HC Deb 04 August 1835 vol 30 cc71-8

"1st September, 1831.

"That Major Brownrigg be expelled from this Committee, in consequence of his conduct at the recent election in Dublin, and that his expulsion from the institution at large be recommended to the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the King's county Grand Lodge."

"12th February, 1833.

"That a sum of 101. sterling be placed at the disposal of Brother M'Neale, for the purpose of defending an Orangeman, at present in the gaol at Dundalk."

He understood that the person alluded to was to be tried for an attempt to murder a man with a butcher's knife. It did not signify what was the nature of the offence which these persons committed, as they knew that they would have the Orange society to defend them against every charge that might be brought against them. The result of the system of which he complained was, that in cases in which Orangemen and Catholics were apprehended for rioting, the Orangemen were let loose, and the Catholies prosecuted. If it did happen that the case was so flagrant as to oblige the Magistrates to bind the parties over to prosecute the Orangemen, money was sent to them, and they were furnished with the means of defence.

Colonel Perceval

said, that there was nothing in the evidence before the Committee to justify the statement of the hon. Member.

The Speaker

said, it would give much greater facility to their proceedings, and be much more consistent with the practice of the House, as well as more convenient to the Members individually, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would take a note of any point which he wished to remark upon, and reserve his comment till the hon. Member for Middlesex had concluded.

Mr. Hume

proceeded: He would refer to the evidence, in corroboration of what he had stated. Question: "Under the date of the 13th of February, 1833, there is this entry; 'That a sum of 10l. sterling be placed at the disposal of brother M'Neil, for the purpose of defending the Orangeman at present in the gaol of Dundalk;' is that correct?—It is." This was a single instance, and one in which only 10l. had been advanced, but there were others in which it might be supposed that the sums were much more considerable. Take the following question:—"Do they advance money for the purpose of carrying on the prosecution or the defence of any causes of any particular description? When petitions or memorials have come up to the Grand Lodge, stating that subscriptions have been raised, or are in the act of being raised against any member of their body, or that a prosecution is unjustly pending over their heads, the Grand Lodge, after due inquiry, have at various times advanced sums of money in defence of those brethren." Hon. Gentlemen criedout, where there was a reference to the prosecution being unjust; but let him ask who was to decide that it was unjust. Would any man be such a fool as to say, that he sent money to defend a culprit who deserved to be prosecuted. He would now refer to the questions "If Mr. M'Beith was considered unjustly accused of murder, that would be a ground for supplying him with money for his defence? — Yes, I conceive so. Mr. M'Beith was found guilty of man-slaughter, was he not? I know nothing of the circumstances except what I have heard. But I believe so. Have you ever heard that that verdict was impugned for partiality? — No, I never heard it had been." He thought he knew who had put the latter question, because the answer was put first. It appeared, then, that money was supplied by the Grand Orange Lodges to defend persons charged with outrages; therefore he charged the Members of the Grand Orange Lodges with being the aiders, abettors, and defenders, of the riots which took place in Ireland. Such conduct must have the effect he attributed to it; parties of course would not so much care about getting into any scrape, if they knew that they were sure of having the means of defence. To show the interference of these lodges in political matters, he begged attention to the following:— 24th Dec. 1834. That a document be prepared to be forwarded to the Orange electors of the city of Armagh, calling on them most strongly to support a Protestant candidate, and give their most determined opposition to the return to Parliament of Mr. Dobbin, or any other person professing the same Radical principles. Now, judging from what he had seen of the hon. Gentleman Mr. Dobbin, he must say he was a Radical of the mildest description. The next Resolution which he should move was most important, it was this:— That it appears by the books of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, produced by its Deputy Grand Secretary, before the Select Committee of this House, that the undermentioned warrants for constituting and holding Orange Lodges have been issued, to Non-Commis- sioned Officers and Privates of the following Regiments of Cavalry and of Infantry of the Line, at home and abroad; to Non-Commissioned Officers of the Staff of several Militia Regiments; to Members of other corps and to the Police. He would ask the House when the police who belonged to these Lodges came in contact with Catholics and Protestant Orangemen, how was it possible that they could act impartially. He had got a list of the warrants issued to the different Regiments:—

No. 156. To John Thompson Glasslough, Monaghan Militia Staff, 24th September, 1828.

334. D. Thompson, 24th Regiment (marching warrant), 1st. October, 1829.

415. Peter Duff, Fermanagh Staff (marching warrant), 30th June, 1835.

567. John Kennedy, 1st Dragoon Guards, 26th December, 1831.

859. George Agnew, 59th Regiment, 22nd October, 1833.

879. Samuel Scott, Cork, 89th Regiment, 1st May, 1834.

883. James Gresson, Cork, 70th Regiment, 1st May, 1834.

1115. Colin Dunlop, 79th Regiment (marching warrant), 3rd January, 1827.

1372. John N. Henry, 4th Dragoon Guards, 1st April, 1835.

This warrant, he ought to observe, had been granted since the Committee of Inquiry was appointed. The next number in the list was—

No. 1390. A marching warrant granted to the 7th Regiment, dated also since the inquiry commenced.

The list then goes on:—

No. 1406. James Gillespie—Regiment, Armagh, dated February, 20th, 1829.

1412. Joseph Meineigh, 1st Regiment of Foot, city of Derry, 2nd January, 1834.

1433. William Gutteridge, Fermanagh Staff, (marching warrant), 24th September, 1828.

1501. John Fisher, 81st Regiment, Dublin, 17th September, 1828.

1537. Robert Moore, 15th Hussars, 25th March, 1835.

1725. William Evans, 85th Regiment, county Limerick, 14th March, 1834.

1740. John Maherty, 83rd Regiment, 11th September," 1832.

1765. Robert Taylor, 2nd Battalion, 25th March, 1835.

1775. Serjeant N. Hannah, 60th Regiment, 1st Battalion, 1st May, 1829.

1780. Henry Nichols, 50th Regiment, 4th July, 1832.

1781. Thomas Pownall, 80th Regiment, 8th August, 1832.

1831. Alexander Mortimer, sen., Dépôt, 32nd Regiment.

He would add another case the Report gave this question:—"Have the goodness to look at 415, '30th January, 1835, Peter Duff, Fermanagh Militia;' do you find that entry in the book?—I remember perfectly a renewal of that warrant being taken out by Lord Cole." Lord Cole then took out that warrant! If that could be proved, and it did not dismiss Lord Cole from his regiment, the standing orders issued by the Horse Guards were of no force. Question 2271 stated that a warrant numbered 567 was granted to John Kennedy, Dublin, 1st Dragoon Guards, December 26th, 1831. In the extracts from the book of proceedings of the committee of the Grand Lodge was the following:— 1st January, 1834. Resolved. That warrant No. 1592, be granted to Joseph Meineigh, of the First Royals, on the recommendation of brother Adam Schoales, of Derry. N. D. CROMELIN. 25th March, 1835, N. D. Cromelin was in the chair, and there were the names of some fourteen or fifteen other individuals as present on that occasion. After seeing this, if there was any one who could believe that warrants were granted, and that the members of the Lodge knew nothing about it, he must think such credulous individuals wanting in common sense. He found also, from the same book, that it was moved by Mr. Swan, and seconded by J. O. Jones— That warrant No. 1537 be granted to Brother Robert Moore, for the 15th Light Dragoons. It was moved by James C. Lowry, and seconded by William Swan,— That warrant No. 1765 be granted to Robert Taylor, for the second battalion of the 1st Royals. and also— That Lodge 1575 be permitted to initiate Mr. Talbot, formerly a Roman Catholic. These resolutions too were signed N. D. Cromelin, as chairman, and there were present other members of the committee, by whom it was also resolved:— That warrant 1372 be granted to brother John N. King, for the 4th Dragoon Guards. The following were also extracted from the Book of Warrants of the Lodge—that the numbers there mentioned were given to the regiments set down after them:—

No. 155. John Lee, Glasslough, Militia Staff, Monaghan, November 18th 1823.

1309. John Little, 25th Regiment of Foot, October 4th, 1823.

1406. Serjeant John M'Mullen, Militia Staff, Armagh, March 8th, 1824.

1623. John Bushill, 1st Royals, July 28th, 1824.

1639. Francis Kennedy, county Limerick Police, county Clare, February 12th, 1824.

1689. John Buchannan, Rifle Brigade, June 4th, 1824.

1711. David Dowdall, 1st Royal Veteran Battalion, February 20th, 1824.

1712. John M'Matty, 12th Royal Lancers, February 20th, 1824.

1723. William Hanna, 2nd or Queen's Regiment, May 15th, 1824.

1725. John Aiken, 2nd Royal Veteran Battalion, Derry, May 28th, 1824.

1729. Henry Holden, 5th Dragoon Guards, June 16th, 1824.

They were all signed by the Field Marshal; and was he to be told that that individual was ignorant of the existence of such Lodges in the army. He found from forty to fifty officers connected with these proceedings. He would ask the hon. and gallant Member himself, how he could sit as a member of the Lodge, and allow of such proceedings? He could only say that if such practices were to exist, the sooner they dismissed the army the better. They paid for Lord Hill's staff 16.000l. a-year; and he, for one, would vote against the maintenance of that staff, unless Lord Hill could take care that an end was put to these proceedings. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Morpeth) should look to it. Could he expect the Yeomanry, if they were members of Orange Lodges, to act impartially between the Protestants and Catholics? Would he dare to call them out? They ought to be dismissed instantly. Every Orange Magistrate ought also to be dismissed. They might depend upon it there would be no peace for Ireland while a different course was taken. This was a time to speak out. He was expressing his own opinions, and he was happy to find them so well received. There must be a clean sweep made of all—the police included—who had any connexion with the Orange Lodges. Mr. Sharman Crawford, in his evidence, gave an instance of his being called on to put down a row, while he had the command of a military corps, and when the men were desired to desist from their attacks upon the people, they said, "Oh! why should we obey your orders? The Duke of Cumberland gave us authority, and he is a Prince; the brother of his Majesty." The hon. Gentleman produced a certificate, bearing the signature of the Duke of Cumberland; and also a tin case, such as soldiers keep their certificates in—tin cases being generally used in the army for the preservation of valuable papers. It commenced with "King and Constitution." That was a blind, as the hon. Member said that they might do mischief. The men who had these words frequently in their mouths, he dreaded the most. They affected to be loyal, but they were the greatest disturbers of the public peace. Their loyalty, too, was conditional. As long as the King maintained their ascendancy they were loyal; but as soon as anything was done by his Majesty, tending to destroy that ascendancy, their loyalty was at an end. These documents had engraved upon them likenesses of William III. The members knew one another by signs. He contended that if such a society had been known to exist, severe laws would have passed for its suppression. There were active proceedings at Malta. That these Lodges were extending themselves would appear from the following:— 17th December, 1829, Moved by the reverend C. Boyton seconded by E. Cottingham, That the next dormant number be issued to the 66th regiment, and the Quebec brethren be directed to send in a correct return, in order that new warrants be issued. 17th November, 1831, Your committee have received from America the most cheering accounts, and the Lodges now sitting there under your warrants emulate each other in evincing their gratitude for the interests taken by you in their welfare. He would next read to the House the 8th Resolution. That such warrants are sent privately and indirectly to such non-commissioned Officers and Privates, without the knowledge or sanction of the Commanding Officers of such regiments or corps; and every Lodge held by the Army is considered as a district Lodge. He would next read to the House a correspondence, upon which he would ask the noble Lord whether he could sanction so underhand a proceeding, sanction it indeed the noble Lord could not,—but would the noble Lord put it down? The hon. Gentleman read the following documents:—