Note 304 — Chapter XI · HISTORY OF SEPARATION AND DIVORCE UNDER ENGLISH AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAW (continued 2)

The act, being private, was never printed in the collections of statutes; but a writer in the Law Review, I, 363 n. 1, publishes it from the "House copy in the parliament office." Cf. Macqueen, op. cit., 471-73, 551-61, who discusses the case, giving Bishop Cozen's argument, but he does not appear to have had a copy of the statute before him. See Evelyn, Diary (London, 1878), II, 49 n. 3, who declares that the Roos divorce bill was carried under influence of corrupt political motives; and he is followed by Keble, Sequel to the Argument, 212 ff.; and Morgan, Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, II, 237 ff. For a number of instructive details relating to this case, extending over the years 1662-70, taken from the manuscripts of the House of Lords, see Reports of Hist. MSS. Com., VII, 165, 166; VIII, 102a, 117a, App. I, 141a; XII, App. V, 8; App. VII, 69. The last entry runs: "1669, March 14. News letter. Lord Roos presses for liberty to marry again, urging precedent of Marquess of Northampton. All the bishops oppose except the B. of Durham." It is here noted that the act finally passed April 11, 1670; 22 Car. II., 1, Private Acts. The case gave rise to The Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage thereupon (London, 1673), in which a "Reverend Prelate of the Church of England" denies, and a "private Gentleman" maintains, the right of remarriage on scriptural authority.