Before proceeding to further quotations, the reader will bear with a further illustration of our last.

A man enters an orchard of delicious fruit. Some particular tree attracts his attention above all others. He enters beneath its boughs, and supplies his ali-mentiveness to a surfeit, and from time to time continues to. do so. He continues to feel a "fulness," and has "no room" for more. He casts a general and even appreciative look at other trees, but he desires none of their fruit. In this state, his stomach "repels" the thought of eating from them. Very likely ! But does this prove that he has a taste - a lore for the fruit of that tree only? And who will assert that he acts wiser, and more in harmony with even his nature, or health of his stomach, than the man who, though he may have some preference for some tree or trees of the orchard, more than for all, still, to some extent, supplies his equally normal appetite from several?

"Much is said about a variety in love. It is said that the passional nature of man needs a fuller satisfaction than a single object can afford; that some men must suffer unless they live with more than one woman as a wife. But the history of polygamy, under whatever name, and by whatever and by whomsoever sanctioned, demonstrates that it is unnatural, since its consequences are evil, and only evil. It renders men imbecile, in body and soul, and tends to a disproportion of the sexes. Woman can never attain nor keep her true position in a state of polygamy. The only marriage which commends itself to 'the instinct, the reason and the heart is exclusive, and therefore, this alone will elevate and purify man and woman."

It is plain to us that Mr. Wright intends still to confound Free Love with Polygamy. This is gross slander of the former. Mr. Wright's marriage lies between Free Love and polygamy. Free Love frees all women. Polygamy is exclusive marriage extended from one to many. We are sure that Mr. Wright must see this. We write more for the benefit of woman than for man, as we believe woman suffers more than man, whether she be bound to the man in units, or by tens or by hundreds, as in the case of David and Solomon, and others. Polygamy is not better than dual marriage, but worse, only where there is a redundance of females. So far "its consequences" are not entirely evil.

We have no particular sympathy for the plea for a "variety," in our last quotation. At the best it is an unjust remedy for diseased and undeveloped mind. Such is not the argument of Free Love. But as bad as we think this argument, we do not see how civilized marriages can, with sober face, oppose it.

Let us look at their system as it stands in opposition to it. It may not be unprofitable. What then is the fact as to present society? In the marriage bed, there are not less than thirty thousand females sacrificed annually in the United States, upon the altar of lust, or intemperate amativeness. (No enlightened physician will dispute the entire truthfulness of this statement. If any should, we covet the privilege of discussing it with him, in any place which can be opened to us.) Added to the above, are a large class in our cities who go in the same way - if possible worse, out of law - in spite of law. While this is being enacted on one side, on the other side, there are an equal number of both sexes, dying annually of sexual starvation, from necessary amative fasting, and from the "solitary vice" which sometimes follows such a life of entire and unnatural abstinence. Many dare not take the step in mar-riage, knowing there is no reprieve - no mercy, if it should prove unfortunate, short of death, or adultery - so called - and consequent loss of character. Such, at least, often delay long, and so there are many in single fractional life, when they most need their just rights in love. In this we refer more to females.

Males are vastly more addicted 1o "solitary vice." A physician who has just published a book on the "Physiology of Marriage," testifies that this vice is on the increase, and that it is worse for the race than "fornification."

Civilization has never yet dreamed - aloud, at least - of any thing like a successful remedy for all, or for any of these evils, and yet she is in convulsions of fear, if any man proposes a radical change, lest she should be plunged into something worse. Our friend Ballou is always in this state of mind. So is Mr. Greeley. We do not wonder at this. We sympathise with them to some extent. We have not referred to the real character of civilization, to reproach her, for she is our mother. But we insist, if she truly sees her disease, and knows of no available remedy, she should be more lenient with her children, who may think they have found, and are determined to apply one. Still her very disease creates her fear, but we cannot consult it. We have sounded the thing till we are sure there is no saviour in civilization for civilization. She has tried law and bonds. We leave her to try it still. We shall try gospel and freedom.

We respect the motives of some who oppose Free Love. Still a very large class of those who make the greatest opposition act from unworthy motives - from an unwillingness to give up their household gods. These prefer the law, as they are afraid to trust their sexual interests in a state of absolute freedom of woman. These are "wiser than the children of seemingly more light," and see and know that the real principles of Free Love will bring no gratification to their abnormal flesh. Woman will not then be compelled to meet and surfeit the demand of lust, at the cost of life, as she now is. We do not intend to fully discuss, or reply to all the fears of the ill consequences of our views. We think we say enough to help every enlightened reader out of his fears. We give him the key. If that does not suffice, we must again refer him to Messrs. Noys, Andrews, and Nichols.

Reader, we did not take our pen with a first desire to hasten the downfall of the institution of exclusive marriage, even in its lowest and law phases, much less in its highest spiritual developments. We are not conscious of harboring any ill will towards it. We have felt the power of its persecuting arm, but we have long since out-rode its iron sway, and thoroughly forgiven it. We judge no man for his connubial order. We encroach upon no man's marriage rights, nor will we suffer another to judge, or trespass upon our freedom. To our own master we stand or fall. We go at our own cost, and we allow all others to do the same. We respect every man in living to his clearest and highest light, be that light more or less. We feel but little more than sympathy for the many monsters of amative perversion among our own sex. We wish them no harm - but much good.

We did take the pen to illustrate and defend the principles of freedom in love, in and for those who choose it, and to weaken the despotic power and persecuting spirit of the marriage institution. 9