Strictly speaking, it may not be correct to say, as is commonly done by law writers, that the Foljambe case marks a change in the law of divorce by requiring a return to the doctrine of the ancient church; but from it, at any rate, two important inferences may be drawn. On the one hand, it shows that the custom of remarriage after separation _a mensa et thoro_ was continued to the very end of Elizabeth's reign. On the other hand, it constitutes a stage in the development of a more conservative policy. As such it may have had something to do with the legislation of about a year later. By royal authority in 1603 the canons of 1597 were re-enacted "word for word," and consequently, as already suggested, they incidentally bear witness to the Reformation theory and practice as to divorce and remarriage, while seeming to admit the possibility of a valid dissolution of wedlock by judicial decree.[250] For the first time in English history a statute of 1604 makes bigamy[251] in the modern sense a felony punishable with death; but there are exceptions to the operation of the act which tell strongly in favor of the view that the custom of remarriage after judicial separation had been something more than tolerated. It is expressly provided that the penalty fixed by the act shall not extend to a man or woman who has contracted a new marriage after seven years' desertion; nor to "any person or persons that are or shall be at the time of such marriage divorced by any sentence had or hereafter to be had in the ecclesiastical court."[252] Here it is clear that dissolution of wedlock by sentence of nullity is not intended; for this is provided for by another exception in the act itself. It is equally clear that all cases of divorce by judicial decree _are_ comprehended, whatever the cause of separation assigned. The law as then interpreted seems to have remained unchallenged until 1637, when in Porter's case the court of King's Bench, without squarely deciding the point, expressed a doubt whether a woman remarrying after divorce for cruelty was exempt from punishment under the proviso of King James's statute; because, "if this should be suffered, many would be divorced upon such pretence, and instantly marry again, whereby many inconveniences would arise. Whereupon she was advised not to insist upon the law, but to procure a pardon to avoid the danger; for it was clearly agreed by all the civilians and others, that the second marriage was unlawful."[253] Nevertheless, the hesitation of the court does not appear to be justified either by the plain words of the act or by the weight of legal authority.[254]