The power to commit persons on suspicion of treason is incidental to the office of principal secretary of state—a power which, though long exercised, has been often disputed. It is not- necessary here to give the arguments on both sides ; they are discussed with great care by Lord Camden in the case above cited (Entick r. Carrington), which was one of the numerous judicial inquiries arising out of the dispute between the Crown and John Wilkes at the beginning of the reign of George Ill. The conclusions to which Lord Camden comes aro—that the secretary of state is not a magistrate known to the common law; that the power of commitment for state offences, which he has for many ages exercised, was need by him as an immediate delegation from the person of the king, a fact which may be inferred, among other things, from the debates in parliament in the time of Charles I., when Secretary Cook claimed the power on that ground ; that nevertheless courts of justice must recognise this power, inasmuch as there has been constant usage of it, supported by three judicial decisions in favour of it since the Revolution, namely, by Lord I bait in 1695 (Rex r. Kendal and Rowe) ; by Chief Justice Parker in 1711 (Queen r. Derby); and by Lord Hardwieke in 1734 (Rex r. Earbury). In a more recent case (King r. Deepard, 1798), Lord Kenyon says, " I have no difficulty in saying that the secretaries of state have the right to commit," and he hints that Lord Camden felt too much doubt on the subject.
There is also a chief secretary for Ireland, resident in Dublin (except when parliament is sitting), and having always an under-secretary there. He corresponds with the home department, and is under the authority of the lord lieutenant His office is called that of secretary to the lord lieutenant ; but it is analogous to the office of secretary of state. He has sometimes, though very rarely, been a member of the
cabinet.
SECT (from the Latin &eta). Two accounts are given of the origin of this word. By some persons it is represented as a derivative of segu-or (sceu-tus), " to follow." By others it is derived from scc-o (see-fus), "to cut" It is in this case, as in many similiar instances, not easy to decide between the pretensions of the two ; and it is far from being improbable that some persons may have used the word as a derivative from one verb, and others as derived from the other.
The sects of philosophers in ancient times seem rather to have been persons who were followers of some distinguished teacher, than per sons cut of from any general mass. But when we come to the word in its now more common and familiar use, namely, as denoting a par ticular community of Christians, the idea then predominates of separa tion, cutting off, over that of following. Thus uo one thinks of calling the Roman Catholic church a sect : and none, except it was designed to disparage and dishonour it, would call the English Protest-aid church a sect. But when we descend below it, we then see smaller religious communities, who are cut of from a church, either by their own act, or by some supposed or real act of usurpation and unchristian tyranny on the part of the larger community. Thus the Quakers are a sect, the Anabaptists are a sect, the Methodists are a sect, and the Independents and English Presbyterians now are sects, though some of these were for a time in existence without falling under the descrip tion of a sect, being still incorporated in the church, in which they sought to accomplish certain reforms. In other systems there are smaller bodies of sectaries.