deacon and Rural Deans, whose duty it is to examine and report to the Bishop. It is sufficient to refer, as to the mode of executing repairs, and raising the money for this purpose, to the Acts, and to Phill. Eccl. Law, Part V., cap. 5. It may be briefly stated that (unless the benefice be sequestered) the incumbent is bound to execute the repairs as reported to, and approved by, the Bishop; and that, with the consent of the Bishop and the patron, the necessary funds for executing the repairs may be borrowed from the governors of Q. A. Bounty. The amount so borrowed is not, however, to exceed three years net income of the benefice. The repayment of the loan by instalments is provided for. Separate provision is made as to the estates of Archbishops and Bishops, which need not here be noted.

By the principal Act (sec. 54) the incumbent is bound in every case to insure (and keep insured) against fire the glebe house and buildings, and also the chancel, where he is liable for its repair, in threefifths of the value, to the satisfaction of the governors of Q. A. Bounty. Under an earlier Act, where the glebe house has been built by means of a mortgage to the governors of Q. A. Bounty, there was special provision made for insurance. (1 & 2 Vict. cap. 106, sect. 67).

Discipline.

As the laity are practically free from discipline,* this section will relate to the clergy only. It may in the first instance be observed that a stranger has no right to interfere. In an ecclesiastical suit, the complainant must show how he is interested in the matter, as parishioner or otherwise. (Phill. Judgmt. 334; 6 P. C. App. 38.)

In the case of Mr. Heath, the stat. 13 Eliz. cap. 12, was considered. It was held (inter alia) that in a * Phillimore v. Machon, 1 P. Div. 481.

penal suit under that Act, for depraving the Articles of Religion, it was immaterial whether the unsound doctrines were preached or were printed in a book. The only sentence which the Court could pronounce was that of deprivation. (Heath v. Burder, 15 Moo. P. C. 1.) The prosecutions of Rev. R. Williams and Rev. H. B. Wilson, two of the writers in Essays and Reviews,' shortly afterwards failed, the passages complained of not being directly contrary to the plain meaning of any of the Articles. In one of these cases it was held that a clergyman might express a hope of the final restoration of the wicked. (2 Moo. N. S. 375-)

In the momentous case of Sheppard v. Bennett, it was held that a clergyman was at liberty to describe the Presence in the Holy Communion as "objective, real, actual, and spiritual." The clergy have liberty of uttering their own opinions in cases where the formularies are not express and susceptible of but one interpretation. (L. Rep. 3 A. & Eccl. 167; and 4 P. C. 350, 371.)

The Church Discipline Act, 1840, introduced many changes into the mode of proceeding where offences are charged against the clergy. It does not lessen. the authority of the Bishop out of Court; but it limits proceedings in Court to two years from the commission of the alleged offence; and it directs that a commission of enquiry shall be issued, as the first step in a suit. If the Commissioners report a prima facie case, the Bishop may (by consent) try the case himself, with the aid of assessors, one of whom shall be a barrister, and a second a Dean, Archdeacon, or Chancellor. Or else a Commissary may be appointed to try the case. Or the Bishop may send the case for trial to the Arches Court. The final appeal under this Act is to the Judicial Committee P C. Under this Act several important suits were carried to their conclusion; but as from the complicated nature of the procedure the expense was

found to be excessive, it was thought desirable in the year 1874 to provide a simpler mode of trying disputed questions of ritual. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the P. W. R. Act of 1874 should not possess the sanction of the Church expressed by her "Sacred Synods"; for, however effective as a piece of legal machinery, it cannot be said to have gained the approval of the majority of the clergy. This Act* only deals with three kinds of irregularities or offences; so that for punishment of serious offences recourse must still be had to the Church Discipline Act of 1840. The following matters only are within the scope of the Act of 1874:-(1.) The fabric, ornaments, furniture, and decorations of the church. (2.) The use of an unlawful, or the neglect of a prescribed, ornament or vesture. (3.) The neglect of the rubrics, or unlawful additions to the ceremonies, rites, and services of the Book of C. P. On a proper representation by the Archdeacon, a churchwarden, or three parishioners to the Bishop, made and verified in due form, the Bishop will consider whether the case ought to proceed. If he allows it to proceed, it will come before the judge, who is also Dean of Arches and Official Principal of York, by whom the case will be tried.

In the Churchwarden's Guide,' 9th edition, the following appears :

"The main points in which the procedure sanctioned by the P. W. R. Act differs from the more dilatory method prescribed by the Church Discipline Act of 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. cap.. 86) may be briefly alluded to. Under the Act of 1840 any person, or the Bishop himself, might have instituted proceedings; under the recent Act the Bishop is not to proceed except at the instance of the Archdeacon, or a churchwarden, or three parishioners members of the Church of England. Under the Act of 1840 the best opinion seems to be that the Bishop * The P. W. R. Act, 1874, will be found in the Appendix.

could not stop proceedings in limine; under the P. W. R. Act he may do so, provided he puts on the file of the diocesan register a statement of his reasons for doing so. Under the Act of 1840 it was not obligatory on the complainant to give security for payment of defendant's costs. The P. W. R. Act requires such security to be given. Under the Act of 1840, except in special cases, there were three distinct hearings, attended with enormous expense, before the case reached the Court of final appeal. There was the hearing before the Commissioners appointed by the Bishop, next before the Bishop's Court, and then before the Provincial Court. The P. W. R. Act prescribes, for the class of offences to which its application is confined, a hearing before the Judge of the Provincial Court, from whom an appeal lies to the final Court, the Judicial Committee P. C."

In any suit against a clergyman, he is now competent to give evidence. (Phill. Judg. 127.)

The Bishop's Courts cannot pass sentence of deprivation, which is one reason why grave cases are sent on letters of request to the Court of Arches.

As to the enforcement of decrees and orders by the Court of Arches: First a monition issues. If that be disregarded, an inhibition; after which the living is to be regarded as vacant in case of continued disobedience (sec. 13 of P. W. R. Act).

In the case of Rev. A. Tooth (Hatcham) the Dean of Arches (Lord Penzance) observed that he had no direct jurisdiction to commit the defendant for disobedience the process was (under 53 Geo. 3, cap. 127) by significavit from the Bishop to the Queen in Chancery, after which would issue the writ de contumace capiendo.

This writ was, in fact, shortly afterwards handed to the proper officer of the Q. B. Division, on which was issued an order to the Sheriff to arrest the defendant. All the proceedings were afterwards set aside on technical grounds. Q. B. Nov. 1877. Vide PROHIBITION.

Dispensation.

A licence from a superior authority waiving a legal obligation, or creating an exception, as in case of licence for holding more than one benefice. Can. 41, at a time when preachers were scarce, contemplated a free distribution of licences to hold several livings. In modern times the law is more stringent, and a licence of this kind can only be obtained with difficulty, and for reasons, as set forth in the two Acts relating to this subject, vide PLURALITY. On obtaining a dispensation a candidate may receive deacon's orders, although he may not have obtained the age of twenty-three. The word "dispensation" is not frequently met with in modern books, "licence" having to a great extent superseded it.

Dissenters

Appear to have been first recognised by the Toleration Act, 1 Wm. & M. cap. 18, which frees them from obligation as regards any parochial office. On the other hand, a Dissenter is not disqualified, excepting as regards churches erected under some modern Acts, of which the churchwardens are to be "members of the Church." Dissenters are to a certain extent, and for certain purposes, to be regarded as members of the Church. (Letter of Bp. of Lincoln, Guardian, Sept. 5th, 1877.) They may send their children to church for baptism; and their wives may present themselves for churching. Baptism administered in dissenting chapels or by dissenting ministers, though irregular, is perfectly valid, the maxim applying fieri non debet, factum valet. This was finally settled in the case of Mr. Escott, who declined to read the Burial Service over a child which had received Nonconformist baptism, and he was held by the final Court to have acted wrongly. (Mastin v. Escott, 4 Moo. P. C. Rep. 104; Curteis Rep.) The result is that a clergyman cannot be recommended to raise any objection of this