Divorce Act is, in fact, administered only in London, and there only for the relief of a few wealthy persons who suffer from the erotic misadventures of a few others of the same class--for the relief only of rich victims of the naughty rich. So far as workers in the country like Clarke are concerned, the Divorce Act might as well not have been passed. As there was no practical means of dissolving his marriage, the man committed the crime of bigamy.” His Honour concluded by saying, “The Workmen’s Compensation Act does not palliate bigamy; it does not subsidise adultery.” Judgment was given for the mayor and corporation, and both claims for compensation were dismissed. Sordid as this story may be, it seems to forcibly express the necessity for extending cheap divorce facilities to the County Courts. Certain days might be set aside for the hearing of divorce cases, without overtaxing the mentality or the endurance of the learned judges. It might even afford them some trifling reaction from the constant billow of petty money claims. Public policy in this age certainly supports cheap divorce facilities. After all, there is no reason why a systematic reduction of law expenses should not be brought about in all the courts of the land. As matters stand, the rapacity of solicitors is more to blame than the high fees of well-known counsel. If a solicitor is “skilful in drawing a bill of costs,” his future is assured, as many a client knows to his or her misfortune. The degree of skill becomes apparent by the amount of the bill after it has passed the Taxing-master! The thousand and one details which can be colourably incorporated in a bill of costs, arising out of divorce proceedings, are often a revelation to the professional eye. Every man believes _his_ solicitor to be honest. Let the day of disillusionment be far off!