The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-09 00:00:00

foref)sem.- The Right lion. Gent. then clfed some eagles
in support of the point, and dwelt particularly do that
of Sir John Fenwick.
Mr. ABERCROM BY adverted to the Bill introrlueed
by the late Mr. Horner, Ntilt.li that it referred not to.
sire ?tore evidence, bet to hills founded on inforthitions."
The proviso in that li II was always the law of the !amt.
It s. as his derided opinion that the House was bound to
call on the Jurors in question to answer to the fullest ex-
tent, and that they were bound to comply.
Mr. PEEL, in the course of some observations, said
that the present bt gt a ram of cotiscience, was an ex•
ception to the genera' rile of obliging witnesses to give
evidence. lie admitted that, in all other respect*, the
power vested in the House was not to be questioned ; tint
a Juror was hound on oath not to cereal his own cotineel,
the King's, or that of his fellows. He would ask, theroo
was it in the power of that House, or of any human poet-
er, to release him ? 11 s would ask the bolus if they
would commit to Nenlate thop persons who merely re-
fused to answer questions because they felt some consci-
entious seraphs. He was of opinion that if they con-
ceived the oath of the Grand Jury to have a Mein con-,
struetion bindiug on their consciences, no p reer on
earth could-absolve them.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH expressed his °pin; in of
the assertions of the Right lion. Gent. who spoke last.
Although that Right His Gentleman did nit doubt the
power of the Privy Council to absolve one of their body
from his oath in a case like the present, yet he would not
carry the power of that House sa far, but even doubted
its authority. This would he going Inc kto the times in
which the riligious andotivil sanctions were confounded.
According to all the received II WI and canons of all the
theolooisne with whose writings he bad been able to fortis
an acquaint:owe, no sooner had the authority that im-
puted the oath ceased, thin the religious sanction ceased
also. The same also was his notion between the relioi-
ous atacivil sanction. Ile would ask, how otherwise
mould the oath of allegiance taken to James the Second
be dissolved at the Revolution by the adherents of Wit•
ham, and soon after by the whole British bathos? Many
other oaths, Wm toe oath of allegiance, were mere pro-
iniesory oaths, and the L-gialature who first imposed
them, could alter or r•-pesl them, and impose new obli-
gations. What was the House to think of oaths taken
by the Clergy of England at the Reformation? Was
Cronmer and Tillotson ignorant of the sanctions
imposed by religion and by the positive law ? As
soon as the law imposing the oath was dissolved, at the
same time the 'obligation, or at least the prohibition,
ceased. The Houle was not to consider the delicacies
and unfounded scruples of witnesses. They shook' be
sifted, and such as retuned to stand such test, should nut
come before the House, nor could their testimony be de-
pended on. Snell witnesses as pretended those scruples
incapacitated theinolree. Those were the reams by
which lie styperied the right of the Committee to insist
on answers to the questions proposed. •
Mr. WETHERELL Said, that in all eases where wit-
nesses had scruples, the beet test would be far the House
to dctrtnline whetter those scruples were reasonable or
not. With respect to-the oats of allegiance, that was
a promise to maintain the authority of the state. One
person proposed and the other promised t bat tvhen the
authority of the foresee ceased, the latter was absolved.
It %%mold be u !y introducing confusion to mix up the
religion with all oaths of this kind. The proposer of
the oath mayput one construction on the oath, and the
person who takes it may pet a different interpretation
on it. In such a case the rule would be to decide vvios-
dena aniinson iinponentir. In continuation of this po-
sition, the Hun, and Learned Gentleman cited the au-
thority of Doctor Paley, and contended that the person
who proposed, and nut lie who took t:ie oath, was the
proper interpreter at it. That beini laid down as a prin-
ciple, hebegeed of the Committee to apply it to the case
of those Grand Jurors. It was a part of their oath nut
to divulge what happened in the Grand Juri-:oust till
after the delinquent was tried. Stich concealment use
for the benefit of justice. Tnat oath of coneeelment was
imposed by a Legislative enactment, but the House claim-
ed a right by common law, sad paramount to all Legis-
lative enactments. The maxim in all those cases °road's,
was to inquire lois inspodvit et (mink?. \o wall
could impose an interminable seal of secreey, when time
cause for which such oath of seeresy was imposed had
ceased. If those oaths of Grand Jurors a. ere iutermina-
ble, while the Couse of Commons claimed the paramount
right of examining them, this dilemma would follow
that one should give nay. If the relieionist believed
that the oath aces I inning on him, the Legislature could
not dissolve the obligation on him. If the obliecatioa of
oaths did not cease with the causes of imposing them,
nine•tenths of the Members of the University represented
by his Right honourable Friend, were walking about
the streets in veiled habits u; perjury. After all the at-
tention he gave the present subject, he could not but feel
that the scruples of the witnesses Were without foun-
dation. On these grounds lie gave it as his opinion,
that the Committee might follow up their examination.
Mr. Bluoirr expressed a hope that no scruples of the
parties ander examination would have the effect of stop-
ping short the inquiry into the conduct of the Sheriff.—
lie trusted that the question would be decided by the
Right Hon. Gentleman, whomeopialon, from his habits
and studies, a. as to be considered the highest authority
in that Howie.
Mr A. BARING said be had no bias in his mind in
determining the present question. He would not, how-
ever, be supposed to treat lightly so important a case.
The simple question was, whether this was an oath im•
posed permaneutly on the Grand Jury or not. It was
cot enough that the party who originally imposed the
oath would release the party taking it. There was
often a third party whose interests were at stake, and on
account of whets the persons taking the oath could not
be released.
Mr. DENMAN said that the case was one where the
obligation of an oath did not apply at all. If a witness
setimmitted perjury before a Gratid Jury, how could he be
'Wrought to trail without the Jurymen being absolved
from their oaths? If a man were convicted in open
Court, on the oath of a per:ured witness, in the presence
of the twenty-three Grand Jurymen, should an innocent
man be allowed to suffer', betontse the Jurymen would
not expose the falsehood uf the witness? The nature of
the oath did not go to the extent of preventing the dis
closure of evidence. It only bound them to- keep the
•King'stounsel, their fellows, and their own. Lord
Sooner', io his Treatise on Grand Juries, fully explained
the meaning of the King's Counsel and their fellows.
Without entering into a larger or more philosophical
arguinent, he felt that the greatest latitude should be al-
lowed in the pre: ent case. lie heard with surprise the
statement of the Right Hon. Gent. who spoke last, that
the question Was of no importance, but if it were done
only for tne ends of justice to an accused individual, that
was a :natter of ohe greatest importance.
Mr. CANNING said that it was by no means his in-
tention to follow into the large and general question.—
He only hoped that the point would be decided so as to
•eixe sad faction without doors, and without a stretch of
Ale extreme authority of the House. There was as•
&010 but that the oath of a Grand Jury hound the
siembees to secresy as to all what passed before them,
• and if there was any injury accruing from the strict
itaintenance of that principle, the error would be a
,ground for a new legislotiee enactment. The questionl
which the House bail then, in fact, to decide was, wise-
titer it should exercise its authority or its discretion ?e
With regard to its authority, there was uo necessity of
taking the question abstractedly, as one where the com-
petency of the House was at stake. In point of discre-
tion, it seemed to be admitted on all sides that a refusal