Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/478

 f

London Legal Letter. concerning any one Subject, without turning to every Book (only when he hath particular occassion of Advice, or Argument, then it will be necessary to look upon that Booke at large, which he finds Usefull to his Pur pose).

447

VI. He will be able upon any Occas sion to find any Thing he hath read, with out recoursing to Tables or other Rep ertories, which are oftentimes short, and give a lame Account of the Subject sought for.

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Aug. 6, 1892. '"THE judgment which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered this week in Read v. The Bishops of Lincoln forms the close of the greatest of the Ritualistic prosecutions which have agitated the Church of England during the past thirty years. The ceremonial acts complained of were committed by the Bishop of Lincoln in the year 1887; and the Church Association — a body which undertakes the guardianship of the Protestantism of England — having succeeded in instituting proceedings, the case was ultimately tried before the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting with episcopal assessors. In November, 1890, the Archbishop delivered judgment which was in favor of the Bishop on almost every point. This result caused great indignation among the ranks of extreme Low Churchmen, and so it was with much ardor that the promoters of the suit, backed by the Church Association, appealed from the findings of the Archbishop to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The promoters had every rea son for confidence that they would succeed in securing a reversal of the judgment at the hands of the Judicial Committee; for all, or almost all, the ceremonial practices upheld by Archbishop Benson in his judgment have been declared illegal and contrary to the rubrics of the Church of Eng land on several occasions by the Privy Council. The idea was therefore not ill-founded that the Judicial Committee would consider itself bound by its previous decisions, and reverse, in conse quence, the pronouncement of the archiepiscopal tribunal at Lambeth. Just imagine the consterna tion which fell on the Church Association and their henchmen last Tuesday, when the long delayed judgment of the Privy Council was delivered by the Lord Chancellor, upholding the Archbishop on all points, and dismissing the appeal! The Lord

Chancellor entered elaborately into the question as to how far they were bound by previous decisions, and arrived at the conclusion that they were not so bound under all circumstances. Except among a few ultra Low Churchmen, the result has been greeted with extreme satisfaction, as likely to con tribute sensibly to the peace of the Church and toput an end to a most futile type of litigation. It is now decided that the following practices at the celebration of the communion are not contrary to the law of the Church of England : the use of the mixed chalice, if the water and wine are mingled prior to the service, and not ceremonially in the course of it; the eastward position of the celebrant at the consecration; and the singing of the "Agnus Dei " during the communion service. As to the two lights on the altar, when not required for the purpose of giving light, the Archbishop had deter mined in favor of the practice; that is to say, he found, on elaborately examining all kinds of evi dence, that he could not pronounce it illegal if not done ceremonially. The Privy Council, appre hensive, perhaps, that they would have had to take another view of this particular question on its merits, acquitted the Bishop on another ground. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that on the occasion when the Bishop was alleged to have celebrated the sacrament while two lights burned upon the altar, he was conducting the service in a church at which he was in a sense a visitor, and over whose services he had no control. — the responsible per son in such cases being of course the minister of the church; consequently he absolved the Bishop of responsibility in this matter altogether. The • divergence between the former and the present attitude of the Privy Council towards eccle siastical ceremonies is simply a reflex of the public mind. ' In 1874, when the ill-judged Public Wor ship Regulation Act was passed, a considerable