"Oath of a Whitefoot.

"1. I solmly sware to be loyall and true to this New Ribbon Act.

“2. I sware, I will to the best of my power, Cut Down Kings, Queens and Princes, Duks, Earls, Lords, and all such with Land Jobin and herrisy.

66

3. I sware that I will never Pity the moans or groans of the Dying, from the Cradell to the Crutch, and that I will wade Knee Deep in Orange Blood.

"4. I sware I am to Bear My right arm to be Cut of and trow over the left shoulder and nailed to the traples Door of Armagh before I will way lay or betray or go in to any Court to Prosecute a Brother, known him to be such.

"5. I sware I will go ten miles on foot and fifteen Miles on horse Back in five minutes' warning.

"6. I sware I will give Money to Purchase and repair fire arms ammunition and the Like, and every other weapon that may Be wanting.

"7. I sware I never will tell the man's name nor the man's name that stood By making me a Ribbonman or whitefoot to any one under the Cannopy of heaven, not even to Priest, Bishop, or any in the Church.

"8. I sware I will not stand to hear hell or confusion Drank to a whitefoot or Ribbonman without resisting the same or quitting the Company.

"9. I sware I never will Keep a robber's company Nor harbour him, except for fire Arms.

66

10. I sware I will not make foul freedom with a Brother's wife or Sister Known them to be as such.

“11. I sware I will not Keep the second Coat or the Second Shilling and a Brother to Be in want of relief, Known him to be as Such.

12. I sware I will not Be present at the Making of a ribbonman or Whitefoot without Praper orders from our Cap

tain.

"In pursuance of this spirituall Oblagation So Healp mee God."-H. C., 1832. No. 5834.

The latter oath was proved by a witness at the assizes at Maryborough, whose credit is called in question by some of the Catholic clergymen examined by the same committee.

Rev. Nicholas O'Connor.

"You stated you never heard that a portion of the Whitefeet oath was a sworn hostility against members of the Established Church?-I never did, and I am very sure it never

was so.

66

You never heard of any evidence to that effect having been given at the assizes at Maryborough ?-I did, but I do not believe the woman; I am very sure she told a falsehood. I have consulted other clergymen upon the subject, and they have all disbelieved her; their hostility is directed against Catholics as well as Protestants who take their ground.

"Against the well-disposed Catholics?-Yes, that abhor their conduct."-H. C., 1832, Nos. 3250-2.

Rev. Michael Keogh.

"Was there any part of the oath levelled against the Protestants?-No; I heard of that at Maryborough, but I never believed it."-H. C., 1832, No. 4669.

* The following is given as the proper Ribbon oath, by Colonel Verner, in his evidence before the Committee on Orange Lodges (No. 228) · "I, A. B., in the presence of Almighty God, and this my brother, do swear that I will suffer my right hand to be cut from my body and laid at the gaol door at Armagh, before I will waylay or betray a brother; that I will persevere, and not spare from the cradle to the crutch, and from the crutch to the cradle; that I will not pity the moans or groans of infancy or old age, but that I will wade knee-deep in Orangemen's blood, and not do as King James did."

It will be observed that the formulas in the text agree so nearly with the above oath, as to make it evident that they are derived from this model.

The statement of Mr. Delaney, the parish priest of Ballynakill, is more general.

"Have you seen or heard the nature of that oath by which those people are bound together?-The oath, as I understand, varies in different districts; it is a compound of folly and impiety.

"Have you heard any portion of that oath that goes to bind the parties to the destruction of heretics or Protestants?—I never heard it, nor do I believe it forms part of the oath; I got one or two persons to repeat the substance of the oath, and, as I remarked before, it was a compound of impiety and folly.

"But you never heard of it being directed against the Protestants, or the establishments of the country?-I induced two persons, who came to me for the purpose of renouncing this bond of iniquity, to repeat to me the substance of it; I did so to convince them of its impiety, and no part of it had any such tendency.

"Do you think they told you the whole of the oath ?—I have no reason to believe that one of them did not; he was rather candid with me, and seemed deeply penetrated with sorrow for his past conduct."-H. C., 1832, Nos. 4453-6.

These witnesses are doubtless quite correct in stating that in point of fact the hostility of the Whiteboys is as much directed against the Catholics as against the Protestants; but there does not therefore seem sufficient ground to discredit the testimony of the individual who proved the oath in question. It is quite conceivable that Whiteboyism may have a predominant and almost invariable tendency; and yet that the Whiteboys should in some cases adopt a form of oath (in which the peculiar objects of their own combinations are comprised), from a confederation of a somewhat similar but more general nature, better organized, and better provided with the machinery for spreading such associations. It

is the ceremony of swearing, rather than the precise terms of the oath, which is important in these transactions. Probably most of the persons who take such an oath, would not, on the following day, be able to give a very clear notion of its contents; they only know that they have been sworn, and are bound to aid and abet in whatever projects they may be called on to execute. And allowing all possible weight to these long formulas, it must be remembered that men's conduct is to be judged by their acts, not by their professions. It is quite conceivable that men may swear to do a thing, which nevertheless is never done: that they may swear to cut down kings, lords, land-jobbers, and heretics; and that they may forget kings, lords, and heretics, and only concern themselves with land-jobbers.

Where

If it is established by the most unvarying and unimpeachable testimony that the Whiteboys do not in fact attempt to extirpate the Protestants, or to wage a religious war, it seems idle to urge in proof of the opposite opinion that they sometimes swear to do so. the administration of an illegal oath is concerned, it may be allowable to suppose, that men may prefer their interest to their duty; may do what they think advantageous for them, although they may have promised to do otherwise. What would be said in a court of justice, if it was offered to prove that a man had done something, because he had sworn that he would do it? The Irish Whiteboys may be a dangerous and wicked set of men, but we are not on that account to condemn them of the most sanguinary and atrocious designs, on evidence which no court of law would hold sufficient to charge a man with the payment of a shilling.

It may be likewise observed, that the natural and

most useful propensity of mankind to pry into what is hidden, sometimes leads to the attributing of too much weight to the knowledge of men's secrets, when their motives are sufficiently apparent from their acts. Hence it is imagined that some new and important information may be derived from the dying declarations* of Whiteboys, or their secret oaths; when in truth the invariable tenor of their outward conduct, which rests on facts of general notoriety, is the best expounder of their inward thoughts. Furthermore, it is to be remembered, that when men's interests impel them to use violent and illegal means, and to form secret combinations, in order to gain certain ends, we are not to suppose that those ends are always distinctly conceived, or that the purposes of the Whiteboy association are as clearly defined, for example, as those of a geological or an astronomical society. Men are often concerned in the working of a system, nay, they may even contribute to its development, without presenting clearly to their minds the objects at which they are aiming, or the rules by which they are guided. The happy combinations of genius, accompanied with an obscure consciousness of the end in view, have produced some of the most perfect creations of art and poetry. If Homer and Shakspeare could be raised from the dead as they were in life, they would probably be able to give but an imperfect idea of the processes by which they arrived at the perfection of epic and dramatic poetry. How much less are we to expect from an illiterate Whiteboy, that he should be able to express the ends of his association in a neat and precise formula, that he should be able to define with logical accuracy the objects of an union * See above, p. 123.