d that that matter could be determined by the common
law rights of the father, or by the intervention of the court of
chancery.

The canon law fixed no period of limitation, either in respect of a suit
for divorce or for restitution of conjugal rights; but, as regards at
least suits for divorce, any substantial delay might lead to the
imputation of acquiescence or even condonation. To that extent, at
least, the maxim _vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt_
applied.

It is remarkable that desertion by either party to a marriage, except as
giving rise to a suit for restitution, was not treated as an offence by
canon law in England. It formed no ground for a suit for divorce, and
constituted no answer to such a suit by way of recrimination. It might
indeed deprive a husband of his remedy if it amounted to connivance, or
perhaps even if it amounted only to culpable neglect.

The canon law, as administered in England, has kept clear the logical
distinction which exists between dissolving a marriage and declaring it
null and void. The result has been that, in England at least, the two
proceedings have never been allowed to pass into one another, and a
complete divorce has not been granted on pretence of a cause really one
for declaring the marriage void _ab initio_. But for certain causes the
courts were prepared to declare a marriage null and void on the suit of
either party. There is, indeed, a distinction to be drawn between a
marriage void or only voidable, though in both cases it became the
subject of a similar declaration. It was void in the cases of incapacity
of the parties to contract it, arising from want of proper age, or
consanguinity, or from a previous marriage, or from absence of consent,
a state of things which would arise if the marriage were compelled by
force or induced by fraud as to the nature of the contract entered into
or the personality of the parties. It is to be remarked that, in England
at least, the idea of fraud as connected with the solemnization of
marriage has been kept within these narrow limits. Fraud of a different
kind, such as deception as to the property or position of the husband or
wife, or antecedent impurity of the wife, even if resulting in a
concealed pregnancy, has not in England (though the last-mentioned cause
has in other countries) been held a ground for the vitiation of a
marriage contract. A marriage was voidable, and could be declared void,
on the ground of physi