[ Previous ] [ Next ]

On Matrimony and Polygamy.

[p247] THAT a man should be confined to one woman for ever, is not only contrary to human nature and common sense, but also the most unjust institution ever invented and imposed on the too credulous world by man, and sanctified by priestcraft: and I assert, fearless of contradiction, that it finds no authority whatever in Scripture.

Marriage, by means of a priest, was first instituted by Pope Innocent the Third, in order to add one fine more to increase the benefices of the clergy, and [p248] to enrich the see of Rome, glutted already by pious donations, religious extortions, impositions and frauds. Thus religion was made a stalking horse, to satisfy and indulge the pride, pomp, and ambition of churchmen.

The first command given to man was, Increase and multiply, which we not only think the least of, but endeavour, by various laws, which are the sole invention of man, to prevent its effects. For certainly, many of our laws are unfavourable to the population of the land. That an opinion may be formed on this subject, from persons of a far sounder judgement, and more to be respected than myself, [p249] I shall refer the reader to two celebrated and distinguished characters, both of them eminently respected in their different callings. The first is a divine of great piety, learning and eloquence, I mean Mr. Madan, the well known author of Thelepthora; a work expressly written to support the scriptural doctrine of a plurality of wives. The other, a distinguished soldier, and one of the most renowned captains of any period, Marshal Saxe. Vide his Reveries and Reflections on the Misery of the Marriage State, and on the Decrease of Population, from that destructive law, by which a man is confined for life to one woman.

Before I proceed to sanction my opinion by adducing various quotations from the learned divine's works, I shall mention a report which the clergy in general [p250] propagated, and wished the world to believe of him, when he published his Thelepthora, to shew mankind the insolence of priestcraft, and to open the eyes of the deluded world.

Matrimony by a priest was not commanded by the law of God, but instituted by the artifice of the church of Rome, to add one link more than the chain of submissive bigotry with which they held mankind in bondage and subjection; and also to add another tax on the human race, to enrich their coffers, indulge their pride, and increase their power, by not even permitting man to increase and multiply without their permission, and paying tribute to them. Not satisfied with levying a baptismal tax on the human species, on its first entrance into the world, as well as a funeral imposition at its final exit; [p251] and by receiving the tenth part of the product of a considerable portion of the earth, -- the church of Rome has made matrimony a sort of philosopher's stone, by banns, dispensations, licenses, and fees¹. Therefore the priests, as I have already observed, fearful that Mr. Madan's Thelepthora might open the eyes of mankind, and expose such pious frauds; and not being able to confute his writings, because they could not confute the laws of God, as delivered in the scriptures; they endeavoured to throw a stigma on the work, and to invalidate it, if possible, in the public opinion, by scandalously circulating a report, that the learned [p252] and truly pious Madan was not in his right senses when he wrote his book. I will leave those to judge who have read his book, if it be the work of a madman; and shall content myself with observing, that, if he was mad, he was mad with religious good sense and understanding. Such traducers of true piety and virtue I will boldly brand with blasphemy; for, by accusing Madan of being mad, they accuse the Scriptures of insanity. For, in no one instance does Mr. Madan, throughout his whole work, give any opinion, or assert any one point whatever, without the sanction and authority of Scripture, which he quotes to the reader chapter and verse.

Before I proceed to give you quotations from Madan's book, and from the Scriptures, I will give extracts from the law [p253] books of our country. Jacob's Law Dictionary, title Marriage: "Before the time of Pope Innocent III. there was no solemnization of marriage in the church; but the man came to the house where the woman inhabited, and led her home to his own house, which was all the ceremony then used." Again; Judge Blackstone's Commentary, vol. i. p. 439, quarto edit. "It is held to be essential to a marriage, that it be performed by a person in orders, though the intervention of a priest to solemnize the contract is merely juris positivi, and not juris naturalis aut divini; it being said that Pope Innocent III. was the first who ordained the celebration of marriage in the church, before which it was totally a civil contract." Thus much for law, to prove that priests had originally nothing to do with [p254] matrimony, or matrimony with priestcraft.

We shall now proceed to the superior authority of Scripture, which proves that polygamy was sanctioned by the Levitical law. Abraham, who took unto him even a handmaid, is not recorded as less pure than Isaac, who appears to have had but one wife. Nor is Isaac said to be more pure than his son Jacob, who had four: we read of them all as in an equal state of glory in the kingdom of heaven; Matth. viii. 11. but of no sorrow or repentance on their part, on account of their different situations while on earth. "Isaac took Rebekah and brought her into his mother's tent, and she became his wife." (Gen. xxiv. 67.) "And Laban took Leah, his daughter, and brought her [p255] to Jacob, and he went in unto her: and Laban gave him Rachel, his daughter, to wife, and he went in also unto Rachel."

The above quotation I have given to prove that marriage under the Jewish law, which bears the chapter of inspiration, was sanctioned by the man taking unto him the woman, and cohabiting with her, without any canonical ritual. The consent of the parties was sufficient: but then the man was forbidden to put his wife away all the days of his life -- "Because he had humbled her," Deut. xxii. 29. I shall now further prove, from Scripture, and God not only sanctioned polygamy, but blessed the offspring of the second wife during the life of a former one. David, when he had a child by Bathsheba during her husband Uriah's life, was severely reprimanded, and that child [p256] struck to death by the immediate power of divine justice, 2 Sam. xi. 15. But Solomon, begotten by David, and born of the same woman, after Uriah's death, and in a state of polygamy, was called Zedediah, or "beloved of the Lord," and acknowledged by divine approbation as David's lawful issue, 1 Kings v. 5. and as such succeeded to his throne. For this and further particulars I must refer to Mr. Madan's works, who says, "All this shews that polygamy is not, nor ever was an object of the seventh commandment. To assert that it is, is not only without evidence, but against all the evidence which the sacred writings afford us on the subject." I well know, priests pretend that the Gospel prohibits polygamy; but I cannot find such a prohibition in the evangelical writings: and, in my opinion, to say that our Saviour came [p257] to alter the law of God, is irreligious in the highest sense, as it is positively declared by himself that he came to fulfil it: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; and not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law." Let me ask, therefore, how any thing can be sinful that has received the sanction of such supreme and sacred authority?

In addition to the various opinions and quotations from Mr. Madan, I shall give one very strong and convincing proof that polygamy was sanctioned by the divine law, which I do not recollect that the learned divine, whom I have so often quoted, has mentioned in any part of his works. It is expressly said by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, vi. 9. "Fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Now, if it had not been permitted a man to [p258] take unto him more than one wife at a time, most of our Hebrew forefathers must have lived in a state of fornication, and consequent disobedience to the divine law.

I shall adduce many instances to serve my purpose, and strengthen my argument, if one were not sufficient. Solomon, whose pre-eminent wisdom was the gift of heaven, would, in such case, have been begotten in fornication, and accursed by the Lord, instead of blessed; for he was born of a subsequent wife of David, during the life of various previous wives. Is not this another proof, in addition to Mr. Madan's assertions, that polygamy has received a celestial sanction, and that marriage by means of a priest did not then exist: for I read of no priest performing any ceremony when [p259] David took unto him the wife of Uriah, after his death.

To prove to you in what direct opposition the law of man, in this particular, is to the divine law, I shall now suppose a case:

A gentleman of considerable fortune and estate, not entailed, is enamoured of a young lady of fashion, and she of him. He tells her he wishes to make her his wife, but that he is adverse to the present forms of matrimony, as solemnized by a priest: he requests her to read the Scriptures, and weigh well the subject in her own mind; and leaves her to determine whether she can consent to the primitive law of the Old Testament, which does not require the intervention of a priest, or any ceremony of ecclesiastical invention. [p260] She accordingly reads, reflects, and consents. To make the case still stronger: Before he takes her unto him never to put her away all the days of his life, he settles a dower on her of one thousand per annum, and binds himself by legal obligations to provide for the children he may have by her. Nay more, he leads her into the church; but does not permit a priest to attend; no, nor even the clerk of the parish; but, in presence of friends to both parties, he lays his hand on the altar, and, before God, declares, that he takes that woman to be his wife, and never to put her away all the days of his life. This ceremony being passed, he leads her to his dwelling, they make merry with their friends, and she becomes his wife.

In a few days this affair reaches the [p261] ears of the lady's brother, who is an officer, fond of gallantry, and disposed to draw his sword whenever he is offended, unless disarmed by the humble submission of the offender. We may therefore very naturally suppose the following conference to ensue between the officer and the husband.

"Sir, you have dishonoured me and my whole family; you have debauched my sister; and, if you will not marry her, and make her an honest woman, you must and shall fight me."

"Sir, I have not debauched your sister; she is my true and lawful wife; and, as well as myself, is convinced that we are as much husband and wife as if a thousand priests had united us; and I will never submit to any law or ceremony [p262] performed by priests, which is not ordained by God. I have married your sister according to that law as it is delivered in the Scriptures, and never will submit to any other ceremonial." In short, the brother obliges the husband to fight him, so tender is he both of his family's honour and that of his own, though perhaps at that moment he is living in adultery with some honest man's wife, and has adorned the brows of half-a-dozen better men than himself: nay, he may have seduced many apprentice-girls and servant-maids, who at that very time are obliged to prostitute themselves to obtain the common necessaries of life. To strengthen my case, I will suppose this gentleman to be no polygamist, but that he has taken the woman to him as his lawful wife, and to have no other during her life.

[p263] At length they fight; and we will suppose that the brother kills the husband, and, according to the laws of our country, is brought to trial. A judge might say to the jury, in summing up the charge, after expatiating on the crime of duelling, "It is my duty, in justice to the prisoner, to quest you to pay proper attention to the crime of the deceased, who has debauched his sister, and rendered unhappy and disgraced a worthy and honest family." I think in such a case the prisoner would be found guilty only of manslaughter. But I solemnly declare, that were I on such a jury I would give my vote to hang him, and I trust I should find others of my opinion, for having murdered his sister's husband; yes, I say husband, for so he was in the eye of Heaven. We will, however, to give the subject every possible [p264] illustration, suppose that the husband kills the brother. A judge might say to the jury, in summing up the evidence, "The prisoner before you has first debauched a young lady, dishonoured, disgraced, and rendered miserable a worthy and reputable family, and has killed the brother for standing forth to vindicate the honour both of his sister and his own, and endeavouring to compel the prisoner to marry his sister." Were I on the jury, I should take the liberty of speaking to the judge in a manner which it may not be necessary for me to mention.

I am of opinion, if the brother was to kill the husband he would be acquitted, and if the husband killed the brother I am doubtful whether he would not suffer; but I do most solemnly avow, that were I on the juries I would give my [p265] voice that the brother who had killed the husband should suffer death for having murdered his sister's real husband, by compelling him to fight a duel: vice versa, if the husband had killed the brother, I would vote for his acquittal, having been compelled to fight, and therefore guilty of no offence but what the laws determine to be manslaughter. I solemnly declare before my God, that had I a daughter who was an only child, and, as I trust she would be, most dear to me, I would give my consent to her marrying a man according to the laws of our forefathers, in preference to the present forms of our established Church. Priests may be of this or that opinion, but mankind are now arrived at that enlightened period to have an opinion of their own, and no longer to be affrighted at the fulminating anathemas of the Church, or [p266] the dread of excommunication. Priests are very necessary, and very good members of society, when they pray for us, and pray with us; when they explain and enforce the Scripture precepts to their parishioners, perform many holy duties, (amongst which, by the by, I shall not include matrimony,) and do not prostitute the pulpit to politics and temporal affairs. There is no possibility of keeping society together without religion, but it may be done without priestcraft.

It may be said by some of my numerous readers, What view can the author have in asserting that the divine law sanctioned polygamy in former times, and therefore cannot be reasonably considered as an offence in our own? I will answer briefly -- The only motives which induces me, is the tender regard I have [p267] for lovely woman, who (lamentabile dictu!) is too frequently seduced and abandoned to misery by base unfeeling man, without the least infidelity on their part.

I do not mean that man should take unto him a second or third wife merely from caprice or fancy; but only in case of some mental or corporeal defect, which renders his cohabiting with his former wife impossible. In the present state of matrimonial law, if a woman is declared an incurable lunatic, or to have some other irradicable disease, which may occasion her to bring forth a race of unfortunate and diseased children, or may even endanger the life of her husband, he cannot, in either case, take unto him another wife. If, therefore, he has not [p268] the power totally to stifle his natural passions, he is tempted to commit adultery, or fornication, or whoredom, or all of them, from not being permitted to take another wife by the law of the land.

Now I will come to the point, wherein my enlightened readers will, I doubt not, agree with me, that in certain cases polygamy should be allowed; and that man who had humbled a virgin shall not be permitted to put her away all the days of his life, because he had humbled her, which is an express law, as we find it recorded in the Bible. There can surely be no solid reason alleged why that law should be abrogated, and why a custom, hallowed in the days of Moses, should not be permitted in our own. In this case, we should not see a fiftieth part of [p269] the prostitutes walking the streets, whom we now daily behold dying with hunger and perishing with disease.

For a moment I will lay all religion aside, and ask any man a simple, moral question. Do you not think a virgin, on whom you have prevailed, by promises of protection and the most tender regard, to quit her parents and sacrifice her charms to your wishes, is not as much entitled to your protection, as long as she is true to your bed, as if one or twenty priests had read a ceremony prior to the consummation? A man cannot turn his wife out of doors without a suitable provision, unless she is an adultress; yet a man may debauch a virgin, live with her for years, until the bloom of youth deserts the cheek, and then abandon her, and not give her one farthing's maintenance, although [p270] her conduct towards him has displayed one successive scene of fidelity and affection. I tell you this woman is as much his wife, according to the decrees of Holy Writ, by which it is commanded, as I have already quoted, and cannot too often repeat, that he should not put her away all the days of his life, because he has humbled her, as if the archbishop of Canterbury had performed the marriage ceremony.

I shall proceed no further on this subject in this part of my Work, as I have expatiated most fully on the crime in my Chapter on the Lamentable Miseries of Female Prostitution.

If any should suspect that I wish, in the smallest degree, to render matrimony less reputable than it is, he will do me [p271] great injustice; far be such impolitic and irreligious intentions from me! On the contrary, it is my most sincere wish, if a man, by premeditated promises and persuasion, succeeds in seducing a virgin, that she should be deemed as lawfully married to him as if the ceremony had been solemnised by a clergyman. The Levitical laws specify, that if any man be found lying with a woman betrothed or married to a husband, it is adultery in both, and both must die. But if a man is found lying with a virgin not betrothed, she shall be his wife: he may not put her away all his days, because he has humbled her.²

[p272] I know full well, it is said, that our Saviour forbade polygamy: but I cannot reconcile this idea to my mind. To the volumes, therefore, which have been written on the meaning of the single word gunh, and on its being used in the singular number, I refer the reader to form his opinion³.

[p273] I am anxious that my meaning should be perfectly understood, for thus condemning monogamy as a fixed law, and [p274] never to be broken through but in case of adultery. I am convinced, by my knowledge of this world's affairs, that it [p275] is the bane of human happiness, destructive to population, and is the cause of prostitution in many instances, as I have already exemplified.

Before I proceed to explain my further reasons why polygamy in some particular instances should be permitted, I desire it may be well understood, that I am no advocate for that wild and licentious use of it, as practised by the Mahometans; but, to use the words of the learned and pious Madan, "an holy and sober use of [p276] marriage," tending to the benefit of population, and of course to the strength and riches of our country: neither that man should be permitted to take as many wives as he pleased, merely to gratify his caprice or fancy, and turn them adrift at his pleasure. Far be it from my thoughts! But there are many instances where the happiness of man might be promoted, and prostitution be prevented, by permitting polygamy; and I trust I shall very shortly, in the sequel, be able to prove it. But before I finish with scriptural remarks, and with Mr. Madan, whom I consider as a most profound commentator on the sacred writings, I shall take upon me to offer a few additional but most substantial evidences in favour of polygamy.

Christ was born of a polygamous race, [p277] both on the side of Joseph, and of Mary his mother. For Solomon was the ancestor of Joseph, who was the son of David by Bathsheba, whilst David had other wives living, and by whom he had children. Nathan, the ancestor of Mary, we can trace back to be of the lineage of David, and most certainly of polygamous race, for David had many wives; and if I am not mistaken, Nathan was also, as well as Solomon, the son of Bathsheba. What will the reader think of this? -- I will relate Mr. Madan's own remarks on the lineage of Christ, and leave the reader to his own reflections, without any further comments on the subject. Madan writes as follows: "This matter is not a mere speculative point, but of a most important concern; for, if women, taken by men already married, were not lawful wives in God's sight, then [p278] commerce with them was illicit, and the issue must be illegitimate, and, if so, uninheritable. Whither will this carry us? Further, I dare say, than the most zealous anti-polygamists mean it should, even to the bastardizing the MESSIAH himself." In the next page, vol. II. page 14 and 15, Madan continues thus: "If there be a failure here, nothing can set it right, even to the latest posterity. We must, therefore, either allow that polygamous marriages were valid and lawful in the sight of God, or deny Christ to be the son of David; for, in the language of the scripture, a bastard, or one corruptly born, is not a son. Nor could he be hereditary king of Israel; for, to make out his title to this, all his ancestors up to David must have proved to be David's lawful and inheritable issue: for that is one meaning of the seed of David according to the [p279] flesh, Rom. i. 3; or, as we should say in legal language, heir of his body lawfully begotten. This could not be on any other footing than a polygamous marriage being as lawful as any other, in the sight of, and judgment of, the MOST HIGH; otherwise Solomon was nothos kai ge huios, a bastard and not a son, through whom must be derived the heirship to David on Christ's supposed father's side. So likewise was Nathan a bastard and not a son, through whom Christ's heirship to the throne of Israel must be derived on the side of his mother. It is sufficient to prove one link in the chain of Christ's genealogy from David faulty, to defeat all his title to the appellation of Son of David, King of Israel." -- Again, page 17, the same author continues: --

[p280] "If a polygamous marriage were unlawful, and of course null and void before God; then was not Christ legally descended of the house and lineage of David, but from a spurious issue, not only in the instances above mentioned, but also in others which might be mentioned. So that when Christ is supposed to condemn polygamy as adultery, contrary to the institution of marriage, and to the seventh commandment, he must at the same time be supposed to defeat his own title to the character of the MESSIAH, concerning whom God had sworn to David, that, of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. See Acts xi. 30, with Psal. cxxxii. 11. I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. See 2 Sam. vii. 12. The same [p281] is expressed, 1 Chron. xxii. 9. by -- Behold a son shall be born unto thee! -- which, though primarily spoken of Solomon, ultimately points to Christ, as 2 Sam. vii. 14. with Heb. i. 5, demonstrably shew; there Christ is emphatically styled The Son of David.

I shall now lay aside Mr. Madan's work, and examine marriage in its present state, instituted, as it is supposed to be, for the benefit and happiness of civil society, by human institution.

I never in my life paid my addresses to any lady on the score of matrimony; therefore, married men must solve this mystery. I am speaking merely of opinion; but I am inclined to believe, that no modest young woman will admit her intended husband to take any particular [p282] liberties with her till the nuptial ceremony is past; when darkness even can no longer hide those defects which heretofore she may have studiously laboured to conceal, for which no great art is required; as Esculapian power, with drugs mellifluous, and Oriental gums, can for a while stifle the most noxious vapours, and to the foetid smell a violet fragrance give. For, the sage matron, in various arts renowned, and long experienced in deceit, can also hide deformity, and with skill superior to the gardener's power, who binds the warped saplin: for she excels in skill to palm the warped blighted fruit on the injured husband by base deception. She, for all dire defects, a substitute supplies, with belts, with springs, with ligaments, and artificial limbs. But when the deluded anxious lover unlooses the mechanic raiment, [p283] then naked truth explores abhorred deceit, and nature reassumes her warped form; and, in the morning's dawn, the false fragrant odours vanish; leaving to the disappointed bridegroom the noxious, tainted, blighted fruit, fair to the eye, but bitter to the taste, and poisonous to the touch: -- And what succeeds?

Why, love's gardener, indignant at the poisoned infamy, roots from his sacred bed, where nought but Cupid and the zephyrs ought to dwell, all offensive plants, all bitter fruits; and plants the melting blooms peach, and lovely violet, delightful to the taste, and fragrant to the smell.

Oh! much to be lamented man! the choicest gifts of Heaven in this world are to thee denied; thou art bound for life [p284] (or doomed to felony) to one thou cannot love -- miserable is thy fate. Instead of being blessed with symmetry and perfection in thy arms, dreaming that thou reposest in a bed of choicest flowers, and waking in the morn to hail the fragrant blushing full blown rose, and press it to thy bosom, thy fate is reversed, for noxious vapours assail thee in thy sleep; and waking, thou wakest to lament deformity of body, constitutional defect, and concealed disease. Loathing, though leavest the disgusting object to curse the fraud she has been taught to practise.

The priest may bind thee to this mated hypocrite, and the iron hand of law, which makes it felony for thee to marry another, may dub her thy wife: but no law exists to prevent thee from taking unto thee another woman, more suited to thy mind, [p285] more adapted to thy affections. No law yet exists to prevent thee from sending the fraudulent bridge to all the comfort she can derive from a separate maintenance.

Then follow nature's laws, sanctioned by Heaven, and seek some beauteous and more perfect fair one: I tell thee it is no sin to take unto thee a virgin pure; it is her consent that constitutes the righteous deed: but if thou humblest her, thou canst never put her from thee; she is as much they wife as if one hundred priests had sanctioned the union.

I shall now proceed to mention certain disorders which render it impossible for man to cohabit with a woman, and then apply to the judgment of every man of common sense, whether it be not [p286] both impolitic, immoral and unjust, that a man be bound, in such cases, for life, to one woman, and not be permitted to take unto him another.

Among these disorders are, incurable madness, and inveterate leprosy. There is another, which, though rarely found, does yet exist, the morbus pediculosus, which is of all the pests in nature the most obnoxious. Oh! with what disgust, too late, I discover so fell a fraud and pestilence! instead of the little winged loves fanning me with gentle zephyrs in my sleep, my body is assailed with noxious reptiles waking me from balmy rest, seeking retreat in my cleanly pores, to which my well-braced body denies them entrance. Assailed by this reptile host, I am driven in disgust and torment from the field of love.

[p287] Though man may meet, and often does, with women afflicted by the above calamities and diseases, which render it impossible for him to live with them in a state of connubial comfort, it is felony for him to take unto him another wife. He must therefore burn; or is induced to commit either adultery, fornication, or whoredom. Whereas, were he permitted, in particular cases, to marry again, he would live in virtue; to repeat the words of Dryden:

Then man had the opportunity of ameliorating his situation, by relieving his wretched state of marriage, and living in virtue and betrothed matrimony; but now he is compelled to turn whoremaster, or [p288] fornicator, when either the misfortunes or diseases of the wife compel him to separate himself from her bed. I again repeat, that I am far from wishing that a general and indiscriminate use of polygamy should be permitted, but only in particular cases already mentioned, or others of similar nature.

The prohibition of polygamy has, in some instances, been a very great obstacle to the propagation of the Christian religion. The missionaries sent among the Indians to preach the gospel, acknowledge, that, to incline them to monogamy, is one of the most arduous tasks which they have to perform; and that many on this account have rejected Christianity, who otherwise would have embraced it. There are a set of Christians living in China, who live in polygamy. If I am not [p289] mistaken, Puffendorf relates this circumstance. It appears to me, as if these missionaries never studied the Old Testament. But priests must obey the law of civil institutions, or they will not meet with preferment, and obtain ecclesiastical wealth and honours.

At the beginning of this Chapter, I expressed my intention of giving Marshal Saxe's Reflections on Polygamy; but I find it would swell these pages to a very great extent. I therefore shall, for particulars, refer the reader to his Reveries. He proves, by arithmetical calculations, that monogamy is destructive to population, and declares that it is hostile to the happiness of man. I am positively of opinion, that it is not only destructive to population, and the chief source of man's misery, but that it is productive [p290] of much intrigue, fornication, and whoredom; of which I am vain enough to imagine that I have given incontestable proofs. It is impossible to maintain connubial connection with a diseased woman; and nearly as intolerable to be confined either to a drunkard or a termagant shrew: to be saluted with the heel of a shoe on the head, instead of the kiss of affection, -- or to have my bed polluted by Bacchanalian fumes, instead of fragrant breath of health, -- are equally repugnant to cleanliness, comfort, and good-humour.

It will certainly be acknowledged, that it is the duty of the legislature of every country to enact laws which encourage morality and strengthen religion; most particularly amongst the middling and lower orders of the people; for the more they live in virtue and a due sense of religion, [p291] the less liable is the State to be convulsed by their tumults. In this country, if due consideration were given to the subject, the most lovely and weaker part of human nature might be effectually protected from ruin and misery; and the lower order of people, as well as the rich, might be induced to lead more chaste and virtuous lives: but as long as it is felony to marry a second wife during the life of the former, though she be either insane, diseased, or drunken, &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c., it is to be feared adultery, fornication, and whoredom are not likely to be diminished; nor can we reasonably expect an amendment in the moral character of the people respecting those particular vices. I shall put the following case, which, however, I do not suppose will ever be added to the [p292] voluminous reports of the courts of law.

If a gentleman of fortune, or nobleman, should seduce the wife of a peasant, I mean the man of one shilling per day, would a British jury award some thousand pounds damages to the peasant, as they frequently have awarded to the rich and noble? But is not the happiness of the peasant as fully destroyed by the loss of the partner of his affections? Is not his grief as poignant as the nobleman's? Are not his feelings as deeply wounded by the seduction and loss of his fair helpmate, who was used to welcome him, after his daily labour, at the threshold of his cheerful cottage? Alas! his joys are fled! and, when the sun retires to rest, reluctantly he trudges home to [p293] view his mournful and deserted dwelling, and sorrow marks his wearied steps. It is not that a British jury will not do him justice: they are the palladium of our lives, our happiness, our liberties; and the guardians of our property and our rights. But he cannot appear before this just tribunal; for he is poor, and possesses not the means of obtaining justice. He may, indeed, sue in forma pauperis, that is, without fees to lawyers, or expence of process; but he cannot afford to give his time and attendance, nor make the proper exertions, or suffer the personal inconvenience of prosecuting such a suit, harassed as he would be by all the delays, and impediments, and quirks, and quibbles, which a wealthy opponent could purchase. A greater evil still attends him, pregnant with immorality and vice; for he cannot [p294] procure a divorce: his circumstances will not afford him that relief which the affluent can acquire. The quality of the law of Britain has been a disputed point by the invidious partizans of other governments: why, then give them cause to censure us? How is the equality evinced? Is it in the expence of procuring a divorce? But yet, it is said, the law is open to every one. So it is: so also is the London Tavern; but it is not every one who can afford to go into it. If a country-man were even to put his nose in at the door, the waiter would kick him down the steps; and if he were to appear in the lobby of the House of Lords, with a petition, praying to be divorced gratis from his wife, it is likely that the serjeant at arms would take him for some poor lunatic, and send him to Bedlam hospital. Such a case, I must acknowledge, [p295] is not, in any degree, likely to happen, for very obvious reasons. Besides, those doors are not to be unfolded to a divorce under three hundred pounds: in most cases it is much more expensive. Nor is there an attorney in London, or any where else, to be found, who will undertake so expensive a cause without his fees. I can see no reason why a country-man should not be divorced at the Quarter-sessions, as well as a noble in the House of Lords. That not being the case, they live in adultery, fornication, and whoredom; for the wife cohabits with some other man, and the husband debauches some girl in the parish, who, if she is unfortunate enough to become a mother, is stamped by human law with the opprobrious, though unjust, name of a prostitute; though the man who debauches her would be guilty of felony [p296] were he to marry her, which he would most probably be willing to do, did the law of man permit him. Were the poor fellow able to procure a divorce, he naturally would marry again, and live according to the will and commands of his Maker. Not to put a more harsh construction on his unhappy fate, the legislature at least overlooks him; but at the same time it gives ten thousand pounds damages to the nobleman. Make it but a pleasure, and suitable to his convenience, for a man to live a virtuous life, and make morality more pleasing than vice; let divorces in a small expence be obtained, and, in some instances, polygamy permitted, we should soon find virtue prevail and prostitution diminish: we then should soon perceive an increase of true religion amongst the lower orders; and the State would not have a [p297] doubtful, but more solid security for their loyalty and submission to the laws. More good would be derived from the salutary institutions, inducing man to lead a virtuous and chaste life, and by permitting him to take onto him, in CERTAIN CASES, and under certain regulations, another wife, than from the compulsive plan of forbidding any person whatever, except doctors and apothecaries, to walk the street during the hours of divine service: for a man, if not religiously inclined, although you certainly may compel him by an act of parliament to stay within doors, you cannot prevent him, if he chooses it, from singing Lillibillero, or the Black Joke, at home. You may confine him for ever to one woman, let her be both diseased and drunken; but you cannot compel him to propagate his species on her, or prevent his going to [p298] the brothel. I am convinced there are thousands and tens of thousands of men, who now live in dissipation, debauchery, and drunkenness, that are naturally inclined to a moral and decorous conduct; and, were they permitted to take unto them another wife, and provide for the present one, would lead a virtuous and domestic life: but they fly from their wives as they would from the plague, when they make their homes uncomfortable to them. In dissipation they vainly seek for comfort and relief; and debauchery walks hand in hand with it; they are twin-sisters, both bred in the same womb, and brought to life by the misery and distraction of the mind.

To incline mankind more towards a proper sense of religion, and to inculcate moral principles, lenient and persuasive [p299] measures must be used: compulsion is sure to disgust. I confess my dissatisfaction when I hear a clergyman railing at his congregation; and could hardly prevail on myself to keep my seat when I have heard them talk of nothing but of damnation, hell, and the devil, as many of them do, instead of holding up the Christian religion as the purest system of forgiveness, love, and charity, which it really is, and whose spirit is lavish in its promises of pardon and salvation. Were all our clergy to act and to preach after the same manner of some of our truly enlightened, learned, and orthodox divines, who command both honour and respect from all who hear them, I am inclined to think that their churches would be more frequented, and mankind be rendered far more happy. Man must be led, and induced, by mild, persuasive, and lenient measures, [p300] to the true sense of his religion: he must not be driven, or terrified. Religion does not consist in going to church twice a-day, and carrying a hypocritical, canting, forbidding countenance through the whole week; for, though religious institutions should be observed, and public worship should be attended, vital religion does not entirely depend on exterior observances, though they greatly assist it: for a high sense of devotion and piety may be found in the temple of Nature, in viewing the harmony and connection of all its parts, and contemplating the wondrous works of the Divinity, even in the meanest productions of the creation.

It is to be lamented that so many blockheads are admitted to take holy orders; for, in many families, if one child is more uncommonly stupid, proud, and [p301] obstinate than the rest, and deemed not to be endowed with sufficient abilities either for trade, law, or the army, the father says, he will be very well for a parson. The King may make a priest a bishop, and a private individual a peer; but his Majesty cannot give the former abilities, nor can he make the latter a gentleman. Doubly honourable is he who has acquired his nobility by noble actions. Such a man will have precedence in the opinion of the wise and good, before those who are right honourable only by birth and riches, and are compelled to rifle the monuments of the dead for their genealogies. Virtue alone can bestow nobility, and glory exalt it. A mitre gives riches and titles to a priest; but it is not always accompanied by good sense, toleration, and humility. High church riches and haughtiness too frequently [p302] stalk hand in hand, whilst the inferior, but modest and laborious priest in the vineyard, who is resident amongst his parishioners, imparting to them all the knowledge with which he is endowed, and performing all the duties attached to his function, with zeal and affection, is too frequently in possession of little more than the mere necessaries of life. The inequality of income among the clergy is monstrous. I am of opinion, that no clergyman in the remotest village in Britain should have less than two hundred pounds per annum, though there are many who serve two churches for forty⁴. A priest is neither to wallow in luxury, nor to deny himself the good cheer, the mirth, conviviality, and innocent amusements [p303] of the world. Austerity of manners, and a too rigid, pedantic, and recluse deportment, is not so necessary as some are foolishly inclined to believe. It may please the bigot, but it will make but few proselytes; I do not believe a man more virtuous, or one whit less vicious, who lives on vegetables and water, than the one who daily eats two pounds of meat, and drinks a cheerful cup, though he may be a greater hypocrite. Before I quit the subject of monogamy, I cannot help relating the injustice which attends those who profess the Catholic faith; for if the wife of a Roman Catholic be even caught in adultery, he may be divorced; but the tenets of his religion forbid him ever to marry again as long as the woman, though she be an adultress, is living. When I say he cannot marry during that woman's life, I mean that he [p304] cannot, as a Catholic, marry without leave from the Pope. He can indeed marry again, if he chooses so to do: but then he is looked upon no more as a real Catholic; and the priest will neither give him absolution or hear his confession.

I shall now take notice of a crime, which, in my opinion, is base, unnatural, and cruelly unjust; in short, one of the worst of crimes; for the sincerest repentance, even for the deed committed, can neither palliate the evil nor avert the injury. It is a most barbarous and sinful act, and the more so as it cannot be repaired. The crime I mean is that of living with a woman, having one or two children by her, and then marrying her perhaps even when she is some months gone with child. What can any man say in favour of this wanton violation of justice? and [p305] what must be the feelings of the man who has committed it? -- who, at the altar, legitimates one child in preference to the rest, and holds him up as an object of envy and hatred to the others; -- who legalizes one by a ceremony instituted by priests, and bastardizes the others without any ceremony at all; though the whole of them are viewed by the Creator with the same parental eye. Were he but to reflect, as it becomes him, what pleasure can he enjoy, whilst before his eyes perpetually he views the lovely pledges of his former love, and the new-born bantling of the matrimonial state? Are they not all equally alike, blood of his blood, and flesh of his flesh? yet the latter minion of wedlock inherits the whole patrimony, and the others are turned out on the world beggars and bastards: for custom, prejudice, [p306] and the law of man, but not the law of God, stamps them with that unjust, opprobrious appellation; robs them of their birthright and their patrimony, and gives to the offspring of the same womb, but legitimated by a nuptial ceremony, the family titles and riches.

That self-same law, made by mankind and bigoted custom, stamps the chaste, lovely, and affectionate partner of my bed, with the unjust and cruel appellation of whore, because she has not undergone a ceremony instituted by man. By Heaven, I swear it is false! The lie is base, subtle, and fraught with worldly craft and priestly insolence. No woman is a harlot but she who lets her body out to hire, to various and frequent comers. Be she but true to my bed, honest, and attentive to my interest, it is infamy superlatively [p307] vile, to brand her with a crime at which her honest and affectionate heart revolts. Will a ring put on one of the fingers make the blood flow purer in her veins? Will it, I ask, insure her chastity? -- Tell me, ye who are bigots to matrimonial chains, that link two bodies until death, but cannot hold the two souls in unison, where lies the magic virtue of this ring? Has the Acteon race been less numerous since marriage has been made an ecclesiastical ceremony, or since polygamy was made a sin? I believe not; nay, I am convinced of the contrary: yet if I have children by a generous-hearted woman, without being married to her; though she is constant to my bed, good-tempered and affectionate, and devoutly interested in all my worldly happiness and welfare, those pledges of our tender love are doomed [p308] to beggary, and bastardized: -- a most cruel fate!

It is wicked in the extreme; for God has made no laws by which they are deemed bastards, or deprived of their inheritance. It is the law of man only which consigns them to disgrace and poverty. Speaking of Bastardism, I shall state one more observation, then ask the reader a question, and conclude the subject.

A man and woman shall cohabit together, from pure mutual love and affection, unmarried by any ecclesiastical form, and shall have children: another man and woman shall be married in church by a priest. The woman, contrary to her inclinations, by the base and inhuman influence of her parents, or biassed by the [p309] dazzling lustre of titles, and of sordid wealth, weds a man she abhors: the avaricious and inhuman parents view this man an Adonis and a Solomon, from his high birth and splendor; though in his person he be more ugly and filthy than a baboon, and not many degrees removed from an idiot: -- I must suppose further, that they both have children. I will now ask the reflecting liberal mind -- Do the children of the former, or of the latter woman, merit most the appellation of bastards? -- I am of opinion, the latter: for it is allowed, by any sentimental philosophers, that the woman who marries without proper friendship and affection for the man whom she weds, is but a prostitute licensed by the church. I have read of a curious ceremony amongst the Jews; whether it exists now, I know not: -- the parties go into the synagogue, each [p310] attended by two priests, and having stated their objections to each other, the woman is asked if she be willing to part with her husband, and on her answering in the affirmative, they spit in each other's face; the man throws the bill of divorcement at his wife, and she receives it: upon which they jointly exclaim: "Cursed be they who shall wish to bring us together again!" This summary proceeding, whatever may be said of its elegance, is certainly a less tedious and expensive process than that presented to us by the existing laws of this country.

In the present times, a divorce cannot be procured for less than three or four hundred pounds; which the poor man cannot afford. A divorce, therefore, is positively not to be obtained by any but the rich. There is no way at present for [p311] a poor man to get rid of his wife, but by cutting her throat or his own.

I have given enough of Scriptural authority; I will now offer that of the law. Jacob, in his Law Dictionary, writes, that before the time of Pope Innocent III. there was no solemnization of marriage in the church; but the man came to the house which the woman inhabited, and led her home to his own, which was all the ceremony then used.

Judge Blackstone goes further, at least he writes plainer, and tells you, without sneezing, that the intervention of a priest to solemnize the contract, is merely juris positivi, and NOT juris naturalis aut divini.

[p312] We are thus told, on the best authority, that, before Pope Innocent III.'s time, all the ceremony performed by the man was nothing more than fetching the bride from the place of her maiden residence to his own house.

I will now ask a question -- a mode of proceeding, which, to use the expression of Mr. Burke, or Junius, or some other very clever writer, suits the mediocrity of my talents: -- If a man prevails on a woman to quit her relations, and she comes and lives with him, under every promise of protection, would not such a woman, before Pope Innocent III's time, have been considered as his wife in every respect? Why then should she not possess the same privileges now, as under the Mosiac law, and in the earlier centuries of the Christian aera?

[p313] Besides, previous to the Popedom to which we have had occasion to refer, if a man had taken a young woman from her parents, and lived with her, he must have supported her for ever as his wife, though no ceremony had been performed according to canonical law. Let, therefore, any rational man reflect, and tell me whether in these days, taking a woman from her parents, and living with her, is not in every sense, the same ceremony which, in former days, would have constituted a marriage both in the eyes of God and of man. But now, a man may seduce a dozen women, and desert them all in a state of pregnancy, without any apprehension, but from the overseers of as many parishes, which a few pounds to each will satisfy: and these poor women are all let loose, without character, without comfort, and without [p314] friends; in short, without hope; to get their bread, not as they would, but as they may be suffered to do by the unfeeling rigour of the laws, and the harshness of what is called public decorum.

That the loveliest part of human nature should be thus infamously and basely deserted, and have no relief afforded them by the Legislature, is a disgrace to any Christian country. Yet thousands there are now walking the streets, deserted by ruffian man; who, by every artifice and solemn promise, even of marriage, have been tempted from their homes; and, after the infernal unfeeling monster has satisfied his brutal lust, have been turned adrift unprotected, unprovided for, and pennyless, into a wide, and in respect to fallen woman, a most uncharitable world.

I again repeat my opinion: if the law, [p315] in this instance, were amended; if every man were compelled to maintain the woman that he has seduced, and a permission were allowed, in certain situations, to marry a second wife during the life of the former; in a few years we should not see a tenth part of those wretched, unfortunate, much to be pitied women, who are not prostituting themselves daily, to procure the necessaries of life. But of this I have spoken more fully in my Chapter on Female Ruin and Prostitution.

I shall now for a very short time quit England for Scotland; which, however, I would never wish to do but for the sake of an argument; and examine the custom and law respecting marriage, as well as the different treatment women receive in that country. Divided only by a river of a few yards in breadth, the law is infinitely [p316] more liberal and just to the sex. According to my judgment, marriage is rational only in Scotland.

If a man in Scotland presents a woman into company as his wife, or calls her constantly by his name, she is received and respected as such, and the children also inherit: nay more, if a man lives with a woman only for one year and a day, this likewise constitutes a marriage, and the children will inherit, although in either of the above cases no ceremony has been performed by a priest: the woman is respected and treated as his wife. Whereas, in England, if a woman lives with a man, is true for years to his bed, is an affectionate help-mate through life, and a tender mother; in short, let her possess every amiable accomplishment, and every mental virtue, [p317] there are but very few who will associate with her. In the world she cannot be received; and one-half of the modest women, as they are called, who perhaps are not very correct in their own conduct, whenever they meet her, turn up their noses; while the vulgar part of the world, equally unjust, stamp her with the opprobrious, base, and false appellation of harlot.

I shall now conclude this subject, and request it may well be understood that I do not write in favour of promiscuous concubinage, or polygamy, as it is practised by the Mahometans; neither am I averse to matrimony. I only state, that if the law were to permit man, in certain cases which I have mentioned, to marry a second wife, and also compel every man who should seduce a woman to [p318] maintain or provide for the same as if she were his legal wife, in a very few years we should not see a tithe of those wretched, unfortunate women, who are now compelled to walk the streets to get their daily bread.

It may be asked -- for some people are in the habits of putting strange questions -- what interest have I in expatiating so fully and at such length on this subject? I reply, that I am actuated wholly and solely by a tender love, sincere affection, and honourable attachment to the dearest part of human nature -- lovely woman.

The lives also of thousands of men would be ameliorated, were a regulated polygamy, in some instances, permitted, who now live in misery and wretchedness. I know many of them; and so [p319] does my reader too: if he will but reflect for a moment, examples will crowd upon his recollection. Marriage is a good thing; and so is a bone for a dog; but if you tie it to his tail, it will drive him mad. Society cannot be held together without religion, but it may without priestcraft.

[p321] [By an error of the Press, the following pages were mislaid, and should have appeared in the foregoing Chapter, On Matrimony and Polygamy.]

WHAT should hinder a woman betrothed to me from living as happily and conscientiously with me as one whose nuptials has been hallowed by an archbishop? I can never be brought to believe that a man will be considered as criminal in the eye of Heaven, in the year 1801, for treading in the very steps of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom we read as received into heaven: nor will I even [p322] subscribe my consent, in the smallest degree, to the want of chastity in the deed. Nay, I will go farther: Provided a man has never seduced and abandoned a woman to misery, a dozen wives, and twenty concubines, will not, in my judgment, bar the door of heaven against him. I speak only as to the absolute sinfulness of the act; it not being my intent to assert, that it may be prudent, under certain regulations of society, for a government to admit of them.

A stronger question still remains to be asked: Did Christ ever give any one away in marriage? I read of our Saviour being present at the marriage in Cana; but the only act of his which is recorded in Scripture at that meeting, was the miracle he wrought by turning the water into wine. Did his apostles marry? No. [p323] Pope Clement began it; and the priests since his time to the present days, jointly with the legislatures, have continued the custom, and endeavoured, as far as lies in their power, to attach disgrace to all betrothed love, truth, and constancy. One world more relative to Abraham: -- He took unto him his handmaid Hagar. She was not betrothed to him; nor did her relations even consent, which was the ancient custom amongst the Jews. No. Sarah his wife, believing that she was too old to have a child, persuaded Abraham to take unto him Hagar, that she might obtain children by her; -- which are the words of the Scripture. Now, when the Lord promised to Sarah that she should have a son, after having for so long been barren, which son she bore unto Abraham and called his name Isaac, and she found that the son of the handmaid, Hagar, [p324] (Ishmael,) found favour with Abraham in preference to her son, she grew jealous of Hagar and her child, and drove them both out of the house into the desert. Had Abraham and Sarah lived in these days, I will leave it to the judgment of the reader to determine on the conduct of Sarah, and what appellation would be given her; but I will take on myself to determine that Abraham would be judged a fornicator, and Hagar an harlot, though God promised to Hagar, when in the wilderness, that he would cause a race to spring from the loins of her son that should not be numbered. If, however, I take another wife, because the woman I am already married to is so diseased or afflicted as to render it impossible to cohabit with her, I commit felony; and if I live with a woman without the ceremony of marriage being performed by [p325] a priest, although she is respected by my friends, and I am pledged to her in every sense, excepting the marriage ceremony, as if she were my legal wife; the censorious part of the world will call me a libertine, and stamp that woman with the most degrading appellation! She is as much my wife as if a bishop had blessed our nuptials at the altar, and a chorus of priests had chaunted an epithalamium of an hour long.

We will now take our leave of the Jews, and, which is no very unnatural transition, pass on to the Scotch, -- who, though they certainly are not God's chosen people, contrive to squeeze themselves into the good things of this world, wherever they are to be found.

Let us now examine the customs of [p326] Scotland, relative to marriage and legitimatizing children, &c. and then compare the laws of that country with this, relative to inheritance and marriages, when they will be found as distant as the north pole is from the south, though the countries are separated only by a few score yards of water called the river Tweed.

I will state two cases to any rational man who is not a slave to forms, and leave it to his reason to judge of them. If a man marries a woman pregnant by him, after she is eight months gone with child, or even a few hours only before the birth of the child, this offspring, being born in wedlock, is legitimated and inherits, and the woman is made his lawful wife. Another man takes unto him a woman, who has a child by him without being married: she is true to his [p327] bed, and in every sense a tender parent and affectionate help-mate in life: but this child the law bastardizes, and does not permit it to inherit⁵, and she is stamped with the most unjust and cruel denomination. It is the stigma thrown on woman by the censorious canting hypocrites of the age, which compels many a mother to murder the child in her womb, who otherwise might have become a tender and affectionate parent, lived to a mature age, and brought forth many children to the state, instead of being cut off in the flower of life by the hands of the executioner.

[p328] The Ishmael of the Old Testament was favoured by Heaven; but the Ishmaels of the present age are bastardized by inhuman bigoted man, and cast out on the earth to seek for their bread by the sweat of their brow, or to be dependent on the charity of their relations; who, happening to be born in legal wedlock, inherit the very estate which they ought to have possessed by the wedlock of the same flesh and blood⁶.

Thus, in opposition to the divine will and ordinance, do we form laws; and when we ask why such laws are suffered [p329] to exist, the answer made us is, that it is for the benefit of society. Can society be benefited in this instance, when any individual is injured in his dearest interests, his inheritance and his birthright? Yet the magic words of a priest, sanctioned by the legislature, bastardizes and beggars the one, and raises the other to titles and estates, though they are both begotten of the same flesh and blood. Yet this is all done, we are told, for the benefit of society. Bigoted custom is as destructive to true happiness, as superstition is to true religion, and is justly called the silly daughter of a wise mother.

There is one consolation indeed, which remains to those of high rank, whose daughters may run away with a footman, or a groom, or some man of mean birth, (which many have done,) that if the footman, [p330] &c. marries her, the act is holy and virtuous in the eyes of the world, and in no sense can the parent be affected but as to his pride.

The late divorce bill which passed the Upper House, has been the frequent theme of public discussion. I shall not take upon myself to judge of the propriety or impropriety of that bill: it has been discussed by the most able statesmen of the age. But had I had the honour of sitting in Parliament when that subject was on the carpet, I certainly should have taken the liberty of proposing to the legislature a method which, in my humble opinion, would render marriages more happy, and divorces less frequent. It is as follows: I would have a law enacted, that every young woman, previous to her intended marriage, should appear before some dignified [p331] prelate, immediately after having undergone the solemn ceremony of taking the sacrament, and should be interrogated before the altar of her God, whether the man, her intended husband, was the object of her voluntary choice, and that by her free will and agreement she wished to be united to him, and that no threats or compulsion of parents had forced her to consent to the nuptials? Her avowal should be sufficient to permit a priest to unite such a couple: but on the contrary, I should have it made felony for a priest to officiate at a nuptial ceremony that was in any degree compulsory; parents then would be ashamed to use compulsion.

Marriages are in general made, either from a too nasty conclusion, before the parties can know each other well enough [p332] to pass through life with happiness and peace of mind, or from a sordid thirst after wealth or aggrandizement. It is therefore with grief I reflect, that the two happiest days most married people enjoy with their wives, are the days that consign them to their wedding sheets and their winding sheets. Alas! our passions are like our mistresses; our reason like our wives. Yet in this country, man is so bigoted to matrimony, that some people even advertise for wives in the same manner as they would for an agreeable partner in a post-chaise; as if the journey through life was of no more consequence than a journey to York or Edinburgh. A man who has any regard for the safety of his limbs, would not take a raw horse out of a dealer's stable, pampered, set up, figged and gingered for sale, to carry him a long journey. If he did, it is an hundred to one, before [p333] he rode twenty miles, but the gentleman would get a fall. Nay, on setting out, the animal might prove so restive as not to get beyond the stone's end.

I desire my intention may be well understood, for proposing this law relative to the solemn examination of damsels by a bishop, before he permits the performance of the marriage ceremony. It is not my wish to meddle either with the morality or religion of the country; for the sake of society I bend to the laws of the state which protects me. For my morality or immorality I am accountable only to my God; and whether any new law be enacted that shall cause the making one cuckold, or one hundred, more or less, in a year, is a matter of total indifference to me, as long as I am not implicated in such events. But it cannot [p334] be a matter of indifference to me, or to any one who has the feelings of a man, to see a woman dragged to the altar and sacrificed to a person she detests; when, after exerting all her resolution, she at length finds it impossible to continue a life so wretched, and flies from it. Others, possessing greater resolution, remain in silent, wasting anguish, and drag along the tedious hours of life in misery and lamentation.

I have written much on the absolute necessity of man being permitted in certain cases, namely, disease and afflictions by the hand of God, to take unto him a second wife during the life of the former one. I repeat my reasons: it would not only be productive of happiness to the human race, and augment the population of the nation, but it would preserve [p335] from ruin and misery many thousands of the loveliest and much to be pitied part of human nature. To this argument, a priest, or some over-pious Christian, might reply: Sir, would you wish to see God's holy word and ordinance perverted and abused, which the Lord, through our Savior, has expressly commanded, "Those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder?" I would reply, By no means; for I am of opinion, that when a woman is so diseased or afflicted as to render it impossible for a man to cohabit with her, if he provides for her wants in life, so as that she be enabled not only to live in comfort, but even in affluence, if her husband's fortune can afford it, I do not hold that he has put her away from him because he takes unto him another wife, from the circumstances already mentioned.

[p336] We will now examine this case and text in Scripture, in a worldly point of view, as well as in a religious one: "Those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder." I say, God forbid it should ever happen! but at the same time I will state that it is but just, first of all, before we condemn the act, to examine whether God did join them together or not. Happy are they who in unison of soul united, wishing to conform to the rules which govern society, (as it is termed,) proceed to church and submit to the nuptial ceremony. This may in truth be deemed a righteous and religious union, but no other can be so.

It would be profanation to assert the same in favour of those who are married from views of interest, be they what they may. Some women are, as it were, drag[ged to] [p337] the altar by the compulsion of inhuman parents, and sacrificed to the man they detest. Can any man or woman, possessing honour, religion, or reflection, assert that such persons are joined together by the just and benevolent father of the creation?

It is not to be expected that the hymenial torch can ever burn pure and undefiled, unless the flame is fanned by mutual love. As I am of opinion that many persons who will read this book, have never read the marriage ceremony, or the preamble to it, before the bands are performed, I will transcribe a passage out of that ceremony, which the priest is commanded to repeat to the parties before he unites them. "I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgment, when [p338] the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you knows any impediment why ye shall not be lawfully joined together in matrimony, ye do now confess it. For, be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's will doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful.["]

Reader, I entreat you to ponder well the above words, solemnly pronounced before the altar of god by the priest to the parties intended to be coupled; remember also, that parents are usually present, who compulsively have forced their daughter, by inhuman influence and barbarous threats, to consent to wed the man she detests; too frequently also, knowing that her heart is not at her own disposal. Reader, ponder on these things.

[p339] I shall make but one comment on those words: That if a lawyer in Westminster-hall could produce as clear a flaw in any deed of conveyance, bond, &c. he would have very little trouble in setting it aside, and nullifying the contract. On this I shall say no more, but leave the above words, quoted from the marriage ceremony, to the reflection of those who are inclined to marriage; and especially to parents who have female children.

END OF VOL. I.

Continue...

Notes:

¹ Formerly the priests had such power, that a new married couple were not permitted to cohabit for a certain time, without paying the church for a dispensation: and a man was not allowed Christian burial, unless he bequeathed something to the church. [ back ]

² Our law, in the first instance, fines the offender a sum of money; and in the second, if a young woman is debauched and got with child, the father pays forty pounds to the parish, never concerns himself any further about the infant, and sets the much-injured woman adrift on the world, to seek a livelihood in the best way she can. [ back ]

³ The seventh chapter of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians has been much spoken of, and adduced in evidence that the Christian doctrines forbade polygamy. I have studied it with great attention, and confess it does not appear to me in that light. But I will put a rational question to the reader, totally framed from my own ideas, and not from any other author: If Christ had judged polygamy sinful, would he not, when preaching to the people, (many of whom were polygamists,) have said, in plain and expressive terms, "It is unlawful for you to take unto you a second wife during the life of the first; ye that have sinned, go forth, and henceforth sin no more." Our Saviour never did say any such thing; but, on the contrary, spake in the following manner: "And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east, and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew, viii. 11. Abraham and Jacob had several wives, Isaac only one; but Christ mentioned them as being all three in heaven. I will ask another question: Can any thing be construed illegal, or sinful, which God ever permitted as a custom or law? I know full well, it is said that polygamy never was given to Moses by God as a law; certainly it was not, or it would have made another commandment. But, did not the Jewish nation live in polygamy at the time that God conversed with Moses on Mount Sinai? It is therefore a plain incontestible proof that the Almighty sanctioned it, or he would have directed Moses to forbid it. He blessed, and received Abraham and Jacob into heaven, who had four handmaids and wives. If two of the most pious men of the present age were to marry a second wife, they would be convicted of felony within the benefit of clergy, to which they would be indebted for not being hanged; whilst the adulterer, and the seducer of a virgin, is admitted into the first companies in the country.

Further, if a drunken fellow in a fit of mad intoxication, or a nobleman of ten thousand a-year, force an old widow woman of sixty, they will be both hanged for a rape: but if the most opulent man in the kingdom debauches a virgin, with her consent, though to prevail on her he has made her every promise of protection and support, there is no penalty inflicted on him if he deserts her the next day. -- To whom then is the greatest injury done? -- to the old woman who is ravished, or the virgin seduced, and after the fairest promises abandoned? There can be no doubt on this point: yet thus the law of the land stands at present. I am of the opinion the law may be amended, in favour of the too credulous, lovely fair, without introducing polygamy, or compelling every man to marry the virgin whom he has debauched; and shall submit it to the opinion of the clergy and legislators, in my chapter on Female Prostitution and Ruin. In these days, if a gentleman seduces the daughter of a man of fashion, and will not marry her, he may be scouted; but if he debauches twenty servant-maids or apprentices, and turns them into the streets to seek their bread by prostitution, who is there that will think of reproving him, or act towards him as if he thought him the worse for it? [ back ]

⁴ I am informed many clergymen in Wales are so poor as to be obliged to sell spirits and keep small shops. [ back ]

⁵ In Scotland, if a man has a child by a woman, and should some time afterwards marry her, the first child inherits, though she has more children after marriage. This custom in Scotland is founded in good sense, justice, honour and religion. I wish, with all my soul, it were the same in England. [ back ]

⁶ With grief I relate, there are many gentlemen in this country, who are now living on a scanty pittance, who are begotten by their father out of a woman before wedlock, who afterwards has married that woman, and had children by her, who inherit not only very large estates, but titles also. [ back ]