tyrannically, meanly, and despicably, and he did not want the world to know it. Poor, deluded man! did he not see when reading those portions of Scripture we have alluded to, that he was reading his own condemnation? Did he not see that his mission was "to love, nourish, and cherish his wife, as the Lord the church?" His conduct was wholly subversive of this end. Did he not see that the wife's rights were specially guarantied to her? He was to estimate her liberty by the same love of liberty he had in his own heart. He was, in an especial manner, to love her as himself; in no other way could he "cherish her," cheer, and gladden her heart. No, instead of cherishing and nourishing his wife, he nourished and cherished the disease which preyed on her vitals, and was the means of bringing her to an untimely grave. This is no rare occurrence. Thousands, and tens of thousands, find an untimely grave, in consequence of the practical operation of these principles, in our boasted land of liberty. Let none say that it is an abuse of authority that we are delineating; for it is the legitimate use of it, carried out in its practical operations, and follows the exercise of arbitrary authority as the shadow does the substance. Practice is the only way to test the correctness of a theory.

66

con

On the principle that the husband has the authority above specified, we can see no reason why he has not the right to control the physical labour of his wife, not for the sake of her happiness, but for the sake of his own, (that is, to keep him in temper, as that is the principle on which he has the right to govern.) It is for her happiness, to be sure, in a certain sense, that is, for fear of worse consequences, tinual dissension," &c.; and as she is the weaker party, she might not come off "even with the skin of her teeth." Her husband might apportion the amount of her labour, as the respectable man did that reeled his wife's yarn, and the kind of labour, and the remuneration for labour, entirely to his own will, to the entire exclusion of the will of his wife, as we suppose it would not be generally thought that any of these matters would "appertain to her conscience." And when these rights are conceded, of course it is conceded that he has a right to enforce her obedience. It supposes that the woman has no right to the use of her intellect, as far as matters are concerned that do not "appertain to her con

science," if that comes in competition with her husband's will. Indeed, intellect is of very little importance to a person who is wholly under the influence of another. The person having the control is to do all the thinking. This doctrine lies like an incubus on the intellectual faculties; a person put under the control of another, not being permitted to think and act for herself, the mental powers will blight and wither. What we have endeavoured to describe is the legitimate exercise of this authority, which we have had under consideration; we have not said one word about its abuse. The facts we have related of its exercise were in the hands of respectable people, members of reputable Christian denominations. But let us suppose it is put into the hands of a person a great deal worse qualified for its exercise, suppose a debauchee, returning from his midnight revels, finds his wife sitting by a few dying embers, trimming her midnight lamp, to procure a scanty subsistence for herself, and worse than fatherless children, yea, and for the inebriate himself! He feels himself rebuked by her midnight industry; he orders her to bed, or to perform some other service, whatever his frenzied brain pleases to dictate; she does not immediately obey his commands, perhaps it is out of her power; a piece of work must be completed at a certain time. He has been taught from the pulpit, he has read in our moral standards, that the wife's duty is submission and obedience in every thing that did not "appertain to the conscience." Perhaps he is a graduate of some literary institution where these principles had been taught as a science, and enforced with great pathos and eloquence. He imagines that she has behaved very undutifully as a wife; as obedience to his commands will not violate her conscience, and as he is a person placed in high authority, it is a burlesque on authority to say he has not the means to enforce it. He drags her from her seat, beats and abuses. her until her life is put in jeopardy, and not unfrequently the loss of life is the awful consequence. This is no vain declamation nor rare occurrence, as very few months pass without the detail of similar scenes in our newspapers. Ill temper, or imbecility of mind, or love of dominion, may impel others to similar deeds of desperation.

Human nature is not constituted to possess despotic power without abusing it. Here is a legitimate exercise of this

authority in the hands of a debauchee or a tyrant; and, alas! there are many such characters; yes, we say, it is the legitimate use of it, with the exception of the physical abuse. It would be an abuse of this authority to take her life; but to say that a man is placed in despotic authority without any means to enforce it, is a burlesque on authority. What! a man placed in authority, to command in every thing that does not "appertain to the conscience," and have no means to enforce it? It cannot be; a command or a law without a penalty, amounts to no more than an advice. If the authority is conceded, the means to enforce it are also conceded. And if it is true that the husband has not the power to inflict a penalty, the wife and he stand on a perfect equality of authority, as she certainly has the liberty of giving advice. Notwithstanding all the authority the husband has, Dr. Wayland says: "The husband, however, has no more right than the wife to act unjustly, oppressively, or unkindly.' Well, all this seems friendly. But, would not the due exercise of the husband's authority be called unjust, oppressive, and unkind, in all other situations? Would not Dr. W. himself think that if he had to be obedient and submissive to another's will "in every thing that did not appertain to the conscience," he would be treated "unjustly, oppressively, and unkindly." Would he suppose that the person who treated him in this manner was governed by the golden rule? And who is to be the judge of what would be unjust, oppressive, and unkind? The husband must sit in judgment in his own case. People might honestly differ on this question, and do differ. One man might have the most refined and delicate regard both as to the physical and mental feelings of his wife; another might be devoid of this sensibility naturally, and from educational prejudices.

Man is not to be trusted with such an amount of autho

rity; he does not know what he might do. "Is thy servant a dog," says a certain person, that he should do this great thing?" Give all men this authority indiscriminately, with physical power to enforce it, and how will they use it? The very idea of being clothed with so much authority over his equal would be intoxicating; she, perhaps, being his superior in mental and moral endowments. Thanks be to an overruling Providence, the practice on this question is in

comparably better than the principle with those who have any respect for their credit, or sympathy with their weaker fellow beings, and, we may add, any regard for the dictates of the monitor within.

It is full time in the blaze of light, in the nineteenth century, that those statutes should be erased, AT LEAST, from our moral standards-statutes which people, who have any respect for their own character, would be ashamed to acknowledge. However pleased society may be with those theories on paper, Christianity and civilization have advanced too far to put them in practice. It only serves as a caterer to that pride and love of dominion which is implanted in the breast of man, and furnishes a weapon for the hand of some mean, petty tyrant to wield clandestinely.

A number of men of intelligence and good standing have told us that they never thought of such a thing in their own families, whether their wives or themselves had the ascendency; nothing they would deprecate more than the idea of a contest for superiority; and yet those persons were great advocates for this theory. It only answers to be put on paper, that it may pander to man's pride, and be a weapon in the hands of those who are the most unskilful in wielding it.

There is a vast amount of secret suffering endured from the forced submission of women to the opinions and capricious whims of their husbands; the husband is not led to reflect and consider the pain he is inflicting, as the woman's duty is said to be " submission and obedience ;" he considers she is doing no more than her duty when she thus obeys and submits, and he is only exercising his lawful prerogatives. You could not persuade him that he was acting "unjustly or unkindly." But, if husband and wife be regarded as equal in the domestic society, he will see immediately that he is acting" unjustly and unkindly," because he would not wish thus to be treated. The management of families who are governed on this plan is a perfect farce, paltry chicanery, and obsequiousness on the wife's part, and despotism on the husband's. Indeed, she is taught that the only method of accomplishing her purpose is to feign submission. Instead of the interests of husband and wife being identified, they are considered separate and apart; whatever

thewife can filch, she regards as clear gain, and what he withholds, that he considers clear gain. The truth is, it is no filching, for she is only taking what is her own, as did Abigail. But the means of effecting this are deception and intrigue, which are very contaminating and destructive to good morals. Such a course of conduct has a most deleterious effect on children, or servants, or whoever is under its influence. Volumes might be written on the practical effects of husbands having the control of all domestic concerns that do not "appertain to the conscience." How degrading to woman, and how pernicious to both man and woman. "Its effects must be disastrous upon the morals of both parties. By presenting objects on whom passion may be satiated without resistance and without redress, the master's (husband's) pride is fostered, and anger, cruelty, selfishness, and licentiousness, are encouraged; whilst, on the wife's part, lying, deceit, and hypocrisy, a mean, cringing servility, which annihilates her independence and self-respect, the possession of which gives tone to character, are the natural consequences. It may be said that the wife is not without redress. True, the civil law is in advance of our moral systems, and will not permit the husband to beat and abuse the wife, as the old English law did; and yet the law still allows the husband to deprive the wife of her liberty without due process of law,-the husband being both judge and jury in his own case. A shameful violation of a constitutional guarantee. The wife depends on her husband for her temporal support. She has not even control over the wages she might earn by her own labour. (It cannot be expected that the civil law will be far in advance of our moral and theological teachings.) Has not the husband the power of inflicting the most excruciating penalty without lifting his hand to strike? What mental and bodily anguish have women not suffered from this source, without the husband acting in a way that was cognizable by the civil law? Many women have found an untimely grave from treatment of this character, and in many instances become insane; many have borne physical abuse from the husband secretly, because they felt degraded and were ashamed to tell it. You may call this the abuse of authority, if you please; but it is the inseparable concomitant of arbitrary power, when carried out into practice.