The stirring part of the scene, however, was caused by
an outbreak from Lord Redesdale, who declared that the prayer of the petition was, in effect, to commit an act of " sin " and " sacri- lege,"—to take away what was devoted " to God's service " and give it elsewhere. This was not in any case the object of the petitioners, for if we are not mistaken it was signed by many clergymen who would have preferred the "concurrent establish- ment" of all sects to the disestablishment of one ; and even amongst those who did not take this view, there are none who would not maintain that they were petitioning the House to de- vote to God's service what they now believe to be of the greatest disservice to God—and this not the less if the disendowed pro- perty should be applied to general educational purposes. They would agree with Lord Redesdale that it is sin to take what is applied in the service of God and apply it otherwise. They would not agree with Lord Redesdale that property which is believed to be unjustly appropriated by more than three-quarters of a people could be doing God service. Lord Redesdale also went on to dis- cuss the supposed snare for the Queen's conscience which is being prepared by Mr. Gladstone, in an argument which, if it meant anything, implied that rather than allow any snare to be set for the Queen's conscience, the great mass of the Liberal party should be quite willing to have their own consciences not only exposed to snares, but caught in them. Or does he mean that there can be no duty in any man to do that which would otherwise be a duty, if it could embarrass the conscience of a monarch ? Surely that is rather high Royalist doctrine ?
Previous page
