RELIGIOUS OFFENCES.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3682, 21 July 1886, Page 3

RELIGIOUS OFFENCES.

* , Prior to the dissolution a bill was printed by order of the House of Commons, the object of which is to relieve all laymen from , liability to punishment on account of any religious offence. By tho first clause it is propo- ! Bed that after the passing of the Act no criminal , proceedings shall be instituted m any court , against any person for schism, heresy, apostacy, blasphemous libel, blasphemy at common . law, or atheism j excepting only proceedings [ instituted m ecclesiastical courts against spiritual persons of the Churoh of England or m tho courts of the Church of Scotland against . ministers or teachers of the Church. Down to 1 867 it was the general opinion of the Judges . that either blasphemy or denial of tho truth of tho christian religion was an offenco at , common law. But this had beon more par- . ticularly dealt with by on Act of Parliament ' known as the 9th and 10th of William 111., , which tho present bill proposes to repeal , altogether. By that Act it was laid down l that a denial of tho doctrine of the Trinity, or of the truth of Christianity, should disqualify [ a man from holding any publio oflice or employment j and that on a repetition of tho t offence, he should be incapaMe of suing m a court of law, or of succeeding to a legacy, and r Bhould be liable, at the same time, to throe years' imprisonment. This Act remained m ! full force down to the year 1813, whon so much of it was repealed as related to the denial of tho Trinity, without, however, m tho - opinion of the Judges, either affecting that part of which referred to the denial of Cnrist- . ianity, or m any way altoring the offence at common law, whioh, as it existed beforo the Act was passed, would have continued to exist even if the latter had been entirely repealed. As Lord Eldon observed m 1817, it only abolished the statutory penalties enacted m 1698, but did not remove tbe criminalty of the A:t to which they were attached. On subsequent occasions other Judges took the same view among them Lord Tenterden Justices ' Holvroyd and Bayly, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and 1 Baron Bram well. But some years afterwards, ' m the cose of Foote, Lord Coleridge Beeins to have laid down that we must assume the common law to have followed the action of 1 Legislature, aud that when a profession of • Christianity was no longer required from men m publio situations it could hardly be main- ' tamed that denial of it was an offence ag unßt ' the law. The question really now at issue is not whether disbelief m l hristianity shall be tolerated, but whether blasphemy or ribald ' abuse of Christianity shall bo tolerated. ■ For remainder of 2?etos see Fourth Page