Much of the same casuistry is manifested in dealing with the question of slave marriages. A bondman might be made amenable to the law of banns and celebration; but his continued enjoyment of marital rights and family life was absolutely precarious. As Moore suggests, the proviso of the act of 1705 forbidding the "unreasonable denial of marriage to negroes is very interesting. Legislation against the arbitrary exercise and abuse of authority proves its existence and the previous practice."[699] Besides, the adoption of that law was prompted perhaps as much by self-interest as by regard for morality. It was in effect a prudent police ordinance. Masters were liable for the legal fines imposed on their slaves for sexual offenses. It might be cheaper and less troublesome to allow orderly wedlock. "Moreover it is too well known," writes Sewall, "what Temptations Masters are under, to connive at the Fornication of their Slaves; lest they should be obliged to find them Wives, or pay their Fines. It seems to be practically pleaded that they might be Lawless; 'tis thought much of, that the Law should have satisfaction for their Thefts, and other Immoralities; by which means, _Holiness to the Lord_ is more rarely engraven upon this sort of servitude. It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in taking Negroes out of _Africa_, and selling of them here, That which God has joined together, men do boldly rend asunder; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives, Parents from their Children. How horrible is the Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the ships are guilty of that bring great Crouds of these miserable Men and Women. Methinks when we are bemoaning the barbarous Usage of our Friends and Kinsfolk in _Africa_: it might not be unreasonable to enquire whether we are not culpable in forcing the _Africans_ to become Slaves amongst ourselves."[700] [Footnote 699: MOORE, _op. cit._, 55.] [Footnote 700: SEWALL, _The Selling of Joseph_: in 5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, VI, 17, 18.] For another reason families were in constant danger of being separated. The breeding of slaves was not generally regarded as convenient or profitable in New England. According to Belknap, "negro children were considered an incumbrance in a family; and when weaned, were given away like puppies," and they were "publickly advertised in the news-papers" to be so disposed of.[701] [Footnote 701: BELKNAP'S answer to TUCKER'S _Queries_: in 1 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, IV, 200; _cf._ MOORE, _Notes on Hist. of Slavery in Mass._, 57.]