required by the Book of Common Prayer.'' Surely this is the common-sense view of 'none other or otherwise' in both Acts of Uniformity. And there is another fact which seems to me decisive against the Archbishops' opinion that the Uniformity Act of 1559 is an integral part of our present Prayer Book, governing every detail of ceremonial. In Elizabeth's Book the Ornaments Rubric ends with the words, according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this Book.' These words are omitted

To him [Archbishop Whitgift] the Queen . . . gave in charge that, before all things, he should restore the discipline of the Church of England, and the uniformity in the service of God, established by authority of Parliament, which through the connivance of the prelates, the obstinacy of the Puritans, and the power of certain noblemen, was run out of square, while some of the ministers covertly impugned the Queen's authority in ecclesiastical matters, separated the administration of the Sacraments from the preaching of the Word, usurped new rites and ceremonies at their pleasure in private houses, utterly condemned the Liturgy and the administration of the Sacraments established as contrary to some points in Holy Scriptures.' 'To take away these inconveniences and restore unity, he [Whitgift] propounded these articles to be subscribed unto by the ministers.'-Camden's Annals, B. III. p. 27.

Among these articles was one which affirmed that the Book of Common Prayer, and another Book of ordaining of Bishops and Priests, contained nothing contrary to God's Word, but might lawfully be used; and that they should use that, and no other form either of prayer or administration of the Sacraments.' Here we see the meaning of none other or otherwise,' corresponding with the decision in Rex v. Sparks.

4

Camden goes on to describe the outrageous treatment which the Archbishop endured at the hands of factitious ministers, and what troubles, yea, and injuries also, at the hands of noblemen who, by promoting unmeet and unworthy men, raised troubles in the Church or else hoped after the Livings of the Church.' Cf. Memoirs of Sir Christopher Hatton, by Sir Harris Nicolas, G.C.M.G., p. 370.

in the Book of 1662, as if to exclude proleptically the view propounded by the two Archbishops.

I cannot conclude without noticing the following paragraph in the Archbishop of York's decision on Reservation :

No medical or other evidence in this matter was produced by the counsel on the other side. But it is well known, not only to the Archbishops, but to the Church at large, that there have been, and are at this moment, a very large number of the clergy whose work lies in such parishes as those referred to, and that such difficulties as have been suggested have never really stood in the way of the reverent administration of the Holy Communion to persons qualified to receive it, however humble and disagreeable the surroundings may have been.

Few have a better right than the Archbishop of York to appeal to experience. For he was himself one of the most devoted and successful parish priests in London. I can only say that he has been in this matter more fortunate than I. My parochial experience has been almost entirely in London, and I have been more than once prevented from communicating the sick by sheer impossibility to reverently minister' the Sacrament, and also by the invalid's inability to attend to a service which, without violating the law, occupies more than a quarter of an hour. I do not understand his Grace's reference to ' medical or other evidence.' Did not more than 700 medical men sign a memorial to the Archbishops declaring, from their experience, the impossibility in some cases, and the danger to the patient in others, of administering the Communion except by means of Reservation?

709

CHAPTER XIV

AN ANSWER TO PROFESSOR MAITLAND

IN the Fortnightly Review' of December 1899, Professor Maitland of Cambridge did me the honour of criticising an article of mine in the previous 'Fortnightly,' and some portions of an earlier chapter of this volume. Hearing of his article, before it was published, when I was on the point of leaving London by order of my doctor, I asked the Professor, through the editor of the Review,' if he would kindly let me see it in proof while I was still among my books. He replied, as he was more than justified in doing, that he would rather I read his article for the first time when it was before the public that is, when I was at a distance from my books. I awaited with some anxiety the assault of so formidable a critic, and was greatly relieved on reading the article to find myself so little damaged. One thing surprised me. The Professor, with some good-humoured persiflage, acquits me of dishonesty and unscrupulous partizanship,' but only in order to leave me the alternative of 'indolence' in not verifying the impressions of my memory. We say that the Canon's arm-chair was comfortable, and that the Statute-book and the Journals of Parliament

6

stood just beyond his reach.' Now I think that if I had flung such a reproach at a man whom I was criticising I would not have denied him the means of self-defence when he begged for them. 'The Statute-book and the Journals of Parliament' are not books which one usually carries about in one's portmanteau. On my return to London, I combined in one article for the Fortnightly Review my answer to Professor Maitland and some criticism on the Lambeth decision on Incense, from a legal point of view. The editor could not afford space for the whole article; so he chose, with my consent, the part which related to Professor Maitland, but sent the other part by mistake to the printers. The mistake was not discovered till the article was in type, and then it was too late to rectify it. Having meanwhile resolved to review the proceedings at the Lambeth Hearing' as soon as the Archbishops published both their decisions, I reserved my answer to Professor Maitland for one of two additional chapters in this edition of my book.

Professor Maitland has convicted me of two or three inaccuracies which do not affect the essence of my argument, and which I had already marked for revision. My faulty equation' as to the episcopal votes against the third reading of the Act of Uniformity in 1559 was caused by my inadvertently forgetting for the moment that one of the spiritual peers of Parliament was the Abbot of Westminster. But it was a slip, and Professor MaitSee ante, p. 347.

land is entitled to his good-natured gibe. He is also right in pointing out that two of the absent bishops were absent because they were in prison; although it ought to be added that both of them (Watson and White) were in prison for treasonable conduct against the Queen.' St. Asaph [Goldwell] had received no writ, and had mildly complained that he ought to have been summoned.' 2 That is true; but it is only half the truth; nor is it the only instance of half-truths doing duty for whole truths in Professor Maitland's article-not designedly, I am sure. But

it seems that I am not the only person of whom it may be said that his arm-chair was comfortable, and that the Statute-book and the Journals of Parliament stood just beyond his reach.' Professor Maitland gives no reference for his assertion about the Bishop of St. Asaph. But while I was writing the passage which the Professor criticises with cavalier severity, the following quotation from a State Paper lay before me :

Tho. [Goldwell] Bishop of St. Asaph, to Cecil. Desires to be absent from Parliament, but thinks it strange the Queen's writ has not been sent to him, as he considers himself still Bishop of St. Asaph.3

White preached sedition, and that in his Romish Pontifical Vestments, for which he was committed to prison, but on acknowledgement of his misdemeanours was set at liberty' (Strype, Ann. p. 149, folio ed.). Both Watson and White had threatened the Queen with excommunication, which meant forfeiture of her throne and outlawry by the Roman Canon Law.

Fortnightly Review, Dec. 1899, p. 927.

• Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), 1559–1580, p. 118.