hustings, and was present when the poll was closed. This accidental circumstance subsequently occasioned him the annoyance of receiving the Speaker's warrant to attend and give evidence on the subject of the election before the Committee, Dr. Crompton being beaten, and having petitioned against the return. It was natural enough that Dr. Crompton's party availed themselves of the evidence of one residing near the metropolis, of respectable station and unbiassed by local feuds. But Mr. Aspland's memory was too definite and unyielding to give that help to the case of Dr. Crompton which his leading counsel, Serjeant Heywood, knew was wanted, and the Doctor's petition was voted "frivolous and vexatious."*

As an illustration of the manner in which, forty years ago, and till the Reform Act, elections were carried on, and as a document of some local interest, insertion may be given to a paper in Mr. Aspland's handwriting, entitled, "Evidence, as far as I can recollect it, concerning the Nottingham Election, May,

1807."

"I was present at the Nottingham election on Saturday, the 16th of May, 1807, about three hours in the forenoon, when I heard proclamation frequently made for closing the poll. Between the proclamations there were considerable intervals. I heard Mr. Smith demand of the returning officers the close of the poll, and heard Mr. Balguy declare that he would close it the first moment he could legally. Mr. Smith, I remember, declared the conduct of the sheriffs to be 'shameful,' and seemed to intimate that he would bring them to account. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Smith hastily and angrily left the poll-booth.

"I was on the hustings likewise on the afternoon of Monday, the 18th. I entered about four o'clock, and remained till the close of the poll, about an hour. Soon after my entering the booth, a conversation took place between Dr. Crompton and Mr. Balguy, which lasted some time, concerning the close of the poll. Mr. Balguy wished Dr. Crompton to consent to it. Dr. Crompton said that he could not and would not do so, as he believed he had considerable chance of gaining the election, and at any rate wished to be respectable on the poll. Dr. Crompton also said that if Mr. Balguy had determined to close the poll before the fifteenth day, he ought to fix on a time, say Wednesday at twelve o'clock, and give the electors notice of it. From this period proclamations were frequently made for closing the poll, against which Dr. C. still protested. At the close of one of the proclamations, several persons came up and voted. Immediately afterwards, proclamation was made; but before the crier had proclaimed the first proclamation the third time, I saw a voter present himself, who, I heard some one declare to Mr. Balguy, had taken the necessary oaths in the ante-room, and demand to poll. Upon this immediately Mr. Balguy declared the poll to be closed, and that this voter had been purposely kept back, with a view to protract the election.

"Before my giving my evidence, Serjeant Heywood (principal counsel for Dr. Crompton) wanted to persuade me that I remembered many things which I did not: and on my examination, for refusing to seem acquainted with some matters that were brought up, I was complimented by the counsel against the Dr. with having a very bad memory. My examination was short, and upon the whole respectful, on the part of my examiners: no questions were put to me by the Members of the House of Commons.

"After me, they examined Carrington (I think his name was), whose vote was refused. It appeared that he had taken the oaths several days previous to the close of the poll. He was questioned why he did not present himself to vote before, and whether he had not been kept back by Dr. C. or his agents. To the latter part of the question he answered in the negative; but to the former he would not for a time give any other answer than that he did not choose to vote before the adverse counsel insisted upon the reason of his not choosing; he stopped the examination by answering at last, I thought, as I was a free man and had a free vote, I might have free time.' ROBERT ASPLAND.

"N. B. Till I entered the hustings on the 16th, I had never seen any of the candidates. I gained admission by one of sheriff Oldknow's tickets.

Mr. Aspland was about this time (July 4, 1807) a guest of Serjeant Heywood's, to meet an interesting party. Instead of the brief record in the diary, the fuller narrative of Mr. Belsham will be used. *

"The zeal of the Dissenters, and particularly of the Dissenting ministers in Yorkshire (in behalf of Lord Milton), in favour of the late Administration, and the disdain with which they generally treated the cry of 'No Popery,' has given the leaders of that party a more favourable opinion of Dissenters, and induced some of them to desire an interview with a few of the Dissenting ministers in London. Accordingly, we were invited to dine at Mr. Serjeant Heywood's about a fortnight ago. The party consisted of Lord Holland, Lord Lauderdale, Lord Howick (the late Earl Grey), Lord Stanley, Mr. Whitbread and Mr. W. Smith, on the one hand; and per contra, Dr. Rees, Mr. Jervis, Mr. Aspland, Dr. Lindsay and myself. I expected it to have been an insipid party, but it proved otherwise. Dr. Lindsay (late Mr. Lindsay, of Monkwell Street), who, you know, is a bold and intelligent man, told Lord Howick that when he was in power he did not go far enough. You will do no good, my Lord,' said he, 'until you do something for the people. If you were to come in again to-morrow, you would be turned out the next day if you brought forward any measure that was offensive to the Court. If you would bring forward your own plan of Parliamentary Reform, you might do some good, but till then you can do nothing.' Lord Howick, who is a very proud, reserved man, gazed with great attention and amazement on our friend Lindsay, not having been used to be addressed with so much freedom and so little ceremony, but he did not appear to be at all offended; and with the greatest politeness and good humour replied, 'He was now as much a friend to Parliamentary Reform as ever, but he was fully persuaded that if he should bring forward a measure of this kind into the House, at present, he should be left in a very small and a very unpopular minority; and Lord Holland added, "That the people stood in great need of being enlightened, for he was fully persuaded that if we had at this time a House of Commons which spoke the sense of the great mass of the people, we should be in a much worse situation than we are at present.' I thought all this very good sense, but my friend Lindsay was not convinced. The conversation, however, was kept up with great spirit and good humour till half-past ten o'clock, when we parted. The clerical guests liked the party very much, and I hope that the political guests were not displeased. We all agreed that Lord Holland was a most amiable and agreeable man, and that he had much of the appearance and style of his late admired and regretted relation."

Towards the end of 1808 (Nov. 3), the venerable Theophilus Lindsey, whose life had been protracted to his eighty-sixth year, gently breathed his last, after a week's illness. For five-and-thirty years he had been an Unitarian confessor, having resigned his living in the month of November, 1773. Mr. Lindsey's infirmities had prevented frequent intercourse with the minister of the Gravel-Pit, but Mr. Aspland's occasional morning visits to Essex House had confirmed the feeling of reverence which familiarity with Mr. Lindsey's history and writings had previously excited. When the news of his death reached him, he felt, with Mr. Belsham, that the world had lost "one of the most upright, consistent and eminently virtuous characters which ever

*In a letter to Rev. Mr. Broadbent, of Warrington. See Williams's Memoirs of Mr. Belsham, pp. 574, 575.

The italics are not Mr. Belsham's. Dr. Lindsay's words were prophetic, although the fulfilment of the prophecy was necessarily delayed by Earl Grey four-and-twenty years.

adorned human nature." He was permitted the privilege, extended only to a few, of beholding the remains of the confessor at Essex House, and on a subsequent day (Nov. 11), of following them to their last earthly resting-place in Bunhill Fields, where Mr. Belsham performed the funeral service.

On the Sunday following Mr. Lindsey's death, Essex-Street chapel was closed, as a suitable token of grief for the silence of that voice which had there first, and for so many years, preached the words of truth and righteousness. In reply to a request to Mr. Belsham that he would preach at Hackney on that day, Mr. Aspland received the following expressive note:

"Saturday afternoon.*

"My dear Sir,-You should not have had the trouble to ask twice, had it been for your own convenience only, had it been in my power to have assisted you to-morrow. But, under the present oppression upon my mind, I feel myself utterly incapable of officiating in public. I could wish for the next week that I had wings like a dove, that I might fly into the wilderness.-I am, dear Sir, very sincerely yours, "T. BELSHAM.†

"I rejoice to hear of your good success in your missionary tour."‡

Although Mr. Lindsey had never been personally connected in any way with the congregation at Hackney, it was felt by both minister and people that his death was an occasion that demanded an expression of their estimate of "his many and great virtues, and of his services in the cause of Truth." Some members of the congregation had long enjoyed his personal friendship, many had received light and conviction from his writings, and all had admired his example and revered his character. On the Sunday following that set apart for the proper funeral sermon at Essex Street, Mr. Aspland gave expression to the feeling that pervaded his flock, by preaching a sermon suitable to the occasion. He appropriately selected the character of Abraham as resembling in one material quality that of the deceased confessor, and hence described "the duty and reward of sacrificing temporal interests on the altar of Truth." This sermon, which was afterwards printed, was enriched by a "Tribute of Gratitude, Affection and Respect, to the Memory" of Mr. Lindsey, which was from the pen (the statement is now, by permission, made public for the first time) of the Rev. John Kentish. This able memoir, which displays "intimate acquaintance with the subject, and great felicity of expression," was at first intended for the Monthly Repository, after having been delivered to the numerous and respectable congregation of the New Meeting, Birmingham. The pulpit draped with black cloth, and the mourning garments of a very crowded audience, as well as the preacher's sermon, shewed the feelings of the Hackney congregation to the memory of Mr. Lindsey.

Nov. 5, 1808.

The funeral services had been long foreseen by Mr. Belsham with great anxiety, and were executed with much pain, under the fear that he might not do justice to the subject and occasion. See Mr. Belsham's diary, Memoir, p. 582.

Mr. Aspland had just returned from an interesting missionary tour in Kent, where he visited the churches at Tenterden, Cranbrook, Rolvenden, Maidstone and Chatham. He was accompanied during a portion of the tour by Mr. Richard Wright. The consequences of this tour were very beneficial to the Unitarian Fund. For Mr. Laurence Holden, the minister of Tenterden, Mr. Aspland entertained high respect.

It was probably to mark her sense of this tribute to the memory of her deceased husband, that Mrs. Lindsey presented to Mr. Aspland the Greek Bible which had been his. On the first leaf there is inscribed, in the firm and well-proportioned manuscript, so indicative of her character *- THIS BOOK BELONGED ΤΟ THE LATE THEOPHILUS LINDSEY, AND IS NOW PRESENTED TO THE REV. ROBERT ASPLAND AS A MEMORIAL OF HIM, AND AS A TESTIMONY OF THE RESPECT HE BORE HIM FOR THE ZEAL AND SERVICES MANIFESTED IN PROMOTING TRUTH, BY SPREADING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE UNITY, BY HIS FRAIL REPRESENTATIVE,

MARCH 30TH.

ESSEX HOUSE, 1809.

H. LINDSEY.

Mr. Aspland had, in the previous year, named his third-born son "Theophilus Lindsey."

Our narrative must now return to Cambridgeshire. In Soham events had been for some time going on, the progress of which he watched with deep interest.

In 1803, Mr. John Gisburne, who had been a Wesleyan preacher, joined the Baptists, and became assistant to Rev. Andrew Fuller, at Kettering, in whose family he resided nearly six months. The Baptist church at Soham wanting a minister, Mr. Fuller recommended Mr. Gisburne. After preaching a few months, he was invited to become the pastor. He objected to their covenant of church-fellowship and articles of faith (which had been drawn up by Mr. Fuller during his ministry at Soham), subscription to which was demanded from every member. He expressed a strong aversion to the shackles of subscription to a creed, and advised the people to adopt the Scriptures in the place of the covenant and articles. They did so, and Mr. Gisburne became their minister. His services were acceptable, and the church increased. Mr. Fuller heard of their proceedings with displeasure, and attempted to effect Mr. Gisburne's removal from Soham, but unsuccessfully.

From time to time Mr. Aspland heard from his relations in Cambridgeshire, some of whom were connected with the Soham Baptists, reports of Mr. Gisburne's preaching and course of reading which excited his curiosity. He became acquainted with him, and found him to be an inquirer after Christian truth. In 1808, Mr. Gisburne avowed his adoption of Unitarianism. The congregation became agitated and divided, but the majority continued to support him. The minority seceded. Things were in this state in August 1808, when Mr. Aspland visited Cambridgeshire. He was requested by Mr. Gisburne to preach for him at Soham, and, having ascertained that the majority of the congregation concurred in the request, he consented to preach on the following Sunday afternoon. On approaching the town on that occasion, he was met by a mob of Mr. Gisburne's opponents, who endeavoured by their clamours to frighten him and prevent his undertaking the service. He rebuked them, and warned them of the consequences of disturbing public worship. They were intimidated by his presence, and the ser

Mr. Belsham truly said of this excellent and vigorous-minded woman, "She entered into all his (Mr. Lindsey's) views, she applauded the generous purpose of his heart, she encouraged, comforted, animated him, and, if possible, even went before him in the career of Christian glory."-Funeral Sermon for Mrs. Lindsey, p. 23.

vice proceeded without interruption, his sermon (on 2 Tim. i. 7) being listened to with great attention by a large and respectable congregation. The subsequent proceedings of the Soham Calvinists were detailed in the Fifth Report of the Unitarian Fund, whence the most important facts are selected. After their secession, the congregation flourished and appeared heartily united. The seceders perceiving this, and fearing that by leaving the society they had contributed to give it a decidedly Unitarian character, resolved to return in a body and to cast out Mr. Gisburne. They now attended the public worship, and, for the sake of preserving a right to vote in the affairs of the society, attended the Lord's Supper-the test of church-membership. At various meetings they endeavoured to accomplish their purpose of ejecting the minister, by questions put to the vote, but were always left in a small and constantly lessening minority. Thus defeated, they became outrageous, and proceeded to the length of interrupting the public worship. On several Sundays they raised a tumult in the meeting-house. One method of annoyance pursued was to bring books of controversy to the meeting-house, and read them out during the religious service. On a Sunday in October, the interruptions were so coarse and violent that Mr. Gisburne was unable to proceed with the service, and felt himself compelled to appeal to the civil power for protection. But the officer called on, properly enough, declined to act without a warrant. The disturbers were emboldened by this refusal of the officer to do his duty, and, with a trustee at their head, ventured, after the morning service, to lock up the doors. Mr. Gisburne was for waiting for legal redress, but one of his friends, who was also a trustee, resolved that the place should be open as usual in the afternoon, and accordingly opened a window in it by force, through which Mr. Gisburne entered, and from within turned back the lock of the door. Upon this, the constable who in the morning had refused to act, took Mr. Gisburne into custody. He was detained in custody five hours, and then brought before two clerical magistrates, who bound over the Calvinists to prosecute him at the next Cambridge assizes.

For any minister placed in circumstances like those of Mr. Gisburne, Mr. Aspland would have felt compassion; but the locality, his knowledge of the character of the persecutors, and his sympathy with Mr. Gisburne's religious opinions, greatly increased this feeling, and there was mingled with it a deep sense of the outrage that had been committed on religious liberty. He immediately stood forward to protect this persecuted man; and his representation of the circumstances enlisted the sympathy of many friends, including all the members of the Committee of the Unitarian Fund. The latter were precluded by the constitution of their Society from having any thing to do with law proceedings, but individually they gave Mr. Aspland authority to do whatever was necessary for the protection of Mr. Gisburne. He secured the services, as attorney for the defence, of Mr. John Wilks, afterwards so well known as the Secretary of the Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty. The opinion of Mr. Gurney (afterwards Baron Gurney) was taken, and by his advice cross-indictments were prepared against the persons who had disturbed the worship on the morning previous to the locking-up of the doors.

On the approach of the assizes in March, Mr. Aspland felt it to be