Untitled - Electric Scotland

1856-60] ST. PAUL S, KNIGHTSBRIDGE 219
Soon after the judgment
in the case of Liddell v.
Westerton was made public, the Bishop received complaints
from several other parishes in his diocese. Most of these
he was able to allay by his personal intervention and
authority, and even when this was unsuccessful he was
strongly averse to bringing the questions at issue before a
court of law, although such litigation was at that time
advocated as the proper course by the Ritualistic clergy
themselves.
A single example will make this clear. One of the
charges against Mr. Liddell was that he had placed
candlesticks and candles, presumably for ceremonial pur
poses, upon the Altar of St. Paul s Church. In giving
judgment upon this point in the Diocesan Court on
December 5, 1855, the judge. Dr. Lushington, spoke as
follows :
"
I hold that all lighted candles on the Communion Table
are contrary to law, except when they are lighted for the purpose
of giving necessary light."
The candlesticks and candles therefore, to which
exception had been taken, were declared not to be in
themselves illegal ornaments of the Altar, but the
ceremonial lighting of them was in Dr. Lushington s
opinion contrary to law. Against this judgment no
appeal was raised when Mr. Liddell brought his
case before the Privy Council, and, so far as Mr.
Liddell was concerned, the judgment was not dis
as is
obeyed. But other clergy took a different line,
shown by the following correspondence between the
Bishop and the Rev. Edward Stuart, a well-known and
representative clergyman of the advanced school, and
one of the original founders of the English Church
Union.