|
After The Trial
12TH MAY, 1894
The trial of William and Harry Firth took place on
Monday, 7th May, 1894, and the district was agog with the news. Never had the two local papers, the Cumberland Argus and the Parramatta Mercury, had such big sales – everyone wanted their own copies. Because the papers were not published until the following Saturday, 12th May, the editors had time to interview people to gather their response to the trial and their opinion of the sentence, particularly in regard to the stocks. Their readers found that the editors of the two papers had different views on the soundness of the 17th century law to observe Sunday, and of the rights of the State to uphold such a law.
The Cumberland Mercury thundered that “…..If every man, or set of men, in a community, chose, either from any religious convictions or opinions, to keep a different day, it would create such chaotic confusion that almost all phases of commercial, social, political and civil intercourse would be well nigh impossible. This day must therefore be left to man to regulate…” (
12/5/1894, page 4).
In a much more measured, and lighter vein, the Cumberland Argus editorial enlarged upon the action of Charles II, who reigned from 1649 to 1685, in bringing such a law. The editor said in part;
“... Charles II was not remarkable for many great deeds. He contrived in a brief space of time to measure swords with the armies of
Holland,
Denmark and
France, and a year or so before he surrendered his kingly soul to his Maker, he chopped off the heads of RUSSELL and SYDNEY. While all the time he was making history, it was never contemplated, we daresay, that any portion of his august mantle would fall on the shoulders of a police sergeant in Parramatta a couple of centuries later…This week, in Parramatta, we have had a revival of the House of Stuart, in the shape of two prosecutions under a statute which was handed down to us signed, sealed and delivered from CHARLES II. His Majesty’s father, CHARLES I was like his father, JAMES I, noted for strong piety and his indulgence of the principle that the Episcopal Church was most consistent with the proper authority of kings, and as a striking means of demonstrating that piety, he adopted severe and even persecuting measures against the Puritans in England and the Presbyterians in Scotland…”
The editorial goes on to quote the statute under which the Firth brothers were fined, and to comment at some length on the incongruity of the anomalies of the law, and the fact that such a law had been enforced because of the “…indignation of the neighbours who have remained true to the custom handed down to them of religiously observing the first day in the week…”
The editorial concludes by saying “…There is no consistency in allowing the subject to follow his own sweet will as to the religion he prefers to enjoy, and then to lay down that he must violate that religion by working on a day that his religious belief tells him he must not … Wondrously inconsistent too, is it for those who, desperately sincere in observing the holy day of their own religion, should be intolerant of those who profess to believe that another day was Divinely ordained for religious observance…”
The article concludes with a criticism of the police in conducting such a prosecution under an obsolete law, and the necessity for certain reforms. The two papers, under the same date, (
12/5/1894) also published the interviews they had conducted with the minister of the
Parramatta and Kellyville churches, Pastor McCullagh.
The article in the Cumberland Argus,
12/5/1894, page 2, says in part;
javascript:submitbutton('save'); Save Save "… There is nothing hysterical or immoderate about Pastor McCullah. He is a plain, level-headed man, who argues calmly and courteously his side of the Sunday question…’doubtless’, acquiesced Pastor McCullagh, ‘but we regard this question of Sunday observance as free as any other. We claim that a man has as much right to change his opinions on religious subjects as on such questions as Freetrade and Protection’… They believed in what Luther wrote: “I am ready to preach, to argue, to write’ but I will not constrain any one, for faith is voluntary. No secular sword can advance this cause’…”
A similar, smaller, article in the Cumberland Mercury, same date, but page 4, contained much the same sentiments.
So the Press commentary concluded for the week of 12th May, but still the controversy continued over coming weeks.
|
