any subject whatsoever on any part of Sunday, are deemed disorderly houses or places, if people are admitted to them by payment of money or by tickets sold for money. And the keeper of the house was made liable to a penalty of 2001. for each day of the offence; and smaller penalties were declared against the manager or chairman, the doorkeeper, or the person advertising such amusement.1 Any person acting as master is deemed the keeper, though not the real owner or occupier, and if several so act, each is liable. And if people, without payment at the door, are admitted, but pay greater than usual prices for refreshments when within, this is deemed admission by payment. And if subscribers or contributors at their expense allow people to enter with their tickets, this is deemed also equivalent to admission on payment of money. And even to advertise such places of meeting is punishable with a penalty of 501.3 These penalties may, however, be remitted by a secretary of state. In one case a body called Recreative Religionists, who were duly certified under a late statute, kept a place of meeting for lectures, sermons, and sacred music, but this was held not a place of public entertainment or amusement, and so no penalty was incurred. On the other hand, an aquarium, where the public are admitted on payment to see live fish in tanks and hear music and see stuffed animals and curiosities, has been

6

5

2 Ibid. § 2.

3 Ibid. § 3.

The immediate occasion

1 21 Geo. III. c. 49, § 1. 4 38 & 39 Vic. c. 80. 5 18 & 19 Vic. c. 81. 6 Baxter v Langley, L. R., 4 C. P. 21. of this act was the popularity of two noted establishments in London which were used on Sundays, and admission money charged. One was Carlisle House, a promenade for profligate people meeting. Another was a Sunday debating society, where a passage of Scripture was selected, and ladies and gentlemen in turn debated and stated doubts and difficulties thereon, said to be in the manner of sceptics. -Hodgson's Life of Bp. Porteous, 71. The bill was opposed on the ground that religion was good for nothing if it did not bear discussion; yet it passed by an overwhelming majority.-22 Parl. Hist. 267. A BISHOP told the House of Lords that Lord Thurlow, L. C., Lord Mansfield, C. J., and Skinner, C. B., revised this bill. Yet it was thought at the time to be an arbitrary, partial, and unwise measure. Ann. Reg. 1781, p. 147. A constable arrested L. Harcourt, L. C., for travelling on Sunday during church hours; and the head of the law was obliged to draw up at the nearest church and join in divine service before he resumed his journey.

deemed a place of entertainment and amusement within the meaning of this Act.1

Before the statute which gave power to a secretary of state to remit the fines under this statute, an abuse existed of an informer suing and then returning the fines in order to prevent future informers doing the same thing; but this practice the court defeated by treating the first judgment as obtained by covin and collusion.2

Opening of public houses on Sunday-One important and prominent part of Sunday legislation refers to the opening of public houses and places for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and this has been regulated by the legislature by special Acts from the time of Edward VI. The latest revised enactment was in 1874. By that Act these houses within the metropolitan district, or four miles from Charing-cross, must be closed all Sunday morning until 1 o'clock p.m. and then again at 11 o'clock p.m. In the rest of England and Wales the houses must be closed till half-past 12 p.m. on Sundays and then again at 10 p.m.3 Besides these hours of closing there is a further time of closing which applies to all the licensed houses wherever situated, namely, during afternoon service, that is to say, between half-past 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. respectively, according as the first closing period ends at half-past 12 or 1.4 Whoever opens his licensed house on Sundays during the above closing hours incurs a penalty of 107, and on a second offence a penalty of 2015 It is true that an exception is made in favour of bond fide travellers, who are at all times entitled to admittance and refreshment; " and railway station refreshment bars are not restricted, provided travellers arriving or departing by train seek refreshment. But other persons, not travellers, are liable to a penalty of 40s. if found within licensed houses during these prohibited hours without any lawful excuse. Moreover, refreshment houses where intoxicating liquors are not sold must be closed on Sundays till 4 a.m.

8

1 Terry v Brighton Aq. Co. L. R., 10 Q. B. 306; Warner v Brighton Aq. Co. L. R., 10 Exch. 291. 2 Girdlestone v Brighton Aq. Co., 3 Exch, D. 137,

3 37 & 38 Vic. c. 49, § 3.

Ibid. § 9. 6 Ibid. § 10. 7 Ibid.; 1 C. P. 324. 8 35 & 36 Vic. c. 94, § 25. § 5; 35 & 36 Vic. c. 38, § 11.

4 Ibid.

Peache Colman, L. R., 9 27 & 28 Vic. c. 64,

The question who is a bond fide traveller within the meaning of these statutes, and so entitled to be admitted and served at all hours on Sundays with refreshment in licensed inns, has caused difficulties, and the legislature attempted to define his status circuitously. He is not to be deemed a traveller unless the place where he lodged during the preceding night is at least three miles distant from the place where he demands to be supplied with liquor, and such distance is to be calculated by the nearest thoroughfare. And a mistake of the innkeeper, after taking all reasonable precautions to discover if the traveller is a bond fide traveller, will not subject him to penalties.2 It is, on the other hand, an offence, falsely to pretend that one is a bond fide traveller. But so long as the distance travelled satisfies the statute, it is wholly immaterial whether the object of the traveller was business or pleasure.*

Offence of profane swearing.-It seems to have been a proclivity of human nature in all ages and countries to indulge in profane swearing; and though there has always been some uncertainty in defining the precise characteristics of the offence, it has mostly been deemed an offence, or at least a weakness to be censured, and according to the circumstances has even called for some substantial punishment. It is an offence now wholly confined to the vulgar, who seek by loud, incoherent, and irrelevant vociferations of the highest names and transactions to conceal their own want of thought and most of all their poverty of expression. When angry passions and rage distend such a soul beyond its feeble powers of utterance, it seeks in this way to relieve its conscious impotence by monosyllables repeated without a beginning, a middle, or an end. This vehemence of sound only strikes awe into the ignorant, but yet it so offends those who are orderly and accustomed to selfrestraint as to be a substantial interference with each person's comfort, and on that account calling for a moderate punishment. One reason, why cursing and swearing was treated as an offence, was said to be its tendency to make men careless of veracity and ready to commit perjury. The Jews treated swearing by false gods or cursing with the name of the true God as an offence punishable by scourg1 37 & 38 Vic. c. 49, § 10. 2 Ibid. 335 & 36 Vic. c. 94, § 25. Taylor Humphries, 10 C. B., N. S. 429.

ing. 1 Plato thought that any chapman puffing off goods with an oath should be well beaten, and that no action should lie for the assault.2 The ancients, indeed, seem not to have treated profane swearing as a substantive offence. The early Christians, however, soon denounced it. Chrysostom preached the whole of one Lent against it, and took care to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary occasions for oaths. But as oaths were then taken to ratify every contract, it was difficult to establish such a distinction. In 1623 a statute of James I. enacted, that whoever profanely cursed or swore incurred a fine of twelvepence, for the nonpayment of which he might be set in the stocks. three hours; and if under twelve he was to be whipped.* But two witnesses were required. Another statute in 1694 allowed one witness to prove the offence and assigned gradations of punishment, and allowed children under sixteen when thus offending, to be whipped. And the Act was to be publicly read four times every year in parish churches and chapels immediately after morning prayer, under a penalty of 20s. for neglect.5

The extent of punishment for swearing.—At length, in 1745, an elaborate statute, repealing the former Acts, was passed, which still regulates the punishment of 1 Lev. xix. 12; Selden de Jur. b. ii. c. 13; 4 Michaelis, 93. 2 Plato, leg. b. ii.

3 Cod. Theod., B. 2, tit. 9 de pact. It was said that Christians used to relieve their consciences by swearing by the emperor's safety instead of by the emperor's good genius, as this last form was deemed profane and as implying divine honours to a demon.Tertull. Ap. c. 32. An oath current in early centuries was "swearing by the creatures," which was a form of pawning some things specially dear, to abide the event of what they spoke turning out to be false; and this was deemed excusable; but fine distinctions were made. Thus ST. BASIL said when JOSEPH swore by the safety of Pharaoh's beard it was not properly an oath. Justinian treated profane oaths as blasphemy and punishable with death.-Nov. 77, §§ 1, 2. Donald VI. of Scotland ordered profane swearers to have their lips seared with a hot iron.- H. Boet. b. x. In this country the Puritans were said to have considered swearing worse than murder.-11 Percy Soc. (Rich. How. 6.) 4 21 Jas. I. c. 20.

5 6 & 7 W. III. c. 11. Profane swearing, as may be supposed, was severely punished by the Long Parliament, and several Acts were passed for the purpose.-Scobell's Acts 1650, c. 16. One of the articles of impeachment of Scroggs, C J., was, that in his common discourse at dinner in the house of a gentleman of quality he publicly and openly uttered oaths and curses.-8 St. Tr. 170.

profane swearing, and this it does in a somewhat peculiar manner, namely, by a tariff of punishments proportioned to the social grade of the offender. And mankind are divided for this purpose into three grades only.1 The court, before this Act, as in the case of slander and libel, insisted that when a conviction was made by justices of the peace, the very words of the oath should be set out, so that the court might judge whether it was or was not an oath, that being deemed a nice point of law. The Act at last gave a form of conviction, overruling such a necessity. One characteristic rule of interpreting this statute was adopted, which differed from that formerly mentioned as regulating the catching of game on Sunday; for while any person who hunts and kills any number of heads of game on a Sunday is deemed to commit only one offence, the older judges, by a happy thought, decided, that each separate oath is capable of separate valuation. Hence, if a volley of oaths is discharged, and the witness is a fair arithmetician, the court will, on his estimate, assess each repetition at a separate sum, as was the case of the miller, who discharged a volley which cost him as much as 21., inasmuch as a bystander counted twenty of these vain repetitions without stopping.3 Another peculiarity attending this

1"If any person shall profanely curse or swear and be thereof convicted, on the oath of any one or more witness or witnesses before one justice of the peace or by the confession of the party offending, he shall forfeit as follows, that is to say, every day labourer, common soldier, common sailor, or common seaman, 18.; every other person under the degree of gentleman, 2s.; and every person of or above the degree of a gentleman, 5s.; for a second offence after a former conviction, double these sums; and for a third or subsequent offence, treble."-19 Geo. II. c. 21, § 1. If the cursing or swearing be in the presence of a justice of the peace, he may convict the party without further proof.-Ibid. § 2; if in the presence of a constable the latter may apprehend the party without a warrant if unknown, and carry him before a justice, in order that he may be convicted; and he is also to lay an information against those who were known.-Ibid. § 3. The penalty is to be applied to the poor of the parish, where the offence is committed.-Ibid. § 10. For non-payment of the penalty the justices may commit for ten days to the house of correction.-Ibid. § 4. A constable not doing his duty is liable to a fine of 40s.-Ibid. § 7. And justices not doing their duty are liable to a fine of 5l.-Ibid. § 6.

2 R. v Sparling, 8 Mod. 58..

3 R. v Scott, 33 L. J., M. C. 15. A leather-dresser in Clerkenwell