views of the Marriage Law Defence Association. Our opponents have printed and paraded the Scriptural expositions of Cardinal Wiseman, and of Jewish Talmudists (the upholders of tradition amongst the Jews), as favourable to their views, and they shall enjoy their advocacy without any suspicion on my part of a tendency on theirs to Popery or Judaism. I hope they will not accuse me of Puritanism if, in my second letter, I should refer to the opinion of the "Assembly of Divines," or of Puseyism because I may borrow an argument from some of the learned writings of Dr. Pusey. Let the controversy be carried on, at least as between gentlemen, and "God defend the right."
Whilst I was in the House of Commons the question was not treated as a party one, either relgiously or politically. Two of the best speeches that I heard on our side were delivered by the late Mr. Shell, and by Mr. Roebuck, respectively. I saw, however, with regret, symptoms in 1859 of a political and party spirit in the debates. I mention this because I think the principles which are at issue lie far deeper than the very superficial lines that now divide political parties in our country.
I will first endeavour to state exactly our existing law,—the length of time during which it has prevailed,—and the necessary social consequences of its prevalence. We shall thus alone acquire an adequate appreciation of the onus necessarily cast on those who attempt its alteration.
