“Speaking Half in the Speech of Ashdod.”—In January a deputation of ministers, consisting of Rev. Donald Macleod, High Church; Rev. Principal John Macleod, D.D., Free North Church; Rev. James Tolmie, Queen Street U.F. Church; Rev. Alexander Boyd, St Mary’s (Gaelic) Parish Church; and Rev. William Sutherland, East U.F. Church, waited on the Inverness Town Council with the purpose of getting the Council to oppose the running of trains on the Sabbath in the North. We are in full sympathy with the object the deputation had in view, and also with the way in which the case was presented by some of the ministers, as reported in the press; but it does appear like playing into the hands of the enemy to present the case as the Rev. Donald Macleod, of the High Church, did. He is reported as saying, among other things—”The question of ‘Sunday’ ‘buses was on quite a different footing, for they served the convenience of the public. He took no exception to the practice of people who might rightly wish to visit the neighbouring districts and see their friends on ‘Sunday,’ and unless all ‘Sunday’ motoring was to be stopped, the poorer members of the community could not be deprived of their liberty in this matter.” He expressed objection to the running of excursion trains and the dumping of hundreds of sightseers in the town on the Sabbath. This plea for that arch desecrator of the Lord’s Day, the Sabbath motor ‘bus, is inexplicable to us, and will rightly be seized by Sabbath desecrators as a piece of ministerial inconsistency that weakens any protest that may be made against Sabbath trains. Our Synod has clearly expressed its mind on this matter and some of its decisions in reference to travelling by trains, street cars, motor ‘buses, etc., are given on another page for the benefit of our readers. Mr Tolmie made reference to the custom, getting far too common, of people visiting cemeteries on the Lord’s Day, and “what these people felt was that they had the right to ask the Council to defend their feelings from being outraged by seeing on the Sabbath considerable crowds of people roaming about Tomnahurich Cemetery, having extemporised meals and acting in the spirit of their holiday, for they were there on holiday when they came to Inverness on the ‘Sunday.'” As a defender of God’s Day, it would have been better if Mr Tolmie condemned the visitors of the town as well as the holiday-makers being in the Cemetery on the Sabbath. Neither of them should have been there.
The Passing of a Great Soldier.—The death of Earl Haig came with startling suddenness on Sabbath night, 29th January. As the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest army Britain ever put into the field, when the liberty of the civilised world was menaced by the militarism of Germany, he occupied a position to which not only the eyes of his countrymen were turned, but also those of the whole civilised world. With the tremendous responsibilities of that high command resting on his shoulders, he comported himself with credit to the British Army, and won the confidence and respect of his fellow-countrymen. Of him it was finely said that steadfastness, integrity, and constant loyalty to all that served him and to the civil governing power as well were qualities which endeared the dead commandr to his race. When the mighty military task which was committed to him was done, he effaced himself and placed his time and influence at the disposal of those who served in the Great War. Honours and rewards were heaped upon him by his Sovereign and a grateful country, but the deceased commandr, while thankfully accepting them, did so with a becoming dignity and a humility that revealed fine traits of his character. The extraordinary tokens of respect shown at his funeral indicate what a place he had in the hearts of his countrymen, and especially those who served under him. His remains were laid to rest in Dryburgh Abbey, near to Bemersyde, his own home.
The New Prayer Book.—The three houses of the Church Assembly voted general approval of the New Prayer Book. The vote in the House of Bishops was 35 for and 5 against; in the House of Clergy, 247 for and 35 against; and in the House of Laity, 196 for and 80 against. 76 members of the House of Laity did not vote.
Inverness Town Council Favour Sabbath Excursions.
—At a meeting of the Town Council held on 7th February, the Town Council, by a vote of 11 to 7, rejected a motion urging the Railway Companies to discontinue sending Sabbath excursion trains to Inverness. Councillor Macdonald, who seconded the direct negative amendment, in a speech which proved to be his last, and which was not lacking in levity, had a heart attack on leaving the meeting, and expired that night. We remain silent when God has spoken so loudly.
Mr Norman Shaw Wins his Appeal.—After Mr Shaw’s dismissal from the service of the Clyde Trust he was informed by the Unemployment Committee, on making application for unemployment benefit, that he was not entitled to the same, as he had been dismissed for “misconduct.” Appeal was then made to the Court of Referees with a like result, and finally to the Umpire, who confirmed the decision of his subordinates. Mr Macquisten then took up the matter, and in an able letter, which we regret, owing to lack of space, we cannot quote, pointed out to the Umpire the law, as far as Scotland was concerned, and produced evidence from experts to show that the work Mr Shaw was asked to do was not only not necessary, but would have been better to have been done on a week-day, when normal conditions prevailed. The Umpire was not able to hold out longer. By way of excuse he says that the facts Mr Macquisten produced altered the situation. But the thought that at once arises to the mind is the grave injustice that can be so glaringly perpetrated against an innocent man if he had not a capable man to plead his case. It is evident these officials require a careful watching. The Umpire, in giving his decision, makes an important statement, which we herewith quote:— “Decisions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts show that an applicant is justified in leaving his employment to which he has a bona-fide objection, on conscientious or religious grounds, and the same principles are applicable to a refusal to do ‘Sunday’ work, to which the applicant has similar objections.” This is sound commonsense, and we are glad to know it is the law of the land, but why did these officials not look more carefully into the case, instead of branding a man for obeying the law of his God as guilty of “misconduct?” The charge is monstrous. This decision is of vital importance to working men throughout Scotland who wish to keep God’s law. Mr Macquisten points out in his letter that the law of Scotland makes it plain that an employer in dismissing an employee for refusal to do unnecessary work on the Sabbath lays himself open to be liable for damages for wrongous dismissal. Mr Macquisten deserves hearty thanks for the able manner in which he has handled this case, and it is to be hoped the shaking up he gave the officials will do them good for the future.