"been manifested elsewhere:-manifested from a

66

quarter less exposed, on this ground, to the seduc"tive influence of sinister interest, and interestbegotten prejudice.

66

66

W. SMITH, ESQ. M. P. to JEREMY BENTHAM,

66

ESQUIRE.

Park Street, Westminster, 16th February, 1818.

"MY DEAR SIR,

"I HAVE received your favour enquiring into the particulars of what passed between the Archbishop of Canterbury and myself, on occasion of the introduction of the Bill for repealing the Penal Statutes against the impugners of the Trinity, which was passed into a law in the year 1813: and having still in my mind a pretty clear recollection of the affair, I apprehend that I shall afford the most satisfactory reply to your questions, by a con"nected relation of the circumstances as they oc"curred. And this I shall do with the greater plea"sure, as it gives me the opportunity of acknow

66

66

66

ledging the obligation which his Grace then conferred upon me by the uniform frankness and liberality of his conduct throughout the whole of the proceeding. As soon as I had determined on attempting the measure, my first step was to wait "on the Archbishop at Lambeth, to acquaint him of my intention, and to receive from him such com"munication as he should think fit to make. The "result of a very open and friendly conversation on the subject, with his Grace, was a clear conviction "in my own mind that I needed not to be uneasy about any opposition to be expected from him ;-— "but he explicitly declared his disinclination to

66

66

66

pledge himself to any particular point, till he had "taken the sentiments of his brethren, whom, on "such matters, it was his wish to consult; and said, "that as the spring was then pretty far advanced, "and several of the Bishops had left London (pro

bably without any intention to return during the "Session of Parliament,) he would be glad to have "the business postponed till the next year, if it were "not inconsistent with my views or convenience :— "with which suggestion, as the matter could not be "considered as immediately urgent, I, of course,

66

66

complied. Early in the ensuing session, I again "waited on his Grace, whom I had the pleasure to "find in the same disposition. He then told me, that supposing my object was only to remove every ob"struction to fair argument and discussion, he was willing to consent to the repeal of all the statutes, inflicting penalties, or disabilities for impugning or

66

'denying the doctrine of the Trinity, either by writing or advised speaking :-but that he supposed "I did not, any more than himself, intend to open a "door for the admission of all manner of profaneness " and impiety in the mode of treating subjects of so "solemn a description; and therefore that the crime "of blasphemy should still be left open to the ani"madversion of the common law :-I, and I have no "doubt his Grace also, understanding by the term

Blasphemy,' of course, not that constructive and "inferential imputation of the crime which might be "fastened on every doctrine relative to the Divine "Nature differing in any respect or degree from that

66

of the Established Church, (an interpretation sub" versive of the very liberty and relief intended to be granted,) but that which is its common, and, I imagine, also its legal import,-the use of language "and epithets in themselves reproachful, reviling "and abusive, levelled immediately at the majesty "and character of the Supreme Being. On this footing, I most readily agreed to place the question;-persuaded that, however plausible an argu"ment may be raised for the abstract right of using, " in any controversy, such terms as disputants may "think most applicable to the subject, yet that such "latitude is not here necessary, or even advantageous "to the legitimate object of all controversy, the successful investigation of truth: and therefore that respect to the national worship, tenderness to the opinions, or even prejudices of serious and sincere religionists, and, above all, the venerable nature of

66

66

66

"the subjects in question, completely justify, if they do not absolutely demand, the prohibition "of such language, as useless, indecent, and mis"chievous.

66

66

"I next informed his Majesty's Ministers of my design, and the progress I had made; and learned "from them, with great satisfaction, that they were equally inclined to acquiesce in the measure: and only desired that, in the progress of the Bill, I "would not, by unnecessary discussion, incur the "risk of exciting a spirit of alarm and opposition "which then appeared to lie dormant, but pursue my object as quietly as circumstances should per"mit. In this reasonable proposition I also cheerfully acquiesced; and soon after, had an interview "with the Archbishop and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Bill was moulded into that shape in which it passed, unopposed, through the "House of Commons.

66

66

"In the Lords however an objection was taken by "the Ch. and the Lord C. J. not to the principle, "but merely to the mode-the two Noble Lords dis"approving the sweeping repeal of all the statutes

66

66

by which the penalties, &c. were imposed, and preferring that they should be described and repealed, "nominatim; dwelling so much on this, as to insist on the rejection of the Bill as it then stood; by

66

which, as the session was drawing to a close, I was "somewhat embarrassed :-but they both had the "goodness to assure me that they would consent to pass, with all expedition, a new Bill drawn on the

66

66

66

66

plan they suggested. The first was accordingly negatived, and the new one, so drawn and settled, immediately introduced into the Commons, carried through every stage, and passed without delay :from whence it went up to the Lords, where, to my infinite content, it was equally successful.

"One only material difference in the operation of "the two Bills has since appeared:-that, whereas "the former, from the generality of its terms, ex"tended to Ireland, the latter does not; from the "inadvertent omission to repeal specifically the Irish penal statute.

"At the moment of the rejection of the first Bill in "the House of Lords, the Archbishop took the occa"sion to say to me, that, having originally given his "assent to the measure, he certainly should not think of retracting it, merely because it was thought expedient to effect the purpose by means "somewhat different from those which he himself "had agreed to; and that I might rely on his support of the new Bill-a pledge which, it is needless "to say, was strictly observed.

66

66

"You have now, Sir, as accurate an account as my memory will furnish, of a transaction on which "I have ever reflected with unmixed satisfaction; regarding it as affording an irrefragable proof of the increasing justness and liberality of the sentiments "of the age, on principles of the highest importance, "and strong ground of hope, that the last lingering "remains of intolerance will, ere long, be swept "clean away. Happy, too, in having been the active