T ORD ROSEBERY in his speech on Monday at Glasgow pronounced
his benediction on the pro- posed Commission on the Scotch Church case, and con- gratulated the Government on their action. We do not follow all his arguments,—in particular, we do not see what purpose is to be served by his talk about "spiritual independence," a doctrine which, if it has any application in this case, is as much outraged by submission to a secular Commission as by the House of Lords' judgment. But we are in hearty agreement with his desire for a speedy settlement and his goodwill towards the present scheme. No authoritative details have yet been published, and we know nothing about the terms of reference. We understand that it will be a Commission appointed with the consent of the two parties, and we assume that, unlike most Royal Commissions, it will do its work with reason- able expedition, since too many anxious eyes will be fixed upon it for unnecessary delay. At the same time, it has some complicated questions to examine, and several months, in any case, must be occupied in its sittings, so we presume that both parties will agree to some modus vivendi pending its Report. The flood of actions-at-law to decide the application of the House of Lords' judgment to congregational property will, we trust, be stayed ; and we sincerely hope there may be no more forcible seizures of churches. It should be a simple matter to arrive at a com- promise to hold for the next few months. But the important point is the terms of reference. It is nearly two months since we advocated a Commission as the only solution of the difficulty. Since then the facts have become clearer, and the need of a Commission more imperative. It is obvious that, however great may be the gulfs of theory which divide the Churches, the practical barrier to a settlement is a simple question of fact. The Free Church admit that they are unable to administer the property with which the House of Lords has saddled them. They are prepared bution of funds at the instance of the larger and politi- cally more important body. As we have always main- tained, there is equity in their claim, and this equity is satisfied by the Commission which is contemplated. The first point in its constitution must, therefore, be the recog- nition of the House of Lords' judgment. That judgment must be taken as correct. The case cannot be reopened, as some would apparently contend, on the question of the intention of the donors of the trust funds, merely because that point was insufficiently argued at the hearing. To act otherwise would offend the sense of legality of the great majority both in Scotland and England. In cases of peculiar hardship, as when money was left to the Free Church since the Union by avowed sympathisers with the Union, there might be some special arrangement between the parties. But in substance the decision of the House of Lords must be respected, and the work of the Com- mission must be limited to an inquiry into ways and means. It is an administrative, not a judicial, body, and its business is to ascertain two questions of fact. The first is, what membership can the Free Church reasonably show ? the second is, what proportion of the funds and property, covered by the decision, can this membership adequately administer ?—a question of annual income, organisation, and personnel. It seems to us an impossible demand that the Executive, by means of a Commission, should disregard the judgment of the Supreme Court ; but there is no reason why it should not, with the consent of the parties, endeavour to provide a way out of the difficulties which have ensued. The successful litigant is unable to administer the trusts, so a third party brings the two together to decide upon some compromise which shall afterwards receive the sanction of Parliament.
Much depends upon the reference of the Commission, but more upon the spirit in which the two Churches receive it. We understand that both have in substance accepted the proposal, but there is a great difference between a bare acceptance and loyal co-operation. The Free Church seem to us to have a great opportunity. As a small body who fought a courageous fight, they attracted the sympathy of many who had no interest in their doctrine ; but this sympathy they have done much to forfeit by their recent high-handed seizures of congre- gational property and the intransigence of some of their manifestoes. On one side they represent seventeenth- century views on creed and ritual, but on another they have made it clear that they are prepared to allow a reasonable liberty within their bounds, and are far from wishing to be fettered by the Lord Chancellor's dicta. But if they are to have any significance as a Church, it will be as representing the opposite pole to the United Church, and the sterner elements in the body will almost certainly insist upon this attitude. Now the Church which takes up this position should not blink the fact that they take up an unpopular position, and that they can never hope to be a large Church. For good or for ill, the hands of the clock have gone forward, and it is useless to try to put them back. They are out of sympathy with the majority of the people of Scotland. Their standards are not ours, but we can recognise that they are noble and dignified, and a Church founded on this narrow but secure foundation might well be justified of its children. This seems to us the only logical and honourable position for the Free Church to assume. They are sure of a certain following in any case ; but if they are to keep the respect of the world, they must recognise their status, and make no vulgar attempts at proselytising by watering down their creed to the popular taste. Such a course is neither logical nor honest, and we would fain believe the Free Church both. Their aim should be to secure sufficient endowments from the funds adjudged to them to enable them to carry on their peculiar work; and to surrender the rest without malice to their opponents. If we may use a profane metaphor, all the cards are in their hands ; if they choose, their position is both dignified and safe. We are deeply anxious that there should be no further _ impasse, for it is perfectly certain that the patience of the British people will not suffer the disorder to continue for ever, and. harsh measures of confiscation may be the From the "United Church we expect even more. The good sense of their conduct during the recent seizures of property leads us to hope for the same wise and states- manlike temper during the sittings of the Commission. They claim to be the repository of light and toleration, and it is for them to show that their practice is not in conflict with their professions. They have the bulk of the Scottish people behind them, they are a rich Church with a large current income, and they can afford not to quarrel over small endowments. While we trust that they will urge their claim unweariedly to property, like Foreign Missions, which they alone can administer, we hope there will be no needless squabbling over petty funds. In particular, we hope they will surrender their claim to have the question of the property of each congrega- tion made the subject of a separate action. We do not deny that there may be a good justification in law for their conduct ; but since the aim of the Commission is a permanent settlement, it would be wiser to surrender freely the churches claimed by the Free Church in those districts where that Church has a following, even though such a claim is not warranted by the House of Lords' decision. It will all count in the general apportionment. Much time and friction will also be saved if they will realise the exact scope of the Commission, and in their arguments confine themselves strictly to the relevant. There is one section of the United Church to whom we would make a special appeal. Many of their members, who are in substance in agreement with their standards, are a little scared by certain doctrinal developments, by the teaching in the Colleges, and, perhaps, by certain political schemes with which the leaders have been associated. They represent the conservative type of mind, which must exist in any human association. While they are out of sympathy with the Free Church, they also are inclined to be out of sympathy with their own, and they may have felt inclined to cast in their lot with the smaller body in the hope that it might become a Church after their own hearts. To this class, who are neither reactionary nor revolutionary, we would counsel patience, and would advise them to remain where they are. They can best reform the Church, with which in substance they agree, by remaining within it. It is the old lesson of politics. A party may be influenced from within, but it is rarely indeed reformed from without.
GERMAN FINANCE AND GERMAN PARTIES.
Previous page
