210

THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF MANKIND. [Part III.

exist, or was not known, at the time of making the promise ; aswhere a woman gives a promise of marriage, but, before thecelebration of the marriage, she discovers that her intended hus-band is too nearly related to her, or that he has a wife yet living.In this class of cases, where the contrary does not appear, itmust be presumed, that the parties supposed what was promisedto be consistent with good morals, and that the promise pro-ceeded entirely upon this supposition. The morality of theperformance, therefore, becomes a condition of the promise,which condition failing, the promise is not binding.

Further, the tendency, motives, and subject-matter are ele-ments entering too intimately into the nature of a promise tobe entirely neglected. Whenever the tendency of the promiseis prejudicial to good morals, as seen in the consequences, ormade manifest by argument, the promise is not binding ; for theevil tendency and effects impart their own character equally tothe promise and the performance. The motives and intentions,too, of the promiser and promisee, or of either of them, and thesubject-matter, may be so unmixedly evil, as to contaminate apromise, and render it void. Therefore, a promise to pay abribe, or to reward the commission of a crime, after the serviceis rendered, is not binding. So in another case, on which, aswell as on these, there has been a difference of opinion. A cer-tain person, in the lifetime of his wife, who was then ill, paid hisaddresses to another woman, and promised her marriage, in theevent of his wife’s death. The wife died, and the woman de-manded performance of the promise. The man, who, it seems,had changed his mind, either felt or pretended doubts concern-ing the obligation of a promise made under such circumstances,and referred his case for solution to Bishop Sanderson, whowas, at that time, very distinguished for the kind of knowledgerequired for the solution. Bishop Sanderson, after writing adissertation upon the question, adjudged the promise to be void.And well he might. For such conduct tends to destroy thesanctity of private life, is inconsistent with the marriage con-tract, and against religion and good morals. To consider such apromise binding is giving encouragement to wrong. Dr. Paley