under protest, the censing of persons and things, before the institution of this suit.

With respect to the excessive kneeling, I have decided that it was a matter that ought to have been referred to the discretion of the Ordinary.

With respect to the mixing water with the wine, the decision is in favour of the promoter; and with respect to the lights, in favour of the defendant.

Taking all the circumstances into my consideration, I shall make no order as to costs in this case.

In the other case of Flamank v. Simpson, the circumstances are materially different. Mr. Flamank is a churchwarden, and Mr. Simpson does not appear to have submitted to the control of his Ordinary any of the practices for which he has been articled in this Court. Upon the question of "lights" the decision is in his favour, and another of the charges was abandoned at the hearing. No expense has been incurred by the examination of any witnesses, and I think I shall, upon the whole, do justice by condemning Mr. Simpson in a sum of £80 nomine expensarum.

I admonish Mr. Mackonochie to abstain for the future-from the use of incense, and from the mixing water with the wine, as pleaded in these Articles. And I further admonish him not to recur to the practices which he has abandoned under protest, with respect to the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, and the censing of persons and things.

I admonish Mr. Simpson to abstain for the future from the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, from mixing water with the wine, and from placing the alms upon a stool, as pleaded in these Articles.

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER v. RUGG.

Where there are two churches in one benefice, it is the duty of the Incumbent to perform one service in each on every Sunday.

THIS judgment was delivered by me on the 2d of May 1868. The defendant, who conducted his own case, appealed to the Privy Council, who affirmed my judgment. The case is reported in the Law Reports, in the Arches Court, 2 Admiralty and Ecclesiastical, page 247, in the Privy Council-2 Privy Council Appeals, page 223.

JUDGMENT. This is a cause instituted in this Court by reason of letters of request from the Bishop of Winchester, under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 86. The Bishop of Winchester is the promoter of the office of Judge. The defendant is the Reverend Lewis Rugg, a beneficed clerk in the diocese of Winchester. The object of the suit is to compel Mr. Rugg, who is the incumbent of Ecchinswell-with-Sydmonton, to perform one service every Sunday in the chapel of the latter benefice. Mr. Rugg appeared by a proctor under protest to the jurisdiction of this Court, and on the 26th of July brought in an Act on petition in which the grounds of his protest were set forth at length. An answer was filed on the part of the promoter, and a reply was put in on the 20th August. The vacation then intervened. On the 19th of December the last affidavit was filed. On the 5th of February the Court overruled the protest, assigned Mr. Rugg to appear absolutely, and reserved the question of costs until the final hearing of the cause. On the 6th of February the Articles containing the charge against Mr. Rugg were filed. A negative issue was given on his behalf. On the 24th of

February he filed a responsive plea. On the 19th of March the proceedings were closed. The hearing of the cause was fixed for a day before Easter, but was postponed at the request of Mr. Rugg, who, though appearing by a proctor, conducted his case in person. The Court, having regard to the nature of the case and the rights of the parishioners of Sydmonton, fixed peremptorily the 18th of April for the hearing of the cause. Mr. Rugg did not appear in person, but his proctor read a letter from him desiring an indefinite postponement of the cause on the ground of Mr. Rugg's illness, that gentleman having desired to conduct his case in person. The Court directed Mr. Rugg's proctor to remain in Court, and to take such notes as he might think expedient for his client's interest, and proceeded to hear the argument of the counsel for the promoter. The case was then adjourned till Monday, the 27th of April, on which day Mr. Rugg appeared in Court and argued at considerable length his own cause. The counsel for the promoter made a short reply, and the Court has now to pronounce judgment on the

case.

The second article charges, "That Lewis Rugg was and is a clerk in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and was on or about the 29th day of September 1852 lawfully licensed to be the Perpetual Curate and Incumbent of the perpetual curacy and benefice of Ecchinswell-withSydmonton, in the county of Southampton, diocese of Winchester, and province of Canterbury, and has continued to be such perpetual curate and incumbent up to the present date."

The third article charges, "That the said perpetual curacy and benefice consists of two ancient parochial chapelries now and for many years past known by the respective names of Ecchinswell and Sydmonton, in each of which has been from time out of mind a consecrated church or chapel, to wit, the church or chapel of St. Lawrence, Ecchinswell, and the church or chapel of St. Mary, Sydmonton. That such ancient parochial chapelries up to the 18th day of August 1852, belonged for all ecclesiastical purposes to the vicarage and parish church of Kingsclere, but were separated therefrom by an Order in Council bearing date the 18th day of August 1852, and since that date have been and are a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes, and a perpetual curacy and benefice by the name or style of the Perpetual Curacy of Ecchinswell-withSydmonton."

The fifth article charges, "That the said Lewis Rugg has within two years last past offended against the said common law ecclesiastical and the said statute by having omitted to perform or to provide for the performance of public Divine

worship, as prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies, according to the use of the Church of England, in the said. church or chapel of St. Mary, Sydmonton, on Sunday, the 12th day of May; on Sunday, the 19th day of May; on Sunday, the 26th day of May; and on Sunday, the 2d day of June, all in the present year of our Lord 1867." "That

Then the answer says this in the third paragraph

the said Lewis Rugg, in answer to the third paragraph of the aforesaid Articles brought into this Court, alleges and propounds that the building called the Church of St. Mary, Sydmonton, had been in existence as a church at the date of the Order in Council, mentioned in the said Articles, separating the districts of Ecchinswell and Sydmonton from the parish church of Kingsclere, and forming them into a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes and benefice, by the name and style of the Perpetual Curacy of Ecchinswell-with-Sydmonton; and he the said Lewis Rugg further propounds that the said building, called the Church of St. Mary, Sydmonton, has not been from time out of mind a consecrated church or chapel, as alleged in the said Articles; and he the party proponent alleges that there was formerly an unconsecrated building, or oratory, or field chapel, standing in the private garden of the late Mr. William Kingsmill, of Sydmonton, and that in the month of February 1849, the said William Kingsmill, without any faculty, caused the said unconsecrated building to be pulled down, as though it were his own private property, although it was appendant to and belonged to the parish church of Kingsclere; at which time the whole material thereof was removed, and all the furniture belonging thereto was carried away. That to this old building, whether it were a chapel of ease or oratory, there was no endowment of tithes or glebe, or property of any kind. That for the services performed in it, which were never regular, only occasional, there was in ancient times some recompense by means of oblations or voluntary offerings, which have long ceased to be paid. That the said chapel or oratory never had in it the rights of burial or of marriage, nor of sacraments, until a small benefaction of twenty-five shillings was left, in 1726, to be paid yearly to the minister of Kingsclere for preaching a sermon and administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper on Trinity Sunday, to include the finding, on his part, of the sacramental elements of bread and wine. That there was not belonging to the said chapel any ground outside the walls of it, but it was entirely surrounded by the private ground of the owner of Sydmonton House. That at the date of the Order in Council, in August 1852, the said field chapel had ceased to

have any existence, it having three years before been entirely removed. That the said Order in Council, recognising the existence of a chapel and chapel yard at Sydmonton, was issued upon mistaken information at the time, as there was neither chapel nor chapel yard, nor building of any kind, which the law of the land or any ecclesiastical jurisdiction could take notice of or recognise as either a parish church or chapel. That at the time of the said Lewis Rugg's admission to the incumbency of Ecchins well-cum-Sydmonton, viz. on September 29, 1852, he alleges that there was but one presentative church upon the benefice, viz. that of the parish church of St. Lawrence, Ecchinswell. That during the whole period of his immediate predecessor's incumbency, and for nearly a twelvemonth after his own admission, from February 1849 to May 1853, there had not been any public divine service performed except in the aforesaid parish church of St. Lawrence, Ecchinswell-cum-Sydmonton. That the late Mr. William Kingsmill, in or about the year 1853, rebuilt the aforesaid field chapel or oratory, without a faculty, partly on the site of the old one, without consulting, or reference to, the incumbent, the party proponent. That the tower, porch, and vestry were additions, and a small transept on the north side of the ancient edifice was never rebuilt. That the ancient footway and entrance by the western door under the belfry or bell turret has been stopped up and impeded by the erection of the tower, and a new road, by a more distant and circuitous way and entrance on the south side, has been made in lieu thereof, without any legal sanction or any authority whatever. That the old road and entrance by which alone access was obtained to the chapel is now claimed by the present owner of Sydmonton House as his private garden road; and the said Lewis Rugg alleges that he has at present no admission by the former way but by the favour of the proprietor of the ground adjoining."

It is not necessary to consider the question whether or no, previously to August 1865, the old church, which occupied the site of the present church, built in 1853, had been consecrated or not. The Order in Council, which dates from the 18th of August 1852, severs the chapelries of Ecchinswell and Sydmonton from the vicarage and parish church of Kingsclere, and forms them "into a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes, and a perpetual curacy and benefice, by the name or style of the Perpetual Curacy of Ecchinswell-with-Sydmonton." The same order recites: "that there is in each of the said chapelries a church or chapel, that of Ecchinswell being nearly two miles, and that of Sydmonton being about three miles distant from the parish church of Kingsclere." It further recites: "that