« EelmineJätka »
LAW JOURNAL REPORTS
THE YEAR 1893:
DECIDED BY THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE LORDS OF
Her Majesty's Privy Council,
EDWARD BULLOCK, BARRISTER-AT-LAW;
The House of Lords (Scotch and Irish Appeals),
JAMES EYRE THOMPSON,
MICHAELMAS 1892 TO MICHAELMAS 1893.
PRIVY COUNCIL, VOL. LXII.
[CONTEMPORARY WITH LAW REP.  A. C.]
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE.
PUBLISHED BY F. E. STREETEN, 5 QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
IN THE COURT OF
THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE LORDS OF
Her Majesty's Privy Council
(INCLUDING SCOTCH AND IRISH APPEALS IN THE HOUSE of Lords).
MICHAELMAS 1892 TO MICHAELMAS 1893.
READ AND OTHERS (appellants) v. THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN (respondent).
Ecclesiastical Law-Book of Common Prayer-Rubric-Practice of primitive Church-Ritual-Pictures-Authority of Privy Council-Previous Decision-Effect
of-Holy Communion - Mixed Cup, Washing of Sacred Vessels-" Agnus Dei” Celebrant Use during Celebration Priest-Position at Table-Use of Lighted Candles-Participation in Offence-Right to Monition.
The Ecclesiastical Courts may consult ancient authors, historical and theological works, pictures, engravings, and other ancient documents, with respect to the practice of the primitive Church, the ritual of the Eastern and Western Churches, the position of the Lord's table, the position of the celebrant at the table, and like questions which are beyond the reach of living
service, and of administering the same to the communicants when so mixed, is not an offence against the ecclesiastical law.
The act of washing out the sacred vessels used at the celebration of the holy communion with water, and of drinking such water in church after the benediction is lawful ceremony. pronounced, is not an additional and un
The 2 & 3 Edw. 6. c. 1. s. 7, permits the use openly of any psalms or prayer taken out of the Bible "at any due time," not "letting or omitting thereby the service, or any part thereof, mentioned in the said book"-Held, that the singing of the hymn known as the "Agnus Dei" before and during the reception of the elements in the office of the holy communion is not a "letting" of any part of the service, and is a use in "due time" of a psalm combining passages of Scripture, and is therefore lawful.
The rubric in the communion service directing, "and the priest, standing at the north side of the table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with the collect following," must be construed with respect to the position of the priest, with reference to the fact that at the period when the rubric was framed the table was, at the time of the holy communion, placed in almost all parish churches lengthwise in the church or chancel, the smaller ends facing east and west, and the longer
Read v. Bishop of Lincoln. sides north and south when the church stood, as it ordinarily did, east and west; and where a position on the "north side" is enjoined by the rubric, one of the longer sides of the table is in contemplation, and all the acts to be done at the table should be done on that side.
The respondent, being Bishop of the diocese, was the principal celebrant at the administration of holy communion, when two lighted candles stood on a ledge immediately over the holy table, such lighted candles not being required for the purpose of giving light. The Bishop was not a party to the lighting or placing of the candles, but he made no objection to the use of such candles:-Held, that the mere fact that the respondent took part in the consecration and administration of the elements whilst the lights were burning did not of itself constitute the use by him of such candles, and that the making no objection was not an offence against the ecclesiastical law.
The promoters of a suit for an ecclesiastical offence have no right, even when they succeed in establishing a breach of the law, to insist upon a monition not to repeat the offence.
This was an appeal from certain parts of a judgment pronounced by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Court in a cause of the office of his Grace, promoted by the appellants, members of the Church of England resident within the diocese of Lincoln, against the respondent, the Bishop of the diocese of Lincoln, in the province of Canterbury.
On the 2nd of June, 1888, a petition was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury praying him to issue a citation calling upon the respondent to answer articles alleging that he had offended against the laws ecclesiastical by committing certain offences which are hereinafter stated.
The Archbishop, after consideration, declined to issue the citation, doubting his jurisdiction; and the appellants appealed from this refusal. The Judicial Committee, upon a reference from her Majesty, held that the Archbishop had jurisdiction, and that an appeal lay from the said refusal, and humbly advised her Majesty to remit the cause to the Arch
bishop to be dealt with according to law.
On the 4th of January, 1889, the Archbishop issued his citation.
On the 12th of February, 1889, the respondent appeared under protest, and an extended protest, answer, and conclusion were in due course filed. The respondent raised the question of the Archbishop's jurisdiction to entertain the charges made against the respondent and to try him thereon. This question was argued fully before the Archbishop and his Assessors, and judgment was delivered on the 11th of May, 1889, by the Archbishop, who held that he had jurisdiction, and reserved the consideration of the question of the costs occasioned by the protest until he should give judgment on the merits.
Subsequently articles were brought in by the appellants; whereupon the respondent made certain objections theretonamely, that there was no jurisdiction, and that the matters charged, being done by the respondent as Bishop, were not offences against the laws, canons, and constitutions of the Church and Realm of England, and of the province of Canterbury. This question thus raised was argued before the Archbishop and Episcopal Assessors, and the Archbishop gave judgment overruling the objections, and reserved the costs until the decision upon the merits.
On the 13th of August, 1889, the respondent filed a responsive plea to the articles, and on the 15th of November, 1889, the appellants filed their allegations in reply, and the pleadings were thereupon concluded, and the same were assigned for information before the Archbishop.
The charges made in the articles against the respondent were in respect of offences committed by the respondent upon two occasions—namely, on Sunday morning, the 4th of December, 1887, during the service for the administration of the holy communion in the Church of St. Peterat-Gowts, in the diocese of Lincoln; and on Sunday, the 18th of December, 1887, in the Cathedral Church of Lincoln, in the city and diocese aforesaid, during the service for the administration of the holy communion. On both of these occasions
Read v. Bishop of Lincoln.
the respondent officiated as Bishop and as the principal celebrant, and all the offences are alleged to have been committed by the respondent when so officiating.
The offences charged as having been committed by the respondent on the first occasion were as follows:
1. Using and permitting to be used during the communion service lighted candles on the communion table, or on a ledge immediately over the said table, so constructed as to appear to form part of the communion table, as a matter of ceremony, and when such lighted candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light.
2. When officiating as aforesaid, causing, permitting, and being a party to, and taking part in, the mixing of water with the sacramental wine intended to be used in the administration of the holy communion at the said service, and subsequently at the said service consecrating the said wine and water so mixed, and thereupon administering the wine and water so mixed to the communicants at the said service.
3. Standing, while reading the prayer of consecration in the said service, on the west side of the holy table, with his face to the east, and between the people and the holy table, and with his back to the people in such wise that the communicants present, being then conveniently placed for receiving the holy communion when he broke the bread and took the cup into his hand, could not see him break the bread and take the cup into his hand according to the directions in that behalf contained in the rubric immediately before the prayer of consecration.
4. Causing or permitting to be said or sung, before the reception of the elements, and immediately after the reading of the prayer of consecration in the said service, the words or hymn or prayer commonly known as the Agnus-that is, "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us."
5. Whilst pronouncing the absolution, conspicuously and ceremoniously having both his hands elevated and looking towards the congregation, making with his hand the sign of the cross; and also again, in like manner, whilst pronouncing the benediction in the same service, making
the sign of the cross, such sign being in each case a ceremony in addition to and other than a ceremony prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer.
6. Without any break or interval, and as connected with, and as forming part of the rites and ceremonies of the communion service, causing, practising, permitting, and being a party to and taking part in the ceremony of ablution-that is, of pouring wine and water into the paten and chalice which had been used for the administration of the holy communion at the said service, and by then himself drinking up such wine and water in the face of the congregation, being a ceremony in addition to and other than a ceremony prescribed to be used by the Book of Common Prayer.
The offences charged as having been committed by the respondent on the second occasion were the same as those stated in sections 3, 5, and 6, and the additional offence following-namely:
Standing during the whole of the said communion service down to the ordering of the bread and wine before the prayer of consecration on the west side of the holy table, and not on the north side thereof.
With reference to the said charges, the respondent admitted in his responsive plea :
That on the first occasion
1. There were, without any objection being raised by the respondent, two lighted candles on the holy table.
2. In the course of the celebration, and just before the prayer for the Church militant, one of the assistant priests, with the respondent's sanction, after pouring the wine into the chalice, added a little water. The respondent subsequently consecrated the wine and water so mixed, and administered the same, when consecrated, to the communicants.
3. Whilst reading the prayer of consecration, the respondent stood with his face to the east, between the people and the holy table, and before the people; but he had no wish or intention to prevent the communicants present from seeing him break the bread and take the cup into his hand.
4. Immediately after the reading the prayer of consecration, and before the re