against the guilty paramour for damage.[307] Thus a vast power was placed in the hands of the spiritual courts to hinder an aggrieved husband or wife from resorting to Parliament for redress. This fact is illustrated in the history of the cases already cited. Lord Roos had previously secured a decree of separation, no mention being made of an action for damage. In Lord Macclesfield's case the bill for divorce was sustained neither by a judgment at law nor by an ecclesiastical sentence. For "in consequence of the skilful opposition set up by the countess in the spiritual courts, and the narrow antiquated maxims which there prevailed, she contrived to baffle all her husband's efforts to obtain a sentence of divorce _à mensâ et thoro_. The circumstances of the case, however, were so scandalous and flagrant, that it would have been an outrage upon every principle of justice to withhold relief." In like manner for seven years the Duke of Norfolk tried in vain to obtain a decree of separation, although he "recovered damage at law from the adulterer, Sir John Jermayne."[308] But in no other case save these two has there been a successful resort to Parliament without first obtaining the sentence of an ecclesiastical judge;[309] and the clumsy, almost farcical, nature of the procedure in divorce suits may be more fully appreciated when it is borne in mind that an aggrieved spouse desirous of securing a divorce from a guilty partner through an act of Parliament was compelled, before he could "get through the ecclesiastical courts, to pledge himself not to remarry."[310] [Footnote 301: The only special work on parliamentary divorce is that contained in MACQUEEN'S _Practical Treatise_, 463-68, comprising a clear historical "Introduction;" the "Action at Law;" the "Petition and Bill;" the "General Preparation of the Case;" the "Second Reading and Subsequent Proceedings;" and an interesting "Selection of Leading Cases." See also _Law Review_, I, 362 ff.; LECKY, _Democracy and Liberty_, II, 200-202; GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 17, 18; HAMMICK, _Marriage Law_, 18; SHELFORD, _Law of Marriage and Divorce_, 373-79; BISHOP, _Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_, I, §§ 1422 ff.; WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 172-74; JEAFFRESON, _Brides and Bridals_, II, 340-44; LUCKOCK, _Hist. of Marriage_, 178-81; WHARTON, _Exposition of Laws Relating to Women_, 471-84; GLASSON, _Le marriage civil et le divorce_, 318, 319; BURN, _Ecc. Law_, II, 503_b_, 503_c_; HIRSCHFELD, "The Law of Divorce in England and in Germany," _Law Quarterly Review_, XIII, 398, 399; MONTMORENCY, "The Changing Status of a Married Woman," _ibid._, 191; _Plea for an Alt. in the Divorce Laws_, 5 ff.; SCRIBNER, _Treatise on the Law of Dower_, II, 542 ff.; and especially the full account by MORGAN, _Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce_, II, 237-313.] [Footnote 302: GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 17: _Rot. Parl._, 15 H. VI, Nos. 14, 15.]