CHRISTIAN SCIENCE RULES

Evening Star, Issue 19788, 11 February 1928, Page 2

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE RULES

EXPULSION Of MEMBER Tho ‘ Magna Charta of Christian Science,’ laid down by Mrs Eddy, was read by Mr J. B. Matthew, K.C., at tho hearing of an action which came before Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice, and a special jury in the King’s Bench Division in London recently. It is as follows :—“ The Magna Charta of Christian Science means much. It is multum in parvo, one in all and all in one. It stands for the inalienable universal rights of man, is essentially democratic, apd its government is administered ,by common consent. _ The church is the mouthpiece of Christian Science, its law and gospel are according to Christ Jesus, andrits rules are health, holiness, and immortality, equal rights and privileges and equality of sexes.” The action was a sequel to a dispute between members of tho Third Church of Christian Science, of Curzon street, Mayfair. Mr Malcolm Macpherson sought an injunction restraining Mr H. P. Bleckley, Mrs Norah G. Bnbb, Mr 11. M. Gioync, Mr Graf Emmie, Mrs M. Morris,"and Miss Elsie M. Search, members of the board of directors of the Third Church, from interfering with his use and enjoyment of _ the privileges and benefits appertaining to membership of that church, and'-from treating as valid a resolution expelling him from membership of the church. Mr Matthews, who appeared for Mr Macpherson, said that the church was one that emanated from the First Church, founded in America by Mrs Eddy. The rules provided for tho appointment of officers in rotation, and it was a difference of opinion concerning the meaning of the words “ rotation in office,” that had given rise to the acute state of affairs among certain members of the Mayfair Church in 1025 and the resolution passed by what was known as the Board of Directors. The officers of the church were a hoard of directors composed of seven members, including a president, a first and second reader—one man and the other a woman—a clerk, treasurer, and librarian, all oi whom were to be elected and appointed according to the rules. Mr Macpherson, who joined tho church in 1921, raised the question whether tho rules governing the election of the various officers were in harmony with his views about the fundamental rights of members as laid down by the “Magna Charta.”' The controversy continued until a. Mrs Laura Roberts and a .Miss Cole brought a charge against Mr Macpherson, alleging that ho had stated that certain members had put into the waste-paper basket the original rules about rotation of office without having altered them according to proper resolutions. Mr Macpherson was called on to withdraw the suggestion he had made on past members of the church, but as he would not do so a resolution was passed expunging him from the roll of members. Mr Matthew stated that it was necessary before the person bringing the charge proceeded with it that he nr she should write a loiter to the alleged culprit in the spirit of love. Mrs Roberts wrote in a spirit, of love, as she said, but Mr Macplierson expressed the view I hat the “spirit of love” letter was camouflage. The board proceeded with the strictest formality, and it was resolved to expel Mr Macpherson, and this was done. Lord Hewart: It has been stated that, there was an absence of spiritual grace in tho proceedings all along. Can you imagine anything less suitable to discuss in this court? ft really comes to this, that you do not deny, ns far as tho removal of this gentleman from the list of members is concerned. that all forms were observed, but you say that the communication which was tho first step to set the machinery in motion, although it was indeed written, was not n communication in the spirit of love. Mr Matthews: Yes. Lord Hewart: And you .say it _ is for this court and jury to decide whether that communication was in the spirit of love? Mr Matthews: L say so, but in addition there arc many other matters included in the question whether there was malice on tho part of the board. Air Jowitt, K.C. (defending): I understand that every allegation so far has gone, except that about tho spirit of love. Lord Hewart; Yes. so I understood. Mr Matthews: I find myself unable to point to satisfactory evidence as to those other allegations, but my client insists. Lord Hewart: I am satisfied that there is no ease to answer. Mr Matthews has performed with great skill —and, of course, in the “ spirit of love ” —the task of trying to make bricks without straw. There is no case to go to tho jury. Judgment will bo for the defendants, with costs.