The act of 1857 directs that, before granting a decree, the court shall "satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can, not only as to the facts alleged," but also whether there has been any collusion between the petitioner and either of the respondents, or whether there is any bar or counter-charge against the petitioner.[333] But no special procedure was created for making the inquiry suggested, "nor could a stranger without any legal private interest intervene."[334] The necessary machinery for that purpose was provided by the Matrimonial Causes Act[335] of 1860, which rests upon the theory "that the public is interested in seeing that no marriage is dissolved except on certain grounds."[336] Two distinct stages in the proceedings for a dissolution of wedlock are prescribed. If a sentence of divorce be rendered, it must always in the first instance be a decree _nisi_. Only after an interval of six months, unless a shorter time be set by the court, can such a decree be made _absolute_. In the meantime, the queen's proctor, or any member of the public, whether interested in the suit or not, may "intervene" to show collusion or the suppression of material facts;[337] and in case of such intervention the court shall deal with the cause "by making the decree absolute, or by reversing the decree _nisi_," or by conducting further examination, as "justice may require." [Footnote 333: 20 and 21 Vict., c. 82, secs. 29-31: _Statutes at Large_, XCVII, 538.] [Footnote 334: So decided in Y. _v._ Y. (1860): 1 SWABEY AND TRISTRAM, _Reports_, 598-600; GEARY, _op. cit._, 249, 261.] [Footnote 335: 23 and 24 Vict., c. 144. For the discussion of the bill see HANSARD, _Parl. Debates_, 3d series, CLX, 1628-31, 1734-42. _Cf._ also GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 322 ff.; GEARY, _op. cit._, 261 n. 6; HARRISON, _The Laws of Probate and Divorce_, 141 ff.] [Footnote 336: Lord Hannen, in the celebrated case of Crawford _v._ Crawford (1886), 11 P. D., 150-58, where the queen's proctor is allowed to intervene to prove a previous decision unjust. See also GEARY, _op. cit._, 257 n. 2, 262, where this case is summarized.]