property and security of those who are no longer under the superintendence of that Church which first shared the possession of the reins of government. It is thus necessary to state somewhat minutely what are the laws of the Church of England, in order that we may afterwards more clearly see, how the same practical results are obtained, without the aid of such laws, by that other half of the population who are called Nonconformists or Dissenters. But before proceeding to state the laws of the Church, there are three heads of law which ought to be disposed of, because they were once constituent parts of these laws, and owed their importance to the position first assigned to them as such, though, now that they are isolated, thev maintain their ground as part of the general law for different reasons than those first relied upon. These are the laws relating to the profanation of the sabbath, profane swearing, and witchcraft. These laws were once treated as essential parts of Christianity, which again was long deemed part of the law of England. And though now the two former of these heads are independent of the laws of any one Church, they are nevertheless, for other good reasons, retained in our law. The laws of witchcraft also were long treated as part of the law of God, though they are now almost altogether obliterated, and it is only necessary to notice such faint traces of them as still remain.

Though it has long been a current phrase, that Christianity is part of the law of England, it has already been shown how that doctrine is misleading, and what is the precise length and breadth which it is capable of rightly assuming. It has been shown, that Christianity cannot correctly be stated to be a part of the law more than any other body of doctrines, whether of science, morality, or other branches of human knowledge, which are often taken notice of in order to determine some issue or incidental dispute between man and man. And as regards the offence of blasphemy and the laws that protect us against it, these have been fully set forth in the earlier part of this volume.1

Profanation of the sabbath generally.-The sabbath

1 As to Christianity being part of the law of England it has been aptly observed: "Was there ever an indictment for not loving our neighbour as ourselves?"-Per Rolfe, B., 2 Crabb Robins, 21.~~ See 1 Put. Com. (Pers.) 111.

viewed as denoting one day's rest in seven, has apparently been part of the common law of nearly every nation, or at least there has been some division of time somewhat nearly corresponding to it. Even in Pagan times there was an approach to it in the number of recurring festivals in honour of strange gods or men.' The laws prohibiting common employments on that day were long deemed part of the laws of God, and therefore their violation was usually set down as an act of the grossest impiety. Our own statutes have again and again recognised this day as a leading qualification or exception to nearly every manual employment. And though the learned have differed as to the chief variation from the end to the beginning of the week, and its cause, and sometimes have speculated as to how far such an arrangement of time is a law of human nature rather than of any one nation, such singular unanimity shows, that if we had not inherited from the earliest times the practice of setting apart one day in seven for the exercises of religion and the highest morality, we must have been driven to invent it.2 Our earliest statutes abound with

1 The Athenians had festival days, which amounted to one-sixth part of the year. The ancient Greeks at feasts made it compulsory to sing hymns to the gods.-Athen. b. xiv. c. 24. The Roman pontiffs had similar difficulties to those of the moderns in solving what kind of work was to be allowed during the feria publicæ.— Macrob. 1. c. And see Dig. 2, 12, 2. Marcus Antoninus increased the working days to 230, the rest being holidays.-Capitol. M. Ant. Phil. c. 10. The Incas ordered three holidays every month for

diversion with games. Com. of Incas, b. vi. c. 35, In China, though there are no Sundays, yet there are so many holidays that the result is much the same.-1 Gray's China, 260. The French National Convention, in 1792 abolished Sunday, and made divisions of time into ten days, one being for rest. The new arrangement lasted twelve years, when Napoleon, in 1805, restored the Gregorian Calendar.

2 BAXTER thought that one day in seven, or thereabouts, for rest, was almost a law of nature -19 Baxter's Works, 187. "If keeping holy the seventh day were only a human institution, it would be the best method that could have been thought of for the polishing and civilizing of mankind."-Addison, Spect. No. 112. Whether a division of time into seven days had reference to the revolutions of the moon or to the seven planets, recognised in ancient astronomy, has perplexed the learned for many ages.-1 Taylor's Nat. Hist. 292; 1 Humbold's Research. Amer. 284. But it was not a universal institution, being unknown to the Greeks and Etrurians, and being adopted from Egypt by the Romans only in the second century.

A A

notices, precepts, admonitions, and penalties, intended to secure, on the part of the whole population, this weekly exercise of at the least the forms of piety. And yet while many of these enactments still exist, they are enforced in modern times rather out of a profound persuasion that the public health is their sufficient justification. Hence a moderate degree of compulsion is used to secure to all one day of rest out of every seven. It is no longer, however, a merely ecclesiastical law, though it is still essentially an ecclesiastical custom and enters into the ritual of every sect. The varied employments still subjected to restrictions require, however, to be singled out under a few separate heads, in order fully to comprehend how far the law interferes by way of compulsion, or rather in defence of those inclined to join in this one practice.

Early English laws relating to Sunday.-Laws prohibiting labour on Sunday seem to have been adopted in all Christian countries at an early date after the Christian era. The Anglo-Saxons punished a master who ordered his servant to do servile work on Sunday with a fine.1 And if a slave was ordered to work on that day, he was said to have thereby become a freeman.2 They counted the Sabbath from Saturday evening at sunset to sunset, but a little later it was extended from 3 p.m. Saturday Potter's Gr. Ant. b. ii. c. 26. The Japanese and Polynesians are also unacquainted with it at this day.-2 Davis, Chin. c. 18.

The Jewish Sabbath included rest for beasts and servants as well as for masters.-Exod. xxiii. 12; xx. 10; Deut. v. 14. The learned have interpreted the punishments for breach of the Sabbath rest as confined to public and contemptuous defiance of the law.-Numb. xv. 32; Michaelis, § 249. And it is not easily settled whether the ancient Jews considered it as a day of recreation or not.-Ibid. ; 1 Milman, Jews, 113. CONSTANTINE ordained, that the people should rest on Sabbath in towns, but thought that in the country the time could not be spared.-Montesq. b. xxiv. c. 23. And the Theodosian and Justinian Codes prohibited sports and public shows on Sunday: -Cod. Theod. b. xv. tit. 5; Cod. b. iii. tit. 12; and all secular employments, except works of necessity, and charity, and harvest work.Cod. Just. iii. 12. The early Christians regarded it as a day of rejoicing, and to fast was unlawful.-Bp. Lincoln on Tertull. 388; L. King's Prim. Ch. And it was afterwards said, that, while Sunday was kept in the Western Church as a fast, it was kept in the Eastern Church as a feast.-Bing. Chr. Antiq. b. xx. c. 3.

1 Leg. Withr.; Leg. Cnut. Wightred's Dooms. A.D. 696.

2 Ine's Eccl. L., A.D. 693;

till break of day on Monday.1

2

The same laws also

prohibited actions or public executions and arrests on that day; also marketings and purchases, huntings, and worldly works. Yet there was always something vague in the object of these laws-whether it was for recreation or austerity. In 1359 Sunday was a day of fairs, and feasting, and fighting, in at least some places; and so it long continued. Fairs and markets were definitely prohibited by a statute of Henry VI. to be held on Sundays or festivals, and that statute is still in force. A statute of Edward VI. forbade working on Sundays, but excepted harvest workers, labourers, and fishermen.5 In Queen Elizabeth's time a chief justice was reported to have said that it was contrary to law to enforce Sunday austerity. And at that date plays used to be performed in theatres on Sundays. The canons of 1603 (c. 13) ordered all persons to keep the Lord's Day, and therein followed the statute of Edward VI. Next James I. and Charles I.-the latter at the instigation of Laud-issued declarations forbidding persons who wished to enjoy the usual sports on that day from being disturbed, the opinion being, that the Puritans were over strict, and alienated the people, leaving them exposed to the influence of Jesuits and Papists. The statute of Charles I.

6

1 Leg. Edgar, c. 5; Edw. Conf. Leg. c. 3; Leg. Cnut, c. 14.

2 Athelst. leg. c. 24; Cnut, leg. c. 15; A.D. 1017. The civil law and Eastern Code all treated general work on that day as unlawful, but with a vague exception in favour of agriculture. The Burgundians, the Alanians, the Bavarians, Frisians, Franks, all had like laws, and punished their infraction with scourging or fine. 3 1 Young's Whitby, 411.

4 27 Hen. VI. c. 5. Since 1833 all elections of vestries and corporation officers and public companies must take place either before or after Sunday, if by any authority they had been appointed for that day.-3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 31.

In Scotland the first statute was 1503, c. 83., prohibiting markets and fairs on holidays. The Presbyteries were ordained under the act 1693, c. 40, to appoint searchers or informers of these offences. It was decided in 1837, that the statute 1579, c. 70, which prohibited using of handy labour and working, prohibited shaving of people in shops on Sundays.-Philip v Innes, 2 Sh. & McL. 645. That statute is held to prohibit all shops being open for selling goods.-Bute v Moore, 43 Sc. Jur. 65.

5 5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 3. 6 1 Neale's Pur. 451. Northcote (Shaksp. Soc.) 14; D'Israeli, Jas. I. 345. 2 Neale's Pur. 105 (ed. 1822); 2 Rushw. 193.

7

Collier, Introd.

8 1618, 1633, 93 Fuller, 270,

still in force, while allowing lawful games or May-poles, and morris dancing, out of people's own parishes, at the same time forbade the unlawful sports of bear and bull baiting, and plays within one's own parish. The Long Parliament in 1643 ordered the declaration of James I. to be burnt by the common hangman in Cheapside. The Puritan ordinance in 1644 prohibited persons from selling goods or carrying burdens or doing any worldly labour on that day, under penalties. Persons above fourteen wrestling, shooting, or masking incurred a penalty of five shillings; and the parents or guardians of the offending children, one shilling. Yet dressing of meat in inns, and crying milk between certain hours were excepted from punishment.2

General work and selling of goods.-The older statutes being repealed, the modern law is still represented by the statutes of Charles I. and Charles II. By the statute of Charles II. in 1676 no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise any worldly labour, business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's Day, or any part thereof; works of necessity and charity only excepted. Any person above fourteen is liable to a penalty for such offence. And no one is to publicly cry, show forth, or expose to sale any wares, fruit, or any goods whatsoever on that day. Nor were waggoners, drovers, or butchers to travel. But nothing was to prohibit the dressing of meat in families, in inns, cookshops, and victualling houses for such as otherwise could not be provided; nor to prohibit the selling of milk in certain hours. And all offences were to be prosecuted within ten days. The interpretation of this Act has often exercised the ingenuity of courts, for the exception of works of necessity and charity gave a handle to get rid of the enactments. And the other difficulty lay in distinguishing what were works of one's ordinary calling.

Work of one's ordinary calling.-It was decided more than a century ago, that the work of bakers was one of necessity. Hence a baker who baked puddings, and pies, and pastry for customers was held to be not punishable by the Act, because this might well be deemed an act of 2 Scobell, Ordin. 68. 3 3 Ch. I. c. 1; 429 Ch. II. c. 7.

11 Ch. I. c. 1. 29.Ch. II. c. 7.