As to the South American Guanas, Azara states, “Aucune femme ne consent à se marier, sans avoir fait ses stipulations préliminaires très-détaillées avec son prétendu, et avec son père et ses parents, à l’égard de leur genre de vie réciproque.”[1318] In Tierra del Fuego, according to Lieutenant Bove, the eagerness with which the women seek for young husbands is surprising, but even more surprising is the fact that they nearly always attain their ends.[1319] Speaking of the same people, Mr. Bridges says, “It frequently happens that there is insuperable aversion on the girl’s part to her husband, and she leaves him, and if she persists in hating him she is then given to one she likes.”[1320] It is, indeed, common in America for a girl to run away from a bridegroom forced upon her by the parents;[1321] whilst, if they refuse to give their daughter to a suitor whom she loves, the couple elope.[1322] Thus, among the Dacotahs, as we are told by Mr. Prescott, “there are many matches made by elopement, much to the chagrin of the parents.”[1323]

In Australia it is the rule that a father alone can give away his daughter, and, according to Mr. Curr, the woman herself has no voice in the selection of her husband.[1324] But, with reference to the Narrinyeri, Mr. Taplin states that, “although the consent of a female is not considered a matter of the first importance, as, indeed, is the case in many uncivilized nations, yet it is always regarded as desirable.”[1325] Among the Kurnai, according to Mr. Howitt, she decidedly enjoys the freedom of choice. Should the parents refuse their consent, she goes away with her lover, and if they can remain away till the girl is with child she may, it is said, expect to be forgiven. Otherwise it may become necessary for them to elope two or three times before they are pardoned, the family at length becoming tired of objecting.[1326] Mr. Mathew asserts that, with varying details, marriage by mutual consent will be found among other tribes also, though it is not completed except by means of a run-away match.[1327] Elopement undertaken with the consent of the woman is, indeed, and has been, a recognized institution among at least some of the aboriginal tribes in Australia. Among the Kurnai it is the rule.[1328]

The Maoris have a proverb, “As a kahawai (a fish which is very particular in selecting the hook that most resembles its food) selects the hook which pleases it best out of a great number, so also a woman chooses one man out of many.”[1329] Mariner supposed that, in Tonga, perhaps two-thirds of the girls had married with their own free consent.[1330] Concerning the natives of Arorae, Mr. Turner says, “In choosing a husband the lady sat in the lower room of the house, and over her head were let down through the chinks of the floor of the upper room two or three cocoa-nut leaflets, the ends of which were held by her lovers. She pulled at one, and asked whose it was. If the reply was not in the voice of the young man she wished to have, she left it and pulled at another leaf, and another, until she found him, and then pulled it right down. The happy man whose leaf she pulled down sat still, while the others slunk away.”[1331] In the Society Islands, the women of the middle and lower ranks had the power to choose husbands according to their own wishes; and that the women of the highest classes sometimes asserted the same right appears from the addresses a chief of Eimeo had to pay to the object of his attachment before she could be induced to accept his offer.[1332] In Radack, “marriages depend on a free convention,” as seems to be generally the case in Micronesia.[1333] In the New Britain Group, according to Mr. Romilly, after the man has worked for years to pay for his wife, and is finally in a position to take her to his house, she may refuse to go, and he cannot claim back from the parents the large sums he has paid them in yams, cocoa-nuts, and sugar-canes.[1334] With reference to the New Caledonian girl, M. Moncelon remarks, “Elle est consultée quelquefois, mais souvent est forcée d’obéir. Alors elle fuit à chaque instant pour rejoindre l’homme qu’elle préfère.”[1335]

In the Indian Archipelago, according to Professor Wilken, most marriages are contracted by the mutual consent of the parties.[1336] Among the Dyaks, “the unmarried girls are at perfect liberty to choose their mates.”[1337] In some parts of Java, much deference is paid to the bride’s inclinations;[1338] and, among the Minahassers of Celebes, courtship or love-making “is always strictly an affair of the heart and not in any way dependent upon the consent or even wish of the parents.”[1339] Similar statements are made by Riedel with reference to several of the smaller islands.[1340] Among the Rejangs of Sumatra, if a young man runs away with a virgin without the consent of her father, he does not act contrary to the laws of the country; and, if he is willing to make the usual payments afterwards, the woman cannot be reclaimed by her father or other kinsfolk.[1341]

In Burma, “the choice of marriageable girls is perfectly free,” and marriages are occasionally contracted even in direct opposition to the parents.[1342] Among the Shans, mutual consent is required to constitute a valid union;[1343] and, regarding the Chittagong Hill tribes, Captain Lewin says that the women’s “power of selecting their own husband is to the full as free as that enjoyed by our own English maidens.”[1344] The same is the case with many, perhaps most, of the uncivilized tribes of India. The young couple often settle the affair entirely between themselves, even though marriages are ostensibly arranged by the parents;[1345] or the parents, before they give their children in marriage, consult them, and, as a rule, follow their likings.[1346] In case of parental objection, elopements frequently take place.[1347] Among the Kukis, a girl who runs away from a husband she does not like is not thought to act wrongly in doing so.[1348] Among the aboriginal tribes of China,[1349] the Ainos,[1350] Khamchadales,[1351] Jakuts,[1352] Ossetes,[1353] &c.,[1354] the daughter’s inclinations are nearly always consulted. And, in Corea, mutual choice was the ancient custom of the country.[1355]

Turning to Africa we find that, among the Touaregs, a girl may select out of her suitors the one whom she herself prefers.[1356] As to the West African negroes, Mr. Reade informed Mr. Darwin that “the women, at least among the more intelligent Pagan tribes, have no difficulty in getting the husbands whom they may desire, although it is considered unwomanly to ask a man to marry them.”[1357] The accuracy of this statement is confirmed by several travellers,[1358] and it seems to hold good for other parts of Africa. Among the Shulis, according to Dr. Felkin, the women have a voice in the selection of their husbands.[1359] The Mádi girls, says Emin Pasha, enjoy great freedom, and are able to choose companions to their liking.[1360] Among the Marutse, “free women who have not been given away or sold as slaves are allowed to choose what husbands they please.”[1361] The young Kafirs endeavour generally at first to gain the consent of the girls, for it is, as Mr. Leslie remarks, “a mistake to imagine that a girl is sold by her father in the same manner, and with the same authority, with which he would dispose of a cow.”[1362] And, among the Hottentots[1363] and Bushmans,[1364] when a girl has grown up to womanhood without having previously been betrothed, her lover must gain her approbation, as well as that of the parents.

In works by ancient writers we find statements of the same kind. Among the Cathæi, according to Strabo, the girls chose their husbands, and the young men their wives;[1365] and the same is said by Herodotus of the women of Lydia.[1366] In Indian and old Scandinavian tales virgins are represented as having the power to dispose of themselves freely.[1367] Thus it was agreed that Skade should choose for herself a husband among the Asas, but she was to make her choice by the feet, the only part of their persons she was allowed to see.[1368]

In view of such facts it is impossible to agree with M. Letourneau that, during a very long period, woman was married without her wishes being at all consulted.[1369] There can be no doubt that, under more primitive conditions, she was even more free in that respect than she is now among most of the lower races. At present a daughter is very commonly an object of trade, and the more exclusively she is regarded from this point of view, the less, of course, are her own likings taken into account. Among the Bedouins of Mount Sinai, who have marriage by purpose, no father thinks it necessary to consult his daughter before selling her, whereas, among the Arabs of the eastern plain, the Aenezes, &c., according to Burckhardt, “the father never receives the price of the girl, and therefore some regard is paid to her inclinations.”[1370] But it will be shown that marriage by purchase forms a comparatively late stage in the history of the family relations of mankind, owing its origin to the fact that daughters are valuable as labourers, and therefore not given away for nothing. Speaking of the Gippsland natives, Mr. Fison says, “The assertion that women ‘eat and do not hunt’ cannot apply to the lower savages. On the contrary, whether among the ruder agricultural tribes or those who are dependent on supplies gathered from the ‘forest and the flood,’ the women are food-providers, who supply to the full as much as they consume, and render valuable service into the bargain. In times of peace, as a general rule, they are the hardest workers and the most useful members of the community.”[1371] Now, the Australians, although a very rude race, have advanced far beyond the original state of man. There is no reason to doubt that, among our earliest human ancestors, the possession of a woman was desired only for the gratification of the man’s passions. It may be said generally that in a state of nature every grown-up individual earns his own living. Hence there is no slavery, as there is, properly speaking, no labour. A man in the earliest times had no reason, then, to retain his full-grown daughter; she might go away, and marry at her pleasure. That she was not necessarily gained by the very first male, we may conclude from what we know about the lower animals. As Mr. Darwin remarks, the female generally, or at least often, exerts some choice. She can in most cases escape, if wooed by a male who does not please her, and when pursued, as commonly occurs, by several males, she seems often to have the opportunity, whilst they are fighting with one another, of going away with, or at least of temporarily paring with, some one male.[1372]

It might be supposed that at a later stage, when family ties grew stronger, and bride-stealing became a common way of concluding a marriage, the consent of the woman in the event of capture would be quite out of the question. Certainly it must generally have been so when she fell as a booty into the hands of an enemy. But women thus captured may in many cases have been able to escape from the husbands forced on them, and to return to their own, or some friendly neighbouring, tribe. Very frequently, however, bride-stealing seems to have taken place with the approval of the girl, there being no other way in which the match could be concluded if her parents were not willing to agree to it. It is a common mistake, as Mr. Howitt remarks, to confound marriage by capture and marriage by elopement. They are essentially different, the one being effected without, the other with, the woman’s consent.[1373] Thus, among the Australians, many, perhaps most, cases of so-called bride-stealing come under the head of elopements.[1374]

Something remains to be said as to the position of sons among uncivilized peoples. When young they are everywhere as much dependent on the parents, or at least on the father, as are their sisters. A boy may be sold, bartered away, or even killed, if his father thinks proper. That the power of life and death, under certain circumstances, rests with the tribe is a matter of little importance in this connection. But as soon as the young man grows up, the father, as a rule, has no longer any authority over him, whereas a woman is always more or less in a state of dependence, marriage implying for her a change of owner only. Among the Australians, says Mr. Curr, “sons become independent when they have gone through the ceremonies by which they attain to the status of manhood.”[1375] The full-grown man is his own master; he is strong enough not to be kept in check by his father, and, being able to shift for himself, he may marry quite independently of the old man’s will.