The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-12 00:00:00

" Alderbury Lodge, Les Vaux,
" Jersey, Oct. 1, 1816.
" Sir,—l applied yesterday to Mr. Greffier Godfrey
for a copy of the Order in Council, addressed to the Go.
vernor, Bailiff and Jurats, commanding them to register
as Act of Parliament, the 3d and 4th Will. IV., chap. 49
for enabling Quakers and Moravians in all cases and in
all places to make his or her solemn affirmation or de-
claration instead of an oath ; also for a copy of the
Order in Council sent in February, 1838, commanding
them to register an Act " for the more effectual Aboli-
tion of Oaths and Affirmations in various departments of
the State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof;"
and also for a copy of the Order in Council, dated Jan.
17, 1839, commanding them to register the " Dissenters
Oath Act," all which Orders in Council, I understand,
have been disobeyed.
" Mr. Godfray informed me, that he could not furnish
me with copies of the said Orders in Council, because
they had not been registered. I shall therefore feel
obliged, if you will give directions to those who may
have the custody of the said orders, either to supply me
with copies of the same, or to allow me to inspect them,
so that I may acquire the necessary information to make
a representation to her llaj•sty's principal Secretary of
State upon the subject. —I have the honour to be, Sir,
your most obedient and very humble servant,
"ABRAHAM JONES LE CHAS.
"Sir John De Veulle, Knt., Bailiff of Jersey."
The following is a copy of the Bailiff's answer ;
" Portland place, St. Helier's, Ist Oct., 1846.
" Sir,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter,
dated the Ist inst.,* received on the 30th Sept., and in
reply, to inform you, that I consider that the Greffier
acted very properly in declining to give you copies of the
Order of Council and Acts of Parliament mentioned in
your communication, which it appears have not been
registered, and are not in force in this island. I beg
further to observe, that I could not consistently with my
duty, direct him to communicate to you any document
which is not duly registered, or which does not emanate
from any of the local authorities.—l have the honour to
be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"J. DE VEIILLE.

" Mr. A. J. Le Cras."
Before we conclude we must make a few remarks.
First, as regards the judgment. Lempriere pretended
that, being of the persuasion called Quakers, he could
not be compelled to take oath, but must be heard on his
solemn affirmation, conformably to the Act of Parlia-
ment 3d and 4th, Will. IV., c. 49. Now the Act of the
Court says, " conformably to an Act of Parliament,"

* In the hurry of business we made a mistake in the
date. The bailiff also makes a mistake, in supposing we
wanted oop:es of the Acts of Parliament, whereas it was
04 of the Orders iu Council►—En.

IMPRISONMENT OF A QUAKER
BY THE R
.OYAL COURT OF JERSEY, OWING
TO TUT...I,R, OWN DISOBEDIENCE TO HER
MAJES-'3. Y'S ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
(From the Jersey Neers.)
Our re sfulers will recollect the case of one Philip
Lemprieras a perion, who for many years past, has held
the reib sous sentiments of the Society of Friends. His
name f appears in our books, on the laws of Jersey, as
one of those who has suffered for conscience sake, owing
to thee refusal of the Bailly and Jurats to recognise the
laws 'of the Empire, and to conform themselves to the
lawful orders of their Sovereign in Council. He has
been several times summoned before the Court to give
evidence, when he has demanded to be heard OR his
solemn affirmation, which the Court has generally re-
fused, and on two or three occasions has committed him
to prison, for not taking oath.
The first time that he appeared, 1835, was in the case
of Sinel v. Guilmoto, when the party who had called him
to depose, seeing him about to be committed to prison,
dispensed with his evidence.
The second time was in 1837, the case of Shave v.
Roussel, when Philip Lempriere and George Payn, two
witnesses in the cause, objected to take the customary
oath, and claimed to be heard ors their solemn affirma-
tion, conformably to the 3d and 4th, Will. IV., C. 49, which
runs as follows:
" Whereas it is expedient and reasonable that the
solemn affirmation of persons of the persuasion of the
people called Quakers, and of Moravians, should he
allowed in all eases where an oath is requited," be is
enacted that " every person of the persuasion called
Quakers and every Moravian, be permitted to make his
or her solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking
an oath, in all places and for all purposes whatsoever,
where-an oath is, or shall be required either by the
common law or by an Act of Parliament already made
or hereafter to be made, which said affirmation or decla-
ration shall be of the same force and effect, as if he or
she hath taken an oath in the usual form." A false
affirmation to be punished as perjury. This Act does
net mention the colonies and possessions abroad, but
from the very comprehensive terms employed in it, the
rule as to statutes of universal application must be deemed
to operate upon it, and to give effect in all the British
dominions. The 2 and 4, Wm. IV., c. 12, is a separate
Act relative to Separatists.
The demand of Lempriere and Payn having been
overruled, they were committed to prison for contempt,
and an appeal was made to the full bench, when the
Jurats, by a majority of one, decided that the affirma-
tion of the witnesses should be received, provided they
first proved they were Quakers. The plaintiff, after-
wards conceding that point, the Jurats withdrew the
condition, alleging the consent of the plaintiff as their
motives for so doing, and amended their judgment as
follows:
" On the difficulty which has arisen touching the ob-
jection of George Payn and Philip Lempriere, witnesses
called by the said Guardian to take oath prescribed by
the code of laws of 1771, alleging that they were of the
Society of Quakers, as appears by the Act of the Court,
bearing date the 16th of January, 1837. The said George
Payn and Philip Lempriere in the cause. The parties
having recognised that the said Payn and Lempriere are
of the society called Quakers, and declared their consent
that they be heard on their affirmation, to speak the
truth without the oath being administered to them, the
Court has ordered, that they shall be received accord-
ingly: therefore the cause is sent back to the inferior
number."
The third time was in 1839, the case of Guilmoto v.
Halfyard, when the Court, refusing to recognise the
judgment of the full bench, as a precedent, condemned
Lempriere to take oath, and in default, to be imprisoned
until he complied. He was accordingly sent to gaol,
where he remained ten weeks, suffering greatly from his
weak state of health, until the Secretary of State took
cognizance of the matter, through the kind solicitude of
the committee for sufferings, belonging to the Society of
Friends, in London, a deputation of whom waited upon
him, for that purpose. The Secretary of State commu-
nicated with the Lieutenant-Govereor, and the latter, with
the Bailly, upon which a full Court was summoned, who
instead of deciding upon the merits of the question, libe-
rated Lempriere, on hail, that he would be forthcoming
whenever wanted. The action was subsequently aban-
doned. by which his evidence was not required.
The fourth and last case, is the present one, that of
Crown n. Halfyard and M`Grath, charged with having
stolen certain property, belonging to Lempriere, who
was tununoned to ive evidence in support of the prose-
cution. Halfyard, having been liberated on bail of 51.,
did not appear, but forfeited his recognizance. It is said
he has left the island. When the witnesses were about
to depose, it was observed, that Lempriere did not hold
up his right hand towards the heavens, which is the form
of taking an oath in Jersey, upon which the bailiff asked
witness the reason. He said, that it was on account of
scruples of conscience. being of the religions persuasion
of the people called Quakers. MiGrath's advocate, Mr.
Godfrey, observed, that Lempriere could not be a
Quaker, because he did use the words thee and thou, to which he replied, he could soon satisfy him
upon that point. The bailly asked Lempriere what
proof he could adduce that he was of that persuasion ?
He replied, that he had furnished the proof to the full
court, on appeal, in the ease cif Shave v. Roussel, who
decided, that he should be heard on his solemn affirma-
tion. The Act was sent for, and the Court took the
subject into consideration. Lempriere could not engage
an advocate to speak ir. his behalf, as Messrs. Ham-
mond, Godfrey, and Marren were engaged for the pri-
soners, and Mr. Le Sueur as constable had entered the-
report. The two others were absent. Lempriere re-
minded the bailiff of the Act of Parliament, 3 and 4.
Wm. IV., e. 49, which allowed him to give evidence on
his solemn affirmation, and of the Order in Council,
which required it to be registered. The bailiff, how-
ever, refused to take any cognizance of this. Lempriere
urged him to refer the matter to the full court, as before,
but in vain.
The following is a translation of the judgment of the
Court, so far as Lempriere is concerned:—
* * " After which, when proceeding against the
said Thomas M'Grath, and to swear in the witnesses, the
said Philip Lempriere pretended, that he is of the per-
suasion called Quakers, and that consequently he cannot
be compelled to take oath, hut mist be heard upon affir.
ination, conformably to an Act of Parliament. Consider-
ing, that the said Act of Parliament had not been regis •
tered in this island and cannot have force of law: Con-
sidering, that the project of law passed by the States on
the 7th March, 1842, in order to assizni!ate the law in
this Island to that now existing in England respecting
Quakers and Moravians, has not obtained the Royal
sanction, and that therefore if Philip Lempriere was to
make a false declaration, there exists no law by virtue
of which he would be punishable, as a witness would be,
who should falsify his oath. The Court has judged, that
the said Philip Lempriere is bound to take the custom.
ary oath as contained in the Code of 1771, and the said
Philip Lempriere having positively refused to take the
said oath, the Court, conformably to the conclusions of
ithe said Queen's Procureur, has sent him to gaol until
he obteinperates to the judgment of the Court.'
Lempriere was then committed to the House of Cor-
rection and incarcerated in the same dungeon as that in
which Mr. C. C. Wilson was confined, for an alleged con
tempt. The next day he applied to the gaoler, fur a copy
of tt,e warrant of committal, and received a piece ot
paper, purporting to be a memorandum, of the following
tenor:-
1846. Philip Lempriere having refused to take oath
Sept. 28
j as a witness at the suit of the Crown, sen-
tenced by the Court to be detained in pri-
son until he complies.
JOHN P. DE STE. CROIX.
Dy.-Vicc,
leempriere then sent for the editor of this journal, to
draw up a memorial to her Maj, sty's principal Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and also to write or
his behalf to the Committee 6)r Sufferings belonging to
the Society of Friends, to implore their interposition
with the Governinent, which he did ; but previous to
doing so, it was deemed necessery to obtain copies of the
Orders in Council which had commanded the authori-
ties in Jersey to register and observe the Acts of Par-
liament vassed for the relief of Quakers, Moravians, and
other dissenters. Mr. Le Ores, therefore, applied to
the Gretlier for copies, and was informed that they could
not be obtained, because the documents had not been
recerded. Upon this, he addressed the following letter
to the bailiff :