# Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 1/Chapter 13

CHAPTER XIII
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
1771–1772
A concise journal shows the two travellers passing through France and Italy, and making observations on the agriculture and manufactures of those countries, but otherwise presents no noteworthy feature, unless it be the anecdote, how at Sens they asked a peasant if the Archbishop was "a very able man" and got for reply "Yes certainly, for he has the cordon bleu." In Italy their journey was facilitated by the letters of introduction with which they were furnished from one society of literati to another. At Milan they made the acquaintance of Beccaria. At Rome they met Cardinal de Bernis, who was now Ambassador to the Papal Court. Returning to France they made a prolonged stay in Paris, and were received by Madame Geoffrin, in whose salon all that was most brilliant in French society was accustomed to gather. There Shelburne met the celebrated Madame de Boufflers, who seems to have produced as great an effect upon him as he did on Mademoiselle de l'Espinasse, the friend of D'Alembert, and the only lady admitted by Madame Geoffrin to her dîners des gens de lettres. He is also ​heard of in the salon of Madame Helvetius, and in that of M. Trudaine, the enlightened Intendant des Finances. He was introduced to Madame du Deffand, and made acquaintance with Turgot and with Morellet. The time indeed of his visit could not have been better chosen, for a very different state of things existed in Paris from that which the previous century had seen.
On the death of Louis XIV. it was in English institutions and English literature that the illustrious Frenchmen, who were bent on restoring their country to the high position it once had occupied, sought the long lost-fountain of freedom of speech and intellectual independence. Then took place that junction of French and English intellects which has justly been pronounced by far the most important fact in the history of the eighteenth century. The most eminent Frenchmen visited England, and while in the time of Boileau hardly any one knew the English language, all the leading French authors of the eighteenth century were intimately acquainted with it. The effect was instantaneous. English ideas penetrated into France with the English language. The freedom of speech with which every subject was canvassed in London, made itself heard in Paris, and in the mouths of a sceptical and witty nation went far beyond the limits observed in the country where it had originated.
A variety of causes, of which the great prestige of the court and nobility on the one hand, and the comparative weakness of the dissolute and venal clergy on the other, were the chief, turned the destroying current of criticism ​during the first half of the eighteenth century against the Church rather than against the State. But the State made common cause with the Church, for their interests were indissolubly linked in the maintenance of the status quo. Then arose that persecution of the literary class, of which all the most eminent French authors, from Voltaire downwards, were the victims, with the inevitable result of making them in their turn attack, not merely the Church, but Christianity itself, so difficult was it to distinguish between religion and the forms which it had assumed. About 1750, however, a great change took place. The discoveries of the early French economists had led the mind of the learned class to realize the immense importance of the doctrine of laissez faire, and the injury which a paternal Government, such as then existed in France, invariably inflicts on the objects which it most professes to cherish. At the same time the enormous activity of the authors of the Encyclopedia began to turn popular attention towards physical rather than towards mental science, and to the research of material rather than of moral truth. Atheism became the fashionable doctrine. Priestley, in his Memoirs, says that all the philosophical persons to whom he was introduced in Paris were unbelievers in Christianity, and even professed Atheists. "As I chose," he adds, "on all occasions to appear as a Christian, I was told by some of them that I was the only person they had ever met with, of whose understanding they had any opinion, who professed to believe in Christianity. But on interrogating them on the subject, I soon found that they had given no proper attention to it, and did not clearly know what Christianity was. This was also the case with a great part of the company that I saw at Lord Shelburne's." The natural tendency of Atheism is to view all forms of religion with equal indifference, and thus it was that the new school of Political Economy and the new school of Natural Science, abandoning their interest in religious affairs, combined in an assault on ​the Government which persecuted them. Such, briefly sketched, was the condition of French literary society at the period when Shelburne was received into it on his return from Italy.
Of all the leaders of the new learning none was more prominent than the Baron d'Holbach, and none was more eager to welcome Englishmen, for no small portion of his own writings consisted in translations from English authors. He was himself of German origin, but a Frenchman by naturalization. His house was not only the resort of the ablest literary and scientific men in Paris, but from the cosmopolitan character of the company which gathered under its roof, had gained the title of the Café de l'Europe. At his house Shelburne now became a frequent guest, and his visits seem to have been repeated nearly every year till France finally ranged herself on the side of the American Colonies.
Amongst other distinguished men whom Shelburne visited in Paris was Malesherbes. He returned profoundly impressed. "I have seen," he said, "what I had previously considered could not possibly exist, a man, absolutely free from fear and hope alike, yet full of life and warmth. Nothing in the world can disturb his repose; he lacks nothing himself and interests himself actively in everything good. I have never been so profoundly struck by any one in the course of my travels, and I feel sure that if I ever accomplish anything great in what remains of my life, I shall do so encouraged by my recollection of M. de Malesherbes." It was but a few months since the illustrious jurist had been disgraced for his courageous protest in favour of the rights of the Parliament, the only constitutional check on royal authority in France which had hitherto escaped destruction.
But by far the most valuable acquaintance which Shelburne made was that of the Abbé Morellet, one of the most distinguished members of the society which gathered ​at the house of the Baron d'Holbach. The schoolfellow of Turgot and of Lomenie de Brienne, Morellet was as liberal as the former, and as versatile as the latter. From his youth upwards he had wielded a ready pen, but always as the champion of truth and innocence. His first important work was Le Manuel des Inquisiteurs, opportunely published in 1762, at the moment when the attention of the country was occupied by the intrigues of the Jesuits. It at once obtained an enormous circulation, and was not ill received by the Government, over which Choiseul, the sworn foe of the Jesuits, then presided. But before the appearance of the Manuel, Morellet had already obtained a certain celebrity, by making acquaintance with the interior of the Bastille. Through the influence of Madame de Rebecq, an old flame of Choiseul, who had been severely handled by Diderot in the Fils Naturel, leave had been obtained to place the Philosophes of Palissot on the stage. In this piece Helvetius, Rousseau, Diderot, and d'Alembert were held up to public odium. The philosophers, nothing daunted, replied with a series of squibs against Palissot, whose previous career fitted him as little, as her own did Madame de Rebecq, to be the champion of religion and morality. To this series Morellet contributed La Preface de la Comédie des Philosophes. It contained the following passage amongst others in allusion to Le Fils Naturel: "Et on verra une grande dame bien malade désirer, pour toute consolation avant de mourir, d'assister à la première représentation, et dire: C'est maintenant, Seigneur, que vous laissez aller votre servante en paix, car mes yeux ont vu la vengeance." Madame de Rebecq was at this moment slowly dying of lung disease. Palissot, in order to whet her indignation, sent her a copy "with the author's compliments." Madame de Rebecq died, but not before she had obtained a lettre de cachet which consigned Morellet to the Bastille, from April to August 1760.
​On his release he devoted himself to the cause of law reform. Malesherbes had told him that the procedure of the Inquisitorial Courts was only equalled by the criminal procedure of France, and the great treatise of Beccaria translated by Morellet opened the eyes of his countrymen to the possibility of improvement. It is, however, to his works on Political Economy that the fame of Morellet is chiefly owing. To him, with Adam Smith, belongs the distinction of having popularized a study which had previously been wrapped in technical formulas, and of having brought it to bear on the politics of the day. At the instance of his friend M. Trudaine, he advocated the abolition of the Internal Customs Line which divided France into so many separate provinces. With greater success he attacked the monopoly of the French East India Company, and at the time of Shelburne's visit was engaged on a commercial dictionary, which, however, made but slow progress at a period when accurate statistics hardly existed, and those who asked for them were suspected of being either conspirators or spies.
It was at the house of M. Trudaine that Shelburne first met Morellet. Their acquaintance rapidly grew into friendship. They agreed to correspond, and in the following year Morellet visited Bowood, where in the company of Franklin and Garrick, and Barré and Priestley, he seems to have found almost the equivalent of the brilliant society he had left on the other side of the Channel.
Shelburne often confessed that his connection with Morellet was the turning-point of his own career. In his own words, "Morellet liberalized his ideas," though some conversations with Hume had led the way. Previous to this time there is no reason to suppose that his views on commercial questions were more enlightened than those of the other statesmen of the time. Burke alone had recognized the hollowness of the colonial system and of protective tariffs, but partly from his ingrained dislike to change, ​partly owing to his surroundings, he lacked the courage to put his principles into practice. The Old Whigs were more deeply pledged than any other school of politicians to the existing tariffs. Hatred of France, the nearest neighbour of England, was the corner-stone of their foreign policy, and commercial intercourse with that country had been uniformly discouraged by them. The great triumph of their diplomacy was the Methuen treaty of 1703, which condemned the English consumer to imbibe dear Portuguese port instead of cheap French claret. The solitary triumph of Whig party politics in the last year of Queen Anne had been the defeat of the 8th and 9th Clauses of the Treaty of Utrecht, which provided that all laws made in Great Britain since 1664 for prohibiting the importation of any goods coming from France should be repealed, and that a "most favoured nation clause" should be granted to that country by Act of Parliament. The influence of Chatham was uniformly hostile to any change in a liberal direction, and he disliked Burke not only as the author of Thoughts on the present Discontents, but as the holder of suspected opinions on commercial questions. Such were the opinions of the leading English statesmen when Shelburne became a convert to the new school of Political Economy. Whatever else might be the result, he was certain not to gain any additional good-will thereby from the Rockingham Whigs.
Amongst the visitors whom Morellet met at Bowood was Dr. Price. The statesman who, judging from the Diary of Lady Shelburne, so frequently spent his evenings in theological reading, was not unnaturally attracted by the author of the Dissertations on Providence, on The Junction of Virtuous Men in a Future State, and on Miracles. Through the recommendation of their mutual friend Mrs. Montagu, a meeting had taken place between them in 1769, when Shelburne professed a warm regard to the Dissenters as friends of liberty, and promised, if ever he came into power, to exert himself in supporting their rights, and placing them on the same footing with other Protestant ​subjects. The acquaintance then formed never knew any interruption. It was not, however, till after the death of Lady Shelburne that Dr. Price became a regular habitué of Shelburne House and Bowood. He was then forty-eight years of age, having been born in 1723 at Tynton in Glamorganshire, where his father had been minister of a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, originally formed by one of the clergymen ejected after the passing of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., and he was himself the minister of the Unitarian congregations of Newington Green and Poor Jewry Lane. It was not, however, till his fame as an author was established that Dr. Price obtained any celebrity as a preacher, nature having denied him most of the physical qualities necessary to success in the pulpit. In 1758 he published a Controversial Treatise on the Foundation of Morals, the courtesy of the tone of which so attracted Hume, that he at once sought the acquaintance of the author. In 1767 the three Dissertations already mentioned appeared. In the last of these he applied the words "poor sophistry" to the arguments of Hume against the credibility of miracles, but immediately after, regretting the use of the expression, wrote to the philosopher promising to withdraw it in the next edition. Hume wrote a courteous reply and expressed "his wonder at such scrupulousness on the part of a clergyman."
Hitherto the publications of Dr. Price had been almost entirely of a theological or metaphysical character. A deep religious feeling almost amounting to morbid sentiment, long led him to look upon all other forms of literary activity as so many temptations which it was his duty to guard against, and it was only gradually that, emancipating himself from these prejudices, he entered on the inquiries ​on which his reputation depends. The Treatise on Reversionary Payments was published in 1769. It contained the solution of many questions in the Doctrine of Annuities, with practical suggestions for the establishment of Insurance Offices on correct principles, and an exposure of the unsafe character of the benefit societies which were being continually formed in London and elsewhere. The alarm of the policy holders of the existing offices was only equalled by the indignation of the directors, but the success of the work was enormous.
The treatise on Reversionary Payments had contained an essay on Public Credit and the National Debt, criticising the manner in which the debt had been contracted and the alienation of the Sinking Fund. In 1772 this essay was enlarged into a treatise entitled An Appeal to the Public on the National Debt, giving a detailed account or the management of the Sinking Fund from 1716, when it was first established by Sir Robert Walpole, to 1733, when it was finally abandoned, and advocating the renewal of it, by means of the annual appropriation of a fixed sum and of the compound interest on all stock redeemed by that sum, to the reduction of the liabilities of the country. This system was to be followed in time of war as well as of peace, and—the weak point of the whole plan—the fund when necessary was to be supported by loans. Dr. Price at the same time gave the amount of the debt as it then existed—it was upwards of £140,000,000—compared with what the amount would have been had the operations of the original Sinking Fund been steadily maintained. For one antagonist excited by the Treatise on Reversionary Payments, twenty were aroused by the Appeal on the National Debt. The scheme was denounced, not only as visionary and impracticable, but even as seditious, and the controversy was still raging with unabated fury when Morellet met Price at Bowood.
Amongst the most intimate friends of Dr. Price was Dr. Priestley, then in charge of the Unitarian Congregation at Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds. Already whilst ​in Italy shortly after the death of Lady Shelburne, Shelburne had become anxious for his acquaintance, owing to the high renown which his scientific researches had acquired abroad, while as yet they were but little known in his native land. One of the first results, accordingly, of the connection of Shelburne with Price was an invitation to Priestley to accept the office of Librarian at Bowood. The following letters addressed to Dr. Price trace the progress of the negotiation:—
"Leeds, July 21st, 1772.
"I think myself exceedingly honoured by the very favourable opinion which Lord Shelburne's proposal implies that he has entertained of me, as both from your account and that of others I conceive him to be, for ability and integrity together, the very first character in this kingdom. But I really think it would not be in my power to render his lordship any services equivalent to the recompense which, in prudence, I ought to expect, if ever I leave Leeds; and I could not satisfy myself with receiving a salary without rendering what should appear to myself an equivalent service.
"My salary exceeds that of most Dissenting ministers, and I may say that the whole of my time is at my own disposal, so that I can pursue what studies I please, without interruption. Indeed, my place is such that, according to present appearances, the only motive I can ever have to remove is, that agreeable as my situation is with respect to myself, it affords me no prospect for making any provision for a growing family. I have thought that if ever I do remove, it must be to America, where it will be more easy to dispose of my children to their advantage.
​"I flatter myself, indeed, that I might render his Lordship some service with respect to the education of his children, as that is a subject to which I have given very particular attention, and with respect to which I have had a good deal of experience; but everything of this nature I consider as superseded by the tutor his Lordship will choose for them; and whoever he be, it is not probable that he will submit to be directed by another.
"It is true that my reading and studies have had as great a range as, I believe, those of most people; but I imagine that the information which his Lordship might occasionally want would relate chiefly to things of a political nature, which I have not particularly studied, and require more acquaintance with modern history than I can pretend to.
"But supposing that, by changing the course of my studies, I could become whatever his Lordship wishes me to be, I am so habituated to domestic life, and am so happy at home, that it is not possible I should receive any compensation for not living in my own family. Or, if it could be compatible with his Lordship's views to compromise this article with me, his living partly in London and partly in the country would make it impossible for me to take any advantage of officiating as a Dissenting Minister, if any society in London should make choice of me, which however I do not think very probable; nor do I see from what other source I could benefit myself, except perhaps from reading lectures, either in Natural Philosophy, or the subjects on which I used to give lectures at Warrington.
"Leeds, August 11th, 1772.
"I still continue inclined to accept of Lord Shelburne's proposal, notwithstanding I have heard more said against it than I have yet communicated to you; and I cannot help thinking that it will put me more in the way of being useful both to my family and the world than I can be in my present situation. This I observe, that those who are acquainted with Lord Shelburne encourage me to accept of his proposal; but most of those who know the world in general, but not Lord Shelburne in particular, dissuade me from it. All of them also greatly overrate my present situation, of which myself only can be a judge, and by comparison with which I must estimate any other situation."
"Leeds, August 25th, 1772.
"On Saturday last Lord Shelburne, as you gave me reason to expect, called upon me, and he explained and enforced his proposal in such a manner that I own I am much disposed to comply with it. He said he never thought of settling upon me less than 200l. per annum for life, and would do as much more as you and myself should think reasonable. So we agreed upon the sum mentioned in your letter, 250l. Besides, I am to have a house adjoining to his own in town, and another very near his seat in the country. If, however, we should like the situation in the country, it is probable we shall keep to it, myself only attending his Lordship when he shall require my attendance in London. He gives me what time I think proper to consider of his proposals, and also to leave my present situation after I have determined to do it.
"I think, however, it will answer no good end, either to keep his Lordship in suspense, or to stay long here after I am determined to go. So that, according to all appearances, I shall launch into a new sphere of life about Christmas next."
The terms finally agreed upon were, that Priestley ​should receive £250 per annum, a house to live in, and a certainty for life in case of the decease of Shelburne, or of their separation during his life. On May 16th, 1772, he preached his farewell sermon at Mill Hill Chapel, and in June was established at Calne. "In this situation," he writes in his Memoirs, "I continued seven years, spending the summer with my family at Calne, and a great part of the winter in his Lordship's house in London. My office was nominally that of librarian, but I had little employment as such besides arranging his books, taking a catalogue of them, and of his manuscripts, which were numerous, and making an index to his collection of private papers. In fact I was with him as a friend."
The condition of the Opposition remained unchanged when Shelburne returned from France. "It gives me great concern," he wrote in reply to Chatham, "to find the general account confirmed by your Lordship. It does no honour to the principal persons concerned, whose views may be supposed to have contributed to the present reduced state of things, and must exclude all hope for the public. I feel it the more, because I had hoped that from the success already experienced by the efforts of opposition when joined to those of the public, great and substantial improvements might still be obtained from year to year to the constitution, the field being large; but a secret influence appears to have crept into Opposition, too much resembling in its motives and its means that so much complained of at St. James'; for nature in these days seems to delight in creating everything double."
The "King's Friends," on the contrary, continued to grow in strength and prestige under the leadership of Jenkinson. They soon had an opportunity of showing their strength on the congenial field of ecclesiastical politics.
​The schism of the non-jurors, the sloth and ignorance of the clergy, the persecuting spirit which they had shown in the last years of Queen Anne, the controversies within the Church itself, the increase of scepticism in the upper and the spread of dissent in the middle classes, all had combined to weaken the position of the Church in the first half of the eighteenth century. Men of ability for the most part refused to take orders, and the closed doors of Convocation were the outward and visible sign of how different the condition of affairs had become from what it used to be in the days when theology and moral philosophy were identified, and secular were subordinated to ecclesiastical interests. In the weakened condition of the Church the Nonconformists saw their opportunity.
Two schools of thought are generally to be found among those who hold liberal opinions on religious questions. On the one side are those who would make the formulas of the Church as few and as simple as possible, in order to render comprehension easy. On the other are those who believe the essential idea of Churchmanship to consist in the acceptance of distinctive doctrines, and recognize that all formulas, however comprehensive, must nevertheless exclude many. The former wish to see the bounds of Churchmanship and of nationality as nearly as possible conterminous; the latter desire to leave religious questions to settle themselves, and to remove every civil inequality attaching to religious opinions. In England both schools had long existed. The Hampton Court and Savoy Conferences, and the various plans broached at the Revolution, marked so many stages in a long struggle for Church comprehension. But in proportion as the hopeless character of these attempts was recognized, so did the advocates of religious equality before the law gain ground. The Toleration Act was a new departure, limited as was the amount of religious liberty it conferred. The idea, nevertheless, of a Latitudinarian Church still had many supporters, and the liberal clergy, from a natural wish to increase the importance of their own order, were generally disposed to favour it. The liberal laity, on the other hand, ​from an equally natural fear that a comprehensive Church would prove too strong for the State, generally viewed it with disfavour.
By the Toleration Act, Protestant Nonconformists taking the Oath of Allegiance and subscribing the Declaration against Popery, and such ministers of separate congregations as should subscribe the Articles of the Church relating to matters of faith only, as distinct from those relating to church discipline and government, were exempted from the penalties attaching to attendance at separate conventicles. The brief Tory interlude at the close of the reign of Queen Anne was marked by several steps taken in a retrograde direction; but Stanhope, in 1719, had the glory of restoring Toleration to the point which it had reached at the Revolution, and of making the first unsuccessful attempt at repealing the Test Act. As years went on, the subscription to the Articles of Faith was gradually dispensed with in practice, and was only required of those who wished to avail themselves of the bounty money offered to all subscribing ministers by Sir Robert Walpole, but only accepted by a few, who were ever after looked upon as religious pariahs by their brethren; by none more so than by the Nonconformist family to which Dr. Price belonged. It was finally laid down by no less a person than Mansfield that "Nonconformity with the Established Church is recognized by the law, and not an offence at which it connives," and that the affirmation of a Quaker could be received in lieu of an oath in an action to recover penalties. It was in this position that the question of religious toleration stood in 1772, when both the party of comprehension and that of religious toleration again took the field.
The Feathers Tavern petition embodied the complaints of the Latitudinarian clergy against the Articles of the Church, and of the laity against requiring subscription as a test on admission to University degrees in law and ​medicine. The two complaints admitted of separate consideration, but only the first seems to have been really discussed in the debate which arose in the House of Commons on the petition. Burke and Dowdeswell joined Fletcher Norton in successfully opposing the motion for bringing it up, while Dunning, Townshend, and Barre took an opposite course, and were joined by Sir George Saville, who on this occasion, as on several others at the same period, separated himself from his friends of the Rockingham connection.
Shelburne, however, and his friends took a far more lively interest in the extension of the Toleration Act than in the objects of the Feathers Tavern petition, and it was this interest, joined to his connection with Dr. Price on the one hand and Chatham on the other, which encouraged the Nonconformists at this moment to apply to the latter through him to help them in their projected attempt at the abolition of subscription to the Articles of Faith.
"The immediate occasion of my troubling you," writes Shelburne to Chatham on March 18th, "is that Dr. Price, whose books I some time since sent you, has desired to know of me when you would be in town; it being the intention of the Presbyterian clergy to wait on you, to communicate their intention of applying to Parliament for relief in the matter of subscription. This matter has been in agitation some time since, but it was their intention to have deferred it till the next Session, if some of their brethren who receive the royal bounty money had not thought it their duty to acquaint the Treasury of it.
"Mr. Onslow upon this sent to desire that he might have the honour of bringing in their Bill, and to acquaint them of the concurrence of Lord North, Lord Mansfield, and a warm support from Elliot, Dyson, &c. The Bishops, ​however, have since been consulted, who have offered some objections; and to obviate them, the Dissenters have offered to sign a subscription, declaring the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to contain the mind and will of God, and a rule of faith and practice. This goes beyond the opinion of several of their body, who wished to have stood on Mr. Locke's general principles of toleration; at the same time that the Bishops have not given any answer to it. They are, however, determined to bring in their Bill, and are likely to meet with support from many of all sides, at least in the House of Commons."
It was a long time before Shelburne could ascertain what course the Ministry intended to pursue. Ultimately the reactionary influences which surrounded the King carried the day, and it was resolved to throw out the Bill in the House of Lords, after allowing it to pass the House of Commons practically unopposed. The more liberal tendencies of many of the Government supporters were to be satisfied by the latter concession. Shelburne strongly urged Chatham to leave his retirement for the debate, and was on this occasion successful. "I am very glad to find," he writes, "that your Lordship's health will admit of your coming to town on the second reading of the Bill. This makes me trouble you with the enclosed sketch of a protest drawn by Dr. Price,—a measure which I find would give their body great satisfaction and countenance, provided your Lordship approves of it. It has been communicated to no person living. Though I must do justice to the Duke of Richmond's present facility of disposition, yet I suppose it doubtful how far he and Mr. Burke will approve anything that does not come from the same quarter. I beg to submit this and every other consideration to your Lordship's judgment and decision.
"I had accidentally some conversation with Lord Gower at the Opera, who made no secret of the intentions of Government, in the House of Lords, to oppose the ​Bill and support the Bishops. I observed he also spoke without much scruple of Lord North, on a separate line from Government. It is given out that the King has declared himself much against the Bill. Lord Mansfield persists in concealing his own opinion till he comes to the House."
The information thus conveyed by Shelburne to Chatham proved correct. When the second reading of the Bill was taken, every Bishop and Archbishop was in his place to reject it. Amongst those who proved how thoroughly the episcopal order had repented of whatever share they might be considered to have had in the liberal work of the Revolution, was Bishop Lowth of Oxford. "He took up the question," says Walpole, "in a spirit of revenge," and declared he would vote against the Bill because the Dissenters would not receive Bishops in America. Shelburne rose, and in reply informed the House "that he was Secretary of State when Archbishop Seeker had struggled for an American Bishop, and that both Archbishop Seeker and Archbishop Drummond had had an interview with him, and that at that interview it was he who had urged how unwelcome a Bishop would be to the Dissenters, and they who had both assured him that the Dissenters did not object to it: Archbishop Drummond was still alive and in the House, and could deny the fact if it was otherwise." This Drummond could not do. It would seem as if the Bishops had determined to justify the charges against them of "want of candour, and of scandalous love of power "with which Richmond opened and Chatham closed the discussion. The Bill was rejected by 102 to 29, and a like fate awaited the measure in the following year.
* ↑ See supra, p. 62, where there is an account of a conversation with Bernis. The Cardinal, who had been Minister for Foreign Affairs, from 1756 continued to be Ambassador till the French Revolution.
* ↑ "Madame Boufflers vint dîner chez Madame Geoffrin mercredi; elle fut charmante; elle ne dit pas un mot qui ne fût un paradoxe. Elle fut attaquée, et elle se défendit avec tant d'esprit, que ses erreurs valoient presqu'autant que la vérité. Par exemple, elle trouve que c'est un grand malheur que d'être ambassadeur, il n'importe de quel pays, ni chez quelle nation; cela ne lui paroît qu'un exil affreux, etc. etc. Et puis elle nous dit que, dans le temps où elle aimoit le mieux l'Angleterre, elle n'auroit consenti à s'y fixer, qu'à la condition qu'elle y auroit amené avec elle vingt-quatre ou vingt-cinq de ses amis intimes, et soixante à quatre-vingts autres personnes qui lui étoient absolument nécessaires; et c'étoit avec beaucoup de sérieux et surtout beaucoup de sensibilité qu'elle nous apprenoit le besoin de son âme. Ce que j'aurois voulu que vous vissiez c'est l'étonnement qu'elle causoit à milord Shelburne. Il et simple, naturel; il a de l'âme, de la force: il n'a de goût et d'attrait que pour ce qui lui ressemble, au moins par le naturel. Je le trouve bien heureux d'être né Anglais; je l'ai beaucoup vu, je l'ai écouté, celui-là: il a de l'esprit, de la chaleur, de l'élévation. Il me rappeloit un peu les deux hommes du monde que j'ai aimés, et pour qui je voudrois vivre ou mourir."—Lettres de Madame de l'Espinasse, i. ch. lxiii.
* ↑ Mémoires de Morellet, i. ch. vi. ix. Rutt, Life of Priestley, i. 156.
* ↑ Buckle, History of Civilisation, ii. ch. v.
* ↑ Voltaire, Collected Works, xxxviii. 337. Buckle, ii. ch. v.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 199.
* ↑ Lettres de Mademoiselle de l'Espinasse, i. ch. lxiii.
* ↑ February 18th, 1771.
* ↑ The Manuel was founded on the Directorium Inquisitorium of Nicholas Eymeric, the Grand Inquisitor, a copy of which Morellet happened to find (1759) in the library of the Abbé de Canaillac at Rome, while attending a pupil, the Abbé de la Galaizière, during the Papal conclave held on the death of Benedict XIV.
* ↑ Mémoires de Morellet, i. ch. ix. See Appendix II. A.
* ↑ Mémoires de Morellet, i. ch. xiv. Stewart's Life of Smith, ed. Hamilton, x. 95.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 175. See also Gentleman's Magazine for 1783, Part II. Origin of Lord Shelburne's connection with the Dissenters, p. 22; and answer by Mr. Toulmin, p. 103.
* ↑ The above details are gathered from Memoirs of Dr. Price, by William Morgan. The statement there made that Lord Shelburne first sought the acquaintance of Dr. Price to obtain spiritual consolation after the death of his wife, may be disproved by reference to the dates of the two events. Lady Shelburne died in 1771; the first interview with Dr. Price was in 1769.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 86.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 197, Note.—In 1767 Priestley had published The History and Present State of Electricity, and shortly after his History and Present State of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light, and Colour. At the time of his agreement with Lord Shelburne he was already engaged in his inquiries into the nature of air. His first publication on the subject was a pamphlet on "Impregnating Water with fixed Air," 1772. The same year he communicated to the Royal Society his observations on different kinds of air. The Royal Society had elected him a member in 1766, and awarded the Copley medal to him in 1773.
* ↑ This plan was eventually carried out by Dr. Priestley after the Birmingham riots. See Vol. II. Ch. XI.
* ↑ This seems to be the correct date of the above letter rather than November 11th, as given in Rutt's Life of Priestley.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 87, 189.
* ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 197. The memory of the connection of Priestley with Calne is kept alive by the Priestley Laboratory, in the Calne County Secondary School, which was provided by public subscription in 1909, as an addition to the new buildings of that institution.
* ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, January 12th, 1772.
* ↑ Memoir of Price, by Morgan, 35.
* ↑ Hallam, iii. 256.
* ↑ "Atcheson v. Everett," and "Chamberlain of the City of London v. Allen." See Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chief Justices, ii. 512. The 7 & 8 William III. c. 34 made Quakers admissible as witnesses in civil proceedings.
* ↑ Lord Shelburne's brother, Mr. Fitzmaurice, was amongst those who opposed the petition. "Colonel Barré also," says Walpole, "was not present. His absence and Mr. Fitzmaurice's conduct showed Lord Shelburne was willing to make his peace at Court."—(Walpole Journals, i. 10.) A reference to the Division Lists of the House of Commons shows that Barré was present and voted, while the speech of Mr. Fitzmaurice was only devoted to maintaining the reasonable position, that it is almost impossible for a Church to exist without formulas of some kind, and that these formulas are sure to exclude a certain number of conscientious persons.
* ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, March 15th, 1772.
* ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, April 13th, 1772.
* ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, March 18th, 1772.
* ↑ Drummond was Archbishop of York from 1761 to 1776.
* ↑ Walpole Journals, i. 94, 95.
* ↑ In vol. xvii. 442, of the Parliamentary History, will be found the speech which Dr. Newton, Bishop of Bristol, "intended to have made." The first sentence is "The Act of Toleration was one of the first fruits of the glorious Revolution." The last sentence is, "God forbid, my lords, that this House should ever, contrary to so many Acts of Parliament, contrary to the whole tenour of the Gospel, give their sanction and authority to men who not privately, as the Apostle says, but publicly, bring in damnable heresies."