lation Act, and almost against its letter. The Bishop of Lichfield took notice of the grave dangers involved in the continuance of the existing ecclesiastical tension. He alluded to the time when in his boyhood he had seen four hundred men come forth from the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland, leaving behind them their parsonages and their incomes, on a question which was almost exactly the same as in the present case, an I said that:

He would be sorry to speak words of unnecessary alarm, but he feared that things might be tending toward a similar secession from the Church, or perhaps more likely to hasten disestablishment. He did not look forward to disestablishment with so much alarm as some of their lordships, but he would greatly dread a secession from the Church such as was, he believed, contemplated-perhaps more than contempiatsd-as possible by thousands of Churchmen. To avert such a serious issue they should exert themselves strenuously. He believed that they would be doing a good and righteous thing, even if the crown lawyers were to return the same answer, if they were to unite in memorializing the Crown. The question was ultimately one of God and Cæsar, and they would never make those who sympathized with Mr. Green think otherwise.

The Archbishop of Canterbury assented to the views of the Bishop of Peterborough as to the unwisdom of the promoters of the suit against Mr. Green, but said that it was hard to understand the defendant's scruples against obeying the law, and that he could find abundant authority in the action of his ecclesiastical superiors for observing its requirements. The discussion was ended by the adoption of resolutions:

That this House sympathizes in the general feeling of pain and disapproval with which the prolonged imprisonment of the Rev. S. F. Green is regarded; that this House is of opinion that the promoters of the suit against Mr. Green, in resorting to the older and severer process of the writ de contum ice capiendo, have taken a step which was in excess of the requirements of the case, and which has proved injurious to the peace and welfare of the Church; and that this House, having regard to the serious legal and constitutional difficulties in the case, regrets to feel itself preclu lel from approaching the Crown with a petition for Mr. Green's release.

In the Lower House of the Convocation of York, a gravamen was adopted as an articulus eleri:

That the continued imprisonment of the Rev. S. F. Green, a clergyman of this province, is a perplexity and scandal to this House and to the Church at large.

And this was supplemented by a resolution: That the Lower House, while it does not feel called upon to express any opinion as to Mr. Green's conduet, humbly requests of the Upper House to take some united action, whether by way of an address to the Crown or otherwise as they may be advised, which may lead to the removal of this scandal, by the release of the Rev. S. F. Green.

This request was met in the Upper House simply with an exposition by the archbishop of the legal difficulties in the way of taking such action as was desired. During the discussion of the subject in the Upper House, the

Bishop of Manchester, Mr. Green's diocesan, related the history of his connection with the case, and explained his position with reference to it. Instead of the parish of St. John's, Miles Platting, being "a desert," as had been alleged, when Mr. Green came to it, it had been in charge of an excellent clergyman, and had a good congregation, though of a different kind from the one to which Mr. Green had ministered. The present congregation was not composed of parishioners, but was one which had been gathered of persons who liked the ritual. In the very year in which the proceedings against Mr. Green were commenced, far from the parish of St. John's, Miles Platting, being a scene of perfect unity and peace, he had a petition signed by 320 parishioners asking him to interfere. It was framed in loose and vague language, and contained no definite charges, and he therefore put it aside, hoping that by private influence with Mr. Green he might stop proceedings. They told him that as they were working-men, and as he refused them redress, they had no alternative but to put themselves in the hands of the Church Association. The Church Association had published a document in which they said they did not designate the three men who were selected as prosecutors, but that their names were handed to them by some of the aggrieved parishioners. At any rate, when the representation came, it was contrary to his own nature and desire to encourage these proceedings. If he could have stopped them in any legitimate way, he should have felt bound to have stopped them, but an act of Parliament having been passed which gave the aggrieved parishioners certain rights, he did not consider that he had a right

as an individual, if he could offer them no redress, to step in and prevent them from obtaining their legal remedy." On the 2d of December, 1878, he wrote to Mr. Green, calling his attention to the complaints that had been made, expressing a desire to avoid litigation, and inviting him to call at the registry, examine the papers in the case, and submit to the authority of his bishop-under protest, if he preferred; else, the writer would have no choice but to allow the proceedings to go on. Mr. Green called, but refused to look at the papers, or to submit himself to his bishop, and the latter therefore felt-"though he took that step with the greatest possible pain and reluctance that he had no alternative but to allow the proceedings to go on. He had frequent complaints-four or five-with reference to Mr. Green, between 1871 and 1881. He admonished Mr. Green in 1871, but Mr. Green did not discontinue the practice of the mixed chalice, which he mixed ceremonially, in accordance with the decision of Sir Robert Phillimore, and he (the bishop) had a letter before him in which Mr. Green said, 'I will obey your lordship's admonition.' In 1877 three charges were brought against Mr. Green of using vestments and incense. Mr. Green

then explained how he came to use them, and told him that they were introduced in 1876 without any consent on his (the bishop's) part, and without any reference to him. Mr. Green made no change in those matters, and in 1878 came a petition from 320 persons, and later still, in December, 1878, there came a representation. Ile had now laid the whole case before the convocation, and he asked them frankly-he was not at all afraid of what might be said, for he could justify entirely to his own conscience the course which he had taken-be asked them as Englishmen, fairly minded, whether they were not willing to make allowances for the difficulties in which a bishop was placed by a clergyman who would neither acknowledge the law of the land nor submit to his decision or advice?"

Sunday, March 19th, was the anniversary of Mr. Green's consignment to prison, and was celebrated as such with special observances and prayers in a large number of metropolitan and provincial churches. Meetings in view of its near approach were held during the week preceding the anniversary, by branches of the English Church Union and the Workingmen's Society, at which resolutions thanking Mr. Green for his consistent defense of the principles at stake, and expressing sympathy with him and with his wife and family, were passed. At the sixth anniversary of the Church of England Workingmen's Society, in August, resolutions were passed expressing indignation at the imprisonment of Mr. Green by a court of at least doubtful validity, and declaring that "Churchmen should at once make known clearly to their rulers in church and state that they can not and will not recognize the authority of Parliament, and courts created by it, to deprive a priest of the cure of souls committed to him by Almighty God, acting through the appointed ministers of his Church." A bill designed to open the way for the relief of the suffering clergyman, which had been introduced in the House of Commons, was lost. Thereupon, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to Mr. Gladstone, August 16th, representing to him and to the Government that the three years which the law required to elapse before an order of inhibition could operate a deprivation of the offender's benefice had that day expired, and that Mr. Green appeared to be no longer the incumbent of Miles Platting. His Grace, therefore, urged upon the Government the duty of at once putting an end to the imprisonment. Mr. Gladstone replied, promising careful consideration of the matter. On the 8th of September, the Diocesan Conference of Carlisle adopted a memorial to the Home Secretary, showing: "1. That, according to the provisions of the Public Worship Regulation Act, the Rev. S. F. Green is no longer legally incumbent of Miles Platting. 2. That, this being so, it appears contrary to all principles of justice that Mr. Green should still be kept in

prison. 3. That the Bishop of Carlisle, and the other members of the conference, would gladly learn from her Majesty's Secretary of State whether there is any reason why Mr. Green should not be set at liberty." On the 16th of September, Mr. Gladstone informed a committee of the Church of England Workingmen's Society that the matter of Mr. Green's release from imprisonment was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who was "most anxious to carry it through." On the 27th of September, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave to Sir Percival Heywood, the patron of the living, the formal notice required by the Public Worship Regulation Act, that the benefice of St. John's, Miles Platting, had become void, and expressed the hope that his taking this step might facilitate Mr. Green's release.

Sir Percival failed to pay any attention to this notification; but a few days afterward Mr. Green wrote to the patron from his prison in Lancaster Castle, tendering his resignation of the benefice. He also wrote to the congregation and parishioners of St. John's, stating the reasons by which he had been influenced in taking that step. Alluding to the fact that the Bishop of Manchester had made a motion in Lord Penzance's court for his release, he said that, feeling it his duty to resist the usurpations of Lord Penzance to the utmost of his power, he must deprecate the appearance of a bishop in court, even by proxy. He was, however, of the opinion that the patron of the living ought not to be permitted to embark on a new venture in disputing the legality of his deprivation, for that would entail much expense on what was probably a foregone conclusion. Lord Penzance, on the 4th of November, delivered judgment on the application of the Bishop of Manchester for Mr. Green's discharge from his imprisonment. He reviewed all the facts in the case, and said that Mr. Green could have been discharged at any time, by satisfying the contempt. The law must be obeyed, and the Court considered it had been satisfied, though not willingly, by Mr. Green. As he was no longer vicar of Miles Platting, the Court was enabled by a reasonable interpretation of the statute under which he was imprisoned to put an end to the imprisonment which Mr. Green himself seemed so little desirous of terminating. Mr. Green was accordingly released Sunday morning, November 5th, after an imprisonment of one year and ten months. The Rev. W. Ruthven Prym, curate of the parish church at Lytham, was appointed by Lord Peuzance to the charge of the vacated benefice. The church-wardens, however, representing the congregation to whom Mr. Green had ministered, refused to acknowledge him, and addressed him a note informing him that they would not accept him. Subsequently the benefice was offered by the patron to the Rev. Henry Cowgill, who had been for a long time Mr. Green's curate, and was accepted by him.

CASE OF MARTIN 28. MACKONOCHIE. — The

decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the appeal case of Martin against Mackonochie was given February 3d. This was the third suit brought against the incumbent of St. Alban's, Holborn, by Mr. Martin. The first was instituted for ritualistic practices in 1867, and resulted in a monition calling upon Mr. Mackonochie to abstain from the practices complained of. The monition was disregarded, and a second suit was instituted in 1874, and Sir Robert Phillimore suspended Mr. Mackonochie for six weeks and appended another monition. The services, however, continuing unchanged, application was made to Lord Penzance, who had since become judge, and he issued a fresh monition. This was equally disregarded, and Mr. Mackonochie was then suspended ab officio et benefio for three years. The Queen's Bench was then appealed to, and pronounced that Lord Penzance had exceeded his powers, and issued a writ of prohibition against him. The Court of Appeal, which was finally sustained by the House of Lords, held however that, except in respect to two points, Lord Penzance's action was right. Mr. Martin then instituted an altogether fresh suit against Mr. Mackonochie for deprivation, but Lord Penzance refused to hear it on the ground that his last judgment had not been enforced, which would have resulted in Mr. Mackonochie being sent to prison for contempt. It was against this decision that the appeal was now made to the Privy Council. The Lord Chancellor delivered the judgment of the court, which, after reca pitulating the facts of the case, and stating the reasons given by Lord Penzance for his judgment, proceeded to state that from this judg. ment and from the reasons assigned for it their lordships found themselves compelled to dissent. They did not think that it could have been the intention of the learned judge to affirm the existence generally of a discretion in an ecclesiastical court to refuse by decree to pass any sentence of canonical censure or punishment upon a clerk in holy orders found by the same decree to have been guilty of offenses against the law, properly charged. They thought the judge had no discretion, while finding the defendant guilty of ecclesiastical offenses, to absolve him from all ecclesiastical censure or punishment for those offenses. Contempt or contumacy in another suit can not deprive the bishop (or a promoter who satisfies the bishop that there is reason for proceeding in respect of new offenses by a new snit) of the remedies given by the Church Diseipline Act. Their lordships did not find that any obligation is cast by law upon the promoter of a sait in an ecclesiastical court to take proceedings for the imprisonment of a party guilty of contempt. Their lordships thought that if, as the case now stands, a more severe penalty should appear to the learned judge to be called for, he might still give the respondent one more opportunity of being

VOL. XXII-2 A

heard against such a sentence, and of submitting himself to the court and the law. Their lordships agreed with Lord Campbell's remarks in Head vs. Saunders, where he says that, "except under peculiar circumstances, a court of final appeal ought not to decide any cause in the first instance, as it ought to have the benefit of the discussion and judgment in the court below; and there ought not to be an original judgment pronounced from which there is no appeal." Their lordships, therefore, would advise her Majesty to reverse the sentence of the 5th of June, 1880, so far as relates to the matter complained of by this appeal, and to remit the case to the court below, to decree against the respondent such lawful and canonical censure or punishment as to that court shall seem just.

APPEAL OF REV. WILLIAM ENRAGHT.-The appeal of the Rev. William Enraght against Lord Penzance and John Perkins was decided in the House of Lords, May 22d. The appellant was the Vicar of Holy Trinity Church, Bordesley, Warwickshire, and the suit was promoted by the respondent Perkins (one of the reverend gentleman's church-wardens) on account of fourteen offenses in the celebration of divine worship, in respect of which it was alleged that the appellant had been guilty of acting illegally. The case came before the Queen's Bench division on an application for a writ of habeas corpus to discharge the defendant from custody for disobedience to the monition of Lord Penzance, as well as for a prohibition. The Court of Appeal allowed the discharge from custody, but refused the prohibition. Their lordships now affirmed the order of the Court of Appeal, and dismissed the present appeal with costs.

Another appeal in this case, in which the question was whether a new church-warden could be substituted for Mr. Perkins, who had ceased to be a church-warden and parishioner, as promoter of the suit against Mr. Enraght, was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, July 4th, in favor of Lord Penzance's judgment that the substitution could not be made.

The Bishop of Winchester, in November, gave notice to the patrons of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, that under the Public- Worship Regulation Act the benefice had become vacant, the three years from the date of the monition against the vicar, Mr. Enraght, having expired. A protest signed by a considerable number of the parishioners was issued, denouncing the action taken to remove the vicar as uncanonical, unconstitutional, and cruel.

The Church of St. Vedast's, London, after having been closed for two years, on account of the ritualistic practices of the rector, the Rev. T. Pelham Dale, was reopened in September, with a new incumbent in charge.

ENGLISH CHURCH UNION. - The English Church Union, the most active and influential of the ritualistic organizations, had at the be

ginning of the year 270 branches and 19,930 members and associates, having received 2,450 accessions during the preceding twelve months. The twenty-third anniversary of this society was celebrated June 10th, with special services in more than three hundred churches in London. At the regular annual meeting of the society, Mr. Wood, its president, speaking with especial reference to the case of Mr. Green, said that the Union, it must be understood, rejected the authority of the Privy Council, and of the courts subject to its jurisdiction, in spiritual matters; it maintained the integrity of the ornaments rubric, and held that the Church of England had drifted into a position where, if any reform was to be hoped for, resistance to the encroachments of the civil power had become an absolute necessity. If imprisonments had been stopped only to substitute deprivations, it must be understood that the Union would strenuously resist deprivations by civil courts.

RITUALISTIC STATISTICS.-The annual tables of statistics show that the number of ritualistic churches in London and vicinity is gradually increasing. According to the summaries published early in 1882, eucharistic vestments were used in 37 out of 907 churches, against 14 in 1869: incense in 10, against 8 in 1869; altar-lights in 59, against 36 in 1874; candles on the altar in 45; and the "eastward position" was taken in 270 churches against 74 in 1874. Forty-six churches had daily communion, 473 surpliced choirs, and 319 free seats.

CONTROL AND PATRONAGE. - The annual meeting of the Society for the Liberation of the Church from the Control and Patronage of the State was held May 3d. Mr. H. R. Ellington presided. The society had distributed during the year about a million and a half of publications, and had held 368 meetings. The treasurer's receipts had been £9,759, and his expenditures £9,194. The report of the secretary, referring to general events bearing upon the objects which the society has in view, as well as upon its own particular transactions during the year, recited that among the unusual number of legislative measures dealing with the interests and position of the Church Establishments was a bill introduced by Mr. H. Richard, to simplify the law with respect to interments in cemeteries, which would remove many anomalies in the existing Burial Acts, lighten the burdens on ratepayers, and facilitate the work of burial boards. A bill had also been introduced by Mr. Brinton to reduce and equalize burial fees, and to abolish the payment of such fees except for services actually rendered. A select committee had been appointed to examine into the operation of the law of burial fees. The committee reported, with great satisfaction, that during the year the principle of religious equality had had an important extension in its application to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The new statutes framed by the

universities commissioners went far to abolish clerical restrictions; and, speaking generally, the offices, honors, and emoluments of the universities and colleges would in future be conferred without reference to ecclesiastical distinctions. The three bills before Parliament dealing with the ecclesiastical and charitable endowments of London, proposed to take property which belonged to the public at large, and to devote it afresh to sectarian purposes. On the subject of church patronage, the report stated that Mr. Stanhope's bill only touched the fringe of the evil, and gave fresh legislative sanction to the rest. The society opposed that bill, but supported the measure prohibiting generally the sale both of advowsons and next presentations. The Lord Chancellor's Augmentation of Benefices Bill was open to similar objections. The committee declared their belief that it would be impossible effectually to secure church reform until by disestablishment the Church gained the power of self-government. In regard to the disestablishment of the Scotch Church, it was urged that steps in support of Mr. Peddie's motion should be taken throughout Scotland by means of petitions, etc. At home the tension in the establishment caused by the conflicting views of the different parties within it had rather increased than diminished during the last twelve months. The decision in Mr. Mackonochie's case, and the failure to obtain the release of Mr. Green from prison, had made a deep impression on the minds of those who were already chafing under the yoke of the establishment. The result had been that the principle of spiritual independence had been increasingly dwelt upon by the members of the English Church, and they were slowly coming to see that for its sake all the perils of disestablishment and disendowment might be safely encountered. The tendency of public opinion in favor of disestablishment had been strengthened by the disclosures of the recent census taken by local newspapers.

Resolutions were adopted urging the neces sity of supplementing the Burials Act of 1880 by further legislation; expressing gratification at the provision in the new statutes of the universities commissioners for the abolition of clerical restrictions in connection with the headships of the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges; approving Mr. Peddie's motion relative to the early disestablishment of the Church of Scotland; and insisting that the parliamentary oath should be optional, with the provision of an equivalent alternative declaration. At a public meeting following the business meeting of the council of the society, resolutions were adopted expressing gratification at the further progress that had been made during the year toward the attainment of religious liberty at home and in the colonies, as well as at the growth of public opinion on the question of disestablishment; invoking the hearty support of the Liberal party in the House of Commons

to Mr. Peddie's motion for the disestablish ment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland; and declaring that "the meeting, while sympathizing with the Episcopalians in their desire for greater liberty and for the removal of evils which now restrict the usefulness of the Church, is of opinion that that liberty can not be enjoyed, and those evils can not be effectually cured, until the Church ceases to be established by law, and becomes a selfsupported and self-governed religious community."

The Executive Committee of this society, in October, issued a circular to its supporters relative to its contemplated operations during the coming session of Parliament. It anticipated that domestic questions would receive more attention than they had during the past two sessions, and that new demands for reform would exercise a stimulating influence on the public mind, and make it possible to press the subject of disestablishment with increased earnestness. Preparations were, therefore, making for greater activity. The London School Board elections would be used as a means of urging that the surplus city charities should be applied to educational instead of to ecclesiastical purposes; agitation in support of Mr. Peddie's motion for the disestablishment of the Scottish Church would be renewed; the questions of cemeteries, burial fees, and the training colleges would be dealt with; information was being collected relative to viears' rates, church rates to repay borrowed money, and other ecclesiastical exactions, and also to the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners in regard to endowed schools. The committee stated, also, that as soon as it could do so with advantage, it would deal directly with the Establishment in England and Wales.

The annual meeting of the Church Defense Institution was held in June. The Archbishop of Canterbury presided, and remarked, in his opening address, that very little had been openly done during the past year to encourage an attack upon the Church of England. It was, however, to be remembered that the most dangerous periods were sometimes those when there was little outward appearance of a violent assault. He did not look with any satisfaction upon those who thought it their duty to resist all attempts at reform made within the Church herself. He hardly thought it was a fair mode of action, and was certain that those who were conscientiously desirous of seeing the Church of England with other instrumentalities in the country doing as much good as possible for the promulgation of the gospel, would not be likely to endeavor to thwart the usefulness of the Church by opposing reforms where they thought reform necessary. An impression seemed to be sometimes disseminated at meetings of the Liberation Socisty that the Church of England had done very little for the education of the working

classes, but he maintained that the contrary was the case.

The question of the amendment of the system of patronage and the abolition of purchase in the Church has been discussed with considerable interest, the discussion centering chiefly around the bills on the subject proposed in Parliament by Mr. Leatham and Mr. Stanhope. The subject was considered in the Convocation of York, at its meeting in February, in connection with a resolution offered by Canon Gore, of Chester:

That, with a view to remove abuses now incident to the sale of the right of patronage in the Church, it is expedient-(a) That the sale of the new presentation to a benefice be forbidden; (b) That an interval of not less than five years intervene between two sales of the same advowson; (e) That provision be made to prevent donative benefices from being used to create vacancies in presentative benefices; (d) That diocesan boards of patronage be incorporated, with the power (e) That all deeds affecting the advowson of a beneof acquiring advowsons, whether by gift or purchase; fice be registered publicly in the diocesan registry; (f) That large additional powers be granted bishops to refuse institution to unworthy presentees.

The Central Council of Diocesan Conferences, at its meeting, March 7th, adopted a resolution declaring—

That, in view of the report of the Royal Commission of 1879, and of the decisions of diocesan conferences, the most strenuous efforts should be made to obtain the passing of an act without delay, which of the nature of a trust to be exercised for the spirshould enforce the principle that "patronage partakes itual benefit of the parishioners," and should contain clauses (1) for the abolition of the sale of next presentations; (2) for the due regulation and registration of the sale of advowsons; (3) for the conversion of ing increased powers to the bishop to refuse instituall donatives into presentative benefices; (4) for givtion in certain cases and under express limitations and conditions.

At the annual meeting of the Liberation Society, May 3d, Mr. Ellington, chairman, criticising Mr. Stanhope's measure, said that the main defect in it was, that it dealt only with next presentations and failed to touch advowsons. The society could not see that there was any material difference between presenting to the cure of souls in perpetuity and the presentation of any particular minister. A conference of clergy and laity, convened by the Council of the National Church Reform Union, met in London, June 20th, to consider the various measures on the subject which were before Parliament. Mr. Albert Grey, M. P., who presided at the meeting, said that neither Mr. Leatham's nor Mr. Stanhope's measure was adequate to meet the evil. Resolutions were adopted declaring that no reform of patronage could be regarded as satisfactory which did not confer upon the parishioners, by vote or otherwise, directly or indirectly, a voice in the choice of their clergymen; and that no dealing with the subject would be satisfactory that did not provide for its total abolition as soon as possible. Popular discontent with the system of selling advowsons and next presentations found expression on several occasions when