7 APRIL 1877, Page 8

LORD PENZANCE.

THAT Lord Penzance should resign—if he has resigned,—the Office of Judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York, is less surprising than that he should ever have accepted it. A more thankless post it is difficult to imagine. The Judge is regarded by a large portion of the clergy as a sort of official persecutor, while he cannot console himself by the reflection that he is really doing a good work for the laity. Lord Penzance at least knows how little the Public Worship Act did towards putting down Ritualism. He is under no de- lusion as to the powers with which he is invested by the law. He has shown by his desire to identify himself in all respects with former Deans of the Arches, that it is in this character that he feels most sure of his ground. The only difference between procedure in Ecclesias- tical causes as it was under the old law and as it is under the Public Worship Act, is that one stage of the three which used to exist has been suppressed; and that suits are now insti- tuted in the Arches Court whereas they were formerly instituted in the Bishop's Court. Even this is only a formal change, for suits used almost always to be taken by letters of request to the Court of Arches before they had been heard in the Bishop's Court. This is the real significance of the Act which, as regards the Church of England, has made con- fusion worse confounded. The law has been brought into contempt, a clergyman has been sent to prison, the Ritualists have been provoked into giving a variety of rash pledges from which they will find it difficult to retreat, and all for what ? To get rid of a purely formal stage in ecclesiastical suits. Lord Penzance has exercised no powers which Sir Robert Phillimore and Dr. Lushington did not exercise before him. He has no means of putting down Ritualism, or any other " ism," which they had not. He could only commit Mr. Tooth by having recourse to the statutory authority of the Dean of the Arches. The Ridsdale appeal has been argued at as much length and at as much cost as any other of the ecclesiastical cases which went before it. The enemies of Ritualism persuaded themselves that when once the Act came into operation, the practices they disliked would be suppressed without further delay. The Government knew better, but they took care to keep their knowledge to themselves. They allowed a fanatical section of the public, and a House of Commons which had. not the courage to resist fanaticism, to believe that the Act meant a great deal, though they must have been aware all the time that as regards the particulars about which this section of the public were, and the House of Commons pretended to be, excited, it meant nothing at all. When Lord Penzance came to read the statute under which he became Judge of the two Provincial Courts, he must have seen how insignificant were the new powers which devolved upon him under its provisions. But then he may fairly have thought that he was about to step into a dignified and unchallenged position as Judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York. Instead of this, his title has been perpetually challenged from that day to this. Perhaps, however, Lord Penzance does not mind this. At all events, the reason assigned for his resignation is a different one. The Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Ecclesias- tical Fees Bill is supposed to intend recommending the reduc- tion of his salary to £1,000 a year, and this indication of a disposition to undervalue the importance of his office, coupled probably with a sense that labours so unpleasant deserve a higher reward in money, is said to have decided him to have no more to do with ecclesiastical squabbles. It has all along been plain that difficulties might arise some day upon this point. There are no funds out of which the Dean of the Arches can be paid, until Parliament is pleased to make some provision for the purpose. But the House of Commons wishes to have its whistle without paying for it. It has no objection to see Ritualism put down, but it would like it to be put down cheaply. It is a further difficulty that the work of the Judge of the two Provincial Courts must necessarily be most uncertain in its amount. There may be a good number of cases arising under the Public Worship Act for some time to come, but by-and- by the law will be ascertained, and then the supply will fail, or at all events become exceedingly irregular. Formerly the office of Dean of the Arches, if an ill-paid one, was, at all events, one of repose and dignity. It marked the summit of a career which had been passed in congenial practice at Doctors Commons, and like the post of Chancellor of a Diocese, it brought the Judge into a sort of association with the Episcopal Bench which has its attractions for some minds. The official principal of the Arches Court of Canter- bury, and in a lesser degree the official principal of the Chancery Court of York, were high ecclesiastical dignitaries. The clergy might dislike their decisions, though as they could always be appealed against, there was usually no very strong feeling on this point, but they could say nothing against their office. All this is changed now. There is no special Bar at which Ecclesiastical lawyers are trained. Dr. Stephens is a survival, and when he is gone, ecclesiastical cases will be argued by Chancery or Common-Law barristers, just as though the question at issue were the existence of a right of way, or the interpretation of a will. Instead of commanding the respect of the clergy as a species of lay archbishop, the Judge is regarded by many of them as an intruder, who has climbed over the wall of the sheepfold. Unpleasant labours naturally command a higher price than pleasant ones, but in this instance the salary is low to begin with, and is likely to be made lower. The highest purely Ecclesiastical Judge in the country is to be paid less than a London police magistrate. When the Public Worship Act was under discussion, Mr. Disraeli declared that he knew of a retired Judge who would do the work for nothing, and a fortiori, it might be supposed that there will always be retired Judges who will do the work for £1,000 a year. We suspect that the experience of the last six months will be found to have greatly quenched the zeal of retired Judges to take Lord Penzance's place.

It is certainly not to be desired that the post of Judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York should go begging, or be given to a man whose only qualification for, the office is the fact that he will take it, and that no more competent person will. As a means of at least postpon- ing the advent of this unpleasant state of things, we shall be glad if Lord Penzance's retirement should, after all, not take place. But if the occurrence of a vacancy should move the Government to make some change in the provisions of the Public Worship Act, we should esteem the loss of Lord Penzance a gain to the Church of England. There are two ways in which the law might be amended. One way would be to take away all excuse for the distinction which some of the clergy set up between Lord Penzance and his predecessors in the Provincial Courts. The repeal of the sections of the Act which relate to the appointment of a Judge, and the enactment of other provisions making the identity of the joint Provincial Court with the old Separate Courts more evident and indis- putable, and the application of some technical cure to the tech- nical alight which in the Public Worship Act is supposed to have been offered to the Episcopal jurisdiction, would pro- bably allay a certain amount of the irritation and ill- feeling which now prevails among the clergy, without in the least injuring the efficiency of the Court. It is too much to hope, perhaps, that Parliament should go further, and apply to the present disputes the only effectual remedy that has ever been suggested. There will always be varieties of ritual in the Church of England, and if they are not thrust upon un- willing congregations, there is no reason why there should not be varieties of ritual. The purpose of a true Public Worship Act should have been to ensure that no changes should be introduced in the direction either of more or of less ritual, without the consent of a prescribed majority of • the parishioners in country parishes, and of the congregations in town parishes. The object of the innovating clergyman would thus be to make himself popular with his people, and provided that he succeeded in this, no great harm could come of his proceedings.