THE CHRISTCHURCH FREETHOUGHT HALL LICENSING CASE.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 11, 1 August 1884, Page 15

THE CHRISTCHURCH FREETHOUGHT HALL LICENSING CASE.

(‘ Christchurch Star,’ June 27.)

The question of the licensing of the Freethought Flail, which exercised the City Council some weeks ago, was made the subject of three informations heard before Messrs R. Beetham, R. M., R. Westenra, and J. E. Parker. The occasion on which it was alleged that the hall had been used for such purposes as made it necessary to be licensed were the evenings of April 20, 21, and 22, when Mr. Charles Bright gave the three lectures which he delivered on his last visit to Christchurch. F. C. Hall was charged that, being the owner or having the control of the Freethought Hall, he had allowed the building to be used for the purposes of a public performance on the above date without being licensed by the City Council, contrary to Section 323 of the Municipal Corporations Act. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for the City Council, and Mr. Joynt for defendant. Mr. Fisher called the following evidence.—Sergeant Morice stated that he knew the building which had formerly been the German Church, and was now used as the Freethought Hall. Saw defendant on May 30. He told witness he was Secretary of the Canterbury Freethought Association. Had a further conversation with him on June 13, and he told witness that the Association gave the hall to Mr. Bright for his leHures free of charge, and Mr. Bright was to receive the takings for lighting and cleaning expenses, and that if any person had insisted on coming in he would not have been compelled to pay. Flad seen the advertisment of the leHures in the newspapers.—Mr. Joynt would objecft unless the advertisement could be traced to Mr. Hall.—Mr. Fisher could not do that.—Cross-

examined : Did not know the subjecfl of the lecflures.— Frank Hobbs, Inspector of Public Buildings for the City Council, said that no license had been taken out for the Freethought Hall. He had asked defendant to do so, in view of the facfl that charge was made for admission to these lecflures , but Mr. Hall had replied that he did not see why this hall should be licensed more than that of other religious bodies. —H. E. Lonsdale, a member of the Freethought Society, said he had attended the lecflures given by Mr Bright, could not recollecfl the titles of the lectures. Mr. Flail was Secretary, Mr. Pratt President, and Mr. Webber vice-President of the Association. Recollecfled Mr. Hall reading a letter from Mr. Pratt on the occasion of one of the leHures. There was a band in connection with the Freethought Hall, and they played usually on Sunday evenings. Members contributed 6d. each evening they attended. This was all the evidence for the prosecution. F. C. Hall, the defendant, said that Mr. Bright did

give three lecflures of a religious tendency on April 20, 21, and 22 in the Freethought Hall. It as understood that persons admitted would be asked for is, but if they objecfled the charge would not be made. — Crossexamined : The first lecture was on “ What Civilisation

has done for Christianity.” Witness thought that Mr. Bright proved that Christianity had not done much for civilisation. The second leeflure was on “ Ingersoll,” and the third on “Is the Bible God Worthy of Reverence ? ” There were more than a dozen people

present on the three evenings who were not members of the Society. Witness arranged with Mr. Bright that he should have the hall free if he paid for the gas and cleaning. —Mr Joynt submitted that the information must be dismissed, A leHure was not a “ public

performance ” referred to by the AH, Fie thought it w r as absurd in this free age to take exception to a leHure given for the purpose of showing that Christianity had not advanced civilisation. Learned counsel referred to

the various views obtaining in society with reference to the use of the Bible, and argued that a leHure on

religious subjecfls, such as this had been, or even any leHure, did not come under the AH. The words of the AH evidently referred to amusing performances. Fie would draw attention to the fact that the lecture was on

# a religious subjecfl, and that the payment for admission was voluntary. He quoted Baxter v. Langley, L. Q. 4

C. P. 21, and other cases, to show that such gatherings as the one under consideration could be held in unlicensed buildings.—Mr. Fisher said that the Municipal Corporations Adi was passed to enable the City Councils to take order for the protection of the citizens, and secftion 323 had this intention with regard to the means of egress from public buildings, and he believed that the words “ public performances” would, if construed strictly, include religious services. —• Mr. Beetham : Then why single this hall out ?—Mr. Joynt thought they ought to have begun with the Cathedral. Mr. Fisher was dealing with the present case. If there was to be any exception in favour of religious services, it should be of a devotional character.—Mr. Beetham had understood Mr. Hall that the meetings were for the “ devotion to humanity.”—Mr. Joynt was prepared to prove that the performance was highly devotional. —Mr. Beetham, after a short consultation with his brother Magistrates, said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the information would not hold water, and that there had been no “ public performance ” within the meaning of the Act. Fie thought it was no more a public performance than that in the Cathedral, which was exempt from license. Case dismissed.—Mr. Joynt applied for a fee, but as the information had been laid by the police, the Bench did not allow it.