The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-08-24 00:00:00

THE EITATESIIAN.

mks was an !talkie aad a Somas Catholic, whether, 0.1
cording to the forma swearing in him ow* osustry, a wit•'
OM was Dot bound to undergo a ceremony previous to
taking as oath, and whether his oath without that
prf-
riots. ceremony would be binding ? He submitted to
their Lordships that it was competent to the Qeeen's
Counsel to ask the witness, in the Language of Lord
Chief Justice Parker, whether he had been sworn In the
way that affected his conscience.
Mr. Baotronsw adverted to a ease decided by Lord
Mansfield, in which that Learned Judge observed, that
as the purpose was to bind the witness's conscience,
every man was to be bound by that form which bound
his conscience most. Was it not for this, it might be
open to his Learned Friend., on the other side, to say,
if a man believes in clod it is enough. Lord Mansfield
goes further, he Pays, every man must be bound by that
form which binds him most. In a case in which a
Chinese was sworn at the Old Bailey, en a charge of mur-
der, a saucer was held up awl broken to pieces, and by
that ceremony he considered himself bound. That was
the way he was sworn in his own country.
The Lotto Cu ItiCELLOR asked Counsel what question
he meant to put ?
Mr. IYILLIAINS.-4 wish to ask whether be has been
examined as a witness in his own country ?—Whether
he has seen a witness sworn, and whether there are not
other ceremonies in the country to which be bnlongs,
which he considers necessary to bind his conscience.
Loan CHANCELLOIL—The witness may be asked whe-
ther be considers the oath now taken to be binding on
his conscience.

Lord It 11,SliINE supported the arguments of Counsel.
Mr. BROUOII A m.—Our object is not to inquire whether
he is bound by the oath just administered, but whether
there is not another ceremony necessary to bind his con-
science?

Earl Ofter supported the last view• of the question.
Lord REDESDALE said, every foreign witness ex-
amined in Courts of Justice for years past, must hare
been improperly sworn and examined if the objection
taken by Counsel in this instance was to be supported.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then drew np the following
question to be submitted to the Judges :
" If a witness takes an oath in the usual form, ran it
be asked whether the oath taken is binding on his con-
science, and can he be asked whether any other mods
of takir!g an oath would be more binding on his con-
science:.

Lord ERSKINE observed, that a man must assign al
reason for not taking an oath ; if he did take it, be
must take it in the way he considered most binding ed
his conscience.
The Earl of Livenenot said, in almost every awl
where the form of administering an oath had been dis-
puted, the witness had objected to take the oath. Here
there was no objection.
The question n-as then submitted to the Judges who
retired to consider their decision.
Earl Dattxt.ry asked whether the witnesses examined
had been kept from those who had not been examined,
and whether the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's
Councils had taken care to separate therm
The Earl of lavinroot..---1 do not know that any het
terference with the witnesses was necessary on the pt 4
of the Crown. It is impossible to prevent these whose.
sea from associating together. All that could he don,
to prOiente the ends o bee knee *weeded so.,
lay an injunction on ftaltreitnesees not to converse
(ether, is all that the ofEcen of the crown as do.
The Earl of WixvitgLoca rose to suggest that t
House be furnished with sketches of the roams and a
meats described by the witnesses. He thought the asap
would ke better able to judge of the statements if the/
had that, sort of information. A sketch made yesterday
by the Mate of the Ship gave more information to the
House than could have been obtained by a long exam's,.
ation.
The Earl of autum' then renewed the subject of
the witnesses. He (lid not expect any advantage to be
derived from any injunction to be laid on the pe
examined and those not examined. It was
ludicrous to suppose that would have any
effect.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed that it was corn
at the Assizes to see witnesses remain together at dm
inn, and no one ever endeavoured to prevent the a
ciation of persons coming from the same town to at
on the same business.
The Earl of DARNLEY strongly endeavoured to bes;
press on the House that some steps ought to be takeil
to keep them apart, in order that no prejudice might be
done to the Queen.
The LORD CusxcaLLoa stated, that, in case of ewe
prosecutions is Courts of Justice, against any of the
whams, appearing at that bar, the proceedings there
Whig place might be adduced in evidence.
Chief Justice Ansorr stated, that in reply to their
Lordship's question, that they were of opinion, if the
witness stated that the oath was binding on hie, the
question could not be put to him whether he could take
another mere binding, because the divine vengeance
was the utmost penalty that could be incurred in sidles
case.
The whams was then called in, and stated, in reply
to the questions pet Whim by theSolicitorMeneral, that
he was owner and doter of the vessel called the la
dnstry, which weal's' inset engaged ter the purpose *
conveying the Primes sad her suite hem Aromas tt
Tunis and Orme. His poker* was hired et Messina
and at Avesta her age! Ingham came on board.
Had the dlotribedeo et tie cabins bees made bean
embethed ?—T—