Star. — London, England, 1823-05-09 00:00:00

as t hey idatattlA .com e t before the Comm r ttee--(Hear). • With r opequoibecase now before the Committee, 440 got skink Oe compelling of a Juror to disclose I theCommitlee who% p4rsed in the Jury-room would b e a ny estraordioary.stretelz of the privileges of that *use t but,, without agreeing in the observation that shis case was one of no importance, he must say that be did not consider it of such importance as to re quire that the privileges of that House should be i stretched to the utmost ; especially when it was ad mitred by the Gentlemen most anxious to put these q uestions, that where men, from tenderness of consci ect, should refuse to answer, the Committee should not commit them. He confessed he could not sec what good could result from an enquiry entered into with a previous admission that the Committee would pat send to Newgate a witness who might refuse, out of tenderness of conscience, to answer the questions put . On.the other hand, he thought the Committee could not have a full disclosure, because men, per ?laps Actuated by bad motives, might refuse .o an r.ver questions, and plead " tenderness of consci ence," which they were previously told would not be visited with pay punishment by the Committne.- - (Hear, her:r.)-11aving this view of the case, he confessed that he should vote against the put ting of such questions with such an understand ing, because it would deprive him of that conflict of evidence from x.hich he could hope to ai rive at a Conclusion which would enable him to give an honest and con,cientious vote upon the whole case. He would always much rather preserve the power than push the privileges of the Committee,although he had no objecti3a to push these privileges when no other means could be found to arrive at justice ; but above all things he wished, in the discussion of those privi leges, to guard against anything like ridicule being thrown upon the sanctity of an oath, upon which, after all ; dependtd the security of society and good faith in all transactions—(icar, hear.) He regretted, therefore, the comparison which had been introduced by an Hon. an 4 Learned Member between this oath and the University oaths, in the violation (as it was armed) of which no man felt himself conscientiously affected; because he thought that Such a coepparison might be likely to lower the estimation in winch the croaky of an oath was held out of doors. If au emergency should arise, he would not oppose the ut- samt exercke of the privileges of the House; but he confessed that he did not consider the present a case dsuch importance as to require that such privileges abould bs pushed. Mr.WETII /MELT. NMI Mr. CANNING explained. • Mr. PLUNKETT did not, mean to go into the ge neral question ; but he must say that it would be an act of the grossest injustice towards the Sheriff if he were not permitted to examine the Grand Jurors; but if the Committee should be ultimately of opinion the, the Grand Jurors ought not to be examined, then all the evidence taken on the other side with re spect to the conduct of the Grand Jury ought to be expunged. With respect to the question under dis cmion, he would say frankly that he had - not been • clear, . a nd Al nr.qn;Efied meaning of which is te, bind:to universalssecresy ; .4 these, I thotild say, that i se; as a branch cannot remit the obligation which the whole Legislature has imposed, for it would be . ab- 4 surd to say, that-the".act of the whole - can be neutral ised by the att of a part--( hear). But that the Le gislature at large have a right to explain, alter, or cancel every forrnsOf oath, however clear its expres i sions, or extensive its signification, nobody can deny. I It it has no t , our ancestors and ourselves have been !perjurer s from almost the first institution of oaths— ,' ( hear). For without recurring to other instances, take the Reformation ; there we will see that many oaths to preserve religious ceremonies have been can celled wholesale by Acts of Parliament ; and other authorities. without number might be cited—(Hear). The only question then is, whether or not this be an oath binding to such universal secresy that this House of itself cannot remit or relax the obligation of it ? The terms of it had been often stated. I deny that it binds in so unqualified a manner as has been stated. From th e very nature o f t h e i nst itution cases must arise where the rigid observance of this oath of secresy by the Grand Jury would defeat all the ends of justice. Suppose this case; an indictment is sent up to a Grand Jury against a man for sedition, but, upon investigation before the Grand Jury, it turns out that this crime amounts to High Treason, and it might be of such a nature that the concealment of it would be dangerous to the State; would it be said that the Grand Jurors were not bound by their alle giance to disclose the circumstance without loss of time to the King's Government? Many other cases of a similar nature may . occur. It was absurd, therefore, to say that Grand Jurors were bound to that unqualified secresy, and the rule- seemed to be, that as the oath was imposed to further the ends of justice, it ought to be dispensed o ith when its violation was necessary to that end. That there were two sorts of oaths, was evident, from the instance of University oaths.— Nobody would be so uncharitable as to say, that the thousands who took oaths at Universities were guilty of perjury, if they did not strictly comply with them. But there was also a class of oaths to observe the sta tutes of the founders, which were most sacredly com plied with. The heads of Universities were bound to secrecy in certain cases, but they had never hesitated i to make disclosures before the Civil Magistrate, when the ends of justice required it. What then was done in a Court of Law, ought to be done a fortiori in thei highest Court of Justice in the country, sitting as it was in its inquisitotial capacity, and acting upon a most grave occasion. It is said, that if, in defiance of the Grand Juror's oath, you compel him to disclose here what occurred at the Grand Jury, you-make light of the obligation of an oath generally. But this cuts both ways. If you suffer the oath to seal his mouth, you give impunity to perjury; for it is absurd to make perjury before a Grand Jury punishable by law, when you take away the only meads that could be used of bringing the offender to justice: (Hear.) On all these grounds I think the question ought to be put. Sir J. NEWPORT.—I quite agree with the Hom _ . . able to form any opinion... and Learned Gentleman (the Am:Tiley-General), ,that Mr..BROUGLIA3I said, he agreed perfectly in we cannot use half-measures in our examinations I the view taken of the question by the Right Hon. think we should either expunge 'tom the minutes aU Illecretary of S:ate for Foreign Affairs; and he thought that regards the Grand Jury, or go on with theim! the best and most convenient course to be pursued quiry altogether. For it is unbecoming this Houle to would be to abstain from asking anything about go a certain length, and then say, " we can go no elm passed in the Grand Jury-room, if the object of further." As the prosecution of this mode of inquiry the inquiry could be obtained without having re- seems beset with difficulties,' if it was the wish of the tome to such an examination. He thought it could. Committee and the Right Hon. Gentleman more im- Thequestion here -was, Did the Sheriff misconduct mediately concerned, I would move that that part of himself? Did he pack a Jery ? Now to prove that, the examination which respects the Grand Jury should be 'multi admit that the improper conduct of the be expunged. Grand Jury towards the witnesses would be a cir- Colonel BARRY.—I should consider it a gross cumstance in confirmation of the charge; but he did dereliction of public duty, if I could reconcile myself not think that the proper demeanour of the Jury for a moment to the course of proceeding which the would operate in the least in exculpation of the Sheriff; Right Hon. Baronet suggests. Will this House stip because it would rialy prove that if he did pack a Jury the inquiry at this moment ? Will they, after seeing be packed one which threw out the bills, and had re- theGrandJury exposed to all the calumny that could course to vulgarity or rudeness in exanainfllg witnesses. be heaped upon them, close their mouths just as they He should - be sorry to hear it said that perjury could are beginning their defence? It is absurd to talk of not be assigned on evidence before a Grand Jury ; expunging anything from the minutes. Can they ef ;A indeed, he was informed, that in one case Mr. face the impression which has been made on the minds Justice Buller ordered a bill of indictment to be pre- of the public ? • I deny that this House are any longer ferred against an individual for perjury before the masters of the proceedings which have taken place Grand Jury, and that individual was convicted upon' hitherto, so far as the power of suppressing them is the evidence of a Grand Juror. Ile would make concerned. They have been printed by order of the every allowance for " tenderness of conscience," but -Committee, and have already gut into the hands of be would not allow a witness to judge , of what was Members. Tile Grand Jury are therefore entitled to' sr was not " tenderness of conscience; ' that should be heard, and I cannot consent to cushioning the in- Se decided by the Committee, and by them alone.— quiry at this stage. • Be maintained that the Committee, if they should Sir J. NEWPORT.—I wish to state, that I threw call upon the Grand Jury to state what passed, WAS out the suggestion merely to get rid of the difficulty. l not absolving them from an oath, but was merely I can have no objection to the inquiry going to its telling them they must have no difficulty in stating fullest length. what passed, because they had not taken an oath to Mr. DAWSON.—It is absurd to admit that we keep the evidence secret. have a- right to dispense with the oath—that the Colonel BARRY said, the statements of the At- cause of justice requires it, and should be dispensed torney-General for Ireland, respecting the conduct of with, and yet stop short in the exercise of that right. the Grand Jury, had caused all this embarrassment; It is due to the administration of justice in Ireland, but, as far as he knew, the Grand Jury had no ob- which has been charged as corrupt, to the Sheriff and ;mien to answer any questions which the Commit- to the Grand Jury, to go into the fullest inquiry on ' , lee might wish to put—(Hear, hear). this subject, and I shall therefore vote for that course The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended his Ho- which seems best adapted for eliciting the truth. rionrable and Learned Friend (Mr. Plunkett) against Mr. GOULBURN.—It is very natural and lauda eke charge made by the Honourable Member who ble that Irish Members should be anxious to clear bad last addressed the Committee. His Honourable and Learned Friend had not made any statements against the Grand Jury as a ground of charge against of his the administration of the law in their country from the imputation of corruption, and I also participate the Sheriff but had made them in ustification with them in that feeling ; but it is another question j , whether this House, which acts for the good of all , own conduct in filing the ex qfficio information. From will adopt a co urse which may be very dangerous as I the case of Si r J o hn Fenwick, it appeared that the a precedent hereafter? We are all agreed upon the Power of the House could compel a Grand Juror to ower of the Ilousc ; but I think that in a case where *state the facts which had been declared to the Grand lie sacredness of an oath is conceived, we should not "inrY; yet how could that House take upon itself to act precipitately. lam as anxious as any man for release the conscience of each Grand Juror from the the purity of the laws in Ireland,'bat I would not obligation of a solemn oath ? He regretted that the Clouse h a d entere d i nto t h e case relative to the Grand I up hold them by throwing doubts upon the obligation • whole of the of an oath, or giving persons to understand that having Jurors ; an d h e t h ere f ore h o p e d that the once taken an oath, this House had the power to ab-1 evidence relative to them would be expunged from I the note 3, and that the house would take care to solve them afterwards from it. Sir N. COLTHURST.—Let us deal fairly with all avoid all allusion to the GI and Jurors in future. Dr. LUSIIING•I'ON.—The question, if I under- i par ties. You gave teard four or five witnesses state stand it righoy is, whether a Grand Jury can be called at your bar , that they could not get fair play before neon to s ta te licie what occurred before the Grand the Grand Jury; now hear the Grand Jury IA tbeir Jury? lam cle.irly of I +pinion that this House has own defence. authority to require of him to answer to the question, Mr. CANNING .-- The question upon which this and th at i t i s 1 , 0 vio l at i on o f hi s G ran d Juryman ' s discussion arose, I understand, was not in itself &- oath to give a id t h e i n f ormat i on required of him. If jectionab l e; i h but t was protested against, as likely to. I was asked the quest i o n a b s t r actedly , whether we ; as l ead to questions whic might be so. All are nreed, a branch of the Legislature, can absolve a man from that it• would be better not to absolve the Grand t')e oblig a ti on of an oat h? I s h ou ld un hesitatingly re- Jurors from their oaths, if it could be avoided. That i•.y in the negative. 13ut all oanhs arc not equally they were t hemselves . unwilling to make disclosures, ';'' ,4.- g. La:re are c.lt,':, the terms of which are was clear horn the Petition which was presented by Grand Jury on the Ist of List month, in which. complaining .of. the diargei mach agiiast theM by the . Attornet.Generil, they. stated, tg That these, ".,tharges; . were heavier, they were-unable to reply toilietp; bein j bound by an oath not to ills , close the evidence which was taken before the l ith = 'This shewed the impression .which was made upon their minds. For my own part, I shall vote that the question be noi put. Mr. BROUGI - IA M.—l certainly have no objection" to give an opinion upon the abstract question, but if the Sheriff declares this inqdiry to be necessary to his defence, 1 shall vote for going on with it. Mr. DAWSON.—The Petition of the Grand Jury should not influence the judgment of this. [louse. They were broadly charged, and they. ought to be heard in self-defence. Mr. TIERNEY.—Let us examine such of the Grand Jury as feel no scruples, and possibly an ex' ception would never be taken, and the abstract ques tionwould never be raised. Mr. CANNING—If we are agreed to pronounce no opinion upon the abstract question, the safe.t way is to stop the inquiry as to the Grand Jury hare. If we go on, any witness may object to any question, and then, after all, we will be driven to give an 'opi nion on the abstract question; better, therefore, to get rid of it altogether. Mr. TIERNEY.—Do I understand, that when any witness objects, and that the House declines giving a definite opinion, all the evidence respecting the Grand Jury up to that time must be expunged? Mr. CANNING.—Most certainly. Mr. TIERNEY.—Then it is great waste of titre to go on putting questions, all of which may be here after expunged. Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS was of an opinion, that it would be better to put an end• to this business at once, than to stop without proceeding through the whole of it ; and as he did not expect that the pre sent discussion was likely to have an end, he should. move that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again that day three months. Sir J. MACKINTOSH pointed out those passages in the minutes, from which it appeared, that some of the Grand Jury had bbjected to answer certain ques tions, on account of being resti icted by an oath of secrecy from answering. He had no doubt of the authority which that House possessed, of compelling them to answer all questions put to them; but what ever decision the House should come to on that point, it would be great injustice to the parties now accused, to stop short without proceeding in the inquiry; par ticularly sty, when they had come to London and peti• timed the House to have their case heard. Sir G. HILL contended, that the conduct of the Grand Jury was not necessary to be brought forward in discussing that of the Sheriff. Indeed, he agreed with the Hon. Member for Annan, that towards tran quillizing the public mind, it would be better to drop the business at once. Mr. PLUNKETT said, it was necessary for the House to decide in the first instance, whether the Grand Jurors could be compelled to answer the ques tions put.to them; and it would be rank injustice to the Sheriff, either not to enforce such answers, or not to expunge from the minutes all such evidence as bad already been.given by the Grand Jurors. • :••14,r..Y. SMITH said he should move, that under the circumstances of the case, the Committee did not think it expedient to proceeed into an inquiry as to anything that passed before the Grand Jury. . Colonel BARRY would not agree to have anything expunged, because he was ready to rest the case for the defence on what had already occurred, and with the evidence before the House he should rest satisfied, and not call any other Grand Juror—(Hear, hear). Mr. PEEL said, that some statements had been made which rendered it necessary to know what had occurred before the Grand Jury. Mr. BROUGHAM conceived it absolutely meet. sary for the House to decide on this abstract question. Here there was a general cry of " Go on, go On." Colonel BARRY then said he should go on with the StilinillatillS he. had proposed. John Davis was accordingly called in, and ex. amiued by Colonel BARU*. He knew a person named Addison Hone; he was a man of high political feeling. Some days before the meeting of the Grand Jug, he heard Mr. Hone speak to Sheriff Thorpe about the prosecution, and expressed a wish to be on the Jury; when -the Sheriff said he was considered a garty man in the City, and that be (Mr. Thorpe) did not think fit to put him on the Grand Jury, as there were circumstances of a very peculiar nature com ing before it. Witness understood by pasty-man, a high Pro testant Ascendancy man—not an Orangeman. Witness is not an Orangeman. He was one of the Grand Jury lb January last. A letter was here produced from the Crown Soli citor in Ireland, requiring both the Sheriffs to return a panel. William Carpenter was nest caged. He said he was a builder. • Bassitned by Colonel BARalr.—He knew William Poole. Heard a conversation between him and Sheriff Thorpe: Mr. Poole came to him and expressed astonishment at not being put on the panel. as Mr. Thorpe had promised be should. He said if he was put on the Jury, be would not interfere with anything that related to the Theatre ; but he wished to be put on the Jury on account of Mr. a Meara, whose ease be should be able to ex plain to the Joey. Sheriff Tharp' said that that very circum stance must prevent his being use of the Jury. On being cross-examined by Mr. S. RICE; the wit ness said he belonged to the Orange Assisciation at the time be was on the Grand Jury. He had not said tbatthe bills against the rioters ought to be thrown out. By Mr. ROSIER! Stn t1f....-Witibeal was acquainted with Mr. Poole; he thinks Mr. Poole a warm man in politics; was op posed to his pofitks : believed his a Conciliation man. Being asked if he had ever before known of bargains of this kind made with Sheriffs, he said he had himself got a friend pot oat the Grand lacy, en his applying to Sheriff White for the Wren. When Mr. Poole went away, Mr. Thorpe said the circunutanee which Poole had stated would prevent his being on the paneL Witness was asked by Mr. tome whether he took an oath as as Orangemen, and answered is the ailltmative. What was the nature of that oatlo 7 -Tri support the Mug and Consdtution. Could you sot support the King and Cbastitution without taking an oath? WM you state the words are iiie•substance of the oath ? Mr. GOULBURN objected .to this question, as it was nor to be expected he could reassanber the words. Lord MILTON maintained that the question was a very proper one. , • , Colonel BARRY said he was sib Orangeman ; but the Orangeman's oath was no secret; it was in print. He hoped the Hoine would not lay it downma Fin! ciple, that, because a man happened to be an Orange man, he was unworthy of being believed. He had heard many imputations thrown out against Orange men, all of which were unfounded and unjust; but woi►ld say, that they were men who deserved .mttch better of their countty thin Many who r: ere tippOidd - rintittnr - - lItJME observed, that it was extraordinary; Ititcl*v.eo suspicious, that a man who came there tti Spe to a particular tonversation, should declard that be was anOrangeman, that as such he had taken apaitieular oath, and that he could not speak to the tenmir of that oath. . The witness sires then iecalled. lly Mr. Hcita..-Witness did not atteild an Orange lodge for four or five Months before the Jury Was tinpattelled. Mr; Pim—Witness does not conceive, that he has taken an; oath which prevents him from telling the whole truth. By Sir J. Nlacgirrostr.— Witness sinet not consider any oath he has taken a secret. The oath obliges him to keep a secret. There were signs which he was to keep secret. Thinks it does not bind him to keep anything else secret; hot is not positive. By Mr. Jones.— Witness thinks Sheriff Thorpe did not 1. - .10..e hr wag m orangemati. 'MACK 1 NTOSlt=thinUmber of witness's Lodge 1E1046. The Oath he takes binds him to be faithful to all Orangemen, and ebb to Rosman. Catholics. Tho words thzt hind the member to.lati:trye to Orangemen, are not the same as thrice which hind him to be true to Roman Catholics. Does not recollect the pieclse words. The *otds Roman Catholic are in the oath lb a friendly sense. The oath makes it neressari for the member to swear that he adVer Was, and is not a 1 7 .0.. man Catholic. Sir G. HILL complained that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had; iu the course of his examina tion of the witness, introduced .too Much argument and observation. • Sit J. MACKINTOSH sa'rd ; he *as quite ready tri vindicate the fitness of the course he had adopted. He challenged objection. Mr. DAWSON thought that the Hon. Gentleman had rather argued with the witness. fie thought that it was right that the House should not lose sight of the strictest decorum in their proceedings. Mr. SCARLETT agreed with the Hon. Member, and begged to add that he did not think it very pro per that the witness should be cheered during his examination. 'Mr. BROUGHAM would remind the House that there was a precedent which might be quoted in ex tenuation of the indecorous practice of cheering a -witness. Upon a certain ctlebraced occasion it was !well known That after a witness had made some par ticular declaration, a cheer broke forth from the illus• trious and reverend Judges—(A laugh). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it neces sary to add titat the cheer originated %s hit that pork tion of the illustrious tribunal which his Hon. and Learned Friend least wished to reflect cm. The witness was then recalkd 4 and stated that a person ott becoming a Member of an Orange Lodge, must state that he is not a Roman Catholic. To several other questions the witness answered, that of the fourteen Common Councilmen on the Jury, there were three Orangemen, ten Protestant Ascendaney-men, and one whose politics be did not know. Being asked if he thought that drinking the " Glotious Me mory" was a mark of being a Protestaut Ascendancy-man?— He said be heard it given by a Membdr of that House, Mr. Ellis—Vl laugh). By Sir Gismos 1-I:l2..—Witnaas believes that there eras nothing in the oath of an Orangeman which was not already published. Mr. Hums—Are there any contributions or quarterly pay ments at these Lodges?--IsTone, eaeept to defray the expenses of the night. . _ Mr. g; Snare.--Do you know If any savings could be effected in tkat department? (Roars of laughter.) By Sir J. NlMPORT.—Witness was at Sheriff Tborpes din ner. The only pledge that Mr. Thorpe was to drink The Glo rious Memory, and to act in the opinion of those who made hint SherifE He meant that part of the Common Councilmen which were called the Glorious Memory-men. Thse is no oath be has taken that obliges him to conceal any part of his evidence. There was no subscription forth* traversers•in his Lodge. Wit ness never subscribed, and was never applied to to subscribe for the traverser& Witness does not really know if he is a Purple man. Does not know what a Purple man is. Mr. Stoker was the member of the Lodge.—The witnese then withdrew. The House resumed.—The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morruw. The other Orders of the Day awe then disposed of, and the House adjourned a few minutes before One o'Cluck. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BIBLE SOCIETY. Yesterday the Anniversary Meeting of the Nerehant Seamen's Bible Society was held at the City.of Lon don Tavern, where the great room was filled by a respectable assemblage of females.—Lpird" SIWOUTIE took the Chair. The Report was mid by the Secretary. • It stated at great length the progress the Society had made during last year; and the whole was highly gratifying. Lord Rocrcsairace moved that the lirport should be received.—lt was agreed to with much applause. A Gent'eman addressed o.eMeeting at great length, and contended that It was a mistake to suppose that it would make sailors mopes and afraid of g unpowder, if they were made religious. The contrary was proved by the fact, that the be,t fighters had often been the best Christians; and amongst the host, he in stanced Colonel GARDNER, Admiral GaNtsren, and their present excellent Cu n %zAri—(Loard Applause). No soldiers or sailors could be so good as those who were constantly prepared to meetodeath, and none could be well prepared to face the King of Terrors who were not armed. by religion—Opplaurei.— Sailors of a religious habit .were also more docile, and required less rigorous restraint than others.— There was no class of men who had such extensive claims upon the charitable, or towards whom the country was under greater obligations to provide for their spiritual welfare,. Gratitude and ititrianity, as Well as interest, were united in claimingfthe assist ance of mercantile men in this good stork. The Rev. Mr. CLAYTON moved a vote of thanks to the Noble and gallant Chairman. It was agreed now, whatever notions might have been held formerly, that true knowledge was a substantial good. If this were true, then there could be no foundation in the objection to giving light and knowledge to seamen by the dissemination of the Scriptures. It should also be considered, that hi making each sailer a Christian, they made him, a:. it were, a Missionary to convey the truth to tile most distant . parts of the globe, where they would do is much good by their moral example as they formenly-clid.harm by their bad and immoral habits. , . The motion of Thanks was carried unanimously. Lord Enstouns,' in returning thanks, said, that as ' the Merchants had their pockets filled by the labour of the sailors, they ought, in gratitude, :to empty theirs upon an occasion like the present, when the benefit of the sailors demanded it. . . , The hint given by the Noble Chaitopig seas not lost, and a large subscription wastirrlde"q " The Meeting was then dissizdvid.;:•• • • 4 , 4 , 40 In. the account of the Rile tithniefy Meeting held at the Freemasons' Taverii, in yesterday's Paper, for Sir C. G lc A NT read Ml'. C. GRANT. le d le ig al to V • \ ~ ~ 4 1 ~; $ , 1 I 0 , 1 • !:,