涓�绾ф瘺鐗囪�嗛�戝厤璐硅�傜湅涓嬭浇_涓�绾�a浣滅埌璇曠湅鍏嶈垂_涓�绾�aa鍏嶈垂姣涚墖瑙嗛�戝姩鐢籣yy6080鍗堝�滄垜涓嶅崱涓�绾ф�х編

THREE:Grey and Fox then made an equally brisk attack on the support of Turkey by Ministers. They greatly applauded the Czarina, and Fox affirmed that so far from Turkey soliciting our interference, it had objected to it. On the same day, in the Lords, Lord Fitzwilliam opened the same question. He contended that we had fitted out an expensive armament to prevent the conquest by Russia of Oczakoff, and yet had not done it, but had ended in accepting the very terms that the Czarina had offered in 1790. Ministers replied that, though we had not saved Oczakoff, we had prevented still more extensive attempts by Russia. Though the Opposition, in both cases, was defeated, the attack was renewed on the 27th of February, when the Earl Stanhope—an enthusiastic worshipper of the French Revolution—recommended, as the best means of preventing aggression by Continental monarchs, a close alliance on our part with France. Two days afterwards Mr. Whitbread introduced a string of resolutions in the Commons, condemning the interference of Ministers between Russia and Turkey, and the needless expenditure thus incurred, in fact, going over[390] much the same ground. A strenuous debate followed, in which Grey, Fox, Windham, Francis, Sheridan, and the whole Whig phalanx, took part. On this occasion, Mr. Jenkinson, afterwards Earl of Liverpool, first appeared, and made his maiden speech in defence of Ministers. He showed that the system of aggression had commenced with Russia, and menaced the profoundest dangers to Europe; that Britain had wisely made alliance with Prussia to stem the evil, and he utterly repudiated all notion of the moderation of the Czarina, whose ambition he asserted to be of the most unscrupulous kind.

THREE:Henry Hallam, who died in 1859, occupies a higher ground than Lingard, having no party interests to serve, and having a mind singularly free from prejudice, as well as a conscientious regard for truth in his records and judgments; while his clear, impressive, and graceful style invests dry details with interest. His "View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages," a work of great learning and value, was followed, in 1827, by his "Constitutional History of England;" and ten years later he published, in four volumes, an "Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Centuries." This is his greatest work, and in point of learning and utility and purity of style it may be regarded as one of the greatest in the English language. These works placed Mr. Hallam, by general consent, at the head of contemporary historians.In the following June Lord Stanhope again came forward with a Bill to remove some of these enactments, and he showed that the literal fulfilment of several of them was now impossible; that as to compelling every man to go to church, by returns lately made to that House it was shown that there were four millions more people in England than all the churches of the Establishment could contain. With respect to the Church enforcing uniformity, he said that the variations between the Book of Common Prayer printed at Oxford and that printed at Cambridge amounted to above four thousand. His Bill was again thrown out by thirty-one against ten; but his end was gained. He had brought the injustice towards the Dissenters so frequently forward, and it was now so glaring, and the Dissenters themselves were become so numerous and influential, that the question could be no longer blinked. On the majority being pronounced against the Bill, Lord Holland rose and asked whether, then, there was to be nothing done to remove the disabilities under which Dissenters laboured? If that were the case, he should be under the necessity of bringing forward a measure on that subject himself. This compelled Ministers to promise that something should be done; and, on the 10th of the same month, Lord Castlereagh proposed to bring in a Bill to repeal certain Acts, and to amend others respecting persons teaching or preaching in certain religious assemblies. This Act, when explained, went to repeal the 13 and 14 Charles II., which imposed penalties on Quakers and others who should refuse to take oaths; the 16 of Charles II., known as the Five Mile Act, which prohibited any preacher who refused to take the non-resistance oath coming within five miles of any corporation where he had preached since the Act of Oblivion, under a penalty of fifty pounds; and the 17, which also imposed fine and imprisonment on them for attempting to teach a school unless they went to church and subscribed a declaration of conformity. It also repealed the 22 Charles II., commonly called the Conventicle Act. Instead of those old restraints, his Act simply required the registration of all places of worship in the bishop's or archdeacon's court; that they must not be locked, bolted, or barred during divine service, and that the preachers must be licensed according to the 19 George III. These conditions being complied with, all persons officiating in, or resorting to such places of worship, became entitled to all the benefits of the Toleration Act, and the disturbance of their assemblies became a punishable offence. This Bill passed both Houses, and became known as the Statute of 52 George III. It was a great step in the progress of religious freedom; and Mr. William Smith, the leader of the Dissenting interests in the House of Commons, expressed his heartfelt gratification at this proof of the increasing liberality of the times.

• 
•