Chancel Screens.-Lawful (St. Augustine's, Haggerston, 1877, 4 P. D. 111); [see also In re St. Anselm's, Pinner, [1901] P. 202; Vicar of Paignton v. Inhabitants, [1905] P. 111].

Cross and Crucifix have been already considered; and see ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.

Images held not unlawful on reredos in R. v. Bishop of London, [1891] A. C. 666. Sanctioned on chancel screen in Great Bardfield, [1897] P. 185; Barsham, [1896] P. 256. [The erection of a figure of our Saviour represented as standing and in the act of blessing, the figure to be sculptured in stone in high relief, under life size, about five feet high, and surrounded by a frame containing representations of angels, was sanctioned in In re Christ Church, Ealing, [1906] P. 289.]

Military Colours.-See Vincent v. Eyton, [1897] P. 1; [and In re St. Margaret's, Westminster, [1905] P. 286].

Reredos in itself is clearly lawful. Questions as to the legality of particular designs have arisen in Boyd v. Phillpotts, 1875, L. R. 6 P. C. 449; Hughes v. Edwards, 1877, 2 P. D. 361; R. v. Bishop of London, [1891] A. C. 666; St. Laurence, Pittington, 1880, 5 P. D. 131; St. John, Pendlebury, [1895] P. 178.

Second Holy Table or Side Altar.-Sanctioned in St. Peter's, Eaton Square, [1894] P. 350; Holy Trinity, Stroud Green, [1887] 12 P. D. 199; [In re St. James the Great, Buxton, [1907] P. 368]. Faculties for this purpose have been refused, on the ground that no adequate necessity for allowing a second holy table was shown; but the cases do not appear to have been reported (see note to Hudson v. Tooth, 1877, 2 P. D. 126).

Stained Glass Windows. See Woodward v. Folkestone, 1880, Tristram Consistory, 177; Egerton v. All of Odd Rode, [1894] P. 15.

Stations of the Cross.-Bas-relief representing these, ordered to be removed in Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1876, 1 P. D. 316; [In re St. Mark's, Marylebone, [1898] P. 114; and in Markham v. Shirebrook Overseers, [1906] P. 239].

Ten Commandments.-The directions in the 82nd Canon must be complied with as closely as circumstances permit (Liddell v. Beal, 1857, 14 Moore, at p. 15).

Tombs and Ornamental Inscriptions.-The legality of an inscription requesting prayers for the dead was considered in Egerton v. All of Odd Rode, [1894]

P. 15.

2. Temporary Decorations.-The legality of these, whether at an ordinary service, or such as are usually employed at Christmas, Easter, harvest festivals, and the like, appears to rest upon long-continued usage.

The practice of employing flowers in decoration was referred to by Sir Robert Phillimore in Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. at p. 106, as "innocent and not unseemly," and in that case it was decided that it is not illegal to place flowers upon the communion table (see also R. v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1891] P., at p. 88).

There does not appear to be any legal restriction on the objects employed by way of bond-fide temporary decoration. In Elphinstone v. Purchas, supra, at p. 107, Sir R. Phillimore expressed the view that a stuffed dove was a legal temporary decoration, though a ceremonial use of it was unlawful.

3. Ornaments.-There is a very important distinction between the mere presence of an object as an ornament in a church "inert and unused," and its use as part of a ceremony (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 P. C. 365). The authorities relating to the history and construction of the ORNAMENTS RUBRIC will be found under that head. Apart from that rubric, the use of ornaments in the service can only

be justified when they are merely auxiliary or subsidiary. Thus a credence table is lawful (Westerton v. Liddell, 1857, Moore's Report, p. 187; and Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 P. C. 365).

The use of a movable cross as an ornament of the communion table was held unlawful in Durst v. Masters, 1876, 1 P. D. 123, 373, apparently on the ground that a cross must neither actually nor apparently form part of the communion table. [Semble, a tabernacle for reception of reserved sacrament is not a lawful church ornament (Kensit v. Rector of St. Ethelburga, [1900] P. 80).] See further, LIGHTS, ECCLESIASTICAL (as to candles and candlesticks).

For Retable and Super Altar, see COMMUNION, HOLY.

4. Ornaments of the Minister.-See ORNAMENTS RUBRIC; VESTMENTS. 5.& 6. Ceremonies and Rites.-Sec. 24 of the Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. II. c. 4, enacts that—

The several statutes now in force for the uniformity of prayer and the administration of the sacraments, shall stand in full force-for establishing and confirming the present Book of Common Prayer.

The enactments referred to are:

(1) 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3, which enacted that all ministers shall be bound to say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord's Supper and administration of each of the sacraments, and all the common and open prayer in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book [the prayerbook referred to in 5 & 6 Edw. VI.] . . . and none other or otherwise.

(2) 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3, imposes a penalty on any minister "who shall wilfully or obstinately use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper openly or privately, or Matins, Evensong, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayers than is mentioned or set forth in the said book."

The result is that any rite or ceremony not authorised by the prayer-book is illegal, and in Westerton v. Liddell the Privy Council referred emphatically to the stringency and importance of these provisions.

In the performance of the service and rights and ceremonies of the Book of Common Prayer the directions contained in it must be strictly observed; no omission and no addition can be permitted.

To this general statement certain minor exceptions must be admitted to exist-justifiable on the ground of long-continued usage. Thus the legality of hymns, and of the words usually sung before and after the reading of the gospel, rests solely on usage. But see UNIFORMITY.

The following rites and ceremonies have produced questions. It will be observed that in many instances the difficulty has been to distinguish between an additional (and so unlawful) rite or ceremony and the ornate and elaborate carrying out of a prescribed rite or ceremony :

Ablution. The ceremonial cleaning of the communion table, accompanied by prayers and gestures. In Read v. Bishop of Lincoln the defendant was charged with this, but the archbishop ([1891] P. p. 30) and the Privy Council ([1892] A. C. p. 659) held that the acts admitted by the defendant were nothing more than a reverent compliance with the rubric, and did not amount to a separate and unlawful ceremony.

Acolyte.-Ceremonial admission of, is illegal (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 97).

Alms. The rubric directing the alms to be placed on the communion table, it is unlawful to do otherwise (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 Ad. & Ec., at p. 218).

Ashes.-The ceremonial use of, on Ash Wednesday, is unlawful (Elphinstone v. Purchas, supra, at p. 97).

Bells.-Ringing a bell at the commencement of the communion service in such a way as to constitute an additional ceremony, is unlawful (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 98).

Cross and Crucifix.—Any ceremonial use of a cross or crucifix is unlawful (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 66; Hudson v. Tooth, 1877, 2 P. D. 125). But see ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.

Eastward Position.-(a) During the earlier portion of the communion service it is not unlawful for the officiating minister to stand at the northern part of the side which faces westwards (Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1892] A. C., at p. 665). (b) During the consecration prayers a position on the western side is lawful, subject to the requirements of the rubric as to the visibility of the manual acts being satisfied (Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1876, 7 P. D. 276; Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1892] A. C., at p. 662).

Elevation of the Sacrament, or of the vessels containing it, is unlawful (Art. 28) (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 Ad. & Ec. 116; 2 P. C. 365; S. C. 3 P. C., at p. 417).

Holidays. It is not lawful to announce in church the festivals of the "black letter" saints (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 111).

Holy Water. The ceremonial use of "holy water" is clearly unlawful. The offence was charged in Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 108; Hebbert v. Purchas, 1871, L. R. 3 P. C., at p. 650, but was held not established by the evidence. Semble, a "holy water stoup" is one of the ornaments covered by the ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.

Hymns. The legality of hymns during the service appears to rest on usage. The Statute 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, s. 7, only permitted "to use openly any psalm or prayer taken out of the Bible at any due time, not letting or omitting thereby the service."

In Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1891] P. pp. 63-74, the archbishop refers the legality of hymns before and after the sermon and during the offertory to continuous usage, and held that the singing of a hymn during the reception of the consecrated elements was equally lawful, and that the particular words known as the "Agnus Dei" were not unlawful. The Privy Council affirmed this view, thus overruling on this point the earlier cases of Elphinstone v. Purchas, and Clifton v. Ridsdale.

Incense -The ceremonial use of incense in any form is unlawful (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 Ad. & Ec., at p. 211; Sumner v. Wise, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 58; Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 66, 99). But see article INCENSE. The use of incense or the like for purposes of fumigation between services is of course legal.

Kissing the Gospel is unlawful (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 108; Martin v. Mackonochie, 1874, L. R. 4 Ad. & Ec. 279). Kneeling before the Consecrated Bread and Wine is contrary to the rubric, and so unlawful (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 2 P. C. 365). Lights. See LIGHTS, ECCLESIASTICAL.

Manual Acts.-The rubric which requires that the bread shall be broken "before the people," requires that the officiating clergyman shall intend his action to be visible to the congregation (Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1891] P. pp. 58-63).

Mixture of Water with the Wine.-The ceremonial mixing of water with the wine is unlawful (Martin v. Mackonochie, 1868, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 215). The use of wine mixed with water, the mixture having been effected prior to the commencement of the service is, however, not unlawful (Read v.

Bishop of Lincoln, [1892] A. C., at p. 657), not following the decision the other way in Hebbert v. Purchas, 1871, L. R. 3 P. C. 605.

Prayers for the Dead as a part of the service is illegal (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 2 Ad. & Ec. 98). And see PRAYERS FOR THE

DEAD.

Processions.-Processions amounting to a ceremonial addition to the service are illegal (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 95; Martin v. Mackonochie, 1874, L. R. 4 Ad. & Ec., at p. 280). As to relics, see Injunctions, Edw. VI. 9.

Reservation of the Sacrament is unlawful (see the rubric at the end of the COMMUNION SERVICE).

Sign of the Cross.-Any ceremonial use of the sign of the cross in the benediction and in the communion office is unlawful (Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, [1891] P., at pp. 88-94).

Wafers. The rubric prescribes the material (pure wheaten bread), but not the shape of the bread to be used in the communion service. Hence the use of bread cut into wafers is legal, but the use of wafers not of ordinary (leavened) bread is unlawful (Elphinstone v. Purchas, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec., at p. 66; Hebbert v. Purchas, 1871, L. R. 3 P. C. 605; Martin v. Mackonochie (2nd suit), 1874, L. R. 4 Ad. & Ec. 279; Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1877, 2 P. D. 276).

6. Miscellaneous.-As to proceedings against a clergyman for the use of unlawful ritual, see PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT.

[Authorities.-Talbot, Modern Decisions on Ritual, 1894; Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law; Westerton v. Liddell, Moore's Special Report; The Folkestone Ritual Case (Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1878); The Lincoln Case, Roscoe.]

Riveare. To have the liberty of a river for fishing or fowling (Cowell, Law Dictionary).

Rivers. The law as to rivers is dealt with in this work under the following headings:-AD MEDIUM FILUM VIAE; WATERWAY (where also the subjects of the rights of riparian owners in, and rights of access to, rivers and streams, and of the navigation of rivers, and navigable rivers, are considered); RIVERS POLLUTION; RIVERS CONSERVANCY; RIVERS, INTERNATIONAL; THAMES; MERSEY; HUMBER RULES; see also TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Rivers Conservancy.-"The office of conservancy," as defined by Lord Hale, relates, first to nuisances in rivers founded on the Statute 1 Hen. IV. c. 12, and, second, to fishing, founded on the Statute Westminster 2, c. 47, for the protection of salmon; but the term has now been extended to include the prevention of pollution and control over authorities utilising rivers for the purpose of water supply (Hale, de Jure Maris, Harg. Tr., p. 23; 17 Rich. II. c. 9; 1 Eliz. c. 17; Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, ss. 90-108, 291-298; Lee Conservancy Act, 1868, preamble and ss. 89-92).

The conservancy of navigation was originally intrusted to the Crown, which had a "jurisdiction to reform and punish nuisances in all rivers, whether fresh or salt, that are a common passage not only for ships and greater vessels, but also for smaller, as boats and barges" (Hale, de Jure Maris, Harg. Tr., p. 8; Woolrych on Sewers, p. 3; William v. Wilcox, 1838, 8 Ad. & E. 333; 47 R. R. 595). By 6 Hen. VI. c. 5, this preroga

tive, together with that of protecting land from the inroads of the sea, was delegated to Commissioners of Sewers who, in addition to their functions as to sea walls and sewers, exercised jurisdiction over navigable rivers, bridges, mills, and other things incident to river conservancy. The inconvenience of the temporary duration of these commissions and the development of inland navigation led, however, to the gradual transfer of their powers to conservators created by special Acts for each particular river, the authority of Commissioners of Sewers being apparently sometimes retained by means of a special proviso in the incorporating Act (Woolrych on Sewers, p. 49). So, too, the Salmon Fishery Acts, 1861 to 1876, and the Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1878, have vested the supervision of the conservancy of fishing in the Home Office, which may empower Courts of Quarter Sessions to establish fishery districts under boards of conservators in all waters frequented by salmon, trout, and char in England and Wales, except where special Acts are in force-as in Norfolk and Suffolk, the Thames (the fishing in which is controlled by the conservators of the navigation), and the Severn (40 & 41 Vict. c. 89, and 59 & 60 Vict. c. 18 (Norfolk and Suffolk); Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, p. 191; 18 Geo. III. c. 3; and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 43 (Severn)).

The Acts relating to inland navigation provide for (1) restoring or improving the navigation of navigable rivers; (2) making unnavigable rivers navigable; and (3) the construction of artificial navigations or canals (23 Geo. III. c. 48 (improving the navigation of the Trent); 16 & 17 Car. II. c. 12 (making the Wiltshire Avon navigable); 33 Geo. III. c. 80 (Grand Junction Canal)).

The first two classes of Acts vest the conservancy of a river in commissioners, municipal authorities, or some other body corporate, empowering them to dredge and scour the bed of the stream and remove obstructions; to make by-laws regulating the navigation, and, where necessary, to enter on lands making compensation for injuries arising through their acts (2 & 3 Vict. c. 61 (improving the navigation of the Shannon); 31 Geo. III. c. 66 (making the Rother navigable)). As none of the public rights subsisting in navigable rivers can attach to those made navigable, conservators of the latter have apparently greater rights as against the public than conservators of the former class of rivers (Hargreaves v. Diddams, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 582; Musset v. Burch, 1876, 35 L. T. N. S. 486; R. v. Betts, 1851, 16 Q. B. 1022). Conservators under both classes of Acts are, however, bound to apply the profits of the navigation for the benefit of the public, and have usually a mere possession of the soil for the purpose of improving it. The Thames Conservancy Acts vest the soil of the bed of the river in the conservators; but it has been held that if the words of an Act vesting a river or navigation in a board of conservators are applicable only to the acquisition of the right of passage, and the ownership of the soil is not necessary for the purposes of the Act, such ownership must be taken not to pass (Lee Conservancy v. Button, 1880, 12 Ch. D. 383; Badger v. Yorkshire Rly. Co., 1859, 5 Jur. N. S. 409; Hollis v. Goldfinch, 1823, 1 Barn. & Cress. 206; 25 R. R. 357; R. v. Aire and Calder, 1829, 9 Barn. & Cress. 820; 33 R. R. 344). The banks of navigable rivers are the property of the riparian owners, and the rights of such owners are not extinguished where the course of a river is straightened by the conservators, who have a mere legal right of entry without possession. A Royal Charter purporting to confer upon a patentee the exclusive