“Ye shall kepe after your strength and power to the Church of God, to the clergy and the people, hoole pees and goodely concorde.” _The King shall answer_: “I shall kepe.” “Ye shall make to be done after your strength and power equall and rightfull justice in all your Domes and Judgements, and discrecion with mercy and trouthe.” _The King shall answer_: “I will do.” “Do ye graunte the rightfull lawes and custumes to be holden, and promytte after your strength and power such lawes, as to the honor of God shall be chosen by your people, by you to be strengthend and defended?” _The King shall answer_: “I graunte and promytte.” [37] See Appendix F. [38] _Vide supra._ APPENDIX A DIVORCE The following extracts from the evidence of Earl Russell and from the evidence of Mr. Atherley-Jones, K.C., before the Divorce Commission (December 19th, 1910), are not without some interest. They were discovered in _The Times_ report by accident, after the present author’s chapter on divorce had been written. “Lord Russell, who was the first witness, said he had been interested in the question of divorce since 1890. He had studied the history of the question, the earlier part of which was naturally ecclesiastical; but as Parliament, in his opinion, was not concerned in legislation with ecclesiastical views he did not propose to go into them. In his view the State had no more right to dictate to him or his fellow-citizens what should be the nature of contracts of marriage from an ecclesiastical point of view than it had to deal with the education of his children, with the exercise of the franchise, or with other matters from an ecclesiastical point of view. “The existing law suffered from three great defects:-- “(1) The premium placed upon adultery and the advantages given to those who are willing to commit it: (2) the practical denial of divorce to the poor; and (3) the provision of an illusory remedy in many cases of matrimonial hardship, such remedy itself being directly provocative of further adultery. In the case of the poor, the petitioner might be in law fully entitled to his remedy, but unless he could find a sum varying from £30 to £70 he must go without. This sum to be spent in one lump was probably out of reach of four-fifths of the husbands and nine-tenths of the wives of the country. The proceeding _in formâ papueris_ did not adequately meet the case. To his mind the obvious remedy was to give jurisdiction to the County Courts, manned by able Judges who habitually tried cases infinitely more difficult than those of divorce. In the vast majority of cases the evidence would be in the locality of the County Court, thus reducing the expense of witnesses. He supposed there should be some limit of income--say £500 a year--and he thought it would be fair to prohibit a petitioner in the County Court from seeking damages.