LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARCHBISHOPS.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
SI11,—I agree with your correspondent "Templar," in the Spectator of April 29th, that it is seldom desirable to discuss a legal question, such as the jurisdiction of the Archbishops, in the columns a a journal. More especially is this the case at the present moment when the hearing before the Arch- bishops is so soon to take place. But in view of the import- ance of the subject, you will, perhaps, kindly allow me shortly to reply to your correspondent's letter. " Templar " appears to have entirely misconceived the purport of the judgment of the Privy Council to which he refers, if, as I believe, he is referring to the case of "Martin v. Mazonochie " mentioned in my letter in your number of April 29th. In that case, as I have pointed out, the Judicial Committee left • entirely untouched the interpretation which the Arches Court had placed upon the directions in the preface to the Prayer-book. The rest of your correspondent's letter seems to me, with sub mission, to be beside the mark. The words "so that the same be not contrary to anything contained in this book" are dealt with by Sir R Phillimore in the judgment referred to. It is to be observed that they do not in terms refer to the Archbishop at all, and whatever they may mean, they cannot interfere with the contention that if the Bishop be in doubt concerning "the manner how to under- stand, do, and execute the things contained in" the Prayer- book, the Archbishop is, by the directions in the preface, constituted the Tribunal, and the sole Tribunal, "for the resolution" of that doubt. Further, no one disputes "the supremacy" (to use " Templar's " words) of the "Court of Interpretation." But the question at issue is, What is the Court of Interpretation ? Has, or has not, this function of interpretation been conferred on the Archbishop in the par- ticular cases within the purview of the preface to the Prayer- book 7 I do not reply to your correspondent's remarks on the case before the Appeal Court mentioned in my first letter. The judgment speaks for itself. At the present time, it is well known that many of the High Church clergy are dissatis- fied with the existing state of unrest, and are anxiously looking for a Tribunal to which they can conscientiously submit ; and I believe that if it should be found, as suggested in your leading article of April 8th, that such a Tribunal already exists in the so-called " Court " of the Archbishops, its decisions will be generally obeyed, and a great step will have been taken towards restoring peace to the Church.—I am, Sir, am., W. N. L.
[We agree with the general sense of our correspondent's remarks. We believe that the Archbishops were in the last resort meant to determine disputed points of Ritual. If they are only bold enough to act, and the clergy have loyalty enough to obey, we, may see peace and order restored to the Church without any new legislation.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
