THE AUTHOR TO THE READER.
E desire to apprize the reader of two or three facts, in relation to the Object and Composition of the following Essay, ere he enters upon its perusal.
As to the purport of this Argument, let us state distinctly that we have sought, fully and fairly, to discuss the theme undertaken, as a question of social ethics. We have not been debating a Parliamentary bill; we have no measure to propose, but a system to investigate, and a principle to expound. The question, then, between Author and Reader, is not this-" What will do?" or you What will the nation do?"-but what OUGHT We to do? What, in this matter, is the nation's true policy, immediate interest, and imperative duty? If any one is intolerant of this discussion-if he cannot bear the light; or if, for other reasons, the debate is distasteful-. he will do quietly with this book, what at Bristol, Exeter, and Oxford, a certain craft' riotously attempted to do with its Author-put it down. In both cases, the legal power of refusing a hearing is indisputable-though in the first way that power may be exercised without trenching on the liberty of speech (since the book is a completed utterance); in the second, it is the denial, in the most dis-reasoning method, of the most intellectual right of a reasonable being, by a body of men best characterized-by their own act of Unreason.
If, on the other hand, any one who chooses to peruse this Book, to weigh its facts and opinions, and, being unaffected or unconvinced, will attempt to refute its