his family aced at the succeeded Bus is begenus con ressed, or printed; nostrils quills of red with Dr. Richardson notes Podiceps cristatus as having been extent of wing forty-eight inches. Dr. Richardson, whose Young of the year. Temminck remarks, that these differ At the age of a year, according to the same author, the individuals of both sexes show a transverse blackish brown band towards the middle of the neck, about an inch in length, forming a kind of collar; the feathers of the back become of a blackish tint, and the small white blotches begin to appear. In this state it is the Grand Plongeon of Brisson, (vol. vi., p. 105, pl. 10, f. 1,) a very exact figure. The form of the bird is so well known from the common At the age of two years the collar is more defined; this Dabchick, that it would have been superfluous to give a part, the head and the neck, are varied with brown and figure of an entire Grebe. greenish-black feathers; the numerous blotches on the back and wings become more prevalent, and the band Colymbus (Mergus, Brisson - Urinator, Lacépède and under the throat, and the nuchal collar also, are marked Eudytes, Illiger). Bill moderate, strong, straight, very much pointed, compressed; nostrils concave, half closed. Wings short; the first quill longest. Tail short, rounded. Three front toes very long, entirely palmated; hind toe bordered with a small supple membrane. Habits, &c. The Divers bear a close resemblance to the Geographical distribution. Principally the northern lati- Example, Colymbus glacialis. Description of a specimen killed on Great Bear Lake.Colour. Head, neck, and upper tail-coverts, glossed with deep purplish-green, on a black ground. A short transverse bar on the throat, a collar on the middle of the neck, interrupted above and below, and the shoulders white, broadly striped on the shafts with black. Whole upper plumage, wings, sides of the breast, flanks, and under tail-coverts, black; all, except the quills and tail, marked with a pair of white spots near the tip of each feather: the spots form rows, and are large and quadrangular on the scapulars and interscapulars, round and smaller elsewhere, smallest on the rump. Under plumage and inner wing-coverts white, the axillaries striped down their middles with black. Irides with longitudinal brown and white lines. At the age of three years the plumage is perfect. According to Montagu, Colymbus glacialis is the Colymbus maximus caudatus of Ray; Mergus major nævius and Mergus nævius of Brisson: L'Imbrim of Buffon; Greatest speckled Diver or Loon of Willughby; and Northern Diver of Pennant, (Br. Zool.): and the Female* is Colymbus Immer of Linnæus; Colymbus maximus Gesneri of Ray; Mergus major of Brisson; Le Grand Plongeon of Buffon; Ember Goose of Sibbald; and Imber Diver of the British Zoology. It is the Colymbus torquatus of Brunnich; and not to weary the reader with more scientific names, it is the Schwarzhalsiger Seetaucher, Eis-Taucher, Grosse HalbEnte, and Meer-Noering of the Germans; Brusen of the Norwegians; Turlik of the Greenlanders; Eithinnew-Moqua of the Cree Indians; Talkyeh of the Chipewyans; Kagloolek of the Esquimaux; Inland Loon of the Hudson's Bay residents; and Trochydd mawr of the antient British; it is provincially called by the modern British Gunner and Greater Doucker. Habits, &c.-Fish is the principal food of this species, and the herring in particular, the fry of fish, crustaceans and marine vegetables. It nestles in small islands, and on the banks of fresh waters, and the female lays two eggs of an Isabella white, marked with very large and with small spots of a purplish ash. Dr. Richardson gives the following description of its manners:-Though this handsome bird is generally described as an inhabitant of the ocean, we seldom observed it either in the Arctic Sea or Hudson's Bay; but it abounds in all the interior lakes, where it destroys vast quantities of fish. It is rarely seen on land, its limbs being ill fitted for walking, though admirably adapted to its aquatic habits. It can swim with great swiftness, and to a very considerable distance under the water; and when it comes to the surface, it seldom exposes more than the neck. It takes wing with difficulty, flies heavily, though swiftly, and frequently in a circle round those who intrude on its haunts. Its loud and very melancholy cry, like the howling of the wolf, and at times like the distant scream of a man in distress, is said to portend rain. Its flesh is dark, tough, and unpalatable. We caught several of these birds in the fishing nets, in which they had entangled themselves in the pursuit of fish.' The species is sometimes taken even in the south of England. Montagu mentions one which • But see Temminck's description of the varying plumage according to age above given, &c, was kept in a pond for some months. In a few days it be- | is used to signify the half-yearly payments of the perpetual came extremely docile, would come to the call from one side and terminable annuities which constitute the public debt of the pond to the other, and would take food from the of the country, and does not therefore strictly express that hand. The bird had received an injury in the head, which which the word is made to imply. The payment of those had deprived one eye of its sight, and the other was a little so called dividends is managed on the part of the governimpaired; but, notwithstanding, it could, by incessantly ment by the bank of England, which receives a compensadiving, discover all the fish that were thrown into the pond. tion from the public for the trouble and expense attending When it could not get fish it would eat flesh; and when it the employment. The exact number of individuals who quitted the water, it shoved its body along upon the ground are entitled to receive these half-yearly payments is not like a seal, by jerks, rubbing the breast against the ground; known. The following statement exhibits the number of and returned again to the water in a similar manner. In distinct sums paid by different warrants to various classes swimming and diving the legs only were used, and not the of annuitants at the last four periodical payments, but the wings, and by their situation so far behind, and their little number of annuitants is not nearly so great as the number deviation from the line of the body, it is enabled to propel of distinct warrants, because many individuals are possessed itself in the water with great velocity in a straight line, as of annuities due at the same periods of the year, which are well as turn with astonishing quickness. In the winter of included under different heads or accounts in the books of 1813-14, according to Mr. Graves, during the intense frost, the Bank, as bearing different rates of interest, or being two fine individuals were taken alive in the Thames below otherwise under different circumstances; and besides, many Woolwich, and were kept in confinement for some months. persons hold annuities which are payable at both halfThey eagerly devoured most kinds of fish or offal. At the yearly periods. It is clear, however, from the following approach of spring they began to show great uneasiness in figures, that the greater part of the public creditors are their confinement, though they had the range of an exten- entitled to annuities for only small sums, more than ninesive piece of water, from whence they ultimately escaped in tenths of the payments being for sums not exceeding 1007., the month of April. The distance of the river from the and nearly one-half for sums not exceeding 107. pond in which they were confined was several hundred yards; but they made their escape, and two birds resembling them in colour were seen on the river in that neighbourhood for several days after they were missed, and though repeatedly shot at, they escaped by diving. Sums included in the Warrants. 5 July, 1836.10 Oct. 1836. 5 Jan. 1837. 5 April, 1837. Number of Number of Not exceeding £5 58,113 23,122 59,501 28,080 10 32,550 66,115 32,890 Lesson arranges the genus Cephus Moehring, Cuvier; Colymbus, Linn.; Uria, Temm.; Mergulus, Ray, Vieillot, under the Colymbida, observing that it forms the passage from the Divers to the Auks. [AUK, vol. iii., p. 100, subgenus Mergulus.] DIVIDEND, in arithmetic, any quantity which is to be divided (dividendum). Thus in the sentence 100 divided by 20 gives 5,' the dividend is 100. DIVIDEND, in commerce, is a word having two distinct meanings. In its more general employment it is understood to express the money which is divided, pro rata, among the creditors of a bankrupt trader, out of the amount realised from his assets. [BANKRUPT.] The other meaning attached to the word dividend is not so appropriate as that which has just been explained. It DIVING-BELL. [SUBMARINE DESCENT.] DIVINING ROD, a forked branch, usually, but not always, of hazel, by which it has been pretended that minerals and water may be discovered in the earth, the rod, if slowly carried along in suspension, dipping and pointing downward, it is affirmed, when brought over the spot where the concealed mine or spring is situated. Other mysterious powers, such as that of discovering the lost boundaries of lands, and even of detecting the birth-place and parentage of foundlings, have also been attributed to the divining rod. The rod is sometimes called the Virgula Divina, or the Baculus Divinatorius, or the rod of Aaron, or the Caduceus (after the wand of Mercury). But, although a rod or wand has been the distinguishing ensign of the professors of magic in all ages and countries, and rabdology, or divination by the rod, was familiar to the antient nations, the form, the material, and the mode of using the divining rod of the modern miners and water-finders, seem to be superstitions of comparatively recent introduction. Many persons with some pretensions to science have been believers in the powers ascribed to the divining rod. George Agricola, the able and learned German metallurgist of the sixteenth century, and in later times John Sperlingius and Theodore Kirchmaierus, who have both written Disputatiuncula on the rod, all say the devil is in it. Richelet, in his Dictionary (art. Ba uelle Divinatoire), confesses that after what he has seen he cannot entertain any doubt as to its possessing the wonderful qualities ascribed to it. The learned Morhoff, who was eminent for his scientific as well as literary knowledge, admits that it is not clear to him whether the effec.s be natural or the result of demoniac agency. A. M. Thouvenot published at Paris, in 1781, a Memoir on the relation of the phenomena of the Divining rod to those of Electricity and Magnetism; and our countryman Pryce, in his 'Mineralogia Cornubiensis' (fol., 1778) has collected accounts of numerous successful experiments which he says were performed by the instrument. Some remarks on the rod and on the attempts that have been made to explain its fancied operation may be found in the Marquis le Gendre's 'Traité de l'Opinion,' liv. iii. chap. 6, and liv. iv. chap. 2; and there is a discussion of the subject, which is well worth reading, both for the reflections and some curious facts which it contains, in Bayle's 'Dictionary,' in the notes to the article baris. (See also Morhoff, Polyhist, tom. ii. p. 310.) DIVINITY. [THEOLOGY.] The number of divisors which any number admits of is DIVISION, the process of ascertaining how many times and parts of times one number is contained in another. The usual arithmetical rule consists in a continual approximation to the result required. We write underneath,-1, the common process; 2, that of which it is an abbreviation; 3, a short summary of the rationale. 8)23475(2934 16 74 72 27 24 35 32 8)23475(2000 16000 900 7475 30 7200 4 275 240 35 32 3 The whole contains a number as often as all its parts put The division of one decimal fraction by another presents 1. Alter the dividend or divisor by annexing ciphers, until both have the same number of decimal places. This being done 2. Annex as many ciphers to the dividend, or take away Example I. Find out, to three decimal places, how often First step: 76)32100000(422368-rem. 32. Example II. Find out, to 7 decimal places, how often (what fraction of a time) 236 5 is contained in '001. First step: 236 500 and 001. Second step: 236.5 and 00100000; namely, two ciphers struck off the divisor and five annexed to the dividend (making seven). 2365)100000(42-rem. 670. In making complicated divisions, it is much the shortest plan, and very much the safest, to begin by forming the first nine multiples of the divisor by continued addition (forming the tenth for proof). DIVORCE (divórtium, a divertendo, from diverting or separating), the legal separation of husband and wife. Di vorce is of two kinds, à menså et thoro, from bed and board; and à vinculo matrimonii, from the bonds of the marriage itself. The divorce à mensa et thoro is pronounced by the spiritual court for causes arising subsequent to the marriage, as for adultery, cruelty, &c.: it does not dissolve the marriage, and the parties cannot contract another marriage. [BIGAMY.] In fact it is equivalent only to a separation. The divorce à vinculo matrimonii can be obtained in the spiritual courts for causes only existing before the marriage, as precontract, consanguinity, impotency, &c. This divorce declares the marriage to have been null and void, the issue begotten between the parties are bastardized, and the parties themselves are at liberty to contract marriage with others. From the curious document preserved by Selden (Uxor Ebraica, c. xxx., vol. iii., 845, folio ed. of his works), whereby John de Cameys, in the reign of Ed. I., transferred his wife and her property to William Paynel; and also, from the reference to the laws of Howel the Good, at the end of this article, it would seem that in the early periods of English law a divorce might be had by mutual consent; but all trace of such a custom is lost. We know however (3 Salk, Rep. 138) that, until the 44th Eliz., a divorce à vinculo matrimonii might be had in the ecclesiastical courts for adultery; but in Foljambe's case, which occurred in that year in the Star Chamber, Archbishop Bancroft, upon the advice of divines, held that adultery was only a cause of divorce à mensâ et thoro. The history of the law of divorce in England may perhaps Marriage is now, by the law of England, indissoluble, for The first proceeding of this nature was in the reign of Ed- 1 those fixed rules which control the proceedings of ordinary courts of judicature, a divorce is granted. It is a cause of complaint that the expenses of the proceeding are so considerable as to amount to an absolute denial of the relief to the mass of society; indeed from this circumstance divorce bills have not improperly been called the privilege of the rich. There is an order of the House of Lords that, in every divorce bill on account of adultery, a clause shall be inserted prohibiting the marriage of the offending parties with each other; but this clause is generally omitted: indeed it has been inserted but once, and that in a very flagrant case. But it is not unusual for parliament to provide that the wife shall not be left entirely destitute, by directing a payment of a sum of money, in the nature of alimony, by the husband, out of the fortune which he had with the wife. By the divorce à vinculo matrimonii the wife forfeits her dower. [DoWER.] The causes admitted by various codes of laws as grounds for the suspension or dissolution of the contract of marriage, as well as the description of the tribunal which had or in some degree has jurisdiction over the proceedings, are various, and indicative of the degree of civilization of the nations among whom they prevailed. According to the law of Moses (24 Deut. i.), '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.' After 90 days, the wife might marry again. But after she had contracted a second marriage, though she should be again divorced, her former husband might not take her to be his wife. About the time of our Saviour, there was a great dispute between the schools of the great doctors Hillel and Shammai as to the meaning of this law. The former contended that a husband might not divorce his wife but for some gross misconduct, or for some serious bodily defect which was not known to him before marriage; but the latter were of opinion that simple dislike, the smallest offence, or merely the husband's will, was a sufficient ground for divorce. This is the opinion which the Jews generally adopted, and particularly the Pharisees, which explains their conduct when they came to Jesus tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (Matth. xix.) The answer was, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. From this it is evident that Christ considered that the law of Moses allowed too great a latitude to the husband in his exercise of the power of divorce, and that this allowance arose from 'the hardness of their hearts;' by which of course we are to understand that they were so habituated to previous practices, that any law which should have abolished such practices would have been ineffectual. All it could do was to introduce such modifications, with the view of diminishing the existing practices, as the people would tolerate. The form of a Jewish bill of divorcement is given by Selden, Uxor Ebraica, lib. iii., ch. 24; and see Levi's Ceremonies of the Jews, p. 146. As the customs of oriental nations do not change, but have continued the same from the earliest periods, we may conclude that the usages in the matter of divorce now existing in Arabia are the same, or nearly so, as when Mohammed endeavoured to reform them among the tribes for which he legislated. An Arab may divorce his wife on the slightest occasion: he has only to say to her Thou art divorced,' and she becomes so. So easy and so common is this practice, that Burckhardt assures us that he has seen Arabs not more than 45 years of age who were known to have had 50 wives, yet the Arabs have rarely more than one wife at a time. By the Mohammedan law a man may divorce his wife orally and without any ceremony; when this is done, he pays her a portion, generally one-third of her dowry. He may divorce her twice, and take her again without her consent; but if he divorce her a third time, or put her away by a triple divorce conveyed in the same sentence, he cannot receive her again until she has been married and divorced by another husband, who must have consummated his marriage with her. Here then we see that the Jewish lawgiver required a written bill of divorcement to insure due consideration; and he absolutely prohibits the return of the wife after a marriage contracted with another man. The Arabian legislator required the words 'Thou art divorced to be repeated three times before the marriage was irrevocably dissolved by the husband. And again, working on the feelings of delicacy inherent in man's nature, after such irrevocable divorce, he required a marriage with another man, actual consummation, and subsequent divorce, before the first husband could take back his wife. Moses, on a somewhat different principle, absolutely prohibited the remarriage of the parties to the first marriage after a second had been contracted. By the Jewish law it appears that a wife could not divorce her husband; but under the Mohammedan code, for cruelty and some other causes, she may divorce him; and this is the only instance in which Mohammed appears to have been more considerate towards women than Moses. (Sale's Koran; Lane's Modern Egyptians; Hamilton's Hedaya, and the Mishcat ul-Masabih; Selden's Uxor Ebraica; and see the case of Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. 216, before Lord Stowell.) Among the Hindoos, and also among the Chinese, a husband may divorce his wife upon the slightest grounds, or even without assigning any reason. Some of the rules mentioned by the Abbé Dubois, as laid down in the Padma Purana,' one of the books of highest authority among the Hindoos, show their manner of thinking concerning the conduct of their wives. In every stage of her life, a woman is created to obey. At first she yields obedience to her father and mother; when married, she submits to her husband and her father and mother-in-law; in old age, she must be ruled by her children. During her life she can never be under her own control. If her husband laugh, she ought to laugh; if he weep, she will weep also; if he is disposed to speak, she will join in conversation. When in the presence of her husband, a woman must not look on one side and the other; she must keep her eyes on her master, to be ready to receive his commands. When he speaks, she must be quiet, and listen to nothing besides. When he calls her, she must leave every thing else, and attend upon him alone.' And in the Hindoo code it is said, 'The Creator formed woman for this purpose, viz., that children might be born from her.' The reasons for which, according to the Brahmanic law, a man may divorce his wife, may be seen in Colebrooke's Digest of Hindoo Law, vol. ii. p. 414, &c., 8vo. edit.; and Kalthoff, Jus Matrimonii veterum Indorum (Bonn, 1829, 8) p. 76, &c. The laws in the several Grecian states regarding divorce were different, and in some of them men were allowed to put away their wives on slight occasions. The Cretans permitted it to any man who was afraid of having too great a number of children. The Athenians allowed it upon small grounds, but not without giving a bill containing the reasons for the divorce, to be approved (if the party divorced made an ap peal) by the chief archon. The Spartans seldom divorced their wives; indeed the ephori fined Lysander for repu diating his wife. Ariston (Herod. vi. 63) put away his second wife, but it seems to have been done rather to have a son, for his wife was barren, than according to the custom of the country. Anaxandrides (Herod. v. 39) was strongly urged by the ephori to divorce his barren wife, and on his not consenting, the matter was compounded by his taking another wife: thus he had two at once, which Herodotus observes was contrary to Spartan usage. By the laws of the early Romans, the husband alone was permitted to dissolve the marriage, but not without just cause, and a groundless divorce was punished by the forfeiture of the husband's effects, one-half of which went to the wife. Adultery, drunkenness, or counterfeiting the husband's keys, were considered good causes of divorce. For about 500 (Dion. Hal., ii. 25; Gellius, iv. 3; Plutarch, Vit. Rom. et Num., &c.) years after the foundation of the city there was no instance of this right being exercised by the husband; but afterwards divorces became very frequent, not only for sufficient reasons, but on frivolous pretexts, and the same liberty was enjoyed by the women as by the men. The maxim of the civil law was, that matrimony ought to be free, and either party might renounce the marriage union at pleasure. It was termed divortium sine causa, or sine ulla querela, i. e., divorce without cause, or without question; and the principle, bona gratia matrimonium dissolvitur, matrimony is dissolved at pleasure, is solemnly laid down in the pandects. The abuse of divorce prevailed On the restoration of the Bourbons a law was promulgated (8th May, 1816), declaring divorce to be abolished; that all suits then pending for divorce, for definite cause, should be for separation only, and that all steps then taken for divorce by mutual consent should be void; and such is now the law of France. in the most polished ages of the Roman republic, though, I was too great. The Code Napoleon accordingly restricted as has been said, it was unknown in its early history. The the liberty, but still allowed either party to demand a divorce Emperor Augustus is said to have endeavoured to restrain on the ground of adultery committed by the other; for outthis abuse by requiring the observance of certain ceremonies rageous conduct, or ill usage; on account of condemnation to a valid divorce, according to the manner in which the to an infamous punishment; or to effect it by mutual marriage had been celebrated: thus, if there had been a consent, expressed under certain conditions. By the same marriage contract, it was torn in the presence of seven code a woman could not contract a new marriage until the witnesses, the keys were taken from the wife, and a certain expiration of ten months from the dissolution of the preform of words was pronounced by the husband or by a freed ceding. man; but this check was overpowered by the influence and corruption of manners. Voluntary divorces were abolished by one of the novels of Justinian, but they were afterwards revived by another novel of the Emperor Justin. In the novel restoring the unlimited freedom of divorce the reasons for it are assigned; and while it was admitted that nothing ought to be held so sacred in civil society as marriage, it was declared that the hatred, misery, and crimes, which often flowed from indissoluble connexions, required as a necessary remedy the restoration of the old law by which marriage was dissolved by mutual will and consent. This practice of divorce is understood to have continued in the Byzantine or eastern empire till the ninth or tenth century, and until it was finally subdued by the influence of Christianity. On a divorce for infidelity, the wife forfeited her dowry; but if the divorce was not made for any fault of hers, her whole dowry was restored, sometimes all at once, but usually by three different payments. In some instances, however, where there was no infidelity on the part of the wife, only part was restored. On the Roman divorce and dowry, see Dig. xxiv. tit. 2. 3. Among the antient Britons, it may be collected from the laws of Howel the Good that the husband and wife might agree to dissolve the marriage at any time; in which case, if the separation took place during the first seven years of the marriage, a certain specified distribution of the property was made, but after that period the division was equal. No limit was set to the husband's discretion in divorcing his wife, but the wife could only divorce her husband in case he should be leprous, have bad breath, or be impotent, in which cases she might leave him and obtain all her property. The parties were at liberty to contract a fresh marriage; but if a man repented of having divorced his wife, although she had married another man, yet if he could overtake her before the consummation of the marriage, or, as the law expresses it, with one foot in the bed of her second husband, and the other outside,' he might have his wife again. Adultery was punishable by fine. The laws of Scotland relating to divorce differ widely from those existing in England: there, a divorce à vinculo matrimonii is a civil remedy, and may be obtained for adultery, or for wilful desertion by either party, persisted in for four years, though to this a good ground of separation is a defence. But recrimination is no bar to a divorce as it is in England. In the Dutch law there are but two causes of divorce à vinculo matrimonii, viz., adultery and desertion. In Spain the same causes affect the validity of a marriage as in England, and the contract is indissoluble by the civil courts, matrimonial causes being exclusively of ecclesiastical cognizance. (Instit. Laws of Spain.) The law of France, before the Revolution, following the judgment of the Catholic Church, held marriage to be indissoluble; but the legislators of the early revolutionary period permitted divorce at the pleasure of the parties, where incompatibility of temper was alleged. In the first three months of the year 1793, the number of divorces in the city of Paris alone amounted to 562, the marriages to 1785, a proportion not much less than one to three; while the divorces in England for the previous century did not amount to much more than one-fifth of the number. the same. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Roman Church, for the purpose of increasing its revenue, has at all times claimed the right to dissolve marriage by dispensation; and therefore this power of divorce still exists in France, and all Roman Catholic countries, independent of the law of the land. It has since been decided by the Cour de Cassation that the conjugal infidelity of the husband is a bar to a suit instituted by him for divorce on the ground of the wife's adultery. (M'Kenna's Notes on the Code Civil.) In the United States, marriage, though it may be cele brated before clergymen as well as civil magistrates, is considered as a civil contract. The causes of divorce, and the facility or difficulty of obtaining it, are by no means the same in the several states. The more general causes of a divorce à vinculo matrimonii are, former marriage, physical incapacity, or consanguinity; by the Connecticut law, fraudulent contract; and by the New York code, idiotcy and insanity, and either party being under the age of consent. Adultery is also a cause of divorce à vinculo matrimonii; and the laws of some of the states prohibit the guilty party from marrying again. If the husband or wife is absent seven years, or, by the laws of some States, three years, and not heard from, the other is at liberty to marry again; and in some states, if the husband desert the wife, and make no provision for her support during three years, being able to make such provision, the wife can obtain a divorce. Extreme cruelty in either party is also generally a cause of divorce à vinculo matrimonii. In many of the states applications to the legislature for divorce, in cases not provided for by the statutes, are very frequent. In New York and New Jersey, divorce is a subject of Chancery jurisdiction, from which, as in other cases, questions of law may be referred to a jury for trial. In New Hampshire, joining the religious society of Shakers, who hold cohabita tion unlawful, and continuing in that society for three years, is sufficient cause for a divorce. But in most of the States the courts of law have cognizance of divorce. The laws prescribe the provision to be made for the wife in case of divorce, confiding to the courts however some degree of discretion in fixing the amount of alimony. It is very questionable, says Chancellor Kent, whether the facility with which divorces can be procured in some of the States be not productive of more evil than good: and he states that he has had reason to believe, in the exercise of a judicial cognizance over numerous cases of divorce, that adultery was sometimes committed on the part of the husband for the very purpose of the divorce. (Kent's Comm.; Ency. Americ. Upon the general advantages of indissolubility, as opposed to an unlimited right of divorce, see Hume's Essay on Polygamy and Divorce; Paley's Moral Philosophy; and the judgment of Lord Stowell in Evans v. Evans, 1 Hagg, Repts., 48; Milton, in his famous treatise, advocates the increased facility of obtaining a divorce; and see Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c. 44.) (Burke's Letters on a Regicide Peace.) Burke further DIWAN is a Persian word familiar to readers of works It must be remembered however that Burke wrote in the spirit of an advocate; that the period he chose was that immediately following the promulgation of the law, when all couples previously discontented with each other obtained divorces; and that if his calculations had fully borne out his statement, he would have given them in his pamphlet, which was written for a political purpose, and he would not have rested satisfied with indefinite alle gations. It was generally admitted however that the license P. C., No. 536. VOL. IX.-G |