[Footnote 308: _Law Review_, I, 364; MACQUEEN, _op. cit._, 473.] [Footnote 309: MACQUEEN, _op. cit._, 550.] [Footnote 310: _Plea for an Alt. in the Divorce Laws_, 5, referring to the security required by the canons of 1603.] In consequence of the standing order of the House of Lords, Parliament was unable to grant relief, except on the one ground of conjugal infidelity; for the spiritual court declined to issue a decree of separation for malicious desertion, unless in connection with acts of cruelty.[311] "On a retrospect of one hundred and seventy years, since the establishment of the system of parliamentary divorce _a vinculo_," says Macqueen, writing in 1842, "I find no case in which that remedy has been awarded or sought, without a charge of adultery. There is no example of a bill of divorce for malicious desertion," although from the Reformation onward this has been a clearly recognized ground for dissolution of wedlock in other Protestant lands.[312] Furthermore, with respect to the rights of the wife Parliament was more illiberal than the spiritual courts themselves, refusing, even after the ecclesiastical sentence of separation, to free her from a dissolute husband, unless his offense were attended by "aggravating" conduct, such as cruelty. In no case was the woman granted relief merely for the husband's unfaithfulness, however flagrant and shameless his conduct might be. Indeed, for the entire period during which the practice existed, there were but three or four examples of legislative divorce at the instance of a woman, and in each case the man's infidelity was attended by other offenses.[313] In two other cases the bill of the wife was rejected by the Lords, although the grievous wrong which she had suffered was established by the clearest proof.[314] Parliament appears to have accepted the view of Dr. Johnson that there is a "boundless" difference between the infidelity of the man and that of the woman. In the husband's case, according to that philosopher, there is no danger of a "confusion of progeny;" and this, he says, "constitutes the essence of the crime."[315] Therefore, "wise married women don't trouble themselves" about such mere peccadilloes.[316] [Footnote 311: HAGGARD, _Consistory Reports_, 120; MACQUEEN, _op. cit._, 474.] [Footnote 312: MACQUEEN, _op. cit._, 473, 474.] [Footnote 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.]