The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-31 00:00:00

PUBLIC SHAVING ON SUNDAY.

In June last, a case was brought before the Bailie. Court at
Dundee, at the instance of a barber against his 'apprentiee',and:
eautiOner. By the deed of indenture, the 'apprentice had' be-
come bound to starve his Master on holiday and Week-day. In
practiee for nine months, the apprentice shaved custbiners ill
the barber's shbp 'every Sunday tram seven o'clock in the ninin-
ing till ton o'clock id theTorelloon; or 'half ;an hefote tin
commencement of public. eorstrip.—The cautiotik Wiio was
the boy's Lather, had taken a 'qualm of coriSclenC,E alialt this
employment or his son, And in'tconsequehee'the disema-
tinned his
~Sunday labortis; An action was brought 'by the
barber to enforce the Contract, and frilAt4,7ust the Case Was de-
cided.by the-Bailie, under the title "Inner versus Phillips and
Cautioner," We give the two fellowing tind hags
`k rinds, that it is a matter of publlc notoriety,-that, ameng
the great-body of mechanics', common labourers, and seafaring
men, reSiding in or frequenting this town nr its port, a very
considerable nu:nber are not in the use of shaving their beards
with their own hands., but resort to barbers'shops.M order to be
'shaved, maiiv on the 'evening, of Saturday, but some on the
Morning 'of Sunday. 'Finds, that, hOwever t-ksirable it May be
that the resorting to shay in g-,hops on the niernin,,,s of Slipday
should'he discontinued, if th cou',d be effected, withont great-
er evil, vet it does not appear to be' necessary, or expedient,
for a due ahcervanee of the S,,l)bath, 'fort)id" the existiqg
usage, so long as the snips continue, as at' present, open early
iti-the morning arid' shut before the time fixed for the (...oln-
ifienceinent of divine sec ire '; and it itmarsfitiriv obvious that,
if warkin'g men, who iike not themselves accustomed to shaVe,
'were forbidden the itiat of the barbers, in their' shops, on the
'StindaV morningS, to any decently-illspoged men would be pre-
.
'vented Erma freiluiinting Places of worship, and fromassociat-
ing, in a hecomiag.Manner, with their families, through %Taut
'of personal cleinlineSS'; and the attempt to 'reduce the minor
'evil might lead to serious'offee,i(.leaS:s"it'
(IVocated to the Court of
' 'The case fOr the apprentice
Session, anal the following is the decisioU and note of the
Lord Ordinary.'
"Edinburgh, March 11, IS3s.—The Lord Ordinary having
heard counsel on the closed' reciird and whole process, aoocates
the cause, alters the interlocutors of the Magistrates Oin'-
plainecl of, sustains the defeticet, and aSs'odzies the defenders
from the conclusion of the action, anddererns: Fincts the 4-
votaters entitled to their expenteehoth in this Cuurt'ap,j before
the 'Magistrates; allows an account thereortn be given ju; and
remits the same, when lodged, to the auditor, 'for- his taxation
and report.
(Signed) "Fa. JxFprip,."
"Nute.—This is the first instance, in so far as the Lord
.Or-
dinary is aware, in which a court of law has directly and ion,si-
tivelv ordained a handicraftsman (without any pretence 'of ne-
cessity or serious urgency) to work at his handieraft on a.'
div; and he certainly is in no way anxious to establish such a
precedent:
"'rile Cases of apothecaries' shops, Sunday travelling', and
others that Were cited, are evidently quite inapplicable. -rhete
exceptions haVe been admitted (with more or less scruple and
reluctance,) on the ground ouit they May frequently
tie rei~.ui-
site for purposes of irecessity'anct •mercy ; and that it would be
impracticable to investigate cases of occasional abuse. 'But ft
is ridiculens to speak of a public shaving shop' as' afi
h establish-
Merit of such a riecesSity as MA to interruptiOn for a
day' in the week. if the aJvcicatiar had refused to shave the
head of at lunatic. or one *hose skull liad been fractured, tlie
case would have been parallel. The pretence of usage—espe-
cially such a partial usage as is alleged—is irrelevant in a ques-
tiontrillegaility.'l;rviolatirin bf a public' lass. That, and the
mitigated nature of the ofienee, may jaccount for the connivance
of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities; and may raise adouht
as to the wisdom of proceedings for interdict and penalties. Btit
it is iinpossible tcreonniVP when these authorities enjoin what
they may have blamelessly permitted, and actuallv subject
man to penalties for not doing what the law has furfridden. '
"As to the alleged contract of the parties, it was admitted by
the respondent at the bar, that if wh.it was requited wits iMegal,
I the contract must go for nothing. The worck are' atribigtiOus;
,and the whole arguments or the respondent import that his
sense of theirs could not .be maintained. If holidays mean
Sundays (which is his•VOllstruction,) then 'the' iNinttlact "Intiet
.have meant lhat-tlic apprentice should serve ion bunda'yn' ex-
actly as he did .on week.alays, and that' there should be no dis-
tinction ,betw=een them: Yet he adinitgthatheeould not require
him to work even at shaving during divine service; nor at Wigs
making 'even on the •Sunday morning. If lie•says he Should
only work when consistent with law and decency, then the
Lord Ordinary is of 'opinion that he ,Should not work on that
day at all. • • 'F. J."