ners, and the moral question is
paramount in this discussion."

"Nevertheless," remarked one of the most influential members of the
council, "the suggestion of the former speaker is not in my opinion to
be passed by. In the last century, gentlemen, Sterne, one of the
writers most philosophically delightful and most delightfully
philosophic, complained of the carelessness with which human beings
were procreated; 'Shame!' he cried 'that he who copies the divine
physiognomy of man receives crowns and applause, but he who achieves
the masterpiece, the prototype of mimic art, feels that like virtue he
must be his own reward.'

"Ought we not to feel more interest in the improvement of the human
race than in that of horses? Gentlemen, I passed through a little town
of Orleanais where the whole population consisted of hunchbacks, of
glum and gloomy people, veritable children of sorrow, and the remark
of the former speaker caused me to recollect that all the beds were in
a very bad condition and the bedchambers presented nothing to the eyes
of the married couple but what was hideous and revolting. Ah!
gentlemen, how is it possible that our minds should be in an ideal
state, when instead of the music of angels flying here and there in
the bosom of that heaven to which we have attained, our ears are
assailed by the most detestable, the most angry, the most piercing of
human cries and lamentations? We are perhaps indebted for the fine
geniuses who have honored humanity to beds which are solidly
constructed; and the turbulent population which caused the French
Revolution were conceived perhaps upon a multitude of tottering
couches, with twisted and unstable legs; while the Orientals, who are
such a beautiful race, have a unique method of making their beds. I
vote for the adjournment."

And the gentleman sat down.

A man belonging to the sect of Methodists arose. "Why should we change
the subject of debate? We are not dealing here with the improvement of
the race nor with the perfecting of the work. We must not lose sight
of the interests of the jealous husband and the principles on which
moral soundness is based. Don't you know that the noise of which you
complain seems more terrible to the wife uncertain of her crime, than
the trumpet of the Last Judgment? Can you forget that a suit for
infidelity could never be won by a husband excepting through this
conjugal noise? I will undertake, gentlemen, to refer to the divorces
of Lo