hurst's Act, about 70,000 such marriages have taken place, involving the legitimacy of at least 60,000 children. In countries on the Continent, such marriages are allowed-with and without dispensations and no worse effects follow than from other marriages. Indeed, when such marriages of English subjects take place abroad, it is yet a great question with lawyers how far such marriages are legal. There is no physical objection to such marriages-there is no consanguinity-and we think a deceased wife's sister the most likely person to behave kindly to the motherless children.

But admitting also, for the sake of argument, that such marriages are undesirable, is that any reason for enforcing legal restrictions respecting them? Are all undesirable things to be prevented—all desirable things to be brought about-by Act of Parliament. It is, no doubt, a very undesirable thing that many young ladies, who wish to get married, cannot obtain husbands-that the number of old maids is rapidly increasing year by year, very undesirable that mills are working short time, and that the poor want bread,but who would think of altering these things by Act of Parliament ? Who, except unmarried ladies, would wish bachelors to be under a poll-tax? As wise Archbishop Whately says, "It is not advisable that a gentleman should marry his servant girl, or a young girl marry an old man, or an old woman marry a young man ; but who would prevent these things by law? You must go upon the broad principle of non-interference;-i. e., that a clear and adequate case of public advantage is to be made out to justify any restriction. Let your opponents be called upon to bear the burden of proof;i.e., to show some manifest and considerable public benefit promoted, or evil prevented, by the restriction. I take my stand on the broad general principle, that every restriction is an evil in itself -that political liberty (as Paley observes) consists in a man being subject to no restriction that is not counterbalanced by a greater amount of public advantage; that the general rule, accordingly, should be to let every one do as he pleases, the burden of proof lying upon the advocates of any restriction to show its necessity.'

We have now done. Our article has been a long one, and we are sorry for it; but the subject required a full discussion. We leave it with our readers, believing, with the Bishop of Llandaff, that "there is no moral or religious objection" to "marriage with a deceased wife's sister." F. S.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

MR. EDITOR,-I am sorry to learn that even British Controversialists are to be found advocating the affirmative of this question; I had thought them all to have been more rational creatures, but there is no knowing what men, even the best of men, will come to. I do not think, for one moment, you entertain such crude notions as they have, or may, put forth; no, I believe better things of you, because you have always been a ladies' man, advoLetter to G. A. Crowder, Esq.

cating their interests in every possible way; but, in your editorial capacity, you of course must hold the balances of justice with even hand while this subject is under debate, otherwise, I should have solicited your kind assistance on our side, and I am sure I should not have desired that valuable aid in vain.

There is the religious view, and the civil or social view of this question; if the consideration of the former shows an authoritative precept, direct or indirect, the latter, as a necessary consequence, is subject to it, and controlled by it; we will, therefore, first offer a few remarks on the religicus part of the question.

1

In the beginning, it was ordained by the Creator, that man and woman should become one flesh by marriage-should be considered by mankind, as they were constituted by God one blood-flesh of flesh, bone of bone, every expression being used which could, with the most emphasis, express the oneness of being, feeling, interest, and relationship; these ideas have been, and become so much a part of our nature, that all nations have, at all times, recognized their fullest truthfulness, from the most savage and illiterate, to the most highly civilized and learned of the sons of men. Now, it is said in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, that a man cannot marry his father's daughter, i. e., his own sister; this is given as a precept of Divine authority. But we have seen that Divine law constitutes man and wife one in being, feeling, interest, and relationship; consequently, the sister of his wife is his sister also, and he is, therefore, forbidden by the same Divine law to take her in marriage.

Now, Mr. Editor, this argument is so simple, that “a wayfaring man, though a fool, may not err therein." I am sure you think so; but as some vainglorious remnant of conceit and puppyism may plague you so much by his importunity as to induce you to publish his lucubrations, I will take, at least, the only pretence out of his reach, by removing all validity from his pet argument. "Ah! these things were once true, there is no doubt," he says; "but they were intended for a different people to ourselves, and for a different time to this we now live in; that time is past; 'twas in the infancy of this old world of ours, now we are in its manhood; that people was ignorant, untutored, narrow-minded, bigoted, sensual, grovelling, but we, in this Nineteenth Century, are highly civilized, welldisciplined in mind, intensely cultivated, noble and dignified in nature, liberal in sentiment, capable of high and noble things; we, with this world, have thrown off the swaddling-clothes of infancy, and rejoice in the full strength and matured experience of robust manhood."

If this Divine law, by which man and woman are made one flesh, with equal and correlative relationships, and this Levitical marriage law, were designed for a particular time and people only, I should expect to find some authoritative declaration to that effect so explicitly laid down, that no one could misunderstand it, and so generally diffused, that no individual member of the human family

should, by any possibility, be ignorant of that fact, so important to the physical and religious well-being of the human family in its entirety. Is this found to be the case? No! revelation and history, the morals, manners, and customs of every nation, testify to the contrary. If we are wrong in this, the affirmers of this debate must set us right; a task, I fancy, of no easy accomplishment for them. Is it not the law and custom of all civilized nations, sanctioned by New Testament precept, to regard man and woman (married) as made one in all social interests and relationships? Is not this as true now as it was at any previous time? Does any one of the changes made in the marriage law of the Old Testament, to suit the advanced spiritual life and requirements of the New dispensation, alter or invalidate this point in the Adamic and Mosaic economy ? I think not; and logic of a peculiar kind only can prove any change as potentially affecting it. The advocates of this incestuous system, to whom I am obliged to oppose myself in the common interests of my sex, appear to forget that the relation of consanguinity, created by marriage, has its origin with the human family, is co-extensive with the existence of mankind, and is not limited by time, either past or future, unless the essentials of human nature be proved to be changed. Thus it is seen that, religiously considered, marriage with a deceased wife's sister always has been, is now, and always will be, incestuous, while man's nature remains unchanged in its essential characteristics. It may serve to influence and strengthen some minds if I show some reasons from the social aspect of this question, although I have no good opinion of that man's sanity, who will not feel his mind to be set at perfect rest upon this question by the religious argument the merest novice may derive from the sacred Scriptures. The physical powers are likely to degenerate by the frequent intermarriage of near relations, and the intellect becomes weak, imbecile, idiotic, and permanently monomaniacal, from the same cause-effects tending to the complete prostration of the whole race; social ties, relationships, obligations, and duties, become confused, ill-defined, and utterly disregarded; the bonds of society broken up; the family circle annihilated; mankind a heap of shreds and patches, the result of nature's 'prentices dabbling in the Master's work, attempting to improve upon the Master's chief handiwork-man-in his highest, noblest, greatest, most glorious character as creator of the human soul divine. I am ashamed of such men. Away with such nonsense! If they will disgrace so flagrantly their humanity, let them, with their opinions, be held up to the just indignation and contempt of all right-minded men, and women too. Talk of the world having once been in the swaddling-clothes of infancy, I think they have been, still are, and ever will be, fixed in the puerilities of childhood as long as they live. 'Tis a pity they are not confined to the nursery and the cradle; such would be more congenial to their stunted morals and their dwarfed intellects.

J. H. W. insinuates, that any one holding the negative view on

this question, is likely "to take things for granted without previous inquiry into their intrinsic merits." It will appear by the foregoing observations, compared with his paper, that the "boot is on the other foot." Of one thing he may be certain,-any paper bearing his signature will not be taken for granted, at least not by the female portion of your readers, Mr. Editor. That which has obtained the sanction of antiquity, which has been supported by the wisdom of ages, and is left for our guidance, is worthy of being received at least with respect, in these Nineteenth Century days, and ought not to be hastily rejected. Besides, when a law or a custom not only has the sanction of past ages, but has the authority of Divine precept, and is commended by sound reason as good, true, and beneficial, then all are bound to receive it cordially, heartily, and should not be twitted with taking things for granted without examination. I would ask J. H. W. what this question has to do with the Jewish custom of the man taking the widow of his brother to wife, while his own wife is still living? or Jacob, Leah, and Rachel ? or the practice of polygamy? I am at a loss to see any connection these matters have with our present debate, and suppose, Sir, they must have escaped your notice, or you would have exercised your editorial prerogative, and expunged such remarks as irrelevant.

J. H. W. says, in answering this question affirmatively, two things have to be settled; that it "is consistent with Christianity and social requirements, and that the practical want of such an enactment is sufficiently felt to justify the repeal of existing prohibitory laws." That it is consistent with Christianity he never attempts to show; and the latter is certainly a blunder of the most flagrant nature, the practical want of laws to be the justifying cause of their prohibition (!) Well, this out-Herod's Herod. Who could have anticipated such a dénouement? But taking J. H. W. by what he is supposed to mean, not by what he says, that a law for permission to marry brothers and sisters is sufficiently felt to warrant the repeal of the prohibitory laws, I should join issue with him that a law to marry brothers and sisters in the terms of this debate is not sufficiently felt to warrant the repeal of present laws. He has failed to prove the want, and, until he proves it, the want exists only in his own airy imaginations.

I, as a female, reject with scorn the degrading imputations he makes upon our sex as to "sentimentalism," and "the young lady setting her cap at her brother-in-law." The brute! does he think we are such creatures as he has painted us in his vapourings? I only wish I could see him, Sir; I would tell him something he would remember about "sentimental ladies," and "eligible young men." I should like to know, Sir, if he has forgotten the respect due to his own mother and his own sister. Surely they are ignorant of his sentiments, or they would vindicate on his person the outrage he has committed against our entire sex. I must, however, leave his unreasoning verbosity, and conclude, Sir, with the earnest hope

that you will do your utmost to set us right before the readers of the British Controversialist, as I feel assured it is not the ladies who wish marriage with a deceased wife's sister to be legalized ;as is proved herein by your sincere friend, DINAH MORRIS. Snowfields.

Social Economy.

IS THE MINUTE OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION CALCULATED TO BENEFIT THE CAUSE OF GENERAL EDUCATION?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

I BELIEVE that the "New Minute" is "calculated to benefit the cause of education," and that the Old Code was based on a false foundation. In the former system of augmenting the salaries of teachers, the Committee of Council made it depend on the attainment of a certain amount of intellectual acquirements; yet it is well known, to those best acquainted with public schools, that men of high scholarship are not necessarily the most efficient educators in elementary schools. The power of acquiring knowledge does not imply the capacity of communicating it. If the purpose of Government grants were to stimulate to high attainments in learning, they might on this plan gain their end; but, as I understand it, their purpose is to support and encourage the teachers of the children of the poor. Many of the 3rd class certificated masters are more blessed with the power to govern well, and impart readily, than those of the 1st class; and it is not a good thing that such a teacher, if his school is not in a better state than that of another, should have £30 per annum for that other's £15, merely because he has studied Euclid, and gone some way in French and Latin. The New Code will deal with this in a much more satisfactory way than the old.

Government augmentation for the intellectual attainments of the master, instead of the progress of the children, was based on a fallacy which has now become evident, and they are now about to issue certificates bearing an intellectual but no direct money value. On this subject a good deal of dissatisfaction is felt by certificated masters. They complain of injustice, on account of this destruction -they call it of the money value of their certificate. I have no doubt the £30 holder will feel reluctant to be brought to the level of his £15 brother in trade, but he will have this consolation at least, that if his superior learning has been brought to bear on the minds of his pupils, so as to induce a more rapid development, he