The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-24 00:00:00

Crews Lawyers advised him,. moo' though his own old mien differed from them. He would make the case known to th,vernment, when a political character of note was concerned. He never recollected a case where he differed from the Officers of the Orown. _By Mr. PEEL—He was ordered, under a penalty of IPW!.'fb - ifiltreonitant repotts of every occurrence to Goversident. ' ' !` " -'•- He Mr. St 10110HA.MARat the Art of Parliament did istit,order blotto. follqw_the inetrections of Goverw! norm, ravens iii ilereiniltfil,'M ghat,: " • ' By Mr. DIUI;HT..-.4111i age the Solicitor-General, the. Attotney-General; and the Solicitor of the T . y.— ! He was dot sent for,AMV Intruded. In consequence of that conversation he committed Forbes for the capital offence. - Ifehad not Mad'all the informations at the tine. • • • • Did Yeti "ever sign any depositions which were not. swarm► to' iet your preseete?—Certainly not ; they must have been sworn' to, else I would not sign them. By Mr. S.IVOItTLEY-One charge was for conspiracy to murder. I did nut think there was sufficient evidencd to inbltteatiate that charge at least in what I saw pre. slots to signing the. commitment. I would not commit them for that on my own judgment. 1 would only com mit for a riot. rico how came you to commit for that crime ?—Be cense I Rad instructious from the Law OfSc!rs of the Crown so to do? • . Then, in fact, yea committed from that suggestion more than from your own judgment, formed on any de positions laid before you?-,The Witness gave no an swer. BY a MEMBER—Do Vow ever commit in Crown eases without basing the whole of the information ? Certainly not. .Did yon hear all them read in this case?—No. Did you consider that It amounted to a capital offence? ...-i was obliged, when the, A•ttorney-Lienersl considered it.m. I would not of ny own judgment have so consi dered it. I beg leave to. say that I had read all the de . positions. liiy sir- J. NEWPORT—There was nothing unusual in the communication I made with the Government on tbisercasion, from wit was done on any former °cat tg.on. . . . •L!*...1.... ..'". 5,. . The witness wed ordered to withdraw. ./oiePh Gobbet was then called—lle said be was* Bar., rister, and a Di, isional !Magistrate of Dublin. . Examined by Colonel BARRY—He was Magistrates the-division in which the theatre and the statue of Kieg William:were situated. There was a great deal of irrita tion - in the public mind before the last dressing of .the settee' 'Much of this eras oceasieeed by the exertions of • the whet in trying to prevent its being dressed. Witness reeollects a person being wounded on that occasion,. wet by the police, but by the military near the statue. Theft was no civil power present-at the time. There were tau iuforrnations lodged before him respecting this, but he Ansderstood tbeT bad been at the head office. There was ne prosecatiee Witeess,oommitted Heodwich and Ora . hens on the capital charge of conspiring to morello. the Lord Lin:lief/ant. ApplicAtion had been made to bill to bail these Men 1 but tehderstsodiag - it was intended to search the matter deeply,ood to make it a state proseen flirt,' I thonght it my duty, before I took any steps, to cimeult With the Lase Officers Of the Crowe. I did to, an.l,.in consequence, was called op to the bead office. writ se, the dipositiens having been produced, which had been examined by the Law Officers of the Crown, I signs ediffieedpital committing. Bet I signed it only in the cue of those against W6OO, 1 myself bad taken the Infers urinestirigihelly. ''. • ' - ; ; ' tiamined bybl a . eblllitßl did not coincide in 01•- ttion p ith,the LaWOIBet • rs,bOt rather acted upon their sogiesdelte ai'to the Vipittl Charge. I ceriainly thought tone *es eridetweinoughtor a.csrpital offenceto go bee toil ,Jury . 1 wetildleva committed them oethe suit esti noce in an ordinary ease. 1 . citinot say that I formed say &finite bplaiise upon the subject, though I admit Oari am teipoitsibleby civil actions:for my Conduct. 1 slicitild haie made op toy blind' before I signed the corn pitetir. but diem are eases .3•h which 1 have signed cern saltals eren agaloet - dey`oisse fidgroent. A Magistrate is o Ministerial Oilier, i ati l df thiblit is enough to produce tidetice entenAlt. to heiid ,Elie`rise to a Jary. I think Vbere was e:riffetteri I t eeligh brought before me to satisfy one of 14. riPitarch tA it . ble. Townsend, the Counsel, - Was . ptetettt'dliea I s • .14i eorttniittal: - • , ' - • • Ellie - liiiir j':' !Z4SWPORT=-The ',hoods* 473;e, • ••fir • lisoen'te ilif,• a I was informed, as •a fevi . Oe' N a ir i.Niti 1 iit.crtiiitin—Azbbetes Dik'ee ifite .'Weisites. - ',l* '''' ' ''' "' '-•!' • ! ' • • ' - - ;;Sir.L NEWE9K,,T-71Neyer , was. a reward better - 0110d i the boOli - potinien great riserit:;--(Heir.) •'• '. •'", . ••••.4fsittspined)ttgri,gLuxicrirr,•--effenty fithiliirteh tyleosartbN aidhoted sep . tiethe mite upon the Sib -or Amplatlaf.: ['Wye heard of riots having tat/Arlan ..at theil Ceistag 4f tblastatee kb the Ist ofJulit. • : 1 .'... ... • .By Sir. et: V(PORT--Last. August 1 had reit:sett to apprehend a iiotifti the dressing of the statue. Fears to that iffeCt trite expressed by• the - inhabitants •in the . es A •a c ibogellood,.ctu former . occesions I beard that - there were fire•arens ,diic lilted. '- • ' • By eat sAtt I M-Bploi?Nry lull never heard of pa riot 9,t i ii k g. - _,fieitioh . tilt; dressing, of the stator. gy Mr: Q . FPOIVIii the etercise of yeTt awn Zecretiori cal .0a •hi - ceminitted . fur • the .capital Aptirgek:4 01444 Lmyself called upon to proneonce pfiefinitive opigoOt • tirie . sobject: -.I would hail re quired'rnoretl# te: . ~. , 'Mis th . y . mind upon it. The *it; nest withiOete ! . -- - • • • • t •'' ''',•• !''• lfascat Hifloirty'FltoliftAs then soled=--Heilititatillthat' he Was i'ilerlflithe Beek of leelastiit•lie was examined! ibtatilettfist diet arthst-theatr4 loathe Castle at Dub fin.. .An oath, xi* administered to him by Major Sirr. "iiiinkbiell;ft'the Yeern. Mr. Cannichiel, the clerk of the - Chihli, lisaireeleht. I was asked whether I lad oily 11eLeg`ti;e1oleinVihehttyieet t of titkets for the , theater thin eveifini;•b'esisniselog tlkeittle at the Lord aLieutett-, bit! - I replitellit"the• negative: "Mc feeling* were; !Mittel to I Igiatioit by•this inquiry;" continued the Maya4t ~ o belie the, teindernen, Sae I hare bad the' haslet" to r• his •'lllijesty's Commission in. a Militia ''F,C.lglitcht "liehtntr,"antrl thought it' an injurious im • ofei tioritliitTilreinlil draw my sword:against the life of "I iiifilljustriietfiesentitke.• • 1-wasebLaworn to the do? poeitiona I,lAen i made, bpt these depositioos were subm qsteriVit shown to Wei to he sworrte, but 1 refused; as ihil ''Sed t •frbertibiti I had itated. t .'• . i ; dAltra. °Zito% 'by Mi. 001;t1tUltbb•-•1 know Mr. Carpi :464' Pellets; I also tcno* the Attprney-tleneral; they .irieta bath . firesent. 'Witness-IS usable to tell the names 6( ail' °lithe person in the ronot.l There might hare 'been foite or re, Or Wit or wren persons there. Took abMe thetinbitlons and inswees tb ei.rve a% a nietnOran tddi. • • Fonts difference bvtireen the cram; nations and • tribdepositidesker-wat'vallerd owte iign. •The d e p o „i. "rid& bogietlise•he' (die , deponent) did not know any • tilitheinntetkaa any4man ivalkingin the norld. hat •witneskhad said was; that be did , nut know more than person Of china •that , snight happen to he ffol ni *boat his hnsiness. There-Was no material difference in. 'tat; he Iffotitted; • Demi uf et ;, cecolleet• any other point 'get tkifference, but as as impression That. there was a dif ference. •" • ' • - 'Mr. PLUNK ETT-A•Yoe soy the differombetwPes the * deposition and ..,yowe examination was, that the. one st a ted coo to •ksee do 'more Otto:any common citizen tient might' chilled' to lie by; and the other, that yen' knew no ,otors thsti pit Mau walking. in the world?. , v • . l et - r. pLuignerrA4fixia know iffier . hastgivilifik . isttit *tie as .lomppettot. es - 4:10?—. 1 1 . itolLikey • • (.114ivagti4 . . • nese. eriirTheepe the Sheriff-sew used such words to these, that he might make himself easy . the bills would not be found," to bins, or any person in his hearing. Witness was sufficiently near bim to have hexed him, had he toed the words. By Mr. ORATTAN—Witness asked the Sheriff if the bills n ere returned ? The Sheriff put his hand to his mouth, and said " Mans, where is Milliken." By Mr. PLUNKETT—Witness was aware that hlr. l Milliken charged Sheriff Thorpe with using improper leads; but the phrase "Mum, Milliken," was a cant aplarsse. Witness is certain that the words already men dotted were not used. Witness knows Mr. Nl‘Namara. Has been engaged with Mr. O'Reilly in an equity suit. By Mr. PLUNKM'T—Then as that implies length, I need not ask you were yon long acquainted with hits. Witness withdrew. Mr. PLUNK ETT here stated, that Mr. M'Namsra and Mr. O'Reilly were desirous of being confronted with the last witness. Mr. al.Namara and Mr. Ward were then called in.— Mr. Ward's evidence in which he contradicts the state ment of Mr. M'Namara and Mr. O'Reilly were then read. as also Mr. M‘Namara's evidence. Mr. M'Namara being then examined by Mr. PLUNr i KETT,repeated his former statement. He was positive sets the words being used by Sheriff Thorpe; but be was DK sure, as he before sta.ed, that Ward was the person to whom they were addressed, but was assured it was by Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Terence O'Reilly was next confronted with the witness Ward. By Mr. PLUNKETT—The Sheriff said, " Hart I not managed my business well?" He addressed himeelf. I conceive, to Mr. Ward ; changed his dress and then went away. By Mr. BRIGHT—He was positive that the Sheriff addressed him by the name of Charles. He and Mr. Mac namara remained in the office about an hour after the Sheriff. He changed his dress. The Sheriff said, "No bill till be found. Havel not macaged my business well ?" or nerds to that effe:t. Witness came over with " Macnamara ; the latter never mentioned the name of Ward. I mentioned it to him. I have been at Mr. Wake's chambers. We both wrote down our evidence at the same time, 1 don't think Mr. Memoriam bad read oven my evidence before I left the room. Mr. Macnamara made no remark upon my evidence to me. He did to Mr. Blake. He said there were some shades of difference. - - - By Mr. PEEL—He was positive that the Sheriff made I use of the expressions. While I was there, be might have said other things which I do not recollect. I was I not surprised at hearing the expressions. fie might have made use of the expression "Mum, Milliken," without , my hearing it. BBy Mr. RIGHT—He never saw Mr. 51acnamara's deposition till now. By Mr. BARRY—Macnarnara and. I had some con versation upon the expression after we left the Sheriff's office. I think l told bins that the Sheriff used the ex pression to Ward. Mr. Ward examined by Mr. ORATTAN.—He denied that the Sheriff had used those expressions. The person O'Reilly was the person nearest him and the Sheriff while they were conversing together. Mr. O'Reilly examined by . Mr. PLUNKETT—You heard Ward say that the conversation only lasted three minutes. Yon say from 15 to 20 minutes. How do you account fox the extraordinary difference ?-1 can't ac count for it; 1 speak from recollection of the fact. Sir Robert Sliew, Member for Dublin, war swilled by Colonel !AMY as to the character of Ward. —As far as knew, he was a respectable man. . John Atkinson was then called, but did not appter. Colonel BARRY said that be called this man, be , cause he believed that he was the prime concoctor of this conspiracy. • Sir JOHN NEWPORT objected to this course. ; Colonel BARRY said that Atkinson had been in the way, but having been informed that be "would be ex amined by him , be absented himself. As he did not now appea r, he wished the Chairman to report his ab sence to th:House. Mr. PLUNKETT said that the witness might ap pear shortly.. By Sir JOHN - NEWPORT—The witness is a mem ber of the Orange Lodge, No. 1612; there were portions of Scripture read to the lodge, but he did nut remember whether any passage was reed from that part of Joshua in which it was said that the Israelites were to root uut the Assalekites from the land. It was next proposed to call Atkinson. Colonel BARRY said his examination would occupy two er three hours. There was not a single witness now in London, whOm be . would:wish to examine, unless something arose out of the testimony of others, which might render it necessary for bins to 4o so. The Gitelman said he understood Atka son was at the Swan with-two Necks is Lad-lane, sand desired that he Might be sent for immediately. At the suggestion of Sir i f.,_NEWPORT, Sir Abra ham Bradley called • ssd accommodated stith a chair. , • By Sir II NOVINire-' N o Owlet any grand jury bad ever been pAiito thOOtands of the witness, nor did teknow of aoy *Ng kav eg been put into the hands of, .hie clerk. • . • • I . C; A understand thet,yostimeng to the society of Orange- An. and have been a grand master j---71 have been a member of the Orange Society since the year 1197, 1 was deputy geand.master of the Osiettgrines, and 1 am,proud I. ackeowledge it. , ..• h en. I presuPie.;Pli are wilogisiu Bind the t forms • gad .reies of an Oraege loT; —I . Ari portiomi of Scn re read In tie lodges after the admission oftnesnbers —Yes, andin order to allow that nothing improper is done ins ledge, 1 have brought with mason of the printed rules and regulations of the society . ; . • ply •' qnestion VS, .whether there are not portions of Scripture reactin -every lodge at-the admission of a mein bet ?—Not . that," know of; a prayer is generally red I. • Is any ponied of the book ofJoshua read in the lodge? That is part of the secrets of the Orange Institution which I am not at liberty to state. (A great sensation in the House.) But there is nothing which at all iuterfetes with-1 am boned by ao.obligalion not to say any thing on this part of the subject. Are you under the ehlietion of an oath not to state what is read in a lodge? 'lea certain extent I am bound not to disclose the words end the signs, there is every thing contained in this book, hut the words and signs. I ask you whether that -passage in the Book of Joshua. which dec _ res that the Israelites shall root out the Ana - ig lekites from the land, is not read in ati Orange Lodge after the echnission of every new. Member ? I have unly to say, that I ant -bound by my oath of secresy tint to un-.. steer that question. The question was repeated; and the witness said,—" It is a panel my oath nut to disclose the secrets ut the 11)- . siitation ; and 1 ant not at liberty to repeat whist is said in any fridge. Si r J., NEWPORT said he shonld insist on b as i ng the as aspire; I. jitestiott—,tbey4aese . vow urged to wbbdtaw. - . 1 is tr. i ..• • . • . • . C o ' 11 islltitY q uelted_if a Freer/norm was at the Inr 01 t A li eu use, sibetbipti , be was anand to disclose thirsepret, thelgooletr td irbieb , lie hyliasKetl. . lie Maisel( wib 1 .01. rat a Negemeior,, tut.swiny Grutleenen present were, au, - N: 1). go . 4 . 4 . it trio' aliens whether tb;' : I a ess 'PORT said, the oaths ' a thogo ddgei' fliich was not the case with those of Free : he contended it teas molt Matettatto`know _to vitiated pry nbligatleg by iwhich one set of men Weed . to root out another set of men from Society. The witness Wei thee called in, and•the last question tead to him. The CHAIRMAN Said it was the opinion of the Com mittee that the witness was binanthoanswer the qitestion. —(A load Ord " No, w..". The witness was again ordered to Withdraw, and Sir JOHN NEWPORT ,read from the speech of the Lard Chief Justice of Ireland.. on the trial of the rioters, the passage in which that Judge held that no such obliga tion as that of abiding by the oaths in question existed ; that as it was criminal to take such oaths, it was ovally criminal to chide by them. Sir OEOROE IfiLL contended that the question of the Right lion. Bart. could not be fairly put to the wit ness, because it related to the secrets which Orangemen had sworn to keep. Sir JOHN NhiVPORT replied that if be had askied . any Orangemewat that bar to disclose any of the secrets of the Society to which he belonged, such Orangtimao was bound to do so notwithstanding any oath be might have taken.—(Hear, hear.) For thi3 be bad the *vib e rity of the Learned Judge to whom he heel just alluded. But be did not want to know the scent signs or words of Orangeman. His object was to ascertain the political feeling by which the Orangemen were actuated. And for that purpose the House had a right to colipel a wit ness to answersuch questions as should be put to him. If the Court of King's Bench latl such power, sorely that House, width wits a higher tribtinal;‘niust have the same power. Sir G. HILL contended that nothing had been stated by witness that could authorise the putting of such a question. Mr. DENIS BROWNE said that to compel a witness to answer such a question was nnjust, and would do infi nite mischief in Ireland. Ile belonged to a certain fra ternity, a very foolish fraternity he believed—(tanghter) —lie meant the fraternity of Freemasons; aid all the power on earth would not force him to betray the sec. its he had sworn to keep, respecting that fraternity. Sir JOHN NEWPORT would insist on the witness answering the question he had put respecting the politi. cal secrets of Orangemen: nothecause they were foolish, but because they were mischievous. If such illegal obli gations as these were to stied in the way of any import ant public investigation, the ends of justice could never be attained. A MEMBER observed that the Orange Societies bad long existed under the sanction of high authority—the sanction of (government, and lie thought they ought not to be required to disclose their secrets. Mr. MARTIN, of Ualsroy;thought that the witness was bound to answer the qaestion. Suppose that in one of the Orange lodges there had been a conspiracy to commit a murder, was it to be endured that oo evidence respecting that conspiracy should be givalt, beianse the conspirators bad taken an oath of serresy not to disclose' what passed at their lodge? • .-. Mr. CALCRAFT thought it was fit • to undeceive the Orange lodges as to their o &tbs. in order that it might be understood that such secret oaths were not to operste as a bar to public justice. And that alone was a so& cient reason why the wittiest should be obliged to an-' swer the qiwstion. Mr. W. WYNN said the question was, whether oaths taken by individnAl should stop an inquiry .before the highest tribunal in thelingdowg IT a witness before an inferior Court of Justice vas to refule giving evidence, on the pound-that I. bad taken an oath, not to ilis• close any of the facts he might be required to state, would such a thing be tolerated for a moment? He, therefore, maintained, that in' the present instance the witness was bound to answer the question put to him.. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that the principal reason he had fur pressing the question was, that it mat e ri a lly affected the administration of justice in Ireland, inas much as the Sheriff elect of Dublin for the ensuing year was a sworn Orangeman. It was therefore necessary to know whether or not such a passage in Scripture was read to an Orangeman on his admission. Col. BARRY denied that it appeared from the evi dence that the Sheriff elect was an Orangeman. He condemned the (lithe, yet at the same time be must say that Orangemen had always been bound by an path, without any interference on the part of the Legislature. I t even appeared that they were sanctioned by thoUroirti, for his Majesty was pleased on a certain occaline l taw ceive an Address from them-id •Is most graders Mr. BROUGIIA 31 Said there was,* . material. differ ence between this case and that of a Grapd Juror sworn on oath. Nothing could be More dissioiilar. In the one case the oath was sanctioned by the la* of the land ; whereas in the other case the oath was sanctioned by no law at all. As to the sanction given to the Orangeman's oath by the Legislature, as asserted by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Col. Barry), he could only say that the law never gave.any such sanction. In his opinion Orange men had been sanctioned too long; hut denied' that they were ever sanctioned by the Law or COnstitution of England. . . Mr. BANKES thought th e question might -tot to be' persevered in, if It was not necessary to the purposes of the inquiry'. Mr. tYLTHERELL said a few words; after which The CHAIRMAN put the question on in the witness, and commanding him to answer the question, 'which was carried in the affirmative. • The witness was accordingly called io, and The CHAIRMAN addressed him as follows :—Sir Abra ham Bradley King, you have objected to answer a question put to you by an Bon. Member of the Committee, on the ground that you have taken en oath which obliges you not to do so. The Cummittee are of opinion that no oath of a private nature should prevent you fronsgiving evidence be fore a judicial tribunal, and still less before this House.— Therefore you ire called upon to answer the question. The question being again reed. • The witness replied, that he had tanned his thoughts to It while absent from the bar, but that be could only say that there was nothing whatever in the words either before or af ter the admission of an Orangeman, which went to extermi nate any portion of his Majesty's subjects. The question was once more put, and the witness was ,again called upon to give a more direct answer ; hut he said that he could not, and would not, divulge the words used on admission. Examined by Mr. R. SMlTH.—Witness maintained that there was nothing in the form of admission whichceuoienanc ed the extermination of any of his Majesty's subjects. He Gould not answer whether there was any thing respecting the A halekites in the form. Ills oath decidedly prevented 'hint from answering )es or no to the question. (Here the question was again put to the witness. but be again refused to give a decisive answer.) He did not think the word. Ama lekites occurred In the form of admission. Witness had been for some seers Deputy Grand Mailer of the Orange Lodge of Ireland. Had frequently seen Orangemen made. There wascertain ceremonies ob d both before and after.— Had u 4 particular recollection of those ceremonies. Has ceased to be Deputy Grand Master for about three years.— Could not recollect any thing abont the introduction of the word Auralekiles. liv Sir G. HlLL—Witness was positive that there was nothing in an Orangeman's oath to call upon him to give evidence in a Court afjustice. with respect to the ordinary occurrences of life. It WWI rather the obligation of an Orangeman to Elie evidence in all eases, with the exception of divulging the words and the signs whereby the brothers were gnown So each other. By Mr. BitQL/WlAM.—Witnets Aid not understand the oath to be rerf , had taken it in 1797. It was • • - •,. e. 0 .- 1 , -, , • -•.1 • , mug*, W>< ea ii).: -. 4 4 ; litivrotkld phi i . WeittlVlßßY—WithhOs >algitleitdr: their sweet's. torney; iscoafidentlat malt of business of 4ltetiff. ' .-. • Sir J. NEW! Wittwatestrad chat's& wairitt the .TOP4.-Cieft's were illegalovl oa the day that the toills were ignored. pa, privati bail. masons; end hi aces. Sberitribetpe came hi.- Witheits declared-1W vibether there ' _.l slightly altered is IS•20, so as to make it correspond with thersoCieties in England. There never was any oath taken by at Orangeman not to give evidence against a brother. Some things were included in the words of - vecresy which were communicated on admission. Wit ness could give no , answer if a ked the nature of the terms of secresy ire a Court of Justice. • By Mr. 'J. WILLIAMS—Witness frequently admi nistered the oath to persons on admission. Has on re collection of the word Amalekites' occurring in the form of admission, tic would not answer as to the na ture of the words of admission, nor as to the part of 1 Scripture from which they were taken. Ile admitte•t that they were passages from Scripture in the form of ad mission. The CHAIRMAN now told the witness that hie ob jections to auswerieg the question were nut deeutal valid by the Committee, and that, he must therefore 1,;: explicit if be would avoid painfol consequences to, ht omp li . the Witness said he was perfectly aware of the - power which the House possessed, but let the con.equence s be what they might, on his head they must fall, and he must bear them, for he could not answer the questioo. The CHAT RMAN said he wishid him to recol'ect that the oath he bad taken was not a leial one, and if in Court of Law, it would not be permitted to interfere with the course of justice, it could not possibly be suffered to do so in that House, which was a snitch higher tribunal. The Witness replied that he felt the responsible slots tion in which he stood as appearing before the first As sembly in the world, Yet at the same time he would mit suffer any powei on earth to stand between him and his conscience. • Mr. tsgovonAss asked whether the witness intend edto answer Yes or Nor to the question ?—We dou't re gard the oath as a solemnity. Mr. BUT TERWORlHobserved, that some consider ation was due to the conscience of the witness. Mr. IMOCOHAM.—Does the witness give an answer to the question? Witness. . Distinctly, No. He teas then ordered to withdraw. Mr. BROUGHAM regretted that the House .had at last come to die necessity of enforcing obedience to th e i r authority. They were in the * difficulty, and them was but one way of getting through it. He depreeated the feeling of the Honourable Member fur Doerr, who had therm a disposition to sanction the scruples of the witness. Mr. BUTTERWORTH', speaking to order, coal rot say whether his conscience was more or b•ss enlightenef than that of the Hou. and Learned Gentleman. ile La i spoken with regard to the scruples of the witness nu•ler a belief that tite House might mill decide Whether he ought or not to answer the question. . • Mr. BROUGHA 31 said,. he knew of no obligation impsosed by oaths,.u.nlese they were legal eaths. The witness had stated a Fancifrd obligation, which he ha,' heard with indignation. The House could only tegard it as mockery or farce. They could pay no attention to such an oath. If they listened to.. it, they would no longer punish men for taking unlawful oaths. lie iia 1• no intention to impute to the Hon. Member any irregula rity of conduct, but he had been warm, baring Often seen perjury in Courts of Law sheltered under disguise similar to that assumed by the witness. Mr. BurrERWORTH again explained. lie had no Intention to justify unlawful oaths. Sir JOHN NEWPOItr said the House had decided that the oath was not to be a bar to answccitig the question. Mr. Secretary CANNING thought the Hon. Gentleman. was right in stating it was the opinion of the Uommittee that an answer ivai to be given, but he conl4 not s;y the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was juslitie I in deelsrin that the specific question put to tint witness should.be in sisted on. He admitted that the question was one to which the Committee had a right to expect: an answer. His opinion on a former occasion was that the power of the House ought not to overrule a legal oath, but they had to take a different course with an illegal oath. 'He 1 admired the dexterity with %biol.': an lion. and Learned itientleman (Mr. Williams) contrived to get at a question, without compelling the House to come to the last point. He wished to endeavour, if possible, to avoid th • diffi culty of coming to the last extremity with the witness; because he was unwilling to give either party a triumph. It w.mld be most fast to conciliation if the witness went bark to Dublin, es it were, a trinmpharit martyr.-- Perhaps the dignity of the House would be prompt d by affording him an escape. lie trusted the ' Committee would enable the witness to answer the question; and thereby spire the party a triumph. - Col. HARRY cutiatlered a tuo4erate course of pro ceeding would he best. Mr. PLUNKETT paid, he thought there was a mode of getting rid of the ilidieulty.—The witness supposed by was obliged to answer yes or no. 'it did not occur to the wit ness that he might say he did not recollect. Now If the a it . ness was asked - what part of Scripture the words were tak.li from, he would venture to predict that the witness , would an swer conscientiously, I do not know. Sfr JOHN NEWPORT said, 'the allowance of unlaw ful oaths in persons' of rank would afford impunity to the poorer clues to complain of unjust °pertais of the Law. Mr. Secretary PEEL had no doubt with respect to en es. trajadieiel oath, that the House had a right to demand an answer, but he agreed with the Right lion. Secretary of Stale, that it would be i .convenient to enforce an answer. —The object of the Right Honourable Baronet,, who put the question respecting the words of Scripture tided at the iaitiation of a member of the Orange Lodges, bad failed.— The Hon. Baronet might get at the signs by which one Orangeman know another, but that would not promote the question which was the subject of inquiry. It was really advisable to occasion as little delay in the proceeding as possible. Mr. BUTTERWORTII observed that the best mode of proceeding would then be to repoit progress. Mr. GRATTAN said a man could not be expected to vio late his oath, but still it would be a bad precedent to let its Grand Master of the Orange Lodges go hack to Dublin to tell his brethren that the House of COMtnons were obliged to compromise with him upon the oath he lad taken. Mr. SCARLETT wished the questions and answers re►d l They were accordingly read. Mr. SUARIATT then .observed, that the object of his Right Hon. Friend's question was to promote .a fair inve4tigation of the subject. If the witness were eiVier to have a triumph or a martyrdom, he confessed be should pref.r giving him the benefit of a martyrdom. Triumph he must have one way or another, if the House excused him the answer to the qu e stion, and that wet the way he should wish to administer triumph to hint. If any Judge in England had heard what had just pass ed, and did not commit the witness he would deserve to be impeached. Was then that House is allow itself to he trampled open": How did they expect to enforce their laws upon Ireland if they sent this man back With this triumph over them, under the shelter of an oath as decidedly illegal as any oath could be. Mr. SecretaryC.lNNlNO assured his Hon. and Lear ed Friend, that lie thought the oaths alluded to new illegal as he did—he was sore they were nut legal. thee did he put the power of the House lower than that of a Judge, and if a Member should press them to tie point they would he obliged to conunit the ultn.s , . Mr. PLUNKETT never doubted that the than, , oath was illegal; and if the witness persisted in oheltenad himself against the inquiry of titat•Nuuse, ender that subterfuge, they must nut let hits escape thiestreme vi sitation of their power. All that he had said wa• t h at the witness, upon being called in a•,ain.an'ght give such an answer as would avoid the necessity of • going to ex. troisity. Mr. -J. S3lllll said. tkat Lowirrer L• 4 might ?Jr' . I ref V . iiii prii • aril day Ilio4 tie Poi ,Ilot :~ SI Ito be le, to th in pr of It( Be in 'far .f 1 yeti tee Of T