DID YOU GO TO CHURCH LAST SUNDAY?

Hutt News, Volume 3, Issue 2, 5 June 1930, Page 5

DID YOU GO TO CHURCH LAST SUNDAY?

In a recent issue of a London journal appeared the following:—.

Do you. know that you are liable to bo proceeded, against in the courts; if you did not attend church last Sunday? What would you tiliink if on Monday, or Tuesday evening, when you arrived 'home from business, someone weTe waiting to serve you with a summons with a view to punishing you for your neglect of pubil eworship? Yet such, is t-hc law. An Act'of Parliament passed in 1552, in the reigo. of Edward VI, winch, is ; il in force, never having been ro•j,»cal'c.clj declares that ali persons, ex-cc-pt those dissenting from the worship of the Churcii of England and who habitually attend for worship elsewhere, must if they have no lawful excuse for absence, attend..their, parish ■church.' on all fciuidays and other days •;.side.la.s_1a.s_ holy days. Every parishioner and his family and household are entitled to be provided with, seats in the parish church, but there is the corresponding - obligation .on them to attend regularly for worship 'Failure-without lawful or reasonable excuse renders anyone liable to be proceeded against in the ecclesiastical courts and to' be censured for -his neglect and admonished as to his future attendance. In a similar category come the provisions against Sunday trading, except that in 'this case the offence is dealt with always by the civil courts. There was a case only recently in a i.orthern town of a greengrocer w&o was summoned by the local bench for opening his shop and selling goods on a Sunday. He was fined ten shillings, which, sum he solemnly tendered in forty-eight farthings and nine shillings i:\ threepenny pieces and left the police to count the; coins. He was entitled to pay in this way, fox coppers aro legal tender up to one shilling and silver coins up to forty shillings. Motor-car as a Sabbath Breaker. It has been said with some truth that the advent of the bicycle, and much more the coming of the motor-car, have caused the neglect of the statutory obligation to attend church every Sunday on such a large scale that from a practical point of view it has been found well night impossible to enforce the statute. At first its enformement became neglected, and then later ignored altogether, and now when one is told that by Act of Parliament he can be punished for not attending church he listens with incredulity. The non-attendance at church is punishable by the ecclesiastical courts, but it may be asked in wjbat cases can proceedings now be taken in the church eriiiTts? •:.-■■ Well, apart from thjC punishment of ecclesiastical offences of the clergy, who naturally come under the especial jurisdiction of these courts, they have not eyry. wide powers nowadays. By the common law of England, parishioners can be compelled to repair the body of their paris'li. ehuTch and-to provide all things essential to the performance of divine service therein, and .the rector can be compelled to repair the. chancel.,

A recent ease that aroused muclt comment and criticism showed tiiat the esclesiastical courts are no dead, letter. A man had purchased some land to which attached an obligation to carry out such repairs as might from time to time be necessary for keeping in good order and condition the chancel of the parish church. Now there would not appear to be any reason why this obligation should not be kept any more than if a man purchased land to which attached an obligation or liability ~to repair a house or a road adjoining, so long as He was aware of the obligation at the time that he purchased.

In the case in question there appeared some doubt- as.to whetiher he was aware at the time that he bought, but although he Was subsequently informed by the ecclesiastical court of his obligation he refused to, carry out the work unless ordered by a civil court.

The. receipt of the profits carried the corresponding burden to repair, and failure would have meant the cost falling upon the poor village parishioners, under the common law rule stated above. And so the ecclesiastical court exercised its ver yeffeetive method of enforcing its decrees by attachment of the person foT contempt of the order it had made just in the same way as civil courts frequently are compelled to do.

Tie interest aroused by the case was really on account oi' the infrequency "with which such cases arise, but it does provide an instance, in a very practical manner, of one of the very few remaining cases in which the ecclesiastical courts have, jurisdiction, incidentally over the layman, in connection with (church property in the- same way as more na-turoJly perhaps they have over ecclesiastical persons. These courts however; while they 'have the power are not likely, to, proceed againstI'anyone for going niotoTing instead of attending church.