[Footnote 323: HANSARD'S _Parl. Debates_, 3d series, CXLIV-VIII. "The discussions on the subject were curious as showing how powerfully, even to that late period, theological methods of thought and reasoning prevailed in the British Legislature. There were speeches that would seem more in place in a church council than in a lay Parliament."--LECKY, _Democracy and Liberty_, II, 202.] [Footnote 324: 36 and 37 Vict., c. 66, secs. 16, 31.] [Footnote 325: See GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 238 ff., for the jurisdiction and procedure of these courts. _Cf._ also HARRISON, _The Laws of Probate and Divorce_, 191 ff.] By the law of 1857, supplemented in various ways through subsequent statutes, three forms of separation are recognized. First, on petition of either consort the court is empowered to grant a complete dissolution of wedlock; but in this respect the provisions of the act are conceived in the same narrow spirit that actuated the policy of legislative divorce. The woman is treated with precisely the same injustice. For while the husband may secure an absolute divorce on account of the simple adultery of the wife, the wife is unable to free herself from an unfaithful husband unless his infidelity has been coupled with such cruelty as "would have entitled her to a divorce _a mensa et thoro_;" or "with desertion, without reasonable cause, for two years and upwards;" or with certain other aggravating offenses.[326] Friends and enemies of the bill alike joined in condemning the unequal position in which man and wife were placed. Gladstone, who tenaciously resisted the act on theological grounds, declared: "If there is one broad and palpable principle of Christianity which we ought to regard as precious it is, that it has placed the seal of God Almighty upon the equality of man and woman with respect to everything that relates to these rights."[327] On the other hand, the attorney-general, who introduced the measure, found it necessary to apologize for this defect. "If this bill," he says, "were thrown aside and the whole law of marriage and divorce made the subject of inquiry, I should be the last man to limit the field of discussion or to refuse to consider a state of law which inflicts injustice upon the women most wrongfully and without cause, and which may be considered opprobrious and wicked;" moreover, he continues, the "present bill need not be the end-all of legislation upon the subject."[328] [Footnote 326: 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, sec. 27: _Statutes at Large_, XCVII, 537. But various "absolute" or "discretionary" bars may be pleaded against a decree. On these see GEARY, _op. cit._, 267-304; HARRISON, _op. cit._, 130 ff.; WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 175.]