“There was much to object to in the procedure of the Divorce Court. He had heard no particular reason why pleadings in the Divorce Court should be sworn to, but if it was agreed that people were thereby debarred from launching baseless charges there was something to be said for it. It ought not to be necessary to swear a jury where the damages were agreed. The practice by which a wife could accuse a woman of adultery and the Court could find her guilty without the woman having notice of the proceedings or an opportunity of being heard was indefensible. He thought only the decrees of the Court with the names of the parties should be published. The suggestion that publicity was a deterrent was open to a good deal of doubt. It was a great hardship for a man or woman that all the details of an unsuccessful charge of adultery should be published. Even though acquitted, the damage done was irremediable. There was a growing tendency on the part of certain newspapers to treat the Divorce Court as the fountain head of sensational news. “In considering legislation he refused to have regard to the religious views of particular sects. He admitted marriage to be a contract which affected not only the two parties to it, but the community, and he considered that the community was bound to have regard to the moral tendency of the marriage and divorce law and to the interests of the children. Such expressions as ‘the sanctity of marriage’ and “the sanctity of the home,” often used in this connection, he regarded as having no particular meaning in the case of adulterous homes or establishments where husband and wife had long been separated. He suggested, therefore, that the test which should be applied was whether any of the attributes of marriage were still in existence between husband and wife. Where the spouses had been separated for a term of years; where children had already made their home with one or the other; and where no element of the marriage tie remained except some financial relations and the legal bond, he suggested that the law should step in, and, recognizing the existing state of things, should sever the legal bond and leave the parties free to create new homes. Since the decision of “Jackson _v._ Jackson” the wife might leave her husband at the church door, and unless one or other of the parties took advantage of the privileges which the law reserved for adulterers, they would both remain compulsory celibates for the rest of their lives. He still thought the ideal state of the law would be that set out in the Bill he presented to the House of Lords in 1902. English legislation, however, always proceeded by piecemeal tentative advances, and probably, therefore, the simplest form of legislation would involve four advances:--(_a_) Equality of the sexes; (_b_) insanity a ground of separation; (_c_) all judicial separation to be capable of being