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

nese. eriirTheepe
the Sheriff-sew used such words to these, that he
might make himself easy
.the bills would not be found,"
to bins, or any person in his hearing. Witness was
sufficiently near bim to have hexed him, had he toed the
words.
By Mr. ORATTAN—Witness asked the Sheriff if
the bills n ere returned ? The Sheriff put his hand to
his mouth, and said " Mans, where is Milliken."
By Mr. PLUNKETT—Witness was aware that hlr.l
Milliken charged Sheriff Thorpe with using improper
leads; but the phrase "Mum, Milliken," was a cant
aplarsse. Witness is certain that the words already men-
dotted were not used. Witness knows Mr. Nl‘Namara.
Has been engaged with Mr. O'Reilly in an equity suit.
By Mr. PLUNKM'T—Then as that implies length,
I need not ask you were yon long acquainted with hits.
Witness withdrew.
Mr. PLUNK ETT here stated, that Mr. M'Namsra and
Mr. O'Reilly were desirous of being confronted with the
last witness.
Mr. al.Namara and Mr. Ward were then called in.—
Mr. Ward's evidence in which he contradicts the state-
ment of Mr. M'Namara and Mr. O'Reilly were then read.
as also Mr. M‘Namara's evidence.
Mr. M'Namara being then examined by Mr. PLUNri
KETT,repeated his former statement. He was positive sets
the words being used by Sheriff Thorpe; but be was DK
sure, as he before sta.ed, that Ward was the person to
whom they were addressed, but was assured it was by
Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. Terence O'Reilly was next confronted with the
witness Ward.
By Mr. PLUNKETT—The Sheriff said, " Hart I
not managed my business well?" He addressed himeelf.
I conceive, to Mr. Ward ; changed his dress and then
went away.
By Mr. BRIGHT—He was positive that the Sheriff
addressed him by the name of Charles. He and Mr. Mac-
namara remained in the office about an hour after the
Sheriff. He changed his dress. The Sheriff said, "No
bill till be found. Havel not macaged my business
well ?" or nerds to that effe:t. Witness came over with
" Macnamara ; the latter never mentioned the name of
Ward. I mentioned it to him. I have been at Mr. Wake's
chambers. We both wrote down our evidence at the same
time, 1 don't think Mr. Memoriam bad read oven my
evidence before I left the room. Mr. Macnamara made
no remark upon my evidence to me. He did to Mr.
Blake. He said there were some shades of difference.

- - -
By Mr. PEEL—He was positive that the Sheriff made I
use of the expressions. While I was there, be might
have said other things which I do not recollect. I was I
not surprised at hearing the expressions. fie might have
made use of the expression "Mum, Milliken," without ,
my hearing it.
BBy Mr. RIGHT—He never saw Mr. 51acnamara's
deposition till now.
By Mr. BARRY—Macnarnara and. I had some con-
versation upon the expression after we left the Sheriff's
office. I think l told bins that the Sheriff used the ex-
pression to Ward.
Mr. Ward examined by Mr. ORATTAN.—He denied
that the Sheriff had used those expressions. The person
O'Reilly was the person nearest him and the Sheriff while
they were conversing together.
Mr. O'Reilly examined by. Mr. PLUNKETT—You
heard Ward say that the conversation only lasted three
minutes. Yon say from 15 to 20 minutes. How do you
account fox the extraordinary difference ?-1 can't ac-
count for it; 1 speak from recollection of the fact.
Sir Robert Sliew, Member for Dublin, war
swilled by Colonel !AMY as to the character of Ward.
—As far as knew, he was a respectable man. .
John Atkinson was then called, but did not appter.
Colonel BARRY said that be called this man, be-
, cause he believed that he was the prime concoctor of this
conspiracy. •
Sir JOHN NEWPORT objected to this course.
; Colonel BARRY said that Atkinson had been in the
way, but having been informed that be "would be ex-
amined by him, be absented himself. As he did not
now appear, he wished the Chairman to report his ab-
sence to th:House.
Mr. PLUNKETT said that the witness might ap-
pear shortly..
By Sir JOHN-NEWPORT—The witness is a mem-
ber of the Orange Lodge, No. 1612; there were portions
of Scripture read to the lodge, but he did nut remember
whether any passage was reed from that part of Joshua
in which it was said that the Israelites were to root uut
the Assalekites from the land.
It was next proposed to call Atkinson.
Colonel BARRY said his examination would occupy
two er three hours. There was not a single witness now
in London, whOm be. would:wish to examine, unless
something arose out of the testimony of others, which
might render it necessary for bins to 4o so.
The Gitelman said he understood Atka son was at the
Swan with-two Necks is Lad-lane, sand desired that he
Might be sent for immediately.
At the suggestion of Sir if.,_NEWPORT, Sir Abra-
ham Bradley called• ssd accommodated
stith a chair., •
By Sir II NOVINire-' N o Owlet any grand jury
bad ever been pAiito thOOtands of the witness, nor did
teknow of aoy *Ng kav eg been put into the hands of,
.hie clerk. •
. • • I .
C; A understand thet,yostimeng to the society of Orange-
An. and have been a grand master j---71 have been a
member of the Orange Society since the year 1197, 1 was
deputy geand.master of the Osiettgrines, and 1 am,proud
I. ackeowledge it. ,
..• h en. I presuPie.;Pli are wilogisiu Bind thetforms
•
gad
.reies of an Oraege loT; —I .
Ari portiomi of Scn re read In tie lodges after
the admission oftnesnbers —Yes, andin order to allow
that nothing improper is done ins ledge, 1 have brought
with mason of the printed rules and regulations of the
society.; . •
ply •' qnestion VS, .whether there are not portions of
Scripture reactin -every lodge at-the admission of a mein-
bet ?—Not. that," know of; a prayer is generally red I.
• Is any ponied of the book ofJoshua read in the lodge?
That is part of the secrets of the Orange Institution which
I am not at liberty to state. (A great sensation in the
House.) But there is nothing which at all iuterfetes
with-1 am boned by ao.obligalion not to say any thing
on this part of the subject.
Are you under the ehlietion of an oath not to state
what is read in a lodge? 'lea certain extent I am bound
not to disclose the words end the signs, there is every
thing contained in this book, hut the words and signs.
I ask you whether that -passage in the Book of Joshua.
which
dec _ res that the Israelites shall root out the Ana-
ig
lekites from the land, is not read in ati Orange Lodge
after the echnission of every new. Member ? I have unly
to say, that I ant -bound by my oath of secresy tint to un-..
steer that question.
The question was repeated; and the witness said,—" It
is a panel my oath nut to disclose the secrets ut the 11)-
.
siitation ; and 1 ant not at liberty to repeat whist is said
in any fridge.
Sir J., NEWPORT said he shonld insist on basing
the

as aspire; I. jitestiott—,tbey4aese. vow urged to
wbbdtaw.-.1 is tr. i ..• • . • . • .
Co' 11 islltitYquelted_if a Freer/norm was at the Inr 01
tA li
euuse, sibetbipti, be was anand to disclose thirsepret,
thelgooletr td irbieb,lie hyliasKetl. . lie Maisel( wib
1.01.
rat a Negemeior,, tut.swiny Grutleenen present were, au,
-

N:

1).

go .4.4.
it trio' aliens whether tb;': I a ess
'PORT said, the oaths' a thogo ddgei'
fliich was not the case with those of Free:
he contended it teas molt Matettatto`know
_to vitiated pry nbligatleg by iwhich one set
of men Weed. to root out another set of men from
Society.
The witness Wei thee called in, and•the last question
tead to him.
The CHAIRMAN Said it was the opinion of the Com-
mittee that the witness was binanthoanswer the qitestion.
—(A load Ord " No, w..".
The witness was again ordered to Withdraw, and
Sir JOHN NEWPORT ,read from the speech of the
Lard Chief Justice of Ireland.. on the trial of the rioters,
the passage in which that Judge held that no such obliga-
tion as that of abiding by the oaths in question existed ;
that as it was criminal to take such oaths, it was ovally
criminal to chide by them.
Sir OEOROE IfiLL contended that the question of
the Right lion. Bart. could not be fairly put to the wit-
ness, because it related to the secrets which Orangemen
had sworn to keep.
Sir JOHN NhiVPORT replied that if be had askied.
any Orangemewat that bar to disclose any of the secrets
of the Society to which he belonged, such Orangtimao
was bound to do so notwithstanding any oath be might
have taken.—(Hear, hear.) For thi3 be bad the *viberity of the Learned Judge to whom he heel just alluded.
But be did not want to know the scent signs or words of
Orangeman. His object was to ascertain the political
feeling by which the Orangemen were actuated. And
for that purpose the House had a right to colipel a wit-
ness to answersuch questions as should be put to him.
If the Court of King's Bench latl such power, sorely
that House, width wits a higher tribtinal;‘niust have the
same power.
Sir G. HILL contended that nothing had been stated
by witness that could authorise the putting of such a
question.
Mr. DENIS BROWNE said that to compel a witness
to answer such a question was nnjust, and would do infi-
nite mischief in Ireland. Ile belonged to a certain fra-
ternity, a very foolish fraternity he believed—(tanghter)
—lie meant the fraternity of Freemasons; aid all the
power on earth would not force him to betray the sec. its
he had sworn to keep, respecting that fraternity.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT would insist on the witness
answering the question he had put respecting the politi.
cal secrets of Orangemen: nothecause they were foolish,
but because they were mischievous. If such illegal obli-
gations as these were to stied in the way of any import-
ant public investigation, the ends of justice could never
be attained.
A MEMBER observed that the Orange Societies bad
long existed under the sanction of high authority—the
sanction of (government, and lie thought they ought not
to be required to disclose their secrets.
Mr. MARTIN, of Ualsroy;thought that the witness
was bound to answer the qaestion. Suppose that in one
of the Orange lodges there had been a conspiracy to
commit a murder, was it to be endured that oo evidence
respecting that conspiracy should be givalt, beianse the
conspirators bad taken an oath of serresy not to disclose'
what passed at their lodge? • .-.
Mr. CALCRAFT thought it was fit • to undeceive the
Orange lodges as to their o &tbs. in order that it might
be understood that such secret oaths were not to operste
as a bar to public justice. And that alone was a so&
cient reason why the wittiest should be obliged to an-'
swer the qiwstion.
Mr. W. WYNN said the question was, whether oaths
taken by individnAl should stop an inquiry .before the
highest tribunal in thelingdowg IT a witness before an
inferior Court of Justice vas to refule giving evidence,
on the pound-that I. bad taken an oath, not to ilis•
close any of the facts he might be required to state,
would such a thing be tolerated for a moment? He,
therefore, maintained, that in' the present instance the
witness was bound to answer the question put to him..
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that the principal reason
he had fur pressing the question was, that it materially
affected the administration of justice in Ireland, inas-
much as the Sheriff elect of Dublin for the ensuing year
was a sworn Orangeman. It was therefore necessary
to know whether or not such a passage in Scripture
was read to an Orangeman on his admission.
Col. BARRY denied that it appeared from the evi-
dence that the Sheriff elect was an Orangeman. He
condemned the (lithe, yet at the same time be must say
that Orangemen had always been bound by an path,
without any interference on the part of the Legislature.
I t even appeared that they were sanctioned by thoUroirti,
for his Majesty was pleased on a certain occalinel taw-
ceive an Address from them-id •Is most graders
Mr. BROUGIIA 31 Said there was,* .material. differ-
ence between this case and that of a Grapd Juror sworn
on oath. Nothing could be More dissioiilar. In the
one case the oath was sanctioned by the la* of the land ;
whereas in the other case the oath was sanctioned by no
law at all. As to the sanction given to the Orangeman's
oath by the Legislature, as asserted by the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Col. Barry), he could only say that the law
never gave.any such sanction. In his opinion Orange-
men had been sanctioned too long; hut denied' that they
were ever sanctioned by the Law or COnstitution of
England. . .
Mr. BANKES thought the question might -tot to be'
persevered in, if It was not necessary to the purposes of
the inquiry'.
Mr. tYLTHERELL said a few words; after which
The CHAIRMAN put the question on in the
witness, and commanding him to answer the question,
'which was carried in the affirmative. •
The witness was accordingly called io, and
The CHAIRMAN addressed him as follows :—Sir Abra-
ham Bradley King, you have objected to answer a question
put to you by an Bon. Member of the Committee, on the
ground that you have taken en oath which obliges you not
to do so. The Cummittee are of opinion that no oath of a
private nature should prevent you fronsgiving evidence be-
fore a judicial tribunal, and still less before this House.—
Therefore you ire called upon to answer the question.
The question being again reed.
• The witness replied, that he had tanned his thoughts to It
while absent from the bar, but that be could only say that
there was nothing whatever in the words either before or af-
ter the admission of an Orangeman, which went to extermi-
nate any portion of his Majesty's subjects.
The question was once more put, and the witness was
,again called upon to give a more direct answer ; hut he said
that he could not, and would not, divulge the words used on

admission.
Examined by Mr. R. SMlTH.—Witness maintained that
there was nothing in the form of admission whichceuoienanc-
ed the extermination of any of his Majesty's subjects. He
Gould not answer whether there was any thing respecting
the A halekites in the form. Ills oath decidedly prevented
'hint from answering )es or no to the question. (Here the
question was again put to the witness. but be again refused
to give a decisive answer.) He did not think the word. Ama-
lekites occurred In the form of admission. Witness had been
for some seers Deputy Grand Mailer of the Orange Lodge
of Ireland. Had frequently seen Orangemen made. There
wascertain ceremonies ob d both before and after.—
Had u 4 particular recollection of those ceremonies. Has
ceased to be Deputy Grand Master for about three years.—
Could not recollect any thing abont the introduction of the
word Auralekiles.
liv Sir G. HlLL—Witness was positive that there was
nothing in an Orangeman's oath to call upon him to give
evidence in a Court afjustice. with respect to the ordinary
occurrences of life. It WWI rather the obligation of an
Orangeman to Elie evidence in all eases, with the exception of
divulging the words and the signs whereby the brothers were
gnown So each other.
By Mr. BitQL/WlAM.—Witnets Aid not understand
the oath to be rerf , had taken it in 1797. It was

• • - •,. e. 0 .-1,-, ,
•
-•.1 • , mug*, W>< ea ii).:-.44; litivrotkld phi i
. WeittlVlßßY—WithhOs >algitleitdr: their sweet's.
torney; iscoafidentlat malt of business of 4ltetiff. ' .-. • Sir J. NEW!
Wittwatestrad chat's& wairitt the
.TOP4.-Cieft's were illegalovl
oa the day that the toills were ignored. pa, privati bail. masons; end hi
aces. Sberitribetpe came hi.- Witheits declared-1W vibether there
' _.l