in opposition that the proviso should be read as applying to only part of the section, and not to the whole of it, otherwise the operation of the statute would be completely frustrated. The object of the statute was to perpetuate testimony, and the section ought to be read in the way best calculated to carry out that intention, as it might be in this case by reading the proviso along with that part of the section only which referred to the case of the accused person being in custody at the time. By reading it as applying to the whole section, the Act would be rendered a mere nullity, and it could not be applied at all, because here the prisoner was still at large, not being taken into custody till the 3rd Jan. 1868, and it was therefore quite impossible to serve any notice upon him when they did not know where he was at the time. He submitted that the reading of the proviso in the way he had suggested would be perfectly consistent, and would carry out the object of the statute, viz., to perpetuate testimony; while, if read in the other way, its object would be frustrated. MELLOR, J. (after consulting LUSH, J.), said that both his learned brother and himself were of opinion that the proviso overrode the whole section, and that the deposition could not be read without proof of notice to the accused of the intention to take the statement. This appeared in a great degree to nullify the benefit supposed to be derived from the statute; but whether it arose from the Bill being altered in committee, or from whatever cause, still it was undoubted that the proviso applied to the whole section, and it was observable that the notice was required to be given before the taking, and not simply before the reading, of the deposition, thus rendering it impossible for the statute to have operation in the case of an accused person keeping out of the way. The medical attendant was then examined to lay a foundation for the admission of the deposition in evidence as a dying declaration, and he proved having had certain conversations with the deceased while she was in the hospital, in which he had told her that he had little hopes of her recovery, and she had said, "I know I shall never get better, what will become of my poor children? Peel, for the prosecution, then tendered both the statements made by the deceased, i.e., that made before the 22nd Dec., and which was not taken by the magistrate, as well as that made on the 22nd Dec. before the magistrate-as dying declarations, coming within the principle laid down in the following cases: Woodcock's case, 1 Leach, 503; Reg. v. Reaney and Reddish, 7 Cox C. C. 209; MELLOR, J. (after again consulting LUSH, J.) said he had come to the determination to admit the latter deposition (that of the 22nd Dec.) on the authority of Woodcock's case, and Reg. v. Reaney and Reddish, cited by Mr. Peel, quite agreeing with his learned brother that the reference made by the deceased to her children showed she was contemplating what would happen after death. The cases ran very fine on this matter, and the present one was very near the line, which he was unwilling to extend, but the above observation seemed to turn the scale. The statement made by the deceased was thereupon read, and at the close of the case the prisoner was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Attorney for the prosecution, Rayner, Town-hall, Liverpool. Attorney for the prisoner, Cobb, Dale-street, Liverpool. [NISI PRIUS. Monday, March 30, 1868. (Before MELLOR, J. and a Common Jury.) REG. v. CHARLES J. GRAHAM. (α) Bankruptcy-Indictment for misdemeanor under—Criminal proceedings pending examinations of bankrupt -Competency of-Costs. G., a bankrupt, was indicted for a misdemeanor under the 221st section of the B. A. 1861. The bankrupt had come up for examination before the Court of Bankruptcy, and a day had been fixed for him to pass his final examination and obtain his discharge; but before the arrival of the day appointed, the proceedings were taken by the creditors' assignees which formed the subject of the present indictment. It did not appear, however, from the proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy, that the bankrupt had ever passed his final examination. It was objected that the criminal proceedings were premature, and that it was intended by the Bankruptcy Act that no such proceedings should be taken till the bankrupt had passed his final examination; and also that the proceedings must be ordered to be taken by the court; but Held, by Mellor J., that as criminal proceedings were no part of the proceedings in the bankruptcy, an indictment might be preferred at any time when the offence charged was complete, whenever that might be: Also, that it was not necessary for the Court of Bankruptcy to order the prosecution, and that the only effect of its not being so ordered was as to the question of costs under the Bankruptcy Act. Indictment for misdemeanor under the 221st section of the B. A. 1861. The first count alleged that Charles J. Graham, within sixty days prior to his being adjudicated a bankrupt, to wit, on the 9th day of Dec. 1867, &c., value of 101. or upwards, with intent to defraud the did remove a certain part of his property of the creditors of him, the said C. J. Graham, &c. The second, third, and fourth counts were similar to the first. The fifth count alleged that C. J. Graham, being a trader within the meaning of the B. A. 1861, did within three months next before the filing of the petition for his adjudication in bankruptcy, to wit, on the 7th Dec. 1867, under the false colour and pretence of carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of trade, unlawfully obtain on credit from T. Quinsey certain goods, with intent to defraud the said T. Quinsey. Counts six to seventeen were similar to the fifth. The eighteenth count alleged that C. J. Graham, being a trader, &c., unlawfully, with intent to defraud his creditors, and within three months before the filing of the petition for his adjudication in bankruptcy, to wit, on the 9th Dec. 1867, did dispose, otherwise than by bona fide transaction in the ordinary course of which said goods and chattels had been obtained on his trade, certain of his goods and chattels, &c. &c., credit, and remained unpaid for. The 19th count was similar to the eighteenth. Potter and Wheeler appeared for the prosecution. L. Temple appeared for the prisoner. The prosecutors in this case were Messrs. T. Leicester and T. Quinsey, the creditors' assignees of the estate of the prisoner, Charles Joseph Graham, who had carried on business at S, Walnut-street, Liverpool, as a baker, flour-dealer, grocer and tobacconist; and the information was laid for offences committed by the prisoner under the 221st section of the B. A. 1861. That section provides that any bankrupt who shall do any of (among other things) the acts or things following, with (a) Reported by J. KINGHORN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. NISI PRIUS.] REG. v. CHARLES J. GRAHAM, [NISI PRIUS. intent to defraud or defeat the rights of his creditors, | untrue, and that she never had been possessed of shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: If he shall, after adjudication, or within sixty days prior to adjudication, with intent to defraud his creditors, remove, conceal, or embezzle any part of his property to the value of 107. or upwards. If, being a trader, he shall, within three months next before the filing of the petition for adjudication, under the false colour and pretence of carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of trade, have obtained on credit from any person any goods or chattels with intent to defraud. If, being a trader, he shall, with intent to defraud his creditors, within three months next before the filing of the petition for adjudication, pawn, pledge, or dispose of (otherwise than by bona fide transactions in the ordinary way of his trade, any of his goods and chattels which have been obtained on credit and remained unpaid for. It appeared that the prisoner had formerly acted as shopman to a Mr. Boote, a wholesale grocer in Liverpool, and that he was afterwards employed in a similar capacity by a Mr. Guilt, in the same town. About the end of the year 1866, however, he began business on his own account, and shortly afterwards he married a widow named Rose Maguire. Rose Maguire's maiden name was Murray, and at the time of her marriage with the prisoner Graham she took her sister, Mary Murray, to live with her as a servant, and it seemed that she (the sister) had remained with her from the month of January up to Dec. 1867. such a sum of money as she alleged. They thereupon took the proceedings which had resulted in the prisoner's being committed for trial. Mr. Bolland produced the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and from these it appeared that the bankrupt had come up for his first examination on the 25th Jan., that the examination was adjourned till the 31st Jan., and that there was then an adjournment till the 12th Feb. 1868, for the bankrupt to come up for his final examination and discharge; but it did not appear that he had ever come up for, or passed, his final examination, nor had the present prosecution been ordered by the Court of Bankruptcy. A number of witnesses were called who proved that they had supplied goods to the prisoner, and that shortly before the time of his bankruptcy he gave them larger orders for goods, although he was doing less business. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, that there was no case, and directed his Lordship's L. Temple, on behalf of the prisioner, submitted attention to the 140th section of B. A. 1861, which provides that, "The court shall, forthwith after the meeting for the choice of an assignee by the creditors, appoint a public sitting on a day not later than sixty days from the date of such meeting, and and in such newspapers as the court shall direct, shall give notice of such sitting in the London Gazette, for the bankrupt to pass his last examination, and also, unless the court shall in any case otherwise direct, to make application for his discharge, &c." In this case the prosecution was premature; the evidence was that the examination of the bankrupt on the 25th Jan. was adjourned to the 31st Jan., and that the final examination was fixed for the menced before that, and, for all that appeared, on 12th Feb. The prosecution, however, was comthe 31st Jan. or the 12th Feb. he might have given up all that property which now formed the subject of this indictment. He then referred to the case of Ex parte Dobson, re Wilson, 32 L. J. 1, Bank.; 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 444, where a bankrupt had been guilty of acts which amounted to a misdemeanor within the 221st section, and one of the commissioners under, sect. 159, granted him an order of discharge with a suspension of twelve months. On appeal the Lords Justices considered that the commissioners had jurisdiction to direct a prosecution before a criminal court, and they discharged the order and directed a prosecution by the assignees at the next assizes. Lord Justice Knight Bruce said he "was of opinion that that was the course which ought to have been adopted in this instance," "placing themselves in the position of the learned commissioner their Lordships would direct a prosecution accordingly." He also referred to the case of Ex parte W. and G. Still, re Still, 32 L. J. 12, Bank.; 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 406. That case showed that it was intended by the Bankruptcy Act that no prosecution should take place before the final examination. Up to the latter part of the year 1867 the prisoner carried on what was considered a very good business, and it was thought carried it on in a very straightforward way. His original stock-in-trade was valued at from 80%. to 1007., and this the prisoner from time to time renewed, generally once or twice in the course of a month. Towards the end of Nov. 1867 he had in stock goods to the amount of from 80% to 100%, and during that time his trade had fallen off considerably, and was not so brisk as usual. Up to the months of November and Decem ber the prisoner had paid his accounts regularly: On the 2nd Dec. 1867 he took a house and shop at 125, Crown-street, Liverpool, in the name of his sister-in-law Mary Murray, and to this shop the prisoner removed a quantity of property from his own premises in Walnut-street, where he still continued to carry on his own business. During that month of Dec., from the 2nd to the 21st, the prisoner obtained an unusually large quantity of goods, the value of which amounted to 400l., from tea merchants, provision dealers, and tobacconists, for which he did not pay. On the 9th Dec. carts were brought to his shop in Walnut-street at four o'clock in the morning, and goods taken away to Crown-street, he stating that he wished the property removed at such an early hour in order that the business in Crownstreet might not be interfered with. On the 19th Dec. other property, consisting of flour, was removed; and again on the 25th Dec. more property was taken from the premises in Walnut-street to the shop in Crown-street. On the 26th Dec. the prisoner filed his own petition in the Court of Bankruptcy, and was adjudicated a bankrupt on the same day; and the estate given up to his creditors amounted in value to only 35l. 3s. 9d. On the 13th Jan. 1868 the prosecutors were chosen creditors' assignees, and they subsequently ascertained that the prisoner, MELLOR, J.-You may prosecute as soon as the before his bankruptcy, removed nearly all the goods offence is complete, whenever it is not an act that he obtained from his creditors during the months of can be purged by the final examination. The quesNovember and December, and his furniture and tion in each case is what is the intent with which other effects from Walnut-street to the shop at 125, the act complained of has been done? The proseCrown-street, and that immediately after his bank-cution may be undertaken at any time when the act ruptcy he removed himself and family there also. The sister-in-law, Mary Murray, was examined in the Bankruptcy Court, and there she alleged that the property removed to Crown-street belonged to her, she having advanced a sum of 500l. to the prisoner; but from inquiries that were instituted by the assignees circumstances came to their knowledge that satisfied them that her statement was is done, and does not depend on his final examination at all. It is no part of the bankruptcy proceedings, but is quite a distinct matter. L. Temple.-No prosecution has been directed by the Court of Bankruptcy, and in the case quoted the Justices of Appeal seemed to consider it necessary that it should be so ordered, and also that the 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 protest to it was handed in, which was signed by four of the defendants; none of the other defendants were 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. That 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. 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 incense, or with excessive kneeling, were the same as those against the Rev. Mr. Mackonochie. 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. Quare, whether it is illegal to administer to the communicants wine in which a little pure water has been mixed 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 Constitations 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 Baid 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 13th 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 13th 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 8. That the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and within two years last past (to wit, on Sunday, the 13th Jan. in the year of our Lord 1867) unlawfully used munion, and permitted and sanctioned such unlawful use of incense in and during the celebration of the Holy Com incense. 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 V. MACKONOCHIE. FLAMANK v. SIMPSON. that the jurisdiction of the Pope had been abolished, | 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 ardinary 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 Hen. 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 [ARCHES. for the support of any light or lamp shall be vested 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 innovations 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: 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 1 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; |