Lord Liverpool succeeded to the Premiership, and shewed, at least equally with his predecessor, a willingness to redress Dissenting grievances. Before the close of the session, a Bill was introduced into and passed both Houses without opposition, repealing the Conventicle and Five-mile Acts, and, while it imposed the necessity of obtaining licences both for preachers and places of worship, gave to all persons, not exceeding twenty in number, the right to meet in an unlicensed place. On the third reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, Mr. Wm. Smith "congratulated the House and the country on the singular progress of the Bill through the House, to that, its last, stage, without having provoked the expression of one sentiment of hostility against it. This he could not help looking upon as a most auspicious sign of the rapid advance of liberal and enlightened opinion." In the House of Lords, Lord Sidmouth, without offering opposition to the Bill, expressed his regret that no qualification was demanded from persons professing to teach and preach. Lord Liverpool, after a careful explanation of the provisions of the Bill, observed, "that an enlarged and liberal toleration was the best security to the Established Church,-a Church not founded in the exclusion of religious discussion, but, in its homilies, its canons, and all the principles upon which it rested, courting the investigation of the Scriptures, upon which it founded its doctrines." The Bill received the warm support of Lords Holland, Stanhope and Erskine; and, having obtained the Royal assent, was designated in the Statute-book as 52 Geo. III. c. 155.

It was wisdom in the Unitarians not to endanger the new Toleration Act, by pressing the consideration of their peculiar grievances, at a time when the temper of the legislature was matter of uncertainty. But it would have been strange if they had not desired to benefit by the liberality manifested by the Prince Regent's Government.

Mr. Aspland was the first to act in this important matter.* On

examination, in which he confessed the fact, and corrected with great coolness the evidence of some of the witnesses, he was committed to Newgate, and four days after was brought to his trial. In prison, and at the bar, he manifested the same firmness of mind, rejecting the plea, that had been set up for him, of insanity, complaining of the injuries he had sustained in Russia, and of the neglect of government towards him, both at home and abroad, and justifying his act, in which he maintained that there was no peculiar malice against the unhappy object, who fell a victim to the neglect of government in doing justice. The sentence of death he received with the utmost composure, which he retained during the trying interval to the time of execution, which was employed in pious conversation and acts of devotion, for he was a very serious member of the Establishment, and in writing. His fortitude did not forsake him to the last; for previous to his execution, on the third day after his condemnation, just before he stepped on the scaffold, he was examined by the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, in the presence of a number of persons, before whom he justified the act, and denied the concurrence of any accomplice. He looked upon death as a haven from his troubles, and was launched into eternity, without betraying a symptom of remorse, or losing at any time his fortitude.' (Mon. Repos., VII. 342.)

There was something revolting both to our sense of justice and humanity in the frightful speed with which Bellingham was doomed and executed. His crime was committed on Monday, May 11th. On Friday, May 15th, he was convicted; and on the morning of Monday, May 18th, his lifeless corpse was in the hands of the surgeons for dissection. He was subject to hereditary insanity.

It appears by the Report of the Unitarian Fund, 1813, that Mr. Aspland had previously corresponded with Unitarians in different parts of the kingdom,

July 8, 1812, he called together the Committee of the Unitarian Fund,* and laid before them a paper on the subject of the legal condition of Unitarians. The result was, a resolution that it was expedient that the Unitarians should put themselves into communication with the Government on the subject of the penal laws which aggrieved them. A sub-committee, consisting of Mr. Aspland, Mr. Christie and Mr. Vidler, was appointed to confer with Mr. Belsham.

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Essex Street, July 10.

"My dear Sir, I am just returned out of the country and have received your two notes, and I shall be very happy to meet you and the other gentlemen whose names you mention, to confer upon the most proper and effectual means of obtaining what I think cannot be refused, the repeal of those penal laws which press upon the Unitarians. Will Monday at twelve o'clock be a convenient time for you and them ?"

The conference ended in a written request, signed by Mr. Belsham and the members of the sub-committee, to Mr. William Smith, M. P., to endeavour to procure the insertion of a clause in the pending Toleration Bill protecting Unitarians. Mr. Smith, however, seems to have prepared a distinct Bill, and the immediate result of his labours is detailed in the following letter:

Rev. Thomas Belsham to Rev. Robert Aspland.

"Essex Street, July 15, 1812. "My dear Sir,-Mr. W. Smith's exertions in our favour have been most meritorious and unwearied. At two o'clock this morning he was obliged to defer his motion till to-day. I called upon him this morning; he shewed me his Bill, which is short but complete. He has conversed with Lord Castlereagh, Lord Liverpool and the Archbishop; they, individually, are all with us; they acknowledge the reasonableness of the thing, and I believe would have had no objection to its being included in the Toleration Act, had it been in time. But the Archbishop must consult his brethren and act with them; and the Bishops are all gone out of town, in reliance that no more good should be done than what they have already consented to. It is the universal wish that the measure may not at present be pressed. And our end, I think, is sufficiently answered by having our case brought forward into notice, and particularly to the notice of the Cabinet and the Archbishop. Mr. Smith also said that all the Lords were going out of town, so that there would be nobody to introduce the Bill into the other House. Upon the whole, I took the liberty to say to Mr. Smith that I was confident the Unitarians would regard themselves as under great obligations to him for the pains which he had taken; that our great object was to shew that we are alive to our situation; and that we desire and think ourselves entitled to the same privileges which other Protestant Dissenters possess; and it cannot be doubted that in due time they will be granted. But at present I have taken the liberty to answer for my brethren that we shall all be perfectly satisfied with that way of disposing of the measure which Mr. Smith himself may judge to be most expedient, leaving it to him to persist in it or to withdraw it as he may think proper. I think

and ascertained that they were ready to support by petitions any application that might be made to Parliament for the repeal of the penal laws affecting

them.

Of the gentlemen who composed that Committee, three members survive, Mr. Christie and Mr. Samuel Hart, of Hackney, and Mr. William Hall, now of Liverpool. To each of these gentlemen, but especially the first-named, the Unitarian cause in England is indebted for many valuable services.

it cannot be doubted that it would be carried another session; but Mr. S. says they talk of revising the whole penal code, and that this Act will probably be repealed with the rest. I thought it proper to tell Mr. Smith that, if he thought it advisable, we could in a few days procure hundreds of signatures to a petition, that it might appear that he did not bring forward the measure without authority from the Unitarians. But this at present he declined. And I imagine that the names of those who signed the request to him are pretty well known.

"Next to Mr. Smith, our best friend is that eminent saint, Mr. Andrew Fuller; his attempt to revivify the dormant statute in the case of Mr. Gisburne has been of infinite service to us; had he renewed his Christian attack, or had any of his disciples imitated his holy zeal, our triumph would have been complete and immediate. Lord Liverpool, upon hearing it, said it altered the case very much indeed. And if any debate should come on, your friend Andrew will be very handsomely worked about it. I told Mr. Smith that the case was very correctly stated in your Letters to that gentleman, and, at his desire, I ordered Hunter to send him a copy, which I took the liberty to direct him to send as from the author. If the author does not approve of this, I will be answerable for the price.

"I am glad you are going down to Brighton* to open the chapel there. I received a letter from Mr. Bennet upon the subject. I have got five pounds towards the expense from Mr. Selby, and I mean to give as much myself, and I hope among my friends to collect a little more.

"With compliments to Mrs. Aspland, I am, my dear Sir, very sincerely yours, T. BELSHAM."

In the following year Mr. William Smith carried through the House of Commons, without any difficulty or opposition,† a Bill for repealing so much of the 9th and 10th of William and Mary, and of all or any other Act or Acts of the English, Scotch, British, Irish, or United Par liaments, as imposed penalties on those who interpreted the Holy Scriptures inconsistently with the Holy Trinity as laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, except so far as they related to ministers of the said United Church.

When the Bill was carried to the House of Lords, an objection was taken to the informality of the clause which is printed above in italics, it not being regular to repeal any Act of Parliament without its being distinctly specified. It was not known that any other English statute existed making it penal to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor did any one anticipate the danger which subsequently arose to Unitarians enjoying endowments and foundations created anterior to the admission of Unitarianism to strictly legal toleration. Had this singular result of the Hewley suit been foreseen, there can be no reason to doubt that the mischief would have been cured by an additional clause in the Trinity Bill of 1813, establishing the Unitarians in the enjoyment of

The chapel was opened July 22, 1812. Two sermons were preached on the occasion by Mr. Aspland; that in the morning, on the Existence of God; that in the evening, on Christian Liberty. See Mon. Repos., VII. 525.

+ His success exceeded the expectations of the Committee of the Unitarian Fund, who, presenting their Report immediately after Mr. Smith had obtained leave to introduce his Bill, observed, "That it will at once pass both Houses is too much to be expected; but if it excite discussion it will do good; and though unsuccessful at present, the way may be preparing for its future complete success." In nearly similar terms did Dr. Priestley write to Dr. Estlin in 1792, just before Mr. Fox's motion for the repeal of the penal laws against Unitarians. See Rutt's Life of Priestley, II. 182. 3 Y

VOL. IV.

the religious foundations they had inherited from their fathers. A new Bill was immediately introduced which repealed the clauses in the 19th Geo. III., and in the Toleration and Blasphemy Acts of William and Mary, which related to the denial of the Trinity. It also repealed the Blasphemy Acts of the Parliament of Scotland passed in the reigns of Charles II. and William III. This Bill passed very quickly through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords, on the question of the third reading, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Sutton)* took occasion to remark upon the well-merited character of the Established Church of England for its due attention to the principles of genuine toleration; and added, "that the Church was always remarkable for its tender regard with respect to the religious scruples of individuals," and that "on those principles he had no objection to the passing of the Bill." The Bishop of Chester (Dr. Law) said that "the Bill was not brought forward in consequence of penalties actually imposed on Unitarians, who already enjoyed perfect toleration;" but added, "he was pleased such a Bill was introduced, as affording an additional proof that intolerance was no part of the character of the Church of England.' The Bill received the Royal Assent, July 21, 1813. It is marked in the Statute-book as 53 Geo. III., c. 160, and is entitled, An Act to relieve Persons who impugn the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity from certain Penalties.

66

was

Twenty years previously, a similar Bill was brought forward by Mr. Fox, in consequence of a petition signed by Christians of different denominations, and, though supported with all his eloquence, instantly and indignantly opposed and crushed by all the power of government, and by the fascinating eloquence of celebrated politicians,† who too frequently succeeded in making the worse appear the better part." Well might Mr. Belsham, surveying the contrast which 1813 presented to 1792, say, "I can scarcely persuade myself to believe that it is real. The whole has the appearance of a wonderful and delightful vision." The passing of the Trinity Bill was celebrated by

Except in his opposition to the Roman Catholic claims, Dr. Sutton was the unvarying friend of religious liberty. This was shewn by his conduct on Lord Sidmouth's Bill, by his support of the Unitarian Marriage Bill, and by his conduct on the repeal of the Sacramental Test. In his Letter of Expostulation to the Rev. H. H. Norris, Mr. Aspland held up the Archbishop of Canterbury as an example of the "more excellent way" of Christian charity. "I had the high satisfaction of hearing him, in the House of Lords, in the last debate (Tuesday, May 21, 1811) on Lord Sidmouth's abortive Bill, declare himself broadly against all intolerance, and assert for all Christians the inalienable rights of conscience. He said, and with a fervour which bespoke sincerity, that 'however he might lament what he conceived to be the errors of Protestant Dissenters, it was to be recollected that the Bible was the foundation of their religious belief, as well as of that of the Established Church, and was, or might be, in the hands of every member of the empire; and it was to be recollected also, that the best of INTERPRETATIONS were but the interpretations of MEN, and that the best of men were liable to error.'"-P. 93.

Pitt and Burke. The Bill was moved May 11, 1792, and rejected by a majority of 79.

See his admirable discourse preached at Essex Street, July 25, 1813, pp. 4, 5, entitled, "The Sufferings of Unitarians in former Times urged as a Ground of Thankfulness for their recovered Liberties." Another Thanksgiving Sermon, equally worthy of the occasion, preached at the New Meeting-house in Birmingham, by Rev. John Kentish, was published.

resolutions adopted by various Unitarian societies in London and the provinces, and by the preaching of thanksgiving sermons. No one rejoiced on this occasion more than Mr. Aspland. He gave utterance to his feelings on an early Sunday, the first on which he met his flock after the passing of the Act,-in a discourse on Micah iv. 3-5. The concluding portions of this sermon (which was not printed) will not be read with diminished interest from the fact that one or two passages were used by him in that part of his "Plea for Unitarian Dissenters" in which he commented on Mr. Norris's lament over the liberality of the times.

"The last Sunday that I met you within these walls, there existed laws which declared against us a sentence of outlawry if we mutually professed the opinions which bind us together, which we have learned of our only Master in religion, Jesus Christ, and which, under a solemn constraint of conscience, we could not and cannot but believe and avow. Those laws are no more; they have expired without a struggle, and are now only remembered as the ghastly apparel of a spirit of persecution, which is laid for ever. Unitarians are henceforward a legal sect in England, on a level, in point of toleration, with those Dissenters that approach nearest in doctrine to the Established Church. Under these circumstances I could not meet you to-day, after a short absence, without strong emotions of gratitude to the God of Peace and Freedom, nor could I have justified myself in passing by so favourable an opportunity of exhorting you to pious gratitude, to Christian patriotism, and to persevering and increasing labours in the cause of Truth and Virtue.

66

Vanity does not, that I am aware, betray me into an over-estimate of the importance of the legislative measure to which I refer :-it is a measure of relief to the consciences of many thousands of our fellow-countrymen, as well as to our own; it is a blessing to our children, our children's children. And by it there is abolished not only an instrument of oppression to no inconsiderable body of Christians, but also an instrument of disgrace to our country; for unjust and cruel laws are a stain upon a country's honour, and her best children will rejoice most when they are wiped away. The repeal of a persecuting statute is a virtual assertion of the rights of conscience, and therefore, though the statute may be of little consequence, the repeal is of the greatest: it is a boon to other sects as well as that immediately contemplated by it, inasmuch as it is a declaration that religion is not amenable to man's tribunal. We cannot contemplate this as a single unconnected measure; persecution was once a strong and massy building; the first stone that was removed from it prepared the next to fall; stone after stone, buttress after buttress, was thrown down; we have just seen a main pillar tumbled to the ground; the little that remains of the ruinous fabric shakes with every gust of public opinion; and presently not one stone shall be left upon another.

"We are not selfish in our joy. Our gain is no man's loss; it is a gain also to all the wise and good amongst our countrymen. We have sacrificed none of our fellow-christians or fellow-men to save ourselves; we have made no surrender, no compromise, no stipulation. We have not sunk, or agreed to postpone, any claim which as Christians we think that we can justly or may prudently prefer. And it would be strange indeed if we should be less disposed, because we are more able, to help any of our fellow-christians who may yet be held in the inner wards of the house of bondage.

"It may be said in diminution of the good of the measure under consideration, that the statute which has been repealed had become obsolete. This was a good reason for its repeal, but none for our contentment under it. That a bad law sleeps, is no earnest that it will never be awakened; and though it be not in exercise, it may breathe a noxious spirit and pollute and afflict a community with bigotry. The arrows of reproach that have been so frequently