The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-01-16 00:00:00

THE RITUALISTS AND THE
PRIVY COUNCIL.

On Tuesday afternoon the "adjourned meeting of
clergy and laity," to consider the course to be pursued
in regard to the recent judgment of the Privy Council
in the came of Martin r. Mackonochie, was held at the
Freemasons' Hall, London, when the chair WAS
occupied by Archdeacon Denison.
After prayer, the Chairman, in opening the proceed-
ings, called the attention of the meeting to its own
position. It hail been adjourned from December 30 :
was composed of members of the English Church
Union, and of some others whom they had invited.
Considerable difference had prevailed at the previous
ineetin); as to the precise course of action to be
adopted, and the subject was therefore adjourned, a
committee being appoudted (consisting of thirty mein-
hers) to report upon it to the present meeting. The
real question for the consideration of the committee
was this: Should the decision in the case of Martin r.
Mackonochie be obeyed, or should it not? Upon that
point the opinion of the committee was expressed in the
third resolution to be proposed, to the effect that this
meeting does not recognise the existing Court of Final
Appeal as competent to declare the law of the Church
of England upon either doctrine or ceremonial (cheers).
With respect to the particular judgment of that court
in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie, the meeting
finds, among other things, a disregard of the Church
of England's fundamental principles of connection with
the Church primitive and catholic ; nevertheless it
acknowledges the duty of submitting, under protest,
to the law of the land.
The following are the resotutions arrived at by the
committee, andwhich they recommend to the adoption
of the meeting : - -
"I. That the report DOW read, containing a inernorial ad-
dressed to the archbishops arid bishops ~f England :mil Wales,
and, emeatis ntetanditt to the two Houses of the Convoca-
tions of Canterbury and York, containing also certain resolu-
tions, be now taken into consideration.
2. That the memorial be adopted.
"3. That this meeting does not recogniee the existing Court
of Final Appeal as a court competent to declare the law of
the Church of England upon either loctrine or ceremonial ;
that with respect te this particular judgment of the said
court in Martin v. Mackonochie, the meeting finds, among
• other things, that that judgment disregards the Church of
, England's fiuulamental principle of connection with and re-
ference to the Church primitive and catholic; nevertheless,
it acknowleges the duty of shbluitting, under protest, to the
law of the land, upon that law being put in force, so tar as
such law is expressed in the decree of the said judgment,
and until such law shall be further declared or amended.
"S. That the clergy ana laity present at this meeting deeply
humid the late decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, and see in it a call to use their respective
positions In the Church and in the world to spread in all
possible ways the doctrine of the real presence.
"5. That the meeting, having regard to the experience of
the Church of England for the last 20 years, rejoices in the
knowledge that all manner of denial or depreciation of the
doctrine of the sacraments has issued only in the truer
understanding and the wider and heartier acceptance of the
doctrine itself.
"6. That, having regard to the circumstances of the case,
and to precedents of the court, the condemnation of Mr.
Mackonochie in all the costs, both of the original suit and of
the appeal, appears to this meeting to be a course of unusual
and exceptional severity; inasnmeh as the defendant did not
originate the litigation: inasmuch as the defendant was only
testing the legality of ceremonial which had previously never
been condemned ; in one part of which viz., the two lights,
he was upheld by the opinions of many eminent counsel; and
inasmuch as the defendant hail been sustained by the court
below on the points now ruled against him, and had yielded
inunediate submission as to the points on which he had not
been so sustained."

The memorial referred to in the first resolution is
a long document, going over the whole facts of the
case. The following is the conclusion of it :

" Your memorialists -respectfully point out to your Lord-
ships that, inasmuch as the judgment declares that • the
directions contained in' the Prayer-book 'cleat be strictly
observed, that no omission and no addition can be per-
mitted,' and also states that ' the Bishop has no jurisdiction
to modify or dispense with the Rubrical provisions,' it ne-
cessarily follows that compliance with the lass clearly in-
volves a strict application by the Ordinaries of the entire
prescriptions of the Prayer-book in every case awl under all
circumstances. Yet it is obvious that, on the one hand, a
partial or onesided enforcement of the principle of the
judginunt would be a grievous injustice, and that. on the
other hand, the exaction of a rigid uniformity must be
pr2.luctive of great vexation iljul

"In sum, it would appear that them Lordships have haunt
themselves able to condemn the altar lights only by laying
down a rule for the application of the Rubric, which goes a
long way towards dissociating the pi actice of the l'hurch of
Englani front the Church Primittve and Catholic : which
sit only narrows the liberty of Churchmen, but imposes on
them, under new penal conditions, a law which, as. stated
by the Dean of Arches, 'has never at an. period been duly
and universally obeyed sines the Reformation,' and which,
as has 110 W been shown by many examples, Involves great
contradictions and practical difficulties.

For the reasons above stated motor the several heads of
this memorill your memorialists humbly pray that your
Lordships will vindicate the Primitive and Catholic Cilll,-
rooter • d e Church of England, disparaged by the judg-
ment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council now
under review, will claim for Churchmen the lawful liberty
now invaded and denied, and will, SO far no in you lies,
relieve them from the contradictions, the difficulties, and
the dangers In which they are placed by the late interpreta-
tion of the law."

Mr. Turner moved that the memorial be taken into
consideration.

Lord Elliott seconded the resolution, which having
been carried, the Rev. M. W. Mayow moved the
adoption of the memorial, and the resolution was
unanimously carried.
The proceedings lasted five hours.