§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl the President of the Council was asked a few evenings ago by a noble Lord (Lord Berners) whether the Government intended to take any steps with regard to a procession of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, which recently took place in the south of Ireland, contrary to the provisions of all existing statutes. He wished to know if he was correct in understanding the noble Earl to reply that the matter had been referred to the law officers of the Crown, and that in the opinion of those gentlemen there was considerable doubt whether the prohibition applied to ecclesiastics of every description, or only to the regular clergy?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, what he stated was, not that there were any doubts as to the construction of the law, but that the matter had been referred to the law officers of the Crown in England, and that they were of opinion that the prohibition in the statute applied only to the regular clergy, and not to secular ecclesiastics.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYobserved that, perhaps, the noble Earl would favour their Lordships with the reasons which induced the law officers of the Crown to come to that conclusion.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was afraid he could not comply with the request of the noble Earl. Indeed, he was not sure whether the law officers of the Crown were not divided in opinion upon the subject; but, at all events, he was not in a position 2065 to state the grounds upon which they based their construction of the statute.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYwas decidedly of opinion that the prohibition in the statute applied to Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of every description. He did not intend to discuss the policy of the law, but the matter was one upon which it was important that no doubt should exist; and he could assure their Lordships that in 1852, when he had the honour of being at the head of the Government, there was no difference of opinion among the then law officers of the Crown with respect to the proper construction of the Act. It was his duty, in that year, in accordance with their opinion, humbly to advise Her Majesty to issue a proclamation warning all persons against joining in Roman Catholic processions, or wearing the habiliments of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical orders in the public streets. That proclamation, as well as the statute upon which it was founded, was understood to apply to both the regular and secular clergy of the Roman Catholic Church; and he should like to know the grounds of the opinion enunciated by the present English law officers of the Crown, that the law was not prohibitory with respect to the Roman Catholic secular clergy. It would be a strong measure to move for the production of that opinion, and the reasons upon which it was based; but, as he had already said, the subject was one of the greatest importance, and the Government ought to take care that no doubt rested upon it.
§ THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, that while he held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, there was no sort of doubt entertained by the then law officers of the Crown that the wearing of the habiliments of their orders in the public streets by the Roman Catholic secular clergy was an illegal act. During his residence in Ireland he did not think it necessary to institute legal proceedings against any parties for a violation of the statute; but upon one occasion he called the attention of the Roman Catholic bishop in a district of Ireland where an illegal procession took place, to the state of the law, and intimated to him that the Government would adopt strong measures if such an act were again perpetrated. He received a very civil answer in return, and the matter was at an end; but there was no doubt at all as to the positive illegality of the procession that had taken place.
§ EARL GRANVILLErepeated that the 2066 opinion of the law officers was, that it was legal for the secular clergy to wear their habiliments in the public streets, but not legal for the regular clergy to do so.
§ LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that if such was the opinion of the English law officers of the Crown, he could not understand the mode in which the Act had been construed. The provisions of the statute were' plaits and unmistakable, and it was almost impossible to conceive how any man could doubt that they prohibited both the secular and regular clergy from walking in procession or wearing the habiliments of their orders in the streets.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had not seen the opinion of the law officers, and his attention had never been distinctly drawn to the clauses of the Act. From a cursory examination of them, however, he was inclined to think that a good deal might be advanced in favour of the view taken by the law officers, that there was no prohibition against the secular priests wearing their ecclesiastical habiliments in the public streets. The prohibition was directed against any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic wearing the habiliments of his "order." Now, he apprehended the habiliments of a priest were not the habiliments of an "order" at all; and the clause being a highly penal one, the rule of law was that it should be interpreted strictly.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the present conversation was an excellent illustration of what he had repeatedly stated to their Lordships with respect to the inconvenience of bringing forward important questions without due notice, and especially when the questions referred to departments of the Government which were not immediately represented in that House. Notice had not been given on this more than on the former occasion; and he could only repeat the answer he had given them—namely, that in considering the legality or illegality of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics wearing their ecclesiastical habiliments in the public streets, the English law officers of the Crown drew a distinction between those who belonged to "orders" and those who did not. He did not mean to express any opinion of his own upon the subject, nor could he pretend to state the reasons which induced the law officers to come to the conclusion at which they had arrived.
§ LORD ST. LEONARDScalled attention to the words of the statute, which were to the effect "That if any Roman Catholic 2067 ecclesiastic, or any member of any ecclesiastical order, community, or society, shall, after the passing of this Act, exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habits of his order save in a place of public worship, or in a private house," he shall be liable to the penalty provided by the statute. The question, therefore, Was, whether these Roman Catholic ecclesiastics walking through the streets in their full habiliments were not exercising a rite and ceremony of the Roman Catholic Church in the public streets, and therefore not confined to their own places of worship or to private houses. In his opinion, the Act of Parliament struck directly at such practices.