genuine evidence
on the court. It extends to an agreement to withhold any material
evidence; and indeed is carried further, and held to extend to any
agreement which may have the effect of concealing the real and complete
truth from the court (see _Churchward_ v. _Churchward_, 1894, p. 161).
This doctrine was of considerable importance even in the days when only
divorces _a mensa et thoro_ were granted, because at that time the
parties were not permitted to separate by consent. At the present day it
has become, with regard to divorce a _vinculo matrimonii_, a rule of
greater and of more far-reaching importance.

The canon law as accepted in England, while allowing divorces of the
nature and for the causes above mentioned, actively interfered to
prevent separation between husband and wife in any other manner. A suit
known as a suit for restitution of conjugal rights could be brought to
compel cohabitation; and on evidence of the desertion of either spouse,
the court ordered a return to the matrimonial home, though it carried no
further its authority as to the matrimonial relations within the home.
To this suit an agreement between the parties constituted no answer. But
an answer was afforded by any conduct which would have supported a
decree of divorce _a mensa et thoro_. It is a question whether, indeed,
the ecclesiastical courts would not have gone further, and refused a
decree of restitution of conjugal rights on grounds which might appear
adequate to justify such refusal, though not sufficient on which to
ground a decree of divorce. The view of the court of appeal and the
House of Lords has given some colour to this opinion, and certainly the
court of appeal has held, although perhaps somewhat hastily, that the
effect of a modern statute has been to allow the court to refuse
restitution of conjugal rights for causes falling short of what would
constitute ground for divorce (_Russell_ v. _Russell_, 1895, p. 315).

The ecclesiastical courts provided for the pecuniary rights of the wife
by granting to her alimony during the progress of the suit, and a proper
allowance after its termination in cases in which she was successful.
Such payments were dependent on the pecuniary means, or _faculties_, as
they were termed, of the husband, and were subject to subsequent
increase or diminution in proper cases. But the ecclesiastical courts
did not deal with the custody of the children of the marriage, it being
probably considere