Sabbath Labour—Enormous Increase.
A writer in the “Sunday Guardian” (London) says that exhaustive inquiries prove conclusively that since the Armistice the number of workers engaged in Sabbath labour has increased year by year until to-day the total has reached astonishing proportions. He further adds:—”The tendency in certain industries seems to be a gradual and systematic process of increasing ‘Sunday’ labour, which if not checked might lead to the complete violation of ‘Sunday’ observance as a day of rest for all.” The following figures, which are an under-estimate, give some idea of how matters stand as far as certain branches of Sabbath labour are concerned:—
Drink distributing trades (not including brewery staffs), 254,000;
newspaper industry, including agents and street vendors), 220,000;
railway workers, 150,000;
shopkeepers and assistants, 139,000;
miners, 150,000;
tramway and omnibus drivers and conductors, 50,000;
parks, golf clubs, tennis, bowls and other sports club staffs and municipal attendants, 6000;
hawkers and street vendors (including those not working for themselves), 4500;
private chauffeurs and taxi drivers, 17,000;
waitresses, 8000;
cinemas and concerts (including open-air bands), 8000. Total, 997,500.
Satan’s master policy of getting rid of the Sabbath is too manifestly apparent in our days to allow those who would seek to hallow that day to be indifferent.
Rejection of the Prayer Book Measure.
Parliament, at least the House of Commons, has rejected the Prayer Book Measure. The House of Lords by the large majority of 241 to 88 votes passed the Measure, and, in view of this large majority, it was not anticipated that it would be rejected by the House of Commons. On 15th December, however, the Commons by a vote of 238 to 205 rejected the Measure. The debate did not reach a very high level in either House, but, apart altogether from our sympathy with the opposition to the Measure, it must be acknowledged, as the London correspondent of the “Glasgow Herald” wrote in regard to the Commons debate, that the most powerful speeches came from the opponents to the Measure. Even here, however, one could have wished a clearer Protestant ring in the speeches of some of the opponents to the new Prayer Book. The burden of the speeches of the supporters of the Measure was that as chaos reigned in the Church, through the open revolt of many of the clergy, therefore the best way to deal with it was, in Lord Curzon’s caustic epigram, to legalise illegalities. The most powerful speech made in the House of Commons was that of Sir William Joynson-Hicks, the Home Secretary, who delivered some much-needed rebukes to the Episcopal bench. At the time of writing this note we cannot indicate what effect this momentous decision will have on the Church of England, but the London correspondent already quoted says that, in the excitement after the vote, talk of Disruption and Disestablishment was heard on every hand. By the time this is in the hand of our readers, the probable trend of events may be clearer. But whatever may be the future developments, we are thankful that the Measure for the authorisation of the Deposited Prayer Book has been rejected, and, we believe, that in its rejection the Lord has answered prayer.
Great Britain and Islam.
Sir Valentine Chirol, an authority on Near-Eastern affairs, in reference to Mustafa Kemal’s policy as outlined in his remarkable speech of seven days’ duration, makes some very interesting references to Britain’s timorous and halting policy towards Islam as compared with the Turkish dictator’s. During the viceroyalty of Lord Reading, he says, the Indian Government made itself almost the mouthpiece of Islam in urging upon the Imperial Government the expediency of displaying the utmost leniency to Turkey in the peace terms to be imposed upon her lest it would cause disturbance among the Mohammedans of India. Mustafa Kemal played on this fear, encouraging and exploiting the agitation until he had successfully changed the attitude of Britain in her Near-East policy. “It was only when he had won the peace at Lausanne,” says Sir Valentine, “that he waged his own war against a Caliphate for which he had no further use. What we in this country have to note is that it was he himself who pricked the huge bubble of the Indian Caliphate agitation, which collapsed altogether as soon as the announcement came that he had abolished the Caliphate. It should be a lesson to our statesmen not to take at its face value every political demonstration which claims to derive its sanction from ‘the immutable faith of Islam.’ There are no signs even that the Caliphate, uprooted with such impunity in Turkey, is likely to be revived in any other part of the Islamic world. This action may well teach us to doubt whether in our dealings with Islamic countries we are not inclined sometimes to over-rate the potency of a religious factor which has so quickly crumbled away in the one Mohammedan country where it could be regarded as a formidable spear-head for the revolt of Asia against the Western World.” There can be little doubt that British policy many a time was guided by sinful expediency when the rival claims of Christianity and Islam had to be considered, and Britain may have yet to pay the penalty for her want of fidelity to the cause of the Redeemer.