“THEY have now given their judgment in the case, so how can they expect that I will have them as my judges at the meeting of the Synod in May?” asked Mr. Macqueen in an interview. “They have prejudged the case, and the Synod can hardly go against the decision of the Church Interests’ Committee. After the first pro re nata meeting of the Presbytery at Bonar-Bridge,” continued Mr. Macqueen, “I telephoned the Moderator and told him the way things were going.
“Now he uses what I told him privately to condemn me in public; and is that at all brotherly and Christian? It is a low-down act.”
This report of this Criticism appeared in the Northern Chronicle (8th January, 1936). We have been requested to point out that Mr. Macqueen’s request asking the Moderator to call a pro re nata meeting must be made, to be constitutional, to Mr. Macleod in his public capacity as Moderator. There was, therefore, no breach of confidence in making it public; neither could his action be characterised as a “low-down act.”—Editor.
Dealing with some of the statements made by the Committee, Mr. Macqueen said he was not afraid to face the facts in an open Court. He maintained that the members of the Northern Presbytery had besmirched his character by saying he was not faithful; not a loyal Free Presbyterian; and that he was favouring dancing. He did not publicly condemn dancing at Provost John Murray’s house because he saw no dancing going on there.
“I saw more to condemn and to grieve the Spirit,” said Mr. Macqueen, “at the meetings of the Northern Presbytery than I ever saw in John Murray’s house.”
Summing up the statements contained in the Church Interests’ Committee’s report, Mr. Macqueen said: “I have subscribed to assist, maintain and defend the truth and not in any way to assert, maintain and defend quibbling.”