next demand of liberty. It is a liberty which exists in Germany, and in several of the United States.
There is in truth no species of moral relaxation so narrowly to be watched, as that which affects the intercourse between the sexes. And it has been thought a bad sign of the times when "Is habitus animorum fuit, ut pessimum facinus auderent pauci, plures vellent, omnes paterentur." And this applies far more to moral than political breaking of a law. You will find many men breaking the moral law, that should regulate their conduct towards women, who will neither cheat you, nor rob you—nay, they may even be (I have known such cases) kind husbands and fathers,—but they are not moral men, nor in any but the most vulgar sense respectable—a word, however, which appears now simply to mean rich.
But, fifthly, I say that there will be no hope of retracing our steps, or arresting this relaxation of morals when once begun,—"Vestigia nulla retrorsum." You break through the settled law as to incest. When are you to stop in picking and choosing your exceptions? Lord John Russell, who to my deep regret supported the proposed change, said with his usual straightforward frankness the law would be imperfect if it stopped at the wife's sister. It seems to me that brothers-in-law and brothers' widows, and uncles and nieces, as in Spain, must at least be allowed the same liberty!
Lastly, I ask, why is the happiness of every
