BRITAINS’ MUSTY LAWS

Shannon News, 15 June 1926, Page 4

BRITAINS’ MUSTY LAWS

RELICS OF PAST AGES,

HOARY ACTS STILL IN FORCE,

Every parliamentary session In Britain, as in New Zealand, sees more laws put upon the Statute Book. Britain possesses so many Acts of Parliament, in fact, that a mere catalogue of them fills a big book printed in small type. What is wanted to-day, says an English paper, is yet another law —one to repeal the big body of out-of-date laws which still cumber the Statute Book, and, now and again pop up unexpectedly in the courts. Our judges are bound to administer the law,- however absurd it may seem, and however old the particular Statute invoked. Some of our laws are so hoary, tha|, they lend an atmosphere of comic opera to the courts —they are the law the lawyers laugh at.

Recently an old man came before the Epsom Guardians for failing to support his grandchildren. That a grandfather has any such obligation in law may come as a surprise to most people. But an Act dating back to ICOI imposes this .duty upon all patriarchs. It is only one of many absurd survivals from the early days of British history.

Are you aware, for instance, that you break a law every time you eat a dinner of more than two courses? Such, amazing as it may sound, is the case. Th e consumer of a four-course table d’hote dinner is liable to a fine of £1 or a month’s imprisonment. It will probablyy be said that a law so ridiculous would never be enforced. But the act remains that a common informer could initiate proceedings and nobody could stop him! Incidentally, another aged Act forbids the consumption of meat on Wednesday. Observance of the Sabbath. The law which regulates conduct on Sundays, is next cited by the writer. It dates from the reign of Charles’ 11., and has never been repealed. Every newsvendor breaks this law by crying his papers, and every trader, boatman, or workman, who pursues his employment on Sunday becomes liable to a fine or imprisonment. It might well be thought that such an absurd law was by now a dead letter. But in Wales they observe the Sabbath with rigour. A dissipated mimvworker was prosecuted for eating sweets on the Sabbath a few years ago, and was convicted under this old AcL Doubting that such a thing could be, he appealed to the High Court. He lost his case. The Ccurt had no alternative.

Recently, at Tipton, Staffordshire, the magistrate had before them two men, one of who alleged that his wife had been bewitched. He was told not to be foolish. But, as a matter of fact, the law was on his side. For the law still recognises witchcraft .

Witchcraft was a Common Law orfence. Later iit was made a N Statutory offence. In the reign of George 11. the various Acts regulating the criminal law of witchcraft were repealed. But a new Act was passed, and that Act is still law. A section of it is worth quoting: “Any persons pretending to use witchcraft, tell fortune, or discover stolen goods by skill in ahy ocult or crafty science shall be liable to one year’s imprisonment and to stand in the pillory.” That Is law to-day, except as regards the pillory, which has been abolished as a punishment. Flogging and the Law.

But flogging is by no means a thing of th e paslt. Whipping for misdeamours is still good Common Law, although, in practice, it is ordered only where specifically sanctioned by Statute. But the general idea that the only Statute which authorises it is that of Queen Victoria’s. reign concerning robbery with violence is wrong.

Whipping of children over seven and under fifteen is legal by order of any court of summary jurisdiction, on conviction of any indictable offence. Prisoners in British prisons, who mutiny, or incite to mutiny, or who offer resisitence to the prison guards, may be ordered to be flogged. Incorrigible rogues may be flogged. Sailors in the Royal Navy may be flogged although flogging in the Army has been abolished.

It is still illegal for artificers, husbandmen, and their apprentices, journeymen, servants, seamen, fishermen, and watermen to play certain games. The question of playing for money does next arise. It is simpiy illegal for any of the people referred to in an Act of Henry VIII. to play bowls, ninepins, tennis, dice or football. But this is not really so bad as it seems for, by the clemency of Parliament, these workers may play the forbidden games at Christmas, so Jong as they play in their masters' houses and under their vigilant eyes. Need for a Clean Sweep.

Strictly, all games of chance, other that backgammon, are illegal slid. Anyone playing any game containing the element of chance is liable to ne proceeded against at the instance or th e common informer. The Lord's Day Observance Act of Charles I. is still unrepcaled. It prohibits all meetings on Sunday by people out of their own parishes for any sport or pastime whatever, and all meetings in their parish for common play, exercises o r pastime. Not long ago, in the Belfast Court, an Act 250 years' old was invoked to prevent golrers playing over the Royal Port rush Cluo course on Sundays. The writer concluies: “The list or cases might be multiplied, but the few given must si ffice. Yet, wbrs our legislators are so busy multiplying the laws, they omit many provisions necessary for the safety of the State. When Rog?r Cassm >. t was arrested and tried, it was necessary to hunt back to the 11th century to

find an Act which would bring him within the law. Every now and then, Statute Law Revision Acts have been passed, sweeping away the legal debris of the centuries. But those Acts missed many old and fossilised enactments. It is time these absurd legal relics were swepi a way.”