Mr. Solly, on whose extraordinary proposal we commented - last week,
to prevent profligacy by making all intercourse between man and woman either legal-marriage, or if either party had already contracted the obligation, legal adultery, has ad- -dressed a long letter to the Star of Thursday, in explanation of his proposition. Therein he only argues that by divine law mar- riage demands the absolute faithfulness of one man to one woman, which nobody doubts, and argues therefore very illogically that that should be taken by divine law as constituting a marriage, -which only previous marriage could by the same law have morally justified. He might almost as well say, in regard to the law of theft, that as the use of property for our own purposes can only be justified in the sight of God by its being our own, any appro- priation of property ought to be regarded as actually creating the ownership which could alone have justified that appropriation. An ex post facto marriage does not undo the sin of license where no marriage was thought of, and in thousands of cases would only work the ultimate ruin of the sinners. Mr. Sally's letter cer- tainly does not make his proposal seem either more. just or more feasible.