LETTERS TO' THE EDITOR.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARCHBISHOPS..
[To TIM EDITOR OP TUB "SPECTATOR."] you permit me to touch on two points only of " W. N. L.'s " reply to my letter (1) I am astonished to find him saying that "the Judicial Committee left entirely untouched the interpretation which the Arches Court had placed upon the directions in the preface to the Prayer-book," as he appears to have read the judgments in question. The exact reverse is the case. To show this fully would involve longer quotations than it is desirable to make. But there is one short • test. Mr. Maconochie was acquitted by Sir Robert Phillimore on the charge of kneeling during the Prayer of Consecration, on the strength of the interpretation which he put on the preface. Mr. Maconochie was condemned by the Privy Council on this charge. - Lord Cairns, giving the decision of the Board, said : "Their Lordships do not think it necessary to consider minutely the cases to which, or the manner in which, this direction in the preface to the Prayer-book is applicable, inasmuch as, in their opinion, the charge against the re- spondent with which they are now dealing, involves what is expressly ordered and prohibited by the Rubric, and is, there- fore, a matter in which the Bishop could have no jurisdiction to modify or dispense with the rubrical provisions." On that Committee sat not only Lord Cairns, but Lord Westbury, Sir William Erle, and the Archbishop of York.
(2) I am even more astonished to see that " W. N. L." suggests that the Archbishop is not, though the Bishop 'is, bound by the proviso " So that the same be not contrary to any- thing contained in this book." I hope I may say that I trust your note is not to be read as giving weight to this, as I think, com- pletely mistaken, and dangerously,mistaken, view. It is, per- fectly true that the words, in their sequence, apply to the order to be taken by the Bishop, not to the advice to be given by the Archbishop." But the reason is obvious. The order is to' be taken by the Bishop ; the sole function of the Archbishop is to advise or direct him if he is in doubt. The limitation placed on the Bishop's power to 'order, necessarily, therefore, affects.the Archbishop's power to advise. How can the Arch- bishop give the Bishop advice or directions which it would be illegal for him to follow 1 It is not necessary to add observations on the, as I think, legal absurdity of sup- posing that the Legislature intended to give power to the Archbishop to overrule the Courts of Law, and set aside their own handiwork. As the writer of the article on "Ecclesiastical Courts" in the last Quarterly observes, " When the clause was written, the ordinary ecclesiastical Courts were in regular operation, and no one can suppese that it was intended to withdraw from their purview cases which involved points to be argued by advocates and canonists."
Before your next number appears, the Archbishop will have heard, perhaps will have decided, the question of the ceremonial use of incense. That is a point upon which, as far as I know, there has been but one opinion in the Courts. I trust, with regard to this matter, he will not have exhibited, by asserting his own opinion against the law, what may be considered courage, but is certain to turn out a fatal
Previous page
