LORD GRENVILLE'S REPLY.

43

The graceful disclaimer to which I alluded above will be found in the following letter:

My dear Sir,

Camelford House, May 20, 1813.

On my arrival in town I found your book upon my table, and I should sooner have made my acknowledgments to you for it but for the pressure of engagements, which, during my short visits here, leave me no time for writing. The same circumstance has prevented me from indulging the eagerness I feel for making myself acquainted with it. But I am now within a few days of my return to Dropmore, where I shall take it with me, and I already anticipate the pleasure which I am sure I shall receive from it.

But I have not refrained from looking into the first page, where your former letter had taught me to look for expressions of personal regard and good opinion, which, as proceeding from you, I could not but highly value. That your partiality has led you much too far in what you there say, I cannot disguise from myself, however gladly I would do so; but even that circumstance is in itself a source of no light gratification to me. I beg you to accept my sincere condolence on the circumstance alluded to in your letter, and to believe me, with very sincere regard and esteem, dear sir, yours, &c., &c.,

*

GRENVILLE.

About this time Mr. Copleston was invited by the bishop of London, Dr. Randolph, to become one of the Whitehall preachers, the compliment being accompanied by the honorarium of a prebendal stall in St. Paul's cathedral-a dignity without emolu

* This refers to the loss at sea of Mr. Copleston's third brother.

ment, but most gratifying, from the manner in which it was offered.

The following memorandum in the diary for 1812 is noticed, as indicating the fixedness of those political opinions from which Mr. Copleston never swerved, though, in common with some other distinguished men who took the same line, he was in after years charged with doing so.

'Nov. Opposed the petition against the Catholics in convocation.'

I allude more particularly to the adverse remarks made upon the bishop's conduct in 1829, with reference to his sermon preached in Chester cathedral, November 5, 1826, as though the ground he then took was inconsistent with his speech and vote in favour of the 'Catholic Relief' bill.

We may to a great extent account for this, from the fact that points, which were by the bishop kept carefully distinct, are in the popular mind very generally confounded. Dr. Copleston's votes, whether given in convocation at Oxford in 1812, or in the House of Lords in 1829, were given upon the political part of the question. His sermon at Chester was strong and decided on the religious part of it.

The following extract from a publication by the Rev. Noel Ellison, Protestant Errors and Roman Catholic Truths, carries the more weight with it, because it comes from one whose opinions diverged a good deal from those of the bishop.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

45

'That, on a question of this sort (viz., the 'Catholic') all men should think alike, who could ever expect? but that many among those who zealously opposed the measure should have no credit given them for their opposition being conscientious, or that many among those who zealously advocated the measure should have no credit given them for still being stanch members of the Church of England-these perversions serve as a satirical caricature on the generosity and candour of this liberal age,-this age which is free from prejudices! If many persons did turn their opinions to the breeze-if others dealt with the question carelessly, regardless of the interests of the Christian religion, all that can be said is—they are sad instances of unworthy conduct. But to single out such men as the bishop of Llandaff, and the late bishop of Oxford, for vituperative remarks-men who, in point of worldly prosperity, had already made their fortunes-the singling out or such men is ridiculous and absurd. But this is not all. Look at Copleston, and call back Lloyd to your recollection. What are the distinctive traits of character in these two men? Surely independence-notoriously so; for many would read obstinacy-honesty, straightforward honesty ; for many would add the epithet of blunt. You can no more imagine Copleston and Lloyd doing a dirty thing— you can no no more associate their characters with anything like trickery or time-serving, than, as Clytemnestra said, you could make oil and vinegar coalesce into one fluid.

Copleston-the scholar, the gentleman, the gallant champion of classic Oxford against northern hordes of critics; Copleston, of whom for years past it has been known, that his sentiments were in favour of 'catholic emancipation, and whose very last words, in the notes of the sermon preached at Chester, November 5, 1826, which has been made to tell tales against his consistency, would lead any

one μavтevel what part he would act Copleston may appeal to friend and foe-he may appeal to the whole of Oxford assembled in convocation-or he may appeal to one and all of the many friends he has, who all respect and admire him—and the answer to his appeal would be as the voice of one man in his favour.'

Though it is travelling beyond the record, I am tempted to add this one sentence

'With respect to the late bishop of Oxford, there is a sort of desiderium which almost makes the pen refuse to do its office in tracing out the expression of one's affectionate remembrance of the good, the open-hearted Lloyd.'

The warm generosity of these sentiments needs no comment, and will find a ready response in the breasts of many, whichever of the two bishops is recalled to mind.

In 1813, Mr. Copleston declined an offer of the headship of Magdalen Hall, made him by Lord Grenville; the only offer of the sort which it was ever in that nobleman's power to make to one whom he was so well inclined to serve. That he should have so declined is not surprising, for it probably was at that time very evident that a vacancy in the headship of his own college could not be far distant; and it was scarce possible but that he should have had a confident expectation of succeeding to that place whenever it should want an occupant, which it did before the end of the next year. About this time he contributed the article in the Quarterly Review on Lord Harrowby's Curates bill, thus noticed by the author in a letter

to his father, which I give at length for the sake of a pleasing sketch of Dropmore, and the record of a perilous journey contained in it.

My dear Father,

Oriel Coll. Jan. 29, 1814.

It was particularly gratifying to me to find that you approve of the paper on Lord Harrowby's speech. I have never avowed it, but I know it is generally attributed to me here-partly from the open share I had in requesting our representative to support the curate's bill, and partly because it contains sentiments on various points which I have often expressed in convocation. This place, you know, is the head-quarters of what is falsely called high church principles. In the true sense of the word, I am more a high churchman than most of them—that is, I would have much greater exertions made to preserve the unity of our church and to make in effect, as well as in name, a national church. But the leading partisans who assume that title appear to me only occupied with the thought of converting the property of the church to their private advantage, leaving the duties of it to be performed how they can. Of course, among this description of people, the tone and spirit of that review are not relished. I have heard many objections against it on that ground.

My visit to Dropmore was not prevented by the weather. I went there on the 18th, the day on which the great fall of snow was in this part of the kingdom. From the time I entered the house to the 23rd, there was no possibility of going outside the door without treading in deep snow, and, in fact, I did not stir out once. There was an agreeable party within, the house very warm, containing every luxury that furniture can supply, and, what with billiards and books, the time was filled up as pleasantly as one could desire.