THE CHURCH CONTROVERSY.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
SIR,—In the Spectator of March 25th, when speaking of the two points in the Church controversy raised by Lord Ports- mouth, you say :—" No doubt the Archbishops will have no legal powers with which to enforce their decision, but what of that P Does not Lord Portsmouth know that hundreds of important matters are settled every year by voluntary arbitra- tions?" Is it not usual in all agreements for arbitration to find the all-important clause to the effect that "the decision of the two arbitrators shall be final" ? There can be little doubt that there are many Churchmen who, like myself, are not members of the English Church Union, and still less, admirers of Mr. Kona, but who would gladly welcome arbitration as a happy solution to many vexed points. If "the parties to be heard" agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrators—the Archbishops—well and good, but if not —and the English Church Union's declaration would, on the face, imply this to be the case—we should apparently be no nearer a settlement, and the word " arbitration" would seem, unhappily, to be somewhat misapplied.—I am, Sir, &c., Savile Town, Dewsbury, March 27th. BasIt. Lirsconrs.
[We assumed that the clergy who submit cases to the Archbishops would hold themselves bound to abide by the decision.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
