Sir Percival Heywood has, it is said, commenced the snit
called Quare impedit against the Bishop of Manchester for refusing to institute Mr. Cowgill at Miles Platting. It is stated that, under the Order in Council of 1880, which abolished the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice, the Court of Queen's Bench will have to try the action, and that as the ground of the Bishop's objection to Mr. Cowgill is not a criminal charge, the Court will probably send a writ to the Metro- politan (in this case the Archbishop of York, who is known to have advised Bishop Fraser to refuse the institution of Mr. Cowgill), commanding him in the Queen's name to try the question, and to certify the result to the Court. It is to be expected that if this course is taken, the Metropolitan will sustain the Bishop, and that the only really doubtful point will be the question of Archbishop Thomson's power to satisfy the Court of Queen's Bench that Bishop Fraser's reason for re- fusing to institute Mr. Cowgill was adequate. If the statement made in several newspapers be true, that the Church Association —the Ritualist Prosecution'Company (Limited), as somebody dubbed it,—are considering the course of offering the pre- sidency of that body to Bishop Fraser, the Court of Queen's Bench will probably scrutinise with some rigour the conduct of a dignitary thought worthy of so ambiguous a compliment, even though it be a compliment carefully repudiated by the prelate to whom it is offered.
Previous page
