by heathen authors as instances of depraved affection.
I can take my stand then on social grounds, independently of revelation, in saying that human laws have in all ages restricted marriage. I say they have rightly done so. What, indeed, is marriage itself but a restriction of promiscuous intercourse? Is this right or wrong? To him who does not admit revelation the test must be—does it produce more or less happiness? I will not stop to argue this. No Englishman, at present at least, will uphold promiscuous intercourse, or even polygamy[1]. The home, the undivided affection of the wife, the children, not too numerous for the exercise of the affections, nor the offspring of so many mothers as to create family dissension, are felt to justify the restraint independently of higher motives. The restriction then of marriage itself, as was beautifully said by the Bishop of Oxford at the
- ↑ Mr. Bacon, in his pamphlet before referred to, commenting on an objection raised by the Bishop of Oxford, and insisted on also by myself, to the raising of such social questions as the present, says that such remarks savour of the Inquisition. He does not appear to have reflected on the possibility of good feeling extinguishing discussion on some subjects. I do not believe that the House of Commons would tolerate a debate on the lawfulness of marriage with a man's own sister, and they would stop it without recourse to the methods of the Inquisition. Mr. Bacon, I am sure, would not desire discussion on some of the subjects mooted by Anacharsis Clootz. I believe that much mischief has already arisen from attempts to withdraw one case from the well-defined list of prohibited marriages.
