majority of their votaries. But I do not think it useless. Although the number who are now favourable to a more rational system of marriage, compose but a small minority, still they have a good cause in hand, and aided by the present progress of the spirit of inquiry, must eventually number a majority on their side. While the priests have so much power, the evils of the present system will remain; it is only after their overthrow that any material alteration can take place; but it is necessary that the people should be led to see the evils now, or they will not remove them when they possess the power. The present prejudices must be first removed, and that is not to be done in a day nor in a year. Besides, the system is a part and parcel of the priestly craft, and by exposing the evils which result from this one branch, we hasten the downfall of the whole.

Our great poet, Milton, felt the evils of the present marriage system, and wrote against them. So did Peter Annett, and so have many others. The author of the Life of Dumarsais, a French philosopher, says, that he (Dumarsais) was unfortunate in marriage, his wife being a complete modern Xantippe; and adds, to this cause we are indebted for an Essay on Marriage, found among the papers of our philosopher. These opposers of the present marriage system may be suspected of writing from wounded feelings and not from principle, not from any thing which Reason might have dictated to them as fundamentally wrong in the system. This may be true as to their first inducement to write, but a perusal of their productions will prove that they discovered sufficient reasons to warrant them in their undertaking. But even these objections cannot be applied to all who have written against the present system; some have not immediately suffered from it, but have written against it solely from principle; and I can safely say that I am about to add one to this latter class of persons.

Marriage is necessary, or, at least, beneficial to the happiness of social life, so far as it confines the sexual union to two persons, and makes provision for the maintenance of children. All beyond this is mischievous. The contract is entered into by the parties in the hope of increasing each other's happiness; and it ought to be binding no longer than it answers this purpose. But any two persons who may enter the marriage state, under the present system, are bound to each other for life, although circumstances, happening subsequent to their union, may make the marriage state a curse rather than a blessing.

Marriage is now a religious contract, or, at least, it is surrounded with a religious ceremony and drawn up by the priests. It ought to be a civil contract, entered into before magistrates or other civil officers. To prevent hasty and ill-advised marriages, it may be proper to give a few weeks' notice; but this could be done just as easily in a police-office or justice-room as in a

church. Notice could be given at one sitting, of the marriages intended for the next; and no more ceremony is necessary than that the parties should appear, with two or more witnesses, and sign the contract. The absurdity and injustice of making all persons who wish to enter the marriage state, no matter what their religious opinions, to go through a long ceremony in a church, must be glaring even to the favoured priests themselves. It is the emolument that makes them hold so fast by the present system, that made them such strenuous opposers of the Unitarian Marriage Bill which was brought into the House of Commons a few years since.

Marriage is now a contract for life. It ought to be so no longer than it conduces to the happiness of the persons concerned. A divorce ought to be as easily obtained as the first contract; and it ought to be done in the same public manner before magistrates. Perhaps a notice of such an intention would be adviseable; and to prevent hasty separations, such as might arise from passion, and where the parties upon reflection might not desire to be separated, the notice may be given for a longer time than in the case of marriage; say three or six months, a sufficient time for reflection. If the parties, or the complaining party, appeared at the expiration of the time embraced by the notice, the divorce should be complete; if they did not appear, the notice to be void, not a ground of divorce at any subsequent period.

The present system makes it imperative on fathers to support their offspring. The same should be done under any other system, provided there were no articles in the marriage-contract which bound the parties in any other way. Every marriage contract should embrace some articles as to the arrangement of property and children should a divorce take place; but when no such articles existed, the property and children should belong to the father. When there were no articles and no children, the property should be equally divided. But it is reasonable to suppose, that very few marriages would be made without a contract embracing these particulars; and all that the law need do, would be to make these contracts binding on the contractors.

A few regulations may be useful concerning the granting of divorces. When both parties desired separation, the divorce should be granted without further inquiry; but when one party only applied, the magistrate should require proof of neglect or illtreatment, and give the other party an opportunity of being heard in defence. The same is now the case with contracts between master and servant: when both agree, the contract is void; when only one party desires it, he takes the case before a magistrate, who, upon a sufficient showing, grants the desired relief.

The above is only a rude sketch of a better system of marriage, but reason and experience would soon perfect it when brought into operation. Let it be once taken out of the hands of the

1

priests, and all minor obstacles would soon vanish. The grand object is to make marriage a civil contract, binding no longer than it conduces to the happiness of the parties contracting.

Who could complain, were such a system to be put in force? None but the priests. Those who were happily yoked together could have no reason to complain, because it would in no way affect them; and those who were unhappily yoked, would feel it a blessing.

Some persons may be led to suppose, judging from the present social state, that under such a system divorces would be very frequent. This is not my opinion. I do not think they would be more frequent than separations now are. When a divorce could be easily obtained, each party would feel interested in keeping the good opinion of the other; self-interest, the strongest of all motives, would be ever at hand to restrain their passions and regulate their behaviour and conduct. During courtship, this self-interest acts in all its vigour, and its effects are every where apparent; at this time the worst tempered persons generally make themselves agreeable to each other. Under the present system, when courtship is succeeded by marriage, this powerful motive is lost, and the consequences are evident: the generality of married persons study to be agreeable no longer. But marriage, under the system I advocate, would be but a continued courtship; and a continued desire and endeavour to please would be, evidently, the results. The following paragraph, from the "Examiner," headed-" A Native American's Notions of Wedlock," is apposite to the above argument :

"An aged Indian, who for many years had spent much of his time among the white people, both in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, one day observed, that the Indians had not only a much easier way of getting a wife than the whites, but were also more certain of getting a good one; for, said he in his broken English, white man court-court-may be one whole year! May be two years! before he marry. Well-may be then got very good wife may be not! may be very cross! Well, now, suppose crossscold as soon as get awake in the morning-scold all day-scold until sleep-all one; he must keep him! White people have Jaw forbidding throwing away wife, be he ever so cross-must keep him always!-Well, how does Indian do? Indian, when he sees industrious squaw, which he like, he go to him, place his two forefingers close aside each other-make two look like one-look squaw in the face-see him smile-which is all one he says yes! So he take him home-no danger if he be cross. No, no, squaw know too well what Indian do if he be cross-throw him away take another! Squaw love to eat meat-no husband no meat! Squaw do every thing to please husband--he do the same to please squaw-live happy."

and

I think it may be safely stated that one marriage out of every ten, under the present system, proves unhappy; that is, the parties would gladly separate if they could; and I think I can assafely say that nine out of every ten of these unhappy marriages are occasioned by the system itself. Now, if a new system would prevent nine-tenths of the present unhappy marriages, and give freedom to the remainder, it is surely of the greatest importance to the happiness of society that it should be made known and adopted. That I do not overrate the evils of the present system, let every one judge from the specimens of social life which surround him.

What is the life of two persons disgusted with each other, and yet compelled to live together? A life of vexation, of misery. who The home which should be a paradise, is a hell; the persons should conduce to each's happiness, are considered each other's persecuting demons. They avoid each other as much as possible, which only tends to make matters worse: but too generally the husband strives to forget his home and his partner in the company and habits of Bacchanalians; and the wife, to be a match for her drunken husband who is abroad, indulges in drunkenness at home. Instead of acting together for their mutual welfare, they both work for their mutual destruction. Neither feels any inducement to great exertions to obtain worldly advancement, because neither wishes to see the other advanced. When they have to depend on their own exertions for support, poverty is a matter of course; and each curses the other as the cause of their misfortunes. From such a life "Good Lord deliver us."

But these are not the only sufferers. Relations, friends, neighbours, all come in for a share. Some side with one party, some with the other, and thus enmity is generated among all with whom they have any connection. When the party is in high life, an interruption is given to their social intercourse, their family visits, so necessary to pass off the listlessness or ennui attending those who have nothing to do: when in low life, their continual quarrels interrupt the harmony of the neighbourhood, and embitter the existence of those persons with whom they come in immediate contact.

But it is the example, the bad education which those persons who are unhappily married bestow on their children, that is the most injurious to society. As the parents are always quarreling, the children naturally learn to quarrel also. All their bad passions are brought into play, while their intellectual faculties are almost wholly neglected; and the result is that they generally become bad members of society. This happens not so much from the bad habits which they acquire as from the preponderance which such an education gives to the animal propensities. It is proved by Phrenologists, that the strength, activity, and developement of

the brain are greatly influenced by education. When the intellectual faculties are kept in continued action, and the animal propensities and passions as free as possible from excitation, a fuller developement of the organs of the former takes place ; and if the child's organization were but tolerably good at first, a preponderance is thus given to the faculties most useful to mankind. But when, as is the case with the children of parents who are continually at variance with each other, the principal activity is given to the animal passions, that organization must have been good indeed which does not acquire a preponderating developement of the injurious organs.

It also gives birth to a species of tyranny and slavery throughout the family, from the father to the youngest child. The husband, a slave to drunkenness or his unbridled passions, is a tyrant to his wife; she is a tyrant to her children; and they are, consequently, tyrants and slaves towards each other according to their respective powers. It has been often and truly said that slaves are always the greatest tyrants when they have an opportunity. How can children, who have seen nothing but ill-will, quarrelling and abuse between their parents, and received nothing else from their hands, be supposed to make good husbands or wives, fathers or mothers, neighbours or citizens? We may as well expect gentleness in the tiger or ferocity in the sheep. A few rare cares of each may be found, but the chance against finding is as a mountain to an ant-hill. When priests shall teach truth, lawyers deal honestly by their clients, and quack-doctors perform what they promise, then may we expect to find good citizens springing from unhappy marriages. When family discord, drunkeuness and abuse shall be considered as increasing the comforts of social life, then may we with propriety laud the present system of marriage and all its supporters; but till then I will give my voice against it, and, wherever an opportunity occurs, pronounce it THE PEST OF SOCIETY.

I am aware that prejudices will occasion many to think very differently from me on this subject; but I give a general invitation to all to discuss the matter, in order, if possible, that every prejudice on the subject may be removed. The principal questions are:-Are there any advantages attached to the present system which could not be obtained by another, allowing freedom of divorce? Would there be any disadvantages attending freedom of divorce to equal the disadvantages attending the present system?

R. H.