[Footnote 303: MACQUEEN, _Practical Treatise_, 469. _Cf._ n. 4, p. 80, above.] [Footnote 304: The act, being private, was never printed in the collections of statutes; but a writer in the _Law Review_, I, 363 n. 1, publishes it from the "House copy in the parliament office." _Cf._ MACQUEEN, _op. cit._, 471-73, 551-61, who discusses the case, giving Bishop Cozen's argument, but he does not appear to have had a copy of the statute before him. See EVELYN, _Diary_ (London, 1878), II, 49 n. 3, who declares that the Roos divorce bill was carried under influence of corrupt political motives; and he is followed by KEBLE, _Sequel to the Argument_, 212 ff.; and MORGAN, _Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce_, II, 237 ff. For a number of instructive details relating to this case, extending over the years 1662-70, taken from the manuscripts of the House of Lords, see _Reports of Hist. MSS. Com._, VII, 165, 166; VIII, 102_a_, 117_a_, App. I, 141_a_; XII, App. V, 8; App. VII, 69. The last entry runs: "1669, March 14. News letter. Lord Roos presses for liberty to marry again, urging precedent of Marquess of Northampton. All the bishops oppose except the B. of Durham." It is here noted that the act finally passed April 11, 1670; 22 Car. II., 1, Private Acts. The case gave rise to _The Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage thereupon_ (London, 1673), in which a "Reverend Prelate of the Church of England" denies, and a "private Gentleman" maintains, the right of remarriage on scriptural authority.] [Footnote 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."] [Footnote 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.] [Footnote 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.]