second name he found was 'Zachariah Levi, Stamford Hill.' It first struck him that this gentleman might have been one of the worthy persons who go about, converted from the errors of Judaism to Christianity; but no, that was not the case. (Loud laughter.) The next name, however, was that of a Jew beyond all question; for it was that of M. N. Rothschild, the great Jew contractor, who comes forth in this time of peril to express his excessive dread of the prevalence of any opinion calculated to impair the stability of the pure Christian faith. (Peals of laughter for some time.) Mr. Rothschild's dread appeared most alarming; for in another loyal declaration, privately concocted among some merchants of London, there was this paragraph- We declare it to be our firm and unalterable purpose to maintain our holy religion in all its purity. To this declaration among the uncircumcised he (Lord Holland) again found Mr. Rothschild's name attached. (Loud laughter.) He begged not to be understood as lamenting that Jews mixed themselves up with Christians in asserting their opinions, for he, on the contrary, rather wished the Jews had more rights than they had, than that any they reasonably wished should be withheld from them. He merely stated this fact to shew the inconsiderate manner in which these addresses were got up and signed; and it was this that induced him to think that when the Jews and the Gentiles were all mixed up together, there was some little profit in the rear of all this expression of loyalty and Christian piety. The Jewish gentlemen could not have read these addresses when they signed them: that was his (Lord H.'s) opinion in charity, for he could not wantonly accuse any man of hypocrisy. In the language therefore to be found in that fine play of his late friend Mr. Sheridan, he would say with Moses in the School for Scandal, My principal is a Christian.' (Laughter.)"

VOL. V.

3 A

“P. S.—I should prefer waiting till the Bill is in the House of Lords, or at least in Parliament, for I know by experience that when one's first impression of a measure of much detail is received from the shape in which it is first drawn up, one is apt, in discussing it in the future stages, to confound the provisions which remain with those that have been dropped or rejected in the course of it."

An explanation of Mr. Aspland's views and conduct in regard to the question of National Education as introduced into Parliament in 1821, is reserved for the next Chapter.

The miserable and disgraceful proceedings consequent on the accession of George IV. and the return of his unhappy Queen to England, excited in Mr. Aspland's mind strong feelings of disgust and abhorrence. It is not necessary to describe particularly the part he, in common with nineteen-twentieths of the people of England, took to uphold the cause of a deeply-injured woman. In the following letter, written immediately after the death of Queen Caroline, there are some allusions to the subject.

Rev. Robert Aspland to Mrs. Aspland.

Hackney, Aug. 17, 1821. My dear Wife,-My journey with the twa doctors was very agreeable, and we were all received with the usual hospitality of my good friend Ebr. Johnston. He expressed himself disappointed in not seeing you. Our public services went off pretty well, though the Wednesday was a continued heavy rain. The wet, exertion in preaching, or something, aggravated my rheumatic complaints, and brought them down into my throat, so that Friday and Saturday I was laid up; and Friday night was a sleepless one. However, I contrived to preach twice at Lewes on Sunday, and, thanks to a good constitution (under Providence), I was able on Monday morning to set out tramping with Richard and Edgar Taylor. We walked fourteen and rode eight miles, were literally starved upon a cross-road, and got to our friends, the Jansons, at Tunbridge Wells, in the evening, all fatigued, but myself bettered in point of health. Next morning, Edgar Taylor, frightened at our strong exertion and hard fare, left us by coach for the great city. Richard and I passed the day at the Wells, a good part of it spent walking in the rain. The evening allowed Mrs. Janson to accompany us in a little home excursion. Wednesday morning, Richard Taylor and I left the Wells and walked seven miles to breakfast at Penshurst, the ancient seat of the Sydneys. The road is a succession of beautiful scenery, and Penshurst is holy ground. We visited a Spanish chesnut planted on Sir Philip Sydney's birth, and by great good fortune we got down into the vault where that distinguished family lie in their resting-place. Our devotions (for such they were) were chiefly paid over Algernon Sydney's coffin, which we drew from its retirement in order to read the inscription. It is of stone. The corner of it was chipped off, though yet remaining in its place, and this (against the will of the guide whom we had over-persuaded to let us see the vault) I put in my pocket and brought home, as a memorial for our Sydney. Leaving Penshurst, we crossed the noble Kent hills and traversed Knowle Park, the seat of the now headless Dorset family, and so into the little known but exquisite vale of the Darrent, on which Dartford is situated, and which opens into the Thames a little below that town. In all we walked this day twenty-five miles. You may follow us on the map, and imagine us resting at night at Farningham, a pleasant village on the Maidstone road. Yesterday morning we walked to Erith, nine miles, to breakfast, and then took the Gravesend boat for London. After all this, I am quite well; rheumatism gone, and nothing personal to complain of.

"I say nothing personal, for I have suffered beyond expression for the poor