[67] John Allen (1771-1843) was Warden of Dulwich College.
[68] Macaulay called it "the very neatest, most commodious, and most appropriate rectory that I ever saw."
[69] In 1818 he writes to Lady Mary Bennet:--"I am glad you liked what I said of Mrs. Fry. She is very unpopular with the clergy: examples of living, active virtue disturb our repose, and give birth to distressing comparisons; we long to burn her alive."
[70] Macaulay describes Foston Church as "a miserable little hovel with a wooden belfry."
[72] Carlyle's description of Dr. Arnold's house at Rugby.
[73] Henry Luttrell (1765-1835), wit and epicure.
[74] Frederick, 5th Earl of Carlisle (1748-1825) married Lady Margaret Caroline Leveson-Gower.
[75] In old age Sydney Smith wrote--"Castle Howard befriended me when I wanted friends: I shall never forget it till I forget all."
[78] The Hon. and Rev. George Spencer (1799-1864).
"CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION"--BRISTOL--COMBE FLOREY--REFORM--PROMOTION
The first quarter of the nineteenth century was now nearing its close, and the most exciting topic in domestic politics was the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. The movement in favour of emancipation, though checked by the death of Pitt, had never completely collapsed, and now it was quickened by the exertions of the "Catholic Association" in Ireland, and stimulated by the eloquence of O'Connell and Sheil. Session after Session, emancipating Bills were brought into Parliament, and were supported by Castlereagh and Canning in opposition to their colleagues. The clergy of the Church of England--fashioned, almost to a man, on the model of Abraham Plymley--were dreadfully alarmed. Bishops charged against the proposed concession. Clerical meetings all over the country petitioned Parliament to defend them against insidious attacks on our national Protestantism. Before long, the storm rolled up to Yorkshire, and a meeting of the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Cleveland was assembled at Thirsk on the 24th of March 1823. To this meeting a Resolution was submitted, protesting against the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. A counter-petition was submitted by Sydney Smith, begging for an inquiry into all laws affecting the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, and "expressing a hope" that only those which were absolutely necessary to the safety of Church and State might be suffered to remain. It is difficult to conceive a milder proposition, but it was defeated by twenty-two votes to ten--Archdeacon Wrangham[83] and the Rev. William Vernon,[84] son of the Archbishop of York, voting in the minority. Sydney Smith's speech in support of his motion recapitulated the main arguments which, as Peter Plymley, he had adduced at an earlier stage of the same controversy. He urged that a Roman Catholic's oath was as sacred and as binding as a Protestant's; that the English Constitution, with great advantage to its subjects, tolerated, and behaved generously to, all forms of religion (except Romanism); and that all possible danger to civil order in Ireland was averted by the stringency of the restrictions with which it was proposed to safeguard the gift of Emancipation.--