The Sunday Keeping Trial 

It was a lovely still day.  The two men who had been toiling on the hillside clearing their property, grubbing out stumps and throwing them on to the fire, stopped for a while, and gazed around them.  The scene was a very pleasant one.  The paddocks and orchards stretched away to the haze of the Blue Mountains, the blue just barely deeper than that of the clear blue sky.  The smoke curled up lazily in the still air, and the brothers stretched their backs and then bent again to their task.

It was Sunday 22^nd April, 1894, and they could see, dotted about among the farms and orchards in the middle distance, other figures going about their farms, attending to various duties.  This they noted as being part of the usual scene, not as anything difference or extraordinary.

However, as they worked on they became aware of the clop of hoofs and on looking up they noticed that the local policeman, Senior Sergeant Megarvey, was approaching.  Pausing from their labours, they called a greeting, and were surprised at the reluctance of the response.  Sergeant Megarvey reined in his mare, dismounted and came across to the Firth brothers, William and Harry, with a stern look on his face.

“Gentlemen,” he sad, (and the brothers were surprised at the formality of the approach, in stark contrast to his usual informal greeting),  “I regret to inform you that you are breaking the law by working on your land on Sunday.  You will be charged with acting contrary to the law by (here the Sergeant began to read from a paper he took from his pocket) the fact that you did ‘exercise your worldly labour, to wit, grubbing up stumps and burning off timber, such not being a work of necessity or charity’.”  Here Megarvey broke off with an apologetic air, and said, “I will have to lay an information about this, and you will be summoned to appear in Parramatta Court on a date to be fixed.”

Having said this, the Sergeant walked to his horse, mounted and rode away, leaving two bewildered brothers to return to their house on the hill and tell the family what had transpired.The brothers knew why they had been so charged, of course.  They had recently joined the Seventh-day Adventist church, which had opened in June, 1893.  As a matter of fact their family had donated the land for the building of the church. A small block on the lower corner of their land, facing President Road, had been sectioned off and the neat little church had been erected there.

The coming of a new denomination to the area had created much ill-feeling among a small number of the God-fearing residents of Kellyville.  The population of Kellyville worshipped either at the Church of England on the Windsor Road, or at the little stone Catholic church, St. Michaels, at Baulkham Hills, many walking the five miles or so, there and back.  The majority of the Kellyville folk were quite happy to have the extra church in the area, but a small number resented the matter deeply, and had instigated the police action.

The charge was laid on William and Harry Firth because they now believed that they should keep sacred the seventh day, the Sabbath, as Christ did when He was on earth.  Being struggling farmers they did not feel able to lose two days work in seven and so they refrained from labour on Saturday, and worked instead on Sunday.

The brothers now were confronted with the need to decide.  Their options were:  give up on such a matter of principle, bow to the popular beliefs and go back to keeping Sunday, refrain from work on two days, or go to Court as law-breakers.  They talked and prayed long and earnestly, consulted with Pastor McCullagh, and decided that they had no choice but to go to Court.

So, as reported in many newspapers of the time, including the Cumberland Argus, and Parramatta Mercury, and the Sydney Morning Herald, all of May 12, 1894, Harry and William firth appeared in the Parramatta Court to answer the following charge:

“that they did, on Sunday, April 22, at Kellyville, contrary to law, exercise their worldly labour, to it, grubbing up stumps, and burning off timber, such not being a work of necessity or charity.  The information was laid under 29 Charles II, c.7, which reads: ‘Any person the age of 14 years or upwards, tradesman, artificer or workman or labourer or other person whatsoever doing or exercising any worldly  labour, business or work of his ordinary calling upon the Lord’s day, or any part hereof, works of necessity and charity only excepted, shall be, etc …’” (quoted from the Cumberland Argus, 12/5/1894).

The Cumberland Argus reported the whole proceedings at some length, describing the large number of people who attended, and the exchanges between the accused and the Police Magistrate.  When pressed to plead guilty, William Firth declared that “I only work six days in the week.  I believe the seventh day to be the Sabbath, and I keep it as such.  I don’t think I would be justified in keeping from work on two days in the week.”

William went on to say: “I did not intend to commit a breach of the law. I was not aware a statute was in existence, but as there is I plead guilty – with justification.  Then Harry Firth was asked how he pleaded, and he replied, “It is a matter of religion with me in the same way.”

The sentence which the Court imposed was:  “You are ordered to be fined the sum of five shillings, to be recovered by levy and distress, in default of sufficient distress you are to be set publicly in the stocks for two hours.”  And the report says “Loud laughter”.  Upon being asked, both the Firths declined to pay the fine, and the Magistrate ruled that Levy and Distress would ensue.  (The dictionary says of DISTRESS – in law (a) distraint, (b) the property distrained.  DISTRAIN – in law – to seize and hold (property) as security or indemnity for a debt.  LEVY – in law – to seize (property) under a writ of execution).

In the same issue of the Cumberland Argus, on page 2, “in regard to the enforcement of the law against William Firth, the police sized his horse and buggy on the day of the hearing of the case, and as Firth had his mother and sister and some friends to take back to Kellyville, he thought it better to pay the fine.  The other defendant, Harry Firth, is living with his parents, and has no goods to levy upon.  He says he will not pay the fine, but will allow the police to enforce the order of the court and place him in the stocks.”

As no stocks could be found, Harry did not suffer that indignity.