ge. We are eternally inquiring who it is wants
this, who consumes that, who goes to such a place, who is liable to this
or that malady. Classification is a passion with us; and we have bulky
volumes to teach us what sorts of people have chest affections, what are
most prone to stomachic diseases, who have ophthalmia, and who the
gout. We are also instructed as to the kind of persons most disposed to
insanity, and we have a copious list of occupations given us which
more or less incline those who profess them to derangement. Even the
Civil-Service Examiners have contributed their share to this mass of
entertaining knowledge, and shown from what parts of the kingdom bad
spellers habitually come, what counties are celebrated for cacography,
and in what districts etymology is an unknown thing. Would it not, then,
be a most interesting and instructive statistic that would give us
a tabular view of divorce, showing in what classes frailty chiefly
prevailed, with the relative sexes, and also a glimpse at the ages?
Imagine what a light the statement would throw on the morality of
classes, and what an incalculable benefit to parents in the choice of a
career for their children! For instance, no sensible father would select
a life of out-door exposure for a weak-chested son, or make a sailor of
one with an incurable sea-sickness. In the same way would he be guided
by the character of his children as to the perils certain careers would
expose them to.

A passing glance at the lists of divorce shows us that no
"promovent"--it is a delicate title, and I like it--no promovent figures
oftener than a civil engineer. Now, how instructive to inquire why!

What is there in embankments and earthworks and culverts that should
dispose the wife of him who makes them to infidelity? Why should a
tunnel only lead to domestic treachery? why must a cutting sever the
heart that designs it? I do not know; I cannot even guess. My ingenuity
stands stockstill at the question, and I can only re-echo, Why?

Next amongst the "predisposed" come schoolmasters, plasterers, &c. What
unseen thread runs through the woof of these natures, apparently so
little alike? It is the boast of modern science to settle much that
once was puzzling, and reconcile to a system what formerly appeared
discordant. How I wish some great Babbage-like intellect would bestir
itself in this inquiry.

Surely ethical questions are as well worthy of investigation as purely
physical