the end of the Session, according to the then usual practice. The original Act is endorsed "2 and 3 "Edward VI." and in the Margin of the "Long "Calendar of the Acts" it is marked "a° 2° et 3° "Edw. VI. 1.": nor does an examination of the MS. Journal of Parliament furnish the least trace of anything to shew that it received the Royal Assent earlier than all the 60 Acts of the same Session.

At pp. 513 to 526 will be found a Summary of all the Authorities cited throughout the Volume, appended to the several REASONS there given for the Legality of the various Ornaments specified.

The principal Writers referred to throughout the Book are quoted from the following Editions.

Burnet's Reformation, 3 vols. fol. 1681, and 8° Ed. by Nares.
Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 2 vols. Ed. 1844.

History of Conferences, Ed. 1841.

Synodalia, 2 vols. Ed. 1842.

Two Liturgies Compared, Ed. 1841.

Collier's Ecclesiastical History, 2 vols. fol. 1714, and 8° Ed. 1845. Heylin's History of the Reformation, fol. 1674, 3rd Ed.

Life of Abp. Laud, fol. 1668 and 1671.

Stow's Survey of London, 2 vols. fol. 1720.

Strype's Annals, 2 vols. fol. 1709 and 8° Oxford, 1824.
Cranmer, fol. 1694.

Grindal, fol. 1710, and 8° Oxford, 1821.

Parker, fol. 1711, and 8° Oxford, 1821.
Whitgift, fol. 1718.

Zurich Letters, 1st Series, 1842, and 2nd Series, 1845.

While this Volume was being completed the Final Appeal was heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; the Judges present being, The Right Honourables-The Lord Chancellor, The Lord Wensleydale, Sir J. Patteson, Sir W. H. Maule, and Mr. T. Pemberton-Leigh; with his Grace the Arch

bishop of Canterbury and the Lord Bishop of London, sitting as Assessors. The Arguments (which were conducted by Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Dr. Phillimore for the Appellants, and by Dr. Bayford and Mr. A. J. Stephens for the Respondents) occupied seven days successively (Sunday excepted) from Feb. 9th to 16th inclusive. It is to be hoped that the able arguments of the Counsel for the Appellants may have so convinced the Committee of the justice of the case as to induce them to advise her Majesty to reverse the Judgments of the Courts below, as on other grounds so, in consideration of the following "Reasons" pleaded by "The Proctor for the Appellants."

"1. Because the Ornaments directed to be removed are not shown to be contrary to any Law, or inconsistent with any Doctrine of the Church of England.

"2. Because many years ago, they were dedicated to the use of the said Churches by the munificent piety of attached members of the Church of England, and were sanctioned by the Ordinary at the time of the Consecration of the said Churches.

"3. Because their removal now, after the lapse of many years, would inflict great pain upon the majority of the parishioners who frequent the said Churches, and would be inconsistent with the respect due to the Religious Liberty of the subject.

"FITZROY KELLY,

ROBERT PHILLIMORE, Counsel for Appellants.”

Such a Decision, the writer cannot but feel, would, especially as regards the CROSS, be an Act of the

Royal Supremacy in entire harmony with the following striking incident in the Ceremonial of her Majesty's Coronation :

...... the ORB with the is brought from the Altar by the Dean of WESTMINSTER, and delivered into the "Queen's Right Hand by the Archbishop, pronouncing "this Blessing and Exhortation:

"Receive this ...... Orb ...... And when You see "this Orb set under the, remember that the whole "World is subject to the Power and Empire of CHRIST LL our Redeemer. For He is the Prince of the Kings "of the Earth; King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; "So that no man can reign happily, who derives not "his Authority from Him, and directs not all his "Actions according to His Laws.

"The Queen delivers Her Orb to the Dean of "WESTMINSTER, to be by him laid on the Altar,"—that identical STONE ALTAR which, if the Judgments of the Courts below shall be affirmed, would be pronounced to be an illegal Ornament of the Abbey Church of ST. PETER, WESTMINSTER.

76, Margaret STREET, CAVENDISH Square,

February, 1857.

T. W. P.

LAWFUL CHURCH ORNAMENTS,

ETC.

THE JUDGMENT delivered by Dr. Lushington, in the Introduction Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, on 5th Dec., 1855, in the cases of Westerton v. Liddell, (Clerk), and Horne and others; and Beal v. Liddell, (Clerk), and Parker and Evans, can scarcely be a matter of indifference to any one who has approved or blamed the attempts made during the last few years to revive Ritual and Ceremonial in the Church of England, and to re-introduce such Ornaments and Decorations as were believed to be not inconsistent with her Reformed Offices. As a fact, the Judgment has been praised or condemned, with more or less discrimination, by those persons who had ranged themselves on either of these two sides: while by a third class (composed partly of those who dislike both what Dr. Lushington condemns, and what he allows, and partly of such as have no decided feelings on the subject) the Judgment is much complained of, as plainly betokening that the Judge suffered himself to be influenced by a religious partizanship which he was bound to exclude from his official acts, or as being strangely at variance with the principles of Religious Liberty, and also with that improved taste for Art, which are characteristic of the age.

To those who, like the writer, had persuaded themselves that the Ritual and Ceremonial movement which has been gradually developing itself during the last twenty years (whether always judicious or not) was, in the main, consistent with the Ecclesiastical law, and in harmony with the principles and structure of the Book of Common Prayer, it became a question of real concern to ascertain whether their convictions or the decision of the Consistorial Court was best warranted by the facts of history. And, as it was plain from the statements of the Judge himself, that the whole matter

B

Main features of the Judgment.

was more one of historical enquiry than of legal research, there was no presumption in one not specially qualified for and accustomed to legal investigations, undertaking to examine the authorities on which the judgment is professedly based.

It was the conviction, when listening in court to the Judgment, that the facts and quotations relied upon by the Judge, either did not warrant his conclusions, or were materially modified by other facts and quotations, which led to the resolution of carefully examining at least such sources of the English Reformation history as are ordinarily accessible, and to some of which the Court had itself appealed.

Moreover, two main features of the Judgment are the views propounded upon the meaning of the Rubrical expression "by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the "reign of King Edward the Sixth," and upon the probable opinion of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's days, as to the actual state of the law then, touching Images and kindred "Ornaments of the Church;" and as the language of the Judge leads to the belief that, from whatever cause, he did not (perhaps for lack of opportunity could not) himself make so thorough an investigation of the history of the period as is essential to a complete view of the points at issue, it seemed all the more important to institute such a search.

While engaged in this task a friend brought to the writer's notice a book published about five years ago, by the Rev. W. Goode, and pointed out the coincidence of its statements with the arguments of Dr. Lushington: if this identity of view was the result of independent investigations, then the conclusions of both are the more reliable; whereas if the Judge happened to have read Mr. Goode's publication, it may have assisted to form his judgment; which alternative is true, or whether both notions are inaccurate, can only be matter of conjecture: however, as a perusal of Mr. Goode's pages did not satisfy the writer, that the whole evidence is sufficiently set out in them and in the Judgment combined, he was the more induced to pursue the subject: especially as it seemed pro

"Aids for determining some disputed points in the Ceremonial of the Church of England. By William Goode, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London. Second Edition. London: Thomas Hatchard, 187, Piccadilly. 1851."