was the conviction, that, if he should not be fortunate enough to merit either the premium which has been since awarded to him, or that of twenty-five pounds, to be adjudged to the second successful Essay, yet the course of investigation in which he was engaged, closely connected as it was with his professional pursuits, would itself amply repay him for all his toil. It is true, that, since the award of the premium, an opportunity has been afforded of revising the Essay in its progress through the press, but the Author has not deemed himself at liberty to make any material alterations in it, lest he might disturb those features of it (whichever they may have been) that received the stamp of approbation. That the subject of the Essay is interesting and important, need hardly be remarked: it is an examination of the doctrines maintained in relation to the nature of the matrimonial crime, and the matrimonial bond as affected by it, by that authority from which the institution of marriage itself emanated, and by which, therefore, all other and inferior legislation should be guided. If, on this part of the subject, he would not pretend to the merit of originality, he yet would hope to appear so to have availed himself of the best lights reflected upon it, as not to involve himself in the charge of a criminal carelessness. And, with regard to the other parts of his subject, which trace historically the ancient punishment of the matrimonial crime, it must be remembered, that, although they comprise many disgusting details, and although, in some respects, little comparative utility may result from them, yet he could not escape from the investigation. If in commenting, however cautiously, on the penal laws of his own country, in relation to this subject, he may have rendered himself liable to censure, and the imputation of presumption, he does not err alone, and therefore gladly avails himself of the protecting shelter which is cast around him by the example of some great men, and the sanction derived to himself by the award in the Diocese of St. David's. Errata. Page 4, line 3 from the bottom, place a comma after "Romans" Page 12, line 10, dele “ of this description." other," and after "crimes," read" and crimes Page 75, (Note,) for 33, read 32. Page 85, (last line,) for sπiopia read ɛws πopresa. Page 90, (Note,) line 2 from the bottom, for "legislature," read "legislator." Ditto, line 17, for "interpretatur," read "interpretantur." Page 135, line 8, for "married," read "married,” Page 171, line 18, for "sobriety," read "lubricity." Page 207, line 22, for "viva," read " vivâ," Page 225, line 2 from the bottom, for "nunque,” read " nunquam." In page 100 of the Essay, the Author has inserted an extract from an anonymous Pamphlet, published in the year 1801, which, by mistake, he ascribed to the pen of Sir Alexander Croke; and, in the progress of his Essay through the press, he took the liberty of inserting several other passages from the same Pamphlet, imagining it to be out of print: but he was not apprized, till it was too late to correct his error, except in the present manner, that that valuable Pamphlet was re-published last year, and is the production of the present learned and Very Reverend the Dean of Westminster, Dr. Ireland; to whom, therefore, the Note, in page 100, is meant to apply. The mistake originated in consequence of the anonymous Pamphlet in question having been bound up with an Essay of Sir Alexander Croke's, on a subject not very unconnected with the present, prefixed to his Report of the celebrated Case of Horner and Liddiard, in the Consistory Court of London, in the year 1799. The Punishment in later times Alterations introduced by the Glosses of the Rabbies |