daily to be held. But it is scarcely possible to understand the reasoning whence arise such doubts. The above directions are clear, explicit, unqualified. Next, the second section of Charles II.'s Act of Uniformity (i), enacts that all "ministers in any cathedral, collegiate, or parish church or chapel, or other place of public worship, shall be bound to say and use the Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, celebration and administration of both the Sacraments, and all other the public and common prayer in such order and form as is mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer, &c.; and that the Morning and Evening Prayers therein contained shall upon every Lord's Day, and upon all other days and occasions, and at the times therein appointed, be openly and solemnly read by all and every minister or curate, in every church, chapel, or other place of public worship."

Again, in addition to the above rubric, it is stated in the notification "Concerning the Service of the Church," that

66

they, the Fathers, so ordered the matter that the whole Bible, or the greatest part thereof, should be read over once every year, intending thereby that the clergy, and especially such as were ministers in the congregation, should (by often reading and meditation in God's Word) be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were adversaries to the truth; and, further, that the people, by daily hearing the Holy Scriptures read in the church, might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of His true religion."

Moreover, throughout the Prayer Book, it is constantly implied that the services are held daily. "The Psalter shall be read through once every month as it is there appointed, both for Morning and Evening Prayer," and a portion of the Psalms is appointed for every day in the month. The Collects (2) 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. See post, part iii. c. 1.

and of the

13 & 14 Car.

1. c. 4.

Bennett v.
Bonaker.

Holy days.

"for Grace" and "for Peace" "shall never alter, but daily be said at Morning Prayer," &c.; and "the Second Collect at Evening Prayer," and "for Aid against all Perils," shall be "daily said." So with the Collect for the First Sunday in Advent until Christmas, and with the Collect for Ash Wednesday during Lent, and in many other instances. The wording, too, of numerous prayers, thanksgivings, &c., is to the same purport.

In Bennett v. Bonaker, (j) the defendant was charged, inter alia, specifically with neglect of and irregularity in the performance of divine worship, and in the public services of the Church. Sir John Nicholl, in the course of his judgment, said: “By the general law, the church service, according to the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, is to be regularly performed every Sunday in the morning and evening. If less duty is required, it is to be supposed that the relaxations have been adopted with the approbation of the diocesan, and have been permitted, owing to the circumstances of the parish; but the minister must strictly adhere to the prescribed terms of such relaxation, and must not vary them at his own pleasure, for his own convenience, and on his own authority. It is the diocesan who is to judge of the degree of relaxation to be allowed."

Holy days. The chief festivals of the Church have special services appointed for use on their anniversaries, and the omission or non-observance of such will, of course, be illegal. With respect to the other holy days and saints' days, there is no express provision, and the observance of them is left to each person's discretion. It is, however, unlawful to give notice during service of the occurrence and proposed observance of any fast or festival other than those of which notice is by the rubrics enjoined to be given. (k)

The precise hours or times for prayer or the other services are Hours for not appointed, and must probably, in case of dispute, be for the prayer. ordinary to determine.

SECTION III.-Person by whom Public Worship is to be conducted.

HE most important provisions relating to the persons con- Canons 35 and ducting divine service are contained in the 35th and 36th 36. Canons. (The former provides that no person shall perform any spiritual office, "except he be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese where he is to be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two Universities, under their seals likewise; and except he shall first subscribe to these three Articles," i.e. of the King's supremacy, of the truth of the Common Prayer, and of his belief in the Articles. The latter relates to a person licensed by one bishop coming to reside in another diocese, and requires his subscription to the above Article in the presence of the bishop of the latter diocese.

own district.

In addition to the above provisions, there is the well-known Incumbent and inflexible rule of the Ecclesiastical Law, that the incumbent supreme in his of every district is in a manner supreme in his own district in respect of matters ecclesiastical, and that he can restrain any other person, whether licensed or not, from exercising spiritual offices within his own district. "No doubt can be entertained as to the general principle of the law, where any clergyman attempts to officiate in a church or chapel within the limits of a parish, without the permission of the incumbent. It is not competent for any clergyman of the Church of England to enter a parish, and to officiate in performing the duties of his vocation without leave of the incumbent." (m)

(1) Post, part iii. chap. v.

(m) Per Dr. Lushington, Williams v. Brown, 1 Curt. 53. See also

Power of bishop

to inhibit;

to grant and revoke licenses;

and to consecrate without consent of the incumbent.

It seems, too, that the consent of the bishop is required, and that therefore a bishop has full power to inhibit a clergyman of another diocese from officiating or preaching in his diocese, though such clergyman has the permission of the incumbent.(x)

As to the licenses, the Bishop may revoke at his pleasure a license to conduct service in an unconsecrated building, (0) and against the exercise of such discretion there is no appeal.(p) And he alone can grant them. This was decided in Smith v. Lovegrove (q). The question was raised as to the authority of the chancellor of dioceses to grant licenses to lecturers. It was held that such licenses are invalid, and that the bishop has the general superintendence of the clergy within his diocese, and no one without his permission can perform the clerical functions within such dioceses.

The considerations which apply to the licensing of a preacher are somewhat different from those which arise in respect of the consecration of a new place of worship. The former act must be pro tanto an interference with the rights of an incumbent. The latter is not necessarily so, since, unless a new ecclesiastical district be created and attached to the new building, the incumbent of the parent church becomes so also of the additional one, and no service may be held there but by his sanction.

The exact point has not yet been decided. In Carr v. Marsh (r) it was strongly argued, and Sir John Nicholl threw out a dictum, that "a bishop cannot consecrate a chapel without the consent of the incumbent. The building of the chapel may

Hodgson v. Dillon, 2 Curt. 388, 392; Duke of Portland v. Bingham, 1 Hagg. Cons. 157; Carr v. Marsh, 2 Phill. 198; Molyneux v. Bagshaw, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 553, as to chaplains in workhouses, post, pp. 30-32; Jones v. Jelf, 8 L. T. (N. S.) 399, and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 82, as to services in English in Welsh-speaking districts.

(n) Bishop of Down and Connor v. Miller, 11 Ir. Ch. App. 1; 5 L. T. (N. S.) 30; and see the authorities there cited,

(0) Hodgson v. Dillon, 2 Curt. 388.

(p) Sedgwick v. Bishop of Manchester, 38 L. J. Eccl. 30.

(9) 2 Lee, 162.

(r) 2 Phill. 198, 201.

be a most meritorious act, and the incumbent may be in the wrong, but still he has a legal right."

A question of this kind arose in Bishop of Winchester v. Rugg. (s) The facts involved were these: Ecchinswell and Sydmonton were formerly two chapelries, and as such formed part of the parish of Kingsclere, but by an Order in Council of the 19th of August, 1852, they were made" into a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes, and a perpetual curacy and benefice, by the name and style of the Perpetual Curacy of Ecchinswell-cum-Sydmonton ;" and Mr. Rugg was, in September, 1852, instituted incumbent thereof. The church of Ecchinswell became the parish church of the newly-formed parish, there being a churchyard annexed to it, and burials, christenings, and marriages having been lawfully celebrated there. Prior to 1849 there had been a chapel in the district of Sydmonton, standing in the private ground of Mr. William Kingsmill. In 1843 a vault was constructed by him underneath the chancel of the chapel. In 1840 the chapel was pulled down, and was rebuilt by him in 1853. There is no consecrated ground annexed to the chapel. There is no register book for burials in the chapel, and no record of any burial ever having taken place therein, the inhabitants of the district having been accustomed to be buried at Kingsclere or Ecchinswell. Disputes arose between Mr. Rugg and Mr. Kingsmill, the son of the founder, as one result of which Mr. Rugg refused or omitted to perform service in the chapel at Sydmonton. Finally a correspondence ensued between Mr. Rugg and the bishop, in which the former maintained that he was not bound to officiate in an unconsecrated church. Early in August, 1865, Mr. Rugg received notice that the bishop intended to consecrate the chapel. Mr. Rugg declared that he would not consent to the consecration, and refused the use of his key for the purpose of opening the door of the

(s) L. R. 2 Adm. & Eccl. 247; L. R. 2 P. C. 223.

Bishop of Winchester v. Rugg.