22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
The trial of Bishop Edward King (1829–1910) and the judgment which issued from it proved a landmark in the history of the Victorian Church of England. The judgment was also a turning point in the history of the Catholic Revival, and the bitter series of ritual disputes to which it gave rise. Edward Norman categorised the trial as ‘One of the most important, as well as one of the most extraordinary episodes in the religious history of the nineteenth century.’ R. W. Church, Dean of St Paul's, hailed the judgment as ‘The most courageous thing that has come out of Lambeth for the last 200 years.’ Others, inevitably, given the passions roused by the ritualist controversy, took a more jaundiced view; but few serious Church people were indifferent to the result.
1 Norman, E. R.. Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (Allen & Unwin. London. 1968). p. 105.Google Scholar
2 Church, Mary (ed). The Life and Letters of Dean Church (1897). p. 421.Google Scholar
3 Elphinstone v purchas (1870) LR 3 A & E 66.Google Scholar Ct of Arches.
4 Hebbert v Purchas (1871) LR 3 PC 605.Google Scholar
5 Privy Council Appeals Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will 4. c 92). s 3.
6 Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, c 85). s 7.
7 Ibid, s 9.
8 Ibid, s 9: Allcroft v Lord Bishop of London [1891] AC 666. HL.Google Scholar
9 Martin v Mackonochie (1868) LR 2 A & E 116Google Scholar. Ct of Arches.
10 Martin v Mackonochie (1868) LR 2 PC 365.Google Scholar
11 Martin v Mackonochie (No 2) (1874) LR 4 A & E 279Google Scholar. Ct of Arches.
12 Cited in Read, John Shelton. Glorious Battle: The Cultural Polities of victorian Anti-Catholicism (Tufton Books/Church Union Publications. London. 1998). p. 136.Google Scholar
13 Norman, . Anti-Catholicism. p. 110.Google Scholar
14 Benson, A. C.. Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols. 1899). II. 354.Google Scholar
15 Ex parte Read (1888) 13 PD 221. PC.Google Scholar
16 Cited in Bell, G. K. A.. Randall Davidson. Archbishop of Canterbury (3rd edn)(Oxford University Press. 1952). p. 28.Google Scholar See Bishop of St David's v Lucy (1699) 12 Mod Rep 237.
17 See Bell, . Davidson, p. 132.Google Scholar
18 The six assessors were Temple (London). Stubbs (Oxford). Thorold (Rochester). Wordsworth (Salisbury). Atlay (Hereford) and Browne (Winchester).
19 Read v Bishop of Lincoln (1889) 14 PD 88.Google Scholar
20 Berdmore Compton. A Popular Review of the Judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Case of the Bishop of Lincoln (1891). p. 13Google Scholar. Compton was a former Vicar of All Saints. Margaret Street.
21 Davidson, R. T. and Benham, W.. Life of A C. Tait (2 vols. London. 1891). II. 424n.Google Scholar
22 Benson, A. C.. Life and Letters of Maggie Benson (London. 1918). pp. 112 113.Google Scholar
23 King, Edward. Ezra and Nehemiah: the examples for priests and laymen in the present movement in the Church of England (Oxford. 1872). p. 15.Google Scholar
24 Read v Bishop ol Lincoln [1891] P 9.Google Scholar
25 Cited in Russell, G. W. E.. Edward King. Sixtieth Bishop of Lincoln (1912). pp. 166–167.Google Scholar
26 Russell, . Edward King. pp. 189 199.Google Scholar
27 Read v Bishop of Lincoln [1892] AC 644. PC.Google Scholar
28 Lincoln Record Office. Larken Deposit III/17.
29 Chadwick, Owen. Edward King;. Bishop of Lincoln 1885–1910 (Lincoln Minster Pamphlets. 2nd series. No.4. 1968). p. 19.Google Scholar
You have
Access
