« 이전계속 »
Hence the Petition to Her Majesty in Council that the Cause might be re-heard: the particulars of this Application and the Reasons for the Prayer not being granted, will be found at pp. 444-48 of this Publication.
But, although the immediate object of the Notes had thus passed away when they were in part prepared, it seemed worth while, perhaps, to finish them; consequently they have expanded into the present Volume which, up to p. 217, was printed off before April 1872; and soon afterwards most of the succeeding pages relating to the Vestment question were composed. The work was then unavoidably laid aside owing to my most unexpected appointment to this Benefice, in October 1872, by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherly) whose kindness I am glad here gratefully to acknowledge.
Since that time Duties in this Parish have only permitted these Notes to be resumed at intervals, and thus the completion of them has been delayed until now. During their progress your own Book, “Worship in the
Church of England” (1874), appeared; and also some other important Publications have been issued in reference to the Points adjudicated upon in the Purchas Suit. I delayed, however, to read them until this Work was finished; for this reason alone—that if the independent investigations should agree in their general Conclusions, the Inquiries and their Results might, probably, be regarded as somewhat reliable.
For the very kind readiness with which you responded to my request, and so enabled me thus to address you, I beg leave now to return my best thanks. It need scarcely be said that your acceptance of this Dedication in no way implies your concurrence with any opinions
or arguments which I have advanced in the course of this Volume : indeed I must add that you have not yet seen it.
The last sheets were being revised when the Hearing of the Appeal, Ridsdale v. Clifton and Others, was commenced before the Judicial Committee, on January 23rd. Let us trust that the able Arguments, addressed to an unusually strong Court, (See p. 449), on behalf of the Appellant, by Sir James Stephen and Mr. Arthur Charles, may lead their Lordships to the conviction (at which the Court, in the Purchas Case, might have arrived under the like favourable circumstances) viz., that the Vestments, the Wafer-bread, and the Eastward Position of the Celebrant-three of the Points decided adversely in the Appeal Hebbert v. Purchas, but now included in Mr. Ridsdale's Appeal—are all LAWFUL according to the Rubrics of the present Book of Common Prayer.
Believe me, my dear Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE,
Yours very sincerely,
THOS. W. PERRY. THE VICARAGE, ARDLEIGH, COLCHESTER.
March 9, 1877.
Page 27, Note, line 2, for “Burleigh Papers, vol. 8, No. 16” read
“Lansd. 8, f. 16. in dorso, ‘14 Nov. 1564 Varieties in the Services
ye Churche of precisians.'” » 67, line 21, for “II” read “III.”
69, line 21, for “ 1557” read “1577.” „ 150, Note, line 22, for “Salisbury" read “Sarum." 154, Note, line 12, for " when approved ” read “when they
16, for "consequently only" read "consequently
from this, or from some other cause, only.”
165, line 7 from Note, for
» 211, Note S, line 2, for “p. 67” read “p. 627.”
232, line 6 from bottom, for “ institutam” read “instituta.”
line 3 from bottom, for "p. 318-88" read “p.
322, last line, for “touching Faires Markets” read “ touching
Faires and Marketts."
335, line 7, for
seem to have raised” read "
seem to have then raised."
379, line 12, for
“ That Ridley must” read “That Ridley, or whoever was Celebrant, must."
389, line 9, for "pp. 379-81 ” read “370-81."
ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
HEBBERT v. PURCHAS.
To ensure accuracy the text of the Judgment, which is
here given in full, is reprinted from the Official copy : the insertions between square brackets are corrections of the quotations.
“Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council on the Appeal of Hebbert, heretofore Elphinstone v. Purchas, from the Arches Court of Canterbury ; delivered 23rd February, 1871.
LORD CHANCELLOR (Hatherly, W. Page Wood).
In this case, which comes to us from the Arches Court
of Canterbury, the learned Judge of that Court has directed a monition to issue to the Rev. John Purchas as to several matters and things complained of by the Promoter, and has condemned him in costs; and the Defendant has not appealed. But as to certain charges contained in the 16th, 17th, 20th, 25th, 36th, and 38th Articles of Charge, the learned Judge has refused or omitted to direct a
monition to issue against the Defendant, and to
moter has appealed.
purpose of this Appeal, for Charles James Elphin-
of this Committee.
peared, and the Committee has not had the assis
tance of the argument of counsel on his behalf.
that the Respondent has offended against the Statute