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

slightly altered is IS•20, so as to make it correspond with
thersoCieties in England. There never was any oath
taken by at Orangeman not to give evidence against a
brother. Some things were included in the words of
-vecresy which were communicated on admission. Wit-
ness could give no, answer if a ked the nature of the
terms of secresy ire a Court of Justice. •
By Mr. 'J. WILLIAMS—Witness frequently admi-
nistered the oath to persons on admission. Has on re-
collection of the word Amalekites' occurring in the
form of admission, tic would not answer as to the
na-
ture of the words of admission, nor as to the part of
1 Scripture from which they were taken. Ile admitte•t
that they were passages from Scripture in the form of ad-
mission.
The CHAIRMAN now told the witness that hie ob-
jections to auswerieg the question were nut deeutal
valid by the Committee, and that, he must therefore 1,;:
explicit if be would avoid painfol consequences to, htompli.
the Witness said he was perfectly aware of the-power
which the House possessed, but let the con.equences
be what they might, on his head they must fall, and he
must bear them, for he could not answer the questioo.
The CHAT RMAN said he wishid him to recol'ect that
the oath he bad taken was not a leial one, and if in
Court of Law, it would not be permitted to interfere with
the course of justice, it could not possibly be suffered to
do so in that House, which was a snitch higher tribunal.
The Witness replied that he felt the responsible slots-
tion in which he stood as appearing before the first As-
sembly in the world, Yet at the same time he would mit
suffer any powei on earth to stand between him and his
conscience. •
Mr. tsgovonAss asked whether the witness intend-
edto answer Yes or Nor to the question ?—We dou't re-
gard the oath as a solemnity.
Mr. BUT TERWORlHobserved, that some consider-
ation was due to the conscience of the witness.
Mr. IMOCOHAM.—Does the witness give an answer
to the question?
Witness. . Distinctly, No.
He teas then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. BROUGHAM regretted that the House .had at
last come to die necessity of enforcing obedience to
their authority. They were in the *difficulty, and them
was but one way of getting through it. He depreeated
the feeling of the Honourable Member fur Doerr, who
had therm a disposition to sanction the scruples of the
witness.

Mr. BUTTERWORTH', speaking to order, coal rot
say whether his conscience was more or b•ss enlightenef
than that of the Hou. and Learned Gentleman. ile La i
spoken with regard to the scruples of the witness nu•ler
a belief that tite House might mill decide Whether he
ought or not to answer the question. . •
Mr. BROUGHA 31 said,. he knew of no obligation
impsosed by oaths,.u.nlese they were legal eaths. The
witness had stated a Fancifrd obligation, which he ha,'
heard with indignation. The House could only tegard
it as mockery or farce. They could pay no attention to
such an oath. If they listened to.. it, they would no
longer punish men for taking unlawful oaths. lie iia 1•
no intention to impute to the Hon. Member any irregula-
rity of conduct, but he had been warm, baring Often
seen perjury in Courts of Law sheltered under disguise
similar to that assumed by the witness.
Mr. BurrERWORTH again explained. lie had no
Intention to justify unlawful oaths.
Sir JOHN NEWPOItr said the House had decided
that the oath was not to be a bar to answccitig the
question.
Mr. Secretary CANNING thought the Hon. Gentleman.
was right in stating it was the opinion of the Uommittee
that an answer ivai to be given, but he conl4 not s;y the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman was juslitie I in deelsrin
that the specific question put to tint witness should.be in-
sisted on. He admitted that the question was one to
which the Committee had a right to expect: an answer.
His opinion on a former occasion was that the power of
the House ought not to overrule a legal oath, but they
had to take a different course with an illegal oath. 'He
1 admired the dexterity with %biol.': an lion. and Learned
itientleman (Mr. Williams) contrived to get at a question,
without compelling the House to come to the last point.
He wished to endeavour, if possible, to avoid th • diffi-
culty of coming to the last extremity with the witness;
because he was unwilling to give either party a triumph.
It w.mld be most fast to conciliation if the witness
went bark to Dublin, es it were, a trinmpharit martyr.--
Perhaps the dignity of the House would be prompt d by
affording him an escape. lie trusted the ' Committee
would enable the witness to answer the question; and
thereby spire the party a triumph.
- Col. HARRY cutiatlered a tuo4erate course of pro-
ceeding would he best.
Mr. PLUNKETT paid, he thought there was a mode of
getting rid of the ilidieulty.—The witness supposed by was
obliged to answer yes or no. 'it did not occur to the wit-
ness that he might say he did not recollect. Now If the a it-
.

ness was asked-what part of Scripture the words were tak.li
from, he would venture to predict that the witness, would an-
swer conscientiously, I do not know.

Sfr JOHN NEWPORT said, 'the allowance of unlaw-
ful oaths in persons' of rank would afford impunity to
the poorer clues to complain of unjust °pertais of the
Law.
Mr. Secretary PEEL had no doubt with respect to en es.
trajadieiel oath, that the House had a right to demand an
answer, but he agreed with the Right lion. Secretary of
Stale, that it would be i .convenient to enforce an answer.
—The object of the Right Honourable Baronet,, who put
the question respecting the words of Scripture tided at the
iaitiation of a member of the Orange Lodges, bad failed.—
The Hon. Baronet might get at the signs by which one
Orangeman know another, but that would not promote the
question which was the subject of inquiry. It was really
advisable to occasion as little delay in the proceeding as
possible.
Mr. BUTTERWORTII observed that the best mode of
proceeding would then be to repoit progress.
Mr. GRATTAN said a man could not be expected to vio-
late his oath, but still it would be a bad precedent to let its
Grand Master of the Orange Lodges go hack to Dublin
to tell his brethren that the House of COMtnons were
obliged to compromise with him upon the oath he lad
taken.
Mr. SCARLETT wished the questions and answers re►dl
They were accordingly read.
Mr. SUARIATT then
.observed, that the object of
his Right Hon. Friend's question was to promote .a fair
inve4tigation of the subject. If the witness were eiVier
to have a triumph or a martyrdom, he confessed be
should pref.r giving him the benefit of a martyrdom.
Triumph he must have one way or another, if the House
excused him the answer to the question, and that wet
the way he should wish to administer triumph to hint.
If any Judge in England had heard what had just pass-
ed, and did not commit the witness he would deserve to
be impeached. Was then that House is allow itself to
he trampled open": How did they expect to enforce
their laws upon Ireland if they sent this man back With
this triumph over them, under the shelter of an oath as
decidedly illegal as any oath could be.
Mr. SecretaryC.lNNlNO assured his Hon. and Lear-
ed Friend, that lie thought the oaths alluded to new
illegal as he did—he was sore they were nut legal.
thee did he put the power of the House lower than that
of a Judge, and if a Member should press them to tie
point they would he obliged to conunit the ultn.s,.
Mr. PLUNKETT never doubted that the than,, oath
was illegal; and if the witness persisted in oheltenad
himself against the inquiry of titat•Nuuse, ender that
subterfuge, they must nut let hits escape thiestreme vi-
sitation of their power. All that he had said wa• that
the witness, upon being called in a•,ain.an'ght give such
an answer as would avoid the necessity of • going to ex.

troisity.
Mr. -J. S3lllll said. tkat Lowirrer L• 4 might ?Jr'