was left to kings and other luxurious persons.

Polyandry is the condition of a woman having more than one husband at the same time. It evidently had its origin in infertile regions in the endeavour to limit the population to the resources of the district. It is almost a thing of the past, but it is still practised in Thibet, Ceylon and some parts of India.

Morganatic Marriage.—A morganatic marriage is a marriage between a member of a reigning or nominally reigning family and one who is not of either of such families. It is a term usually employed with reference to a matrimonial alliance between a man of royal blood (or in Germany of high nobility) and a woman of inferior rank.

Such alliances are sometimes called “left-handed marriages,” because in the wedding ceremony the left hand is given instead of the right.

In Germany a woman of high rank may make a morganatic alliance with a man of inferior position. The children of a morganatic marriage are legitimate, but neither they nor the wife can inherit the rank or estate of the morganatic husband.

By the Royal Marriage Act of England such an alliance has no matrimonial effect whatever.

Divorce.—Divorce is almost as ancient as marriage, and just as fully sanctioned by history, necessity and authority. In the 24th Chapter of Deuteronomy we read:

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” This rule was consistent with the patriarchal system of the Jewish commonwealth. The husband as the head of the family could divorce his wife at his pleasure. An illustration of such a divorce is furnished by Abraham’s dismissal or divorcement of Hagar. This was surely a simple divorce law with a summary procedure, much cheaper, quicker and easier than is given by the statutes of several American States. No solicitor, barrister or court was required. The husband constituted himself president of the Court of Probate, Admiralty and Divorce for the special occasion and granted himself a favourable decree. The law of divorce as stated in Deuteronomy continued to be accepted by the Hebrews until the 11th century. It was in full force when Christ was on earth, for it is recorded in the 19th Chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew that He was questioned concerning it. Jesus had given to the Pharisees His views of marriage in answer to their question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every reason?” He then stated the proposition that because of marriage a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and added: “What, therefore, God bath joined together let not man put asunder.”

Then was put to Him the question concerning the existing law: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” His answer was that “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

Jesus although disapproving of the breadth of the Mosaic law did not declare against divorce; quite the contrary, for He said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Unless we assume that Jesus was concealing rather than expounding His views, the plain meaning is that He considered fornication to be the sufficient and only cause for an absolute divorce.

Josephus interpreted the Jewish divorce law as follows: “He who wishes to be separated from his wife for any reason whatever—and many such are occurring among men—must affirm in writing his intention of no longer cohabiting with her.”

The ancient Jewish law made of woman a chattel and a marriage derelict at her husband’s pleasure, but it gave the woman no right to divorce her husband for any cause.

The poet, John Milton, in the least worthy of his writings, relied upon the Mosaic law in his specious argument in favour of unlimited divorce.

St. Augustine contended that the question of divorce is not clearly determined by the words of Jesus, but there can be no mistake concerning the theological attitude of the Roman Catholic Church of to-day on this subject. It positively holds that no human power can dissolve a marriage when ratified and consummated between baptized persons.

If one is prepared to concede the principal dogma of Roman Catholicism, namely, the infallibility of the Church, there is no lack of logic or authority in such an attitude, even though it differs or varies from the Mosaic law or the sayings of Jesus.

We must remember, however, that modern divorce law is not founded on theological dogmas or theories, but upon practical social science and humanity.

In most countries there is no distinction between the husband and the wife as to grounds of divorce. The Mohammedan law of Egypt and the statute laws of Belgium and England being conspicuous exceptions to the rule. Usually the domicile of the husband is the place where the action must be instituted, but in the United States of America a wife may acquire a separate domicile from that of her husband if he has given her cause for divorce.

Divorces of domiciled foreigners are granted in several countries of Europe, provided the cause relied on is a cause for divorce in the native country of the parties, and in most continental countries divorces of natives are granted, whether domiciled in their native country or not, the foundation of jurisdiction being nationality, not domicile. Practically in all countries the exercise of jurisdiction for divorce is not affected by the fact that marriage was celebrated in or out of the country.

The causes for divorce are varied in kind and in number. In some countries of Europe mutual consent is a sufficient cause under certain restrictions. The number of causes for divorce in Europe vary from one in England to twelve in Sweden.

The dream of the academic lawyer is for an international law of marriage and divorce, but the differences between the existing judicial systems of the various great commonwealths of the world are much too great to make a universal law on the subject practicable. In one country only the civil marriage is legal and in another only the ecclesiastical alliance is valid; in one country divorce is allowed, and in another it is denied; in one, difference in religion between the parties is an impediment to marriage, and in another it is not; in one the canon law is controlling, and in another the civil law regulates all questions of matrimonial rights. Even in the matter of age and capacity the greatest variableness exists. As, for instance, the minimum age for marriage. In England it is fourteen for males and fifteen for females; in Germany, twenty-one for males and sixteen for females; In Austria, fourteen for both; in Russia, France, Holland, Switzerland and Hungary, eighteen for males and sixteen for females; in Spain and Greece, fourteen for males and fifteen for females; in Denmark and Norway, twenty for males and fourteen for females; in Sweden, twenty-one for males and seventeen for females; in Finland, twenty-one for males and fifteen for females; in Servia, seventeen for males and fifteen for females.

It will be observed that the different laws as to the minimum age for marriage do not flow from circumstances of climate, religion or culture, but are mainly historical and