I have very seldom been more gratified than by the very
kind note which I have just received from you. Your book
itself, and everything that I heard about you, though
almost all my information came--to the honour, I must
say, of our troubled times--from people very strongly
opposed to you in politics, led me to regard you with
respect and good will, and I am truly glad that I have
succeeded in marking those feelings. I was half afraid
when I read myself over again in print, that the button,
as is too common in controversial fencing even between
friends, had once or twice come off the foil.
I am very glad to find that we do not differ so widely
as I had apprehended about the Test Act. I can easily
explain the way in which I was misled. Your general
principle is that religious non-conformity ought to be
a disqualification for civil office. In page 238 you
say that the true and authentic mode of ascertaining
conformity is the Act of Communion. I thought, therefore,
that your theory pointed directly to a renewal of the
Test Act. And I do not recollect that you have ever
used any expression importing that your theory ought in
practice to be modified by any considerations of civil
prudence. All the exceptions that you mention are, as
far as I remember, founded on positive contract--not one
on expediency, even in cases where the expediency is so
strong and so obvious that most statesmen would call it
necessity. If I had understood that you meant your rules
to be followed out in practice only so far as might be
consistent with the peace and good government of society,
I should certainly have expressed myself very differently
in several parts of my article.
Accept my warm thanks for your kindness, and believe me,
with every good wish,
My dear Sir,
Very truly yours,
T. B. MACAULAY.