Изображения страниц

Sir. J. Newport referred the hon. gentleman to the 10th chapter of Joshua, the 19th verse, in which the Israelites were exhorted to root out the Amalekites.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Butterworth replied, that he would go up stairs again, and examine the pas sage pointed out to him by the right hon. baronet.

Sir J. Newport repeated, that the only matter for the committee to decide upon was, whether they would allow a witness to refuse to answer a question, on the ground that, by the obligation of an oath, he was precluded from doing so?

Mr. Butterworth returned, and said that he had examined the 10th of Joshua, the 19th verse, and found no such passage as that quoted by the hon. baronet [Read, read!]. The verse was as follows:"And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities; for the Lord your God hath delivered them into your hand."

[The witness was again called in.]

Chairman.-Sir Abraham Bradley King: I am now to ask you, whether, after the time you have had for reflecting upon the question which was asked you, you are now willing to answer the question; do you object to state, if you remember them, from what part of Scripture those quotations are ?--I do; but I do think it would not be dealing with that candour which I think every person placed at this bar is bound to pay to this House, to tell every thing he knows according to the questions asked, if I did not say, that I might generally refer you to the part of Scripture, but in doing that, I know that it would subject me to be followed up by other questions, which would come in the end perhaps to the same thing.

Chairman. It will be quite time enough to object to any question which is objectionable, when that question is asked?-I will only say, that in the part of Scripture alluded to, there is nothing whatsoever contained, more than the signs and words by which Orangemen know each other, and that is to be found in the Old


By Mr. Peel. Do you mean that the verse, or verses of Scripture, which are referred to, are merely used as a symbol or token by which one member of the association can recognize another?-Precisely so.

Exclusively for that purpose?-Exclusively for that purpose, and for no other.

Is there expressly, or by implication, an obligation on any members of the association, who make a reference to the Scripture in that way, to observe any maxim contained in that text of Scripture ?-Not at all, there is nothing that I

can recollect at this moment.

[ocr errors]

In the book you have delivered in, it ap pears that what is called the obligation of the Purplemen, is in these terms "I do solemnly and voluntarily swear, that I will keep the signs, words, and tokens of a Purpleman, from an Orangeman, as well as from the ignorant; unless authorized to communicate them by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution" have the words, which are referred to, any other force than the signs or tokens?None.

Mr. Peel said, it now appeared, that the words in question were used solely as signs by which Orangemen knew each other, and were not at all relevant to the inquiry before them. He wished that the witness's answers might be clearly understood; because, although he would be most strenuous in supporting the right of the House to commit, yet it was a discretionary right. He would never vote that a witness should be committed for not answering a question not necessary for the purpose of the inquiry; and as this related only to signs and tokens, it could not be necessary.

Mr. Wetherell was of the same opinion. He could not consent to send a man to Newgate for not answering irrelevant order of reference to the committee exquestions; questions, which the very


Sir J. Newport said, that the objections to the relevancy of the question, to whatever right they might be entitled in any other respect, could not be applied now. They had not been discovered until the witness had refused to answer. So convinced was he of the importance of compelling the witness to answer, that he would take the sense of the committee, although he should stand alone in doing so.

Mr. J. Smith observed, that the question had not been answered.

Mr. Peel observed, that it was too late to proceed further in the inquiry that night. They had before confined themselves to twelve o'clock, and it was now

near two.

Mr. Calcraft thought that the last answer of the witness was satisfactory, and had relieved the committee from the embarrassment which his refusal had placed them in. He therefore moved, that the chairman should report progress.

but with very different feelings. He Mr. Brougham seconded the motion, trusted the committee would never again be placed in such a situation as that from which his hon. friend's motion was to extricate them. He could not, however,

look upon that as any thing but a subterfuge. The committee had met with nothing but discomfiture in their progress hitherto; but his hon. friend, in his courtesy, discovered that the witness's last answer relieved them. In that they had been referred to the Old Testament. "Oh, then," said his hon. friend, "as that is a book we have at our fingers' ends, this is sufficient; let us toss up our caps, because the committee has got out of the scrape, and report to the House the glorious progress we have made." He only hoped that the public, when a report of these proceedings should go forth to-morrow morning, would see the matter with the same good-natured eyes as those of his hon. friend.

Mr. Canning concurred with Mr. Calcraft. He could not but think that a reference to the Old Testament was a very fit way of terminating an evening, in which much difficulty had arisen from misunderstanding a passage therein.

Mr. J. Smith, looking upon the adjournment only as a means of screening the witness from the consequence of his refusal to answer the questions put to him, would take the sense of the committee upon it.

The committee then divided, on the motion for reporting progress: Ayes, 72; Noes, 19.


Monday, May 26.

SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.] The House having again resolved itself into a Committee to inquire into the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the Chair,

Sir Abraham Bradley King, bart. was called in ; and further examined

By Sir J. Newport.-On a former night you stated, that you were an Orangeman prior to the adoption of the new system of 1820-I did.

Did you take the oath under the old system? -I did.

Will you state whether the oath under the old system was not in these words, “I do solemnly and sincerely swear, of my own free will and accord, that I will, to the utmost of my power, support and defend the present king George the third, his heirs and successors, so long as he or they support the Protestant ascendancy, the constitutions and laws of these kingdoms; and that I will ever hold sacred the name of our glorious deliverer William the the third, prince of Orange, and I do further

swear, that I am not, nor ever was a Roman Catholic or Papist; that I was not, am not, nor ever will bea United Irishman; and that I never took the oath of secrecy, to that or any other the presence of Almighty God, that I will treasonable society; and I do further swear, in always conceal and never reveal either part or parts of what is now to be privately communicated to me, until I shall be authorized so to do by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution; that I will neither write it, nor indict it, stamp, stain or engrave it, nor cause it so to be done on paper, parchment, lead, brick, stick, stone, or anything, so that it may be not to my knowledge or belief, been proposed known; and I do further swear, that I have and rejected in or expelled from any other Orange lodge, and that I now become an Orangeman without fear, bribery or corruption : So help me God ?"—I cannot take upon me to say, that all the words that the right hon. member has read from that paper, was in the oath I took, but I think substantially they are the


conceal and never would reveal any part or In that oath it is stated that you would always parts of what was then to be privately communicated; were these the secret articles so communicated, "that we will bear true allegiance to his majesty king George the third, his heirs and successors, so long as he or they support the Protestant ascendancy, and that we will faithfully support and maintain the laws and constitution of these kingdoms;" was that one of the articles?-No, not one of the secret

articles; that was public.

Was that one of the articles that was communicated to you?-That is our public oath, inserted in our oath; it was part of the oath.

"That we will be true to all Orangemen in all just actions, neither wronging one nor seeing him wronged, to our knowledge, without acthe engagement? That was no part of the quainting him thereof;" was that any part of secret obligation.

Was it part of your obligation?—It is in the printed declaration I handed in to the committee, on my first examination.

Is it part of the articles, or part of the engagement you entered into?—It is part of the declaration of the Orange society, it is no part of the secret article that the hon. baronet asked me upon.

Was that part of your engagement as an Orangeman ?-Unquestionably, the whole declaration is part of the engagement, it forms the engagement.

"We will be true to all Orangemen in all just actions, neither wronging one nor seeing him wronged, to our knowledge, without acquainting him thereof;" did you enter into any such engagement ?—I have stated that it is part of the declaration of the Orange Institution, and of course it became part, no doubt; but it is no part of the secret articles; I wish to give the fullest and the fairest answer that I to can, but I understood the right hon. baronet to

[blocks in formation]

was not.

fore?-Not at all.

"We are to appear in ten hours warning, or whatever time is required, if possible (provided it is not hurtful to ourselves or families, and that we are served with a lawful summons from the Master), otherwise we are fined as the company think proper?"-No such think that I ever heard of.

that there are separate characteristics by which a Purpleman is distinguished from an Orangeman? It is.

In what book, chapter, and verses of the Old Testament, are the passages to be found, which are read to an Orangeman ?—

[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]


Mr. Secretary Peel said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this question. The committee had decided, by a majority of 72 to 19, that it was not desirable to press a question which the witness would refuse to answer, being under the obligation of an oath not to disclose. The question now put was just leading to a similar discussion to that of Friday, and taking the House over the same ground. His opinion was, that the question ought not to be put; because he did not think it at all perti

"We are not to carry away money, goods or anything from any person whatever, except arms and ammunition, and those only from an enemy;" did you enter into any such engagement?-Never, nor heard of it before. Is that any part of what you handed in be-nent to the inquiry before the committee. Undoubtedly, if the question was shown to be necessary, it was one which the House had a right to put, and to enforce an answer; or to take those steps which were usual on such occasions; but, if the committee should be of opinion that the question was not necessary, it ought not to allow it to be put, and the less so, as it must lead to a result than which nothing could be less calculated to tranquillize Ireland. Nothing, in his opinion, could tend less to tranquillize that country than the sending the witness at the bar to Newgate. The right hon. baronet wished to know what were the secret signs and symbols of distinction between one particular denomination of Orangemen and another. But the right

"No man can be made an Orangeman without the unanimous approbation of the body?" -There is no such rule that I know of; an Orangeman cannot be made without being proposed into a lodge; or admitted into a lodge; he must be unanimously admitted.

"An Orangeman is to keep a brother's secret and his own, unless in case of murder, treason and perjury, and that of his own free will?"-I know of no such regulation.

Can you take upon yourself to say, there is no obligation of that kind entered into?—None

that I know of.

[blocks in formation]

With the title of "Extracts from the Rules and Regulations for the use of Orange societies, revised, corrected and adopted by the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, assembled at Dublin, in January 1820?"-The word "extract" I believe is not mentioned in it; it is exactly

'what I delivered in at the bar of this House.

Do you recollect whether in the paper you have delivered in, there is a separate obligation stated for persons who are called Purplemen? -There is.

In the obligation of a Purpleman, it is stated that he does solemnly and voluntarily swear, that he will keep the words, signs, and tokens of a Purpleman from an Orangeman, as well as from the ignorant, unless authorized to communicate them by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution; is it not meant by that,

hon. baronet had not shown how the
answer to that question, if it were answer-
ed, could bear upon the inquiry. If it
was put for the purpose of tending to
suppress such societies, it was unneces-
sary; because there was a bill then in
progress through the House by which
all societies, having secret signs and
symbols, and secret meetings, were to be
declared illegal. It could not be necessary
for showing what was the conduct of the
grand jury or the sheriff, because there
were other means by which the right
hon. baronet could come at information on
those points, which were really the only
points to which the committee ought to
direct its attention. It was for these
reasons that he was anxious the House
should decide
now, that the question
was one which ought not to be put..
Sir J. Newport thought it was of the

grand jury, was relevant to the inquiry which they were carrying on? If they decided that such a question ought not to be pressed, then he would maintain that they were no longer a court of inquiry; for, in order to evade answering, any future witness had only to take a voluntary and illegal oath before he appeared at their bar, binding himself to secrecy on those points on which he expected to be examined, and claim to be exempted on the ground of such oath. He trusted, however, the House would

racter with the country, as the highest court of inquiry. It was said, that the witness ought not to be allowed to go away a martyr. He wanted not to make a martyr of the witness; but he would rather see him so, than see him become the victor over the rules and forms of that House. The right hon. gentleman had said, that there was a bill now before the House, which would have the effect of declaring all secret associations in Ireland illegal. It was not his (sir J. N's.) fault that such a measure was not intro

utmost importance to the inquiry before | inferior courts, but before inferior officers the House, that they should be informed of those courts: and that, too, by means of the rules and regulations of the the most cruel. The simple question now Orangemen; for the sheriff was charged before the House was-whether a queswith having empanelled a jury of Orange- tion which would give them information men, and it was necessary, in order to as to the signs and symbols of Orangecome at a proper decision on that sub-men, many of whom were selected on the ject, to know what Orangemen were, and whether, from the nature of their regulations, they were fit persons to decide in a case between Orangemen as such, and the head of the government in Ireland. It was necessary to know the signs and symbols of Orangemen, in order to come at the real case before them. Suppose that one of their symbols was, "We will exterminate the Roman Catholics," would it not be necessary for the House to know it, in forming their opinion whether the sheriff was guilty of partiality in selecting such men for a jury, having to de-not give up its right, nor forfeit its chacide in a case to which he had just alluded? It was, then, for the House, under those circumstances, to decide whether they would allow a witness to refuse to communicate those symbols which he knew, on the ground that he was bound to secrecy by a previous obligation. He denied the conclusion drawn by the right hon. gentleman, that the impression of the House was against putting the question. The decision of the House on Friday, as he took it, was not upon the relevancy or irrelevancy of the question put to the witness, but on the pro-duced long ago. But, in fact, the bill had priety of not going further with the examination at that hour. But, even if the House had decided then, still he conceived the question might be again opened. The House and the witness had had considerable time for reflection, and might now re-consider their former opinions. He could not conceive anything more derogatory from the character of the House, as a court of inquiry, than to suffer the witness to go from their bar without answering all questions which they might think it proper to put, and which he had the power to answer. What would be the conduct of the House if they had a United Irishman at their bar, who might refuse to disclose the symbols of his association? Would they allow him to depart, triumphing in his refusal? He would not say what they might be disposed to do now; but he remembered that in former times a different conduct was pursued towards United Irishmen. They were obliged to confess, not only before

nothing to do with the case before the House; for the question was not, what the Orangemen might be in future, but what they were at the time the grand jury was empanelled. Under those circumstances, he thought it his duty to press the question.

Mr. Calcraft said, he had not moved the adjournment on Friday with any view to get rid of the question put to the witness. Upon what grounds the House supported his motion he would not say, but his own was not, that any restriction should be put to questions which hon. members might deem relevant to the inquiry. As to the question now before the House, he did not see exactly how it bore upon the inquiry; but if his right hon. friend thought it important, he would not object to its being put, and he thought if put, that the House should teach the witness, that no voluntary obligations entered into beforehand could prevent their enforcing an answer.

Mr. Goulburn said, he did not rise to

maintain that the House ought not to enforce an answer to any question which it might think proper to put, or to contend that the witness ought to be protected from the consequence of refusing to answer, by any obligations which he might previously have entered into; but he did rise to exercise his right of giving an opinion upon the propriety of the question put. The right hon. baronet seemed to argue the case, as if the question had actually been put to the witness, and that he had refused to answer. However, the committee would recollect, that the witness had not, and could not bave refused, because the question was not yet suffered to be put to him; therefore it was useless to take up the time of the committee in discussing what it ought to do, until the occasion should arrive when it might be called upon to act. In his opinion, the question was one which would not answer any end pertinent to the inquiry before them. The right hon. baronet had endeavoured to show its relevancy by saying, that many of the grand jury were Orangemen-that some of the parties accused were Orangemen-that there were secret signs and engagements between them, and therefore that the sheriff was wrong in selecting such a jury to try such a party. Now, it might be perfectly true, that some of the grand jury were Orangemen; and that some of the accused were also Orangemen: but the relevancy of the question about their secret signs and symbols would not be proved, unless the right hon. baronet showed that the sheriff was cognizant of those engagements and secret symbols, and of their operation on the two parties. But how was this fact shown by the evidence It was distinctly stated, upon the belief of one of the witnesses, that the sheriff was not an Orangeman; that he did not know their secret symbols. But it was upon the proof that he was, and did know them, that the House would be justified in putting the question to the witness. On these grounds, he would say the question was irrelevant. He fully concurred in thinking, that making the witness the martyr which he desired to be, would tend to produce the most fatal effects in Ireland, It was asked what he would do with a United Irishman, if placed at the bar under similar circumstances? He would do the same with him as with an Orangeman. He would not allow him to be protected from anVOL. IX.

swering, by any previous obligation which he might have voluntarily entered into; but he would not drive, either the one or the other, to the refusal of disclosing his secrets, when such disclosure could not be relevant to the inquiry before the House. He did not think the question put to the witness was relevant, and would therefore oppose it,

Mr. Abercromby thought that, whether with reference to the character and dignity of that House, or to the present state of Ireland, the question now before it was one of the most pertinent that the wit of man could devise. Here was an inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff for partiality in selecting an Orange jury. That the sheriff must have been aware what the effect of a trial by such a jury would be, was obvious; for he was proved to have said "I have got an Orange panel in my pocket." What was an Orangeman, and what were his principles; were the most natural questions in the world to ask after this. And yet, the moment that question was asked, they were to be stopped and told that the question was not relevant! If this was not a question pertinent to the inquiry, he was at a loss to know what was. Would the House consent to allow an excuse for not answering, which would not be tolerated by any court of justice in the country? Would they, who were superior to all courts of justice, stop in their inquiry for the sake of truckling to Orangemen? Would they allow some of the heads of that party to go back in triumph to Dublin, after having set at defiance the rules and orders of that House? That this would be the case there was no doubt, if the House did not enforce its orders. And by whom would these men be met in triumph on their arrival in Dublin? By those very men, for the payment of whose large salaries the House had voted such considerable sums this session. If the House was to tolerate this, it was as well to let the Orangemen speak out. Let them say as they felt, "We will be good and loyal subjects, as long as you allow us to rule Ireland as we please.' It was quite absurd to think of stopping in their inquiry, after having gone so far. It was worse than pusillanimous language to say, "We do not wish to give a triumph to any party." That House in the discharge of its im portant trust, ought not to consider which party might triumph, but which party

2 L

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »