The Sun.
London, England, 1870-02-04 00:00:00

THE RITUALIST PROSECUTIONS.

xwe Ritualist prosecutions were decided by Sir Robert
Phillimore in the Court of Arches on Thursday—the Isle of
Wight case, " Sumner (late Bishop of Winchester) v.Wix,
and the Brighton case—the Bishop of Chichester v. Pur-
chase. In the first case the defendant was the Rev.
Richard H. E. Wix, Vicar of St. Michael's and All Saints,
Swanmore, Isle of Wight. He was charged by
the promoter of the suit with having con
traversed the canons, rubrics, and general law of
the Church or England by having lighted candles
burning upon the Commuion table, and using incense in
the celebration of the Holy Communion. Sir Robert
Phillimore was of opinion that the practice complained of
in the first article as to the lighted candles, was unlawful.
He was glad to observe that Mr. Wix had thought
proper to abstain from such an illegal custom
in future. He should strongly admonish him to
adhere to this present resolution. With regard to
the other charges, that he on several stated occasions used
incense in the celebration of the Holy Communion,
his lordship observed that the use of incense was intended
to be subsidiary and preparatory to the celebration of the
Holy Communion, and therefore he must pronounce these
practices to be illegal, and Mr. Wix to be guilty of the
canonical offence charged against him. At the same time,
he must admonish the rev. gentleman to abstain from these
usages in future. His lordship condemned Mr. Wix to
pay the costs of the suit.
After his judgment in this case, Sir Robert gave judg-
ment in the suit against the Rev. Mr. Purchas, Per-
petual Curate of St. James's Chapel, Brighton. His
lordship observed that many of the charges were of so
frivolous a nature that he regretted very much they
should have ever been permitted to occupy the attention
of the court. The main charges were that Mr. Purchas
wore a vestment called a cope while reading the
morning and evening services, that he also
wore a chasuble in the administration of the
Holy Communion, an alb, instead of the customary
surplic:., a girdle manicle, and a head covering known as
the baretta. All of these vestments, it was contended en
behalf of the defendant were not repugnant to the rubric
of Edward VI., but, on the contrary were, if not
expressly, at least tacitly sanctioned by that eccle-
siastical enactment. That rubric had never been
repealed by subsequent or existing law. The
surplice, it was contended, ought to be worn instead
of these vestments; yet it was considered by the
Presbyterians, one of the worst relics of Popery
which the Church of England had retained. The
learned judge said on this point he should be
guided by the opinions he had already expressed in the
cases of "Martin v. Mackonnochie and "Westerton v.
Liddell," and the decisions giuen therein by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, and he would therefore hold
Mr. Purchas blameless in wearing the cope in the celebra,
bration of the holy Eucharist, but it would be an illegal
act wearing it at either morning or evening service, and
also the wearittg of stoles of any kind. As to the charges
about the amice, girdle,, and dalmatics, they had
not been proved. Mr. Purchas was charged with wearing
or holding in his hand to wear in a procession, a cap called
the baretta, but his lordship conceived this to be
as innocent as the wearing of a night cap, or any
other simple head covering. (A laugh.) The other charges
against him of using wafer, or small circular-shaped bread,
instead of that customarily used in the Lord's Supper;
mixing a little water with the wine in the celebration of
the Holy Sacrament; having vases of flowers on a ledge
or shelf above the Communion table ; holding ceremonial
processions in the church, in which acolytes, and crucifers,
or crossbearers took part, were not sustained, and he
should therefore, dismiss such charges against l'i'q'ttrchtts
m-king no order as to the costs of the suit.,

The English Independent has an earnest article
pleading for unity between the English Church and
Nonconformists. The fraternization of the Archbishop
of York with his grace of Syra and Tenos is much, if it
means what it seems. But " charity begins at home," and
unity should be first expressed there also. "We long
intensely and ardently," says the Independent," for the
dawn of the day of unity. Theologically we
are not half so much divided as we are ec-
clesiastically. If all the proud priestly pre-
tensions of the Roman, Greek, and Anglican
Churches were out of the way, we might see an agape of
all the Churches at no very distant day. The anathemas
come not half as much of the creeds as of the spirit of the
men who deem themselves the heaven-commissioned
janitors of the creeds. We fear, however, that we are a
long way off the day when the Church of Christ shall
hays outgrown, or the intelligence of the world shall have
laughed clown these proud, priestly pretensions to the
exclusive right of admission to the kingdom of heaven."
AN IRON MASK FOR A DRUNKEN WIFE.—At the
Police Court at Jersey, on Monday, John Le Roy, an elderly
man, a watchmaker and greengrocer, carrying on business at
Charing-cross, was charged with having cruelly ill-treated
his wife by having, among other things, fastened her head in
an iron mask, the latter offence having been committed on
the Saturday previous. This invention for curing a drunken
wife was produced in court, and excited no little astonish-
ment. It consisted of two stout iron rings of about a quar-
ter of an inch thick, attached to each other by vertical
bars of strong hoop iron, each at least an inch wide. One
of the rings was about nine inches in diameter, and the
other six inches, the smaller part resting upon the
shoulders when the instrument was placed in position.
The bars were about two inches apart, and to prevent
the wearer getting anything to her mouth a piece of
iron was placed across two of the bars in front. It
weighed three pounds. It turned out, however, on trial
that she was able to defeat this object by reversing the
mask during the short time (about an hour) that she had it
on and drinking a glass of spirits. The mask opened with
a hinge in front, and was fastened behind with a padlock.
The wife, who had a half-stupid appearance said that the
prisoner forced the mask over her head while she was in a
kneeling posture. She contrived to let some of the neigh-
bJu:s see it on her bead, and they sent for the police, who
wont to the house and compelled the prisoner to take it
off. In addition to this and other ill-treatment the pri-
soner had sometimes shut her up in a largo box on
which he had put on iron bars, making it resemble a cage.
Beyond the confinement she had suffered no injury, as there
was ample room in it. 'rho prisoner, on being asked by
the magistrate what he had to say, replied that what ho
had done was solely for the purpose of curing his wife of
har drunken habits. Hs had tried various means, and had
plac d ber five times in the workhouse. He bad locked her
up at home, but she escaped by the window in order to get
drink. He did not know he was acting illegally by putting
the mask on his wife, or be would not have douo so. The
wife, who admitted the truth of what the prisoner said, ex-
pressed herself willing to accept ss. per week and leave her
husband. The latter agreed to this, and was then fined 10s.
for the assault on hie wife. The mask remains in the ros
session of the police.