Thus the general principles which governed the Ecclesiastical Courts and the High Court of Parliament, in relation to divorce proceedings, became and formed a part of the common or unwritten law of Massachusetts at the commencement of her history; and they have never ceased to form a part of her common law. They have been reaffirmed again and again. Thus in 1692-3, after the abrogation of the colonial charter, and the establishment of a provincial government, under the second charter, it was enacted "that all controversies concerning marriage and divorce should be heard and determined by the governor and council," which had taken the place of the Court of Assistants. Again, in 1784-5, when the province had become a commonwealth, when the divorce jurisdiction was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court, when the causes were defined for which that court might grant divorces from bed and board, and divorces from the bond of matrimony, respectively, it was enacted that the court should hear and determine all causes of divorce and alimony, "according to the course of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and in Courts of Equity;" and this provision has been reenacted at every revision of our statutes, in 1836, 1860, and 1882. By force of this statute the general principles which governed the Ecclesiastical Courts are a part of the law of Massachusetts to-day. One short chapter of the Public Statutes contains all her statutory law touching not only divorce but several other incidental subjects. It is a chapter of fragments. Connivance, collusion, condonation, recrimination, and other defences are not even mentioned therein. In the case of Commonwealth _v._ Munson, 127 Mass., 459, Chief-Justice Gray, referring to the requisites of a valid marriage ceremony, said "the Canon Law was never adopted" in Massachusetts; and this is true in respect to the particular subject which that learned judge had under consideration. He never meant it as an unqualified statement, for as such it would not be true. In 1691 the marriage between Hannah Owen and Josiah Owen was declared null and void by the Court of Assistants, because Hannah was the widow of Josiah's brother, and because by "the Canon Law, as allowed and adopted in England," ever since Archbishop Cranmer annulled the marriage between Henry VIII. and Catherine of Aragon, no man could lawfully marry his brother's widow. We do not stop to consider whether the Canon Law in this respect was right or wrong; we merely cite this case to show that, as to some things, the Canon Law was adopted here. In one marked instance the people of Massachusetts deviated from "the Canon Law as allowed and adopted in England," to follow the Canon Law as allowed and adopted by the Popes of Rome; they enacted that, upon the marriage of the parents of any illegitimate child, such child should thereby become legitimate.