When we remember that these Christians are the children of martyrs we are not surprised to learn that many of them are daily communicants, and that their daily lives compare most favourably with those of the more devout of our Catholics at home. It is not an unknown thing for a native chief to be found every morning of the week in chapel at the early hour of five o'clock for morning prayers, followed by half an hour's meditation, Mass and Holy Communion, as a preparation for his daily work, which begins at seven o'clock. Among old and young, men and women, are to be found models of every Christian virtue, and the missionaries working amongst the Baganda are convinced that some of them are living saints. Thus has God blessed the work of His missionaries in the very heart of Africa. True, it has not been one long unbroken triumph, for in Uganda, as elsewhere, there have been trials, disappointments, and apparent failure. Plague, fever, and sleeping-sickness have annihilated whole communities; storms and winds have destroyed mission buildings; worst of all, tribes have resisted the grace of God for years. Of this we have not spoken, for God's blessing has surmounted all obstacles and made Uganda one of the bright spots of Darkest Africa. As the traveller on reaching home forgets the weariness of his journey, its dangers and its hardships, in the joy of his safe arrival, so the missionary of Christ heeds not his disappointments when he has tracked down the stray sheep whom he has gone thousands of miles to seek. One anxious thought, however, crosses his mind, as he thinks of the countless other sheep still without the fold, and of the fewness of the shepherds to gather them in. And he prays God that the triumphs of the missionfield may move many generous hearts to come forward and take a share in this divine work, and by their labours and sacrifices hasten the day when the whole world shall be gathered into the one fold of Christ. THOMAS A. SULLIVAN. NOTES AND QUERIES THEOLOGY HONORARIA AND DEPRECIATION OF CURRENCY REV. DEAR SIR,-In case of a bequest of a considerable sum, say £100 for Masses, and when custom only could be relied on to determine the number of Masses to be celebrated, it was customary in my diocese to tax the bequest at the rate of six Masses to the pound. In view of the depreciation of the pound to less than half its pre-war value, would it be lawful to tax the bequest now at the rate of two or three Masses, at most, to the pound? If not, would four Masses to the pound be sufficient? A SUBSCRIBER. Custom may certainly be relied on, in special cases, as the determining factor in fixing the honorarium. But we must remember that it is, at best, only a supplementary factor; the real test, when available, is the Bishop's decree-promulgated, if possible, in the diocesan Synod (831, § 1). And when, in the absence of a decree, we have to rely on custom, we must be sure that there is a real custom-the well-established practice of the more important section of the community concerned-not the practice of a few nor, a fortiori, a mere desire on the part of even the majority. Now we are afraid that 'Subscriber,' at least if he lives in Ireland, will have some trouble on the first count. These matters, so far as we are aware, have been arranged by Episcopal decree; and, in some cases, to our own knowledge, the amount has been fixed since money started on its downward course. If there is such a decree in 'Subscriber's ' diocese, he must be content with the amount it allows him-' nec sacerdoti licet ea majorem exigere' (831, § 1). We may expect that those responsible for fixing the sum will take due account of the conditions that have reduced fixed incomes in this country to one-third their pre-war value. The Pope himself has already made provision for the Italian clergy in this respect and the Congregation of the Council has suggested to a Bishop, who had applied to it for help and guidance, that the raising of the diocesan honorarium would be the best possible method of meeting his difficulties.1 But, till the Bishop has acted, 'Subscriber' must stand 1 Reply of June 15, 1918. VOL. XV-34 by the older standard: though, of course, both he and the others concerned may use all constitutional methods to propagate their own views on the advisability of having the standard changed. On the second count, too, it would appear very unlikely that 'Subscriber' may proceed to lessen the number. If there is no decree, neither, so far as his evidence goes, is there any custom in his favour. There was a custom-but it did not favour him : that it has had a more friendly successor he leaves us free to doubt. The advisability of a more liberal custom is perhaps evident enough: its actual existence has not been proved-and that, unfortunately, is the important point. FUNERAL OFFERINGS REV. DEAR SIR,-According to the present Armagh Statutes, if a man dies in his parish the P.P. of that parish has a right to all the funeral offerings. If, for the sake of convenience, he is waked in a neighbouring church in a parish where he had neither a domicile nor quasi-domicile, has the P.P. of this church any right to any of the funeral offerings, even though he may have the right to read the funeral service or do the Armagh Statutes still prevail? For my part 1 think there is no canon in the New Code upsetting the arrangements of the Armagh Statutes in regard to funeral offerings. I conclude this from Canon 22 on laws, and from other sources. JUSTITIA. The second portion of Canon 22-on which 'Justitia ' appears to rely-is not so very much to his purpose. It deals with extra-Code legislation, and leaves Canon 6 to regulate the laws contained in the Code itself. But we agree with 'Justitia' all the same. The Code, and the decisions of the Roman Congregations, show great respect for local laws and customs in regard to funeral offerings- as we had occasion to remark more than once in connexion with previous replies on this same subject. The Armagh law still stands; and, under the Armagh law, the Parish Priest of a parish in which the deceased is merely waked' has no claim whatever to the offerings. BEQUEST For charitable PURPOSE REV. DEAR SIR,-I want your advice on a matter that troubles me. Three weeks ago I got a surprise. It was a pleasant one at the time: I am not so sure about it now. I was informed that a plot of land-only small, value about £600-had been left to me, without any condition attached. I had had very few dealings with the testator while he was alive, and had certainly no claims of any kind on or against him, so the windfall surprised me. Now I find from the lawyers that the bequest comes to me only because it failed in law to go to a charity: the testator died within a fortnight of making the will. Some of my friends tell me that I am bound to hand the farm over to the Institution specified in the will. But, if so, why did the testator make the bequest unconditional? Does that not indicate that his wish to benefit the Institution was conditional, and that I am free to do as I please? [Abridged from a longer document.] LEO. From 'Leo's' statement of the case, we have no doubt whatever that he is bound in conscience, though not in law, to apply the bequest, and every portion of it, to the purposes specified in the will of the deceased. That may seem a strict view to take in view of the clause which brought him the windfall.' So it would be, if we could consider these matters apart from the civil enactments that have aimed for centuries past at curtailing our freedom to dispose of our property for charitable purposes. But these laws, unfortunately, are a hard reality that must be faced, and their consequences in the theological sphere cannot be ignored. To put the matter Though the English and the Irish statutes are by no means identical, the English must be referred to—at least by way of illustration. During the Plantagenet period there was a long series of Mortmain' laws; with these the student of Moral Theology is fully acquainted 2: and, anyhow, they do not concern us here very closely. The first that does concern us is the so-called 'Mortmain' Act of 1736. ' in general terms,' we may say: '(1) that this Georgian Act applied only to gifts for charitable purposes; (2) that it applied to gifts of land, of charges on land, of interest in land, or of money to be laid out in land; (3) that it made gifts for any of these for charitable purposes void if made by will; and that (4) it also made void such gifts for charitable purposes if made by deed or other instrument operating inter vivos, unless the deed or the instrument was executed at least twelve months before the death of the donor, and unless also certain other prescribed conditions were complied with.' It was one of the most hypocritical in the whole series. Professing to provide against 'improvident alienations or dispositions made by languishing or dying persons, or by other persons, to uses called charitable to the disherison of their lawful heirs,' it was dictated solely by a bigoted desire to discourage gifts to charity. It left everybody free to disinherit as many heirs as he pleased in favour of any use that was not charitable. It operated whether the persons were 'languishing' or not. And it squandered the property of men who had no heirs at all—as when it expended on a Royal Pavilion the life-savings of old Roger Troutbeck, who had left everything to the Charity School at Wapping because, as he stated, he had no relation nor kindred alive to the best of [his] knowledge or belief, having outlived them all, and [because] it is natural for all men to have a regard for their native place, and where the seeds of their education were first planted.' uses 1 For the convenience of those who have a copy of O'Connell, Archbishop Murray and the Board of Charitable Bequests, published by the Archbishop of Dublin four years ago, we give the facts as stated in two of the Appendixes (23*-26*, and 32*-35*). The complicated history is given very clearly. 2 See O'Dea, De Just. et Jure, p. 111. In 1764 a special case arose. There had been a bequest for charitable purposes: and a codicil directing that, if the bequest were found void in law, the trustees were to apply it to other charitable uses as near to the testator's intention as the law would allow. The codicil was pronounced by Lord Northington a fraud upon the law of 1736, and declared null and void. That decision came in for castigation in a case that came up for hearing nearly a century later-a case that will interest 'Leo' much. The will this time had been drawn up in 1831, but its fate was not decided till 1857. Money was left to four trustees to be paid to a charitable society. The property was personal; but, as the society's activities apparently included land purchase, there was danger that the Statute of 1736 might be applied. So, in 1833, a codicil was added, providing that 'if any part or parts of the will should by any law then in force be considered not to have their full operation, the money was to go to the same four men, as joint tenants, 'free from any trust or condition whatever, express or implied.' The last clause is the one that concerns us now. It is the lineal ancestor of what has come to be known in Ireland as the 'O'Hagan clause '—the clause that troubles' Leo.' The case in favour of the bequest was, it will be noted, stronger in 1857 than in 1764. In the latter, there was a trust of some kind; in the former, from the legal point of view, none whatever. Even as regards the will of 1764, Lord Northington's decision was treated by the new judge, Vice-Chancellor Page-Wood, as of little or no authority. But that by the way. The important point for us is that the new judge refused to find any fraud upon the law' in the codicil of 1857. The point was raised that the appointment of the same four men indicated that the previous trust continued. To that he replied that the proof was insufficient: 'that bequest is expressed by the codicil to be made to them "free from any trust or condition whatever, expressed or implied"; and, that being so, it is impossible for this Court [to convert the bequest into a bequest upon trust] unless it can convert the legatees into trustees by proof of some communication between them and the testator, importing that the testator intended a trust, which they in effect undertook. Here no such case is attempted to be made.' 1 'Leo' will find, we think, that the italicized clause has some bearing on his case. The absence of communication between himself and the testator may only be an indication that the latter knew where the pitfalls lay, and was determined to avoid them. Coming to the Irish Statutes we find, in the 16th section of the Charitable Bequests Act of 1844, a provision to the following effect : After the commencement of this Act, no donation, devise, or bequest, for pious or charitable uses in Ireland, shall be valid to create or convey any estate in lands, tenements, or hereditaments, for such uses, unless the deed, will or other instrument containing the same shall be duly executed three calender months at least before the death of the person executing the same.2 1 Op. cit., p 35*. 2 Op. cit., p. 14. |