woman can in no way be shown to be greater than that of the man in an act in which their participation is equal.

Here, too, if we regard the effects on offspring

1

generally or in relation to society, and not to one only of the particular male parents deceived as to the children, the offence of both parties is equal; for if the woman deceive her own husband, he deceives equally the husband of another woman. There is no difference therefore of moral blame.

When, however, a limited view is taken of the question-when the offence of each member of one couple is considered in relation to the other member, and not to the other family or to society, adultery on the part of the woman has its offensive relation only to her own husband, and it is to him only that its punishment falls, if punishment be justified, precisely as his punishment falls to the husband of the woman with whom he may have committed a similar offence.

But here the actual vitiation of offspring is supposed, as enhancing the offence of adultery on the part of the woman. Obviously, therefore, where there is no offspring, there is no enhancement of offence: it is perfectly equal on both sides, as observed in the third paragraph preceding.

It may be replied, "Yes; but there may be progeny, and it may be impossible to say who is

its father."-But I have shown, in my work on Intermarriage, that there can be no difficulty in this, except what arises from wilful ignorance, and that there never was a child which did not strikingly resemble both its parents. It is the interest of fathers to learn where to look for such resemblance he whom a child does not resemble is not its father.

For this aggravation of offence, then, the woman cannot be justly punished, until its commission is proved; and I shall show, in the sequel, that progeny rarely results from temporary amours.

But nothing can more clearly show the flagrant absurdity of all laws which make divorce difficult or unattainable in common cases, than that the commission of legal offence should render it easy. Here, for a mere error in choice, two persons are doomed while they live to perpetual suffering; and if they will only add to this a crime, they are rewarded by being set free.

Nor is the principle of such savage legislation more absurd than its consequences are deplorable. In cases where divorce is desirable, they hold out encouragement to the commission of such offence as will dissolve the contract; and it is well known that those who otherwise in vain seek for divorce, commit the offence in order to ensure it. Here is a premium offered for the commission of crime.

Such, then, as I previously described, seem to be the whole of the just and natural impediments which ought to be thrown in the way of divorce; and while the removal of the unjust and unnatural restraints of a blind and barbarous legislation would greatly diminish the sum of human misery, the just and natural restraints here proposed would guard against the vice of loose connections and licentious separations.

Having thus examined marriage as it should be, I may next consider briefly the RELATION Of

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

It is evident that the man, possessing reasoning faculties, muscular power, and courage to employ it, is qualified for being a protector: the woman, being little capable of reasoning, feeble, and timid, requires protection. Under such circum stances, the man naturally governs; the woman as naturally obeys.

The qualities of sensibility, feebleness, flexibility and affection enable woman to accommodate herself to the taste of man, and to yield without constraint, even to the caprice of the moment. Rousseau beautifully says, "The first and most important quality of a woman is gentleness. Made to obey a being so imperfect as man, often full of vices and always full of faults, she ought early to learn to suffer even injustice, and to bear

wrongs from a husband without complaining. It is not for his sake, it is for her own, that she ought to be gentle. The ill-temper and obstinacy of women never do any thing else than augment their ills and the bad conduct of husbands: they feel that it is not with these arms that they ought to be overcome. Heaven did not make women insinuating and persuasive that they might be peevish; it did not make them feeble that they might be imperious; it did not give them a voice so soft that they might rail; it did not give them features so delicate that they might disfigure them by rage. When they are angry, they forget themselves they have often reason to complain, but they are always wrong in scolding. Each ought to maintain the character of the respective sex: a husband too mild may render a woman impertinent; but at least, if a man be not a monster, the gentleness of a woman will pacify him, and triumph over him sooner or later."

There is, perhaps, no error in the education of women which is so absurd, or which tends so greatly to the misfortunes we have described, as the lesson which vanity and flattery so often inculcate that beautiful women are destined to command lovers prostrate and adoring, and husbands respectful and obedient. Or rather, it is perhaps the direct and literal sense in which

they apprehend this flattering tale, which is so fatal to their happiness. A beautiful and amiable woman is indeed destined to command; but it is not because her slightest wish has controuled the lover, that when that wish is re-expressed to the husband, it is to extract an instant and servile obedience: the beautiful and amiable woman. stoops to conquer: by gentleness-by obedience, she irresistibly wins her husband to every reasonable desire: and there is none, who is either. manly or generous, who would not blush to refuse the boon due to that graceful solicitation or charming seduction, which has gladdened a moment o life.

Some French writer says, "L'empire de la femme est un empire de douceur, d'addresse, et de complaisance; ses ordres sont des caresses, ses menaces sont des pleurs.-The empire of woman is an empire of softness, of address, of compliance; her commands are caresses, her menaces are tears." And is it, I may ask with Rousseau-"Is it so difficult to love in order to be loved, to be amiable in order to be happy, to be estimable in order to be obeyed, to honour one's self, in order to be honoured?"

The immortal religion of the Greeks presents to us Venus as wedded to Vulcan-beauty as wedded to art. And truly it is the art of a beau