THE occasion of this pamphlet will be sufficiently explained, by an extract from a letter to a friend - 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 Shtesman, speaking as such who have so earnestly contended, that Religion cannot take on itself the character of Law, without ipse facto ceasing to be Religion, and that Law could neither recognise 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 Hales doctrine, that the Bible was a part of the Law of 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 in my head, should yet withstand the measure of Catholic E nancipatio r, and join in opposing Sir Francis Burdetts intended Bill, for the repeal of the disqualifying statutes And you conclude by asking but is this true RIy answer is Here are two questions. To the first, viz., is it true that I am unfriendly to what is called Catholic Enlancipation I reply No the contrary is the truth. There is no inconsistency, however, in approving the tltirrg, and yet having my doubts respecting the manner in desiring the sanle 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 itsremoval, and yet differ respecting the medicines and the method of cure. To your second question viz., am I unfriendly to the present measure I shall return an answer no less explicit. Why I cannot return as brief u 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 gentlenlan that I have been permitted to call him my friend, I place among the highest honors of my life, an old and intimlate friend of the late Mr. Cannings 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 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 perused, abstracting and noting down every argurnent that was not already on the list, which, I need not say, has for Inany years past few accessions to boast of. Lastly, my conclusion I have subjected, year after year, to a fresh rcvisal, conscious but of one influence likely to warp my judgment, and this is the pain, I might with truth add, the llumiliation, of differ it from men, wholn I loved and revered, and whose superior competence to judge right in this momentous cause, I knew and delighted to know and this aggravated by the reflection, that in receding from Burkes, Cannings, andLansdownes, I did not move a step nearer to the feelings and opinions of their antagonists...