MIGHT v. RIGHT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 87, 14 April 1868, Page 2

MIGHT v. RIGHT.

To the Editor of the Nelson Evening Mail. Sib — As a layman interested in St. Alban's Appleby, I must again ask you to allow me a corner in your paper to notice the letter of the ' Appleby Correspondent' in Friday's Colonist: — As a reply to my letter of the Ist instant, I think all men of unprejudiced minds will conclude with me that, as such, it is not worth noticing. It might do well enough for the hustings, or a satire on a political opponent in a contest for the Superintendency, "but as a question of right or wrong concerning the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, I cannot notice it. I have showed that as a question of law, candlesticks when placed on the altar-ledge or shelf, commonly, but incorrectly, termed a super-altar, and not on the altar, were, so recently as March 1857, declared by the highest Court of Appeal in matters ecclesiastical to be lawful ornaments of the Holy Table. I repeat that the Church members (with perhaps the single exception of the Churchwarden of a neighboring Church) witnessed the illegal removal of the candlesticks, by order of the Bishop — who will, it is hoped, gain wisdom by experience — with feelings of indignation. There is however, one part in the 'Appleby Correspondent's ' letter that I think Churchmen ought to notice. In paragraph 5, are these words, 'It is however, always a suspicious circumstance when anyone * * * in his defence of the candlesticks, has to resort to the obsolete for his proofs and to revert to long discarded rules and practices as his standard of right.' Now these words prove my former assertion as to the ignorance at least as regards Church matters, of the 'Appleby Correspondent.' If he were an experienced J.P., and perhaps he is, he would know that this notion is absurd. I ask is it usual to enforce the Acts of Victoria, and discard the unrepealed ones of former reigns? The idea is ridiculous ; so with ecclesiastical laws, if there is no act touching rites and ceremonies of later date than the 2nd of Edward the Sixth, we must resort to that. The opinion of Dr Lushington as Dean of Arches, on non-usage of ornaments will, I hope, convince even the 'Appleby Correspondent.' Dr Lushington says 'I wholly deny that the Statute of Edward the Sixth, passed in the second year of his reign, or the Statute of Uniformity, can be affected by non-usage. By the law of England, no Statute can fall into desuetude. It is true that a Statute may become obsolete in one sense; that is, not enforced. It is true that no call may be made on the judges of the land to enforce it ; that by common consent a Statute may lie dormant. But if once a Court is called upon to carry it into execution, it must do so.' And lastly, the .Prayer Book furnishes a standing evidence that the law is unchanged, because the rubric is still there, requiring in express words, that ' such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward the Sixth.' Yours, &c, Truth and Justice. Appleby, April 13th 1868. [We insert the above letter, which must terminate this correspondence. — Ed. N.E.M.]