U.F. ABUSE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE country still continues all aflame with the Church case, and will likely so continue for some time to come.
The representatives of the United Free Church have been extremely busy during the past month endeavouring to stir up to the utmost the feelings of their people against the judgment of the House of Lords. We need not be surprised at these efforts, seeing that their material all—the chief object of their affections—has passed from them by the law’s decree. Nor, indeed, are we much surprised at the flood of misrepresentations and lies that they have been sending forth, as it is long since they forsook “the truth,” and it is difficult for them to speak it. A very disgraceful feature of the business is the way in which they have been and still are trying to drag down the House of Lords in the estimation of the people, as also the most unworthy, contemptible arguments they have employed with a view to this. The Lord Chancellor is the special object of their abhorrence, and they have done their best to bespatter him with mud, but all they have accomplished is to show the element in which they themselves live and move. He has shown a strength of mind and conviction as well as a sturdy independence that will outlive and overcome all abuse. We are certain of this, that if the decision had gone in favour of the United Frees the House of Lords would have been proclaimed the grandest institution in the world, and the Lord Chancellor a most admirable and learned gentleman, but since it has gone in favour of a despised minority nothing is too condemnatory to be uttered against the said tribunal and its head.
Some of the childish arguments may be briefly handled. The bench of the House of Lords, it is argued, was composed of Englishmen who could not understand Scottish Church matters. We do not affirm that the English people in general are very deeply versed in Scottish Church distinctions, but the gentlemen who sat in this case were not only men of most capable intellects for the task given them, but had the very fullest information from both parties to the contest. We defy anyone to say that their judgments betray anything like incapacity or ignorance. Besides, one of them was a Scotsman, Lord Robertson, and his judgment was clear and emphatic for the Free Church. In fact, if the United Frees were not completely blinded by prejudice, they would perceive that a decision by English judges was likely to be more thoroughly impartial than one by the Court of Session. The former were at a distance from the respective fields of the parties of the controversy, and were entirely outside the range of any prepossession or bias towards either side. We have no desire to be disrespectful to any of “the powers that be,” but we cannot help expressing our feeling that the general current of popular thought and the social position of the big United Free Church had their own place in contributing to the decision of the Scottish court. A very striking circumstance has been brought to light in connection with this particular point in the discussion, namely, that for a number of years past a greater proportion of cases have been referred from Scotland to the House of Lords than from England or Ireland. The Scottish people evidently value the House of Lords more than the English or the Irish, so that they must violate their own convictions and experience if they are to accept the present opinion of its detractors. The fact of the matter is, that the whole nation should thank the House of Lords for its present decision. It shows that justice will be done by the highest legal tribunal in the realm irrespective altogether of the numbers or social position of parties. The poor man will get fair play as well as the rich, yea he will get the victory over the rich should he have truth on his side.
The United Frees also object in the most irrational manner to this decision because it has been determined according to “the law of trusts.” The terrible law of trusts has done all the mischief. And what is this awful law that has come down with such tremendous force upon the poor, innocent United Free Church? Is it some twisty, intricate device of the legal mind? No; but just a simple rule of common honesty, that if property and funds are left for certain special purposes, the trustees thereof are not at liberty to divert them to other or contrary purposes. This is the law which applies to ordinary trusts, and happily also to Church ones. Common honesty is very hard on the United Frees at the present time. And, indeed, no wonder, for it received very bad treatment from them for many a day. During the last twenty years or more there has been a flagrant disregard of solemn promises and engagements by men who now figure in the United Church. They declared at ordination that they accepted the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and that they renounced Arminianism and all other contrary tenets, and they vowed to assert, maintain, and defend all the principles of the Free Church. In spite of all this they proceeded to encourage and promote the very things they professed to renounce, and parted company with that common honesty which may be found even among men of the world as well as with doctrines and principles that have stood the test of centuries, and are founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God.
There is great talk at the present day to the effect that if you break any physical law that law will inevitably punish its violation. But it is too often forgotten that law in the moral and spiritual sphere will also bring punishment of transgressors whether religious or profane. Some of us were beginning to think that the punishment of an unfaithful, truth-despising majority in this country was to be deferred to some remote date in the future, and that they were to get their own way for many years to come, but God is showing before our very eyes that He sitteth in the heavens and beholds the earth, and that He will not allow His laws to be despised and His Word contemned with impunity. J. S. S.