[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR." I
SIR,—Permit me to say that your article on the Bishop of Manchester's refusal to institute Mr. Cowgill to St. John's, Miles Platting, is not characterised by that fairness which is looked for in the Spectator.
The paragraph to the effect that the Bishop commits the offence for which he blames the Ritualists, by setting up "his own interpretation of the law against the interpretation affixed to it, or, at all events, believed to be affixed to it, by the Courts," is surely proof that my complaint is well 'founded. The Bishop, in truth, would only lay himself open to your charge if, after the Courts had expressly ordered him to institute Mr. Cowgill, he contumaciously refused to obey the order, and still held on to the exercise of his office as Bishop of Manchester. Nor is the difference between "affixed to it" and "believed to be affixed to it" one to be shirred over. If "believed to be" is the right phrase, then an explicit declaration of the law is plainly needed, in order to remove responsibility from those who act under the law.
A weak or a cowardly Bishop would have found ease and comfort in yielding to what appears to be an attempt to force the hands of an ecclesiastical authority, and so to discredit the action of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but the Bishop of Manchester has preferred to vindicate the law, even with the certainty of bringing on himself much personal Here, in his diocese, the Bishop's candour of mind and deep conscientiousness have been too abundantly shown, and are too fully appreciated, for your words to be of much account; but where confidence in his judgment and uprightness, through want of knowledge of his character, is more feeble, your censure may have undue weight, and, therefore, I beg you to admit to your columns at least one protest against its justice.—I am, Sir, &c.,
WALTER S. MITCH.
Previous page
