ADVERTISEMENT.* THE Occasion of this little work will be sufficiently explained by an extract from a letter addressed by me to a friend a few years ago:-" You express your wonder that I, who have so often avowed my dislike to the introduction even of the word, religion, in any special sense, in Parliament, or from the mouth of lawyer or statesman, speaking as such; who have so earnestly contended that religion cannot take on itself the character of law without ipso facto ceasing to be religion, and that law could neither recognize the obligations of religion for its principles, nor become the pretended guardian and protector of the Faith, without degenerating into inquisitorial tyranny ;-that I, who have avowed my belief, that if Sir Matthew Hale's doctrine, that the Bible was a part of the law of * To the first edition.-Ed. + Hale's expression was "that Christianity is part of B the land, had been uttered by a Puritan divine instead of a Puritan judge, it would have been quoted at this day, as a specimen of Puritanical nonsense and bigotry ;-you express your wonder that I, with all these heresies on my head, should yet withstand the measure of Roman Catholic emancipation, as it is called, and join in opposing Sir Francis Burdett's intended Bill for the repeal of the disqualifying statutes! And you conclude by asking but is this true? 66 My answer is: Here are two questions. To the first, namely, is it true that I am unfriendly to what you call Catholic emancipation ?—I reply; No, the contrary is the truth. There is no incon sistency, however, in approving the thing, and yet having my doubts respecting the manner; in desiring the same end, and yet scrupling the means proposed for its attainment. When you are called in to a consultation, you may perfectly agree with another physician respecting the existence of the malady and the expedience of its removal, and yet the laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion, is to speak in subversion of the law." The King v. Taylor. Ventr. 293, Keble, 607. But Sir Edward Coke had many years before said that "Christianity is part and parcel of the Common Law."-Ed. differ respecting the medicines and the method of cure. To your second question, namely, am I unfriendly to the present measure?—I shall return an answer no less explicit. Why I cannot return as brief a one, you will learn from the following pages transcribed, for the greater part, from a paper drawn up by me some years ago, at the request of a gentleman* (that I have been permitted to call him my friend, I place among the highest honours of my life),—an old and intimate acquaintance of the late Mr. Canning's; and which paper, had it been finished before he left England, it was his intention to have laid before the late Lord Liverpool. "From the period of the Union with Ireland, to the present hour, I have neglected no opportunity of obtaining correct information from books and from men respecting the facts that bear on the question, whether they regard the existing state of things, or the causes and occasions of it; nor, during this time, has there been a single speech of any note, on either side, delivered, or reported as delivered, in either House of Parliament,⚫ which I have not heedfully and thoughtfully pe * The Right Honorable John Hookham Frere.-Ed. |