justice, when lie says that my speech was not intended as any answer to his learned pamphlet referred to in the same passage. A great portion of what I said was directed to establishing the proposition, which I hope I have by my first letter to you, sir, established; viz. that though the Book of Leviticus, or indeed all revealed law, had been withheld from us, yet, if we had, as pagans, for 1200 years, defined the degrees of relationship beyond which alone our society would recognize marriage as lawful, it would be a fearful social revolution to tamper with the definition that had so regulated the social intercourse of every family of the kingdom, and to begin to select cases in which the law should be relaxed.
The only part of my address in which I came in contact with the arguments of Dr. M'Caul (in his first pamphlet) was of course that which dealt with the Scriptural sanction of our existing marriage code. With that part of the subject, however, I intend to deal more fully than time would allow in a speech, in my present letter. I would rather address you, sir, than Dr. M'Caul, for two reasons: firstly, I am not inclined naturally to controversy, and I am less likely to fall into the snare that besets all controversial writers, viz. a certain irritability of temper towards the opponent, if I avoid engaging in any direct conflict; and, secondly, I really find (as I shall presently show) that nearly the whole of Dr. M' Caul's very learned labours are directed to a
