§ Mr. Hume, in moving that Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman be called to the Bar, wished to put the House in possession of the reasons which induced the Committee on Orange Lodgesin Great Britain to adopt the course it had taken in this instance. Having seen a letter-book containing the correspondence of Colonel Fairman, deputy Grand Treasurer and Secretary of the Orange Institution of Great Britain, which correspondence came down to March, 1833, the Committee found some letters of an important nature, that appeared to have been answered at a period subsequent to the last date contained in the letter-book. On being asked by the Committee whether he had not another letter-book, coming down to a later period, Colonel Fairman admitted that he had, but declined to produce it, on the ground that it contained communications having reference not only to the affairs of the Orange Institution, but also to private matters. The witness being then required to produce the book, and read such portions of it only as related to the Orange Institution, he finally refused to do so. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from the evidence of Colonel Fairman before the Committee, from which it appeared that the witness kept a letter-book containing communications respecting Orange Lodges, but he objected to produce it. It was exclusively his own, and he never laid it before the Grand Lodge. He considered himself perfectly warranted in keeping its contents secret. He admitted that he might have corresponded with persons who held Orange Lodges in the army in different parts of the world; such correspondence would appear in the letter-book. The book also contained a great number of private letters, and he objected to produce them. There were letters from himself to Lord Kenyon, which he considered private and confidential, although they might partly relate to the affairs of the Orange Institution. He was Deputy Grand Secretary to the Institution, and Lord Kenyon was 676 Deputy Grand Master. He had received letters from Malta and the Colonies relative to Orange Lodges in the army, and was ready to lay these and the answers before the Committee. He had corresponded with the Duke of Gordon, but rather as a private friend than as an officer of the Orange Institution. He had no objection to produce the Duke of Gordon's letters. In fact, he made his objection more for form's sake than on any other account, and there was but little in his correspondence that he should object to read. The witness was finally informed, that if he did not reconsider his determination, the Committee would report to the House his refusal to produce the letter-book. Among this gentleman's papers letters had been found from Gibraltar and Malta, relating to Orange Lodges in the army. From a letler written in Gibraltar in 1832, it appeared that there were Orange Lodges in the Sappers and Miners, in the 12th Regiment, and in a battalion of the 60th Rifles. It appeared that a gentleman named M'Kellar had been introduced to Lord Kenyon, and the Committee held a recommendation of that gentleman from Lord Kenyon to Colonel Fairman, in consequence of which a warrant was granted to Mr. M'Kellar, signed by the Grand Master of the Orange Institutions of the empire, and authorizing him to establish Orange Lodges in Malta, the Ionian Islands, and other places. The Committee had before them a letter, stating this gentleman's progress in his undertaking, and the difficulties he experienced from the opposition of commanding officers in the Ionian Isles. Mr. M'Kellar communicated with Lord Nugent, who refused to allow him to found an institution of the same kind as an Orange Lodge, but under a different name. It appeared that an Orange Lodge had actually been established at Rome. The Committee had all the letters of the gentleman in question, but not a single answer. The Committee wished to have the answers in order to be able to trace the result of this proceeding, and lay before the House the operation of Orange Institutions, not only in Great Britain but in our foreign settlements and colonies. It would be for the House to determine, if they wished the Committee to prosecute the inquiry with effect, what measures should be taken for that purpose. The hon. Member concluded by moving that Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman be called in.
§ The Speaker— Do you hold any and what office connected with the Orange Lodges of England and Ireland? Yes, I hold an office connected with the Orange Lodges of England.
What is the situation you hold? That of Deputy Grand Secretary and Deputy Grand Treasurer.
How long have you held those situations? For the last three or four years.
Have you attended to be examined before a Committee of this House appointed to inquire into the state of Orange Lodges in England and Ireland? I have for, I believe, the last five days.
Have you answered all the questions which have been put to you? Yes, I have, almost gratuitously I may say.
Was there any question which you have not answered, or rather which you refused to answer? No, not any question that I am aware of,
Have you produced any documents in your possession which were demanded of you? I have produced a variety of documents.
Have you produced all the documents that were asked of you? All that I considered public documents I have produced, or rather they were extorted from me.
Have you produced all that were required of you, or have you refused to produce any particular document? I do not know that I have. Everything in my possession I have given up with the greatest pleasure; no, not with the greatest pleasure, but the greatest readiness.
Have you any book that you have refused to produce? No, not any that I consider the Committee had any right to call for.
Is there any book that you have refused to produce, and which was required of you? Yes, there is one, a private book, which I have at home.
For what reason have you refused to produce this book?—Because I considered it a private book—a book which never was laid before either the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master, and for which, consequently, the Committee had no right to ask. I conceive I had a right to refuse its production.
Does that book contain any information respecting the proceedings of Orange Lodges?—It contains my answers to letters I received; but those letters more particularly relate to private matters, unconnected with Orange Lodges in the army.
Does it contain any official answers to communications, official communications, made by you connected with the business of Orange Lodges? A great many.
§ By Colonel Perceval.— Has any proposition been made to you to extract such letters as related exclusively to Orange Institutions? Yes.
I wish to know what was the answer of the witness to such a proposition? Being disposed to meet the wishes of the Committee I wanted to come to a distinct understanding that nothing else should be required. I refused the production of the book more upon public than private principle, and least of all upon Orange grounds.
Would the Committee come to the understanding that they were only to have copies of such letters in the book as relate exclusively to Orange Institutions? The question did not go to that extent. The idea was that this book contained the names of persons connected with the army. I said I could not, from recollection, say whether there were any such answers contained in the book; but that if, upon looking over it I found any, I would give them up.
Upon the understanding, as you have stated, that you would look over the book, and if there were any letters in it relating to military lodges, you would furnish them, did you offer to produce all matters relating to military lodges, that being the principal object of the inquiry?
Mr. O'Connellrose to order. [The witness was ordered to withdraw.] The hon. and learned Member then said, no distinction was made by the Committee between the military and the civil parts of the inquiry.
§ Colonel Percevalcontended that the Committee were bound to confine themselves to the army only.
Mr. O'Connellsaid he must suggest to the House whether the line of examination which the hon. and gallant Officer opposite was pursuing was the proper one under the circumstances? The witness had been asked, not whether he had refused to give up all letters relating to Orange Lodges in the army, but whether he had refused to give up all letters whether relating to Orange Lodges in the army or not?
§ Mr. Humewould state exactly how the evidence before the Committee stood. The witness admitted that the book contained the copies of letters connected with the general question of Orange Societies, and when the Committee said that they were anxious to have all the information it contained before them, he then offered to furnish them with extracts from it, of all matters relating to the army, provided they would limit their demand to that. Of 679 course the Committee refused to make any bargain with him of the sort, and in this way the matter rested.
§ Colonel Percevalsaid, that notwithstanding the lecture on evidence which he had received from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he must say that he could conduct the examination of the witnesses in as fair, manly, aboveboard, and impartial a manner as if he had taken the lesson which had been read to him. He would not, however, take the hon. and learned Gentleman's lesson.
§ Lord John Russellconceived that the hon. and gallant Officer had a right to put any question to the witness he thought fit.
§ Colonel Percevalwas sure the House would do him the justice to admit that the question he had put to the witness was one which was calculated to extract from him answers which must prevent him from concealing anything even if he were so inclined, which evidently was not the case. He, therefore, did not deserve the attack which had been made upon him. But all he could say was, that he would rather be exposed to the hon. and learned Member's censure than be the object of his commendation.
§ Mr. Warburtonconceived the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to the question of the hon. and gallant Officer related to the words "that being the principal object of appointing the committee."
§ Colonel PercevalI may have been irregular, but I must contend that such is not the fact.
§ Mr. Humeconsidered the inquiry to be much broader than the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose, for it was not limited to anything specific, but included the whole of the Orange institutions in Great Britain.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamthought the question put to the witness by the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo a very proper one.
§ Mr. Sheilsaid, that one principal fact had been omitted, and that was that a book was produced purporting to contain the correspondence of the Orange Lodges down to the month of March, 1833. The book now called for contained the continuation of that correspondence. In the book produced was a letter which proved the establishment of Orange Lodges in the army. In that letter the following passage occurred—"I am aware that there are great objections to it, and I would advise 680 you to be cautious and circumspect, for if you are not it will tend to inquiry into the societies." As this suppressed book was no more than a continuation of the book which had been submitted to the Committee the House ought to order its production, in order that the correspondence should be seen.
§ Mr. Aglionbysuggested whether the better course would not be to have the witness recalled.
§ Colonel Perceval. Now, Sir, I wish to know whether the book which you have called a private book, and which you have refused to furnish to the Committee, is a continuation of the letter-book of which the Committee are already in possession? It certainly is not a continuation.
By Mr. O'ConnellThat book contains letters subsequent to those which are to be found in the book which you have produced? Decidedly.
Is there in that book other correspondence respecting Orange institutions, addressed to members not in the army? Decidedly. The correspondence contained in it is principally with persons not in the army. The exceptions do not amount to more than three or four.
And those others you refuse to produce? Yes, I refuse to produce them on public principles, and not on Orange grounds.
By Mr. Bonham CarterWhen you receive letters do you submit them to the Grand Orange Lodge or to any member of it? Never.
Would it be your duty to submit any letters you might receive to any person connected with the Orange Lodges? Certainly not; that is a matter over which I exercise an individual opinion.
Do you mean to say, then, that there is no power that could oblige you to place before the Lodge any original letter?—I do not mean to say any such thing, for there is such a power.
If, then, the Grand Lodge required you to give them the answer you returned to a particular letter, would it not be your duty to communicate it?—Certainly. I should look back to see if such a letter had been answered, but it does not always follow that letters are answered.
Would you, supposing such a request were made of you by the Grand Lodge, consult the book which you refuse to produce, to see if the particular letter was answered?—Certainly.
§ By Mr. BorthwickAre you obliged, by any law of the Orange Institutions, to produce the private book which you have declined submitting to the inspection of the Committee?—No.
By Mr. Bonham CarterIf the Grand Orange Lodge required the answer or the copy of the answer given by you to a particular communication, would you look for it in this book?—Undoubtedly.
If the lodge required to have the book itself would you refuse to let them have it?—I think it very likely.
§ By Mr. Sergeant JacksonDoes the book already produced to the Committee belong to you or to the Orange Society?—That book I found in the office when I entered it. I never had any control over it. But my own book I consider as my own private document.
Does it contain private correspondence?—Yes, it does in many instances.
Did you make any offer respecting it to the Committee on Orange affairs?—Yes, I did; but I was afterwards obliged to withdraw that offer, because they would not accede to the proposition which I made to them. I think no honourable man could do otherwise under the circumstances.
Have you, then, a decided objection to produce that book?—I have.
By Mr. O'ConnellDo the private letters you speak of refer chiefly to Orange matters? Chiefly. [The witness here said that as he had not seen the evidence taken before the Committee on the matter in question he hoped the House would order it to be read over to him before he was required to answer any other question. He made this application under the supposition that it was not inconsistent with the rules of the House.]
§ Mr. Humebegged to inform the witness that he had already read the whole of the questions and answers relating to his refusal to produce any part of this book except that which related to the military portion of the inquiry.
The witness said, he believed that there had been a sort of compromise between him and the Committee.
§ Witness ordered to withdraw.
§ Sir Robert Inglisconsidered the request of Colonel Fairman so fair and reasonable that he must move that the shorthand writer be ordered to read over in his presence the notes which he had taken of the evidence.
§ Mr. Aglionbysaid, that they might now put to the witness the same questions which had been put to him by the Committee. This, he thought, would answer the object which the hon. Baronet had in view. Nothing could be more fair and candid than the conduct of the witness before the Committee.
§ Colonel Percevalsaid, that the whole of the evidence should be read, if they meant that the witness should rightly understand the course which it would be for him to take.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermust protest against any such proceeding, because it would lead to manifest inconvenience if the evidence taken before a Committee up stairs was to be read over in that House. Besides, the adoption of so unusual a course would guide the witness as to the evidence which he should give, and enable him to reconcile any contradiction or discrepancy which might exist between his present and his former statements.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, that the object was not to instruct the witness in the answers which he was to give, but rather to direct him as to the course which he ought to take with respect to whether he ought to give up or withhold this book.
§ Mr. Shawdenied, that the examination had closed. The witness had merely withdrawn, in order that his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) might move, that the notes of the evidence should be read over to him.
§ Mr. Leaderread an extract from the evidence of Colonel Fairman, given before the Committee, to show, that Colonel Fairman had obstinately refused to yield to the wishes of the Committee.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonthought it but fair to the gallant Colonel that the answers which he had given before the Committee should be read to him. It would not be right to endeavour to convict him of giving answers before the House contradictory to those given before the Committee. If the witness were proved to be guilty of contempt he should be punished for it.
§ Viscount Howicksaid, the question before them—their object in calling the witness before the Bar of the House—was to ascertain whether he would or would not answer certain questions put to him by the Committee, and which were thought necessary to assist their inquiry; and if he 683 would not answer these questions, the House must take the necessary measures. The question was not whether there was a discrepancy in Colonel Fairman's answers to the questions put by the Committee, and those put by the House, but whether he would now consent to produce the book called for by the Committee, and whether it were a document which ought to be produced? Colonel Fairman admitted, that he was in possession of the book, and it was, in his (Lord Howick's) opinion, a document the production of which was necessary to the inquiry. The House should call on the witness, therefore, to say whether he was now prepared to give up the book, and if so, they should overlook the former refusal.
§ Mr. Shawwas of opinion, that Colonel Fairman acted under the conviction that he was bound by a point of honour not to produce the book. It was fair, that the evidence which he had given before the Committee should be read to him.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that there was no complaint of any difference in the testimony before the House and before the Committee.
§ Mr. Aglionbyfelt himself bound to say, that Colonel Fairman had given his evidence in the fairest and most manly manner up to a certain point, and that his demeanour before the Committee was most creditable and honourable. He (Mr. Aglionby) regretted, that the discussion had taken a turn which would, in the slightest degree, impute to Colonel Fairman any discrepancy in the answers which that Gentleman had given.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that with regard to the consistency of Colonel Fairman's answers, there was no doubt whatever. The question was, should he or should he not give up the book?
§ Colonel Percevaldiffered from the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. When that noble Lord said, that Colonel Fairman was bound to produce the book which Colonel Fairman stated to be his own private property, he would put it to the House whether they would assume to themselves such an inquisitorial power? If they assumed such a power over private property, he, for one, would enter his protest against it. The Colonel had agreed to give up such portions of the book as related to Orangeism in the army, but very properly withheld that portion which was private. If he (Colonel Perceval) stood in the place of 684 Colonel Fairman he should, notwithstanding the respect in which he held that House, most certainly not give up to an inquisitorial power that which he considered his private property.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, it would be better first to ascertain, whether the witness would persevere in his refusal to give up the document; and, if so, then the House could consider how it should proceed under the circumstances.
§ Lord John Russellthought, it would be better to narrow the inquiry. It appeared, that the witness had been asked certain questions, and, for fear of a mistake, he wished to have his previous testimony read to him. Now this would be very fair, if there was any suspicion existing as to discrepancy or contradiction, but there was no suspicion in existence. The question was, whether or not the witness refused to give up the document, and on his answer the House could determine how to proceed.
§ Sir Robert Inglissaid, it was right that the witness should know what was the charge against him. He should persist in his Motion, that the questions and answers be read over to Colonel Fairman.
§ The House divided on the Motion—Ayes 19; Noes 129; Majority 110.
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Fitzgibbon, Hon. R. |
| Alston, R. | Freshfield, J. W. |
| Attwood, T. | Gordon, R. |
| Baines, E. | Goulburn, Hon. H. |
| Baldwin, Dr. | Grey, Sir G. |
| Baring, T. | Grote, G. |
| Baring, F. | Hall, B. |
| Baring, — | Hardy, J. |
| Baring, — | Harvey, D. W. |
| Barry, G. S. | Hay, Col, A. L. |
| Becket, Sir J. | Hector, C. J. |
| Blake, M. J. | Hindley, C. |
| Boldero, Capt. H. G. | Hobhouse, Sir J. C. |
| Bowes, J. | Hope, — |
| Bowring, Dr. | Hoskins, K. |
| Brabazon, Sir W. | Hume, J. |
| Brady, D. C. | Humphrey, J. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Hutt, W. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Jephson, C. D. O. |
| Byng, G., jun. | Labouchere, H. |
| Callaghan, — | Leader, J. T. |
| Carter, J. B. | Lennox, Lord J. G. |
| Cave, R. O. | Lynch, A. H. |
| Chalmers, Capt. P. | Maher, J. |
| Codrington, Sir E. | Mangles, J. |
| Crawford, W. S. | M'Leod, R. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Maule, Hon. F. |
| Divett, E. | Methuen, P. |
| Duncombe, T. S | Moreton, Hon. A. |
| Donkin, Sir R. | Morpeth, Lord |
| Elphinstone, H. | Murray, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Ewart, W. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Nicholl, Dr. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. F. |
| O'Ferrall, R. M. | Sheppard, T. |
| O'Connell, D. | Smith, B. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Standish, — |
| O'Connell, M. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Ord, W. H. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Palmer, General C. | Tancred, H.W. |
| Pattison, J. | Thornley, T. |
| Pease, J. | Troubridge, Sir E. T. |
| Pechell, Capt. R. | Tynte, — |
| Pelham, C. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Pendarves, E. W. | Wakley, T. |
| Penruddock, J. H. | Walker, — |
| Pinney, W. | Wallace, R. |
| Pryme, G. | Warburton, H. |
| Rice, Rt. Hon. T.S. | Williams, W. A. |
| Roche, D. | Wood, C. |
| Rolfe, Sir R. M. | Wyse, T. |
| Ronayne, D. | TELLERS. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Steuart, R. |
| Sandon, Lord | Ord, W. H. |
| List of the AYES. | |
| Archdall, M. | Price, S. G. |
| Bonham, F. R. | Perceval, Colonel A. |
| Borthwick, P. | Scarlett, Hon. R. H. |
| Cole, Hon. A. H. | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| French, F. | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Inglis, Sir R. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Jackson, J. D. | TELLERS. |
| O'Gore, — | Inglis, Sir R. |
| Plunkett, — | Perceval, Colonel |
§ Mr. ShawWere you directed to keep the other book, which you refuse to produce, by any person connected with the Orange institution, or was it merely a proceeding of your own?
§ Mr. ShawWas that book which you refused to give up official, or was it kept for your own private purposes?
Colonel FairmanSuch a proposition 686 was made to me, and I did express my readiness to consent to it, but with a condition, namely, that I should not be brought to the Bar of this House.
Colonel FairmanNo, I would not care a halfpenny, if the contents were known from Whitechapel-bars, to Hyde Park-corner.
§ Mr. WarburtonDo you still persevere in your refusal to produce the book?
§ Mr. WarburtonWhere is the book?
§ The witness withdrew.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he had found a precedent which would serve for the guidance of the House, under the present circumstances. It was one which occurred in the celebrated case of his late royal Highness the Duke of York, and Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke. When the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to have Capt. Sandon taken to his (Capt. Sandon's) lodgings, and to bring to the House any papers which might there be found, this was accordingly done, and then, on the Motion of Mr. Warton, the House granted leave to the Committee, which sat upon the subject, to sit again, and also granted them a power to inspect the papers in question. Here there was a case in point, and he would accordingly move, that Colonel Fairman be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who should proceed with him to his 687 lodgings, and there take possession of this book, as well as of any other papers, which might there be found relating to Orange Lodges. He should first move that Colonel Fairman be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamprotested against such an arbitrary act.
§ On the Motion of Mr. Baring Wall, the witness was again called in; and again questioned; he did not remember the date of the last entry. He became connected with Orange Lodges he thought in January, 1831. He could not state the date of the first entry in the book which he refused to give up. He was away from the office for six or seven months; during which time he knew nothing of what occurred there.]
§ The witness was again ordered to withdraw.
§ Mr. Shawprotested against the tyranny of breaking into the residence of any subject of the realm, and taking possession of his property for the purpose of satisfying an impertinent curiosity, or gratifying a desire of revenge. He really did not think the hon. Member was serious when he first made the proposition, and it could only arise out of curiosity or revenge. That the book was private property, and that it was so considered by the Committee, was evident from their proposing that Colonel Fairman's Secretary should read those portions of it which related to Orange Societies, and not those of a private nature. Would the House, then, entertain such a proposition as that before them? The book was withheld by Colonel Fairman on a point of honour, he not deeming himself bound to give up to threats that which he considered his private property. For his own part, he was of opinion, that there were some to whom the production of the book would prove a disappointment, as in that case, Colonel Fairman would not be sent to Newgate.
§ Mr. Leaderdenied, that any person on that side of the House was actuated by motives of revenge, and did not think, it becoming in a Judge to impute any such.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, he was not a Judge, although he held a judicial office. He regretted, that he had been borne away by his argument to say anything which could be construed into offence; but he could not help feeling warmly; and, perhaps, too warmly expressing himself, when he per- 688 ceived a majority of that House prepared to sanction such an act of tyranny as breaking into a man's private house, and bearing away his private property.
Mr. Wallacebelieved, that his conduct in that House and in the country would bear comparison with the hon. and learned Gentleman's at any time. He would add, that the remarks which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made regarding him were totally and positively unfounded. He was quite incapable of either the revengeful or the tyrannical feelings imputed to him, and he demanded of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would state any instances with which he was acquainted in which his conduct had not been as high and unexceptionable in its bearing as that of any individual in the empire. He had never forgotten himself as the hon. and learned Gentleman had.
§ Mr. Methuensaid, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member meant seriously to impute revengeful feelings to others.
Sir John Tyrrellbegged to bring the House back to the subject under consideration, which was, whether it would persist in putting the question to Colonel Fairman? He wished to remind them that there was no charge against this witness, notwithstanding which it was contemplated to send him to Newgate. He understood the hon. Member for Greenock to have given notice that he would move that the witness be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to call the attention of the House to the exact position in which this question stood. The examination by the hon. Member for Bridport was in strict conformity with the precedents to be found on the Journals of the House; and after that examination was concluded, it would be open to the House to decide what further steps they should take with regard to the book. They had no right to object to a course of examination founded on Parliamentary precedent, from an apprehension that they might not approve of the course with which it might be proposed to follow up that examination. First, the examination should be proceeded with, then they should determine whether the book ought to be produced or not; and if the decision were in the affirmative, and the witness refused to produce it, they should then consider what further steps should be taken.
Colonel Sibthorpeexpressed his deep regret that the book wag not in his posses- 689 sion; if it were, he would try the question with the House. He would see whether any one should enter his private chamber to carry into effect a tyrannical measure. They might pride themselves (said the hon. and gallant Member with great vehemence) on their numbers, but he could tell them that strength did not depend on numbers, but on individual resolution and determination.
§ Lord John Russellmoved that the witness be re-called.
§ Witness re-called.
§ Mr. WarburtonIs the book under lock and key?—Yes.
Have you given any orders for the removal of that book since you have been in the presence of this House—in the course of the last quarter of an hour?—No.
§ Mr. HarveyWere the letters you received addressed to you in the character of Secretary to the Orange Lodges?—Certainly.
Does the book in question, which you refused to produce, contain any answer from you as secretary of the Orange Society to letters written on Orange subjects?—Many.
§ Mr. BorthwickSuppose the date of the first entry in the book to be 1835, is there entered in it all your official correspondence from the period?—Certainly not, by a great deal.
Are you willing to produce, for the information of the Committee of this House, all the official information which you have, in the shape of correspondence or otherwise, respecting these Lodges?—Certainly.
In answer to Mr. O'Connell, the witness said if he had letters of more than ordinary importance he generally entered them in a book.
Examination continued by Mr. Borthwick: In the event of your absence for some months, what becomes of the letters and answers?—If they were letters of consequence, I forwarded the necessary instructions; if they were letters of mere routine, the persons in the office answered them to the best of their ability. I refuse on public principles to produce the book. I consider it inquisitorial to call for it, and therefore I refuse.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersubmitted to the hon. Gentleman that this would be going rather too quickly. The 690 first point to be determined was, whether the book was one which ought to be produced?
§ Mr. Scarlettbegged that the witness might be re-called. He had a very important question to put to him.
The witness was re-called and examined by the hon. Gentleman: Is the book in question your property?—I consider it my property.
Are the entries in that book for your own satisfaction, or for the use and benefit of this society?—For my own satisfaction.
§ Mr. SheilI beg to ask the witness whether part of that book is not in the handwriting of the Deputy Secretary of the Orange Lodge?—No doubt about it.
§ Mr. ScarlettYou say the book contains copies of answers which you wrote to the Orange Institutions; did you sign your name simply, or did you add your title?—Generally speaking I signed but my name: it is universally known what office I hold, and I do not think it necessary to sign D. G. S.
§ Mr. HarveyDo you consider the letters addressed to you in your capacity of secretary, your own private property or the property of the society?—The property of the society.
Do you consider the official answers which you give to those communications to you, in your capacity of secretary, to belong to the society?—I do; because if I am called on to do so by the Grand Lodge, or by the Committee, I must produce them.
Mr. O'ConnellHave you any other books containing correspondence between the Orange Lodges and the Grand Secretary?—None.
§ The witness was ordered to withdraw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that the Motion he should now put to the House was, that the witness who had just left the Bar was bound to produce the book. And he did not call on the House, in asking them to affirm this proposition, to affirm at the same time, the second proposition, namely, as to whether any and what steps should be taken to dissever that portion of the correspondence which was of a personal and private character from that which was purely public. He should not allude to the refusal of the witness to produce the book, but he would bring to mind the admission of the witness as to the contents of the book. Of what avail would it be to institute inquiries if they were to be opposed by such obstacles as were now under consideration? To what purpose 691 would they appoint Committees empowered to call for "persons, papers, and records," if they established a precedent for witnesses bidding defiance to the powers of the House, themselves laying down the line by which they were to be governed? This witness could not be considered a private individual; he took upon himself a high official situation. The book in question contained copies of the letters the witness had received, acting in his official capacity, and also of the answers that had been sent; and they were in no other book. Such was that individual's admission. Then he asked was this correspondence relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry before the Committee? If it were, would not the investigation of the Committee be fettered—would it not be barred altogether—if this evidence were not produced? What would be the result if he, a Minister of the Crown, took such a course? If he said, in answer to a demand for some important papers, that they were in his possession, but he had allowed them to be mixed up with private matters, and he would not produce them—would he be allowed to rest for one hour? Would there not be moved by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, as well as by hon. Gentlemen on his side, that an address be presented to the Crown on the subject, or that he be impeached? In no Court of justice would a witness be allowed to refuse to produce such evidence. Unless they were prepared to turn all their proceedings into a farce—unless they were disposed to bring ridicule upon them—unless they had determined to afford lo every public delinquent the most easy way of screening himself from justice—they would demand the production of this book—they would demand that the whole of the proof they required should be laid before them. He appealed for support, in the view he took, to the hon. Member who seconded the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into Orange Lodges, and who told the House on that occasion that there was no document—that there was not anything connected with the Orange Lodges—which they wished to keep back—who, indeed, even declared that they were anxious for an opportunity to produce their documents. He appealed also to the hon. Member for Chatham, whom he was glad to see returning to his place. The language, from one and all of the supporters of the Orange Lodges, was, that they did not fear the light, but that, on the contrary, every act and document 692 connected with those societies, they were ready to submit to examination, and to justify. He would say that they ought to put aside all those little considerations of nice points of honour, and come boldly to the question. The truth must be told. The question as to what course a Gentleman ought to take under durance was not applicable here. To make out the case, the conduct must come after durance and a threat, but here the refusal came first. The witness was asked this simple question—whether he would produce the book—and he refused. He was quite disposed to give full weight to the feelings of honour, however mistaken they might have been, but before it was established that the witness was entitled to such consideration, there was his refusal in the first instance to be explained. He was most anxious to protect the principle of private confidence, but he would not do it in a mode to defeat justice and screen offenders against the laws. These being his opinions, he would conclude by moving that the witness be called in, and informed that it was the opinion of the House that he was bound to produce the book which had been alluded to in his evidence.
§ Mr. Humeseconded the motion. The House ought to know that the witness having been called before the Committee a second time, was told that they were informed the book had been recently seen in his possession, and it was hoped he would not object to produce it. The witness, however, did refuse to produce it, alleging as his reason that it contained letters from Lord Sidmouth and a number of great men among whom was the King of Spain. With the King of Spain of course the Committee had nothing to do.
§ The question having been put,
§ Sir Robert Inglismoved an Amendment to the effect that only such portions of the document in question should be produced as related to the subject matter of the inquiry.
Mr. Shamsaid, that the witness had no desire to keep back the letters, and that he would have been perfectly willing to accede to their production had he been properly asked. A sort of threat had been held out after he had first refused, whereupon he said that he would not produce them; again, however, he added that, considering himself committed to their production, he would assent to it, and then the question was put as to the production of papers relating to Orange Societies generally. In his opinion, the importance attached to this case was 693 very absurd. He believed that not the least objection existed to the production of the documents in question, or of any other relating to Orange institutions. From first to last he had thought that the witness ought to have produced the letters and every document which related to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
§ Sir John Tyrellobserved that he had not intended to cast any insinuation upon the Committee in any observations which he had made. If the witness refused to produce the book in question, as he hoped he would not, he for one should desire to make him produce it; but he believed that the witness had objected to the production of it under an impression that a threat had been held out to him.
§ Mr. Freshfieldcorroborated the statement of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), that the witness had not at first refused to produce such part of the letters as related to the subject of military lodges, but that afterwards, considering that a sort of threat was held out to him, upon the point of producing those relating to Orange Lodges generally, he had felt bound, consulting his honour as a military man to refuse. A Court of law had no authority whatever to force a witness to produce documents. If he refused to produce them, he might be personally punished, but the Court had no means of reaching the documents themselves.
§ Mr. Wakleywished, upon the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's last observation, that the Court had no power to compel the production of documents, to state a case somewhat in point—that of the Dorchester labourers. Those men were taken before a Magistrate—they were sent to gaol and searched—their keys were taken from them—a constable was sent to their houses—their boxes were opened, their papers were taken out of them; and the papers so taken furnished the ground of the allegations against them. Now, really, if they were to have justice at all, let them have evenhanded justice—and let not an Orange Society, because it was headed by a Duke, have a preference over a secret society, which was headed by a village labourer.
§ Mr. Scarlettcould not allow the Resolution to pass without protesting against it, on account of the principle which it involved. If a precedent were to be laid down for breaking into a man's house for the purpose of seizing his private docu- 694 ments, though they related to public matters, a principle of the most odious inquisitorial nature would be established. Whether it would be wise on the part of the witness to produce or withhold them, still he was not bound to produce them, as they were private, and not official.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, a more dangerous doctrine there could not be than that because a man alleges a particular document to be private he is therefore at liberty to withhold it, so as to defeat the ends of justice. Such a defence as that could not be received in a Court of Justice. As to the preference to the Dorchester Labourers, the case was not applicable. There the parties were regularly accused of having acted in defiance of the law, and the papers were seized, in order to arrive at the evidence against them. That was not the case in the present instance. The book which contained public documents could not be considered a private book, and therefore the witness was bound to produce it. Even if it were a private book he would be bound to produce it.
§ Mr. Aglionbyas a Member of the Committee, must say that Colonel Fairman at first refused to give any evidence before the Committee. It was true he attempted to justify his refusal by saying that there were certain secrets which he could not reveal. He proposed to trust to the honour of Colonel Fairman as a gentleman to keep back what was private, and divulge what was public. That act he (Mr. Aglionby) would not now justify, for he was of opinion that the gentleman should furnish any information within his reach, private as well as public.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonwould support the Amendment, which was the only fair and expedient proposition to adopt. He was utterly amazed at the proposition laid down by the learned Gentleman opposite. Surely no Court of Justice could compel a man to reveal what was private, or personal to himself, the question was one of contempt. Now, it was the practice in the case of contempt of a Court of Law to attach the party. The party was then to be heard on his affidavit against the attachment, and was allowed to show cause. But was that rule observed in the present instance? In fact every rule of a Court of justice was positively laughed at in the present discussion. No Gentleman in that House could take it upon him to say that if a gentleman of untarnished character declared that the book contained private matter he was guilty 695 of contempt. He did not object to the production of the book, but he objected to an invasion on the private secrets of life—he objected to a wanton and cruel exposure of a man's personal affairs. Let the book be produced, and the part that was relevant to the subject be separated from what was not. Surely the House should, in its proceedings, bear some analogy to a Court of Justice. When the question of Orange Lodges was first introduced there was a general cry of "Produce the books," and hints were given that those documents would not be produced; but what was the fact? Why, that all the officers of the Lodges in Ireland did promptly produce all their books and documents.
§ Colonel Percevalsaid, that as to the parallel attempted to be drawn between Orange Lodges and the case of the Dorchester labourers he would observe that if it could be proved that the Orangemen were an illegal body they would have been gladly prosecuted by the Government; and they were spared, and reluctantly, because they were legal. Let the Government fasten on any particular fact, and punish the Orangemen. But they knew they could not, and perhaps they regretted it, for the Orange Association was a legal one. [Mr. Hume: "No, no."] The Society might be opposed to the capricious and loose doctrines of the hon. Member for Middlesex on loyalty, but they were not the less a legal and loyal body on that account. The hon. Member said "No," but all the great constitutional lawyers said yes. Let the opinion of the Judges be taken on the point of legality, and let the question be tried by that test. If other Societies—the Political Unions, the Reform Societies, and the Radical Clubs—were submitted to the same ordeal of probation—if they were exposed to the light as the Orange Societies were, would they bear the scrutiny as well? They could not; and perhaps the hon. Member himself would admit the fact. The more the Orange Society was examined and sifted the more creditable would it appear; for it was neither disloyal, nor unfriendly, nor unneighbourly.
§ Mr. William Smith O'Briensaid though opposed to Orange and other secret Societies, yet he could not, as an honest man, sanction the inquisitorial and tyrannical precedent that the original Motion would lay down.
§ The House divided on the original Motion, Ayes 71; Noes 26; Majority 45.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Baines, E. | O'Brien, C. |
| Baldwin, Dr. | O'Connell, M. |
| Barry, G. S. | O'Loghlen, M. |
| Baring, F. | Oswald, J. |
| Blamire, W. | Ord, W. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Parker, J. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Pattison, J. |
| Bridgman, H. | Pease, J. |
| Biddulph, R. | Power, P. |
| Brotherton, J. | Pelham, C. |
| Blake, M. J. | Pechell, Captain, |
| Callaghan, D. | Prendergast, E. W. |
| Codrington, Sir E. | Potter, R. |
| Chalmers, P. | Pinney, W. |
| Crawford, W. | Pryme, G. |
| Dalmeney, Lord, | Roche, D. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Rolfe, R. M. |
| Dykes, F. | Ronayne, D. |
| D'Eyencourt, C.T. | Rickford, W. |
| Elphinston, Howard | Seale, Colonel |
| Ewart, W. | Scholefield, J. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Sheil, R. L. |
| Hawes, B. | Smith, B. |
| Hindley, C. | Steuart, R. |
| Hoskins, K. | Thorneley, T. |
| Humphery, J. | Troubridge, Sir T. |
| Hume, J. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Leader, J. T. | Wakley, T. |
| Lynch, A. H. | Walker, C.A. |
| Macleod, R. | Warburton, H. |
| Maher, J. | Williams, W. |
| Mangles, J. | Williams, W. A. |
| Maule, Hon. C. | York, E. T. |
| Murray, Rt. Hon. A. | Young, G. F. |
| Morpeth, Lord |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Ashley, Lord | Plunkett, Hon. R. |
| Bonham, F. R. | Price, G. |
| Borthwick, P. | Rushbrook, R. |
| Boldero, Captain | Shaw, Right Hon. F. |
| Cole, Hon. H. | Sibthorpe, Colonel |
| Dick, Q. | Scarlett, Hon. R. |
| Elley, Sir J. | Tyrell, Sir J. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Vesey, Hon. T. |
| Freshfield, J.W. | Verner, Colonel |
| Gordon, Hon. Capt. | TELLERS. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Perceval, Col. |
| Longfield, R. | |
| Nicholl, Dr. | Jackson, J. D. |
| O'Brien, W. S. |
§ The Speakeraddressed him as follows:—It is my duty to inform you that this House is of opinion that you should produce the book which has been alluded to in your evidence, and which you declined to produce before the Committee. Without adverting to the foundations for that which you considered as a point of honour obligatory on yourself, I am confident that 697 you will feel that, when the House has come to the Resolution that you are bound to produce that book, you will forthwith comply with the opinion of this House, because you must be aware that your first duty, and one which supersedes all private and personal feelings of your own, is to yield prompt obedience to the pleasure of this House. You may now withdraw.