ciples on which the discussion might be based. I had the satisfaction of convincing some who had previously voted for the Bill, and whom I had the pleasure of seeing in the same lobby as myself on subsequent divisions; I have subsequently found that several earnest believers in Scripture (such, indeed, were the gentlemen I have referred to) have, on considerations of social policy, been led to abandon the notion that any alteration of our long settled law is desirable, though yet unconvinced of the Scriptural prohibition of the marriages in question.
I have no longer the opportunity of orally impressing my views on the Legislature, but I cannot conscientiously remain silent on a question which involves a moral and social revolution. I have laboured, and will, whilst health and life remain, labour to the utmost of my power, to avert a great national calamity. The affair assumed a far more menacing aspect, when a Bill similar to that proposed in 1850 had, in 1859, not only passed the House of Commons, but had been rejected by a majority of 10 only in the House of Lords. You, sir, were among the first to arouse us to associated action in opposing the systematic efforts of an anonymous association, making up by wealth for what it wanted otherwise in weight, to unsettle our homes and destroy the fraternal relationship now existing between brother and sister in law. I gladly united myself to the Marriage Law Defence
