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

-ler denied, and Mr. Millikin afterwarth verified uponoath.-1
Is sure that Sheriff Thorpe could not have used the words with-1
,out his hearing them. Knows Mr. Macnamara, and had been
*concerned with Mr. O'Riley in an equity suit, which implies a
long acquaintance.
The witness then withdrew, and after another witness being,,
•called who was abrent,
Mr. PLUNKETT said, he understood that Mr. Macnamara.
and. Mr. O'Riley desired to be confronted with the kit witness.
Mr. .Macnamara was called in, and the evidence of Mr.'
Ward being read to him, he repeated his former statement as
to what fell- from Sheriff Thorpe upon the subject of the bills.
He could not speak particularly as to Mr.. Ward being the per.
son to whom it was addressed, but had no doubt whatever that
the expressions were used.
Examined by different Members.—The witness said he did
not see the person the Sheriffs addressed.; but knew it was
'from Mr. Ward only from what Mr. O'Riley told him. As far
.as- he recollects, his evidence did not fix the conversation as
being addressed to Mr. Ward.
The witness then withdrew ; and, Mr. O'Riley was called in
and examined by Mr. PrAtNKETT.—Iie repeated his evidence
as tailie conversation of Sheriff Thorpe, and said that he un.
deritOod it, to be addressed to Mr. Ward, Knows Mr. Ward
wail; and is certain that words passed to the effect of what he
had stated. I believe Mr. Alacnamara said his evidence would
differ from mine. lam positive I heard the Sheriff use the
expressions I have mentioned. I did not hear Mr. Ward ask
him any questions.
By Col. 8AR11.Y...-1 was rot surprised at the expressions. I
thought them a matter of course. Mr. Macnamara and I walk-
' . ed home together afterwards, and conversed about this.
Mi. Wartlyas. here asked as to the point,spoken to by the
witness, and he positively denied the statement.
O'Riley persisted in his assertion. The principal differ-
ence between the two witnesses was as to the time the
Sherif remained in the room. Ward stated it to be about
three minutes, and. O'lliley. stated it to be from fifteen to
. . twenty minutes.
. Sir Robert Shaw was An examined in his place.—l know
Mr. 'Ward by character—his character is a very respectable
one.
Colonel BARRY said, he wished to call John Atkinson, as
he believed him to be the concocter-of the whole conspiracy.
Sir J. NEWPORT rose to order, when
I.s j „Colonel BARRY said, he merely stated this because Atkin-
• son had been summoned, and attended in the first instance and
had now gone away. Ile hoped this would be reported to the
House.

• Proof was then given that Atkinson had been seen about the
house this evening. The witness who proved this, admitted
that he was a member of an Orange Lodge. Atkinson endea.
• voured to hide himself from witness. Witness believed this was
• occasioned by a guilty conscience-4A laugh4—Portions of.
Scripture are read to people on their admission into •the
Orange Lodges ; from the book of Joshua. I don't believe
it is the passage enjoining the Israelites to root out the
Amalakites.
Maenamara was recalled to explain a part of the testimony
he had given, but the explanation was unimportant.
. Colonel BARRY said that, except Atkinson, who, it was
• alledged, was at the Swan with two Necks, in 1114ane:.
Sir Abraham Bradley King was next culled in and examin-
ed, as follows never had either of the panels; I know not
any thiug of them. lam a member of the,Orange Institution ;
.portions of scripture are read on the admiasion of persons into
the Lodges. A prayer is read on the opening of business. It
is a part of the Orange rules not, to declare what passes in the
Lodges, and shall decline saying what passes ; but there is no-
thing which interims with—(The witness here was not under.
stood)---I am under an obligation of secrecy. I recollect no pas-
sage-about the Israelitestlestraying the Amalekites. lam not
at liberty to state what takes places after the oath has been ad-
ministered.
Sir J.-NEWPORT said he should press for an answer to
the. question.
The witness having been ordered to withdraw,
Colonel BARRY said, he was neither. an Orangeman nor a
Freemason ; but he would ask the Committee, whether they
would compel a Freemason to disclose the secrecy of his So-
ciety ?
Sir J. NEWPORT said the oath was illegal, and the ques-
tion ought to be answered.
The Witness being recalled, and persisting in refusing to
answer,
Sir J. NEWPORT referred to the language of the Chief
Justice, on the late His Lordship said that such an oath,
if it existed, was subversive Ofjustice; and that the observance
of the oath was criminal.
• • Sir GEORGE HILL contended, that the question ought not
to be pressed.
Sir J. NEWPORT maintained that the Committee ought
and had a right to Cress for an answer.
Mr. D. ititos4 NE. said, the question was very impolitic.
Ne would not answer it himself, although he was free to con.
f4ss he wan 'sorry there were such establishments as Orange
Lodges in Ireland.
Mr.' K. DOUGLAS opposed the pressing of the question.
Mr. It. MARTIN thought the witness ought to be corn.
.pelled to answer.
Mr. MANSFIELD thought the object of the question Qught
.to be stated before•it was pressed.
Mr. CALCRAFT was glad at the opportunity which now
.presented itself, of undeceiving the persons who had taken
these oaths, and shown them that they were not binding.
Mr. GIPPS opposed the pressing of the question.
Mr. WYNN thought a private oath not. imposed by law,
'!'Qught not to be allowed to stand in the way of a solemn in-
- qtury by Parliament.
Sir J. NEWPORT insisted that the principles of justice
required the witness to answer the question. The Chief Jus-
tice had decided that no regard ought to be paid to such oaths.
Any witness 'might, in the same nianner, evade the inquiry of
that House, and say he had taken an oath not to tell the truth.
The witness was an Orangeman, and it was necessary to know
,whether passages of Scripture were read to 'Orangemen on
their .initiation.
Colonel BARRY spoke to order. It had not been stated
'that the witness was an Orangeman. He, however, agreed
that such oaths. ought not to be taken ; et the same time he
fauns! that addresses had been presented. by Orangemen to the
King, which were graciously received. If that was the case,
were Onnikatien to be repudiated and held up as dangerous
criminal enaracters ? He had heard of conciliation, but he was
sure this inquiry would place conciliation at a greater distance.
It would, he was sorry to say, be impeded by the debate. He
should ask wljether it was prudent to proceed with the debate ?
Be had'no doubt the House hid no right to call for an answer
~'notwithstanding the oath; but he suggested whether 'it was ad-
visable to press the point. •
Mr. lIROUtni AM said, it must be admitted that nothing
could be more absurd than to liken the 'oath taken by the wit-
peas to the oath of a Grand Juror. It was au oath unknown
to the law. It was imposed by no law, and yet a witness said
on such 'ill' occasion lie would ,not give evidence at the Bar.
Nothing caul& be more absurd .than to suppose such an extra
• judicial oath. could be authorised by law. -The lion. Gentle-
man spoke of a kraciaus reception to an address front the body
taking. the "oath. That could be no argument, because the
Sovereign knew nothing of their oaths. It was a common rou-
tine of a party presenting an address which was graciously re-
ceived without-their oaths being known. llf the House'were to
say you shall not be examined against your oath, a titan would
only have to say, I have made a covenant with myself not to
say one word upon the truth, and .1 will not answer the matter
-of inquiry.
Mr. BANKES said the subject of Orange Lodges was not
the question before the House, it was not the subject of in
-
• •quiry.
. Sir J. NEwPcini explained.
Mr. WETHERELL moved that the witness be called in,
and informed aloft die Huse
_rettoired: Mtn to answer the.
:question. " •
Sir R. IlEllol'4, the Chairman, said, " Sir A. B. King,
you have objected to answer a question which was asked you, .
•on the ground that, a Member of a certain Society, you have
,taken an oath which, in your opinion, made it impossible to
give an answer.. The. Committee have taken the question into'
consideration, and are, of inion that no oath taken in any
private society can be offered in bar of any answer in judicial
inquiry, and still lest upon inquiry in this House.—They htive
therefore ordered me to inform ,you that you must answer the
Atte:Won."
The `question was read to the witness, namely, whether men-
tion was made of the Anialekites in the adinisgion of Orange-
: men ? - •
The'whness,...-I have turned my mind to the nature of. the
.-question, and I can not take on myself to answer. I will, how.
ever, say, with every deference to this Honourable House, that
there is nothitig whatever in any part of the obligation beforeor
-after theadmission of an Orangemen,. which goes to extermi-
nate the'religion of any} part of his Majesty's subjects. •
Sir R. Ba ilor.--Witness endeavour to give abetter answer ?
Witnok—.l. have no particular recollection of the words, but
'they ace words which }.could not and will not divulge.
bxamined by Mr. ff. Surrit--Does the obligation prevent
'the witness from answering yes or no to the question.
Witness —I. stated before dint I had no recollection of the
precise words, but I am convinced they do not bear the mean-
ing ;Applied by the Hon. Member. I say there is nothing in
the obllgatiod of Orangemen .which goes to exterminate the •
,religion of any tuan.
Q. Ore here not words respecting the Antaleicit6 P—A. If
'there eye words I have 'sworn 'to keep secret, 1 cannot answer
the tit; 'lotion.
Q. Does your oath forbid you to answer yes or no P—A. I
Stare told you before I do not In*.
IQ. Does; the witness mean to state to the Committee, that he