About a dozen correspondents are quite angry with us for
an unintentional mistake in our account of the scene in the recent Diocesan meeting in Dublin. It appears that Lord James Butler's motion for adjournment, intended to enable the laity to press their claims, was lost, instead of gained, by 209 to 150; but that the minority being disposed to go on making motions, the Archbishop -adjourned, but declared he would take no part in future meetings ; and either did, or did not, advise his clergy to follow his example. Two of our correspondents say he did not ; but the corre- spondent of the Standard, a paper sure not to be biassed against the Archbishop, distinctly says he did. The matter is of no importance, the main fact being that there is, in the diocese of Dublin, a split in the Church, the cause of which the laity declare to be the pretensions of the clergy. As far as we can perceive, the recalcitrant laity want to go too far, and abolish the episcopal -character of the Church, a change, we may add, which is not con- templated in the Act of Parliament. Nothing has occurred since to make us think the quarrel less serious, except a report, for which we see no sufficient evidence, that it is confined to Dublin.
Previous page
