when the patriarchs practised it, we should be more consistent as believers in the Scriptures if we admitted the permission of these practices to be more conducive to morality than their prohibition, among a people similar to the ancient Jews to whom Moses allowed such liberty. As to the privilege which Moḥammad assumed to himself, of having a greater number of wives than he allowed to others, I have elsewhere remarked,[278] that, in doing so, he may have been actuated by the want of male offspring as much as impelled by voluptuousness. "On the subject of polygamy," says a writer who has deeply studied Muslim institutions and their effects, "a European has all the advantage in discussion with a Turkish woman, because her feelings are decidedly on the side of her antagonists; but then she has a tremendous power of reply, in the comparison of the practical effects of the two systems, and in the widely spread rumours of the heartlessness and the profligacy of Europe. All the convictions of our habits and laws stand in hostile array against the country where the principle of polygamy is admitted into the laws of the state; but yet, while we reproach Islamism with polygamy, Islamism may reproach us with practical polygamy, which, unsanctioned by law and reproved by custom, adds degradation of the mind to dissoluteness of morals."[279] It should further be remarked that by sanctioning polygamy Moḥammad did not make the practice general: nay, he could not. It is a licence for the hard-hearted, which restrains them from worse conduct, and in some cases, as already shown, a resource for the tender-hearted. "The permission," observes the author just cited, "does not alter the proportions of men and women. While, therefore, the law of nature renders this practice an impossibility as regards the community, it is here still further restrained among the few who have the means of indulging in it, both by the domestic unquiet that results from it, and by the public censure and reprobation of which it is the object."