Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-02-09

TTT-T ~ ~ TTTT-WTTT TTTT WTTTTTTT -TTTVT VIII " TT u =
Grated in the gross laity, to prevent something
worse; and they seem to have exerted their whole
TO render this sinful condition as uncom.
Portable as possible. Hence the excessive hostili.
" of the canon law to divorce, it being held a just
punishment of the immortality Of marrying at all,
that persons unsuitably or unhnppily married
should be kept during their natural lives tied to-
gether neck and heels, so that their torments in
this world might give them, as 1t were, a rellshing
forotastc of what married sinners had to expect in
tho next. But while unhappy marriages were
thus cursed with a perpetuity beyond the reach OF
the parties or the law, the ingenious canonist at
the same time suspended over the heads of every
happy couple the terror of an involuntary and
forced separation which should unmarry them and
bastardizo their children. One Of the means EN-
ployed for this deyilish purpose WAS the doctrine
of prc-contracts. A promise to marry was, ac-
cording to the canon law, equivalent to a marriage
and every subsequent marriage to another party,
pending the life of the party to whom the promise
had been made, was vitiated by it. The canonists
even went so far MS to allow suits for the specified
performance of these marriage contracts-the OF
fcers Of their courts, on the suit OF some disnp
pointed virgin, entering the household Of love,
breaking up the family, stigmatizing the woman
as q concubine and her children as i~ilegitimate,
and compelling the man to take his legal wite-as
by virtue Of some pretended pre-contract she was
held 20 be-into his house and his bed. 1t is from
this canonist doctrine of pre.contracts that our
SUITS If DfeuCn VI ITOiliSc arr ueTlNGu. luc Coui-
mon law, indeed, being the work Of ruder hands,
is ignorant of that beneficial process of the lto-
man law-the suit for specific performance. III
the case of the non performance Of q contract, tie
common law contents itself with attempting to set
matters right, by awarding damages Tor The non.
performance. In this particular case, even this
defect in the common law was n very fortunate
thing, as otherwise, instead Of merely having dam
ages to pay for refusing to marry against our in
clination, we might have been brought up to the
~ring-rolc Of specific performance, and forced into
the yoke any how.
1t is often said that no woman of any dclicncy
or selErespect ever would or ever does bring u suit
for breach Of promise of marriage. That may De
so; still nothing prevents a great many women,
who would be untirely unwilling to confess TO any
deficiency Of oelicacy or self-respect, from taking
advantage of the law, or more properly speaking
of the public sentiment out of which the law grows
and which sustains it, to force their once lovers.
but lovers no longer, into n reluctant and repug-
nant marriage IN Whose private expert
ence does not enable him to recount instances, in
which men of sensibility and honor have suffered
themselves to be thus forced into unsuitable match
es, of which the unfortunate result has correspon-
ded with the inauspicious beginning? Contrary
to every principle of common sense, as well as to
every instinct of sentiment, as are suits for breach
of promise of marriage, yet undoubtedly they are
fully sustained by the prevailing public sentiment.
Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the cx-
IITuNHHlIl ltUHIHS II WHICH, NbuilS ndNC Htlc III
inferring u promise of marriage from the most tri,
vial misunderstanding on a lady home from
church; going to sec her of a Saturday night; ask
ing her twice of n winter to a ball; corresponding
with her, though nothing is said in the letters about
love or marriage; allowing her to darn your stock
ings. There is, indeed, no circumstance, however
light or trivial, upon which the busy tongues of a
country parish get ny a rumor of an engagement,
which is not held amply sufficient by ouT courts OF
law to establish the fact Of a promise Ct marriage,
and to lay the formation of a suit for damages.
Ii Is not, however, upon these extreme cases that
we rest our opposition. We object to the proceed,
ing in any case, no matter how solemn and formal
the promise, nor how ioften renewed. We object
to the whole idea of obligation in such n case, and,
of course, to the enforcement of such supposed o.
legation by law. The whole thing is a gross abuse
to speak the truth-a scandalous ahomination.
The very idea of marriage, according to any but
the grossest and lowest conception OF 1t, implies
the free and full consent Of both the parties to it.
On the part of the man, if not of the woman, ii
implies something more, not q mere tacit consent,
but a forward, active, joyous consent. n great
deal of sympathy has been expended over women
forced by tyrannical fathers to give their hands
without their hearts. A miserable case, truly, but
altogether less miserable than that of n man,
drawn, by q false sense Of honor and a ridiculous
public opinion, TO speak a public lie, and in the
face Of God and man, to pledge himself as o hus
band, when he knows he cannot be one. All prom.
Uses are made with this implied eservatiOn-tha
he who promises shall have it in his power to full
ell. This is true even of mercantile promises. Nc
man is held to be under any moral obligation tC
pay his debts, any further than he has the mean:
to pay; and upon giving up the property that he
has, our insolyent laws will discharge him from
the legal obligation. A promise to marry carries
with it the implied reservation that he who prom
Uses shall continue to love. The promise is not
and is not understood to be, either by him Wit
makes, or her who receives 1t, a promise merely tt
assume the legal responsibility of marriage; it is
promise to assume the moral and sentimental re
sponsibilities also; and it. by change of circum
stances or change Of mind, it has become impossi
BILE TO fulfill one part of the promise, if it is i'm
possible to love, the whole necessarily falls to thu
ground.
What is the object and intent of that intimacy
called an engagement of marriage, unless to ena
BILE the parties to live together il that freedom o
intercourse which the mutual expectation of mar
riage inspires, for the very purpose of giving then
an insight they would not otherwise have into eacl
others character, and an opportunity of repentance
and retraction before taking the recoverable stepi
And il this be the object of an e-ngagement-a,
who will venture to say it is not-how absurd tc
hold a man bound to marry, by the very process,
of seeking to discover whether it will be iudicious
for him to marry or not
OF all miserable things in this world of misery
a miserable marriage is the most miserable, YET
every acute observer must have noticed that the
misery of many of these marriages arises from
causes too inmaterial, so to speak, TOO spiritual t.
attract the notice of the casual observer. AT a
time when our courts and our legislatures are be
sieged by wives and husbands struggling to ge
rid of uncongenial partners; when the laws on tn,
subject of divorce are loudly complained of in Sc
many quarters, us failing to afford that relief which
they ought, one measure it would seem, might sui
t equally well both the friends and the enemies Of
the freedom of divorce. An ounce Of prevention
t is worth a pound of cure. 1t may be necessary Il
allow those married persons to separate, who have
become not merely ~tiresome, but hateful TO eaci
other, but how much better to avoid the tlundel
of bringing such people together? Divorce at the
pleasure of either party, after the marriage ha,
been c-onsummated, and especially after children
are born, is limited by some very weighty obiec
t~ions;but what can be the objection to allowing the
freedom of separation in cases where no marriage
} has yet been celebrated? IL, indeed, to seek thu
intimacy Of a lady with n view to discover if she
I is tit to be your wife, is to carry with it the obliga
zion to make her so, at all events, we are in no re
lspect better off than the Chinese, who marry theil
: wives without ever having seen them. SO far, in
+ ldapn nH the wife'a narson is concarna1 ma L.,