exercise necessary to his health), that he fell a sacrifice at so early a period of life.

Mr. Ponsonby was the second son of the Right Hon. John Ponsonby, Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and consequently brother of William, the first Lord Ponsonby. He was born on the 15th March, 1755, and was called to the bar, at which he practised with eminent success. He was married on the 18th May, 1781, to Lady Mary Butler, daughter of the Earl of Lanesbo-rough, who, with two sous and a daughter, survive him. His daughter is married to the Hon. F. Prittie, brother to Lord Dunally. In 1806 he was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland, which situation he resigned when his political friends ceased, in 1807, to hold the reins of government, and he has ever since been what is termed the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, in which he conducted himself with an integrity, independence, candour, and suavity which secured him the respect, confidence aud affection of all parties. Good sense, the foundation of every excellence, he possessed in a superior degree, improved by study and intercourse with the world in public and private life; his understanding was vigorous; his conception clear; his language chaste, natural, and unaffected; his manner impressive, and his voice well modulated. He addressed himself to the head, laying aside that species of eloquence which seeks through the passions to mislead the judgment. A sound discretion, and an ardent love of justice and humanity governed all his actions.

As the leader of a great political party, no man was ever more free from party spirit. He was in feeling and principle the very man contemplated by those who consider a systematic opposition a necessary safeguard to the constitutional rights and liberties of England. The ingenuousness of his mind, the kindness of his heart, and the placability of his manners, conciliated his opponents, and assuaged all those feelings which defeat excites; and if his triumphs were not more numerous, it is because the candour and generosity of his mind disdained to take advantage of his adversaries whenever he thought them right. Where that was the case, all party feeling vanished before his political integrity, and on many critical occasions he gave his adversaries the support of his learning and talents. Nobly disdaining all selfish views, he was here no longer the leader of a party. He shewed himself the resolute, fixed, and unalterable friend of constitutional freedom.

His complaint, of only a week's duration, was that species of paralytic affection called Hamipklegia. He received every aid that medical skill and attention could afford. On his first attack, he was bled by Mr. Lynn, and he was attended by Dr. Baillie, Dr. Warren, and Mr. Tegart. The two last gentlemen remained in the house dur

July 20th, at Dorking, Surry, after a painful and lingering illness, which she bore with the greatest fortitude and resignation, JANE, the eldest daughter of the late Rev. Owen MANNING, Rector of Poper Hara, and Vicar of Godalming, in the same county.

Lately, at Paris, the celebrated Madame de SIAEL, the wife of the Baron de Stael Holstein, and the daughter of the unfortunate M. Neckar, French Minister of Finance at the time of the Revolution, by Susan Curchod, the object of the early, perhaps the only, passion of Gibbon, the Historian of the Roman Empire. The genius of this conspicuous and celebrated woman was splendid. Her writings, which are voluminous, may be considered as indicating more knowledge than they impart: her reasonings are ingenious and sometimes profound: her thoughts frequently original: her imagination active, brilliant and profuse, now and then perplexes the subject, which it is the province of imagination to illustrate. Her power of luminous and eloquent expression must give the works of Madame de Stael a passport to every cultivated circle: but they belong much more to the class of luxuries than of sound and healthful diet for the mind. Her moral system must be searched for among the folds of rich and voluptuous sensibility, with which she has invested it; and we are not sure that it will always bear the light. Few people, we are persuaded, have risen from her compositions with their taste purified, or their principles strengthened. The debt which the present generation owes to the alluring author of

Delphine" and "Corinne," bears some resemblance in character, though not in amount, to that which was imposed upon the age preceding, by the sentiment of Rousseau.

Where she counsels the reader to virtue, he does not feel more virtuously disposed; as, where she professes to treat of literature, she adds little to the common stock of learning. Madame de Stael was well known in England, where she mingled in the best and highest classes of society, and where her tone of conversation, though somewhat restless and authoritative, was admired for its elegance, vivacity and power. The remains of Madame de Stael are to be conveyed for interment to her estate at Copet, uear Geneva.

Proceedings in Chancery with regard to the Meeting House at Wolverhampton, deeply affecting the Property of Unitarian Congregations.

SIR,

BEING accidentally in the Court of ChanCery, at the opening of the late case on the Subject of Protestant Dissenting foundations, I took a note of it, (particularly of the Lord Chancellor's judgment,) which I send you for the purpose of insertion, if you consider it as I do, most important.

I will add a few observations suggested by it.

1st. The case seems to decide that the Court will, in carrying Dissenting foundations into effect, consult the original intent as to worship and doctrine of the founder, and not suffer even the whole of the congregation to divert the trust from that precise object; and that as a rule of construction of such deeds, where they do not express any particular form of doctrine, the Court will look to what doctrines were, at the time of the foundation, legal or tole rated, and conclude that the founder did not intend to establish a system that was illegal, as Unitarianism undoubtedly was previously to the repeal of the laws for the protection of the Holy Trinity.

On this head I would observe, that there were only two other courses that the Court could have adopted in administering these trusts, both of which, perhaps, would have been more agreeable to Dissenters than the one adopted, viz. either to have considered all dissent as illegal at common law, and there fore (though the Court is by the recognition of Dissenters by law obliged to carry into effect trusts for their benefit) to have contented itself with merely securing the trust for Protestant Dissenting worship, in the general sense, leaving the majority to settle bow that worship should be carried on, and not considering itself as judicially bound to measure degrees of (what is in its eyes) error:-or, secondly, to have recog nised the principles of dissent, (namely, the right of free inquiry and judgment on religious subjects, considering the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, and the doctrine of to-day as not at all binding for the morrow, but liable at all times to change with the progress of knowledge and the views of the congregation,) and where the deeds prescribed no doctrine or form of worship, but merely that of Protestant Dissenters, to have left (as the true principles of Protestant Dissent ought to do) doctrines out of the question, the congregation for the time

being, being considered as the persons intended by the founders to have the benefit of the trust, and thus making the law follow opinion, instead of making opinion follow the law.

The Court has chosen neither of these courses: perhaps it was never to have been expected that it should, especially if they were not pressed upon it, and therefore trust deeds, where the founders intend to establish an institution on Protestant Dissenting principles, ought to specify what they understand them to be; and if it were thus prescribed that the opinion of the con gregation, for the time being, should be the opinion supported by the trust, the Court must carry it into effect. Trust deeds, where that is the intent of the founder, must take care of this in future.

It may be further observed, however, that the question cannot be considered as being finally settled upon proper argument on both sides, for the counsel for the defendants seem to have been taken by surprise, and to have merely occupied themselves in contending, that the point (which in reality turned out to form the most material part of the case, and decided it) did not arise, without at all entering into the merits of it. It might surely have been urged that this was the first time of such a question coming before the Court; that this was a foundation expressly for the worship of God onProtestant Dissenting principles; andthat if it were inquired what those true principles are, the Court would not wonder that no form of doctrine was prescribed; that it would appear, on inquiry, that the founda tions formed on those principles expressly recognised the right of all bodies and individuals to adopt and even form such opinions as should seem to them most consonant to the Scriptures; and therefore that it would not be contrary to their intent, that congregations should go on improving with the improvement of the rest of their fellow. creatures; and that they should no more be confined for ever within the then bounds of legality, than those which then existed of biblical criticism and inquiry. Surely it might have been told the Lord Chancellor, however strange it might sound to the ears of the Court, that Protestant Dissenters, as Protestant Dissenters, know no form of faith or opinion which is to stand still while the world is going on, and that if a Master in chancery can find it out, he will accomplish an arduous task.

The matter being still perfectly open by the reference to the Master, it is to be hoped that before him the true nature and object

of Protestant Dissent will be explained, and the case will then come again before the Court on his report, to be fairly argued on its merits. The Unitarians should by no means let a case of this sort be established as a precedent against them; and perhaps the safest way would be to undertake the defence of it as a body. I believe it will be found, that by far the greater part of the foundations made at the time the present institution was formed, were upon these enlarged principles with regard to doctrine; some institutions certainly provided against the trust being applied to any of the other rival systems of church government, (the three only divisions on that head being Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist,) but very few made any stipulation as to doctrine, and those which did so expressed it clearly and distinctly.

Surely if the nature and principles of Protestant Dissent were once fully explained and recognised, it would be very clear that the congregation are as perfectly at liberty to embrace Unitarianism as any other opinion. We have a right to assume in a Court of Justice, that till the 53rd of the King, there were no such persons as Unitarians, (it being a crime by law, and no conviction having taken place, till which every person must be considered innocent,) but in 1817, Unitarianism having ceased to become illegal, may be as lawfully and as consonantly with the intent of the founder, embraced as any other opinion, unless it is maintained that no opinions but such as were held and known at the time when the trust deeds were executed, can be adopted by a congregation. Suppose this deed could by fair inference be shewn to recognise on the face of it, the authenticity of the passage in 1 John, v. 7, and consequently to imply that the founder must have contemplated that the belief in such authenticity must always form part of the faith of the congregation, and as such, be inculcated by the minister, (nothing having at that time appeared satisfactorily to impugn its genuineness,) can it be contended that, when by the progress of criticism, the discovery of MSS., &c., the passage has been proved beyond all doubt, by the confession of all, spurious, such new opinion cannot be adopted by the congregation, because it may be demonstrated to be repugnant to the opinion and intent of the founder. Other instances might be pointed out, of eutirely new opinions having arisen on very important subjects; and when once the principles of Protestant Dissent are established, it can no more be contended that the congregation cannot adopt an opinion which, though illegal at the foundation, has ceased to be so since, than that no opinion can be embraced by a congregation which was not then in vogue,

2nd. There seems to be no doubt, according to this decision, that institutions (if there are any) founded for Unitarianism, prior to the repeal of the Trinity laws, are illegal and void, as in the Jewish case alluded to by Sir S. Romilly; perhaps nothing can be done to secure these foundations except by the interference of the legislature, but the next point must probably be first determined.

3rd. It is gravely argued, and argued by Sir S. Romilly, (upon what grounds he did not think proper to state) that impugning the doctrine of the Trinity, was an offence at common law originally, and has continued so after the repeal of the acts, and therefore that any institution formed since the repeal, for supporting Unitarianism, would be illegal.

This point shews the extreme importance of the decision in Mr. Wright's case. That gentleman has been held to bail, and an attempt will be made to get an indictment found against bim by the Grand Jury of Lancashire, at the ensuing assizes. It is to be hoped (in order that the question may be decided) that they will find the bill, and in that case he will probably be tried at the spring assizes, and the Court of King's Bench must decide the point. I mention this, because Mr Wright's case seems hitherto to have been considered by Unitarians as not very important to them, and the Unitarian Fund in particular has declined interfering,* on being advised that the question, whether impugning the doctrine of the Trinity was an offence at common law, was idle and impossible to be seriously agitated; which advice it is still more singular to say, was given them by the gentleman who conducts the case reported below, on the part of the plaintiffs, in which his counsel vehemently argue the point, and contend that it is so clear, that the Chancellor ought to dismiss the trustees, and take away the endowment of a congregation on the strength of it, citing in support of their argument the prosecution against Mr. Wright, which the Unitarians are advised they need not defend.

If this point should be decided against the Unitarians, † it appears to be absolutely necessary to apply to Parliament for a Tolera

* The Committee of the Unitarian Fund volunteered their aid to Mr. Wright in an early stage of the proceedings; their "declining to interfere," we believe, respected primarily the question of the legality of the Meeting-house in which Mr. W. officiated,at least, respected the blasphemy case only so far as it appeared to be a mere question of the veracity of witnesses on the alleged point of the denial of a future state. ED.

The prosecution of Mr. Wright for blasphemy is abandoned. ED.

held that "Christianity is part of the common law of the land," and as such, any offence against it is indictable as a breach of the peace. The question then arose what was this Christianity, and he contended that the doctrine of the Trinity was the essence of it, and that Unitarianism struck at the very vitals of it. He traced back the Creed of the Church of Rome, as settled by the various councils of Nice, Trent, &c., in all which the Trinity was a prominent and leading feature. That this was the religion consequently of England prior to the Reformation, and therefore any offence against it must have been the kind of offence that the law would have punished regarding that establishment as Christianity. That at the Reformation various abuses were swept away, and the present Protestant religion established, which still in all its main features of belief, certainly as to the doctrine of the Trinity, was the same. That the Christianity, therefore, recognised and protected by the law, was that of which the Trinity formed the basis and essence, and that any doctrine contrary to it was therefore an offence against the law of the land and indictable by it.

the object of it. The place was now occupied by Unitarians, which he maintained was not the intent of the founder. He contended that that could not be the design, (although nothing appeared either one way or another upon the trust deed,) because Unitarian worship was not then legal or tolerated, and no public place of worship could therefore exist in the eye of the law on that system. He contended also, that Unitarianism still remained illegal at common law, although the penal statutes against the impuguers of the doctrine of the Trinity had been repealed. Was Mr. Steward therefore to be turned out (as he contended was the intention here) merely because he had become a Trinitarian? On the contrary, it seemed that he thereby became more consonant to the intent of the founder. He contended also, that it was the intention of the founder, that the trustees should not have any power to choose a minister for a limited period or otherwise than for life, or that the minister should be turned out except for objections on the score of immorality. It was also pressed that the trustees had neglected their duty in not filling up the number of trustees, which instead of twelve, were now only. five.

Mr. Hart followed on the same side, insisting particularly on the diversion of the trust from its proper object, by devoting it to Unitarian worship, which, he contended, was illegal and contrary to the intent of the founders. He argued also against the impolicy of letting the trustees exercise a capricious power over any person appointed to the situation of minister, (which appointment he held ought to be for life,) for that it had ever been the policy of that Court to prevent the possessor of any living, whether schools or churches, from being dependent on the people, as it evidently followed that a clergyman so situated would become the tool of his flock, and must in fact conform to whatever doctrines they choose to prescribe to him. He argued also, that they had suffered Mr. Steward to continue three months after the three years had expired, and had therefore waved that agreement and appointed him generally as their minister.

The Legislature had thought proper to fix some determinate punishment upon this offence, which had been repealed, but this did not alter the nature of the offence.

The act which inflicted this penalty recited, that various persons had blasphemously and wickedly impugned the Trinity, and a particular punishment was therefore prescribed, but the repeal of this act left the offence still as recited by the act blasphemous and wicked. In fact, he said the Court ought to be informed that prosecutions were at this moment pending against individuals for impugning the doctrine of the Trinity. He contended, therefore, that the founders of this trust must have meant by inculcating the worship of God, that of the Trinity, especially as provision was made by the deed for devoting the charity to other purposes, if their worship should

Christianity is parcel of the law of England, and therefore to reproach the Christian religion, is to speak in subversion of the law." Lord Raymond says, "Christianity in general is parcel of the law of England, and to be protected by it;"— "and they laid their stress upon the word general, and did not intend to include disputes between learned men upon particular controverted points." "I would have i taken notice of, that we do not meddle wi any differences of opinion, and that w terpose only when the very root of tianity is struck at, as it plainly the whole life and miracles of Ch denied." What language ca line more precisely and corre

th

e in

Chrisis here, rist being

a draw the stly than this?

E. T.

VOL. XII.