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

York, Itetford,- and %lamb, "raying fOr
Saver; st 1411w.--Ordelltd to Updated.
r") pitesental leittiZttoln
cif , Praing lief! whit
aofad ln thee inTrtsStisidty
io • k th*,,ttt it 114111,4esirable
t t
shtick! be *cog tin to make the roglisdon genets'. I.
AIr..GRENFELL expressed. himself of the same
and gave notice that be would bring the subject forwart
this Session or next.
.Hr. BENNET said, some years had elapsed since the ap-
lidintntent of a Commission to Inquire into the Administration
al Justice in Guernsey. They recommended a number of Re.
ambitions, none of which had yet been carried Into effect. He
wished to know from the Right Honourable Gentleman (the
Attorney-General) whether it was the intention of she Govern-
ment to do anything in this matter?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the alterations
suggested had been under the consideration of the Privy Coun-
cil. Some of them were to be immediately acted upon, and the
rest would receive all the attention the subject required.
31r. BENNARD postponed, to Tuesday, the 10th of June,
his motion for a Committee on the Middlesex County Court,
which stood for to-morrow.

.ary
been so much annoyed by the obtrusion of informa-
tion, contained in letters, newspapers, and pamphlets
(and all from the other side), as immediately pre-
ceding the motion of the Honourable Member for Ar-
magh. All were against his Learned and Right Ho-
nourable Friend (Mr. Plunkett). Having permitted
those to pass unnoticed, he would join in the sugges-
tion of the Right Honourable Gentleman, to suffer the
Paper in question to remain where it then was.
Mr. Secretary PEEL concurred in the entreaty to
his Right Honourable Friend to refrain from further
proceedings in the business. His Right Honourable
Friend's character could never suffer in the estima-
tion of those who knew him by the malignant article
ID question. The licentiousness of the Press carried
its own remedy with it, and he would advise his
Right Honourable Friend to treat the libel with that
contempt which it deserved.
Colonel BARRY, under the impression expressed
by the House, -would press the matter no further.
On the motion of Mr. J. WILLIAMS, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House,
to inquire into the conduct of

Toe SITFRIFF OF DUBLIN.
Sir ROBERT HERON was called to the Chair.
CHAutmmt.--Colonel Marry, what witness do you mean to
call first?

Colonel BAXRT.—Henry Handwich, senior.
Winless was called in and examined by Colonel BARRY.--
Witness stated that he is father of Henry end Matthew Hand-
wich, who were tried in Dublin for rioting in the Theatre. Nei-
ther witness nor his sons are in any way related to Mr. Sheriff
Thorpe ' • but be believes that a cousin of his children is in some
way or other related to the Sheriff.
Joseph Henry Moore was then called in ; hut from the noise
that prevailed in the House, the few questions that were asked of
the witness, together with his answers, were inaudible. On the
motbast at Mr. Pl,Voisrr the witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. PLUNKETT said, the moment for deciding
the question which arose last night respecting -the
of the House fully to examine the Grand Jury I
arrived. He could not conceive how it was pos..
power
sjble to proceed further with the business, if the;
Grand Jury were not compelled to answer every ques-
tion that might be put to them. 1
Mr. C. W. WYNN had no doubt that the House
possessed the power to call upon the Grand Jurors to
answer any questions they might think proper.
Mr. ABERCRO NI BY was of It similar opinion, and
quoted in .support of it the opinions of Mr. Homer,
Mr. PeiceVel, Lord Somers, and Lord Chatham.
Mr.-Seeretary PEEL said there was no Honour-'
able Member in that House more inclined than him-
self to maintain that the House should possess strong
powers. It appeared to him that when a person
came to that House. sicha conceived himself bound'
by oath not to makes particular disclosure, it would
.he an indiscreet exercise of the power of that House
if it were exercised to absolve him from that oath.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH. saisl, that as he. was not
present at the discussion of last night, he could only
offer such remarks-as occorted to him in consequence
.of the speeches.of those friends wh9 had preceded
him... ge would not venture to make large asser-
tions ;but be would ask, W even in the highest times
iii,r4-4b usurpation, when the Church had assumed
th4,44ciion.of all the affairs of society, had there
,been snore singular doctrines promulgated than those
Which the Right Hon. Gentleman had-laid down?
The connection between religious and civil obligation
appeared to hits to, be this : religion lent its aid to
enforce a civil obligation ; but he thought that as
soon as the authority which created the obligation
dissolved it, then the sanction of religion ceased. If
this were not true, what could be said of the Oath of
Allegiance? The wbule nation had taken the Oath of
allegiance to James IL and yet thef had afterwards
.tlisken an oitli of aljegiante to William and Mary,
*hied positively repealed the oath that they had
.4arituniy taken to Jaws.- Were they then to accuse
c people of having violated their oath ? No such
Both oaths were promissory ; religion
.gave
ctibn in both cases ;:bat the Oath of Allegiance
'only obligainry aa long Ware allegiance itself
'hoe* What also could be said of the oaths which
ithrtlergy had formerly taken to the Head of the
'Clittch at Rome,'and from Which they had been re-
leased by the Reformation? Did they suppose that
*e Founders of the Christian Religion at the Refor-
mation had been ignorant of the connection between
the sanction of religion and the obligation created by
law ? Undoubtedly the means which the House nos-
' Seised of enforcing answer,kwce my strong, and he
did' not see Why they
.4ourd not 16 es,effectually ex-
ercised in this as in.UAber instances. It was quite a
different question as to what degree of tenderness was
due to the conscientious scruples of witnesses. • No
one doubted that the HOuse had the power of re-,
(inking oaths from Quakers, and yet no one doubted
that the House bad done right in yielding to their
conscientious scruples; and allowing affirmations in-
stead of oaths. No witaevs ought to be examined at
that Bar who was not content to be examined tho-,
roughly. If then, these Gentleneen urged their con-
scientious scruples, Wellwrid gOod.; bat it must, it
the same dine, incapacitate them from being examined
at fat lithe objection were alloived, every witness
whci made it must be struck off the list. No one
would deny that all witnesses ought be subjected to
an eqiisiricrutiny. For these reasons he should sup-
port the right of the Committee to requiire an answer,
land then if the partynxionined urged any conscien-
usscrupler, iterouldbe for 112'0 Committee to con-
'eider them ; but,-if aHavardi the whole of the witness's
Itio
'evidence must be struck out. - ' '
i ' Mr. WETHEREF4.anteed with the Honourable
land Learned Gentleampaat in analysing the consti-
tion of a* oath they ought to separate die civil and
'the religioui obligation. The ciithU tin Grand
Itis
Jeroo was for the triministratina • justice. It so,
and it it was a part of the prinleges of that. Dia*
to exercise a complete and eauseasered riglitnfisi
' quirt, What an absurdity 4 was to say that the Hee"
atisiessed an nncoatainared right'of inquiry, and yet
elttlieloato dale the Coastatutiou bad i
imposed an
0111011.1181 Grand Juries which detested the right u; the
House., It could not in fact be that the House of
Com/Setts had a tight of inquiry, and yet at the same
time A or R refine to submit to in inquiry because
the State had imposed upon them a patticular oath.

the dilemma into Which those Ren.
fell who argued that the wimesses in this
to conceive themselves bound to seeresy
which they had taken. It had been said
t of Parliament wottld be necessary to ab-
,gious man from 'his oath ; but he wield
even an Act if Parliament could notable*
.:ho stood upon a supposed religions obligea.
tion. The case then came to this, that if it (cold he
done at all it could be done by that Hod*: -lb
might observe to the Gentlemen below him Owen*y
had been in fact, for past of their lives, constantly as.
collating the college oaths, which required them to
wear particular dresses and always to speak Lt au.
Re recollected one instance in which the Bursar of a
College had conscientiously refused to accept an eif,
See, because one of the articles of his oath was, not
to give more than two-pence a pound for mutton, mid
use was unable to purchase it at that price—(.4 LerTz.).
He could not therefore sympathise in the scruple: et
those who were called upon to give their testimon:
at that bar. He believed that the case was new, zejf
that it had never yet been adjudicated in a Court if
Law, whether, if a person was indicted for flu?
and it becanie necessary to call 'one of .the Gyula
Jus y as a witness, the Juror's evidence would be re.
ceived. The case of Serjeant Pennick, which had
been alluded to, was a case of departure, be; this
was one of fundamental right. With regard to the
oath of a Privy Councillor, he was not prepaleave
say that, because he thought a Grand Juror bound to
answer all questions, a Privy Councillor was so also;
for the Privy Councillor stood in a peculiar skunks'
towards the Crown. It was therefore the result or
the best consideration that•he had been able to give
the subject, to consider. the objection which some pee.
sons might feel, as the religious scruples of men whose
consciences super seded the tie, vise of their cool re.tseis,
and who confounded religious with civil obligations.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that if the individual whav
conduct was before the House was to be acqeitted,
not upon the merits of the case ton which he, Mr.
Bright, offered no opinion), but upon the impoisi.
bility of proceeding, then the consequence %mild be
that that House could not inquire into any mire:,
sation whatsoever..

Mr. BARING said, that if this question were °fiat
importance which Honourable Men.bers had describe&
it, then they ought to be cautious how they did that
which was of more importance, viz. how they sue
the sanction of the authority of that House to treat
lightly the obligation of an oath. 'The simple qua.
tion here was, was it an oath or not? Had the Le-
gislature imposed it or not ? It appeared to him that
not only had the oath been imposed, but that it hal
been imposed for important purposes. The objectif
the oath Imposed on Grand Jurors was, that ilia
bill was ignored, the evidence on which it had boa
presented ought not to go forth to the Politic. ad
that all that the world should know should be,.410
the accused had been entirely acquitted. 1'
therefore, was imposed, not as the Learned
man had expressed, merely for the benefit of the Stub
.but for the benefit of a third party. He trostedis
the Committee would not sanction the doctrine**
the House of Commons could annul an obligati*:
previously incurred in the most solemn snanner,nais
the sanction of the law.
Mr. DENMAN.—If the Committee were
with the Honourable Gentleman who had l**11111;
dressed them, they would say that those whibil
effected the Reformation and the Revolution hod
been guilty of perjury. He contended. that the soh
in the case of a Grand Juryman did not imply dm
he should not, when the promotion of the ends if
justice required, state what a witness had sword be-
fore the Grand Jurys • He did not consider the oath
in that light ; he considered " the King's Comer
in the oath to mean the means resorted to is the
first instance by the Crown, to apprehend and isier
to trial the accused ; znd if the Grand Juror, pa*"
these preliminary proceedings, were to speak raid"
he might obstruct the administration of justice, by
enabling the accused to escape, or necessary Irk'
nesses to be kept back upon the trial before the Petit
.fury; but the moment the proceedings Sere cm.
eluded, the obligation of that part of the oath ceased.
He considered " his fellows counsel" to alms the
part which his fellow Jurors had taken issheJery-
room, and which, if disclosed, might Mai* thou
objects of malice either to the prosecutfis 'or lir
prosecuted. As to " his own counsel," be caskstog
be did not exactly know what was meant by it
words • but he was satisfied that neither thine Not
any other words applied to the evidence, as that
was not in the whole oath the word " evidence".-
He trusted the Committee would not, by deelar
that they could not call upon GrandJurorsto levee
what evidence passed in the Jury-room, hold Se
the Public that any man might, through "MOP
wards his neighbour, go before a Grand Airy, 104
by his false evidence cause that fieighboor to be
upon his trial with impunity. He-beard vial&
prase an observation which, had been made
Hon. Member who last addressed the
that this was not a question of importance.
be would 'ask, was it of no importance to psier.r,
sources of justice? He considered it a lyellotif
the deepest and most -grave importance; *1.4„.7
thought justice to die accused required thi4 lOor
he should be condemned, his cooducteaghboo
quired into by all the ways attainable hYdaw•terit.
the privileges of that House.
Mr. CANNING said he did notiatend to •.
'large and philosophical view which had -
of this question, neither did he mean toargeo
what would be done in a Court °Maw open stobis
occasion; because, as that House was not bawd
the rules.of a Court of Law, it would be
the time of the Committee to say asvonispale.
gtonnd ; but. the Committee in deciding. tletitor
case ought to look to the practical way.in
obligation of an -oath was considered eatotoof
andlie thought no one could doubt bog detlo!
taking that oath cernsidered,-howevererisseatifo
would not inquire. that dm was boosiLbliff
keep all that passed in their Jory-toontso,ol.lo
were two .questlons before the Cossmitte! 'dew
thority of the House; and, *Hy, the.
which that authority ougtht tO beeserciaud; 1,0111:
spect to the authority et &e l:louse. to ciaesoill::
obligation of as oath raked by virtue of Oolows.'
or Act of Parliament, he confessed he ofir de ,
danger than advantage Might arise from tho.doS
sion of that authority in the abstract ; and be tame:
it better to enter into a discussion upon the ow.

the AbelitieiPalf4i
,w..Itte,OMBY thought tat Viers AA that was
rielvd•
14.40, silt the iekici;ests Lice.by Glittlemen fe
acwhiatheremotsit liiirftiktt"tiomment durittetbe Niqut . Un*Whedlir case ought to
mightk, ,s. theputdicetton read by-thil Right raWlvielis, by the oath v
"egret* t Jis bey "PM highly censurable. He fett happy in, tlkat that an Act c
Weer*. 4.2:4 opportunity to state, ;hat all offence of that nature solve a religil
the same Whims' was not confined to that side of the question. During say that even
jest forward eithet
the whole of his Parliamentary life, he had never the man who