Pro Re Nata Meeting of Synod.

The above report was prepared by the Committee appointed by the Synod and it acknowledges its indebtedness for use of report which appeared in the Northern Chronicle* permission to use which was granted by the Editor.

A pro re nata meeting of Synod was held at Inverness on Wednesday the 20th day of November. The members present were:—Northern Presbytery: Revs. Ewen Macqueen, D. A. Macfarlane, William Grant, Finlay Macleod, D. J. Matheson, and R. R. Sinclair, ministers, with Messrs. Kenneth Matheson, Charles Sutherland, John Grant, ruling elders. Southern Presbytery: Revs. Neil Macintyre, D. Beaton, James Macleod, R. Mackenzie, James A. Tallach, ministers, with Messrs. Neil Macswan, Alexander Macdougall, Alexander Mackay, and Dr. Johnston, ruling elders. Western Presbytery: Revs. D. M. Macdonald, Archibald Beaton, John Colquhoun, Angus Mackay, ministers, with Messrs. James Fraser, Murdo Macaskill, John Macaulay, ruling elders. Outer Isles Presbytery: Revs. Malcolm Gillies, R. Macinnes, D. R. Macdonald, ministers, with Edward Morrison, ruling elder.

The Moderator (Rev. James Macleod, Greenock) after constituting the meeting said as there was no sermon he would ask one or two of the members to engage in prayer. He then asked two ministers to pray. Thereafter, he said a requisition had been sent, signed by three ministers and an elder belonging to the Northern Presbytery, asking him to call a pro re nata meeting in terms of circular issued to members of Synod. It now remained for the Synod to approve or disapprove of his conduct in calling the meeting. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to, that the Synod approve of the Moderator’s conduct.

The Moderator, before the business began, asked if there was to be a motion that the Synod meet in private. No motion being forthcoming the Synod continued sitting in public. The Clerk then read the minute of Presbytery setting forth the terms of the Reference which were as follows:—”To enquire into the attitude of Mr. Macqueen towards the Presbytery re the Dornoch case having particular reference to the charges made against the Northern Presbytery, and to review, at their discretion, any point necessarily arising out of the case.” The Clerk pointed out that it now remained with the Synod to say whether the Reference be sustained or not as is required by Church Law. He also pointed out that they were not at this stage entering on the merits of the case but simply dealing with the question whether the Reference be sustained or not, and that as the members of the Northern Presbytery had sent up the Reference they were now to appear at the bar of the Synod. The Moderator then summoned the members of the Northern Presbytery to appear at the bar of the Synod. As the Clerk was one of these members it was moved, seconded, and agreed to that Rev. Malcolm Gillies be appointed Clerk of Synod pro tem. The Rev. D. J. Matheson, appearing in support of the Reference, said there were three reasons why the Synod should sustain the Reference. The first was that there were most serious and grave charges made against the Northern Presbytery. In the second place if they as a Presbytery disposed of the case without reference to the Synod they would be their own judges. It was not a case of one man against another, but of one man against a whole church court. Thirdly, there was a danger to the Church, if the case were held over to the Synod in May, a danger that the peace of the Church would be seriously impaired.

Mr. Macqueen opposed the Reference saying he was appellant in the case. He was the one to appeal to the Synod from the actings of the Northern Presbytery. The present special meeting of the Synod was, he held, unnecessary. It appeared to be an attempt to forestall him before he came before the Synod in due course. “Do you object to this Reference being sustained?” asked the Moderator. “I do object,” replied Mr. Macqueen, “I move that it be not sustained because it is irregular.” As Mr. Macqueen received no support in his contention that the Reference be not sustained the Rev. R. Mackenzie moved and Rev. John Colquhoun seconded that the Reference be sustained. This was unanimously agreed to and parties were then removed from the bar and the Synod proceeded to deal with the case.

The Rev. D. A. Macfarlane, in opening the case for the Northern Presbytery said: “I would much have preferred if the opening of this serious and regrettable case had been left with Mr. Matheson, Clerk of Presbytery, and Mr. Sinclair, as they have the details of this case at their finger ends in a way that I do not profess to have, because some of us have much better memories than others and although I was at most of those Presbytery meetings in connection with the case there was one I was not at as I was confined to bed and I do not remember the details as perhaps I would require. If I do say anything that may be in any way out of place or state any error of fact, I trust you will at once tell me what the proper thing is and I will withdraw at once. We are not here to-day for a cheap victory in any way but with the desire that our brother in the Lord would withdraw the charges he has made against us for we really think with sorrow and heartfelt regret that Mr. Macqueen has lamentably, in certain ways, gone astray. The first general remark I would make and which may be helpful to Mr. Macqueen is that it would be well for him—if he has the idea that we are persecuting him in some sort of way, in order to put him out of the Church, to disabuse his mind utterly and totally of that idea—it has not entered into the minds of the members of the Presbytery to do such a thing. Nobody believes a thing so preposterous, but still through temptation and perhaps through imagination he may think that we are persecuting him. It struck my mind in this matter that if the word persecution were allowed it might be referred to a certain member of this Court. He may have reason to complain of persecution. It may be helpful to us all to-day to keep before our minds what our position is. Mr. Macqueen has a dissent and complaint to come up before the meeting of Synod in May, 1936, and he took instruments with the Clerk to have that attended to, but that is not our business. What we have to do with is a Reference sent up by the Presbytery to the Synod, and which this Court has sustained. This Reference comprises chiefly those charges on page 13 of the printed documents in your hands and which will be read to you immediately. You have also 12 pages of extracts of minutes from the Northern Presbytery records in order to help you to come carefully to a conclusion. We have to consider whether there is anything in these charges or whether after all they are, at bottom, worthless—really groundless. We have to deal with a Reference saying these charges were made. Mr. Macqueen came on step by step to involve himself in charges such as these, eight in number. What we desire to find out,” continued Mr. Macfarlane, “is, where is the evidence for them, and if there is no really valid evidence for them, then it is a very serious thing that these charges are made against a church court. Perhaps, if they were made as a brother remarked, against an individual we might see our way to dismiss them but it is a very serious thing when charges of this nature are made against a court of the Church. I might say that it might be helpful to ask and to know what spirit Mr. Macqueen was of but we cannot determine in any absolute way what spirit he was of but we can say that the spirit we feared he was of in our general judgment was that, even from the beginning at anyrate, from that first meeting I was able to go to, we felt Mr. Macqueen at times was with us, and, at times, before we knew where we were, we felt he was against us, and I may say that so far as we could discern, that was the way generally towards the close even more acutely. There seemed to be a rift which was increasing more and more.

There was a persistent rumour in the press that the Rev. D. J. Matheson was a liar, in stating at all that Mr. Macqueen put a single question to the petitioners. The facts are that Mr. Macqueen’s questions are on record in the minutes—and in order to ensure accuracy regarding them, he (Mr. Macqueen) went over them with the Clerk before these minutes were finally approved. Yet the allegation was persisted in—that the Clerk uttered these in error. We, therefore, called a pro re nata meeting as the thing was so serious and we thought it strange for Mr. Macqueen to dissent against calling this meeting to vindicate the character of the Clerk. We would have done the same thing for Mr. Macqueen had the charge been made against him. The rift was getting wider and wider and Mr. Macqueen, for some reason or other, at last rose at a meeting at Bonar Bridge and left us and it was mainly on that occasion some of the charges came up one by one.” Mr. Macfarlane then read the charges as follows:—

1. At a meeting of the Northern Presbytery, held at Bonarbridge on 24th September last, Mr. Macqueen charged the Presbytery with making great men of themselves and besmirching his character.
2. At the same meeting he used the following words:—viz.: “This treatment of me is not in accordance with the Word of God or the practice of the Church.”
3. He left that meeting, and when asked to remain he said, “I shall take nothing to do with yourselves or your affairs.”
4. He charged a member of the Presbytery with what was untrue when he reported to Mrs. Grant, Sunnyside, Dornoch, that Mr. C. Sutherland had accused him in the Presbytery of miscalling a brother minister in her house.
5. At the pro re nata meeting of Presbytery held at Evelix, convened to vindicate the character of the Clerk, who had been charged repeatedly with deliberate falsehood—in the public press, Mr. Macqueen said that we were doing more harm than good by having such a meeting, and he dissented.
6. Mr. Macqueen averred that the minutes of the pro re nata meeting of Presbytery held at Evelix were not correct because the charge he made against Mr. C. Sutherland was not inserted. He dissented.
7. At the meeting of Presbytery held on 24th September Mr. Macqueen said that he would not return to the Presbytery without a witness.
8. Mr. Macqueen averred on September 24th at Bonarbridge, when giving in his dissent and complaint, that if the Synod would not give him satisfaction it would then be seen who were Free Presbyterians.”

Mr. Macfarlane, continuing, said: “Our outstanding reason for having some of the meetings private was to do our utmost to shield Mr. Macqueen so that his usefulness might not be marred in the Church. As proof of that I ask if any of the Inverness session will stand and testify that they truly believe that the Presbytery were doing everything in loving kindness to shield Mr. Macqueen.” [The Moderator here intervened and pointed out this was not in order.] “On one occasion,” said Mr. Macfarlane after the interruption, “something was brought up about our saying that Mr. Macqueen was confused or muddled. If I remember correctly Rev. F. Macleod got up and said that so far as he remembered, I myself, at the end of the pro re nata meeting happened to remark that I was getting confused in the head and I believe I did say that. If I happened to say that, it certainly was not in regard to Mr. Macqueen, and even if we did it was not besmirching Mr. Macqueen’s character. We deny this charge, and give it a categorical denial. We will put our hands on the Bible and deny this.” [These remarks being applauded by some of the public present, the Moderator rose and said if there were any displays of approval or disapproval from the public present the Synod would require to consider the advisability of meeting in private.] “At the same meeting,” continued Mr. Macfarlane, “he (Mr. Macqueen) used the following words: ‘This treatment of me is not in accordance with the Word of God and the practice of the Church.’ What evidence is there for that? If there was any discourtesy on our part I, for one, deeply regret it. I hope that we would not for a moment think of such a thing. Perhaps, in an off-hand way, we may have spoken strongly as I may be doing now, but any such thing did not enter into my mind. I take it that this attitude was very high-handed and not brotherly, nor wise. When he was asked to stay until we had looked into the matter of supply for Daviot, he turned round at the door, as he was leaving, and said: ‘I shall take nothing to do with yourselves or your affairs.'”

Charge 4. There are other members here who can give ample evidence of this matter and there are four at any rate who know so much about this aspect that they can give evidence on oath. I have only a hazy general knowledge of what was going on. I was finishing some notes at the time with Rev. W. Grant and I happened to hear this conversation going on. The minutes are perfectly clear on it and I think you have extracts of those minutes here to show the worthlessness of those charges against us. For all we know there may be something in our brother’s mind that we concocted all this off-hand. And he may have thought that we had some nicely planned scheme and that we made a bomb and got Mr. Charles Sutherland to throw it. If we had made up these questions and if there was anything at the back of this or any underhand work, do you think that Mr. Grant and I would not know what the thing was about and could not give the Presbytery any help later on in making things clear. If there is any idea that there was any conspiracy, it is altogether wrong. Rev. W. Grant said he was of the same opinion.

Charge 6. The Clerk, Mr. D. J. Matheson, can answer this more definitely and accurately. The consensus of opinion in the Presbytery was that nothing vital was left out and it certainly was not intentionally left out. I very earnestly hope that Mr. Macqueen is not in some way or other misled by, say, something in his memory. He may be at fault in his memory more than he realises and if a man is at fault in his memory and perhaps a hair’s breadth in his imagination too we must do our utmost to make an allowance for such things as these.

Charge 7. There seems to be a number of implied charges here. This charge of not returning to the Presbytery without a witness means that the members of Presbytery were a lot of liars and if Mr. Macqueen does not come without a witness, I fail to see how that would change us from being liars. The thing is absurd on the face of it. I regard numbers 1 and 7 as about the gravest charges.

Charge 8. I may be wrong in the matter but here again I think there is something implied. It seems to be implied that if the Synod does not give the satisfaction to Mr. Macqueen which the Presbytery did not give, then it will be seen who were Free Presbyterians. Does this mean if the Synod will not give Mr. Macqueen satisfaction then that the Synod is going contrary to the doctrine etc., of the Church? Does this mean that the Synod is wrong and that Mr. Macqueen is the alpha and omega of the Church? I may say in conclusion, with sorrow, and frankly that I would take Mr. Macqueen’s two hands and in love tell him the truth that I fear there was a certain lack of consistency on his part and of straightforwardness which was on the increase. Some of us are of the opinion, too, that, if our brother, Mr. Macqueen, had handled this case properly and reported the matter to Mr. Macleod he would not have failed in his duty at the beginning, through carnal wisdom, or any other reason. If I am wrong in any of these things I willingly withdraw them, but our view of Mr. Macqueen, as far as we can understand the matter, is that he has ceased to be a member of the Northern Presbytery, de facto although he is still a member de forma (i.e. in spirit although he is so nominally) owing to his preposterous conduct. But that is for the Fathers and Brethren to say. We hope that he may give us the right hand of fellowship and not be carrying on like this as it may cause a split in the Church.”

Mr. Finlay Macleod said: Mr. Macfarlane has already presented our case in a way with which we are fully pleased. With regard to the one charge that Mr. Macfarlane omitted (Charge 4)—that is that Mr. Macqueen charged members of the Presbytery with what was not true. I was at the Presbytery that day and I know for a fact that what Mr. Macqueen charged Mr. Sutherland with is not true. Mr. Sutherland did not utter such things and I may say also we asked Mr. Macqueen to write to the party expressing regret for having taken up the matter in that way and Mr. Macqueen refused. At our next meeting Mr. Macqueen charged myself with having said when I rose at the Presbytery that I asked him to apologise to Mr. Sutherland. I know I never uttered such words. What I did say was that Mr. Macqueen should write the party to whom he had written in connection with Mr. Charles Sutherland telling that party he was sorry he took up the matter wrongly and Mr. Macqueen refused to do so, although the Presbytery was unanimous that the words were never used, and the Clerk of Presbytery had to write to tell that party’s solicitor that there was no truth in the charge that Mr. Macqueen made against that person. I may say this, we deny everything Mr. Macqueen brings against us. We did our utmost to show Mr. Macqueen by word and deed that he was our brother in the Presbytery and went out of our way to do that and to show our respect and we have not changed. Should he withdraw his charges our love to him has not changed nor will change in the future.

Mr. Robert R. Sinclair said: I am the youngest member of the Northern Presbytery and I have known Mr. Macqueen and I have had my own regard for him. I point that out in order to make clear again what has been said by Mr. Macfarlane. There can be no question whatsoever of any personal animosity against Mr. Macqueen. There is another question, that is, in connection with the whole of the Presbytery against one man. The thing is untenable in ecclesiastical courts and civil law courts that one witness against four, five, six, or seven is to be given a place at all in summing up the conclusion of evidence. Matters would be altogether confused in any court if you are not going to take the value and strength of witnesses. Now surely the Church will give us the credit that we would like to conscientiously tell the truth. There is one point, I don’t know whether it should be taken up or not. When the matter of the charge against Mr. Sutherland was brought up at the Presbytery we did not get any intimation of that until the day of the Presbytery. Rev. D. J. Matheson, the Clerk of Presbytery, got Mr. Arthur’s letter the day before the Presbytery meeting. When Mr. Macqueen appeared before the Presbytery he had his letter sent to that party in Dornoch and had the reply in hand. Before the case was taken up at the Presbytery Mr. Macqueen had his dissent and appeal to Synod typed, because I saw him read it from a type-written document from which he also proceeded to read charges against the Presbytery at that point he was interrupted. He then went over to a side seat and thereafter his dissent was handed to me written on a bit of envelope. If this is incorrect I am willing to withdraw. Well, I think it is a most peculiar circumstance that Mr. Macqueen should have his dissent re Mr. Sutherland typed before the case was brought up at all. That case was drawn up and thrown at us in the twinkling of an eye. In connection with the pro re nata meeting called, if it was found conclusively that Mr. Matheson, our Clerk, was charged in the press with falsehood do you think that we were doing more harm than good to clear Mr. Matheson’s character. We would have done the very same thing for Mr. Macqueen. Could we be doing more harm than good in seeking to clear the character of a brother minister?”

Mr. Kenneth Matheson, elder, said: “It is out of anguish of heart I would like to speak regarding the very sad case before us to-day, viz. that between the Northern Presbytery and the Rev. Mr. Macqueen. It is said about the servant of the Lord, he should not be self-willed, not soon angry, also to speak evil of no man, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men. From the beginning of this Dornoch case the Northern Presbytery showed all meekness and faithfulness in endeavouring to hold by the Word of God and how an elder should rule his house in the fear of God. We read in the Word of God that a godly woman went to Christ pleading He would cast the devils out of her daughter and not in anyway encourage evil spirits to abide in her daughter—poor minister, elder, or church who would in anyway encourage dancing.” [At this point Mr. Matheson was stopped by the Moderator on a point of order]. Continuing, he said: “We should be thankful that by the grace of God we could say we would stand by the truth of God whatever we may suffer in this world; whatever we may suffer for the cause that was raised in 1893. ‘No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.'”

Mr. Macfarlane at this stage pressed upon the members of the Northern Presbytery who wished to speak to do so now so that they might not later on feel that they had neglected things.

Mr. William Grant said: “The most of the statement is taken up with what took place at the Presbytery meeting at Bonar on 24th September. I was not present at that meeting and consequently I cannot honestly comment on what was done there. With reference to the matter relating to Mr. Charles Sutherland, Mr. Macfarlane and I were closely engaged in another matter and we are not able to testify to what was said but the other members are of one mind apparently and it is unnecessary for me to add anything.”

Mr. D. J. Matheson said: “I might for the information of the Synod state how the charge made by Mr. Macqueen against Mr. Charles Sutherland came up before the Presbytery. Mr. Sutherland asked Mr. Macqueen at the pro re nata meeting of the Presbytery did he ever say to anyone that Mr. Matheson (myself) and his family went to a Christmas party on the day that he left Mr. Matheson at Lairg—the day the party was at Dornoch. Mr. Macqueen denied that he ever said to anyone that Mr. Matheson and his family went to a Christmas dinner that day. I, as Clerk of the Presbytery, rose and said that I believed I knew what Mr. Sutherland had in view in asking such a question. I said there was a rumour current in Dornoch that I and my family went to Altnagar on Christmas Day to a Christmas dinner and what prompted Provost Murray to challenge me in the press for such a thing was the rumour current in Dornoch, and I turned to Mr. Fraser, one of the members of the Presbytery and said: ‘Mr. Fraser, The Mound, told me that Mr. Macqueen had said to him, Mr. Matheson and his family have gone to a Christmas dinner.’ There was no foundation in fact for that rumour. It is absolutely false that I and my family went anywhere for a Christmas dinner.”

Mr. John Grant, elder, then spoke. He said that not being present at several of the meetings that he was not in a position to offer the same comment on the proceedings but he sincerely hoped that Mr. Macqueen would even now see his way to withdraw and express regret for his actions to the Northern Presbytery and he felt sure that this is the feeling of his congregation.

Mr. Charles Sutherland, elder, said that what had been spoken by the foregoing speakers was quite correct and he agreed with what had been said. This finished the Northern Presbytery’s presentation of their case and Mr. Macqueen was then called upon.

Mr. Macqueen on rising made reference in a few opening words to what Mr. R. R. Sinclair had said in his speech (see Mr. Sinclair’s words as reported on a preceding page). Mr. Macqueen said that he wanted to correct what the Clerk of Synod had said. The Clerk stated that he (Mr. Macqueen) had typed his appeal before the meeting. Before the Most High he wished to say that all he had typed was this statement. He asked them was he at the bar of the last Presbytery, and if he wasn’t at the bar how was it that the Moderator allowed Mr. Charles Sutherland to go for him at the Presbytery as he did? That was all he had typed.

Mr. Macqueen then began to read his paper which was as follows: “I was surprised to hear that a pro re nata meeting of this Synod had been convened for the purpose of enquiring into my attitude towards the Northern Presbytery re the Dornoch case having particular reference to the charges made by me against the said Presbytery, and to review any points arising out of the case. As I had intimated an appeal from the Presbytery to the Synod, which appeal would fall to be dealt with at the Synod in ordinary course in May next, it would appear that an attempt now to forestall the due consideration of that appeal is incompetent, for in Wellwood Moncrieff’s book on the Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, 1877 Edition, in the chapter where he discusses the constitution, powers and functions of the Presbytery, it is stated at p. 63: ‘It is competent for the Presbytery to petition the Synod or Assembly with relation to any subject within the competency of the court to whom the petition is addressed if the subject be not one which can come up to that Court by reference, complaint, appeal or overture.’ In the same work at p. 118 it is also laid down: ‘It has been established by long practice that no judicial process of a serious kind can be carried out against a minister or probationer, except by the use of what is called a libel.’ I must at the outset, therefore, protest against these proceedings as being irregular and indeed unlawful. Under reservation of that objection, and solely as a matter of courtesy to the reverend Court, I now make this statement.

As I have not been formally libelled, it is unnecessary for me to deal at any length with the personal aspect of the Dornoch case, but in deference to the Synod I shall refer in passing to my visit to Mr. Murray’s house, Balloan, in the month of December last, which was purely accidental. When I left home to attend the Presbytery meeting at The Mound”—The Moderator: “Will you go on to the statement.” Mr. Macqueen: “This is my statement.” He then continued: “When I left home to attend the Presbytery meeting at The Mound I had arranged to put up for the two nights at the house of a friend, Mrs. Fraser. Owing to illness in her house it was impossible for her to put me up. After being kindly put up by the Rev. Mr. Matheson at Lairg for a night, it was necessary for me to return to The Mound as he and his family were going away for the day. On returning to Mrs. Fraser’s house I found that owing to the continued illness of Miss Fraser it was impossible to put me up there. I accordingly drove to Balloan late in the afternoon, having known Mr. Murray for over thirty years, and having no thought in my mind of Christmas or party.

When I reached Balloan, Mr. Murray mentioned that the children were to have a party of their schoolmates. I at once offered to go to the hotel for the night, but Mr. Murray said I would have a bedroom at the back of the house where I would neither hear nor see them. All I saw of them was at the worship in the drawing-room, when I asked for a blessing on the Word of God.”

Mr. Mackenzie rose to a point of order and asked if Mr. Macqueen was in order in mentioning matters which were not before the Synod. Mr. Macqueen, without waiting for the Moderator’s ruling, said: “I crave that I be allowed to make my statement. Did I or anyone on my side interrupt? One hour and fifty minutes have been occupied by your party, and, I am not to be bludgeoned in this way.” Mr. Macqueen then continued to read his statement when Mr. D. Beaton rose to a point of order and said the matter we have before us just now is the statement of charges made by Mr. Macqueen against the Presbytery. The Synod was not concerned that day with the points which Mr. Macqueen was raising. The Moderator—”Go on with the charges.” To which Mr. Macqueen replied: “I am not to be side-tracked at this meeting. I am a member of this Court like any other member of the Court. I showed at the very beginning of my statement that this was really unconstitutional and unlawful. Therefore, I claim that I shall be allowed to make my statement as they made very strong statements against me, and I reserved my defence.” The Moderator: “Are you coming to the Reference?” Mr. Macqueen: “Will you let me make my statement, Mr. Moderator? Will this Court allow me?” The Moderator: “Will the Court allow Mr. Macqueen to read his paper?” Mr. James Fraser: “Yes, on condition it does not take in any side issues.” Mr. Macqueen: “I am not taking in any side issues.” Mr. Macqueen continued to read his statement. He said: “I saw nothing to find fault with, and indulged in and had no part in any frivolity of any kind. Looking to Mr. Murray’s connection with the Church, it would have been churlish and not Christian in me to have refused his hospitality, and it would also, I think, have been unchristian in me to have refused to ask a blessing on the Word of God on account of the presence of the children in view of our Master’s precept in the 10th chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel—To suffer little children to come unto Him. Nor could I have, as suggested, turned out the children from another man’s house, thus giving in exchange for his hospitality injury and insult, especially as he was not a member and elder of my congregation but was a member and elder in the congregation of a brother minister. I may say that I loathe dancing, and have and always shall bear testimony against it.” Mr. Mackenzie rising to point of order said this was not what the Synod came to Inverness for. They came to hear about the charges Mr. Macqueen was making against the Presbytery. He appeared now, however, to be vindicating himself against some charge made against himself. Mr. Macqueen, ignoring the point of order, endeavoured to continue but Mr. Mackenzie asked the Moderator that the point be put to the Synod. Mr. Macintyre said we were called here for a certain purpose. We have nothing to do with what Mr. Macqueen has brought up just now. The Moderator: “Mr. Macqueen will you come to the Reference?” Mr. Macqueen: “I am not to come to the accusations of the Northern Presbytery until I come to the Synod in May. I say that all this is unconstitutional. Have you me libelled. I am a member of this Court equally with any of you. Have you the right to try and search me like doctors on a dissecting table? I say according to the Word of God and the practice of the Church, you have not.” Mr. Macfarlane said it seemed to him that Mr. Macqueen was confusing the whole matter. There was no question of a libel. The procedure was constitutional and lawful as far as he understood. The Moderator, addressing Mr. Macqueen, asked if he had a copy of the Reference. Mr. Macqueen replied he had. The Moderator: “Are you going to speak to it?” Mr. Macqueen: “No, but I shall publish my statement. I will say you refused it as a Court.” Mr. D. Beaton said the question of a libel did not enter in here at all. This is a Reference sent up by the Presbytery and we are to enquire, according to its terms, especially into the charges alleged to have been made by Mr. Macqueen against the Northern Presbytery.
The Statement was printed in the Northern Chronicle (Inverness), 27th November.

Mr. Macqueen said he wished them to know that it was his desire that the Courts of the Church should be ruled by the Word of God and by the Constitution of the Church from the Reformation, and he said to them most seriously, “Don’t proceed more, or else you will see that you are acting unconstitutionally.” Surely the charges that were laid against him in the Reference were most serious, and as to the words of Mr. Macfarlane he never heard more serious words in his life. If that was not besmirching the character of any one man, he did not know what besmirching character was. The words that had proceeded from one of the speakers were most damaging to any man, let him be a minister or an elder or the man in the street. “So, Mr. Moderator,” continued Mr. Macqueen, “I say again that I want my statement to be made and I am, as I said already, a member of this Court, and the minority has its right as much as the majority. I am in the sad minority and I feel it keenly. God knows that I love the Free Presbyterian Church with a soul love, but as long as I shall live I shall not allow the Free Presbyterian Church Courts to be dragged in this way to unscripturalness and unconstitutionality.”

The Moderator—”Is it the mind of the Court that Mr. Macqueen be allowed to read the whole of his paper? If it is, let one of you move a motion. If it is not the mind of the Court that is an end of it.”

Mr. Beaton pointed out that there was no need of a motion. A statement of certain charges alleged to be made by Mr. Macqueen was before the Court. If he has anything in his paper on this matter let him read it. The Moderator—Mr. Macqueen are you to take up these charges?

Mr. Macqueen—No. It is my intention, if the Lord will spare me till the May meeting of Synod, and if you will not deal more drastically with me, to prove, or at least to try to prove, my accusations against the Northern Presbytery and all those charges. Mr. Moderator, you can see for yourself that before I could make these accusations surely there were grave things said by the Northern Presbytery before I would say them. I heard many a time reference to my “unfaithfulness” and that they were faithful. Surely that was a showing up of him at his time of life if he was unfaithful. The Moderator—Was that by members of the Presbytery? Mr. Macqueen—Yes. The Moderator—They were charging you with unfaithfulness? Mr. Macqueen—Yes. The Moderator—In what respect? Mr. Macqueen—For not standing up for them. The last words the Moderator said were, “We found you were not as harmonious with us as we would like.” I say before my Maker what made me leave that Presbytery was this that Mr. Finlay Macleod moved that I should be asked to apologise to Mr. Charles Sutherland, and they took three-quarters of an hour going at me for my unfaithfulness and everything. If I was going to apologise I would be trampling on my conscience, which I hope, poor and all as I am, I have before my Maker kept, as far as the cause of Christ is concerned and my adherence to it, pure until now, and I hope I shall endeavour to do to the end, but seeing you refuse me the right of reading my paper I say again I protest. My appeal is in and I reserve my defence.

Mr. Mackenzie—On a point of order I object to the word “right.” He will have to prove that right. It is his right to answer to these points and not to take in extraneous matter.

The Moderator—Mr. Macqueen has said before you that he intends to take up the matter at the May meeting of the Synod. It is for the Synod now in session to say yea or nay. Mr. Macfarlane—What we have to do with is the Reference before the Court. Mr. Macintyre—We have been called here in connection with the charges against the Northern Presbytery. Mr. Macqueen has refused to answer these charges. The Moderator—Do you refuse, Mr. Macqueen, at this time to answer the charges? Mr. Macqueen—I protest against the whole proceedings because they are irregular. I have not been libelled. Mr. Macintyre—I hope Mr. Macqueen realises the seriousness of what he is saying. Mr. Macfarlane—It is dissenting he means. Mr. Macqueen—I am protesting and dissenting. My dissent is in already. Mr. Mackenzie—Do we take it he is protesting in the ecclesiastical sense? Dr. Johnston—Will you from the Chair inform us, first, are we “trying” anybody here at the moment? The Moderator—No. Dr. Johnston—Secondly, with regard to charges, is there before us any single charge by the Northern Presbytery against Mr. Macqueen? There are statements but no charges. Thirdly, are these charges before us here not charges made by Mr. Macqueen against other parties? Mr. Macfarlane—That is what we are pointing out all along. Dr. Johnston—We are not trying anybody here but enquiring. May the Lord enable us to enquire graciously and faithfully and lovingly, and to avoid everything that would sound in any way of the world political.

The Moderator—Are you rebutting the charges, Mr. Macqueen, that the Northern Presbytery are making against you here? Mr. Mackenzie—On a point of order, it is not the Northern Presbytery that is making the charges. The Moderator—No, he is making them against the Northern Presbytery. (To Mr. Macqueen)—What have you to say to this? Mr. Macqueen—I told them at the Presbytery meeting that I stood by all the charges, and I say again since the month of August at Presbyteries and at other places as well I had to stand a gruelling experience in connection with this business. I may say it wrought so much on me that I had even to attend a doctor owing to the way it affected my heart. I said at a Presbytery meeting at Dornoch, “Are you not afraid that you might be the cause of my death?” with the way they were searching into me and diving into me. I appealed to them to let go. Would they? No, they would have the last word. As I said already I reserve my defence. I have a conscience like any other human being. I am a sinful being, and the Lord knows my feelings many a time, but I want Scripturalness and I want the Constitution of this Church to be kept clear. Did I say a word when they were making their statements against me? Not one word. But I did not get to read very many sentences when they blocked me. Was that treatment to a brother?

Mr. D. Beaton said the statement by Mr. Macqueen cleared the air. Mr. Macqueen stood by all the charges. That was a statement made to a Court of the Church. Mr. N. Macintyre—I would like Mr. Macqueen to say he meant these charges here. The Moderator—Are you adhering to these charges against the members of the Northern Presbytery? Mr. Macintyre—Mr. Macqueen said he made these statements at the Presbytery and was adhering to these charges. Does he mean the charges we have been called to consider? Mr. Macqueen—I don’t know whether they are in the very words which were read to me at the Presbytery. I stand by every one of them. Mr. Macintyre: “Do you still adhere to them?” Mr. Macqueen: Yes, to every one of them.

The Moderator then asked if the members of the Northern Presbytery had anything to say in reply.

Mr. Macfarlane said they had been accused of forestalling Mr. Macqueen in this matter, but there had been no such attempt. There was a dissent and complaint from Mr. Macqueen for the May Synod. That did not come into the day’s business. They had the feeling that the paper of Mr. Macqueen, however, useful and, however, needful it might be, was irrelevant. It was an example of expert side-tracking. What they had to do with was their rights, and they held that the Reference was competent and legal and that they were not acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully. He thought that the Synod should see to it that that would be totally denied. As far as the Reference was concerned, were these charges against them as a Court of the Church true or untrue? If they were true it was a very serious thing to allow them to go on meeting as a Court of the Church. “There isn’t any basis or bottom for this preposterous rubbish,” concluded Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. Sinclair, Wick.—We are the party open to condemnation if these charges can be proved by Mr. Macqueen. He sticks to his charges and refuses to express regret. It is for Mr. Macqueen to go ahead to prove these charges. If they are true we should not be members of the Northern Presbytery and ministers of the Church. We are lying under this until we are cleared. We are not prosecuting. It is Mr. Macqueen who has been prosecuting. We referred this to the Supreme Court of our Church. What have you to say about it? Is the Synod to say Mr. Macqueen is right and we are wrong, or are the charges baseless? Mr. Macqueen says he has proof, and if he convinces the Synod we are gone.

Mr. Charles Sutherland, Dornoch—I would like to say one or two words. Am I to be left under this lie of Mr. Macqueen by saying that my cousin said that I accused Mr. Macqueen at the Presbytery of miscalling a brother minister in her house. If I was to say such it would be a deliberate lie, because she never said any such thing to me: Am I to lie under such?

Mr. Finlay Macleod, Dornoch—Mr. Macqueen says I did repeat what I didn’t repeat or didn’t say—that I asked him to apologise to Mr. Charles Sutherland. I say with all my heart, as I told Mr. Macqueen, that I never in this world used such words. I did say that he might write to the party and express regret that he misunderstood the matter. That was the statement and I did not make it as a motion. I simply suggested to the Presbytery that that should be the procedure.

Mr. D. J. Matheson—May I ask this question? Mr. Macqueen had plenty of time to prove the statements he made against us as a Presbytery. Why does he not do it now?

Members of Synod then proceeded to put questions. Mr. Mackenzie said he wished to ask a question regarding paragraph 8 in statement of charges. What exactly was the dissent and complaint in connection with?

Mr. Matheson—That was in connection with the case in which Mr. Macqueen accused Mr. Charles Sutherland with having accused him in a house in Dornoch that he had been miscalling a brother minister in the house. Because that was not inserted in the Presbytery minutes he dissented and complained. The Moderator—“Was that the dissent and complaint you referred to Mr. Macqueen?”

Mr. Macqueen—I think I made it amply clear that I withhold everything until my case is heard in May. I dissented and complained against everything that was done to me in the Northern Presbytery from the time they called the pro re nata meeting.

Mr. Macintyre said he wished to ask a question of members of the Northern Presbytery. Mr. Macqueen said he still adhered to his charges. The first of these was that they were trying to make big men of themselves and besmirching his character. “I should like,” he continued, “to put to all the members of the Northern Presbytery this question, and I would begin at the Far North—Mr. Sinclair, had you any thought in your mind or are you conscious by word or action of doing anything to make a great man of yourself and besmirching Mr. Macqueen’s character?

Each of the members of the Presbytery present answered in the negative. Mr. Macintyre then said: “I am going to appeal to Mr. Macqueen. In my opinion all the other questions are very much hanging on the first one, and seeing that all the answers of the members of the Northern Presbytery were in the negative I would appeal to him, for the sake of the cause which we all love and which he loves—and he and I were connected with it almost from the beginning, and we are the two oldest ministers in the Church—I would appeal for the sake of the Free Presbyterian Church that Mr. Macqueen will withdraw this. I can go no further than that.

The Moderator—What have you to say, Mr. Macqueen?

Mr. Macqueen—I have nothing to say, Mr. Moderator, but what I have said already. I adhere to all. He wished there had been a witness to what he endured from the Presbytery in Dornoch and at Bonar-Bridge until he left it. “I am sorry now,” he added, “that I did not dissent at the Dornoch Presbytery. It would have saved myself a great deal of heart pain, and perhaps it would have preserved the cause of Christ in connection with this Church better if I had done that then.”

The Moderator—Mr. Macintyre has asked if you are accepting what the members of the Northern Presbytery said just now. They were speaking in the sight of God and said they had nothing in their mind in any way against you.

Mr. Macqueen—I can’t from the bottom of my heart accept that, owing to their conduct towards me and the revelation they gave, not at all of a Christian spirit but of a very bitter spirit. That is the spirit I experienced.

Dr. Johnston—I wish to ask the Northern Presbytery one question. I desire first of all to explain why I ask the question. It is because a certain section of the Press of late has used a word which gives a meaning to some which it does not bear with regard to a Church Court—that the Northern Presbytery held meetings in secret. Were these meetings in private in the ordinary ecclesiastical sense or were they held in secret in the ordinary sense? Were they ordinary Presbytery meetings?

Mr. Macfarlane—The way I understood the matter, put quite frankly, was that for these reasons given the private aspect began, I think, with the Presbytery in Dingwall. There was a motion made and seconded that it would be private. I don’t think there was a motion made and seconded at the others that they would be private, but I think it was unanimously taken for granted, to see if a suitable conclusion could be reached. The Inverness elders sent a petition asking to come and the Clerk wrote them to come to a private conference.

Dr. Johnston said he was quite satisfied with the explanation. He wished to dispel from the minds of the Court and Church that the private meeting was of the type some sections of the press made it out to be. It was an ordinary meeting, as is competent in Church law.

Mr. D. J. Matheson—There was only one meeting private of this Presbytery since this began—the meeting in Dingwall. All the other meetings of Presbytery were not private in the strict sense of the term. There was no motion to the effect that they would be held in private. There was a motion in the case of the Presbytery held in Dingwall on the 2nd August. That was the only time.

Mr. James Fraser—To clear the air, I don’t understand how this matter of Mrs. Grant’s house comes in. Mr. Sutherland asked a straight question of Mr. Macqueen and then there appears to be some confusion about it. What was the motive of asking this question of Mr. Macqueen about what happened in a certain house? I ask that by way of clearing my own mind and trying to be straight.

Mr. D. J. Matheson—I don’t quite understand Mr. Fraser. Mr. Fraser—Why did this come in at all? Mr. Sutherland is saying it wasn’t a charge, but at the same time he took the matter up and asked a straight question of Mr. Macqueen. What was the motive of asking that question?

Mr. Charles Sutherland—My reason for putting that question to Mr. Macqueen was that Mr. Macqueen said he left Mr. Matheson that day not thinking that it was a Christmas Day or a time of festivals, and now as the rumour was so much about the parish of Dornoch he said that it was sad for Mr. Matheson to have gone to a Christmas dinner at Altnagar. I rose and asked Mr. Macqueen the question if he said to any person that when he left Mr. Matheson he left him going himself and his family to a Christmas dinner. Mr. Macqueen replied and said, “I never did.” I turned and asked Malcolm Fraser if he heard any such thing and Mr. Fraser’s words I did not catch—he only muttered—and I sat down. That was all that was said.

Mr. Fraser—I gathered there was insinuation there without proof, but we can’t go by rumours in Court. We haven’t proof. If you believe all that is in the Press we are away with it.

The Moderator (to Mr. Sutherland)—Were you insinuating anything by asking that question of Mr. Macqueen? Mr. Sutherland—I just only asked the question, and I took his answer and sat down.

Mr. Matheson—His motive, as far as I know, was that Mr. Macqueen said he didn’t know it was Christmas. Mr. Sutherland said: “Did you say then that Mr. Matheson had gone to a Christmas party?” Mr. Macqueen formerly said he didn’t know it was Christmas.

The Moderator asked for further questions, but as none were forthcoming he said: Well it seems to me there are no further questions to be asked. We must now deliberate on the case. I ask the Court is their deliberation to be in public or private. If it is to be in private a motion must be moved to that effect.

Dr. Johnston moved that the Synod deliberate in private and give any decision it might come to in public. Mr. D. M. Macdonald, Portree, seconded. Mr. Mackenzie suggested that the word “finding” was the more proper word to use. Dr. Johnston—My reason is this that we can’t deliberate except in private. The Moderator—It is in accordance with ecclesiastical law and the general procedure of the Church.

Mr. Matheson—I suggest that the members of the Northern Presbytery, who have a right to sit with the Synod, should not vote in coming to a decision. The Moderator—Are you all agreed to the suggestion of Mr. Matheson? “Agreed.” The Moderator—Are you agreed, Mr. Macqueen? Mr. Macqueen—I am not a party to it at all.

The Synod members then retired to consider their findings. Complete harmony prevailed and though the Synod was absent for a considerable time this was not due to any want of harmony among the members but owing to the care they wished to exercise in arriving at their finding.

After an absence of about 1 hour, 40 minutes, they returned and the Moderator read the finding of the Synod as follows:—

THE SYNOD’S FINDING.

We find no grounds of fact whereby Mr. Macqueen can be justified in his attitude towards members of the Northern Presbytery as referred to in the Reference, and, further, we are convinced as to the integrity of each of the members of the Northern Presbytery immediately implicated in view of their solemn declaration and notwithstanding the charges alleged against them. We record that in face of the repeated invitations to substantiate the alleged charges Mr. Macqueen declined to do so.

“That,” added the Moderator, “is the unanimous finding of the Synod.”

Mr. Macqueen—That means, Mr. Moderator, that you justify the Northern Presbytery in their treatment of me. That is the meaning of what you have there recorded.

The Moderator—What has the Synod to say to that? Has any member anything to say to Mr.queen?

Mr. Macintyre—We dealt with the statement of charges in the Reference. That is all we did.

Mr. Macqueen—You know that your decision is condemning me from the beginning to the end, and I now, as a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church, in my own name and in name of all who will follow me, protest emphatically against such an unscriptural action from the Session, the Presbytery, and now the Synod.

The Moderator—Would you explain the meaning of your protest?

Mr. Macqueen—I mean exactly the whole thing from the beginning to the end. I stated to the Presbytery that this whole procedure was unconstitutional and unscriptural, and that the proceedings of the Session were unscriptural and unconstitutional. The Presbytery took up the same attitude without ever enquiring into whether the Scriptures or the Constitution of the Church were carried out.

Mr. Mackenzie—This is entirely out of order.

Mr. Macqueen (warmly)—You asked me to explain myself, Mr. Moderator. How then did you allow that man to get up. Surely this is treatment with a vengeance.

The Moderator—There is no more, I think, to be said.

Mr.queen—I have no more to say. That is my final word.

Mr. D. Beaton—Mr. Macqueen has protested. Is it in the ecclesiastical sense? If so it is very serious.

Mr. Macqueen—I use it in every sense of the term. I say again I consider that the whole of this case is unscriptural and unconstitutional, and as a member of this Synod I cannot bear that it should go on unscripturally and unconstitutionally. I protest in my own name and in the name of all who will follow me against such proceedings.

Mr. Matheson—I should like to get some ruling as to how the Northern Presbytery are to act.

The Moderator—It is for the Synod to say what ruling they are to suggest.

At this stage Mr. Macqueen rose and walked out of the church, followed by a number of the public present.

After a slight pause in the proceedings, the Moderator said :— The Northern Presbytery has asked a question through their Clerk for a ruling as to how they were to act. The Presbytery in their Reference didn’t ask for a ruling. You have the law yourselves which you must carry out. Notice must be taken of the protest that has been made, and that must be considered by the Synod.

Mr. Macfarlane thought there should be an evening sederunt to consider the point. Mr. Mackenzie—Isn’t it usual to consider the protest in committee? Mr. Tallach—We are all very tired, and seeing this is a very serious business we ought to adjourn for a couple of hours and come back and consider the matter. It was agreed to meet at five o’clock in Committee and in Synod at 6.15 p.m. The meeting was closed with praise and prayer.

EVENING SEDERUNT.

According to terms of adjournment the Synod met pro re nata at 6.15 p.m. The sederunt was the same as the morning one with the exception of Mr. Macqueen who was absent. Mr. Macintyre moved the following resolution :— The Synod, having regard to the requirements of the law of the Church, and being anxious to show all forbearance and brotherliness towards Rev. Ewen MacQueen, and having doubt as to what significance he attaches to his protest of this afternoon, hereby instruct the Clerk of the Synod to write Mr. Macqueen and report to the Clerk of the Northern Presbytery forthwith. Mr. D. Beaton seconded the motion which was unanimously agreed to.

The meeting closed with praise and prayer.