cil had customarily granted divorces a but opinion seems to have 
emerged that that body had no authority to grant such divorces. 305 'When in 
the usual course of events the Board of Trade came to report upon these acts, 
it questioned whether the legislature of Massachusetts or of any other colony 
possessed the power to pass laws of this nature and consequently whether 
these acts were not of themselves null and void. 300 The ground of doubt was 
apparently divergence from English parliamentary practice because of the 
lack of a preliminary ecclesiastical divorce a mensa et thoro and of a previous 
verdict at law for criminal conversation. In England private acts of Parliament 
dissolving marriage had become more frequent with the end of the 
seventeenth century, although it was not until the accession of the House of 
Hanover that such acts averaged one a year. In only two early cases were acts 
made without any ecclesiastical sentence; in several cases there was no previous 
verdict at law. 30T However, no standing orders of either House of 
Parliament required the institution of these preliminary proceedings until 
1798. 308 An additional factor of variation from English practice is found in 
the fact that two of these acts were procured by wives, a practice unheard of 
in England before 1801. 309 
The only colonial act of divorce which had previously come before the King 
in Council was the 1739 Jamaica act to dissolve the marriage of Edward 
Manning with Elizabeth Moore and to enable him to marry again. 3lo In 
August, 1740, the Board of Trade represented for disallowance on the ground 
304 A 1692 act provided "that all controversies 
concerning marriage and divorce shall 
be heard and determined by the governour 
and council" (1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. 
Bay, 61). On July 30, 1759, Judges Lynde, 
Cushing, Sewall, Russell, and Oliver were 
directed to find by what rule the governor 
acted in cases of divorce prior to legislation 
on the subject. The committee found between 
1747 and 1754 seven cases of divorce 
a vinculo by the Governor and Council (9 
MS Mass. Archives [Domestic Relations, 1643— 
!774\> 43 2 )- But cf. 2 Howard, History of 
Matrimonial Institutions (1904), 341. 
305 In August, 1757, a bill was introduced 
for enabling the Governor and Council to 
grant divorces from the bonds of matrimony 
in certain cases. The preamble recited that 
in cases of divorce on account of cruelty or 
of adultery the law had been so construed 
that however evident and aggravated the offense 
might be, the Governor and Council 
could only separate the injured person from 
the bed and board of the other, whereby the 
innocent were not at liberty to marry again 
(9 MS Mass. Archives [Domestic Relations, 
1643-1774], 419). But note the later evident 
change of opinion without any legislative enactment 
(2 Howard, History of Matrimonial 
Institutions, 342-43). 
306 22 MS Mass. Archives {Foreign Corres., 
'758-75), 9- 
307 1 Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce 
and Matrimonial Causes (1912), 11. Cf. 
1 Clifford, History of Private Bill Legislation 
(1885), 400 et seq.; 1 Howard, History of 
Matrimonial Institutions, 102 et seq. 
308 1 Report of the Royal Commission on 
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (1912), 11. 
309 Macqueen, A Practical Treatise on the 
Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords 
and Privy Council, 474 et seq.; 1 Clifford, 
History of Private Bill Legislation, 414-15. 
310 Manuscript copy in Library of Congress 
(Law Division).