COMPULSORY CHURCH-GOING.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON: -

IN that much-abused pamphlet, the College Bible, we find this regulation: -

"38. All students who do not obtain permission to spend Sundays regularly with their family or friends are required to attend church in the forenoon of every Sunday of the Academic year."

Now this distinction is manifestly unjust to those of us who live at a distance from Cambridge. Why should those who can pass their Sundays at home be exempted from attendance at church more than others? Is it because their fathers are expected to control their actions? If so, why then should a Western father be denied the privilege granted to others of controlling the church attendance of his son? If he wishes that his son should attend regularly, can he not write directions to that effect? If he wishes that he should be excused altogether, can he not write that? And if, as a sensible father should, he wishes that his son should use his own discretion in the matter, then again let him write to that purpose. As long as he makes his wish plainly known, there is no reason why the Faculty should deny it. Let them be just, and grant this privilege to all or else to none.

Look now at the next regulation: -

"39. Any student who does not regularly pass Sunday with his family or friends may so pass Sunday six times in a year, provided he gives notice of each absence in writing to the Registrar, accompanied by a certificate of attendance at church when he has passed Sunday elsewhere than with his family."

Here we have the same injustice to those whose homes are at a distance. Suppose a man lives sixty or seventy miles from Cambridge, and does not wish to incur the expense necessary to going each week, yet wishes to go at irregular intervals throughout the year. He cannot. Unless he goes home on every one of the thirty-eight Sundays of the Academic year, he must limit himself to six. Is this fair?

Or again, suppose he comes from a distance, but has friends in neighboring towns. They might be very glad to have him pass Sunday with them occasionally, but what one of them would be willing to entertain him every Sunday for thirty-eight weeks? Yet this is the only way in which he may visit them. I cannot conceive of a more absurd regulation. What possible harm can there be in a man's spending his Sundays where he pleases, so long as his family is satisfied?

A.[The first point made above is well taken; the second would be, were it not that the Faculty are very ready to excuse on petition all such absences as our correspondent supposes. - EDITORS.]