The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-24 00:00:00

does not reciiilect whether the word Arnalekites is used in the
oath to Orangemen ?—A. I rather think it is not.
Q. Will he take upon himself to say it is not ?—A. I cannot
recollect.

Q. How long► have you been Deputy Grand _Master ?
A. Some years. It is sily duty to attend to the admission of
Orangemen. I have frequently seen Orangemen-made. There
was a fixed ceremony, yet he had no recollection of the cere-
mony. He had ceased to be Orand Master three years. He
could. not say whether any thingivas said to Orangemen about
the Andelates. •

Exaaiiiied by Sir G. thereany thing in the obli-
gation of Orangemen which can authorize them to withhold
their testimony in a Coureof Justice, respecting any transac-
tion of life upon which he might be ealled.on to answer P—A.
Certainly not.
Q. Does the obligation of an Ovavigeman authorize him to
conceal any crime inquired into in a Court of Justice P—A.
Certainly not.
Q. Is it more an obligation to support the law P—A. Yes,
with the exception of not divulging what he had sworn to con-
ceal. The witness here observed that he had brought the book
which contained the oaths and obligations of Orangemen.
Examined by Mr. Biouosiam.—He understood the oaths
in the book not to be sacred. It had been used since 1794.—
Some trivial alteration had' been made in it since 1794. Had
neyer heard of. an oath binding Orangemen not to give evidence
against a brother. _

.
—lf hewas askedin a Court of Justice the words communi-
cated to. him on his admission to an Orange Lodge, he should
not answer. • If he had taken an oath as a witness to tell the.
whole truth, that oath would not absolve hint from the former
oath. '

Sxamined by Mr. Wiwasts.—The oath was part of•the
admission to Orange Lodges. He had administered the oath
in 20 instances. Had no recollection whether the word Amale-
kites was in the oath ; he believed it was not. That, however,
was part of the question lie did not wish to answer, and hit.
hope was the Committee would not press him on that point.
In the oath there were.passages from Scripture. He objected
to state from what part of Scripture the words were taken.
Sir R. HERos.—I have already told the witness the Com-
mittee are unanimously of opinion you should.., answer the
.question.
Witness.—lt is my most anxious Wish to givolittfullest an-
swer ; but when I am asked to disclose that which I, have sworn
not to divulge, ilia placing me in such a state, that let o:e.con-
sequence be what it May, 1.-cannot answer. 'The consequence
must fall on my head.
Sir R. HEIIO.X.—I must beg leave to say, in order to prevent
you from getting into a serious scrape, that if you have taken
a voluntary oath to conceal the truth, it is not valid in any
court of Justice. You would. be forced to answer. The autho-
rity of this House is higher than that of a Court of Justice, and
you must see that the question must be answered. •
Witness—l am aware of the responsibility in which I stand ;
I feel every respect for this great .Assembly..-4 acknowledge
every power the House has,. but that of standing between me
and niy Creator. I must take the consequence.
Mr. BROUGHAM asked whether the witness intended to an.
swer Yes or No to the question ?—We don't regard the oath as
a solemnity.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH observed, that some consideration
was due to the conscience of the witness.

31r. BROUGHAM.—Does the witness give an answer to
the question?
Witneas.—Distinctly, No.
He was then ordered to withdraw. ' _ _

Mr. BROUGHAM regretted that the House had at last
come to the necessity of enforcing obedience to their authority.
They were in the difficulty, and there was but one way of get-
ting through it. He deprecated the-feeling of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Dover, who had shewn a disposition to sancion the scru.
ples of the witness.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH, speaking to order, could not say
whether his conscience was more or less enlightened than that
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.. He had spoken with
regard to the scruples of the witness under a belief that the
House might still decide whether he ought or not to answer the
question.
--
-- -

Mr. BROUGHAM said, he knew no obligation imposed
by oaths, unless they were legal oaths. The witness had stated
a fanciful obligation, which he had heard with indignation
The House could only regard it as mockery or farce.—
They could pay no attention to such an oath. If they lis-
tened to it, they would no longer punish men for taking un-
lawful oaths. He had no intention to impute .to the Hon.
Member any irregularity of conduct, but he had been warm,
having often seen perjury in Courts of Law sheltered under dis-
guise similar to that assumed by the witness.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH again explained. He bad n 9 in-
tention to justify unlawful oaths.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said the House had decided that
the oath was not to be a bar to answering the question.
Mr. Secretary CANNING thought the lion. Gentleman was
' right in stating it was the opinion of the Committee that an
anawar was to he given, but he could not say the flop. and
Learned Gentleman was justified in declaring that the specific
question put to the witness. should he insisted on. lie ad-
mitted that the question was one to which the Committee liad
a right to expect an answer. His opinion on a former occa-
sion was that the power of the house ought not to overrule
u legal oath. He admired the dexterity with which a Honour'
able and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Williams) contrived to get
at a question, without compelling the House to conic to the
last point. He wished to endeavour, if possible, to avoid the
difficulty of coming to the last extremity with the witness be-
cause he was unwilling to give either party a triumph. It
would be most fatal to conciliation if the witness went back to
Dublin, as it were a triumphal martyr. Perhaps the dignity of
the House would be promoted. by affording him an escape.
He trusted the Committee would enable the witness to answer
the question, and thereby spare the party a. triumph.
Col. BARRY considered a moderate course of proceeding
would be best.

Mr. PLUNKETT said, he thought there was a mode of get.
ting rid of the difficulty. The witness supposed be was obliged
to answer yes or no. It did not occur to the witness that he
might say he did not recollect. Now it' the witness was asked
what part of Scripture the words were taken from, he would
venture to predict that the witness would answer conscientiously,
I do not know.

Sir 4OHN NEWPORT said, the allowance of unlawful
oaths in persons of rank would afford impunity to the poorer
classes to complain of unjust operation of the Law.

Mr. Secretary PEEL had no doubt with respect to an extra-
judicial oath, that the House bad a right to demand un answer,
but he agreed with the Right lion.• Secretary of State, that it
would be inconvenient to enforce an answer. The object of
the Right lion. Baronet, who put the question respecting the
words of Scripture used at the initiation of a Member of the
Orange Lodges, had failed. The lion. Baronet might get at
the signs by which one Orangeman knew another, but that
would. not promote the question which was the subject of in.
quill. it was really advisable to occasion as little delay in the
proceeding as possible.
Mr. BUTTERWORTI! observed • that the best mode of
proceeding would then be to report progress.

Mr. GRATTAN said a man could not he expected to vio-
late his oath, but still it would be a bad precedent to let the
Grand Master of the Orange Lodges go.back to Dublin'to tell
his brethren that the House of Commons were obliged to com-
promise with him upon the oath he had taken.
SCARLETT wished the queStions and answers read.
They were accordingly read.
Mr. SCARLETT then 'observed, that the object of his Right
Hon. .Friend's question was to promote a fair investigation of
the subject. If the witness *ere either to have a triumph or a
martyrdom, he confessed he should prefer giving him the benefit
of martyrdom. Triumph he must have one way or another, if
the House excused hint the answer to the questiououid-that,
was the way he•should wish to administer the triumph to him.
Tf any Judge in England had heard what had just passetr, and
did not commit the witness, he would deserve to be impeached.
W:toi then that House to alitiw itself to be trampled upon ? How
did they expect to enforce their laws upon-ireland if they, sent
this man hack with this triumph over them, under the shelter
of an oath as decidedly illegal as any oath could be.
-Mr. Secretary CANNING assured his Hon. and Learned
Friend, that he thought the oaths alluded to were as illegal as
he did—he was sure they were not legal. Neither did he put
the poWer of the House lower than 'that of a Judge, and if any
Member should press them to the point, they would be obliged
to commit the witness.
Mr. PLUNKEI7 never doubted that the Orange oath was
illegal ; and if the witness persisted in sheltering himself
against the inquiry of that House, under that subterfuge, they
must not let 'lmn escape the extreme' Visitation of their power.
All that he had said was that the witness, upon being called in
again, might give such an answer as would avoid the necessity
of going to extremity.
Mr. J: SMITH said, that however he might deprecate dis-
content in Ireland, he- could not put that in competition with
the ancient valuable privileges of that Muse.
Mr. OOUI,BITRN considered-that the witness, by his last
answer, had Made himself directly obnoxious to the privileges
Hof the ouse ; and, in that case, there could be nohesitation
as to the course they must pursue. Re had; however, no ob-
jection to his being called in and re-examined.

Mr. BROM4IIAM thought that the best course. He agreed
with the Right !lon. Gentleman who had j;ist eat down, but he
hoped the witness would not oblige them to go to extremity.
Itt the latter case; however, he begged to observe, that in these
'times the laurel of victory would be at least as dangerous as the
palm of martyrdom.
141 r. K. DOUGLAS thought probably that the witness would
explain that he only objected to divulge the signs and symbols

of the order to which be belong d. This would, he apprehend-
ed. be satisfactory to the House.
Sir J. NEWPORT would not consent to therwitifeil being
asked any thing but whether he meant to adhere to his last an-
swer or not.

Mr. GOULBURN thought that would not be giving the
witness a fair opportunity? as there was a contradiction in the
latter question which required explanation.
After some further conversation= in which Mr. R.
the ATTORNEY-GUM/At, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr.
WIT, Llama participated,
-Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he thought it would be well
for the House to consider what was the course of proceeding
they were then engaged in. The question was relative to cer-
tain things touching the .Amalekites, said to be in the book of
Joshua. But it behoved the House to pause in this matter, and
consider in what situation they would find themselves after hav-
ing committed two men to Newgate for not being able to re-
member a passage about the Amalekites, in the book of Joshua,
should it turn out, as he apprehended it would, that there was
not one word on the subject from one end to the other of the
Book in question.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. BUTTERWORT/I stated to the House that he had
been up stairs, and after looking carefully over the book of
Joshua, was able to assure them that he had not found the Ama-
lekites mentioned at all.—(Continued laughter.)
Sir JOHN NEWPORT begged to ask the Hon. Merdber
whether he had read the 19th verse of the 10th chapter of that
Book, which spoke of " exalting the Israelites to root out the
Amalekites !'

Mr. BUTTERWORTH confessed that any such passage
had escaped his observation; but he would willingly go .up
stairs again to search for it in the place indicated by the Hon.
Baronet.

Sir 0. HILL was proceeding to point out that the question
which had been put to the witness was irrelevant, when he was
interrupted by the return of
Mr. BUTTERWORTH, who stated that having read the
verse pointed out by the lion. Member, he was able to re-
affirm his former assertion. (The Hon. Member, amidst cries
of " read," proceeded to read aloud the verse in question, which
certainly did not contain the word Amalekite.)
The witness wag then called in, and addressed by the Chair-
man as follows.;—" Sir Arthur Bradley King, I have now to
ask you whether, having had time to reflect on the question
last put to you, you are now willing to answer it ?"
The question, as follows, was then read by the shorthand-
writer ;—Q. Do you object to state if you remember! from
what part of Scripture the words used on the occasion you
have alluded to are taken P—A. I do; but I do thinks that it
would not be acting with that candour which it behoves all to
observe towards this House, were 1 not to. say, that I could
generally refer to the parts of Scripture; but in doing so I
should subject myself to be followed up by other questions,
which I should be unable to answer, and that would be coming
to the same thing.
The CHAIRMAN admonished the witness, that it would
be time enough to refuse to answer a question, when that clues-
lion was put to him.
The question was again putt Witness.—l am -willing to
state that the parts of scripture referred, are used as nothing
more than signs by which Orangemen may know each other,
and that they are taken from the Old Testament.
Mr. Secretary PEttr..:--Q. Do you mean to say that the part
or parts of scripture in question refer merely to the symbols or
tokens by which Orangemen know each other P—Precisely so.
Q. They are used exclusively for that purpose, and for no-
thing else?—A. Exclusively.
Q. Is there any obligition to obserye any maxim attained
in those parts of scripture ?--A. None.
Do you know the oath of a Purpleman to the effect that he •
would keep the signs of his Order from the Orangemen ?
A. I do.

The oath applies to nothing else P—A. Nothing.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Secretary PEEL. confessed that the assurance .of the
witness that the information asked by the Committee referred
to signs and symbols, was satisfactory to him. If the witness
refused to answer a question material to the Inquiry they were
engaged in, he should certainly vote for his committal ; but as
that was in no wise material, he could not pursue that course.
Mr. WETHERELL pointed out that the question was alto-
gether irrelevant to the object of the inquiry.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought it was strange that no one
found out the irrelevancy of the question till the witness had
positively refused to answer it. He contended, that the House
could not avoid committing him, and if no one else did it, he
would take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Mr. GOULBURN thought the witness had answered the
questions put to him. Perhaps not satisfactorily to the Right
Hon. Baronet, but it'was competent to him to put others, which
his Iron, and Learned Friend behind lihn might object mit he
thought proper:
Mr. Secretary CANNING was of opinion that the witness
had fairly answered the question, and that the difficulty they
had felt themselves in before was now at an end.
Mr. JOHN SMITH considered that the witness had not sa-
tisfied the Committee by his answers. He had distinctly refused
to givC the information required of him. •
•
Sir JOHN NEW point was of the sane opinion.
The witness was again called in, but ordered to withdraw
before any question was put.
Mr. Secretary PEEL observed, that it was then really too
late to go into an important examination of that nroire. 'They
had generally adjourned at twelve, and it was then within a few
minutes of two !
_

.
Mr. CALCR AFT moved that the Chairman ask leave to re.
port progress, and the House resume. He did this with the
more satisfaction because he thought the Committee had been
relieved from the awkward Situation in which they had got
themselves but a short time before, and which he hoped they
would not get into again.
Mr. BROUGHAM Seconded the motion with the same feel-
ings as his Hon. Friend, viz. that the Committee might be by
so much freed from the thence of getting themselves into that
degraded.situation in which they would ctpear to the world to-
morrow, when their proceedings went forth to the public.
Mr. CAM:RAFT protested against the meaning put upon
his motion by his Bon. and Learned Friend. He thought the
Committee had really got well out considering the difficulty of
his situation. He should therefore press his motion.
Mr. BROUGHAM seconded it with pleasure, and although
his Lion. Friend's parliamentary good nature induced lain tor
say that the Committee had got well out of the scrape, he knew
in his heart he felt it was far otherwise. It was very well for him
to skin over the wounds Which the dignity of the House had
received, and throw up his cap in honour of its triumph; but
he (Mr. Brougham) only hoped the public would view the
matter in the same good-natured light that his Hon. Friend did.
'They had demanded from the witness the text of certain re.
ferences to Scripture, and the satisfactory answer they got was
a 'general reference to the Old Testament. That was what
his lion. Friend thought ito great a relief.
Mr. Secretary CANNING agreed with the Hon. Member
for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft), that considering the difficulty of
their situation they had• got well out of it. But he could not
agree with his Hon. and Learned Friend, that a general re-
ference to the Old Testament was not a good end to the even-
ing, especially when it had begun by misquoting a part of it.—
(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. BIiINNET thought they had had a proof of the propriety
of getting rid of this Inquiry altogether, and suggested that
some Hon. Member should move its resumption that day six
months.—(Cries of " Move.")
Mr. J. SMITH said,. that he could not but consider the
motion for adjournment as part of the plan of protection to the
witness, and as he thought that was an evasion of that proper
deference due to the dignity and privileges of the House as an
honest man; he could not assent to it, and should take the sense
of the House on the question. •
The Committee then divided„ when the numbers were—
For the Motion that the Qhairman report progress 79
Against it - - - 19
Majority . - —53
The House having resumed; the Chairman reported pro.-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again.
The other Orders of the Day werathen read, and the House
adjourned at HALF-PAST Two, to Monday. •

A LIST OF THE MINORITY
ON MR. W. WRITMORE'S MOTION,

" That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the
Duties payable on East India Sugar," with a view of their
being admitted on the same Terms as Sugars f*rom the
West Indies.
Astell; Wm. Hume, J. • . Smith., W.
Alexander, J. Keck, G. A. L. Stanley, Lord
Alexander, J. D. Kemp, T. It. Wigram, W.
Baillie, Colonel Lindsay, lion. H. Wilberforce, W.
Baring, Sir T. Alaberly, J. Wells, John
Bentinck, Lord W. Abiberly, W. L.
Browne, Dont. . Marjoribanks, S; TELLERS. '
Calthorpe, Hon. F. Martin, J. . Buxton, T.F.. •
Cole, Sir C. Money, W. T. Whitmore, W.
Corbett, Panton Alunday, F. . PAIRED OFF.
Downie, R. Haldimand, W.
Evans, W. Porcher li. ireitfell, P.
Forbes, C. Ricardo, D. Rice, T. S.
Grant, Rt. Hn. C. Smith, It. 'Tennyson, C.

Yesterday morning the body of a female In.
fant, apparently about two days Old, was found
in a basket in the Canal in the Regent's Park.'