Evening star., 1905-07-30

they nave been and are opposed TO the olS-
tinctive views of the legal Free Church. Yet
it Is proposed to place the funds in the
hands Of that church without any restric-
ton. A single example Will suffice to show
the workings of such legislation. The Glas-
gov College was founded and endowed
for the express purpose of establishing
seat of theological learning in the CONNER
cial metropolis. Most Of its founders were
cordial advocates Of union. According to
the bill the college endowments would be
available for the maintenance OF small
highland congregations, composed Of reso-
lutte opponents Of union. Would this be an
equitable settlement?
How far the malversation might go no
one can say. Even If the claims of the
legal Free Church were largely reduced by
the executive commission, they would
leave only fraction of the funds for fair
and equitable allocation.' But the matter
is one of principle, not of amount; and the
offense would be felt as keenly by the donor
of s. as by the donor of $1,000. 1t is being
felt-quiet, non-political men and women
an even stronger indignation than the
house of lords decision evoked.
This is not a question of the legality of
church union or the validity of ecclesiastical
documents, but proposal to traverse the
ascertalned intentions of living and recently
deceased persons. The most ordinary intel
ligence recognizes that the judgment OF the
house of lords is to be maintained, so far as
it determines the legal identity of the Free
Church, but that in every other respect it is
to be annuled, the limitations which 1t i'm
posed and the principle upon which 1t rest
ed being set aside.
'The only apology put forth for the pro-
posal is that since the law of trusts must
in some respects be broken in order to Sc
cure a tolerable adjustment, 1t may be
wholly discarded. But that contention Is
indefensible. 1t is on a par with saying
that since men cannot be perfectly virtuous
they may set aside the idea of virtue. Sure
ly, when strict law has proved to be un-
workable, some attempt should be made 10
secure an approach to justice. If the in
tention of the donors cannot be legally i'm
plemented it ought to be implemented as
far as possible The case is no doubt
perpleXing one, requiring careful ADJUST"
mentS; but it is not permissible solution
of the difficulty to dismiss consideration or
what the contributors of those funds in
tended
IF it be said that the apprehensions at
present entertained are exaggerated ana
that the government cannot intend to make
any such misapplication of trust funds as
indicated, the apprehensions can be easily
allayed. 1t may be made clear that the
executive will have freedom to follow out
the recommendations of the royal commits
Sion, or clause may be inserted instructing
the executive to pay due regard TO the pur-
poses for which the funds were respectively
contributed.
with regard to churches and congre-
gational property the reason for anxiety
is even clearer.
"ln the Free Churh Tor --.ty-fve years
churches were built and vested on the eX-
press understanding that in the event OF
such a scheme as has occurred the owner
ship of the property should be hXed Dy a
vote of the communicates, compensation for
dispossession being granted to minorities
when of an appreciabe site. Although the
model trust deed. in which TINS under
standing was expressed, has been pro-
nounced invalid, it indisputably expresses
the IDEAS which were accepted on the Free
Church. Lord Davey has suggested that
deed, it is difficult to understand and on
what ground of equity it could be chal-
lenged.
The lord advocates bill, however, en-
bodies the idea is that a certain preference
should be given to the Free Church, and
declares that if the members and adher-
ents number 'one-third of what, In the opln-
ion of the commissioners, would nave been
the number of the congregation If the union
of 1860 had not taken place. that one
third snail be entitled to the property. BY
general consent his is an awkward ana ar
bitrary proposal. Both of the churches OBJ
iect to it, though, of course, on different
grounds. Frequently it would dispossess
large bodies of communicates without COM
pensation, and in the case OF either church
that would be eminenuy unfair III Woulo
amount of church building in remote dis
tricts of the highlands where the popuia-
ton is dwindling. Is 1t wise 10 propose
such a solution for the difficulty? with a
fair knowledge of Scot4ahd' l take ieaVe "
saw that if the model trust rule deed, ia
yored by Lord DaVey, were adopted, or II
the matter were intrusted entirely TO the
executive commission, the present turmolI
would within ten years De cohhheo 10
score of parishes, whereas tie government
,ronosal will perpetuate strife IN at least
a hundred parishes.
.The mischief will be aggravated by the
fact that, under the bill, churches Will be
awarded to claimants who until now have
hao no connection with the Free Church
This is in direct conflict with the spirit II
not with the letter of the house OF LORDS
Judgment Lord Robertson described the
claimants as AN existing body of ministers
and members of the original Free Church
who have simply stayed where they were
and about whose pedigree there Is no du-
biety who desire to remain where they
were in principal doctrine and organiza-
tion' But the bill puts the history OF the
claimants out of sight. The recent pro-
ceedings in the court of sessions show that
scme of them will be Baptists, some Estab-
lished Churchmen, some Wesleyans and
some United Presbyterians. One church In
this city is claimed by body of persons
not one of whom ever had any connection
with the church which they claim. Under
the bill such claims will be valid.
Consider the situation which will emerge,
not in a city, but in many country parishes
Fifty persons will claim church sue
cessfully; 100 will be elected and will re-
uuire TO build a church, while the building
which they themselves erected is occupied
by men few of whom have anything that
can ever plausibly be called a rightful
ownership. One can scarcely conceive a
measure more certain to leave a ranking
sense of unfairness. / doubt If any pro-
posal will stand scrutiny which recognizes
that persons who never have had any con-
nection with the Free Church have a claim
to Free Church property; but when the claim
Of such persons is rated as twice as strong
as that of those Free Churchmen who have
entered the United Free Church, no defense
is possible, except on purely technical
H.