MELBOURNE HALL OF SCIENCE CASES.

Freethought Review, Volume II, Issue 21, 1 June 1885, Page 7

MELBOURNE HALL OF SCIENCE CASES.

JUDGE WILLIAMS’S DECISION. His Honor reserved judgment on the conclusion of the trial. In delivering his judgment the following were the main points laid down. The simple question for him to decide was to whether Act 21, George lIP, c. 49, was in force in that colony. This was a pure question of law, and he assumed that if in force the defendants (Robertson and Symes) had offended against its provisions. He would express no opinion as to the policy of continuing such an Act, or of the danger of its provisions being unequally administered. Whether it was in force, or not, depended on the answer to the question,, could its policy and provisions be reasonably applied to the circumstances and conditions of that colony ? The counsel for one of the

plaintiffs had contended chat as the main purpose of the Act was to preserve Sunday, as a day of rest, it was beneficial to the State, and consequently it was a matter of State policy. The other counsel contended that the Act was passed to compel religious observance of Sunday, to enable the State to co-operate with the State Church for that purpose, that Sunday was part of Christianity, and that Christianity was part of the common law of England, therefore it came to that colony as part of the common law and was applicable to that colony. Taking the latter contention first, his Honor had no hesitation in saying the Act was inapplicable, as they had no State Church and no State religion. With regard to the branch of the argument that Christianity was part of the common law, the logic rested on an assumption of premises. He knew of no legal authority for the assumption that Sunday was part of Christianity, and said that if he were to go to the fountain head or origin of Christianity, he might possibly find authority, though not legal authority, the other way. As to the assertion that Christianity was part of the common law, his Honor quoted Lord Chief Justice Coleridge’s statement in the celebrated Ramsay and Foote case, in which he argued that Christianity was not part of the law of the land, in the sense in which the old cases had laid it down—therefore both these arguments fell to the ground. Regarding the argument of the first counsel, Mr Justice Williams said that with much doubt he was disposed to think that the Act had a twofold policy—to support the State Church, inapplicable there, and to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, a civil institution beneficial to the State and for that purpose and to that extent applicable there. He came to this conclusion chiefly from the fact that the Acts were against anything in the nature of trading, or performing a work, for which charge was made on Sunday. In other words the Act recognised the right to give entertainments on Sunday provided no charge was made. It was obvious that making a gain would induce many to work on Sunday, and he thought that as a civil institution and day of rest Sunday might be regarded as an institution beneficial to the State. There was a third aspect which had been presented to him—that it was in the nature of a police measure, and he considered there was much in favour of that view when it was considered that the Act was introduced at the time of the “ Gordon Riots.” If that was the object of the Act, why the qualification as to “ admission by payment ?” As both liberty and toleration had made enormous strides since the Act was passed, the risk of breaches of the peace had been reduced to a minimum, and he was therefore inclined to suppose that if that was the meaning of the act when passed it could not reasonably be applied to the condition and circumstances of the colony. It was therefore only by giving the Act the object and policy contended for by the first counsel that it could be rendered reasonably applicable, and he had doubts as to whether that policy and object could be given to the Act. He would enter judgment for the plaintiff in both actions on this point of law, without costs, and hoped an appeal would be made to a full Court against the decision. Mr Symes stated that an appeal would be made.