| Short Title: | Public Worship Regulation Act 1874[1] |
| Type: | Act |
| Parliament: | Parliament of the United Kingdom |
| Long Title: | An Act for the better administration of the Laws respecting the regulation of Public Worship. |
| Year: | 1874 |
| Citation: | 37 & 38 Vict. c. 85 |
| Introduced Lords: | Archbishop of Canterbury Archibald Campbell Tait, 20 April 1874, private member's bill |
| Royal Assent: | 7 August 1874 |
| Repeal Date: | 1 March 1965 |
| Repealing Legislation: | Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1), art 87, Sch 5 |
| Status: | repealed |
The Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 85) was an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Archbishop of Canterbury Archibald Campbell Tait, to limit what he perceived as the growing ritualism of Anglo-Catholicism and the Oxford Movement within the Church of England. The bill was strongly endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, and vigorously opposed by Liberal party leader William Ewart Gladstone. Queen Victoria strongly supported it. The law was seldom enforced, but at least five clergymen were imprisoned by judges for contempt of court, which greatly embarrassed the Church of England archbishops who had vigorously promoted it.
Tait's bill was controversial. It was given government backing by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who called it "a bill to put down ritualism". He referred to the practices of the Oxford Movement as "a Mass in masquerade". Queen Victoria was supportive of the Act's Protestant intentions. Liberal leader William Ewart Gladstone, a high church Anglican whose sympathies were for separation of church and state, felt disgusted that the liturgy was made, as he saw it, "a parliamentary football".
Before the act, the Church of England regulated its worship practices through the Arches Court with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Act established a new court, presided over by former Divorce Court judge Lord Penzance. Many citizens were scandalised by parliamentary interference with worship and, moreover, by its proposed supervision by a secular court. The act gave bishops the discretionary power to order a stay of proceedings.
Section 8 of the Act allows an archdeacon, church warden, or three adult male parishioners of a parish to serve on the bishop a representation, in their opinion:
The bishop had the discretion to stay proceedings but, if he allowed them to proceed, the parties had the opportunity to submit to his direction with no right of appeal. The bishop was able to issue a monition, but if the parties did not agree to his jurisdiction, then the matter was to be sent for trial (section 9).
The Act provided a casus belli for the Anglo-Catholic English Church Union and the evangelical Church Association. Many clergy were brought to trial and five ultimately imprisoned for contempt of court.
These clergy were supported financially by George Boyle, 6th Earl of Glasgow, who donated considerable sums to their defence and compensation.
Prosecutions ended when a Royal Commission in 1906 recognised the legitimacy of pluralism in worship,[2] but the Act remained in force for 91 years until it was repealed on 1 March 1965 by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963.
The Act extended to England, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.