or laxity in outdoor relief, and by the fact that the workhouse, or the workhouse infirmary, was less terrible than formerly to the aged poor.

As to the Education Acts, all the Welsh County Councils had adopted Mr. Lloyd-George's policy, one of the main objects of which was to defer as long as possible the creation of a technical case for the enforcement of the Defaulting Authorities Act, without abandoning the principle of non-application of rates to denominational schools. This ingenious policy necessarily involved the sacrifice in many cases of the maintenance of an equal standard of school efficiency. In London, the Education Committee of the County Council found itself seriously overburdened with its duties under the Act of 1903. On December 20 it decided to abolish all fees in "nonprovided" schools after March 21, 1905. This would affect 179 out of the 474 "non-provided" schools, and entail an annual loss of 26,5251., half falling on the Council. In other ways, especially in its tests of structural conditions, the Council indicated that it meant to be stringent towards the former voluntary schools. A new scholarship scheme, enabling some 2,000 to 3,000 children of eleven to twelve to obtain secondary education till the age of fourteen, their scholarships then being renewable if they were likely either to gain a higher scholarship at seventeen or would agree to enter the teaching profession, was published on December 10. Its eventual cost, including the senior scholarships and an increased provision of secondary schools, was estimated at 275,2001. annually. The scheme was unfavourably criticised by some educationists as combining the pursuit of two altogether distinct objects-the supply of teachers for the Council's schools (which was deficient) and the provision of a ladder towards higher education.

The political outlook at home at the close of the year was in the highest degree uncertain. The end of the fiscal controversy seemed to have become more distant; the education and licensing settlements were threatened with serious disturbance; and it was felt that a general election could not be long delayed. On the other hand, the relations of Great Britain with foreign Powers had undergone a salutary change. The AngloFrench Agreement had eliminated causes of friction of long standing, and had borne fruit in help towards the solution of an alarming difference with Russia. The recognition of international arbitration had made a great advance, and no serious danger was to be apprehended, in spite of certain appearances and rumours, of a breach with either Russia or Germany. Apart from domestic controversies, sensible progress had been made towards the settlement of some of the problems of poor relief, in the improvement of the efficiency of the Navy, and perhaps, though this was still doubtful, in Army

reform.

CHAPTER VI.

SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

I. SCOTLAND.

THE history of the year 1904 is dominated by the conflict between the Free Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. The former, consisting of the small minority who in 1900 had unsuccessfully opposed the union of the body formerly bearing that name with the United Presbyterian Church, had brought actions against the trustees of the funds of their former communion, restraining a proposed transfer to new trustees appointed by the United Free Church, the body which had arisen from the fusion effected in 1900. These actions had twice been decided adversely to the claims of the Free Church by the Scottish Court of Session. The dissentients, nicknamed in Scotland the "Wee Frees," had appealed to the House of Lords in two cases-" Bannatyne v. Overtoun " and " Macalister v. Young," the latter, however, depending on the decision in the former. The former case had been twice argued in the House of Lords-the re-hearing being necessitated by the death of Lord Shand-in November, 1903, and June, 1904, for eight or nine days each time. In the interval, proposals for a compromise, sanctioned by the Assembly of the United Free Church (May 24), were submitted to the Free Church, but rejected. Both parties were to retain the churches and manses in their possession on May 15, 1904, subject to reciprocal arrangements for holding service: the Free Church was to be admitted to the benefits of the United Free Church pension funds, and to receive 50,000l. in cash; and the costs of both parties were to be charged on the funds in dispute.

The event seemed to justify the rejection of the offer, for on August 1 the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Session. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) and Lords Davey, James of Hereford, Robertson, and Alverstone formed. the majority; Lord Macnaghten and Lord Lindley the minority.

Substantially the appellants had objected to the transfer of the trust funds on the ground that the United Free Church had departed from the original beliefs of the Free Church of Scotland, first in abandoning the doctrine of Church Establishment, which the founders of the Free Church in 1843 and for long afterwards had held in principle, while obliged by circumstances to renounce the existing Establishment; and secondly, in modifying (by a "Declaratory Act" passed in 1892) the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination to eternal life or death irrespective of conduct, as set forth in the Westminster Confession. The evidence on the first head showed that Dr. Chalmers and others had held the doctrine, but the respondents contended that it was held as a "pious opinion" rather than as an essential doctrine

of the Church. On the second head the respondents argued, first that the "Declaratory Act," though in part inconsistent with the doctrine stated in the Confession, did not necessarily involve its rejection, since two irreconcilable doctrines might be held at the same time if both were warranted by Scripture (a kind of position familiar in theology and, in respect of ultimate principles, in philosophy also), and on both heads that a Church had power to change and modify its doctrines. Such a power, moreover, it was argued, was contemplated by the Barrier Act, passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1697, which imposed certain checks on such a change in the Established Church; and of that Church the Free Church of Scotland claimed to be an offshoot.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) held that the identity of a Church consisted in the identity of its doctrines, and on both the points above specified the United Free Church clearly differed from the original Free Church. It had been held by Lord Eldon in 1820 in the Craigdallie case that if the trust deed did not provide for the event of a schism, the right of those who held the original opinions of the body to the property held good. A Church might change its doctrines, but not the application of the property left to it in trust. Barrier Act did not contemplate a change of doctrine, and in any case did not touch property. Moreover, the union effected in 1900 was not a complete fusion of the two Churches it was a union of the funds under formularies so elastic that they could be accepted by both parties to the union without the abandonment by either of its distinctive religious views.

The

Lord Macnaghten supported the claim of the respondents. The Church of Scotland throughout its history had repeatedly asserted its right of self-government, and the strongest supporters of that right were the party which eventually became the Free Church. It had therefore the right to amend its formularies, which indeed was essential to the nature of a Church. The doctrine of Establishment was not essential, and Dr. Candlish, one of the founders, had adopted this view.

Lord Davey held that the case was one not of interpretation of doctrine, but of breach of trust, and that the Free Church was bound by the doctrines both of Establishment and the Westminster Confession.

Lord James of Hereford rested his decision on the view that the Free Church was bound by the doctrine of Establishment, while the United Presbyterian Church was clearly voluntary. He expressed a hope, however, that some compromise might be reached.

Lord Robertson, reviewing in some detail the history of the Church of Scotland, declared that the Church had no power to change its doctrines, and that the Free Church had acknowledged the Establishment principle down to 1900. The Westminster Confession was its doctrinal basis, but this had been put

by the United Free Church in a "precarious and uncertain position."

Lord Lindley held that the General Assembly of the Free Church took over from the Establishment a power to alter its doctrine subject to consonance with Scripture, and that the transfer of property was legitimate.

Lord Alverstone held that, though the Barrier Act gave some power of altering doctrine, this did not extend to the fundamental doctrines of the Church. While declining to pronounce as to predestination, he held that Establishment was a fundamental doctrine of the Free Church. The dissentient minority were the true representatives of the Free Church, and the majority had no right to eject them from their churches and manses (as they had threatened to do) on the ground that they declined to become members of the United Free Church.

The decision, which would not be operative till given effect to by the Court of Session, was received in Scotland with general dismay, and seized on by the Scottish Home Rule Association as an argument in support of its aims. The existing Free Church--the "Wee Frees"-claimed to consist of thirty-seven ministers, 105 congregations and 50,000 members or adherents; but its opponents stated that though dissenting members were found here and there among the United Free congregations, there were in reality only about twenty-eight "Wee Free" Church ministers in charge of congregations, of whom one was in Edinburgh, two in Glasgow, and twentyfour in the Highlands and Islands, and that they represented the least educated and least intelligent section of the old Free Church. Some of their leaders, moreover, exhibited a lack of Christian charity towards the vanquished. True, they had had some provocation in the action of the majority after the fusion, and their feeling might be partly ascribed to their belief in the tendency of that majority towards rationalism. But it was clear that they could find neither the men nor the funds for maintaining the three Divinity Colleges and the splendid home and foreign missions which would now fall under their charge.

After each body had in vain proposed terms of settlement, counsel for the Free Church applied on October 18 to the Court of Session to give effect to the Lords' judgment. This was

done on October 24, and the first of the churches to be surrendered (at Muir of Ord, Inverness-shire) was occupied by the "Wee Frees" on November 15, without violence. Subsequent surrenders were less peaceful.

From the first, however, the opinion had been generally expressed that the difficulty must be solved by legislation. The Times on August 9 pointed out that a precedent was afforded by the Dissenters' Chapels Act of 1845, which set aside a similar decision and confirmed certain congregations which had become Unitarian in the possession of funds left for Trinitarian worship. The Archbishop of Canterbury on August 12 wrote

sympathetic letters to the Moderators of the rival Churches, Principal Rainy and the Rev. Murdo Macqueen, suggesting that the services of members of other Communions, interested on religious grounds in promoting a settlement, might be useful, and offering his own. Lord Balfour of Burleigh on October 8, at Stirling, said that as a member of the Establishment he desired an equitable settlement, which, if Parliament were appealed to, must be effected by Scotsmen for Scotsmen. Mr. Asquith, at Newburgh (Oct. 10), urged agreement, arbitration, or in the last resort, legislation. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, at Edinburgh (Nov. 6), described the judgment as a shock to the Scottish theory of spiritual independence. Scotsmen must combine to minimise its effect, and the Government must find a solution. He suggested the appointment of an Executive Committee to apportion the disputed property, with due respect to the claims of minorities, bearing in mind that the main purpose was to secure the largest possible fulfilment of the sacred function for which Churches exist.

On November 26 it was announced that the Secretary for Scotland had proposed to both Churches that a Royal Commission should be appointed to take evidence as a basis for a speedy and lasting settlement of the dispute. The lines of settlement, as indicated two days later, were: the decision of the House of Lords was to be respected; the division of the property was to be subject to the ability of the recipients to administer it, and urgency was to be given for the consequent legislation. The Commissioners, whose names were announced on December 13, were the Earl of Elgin, Lord Kinnear, and Sir Ralph Anstruther, Bart. They were to meet in January, 1905. Sir John Cheyne, K.C., was also appointed by the Secretary for Scotland "a commission of one" to deal with questions of interim possession. It was understood that his work was to consist largely of persuasion and conciliation, but the "Wee Frees" showed themselves unyielding, and their counsel on December 19 declined to give any undertaking as to voluntary interim arrangements, stating, however, that they not only welcomed the Royal Commission but would necessarily obey it. By December 14 they had taken over eleven churches in the Highlands and Islands, including one whose congregation had joined the United Free Church unanimously in 1900.

Speaking at Glasgow on December 5, Lord Rosebery had said that he would not dispute the law of the decision, but strict legality might do harm. Dr. Chalmers' utterances were hardly of canonical authority, and three-fourths of the Free Church endowments had been given since 1873, when the Mutual Eligibility Act (as to ministers of the two Churches) had made the union only a question of time. The majority had perhaps overlooked the rights and the obstinacy of a Scottish religious minority; still, the decision was a surprise.

The course of general politics in Scotland showed that Mr.