William Frend, Cambridge University, 1793

Only two people, to the best of my knowledge, have been prosecuted for heresy in Cambridge University since 1689. In 1710 William Whiston was the first, then William Frend in 1793. (Wiki)

Cambridge, like the rest of the country, had been upskittled by the French Revolution in 1789, and its destabilising aftermath. In 1792 Revolutionary France went to war against the Austrian empire; the English gave the Austrians financial and material aid. On 1 February 1793 France declared war against England. In Cambridge there was some minor rioting in which dissenters were targeted and some windows broken. At one point the Riot Act was read. 

This should not be over-interpreted. The authorities were undoubtedly worried but the majority of residents were probably more concerned with growing insecurity and rising prices. I think this is the only heresy case where inflation has explicitly been a complicating factor.

Frend had studied at the University from 1776, aged 20, graduating in 1780. In that same year he was ordained deacon and elected a fellow of Jesus College. He was ordained priest in 1783 and served the nearby parish of Madingley (wiki).

A declared unitarian
By 1787, in his own personal revolution, Frend had rejected trinitarian orthodoxy in favour of unitarianism. He resigned his church posts and ceased to officiate as a Church of England minister.

He could not do so quietly. What was right for him was clearly right for others too. He publicly announced his conversion in a pamphlet, An Address to the Inhabitants of Cambridge, in which he declared the trinity to be ‘rank nonsense’ and trinitarians ‘highly criminal’. In 1788 he was removed from his role as tutor and an appeal to the Bishop of Ely (as College Visitor) was, inevitably, dismissed.

In Thoughts on Subscription to Religious Tests, followed by Appendix to Thoughts on Subscription (both 1793) he condemned much of the Church of England and argued that the University should change its rules to enable non-Trinitarians to receive a degree. This presumption was not calculated to endear him to College, University or Church authorities.

The College responds
On February 22, 1793, the Master of Jesus College, Dr. Beadon, convened a meeting of the majority of the fellows excluding, naturally, Frend. He had been encouraged to act by Isaac Milner (wiki), the Vice-Chancellor of the university and a stout evangelical. It can't have helped relationships that Frend had publicly opposed Milner in the election for Vice-Chancellor on the unsubstantiated grounds that Milner was not qualified for the role.  (The life of Isaac Milner p. 170)  

The fellows did not spare Frend's blushes. The pamphlet, they said,

appears to us to have been written with the evil intent of prejudicing the clergy in the eyes of the laity, of degrading in the publick esteem the doctrines and rites of the established church, and of disturbing the harmony of society.

They remitted the issue to the Vice-Chancellor and the College Visitor (the Bishop of Ely, James Yorke, wiki), to take such measures as in their judgement may appear most proper for the effectual suppression of their dangerous tendency.

The parties sought legal advice. Frend's lawyer, Dr George Harris, opined: “... I am strongly led to think, that Mr Frend can have no reason to be apprehensive of any sort of censure from a majority of a number of literary, well-informed and candid men, such as his college is reputed to be composed of…” (An Account etc. 1793. p. xvii.) This was not prescient.

On 3 April a further meeting of fellows was convened, with Frend present. This time the accusations were elaborated:

1. That several passages in the said pamphlet have a tendency to prejudice the clergy in the eyes of the laity 

2. [and] a tendency to degrade in the publick esteem the doctrines and rites of the church of England.

3. That there is a tendency in the said pamphlet to disturb the harmony of society. 

4. That the said pamphlet tends more particularly to hurt the credit and interests of this college. 

5. That in publishing the said pamphlet Mr Frend is guilty of an offence contrary to the laws of the college (An Account etc. 1793. p. xviii.)

Frend refused to tell his colleagues whether or not he was the author of the pamphlet Peace and Union, although everyone present knew he was. On a vote of 7 to 4 the meeting decided that 

it is the opinion of this meeting that "... Mr Frend be removed from the college that is from the precincts of the college and from residence in it till he shall produce such proofs of good behaviour as shall be satisfactory to the master and major part of the fellows." (ibid. p. xxiv)

Again Frend appealed to the Bishop of Ely and again, inevitably, his appeal was refused.

Frend complained he had done nothing wrong as tutor and his supposed offence was not the concern of the Master. His continued protests of innocence suggest either that this was a considered tactic (which I doubt) or that he believed so strongly in his own rectitude that he simply could not comprehend how his actions were understood by those with whom he disagreed.   

Whatever the psychology of the matter, the sentence stood, although Frend was not required to leave college or University. 

Continued belligerence
In this context Frend published Peace and Union (1793). It was not eirenical: it attacked the government, argued for significant change in society and the University, denounced abuses within the Church of England, denigrated its clergy and attacked its liturgy. Once again his views were not well received.

Politically Frend argued for change in Parliament and the electoral system, suggesting a number of procedural reforms. He wanted improvements of and for the lower classes, a better code of law and a register of property. And, in general,

“... the fault of most governments seems chiefly to consist in this, that they pay the most attention to the maintenance and support of the corinthian capitals of society, as some orders have been foolishly called, to the great neglect of the comfort and wellfare(sic) of the most numerous and important part of the community.” (p.21)

His assessment of the Church of England was unflattering. It was, he said, a political rather than a religious institution. Its clergy were 'patrons of every species of luxury' whilst a few curates were given responsibility for the mass of people. And, speaking as a mathematician,

there is not a proposition in Euclid clearer than this, that no body of christians is authorised by the gospel, to allure men to its party by civil emoluments, or on account of religious opinions to deprive them of civil advantages. (p.30)

Two brief Appendices were attached. The first, a single page on the execution of Louis XVI, was uncontroversial. The second, three pages, sought to show that the mere rumour of war was having a significant and detrimental effect on the income of the poor. This had emerged from a chance conversation Frend had had on the road to see his printer in Huntingdon. It was to become the primary focus of the political accusation against him.

In the University Court
On May 3, 1794 Frend was prosecuted in the University Court (The Vice Chancellor’s Court) for breach of the University statute De Concionibus. The Vice Chancellor was mathematician and evangelical Christian Isaac Milner, D.D. He had earlier had a hand in urging action against Frend. (From The trial of William Frend, M.A.) 

Frend began by arguing that the Vice Chancellor’s Court was not competent to try him but, after appeals to the Court of the King’s Bench, this argument was rejected.  

Dr Kipling, deputy Regius Professor of Divinity (wiki), prosecuted. The first two charges established, first, the purposes of the university and, second, that Frend had published a ‘scandalous’ book, specifically Peace and Union:

3. Also we article and object to you aforesaid William Frend, that in the page of the aforesaid book or pamphlet, you have defamed the public liturgy of established church, by affirming that it “is very far from that standard of purity in doctrine which is required in such compositions;” [p.29] .... and that:

4. “... you affirm that the public worship of the great body Christians is idolatrous” including the worship of the Church of England.

5. “... you have asserted that ecclesiastical courts, ecclesiastical ranks and titles, are all repugnant to the spirit of Christianity;”

6. “... you have reviled and ridiculed the most sacred offices of religion as enjoined by the of England and performed by its ministers …” by writing:

“The laity, like brute beasts, sit tamely under usurpation: a man, if a priest or minister enters, is not a master of his own house, must not thank God for the blessings of Providence at his own table, he cannot pledge his faith to a lovely woman without the interference of the priest, his offspring must sprinkled by sacred hands, and at death he not committed to his long home, without another spiritual incantation.

    “These superstitious prejudices are, without doubt, highly beneficial to the interest the clerical community, but the morals of neither party are consulted. The laity apt to imagine, that there are some practices, in which they may be indulged without imputation on their Christian character; the gentleman in black is supposed to put a particular set of features and behaviour with his clothes; …” [pp. 39-40]

7. As a member of the university Frend was subject to its courts and, 8, in particular subject to the statute De Concionibus (1603) which stated that: “all and every person or persons, impugning religion, as by law established within this realm, or impugning ecclesiastical ranks and dignities, may, and ought to be proceeded against and punished, by suspension from academical degrees, by expulsion, or by banishment …”

The hearing was to have been held in the Law School but the crowd was so great it was adjourned to the Senate House.

Frend continued to object to the procedures of the court which was adjourned one week to May 10th. After a further attempt at procedural manoeuvring, witnesses were called to establish that Frend was in fact the author of the offending publication. This continued to the following day. 

All through the hearing there was a sound track of more-or-less organised cheering and barracking from undergraduates in support of Frend. When ordered to stop clapping they stomped their feet on the boards. One of the instigators was a young Samuel Taylor Coleridge [Wiki] whom Frend had encouraged into unitarianism.

The court spent several days on the 3-page Appendix to Peace and Union which focused on the reduction of prices paid for spinning wool in the area. This was ostensibly to establish beyond doubt that, if Mr Frend was in fact the author of the booklet, then he was self-evidently guilty of political radicalism and subversion. No time was spent on showing how his factual account gave offence. 

Frend began his defence on the sixth day of the trial, Friday May 24th,  It began with a quaint exchange:

“Mr Frend. I hope the Court will not take advantage. if I should in the course of defence inadvertently call the pamphlet mine, as I am obliged to defend it.

“Mr Vice chancellor. Certainly not.”

Frend described the charges as “false, wicked, and malicious.” and attacked his accusers, the process and the court itself. He asserted it was an Inquisition, drummed up at when the times were “filled with the strongest apprehensions of dangerous plots against the peace of this kingdom, insurrections were supposed ready to break out in every quarter.” 

Of his own beliefs, he was none of “heretic, deist, infidel, atheist.” He firmly believed in “the existence of one God, the parent, the protector, and governor of the universe”. He believed in the “one living and true God”; he grounded “his hope of salvation solely on Jesus Christ … through whom alone is eternal life” adding that “if we neglect the principle of universal benevolence, our faith is vain, our religion is an empty parade of useless and insignificant sounds.” This could only damn him in orthodox and evangelical eyes.

He denied that his book was in any way scandalous. He argued at length that none of the evidence presented to the court was properly admissible and objected to the cross-examination of witnesses as an unacceptable - inquisitorial - means of producing evidence. 

In his defence he pointed to others of the highest standing in the Church of England, Archbishops Sancroft and Tillotson and several contemporary bishops, who had all seen imperfections in the Book of Common Prayer. And nowhere had he used "idolatrous" to describe the liturgy. Equally he had never said that all ecclesiastical courts, ranks and titles were repugnant, only some of them: the courts of the inquisition, for example. He protested that the prosecutor had not made out a case at all on the accusation that he had reviled and ridiculed the most sacred offices of religion or called the Church of England idolatrous.

The trial took seven sittings to find Frend guilty. At its conclusion the Vice Chancellor made a long speech which concluded 

"You have been called upon ... publicly to retract and confess your error and temerity; and as you refuse to make such public recantation and confession, I do now agreeably to the said Statute, with the assent of the major part of the Heads of Houses, pronounce you banished from this University."

(Times [London, England] 3 June 1793: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 13 July 2017.)

But Frend was not finished yet. He appealed to the University's Court of Delegates who, over two days, rejected his appeal and confirmed the sentence. He then appealed to the Court of the King's Bench. His case was heard at the end of November 1794. 

At the Court of the King's bench
Frend's case was that, first, that the University's process had been in error and the Court in which he was tried had no such jurisdiction. Second, that the offence of which he was accused was not encompassed by the statute De Concionibus. Third, that the proposed recantation was improper, and, fourth, that the punishment the court pronounced was outwith the Statute. The only sentence available to it was exclusion from his College and banishment from the University: the court had only declared banishment. (Law Report Kentish Gazette - Friday 28 November 1794, p4 col. 1.)

"Surely", said Lord Justice Kenyon, the University had a right to decide "whether any of its members from the very bosom of the University, might publish papers that were apt to delude young minds, and to go without any punishment?" (ibid.)  While "voluminous papers" had been submitted on both sides, he had no doubts about the matter and would deliver his judgement immediately. /col2. First, the University court had jurisdiction and, second, De Concionibus did encompass the offence with which Frend had been charged.  

He added, gratuitously, that "Whether he [Frend] was in Holy Orders or not, his Lordship said he did not know, but hoped he was not." (ibid.)

He declined to address the issue of the validity of the form of recantation and stated that the Court of King's bench had no authority to revise the sentence.  The remaining judges concurred and thus Frend had exhausted all his legal rights. His property was boxed and left with his solicitor. The doors of the College were shut against him.

Appeal to members of the House of Commons
But there was still the possibility of a political appeal. 

Following the trial, all other remedies exhausted, Frend published a booklet: A sequel to the account of the proceedings in the University of Cambridge, appealing to members of the House of Commons. He described the judgement upon him as "perfectly illegal and arbitrary."(p.iii) and argued against the "folly" of making university members subscribe a religious creed, and against "a relick of popery;" that fellows were required to be in holy orders (p.vi). 

But the House of Commons, like the rest of the country, was preparing for war with France. Friend's Sequel was a vanity publication inaudible against the background clamour.

Subsequently

Frend was capable, sociable and well-connected. He joined the radical London Corresponding Society, supported the Literary Fund, sustained a wide circle of friends including Joseph Priestly, Francis Burdett and Horne Tooke. 

In 1838 he suffered a paralysing stroke and died in 1841.

<>

Image: Stipple engraving by Andrew Birrell, after Sylvester Harding, 1793

Bibliography
Dictionary of National Biography, (1911)
Wiki

Knight, Frida, (1971) University Rebel, The Life of William Frend 1757-1841, London, Victor Gollanz

Frend, W. (1793). Peace and Union  [St. Ives] Printed for the author, by P,C. Croft, 1793].

---- The trial of William Frend, M.A. and Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge: In the Vice-Chancellor's Court. For writing and publishing a pamphlet, intitled Peace and Union Recommended to the Associated Bodies of Republicans and Anti-Republicans. By John Beverley, M. A. And Proctor of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. Cambridge: printed by F. Hodson, for the publisher, and sold by J. Deighton, 325, Holborn, London; and the booksellers in Cambridge. (1793). 

 

---- An account of the proceedings in the University of Cambridge: Against William Frend, M. A. Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, for publishing a pamphlet, intitled Peace and Union, &c. containing the proceedings in Jesus College, the trial in the vice-chanceller's court, And in the Court of delegates. Published by the Defendant. Cambridge: printed by B. Flower, and sold by W. H. Lunn, and W. Page, Cambridge: also by G. G. and J. Robinson, London; J. March, Norwich; J. White, Wisbech; T. Shepherd, Bury; and J. Hedley, Lynn. It was addressed to Members of the House of Commons, & University of Cambridge. Vice-Chancellor. (1793).

 

----(1795). A sequel to the account of the proceedings in the University of Cambridge, against the authour of a pamphlet: Entitled Peace and union : containing the application to the Court of King's Bench, a review of similar cases in the University, and reflections on the impolicy of religious persecution, and the importance of free enquiry. London: Printed for the authour, and sold by G.G. and J. Robinson [and 3 others]

 

 Milner, M. (1844). The life of Isaac Milner: London: Seeley, Burnside & Seeley.