Counsel  having  been  asked  whether  they  had  found  any  case  in


636  LEADING  CASES  OF

which  a  Divorce  Bill  had  been  passed  after  a  separation  of  the
parties  a  mensa  et  thoro  (^,

Mr.  Adam  stated  that  such  a  case  occurred  in  the  year  1798 ;
the  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Twissleton  (s).
Counsel  was  asked  whether  it  appeared  or  not  in  that  case,  that,
after  the  parties  had  separated,  they  had  lived  together  again.
Mr.  Adam  stated  that  he  believed  that  was  not  the  fact,^tli&t
there  was  nothing  in  the  proceedings  which  led  to  that  inference.
Counsel  were  asked  whether  they  had  found  any  other  ease.
Mr.  Adam  stated  that  they  had  not.
The  further  consideration  and  second  reading  of  the  bill  were
put  off  sine  die^  and  the  evidence  was  ordered  to  be  printed.  No
further  proceeding  was  had  in  the  Session  of  1825,  but  in  the
following  Session,  the  application  of  Mr.  Barker  was  renewed  by  a
petition  on  19th  April,  1 826,  praying  that  the  official  copy  of  the
proceedings,  and  of  the  definitive  sentence  of  divorce  in  the  Ecde-
siastical  Court,  and  the  evidence  taken  at  the  Bar,  and  entered  upon
the  Journals  of  the  House  during  last  Session,  might  be  taken  into
their  Lordships'  consideration ;  and  that  counsel  might  be  heard
on  such  points  in  support  of  the  bill  as  to  the  House  might  seem
necessary.
It  was  ordered  that  the  production  of  another  official  copy  of  the
proceedings  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Court  might  be  dispensed  with.
Leave  was  then  given  to  bring  in  a  new  bill,  and  the  same  was
accordingly  brought  in  and  read  a  first  time,  and  the  usEoal  orders
followed.
