A letter of the Bishop of Worcester's, in relation to
the case of the Rev. R. W. Enraght, who is also in prison for disregard. ing an inhibition by Lord Penzance, has been published, which shows that the Bishop of Worcester would not have sent up Mr. Enraght's case to Lord Penzance, if Mr. Enraght would but have promised the discontinuance of four practices which the Bishop thought illegal. Mr. Enraght, however, reserved his decision on the point tilt after the time at which the Bishop was compelled either to send up the case to the superior Court or to refuse to do so; and the Bishop thought, therefore, that he had no choice,— since he held the ritual on these four points illegal,—exceptto send the case np. After it was out of the Bishop's power, Mr. Enraght promised submission on these four points, and the Bishop tried to induce the prosecutor to drop the case, but was not success- ful. And when the decree of Lord Penzance was given against him, Mr. Enraght, of course, held it wrong to submit to " a secular Court." The case is an unfortunate one, but it does not appear that the Bishop of Worcester, taking the view of his duty he did, was over-hasty in sending on the case, but rather that Mr. Enraght was over-tardy in making up his mind to submit to his Bishop,—almost the as plus ultra, as it would seem, of modern Ritualist humility.
Previous page
