The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-07 00:00:00

away by statute, but in this case no right had been
conferred at all by statute, inasmuch as the 16th
' section of the Act of Parliament distinctly provided
thatan alien married to a n atural born subject should.be
deemed to be, and taken to be herself naturalized,
and should have all the rights and privileges enjoyed
by a natural-born subject. It did not qualify the
right in any way; there was no condition attached
to it, such as that by a certificate granted to an
alien, but it was absolutely the right and privilege
of a natural' born subject. Now, as to the last Act
which had been referred to by his Learned
Friend, it was quite clear that those who
were not aliens were not entitled to be
tried by a jury de medietate
Who was an alien ? He found no answer to this
question in " Comyn's Digest," which defined who was
not an alien. It stated that it an alien be naturalized
he was, to all intents and purposes, a
,natural -
born subject, as if he had been born
in the kingdom of England. Then again, in " Coke
upon Lyttleton," an alien naturalized is pronounced to
be, to all intents and purposes, a natural born
subject, but a subject naturalized by letters patent
was incompetent to hold certain offic( s, so
that, according to " Coke upon Lyttleton," natu-
ralization was a larger definition than denizen.
There was another matter referred to by his Learned
Friend which he confessed rather surprised him, viz.,
that the statute which gave the right of a mixed jury
denied to either party—the prosecutor or the. person
offending—the right of ascertaining the fact or the
ground upon which the jurisdiction giving such a
right was founded—that it was simply enough to
allege the alienage and the case could be tried by a
jury de medietate
The LORD CHIEF BARON—There is nothing in
that Mr. Attorney- General.
Mr. Baron PLATT said there was one point urged
by Mr. Bailantine which had not been noticed by the
Attorney General. In the 15th section the words
were " shall be deemed and taken to be of herself
naturalized, and shall have all the rights and privi-
leges of a natural born object." Perhaps the Attor-
ney-General would state how those words came to be
added, if his view was correct, for it had been con
tended that they pointed to the of the
Legislature.
The CHIEF BARON thought that such question could
be asked of all Acts.

Mr. Justice Criessweer, said, probably, the words
were introduced to prevent any contention about the
woman being naturalized, and having the same privi-
leges as her husband.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted that they
could not speculate upon Acts of Parliament, but
must construe them according to their actual words,
The Act showed that she was to have all the rights of a
natural-born:subject, and every right to which a woman
was entitled, even more rights than belonged to her
husband, for perhaps he could not be a Privy Coun-
cillor or a Member of Parliament, and might have
some of his rights cut short by the Home
Secretary. Their Lordships would probably recollect
that it was a matter of history that there had been
cases where natural-born subjects who had married_
foreigners had been greatly harassed in former times,
because it was contended that these wives were,
under common law, aliens, and might be removed.
The words in the Act, in fact, intended to give every
possible right which a natural-born subject could have.
Why was it that in some Acts a repetition of words
having a similar meaning was given; such, for in-
stance, as the following : "if any person plunder or
steal," "if any person issues,', utter, or disposes of ?"
Simply, he maintained, to prevent any doubt upon the
subject. Under this Act, then, the female had dower,
could take land, and had every other right to which
a natural-born subject was entitled. So far from the
words of the Act weakening his argument, he appre-
hended they tended to strengthen it.
Mr. BALLANTINE replied.; He submitted that if
this woman had been tried by a jury de medietate
Engine, the trial would not be a mis-trial, and there
would be no error in the record or error either in point
of fact or in point of law. Although their Lordships had
mentioned a decision which had been formerly
pronounced, that it was necessary for a person
claiming alienage to give a ground for his claim
before it could be granted, he apprehended the alle-
gation that he was an alien would entirely bar any
question after the trial as to its validity, and that it
would be sufficient for the allegation to appear upon the
record. There could not possibly be any reason why
the trial should afterwards be invalidated. He con-
tended that his Learned Friend's arguments were not
consistent with the law, and that no danger could
result from granting the privilege which this woman
claimed, and which she deemed so important a one.
The expression " alien born " seemed to justify the
supposition that the place of birth of the person was
no unimportant matter to be considered in a question
of this kind. A person might not, he apprehended,
disunite himself from his country without the consent
of the Government to which he belonged, and that his
alienage could not be taken away by any 'act of
denization or naturalization in another country. If
an Englishman went to France be could not, for
instance, get rid of his allegiance to this' country-by ,
any act whatever ; it commenced by birth and could
not be taken away by any kind of proceeding. A man,
indeed, could never get rid of his allegiance to
the country of his birth. He stood in a very
different position to a natural-born subject; and
unless his Learned Friend couid make out a natu-
ralization in the present case, this woman was not
entitled to be deprived of any of the privileges
incident to her state His Learned Friend
had referred to the difficulties which would attend the
operation of a jury de snedietate linguae, but he
confessed he was not able to see how he
had met the objections which he (Mr.
Ballantine) had taken to the case which had been
particularly referred to (Mares case). The
reasons which had been urged were not applicable to
a case in which the King was a prosecutor. It
happened that in certain cases the judges had dealt
more mercifully with persons than strict
justice required, but it appeared that no great
quantity of justice nor any great amount of mercy
was shown by them in that particular case, if he took
it just as it was reported. The Learned Counsel,
aving alluded to some other of the arguments used by
the Attorney-General, concluded by submitting that
the decision upon the present application for a new
trial ought to be decided in favour of the person for
whom he appeared.
The Judges then adjourned into an ante-room ad-
joining the court, to consider their decision.
The Lord Chief Justice WILDE then delivered the
judgment of the Court. He said he need hardly say,
that from the time this case came from the Central
Criminal Court into the hands of the Judges, it had
received their anxious attention, who, although not
for the purpose of forming an opinion, had yet paid
consik:erabli attention to the question in order to
prepare them •to appreciate the arguments that
should be offered, and of arriving at a just and proper
conclusion therefrom. Each and all of them having
considered the matter beforehand, and having alluded
to the able arguments that had been urged on the
part of the prisoner by Mr. Ballantine, who he (the
Lord Chief Justice) thought had omitted nothing
that could properly be brought to bear on the subject,
they were unanimously of opinion that the objec-
tion could not be sustained, and that the
party was properly tried by the jury which was
impannelled on the recent occasion. It appeared to
all the Judges that it was unnecessary, for the pur-
poses of a just and proper conclusion on the question
submitted to them, to enter into the topics intro-
duced in the course of the argument. The question
was simply this—Was the prisoner, Mrs. Manning,
an alien or not at the time of this trial ? If she
was she would be entitled to be tried by a
jury de medietate linguae. If she was a
British subject, she was not so entitled.
Now, the etlect of a Bill of Naturalization had not
been questioned, and one could hardly expect it
should be, for the authority of text writers is so clear,
so uniform, and so consistent, that one would not
expect that any one advocating the case of the pri-
soner could question it. By Lord Holt, lay Lord
Bacon, by Sir Matthew Hale, and by every
text writer on the various editions of
Blackstone's Comnzentaries, it was a proposition
universally adopted, theta person naturalized became,
to all intents and purposes, a British-born subject.
Th ,t proposition is not at all impugned, nor its cor-
rectness in any degree lessened by the circumstance
that in Naturalization Acts of Parliament cer-
tain disqualifications are introduced, because it
was competent for the Legislature to impose
disqualifications on British subjects which did
not generally apply to the subject of the
country. The Royal Marriage Acts imposed disqua-
lifications in regard to marriage on British subjects,
and various other Acts of Parliament disqualified
subjects in particular situations from exercising cer-
tain rights. In the " King v. Moliere," the question
arose whether a naturalization bill of the party dis-

qualified him ,from performing the office of con-
stable. It there appeared perfectly clear that
the naturalization was not a qualified naturalization,
but the party had become a British subject, and was
qualified to exercise an office of trust, which the
office of constable was, but by viztue of a disqualify-
ing provision in the Naturalization Act, although the
party had become a British subject, he was held to be
incapacitated for exercising the office of con-
stable. The question in this case, therefore,
was, *hat was the status of political or
civil character attaching to the prisoner at the time
of the trial ? The section of the Act that had been
so much relied on in the argument stated that" the
party should be taken and deemed to be naturalized."
Then came the inquiry, what were the status and
political
character and rights ofa British subject ? A British sub-
ject might be subject to certain disqualifications, but
be (the Lord Chief Justice) knew of no instance in