120 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
(2nd. NoG, Fun. 9, %56., 
speaking of ecclesiastical affairs about 1633, 
says: 
“When the Sacrament was administered in parish 
churches, the Communion Table was usually placed in 
the middle of the chancel, and the people received round 
it, or in their several places thereabouts : but now all 
Communion Tables were ordered to be fixed under the 
east wall of the chancel, with the ends north and south, in 
form of an altar; they were to be raised two or three steps 
aboye the floor, and encompassed with rails. Archbishop 
Laud ordered his vicar- general to see this alteration made 
in.all the churches and chapels of his province; to accom- 
plish which, it was necessary to take down the galleries in 
some churches, and to remove ancient monuments. .... 
It is almost incredible what a ferment the making this 
alteration at once raised among the common people all 
over England. Many ministers and churchwardens were 
excommunicated, fined, and obliged to do penance, for 
neglecting the bishop’s injunctions, Great numbers re- 
fused to come up to the rails to receive the Sacrament, 
for which some were fined, and others excommunicated, 
to the number of some hundreds, say the Committee of 
the House of Commons at the archbishop’s trial...... 
Those who opposed the alterations were called Doctrinal 
Puritans, and the promoters of them Doctrinal Papists.” 
One painful minister preferred migrating to the 
United States to escape the sight of this popish rail 
in his church; but before he started, he published 
the following humiliating recantation : 
“ The Retractation of Mr. Charles Chancy, formerly Mi- 
nister of Ware in Hertfordshire; wherein is proved the 
Unlawfulnesse and Danger of Rayling in Altars and 
Communion Tables, written with his own hand before 
his going to New England, in the year 1637. Published 
by his own direction for the satisfaction of all such who 
either are, or justly might bee offended with his scan- 
dalous submission, made before the High Commission 
Court, Feb, 11, 1635. London: printed 1641.” 
At pp. 6, 7., he says: 
“ That a raile about the Communion Table is one of the 
ingredients to make up an high altar, or a popish altar, 
may be proved, first, by ecclesiastical history: rails about 
the Lord’s Table, whether of wood or stone, were never 
commanded fo be set up, but since the erecting of altars, 
and the idol of the Mass, and transubstantiation was 
adored. Secondly, it may appear by all the cathedral 
churches, in which only high altars have been continued 
since times of Reformation, all which also have been railed 
in, and all the communicants made to receive kneeling at 
the rails, and nowhere else; from whence now since the 
altar-worship hath spread (by the diligence of popish 
prelates), and tables haye been turned into altars, the 
railing of them also hath been universally enjoyned in 
the like manner.” 
Tt may, indeed, be questioned how far those who 
maintain altar-rails are not showing disrespect to 
our glorious constitution in Church and State. A 
declaration of the House of Commons of Jan. 16, 
1641, orders, ‘that the churchwardens in every 
parish church and chapel respectively do forth- 
with take away the rails” of the altar. (Collier's 
Eccles. Hist., vol. ii. p. 806., fol.) Let church- 
wardens look to it; they are certainly guilty of 
‘ disobedience to an order of the House of Com- 
mons, so long as they allow altar-rails to remain ; 
and the House of Commons sometimes is not to 
be trifled with. But whatever the law may be, 
the supposition at one time that altar-rails are flat 
popery, and at another time that they indicate 
true blue Protestantism, sufficiently shows how 
capricious is popular opinion, and how impossible 
it is for any one (excepting the “ Vicar of Bray!”) 
who steers by so treacherous a wind, to maintain a 
consistent course. 
As to Mr. Acwortu’s second Query, I believe 
that a numerous list could easily be made of 
churches which have no altar-rails. In addition 
to many college chapels, my memory at once re- 
calls such churches as St. Paul’s, Brighton; St. 
James’s, Devonport; and in London, St. An- 
drew’s, Well Street; St. Mary Magdalen’s, Mun- 
ster Street; St. Bartholomew’s, Moor Lane, and, 
I believe, Christ Church, Spitalfields; but the least 
inquiry would extend the list very considerably. 
Esto Semper Pipers. 
Walton Club. 
In answer to Mr. Acworra’s Query on churches 
without altar-rails, I beg to state that the church 
of Eltisley, Cambridgeshire, had no altar-rails till 
1832, when, at my suggestion, for the convenience 
of communicants, they were placed there. 
G. C, Gonuam. 
Brampford-Speke, e 
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE, 
Photographie Gossip. —We are this week compelled by 
pressure of other matter to devote but a very limited 
space to this subject. 
First and foremost, we haye to announce the election 
to the Secretaryship of The Photographic Society of the 
Rey. J. R. Major, of King’s College. As this gentleman 
is not only a practical photographer, but a most courteous 
and thorough man of business, we think this appoint- 
ment promises well for the future prosperity of the society. 
Works which have run through many editions may bid 
defiance to the notes of critics. We may therefore con- 
tent ourselyes with announcing the appearance of the ninth 
edition of Mr. Thornthwaite’s Guide to Photography, and 
the fourth edition of Mr. Hennah’s valuable little treatise 
on The Collodion Process. Mr. Hennah’s portraits are so 
successful, that one is glad to be able to refer to his own 
account of the process which he follows in their production. 
Replies ta fAlt(uor Auerieg. 
Madame de Staél (2™° §. i. 55.) — The book 
J. M. (2) inquires after, is one of the commonest 
in French libraries and bookshops; and its autho- 
ress, Madame de Staal (not Staé!), née de Launay, 
is recorded in all the biographies. C. 
Dreigh (2" §.i. 56.) —E. C. may feel assured 
that he is mistaken, or has been misled, as to the 
existence of an Irish dukedom in a family of this 
