Norwich bulletin., 1921-12-21
Famous Trials
MAJOR GENERAL BURGoYNE.

Do you go to church?
 What if everyone who did not go to church this Sunday were to be arrested and put on trial? Impossible! So it seems, but less than 100 years ago in 1916, Sir Montagu Burgoyne was arrest ed and put on trial for not attending church. Just three years before the birth of Queen Victoria of England this barenet of Sutton Park was arraigned before common jury for default of law passed at the time of Queen Eliza beth.
 The plaintiff was Rev Dr. Edward Drake Free the rector of Sutton. who appeared before Baron Graham at the Bedfordshire Lent assfzes dressed in his canonical robes and prepared to take part in the conduct of his own case. The court room was crowded to suffoca ton os Dr. Free addressed the learned judge. It was not his idea to press the case, he said, as the defendant had showed his return to reasoning by once more attend ing church on the 7th of April last. but the steps taken by his legal advisers had compelled him to come forward disagree able as it was. He felt also he said that he was vindicating the cause of his brother clergy throughout the country and hoped that this case would be a warning to others who were erring and never attended divine service.
 Baron Graham then said that the plaintiff must either conduct the case wholly by himsef, or leave it entirely in the hands of his counsel. Dr. Free then replied: If that is the law, I must abide by it. l have every confidence in the ability of my counsel
 MT Daniels then opened the case by reading the law upon which the action was brought. that all persons in Eng land absenting themselves from divine | worship either at their own parish church. or some other place appointed for public prayer. for one month for feited a sum of $10O." Perhaps the req son for Dr. Free bringing up the case can be explained in the following addi- tional clause-"this penalty to be divided into three parts, one of which went to the queen, another to the poor of the parish and the third to the informer" General Burgoyne was charged with 1 being absent from divine service in the i parish church of Sutton for 19 months | whereby he came liable to a fine of $1OC month, amounting in the whole tc l $500. Witnesses for the complainant l were then called out-Mrs Margaret ! Johnson and John Northfield. Mrs John. | son depoNcd that she had been at church
 
 charged against the accused but she hac l never seen him there during all that time She also deposed that she sometimes saw him on the Sabbath riding his horse Northfield corroborated her evidence adding that he also often saw Sir Mon tagu "coursing"
 These two witnesses were then exam ined. Mrs. Johnson stated that she haC been servant to Dr. Free for a perioc 1 of four years but was not long before dis 1 charged. Northfield admitted that h. was the parish clerk of Sutton. Sergean Blosset closed the case and said that was entitled to his client as no evidenc for the defense had been offered of Si Montagu living in the parish of Sutton Baron Graham then said that this was
 mere oversight and upon the recall of tn witnesses they proved the fact alluded tC Sergeant Blosset. appealing to the cour said that the motive was not to champio the cause of the clergy of England tha Dr. Free had taken up the case. showed that although the clause had rt
 mained unrepealed it had been Hterall speaking, dead for 150 years. It's opera
 tions, he said, were only meant for th
 time when the Church of England was danger, and then only to apply to Catl
 olics and dissenters
 Settling down in fine style to h speech, he declared that he would sho t that the evidence of the witnesses WE : impossible, for he could prove that 1T
 plaintiff had neglected his diocesical al
 ties to the extent that the parish churc
 in question was closed and no servit
 performed at all during the months June, July, August and part of Septen y Der. So far from the doctor being
 champion of the church, he had receive