THE DEPRIVATION OF MR. MACKONOCHIE. N EVER was engineer hoist with
his own petard more effectually than the Bishops have been with their pet handiwork, the Public Worship Regulation Act. They went to Parliament to ask for increased power to regulate the con- duct of their clergy, and they got the Public Worship Regula- tion Act. They assured us at the time that this potent instrument would enable them to settle all controversies re- lating to public worship speedily and inexpensively, and led us to expect that peace and quietness would soon be restored throughout the Church by the suppression of Ritualism. In these anticipations, they found a powerful ally in the Prime Minister of the day. He supported the Bill, on the ground that its object was "to put down Ritualism ;" and in the Queen's Speech on the Prorogation of Parliament he described in the following language the happy effect of passing it into law :—" It will tend to prevent or allay the unhappy contro- versies which sometimes arise from the difficulty experienced in obtaining an early decision on doubtful points of law, and a definitive interpretation of the authorised forms of public worship. Such controversies, even when they occur between persons loyally desirous to conform to the doctrine and disci- pline of the Established Church, beget serious evils, and their speedy termination by competent authority is a matter of great importance to the interests of religion."
Such were the sanguine expectations of the authors and pro- moters of the Public Worship Regulation Act. How have they been fulfilled ? The Act is nine years old, and in the interval Ritualism has increased widely under the stimulus which persecution rarely fails to supply. To-day the attempt to put it down is a much more formidable task than it was before the Bishops forged their "short and easy method" with the Ritualists. The Act was intended to obviate "the difficulty experienced in obtaining an early decision on doubt- ful points of law ;" and it has achieved its purpose by depriv- ing Mr. Mackonochie, after nine years of tedious and irritating litigation. Nor is it by any means certain that Mr. Macko- nochie is finally disposed of. He has disobeyed Lord Penzance's sentence, and will doubtless continue to disobey it. That means contempt of Court, and the punishment for contempt of Court is imprisonment. Is Mr. Mackonochie to be imprisoned ? If so, the only persons who will have good cause to rejoice will be the Ritualists. Mr. Mackonochie in prison will make more converts to their cause than a score of Mackonochies at large. For the case of Mr. Mackonochie is very different from the case of Mr. Green. Both, indeed, have been assailed in violation of the spirit and intention even of the Public Worship Regulation Act, which aimed at redressing the wrongs of "aggrieved parishioners." In Mr. Green's parish, and in Mr. Mackonochie's, no aggrieved parishioners could be found ; so that, in order to put the Act in motion, it was necessary to create qualified prosecutors by the importation of outsiders. So far, the two cases are alike ; but there is one important difference. It was Mr. Green's own Bishop, on the advice of his Metropolitan, who delivered him over to his prosecutors. Mr. Mackonochie's own Bishop, on the contrary, on the initia- tive of his Metropolitan, and backed by a remarkable expres- sion of public approval, tried to save Mr. Mackonochie from his prosecutors. Mr. Mackonochie resigned his living on the advice of the late Archbishop Tait, and without any promise whatever of other preferment. And before he resigned, lie yielded obedience to the only demand which his diocesan made upon him. In other words, Mr. Mackonochie, at the recommendation of the late Primate, anticipated the sentence of Lord Penzance, by depriving himself of the only prefer- ment which he then held. And this he did, as has been publicly stated, without any understanding whatever as to any other preferment. He may therefore be supposed to have morally purged himself of his legal offence. His own Bishop must certainly have been of that opinion, as he instituted him soon afterwards to another living his diocese. It may be thought by some that the resignation of his living by Mr. Mackonochie was no great hardship, since he was so speedily instituted to another. But it must be remembered that, from a worldly point of view, neither the living which he vacated nor that to which he was subsequently presented offers any attraction. The neighbour- hood in both cases is most uninviting, the work hard, un- ceasing, and in many ways repulsive ; and the net income is pro- bably less than Mr. Mackonochie would receive in an ordinary curacy. In no sense, therefore, is Mr. Mackonochie's depriva- tion a worldly loss to himself. But to a man of his character and temperament it could have been no light sacrifice to have severed his connection with the congregation which he had gathered round him in the course of twenty years of self- denying labour. It is clear from the correspondence which led to his resignation that both the Bishop of London and Archbishop Tait did believe that in resigning St. Alban's Mr. Mackonochie was making a very great sacrifice indeed,—a sacrifice which might well be thought a sufficient punishment for his offence. Yet his prosecutors have pursued him to his new living, as if he had endured no punishment at all ; and his own Bishop appears to have no power, so far, to shield him from their vindictiveness. What a satire on the increased powers for dealing with their clergy which the Bishops demanded and got in the Public Worship Regulation Act! Once they put the Act in motion, as Mr. Gladstone warned them at the time, they become powerless, however anxious, to stop the mischief. The Act, too, was to put an end to controversy, and restore peace to the Church ; yet the only dioceses where peace and good-will have reigned are the dioceses where Bishops have been prudent enough to make the Act a dead-letter.
We do not greatly blame Lord Penzance for his sentence on Mr. Mackonochie. If, indeed, he had been desirous to give effect to the dying wish of Archbishop Tait he would have found no legal obstacle in his way. It is peremptorily laid down by the Twenty-second Canon that the Bishop alone has the power to pass a sentence of deprivation. And although the Dean of Arches is legally entitled to do so, he evidently inherits that power as a survival of the time when he was merely the Archbishop's delegate. It evidently never was intended to give him power of deprivation contrary to the declared wishes both of the Diocesan and the Metropolitan of the Province. But this is what Lord Penzance has done. He admits that a less severe sentence was in his discretion. He might have passed a sen- tence of suspension ; nor is it a valid objection that the previous suspension had not been enforced by the prosecutors, who shrank from the odium of imprisoning Mr. Mackonochie. We think, however, that the Court of Appeal is more to blame than Lord Penzance. He declined to grant the request of the prosecutors to pass a further sentence on Mr. Mackonochie, till his prosecutors had exacted obedience to the previous sentence by the imprisonment of their victim. But the Court of Appeal ordered him to pass an additional sentence. This appears to us to have been a grave error. A Royal Commission is now inquiring into the working of the present Ecclesiastical judi- cature, and their report is ready for publication. It seems a great hardship that in the interval the generous and well- meant effort of the late Primate and the Bishop of London to restore peace to the Church should have been upset by the ill-advised decision of the Court of Appeal,—a Court which is not likely to survive for long the report of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Commission.
But what is to be the result of the sentence on Mr. Macko- nochie? His imprisonment for disobeying the sentence, under the special circumstances of the case, would hardly be possible ; and we doubt whether even the malignity of the Church Association is equal to that display of temerity. The alterna- tive is that he will go on quietly for six months, unless the Bishop or patrons intervene, which they are hardly likely to do. At the end of six months the presentation to the living lapses to the Bishop. But suppose the Bishop declines to present? Will the Church Association venture to prosecute him ? Mr. Mackonochie's pertinacity has been so successful hitherto, that it would be rash to assume that he will not even yet baffle the animosity of his persecutors.
Previous page
