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

section of the said statute ; with the answers thereto t
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 couxse in the matter, had it not
appeared to him that there were very extraordinary
anomalies in the case in question, which 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. Bafore 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 further 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 earl, had received
accounts from the south-west of Ireland which
stated that a Roman Catholic bishop in one quarter of
Galway bad 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) bad understood
him, took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown,
who told him they considered that procession illegal.
But the noble earl was not satisfied with that. He
...

sough-. the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-Gene-
ral for Ireland, and from them he received similar assur-
ances that there could be no doubt that such a proces•
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 ecclesi-
astics 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, aid 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 had all heard
of with such extreme disgust. It was not to be supposed
that he aished to charge the Roman Catholic clergy
of Stockport with having disturbed the peace of the
town by appearing ii public in their robes 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 enforcing 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 clergy 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 pubicly ;n that dress I
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 to 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 lordships 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 to. 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 had repeated his words accurately, but he must say
that ho bad 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 was a strong reason why he should press his
motion, unless, indeed, the Government were prepared
to ray that it would be attended; with inconvenience to
the public interests. Since the proclamation issued by
her Majesty- in 1352 had not been withdrawn, he
thought it would have been but fair to the country if
the present Government, after they had 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 penalties, 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 hies 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." Teat brought him to another
p eint 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 street." He considered that the ha-
biliments of a priest were not tee 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
it 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-
bited by the statute ; the first, exercising any rite or
ceremony of the Roman Catholic religion in the pub-
lie 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
himself in opposition to them. He felt also another diffi-
culty, which was, that it was possible the construction of
this act 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 merely state the
case, which was a very plain one, leaving their lordships
to draw conclusions. He understood it was stated in a
former discussion, 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
net 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 ponder e nett numero Let them con-
sider for a moment what opinion the former law officers
of the Crown had expressed. In 1852 the opinion of the
Fish law officers of the Crown was taken upon the con-
struction of the statute, and he understood that Mr.
Napier and Mr. Whiteside, gentlemen of great learning
and intelligence, gave an opinion decidedly in opposition
to what was stated to have been the opinion of the pre-
sent law officers. In addition to that his noble friend
Le_.€(l Egliaten bitted a proclamation directed against the