Ridsdale v.
Clifton.

Council in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie.' The question before their Lordships in the case was as to the posture and not as to the position of the minister. The words of the judgment are [Their lordships then cited the passage from the judgment in Martin v. Mackonochie (h).]

"This passage refers to posture or attitude from beginning to end, and not to position with reference to the sides of the Table. And it could not be construed to justify Mr. Purchas in standing with his back to the people, unless a material addition were made to it. The learned Judge reads it as if it ran, They think that the words standing before the table apply to the whole sentence, and that before the table means between the table and the people on the west side.' But these last words are mere assumption. The question of position was not before their Lordships; if it had been, no doubt the passage would have been conceived differently, and the question of position expressly settled."

In Ridsdale v. Clifton (i), in the Privy Council, the charge was that the respondent "unlawfully stood while saying the prayer of consecration . . . at the middle of the west side of the communion table (such communion table then standing against the east wall, with the shorter sides towards the north and south) in such wise that during the whole time of his saying the said prayer he was between the people and the communion table with his back to the people, so that the people could not see him break the bread or take the cup in his hand." The Privy Council said the minister might, during the prayer of consecration, stand while ordering the elements either facing south or east, and that after this point there was "no specific direction" where he ought to stand during this prayer. They added: "He must, in the opinion of their lordships, stand so that he may in good faith enable the communicants present, or the bulk of them, being properly placed to see, if they wish it, the breaking of the bread and the performance of the other manual acts mentioned. He must not interpose his body so as intentionally to defeat the object of the rubric and to prevent this result.' This conclusion was arrived at by construing the words "before the people" as meaning "in the sight of the people," a construction very questionable in scholarship and very devoid of historical support; and by them extending the implied direction to break the bread before the people to the other manual acts, so as to require all to be done in the sight of the people an extension which is not grammatical. Applying these principles to the case before them, they found that there was not sufficient evidence that Mr. Ridsdale had so acted as to offend, and they dismissed the charge against him.

The result is that the priest may well and lawfully stand at the west side facing east during the whole prayer of consecration, and that a charge that he does so is, per se, no charge of an

ecclesiastical offence; but that, if it be further proved that he intentionally interposed his body to prevent the people seeing the manual acts, he would be guilty of an offence.

What amounts to intention, and whether, if without intention he prevents sight, he be guilty of an offence, are questions left open by this decision.

In Read v. The Bp. of Lincoln (j) a charge was preferred sub- Read v. Bp. of stantially in the same terms as in Ridsdale v. Clifton, except Lincoln. that the charge contained a further allegation, to meet the requirements of the Privy Council, that the communicants “were conveniently placed for receiving the Holy Sacrament."

The archbishop and his assessors thought "that the order of the Holy Communion requires that the manual acts should be visible," and that the minister ought not merely not to wish or intend to hide the manual acts, but ought positively to wish and intend to make them visible to communicants properly placed. The 18th Article against Mr. Purchas in the Court of Arches charged as follows:

"That you, the said Rev. John Purchas on a certain occasion North side. directed, sanctioned, or permitted a certain other clergy- Elphinstone v. man, then officiating for you, in the presence of you, the said Purchas. Rev. John Purchas, to read the collects next before the epistle for the day in the communion service, standing in front of the middle of the holy table, with his back to the people; and that on a certain other occasion, you, the said Rev. John Purchas, read such collects yourself, standing with your back to the people."

Sir Robert Phillimore said: "The rubric which governs the position of the minister at this period of the service is the one preceding the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the communion service: And the priest, standing at the north side of the table, shall say the Lord's Prayer with the collect following, the people kneeling;' and, after the interval of the Ten Commandments, the rubric enjoins the priest to stand as before.' I am aware that learned persons hold that these words, 'the north side,' mean the north side of the table's front,' and possibly they do so; but, in the absence of any argument before me to this effect, I think I must take the primâ facie meaning of the rubric, and consider it as the north side of the whole table; and upon this ground I must decide against Mr. Purchas upon this article."

In the same case, the two following positions were also complained of :

(a) That "you, the said Rev. John Purchas, did, in the said church or chapel, during the performance of divine service, and while reading the collects following the creed, stand in front of the middle of the holy table at the foot of the steps leading up to the same, with your back to the people :"

(j) 1891, P. p. 9; Roscoe, Report of Bp. of Lincoln's case.

Read v. Bp. of
Lincoln.

Ablutions.

Public
Worship
Regulation
Act.

(b) And that "you, the said Rev. John Purchas, directed, sanctioned or permitted the epistle in the communion service to be read in your presence by a minister standing with his back to the people."

Sir Robert Phillimore said: "The first offence appears to me plainly contrary to the rubric; and the second, though, perhaps, not governed by any positive order in a rubric, is obviously contrary to the intent of the Prayer Book, the epistle not being a prayer addressed to God, but a portion of the Scripture read to the people."

This question of the north side, therefore, did not come before the Privy Council on appeal in Hebbert v. Purchas (k). Nor was it raised in Ridsdale v. Clifton (1). But in both cases there were plenty of obiter dicta to the effect that the north side was the north end, and that the priest beginning the communion service must stand at the north end of the holy table.

However, in Read v. The Bishop of Lincoln (m), the archbishop and his assessors, while agreeing with Sir Robert Phillimore in thinking that the words north side did not mean the north part of the front, said that with the altered position of the holy table there was now, strictly speaking, no north side in the sense intended by the rubric, that there could now be no literal compliance with the rubric, and that it is not an offence to stand against the long west side (which was the old north side) facing east.

And on appeal the Privy Council substantially agreed, holding that it is not an offence "to stand at the northern part of the side which faces westwards" (n).

A charge of cleansing the chalice and paten at the end of the service in a ceremonial manner, which the pleadings called the "ceremony of ablution" in Read v. The Bp. of Lincoln, was thought by the archbishop and his assessors to be ill-founded, the facts showing nothing more than a strict compliance with the rubric, which requires the consumption of any remains of the holy elements. On appeal the Privy Council agreed (0).

Under the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 85), s. 8, one of the matters which may be represented is, "That the incumbent has within the preceding twelve months failed to observe or to cause to be observed the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the performance in such church or burial ground of the services, rites and ceremonies ordered by the said book, or has made or permitted to be made any unlawful addition to, alteration in, or omission from, such services, rites and ceremonies" (p).

(k) L. R., 3 P. C. p. 605.

(1) 2 P. D. p. 276.

(m) 1891, P. p. 9; Roscoe, Report

of Bp. of Lincoln's case.

(n) 1892, App. Ca. p. 644.
(0) Ibid.

Videinfra, Part IV., Chap. IX.

SECT. 8.-Kalendar and Tables of Lessons.

c. 23.

In the year 1751 a very important alteration was made in the ecclesiastical as well as the civil year, by 24 Geo. 2, c. 23, the 24 Geo. 2, preamble of which act is as follows:-" Whereas the legal supputation of the year of our Lord in that part of Great Britain Year to begin on the 1st day called England, according to which the year beginneth on the of January. 25th day of March, hath been found by experience to be attended with divers inconveniences, not only as it differs from the usage of neighbouring nations, but also from the legal method of computation in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, and from the common usage throughout the whole kingdom, and thereby frequent mistakes are occasioned in the dates of deeds and other writings, and disputes arise therefrom; and whereas the Calendar now in use throughout all his majesty's British dominions, commonly called the Julian Calendar, hath been discovered to be erroneous, by mean whereof the vernal or spring equinox, which at the time of the general council of Nice, in the year of our Lord 325, happened Council of on or about the 21st day of March, now happens on the 9th or 10th of the same month; and the said error is still increasing, and if not remedied would in process of time occasion the several equinoxes and solstices to fall at very different times in the civil year from what they formerly did, which might tend to mislead persons ignorant of the said alteration: and whereas a method of correcting the calendar in such manner as that the equinoxes and solstices may for the future fall nearly on the same nominal days on which the same happened at the time of the said general council, hath been received and established, and is now generally practised by almost all other nations of Europe; and whereas it will be of general convenience to merchants and other persons corresponding with other nations and countries, and tend to prevent mistakes and disputes in or concerning the dates of letters and accounts if the like correction be received and established in his majesty's dominions."

Sects. 1 and 2 accordingly provided for beginning the year on the 1st of January instead of the 25th of March, for throwing out eleven days in the year 1752 to make the kalendar right, and for the future arrangements as to leap year.

Nice.

By sect. 3. "And whereas according to the rule prefixed to Easter and the Book of Common Prayer, Easter day is always the first other holidays. Sunday after the first full moon which happens next after the one and twentieth day of March, and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the Sunday after; which rule was made in conformity to the decree of the said general council of Nice, for the celebration of the said feast of Easter: And whereas the method of computing the full moons now used in the Church of England, and according to which the table to find Easter for ever prefixed to the said Book of Common Prayer is formed, is by process of time become considerably

Old lectionary.

erroneous; And whereas a calendar, and also certain tables and rules for the fixing the true time of the celebration of the said feast of Easter, and the finding the times of the full moons on which the same dependeth, so as the same shall agree as nearly as may be with the decree of the said general council, and also with the practice of foreign countries, have been prepared, and are hereunto annexed; be it therefore further enacted. . . . that the said feast of Easter, or any of the moveable feasts thereon depending, shall from and after the said second day of September be no longer kept or observed. . . according to the said method now used, or the said table prefixed to the said Book of Common Prayer; and that the said table, and also the column or golden numbers, as they are now prefixed to the respective days of the month in the said calendar, shall be left out in all future editions of the said Book of Common Prayer; and that the said new calendar, tables, and rules hereunto annexed, shall be prefixed to all such future editions of the said book in the room and stead thereof; and that from and after the said second day of September all and every the fixed feast-days, holydays and fast-days which are now kept and observed by the Church of England, and also the several solemn days of thanksgiving, and of fasting and humiliation, which, by virtue of any act of parliament now in being, are to be kept and observed, shall be kept and observed on the respective days marked for the celebration of the same in the said new calendar, that is to say, on the same respective nominal days on which the same are now kept and observed, but which, according to the alteration by this act intended to be made as aforesaid, will happen eleven days sooner than the same now do; and that the said feast of Easter and all other moveable feasts thereon depending, shall from time to time be observed and celebrated according to the said new calendar, tables and rules hereunto annexed, in that part of Great Britain called England, and in all the dominions and countries aforesaid wherein the liturgy of the Church of England now is, or hereafter shall be used; and that the two moveable terms of Easter and Trinity, and all courts of what nature or kind soever, and all meetings and assemblies of any bodies politic or corporate, and all markets, fairs, and marts, and courts thereunto belonging, which by any law, statute, charter, custom, or usage, are appointed, used, or accustomed to be holden and kept at any moveable time or times depending upon the time of Easter, or any other such moveable feast as aforesaid, shall. . . . be holden and kept on such days and times whereon the same shall respectively happen or fall, according to the falling or happening of the said feast of Easter or such other moveable feasts as aforesaid, to be computed according to the said new calendar, tables and rules."

Annexed to this act is the calendar with the rules for finding Easter, and the table of lessons then in use.

This table of lessons remained unaltered till the passing of the