[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.1
SIR,—You have supplied an excellent answer to Canon Lid don's contention that Mr. Dale ought not to be punished,. because he conscientiously believes his own interpretation of a disputed rubric to be the right one. But one point, I think,. you have missed.
The significavit under which Mr. Dale is imprisoned by the authority of the Court of Chancery for contempt of an Ecclesi- astical Court, is a process very much older than the Public- Worship Regulation Act. If that Act had been allowed to. take its course, in three years from the time when Mr. Dale was first admonished by Lord Penzance to discontinue certain- practices, he would (if contumacious) have ceased to be Rector of St. Vedast. The Public Worship Regulation Act, so far as. I know, says nothing about imprisonment.—I am, Sir, &c., King's College, November 18th. S. ClIEETIIIIL
Previous page
