IRELAND.] BOWER v. GRIFFITH-MARTIN V. MACKONOCHIE. FLAMANK V. SIMPSON. [ARCHES. proceedings should be over before doing so, which | Bill should be opposed, and that the commissioners' was not the case here. MELLOR, J.-That does not signify; it is only a question of costs, and the fact of the assignees prosecuting without the order of the court may put them to some expenses, which otherwise they might have been entitled to be paid out of the bankrupt's estate. But, independently of the bankrupt's estate, they may prosecute exactly as in other cases. Temple then addressed the jury, and urged in defence that the prisoner had removed the property from the premises in Walnut-street to avoid an execution, and that he had the intention of returning it to the dealers from whom he had purchased it. The jury found the prisoner Guilty; and he was sentenced to nine months hard labour. Attorneys for the prosecution, Stone and Bartley, Ranelagh-street, Liverpool. Attorneys for the prisoner, Blackhurst, Basnettstreet, Liverpool. NOTE.-As to the costs of prosecutions under the B. A. 1861, the 223rd section provides that the Court may direct that the creditors' assignee shall act as prosecutor, and shall give to the assignee a certificate of the Court having so directed; and that upon the production of such certificate the costs of such prosecution shall be allowed by the Court before which the prosecution takes place; and that other expenses incurred by the prosecutor shall be paid out of the chief registrar's account. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (IRELAND). Friday, Jan 17, 1868. (Before the FULL COURT.) BOWER v. GRIFFITH AND OTHERS. (a) Public commissioners-Personal liability of. Public commissioners under a Local Act employed a civil engineer to assist in opposing a Bill in Parliament, for his charges, in which he brought an action against seven of the commissioners: Held, that inasmuch as the order was the act of the com missioners as a body, and was unauthorised by the Local Act, the commissioners were not individually liable. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a civil engineer, against seven persons, commissioners for the town and harbour of Sligo, to recover the sum of 410l. 5s. 10d. for works done and services solicitor should take the necessary steps for that purpose. That resolution having been passed, a proof the defendants; none of the other defendants were test to it was handed in, which was signed by four present at the meeting. Under this resolution the plaintiff was employed. At the close of the case plaintiff's counsel required the learned Chief Justice to tell the jury that as the plaintiff had contracted with the commissioners as a body, each, each member of that body was liable personally; and if the defendants objected to the rest of the commissioners not having been joined with them as defendants, they should have pleaded in abatement. This his Lordship refused to do; but left the question to the jury, with whom was the contract made? And that, he told them, if they were of opinion that it was with the commissioners as a body, they should find for the defendants. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendants. Battersby, Q. C. having obtained a conditional order for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, Pallas, Q. C. and S. Walker now showed cause.— The jury have found that there was no contract with the defendants personally, and that the plaintiff did not act on the faith of their credit. It would be most unjust to make persons liable who have done everything in their power to repudiate and protest against the employment of the plaintiff. of the conditional order. The opposition to a ParBattersby, Q. C., Ball, Q. C., and Dames in support liamentary Bill likely to affect the town of Sligo was a legitimate purpose to which to apply the funds in the hands of the commissioners. That opposition was resolved on by the majority of the commissioners present at a meeting legally convened. Under that resolution the plaintiff was employed; and for anything done under that resolution the commissioners are liable individually and personally. An objection to the other commissioners not being joined as co-defendants should have been taken by plea in abatement. The COURT (dissentiente George J.) discharged the conditional order, holding that there was no power under their private Act (43 Geo. 3, c. 60, to apply their funds to opposing a Bill in Parliament; and that, as the plaintiff had been employed by the commissioners as a body, the defendants were not liable personally. COURT OF ARCHES. Reported by HENRY F. PURCELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Saturday, March 28, 1868. rendered by him in opposing a bill pending before (Before the Right Hon. Sir R. PHILLIMORE, Dean Parliament. The case was tried at the last summer assizes for the county of Kildare, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury. It appeared that in the month of Nov. 1866, a resolution was passed at a special meeting of the commissioners that a Bill, then pending before Parliament, for the improvement of the town of Sligo, should be opposed. Subsequently to this meeting, a doubt arose as to whether the funds at the disposal of the commissioners could be applied to this purpose; and the opinion of the then Attorney-General having been taken as to the propriety of such an application of their funds, and his opinion being that it was authorised under their Act, another meeting was convened on the 18th Dec. 1866, at which a resolution was passed that the (a) From the Irish Law Times. of Arches.) MARTIN V. MACKONOCHIE. FLAMANK V. SIMPSON (a). The celebration of the Holy Communion-Elevation of (a) The charges against the defendant in the second case, except that he was not charged with the unlawful use of against the Rev. Mr. Mackonochie. incense, or with excessive kneeling, were the same as those There were also two minor charges, involving no principle, as in the second case, to which no substantial defence was raised, and which, therefore, do not call for a report. The same counsel (Coleridge, Q.C., excepted) as in the first suit appeared for the promoters; Dr. Deane, Q. C., Hannen, Dr. Swabey, and A. Charles for the defendant. Ebenezer Charles died during the progress of the first case. ARCHES.] MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. England, in the celebration of the Holy Communion, to elevate the elements above his head, or to mix water with the wine during the service, or to bring in incense and remove it at the close of the celebration, or to use it, either for censing persons or things, or otherwise. Excessive kneeling, but not for the purpose of adoration, is not properly the subject of a criminal prosecution, but is a charge which should be primarily referred to the bishop, that he may exercise his discretion according to the rubric. Two lighted candles may be placed on the holy table during the celebration of the communion, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world. The injunctions of 1547 are valid, and derive their validity from the Act of Supremacy (26 Hen. 8, c. 1.) There is a legal distinction detween a rite and a ceremony; the former consisting in services expressed in words, the latter in gestures or acts preceding, accompanying, or following the utterance of these words. Quaere, whether it is illegal to administer to the communicants wine in which a little pure water has been mized previous to the service. These were cases brought before the Dean of Arches by letters of request from the Bishops of London and Exeter respectively, under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86. The articles exhibited against the Rev. A. H. H. Mackonochie, the defendant in the first case, contained, in their finally amended shape, the following allegations: 1. That by the 1 Eliz. c. 2, the 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4, and 28 & 29 Vict. c. 122, and by the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the province of Canterbury, and the rest of the bishops and clergy of the said province, and agreed upon with the licence of his Majesty, King James I., in their synod begun at London in the year of our Lord 1603, and ratified by his said Majesty's letters patent under the Great Seal of England, all clerks and ministers in holy orders are, among other things, bound to say and use the Book of Common Prayer, and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland, and that any clerk or minister in holy orders offending against the said statute law constitutions and canons ought to be punished according to the gravity of his offence, and the exigency of the law. 2. That Alexander Henry Heriot Mackonochie was and is a clerk in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and was during the entire of the year 1866 the lawful incumbent and perpetual curate of the new parish of St. Alban's, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, diocese of London and province of Canterbury, and has ever since been and now is the lawful incumbent and perpetual curate of the said parish or ecclesiastical district. 3. That the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and within two years last past (to wit), on Sunday, the 23rd day of December, on Christmas-day last past, and on Sunday, the 30th day of December, all in the year of our Lord 1866), during the prayer of consecration, in the order of the administration of the Holy Communion, elevated the paten above his head, and permitted and sanctioned such elevation, and taken into his hands the cup, and elevated it above his head during the prayer of consecration aforesaid, and permitted and sanctioned the cup to be so taken and elevated, and knelt or prostrated himself before the consecrated elements during the prayer of consecration, and permitted and sanctioned such kneeling and prostrating by other clerks in holy orders. 4. That such elevation of the paten, and such taking and elevation of the cup, and such kneeling and prostrating, are severally unlawful additions to, and variations from, the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and are contrary to the said statutes, and to the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons, and also to an Act of Parliament passed in the 18th year of Queen Elizabeth, c. 12, and to the 25th and 28th of the Articles of Religion therein referred to. 5. That the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and within two years last past (to wit, on Sunday, the 23rd day of December, on Christmas-day last past, on Sunday, the 30th day of December, all in the year of our Lord 1866, and on Sunday, the 18th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1867), used lighted candles on the communion-table during the celebration of the Holy Communion at times when such lighted candles were not wanted for the 9. That such uses of incense as in the two preceding paragraphs alleged are severally an unlawful addition to and variation from the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said statutes and by the said Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and are contrary tor the said statutes, and to the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons. 10. That the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in the said church, and within two years last past (to wit, on Sunday, the 23rd Dec., on Christmas-day last past, on Sunday, the 30th Dec., all in the year of our Lord 1866, and on Sunday, the 13th Jan., in the year of our Lord 1867), during the celebration of the Holy Communion, mixed water with the wine used on the administration of the Holy Communion, and permitted and sanctioned such mixing and the administration to the communicants of the wine and water so mixed. 11. That such mixing and administration of the wine and water is an unlawful addition to and variation from the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said statutes and by the said Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and is contrary to the said statutes, and to the 14th, 20th, 21st, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons. To these articles the defendant made the fol lowing responsive allegations: (a) As to the 3rd article, he admitted that he knelt during the prayer of consecration, but denied that he so knelt before the consecrated elements. He also admitted the acts of elevation alleged, but stated that he had discontinued them before the commencement of the suit. (b) To the 4th article he pleaded that the practices charged were not unlawful as alleged. (c) To the 5th article the defendant replied that "such charges are in part untruly pleaded, for the defendant alleges that on the said days the said lighted candles were not placed on the communion-table, but upon a moveable narrow ledge of wood resting on the said table, and that the said candles were so placed and kept lighted not only during the celebration of the Holy Communion, but also during the whole of the service, including the Epistle and Gospel, and during the singing after the reading of the Nicene Creed, and during the sermon. (d) To the 6th article, a traverse of the illegality of the practices as alleged. (e) To the 7th article the defendant replied that before the commencement of the suit he had discontinued the practice of censing persons and things. (f) To the 8th article, a traverse that the incense was unlawfully used, or that such use was unlawful. (g) To the 9th article, a traverse. (h) To the 10th article, the defendant admitted the same to be true. (i) To the 11th article, a traverse. The cases were heard on Dec. 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, 1867; Jan. 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and Feb. 5th, 6th, 7th, 1868, some evidence having been orally taken in proof of the charges. Stephens, Q.C.-It is expedient in the first place to call the attention of the court to the provisions of the Acts of Uniformity of Edward VI., Elizabeth, and Charles II. All these statutes apply to the allegations in the articles. The principle on which these Acts were framed is defined by Dr. Lushington: (Westerton v. Liddell, Moo. 80.) The Act of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4, s. 2, contains, so far as the questions in issue, the same phraseology as the earlier Acts; it is therefore expedient to consider the circumstances under which this language was used in the first Act, now at the termination of the reign of Henry VIII., notwithstanding ARCHES.] MARTIN U. MACKONOCHIE. FLAMANK V. SIMPSON. [ARCHES. in the Crown." Therefore, it is quite clear that so far as regards every endowment for the support of lights or lamps anterior to this statute they were taken away, and the property vested in the Crown. The statute which made a tabula rasa of all the preceding ones dates from the 4th Nov. 1547. A visitation had taken place the previous August, and injunctions were issued for the removal of abuses. At the end of the session the council, besides issuing the order of the Communion, by which it was to be administered to the laity in both kinds, issued orders through the Archbishop of Canterbury Cardwell's Doc. Annals, 45, 47, 48; Liturgies of Edward VI. Parker 3rd edit. containing a prohibition against candles on Candlemas-day, palms in churches, and likewise an order for the removal of all images whether those images have been abused or not; the date of the letter is 21st Feb. 1547. I now come to the 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 1, the words in it, "The Holy Communion, commonly called Mass, with divers and sundry rites and ceremonies concerning the same," show that the Legislature applied the words "rites and ceremonies" to the separate acts done by priests during the mass, the same Act goes on to say that the King had heretofore divers times assayed to stop innova tions or new rites." Now these words refer back to the proclamation of the 6th Feb. 1547: (Card. Doc. Annals, 42.) One spirit pervades all the Acts of Parliament, visitation articles, and proclamations of the time, namely, that there shall be but one uniform rite and form of administering the sacraments and performing the services of the Church. I submit that upon the language of this Act (2 & 3 Edw. 5, c. 1, ss. 1, 7, 8), any single ceremony not contained in the Book of Common Prayer annexed to this Act is illegal. The Legislature intended no book to be used but this Prayer Book and the Bible, and that there should be uniformity on the basis of the New Prayer-book. And in cases of doubt arising as to performance of divine worship, the bishop had a right to interfere and appease it : that the jurisdiction of the Pope had been abolished, | for the support of any light or lamp shall be vested the doctrines of the Church of Rome still prevailed. The state of the progress of the Reformation at the accession of Edward VI. may be found in Cardwell's Liturgies, Preface, page 6. I will direct your Lordship's attention to four statutes that were enacted in the first year of the reign of King Edward VI., relating to doctrine and to matters of religion. The first is 1 Edw. 6, c. 1. It is an Act against such as shall irreverently speak against the sacrament of the altar and of receiving thereof, under both kinds. Now this statute was to check the violent and irreverent language which was used against the sacrament in defiance of the severest penal legislation, by the moderate penalties of fine and imprisonment; and it also provided that the cup as well as the bread should be administered to the people. The second statute is the 1 Edw. 6, c. 2. It is an Act for the election of the bishops and what seal and style they and other spiritual persons exercising jurisdiction shall use. I have no obervations to make upon that. The next is a very important statute. It is the 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, s. 2. My Lord, that statute, I believe, is not to be found in the ordinary editions of the statutes of the realm, and is only to be found in the folio edition. This statute repealed the statute of the 5 Rich. 2, st. 2, c. 5, and the statute of 2 Hen. 5, c. 7, which were made against the Lollards, and had been put in force in the reign of Henry VIII. It also repealed the 25 Her. 8, c. 14, concerning the punishment of heretics and Lollards; the statute of the Six Articles; the 31 Hen. 8, c. 14, which, as your Lordship no doubt remembers, enforced under the penalty of death: 1, transubstantiation; 2, the denial of the cup to the laity; 3, the celibacy of priests; 4, vows of chastity; 5, private masses; and 6, auricular confession. Those I believe are the principal provisions of that statute. The statute of the 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 1, which is the one abolishing all books contrary to the doctrine set forth or to be set forth by the king, prohibiting under heavy penalties all teaching contrary to such doctrines, and placing restrictions on the circulation and reading of the Bible in English. The statute the 35 Hen. 8, c. 5 was also abolished, which, as your Lordship may remember, had in some degree qualified the statute of the Six Articles. Then comes the very important language of this statute, the 1 Edw. 6, c. 12. I am still reading from the 2nd section. It abolishes "all and every other Act or Acts of Parliament concerning doctrine and matters of religion." Now I submit to your Lordship as a proposition of law, that the effect of this statute is that every existing Act of Parliament at that time, namely, in 1547, relating to doctrine or other matters of religion, had become repealed, and that every document issued under any such Act, or deriving authority from any such Act, has lost its statutory authority. I therefore think that we are now quite clear as to all Acts of Parliament that ever passed anterior to the year 1547. There is a tabula rasa as to all that went before. I now call attention to the 1 & 2 Edw. 6, c. 14, only, I believe, to be found in extenso in the folio edition of the Statutes of the Realm. It is also to be found in Stephens' Eccl. Law, 294. Sect. 5 is the important section-"That all lands assigned for the finding of a priest, or the maintenance of any anniversary or obit, or of any light or lamp; and also where part of the issues or revenues of any manors, lands, tenements, rents, or other hereditaments hath by any of the ways or means above said have been given, assigned, or appointed to be bestowed or employed" (then these are the important words), "to the finding or maintenance of any anniversary or obit, or any other like thing, intent, or purpose, or of any light or lamp in any church or chapel to have continuance for ever." Then it goes on, "From the Easter following, all the revenues Liturgies of Edward VI. Parker ed., preface, 17 Johnson's English Canons, Oxford ed. (1857); Card. Doc. Annals, 94; Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. 6, p. 6. The framers of Edward VI.'s book had only two ways of dealing with ceremonies, they either abolished them or expressly retained them; unless express mention was made of them they were abolished: (Preface to Liturgies of Edward VI. 155.) Now I say inasmuch as lights are not expressly mentioned in the first book of Edward VI., nor candlesticks, that you cannot introduce either one or the other into our churches. In the preface on ceremonies the rights of the laity are most strictly preserved. As to what rites shall be used in the churches of this country the minister has no discretionary power; he is bound, and rightly bound, by the Acts of Uniformity. In almost every case wherein a ceremony is directed by the Prayer-book, an explanation of it is given; if it were unexplained it would be a "dark and dumb" ceremony, to use the language of the preface; dark and dumb ceremonies such as incense, as lights, the mixing of water with wine, I submit are excluded not only by the statute of Edward VI., but by every Act of Uniformity. This first Act of Uniformity is the only place to which parish ministers can have recourse for the purposes of carrying out the performance of divine worship: Collier's Eccl. Hist. Oct. ed. 1852, p. 104, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 106, 109; Nicholl's Common Prayer and Ceremonies, 2nd folio, ed. 1712; Stillingfleet on Separation, ed. of 1591, p. 393; ARCHES.] MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. Address of Bishop of Chester, quoted in 4th ed. | Address: Bishop of Cork, 5th ed. 1866; authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice," &c. Now, if Queen Elizabeth had wished to retain all Roman Catholic practices, or even all the Roman Catholic ornaments in the performance of Divine Letter of Council to Bishop' Bonner, 1549, 1 Card. worship, the last year of Henry VIII. would have Doc. Annals, 76; Holcraft's case, Dyer, 203a 203b; 1 Card. 77; Directorium Anglicanum, 83, 189; 6 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 83, art. 10-12; 1 Card. 74, art. 1, 2, and note; Remains and Letter, Archbishop Cranmer, Parker ed. 159; Ridley's Visitation, 1 Card. 92. The visitation articles of the bishop are evidence of contemporaneous usage. I undertake to show that there has been from the first of Edw. 6 to the Statute of Uniformity of Car. 2, a contemporaneous usage, and a construction placed upon this Act of Parliament in direct opposition to the rite and ceremony now in discussion. Now as to the value of contemporaneous usage in interpreting, when a statute uses words of doubtful import (not that I say this statute does): The Magistrates of Dunbar v. Duchess of Roxburgh, Gorham v. The Bishop of Exeter, 15 Q. B. 73; The next point I shall call the attention of the court to is the destruction of all ancient service books: Order of P. C. Dec. 25, 1549, 1 Card. 85; 3 & 4 Edw. 6, c. 10, Steph. Eccl. Stat. 329 330; 6 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 83; 1 Card. 299; been selected instead of the second of Edward VI., and the phrase "commonly used" substituted for "by the authority of Parliament." In Westerton v. Liddell, the Privy Council decided that the words "by authority of Parliament in the second Edward VI." refer exclusively to Edward's first book. I shall defer the discussion as to the effect of this proviso till I come to the rubric relating to the ornaments of the church and the ministers. Now, it is quite clear that at the period of Elizabeth's Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, 224-6; Remains of Archbishop Grindal, Parker ed., 123-4 Bancroft's Articles; 2 Card. 104. Andrewes' Minor Works, 130; Laud's Visitation Articles, 5 Laud, 423; Constitutions and Canons, 1640, p. 625. I now come to the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. Peacock's English Church Furniture, Lond. 1866, The 24th section of that Act has the effect of bring 81, 92, 9, 61, 39, 67, 69, 151, 150, 158, 57; 3 Jac. 1, c. 5, s. 25; Grindal's Remains, 135: 18 Eliz. 2. Card. 30; 5 Laud's Works, 414, Anglo-Catholic ed., as to 1628 As to the differences between the present Prayerbook and the 1 & 2 Edw. 6: 1 Steph. Common Prayer, 169. Now, as to the inventory of church goods made under commissioners and the assignments, the assignments being those which were left to them, the assignments of copes and vestments for use in Divine service had regard to the first Book of Edward VI, and not to the second, in 1552 and 1553, the King's Council considered chalices, surplices, and communion cloths for the communion-table the only necessary ornaments of the church: Commission to Sir R. Cotton and others, 16 Jac. Mr. Walter Lyne's Pamphlet in the Church Review, I now come to the reign of Mary; the statute 1 Mary, sess. 2, c. 2, repealed every single thing so far as regarded the Prayer-book that had been in use, and everything was thrown back to what was the state of things in the last year of Henry VIII. I now come to the Statute of Uniformity in Elizabeth's reign, by which the statute of Mary is repealed; in the 25th section it is provided, "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 the reign of King Edward VI., until other order shall be therein taken by the ing in sect. 27 of the Act of Elizabeth; this section Cosin's Visitation Articles, 4 Cosin, 510; in the performance of divine service no omission and ARCHES.] MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. FLAMANK v. SIMPSON. [ARCHES. no addition can be submitted to the directions in right, and by the manifest intention of the makers the Prayer-book, of the later statute. Newberry v. Grodwin, 1 Phill. 282; I now proceed to the rubric immediately preceding the Order of Morning Prayer. I submit, as a proposition of law, that the true sense of the rubric under consideration is to define the ornaments to be used in lawful ceremonies, and not per se to make a ceremony lawful in opposition to clauses of the Act of which it forms a part, the whole must be read together: (Liturgies of Edward VI., p. 19.) That the order and form of prayer should not be left to the caprice of any person, I refer to the preface of present Prayer-book. Your Lordship will also be good enough to take a note that I have referred you (at this stage of the argument), because it will save your Lordship's time, to the 3 & 4 of Edw. 6, c. 10, s. 1, and likewise to the stat. of 3 Jac. 1, c. 5, s. 25. If I understand right the case stands thus, certain ancient ceremonies and ornaments were used in the performance of Divine service anterior to the Acts of Uniformity. The elaborate directions as to these ceremonies and ornaments in the previous service books were altogether omitted in the books of Common Prayer that were issued in the reign of Edward VI., of Elizabeth, and of Charles II., and the preface on ceremonies explained that some ceremonies were abolished, and some were retained. Every rite and ceremony was abolished except those rites and ceremonies that are expressly mentioned in the Acts of Uniformity. How then can it be for one moment contended that any of the ancient ceremonies and ornaments can now be used so long as it is conceded that the laws of this country are to be derived exclusively from Parliament? The words by authority of Parliament are nothing more than the old way of citing a statute. Now, my Lord, the services and ornaments in use previously to the establishment of Edward VI.'s first book are nowhere spoken of as being by authority of Parliament, and that, I think, is a very important proposition. Then if they are not spoken of as being "by authority of Parliament," those statutes to which I have directed your attention have swept away all customs, and usages, and canons, and old service books: 1 Mary, sess. 2, cc. 2 and 3; 5 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 170; 1 Card. 43. As to the meaning of ornaments in the rubric: 1st Book of Edward VI., pp. 112, 139; The rubric under consideration must be construed Simpson v. Unwin, 3 B. & Ad. 117; Salkeld v. Johnson, 1 Hare 207. Now, I submit to your Lordship that the rubric as to ornaments is a general clause, and the rubrics giving detailed directions as to the particular services are special provisions, and if they conflict the latter must prevail. I also submit to you as a proposition of law that when the general words which appear to conflict with the particular clause of the same statute are words of reference to a previous statute, as in the rubric under discussion, and acquire their conflicting force from what is found, not in the statute in which they occur, but in the statute incorporated by reference, it is peculiarly true that they must be restrained by reason and King v. The Poor Law Commissioners, 6 Ad. & El. 7 ; Brett v. Butt, 3 Adams, 216. Therefore, on these authorities, I think I am clear in the proposition with which I started, that, in construing this rubric, now the subject under discussion, even assuming that there were literal words in it opposed to the letter and spirit of the Acts of Uniformity, the Acts of Uniformity would govern and overrule that rubric, and that your lordship, in dealing with that rubric, will have to take the Acts of Uniformity as a whole, and not to look at that rubric as a detached part. I think I cannot put the case clearer than this, that that rubric is in point of fact nothing more, nothing less than a mere section of the Acts of Uniformity. On this point I have argued upon the assumption that the rubric on the ornaments included all the ornaments either expressly mentioned in Edward VI., first book, or required for the performance of the services directed by that book. But the sounder and more reasonable construction of the rubric is that it only refers to the ornaments expressly mentioned in Edward VI.'s first book. I now proceed to consider the question of elevation. The elevation of the elements is a ceremony not appointed by the Acts of Uniformity, and consequently illegal. It is a matter of no importance what precise object Mr. Mackonochie had in view when he elevated the elements. Now, your Lordship will bear in mind that throughout the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. there is only one ceremony expressly prohibited. It is in the Communion Service where rubrical direction is annexed to the prayer of consecration of the elements. It is as follows: "These words before rehearsed are to be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation, or showing the sacrament to the people." The reason of this exception is obvious. The repudiation of the doctrine of transubstantiation was the cardinal point of the Reformation so far as doctrine was concerned. What is the object of the elevation above the head? It is, in point of fact, for the congregation to adore them. Lyndwood, p. 231, Notes of Peckham's Canons, 3rd book, 23rd title, note upon the word "Elevation"; Rock's Hierurgia 100; Lee's Directorium Anglicanum 59, 60, 61; I have directed attention to the rubric in the Liturgies of Edward VI. in the Communion office, dated 1549, where the elevation is forbidden. After the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. it was not deemed requisite to insert this particular provision in the subsequent Prayer-books, but as no directions were given the minister to perform this ceremony, he could not do so without the introduction of a ceremony not directed by the Acts of Uniformity. The prohibition was omitted in Edward VI.'s book, merely because every one understood that ceremonies not mentioned in the Prayer-book were prohibited: Articles of Religion, 28 & 25; Elevation is a ceremony, and no clergyman has a right to use any ceremony not appointed by the Book of Common Prayer. It is a counterfeit of |