MR. PELHAM DALE
OUR Correspondence columns again bear witness to the in- terest excited by Mr. Dale's imprisonment, but we have as yet looked in vain for any clear and intelligible statement of the ground upon which he has thought it right to go to gaol. Mr. Portal is quite right, no doubt, when he calls Mr. Dale's case a hard one, on the double ground that the law is unequally administered, and that the spiritual authority of Lord Pen- zance's Court is not wholly above suspicion. As to the first point, however, it may be remarked that no one has any right to say that the Judicial Committee would not condemn Low-Church violations of the law as freely as they condemn High-Church violations of it, so long as the English Church Union refuses to put the matter to the test of experiment. There is no Public Prosecutor in Ecclesiastical causes ; consequently, only private associations can put the law into operation.
For ourselves, we heartily wish that some one would institute retaliatory prosecutions. Nothing else could so clearly bring out the unreality of the alleged wish for uniformity of ritual. We recognise the consistency of the English Church Union in not bringing its opponents to trial. Those who ask toleration for themselves would be ill-advised in denying it to others. But so long as there are no prosecutions of the Low-Church party, and the reason of there being none is the refusal of the Ritualists to institute any, no imputa- tions can fairly be cast upon the inequality of the law. It is as equal as those whose business it is to put it in motion will allow it to be. As regards Mr. Portal's other point, it is certainly unfortunate for the anti-Ritualists that Parliament should have created a new Court, instead of simplifying the procedure of the Court of Arches. But whatever Canonical defects there may be in Lord Penzance's authority they have surely been made good by the assent of the two Archbishops and the silence of Convocation. If Lord Penzance is not the person by whom one Archbishop exercises his jurisdiction in the Arches Court of Canterbury, and the other his jurisdiction in the Chancery Court of York, it is for them to say so. Lord Penzance claims to be their representa- tive as truly as any of his predecessors, in these two tribunals ; and inasmuch as any spiritual authority that the Judges of these Courts ever claimed was derived from the Archbishops of the two Provinces, we do not see why the co-operation of the Archbishops should not avail to make good any technical defects which may be discovered in the process by which the old Courts were made to merge in the new. If this be not so, it was for Convocation to point out the defect. The fatal flaw, as it seems to us, in the Ritualists argument, is that they reason as though the Church were forcibly silenced. Instead of this, the legal synods of the Church of England have been in session throughout the whole controversy. Upon matters of small importance their debates have been full, even to weariness. If Lord Penzance is a usurper, if the Judicial Committee is intruding into spiritual things and claiming for Caesar what is really God's, why has the legislature of the Church of England held its tongue ? It cannot plead that it did not know that the true interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric was disputed. It cannot plead that it did not know that the authority of the Court claiming to be the Court of Final Appeal in Ecclesias- tical cases, was challenged. It cannot plead that it was ignorant that an Act for regulating Public Worship by the sole authority of Parliament had been passed, that underits provisions a new Court had been established, a new procedure created, and new penalties denounced. All these things were talked about in every parsonage, and brought before the notice of Convocation by petitions, by gravamina, by every other means that the Clergy have of invoking their representatives. Where is the vote of Convocation denying the authority of Lord Penzance I Where is the vote of Convocation denying the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee ? Where is the vote of Convocation pronouncing the Ritualist interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric to be the true interpretation, and all other interpretations to be wrong I If ever silence gave consent, the silence of Convocation has given consent to the claim of the Judicial Committee in the last resort, and of Lord Penzance in the first instance, to interpret the meaning of Rubrics, and to punish clergymen who insist on setting up their own in- terpretation against that of the Courts.
One of our correspondents, who signs himself "A Law- abiding Ritualist," raises a new point. He seems to think that if the Privy Council had said that vestments were forbidden by the Ornaments Rubric, Mr. Dale would have been bound to give up wearing them. But inasmuch as the Privy Council sets up an " Advertisement " as of more authority than " the plain directions of the Prayer-book, which is part of the Statute law of the realm, and the authority by which the Clergy bind themselves, at their ordination, to abide," Mr. Dale is justified in refusing obedience. Unfortunately, this theory begs the whole question. The appellant in the Ridsdale case contended that the Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer-book of 1662 is the only law as to the vesture of the Clergy, and undoubtedly the Judicial Committee conceded that if this first proposition were correct, vestments would be legal. But, they went on to say, the Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer-book of 1662 is not the only law as to the vesture of the Clergy. That rubric was a memorandum or note of reference to the earlier law, and must be taken in conjunction with it. Of that earlier law certain " Advertisements " formed part, and under these Advertisements vestments are illegal. This is not a setting-up of the Advertisements against the Statute law of the realm. It. is a declaration that the Advertisements, being issued by statutory authority, were in effect incorporated with the Statute law. We say nothing upon the question whether this is good or bad law. The Judicial Committee may go wrong, just as the House of Lords may go wrong. But when the House of Lords has gone wrong, nothing but fresh legislation can put the law to rights ; and when the Judicial Committee has gone wrong, nothing but fresh legislation can put the law to rights. Unreason- able as is the claim to disregard the decrees of the Judicial Com- mittee altogether, it has more foundation than the claim to dis- regard them only when they are wrong. " A Law-abiding Ritualist" apparently holds that, upon a purely legal question, such as the interpretation of a rubric which is part of the Statute law, an appeal lies from the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court, and from the Supreme Court to the defendant in the suit.
We should be glad if any of our Ritual correspondents would be kind enough to state, in a sentence or two, what they suppose to be the difference between an Esta- blished Church and a Non-established Church. Judging by their practice, they seem to hold that the Church may acquiesce in the intervention of the State whenever it is convenient, and reject it whenever it is inconvenient. As Polytlemon " points out, in the excellent letter we print this week, " the new Bishops of Truro, Liverpool, &c., are pieces of State legislation, accepted by the Church without a murmur." Yet if it is uncanonical for Dr. Temple to intrude into the diocese of London even at the request of the Bishop of London—which is one of the defences urged on Mr. Dale's behalf—it must surely be still more uncanonical for Dr. Benson to intrude into the diocese of Exeter. Dr. Temple merely performed a particular act which the Bishop of London is forbidden by law to perform for himself. Dr. Benson actually takes half the diocese of Exeter away, and does it by virtue of an Act of Parliament. We have never heard, however, that the Ritualists refuse to recog- nise the Bishop of Truro, though in the eye of the law his jurisdiction has precisely the same origin as the Public Worship Regulation Act. Can they deny that the Church, by her Bishops and Convocations, and by the uniform practice of more than 300 years, has submitted to the control of the
Crown, of Parliament, and of her Majesty's Judges I If the
Ritualists think that the Bishops and Convocations have been wrong in thus submitting, they ought to move them to repent-.
ance and amendment, and failing this, to part company with them. We wish the Ritualists all success in their efforts to obtain liberty of worship for their congregations, but we are compelled to say that—on the grounds on which they rest it—it is the most illogical agitation that has ever been witnessed.
Previous page
