pride, will dread the spuriousness of his offspring, and so storm most lustily on both male and female sinner, till revenge be fully gratified.  The difference of opinion about this matter, in different nations and ages, is immense and embarrassing.  Some people, we know, had their wives in common, as related of our own ancestors by Caesar, and of the Massagetae by Herodotus.  The Greeks and Romans thought it more convenient to lend them out occasionally to a friend or acquaintance, in which they seem to have imitated the Spartans.  In certain countries, the offer of a wife is a common civility to strangers, who cannot be expected to carry their own about with them constantly.  The Indians of North Carolina, we are told by Lawson, never punish a woman for adultery, because, say they, she is a weakly creature, and easily drawn away by the man’s persuasion.  That people, however, take good care to recover damages from the man, in which one might think the inhabitants of Britain now-a-days would conceive they acted wisely, and might only envy them the power they allow to the husband of assessing the offender, and levying the fine; for, says Lawson, “he that strives to evade such satisfaction as the husband demands lives daily in danger of his life; yet, when discharged, all animosity is laid aside, and the cuckold is very well pleased with his bargain, whilst the rival is laughed at by the whole nation, for carrying on his intrigue with no better conduct, than to be discovered, and pay so dear for his pleasure.”  In this, however, we differ; our cuckolds are laughed at as fools, which is monstrously absurd, whilst the transgressor is denominated a fine fellow, no less monstrously unjust.  How far the laws of England may be accessary to such glaring perversity of sentiment, it is difficult to say; but if one were disposed to fear with Mr Christian, (see his notes on Blackstone, lib. 1, ch. 16.) “that there is little reason to pay a compliment to them for their respect and favour to the female sex,” he might not hesitate to suspect some radical vice in their constitution, which could so far debase female honour as to leave it problematical, whether or not the violaters of it, in any sense or degree, were capable of any thing but infamy.  ’Twere too puritanical, perhaps, to join Cowper in his ironical commendation;—­

            “But now, yes, now,
   We are become so candid and so fair,
   So liberal in construction, and so rich
   In Christian charity (good-natured age!)
   That they are safe, sinners of either sex,
   Transgress what laws they may.”

But surely it is desirable, that a nation professing supreme regard to a divine revelation, should shew something of its abhorrence, at a crime which strikes at the root of all social comfort and happiness.—­E.]