^{page 377 note 2} This is the subject of an excellent study by Machin, G. I. T., The Catholic Question in English Politics, 1820–30, Oxford 1964.Google Scholar Professor Davis, R. W. in ‘The Strategy of “Dissent”, in the Repeal Campaign, 1820–1828’, Journal of Modern History, xxxviii (1966), 374–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and more recently in Dissent in Politics, 1780–1830, The Political Life of William Smith, M.P., 1971, has established the anti-catholic bias of the Protestant Association. This theme was earlier developed by Hexter, J. H. in ‘The Protestant Revival and the Catholic Question in England’, Journal of Modern History, viii (1936), 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 378 note 1} General Body, Minutes, iv. 92 f. The signatories of the call for the special meeting were Aspland, David Davison, Dr. Archibald Barclay, William Broadfoot and John Coates, Presbyterians; William Newman, F. A. Cox, and James Smith, Particular Baptists; Benjamin Mardon, General Baptist (Unitarian); and Robert Winter, John Humphry, and William Walford, Independents. The situation in Ireland evoked great concern as is illustrated by the following from Baptist Magazine (1827), 141: ‘Ireland continues in a state of great excitation. The violence of restless demagogues, the acts of bigotted priests, and the lawless conduct of the lower orders, whom they influence and stimulate cannot fail to produce discontent and destitution. How happy would that country be, were the curse of popery and priestcraft removed!’ The May meeting of the Baptist Irish Society that year filled the large room (unexpectedly) of the City of London Tavern: Baptist Magazine (1827), 329.

^{page 378 note 2} For Aspland (1782–1845), see D.N.B.; Aspland, R., Memoir of the Life, Works, and Correspondence of Rev. Robert Aspland, 1850.Google Scholar For Cox (1783–1853), see D.N.B. For Ivimey (1773–1834), see D.N.B.; Pritchard, G., Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Joseph Ivimey, 1835.Google Scholar For Robert Winter (1762–1833), see Evangelical Magazine (1833), 425–33. Another Baptist, J. J. Douglas, a London schoolmaster, summed up Ivimey's position saying: ‘Neither bless them at all, nor curse them at all. If the fires are to be lighted in Ireland, as some have suggested, take good care that you do not, by your support, either ignite the torch, or feed the flame’ (quoted in Ivimey's Dr. Williams's Library and the debate on Roman Catholic Claims, etc., 1829, 64 f.). The reference is to Balaam in Numbers xxiii. 25. This position is not unlike that of the Wesleyans described by Kent, John in The Age of Disunity, 1966, 88–91.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 1} Ivimey, Dr. Williams's Library, 4 f. Mann (1785–1831) missed the next meeting as well. W. T. Whitley provided a most useful set of brief biographical notes in ‘An Index to Notable Baptists … before 1850’, Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society, vii. 182–239.

^{page 379 note 2} General Body, Minutes, 27 January 1829. London's General Baptists, although Unitarian, were members of the General Body through the auspices of the Baptist Board. They did not participate in the activity of the board. The executive committee of the General Body included five Particular Baptists and one General Baptist.

^{page 380 note 1} The minutes of Dr. Williams's Trust from 1814 to 1834 have been missing for some years and it is not possible to discover the terms of their resolution denying Ivimey access to the MS. Ivimey may have been less than fair in his criticism of the manner in which the trustees dispersed the funds under their administration. The Rev. Kenneth Twinn (in correspondence) listed the ministers who had benefited from the funds in 1814 and 1834, and found that of the nineteen beneficiaries in 1814, seven were known Unitarians, and out of the twenty-one in 1834, nine were known Unitarians. For Dr. Williams's Trust see Jeremy, W. D., The Presbyterian Fund and Dr. Daniel Williams's Trust, 1889.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 2} H. McLachlan, ‘Manchester Socinian Controversy’, Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society, ii, pt. ii, 1–8; [anon], Manchester Socinian Controversy, 1825. This book is usually ascribed to George Hadfield, a Manchester Independent layman (1787–1879, see D.N.B.), although ‘An Orthodox Dissenter’ whose letters appear in the book are ascribed to the Baptist minister John Birt (1787–1862), who came to Manchester in 1820. Ivimey was under the impression that Birt also wrote the book (cf. Dr. Williams's Library, 73). For an exposition of Ivimey's motives see the ‘Advertisement’ (ix-xvii) to Dr. Williams's.

^{page 382 note 1} Ivimey claimed that ‘Popery is always the same’. A sample of the ‘papal atrocities’ of the White Terror of 1816 was quoted as proof: ‘more than thirty females have been stripped of all their garments in the streets—when naked, have been whipped till the blood ran down, and so dreadfully wounded that eight are dead’ Ivimey, An Address to Protestant Dissenters …, 1819, vii.Google Scholar Many contemporary writers developed this theme of which Wilks, Mark, History of the Persecution endured by the Protestants in the South of France, 1821Google Scholar, is a good example. English Protestants also raised money for their relief. Treatment of Protestants on the continent during these years lent credence to the sort of claims levelled by Ivimey and others. For Pye Smith (1774–1851), see D.N.B.; Medway, John, Memoirs of John Pye Smith, 1853.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 1} Baptist Board Minutes, ii, 25 February, 10, 24, 31 March. For John Dyer (1784–1841, see Baptist Magazine, 1841, 433–40. Unfortunately there is no history of the General Body comparable to Manning's, B. L.The Protestant Dissenting Deputies, Cambridge 1952.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 1} Congregational Board Minutes, i, 16 June 1829.

^{page 385 note 2} Ibid., 6 April 1830. For Burder (1752–1832), the editor of the Evangelical Magazine, see D.N.B.

^{page 386 note 1} Ibid., 13 April, 15 June 1830.

^{page 386 note 2} Ivimey, Dr. Williams's Library, xiv. Ivimey also wanted the portrait of Joseph Priestly that hung in the library sent to the Unitarian New Gravel-pit Chapel, Hackney. Although an unusual person in many respects, Ivimey was remembered in the Minutes of the Baptist Union, ii, prologue, as the guiding spirit of the Union's formation.

^{page 386 note 3} Dr. Williams's Library, n. 39. The title of the pamphlet had been suggested by Andrew Fuller, the Particular Baptists’ leading theologian.

^{page 386 note 4} Ibid., 53. Ivimey was highly critical of Russell, who had a ‘snug endowment for preaching to 5–6 people’ of ‘Socinian Sabbatarians’ at Mill Yard. Broadfoot, although a presbyterian was Trinitarian. See also General Body, Minutes, iv. 108 f., 123. Blundell (Mill Hill Grammar School) resigned from the Baptist Board on 23 July 1832 and eventually joined the Established Church.

^{page 387 note 1} Congregational Magazine, 1829, 230. In May of 1831, a Baptist Society for Diffusing the Gospel through the Continent of Europe was formed to combat the persecution of Protestants by state-established Romanism and to aid the persecuted.

^{page 387 note 2} Ibid., 230.

^{page 388 note 1} Ivimey, Dr. William's Library, 44. R. W. Davis makes the valid point (in Strategy of Dissent, 376) that the greatest achievement of the pro-Catholics was to keep the dissidents quiet.

^{page 388 note 2} Short, K. R. M., ‘The English Regium Donum’, English Historical Review, lxxxiv (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 389 note 1} Presbyterian Body, Minutes, i, 16 July 1830; General Body, Minutes, 16 July 1830. No Presbyterian voted on the motion for future rotation. Unfortunately the Presbyterian Body met only formally on an annual basis, while the others met monthly. This means that the Presbyterian minutes are generally devoid of comments on the key issues of this period.

^{page 389 note 2} E. S. Wood ‘Biographical Sketch of the Rev. Charles Thomson’, Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England, xi. 34 f. An identical reaction to the Address was to be found in Smith's, G. C.Hackney Gravel Pit, 1830.Google Scholar B. L. Manning (The Protestant Dissenting Deputies, 133) has a fine quotation from the work.

^{page 389 note 3} Congregational Magazine (1830), 503, 680. The first committee was composed of John Bunce (I), Richard Davis (Calvinistic Methodist), Ivimey (B), John Rees (I), Thomas Sharp (CM) and Robert Stodhart (I). Dyer was most upset over the choice of the organisation's title.

^{page 390 note 1} Baptist Board, Minutes, ii, 3, 17 November 1831.

^{page 390 note 2} For the matter of Baptist organisation see Payne's, E. A.The Baptist Union: a Short History, 1958Google Scholar, chapters 3 and 4. A brief survey of dissenting involvement in anti-slavery is given in Cowherd, R. G., The Politics of English Dissent, 1959Google Scholar, chapter 4.

^{page 390 note 3} For George Clayton (1782–1862), see Aveling, T. W., Memorials of the Clayton Family, 1867.Google Scholar For Thomas Rees (1777–1864), see D.N.B.

^{page 391 note 1} Short, ‘Regium Donum’, 63 f.

^{page 391 note 2} Aspland, Memoir, 537 f. Aspland also noted that after the meeting ‘hints were thrown out of something further’. This was more than likely tied to the committee charged with examining the minutes. The conspirators obviously understood that the Unitarian reaction might be schism and, thus, it was important so to stage-manage the affair that the body, shorn of Unitarians, would not have its right of address impaired. For John Clayton (1780–1865), see D.N.B.; Aveling, op. cit. The Presbyterians were convinced that Rees was being rejected for his theology rather than for his ability, because at this particular moment he was being nominated as the new warrant trustee of the regium donum by mostly orthodox trustees.

^{page 391 note 3} Presbyterian Body, Minutes, i, 4 March 1836.

^{page 392 note 1} Manning, op. cit., 70–81. After the secession of the Presbyterians and General Baptists from the General Body, the rebels of 1830 eventually rejoined the organisation.

^{page 392 note 2} The sequence of events can be followed in the minutes of the various boards: Baptist Board, iii, 25 March 1835–5 April 1836; Congregational Board, i, 15 September 1835–15 March 1836; Dissenting Deputies, viii, 25 March 1836–22 Dec. 1837; General Body, iv, 1836, passim; Presbyterian Body, i, 27 October 1835–21 July 1838; General Baptist Association, iii, 24 May 1836. See also H. L. Short's ‘Presbyterians Under a New Name’ in Bolam, C. G. and others, The English Presbyterians, 1968, 244–52.Google Scholar The Baptist Magazine, 1836, 203 ff. provides an interesting contemporary appraisal of the situation.

^{page 393 note 1} In 1851 the Baptist Union purged W. H. Black and his Mill Yard congregation when he took part in a series of Unitarian lectures: Baptist Union, Minutes, iii, 539, 540, 541 (the numbering is in error and should read 639 etc.)

^{page 393 note 2} Cf. F. Hankinson, ‘Dissenters’ Chapels Act, 1844', and R. M. Montgomery, ‘Significance of the Dissenters’ Chapels Act of 1844' in the Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society, viii-ix.

^{page 393 note 3} I should like to express my appreciation to the General Body of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers for the use of their Minutes; the Guildhall Library for access to the Minutes and Letter Books of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies, the Baptist Historical Society for the use of the Minutes of the Baptist Board, Dr. Williams's Library for permission to consult the Proceedings of the General Assembly of the General Baptist Churches in England and Wales and the Minutes of the Body of Ministers of the Presbyterian Denomination; and finally the Congregational Library for the use of the Minutes of the Congregational Board of Ministers. I am also deeply indebted to the Rev. Kenneth Twinn, the Rev. Roger Thomas, and Mr. John Creasey for their knowledgable criticism of an earlier draft of this paper.