Note 254 — Chapter XI · HISTORY OF SEPARATION AND DIVORCE UNDER ENGLISH AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (continued 2)

See the strong argument of Holburn and Grimston for the defendant who justly claim that a "divorce causa saevitiae is grounded ex jure naturae, and is in the same manner and nature as a divorce causae adulterii: Croke's Reports (Charles I.), 463. Hale, Hist. of Pleas of the Crown, I, 693, remarks "certainly the divorce intended" by James's act "is not a vinculo matrimonii;" and then further observes, in Porter's case "it was doubted, whether a divorce causâ saevitiae were such a divorce as was within this exception, because it seemed rather to be a provisional separation for the wife's safety and maintenance, than a divorce; but it was never resolved." Cf. also Co. Lit., 235; March, Reports of New Cases, 101; Coke, Institutes, III, 89; Kelyng, Report of Divers Cases (Dublin, 1789), 27; Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 12.