Wickhambrook windmill, Suffolk 🌍

WORKING A WINDMILL ON A SUNDAY.

A rather novel case came before the Wickhambrook Bench on the 23rd, consisting of the Revds. M.J. Lloyd and T. J. Steele, and N. W. Bromley, Esq., Mr. F. H. Humphrey, miller, of Wickhambrook, being charged by the Rev. J. D. Hull, the vicar of that parish, with having allowed his mill to be worked for the purpose of grinding corn, on Sunday, the 5th of this month, the same not being a work of necessity or charity.
Mr. Brooke, of Bury St. Edmund's, appeared for the defendant, and understanding that the information had been laid by p.c. Fisher, had him called, and asked him if he had ever laid an information against a gentleman for driving his carriage, or for having knives and forks, &c., cleaned on a Sunday.
Fisher said the present was the first information of the kind he ever laid, and he had done so in accordance with Mr. Hull's directions.
The Rev. J. D. Hull said the fact of the case was, as far as his memory served him, that about two years ago he spoke to Mr. Humphrey about the wickedness of desecrating the Sunday by grinding at his mill on that day, and, learning from Mr. Bromley that the offence was one punishable by law, he warned him that he should consider it his duty, as minister of the parish, to bring the case before the magistrates if he persisted in the practice. After this, having observed the mill, which was immediately opposite the south front of the Vicarage, at work one Sunday evening, he again went to the defendant and remonstrated with him. Mr. Humphrey, as before, replied, "I must live." The practice was continued from time to time, and on the 5th inst. the mill was going all the morning.
To Mr. Brooke: Was not certain how long the mill was going after he returned from church, but his impression was that it was grinding for several hours. He considered that anything beyond work of necessity and charity on a Sunday was both illegal and improper. Should not say that cleaning knives and forks and boots, and such kind of employment, was necessary work. His servants had instructions to perform all work of that sort on a Saturday, but could not say they did not sometimes do such work on a Sunday, as he could not watch them narrowly, but they all knew his feeling upon it. Did not remember travelling more than once by railway on a Sunday, and that was when going out to do duty. Had never driven out on a Sunday except when going to preach.
Mr. Brooke said that notwithstanding their great respect for the feelings of the Rev. Mr. Hull towards the Church of England and its laws, the Bench ought to remember that they were there to administer justice in accordance with the law of England. Mr. Hull ought to have again used persuasion with the defendant respecting Sunday trading, which was not work of necessity or charity, instead of arraigning defendant before a Bench of Magistrates, on the strength and wording of that wretched and superannuated Act of the reign of Charles I. He must say that if the reverend complainant was about commencing a crusade against Sunday trading, he would soon find out that he had undertaken a work he never would accomplish. The complainant saw no particular harm in letting his servants provide for his convenience on a Sunday, but he thought it illegal for that old mill to grind corn when the wind blew on a Sunday, even in a case of necessity. He commended Mr. Hull for his endeavour to suppress the sin of working on a Sunday, but did not recommend him to do so by that old delirious Act of Charles I.
Mrs. Emma Plamplin proved that she had some barley at Mr. Humphrey's mill on the Saturday, and, as it was wanted, Mr. Humphrey promised to get it done as soon as there was wind.
The Bench said it was a painful matter, and they would rather it were settled without their decision.
Mr. Brooke said the defendant had only worked the mill for a short time, and it was a case of absolute necessity, especially as he wished to stand well with his customers, and if he could answer the demands of his neighbours and customers Mr. Humphrey would not work on a Sunday.
Mr. Lloyd, the Chairman, said if he had been consulted he would not have advised that this case should have been brought into court.
It having been hinted that the case should be withdrawn on a promise that the practice should not be continued, the defendant said if Mr. Hull would pay his rent, &c., and supply him with sufficient wind during the week, he would not do it again.
Mr. Steele inquired whether Mr. Hull called upon the Bench to decide the case upon its merits.
It was here intimated that Mr. Humphrey would not allow the mill to work except in cases of necessity, and the rev. gentleman at once withdrew the charge, and paid the necessary costs of 7s.
Mr. Steele then said that, putting religion aside, such trading was against common decency, and ought not to be done.