The clearest instance of his attitude on such matters is to be found in his opposition to the Bill introduced for making civil marriage compulsory.  He opposed it in a speech which was many years later to be quoted against him when he himself introduced a measure almost identical with that which he now opposed.  Civil marriage, he said, was a foreign institution, an imitation of French legislation; it would simply serve to undermine the belief in Christianity among the people, “and” he said, “I have seen many friends of the illumination during the last year or two come to recognise that a certain degree of positive Christianity is necessary for the common man, if he is not to become dangerous to human society.”  The desire for introducing this custom was merely an instance of the constant wish to imitate what is foreign.

“It would be amusing,” he said, “if it were not just our own country which was subjected to these experiments of French charlatanism.  In the course of the discussion it has often been said by gentlemen standing in this place that Europe holds us for a people of thinkers.  Gentlemen, that was in old days.  The popular representation of the last two years has deprived us of this reputation.  They have shown to a disappointed Europe only translators of French stucco but no original thinkers.  It may be that when civil marriage also rejoices in its majority, the people will have their eyes opened to the swindle to which they have been sacrificed; when one after another the old Christian fundamental rights have been taken from them:  the right to be governed by Christian magistrates; the right to know that they have secured to their children a Christian education in schools which Christian parents are compelled to maintain and to use; the right of being married in the Christian fashion which his faith requires from everyone, without being dependent on constitutional ceremonies.  If we go on in this way I hope still to see the day when the fool’s ship of the time will be wrecked on the rock of the Christian Church; for the belief in the revealed Word of God still stands firmer among the people than the belief in the saving power of any article of the Constitution.”

In the same way he was able from his place in Parliament to criticise the proposals of the Government for freeing the peasants from those payments in kind, and personal service which in some of the provinces still adhered to their property; he attacked their financial proposals; he exposed the injustice of the land tax; he defended the manorial jurisdiction of the country gentlemen.  Especially he defended the nobles of Prussia themselves, a class against whom so many attacks had been made.  He pointed out that by them and by their blood the Prussian State had been built up; the Prussian nobles were, he maintained, not, as so often was said, unpopular; a third of the House belonged to them; they were not necessarily opposed to freedom; they were, at least,