Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CHURCH ATTENDANCE.

/ , Ax' * ''iTu THE LAW OF 1677. (CITY COUNCILLOR ADMONISHED * ,^ > { '* ' - taunt ons own co*&EspoHjjiKsrr.) I * 'v ' , , s : _/ s | - LONDON, January 15. I Because he failed to attend church on the Sunday before, "Councillor I Leonard Bramwt 11 Cox ivaa admonished by the Stipendiary Magistrate ifc ; Manchester Police Court last week. The case was brought by? the Sunday Games and Freedom League,- who had declared'that it, wan intended to 9 tart a campaign to ridicule ancient statutes -relating to the observance of .Sunday. Beceritly the High Court decided under'an old law that it was illegal Issued under the 1677 Act, the summons against Councillor Cox,/who is a member of the Manchester Citjr Council and Watch 1 Committee, alleged: {'That on' January. 4th/ thfct being -tfieJ j Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, he did unlawfully fail to exercise" himself {hereon in the duties of piety and I true religion publicly and privately, 1 contrary to Section 1 of tho Act." . ! A few days ago the Chief Constable of Manchester refused to give £i»> consent to'a summons being taken out, but two jTustices of the Peace 'were 1 preached by Mr E..T. Heya;"ind'Hr H. Cox (brother of defendant), chairman and secretary respectively of the Manchester anol Balfotd Sunday Giuiw and Freedom League, and the neecßsary permit was obtained. Councilor Cox, t who resides Green Drive, /.West Poiht, Levenshulme, is a Justice,of the Peace for the Cityfof Manchester. '-V s > /. , $ r"' -wyj-si ".'Mr, T. M.- Backhouse - (instructed by Mr F. E. Monies)-, prosecuting, said that there was 10 intention in bringing the case of shoeing disrespect for the Court. * 1 ,iThe Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr J. "Wellesley Orr)': '*That wondering. I understood the object "of this prosecution wis to torn ud somu propaganda f orfeomething ; Mr /Backhouse; 'said that the object of -the .prosecution ivr& to bring to the notice of othor people the fact tlu}t they cculd be fined under tlie Act. That was tho way the police acted- bn< occasions. * y'* .. He did not claim; that Cduftcillor^Cpx ; should have been at church "on Sunday, i but that he should have exercised him--1 sett in the' duty of piety and religion publicly Qt privately. He r>ould. ' call evidence to" show that at no time on Sunday did Councillor Cox make any§i v action of- a publicly religious nature whatsoever. ■ Councillor Cox should 'h&jre: publicly rendered thanks to God by prayer and.supplication Glint w~s tho definition of -piety' and truo religion given- in an Act of Parliament. Mr Backhouse said that in hig view'-tho'i position was that undo/ an Act of Edward VI. therp "was 11 duty on Councillor' Cox to go to church, That* was only repealed Jiy the IS4O Act in so > far as it allowed some persons tojgfo to places of worship other than churches. ><■",' ' ' T > '■ r - Mr Beginald ZTarold Cot said that on Sunday he went to; the' house his brother, Councillor Ctox, at 1 breakfast, time,'and told him that observation, would bo taken to see if ho "attended church that- day. He was with him from then Until? 6 .pija,, andCouncillor Cox did nqt attend at' any. place of worship or make any public supplications' or prayers. ' Mr ( Backhouse submitted that from a legal point of view Sunday ended at & p.m. That was so uudor canon law, and he claimed that that law was now embodied- in, civil *lawi? Councillor Cox, addressing'the Coiut, said: J Implead guilty to not. attending worship "Jast' 4«®#3T» I often ao .so. I am not;..-bjr anymeantj an irreligious man. 1 did'not go last Snndajf . because I do - itot;,tJ|ijJ;k "right to be-forced by the law tocatfettff a place of worship. In'all protabffi-fcy I shall break that law again, in conjunction with » quarter of • miUitm

adalts in this city I submit .tfcfit this law toftfer whiehJ X* have been summoned is a bad lawy audi a bad law should be kHtea.*/" i*££ The saxfi: "I .Tnnat to .the' conplnflixai'that yoaYjtonw the .Bt»t^lte^^< «Mru«tn>r lution that joy not propose tO'lflo thaljff

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19310225.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20171, 25 February 1931, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
664

CHURCH ATTENDANCE. Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20171, 25 February 1931, Page 2

CHURCH ATTENDANCE. Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20171, 25 February 1931, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert