was on account of religious differences. He maintained that what had been done by the Government to produce uniformity had failed; and that it had been productive not only of no good, but of much misery. He explained the nature of this misery by specific instances. He then stated the question as I have just given it in the title of the book, and answered it by asserting, that the thing most fit, safe, and easy to be done, would be a determination by the Government, first, upon an inviolable and impartial maintenance of English rights; secondly, upon conducting itself so as to act upon a balance, as nearly as it could, towards the several religious interests; and, thirdly, upon a sincere promotion of general and practical religion.

Having finished this, the preface, he came to the body of the work, in which he considered the three parts or divisions of the answer as now given. In handling the first, or the determination by Government upon an inviolable and impartial maintenance of English rights, he explained what he meant by the latter. Englishmen, he said, had birth-rights. The first of these consisted of an ownership and undisturbed possession, so

that

that what they had was rightly their own and nobody's else, and such possession and ownership related both to title and security of estate, and liberty of person from the violence of arbitrary power. This was the situation of our ancestors in ancient British times. They who governed afterwards, the Saxons, made no alteration in this law, but confirmed it. The Normans, who came next, did the same. William, at his coronation, made a solemn covenant to maintain the good, approved, and ancient laws of the kingdom, and to inhibit all spoil and unjust judgement. The same covenant was adopted by his successors, and confirmed by Magna Charta,—The se cond birth-right of Englishmen consisted in the voting of every law that was made, whereby that ownership in liberty and property might be maintained. This also was the case, as he proved by quotations from laws and an appeal to history, in British, Saxon, and Norman times.—The third birth-right of Englishmen consisted in having an influence upon and a great share in the judicatory power, so that they were not to be condemned but by the votes of freemen. This practice, he said, though not perhaps British, obtained very

VOL. I.

L

early

early in Saxon times. It was among the laws of Ethelred, that in every hundred there should be a court, where twelve ancient free men, together with the lord of the hundred, should be sworn that they would not condemn the innocent or acquit the guilty. The same law continued to be the law of the land under different kings, till it was violated by John; when Magna Charta restored it. Magna Charta, however, he maintained, was not the nativity, but the restorer of ancient English privileges. It was no grant of new rights, but only a restorer of the old.He then explained the Great Charter of England, and endeavoured to show by an appeal to reason, law, lawyers, and facts themselves, that the people of England could not be justly disseized of any of these fundamentals without their own consent collectively; nor could their representatives, whatever else they might do, constitutionally alter them.

If, however, any alteration should be made in these great fundamentals of the constitution, the reason should be thé inconvenience or evil of continuing them. No other reason could be pleaded in excuse; but no such justification had been attempted. No

thing then, he maintained, could be more unjust than to sacrifice the liberty and property of any man for religion, where he was not found breaking any law which related to natural or civil things. Religion under any modification or church government was no part of the old English constitution. Honestè vivere, alterum non lædere, jus suum cuique tribuere," that is, To live honestly, to do no injury to another, and to give every man his due, was enough to entitle every native to English privileges. It was this, and not his religion, which gave him the great claim to the protection of the Government under which he lived. Near three hundred years before Austin set his foot on English ground the inhabitants had a good constitution. This came not in with him. Neither did it come in with Luther; nor was it to go out with Calvin. We were a free people by the creation of God, by the redemption of Christ, and by the careful provision of our never to be forgotten, honourable ancestors; so that our claim to these English privileges, rising higher than Protest antism, could never justly be invalidated on account of nonconformity to any tenet or fashion it might prescribe. This would be to lose by

the Reformation, which was effected only, that we might enjoy property with conscience. But if these ancient fundamental laws, so agreeable to nature, so suited to the dispositions of our nation, so often defended with blood and treasure, so carefully and frequently ratified by our ancestors, should not be to our great state-pilots as stars or compass for them to steer the vessel of the kingdom by, or as limits to their legislation, no man could tell how long he would be secure of his coat, enjoy his house, have bread for his children, or liberty to work for it, or life to eat it.He then argued the folly, the inconsistency, the evil tendency of acting in such cases by any other rules than those of the people's rights, and brought examples from history to show how a contrary conduct had operated to the downfall of many states.

With respect to the second part of the answer, that is, a determination by the Government of conducting itself so as to act upon a balance, as nearly as it could, towards the several religious interests, he proved, first, that our Saviour prohibited all force in producing an uniformity of religious opinion.