[19] The extraordinary leniency shown by this law to ecclesiastical culprits, as compared with laymen guilty of the same offence, openly displays the bias of the legislative power. There was one rule for the priest, and another, and a very different one, for his parishioners. It will be noted, also, that no provision is made for the punishment of the higher clergy; while it was notorious that the bishops and metropolitans were the greatest of all offenders, where women were concerned. As they framed the laws which governed the people, and were presumed to receive their inspiration from heaven, they naturally came to regard themselves as above their own decrees, and not liable to their penalties and restrictions. The dissolute character of the priesthood in those times, and long subsequently, is well known to every student of history. The indulgence with which the bishop was accustomed to regard the failings of his subordinates is disclosed by the fine imposed upon him for neglect to discipline the former. No mercy is shown to the women involved, and, what is unusual, no distinction is made where the latter belong to different castes, or stations in society. It is probable that this law, so far as the punishment of the clergy was concerned, “was more honor’d in the breach than the observance.”--[ED.] [20] The right of dower, established by the Visigothic Code, is Roman in origin. It was derived from the bestowal of the dowry, “_res uxorica_,” which was an almost indispensable part of every marriage contract, and with which it is sometimes now confounded. While, under the Roman law, the dowry was given by the intended wife or her relations to the intended bridegroom, or to some member of his family, with the Visigoths it came from the bridegroom, and represented, in fact, the purchase money paid for the bride; a survival of the ancient barbarian custom of marriage by purchase, just as the wedding-ring is symbolical of the presumed subordination of the wife to her husband, a ceremony whose purpose, as well as significance, have both long since been forgotten. Both the rights of dower and curtesy, as defined by the legal polity of the Visigoths, it will be seen, are practically the same as they now exist under the laws of England, and of those of many of the States of the Union. Considering the lapse of time, the differences of race and religion, the wide divergence of political systems, and the antagonistic character of many of the social usages observed during epochs separated by thirteen centuries, this fact is very remarkable. While the wife had a right to the use of half of the deceased husband’s property during her lifetime, he had a right to the use of only one third of hers, as he has to-day. The favor generally shown to the wife in the stipulations of the marriage contract, are largely the result of the independence enjoyed by the sex under Teutonic and Scandinavian customs.--[ED.]