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

as they idatattlA .comet before the Comm r ttee--(Hear). •
With ropequoibecase now before the Committee,
440 got skink Oe compelling of a Juror to disclose I
theCommitlee who% p4rsed in the Jury-room would
be any 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
questions, 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, .and 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 not, our ancestors and ourselves have been
!perjurers 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 the very nature of the institution 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 course which may be very dangerous as I
the case of Sir John 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 had entered into the case relative to the Grand I uphold them by throwing doubts upon the obligation •
whole of the of an oath, or giving persons to understand that having
Jurors; and he therefore hoped 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 state 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 that it is 1,0 violation of his Grand Juryman's discussion arose, I understand, was not in itself &-
oath to give aid the information required of him. If jectionable; i h
but t was protested against, as likely to.
I was asked the question abstractedly, whether we; as lead 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 obligation of an oath? I should unhesitatingly re- Jurors from their oaths, if it could be avoided. That
i•.y in the negative. 13ut all oanhs arc not equally they were themselves
. 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