The Commissioners had the honour of presentation to the Queen-Empress Alexandra.  Fancy them asking how many subordinate wives she has to aid her in sustaining the dignity of the King-Emperor!  They would learn with surprise that no European sovereign, however lax in morals, has ever had a palace full of concubines as a regular appendage to his regal menage; that for prince and people the ideal is monogamy; and that, although the conduct of the rich and great is often such as to make us blush for our Christian civilisation, it is true this day that the crowned heads of Europe are in general setting a worthy example of [Page 296] domestic morals.  “Admirable!” respond the Commissioners; “our ancient sovereigns were like that, and our sages taught that there should be ‘Ne Wu Yuen Nu, Wai wu Kwang-tu’ (in the harem no pining beauty, outside no man without a mate).  It is the luxury of later ages that keeps a multitude of women in seclusion for the pleasure of a few men, and leaves the common man without a wife.  We heartily approve the practice of Europe, but what of Africa?”

“There the royal courts consider a multitude of wives essential to their grandeur, and the nobles reckon their wealth by the number of their wives and cows.  The glory of a prince is that of a cock in a barn-yard or of a bull at the head of a herd.  Such is their ideal from the King of Dahomey with his bodyguard of Amazons to the Sultan of Morocco and the Khedive of Egypt.  Not only do the Mahommedans of Asia continue the practice—­they have tried to transplant their ideal paradise into Europe.  Turkey, decayed and rotten, with its black eunuchs and its Circassian slave girls, stands as an object-lesson to the whole world.”

“We beg your pardon, we know enough about Asia; but what of America—­does polygamy flourish there?”

“It did exist among the Peruvians and Aztecs before the Spanish conquest, but it is now under ban in every country from pole to pole.  Witness the Mormons of Utah!  They were refused admission into the American Union as long as they adhered to the Oriental type of plural marriage.”

“Ah!  We perceive you are pointing to the Mormons as a warning to us.  You mean that we shall not be admitted into the society of the more civilised nations [Page 297] as long as we hold to polygamy.  Well!  Our own sages have condemned it.  It has a long and shameful record; but its days are numbered.  It will do doubt be suppressed by our new code of laws.”

This imaginary conversation is so nearly a transcript of what must have taken place, that I feel tempted to throw the following paragraphs into the form of a dialogue.  The dialogue, however, is unavoidably prolix, and I hasten to wind up the discussion.

With reference to the Mormons I may add that at the conference on International Arbitration held at Lake Mohonk last July, there were present Jews, Quakers, Protestants and Roman Catholics, but no Mormons and no Turks.  Creeds were not required as credentials, but Turk and Mormon did not think it worth while to knock at the door.  Both are objects of contempt, and no nation whose family life is formed on the same model can hope to be admitted to full fraternity with Western peoples.