The new case against Mr. Mackonochie was decided by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on this day week, judgment being delivered by Lord Hatherley. The judge decided that Mr. Mackonochie had not obeyed the original monition even verbally, in bending his knee during the prayer of consecration, though without doing what he (Mr. Mackonochie) called 'kneeing,'—that is, without going down on his knees. The monition against kneeling as a sign of adoration was clearly not intended to apply simply to going down on the knees, but to any such change of posture as expressed adoration. The Lord Chancellor also intimated pretty plainly that in lifting the paten and chalice to his head,—the monition having verbally only for- bidden him to raise them above his head, as he had been previously accustomed to do,—Mr. Mackonochie had not been complying with the spirit of the monition, though for technical reasons this point was not now within their Lordships' power to decide. As Mr. Mackonochie had expressed his intention of obeying the law, what- ever it was, Lord Hatherley simply explained that hitherto as re- garded the kneeling he had not done so, but he condemned him to pay the costs,—evidently holding that his conduct had been evasive, and not perfectly straightforward. We confess we agree in this judgment. Mr. Mackonochie might, if he chose, openly resist the law, on the ground of conscience, and take the consequences ; but he should not set to his many admirers an example of something very like duplicity,—professing to obey the law to the letter, and evading its spirit. Can any number of prostratious and any amount of millinery compensate, in a religious sense, for perfect straight- forwardness and candour?
Previous page
