MELLOR, J.-There must, in my opinon, be an actual desertion of the old premises and an occupation of the new to constitute a break of residence under such circumstances as these; but there is no necessity to consider here how short an occupation can destroy a status of irremovability. The question is whether the facts make a break in the pauper's residence in this case. He was turned out of his house in the respondents' union; he sold some of his furniture, and made a complete desertion of his old premises. He removed the rest of his goods and his family into a house in the neighbouring union, having taken the new house for a week. He and his family slept one night under the new tenancy, and fully intended to continue their residence there, until they discovered the house was out of the respondents' union. I think the pauper could not, by moving back again into another house inside the union the next day pretend that his residence in the union was continued. It is nothing to us that he never meant to leave the union, he clearly meant to change his residence, and had no intention to return to the union from the house which he had taken at the time he moved. We must say this was a break of residence sufficient to destroy the pauper's irremovability; and therefore the order of removal must he affirmed.

LUSH, J.—I also am of opinion that the pauper ccased to reside in the respondents' union, and therefore he was no longer irremovable.

Judgment for respondents.

Solicitors for the appellants, Swann and Co., for Newton and Wallis, Newark-upon-Trent.

Solicitors for the respondents, Collyer, Bristow, Withers, and Russell, for Hett, Freer, Hett, and Hett, Brigg.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

Jan. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31; Feb. 1;
May 12, 1877.

(Present: The LORD CHANCELLOR (Cairns), Lord SELBORNE, Sir J. W. COLVILE, the LORD CHIEF BARON (Kelly), Sir ROBERT PHILLIMORE, Lord Justice JAMES, Sir MONTAGUE E. SMITH, Sir ROBERT P. COLLIER, Lord Justice BRETT, 1.ord Justice AMPHLETT; and, as Episcopal Assessors, the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY and the BISHOPS of CHICHESTER, ST. ASAPH, ELY, and ST. DAVIDS.)

RIDSDALE v. CLIFTON. (a) Illegal vestments at communion-Alb and chasuble --1 Eliz. c. 2, 8. 25-Advertisements of Elizabeth -Eastward position during prayer of consecration-"Before the people," meaning of --Administering wafer bread at communion-Crucifix -Faculty Public Worship Regulation Act 1874.

[PRIV. Co.

(chasuble), or cope." By 1 Eliz. c. 2 8. 25, it was enacted that Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in this Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI. (1549), until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her commissioners, appointed under the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm." In 1566, advertisements were issued by the metropolitan and other prelates, which contained the following direction : Every minister saying any public prayer, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish." The rubric of the present Prayer Book (1662) directs that "Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.” (1549).

66

Held (affirming the decision of the Court of Arches), that the ornaments rubric of 1662 does not repeal all legislation on the question subsequent to 1549, but must be read as subject to any further order taken under 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 25; that the advertisements of Elizabeth were a taking other order," within the Act, by the Queen, with the advice of the metropolitan; and that, as the advertisements enjoined the use of the surplice at the administration of the Holy Communion, they rendered the use of albs or chasubles, at that administration, unlawful.

It is not unlawful for the officiating minister, while saying the prayer of consecration in the communion service, to stand at the west side of the communion table, with his face to the east and his back to the people, provided that the communicants present, or the bulk of them, being properly placed, are able, if they wish it, to see him break the bread and take the cup in his hands. (Decision of the Court of Arches reversed.) Semble, that evidence that persons sitting immemediately behind the officiating minister could not see him perform the manual acts mentioned is not sufficient to establish the charge of illegality. It is not unlawful for the minister to use in the administration of the communion bread made in the form of circular wafers, provided that the substance is bread such as is usual to be eaten, and not a composition of flour and water unleavened, such as the word wafer usually denotes. (Decision of the Court of Arches reversed.)

On the top and in the centre of a screen, stretching across a church at the entrance to the chancel, was placed a figure of our Saviour on the cross8, in full relief, and about eighteen inches long, facing the congregation.

Held, that the faculty authorising the erection of the screen having been granted without any knowledge that it was to be surmounted by a crucifix, did not authorise the erection of the crucifix, which, therefore, in the absence of a proper faculty, had been unlawfully set up and retained.

Held further (affirming the decision of the Court of Arches), that the ordinary ought not to grant a

D

faculty for the crucifix, it being in danger of becoming the object of superstitious reverence. Semble, that, in proceedings under the Public Worship Regulation Act, where the only objection to an ornament in a church is, that it has been set up without a faculty, the court will, before pronouncing judgment, give the person charged an opportunity of applying for a faculty. A previous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council between other parties, and an Order of the Sovereign in Council founded thereon, is not necessarily conclusive in all similar cases subsequently coming before that tribunal. Hebbert v. Purchas (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 605) followed as to the vestments, and differed from as to the illegality of the eastward position during the prayer of consecration, and as to the sufficiency of the averment with regard to the wafer-bread. THIS was an appeal from a decision of Lord Penzance, sitting as Dean of Arches, in a proceeding brought before him, under the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, by three parishioners of St. Peter's, Folkestone. The representation put forward by the complainants is set out in the report of the proceedings in the Court of Arches (35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 432). The judgment of that court was on all the charges in favour of the complainants. From that judgment, in respect of the charges numbered in the representation 2, 4, 5, and 11 respectively, the present appeal was brought.

Sir Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C. A. Charles, F. H. Jeune, and Dr. Phillimore for the appellant.

Dr. Stephens, Q.C. and B. Shaw for the respondents.

Sir Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C. for the appellant.The appeal in this case is on four points. The first point is as to whether certain vestments worn at the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion are legal; the second, as to whether the administration of what is known as waferbread in celebrating the Holy Communion is legal; the third, as to whether what is known as the eastward position, which means the clergyman's standing with his face to the east while reading the consecration prayer in the communion service, is legal; and the fourth, as to whether a crucifix in a church is legal. As to the first three of these points, the decision of your Lordships in the case known originally as Elphinstone v. Purchas (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 245), and in its later stages as Hebbert v. Purchas (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 605) was conclusive in the court below, and I consequently did not attempt there to argue them. I now ask to be allowed to argue that the decision of your Lordships in respect of those matters was wrong. In support of that request, I would first urge the view taken by the learned judge in the court below, expressed in the following words: "The question of vestments is one which stands in a peculiar position in respect of the judicial decisions of which it has been the subject. Dr. Lushington, Sir John Dodson, and Sir Robert Phillimore have all held what are called the Edwardian vestments to be lawful. By the Court of Appeal in Liddell v. Westerton (Moore's Sp. Rep.), consisting of some of the ablest judges of our time, Lord Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingsdown, Sir John Patteson, and Mr. Justice Maule, with the late and present Archbishops of Canterbury, it was affirmed in the following words, that "the same dresses and the

[PRIV. Co.

same utensils or articles which were used under the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. may still be used.' The later case of Martin v. Mackonochie (L. Rep. 2 P. C. 365) . . . affords not a mere judicial dictum, but a direct authority as to the true meaning of the rubric, judicially announced as the ratio decidendi of the court, and acted upon as the basis of its ultimate decision. With this decision, the subsequent one of Hebbert v. Purchas (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 605), condemning the vestments which are among the ornaments' prescribed by the first Book of Edward VI., appears to be directly in conflict. . . I cannot doubt that, of two judgments delivered in the Appellate Court, which are in any degree inconsistent, I am bound in pronouncing the decision of the inferior court to obey and carry out that which was addressed directly to the matter in issue here, and which also was the last pronounced. As this result was inevitable, the learned counsel have done well, I think, not to argue the question, and as the question has been argued, I forbear to express my own opinion on the subject. I must therefore hold that Mr. Ridsdale has offended against the law in celebrating the communion in a chasuble and in an alb, and admonish him to refrain from doing so in future. If this decision is wrong, it must be corrected by the Appellate Court." Lord Penzance, therefore, is of opinion that there are two conflicting decisions of your Lordships. Secondly, your Lordships have under similar circumstances reconsidered a previous decision. In Fenton v. Hampton (11 Moo. P.C. 347), which turned upon the power of the Legislative Assemblies in the British Colonies to commit for contempt, Pollock C.B., said: "The subject is not new to this court; it has been discussed before on more than one occasion. In the case of Beaumont v. Barrett (1 Moo. P.C. 59), from Jamaica, it was decided that the assembly possessed of supreme legislative authority had the power of punishing contempt. But in the year 1842, the same question, in substance, came before this committee on an appeal from Newfoundland, and was twice argued;" &c. Further, there are in this case special circumstances why your Lordships' decision in Hebbert v. Purchas should not be held conclusive of the points which it decides; namely, that in that case, owing solely to his poverty, Mr. Purchas was not represented by counsel, and that the questions turned upon the result of the most minute investigations of ecclesiastical history, which it would have been almost impossible for their Lordships to have had in their mind without the assistance of the accumulated special labour and learning of which I am the mouthpiece. [The LORD CHANCELLOR.-Their Lordships are of opinion that you may pursue your arguments on the points you have referred to; and they will consider hereafter how the previous decisions affect the question.] The question of the legality or otherwise of these vestments turns upon the construction to be put upon the words of the ornaments rubric in the present Prayer Book, which is as follows: "That such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of king Edward the Sixth." It is admitted that the words "by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of

King Edward the Sixth," refer to the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.; and it is further admitted that by that book the vestments in question are lawful. I can therefore put my argument on this part of the case in the form of a syllogism, the very words of the major premias being identical with those used in the judgment in Westerton v. Liddell (Moore's Sp. Rep.): The same dresses and the same utensils as were used under the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. may still be used; the vestments in question were used under that Prayer Book: these vestments may therefore still be used. But this Court having taken a different view of the matter in Hebbert v. Purchas, it remains to consider the facts and deductions upon which that view was based. The judgment in that case was based upon the supposition that the vestments in question were forbidden by certain advertisements issued in the reign of Elizabeth, and by the canons of 1604, and the committee appear to have been of opinion that the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. is to be taken as the rule, but subject to any modifications introduced by the advertisements of Queen Eliza beth or the canons of 1604; and consequently that the surplice is lawful, but the chasuble and alb not. Now first, we deny that the advertisements of Elizabeth had the force of law; we say they were mere administrative notices. And we say further, that even if they had the force of law, they had not the intention of forbidding, and do not forbid, the use of the vestments in question, but had a totally diffe rent purpose. Secondly, we deny that in consequence of the advertisements of Elizabeth these vestments were discontinued; and we shall show that they were all destroyed and discontinued before the advertisements were issued. Thirdly, we deny that the Prayer Book of James I. received its authority from the canons of 1604. Fourthly, we deny that the ornaments rubric in the Prayer Book of 1662 (the one now in use) was a compromise in deference to the objections of the Puritan party at the Savoy Conference in 1661. I will now consider whether the Act upon which we rely has been repealed by subsequent Acts; and this is really a question of history. The Act of Uniformity, 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 1 (1549), prescribed under very heavy penalties the use of the Prayer Book published in June of the same year, and which is known as the first Prayer Book of Edw. VI. That book contained the following rubric: "Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration; that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there may be many priests or deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the priest in the ministration as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles." In 1552, the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was published, and this, no doubt, left out the above rubric. In 1553, Queen Mary came to the throne, and the services of the Mass were restored. In 1559, the first year of Elizabeth's reign, an Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2) was passed, authorising the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, published in the same year, and imposing penalties of surprising stringency-such, for instance, as imprisonment for life, and which,

[PRIV. Co.

it may not be generally known, are still in forceon persons not conforming to this book. Now, the Prayer Book of Elizabeth is substantially identical with the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., with this exception; that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, are to be retained and be in use as were prescribed by the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. To this Act there is a proviso (sect. 25) that the above order as to ornaments shall hold good "until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's majesty, with the advice of the commissioners appointed and authorised under the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm." But this does not make the Act, or anything in it, in any sense provisional only, as their Lordships seem to have considered in Hebbert v. Purchas. The Act of Elizabeth is spoken of in Westerton v. Liddell (Moore's Sp. Rep.) as a compromise. If the view here taken is correct, it becomes in the highest degree improbable that a compromise so effected would be disturbed by subsequent Acts of the Legislature in the same reign, or that the Queen (whose taste for a high order of ritual is matter of history) would have consented to any diminution of that amount of ceremonial observance in the Church services which had been conceded to her. In the same year, viz. 1559, were published the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth. They do not bear directly on the question of vestments, but they do so indirectly, and my contention with regard to them is that they had no legislative authority whatever. They are like the Injunctions of Edward VI., which your Lordships have recently held, in Philpotts v. Boyd (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 435), were not legislative but administrative acts. Their extraordinary character is a strong argument against their validity as laws. It could hardly be maintained that the Queen had power to issue orders of this character having the force of law; she undoubtedly had the power to give them administrative force. I submit that the issuing of these injunctions was one of those high handed acts of authority that Elizabeth so frequently indulged in. The interpretations put upon these injunc tions by the archbishops and bishops, and published in 1561, have even less colour of authority. (Strype's Ann. vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 2135, and 1 Strype's Parker, p. 183.) The 14th injunction is as to the proper observance of Sunday. The interpretation put upon it by the bishops is as follows: "That incorrigible Arians, Pelagians, or Freewillmen, be sent into some one castle in North Wales, or Wallingford, and there to live of their own labour and exercise, and none other be suffered to resort unto them but their keepers until they be found to repent their errors:" (1 Strype's Annals of the Reformation, pt. 1, 319.) It never could have been law that the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ely should interpret an injunction as to the observance of Sunday to mean that Arians and others should be confined in Wallingford Castle or North Wales. From 1559 to 1562 there was a very strong Puritan reaction throughout England: (1 Cardwell's Documentary Annals, p. 244.) The letter of Elizabeth, written on the 22nd Jan. 1561, shows this reaction to have set in, and the Queen's anxiety that the Church services should be conducted with as much reverence and ceremony as conveniently could be. And this letter further shows that the legal ad

visers of the Crown prepared any document that was to have the force of law. In 1562 was held a synod, which is one of the turning points in the history of the Church of England, it being at the Synod of 1562 that the Thirty-nine Articles were promulgated. A proposition appears to have been framed to the effect that the use of copes, vestments, and surplices, be taken away; but this appears to have been thought too strong and not to have been proposed. Subsequently, a paper embodying certain resolutions seems to have been drawn up, which also is thought to go too far, and is never submitted to the synod. These resolutions leave kneeling at communion optional, and abolish the cross at baptism, organs, and singing in churches, and the cope and surplice. In the end, the proposition that was put to the synod was, that the surplice alone should be worn; and this was lost by a majority of one: (Strype's Annals, vol. 1, marginal, pp. 315, 317, 334, 337.) It would be impossible, I submit, under the circumstances of the case, to produce more cogent evidence that in 1502 the cope and chasuble were legal. I now pass to the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. With regard to these, their Lordships in Hebbert v. Purchas (ubi sup.), say: "In the year 1564 appeared the advertisements of Elizabeth. They make order for the vesture of the minister in these words: In the minisration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches, the principal minister shall wear a cope, with gospeller and epistoler agreeably, and at all other prayers to be said at the communion table to use no copes, but surplices. That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish" (1 Cardwell, Doc. Ann. 326.) These advertisements their Lordships thought to have been actively in use very shortly after their publication, and were led to think so by an inventory of the ornaments of 150 parishes in the diocese of Lincoln, 1565, 1566, published by Mr. Edward Peacock. Further on in their judgment (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 648) their Lordships say: "The chasuble, alb, and tunicle were swept away with severe exactness in the time of Queen Elizabeth." They refer again and again to the fact that these advertisements were published in 1564, and that in consequence of that publication the ornaments in question were destroyed throughout Lincolnshire. The sole authority on which they rely for these facts being Peacock's Inventory. Now 1 shall be able to show your Lordships that these advertisements were not issued till 1566, and that consequently the destruction of ornaments described in Peacock's Inventory could not possibly have taken place under the authority of these advertisements. [Having quoted authorities on this point he proceeded] The vestments, therefore, were disused, not by reason of the authority of the advertisements, but by reason of their unpopularity and the powerlessness of the Church against the popular will. As to the advertisements, therefore, first, they are not law at all; secondly, if law, they are not inconsistent with the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. According to that Prayer Book, surplices were ordered to be worn; and by the advertisements obedience to this part of the rubric was specially enjoined. In construing the advertisements quoted above. it is important to consider

66

[PRIV. CO.

the effect of the words, "To be provided at the charges of the parish." The vestments had been destroyed; it was not likely, therefore, that the bishops would lay stress upon more expensive or a greater number of vestinents than were indispensable; the great object was to get the parishes at all events to provide surplices that the services might be decently performed. There was a second Prayer Book published in the reign of Elizabeth, and this retained the ornaments rubric in the same form as in the first. This rubric, therefore, continued to be printed under the Queen's authority for a quarter of a century after, according to the judgment in Hebbert v. Purchas, it had been repealed by the advertisements. The canons which are supposed to have had the effect of repealing the ornaments rubric are the 24th and 58th. The 24th directs the use of the cope in cathedrals and collegiate churches upon principal feast days, "according to the advertisements for this end, anno 7 Elizabeth." The 58th canon is, Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, shall use a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish." They order that a surplice should be worn; they do not order that the other vestments should not be worn. It would be more correct to say that the canons were founded on the Prayer Book, than that it was founded on them. It was suggested to their Lordships in Hebbert v. Purchas (ubi sup.), that these canons prescribed a minimum degree of observance, but they held for various reasons that this could not be maintained. The 14th canon does, however, undoubtedly prescribe such a minimum degree. In the Prayer Book of 1604, daily morning and evening prayer is expressly enjoined; the 14th canon puts a distinct obligation upon the clergyman to read it on holydays. The effect of that is, that the minister is bound to read the service on holydays by both the canons and the rubric; to read it every day only by the rubric. So, by the canons and the rubric, the surplice must be worn; by the rubric alone the other vestments. The single obligation does not repeal the double one. 1641, a committee of the House of Lords was appointed "to take into consideration all innovations in the Church respecting religion": (Cardwell's Conf., pp. 238, 274; 2 Collier's Ecclesiastical Hist., p. 289.) According to the view taken by that committee, the vestments ordered to be used by Edward VI.'s Prayer Book were still ordered to be used by the book of 1604, as they suggest a question, Whether the rubric should not be mended where all vestments in time of Divine service are now commanded which were used by Edward VI." The Nonconformist ministers objected to the Prayer Book of 1662, because it sanctioned and continued the vestments of Edward VI.'s rubric: (Cardwell's Conf., p. 314.) The answers of the bishops to the ministers show that they considered that the rubric was continued, as they support the ceremonies of Edward VI. The specific things objected to are the surplice and the cross in baptism; but they are objected to on general grounds, and defended on general grounds. And those general grounds are as applicable to the chasuble and alb as to the surplice. The bishops do not suggest that the statement that the rubric of the second year of Edw. VI. is continued unaltered is incorrect.

66

In

The argument that the word "retained" is not applicable to an obsolete state of things is met by the historical fact that the word "retained would have been no more appropriately used in reference to the state of things immediately antecedent to the use of the term in the time of Elizabeth than in 1662. It is admitted that these vestments had ceased to be generally used, although there are stray instances of their use up to 1770. But concurrently with their disuse, there is a consensus of authorities asserting their legality. The following authorities were then cited:-Bennett's Paraphrase of the Book of Common Prayer, edit. 1709, and Nichols' Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer, both of which are referred to in Dr. Stephens on the Book of Common Prayer, I., 351; Wheatley's Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer, edit. 1710; Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, edit. 1715; Gibson's Codex, edit. 1713, pp. 226, 362, 472, &c., 2nd edit., pp. 201, 297, 390; Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, 9th edit. 760, iii., 437; Baxter's Life, edit. 1696, Lib. ii., Pt. ii., p. 369, Pt. iii., p. 38.) The view of the court in Hebbert v. Purchas (ubi sup,), seems to have been that these vestments could not have ceased to have been used in the face of a highly penal enactment, unless there had been legislative authority for doing so; and they alluded to the case of Macdougall v. Purrier (4 Bli. H. of L. Cas. (N. S.), 433), in which the House of Lords presumed the enrolment in Chancery of a decree of commissioners appointed by an Act of Henry VIII. for settling the tithes in London, although no such enrolment could be found, on the principle, Omnia præsumuntur ritè acta. So far from it being improbable that the practice of wearing vestments would have died out, it is the universal experience in history, and especially ecclesiastical history, for customs to fluctuate, and the legal give place to the usual. Secondly, as to the legality of wafer bread at communion. The objection is to the shape of the bread. My short answer is that the Prayer Book prescribes no particular shape. There is no charge of using anything other than bread, the words in the charge being "bread or flour in the form of circular wafers." [The LORD CHANCELLOR.-Do you raise a dispute of fact as to whether it was bread ?] It was bread. [The LORD CHANCELLOR.-Do I understand you to say that it really was leavened bread ?] The term "bread" does not necessarily imply leavened bread. The charge here is copied verbatim from that in Hebbert v. Purchas. [The LORD CHANCELLOR.-You will of course take your own course; but we think it right to point out to you that the gravamen of the charge being the use of the wafer as distinct from the bread, and the use of the wafer being admitted, it may be contended on the other side that there is a substantial charge to be met.] As a proposition of law, supposing the wafer to be ordinary bread, there is nothing illegal in its thinness and circular form; and, as a proposition of fact, the evidence fails to prove that the substance seen by the witnesses or composing the wafer is anything else but common bread. The word "wafer is not a description of substance but of form. It is used to describe anything that is thin and round, of whatever material. The rubric of the present Prayer Book is as follows: "And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition which any person hath

[PRIV. CO.

or might have concerning the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread is such as is usual to be enten; but the best and purest wheat bread that may conveniently be gotten." The rubrics in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., in that of Elizabeth, and in that of James I. are the same as this, with two exceptions, that after the word "eaten" occur the words "at the table with other meals," and that the words "all occasion of dissension and are omitted. One of the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, which were issued between the 1st and 24th June 1559, is as follows: Where, also, it was, in the time of King Edward VI., used to have the sacramental bread of common fine bread, it is ordered for the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries, being the sacraments of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that this same sacramental bread be made and formed plain, without any figure thereupon, of the same fineness and fashion round, though somewhat bigger in compass and thickness, as the usual bread and wafer heretofore named singing cakes, which served for the use of the private mass: (Cardwell's Doc. Ann., I. 202, edit. 1839.) Sir R. Phillimore, in Hebbert v. Purchas, treated this injunction as a contemporary exposition of the rubric in the Prayer Book of Elizabeth. But the Privy Council, in the same case, say that the injunction is a superseding of the rubric, and not at all reconcilable with it. All that the injunction says is that the bread is to be made plain, and round, though somewhat thicker than the wafer known as singing cakes. All that the rubric says is that it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usually eaten. Bishop Cosin said "this liberty of using wafer bread was continued in divers churches of the kingdom-Westminster for one-until the 17th of King Charles, A.D. 1643" (Works v. 481.) The following authorities also show that wafer bread was commonly used in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Letters from Archbishop Parker to Sir W. Cecil and to the Bishop of Norwich, 17th of May and 14th of June, 1574, Parker Correspondence, pp. 277, 457. the Lords of the Council and others to the Bishop of Chester, 26th July, 1580; Lord Burleigh and Sir Francis Walsingham to the Bishop of Chester, 21st Aug. 1580, 1 Cardwell's Doc. Ann. 18 Doc. xx.; the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church to Archbishop Parker, 1564, 1 Strype's Parker, 364; 1 Cardwell's Doc. Ann. 356, Doc. lxxiii., No. 4; 2 Burnet's History of the Reformation. Thirdly, as to the legality of the eastward position of the celebrant at the communion. The legality of the practice in question must depend entirely on the construction of the rubric. The rubric before the communion service directs that the table" shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel, where morning and evening prayer are appointed to be said. And the priest

standing at the north side of the table shall say the Lord's Prayer with the collect following. (All the following rubrics in the communion service read down to the prayer of consecration.) That is the whole direction, and the questions are what is meant by "the north side of the table," before the table," and " before the people.' One of the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, regarding tables in churches, orders" that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood, and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and as

66