The Essayist.

Otago Witness, Issue 1506, 25 September 1880, Page 25

The Essayist.

MATBIMON7.

By Colonus.

That was rather an ingenious notion which Professor Humphrey, in a lecture he lately g*ve at Home, started, apparently to the effect that in marriages it might be advisable for the State to interfere to some extent, so as to secure a better physical development of the offspring of such marriages, than is likely to ensue from people, as at present, having an absolute free choice in the~matter of pairing off. It is of course extremely improbable that people in a free State wonld ever snbmit to have their personal liberty interfered with in such a delicate subject es marriage ; or let Government choose husbands and wives. It is said that Frederics; the Great of Prussia, who liked big men for his armies, chose wives for his soldiers > in order to breed fine children j but British soldiers would hardly submit; to discipline cirr.ei to that length. Regarding the subject, ho waver, from merely an abstract point of view, I strongly suspect; that any such interference of the legislature wonld do a vast deal more harm than it wonld good to humanity. We must bear in mind that in the universe human beings stand on a much higher platform than the lower animals. As regards humanity, what we want to secure is not only a healthy and vigorous bodily development, but also a high intellectual and moral development. If, by the interference of a third party, in the form of the legislature, in the matrimonial choice, we could hope to secure not only a better physical, but also a higher moral and intellectual development of human beinga, there possibly might be some excuse for such interference j but that is a feat utterly beyond the power of human performance. By care and obserj vation, we ara able to improve the breeds of cattle, sheep, and horses ; but any attempts of human beiogsto breed poets, philosophers, moralists, and statesmen, would prove utterly abortive. Was there, any such recognisable peculiarity in the minds of the parents of Shakespeare, Milton, or Burns, that we might have surmised their sons would turn out great poets ? It is notorious that clever parents may have children not remarkable for talent or genius, and that men of great talent or genius, have had parents not particularly remarkable for extraordinary mental gifts. Why some men surpass others in intellectual endowments is far and utterly beyond human comprehension. With regard to the human race, also, the moral and intellectual develop, ment of men and women is a matter of greater importance than their bodily development. It is no doubt of extreme importance that human beings should have strong and healthy bodies, but that they should have a high intellectual and moral development is of much more importance, and though a healthy and powerful mind may be frequently encased in a strong and athletic body, we know this is far from being universally the case, and that many men of great talent or genius have had but small or feeble bodies. As regards the development of plants and the lower animals it is a'l very well for men to aid or direct the forces of Nature, but to interfere with JViature in the production of suoh a wonderful and highly organised being as man would be preposterous and absurd, and probably do considerable injury and mischief to humanity. In the matter of promoting a high develop, menu of human beings, Nature herself does a great deal by making a fine bodily development a source of attraction totheopposite sex.

Handsome, strong, and well grown men, and comely and beautiful women are more likely to get married than people of a less favourable appearance. A fine complexion is also a considerable attraction, and it is said that a clear or delicate complexion whether in men or women, and whether the complexion - be dark or fair, is an indication of a good and vigorous constitution. It has sometimes been said that people of feeble or sickly constitutions, or people in whose blood there is an hereditary taint of disease, such as consumption, heart disease, or lunacy, ought not to marry. I much doubt, however, whether aa regards such people we are justified in placing them under any Btrict interdiction. Such an Interdiction would be harsh and cruel to individuals, and the moral injury done by it would probably outweigh the physical benefit. Such a veto on marriage wrald probably result in considerable mischief in the shape of fornication and illicit amours, and would tend to the moral degradation of humanity — a more important matter than its physical degradation. It is better to leave the subject to the judgment of the parties concerned, without telling them it is their duty to refrain from marriage, much less would it be advisable to make a law prohibiting such marriages. Ab to the subject of polygamy, the advisability of monogamy, or the marriage of only one wife, has so

far foroed itself upon the minds of the wisest men as to be recognised as a divine command by, with the exception of the Mormons, all the more highly civilised and best morally developed nations of the world ; and Burely it is a divine command, and a command the , observance of w.hich is probably necessary to

ensure or promote the well-being and favourer able physical, intellectual, and moral development of human beings, and the nonobservance of which I feel a strong assurance would be likely to have an injurious influ- ', ence on humanity. Consider what might be some of the results of the recognition of golygamy as a legal and social institution, and what an injurious part mammon might play in such. case. Wealth and capital is capable of monopolising a great deal in the shape of land and other things, but it is to be hoped it never will monopolise the women, or the results in the matter of the degradation of the human race might be disastrous in the extreme.