The Law of the Sabbath Day.

By W. Downie Stewart, Esq.

Moralists, Jurists, and Legislators, have written and spoken somewhat fully on this important subject. It is one regarding the application of which much difference of opinion prevails in the colony. This disparity of opinion arises partly from ignorance of the law affecting the matter under consideration, and also in some measure from a disregard of some of those rules of conduct which should govern a free and enlightened nation.

The views of moralists are available to most of our readers, but page 4 those of the jurists and the legislators are somewhat difficult of access. It is intended, therefore, to give a resumé of some of the opinions of English judges and legal writers relating to the subject; and also to refer to several of the more important statutes thereon. These opinions and statutes will shew that the proper observance of the Lord's Day is recognised by and embedded in the common and the statute laws of England. These laws, subject to certain modifications, are those by which we are bound, and under which we live. We hope to be able to shew that if the law were strictly enforced, and faithfully administered, much of the desecration that prevails in our midst, would be suppressed, and the law itself vindicated. The blame is attributable to the executive, rather than to either the legislative or the judicial department of the State. The spirit of the present law is unmistakably in favor of a marked observance of this day, both as a religious obligation, and as a social duty of paramount importance. If its language fails to accomplish this by reason of the position, as regards the time and the place, in which we live, our legislators are bound, in the faithful discharge of their duty, to enact such measures as are necessary to meet the circumstances. Such a statute should not be any half remedy, but one which would completely check Sabbath traffic of every description, and effectually baffle the evasions to which the artful and the unprincipled resort.

All human laws are supposed to be founded on the revealed will of God, and the law of nature; and such as are repugnant to either of these are not binding, and we are excused from observing them. On 'such matters as the Divine will is silent, we are bound to observe and fulfil all human laws; but if these enjoined us to act in defiance of, e.g., either the eighth or the ninth commandment, we should be justified in refusing to do so. The law of nature, except in some of its more forcible dictates, e.g., against homicide is one somewhat variable, and difficult to define, even by those who advocate an innate moral sense. Whether we are stimulated by such a sense, or are pursuit of our own happiness and that of our fellow men, we must zealously guard against transgressing human laws, as these can only be set aside when obedience to them would be disobedience to God. Christianity is part of the laws of England."

It is an elementary maxim that the Lord's day is not a day for legal proceedings; the reason assigned being that it ought to be consecrated to Divine service. The parliament of Great Britain and Ireland has declared in the preamble of an Act still in force, passed 3 and 4 W. IV., c. 31, that "it is the duty of the legislature to remove as much as 'possible impediments to the due observance of the Lord's Day."

page 5

Perhaps the oldest law extant in England on this subject, is the one of King Ethelstan, which prohibited merchandizing on Sabbath, under the penalty of forfeiting the thing sold, and thirty times its value. Many statutes have been passed in England regulating the observance of this day. Some of these laws have been repealed, others of them, not being suited to the circumstances of the colony, have been practically superseded by local legislation, and several of them are in full operation here. It may be interesting, and probably not uninstructive, to mention all or most of these statutes.

Before the year 1448 many fairs and markets were held in England on Sundays and Good Fridays. Lord Mansfield gives as the reason that they could not be held on any other days "than those on which they have "been immemorially held." An Act (37 Hen. VI, c. 5) was passed in that year, declaring that all showing of goods, &c. (except necessary victuals) at the markets should cease, upon pain of forfeiture of such goods, &c. Fairs held on four Sundays in harvest only were allowed, but this exemption has since been repealed by an Act of the reign of her present Majesty (13 and 14 Vic., c. 23).

In the years 1558 (1 Eliz., c. 2) and 1605 (3 James, c. 4, s. 27) Acts were passed rendering attendance at church, in the absence of a lawful or reasonable excuse, compulsory, under a penalty of twelve pence, to be applied for the poor. These statutes were annulled by 9 and 10 Vic., c. 59, sec. 1.

In considering these statutes, the reader need scarcely be reminded that the fines inflicted were then as heavy in proportion to the value of money as are the penalties in modern Acts.

In the year 1625 (1 Charles I, c. 1), an Act was passed, the preamble of which is important, as showing the minds of the Legislators. It reads: "Forasmuch as there is nothing more acceptable to "God than the true and sincere worship of Him according to His holy "will, and that the keeping of the Lord's day is a principal part of "the true service of God:" It is provided that no meeting, assembly, or concourse of people out of their own parishes shall take place on the Lord's day, and that all bear-baiting, bull-baiting, interludes, common plays, shall cease. A penalty of 3s. 4d. is imposed for every offence.

If our colonial legislators require precedents for dealing with the matter under discussion, they will find numerous instances in the old and more modern statutes, to the latter of which attention will be given in another number.

(To be. continued.)