The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-07 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1855.

section of the said statute • with the answers thereto
given by the said Irish law Officers. And also, copy of
a proclamation by her Majesty, bearing date 15th June,
1852, warning Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of the un-
lawfulness of wearing their ecclesiastical habiliments
saving in the usual places of religious worship or in pri-
vate houses. He said these were documents of a nature
it was not usual to move for ; and he should not have

departed from the usual course in the matter, had it not '
appeared to him that there were very extraordinary
anomalies in the case in question, vihich required to be
explained, and which did not admit of explanation with-
out a direct reference to the answers given by the law
officers of the Crown. Before he went to the matter in
hand, he hoped he might be allowed to state the history
of the matter, as it had already been disclosed in that
house in conversations on previous occasions. To go
no farther back than 1852, when the noble earl oppo-
site (the Earl of Eglinton) was Lord• Lieutenant of
Ireland, he collected from a statement made by
the noble earl, that he, the noble ear), had received

accounts from the :south-west of Ireland which

stated that a Roman Catholic bishop in one quarter of
Galway had given notice to his clergy to attend in their
sacerdotal robes and to make a procession. On this the
noble earl, as he (the Bishop of Exeter) had understood
him, took the opinion of the law officer 3 of the Crown,
who told him they considered that procession illegal.
But the noble earl was not satisfied with teat. He
sough". the opinion of the Att'irney and Solicitor-Gene-
ral tor Ireland, and from them he received similar assur-
ances that there could be no doubt that such a proces-
.

proceedings they were now considering. That proclama
Lion could not have been issued without taking the

opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the subject,
nor would it have been issued had there been the slightest
difference of opinion between them. Therefore the law
officers of 1352 differed from the law officers of 1855. It
was not for him to interpose himself in such a conflict

Legislature, 16 Vic., c. 42, s. 7 and 8, whereby the Emi-
gration Commis ionere were declared competent to engage
any boy or girl, of and above the age of 13, from any '
parish or board of guardians, the parents or guardians
of whom should be willing to contribute towards their
passage to the colony, the colony paying a sum not ex-
ceeding Bt. sterling towards the passage money ; such
children, upon their arrival in the colony, to be appren-
ticed to proper employers under certain conditions.
Mr. BAINES said there had also been a correspond-
ence on this subject, and if the hon. member would
move for it, there would be no objection to produce it.
SANDHURST COLLEGE.

to bring himself within the wind of such a commotion.
Every statute was to be construed according to its gram-
matical construction, and with respect to the meaning of
the section quoted by the right rev. prelate no reasonable
man could for a moment entertain the slightest doubt. He
was himself satisfied that the prohibition was directed, not
only against the members of monastic orders, but likewise
against all Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, whether secular
or regular. No doubt that was the grammatical construc-
tion of the words to which he bad referred. Did not
every one know that the ecclesiastics of this country;
and of the Roman Catholic religion, generally were di-
vided into orders distinguished from each other • orders
which bad been in existence from the time of the Apos-
tles, and were referred to in the ordination service in our
Prayer-book— those of bishops, priests, and deacons ?
Were not these words sufficient to satisfy the grammati-
cal construction of the sentence ? and if so, and there
was no inconsistency in so doing, the house were bound
to give effect to it. These orders were referred to again
and again in the canons and also in the acts of Parlia-
ment. The act of Elizebeth, for instance, stated that no
one should be promoted to the order of priest or deacon
until he had iubser.bed theeksticles of the Church of Eng-
land. The Irish act, which bad been referred to, and
which was made in pani matuia, strongly confirmed the
view which he was advocating ; for it was beyond a
doubt that in that act the word " orders" was applied as
well to the secular as the regular clergy of the Roman
Catholic Church. Another rule to be attended to in
construing statutes was to consider what the evil to be
obviated by them was. Now, there could be no ques-
tion that the object of the 10th Geo. IT., which was
passed at a time of great contention, was to prevent
any circumstances arising to increase that irritation ;
and it was then thought an act of wisdom and prudence
to endeavour to do this by preventing any public dis-
plays of any kind. But how imperfectly that object
would be attained if they confined the operation of the
act to the prevention of a few monks walking about in
the vestments of their order, and, on the other band,
permitted processions of the bishops end the regular
elergy,'which were described as most gorgeous in their
character ? He said nothing upon the policy of the
act. An act of Parliament might be very expedient
when it was passed, and yet it might be very rash and
imprudent to attempt to enforce it after a long interval.
He hoped it would not be taken that he gave any opi-
nion as to the propriety of enforcing it now, for he did
not know enough of the actual state of Ireland to en,-
able him to do so. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE protested against the imputa-
tions which had been cast upon the Government be-
cause they declined to act in opposition to the opinion
of their own law officers.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it must be a
matter of extreme difficulty to any of their lordships,
and more particularly to any of the law lords, to give an
opinion on the construction of a penal clause which
might be brought judicially before them for their de-
cision. He wished to recall the recollection of their
lordships to the fact that when the subject was under
discussion on a previous occasion he did not commit
himself to any positive opinion upon it, but merely
stated the grounds on which he thought that the clause
was open to different constructions. Now, his noble
and learned fritnd had told them what orders generally
meant, but the real question was what it meant in that
clause. Now, the words of the clause were, " orders,
communities, and societies hereinafter mentioned,"
which were communities and societies of the Church of
Rome bound by monastic and religious vows. Nor was
it so clear as his learned friend supposed that both verbs
in the sentence must apply to both nominative cases.
On the other band, he thought there was good ground
for contending that the clause must be construed dis-
tributively, and that it referred to priests exercising the
rites of the Church and monks wearing the habits of
their orders. It was quite clear that, if, instead of a
penalty of 501., this clause made the offence embraced in
it a felony, and punished it with death, then the courts
would hold that it must be construed strictly ; and with-
out pledging himself to a positive opinion on a question
which might hereafter come before him in his judicial cha-
racter, he must again say that he thought there were very
strong grounds on which it might be argued that the
words in question only applied to the regular clergy of
the Roman Catholic Church. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS would not shrink from giving
an opinion on this question, because when he was in
office under the noble earl below him (the Earl of Derby)
he was obliged to come to a positive conclusion with re-
spect to what was the correct construction of this sta-
tute, and to stake his reputation as a lawyer and a st ites.
man upon the soundness of his interpretation. Nay,
more, he had been obliged to give effect to his opinion
by the issuing of the proclamation to which reference
had been made. He felt, therefore, no difficulty en
giving his opinion now as a member of their lordships'
house, nor should he feel any in correcting that opinion,
should be convinced by arguments addressed to him in
his judicial capacity, that ho was mistaken iu his view
of what he believed to he the law of England. Now, in
order to see whether the word " orders" could be con-
fined to the monastic orders, he would first call their at-
tention to the Irish act, the 31st Geo. 111. ; and when
they found, as was the case, that the very esnrcle of that
ace, about tae meaning or the application of which to
the regular clergy, were transcribed into the 10th Geo.
IV., and then applied to the two classes of the regular
and secular clergy, lie could net see how any man, ca-
pable either of reasoning or of underetanding grammati-
cal construction, could feel any difficulty in coining to
the conclusion that these words applied to Roman Catho-
lic ecclesiastics generally, and not merely to the mem-
bers of the regular order. The policy of the law was in
conformity with that which he believed to be the sound
grammatical construction. The policy of the law before
this act was passed was to prevent any public displays that
were likely to give rise to irritation, and the policy of this
act was to enforce that prohibition, and even to carry it
further than-before. And why so ? Because this country,
being determined to allo ov no more Jesuits or mein-
hers of any other monkish order to come over, yet re-
solved to allow those now here to remain, and this act
was intended to apply to them while they remained.
The intention of the Legislature was not to put an end
to Roman Catholic establishments, but it was desired to
ezolude the monkish orders. Could it then be main-
tained that this act was only to apply to that body whom
it was intended for the time to come wholly to exclude
from the kingdom, but was not to extend to those who
were allowed eo remain, and form a permanent part of
the community ? It was impossible, in his opinion, to
do so ; and he could only say, in conclusion, that,
having read the clauses over frequently, he had been
unable to bring himself to entertain the slightest doubt
that the words so often quoted referred both to the
secular and the regular priests of the Roman Catholic
Church.
The Bishop of EXETER said that after what had been
said of the inconvenience of producing the opinions of
the law officers of the Crown, and also after the speeches
which had fallen from his two noble and learned friends
(Lord Lyndhurst and Lord St. Leonards), he would not
press the former part of his motion, but would confine
himself to a motion for the production of the proclama-
tion issued by the Government of the noble earl opposite
(the Earl of Derby).
The motion, thus amended, was agreed to, and their
lordships adjourned at eight o'clock.

Col. NORTH gave notice that, this day fortnight, he
should move an addres3 to the Crown relative to the
Royal Military College of Sandhurst.

POLAND.

Mr. PHINN postponed his motion relative to the
restoration of Poland until this day fortnight.

COFFEE FOR THE -CRINIE-1.

Col. NORTH wished to ask the Secretary of the
Treasury upon what days the followin; ships laden with
roasted coffee for the Crimea sailed from England :
Sydney Hall, steam-transport, Adelaide, steam transport,
and Lady Eglinton, steam-transport?

Mr. WI f.SON said the first sailed on the 2d Decem-
ber ; the second, on the 29th December ; and the third,
on the 4th January.
'Colonel NORTH asked the Under Secretary for War
if he was aware that green coffee was served out in the
hospital at Scutari on the 17th day of Felnuary.
Mr. F. PEEL was nut aware of the circumstance ;
but up to the middle of January no coffee had been dis-
tributed.

sion was of an illegal character. On that the noble ear
stated he had directed a letter to be written to the bishop.
pointing out to him the illegality of the measure, stating
he was ready to believe the notice was given without any
idea of its illegality, and trusting there would be no occa-
sion for any interference. He understood the noble earl
to say that the bishop returned a reply indicating an in-
tention of not pursuing that illegal course. But in England
there seemed to be grounds for inducing her Majesty's
Government of that day to issue a proclamation declaring
the danger to individuals who offended against the parti-
cular clause of the statute of 1829 which forbade eccleei-
asCics to appear in sacerdotal habiliments except in their
usual places of worship and in private houses. That
proclamation pointed out the great importance to the
peace of the country that the law in that respect should
be observed, and it, in the most conciliatory as well as
prominent tone, announced the intentions of the Govern-
ment. That proclamation was issued in June, 1852. An
unhappy example of the necessity that existed for it, and
of the wisdom of those who issued it, soon after occurred ;
he meant those Stockport riots, which they bad all heard
of with such extreme disgust. It was not to be supposed
that he 'wished to charge the Roman Catholic clergy
of Stockport with having disturbed the peace of the
town by appearing in public in their rebes of office.
It was not so. (Hear, hear.) •The Stockport riots
proceeded from religious animosities on both sides, but
were rather to be ascribed to the faults of the Protest-
ants than to those of the Catholics. Those riots
afforded an illustration of the necessity of enferciog the
law. At Stockport that law had been proclaimed ; and
though the clergy of the town abstained from appearing in
procession in their robes, yet such was the soreness of
Protestant feeling in relation to those processions, that
an unhappy outbreak occurred, which terminated in loss
of life, to the shame of this Christian country. If such
was the case, without the provocation of a direct viola-
tion of the law, what would be the consequences if un-
fortunately. .the Roman Catholic cl.ergy should report
that they were guilty of no offence if they did appear in
the streets in the habiliments of their office, and even if
they daily went about their duties pub icly :n that dress
In 1854, after the proclamation of 1852 had been made
and had been observed so faithfully by the Roman Ca-
tholic clergy of England, a change took place in her Ma-
jesty's councils ; and then it appeared that a Roman
Catholic bishop in the south of Ireland, he meant the
Archbishop at Tuam, in the month of August, 1854,
put forth a manifesto in which he called upon his
bishops and clergy to meet him in their robes of office,
and to hold a provincial synod at Tuam. The bishops
and clergy obeyed that manifesto. The proclamation
of John of Tuam was held to be more powerful than
that of her Majesty ; and the question now was whether
John of Tuam was to announce the law of the land in
Ireland or her Majesty, speaking by her proclamation.
This took place in the autumn of last year. As soon as
the present session of Parliament commenced a noble
baron took occasion to call attention to the matter, and
to ask if Government had taken any steps with refer-
ence to it. In consequence of that question it appeared
that questions were put to the Irish law officers te which
there were answers given, and to which answers he
should now take occasion to refer. On Tuesday, the
27th of February, the noble earl the President of the
Council stated to their lordship what was the fact, in
the following words, which he extracted from the usual
sources of information.
Earl GRANVILLE would himself state what he said
upon the occasion referred te. It was that the law
officers of the Crown in Ireland, having differed in
opinion, the question was referred to the English law
officers, who were of opinion that the prohibition in the
statute did not apply to the secular or working clergy,
but only to the regular clergy.
The Bishop of EXETER was confident that the noble
earl ha t repeated his words accurately,, but he must say
that he had not the slightest trace in his memory of any
mention of the fact that the Irish law officers differed in
opinion upon the subject, and his own recollection was
fully borne out by the newspaper reports. But the cir-
cumstance of the Irish law officers having differed in
opinion wee a strong reason why he should press his
motion, unless, indeed, the Government were prepared
to say that it would be attended with inconvenience to
the public interests. Since the proclamation issued by
her Majesty in 1852 had not been withdrawn, he
thought it would have been but fair to the country if
the present Government, after they ha I formed an
opinion as to the state of the law different from that
entertained only two years ago by all the then law
officers of the Crown, and after certain forms had been
waived that if they continued to do certain acts they
would render themselves liable to heavy penaltiee, as
well as violate the peace and safety of the country, had
sent forth a new proclamation declaring their intention
of acting upon the novel and somewhat extraordinary
opinion expressed by their law officers. The noble earl
the President of the Council admitted that there was a
difference of opinion among the law officers of the Crown
in Ireland, Now the Roman Catholic Relief Act left the
recovery of penalties in the hands of the Irish Attorney-
General. It was of importance, therefore, to ascertain
what was the opinion of that gentleman on the question
submitted to him by the Government, and, as the other
law officers seemed to differ from him, it was desirable
that their lordships should know in what that difference
consisted. On Friday last the noble earl was reported to
have said, "That there had not been any doubt upon the
subject, but that an opinion had been given to the effect
that the prohibition of the act applied not to the secular
but to the regular clergy." They were now told that
there had been a doubt ; which seemed to him to be a
strong reason why he should call for the production of
the opinions themselves. But the noble earl did not
stop there. Afterwards he said, "It did not seem to him
that the words ecclesiastics from appearing in the habi-
liments of their orders' could apply to ecclesiastics who
belonged to no order." That brought him to another
p ,ant of the case. In 1852 the law officers of the Crown
in Ireland were all clearly of opinion that an offence
against the law had been committed ; but in 1854 there
was no such unanimity—some holding that the law was
violated at Tuam, and others that it was not violated ;
while the noble and learned lord on the woolsack re-
cently expressed his views of the question in the follow-
ing words :—" There appeared to be good ground for
believing that there was no prohibition against a Roman
Catholic priest wearing his ecclesiastical habiliments in
going through the streets." He considered that the ha-
biliments of a priest were not the same as the habiliments
of any one of the orders of the Roman Catholic Church.
The noble and learned lord subsequently added, "As
this was a highly penal statute, the rule of law was that
it should be construed very strictly," an expression by
which the noble and learned lord meant, not that great
acuteness should be exercised in order to find loop-
holes for the escape of offenders, but that the statute
should be construed, in the words of Mr. Baron Alder-
son, " according to the plain, literal, and grammatical
sense of the words." Now, the twenty-first section of the
statute was expressed thus :—" Be it further enacted that
if any ecclesiastic, or any member of any of the orders,
communities, or societies hereinafter mentioned, shall
after the passing of this act exercise' any right or cere-
mony of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habit
of his order, save within the usual places of worship of
the Roman Catholic religion, or in private houses, such
ecclesiastical or other person shall, being thereof con-
victed by due course of law, forfeit for every such offence
the sum of 501." There could be no mistake as to the
meaning of those words. Their lordships would observe
that there were two classes of persons any individual be-
longing to either of which might incur the penalties
of the statute. The two classes were Roman
Catholic ecclesiastics and members of religious
orders. There were also two separate acts prohi-
hited by the statute ; the first, exercising any rite or
ceremony of the Roman Catholic religion in the pub-
lics streets ; the second, wearing ecclesiastical habili-
ments. New, the construction for which he contended
was this—that, according to the plain, literal, and gram-
matical meaning of the words in the 21st section, if
either of the parties referred to was guilty of either of
the prohibited acts he was liable to the penalties of the
law. (Hear.) It was in vain to say that the statute could
only be violated by a member of the monastic order.
Lord LYNDHURST said he entertained the greatest
respect for the law officers of the Crown, and he cer-
tainly should not by any voluntary act of his own put
hiensea in, opposition to them. He felt also another diffi-
culty, which was, that it was possible the construction of
this net of Parliament might come judicially by way of
appeal before their lordships, and he thought that at
least every lawyer in that house ought to be careful not
to prejudge a question of this nature. (Hear.) Upon the
present occasion, therefore, he should rutrely state the
ce-e, which was a very plain one, leaving their lordships
to draw coeclusione. He understood it was stated in a
former discueeion, that the law officers of the Crown had
given an opinion adverse to that stated by the right rev.
prelate. That statement he knew from the best autho-
rity to be incorrect. The law officers of the Crown had
n.t given an unanimous opinion upon the subject. They
were divided in their opinion. (Hear.) How the parts
were cast he knew not, and therefore he could not apply
the ordinary rule of pondere non flume°. Let them con-
sider for a moment what opinion the former law officers
of the Crown had expressed. In 1852 the opinion of the
Irish law officers of the Crown was taken upon the con-
struction of the statute, and he understood that Mr.
Nzloneon adwrd E
ptiililittg was
liearalnii intelligence,
stateda gave Monnc ire.Wshve an opinion decidedly in oppositioniteside,gentlnetenofgreatlearning
havepr o
cbeen a
it.
oh the
directed
against
atihnes
tptrbe...
law (acme
.In In addition to that his noble friend ,
ue; a

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly befure four
o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS.
Sir C. Wood, Mr. V. Smith, and Sir G. C. Lewis,
severally took the oaths and their seats on their re-elec-
tion for Halifax, Northamptonshire, and Now Radnor.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lancashire and Yorkshire and Blackburn Rail-
ways Bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

PETITIONS.
Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from a place
in Cornwall against the sale of intoxicating liquors on
Sundays.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from the
licensed victuallers of Wolverhamton praying for the
repeal of the Beer Act of last session.
Mr. HORSFALL presented a petition from Liver-
pool against the opening, of the British Museum and
the National Gallery on Sundays.
Sir J. WALMSLEY presented a petition from Lei-
cester, against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sun-
days.
Mr. WATSON presented a petition from the post-
masters of Hull, praying for the repeal of the mileage
duty.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from the Scottish
Trade Protection Society, in favour of Lord Brougham's
bill for the registration of Bills of Exchange.
Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from the
licensed victuallers of Lincoln, praying for the repeal of
the Beer Act of last session.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Association, praying the house to insist upon the
immediate production of the Maynooth report, and pray-
ing for inquiry into the circumstances under which the
Pope's legate became possessed of the evidence taken
before the Maynooth Commission.
Mr. A. PELLATT presented a petition from the
manufacturers of Southwark and Bermondsey, complain-
ing of certain clauses in tke Nuisances Removal Act.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Man-
chester, in favour of the bill for the repeal of the
Newspaper Stamp.
Mr. LAYARD presented a petition from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, praying fora searching inquiry into the con-
duct of the war. _ _

Mr. PHINN presented a petition from Bath, praying
the house to extend the tame measure of justice to
Poland as it had to Turkey.

NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Mr. MINTER, a new writ was or-
dered for Portsmouth in the room of Lord Mulick, who
winos his .•lec:ion had accepted the offict3 of a Lord 'of
the Treasury.