Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-25

Here is what Blackstone says and all that he says upon
the subject:
eff statute repeats another itself repealed after
wards the h statute Is thereby revived Tihof any formal
o for that purpose So when the statutes of 25 and 70
Henry declaring the King be the supreme head Of the
church, were repealed by statute of and Philip and Mary,
and this latter statute afterwards repealed by act of
Elizabeth there needed not any cypress words of revival N
Queen Ezabeth statute those acts of King Henry
imptiedty and virtually revived"
First, wish to notice the of Blackstones propo-
ton that there is necessity for any formal Vords in
order to revive the original statute and that in the case
and the only case which he cites to illustrate the rule
which he lays down. he says their needed any cypress
words for the revival of the repealed statute because
they We're mphedy and virtually revived" Now, in
order understand the which Blackstone REFERS
and the true nature and extent of the rule deduced from
il, we must look at the statutes themselves
The statute of and Philip and Mary is entitled f" an
act repeating all statutes articles and provisions made
against the See Apostolic of Rome since the twentieth
year of King Henry the Eighth and also for the estab
lishmen Of all spirualand ecclesiastical possessions and
Entertainments conveyed to the laty The statue begins
by recng many by which, in violation Of the rights
of the Bishop of Rome both spiritual and temporal, in
the kingdom of Great Britain the sovereign of Great Bril-
tain had been declared the temporal head of the Church.
and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the temporal rights
depending upon it, of the Pope had been abolished or
transferred and them after reetng these proceeds:
abe enacted By the authority Of this present Parliament.
That these clauses before rhearsed aud other of the said
act concerning the supremacy and all and branch
tce words and sentence in the sounding tending to
the derogaton of the supremacy Of the Ppes Holiness or
made against them that should by any set forth and
exto the said supremacy shall be from henceforth utterly
void and of none effect"
Then the statute Of Elizabeth is entitled 'san act re-
storing to the Grown the ancient jurisdiction the
State ecclesiastical and spiritual and aboshng all for
eign power sepugnant to the same :; and after rectng
the acts which had been passed in the reign Of Henry
WILL giving him the rights which had been abolished by
the repeating act Of and Philip and Mary, "for the
REFRESHING as the act expresses it, of the said usurped
foreign power, and the restoring Of the rights Jurisdictions
your reaa-what? Why is enacted that this repeal
ing.aw of and Philip and Mary shall I" be repealed,
and shall from thenceforth be utterly void and Of
effect" The statute that it was the intent to
restore to the the jurisdiction which had been
ferred by the acts of Henry WILL which had been
repealed by the statute of and of Philip and Nary
and therefore for this purpose of restoration the act OF
and Philip and Mary is repealed.
That demonsrates the truth Of what said the other
night that was nothing but question of intent The
intent to set up the first law inferred from the
ture and circumstances Of the and the declared OBJ
ject Of the last. ..
Mr. Justice Blackstone, in the passage which have
read from him. refers to Cokes Fourth Institute the
authority upon which he predcates the rule and the par
tcuar application of it. Coke is there considering
whether, after the act Of Elizabeth the high commits
sion court had any jurisdiction in ecclesiastical;
and, if so whether its original jurisdiction estab
shed IN its former plenary extent to what modifca
tons it was subjected In order to determine upon the
jurisdiction of the high commission court to ascertain
that is whether it had any jurisdiction at ALL it was in
sage of Elizabeth, the Queen restored to her head
ship Of the Church, because the high commission court
was but her court sitting to administer that part Of her
royal authority which she head of the Church
II her headship the Church not restored by
Elizabeth, it followed that the high commission court
could have jurisdiction; for the Queen the foun
tain and source from which alone power could be derived
to that tribunal Now let us consider briefly what Lord
Coke lays down. why he held that the first statute was
revived by the repeating statutes Of Elizabeth He
says:
The ancient Jurisdiction &C. By this the of the act
doth appear to be act of restifation" 7
And this is also manifest by the preamble Of the act,
where it is said
"Whereas divers good laws were made the of the
late King Henry the VIII for the exnguishment of all
fran power and for the restoring into the of this realm
the ancient rights and jurisdictions Of the same.
"From whence this is drawn that seeing the
presse letter and meaning to the the oxene
ecosastic and commits by force of that ancient
ecclesiastical jurisdiction could fine and Imprisonment
that these commissioners having their force from this act Of
restitution cannot punish any party BY fine imprisonment
otherwise than shall be hereafter expressed dc.
Having thus opened the design of the statute from
its title and recitas he subsequently thus deduces his
conclusions:
And upon this clause being the final intention of this act
expressed in the title and preamble doe the subsequents
clauses depends therefore this clause especially be
sidered, aud therein these things be observed:
First that by this Queen Elizabeth declared
The statute Of and Phi and Mar cap WHEREBY amongst
others, the act Of 26 H. s. cap and SIS H. s.
repeatedly by this made utterly void and consequently
the act OF repeal being repealed the acts of rs H. l.
and 80 H. s. amongst others mptce revived, by
which acts of &c H. and IS H. tits declared and enacted
that the King his heirs and should be taken and
accepted the only supream head earth Of the Church Of
England"
Now sir it is impossible to consider the terms in
which Blackstone lays down this rule, and the statutes
which furnish the illustration of it, and the grounds laid
down by Lord Coke for his Interpretation without seeing
that the whole question the intent of Legs
ature Therefore, he says the being entitled act
to restore the jurisdiction Of the Crown in eoce
siastca the preamble recng that such is the object Of
the statute and then the statute repeating the repeating
law of and Philip and Mary, the manifest intent Of
Parliament was to set up the repealed statute. Whyf
The intent OF Parliament to restore the headshp and
jurisdiction but that could not be done by the repeating
law, unless the first law comforting the headshp and u
risdction thereby implicitly revived Now, suppose
for one moment that that repeating statute instead of
citing that its object to restore the ecclesiastical urs
dcon of the Crown head of the Church. had rected
cit being the true intent and meaning of this present
Parliament not by its legislation make exclude any
temporal head of the church. leave the conyoca
tons Of Canterbury and York to settle that they
deem best for the interests CT the church. is it pos
sbe to conceive that any court judge lawyer in Eng
land could have held that in defiance of that declaration
the Queen made the head Of the church. by setting up
statute which they make the Parliament set up in
order to destroy object which they declare they
had in view in repeating the repeating law?
The whole subject lies within nutshell Where law
repealed and the repeating statute is subsequently
peaed is question of construction whether not the
statute is thereby set up If the last statute show
its purpose to set the first OF it is set up be-
cause all that is necessary to establish abolish law is