[305] On these two cases see Macqueen, op. cit., 473, 562-76; and Law Review, I, 364. The proceedings in the Norfolk case are contained in Vol. II, 59-324, appended to Archbishop Abbot's The Case of Impotency; also in Howell's State Trials, XII, 883-948; and in part in the Reports of Hist. MSS. Com., XIV, 17-27, 278, where, in addition, arguments of the counsel are given. Sir W. Williams, counsel for the duchess, calls this case the "first precedent."
[306] Macqueen, op. cit., 474, 496; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 179, note; Wharton, Exposition of Laws rel. to Women, 471, 472; Morgan, Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, II, 244 ff. The "earliest specimen of a dissolving statute passed by the Legislature, after sentence of divorce in the ecclesiastical court" is the "Act to dissolve the marriage of Ralph Box with Elizabeth Eyre, and to enable him to marry again," 1701. This form was followed ever after: Law Review, I, 364, 365.
[307] Since about 1800: Macqueen, op. cit., 489. Cf. Wharton, op. cit., 472, 483; Glasson, Le marriage civil et le divorce, 318. For examples of these actions for "criminal conversation" see Cases of Divorce (London, 1715), 1 ff. (Feilding), 41 ff. (Dormer); and Crim. Con. Actions and Trials, 10 ff., containing a good historical introduction.
[308] Law Review, I, 364; Macqueen, op. cit., 473.
[309] Macqueen, op. cit., 550.
[310] Plea for an Alt. in the Divorce Laws, 5, referring to the security required by the canons of 1603.
[311] Haggard, Consistory Reports, 120; Macqueen, op. cit., 474.
[312] Macqueen, op. cit., 473, 474.
[313] The first three cases are those of Mrs. Addison, 1801; Mrs. Turton, 1831; and Mrs. Battersby, 1840: Macqueen, op. cit., 474-80, 594-98, 657, 658; also Law Review, I, 371; and Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, II, 200, 201. There appears to have been a fourth case: Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 18; and in several instances Parliament interfered by bill to nullify marriage or to grant separation a mensa: Macqueen, op. cit., 475, note.
[314] The cases of Tewsh, 1805; and Mrs. Moffat, 1832: Macqueen, op. cit., 480, 482, 602-4, 658-60. These are discussed in Law Review, I, 371-74. Lord Chancellor Brougham opposed Mrs. Moffat's bill; but later he took the opposite and more liberal view: Brougham, Speeches, III, 446.