L75

l75, but from 1903 onwards it was l167. the decision of the house of lords in 1904 did not bring the trials of the free church to an end. in the absence of any arrangement with the united free church, she could only gain possession of the property declared to belong to her by an application in each particular case to the court of session, and a series of law-suits began which were trying to all parties. in the year 1905 the free church assembly met in the historic free church assembly hall, but it did not meet there again. having been left by the awards of the commission without any station in the foreign mission field, the free church resolved to start a foreign mission of her own. the urgent task confronting the church was that of supplying ordinances to her congregations. the latter numbered 200 in 1907, and the church had as yet only 74 ordained ministers, so that many of the manses allocated to her by the commissioners were not yet occupied, and catechists and elders were called to conduct services where possible. the gallant stand this little church had made for principles which were no longer represented by any presbyterian church outside the establishment attracted to her much interest and many hopes that she might be successful in her endeavours to do something for the religious life of scotland. see scotland, church of, for bibliography and statistics. (a. m.*) footnotes: [1] "it is her being free, not her being established, that constitutes the real historical and hereditary identity of the reformed national church of scotland." see _act and declaration, &c._, of free assembly, 1851. [2] in the act _anent the true and holy kirk, and of those that are declared not to be of the same_. this act was supplemented by that of 1579, _anent the jurisdiction of the kirk_. [3] the second book of discipline was not formally recognized in that act; but all former acts against "the jurisdiction and discipline of the true kirk as the same is used and exercised within the realm" were abolished; and all "liberties, privileges, immunities and freedoms whatsoever" previously granted were ratified and approved. [4] the most important of these had reference to the full right of a constituted church to the enjoyment of an absolutely unrestricted freedom in convening assemblies. this very point on one occasion at least threatened to be the cause of serious misunderstandings between william and the people of scotland. the difficulties were happily smoothed, however, by the wisdom and tact of william carstares. [5] see _act and declaration_ of free assembly, 1851. [6] this principle had been asserted even by an assembly so late as that of 1736, and had been invariably presupposed in the "call," which had never ceased to be regarded as an indispensable prerequisite for the settlement of a minister. [7] according to the free church "protest" of 1843 it was in these cases decided (1) that the courts of the church were liable to be compelled to intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations; (2) that the civil courts had power to interfere with and interdict the preaching of the gospel and administration of ordinances as authorized and enjoined by the church; (3) that the civil courts had power to suspend spiritual censures pronounced by the courts of the church, and to interdict their execution as to spiritual effects, functions and privileges; (4) that deposed ministers, and probationers deprived of their licence, could be restored by the mandate of the civil courts to the spiritual office and status of which the church courts had deprived them; (5) that the right of membership in ecclesiastical courts could be determined by the civil courts; (6) that the civil courts had power to supersede the majority of a church court of the establishment in regard to the exercise of its spiritual functions as a church court, and to authorize the minority to exercise the said functions in opposition to the court itself and to the superior judicatories of the church; (7) that processes of ecclesiastical discipline could be arrested by the civil courts; and (8) that without the sanction of the civil courts no increased provision could be made for the spiritual care of a parish, although such provision left all civil rights and patrimonial interests untouched. [8] the narrative and argument of this elaborate and able document cannot be reproduced here. in substance it is a claim "as of right" on behalf of the church and of the nation and people of scotland that the church shall freely possess and enjoy her liberties, government, discipline, rights and privileges according to law, and that she shall be protected therein from the foresaid unconstitutional and illegal encroachments of the said court of session, and her people secured in their christian and constitutional rights and liberties. this claim is followed by the "declaration" that the assembly cannot intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations, or carry on the government of christ's church subject to the coercion of the court of session; and by the "protest" that all acts of the parliament of great britain passed without the consent of the scottish church and nation, in alteration or derogation of the government, discipline, rights and privileges of the church, as also all sentences of courts in contravention of said government, discipline, rights and privileges, "are and shall be in themselves void and null, and of no legal force or effect." [9] the scottish members voted with the minority in the proportion of 25 to 12. [10] the number ultimately rose to 474. [11] by this formal recognition of the qualifications to the confession of faith made in 1647 the scruples of the majority of the associate synod of original seceders were removed, and 27 ministers, along with a considerable number of their people, joined the free church in the following year. [12] see taylor innes, _law of creeds in scotland_, p. 258 seq. [13] the language of dr buchanan, for example, in 1860 was (_mutatis mutandis_) the same as that which he had employed in 1838 in moving the independence resolution already referred to. freedmen's bureau (officially the bureau of freedmen, refugees and abandoned lands), a bureau created in the united states war department by an act of congress, 3rd of march 1865, to last one year, but continued until 1872 by later acts passed over the president's veto. its establishment was due partly to the fear entertained by the north that the southerners if left to deal with the blacks would attempt to re-establish some form of slavery, partly to the necessity for extending relief to needy negroes and whites in the lately conquered south, and partly to the need of creating some commission or bureau to take charge of lands confiscated in the south. during the civil war a million negroes fell into the hands of the federals and had to be cared for. able-bodied blacks were enlisted in the army, and the women, children and old men were settled in large camps on confiscated southern property, where they were cared for alternately by the war department and by the treasury department until the organization of the freedmen's bureau. at the head of the bureau was a commissioner, general o. o. howard, and under him in each southern state was an assistant commissioner with a corps of local superintendents, agents and inspectors. the officials had the broadest possible authority in all matters that concerned the blacks. the work of the bureau may be classified as follows: (1) distributing rations and medical supplies among the blacks; (2) establishing schools for them and aiding benevolent societies to establish schools and churches; (3) regulating labour and contracts; (4) taking charge of confiscated lands; and (5) administering justice in cases in which blacks were concerned. for several years the ex-slaves were under the almost absolute control of the bureau. whether this control had a good or bad effect is still disputed, the southern whites and many northerners holding that the results of the bureau's work were distinctly bad, while others hold that much good resulted from its work. there is now no doubt, however, that while most of the higher officials of the bureau were good men, the subordinate agents were generally without character or judgment and that their interference between the races caused permanent discord. much necessary relief work was done, but demoralization was also caused by it, and later the institution was used by its officials as a means of securing negro votes. in educating the blacks the bureau made some progress, but the instruction imparted by the missionary teachers resulted in giving the ex-slaves notions of liberty and racial equality that led to much trouble, finally resulting in the hostility of the whites to negro education. the secession of the blacks from the white churches was aided and encouraged by the bureau. the whole field of labour and contracts was covered by minute regulations, which, good in theory, were absurd in practice, and which failed altogether, but not until labour had been disorganized for several years. the administration of justice by the bureau agents amounted simply to a ceaseless persecution of the whites who had dealings with the blacks, and bloody conflicts sometimes resulted. the law creating the bureau provided for the division of the confiscated property among the negroes, and though carried out only in parts of south carolina, florida and georgia, it caused the negroes to believe that they were to be cared for at the expense of their former masters. this belief made them subject to swindling schemes perpetrated by certain bureau agents and others who promised to secure lands for them. when negro suffrage was imposed by congress upon the southern states, the bureau aided the union league (q.v.) in organizing the blacks into a political party opposed to the whites. a large majority of the bureau officials secured office through their control of the blacks. the failure of the bureau system and its discontinuance in the midst of reconstruction without harm to the blacks, and the intense hostility of the southern whites to the institution caused by the irritating conduct of bureau officials, are indications that the institution was not well conceived nor wisely administered. see p. s. pierce, _the freedmen's bureau_ (iowa city, 1904); _report of the joint committee on reconstruction_ (washington, 1866); w. l. fleming (ed.), _documents relating to reconstruction_ (cleveland, o., 1906); w. l. fleming, _civil war and reconstruction in alabama_ (new york, 1905); and james w. garner, _reconstruction in mississippi_ (new york, 1901). (w. l. f.)