must equally have done so in 1552. On the other hand, if it is urged that the rubric by requiring the priest to stand at the 'North side,' contained within itself a tacit direction that the Table should be turned so as to have a North side,' i.e. lengthwise, it contains the same direction now, and to be consistent the judgment should have required a recurrence to this practice. This seems to us very like a reductio ad absurdum, for it is as difficult to suppose that the Reformers in 1552, compiling a rubric for the express purpose of abolishing the Eastward Position, should have nevertheless legalised it, as it is to believe that the true construction of the rubric binds us down to a grotesque arrangement of our churches, in defiance alike of ancient custom and modern taste. It must be remembered that no one broke any law civil or ecclesiastical by keeping the Holy Table altarwise, unless the rubric itself contain a concealed prohibition. Although the Archbishop speaks of the lengthwise position in which the Table stood under the injunction of Queen Elizabeth,' His Grace cannot intend to convey that either under Elizabeth or Edward, or any subsequent sovereign, the lengthwise or altarwise position of the Table has ever been made the subject of any binding direction. It is not so. When the Tables were square, no such question could arise. Although both rubrics and injunctions have a great deal to say as to moving the Table from the East end to other parts of the church, they are silent as to its arrangement North and South or East and West.

There was considerable discussion at the time of the 1662 revision of the Prayer-book as to this rubric, and, as we have seen, side was nearly altered to part. It was also proposed to use the words 'North side or end.' Of course if either change had been made, there would have been no room for doubt, and it is a fair argument to say that the fact that the decisive term 'end' was after all discarded, goes to show an intention to leave the question open, or in other words to make the Eastward Position permissible. But when the history is looked into, it becomes plain that the Eastward Position was scarcely thought of at that time. The real conflict was about the altarwise or lengthwise arrangement of the Holy Table. Laud by administrative pressure, rather than by law, compelled the Tables to be fixed, railed in, and placed altarwise. The civil authorities supported him, but their action appears to have been irregular. On the other hand, Bishop Williams and his party vehemently fought against this reform. There was no law against them, and there was none for them. The theory that the 'end' of a table is not a 'side,' was born of an anxious endeavour to twist the rubric into an indirect command to place the Table lengthwise. Like

many

many other arguments of the time, it was far-fetched, but its ingenious authors would have been shocked indeed if they could have foreseen its controversial value in favour of the Eastward Position. So again there seems every reason for saying that the refusal to insert 'end' into the rubric was founded simply on this, that it would have indirectly sanctioned, and indeed required, the altarwise arrangement of the Holy Table. Although an end' may be a 'side,' it must be admitted that the long side of a table is not its end.' If therefore the priest were directed to stand at the North end, it would be plain that the Table must be so arranged as to have its short sides North and South. But this was exactly what Laud required, and what Williams' party objected to. The retention of the word 'side left the question of the altarwise or lengthwise arrangement open, and even, according to Williams, made the latter obligatory.

The Archbishop proceeds at this point of the Judgment to consider what has been the usage or custom with regard to the minister's position during the Communion Service. But before following him into this interesting enquiry, it is desirable that we should understand what influence usage has, or ought to have, in determining the true and legal construction of a rubric. If we may assume, as we probably can, that the same rule holds in construing a rubric as in construing the terms of an ancient trust, the matter is simple enough. Given clear words, the meaning of which, according to English grammar and etymology, is, in the opinion of the Judge, certain, and no length or universality of custom will avail to lend any other meaning. But if the clause to be construed may fairly bear either of two meanings, then the question which is to be authoritatively adopted depends largely upon which has been actually adopted in practice. It is said that usage is the best explanation of doubtful words. To quote Chief Baron Pollock, The rule amounts to no more than this, that if the Act be susceptible of the interpretation which has thus been put upon it by long usage, the Court will not disturb that construction.' If, therefore, the direction to stand at the North side of the Table is so ambiguous as to make it doubtful whether it is to be obeyed by standing at the West side or at the North end,' evidence of custom is properly applicable. If, on the other hand, it is clear that West side is not North side, and that North 'end' is also North side, evidence of custom, however important from an historical point of view, is legally irrelevant. The Archbishop considers that, in the changed circumstances of Laud's successful

6

*Pochin v. Duncombe, 1 H. & N. 856.

*

replacement

replacement of the Communion Tables, the construction of the rubric became a matter of doubt, an indeterminate problem,' and he, therefore, quite consistently proceeds to ask what was then and has since been the custom. One curious feature of the matter is, that the Eastward Position seems to have been little heard of in the seventeenth century. What the Archbishop calls the High Church solution' was to stand at the North end. Laud, Wren, Juxon, and Cosin all adopted this use, and insisted that a side of a Table was none the less a 'side' because it was also an 'end.' Wren and Cosin were accused by the Commons of standing on a few occasions at the West side of the Table, but that was only during the Consecration Prayer, and they excused themselves by pleading some accidental reason. The Archbishop considers that there cannot be much doubt that it [the North end use] was the usual High Church manner of adapting the rubric to the altarwise Table.' The Visitation Articles exhibited by Bishops at this period, show that up to the Restoration it was common to enquire whether the clergyman stood at the North side or end.' After that date the Articles, with some exceptions, become silent on the point. This silence may have been due to several reasons, but it can hardly have been caused by any intended acquiescence in a prevalent practice of the Eastward Position, for there is really no evidence of its use, and much of its non-use. The Archbishop says, 'The North end became the generally used position.'* Mr. Tomlinson says, 'No point of anybody standing on the West side of the Table crops up till the reign of Queen Anne, and then only in relation to the Consecration Prayer.' † The Prayer-book commentators, Nicholls, Beveridge, Wheatly, L'Estrange, and Bennet, all give the North end as the recognized and proper place for the clergyman to stand. Bishop Charles Wordsworth says:—

'There was not a single Anglican writer upon the subject, so far as I could discover, from 1662 to 1843, who had taken the other side, except Scrandret, 1708, and John Johnson, 1714, who, however, though inclined to suggest it as tending to recommend their peculiar views of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, yet are really witnesses against it in point of fact.'

The Archbishop, though he indicates its doubtful value, makes a bold attempt to get useful evidence of practice from the engravings which, in former times more than now, used to

*P. 131.

p. 34.

Historical Grounds of Lambeth Judgment,' examined by J. T. Tomlinson,
Cited at p. 39 of Mr. Tomlinson's pamphlet.

adorn

6

adorn Prayer-books, books of devotion, and similar works. We confess that we can attach no weight to this sort of evidence. Just as it was considered essential in artistic treatment that people should appear in classical robes, so all sorts of other conventions were adopted which defy calculation, and make these pictures valueless for this purpose. It is impossible to separate the matter of fact from the artistic imagination. The Judgment itself gives ample verification of this view. Two illustrations of a book 'Eviavròs are produced, one of which represents the lengthwise position of the Table, with the two ministers standing respectively on the long North and South sides of it,' while the other indicates the position looking Eastward.' The Judgment adds, There seems to be here a simple effective evidence of contemporaneous diversity, living and tolerated.' But it so happens that the book is a Catechism, from which at an earlier page of the Judgment,* and in another context, the following extract is made :

Q. Why does the priest stand on the North side of the Table? A. To avoid the Popish superstition of standing towards the East.'

It is plain, therefore, that the picture indicating the position looking Eastward' was not intended by the author to be taken literally. As this case is one of those relied on by the Archbishop and his Assessors, it may fairly be taken to show the entire unsafety of this class of so-called evidence.

a sense more

It only remains to quote the words of Lord Cairns and the Privy Council in the Ridsdale case, in which he expressed a decided opinion adverse to that entertained by the Archbishop.† 'It seems extravagant to put on the word "side limited than its strict and primary one, for the purpose of suggesting difficulties in acting upon the rule, which for two centuries were never felt in practice, and which would not arise if the strict and primary sense were adhered to.'

The second complaint made against the Bishop of Lincoln with regard to the Eastward Position had reference to the Consecration Prayer only. It was that the Bishop so stood with his back to the people that the manual acts could not be seen by them. Though much shorter, this is a more important point than that we have just considered, inasmuch as the significance of the Eastward Position attaches to this part of the service. Indeed, a change of the celebrant's place from the North end to the West side of the Holy Table at the beginning of the

* P. 130.

Ridsdale v. Clifton, 2 P. D. 340, 341.
Consecration

Consecration Prayer seems to emphasize the idea which the Eastward Position is supposed to denote. The rubric governing the priest's position at this part of the service was introduced in 1662, and is in these terms:

'When the priest standing before the Table hath so ordered the bread and wine that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration as followeth.'

Upon this part of the case the Privy Council and the Archbishop came to the same decision, but on different grounds. The two phrases which give difficulty are: (1) that the priest is to stand before the Table;' (2) that the bread is to be broken before the people.' The Privy Council in the Ridsdale Case* held that the first expression is satisfied both by the North end and by the Eastward Position; and that the second expression means 'in the sight of the people,' so that the duty which the rubric enjoins on the celebrant is merely so to stand as that the manual acts may be visible to the communicants when gathered round the Table. The Archbishop, however, points out that it is not all the manual acts (which are five), but only that of breaking the bread which the rubric directs to be done before the people': and this corresponds with a practice which existed, and to which the Puritans felt grave objection, the practice of a private breaking of the bread before the service began. Accordingly each of the Puritan Liturgies,... while they prescribe no other manual act, prescribe the breaking of the bread to be done in the course of the service.'† The Archbishop thereupon concludes that the words 'before the people' in this rubric mean in their presence, and so the rubric becomes silent as to any direction for the visibility of the manual acts. His Grace adds, however :

'We do not doubt that upon wider considerations, and far more important principles, the minister, wherever he stands during the Prayer of Consecration, is bound to take care that the manual acts should not by his position be rendered invisible to the bulk of the communicants. There is no doubt that at the time of the insertion of this rubric the manual acts were so visible. . . . No change as to this openness has ever been recommended, nor does the lack of openness necessarily follow upon the use of the Eastward Position. . . The tenor of the Common Prayer is openness. The work of its framers was to bring out and recover the worship of the Christian congregation, and especially to replace the Eucharist in its character as the communion of the whole Body of Christ. By the use of the mother tongue, by the audibleness of every prayer, by the priest's † 'Judgment,' pp. 142, 143, 144.

* 2 P. D. 342, 343.

prayers