PARTIAL LEGISLATION AND EDUCATION.

287

up a Christian, but who may have become a Freethinker, is illegal; so that immediately a child is baptized into the Christian Church it loses its freedom.

According to the "Lord's Day Observance Act," no one can legally open any room for public entertainment or amusement for gain on Sundays; crying of goods and exposing them for sale on that day are also prohibited. So far as crying goods in the streets goes, few would be found probably to object to the prevention of what is an intolerable nuisance to others; but when it is legislated against on one day of the week, and not every day, and made applicable to certain noises, and not all noisessuch as church bells-it becomes one-sided and partial. The same consideration that has been shown to the Sabbatarian ought rightly to be shown to the non-Sabbatarian. If the crying of goods is a nuisance on Sunday, it is the same on Monday or Tuesday; and so is the obtrusive and long-continued tolling of church bells, which is both unnecessary and of no practical utility in these days of watches and clocks. Emphasis is laid on the words "for gain" by our judges, in the clause prohibiting Sunday amusements; but if the noise of crying goods on Sunday is for gain, can it be truthfully said that church-bell ringing is not for gain? And the gain is not entirely confined to souls, for money changes hands. The Established Church, in ringing its bells for souls, rings them also for money; and souls" cannot be saved without money: "souls may be the ostensible reason, but money is behind the whole religious system.

Liberty and freedom are tampered with again by religionist societies, bodies, and individuals, through loopholes in the School Board Act, in the matter of education. The Education Act was passed for the express purpose of taking public education out of the hands of ecclesiasticism, and removing from it all teaching of a religious character; leaving to parents the right of imparting religious doctrine to their children according to their own belief. Formerly the only public education was conducted by what were called "National "" schools; but these were in reality Church schools, endowed by the State. Advantage was taken of this position of things by the clergy, and a wholesale system of proselytizing went on; children, instead of being well

grounded in general subjects, were taught little more than catechism, creeds, and duty to Church ordinances, religious exercises occupying a large portion of the school time; and religion was made the basis of its teaching. The consequence was, the education of the poor, failing to produce the required result, was taken out of the hands of ecclesiasticism altogether, and placed under the sole charge of the new Education Boards, but not without a hard struggle on the part of ecclesiasticism, which still pursues the freedom thus obtained with relentless fury, and still persists in untiring attempts to render the Education Act nugatory, by forcing Bibles and Bible-teaching into the curriculum. The only teaching that can justly be undertaken, without infringing upon the rights of parents and of the children themselves, in schools supported wholly, or in part, by public money, is general teaching, including moral duty apart from theological doctrine; and immediately the domain of special teaching, which includes subjects open to dispute, such as religion and politics, is entered, a moral wrong is committed. The differential characteristics of the various religious systems may be taught as general knowledge, but immediately the boundary which separates knowledge from opinion is passed, and particular tenets are compared invidiously, or spoken of as true or untrue, the domain of special teaching and pleading is entered, which is not legitimate. Religious teaching ought to be undertaken outside school hours, the Sunday-school and the home circle offering ample opportunities for this purpose where desired.

The same principle here enunciated with regard to education should be adopted as regards examinations. J. S. Mill says: "Examinations on religion, politics, or other disputed topics, should not turn on the truth or falsehood of opinions, but on the matter of fact that such and such an opinion is held, on such grounds, by such authors, schools, or Churches." The duty of the State is to see that, whatever a man's private opinions may be, his children shall grow up instructed, so that they may make good citizens; instructed Churchmen, or instructed Dissenters, as the case may be. Any attempt by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects is illegitimate.

RELATION OF THE SEXES PRIMITIVE CONDITIONS POLYANDRY-POLYGYNY POLYGAMY-CONCUBINAGE ILLEGITIMACY- MONOGAMY- MARRIAGE CONTRACTSECCLESIASTICAL AND N. T. IDEAS OF SEXUAL RELATIONS-SEXUAL CHOICE.

UNDER primitive conditions the relation of the sexes, and that between parent and offspring, were, and are, scarcely above those of the lower animals. Having no political or domestic organization, no idea of family existed. The sexes paired off like birds or beasts, according to fancy. The males of gregarious (herding) animals usually fought for possession of the females. Savage tribes occupy the position of primitive man-early or late. Among these we find, as we should expect, great variety in sexual customs; and, although many of these may not be consistent with our ideas of propriety, we must bear in mind that our own customs have no more authority for existence than have theirs; for our monogamic laws are simply derived, like the various laws and customs of other countries and tribes, from the ruling power-the State, which represents (or ought to do) the voice of the intelligent majority of people of that particular part of the world. As society became civilized, the requirement arose for laws to regulate sexual union; but it was not the natural demand for sexual union that necessitated these laws, but the consequences of these unions, and their effects upon social conduct.

Existing savage tribes may be taken as fairly represen tative of primitive man. The Bengeulas of the Congo are accustomed to have their mature maidens led about by their parents for hire, until they are chosen in marriage; and among some Mexican tribes it is a custom for the poorer maidens to hire themselves out, in order to earn a

U

marriage portion; but though this, to civilized nations, is looked upon as immoral, and called prostitution, it is not so with these uncivilized tribes, who have no knowledge of the meaning of the word, or that it is in the least dishonourable, and their vocabulary has no word corresponding with what it conveys to us. We may take a lesson, too, from these tribes, for after marriage these savage maidens remain strictly faithful to their husbands. Many of these tribes consider it a disgrace to marry a pure maiden, for the reason that she cannot have inspired men with love or affection. The Indian Teehurs and Fuegans have not, in the march of evolution, got beyond promiscuity; and with the Tahitians and others wives are only wives for limited periods; with the Assanyeh Arabs, for certain days in the week; and with the Lancerota, during a lunar revolution. With the Lodas, marriage with a man who has brothers means marriage with them all. With the Dog-rib Indians, the wives, during war, go over to the conquerors, leaving their defeated husbands; this custom also exists among some Australian tribes, who capture their wives from neighbouring tribes (exogamy), a custom necessitated by the destruction of female infants, and the subsequent scarcity of women. With some tribes it is customary to lend wives to guests as an act of courtesy, as with the Greenland Esquimaux. "Those are reputed the best and noblest," says Sir J. Lubbock, "who, without pain or reluctancy, lend their friends their wives." The Sleuswaps of Columbia and the Modocs of California buy their wives, and it is dishonour with them for a wife to be given away. With the Komagas, women are free to promiscuity till they marry, after which they remain faithful to their husbands. With the Ladaks, a man is compelled to take to his brother's widow, and adopt whatever family he may have left. With the Adamanese, a wife remains such only until the child is weaned.

=

With some tribes it is customary for one wife to have several husbands (polyandry, from polys many, and andros = husband); and the wife cohabits with them according to regular rules. With other tribes, again, it is customary for one man to have several wives (polygyny, from polys = many, and gune = wife), with whom it is assumed the husband lives contemporaneously, by which this custom differs from

66

are

polygamy (from polys = many, and gamos = marriage), in which state of life the wives are consecutive and not contemporaneous. Polygyny is in vogue in Mohammedan countries, but a man is limited to four wives, though he may have an unlimited number of concubines. Among uncivilized tribes, where a large percentage of men killed in battle, the system may be useful, for without it there would be many women lacking male protection, so indispensable under primitive conditions. The population under this condition, in civilized society, would increase too rapidly, and out of all proportion to food obtainable. It is common in every part of the world not occupied by the most advanced nations......Livingstone tells us that in Makololo, on hearing that a man in England could marry but one wife, several ladies exclaimed that they would not like to live in such a country; they could not imagine how English ladies could relish our custom, for, in their way of thinking, every man of respectability should have a number of wives as a proof of wealth."* But there is another reason why these ladies would not like to be single wives; they would have all the work of the hut to do, whereas the work is divided where there are a number of wives, each having her own occupation. The Bushmen and Tuskis, if they conceive a liking for another man's wife, go out and fight him for her. Marriage of blood relations with each other-brothers, sisters, and even mothers-takes place among the Kareens of Tenasserini, the Chippewayans and the Kadeaks in Asia and America; the Kings of Cape Gonzalves, Gaboon, the Incas of Peru, the Polynesians, and the Sandwich Islanders, marry their grown-up daughters, the Queens marrying the eldest sons. Among ancient civilized nations, including the Hebrew tribes, a plurality of wives and concubinage was the usual custom. Among the Dog-rib Indians the women, of whom two to five belong to each man, fight among themselves for possession of the husbands. Polygamy, equally with concubinage, trespasses against no portion either of the moral or Biblical law, though it is not a recognized custom in monogamic

countries.

CONCUBINAGE has been always considered an honourable

* Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology.