One Thomas Rollins, as poor as beggary, was arraigned as a bigamist. His first wife had left him and become no better than one of the wicked. Whereupon Rollins took another helpmate; and, for such violation of the law, found himself face to face with Justice Maule, who, as it will appear, happened to be in one of his pleasantest humours. He told the culprit, and we doubt not with a gravity of face worthy of the original _Billy Lackaday_, "that the law was the same for him as it was for a rich man, and was _equally open for him_, through its aid, to afford relief." In the like way that turbot and champagne are the same to Lazarus as to Dives; if Lazarus could only buy the taste of them. Beggar and rich man have both the same papillary organs--a dignifying truth for the outcast wanting a dinner! However, the droll Judge continued his pleasantry: "He (Rollins) _should have brought an action_ against the man who was living in the way stated with his wife, and _he should have obtained damages_, and then _should have gone to the Ecclesiastical Court_ and obtained a divorce, which would have done what seemed to have been done already, _and then he should have gone to the House of Lords_, and, proving all his case and the preliminary proceedings, _have obtained a full and complete divorce_; after which he might, if he liked it, have married again." There is a delicious vein of humour in this. It smacks of the grave, earnest fun of Swift. How the jest increases in volume as we follow the pauper from court to court--tarry with him awhile in the House of Lords--and finally see him "married again." And then the Judge, in a sustained spirit of drollery, observes: "The prisoner _might perhaps object to this_, that he had not the money to pay the expenses, which would amount to about £500 or £600--_perhaps he had not so many pence_--but this did not exempt him from paying the penalty for committing a felony, of which he had been convicted." Of course not. Therefore Thomas Rollins is in effect not punished for marrying a second wife, but for the turpitude of wanting "about £500 or £600," by means of which he might have rid himself of his first spouse. In England the bonds of Hymen are only to be cut with a golden axe. Assuredly there needs a slight alteration in the marriage service. "Whom God hath joined, let no man put asunder," should be followed by these words, "_Unless paid about £500 or £600 to separate them_."