Commons Sitting of 4 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Road a first time:—Peace Preservation (Ireland); and Tea Duties.
Petitions presented. By Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, from Creditors of the Duke of YORK, for the Payment of His Royal Highness's Debts.

SUPPLY OF WATER FOR THE ME- TROPOLIS.
The Motion was, to agree to the Lords' Amendments to the Chelsea Water Works' Bill. Several were agreed to.
On the Clause, that the Company should incur a penalty of 10 l. if their drains ever failed in being charged,
Sir Samuel Whalleycomplained, that the Lords had so altered the Clause which previously compelled the Company
46
to procure their water from above Teddington, as to leave it open to them to get it from much lower clown the river. The public were much dissatisfied with this alteration, and he must strongly object to it.
Mr. Claysaid, that the Select Committee of the House of Lords had been occupied in hearing evidence on this subject from the 3rd of June to the 30th of July, and the result of the investigation was, that the Company should not take their water from below a point 350 yards above Kew-bridge. It was demonstrated by the evidence before that Committee, that that point was beyond the tide. The supply, therefore, derived from such a quarter would be free from suspicion. An enormous expense—indeed a difference to the amount of 300,000 l. would be incurred by going above Richmond, without any commensurate advantage.
Sir Francis Burdettmaintained, that it would be impossible to obtain pure water below Teddington. The public would be satisfied with no water taken from below Richmond-bridge. Surely, his hon. Friend would not deny that the tide ran up to Richmond. He would rather the Bill should be deferred to another Session, than be carried with this Clause so altered, as it would be tricking the public out of the point from which the Company originally proposed to take their water.
Mr. Claywas sure that the water would be taken from the point originally contemplated—nearly opposite Sion House. No London sewer, however large, would have its contents carried up so far by the tide.
Mr. Warburtonbelieved the water in the Thames at London was better calculated for ninety-nine purposes out of a hundred for which it was wanted, than the water at Richmond. He alluded to washing and various other purposes to which water was applied, amongst which the drinking water, his hon. Friend would remember, bore a very small proportion.
Sir Francis Burdettmust still remain of opinion, that whatever water the people did drink, however small the consumption, should be good, and they should be supplied with an ample sufficiency of it. He thought every working man should be able to get plenty of water without having to pay for it.
The Clause was agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
The House then went into Committee on the Weights and Measures' Bill.
On Clause 20th,
Lord Ebrington,referring to the division on the former discussion, by which the stamping Clause (19th) had been omitted, said he would persist in proposing the re-introduction of that Clause on the bringing up of the Report. The present Clause, however, involved the principle of the one which had been rejected, as it contained the machinery of stamping, and notwithstanding the result of the division on the other Clause, he should persist in proposing this.
Mr. Warburtonwas adverse to stamping, as it would only lead to illusory confidence.
Mr. Estcourthad received communications from various parts of the country, urging him to continue his opposition to the stamping Clause.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, it would be better at once to throw out the Bill itself than to omit the stamping Clause.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he was not favourable to the recommendation of the Committee of 1813, that the maker's name should be stamped on weights and measures, but he would have this system rather than the Stamping-law proposed.
Sir George Clerk,as author of the Report of 1813, wished to say, that though at that time he was favourable to having the maker's name stamped on weights and measures, he now entertained great doubt as to the utility of this Clause.
The Committee divided on the Clause: Ayes 60; Noes 6—Majority 54.
The Clause was agreed to.
The remainder of the Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

CASE OF MR. PRENTICE.
Lord Francis Egertonreported from the Committee on the Great Yarmouth Election, that William Prentice had twice refused to answer the question put by the Committee, from whom he received the 100 l. or 200 l. mentioned in the course of his evidence.
The Report was laid upon the Table.
Mr. Hardypresented a Petition from William Prentice, stating that he refused to answer the question from no other reason, but an apprehension that it would criminate himself. He complained that
48
in prison he suffered much from not having an opportunity of seeing his family and friends. He prayed that the House would extend their indulgence to him by permitting him to go down in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and remain with his family till Friday next. The hon. Member proceeded to show from the 44th of George 3rd, that Prentice was left perfectly free to answer or not to answer any question tending to criminate himself. The Member for Dublin said the other night, that the tendency of a question was not to be determined solely by the witness. No other person, however, could know the tendency of a question so well as a witness himself. Who else could judge of it? The hon. Member referred to the cases of Parker v. Lawson, and Folkes v. Hardacre, in the 2nd of Swanton, and 4th of Taunton, to show that the witness only was to judge whether the answer he was called upon to give would criminate himself. If it did, the House was bound to excuse him. To-day another witness had been called before the Committee, under this species of Star Chamber inquiry, who had also refused to answer questions on the same ground as that taken by Prentice. As the House could only protect a witness by passing an Act of Parliament, a person in that situation was bound to take care that he did not subject himself to prosecution and penalties.
The Solicitor-Generaldenied, that the cases referred to, proved that a witness was to be sole judge of the tendency of a question to criminate himself. If the judgment of a witness were to be conclusive, it would be easy for him to trifle with a Court, and refuse to answer any question. Suppose, for instance, a witness were asked, what his name was. There were cases—such for instance, as that of a returned transport—in which the answer to the question would tend to criminate him. Now, would it not be trifling with justice that the witness, here was to be left sole judge of the matter? An answer to the question put to Prentice could not by possibility criminate him. He received a sum of money (100 l. or 200 l.) from certain persons. He mentioned the name of one or two, and refused to mention a third. It could make no difference at all in his guilt to tell all the names. The cases mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend were not in point here.
Petition to lie on the Table.

LADIES' GALLERY.
Mr. Grantley Berkeley moved that the House do agree to the Report of the select Committee for providing for the admission of a certain number of Ladies to the Strangers' Gallery.
The House divided.
Ayes 83; Noes 86; Majority 3.

List of the Ayes.

Baines, E.

Howard, R.

Baldwin, Dr.

Hume, J.

Baring, H. B.

Hutt, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Jones, W.

Benett, J.

Langton, Colonel G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Law, Hon. C. E.

Berkeley, Hon. G.

Maclean, D.

Blackburne, J. I.

Martin, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Miles, W.

Blake, M.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Connell, D.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, M.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M,

Browne, Rt. Hon. D

O'Connell, M. J.

Buckingham, J. S.

O'Brien, W.

Buller, C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Butler, Colonel

O'Conor, Don

Bulwer, H. L.

Philips, M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Plumptre, J. P.

Codrington, C. W.

Plunket, Hon. R.

Compton, H. C.

Potter, R.

Coote, Sir C.

Poulter, J. S.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Power, P.

Dick, Q.

Price, S. G.

Dottin, A. R.

Pryme, G.

Duncombe, T. S.

Ramsbottom, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Robinson, G. R.

Entwisle, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Ewart, W.

Scrope, C. P.

Fancourt, Major

Sullivan, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Thompson, Colonel P.

Fergusson, C.

Tynte, C. K.

Finn, W. F.

Thornely, T.

French, F.

Tulk, C. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Twiss, H.

Gaskell, D.

Wakley, T.

Gladstone, T.

Walker, C. A.

Goodricke, Sir F. L.

Wason, R.

Grattan, H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Hardy, J.

Wilbraham, Hon.R.

Hay, Colonel L.

Wilde, T.

Howard, P. H.

Wilson, H.

CASE OF COLONEL BRADLEY.
Mr. Thomas Duncombehoped the noble Lord would at once grant the Motion of which he had given notice. Such a course would be received with gratitude by Colonel Bradley, would be agreeable to the military profession, and would save this House the necessity of occupying its time by a painful discussion. He had prepared a list of
50
ten military men, Members of the House before whom he was content to carry this case, and abide by their decision. [Lord Viscount Howick declined.] There was then nothing left for him but to proceed; and he would, as briefly as possible, detail to the House the oppression, that Colonel Bradley had endured. He would say nothing of the early part of Colonel Bradley's military career till, after twenty years of hard service in a tropical climate, having enjoyed the esteem and respect of his equals and superiors—he found himself in 1818, second in command to Colonel Arthur, at Honduras. Colonel Arthur belonged to the York Chasseurs, Colonel Bradley to the Second West-India Regiment. In October, 1819, the York Chasseurs were disbanded—an event anticipated by both these gentlemen, and, in various conversations that passed between them, it was frequently admitted by the former, that upon such reduction, the command at Honduras would devolve, as a matter of course, upon Colonel Bradley, May, 1820. Colonel Arthur making no arrangements for giving up the command to Colonel Bradley, although he was aware of the reduction of the regiment, which had taken place. Colonel Bradley, as in duty bound, addressed a letter to Colonel Arthur, requesting to know by what authority he retained the command, when his regiment was disbanded, and he placed upon half-pay. Colonel Arthur returned no answer, but convened a meeting of the officers, and stated to them, that he was still on full-pay, and had authorities under which he felt himself justified to retain the command; but amongst these authorities, he never once alluded to the Commission from General Fuller, produced at the trial in 1824, but rested his claim upon being upon full-pay, and having also received a Commission from General Con-ran, then Commanding the troops in Jamaica. An hon. and gallant Friend of his, Colonel Fremantle, many years aide-decamp to the Duke of Wellington, during the Peninsular War was Deputy-Adjutant-General, at that time in Jamaica, and he told him, "that if ever there was a cruel and an unjust or an oppressive dismissal from the army, it was Colonel Bradley's; for so impressed was General Conran of the illegality of Colonel Arthur's continuance in command at Honduras, he (Colonel Fremantle) had special instructions from General Conran, never to address the

51
military orders or despatches to Co Arthur, as he would not, and could not acknowledge him, but to direct them always to the officer commanding the troops at Honduras, leaving it thereby to either Colonel Arthur or Colonel Bradley to take the responsibility upon themselves of opening them or not, as they might think fit," that was the evidence of Colonel Fremantle, which he would substantiate before a Committee if the noble Lord would accede to his proposition. After the meeting of officers at Colonel Arthur's quarters, Colonel Bradley was placed under arrest, and remained 312 days. Upon a former occasion, the noble Lord stated, that that arrest was one of extreme lenity and pleasure. Colonel Bradley had prepared an affidavit, in opposition to this, in which he stated "That for the seventy-one days of close arrest, this deponent never quitted his quarters, nor did Lieutenant Colonel Arthur ever offer this deponent the slightest indulgence, and that for the remaining 241 days of enlarged arrest, lieutenant-Colonel Arthur never offered this deponent any indulgence whatever; that during the whole period of arrest, the officers had orders not to hold any communication whatever with this deponent, and he was even refused the usual supply of dinners and wine from the mess; that during the arrest, this deponent suffered from two attacks of malignant fever, one of which very near proved fatal to him; that during his arrest various brutal and barbarous acts were committed in the grounds around, and adjoining this deponent's quarters, such as hanging criminals, carrying their dead bodies in an open cart past his door, erecting a pile of tar and flour barrels, and burning thereon the bodies of two criminals, and so causing for several hours, a most disgusting scene of stench and smoke, and afterwards burying a man and driving a stake through his body, for committing suicide, and also inflicting corporal punishment on soldiers." Was that lenity? During his arrest, Colonel Bradley learned with astonishment and surprise, that he had been dismissed the service, and that the price of a Majority was lodged in the agents, Messrs. Cox and Greenwood's hands, upon which he immediately returned to England, demanded a Court-martial, and was refused. He then commenced an action against Colonel Arthur for false imprisonment,
52
which was tried in the Court of King's Bench, in 1824; and he obtained a verdict with 100 l. damages. Lord Brougham, with a consideration and humanity most creditable to that noble and learned individual, hearing that he was to bring Colonel Bradley's case before this House, addressed to him a letter, in which that noble Lord declared that all the bar were unanimous in saying that Colonel Bradley had been very ill treated, though he might, as a point of military discipline, have been mistaken. Such was the opinion of that noble and learned Lord; but the noble and learned Lord was not acquainted with the fact that Colonel Arthur, in 1821, swore to being on half-pay. He held that officer's affidavit in his hand. It was as follows.—
George Arthur appeared personally before me, and made oath, that he is the person entitled to half-pay, as a reduced officer of the York Chasseurs, and that he had not during any part of this period, from the 25th of October 1819, to the 21st of February, 1821, both days inclusive, any other place or employment of profit, civil or military, under his Brittanic Majesty, or in the service of any other government, besides his half-pay, except superintendent and commandant of militia.
(signed) GEORGE ARTH
Sworn before me at Honduras, this 21st of February, 1831.
(signed) JAMES HYDE, Magistrate for Belize.
If that affidavit, which has only recently come into Colonel Bradley's possession, together with Colonel Fremantle's evidence, had been before the Court, a different verdict would have been returned, and Colonel Bradley would have been restored to that rank of which he ought never to have been deprived. Why was Colonel Arthur defended at the public expense, while Colonel Bradley was 800 l. out of pocket by the trial? Taking into consideration the fact, that an officer upon half-pay, which Colonel Arthur was when he placed Colonel Bradley under arrest, could not enforce or execute military law upon an officer on full pay, this was a fit case for investigation. It might be said, that he was invading the prerogative of the Crown. It was undoubtedly the prerogative of e King to dismiss any officer, whenever he should think fit; but it was equally the prerogative of the House —it was the duty of the House— to see that the prerogative of the Crown was not abused, and that a meritorious officer, after twenty years' hard service was not dismissed upon an ex parte statement,

53
without any trial, whereby all his remaining days were embittered. The noble Lord would certainly not oppose the motion, and if the noble Lord did, he would not be supported by any Reformer. He concluded by moving "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into Colonel Arthur's treatment of Colonel Bradley in Honduras, and also into all the circumstances that led to his dismissal from the army without a court-martial, and to report their opinion thereon.
Viscount Howickin rising to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Fins-bury, said, he should be very happy to do what was consistent with his duty in affording relief in any case of real hardship. It was always a painful thing to see, that an officer who had distinguished himself in the service of his country should, in consequence of an indiscretion arising from some fault of temper, be degraded and expelled from the army. But it was so essential that the discipline of the army should be maintained—that on subjects of this kind there should not be the least possibility of receiving the decision of a Court-martial come to on proper grounds by the regular authorities—that he trusted the House would support him in resisting this inquiry, — an inquiry, from which he, for one, could anticipate no good effect whatever. The hon. Member had spoken a great deal about the legality of Colonel Arthur's Commission; that had been decided upon authority so much higher than his own, that he (Lord Howick) did not mean to enter on it. The Commission under which Colonel Arthur acted was produced in Court, and sworn to by two officers most distinguished in character and experience, both having filled the office of Adjutant-General, (Sir Herbert Taylor and Sir Henry Torrens,) and who gave it as their opinion that the Commission was sufficient to authorise Colonel Arthur in retaining the Command, it having been dated several years before this transaction. But more than that, Colonel Bradley was dissatisfied with the amount of damages he received on the trial which took place for false imprisonment—and which clearly proved that the Court did acknowledge the legality of the Commission because the damages were given not for Colonel Bradley's confinement before his removal from the army, but in consequence of his having been
54
continued under arrest subsequently to his removal from the army when Colonel Arthur's military authority was, of course at an end. It was impossible to believe that the Court would have given such small damages (viz. 100 l.) on any other supposition than this view of the case; he was supported by the course taken on the part of Colonel Bradley himself, who, feeling that if the case were as he represented it, the damages were too small, applied for a new trial, in order, on the ground of the invalidity of the Commission, which was refsued. He had the authority therefore, of the Court of King's Bench as well as that of the two distinguished officers he had just named in support of the view which he took. But the case did not rest here, for he contended, had Colonel Bradley's case been as correct and just a one as he represented it, that the Duke of York exercised a sound discretion in depriving him of his command. The grounds on which he formed that opinion were these. Had Colonel Bradley felt himself aggrieved, the proper course would have been to make a formal application to the authorities at Jamaica or at home; but what he did was this, he endeavoured by actual appeal to inferior officers to deprive Colonel Arthur of his command, which he (Lord Howick) could prove by extracts from the evidence on the Court-Martial which he held in his hand. He was of opinion that if the House reflected on the consequences of transactions like these, they would agree with him in thinking that it was the duty of all who were interested in the command of the army to mark in the strongest way their sense of such conduct. For what could be more dangerous than, when two officers disputed which of them should hold military command at a station so far distant from the mother country that one of them should attempt the settlement of the question, not by appeal to the superior authorities at home or abroad, but, by appeal to inferior officers. Why, let the House suppose, if one part of the garrison had taken up the cause of one officer and the other part had sided with his opponent the whole colony would have been in confusion, and perhaps civil war would have ensued in consequence of this dispute between two officers! It was therefore on those grounds that he contended it was the duty of Colonel Arthur to arrest Colonel Bradley, and of his Royal Highness the Duke of York to remove Colonel

55
Bradley from the army, even hah cause been ever so just. Indeed the only reason for not bringing Colonel Bradley to a Court-martial was, the consideration that such a proceeding would deprive him of the proceeds from the sale of his Commission; and, in recollection of his preivous good character and long services in the army deterred the authorities from taking such a severe step. As to the opinion of the Council on the trial, that was the very last species of opinion on which he should place any confidence in any case; much less in a military cause like this. With respect to the assertion of the hon. Member, that Colonel Bradley had received a promise from Colonel Arthur, that when the regiment was disbanded he, (Colonel Bradley) should have a command, that was the first time he (Lord Howick) ever heard it, officially at least, referred to, and considering that circumstance, of its being brought forward at a time when Colonel Arthur being in Van Die-man's Land could not contradict it; and also the fact of its not having been at all mentioned in the large correspondence that took place on the subject, during two different Secretary ships-at-War who had agreed with him (Lord Howick) he was not disposed to place much credit on the assertion of such a fact now. On the whole, then, the opinion which he now expressed was not one which he had recently formed. The first time he had the honour of a seat in that House he had expressed that opinion when in opposition, and after hearing the statement of, the hon. Member for Middlesex himself, without hearing the other side of the case; and that opinion continued unaltered at the present moment. It was to be remembered also that Colonel Bradley was not displaced on the representation of Major Arthur, but by the Duke of York himself on the advice of the officers alluded to, who gave it as their opinion that he ought no longer to remain in the army. Under those circumstances, he (Lord Howick) hoped the House would not set so very dangerous a precedent as that of granting a Committee of that House, a precedent which, if set, would in his opinion, go far to shake the very foundations of justice in the army.
Mr. Humewas glad to hear the candid statement of the noble Lord who had just spoken, who admitted that there was some degree of doubt in the case; and
56
he, on the other hand, admitted that, if Colonel Bradley was to blame at all, he had taken the course in which he certainly was blameable: viz.—the being too forward to assert the authority committed by his Majesty into his hands. The case was this: Colonel Bradley alleged that, in virtue of the army resolutions, and as a matter of course, Major Arthur going from full to half-pay, was no longer capable of commanding an officer on full pay—that was the only point of Colonel Bradley's case. The subject was not new, it had been twelve times before the House, and if the noble Lord appealed to the House for justice, certainly, if it could be proved that an individual after years of faithful and arduous service, had been removed from the army and ruined, his friends had an equal right to appeal to the House for its attention to their claim of justice, notwithstanding the opinion of the noble Lord. It was to be remembered, that Colonel Bradley several times asked Major Arthur to declare whether he was on full pay, and Major Arthur always refused to answer him. Now, he asked any gentleman what would have been his feelings under such circumstances? Colonel Bradley wrote a letter to Major Arthur, telling him that under such circumstances he (Colonel Bradley) was invested with the proper authority over the regiment, and considered himself justified in holding the command. For that assumption of power, which Colonel Bradley believed was correct, he had been prosecuted and dismissed the army. Now, if there were any doubt in the case, he (Mr. Hume) put it to the House, whether it were not a fit subject for inquiry? and whether the conduct of individuals on the spot, and under particular circumstances, ought not to be looked into? He thought the Committee would bring out the facts of the case, and would prove, as he considered, that Colonel Bradley was an ill-used man. It was not the only instance in which the gentlemen at the Horse-Guards had maintained what they considered the discipline of the army at the expense of humanity and justice. The hardship inflicted on an individual before the House was, he thought, good ground for granting an inquiry.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonopposed the Motion, and said, that a decision in support of Major Arthur had been repeatedly-made by different parties. The sentence

57
of the Court-martial had been confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief, by his Majesty, and by the House of Commons, on the several occasions, amounting to eight or ten, when a motion similar to this was brought forward and rejected. He did not think that Colonel Bradley had made out to the House a sufficient case to justify them in inquiring into it, and to review and reverse the decision that had been already come to with regard to the conduct of that officer. The Motion interfered with the prerogative of the Crown. He was, therefore, surprised that the hon. Member for Finsbury, who admitted that he did not approve of Colonel Bradley's conduct, should have brought the case forward. If the Motion were agreed to, there would be an end of the discipline of the army and the authority of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing a hope, that the House would not consent to send the matter before a Committee of Inquiry.
Sir Charles Dalbiacconsidered, that it would be an act attendant with extreme danger and injustice if the House sanctioned the precedent the hon. Member for Finsbury wished to establish.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury on three grounds:— First, on the ground (and that embraced, perhaps, all the merits of the case) that the conduct of Colonel Bradley was subversive of all military discipline. Secondly, on the ground that the case had been already decided by the competent authorities, against whom no suspicion could be raised, and who came to an unanimous decision on the subject. And, thirdly, on the ground that that House had already decided the case, according to the testimony of an hon. Member opposite, twelve times. There never would be an end to cases of this sort, if repeated decisions come to by that House were not finally agreed to. Every applicant would be encouraged to make the same repeated appeals, and the time of the House would be fruitlessly taken up. He begged to assure the hon. Member for Finsbury, that those were the grounds on which he opposed the Motion, and that his opposition was not influenced by any desire to screen the conduct of the Horse-Guards in this matter.
Mr. Prymewas in favour of the Motion for two reasons:—First, Major Arthur
58
ought to have shown to Colonel Bradley the Commission which authorised him to take the chief command; and, secondly, because the decision against Colonel Bradley was a private one of the Commander-in-Chief, which it was competent in the House to reverse. Persons should not be dismissed the army without a full, complete, and public inquiry, and it was lot subversive of military discipline, if the House took upon itself to inquire into the private decision of the Commander-in-Chief.
Viscount Howickbegged to observe, that the hon. Member was not correct as to one point. Major Arthur offered to show the Commission by virtue of which he took upon himself the chief command, to Colonel Bradley if the latter would wait upon him at the Government House.
Mr. Thomas Duncombein reply, said, that the Commission made use of by Major Arthur was considered to be a forgery; but, even if it had been real, that it could not have entitled Major Arthur to take the command.
The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 36; Noes 104—Majority 68.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Barry, G. S.

Palmer, General

Bish, T.

Pelham, Cresset

Blake, J. M.

Potter, R.

Bridgman, H.

Roebuck, J. A.

Brotherton, J.

Sheil, R. L.

Butler, Colonel

Sullivan, R.

Crawford, S.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Colonel

Fancourt, Major

Townely, M. G.

Fielden, John

Wakley, T.

Finn, W. F.

Walker, C. A.

Grote, G.

Wallace, R.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

TELLERS:

Nagle, Sir R.

O'Connor, Don

Duncombe, T.

O'ConnelL, D.

Pryme, G.

ORANGE LODGES.
Mr. Humerose to call the attention of the House, to the evidence taken before the Select Committee appointed to inquire respecting Orange Lodges, as regards their establishment in the army, and to submit resolutions thereon to the House for consideration and adoption. He confessed, that he felt great anxiety as to the result of his Motion, being fully sensible of the great importance of the subject. Ireland

59
had long been distracted by different kinds of clubs and societies, the effect of which was to rouse the people, and almost to unhinge the frame of society. If they looked back for the last fifty years, they would find that, under different names, there had been innumerable societies, having different objects in view, but all tending to the same thing—the utter disorganization and destruction of social order. He found, among others, that there were Levellers, Ribbonmen, United Irishmen, Whitefeet, Blackfeet, Orangemen, and many others. The existence of one of these societies, in fact, led to the existence of others to counteract it. He had looked, therefore, with great interest to the period when, by a new system of Government, they had begun to give peace to Ireland—when they had done away with the penal laws under which the country had so long groaned, in the hope that the change would bring a diminution in the number of those societies. He regretted that he had been disappointed. It was necessary that he should explain to the House, why he had thought it right that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this subject. Not being a Member of the Committee which sat on the subject of Orange Lodges, his attention had been first drawn to the subject by the Irish newspapers, which published a portion of the evidence taken before that Committee. It was stated, in that evidence, that from thirty to forty regiments of the line had Orange Lodges, on the authority of warrants from the Grand Lodge. The statement appeared to him so extraordinary, that he could not at first believe it, till he had inquired of a Member of the Committee, and found it to be quite correct. It appeared by the evidence, that lodges were formed in many regiments, and it was doubtful to what extent they existed. Even recently, had they not seen the reckless conduct of those Orange Societies, and how the unfortunate affair at Belfast occurred, which had originated with the Orangemen. ["No, no!"] He only stated what he had read in the newspapers. He had received a letter in which it was stated, that Orange Lodges were spreading to a great extent in England as well as in Ireland. He was induced to think that the Government was not aware of the extent to which those associations extended. He thought it impossible that
60
the Commander-in-Chief could have noticed such dangerous combinations, without having taken steps for putting a stop to them. He had endeavoured to ascertain how far such associations were inconsistent with civil and military law, and for that purpose he had called for a return, from which he found that any officer, being a member of a lodge, was liable to dismissal; so that it was evident that they were forbidden by the military laws. But, it was unnecessary for him to show that those associations were in their nature illegal. He would admit that they might not be dangerous in quiet times, but in disturbed times, and among armed bodies, who might be made the tools of designing persons, he considered them peculiarly dangerous; besides which, the military order to which he had alluded showed them to be against military law. Then, as to their illegality under the common and statute law, he found that by the 9th Clause of the 39th of George 3rd, every society having branches or corresponding societies, or having branch committees was illegal; and every member of such society was liable to certain penalties. Thus it appeared, that the unfortunate Dorchester labourers were not one-tenth so guilty as some gentlemen of high pretensions whom he could name—and some of whom were, perhaps, nearly allied to the Crown. Yet these great delinquents escaped, while the unfortunate Dorchester labourers languished in exile. Was not this drawing a distinction between the rich and influential and the poor and ignorant? Why should not a prince of the blood, or a peer of the realm, have the same measure of justice meted out to him as the ignorant, who had not the opportunity of being acquainted with the laws. In 1831, a proclamation was issued by his Majesty's Government, cautioning persons against joining in illegal associations. This was intended to put down the Trades' Unions. When this proclamation was issued, the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Warwick, severally rose in their places, and asked the noble Lord, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was not the intention of the Government to put down those Trades' Unions? In his opinion, as lie had stated it at the time, the Government had no right to put down those societies, as they were not illegal—they had no oaths of secrecy, or signs and

61
passes to render them so, and, therefore, it was probable that the proclamation was issued rather as a warning to the too zealous members of those bodies not to be guilty of a breach of the law, than for any other purpose. When he recollected the opinions then enforced on the opposite side of the House, he could not help expressing an earnest hope, that he should have the assistance of those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken so strongly against Trades' Unions, in his endeavours to put down the Orange Associations, the constitution of which, he had no hesitation in saying, was contrary to law. In order to put the House in possession of the subject, he had delayed for some time bringing it forward, that the evidence taken before the Committee might be printed and in the hands of Members. The part of the evidence on which he should chiefly rely, were the Records of the Orange Lodges, printed in the appendix of the Report, and the evidence of the Members of the Grand Lodge of Orangemen. He intended, on the present occasion, to confine himself as much as possible to that portion of the evidence having reference to the establishment of Orange Lodges in the army; and, therefore, he should refer particularly to the evidence of Mr. Swan, Deputy Grand Secretary, and Mr. Blacker, Assistant Grand Secretary to the Grand Lodge of Orangemen. It appeared, from the evidence of these gentlemen, that there were 1,500 Orange Lodges in Ireland, and in some parishes there were as many as three or four Lodges. In some regiments, also, there were as many Lodges. He need hardly say, that the existence of such lodges in regiments must be prejudicial to the service, and the object of the resolutions he intended to propose was, to declare that such was the case. The first resolution he intended to move, was—
"That it appears, from the evidence laid before this House, that there exists at present in Ireland more than 1,500 Orange Lodges, some parishes containing as many as three or four Private Lodges, consisting of members varying in number from 16 to 260, acting in communication and correspondence with each other, and having secret signs and pass-words as bonds of union, and all depending on the Grand Lodge of Ireland."
Mr. Swan stated that there were 1,590 Orange Lodges, and Mr. Blacker said that there were about 1,600. The latter gentleman said that the number of warrants at present on the books was 1,843, but
62
that many of the lodges were now dormant, so that the present number was about 1600. The greatest number of lodges in any county was 229. In the county of Down there were 200 lodges; in Antrim, 229; in Armagh, 212; and also upwards of 200 in Tyrone; and about the same number in Fermanagh; and in Londonderry there were 150. In Tipperary there were only two lodges, and in Westmeath there were only two. In some of the southern counties there were no Orange Lodges, and in others only a few. The population of Armagh was 300,000, and in the 212 lodges in it there were near 21,000 Orangemen. No one was admitted as an Orangeman under the age of eighteen, and therefore they were generally in robust health, and they were all armed one way or other. All of them might be called into active service at the will of the deputy grand master. On several occasions they had been mustered and reviewed, and every one of them was bound to obey the summons of the deputy grand master. A great portion of the nobility and gentry of the north of Ireland were members of these societies. Members of trades' associations, who were comparatively innocent, had been severely punished for offences against laws, of the existence of which they were ignorant. Such a plea, however, did not avail them when they appeared at the Bar. The gentry and magistrates, however, who entered Orange Lodges, could not make such an excuse, for they must be aware that they offended against the laws of their country. The lower members of the Orange Lodges, knowing that they had the magistracy to back them, were encouraged to the commission of the most serious offences. The members of these lodges were an exclusive class, as no Catholic was admitted. There could be little doubt but that these societies drew a line of distinction between the great body of the people of the country and the magistracy, to whom they ought to look up for protection, which led to the commission of outrages whenever the two parties were brought in contact. This, therefore, was a question which concerned the public peace, and which it behoved the House to take up without delay. He had no hesitation in saying that the manner in which the Orangemen were bound together made their societies illegal; and he was sure that most of the members of

63
them were fully aware of it. The members were not admitted without a religious sanction. The next Resolution he had to propose stated this: it was
"That the Orange institution of Ireland is unlimited in numbers, and exclusively a Protestant association; that every member must belong to a private lodge, to which he is admitted under a religious sanction, and with a religious ceremony, carrying a bible in his hands, submitting to certain forms and declarations, and taught secret signs and passwords."
The religious ceremony was described in the evidence of the Rev. Mr. O'Sullivan, page 48, question 773. It was as follows:—
"The applicant shall be introduced between two sponsors, namely, the brethren who proposed and seconded his admission, carrying the Bible in his hands with the book of rules and regulations laid thereon. Two brethren shall precede him. On his entering the room, a chaplain, if present, or in his absence, a brother appointed by the master, shall read the whole or part of what follows:—'O Lord God of our fathers! art thou not God of Heaven, and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen, and in thy hand is there not power and might, so that none are able to withstand thee? Who is like unto thee the Lord among the Gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Thou in thy mercy hast led forth thy people which thou hast redeemed. Thou hast guided them in thy strength into thy holy habitation. Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us, for thou hast wrought all our works in us. O Lord our God, other lords have had dominion over us, but by thee only will we make mention of thy name; wherefore, glorify ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the Lord God of Israel in the isles of the sea.' During the reading of this the candidate shall stand at the foot of the table, the brethren all standing also in their places, and strictly silent. The Master shall then say, 'Friend, what dost thou desire in this meeting of true Orangemen?' and the candidate shall answer, 'Of my own free will and accord I desire admission into your loyal institution.' Master; 'Who will vouch for this friend that he is a true Protestant and loyal subject? (The sponsors shall bow to the Master, and signify the same, each mentioning his own name). Master; 'What do you carry in your hand?' Candidate; 'The Word of God.' Master; 'Under the assurance of these worthy brothers, we will trust that you also carry it in your heart. What is the other book?' Candidate; 'The book of your rules and regulations.' Master; 'Under the like assurance, we will further trust that you will study them well, and that you will obey them in all lawful matters. Therefore we gladly receive you
64
into this order. Orangemen, bring to me your friend.' The candidate shall then be brought by his sponsors before the Master, the two brothers standing at each side of the centre of the table; during this the Chaplain or brother appointed shall say, 'Many shall be purified and made whole and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand. Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty days; but go thou thy ways until the end be, for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.' The candidate shall then kneel on his right knee, and the Master shall invest him with the decoration of the order, and Orange sash. Then the Chaplain or brother appointed shall say, 'When thus it shall be in the midst of the land, among the people thou shalt be as the shaking of an olive tree, and as the gleaning grapes when the vintage is done. They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord; they shall cry aloud from the sea. When the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and the people shall flow into it; and this shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for a frontlet between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.' Then the Master shall say, 'We receive thee, dear brother, into the religious and loyal institution of Orangemen, trusting that thou wilt abide a devoted servant of God, and true believer in his Son Jesus Christ, a faithful subject of our King, and supporter of our Constitution. Keep thou firm in the Protestant Church, holding steadily her pure doctrines, and observing her ordinances. Make thyself the friend of all pious and peaceable men, avoiding strife and seeking benevolence; slow to take offence and offering none, thereby, so far as in thee lieth, turning the injustice of our adversaries into their own reproof and confusion. In the name of the brotherhood, I bid thee welcome, and pray that thou mayest long continue among them a worthy Orangeman, namely fearing God, honouring the King, and maintaining the law.' Then the Master shall communicate, or cause to be communicated, unto the new member the signs and pass-words of the brotherhood, and the Chaplain or brother appointed shall say, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men.' After which the brother shall make obeisance to the Master, and all present shall take their seats, the certificate of the new brother being first duly signed and registered.
Was not this a profanation of the Scriptures? What were the details of these Orange Lodges? They might truly be said to be written in blood. They arrogated to themselves the assumption that

65
they exclusively were Protestants, and they censured and condemned all who did not follow the course they marked out. A great portion of the police in Ireland were Orangemen, and it was impossible that they could discharge their duty with impartiality, or that they would forget the ties that bound them in this brotherhood. It was not possible that the people should rest satisfied as long as this state of things continued. He would ask the noble Lord whether he would refuse to support the Resolutions, and continue to keep in New South Wales men who had not been guilty of one-tenth or one-hundredth part of the criminal acts committed by these Orangemen. Books were kept in every lodge containing records of its proceedings, and copies of these books were sent up to the Grand Lodge. The manner, also, in which orders were communicated to these Lodges was not always by letters, but oral communications were made, which it was alleged in the evidence were considered either unsafe or improper to be sent in writing. This latter circumstance ought to excite a great degree of suspicion, and should awaken the attention of the Government to the subject. He did not intend to go beyond the year 1825 in the proceedings of the Orange Lodges, when they framed new rules and regulations, and when they got rid of the oath they had previously used. The general rules of this Orange Association to which he requested the attention of the House were as follows:—

"1. The Orange Institution consists of an unlimited number of brethren, whose admission is not regulated by any other test than those of their religious character and principles.

"2. No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic can be admitted into the Institution, except by special application to the Grand Lodge, or Grand Committee, accompanied by certificates and testimonials, transmitted through the Grand Secretary of his county, which shall be so perfectly satisfactory as to produce a unanimous vote on the occasion.

"3. Any member of the Orange Institution who shall print or circulate anything connected with the Institution affecting its character, or the character of any of its members, without the sanction of the Grand Lodge or of the Grand Committee, shall be expelled by the Grand Lodge.

"4. That every member of the Orange Institution shall belong to a private Lodge, and that no person shall be proposed as a member of a committee unless the Lodge to which he belongs is mentioned."

66
Was not this sufficient evidence that they were an exclusive association, and illegal in every sense of the word. He had on former occasions expressed his dislike of Orange Lodges; but he was not aware of the extent of their mischievousness until he had read the evidence taken before the Committee. The next Resolution which he had to propose was:—
"That no Lodge can be constituted without a warrant of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, signed by the Grand Master and Office-bearers for the time being, and having the seal of the Grand Lodge thereto affixed.

ORANGE LODGES.

  COPY OF WARRANT OF THE "ORANGE INSTITUTION."
  Day of —18—

  (Statute of Will. III.)

  County of *District of—

  "By virtue of this Authority,
  Our well-beloved Brother ORANGE-MAN of the Purple Order (and each of his Successors) is permitted to hold a LODGE, No., in the County and District above specified, to consist of TRUE ORANGE-MEN, and to act as MASTER and perform the requisites thereof.
  (County Seal.) Given under our Great Seal. (Great Seal.)

  (Copy.) ERNEST, Grand Master.

  (Copy.) ENNISKILLEN, D. Gr. Mr.

  (Copy.) HENRY MAXWELL, Gr. Sec.

  (Copy) WM. SWAN, D. Gr. Sec.

  (Copy.) ALEX. PERCEVAL, Gr. Tr.

  (Copy.) HUGH R. BAKER, D. G. T.

  Countersigned by
  County Grand Master
  I am authorized to state, on the part of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, that a marching warrant only differs from this,* in the district being filled up thus, "District of— Regiment."
  HENRY MAXWELL, Grand Sec.
  Here were the names of two Members of the House who were office-bearers of this association, namely, H. Maxwell and A. Perceval. The rules for private Lodges were worthy of notice, and were as follows:—
  "No private Lodge shall be held without the authority of a warrant from the Grand Lodge, signed by the Grand Master, a Deputy-Grand Master, the Grand Secretary, Deputy-Grand Secretary, Grand Treasurer, and Deputy Grand Treasurer, and countersigned by the Grand Master or Deputy-Grand Master of the county, and sealed with the seals of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and of the Grand Lodge of the county in which such Lodge shall be held.
  "All applications for warrants shall be made through the district Lodges to the county Grand Lodge, to be thence forwarded to the Grand Lodge of Ireland, under their respective

  67
  seals, transmitting therewith the sum of 1l. 1s. with renewals, the sum of 5s."
  But the rules for military Lodges were of still greater importance. Indeed the establishment of Orange Lodges in the army was a great misfortune, full of danger, which ought to excite the immediate attention of Parliament. A regimental Lodge was considered to be a district Lodge, and sometimes there were two or three of them in one regiment. In 1814 the Grand Lodge directed that all Lodges in regiments should be district Lodges. It was said that this rule had been since altered. Now, he could show by the evidence of Mr. Blacker, that in 1824 no change in the rule was made; for that gentleman read out of book, bearing that date, the following rule:—"That regiments are to be considered as districts, and that masters of regimental Lodges shall make yearly returns of the numbers." This was after the Duke of York had issued his order of July, 1822, against the establishment of Orange Lodges in the army. Was not this a violation of the law, and at the same time setting at defiance the rules of military discipline? No man belonging to one of these Lodges could be ignorant of what he was doing, or that he was violating the law. He found, by reference to this volume of evidence, that the following Resolution of the Committee of the Grand Lodge was agreed to:—
  Moved by Rev. C. Boyton, seconded by Francis Kierman.
  April 22,1830.
  "That this Committee recommended to the Grand Orange Lodge, at its meeting on the 5th of May, to establish a law that ail warrants in future be signed alone by the Grand Master, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, by the senior D. G. M. of Ireland, the Grand Secretary of Ireland, and countersigned by the county Grand Master.
  "W. Brownrigg, chairman. T. Nixon, A.G.I."
  They were also told that blank warrants were signed by the Duke of Cumberland. If any man was placed at the bar for an offence, and said that he was ignorant that it was against the law, the reply would be that he ought to have known the law. It was also the duty of the Duke of Cumberland to make himself acquainted with the state of the law as regarded these associations. It was no excuse for a man who sent a firebrand through the country that he did not know the uses to which it might be applied. Other circumstances tended
  68
  to show that the illustrious person he had alluded to was not so ignorant of the law as was represented. The grand Orange Lodge had been established in England, and he had been informed that the members were sworn in; his informant told him that he was taken from the dinner table and blindfolded, and led into a room, with a number of idle ceremonies, and sworn in an Orangeman. Subscriptions were entered into by the Orangemen of London to send missionaries to re-organise their institutions throughout the country. The Duke of Cumberland was at the head of this Lodge, and several noblemen were members of it; and he found that so late as last May there bad been a meeting of the Society, at which Lord Kenyon presided. The Resolutions agreed to at this meeting had been brought to him by a man who was present. After this it was perfectly futile to say that the Duke of Cumberland was not aware of the nature of the society. Such was the persecution carried on by these bodies, that a man had told him that he could not act for him as he wished, because he was an Orangeman. The fourth Resolution to which he would next call the attention of the House was to this effect:—
  "That it appears by the laws and ordinances of the Orange Institutions in Ireland, dated 1835, that the Secretary of each private Lodge is directed to report to the Secretary of the district Lodge; the Secretary of each district Lodge to report to the Grand Secretary of the county Lodge; the Grand Secretary of the county Lodge to report to the Deputy Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge in Dublin; and the Grand Lodge to hold meetings at stated periods, to transact the ordinary business of the Society; and the Deputy Grand Secretary of the grand Lodge to communicate half-yearly to each lodge in Ireland, and also to the Grand Lodge of Great Britain."
  It appeared that the 1,600 local lodges met at stated periods twice a year; the proceedings of each were reported to the respective district lodges, reports from each of which were sent up to the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge met at certain periods, and on adjournment appointed a Grand Committee, which met every Wednesday for the transaction of business. Was not this sufficient evidence of the complete organization of this society, and that there was an immediate connection between the extremities and the centre; and that the most ready communication could be made from the one to the other?

  69
  He could refer the House to several parts of Mr. Swan's evidence in confirmation of this, and particularly to questions 1,304 and 1,509. He could also refer to other documents to show the organization of these societies, and the effect it was likely to have on the peace of Ireland. An advertisement had appeared in one of the Dublin papers respecting the proceedings of the Orangemen of the county of Tyrone, in 1834. It requested that every private lodge would choose a delegate to send to this meeting, to petition against the Government. He brought forward the present Motion in confidence of obtaining the support of the Government. If the Whig Government had done their duty four years ago, they would have put down these societies. They appeared afraid, however, of interfering with them, instead of putting their feet upon them, and trampling them to the ground. These Orangemen were countenanced by so many Members of both Houses of Parliament, and persons in authority, that they imagined that they could break the law with impunity. Deputies from each of the district lodges formed the Grand Lodge. This lodge contained 600 Noblemen and Gentlemen. Mr. Blacker, in his evidence, stated that missionaries were sent by this lodge to Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, and other places, for the purpose of organizing Orange societies. One of the rules of the private Lodges was as follows:—
  "In order to establish a fund to defray the expenses of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, each lodge shall transmit a subscription of not less than 2s. 6d. annually to the county treasurer, to be by him forwarded at the same time, with the return of the county grand officers in April to the deputy grand treasurer of Ireland."
  Mr. Blacker stated, that there was a considerable deficiency in the funds of the chief lodge, as the subscriptions were not paid up. He thought that he had proved this Resolution to the satisfaction of all. The next he had to propose was,
  "That Orange Lodges have individually and collectively addressed his Majesty, both Houses of Parliament, the Lord-lieutenant, and others, on special occasions of a political nature, such as on the subject of the colonies, the change of Ministry, the education of the people, the Repeal of the Union, Catholic Emancipation, and Reform of Parliament."
  He would leave out of the Resolution the observation about the colonies, as he did
  70
  not think that it was necessary then to introduce the subject, and he had been told, that his conclusion on the subject was erroneous. The evidence in support of this Resolution afforded an answer to the observations that had been made at the early part of the Session as to his Majesty having given gracious answers to the addresses of Orange lodges, when no answer had been given to addresses coming from the most respectable classes. He found that an active Orange Magistrate had had his name struck out of the Commission of the peace, and he trusted that Lord Melbourne's Government would not only strike out the name of any Magistrate from the Commission of the peace who belonged to this society, but that they would also order them to be tried. To expect anything like justice from such Magistrates was utterly inconsistent with all his ideas of good Government. He found the following order in Mr. Blacker's evidence:—
  "That circulars be forwarded to the several masters of the Orange Lodges in Ireland, requesting them to procure petitions from their several lodges to both Houses of Parliament, against the new Irish Education system, also against the Irish Reform Bill, and to forward them without delay to the right hon. the Earl of Roden, House of Lords, London, endorsed, 'Parliamentary Petition."
  Was it surprising when such occurrences took place, that they saw the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Shaw) come down to the House with a multitude of petitions against Irish education, when all these l,600 lodges were directed to send up their petitions. It was well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, that the people of Ireland were opposed to these measures of the Government, but they proved how the opposition was got up. Again, on the 28th Nov. 1828, with a view to oppose the Catholics, the following Resolution was adopted:
  "Resolved, that we deem it essential, for the preservation of our Protestant Constitution, that we should co-operate with the Committee of the Brunswick Club in procuring and obtaining signatures to petitions to be presented to his Majesty and both Houses of Parliament, against further concessions to persons professing the Popish or Roman Catholic religion."
  Was it possible that the Government could be carried on with societies of this kind thwarting it whenever it proposed measures of useful conciliation. The

  71
  sixth Resolution he intended to propose was,
  "That the Grand Lodge of Ireland has interfered in political questions, and expelled Members for the exercise of their constitutional and social rights; has interfered at elections, and defended criminal prosecutions, as appears from the evidence and from the minutes of proceedings in the book of the Grand Lodge produced before the Select Committee."
  In support of this Resolution, he would quote the following passage from the evidence:—
  "Q. 1935. That Mr. Archibald Fisher was expelled the society for canvassing and being an active partisan, and heading processions of bodies of men whose principles may be judged, from their shouting O'Connell and the Repeal of the Union."
  "Q. 1937. That John Hitton was removed from the Committee of the Grand Lodge, for not having voted at the late city election, that being on the 9th of June, 1831."
  He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied now of the interference of the Orange society with the freedom of election. Seeing the engines at work it was surprising that there was not more opposition in Ireland to liberal measures. Again, it was resolved, "That Mr. Ex-Sheriff Scott be expelled the institution for introducing Daniel O'Connel at breakfast on political principles which we do not approve." This was a most respectable man, and had been expelled for this trifling reason. He should not object to these societies if they took care that their partizans were properly registered, but they went far beyond this. In proof of what he said, he would merely refer to question 1548 and 1247. Again there was the following evidence:—
  "Q. 1938. That the Grand Committee be directed to remove from the list of officers of the Grand Lodge the name of any person or persons supporting the Reform Bill as proposed by his Majesty's present Government.
  "Q. 1939. That the reverend Henry Cottingham, and the reverend Samuel Wills were expelled the institution on the 8th June, 1831, for sacrificing their principles as Orangemen by voting for the Reform candidates."

  EXTRACTS FKOM THE APPENDIX.
  "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 Percevalsaid, that there was nothing in the evidence before the Committee to justify the statement of the hon. Member.
  The Speakersaid, 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. Humeproceeded: 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 10 l. 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 10 l. 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

  73
  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-
  74
  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:—
  76
  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 16.000 l. 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

  77
  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
  78
  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:—

  COPY OF A LETTER FROM WILLIAM SCOTT TO WILLIAM SWAN, THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT, GRAND SECRETARY OF THE GRAND LODGE, [Q. 2856,].
  "15th February, 1833,
  "SIR—We the Master, Deputy Master, and Secretary of 1458 Orange Lodge, of the 16th Company Royal Sappers and Miners, having in August, 1831, taken out the above warrant from the county of Antrim Grand Lodge, we are increasing in number, and wish to be supplied with any information which the Grand Lodge from time to time sends to our other country brethren. The regulations not pointing out any means for Military Lodges holding communication, we have therefore come to the resolution of applying by letter to you for instruction which will be most thankfully received. From the peculiar nature of our duty, we do not remain long in any place; therefore, your answering this as soon as possible will confer a lasting obligation on your most obedient, humble servants and brethren, William Scott, Master; Daniel Rock, Deputy Master; Edward Dixon, Secretary."
  "William Scott, 16th Company Royal Sappers and Miners.
  "That the committee would most willingly forward all documents connected with the Orange system to any confidential person in Ballymena, as prudence would not permit that printed documents be forwarded direct to our military brethren [cheers]. "W. J."
  "In reply to this is a letter from Mr. Scott, dated 18th February, stating, 'I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and take this opportunity of expressing my thanks for the kind and gentlemanly manner in which you have answered last month's letter. I trust you will be kind enough to convey the thanks of the brethren of No. 1458, to the committee of the Grand Lodge, for their prompt consideration of our business, as well as for the interest they have shown in our welfare. The parcel, containing the papers, &c,can be directed to Mr. Andrew Crosbie, saddler, who is a faithful brother, and can be depended on'" [cheers].
  The 9th Resolution he should offer to the House was as follows:—
  "That the general orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the forces (Parliamentary

  79
  Paper, No. 395 of 1835) addressed in the years 1822 and 1829, to Commanding Officers of regiments and of dépôts, and to general Officers and other officers on the staff at home and abroad, strongly reprobate the holding of Orange Lodges in any regiment, as "fraught with injury to the discipline of the army;" and, 'that on military grounds the holding of Orange Lodges in any regiment or corps, is contrary to order and to the rules of the service;' and, 'that a disregard of this caution will subject offending parties to trial and punishment for disobedience of orders.'"
  The "General Orders" were already before the House, but he thought it necessary to recall the attention of the House to them by reading them.
  No. 2.
  (Copy) (Confidential).
  Circular Letter from the Adjutant-General, dated 1st July, 1822 (Addressed to Officers commanding regiments of Cavalry and Infantry at home and abroad, East Indies excepted).
  Horse-Guards, 1st July, 1822.
  Sir,—Reports having reached the Commander-in-Chief that measures are taken in some regiments to promote the establishment of Orange Lodges, and that in certain instances Commanding Officers have been solicited to permit soldiers to receive diplomas for holding such Lodges, his royal Highness desires that you will state, for his royal Highness's information, whether any attempt of this description has been made in the regiment under your command, as his royal Highness cannot too strongly reprobate a practice so fraught with injury to the discipline of the army.
  I have, &c.
  (Signed) H. TOREENS, Adjutant-General.
  No. 3.
  (Confidential).
  Circular Letter from the Adjutant-General, dated 14th November, 1829. (Addressed to Commanding Officers of regiments and dépôts, and to General and other Officers on the Staff, at home and abroad.
  Horse Guards, 14th November, 1829.
  Sir, — In consequence of circumstances which have recently come to the knowledge of the General Commander-in-Chief, his Lordship has directed me to transmit to you a duplicate of the circular issued on the 1st of July, 1822, by his late royal Highness the Duke of York, and to call your attention to the necessity of strict conformity to it, and of the exercise of the utmost vigilance on your part, to prevent the introduction, or the existence in the regiment under your command, of the practice therein adverted to, and which was so justly reprobated by his royal Highness as "fraught with injury to the discipline of the army."
  In making any inquiry with a view to ascertain whether any Orange Lodges have been
  80
  made in the regiment under your command, you will cause it to be clearly understood by the men, that the investigation has become necessary on military grounds, and that they will not be exposed to any reflection or disgrace on account of being Orangemen, but that their meetings being contrary to order, and to the rules of the service, cannot be permitted, under any pretence. Finally, that their disregard of this caution will subject them to trial and punishment for disobedience of orders.
  Having laid these facts before the House he would ask, could it be believed that his Majesty was aware of them? The noble Lord ought to take his Majesty's opinion on the subject. The Duke of Cumberland did not issue the warrants with his own hands; the blank warrants were put before him, and he signed them; but there was an engraven memorandum at the bottom, and he would ask whether that was there at the time of the signature? He was informed that Lord Hill knew nothing of this matter, and that three years ago he did institute an inquiry. Colonel Dixon put down an Orange Lodge in his regiment; but he did not do so till he found there existed in it a Ribband Society also. He tolerated the Orange Lodge till he found the redaction.
  The 10th and 11th Resolutions, which he had to move, were the following:—
  "That these Resolutions, and the evidence taken before the Select Committee on Orange Lodges, be laid before his Majesty.
  "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his Royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange Lodges in his Majesty's Army, in contravention of the general orders of the Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty's Forces, issued in the years 1822 and 1829, which strongly reprobate and forbid the holding of Orange Lodges in any of his Majesty's regiments; and also to call his attention to the circumstances of his Royal Highness Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, a Field Marshal in his Majesty's army, having signed warrants, in his capacity of Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (some of them dated so recently as April in the present year,) which warrants have been issued for constituting Orange Lodges in the army."
  The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his first Resolution.
  The Question having been put by the Speaker,
  Mr. Wilson Pattensaid, he intended to move an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex, and in doing so be must express his surprise at

  81
  the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had introduced his resolutions to the House. If ever there was a farce, the present proceeding was one. This subject was referred to a Select Committee, while the Committee were proceeding with their inquiry, the House was put into possession of part of the evidence, which did not amount to half; and the hon. Gentleman availing himself of this portion brought forward resolutions on which he grounded attacks on the characters of individuals. He would ask was that fair? Would the House consent to come to a resolution on the subject, on the statement of the hon. Gentleman? In his opinion they should reserve their decision till the whole of the evidence was before them. If they were prepared to adopt the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman, in his opinion the Committee might as well at once conclude its labours; indeed, it would be quite farcical for them to sit a day longer. Nothing, however, which the hon. Member for Middlesex had said, should induce him to enter fully upon the whole snbject; for that was a course which he should deem highly improper. From the nature of the Motion which the hon. Member had given, he certainly had understood that it was his intention to limit himself to that portion of the subject which related to the existence of Orange Military Lodges; and that portion of it he was perfectly willing to discuss. The hon. Member could not go beyond him in abhorrence of that system, he thought it unfair and indefensible, as not only undermining the discipline of the army, but also endangering the liberty of the subject. He regretted, however, that other matters, had excited the same feeling of jealousy on the part of the hon. Member; but he did think that before the hon. Member had taken the course he had, he should have endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the circumstances relating to all secret societies existing in the army, and not have shown a disposition exclusively to inquire into one class. For his part, then, he could not but express a hope that those other societies might be included in the resolution. A portion of the evidence had been alluded to on the subject of the existence of Riband societies in the army; the Committee had examined many individuals of the highest respectability—among them, two Lord-lieutenants of counties, several magistrates
  82
  and Sir Frederick Stovin, the chief of the constabulary of the province of Ulster —on this subject; for a belief had certainly prevailed with many of its members that such societies did exist. He confessed, however, when he came to the evidence of these gentlemen, all the belief which he himself had entertained to that effect fell entirely to the ground. Sir Frederick Stovin said he had paid great attention to that subject—that he possessed the fullest means of investigating it with the whole of the constabulary of Ulster at his command; yet that he had never arrived at the knowledge of the existence of the system. They had now, however, proof of the most clear and distinct kind that Riband Societies existed in the very district over which Sir F. Stovin presided —such was the secrecy which attended them. On that ground he felt that the system of ribandism was still more dangerous than that of Orange Lodges, inasmuch as the secrecy of its constitution had totally baffled all attempts to inquire into it. With the evidence, however, which the House had of its existence, he thought that there could be no disposition to include it within the scope of the Resolution. He now came to the subject of the last Resolution, in which reference was was made to an illustrious Duke, and the share which he was supposed to have taken in the promotion of Orange Lodges. He begged to state he was not there either as the defender or accuser of that illustrious individual, and that he should not be deterred from expressing his conscientious opinion upon the subject. He did feel that the House must deal with all parties of high or low station with equal justice and he thought that it would be an act of gross injustice to imply an accusation against that illustrious Duke before they had gone fully into the evidence which might be brought before the Committee with the view of explaining his connexion with the system. There was one witness not yet examined, who, as he had been given to understand, would supply some valuable information on that point. The statements of the hon. Member for Middlesex, when made public, were calculated to produce an impression prejudicial to many private individuals and public characters, and thus to prejudge the case. He would only repeat, that he did not think it was fair to enter into a full discussion of the whole subject before

  83
  the House was in possession of all the evidence which might be adduced upon it. When the proper time came he should be ready to take a part in the discussion of it, and to express his opinions. He should now move, as an Amendment, that all the Resolutions which the hon. Gentleman proposed should be omitted, with the exception of a portion of the last; or that the Motion should be to this effect:— "That an address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange Lodges existing in his Majesty's army, in contravention of the general orders issued in 1822 and 1829, and also to cause investigation to be made into the existence of other secret societies."
  Mr. Finnsaid, that having seconded the original Resolution, he felt himself called upon to expose a system, the professors of which had been trained to blood and crime from the first three months after it came into existence.
  An Hon. Memberobjected to going into the general question before the evidence had yet closed.
  Mr. Finnproceeded to address the House, and said that Orangeism had increased in England and Scotland to a degree which hon. Members were not aware of, and which would soon compel them to look at home. He held in his hand the book of Laws and Ordinances of the Grand Orange Lodges of Great Britain, published under the authority of the Grand Master, the Duke of Cumberland. The hon. Member then proceeded to read some extracts from the pamphlet in question, commenting upon them as he went along. These rules and ordinances were directed against the encroachments of the Catholics in the United Kingdom, and were for the most part the same as those of the Orange Lodges in Ireland. And this was all to protect the Protestant religion. These rules and ordinances were a mockery and an outrage against all the principles of the Christian religion. The fee of admission into these lodges was 15 s., except in the case of soldiers and sailors—when the fee was to be at the discretion of the meeting. Did the Duke of Cumberland know nothing of the resolution remitting the fee for soldiers and sailors? The hon. Member then read the Report of the proceedings of a meeting of the Grand Lodge, held at the House of Lord Kenyon, in Portman-square, at
  84
  which the Duke of Cumberland, the Duke of Gordon, Lord Wynford, the Bishop of Salisbury, and others, attended. On this occasion an address was presented to the Duke of Cumberland, beginning, "May it please your Royal Highness, we your dutiful subjects." This address then went on to assert the loyalty of the subscribers to the King's authority—and to proclaim the rights of the King to discharge his Ministerial advisers, and select new ones, as he thought proper—and finally denounced the schemes of disturbance which the party called the Destructives were then hatching. Amongst other proceedings on this occasion was a communication read from the Grand Master of Rochdale, reporting that three of the Orange body had voted for the Whig candidates at the late election, contrary to the standing orders of the society, and recommending accordingly that they should be expelled from the Lodge, which was agreed to, and decreed as a wholesome example to others. Amongst other doctrines sent forth by the Grand Orange Lodge of Great Britain was one that it was expedient that they should always be consulted upon the election of Conservative candidates for Parliament, because, through means of their corresponding lodges, they knew the political sentiments and merits of every man in the country. The hon. Member concluded by calling upon the people of England to strangle this infamous system, and prevent its further growth in the country.
  Colonel Woodsaid, he would not follow the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down into the history of the system of Orange Lodges, because that was not the question before the House. He would apply himself to that part of the question which related to the army. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Duke of Cumberland must be aware of the existence of the Orange system in the army. He could only say, that he met the Duke of Cumberland yesterday, when his Royal Highness assured him that he invariably signed the warrants in blank, and was not aware, in most cases, how they were filled up; and, moreover, that on some occasions, when he had been asked to transmit some of these warrants for the use of the regiments of the line, he had invariably refused. To show how the army viewed this subject, he would mention that a few mouths back three men

  85
  were tried by Court Martial in Ireland for the offence of having joined in an Orange procession, contrary to the standing orders against such proceedings.
  Mr. Henry Maxwellsaid, that he did did not rise so much in consequence of the call that had been made upon him by the House, as to answer the question that had been put to him by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume). The hon. Member for Middlesex, in the course of his speech, read a copy of a warrant for holding an Orange Lodge, and it was inferred by him, in consequence of a note appended to the warrant, that his Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, could not plead ignorance of the use that was to be made of the warrant, inasmuch as the note points out that it is a "marching warrant." The hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had asked him (Mr. Maxwell) to inform the House whether or no the note was attached to the warrant when it received his Royal Highness's signature? In reply, he begged to state, that no such note was engraved on the warrants. He would explain, in a very few words, the reason why the note appeared at all. He (Mr. Maxwell) was one of those appointed by the Committee to select the papers that were to form the appendix to the Report, and he was requested to explain the difference that existed between a "marching warrant" and an ordinary one, and he wrote the note at the foot of one of the warrants, in order that the Committee and the House might have the necessary instructions; but no such note was in point of truth attached to the warrants at all; and, therefore, as the bon. Member's reasoning was unsupported by facts, his Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, must be acquitted of the charge brought against him of having knowingly issued warrants for the purpose of establishing Orange Lodges in the army. He was himself one of the persons who signed the warrants, and he declared, in the most solemn manner, that, until it transpired, in the course of the inquiry, that Lodges did exist in the army, he was not in the slightest degree aware of the circumstance. He trusted the explanation he had given of the manner in which the note came to be appended to the warrant would be considered satisfactory by the House. With respect to the objects of the Orange Institution generally, he was prepared to enter into its defence when the proper time arrived; but he did not
  86
  think this the proper opportunity for so doing. He had been now for several years a member of the Institution—he had been a constant attendant at the sittings of the Committee, and he had no hesitation in stating that, during the protracted inquiry that had taken place, nothing had been elicited that in the least changed his opinion with respect to the Institution. When he said this, he did not mean to extend his observations to the introduction of Orange Lodges in the army. He would again repeat which he did with the utmost sincerity, that until he heard of the circumstance, in the course of the inquiry, he was not aware of their existence in the army. The Orange Institution courted inquiry; and he was himself the individual who seconded the hon. Member's (Mr. Finn's) Motion for the appointment of the Committee. He denied that the witnesses were unwilling witnesses. They were the officers of the Institution, and had produced freely and unreservedly before the Committee all the books and documents connected with the Institution.
  Mr. Wardhesitated not to say, that if the House consented to the Amendment which had been proposed, they would shrink from the performance of their duty. After the inquiry instituted to examine into the state of Orange Lodges had proceeded a considerable way in the investigation, it was ascertained that the system had been introduced into the army, and prevailed to a considerable extent. The facts relating to this part of the subject had, as far as they went, been fairly stated by the hon. Member for Middlesex, whose speech gave a fair specimen of the whole of the evidence which would ultimately be submitted to the House; and the Resolutions which the hon. Member had proposed, naturally arose out of these facts, and were founded on them. This organized plan of Orange Lodges had, it appeared, extended itself to regiments in Canada and Malta, and the Grand Committee of the Society expressed their satisfaction at the cheering accounts which they had received from the regiments in those quarters. What right, he asked, had the Orange Lodges thus illegitimately and unconstitutionally to interfere with the British soldier, and convey an insinuation into the minds of these men that a private association of this description could in any way influence their welfare, and, perhaps, in opposition to their military

  87
  duty, serve their country. It was the bounden duty of Parliament to make known these proceedings to the constitutional Sovereign of the realm, though they did not of course suggest what steps should be taken in order to put an end to them. There had been a meeting at Lord Kenyon's, at which his Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, presided, at which it was determined that a certain sum of 15 s. should be paid on taking out a warrant for forming Lodges, but by which a special exception was made with respect to non-commissioned officers, soldiers, and sailors, whose admission fee was left to the discretion of the Committee. And yet the Illustrious Duke professed his ignorance of the existence of this system in the army. Accompanying this circumstance with the number of these warrants which were issued, as a conscientious man he could not entertain a doubt that his Royal Highness must have been aware that many of them were applied to the formation of Orange Lodges in the army. He did not, he reiterated, doubt for a single moment, that his Royal Highness must have been aware of the circumstance. The assertion that he had only signed blank warrants did not at all relieve his Royal Highness from the charge that he knew the purpose to which they were to be applied. He should like to know whether his hon. Friend near him, the Member for London, would consider himself justified in signing checks, and after having committed them to the hands of his clerks, plead ignorance of the objects of them. Or would the hon. and gallant Member opposite(Colonel Perceval) consent, in his Magisterial capacity, to issue warrants, and, after having done so, declare that he was not responsible for the consequences? Besides, these Lodges were now become general; the meeting at Lord Kenyon's to which he had already referred, was held for the purpose of organizing them; and there might now be for aught any person knew except the Orange Committee, a dozen Lodges in the guards of London, or on board his Majesty's ships at Plymouth, and they had as yet no means of checking the evil. It was even insinuated that the House were now called on to connive at this system, instead of opposing and denouncing it. He had a perfect horror of all illegal societies whatever in the army. He felt himself well qualified to judge of their
  88
  effects, it having been his fate to have spent some years in countries during the process of revolution. God forbid that he should say that there was another country undergoing that process, though he could not declare such a result to be impossible, if such practices as these were allowed to be continued in the army. The spirit which gave rise to this was, he was persuaded, the main spring of all the jealousies, heart-burnings and distractions, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's (Colonel Perceval's) own country was subjected. Look at it pervading the yeomanry in that country, who could not be employed for the protection of life or property, without insuring a violent exertion of authority on the one side, and a connivance at any misconduct or outrage which might be committed on the other. The system was now spreading through the army, and it already pervaded the bar and the bench in that country. Look again at the effects which, in such a country, must be produced by the declarations contained in a letter lately published of a right reverend Prelate, the Chaplain of the Orange Lodges, in which he spoke of "the indelible hostility of Popery to the Established religion." See what feelings of distrust and animosity must have been awakened by this assertion, in the breasts of those who were called Orangemen, against a large and most valuable portion of their countrymen. "Be active," (continued this man of peace) "and never suffer popery to regain its ascendancy." He trusted "Popery" never would; but this he would add, that as he possessed freedom in civil and religious rites himself, he was unwilling that the same privileges should be withheld from his Catholic fellow subjects. Believing then that the Lodges were actively progressing in England as well as in Ireland; having conclusive evidence before him of that fact, he did not hesitate to aver, that the hon. Member for Middlesex had done his duty as a Member of that House, and as an honest man, in fully and freely exposing this system (which was proved to prevail) to the country. He concluded by expressing his conviction that the House would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if, from false delicacy or fear, they delayed in assenting to the Resolution.
  Colonel Percevalwas not surprised at the strong terms of reprobation in which the hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr.

  89
  Ward) had spoken of the Orange Institution, as it appeared that he had given more credence to the anonymous statements put forth in the Dublin newspapers than he was willing to accord to the evidence taken before the Committee of which he (Mr. Ward) was a member. He had read with the closest attention the voluminous Report of the evidence taken before that Committee, and he was able to trace throughout the whole this important fact, and it was supported by the concurrent testimony of all the witnesses, namely, that the Orange Institution was altogether a defensive society; and sure he was, that if the Ribbon Society, which Sir Frederick Stoven was too blind to see, though it existed under his nose; if that society were put down—if the Roman Catholic Association, which had subsequently appeared under so many different names— such as an Anti-Tithe Association, the Anti-Tory Association, and the Franchise Association—if all these societies were given up, and that the Protestants had security for their lives, the Orange Association would ipso facto cease to exist. The hon. Member who had just sat down, as well as the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, had attributed all the bloodletting and atrocities which had been perpetuated in Ireland to the existence of Orange Lodges. How, he would ask, did it come to pass that in the counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary — in these very counties where atrocities were continually in the habit of being committed at which human nature shuddered —how did it come to pass, that scarcely an Orange Lodge was to be found there? And yet, according to the hon. Member's statement, the Orange Institution was to be charged with the perpetration of all these crimes, though, in reality, there were no Orangemen in these districts. The fact was, as he before stated, that the Orange Institution was in its essence purely defensive—it was not opposed to, or was it hostile to, Roman Catholics. He would appeal to his hon. Friend, who was chairman of the Committee (Mr. Wilson Patten), and who had been most constant in his attendance, whether it did not appear in evidence that a man, for his hostility to a Roman Catholic, was proved to be ineligible to be admitted a Member of the society. He had, on a former occasion, stated that the society was not in its essence a secret society; and he, at that
  90
  period, took upon himself to promise, that the institution would submit all their books and documents to the most minute scrutiny. He did not at the time feel warranted in stating that the signs and pass-words would be given up; but, however, the Orangemen had, much to their credit in his opinion, exposed their signs and pass-words to the Committee; even those he repeated, had not been kept back, and he now defied all those who were not wilfully hostile to the institution, to prove that it was not purely of a defensive nature. It was notorious — it had been proved before the Committee and in the courts of justice, that societies existed in Ireland whose object was the extirpation of the Protestants—and while such societies existed, was it to be expected that the Orangemen would abandon a confederacy which had its origin in self-defence, and was kept up with no other view? The Orangemen of Ireland were ready not only to support the law, but to conform to the law—they were ready to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, for the purpose of maintaining the present Royal Family on the Throne; but, if treasonable societies were allowed to exist in defiance of the law, the Protestants of Ireland could scarcely be blamed for combining for their own defence. He would say put down effectually the treasonable societies, and the Orangemen would dissolve themselves. It had been proved that these really secret and treasonable societies existed in the army. They existed in the 64th regiment, and so far from their having followed the establishment of Orange Lodges—the Orange Lodge, it was proved, was established with a view to counteract the influence of the Ribbon Lodge, which was previously in existence. Now he never did advocate—on the contrary, he always condemned the establishment of political societies in the army. He was one of those whose duty, as an officer of the Grand Lodge, it was to sign the warrants. He succeeded his lamented Friend, Sir Henry Brooke, as grand treasurer of the institution. The warrants were signed in blank by his Friend Mr. Maxwell and himself, they were then sent in numbers, varying from fifty to two hundred, to his royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, who, seeing Mr. Maxwell's and his (Col. Perceval's) signatures to them, signed them also and forwarded them to the Grand Lodge of Ireland to be

  91
  applied strictly according the rules of the institution. His Royal Highness, therefore, knew no more of the manner in which the warrants were disposed of than the hon. Member for Middlesex himself. I (said Colonel Perceval) declare, on the honour of a gentleman, that I, who signed the warrants, never heard, until it transpired in the Committee, that Orange Lodges existed in the Army; and when I did hear it, I condemned it as strongly as the hon. Member for Middlesex or any other hon. Member. He would now state a fact, in order to show what his opinion had been, many years ago, on the subject. He had the honour of commanding the Sligo regiment in the year 1812, which at the time was stationed at Chelmsford. At that period he was not an Orangeman, nor did he become one till 1832, though previously to that time he had been frequently taxed in that House with being one. In 1812, Orange Lodges existed in almost all the Irish militia regiments; and, at the time he alluded to, when he assumed the command of the regiment, the Master of the Orange Lodge in the Sligo regiment died; there was some discussion in the regiment as to who was to succeed him, but the way he managed was this: he took the warrant and the paraphernalia and sent them all off to Ireland, and gave strict orders that no Lodge should be formed in the regiment. With regard to a noble Friend of his (Lord Cole) not now in town, the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) accused his noble Friend with having established Orange Lodges in his regiment, and called upon his Majesty's Ministers to dismiss him. Now what were the facts of the case. The warrants it is true, were originally issued to the Fermanagh militia; they had been dormant for upwards of eighteen years, and though originally issued to the regiment, were not now regimental warrants at all. Some persons residing in the neighbourhood of Florence-Court, were desirous of establishing a Lodge; and the closer the number of the warrants approach to number one, the higher is the value which is set upon them; and Lord Cole applied to the Grand Lodge for those dormant warrants which bore the numbers 415 and 1433, and his request was granted, and Lodges are now held under them in the county of Fermanagh, composed of persons, with the exception of one individual, who had never been in the Army at all. The facts
  92
  of the case, the House would see, did not warrant the imputation cast upon his noble Friend by the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Member had read such portion of the Duke of York's orders to the Army as suited his purpose, but he neglected to read that portion of it which distinctly stated that the fact of being an Orangeman, would not be considered as an imputation upon any man. With the concluding portion of that letter he (Colonel Perceval) cordially concurred, inasmuch as he highly disapproved of the existence of Lodges in the Army. He begged leave to corroborate the statement that had been made by his hon. Friend (Colonel Wood) with respect to the ignorance of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, as to the fact of Orange Lodges having crept into the Army. He had the authority of his Royal Highness to inform the House, that on one occasion only, was a proposition submitted to him for the establishment of a military Lodge, and his Royal Highness expressly stated that he could not give his sanction to such a proposition, unless it had previously met with the approval of Lord Hill. He stated what he knew to be a fact, that the Duke of Cumberland was as warm in his condemnation of the introduction of Orange Lodges into the Army, as any hon. Member who had spoken upon the subject that night. He was not surprised that English Members should be prejudiced against the Orange Society, owing to the statements they had heard made in that House against the institution. The hon. Member who opened the Debate, commenced by stating, that the riot and bloodshed which took place recently in Belfast, was owing to the misconduct of the Orangemen. The hon. Member had reiterated the calumny, without taking any pains to ascertain whether it was true or not. He held in his hand the Belfast Guardian, which contained Resolutions entered into ten days after the riot. He would beg leave, with the permission of the House, to read a passage, which would show whether or not what the hon. Member had stated with respect to Orange Lodges in that part of Ireland, was founded in fact. It appeared by that paper, that there was a special meeting of the Orange Society of Belfast on the 22nd of July, 1835—ten days after the occurrences to which the hon. Member for Middlesex alluded; in which that Society came to

  93
  a Resolution that, although they deeply regretted the melancholy events which had taken place, they recurred with feelings of gratification to the fact that their own resolution to abstain from any processions on the occasion had been so strictly observed, that not a single member of their Society had been concerned or implicated in the riots which had occurred. In another resolution they expressed their just indignation at the attempts which were constantly making to suppress their body, by the misrepresentation of their principles—principles which their calumniators did not understand. The same paper contained a report of trials, where certain parties were found guilty of rioting, and sentenced to punishment, none of whom were Orangemen. He mentioned this circumstance to show how little reliance was to be placed on party statements. He certainly was much surprised that the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, who, at the time he made his speech upon the subject the other evening, was in possession of this paper, did not mention the fact; as also that there was a procession of Roman Catholics with green and yellow flags flying, by whom the disturbances of the day were commenced. He would state, upon authority in which he placed reliance, that there were no Orange banners displayed in Belfast that day, and that in fact no Orange procession had taken place. He would give another instance of the grossest misrepresentations of the conduct of the Orangemen by the Press in Ireland: it was stated in The Dublin Evening Post (and with great circumstantiality of detail) that a priest had been shot in Carlow by some Orangemen; the fact being that the priest had been dining with a friend, and that in riding home he was thrown from his horse and killed by the fall. The Evening Post attributed this atrocious outrage, as it styled it, to the Orangemen; and so circumstantial were its details, that it set forth that several balls had entered the priest's body, and that one had been extracted from his head—whereas the man was killed by a fall from his horse. The whole statement in the Evening Post was grossly false, and reflected, in the most unwarrantable manner, on his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw), by attributing the alleged murder to the speeches delivered by his right hon. Friend. The paragraph also set forth that the murder was perpetrated
  94
  at a place out of which Colonel Bruen had dispossessed Roman Catholic tenantry, and put Orangemen in their places. What would the House think when he informed them that no such thing as the alleged dispossessing of tenantry had taken place, nor did the accident occur near Colonel Bruen's property at all. The House could now understand with what justice the atrocities perpetrated in Ireland had been laid at the doors of the Orangemen. He denied that the Orange Societies violated any existing statutes; they exacted no oaths—no declarations—no tests. He (Colonel Perceval) never made a declaration, nor took a test, unless the signs could be called so; and at that moment he could not recollect a single sign or pass-word. He repeated, that the Orange Societies were not illegal, and he was borne out in his denial by the opinion of the late Attorney-General (Mr. Blackburn). The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had, on a former occasion, read a portion of the Act of Parliament, and he agreed with the hon. Member, that if declarations and tests existed, the Society was illegal. He stated at the time, that if it were proved to him that the Society was illegal, he would be the first to leave it, and he declared the same now. The Orange Institution was founded on a love of their neighbours— the Orangemen were essentially supporters of the law, and the maintenance of the connexion between England and Ireland, the severance of which was the object of their opponents. He denied that Mr. Scott was expelled from the Society because he entertained Mr. O'Connell at breakfast; but he was expelled because he supported a repeal of the union. Every Orangeman was a lover of British connexion; he was bound to support the law, to maintain the constitution, and the throne of England in the reigning family, being Protestant. These were the real crimes of which the Orangemen had been guilty, and which had drawn down on them the vengeance of the enemies of all order and law. Had the Orangemen, when called upon by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to join him in repealing the Union, responded to his call, no charge would have been preferred against them;—but they stood firm by British connexion, and that was a crime which will never be pardoned. He repeated, that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland signed the warrants

  95
  in question on the faith of his signature, and the signature of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan. He was persuaded that Orange Lodges did not exist in several of the regiments which had been alluded to; and he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary at War would inquire into the fact. He had concurred with a gallant Friend of his that day, who had just returned from Malta, and he was ready to prove before the Committee that no Orange Lodge existed in the regiments quartered there, and which were alluded to by the hon. Member. In the 4th Dragoon Guards, too, he was given to understand that no Lodge existed; but these were facts which he hoped the Secretary at War would ascertain. He should be very happy to see the day when there would be no necessity for any Orange Lodges whatever in Ireland. He was convinced, however, that they were not more injurious than Freemason's Lodges. He was a member of both; and he would confidently assert that the one was as innocent, as amiable, and as worthy of being upheld, as the other; but if one be put down, both must be extinguished.
  Lord John Russellsaid, that he owned it was with some regret he found the hon. Member for Middlesex had persisted in bringing forward the Motion before the House, for he certainly thought it was a question which must occupy the attention of Parliament both during this, and, as he believed, the next Session. He conceived that it would have been better if the hon. Member for Middlesex had waited until the evidence was more complete; but at the same time, as the hon. Member had thought it right to bring the question forward, he should not shrink from taking that course which he felt to be incumbent on him on that occasion. If, in the course of the observations he should feel it his duty to offer to the House, he should pronounce any opinion in favour of those Orange institutions, it could not be imputed to him that he did so from any difference of opinions particularly directed against those societies. While a Member of this House and of the Government he had ever been an enemy to all associations of the kind. He had not hesitated being a party to laws framed in the spirit of the constitution to put down associations which he thought dangerous to that Constitution and injurious to the authority Of the Crown. In this feeling he had been
  96
  a party to the proclamation to which the hon. Member for Middlesex had alluded, which had put down the proceedings—the dangerous proceedings, as he believed, of the Birmingham Political Union, in 1831; and when persons in humble situations of life had involved themselves in the guilt of illegal transactions, he had thought it his duty to consent to that degree of punishment which might deter others from following so mischievous an example. Therefore, having always entertained those opinions—having entertained them in opposition to large and popular bodies,— and having expressed those opinions against persons in humble situations of life, he now felt it his duty to express the same opinions of censure and condemnation when some of the highest and most illustrious persons in this country, aided by strong party connexion, and by persons of the highest rank, military, and civil, had involved themselves deeply in the mischiefs and injuries which these societies were calculated to create. If those societies served to preserve the peace and harmony of the State, the case might be different, but when it was seen that by degrees they rose until they broke that peace of which they professed to be the conservators—when they poisoned and corrupted the sources of justice they so much lauded—when they perverted and seduced that soldiery whom the King alone had the lawful prerogative to command, when all these evils were visible, he thought the House could not but be sensible that it was its duty by every means in its power to discountenance, and if possible to put a termination to societies of this kind. He was sorry the hon. and gallant Member opposite had alluded to riband associations in the army. A great deal of the evidence on the Table of the House concerned those associations; but he would say, "Let associations of all such kinds be put down." Let the House deal impartially, and join in suppressing those disorders as fruitful of insubordination amongst the people. He had observed, he must say, with great alarm, the declarations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, and of the hon. Member for Cavan, the Secretary of that body, both of whom had declared themselves to be totally ignorant of the purposes to which the warrants bearing their signatures were to be applied. The hon. Member who had last spoken had informed the House that his

  97
  royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland had on the faith of his signature and that of the hon. Member for Cavan signed the blank warrants, which afterwards were sent elsewhere, so that his royal Highness had reposed confidence in those who, also placing confidence in others, had affixed their signatures. To add to the alarm consequent on this statement, there was also the fact, stated, not on vague evidence, but by their own Secretary, who, he must say, with the utmost fairness and frankness, had produced all the information in his power, that these warrants for lodges had been sent, he believed, to no less than forty regiments. Thus it appeared, by the confession, or by the testimony of the Secretary to the Orange society, that the warrants were sent amongst non-commissioned officers, amongst soldiers anxious to do their duty to their King, to the Protestant religion, and to the Protestant Church, and who received warrants signed by the hon. Member who had last spoken, signed by the Duke of Cumberland, a Prince of the blood, neither of those individuals knowing one word about the matter, or, supposing they did know, were prepared to condemn the proceeding as subversive of all discipline. He owned this confession revealed practice which could not be too loudly condemned; and when the practice had been condemned by the late Duke of York as fraught with danger to the discipline of the army, he felt some surprise that a declaration had not been added by the Members of that body, from the highest to the lowest, deeply lamenting that they belonged to a society in which such a use was made of their names. He felt some surprise, also, that when those distinguished individuals saw that the whole discipline of the army might be subverted and destroyed under colour of their high authority and their known attachment to the Protestant religion, that they should lose one moment in making it known that they had ceased to be Members of such an association. He could not imagine why the hon. Members opposite should continue to lend such proceedings their countenance and support. He could not conceive that the illustrious Prince, so often named in the course of this debate, should hesitate, when thoroughly convinced of the use that had been made of the blank warrants bearing his signature, to retire from the association, and he could not
  98
  conceive otherwise than that the illustrious individual in question would feel it consistent with his duty as a Prince of the blood, and filling a high rank in the army, no longer to hold in the society the situation which he now filled. In the observations which he (Lord John Russell) had made, he had said nothing to condemn either the Duke of Cumberland, or those hon. Members opposite; neither had he imputed to them anything except that which they had themselves avowed. He did not impute to them, which indeed would be a grave offence, the having any knowledge that Orange lodges had been formed in the army, although the circumstances under which those lodges were instituted required explanation from them. He now came to the consideration of the Resolutions which had been proposed, and he was very much disposed originally to agree with the hon. Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Patten) in thinking that the first Resolution would come more properly from the Committee after the Report had been made; but on reading the Resolutions more attentively, they seemed to him to contain nothing more than a skeleton of the Constitution on which Orange lodges were framed; and he thought it was necessary for the purposes at present in view that the House should come to some conclusion with respect to the formation of Orange Lodges in the army. He had endeavoured to find out from the evidence who the persons were who had thought it right to make such use of so high authority as the names appended to the warrants; and he would take the liberty of reading to the House two questions, the answers to which threw some light on this subject. The first question was, "Are you aware whether the Members of the Grand Lodge approve of regimental lodges? The answer was, "Of my own knowledge there is a vast difference of opinion on this subject. Many intelligent and influential men seem to think that it was not right or conducive to the good of the army, but that they were overborne in that opinion by a certain majority." With respect to that majority, he could suppose not less than 300 persons of rank, property, and influence, to have been assembled in the Grand Lodge during the deliberation on that question. However that might be, it was surprising that the minority should not have taken pains to make the discussion of that

  99
  question known to the hon. and gallant Member for sligo, and to all those high personages, who, it would seem, were in the minority, and whose names appeared signed at the top of the warrants—documents which doubtless had produced the greatest effect, when distributed amongst the poor and ignorant Members of the Orange Society. What, however, did they do. The next question asked, was this:—"What do you conceive to have induced the majority of the Grand Lodge to give their sanction to the existence or continuance of regimental Orange Lodges? It is the knowledge and belief that societies, dangerous to the Established Church and to the Protestant institutions of the country, already exist to a very great and dangerous degree throughout the British army; and those Members have argued and come to the conclusion, that they have no right to keep Orange warrants from soldiers making applications for them, when they have heard of the existence of such dangerous institutions, the effects of which can only be mitigated and neutralized by the establishment of Orange Lodges. Now, if he wanted any proof of the danger of such associations he found it in this quotation. The parties complained that dangerous societies existed in the army and instead of going to the military authorities of the country—instead of going to any of his Majesty's servants, civil or military, to inform them of the existence of these dangerous institutions— they set up as a counteracting power, an empire of their own, in the very heart and centre of the army. They said, there were dangerous institutions on the one hand, and they set up more dangerous institutions on the other. What was this, but making the army instead of being full of harmony, discipline, and confidence in their chiefs, the scene of contention and anarchy— what would the effect be, but to make one soldier ready to fight against another, instead of being prepared under his Majesty's authority to preserve the peace of the country against all offenders, be they Orangemen, be they Roman Catholics, or be they Ribandmen? The soldiery would thereby set up for themselves what they thought should be the institutions of the country, and they would no longer be obedient to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, to which only they ought to look. With these impressions on his mind, he could not but be prepared to agree to such
  100
  of these Resolutions as in the first place concerned the constitution of Orange Societies; and, in the second place, to such as concerned the introduction of those societies into the army. But the hon. Member for Middlesex had introduced an obstacle in the way of these Resolutions by a reference in the last of them to an illustrious individual now holding the rank of Field-Marshal in his Majesty's service. The House must consider that it was hardly possible for it to agree to that Resolution, naming that illustrious individual in the mildest terms, without its being considered as a heavy censure on the part of this House, He had collected from the hon. Member for Lancashire, that there were persons disposed to come forward, and to give evidence to show, that the opinions of his royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland were repugnant to the formation of lodges in the army. He (Lord John Russell) was not disposed to come to a Resolution touching the conduct of any individual, if it could be said, that that individual had not been fairly heard, or if that individual wished to make any defence or explanation. Ha thought that with regard to his royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland that opportunity of explanation had not been fully afforded, and therefore he thought the House ought not to come to anything more than a general Resolution on the subject. He objected to the Resolution being adopted without giving some notice to his royal Highness of the debates which had taken place on his conduct as Grand Master. With this opinion, therefore, and at once admitting, that he was ready to agree to those Resolutions which concerned the Constitution and the introduction of Orange Lodges into the army, he was disposed to recommend that the further discussion of the question should be postponed for some days, in order that, if any evidence should be tendered before the Committee with reference to this subject, that the Committee should have an opportunity of receiving and furnishing it to this House. With respect generally to the evidence which related to the army, he understood it was fully closed, and therefore there could be no objection to agree to an Address to the Crown on that head. He should not now enter into the manner in which the Orange Societies affected the peace of Ireland, and as to the manner in which they affected and weakened the

  101
  authority of the Crown, and interrupted the course of justice, that was unhappily too well known, for it had been shown, nay avowed, by one of the officers of these societies, that money had been sent down to defend prisoners against—what the House would be surprised to hear— Government prosecutions. But with respect to all that part of the subject he should not now deal, for it was one of those important questions, containing the roots of the evils which constituted the miseries of Ireland, and which spread fast and far over the land. In another Session, he thought it must be a subject for the deep and anxious consideration of both Houses of Parliament. In the mean time the Government would anxiously endeavour to maintain the authority of the Crown, to protect the due course of law, and to save the people of Ireland themselves from contamination and dishonour.
  Mr. Wilson Pattenwas understood to concur in the view taken by the noble Lord opposite. He had done his duty in conformity with the wishes of the Committee by submitting his Amendment to the House.
  Mr. Sheilsaid, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, he should move, that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.
  Mr. Humebegged, before the question of adjournment was put, to state that nothing could be more consonant with his wishes than the view which had been taken by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department. If any intimation had been given to him that an opportunity for explanation should be given to the illustrious personage, he should not have named the illustrious Duke in his resolutions. He, however, fully concurred in the justice and propriety of the noble Lord's proposal.
  The Speakerput the question of adjournment.
  Sir Robert Peelrose and said, he was most anxious now to state very shortly to the House the view which he had taken of this question, because on Tuesday next he might perchance not have the opportunity of stating the conclusion to which he had come upon the question, previous to the speech made by the noble Lord opposite, and to which conclusion notwithstanding that speech, he was still inclined to adhere. He had understood the
  102
  object of the special Report of this Committee had been confined to the matter of the existence of Orange Lodges in the army; and he thought it would have been better if the resolutions and debate bad been confined to the military question alone. He thought it was premature, when further evidence was to be had, for the House to enter into resolutions when the whole of the evidence taken, or to be taken, by the Committee was not before it. His construction of the resolutions was very different from that put upon them by the noble Lord. He thought the first six or seven resolutions referred to the institution of Orange Lodges generally, and their civil consequences, and the last three or four he understood to refer to Orange Lodges in connexion with military discipline. He should be disposed in the first place to urge the postponement of the general question, on the ground that the Report was not complete, but, without any distinction, he must on other grounds protest against the House acquiescing in these resolutions. These resolutions consisted of a mere declaration of fact—without expressing any opinion—without stating any expectation— that a law would be brought in to check such practices; and yet they concluded with a declaration that along with the evidence taken before the Committee they should be laid before his Majesty. Now this was a novel course for the House to pursue; he meant to come to resolutions of fact, and to lay them before his Majesty without any opinion of the House thereupon. What was the answer which the Crown could give in reply? The Crown could not pledge its acquiescence to the opinion of the House, for the House had expressed none. This, therefore, was an inexpedient and an ineffectual course, and he had expected that the noble Lord would have had the moral courage to make a statement to that effect. If the noble Lord meant to state that it was necessary to have an explanation of the constitution of Orange Lodges as a preliminary groundwork for other proceedings, that would alter the effect of the resolutions, and would diminish his objection to assenting to them. But in that case the Resolutions should be nothing but explanatory. It was indifferent to him what course the House might be inclined to pursue, but still he must say that, the course now adopted was novel, consider

  103
  that there was not a sufficient statement of the premises on which it was founded. He hoped that the House, before it affirmed these resolutions would be certain of the accuracy of the premises on which it was based. ["Oh! Oh!]. "If the hon. Gentleman is tired," said Sir Robert Peel, "who makes these interruptions, he may retire, He has no right to interrupt me in my address to the House. I have already said, that I will not take any advantage of a number of hon. Members having left the House under the impression that no division will take place to-night upon this Motion. No man who knows anything of my Parliamentary conduct for many years now past, has a right to say that I am likely to take any unfair advantage of my political opponents. I am not the man to take an unfair advantage of any accidental conduct on the part of my political opponents to insure to myself a mere temporary triumph; and my consciousness of that fact induces me to say that any man who is tired of my observations had better to retire, and leave our debates to proceed without interruption. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to state, that with respect to the connexion and interference of the Orange Lodges with the military discipline of the army, he had no hesitation in condemning it in as strong language as any that had been used by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The existence of such societies, as secret societies, must be unknown to the officers of the regiment in which they were formed, and, being unknown to them, must be subversive of all military discipline and subordination. It led, of necessity, to the formation of other societies of an opposite political character. Whether such societies were known under the denomination of Orange Lodges or any other denomination, it was impossible to defend their existence. He had been prepared to take a course which he thought would have closed these proceedings without much difficulty. He had thought that the noble Lord would have proposed that the evidence taken before the Committee should be presented to the Crown; and that he would then have asked the Crown to institute an inquiry into the existence of Orange Lodges in the army. He thought that their existence at present was not sufficiently notorious. If any of the facts asserted in these Resolutions were incorrect, the House of
  104
  Commons must be responsible for that incorrectness. In his opinion hon. Members ought to examine the wording of these Resolutions with great circumspection in order to be certain that they were borne out by evidence in affirming them. For undoubtedly it lowered the character of the House of Commons to affirm resolutions without being master of the facts upon which they were grounded. He would call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the seventh Resolution, which affirmed—"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-commisioned 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." Then came proofs of the allegations in detail, extending to every regiment. The allegations as to the regiments were affirmed by proof, but there was no proof as to the existence of such Lodges among the police.
  Mr. Hume(interrupting).—1 stated facts, which it is impossible to contradict respecting the formation of Orange Lodges among the Limerick Police.
  Sir Robert Peel: The hon. Member has also made the same charges against "other corps," as, for instance, the Sappers and Miners.
  Mr. Hume: Yes, and I proved it by reference to the evidence of Francis Kennedy.
  Sir Robert Peel: The officer in command at Malta denies it in toto.
  Mr. HumeLet him deny it again, if he pleases. I produced the certificate and number of the lodge held at Malta, and the right hon. Baronet, had he been in the House, might have seen it.
  Sir Robert Peel,If you can establish that fact, I say at once that I have no objection to agree to this Resolution. But when, as his notorious, nine-tenths of the House which I am now addressing have not examined the evidence taken before this Committee, there is a great inconvenience in affirming such a resolution as that to which I have been adverting.
  Mr. Hume: I copied out with my own hand the parts of the evidence which

  105
  advert to this Resolution; and to prevent the possibility of any mistake, I cut out part of the evidence which is in print, and attached it to my Resolutions.
  Sir Robert Peel: When I am called upon to affirm facts which implicate thirty regiments, I should have certain and irrefragable evidence that such a formal Resolution is not open to objection on account of its inaccuracy. Suppose, for instance, we had affirmed this Resolution as to the colonies. It had been shown that evening, and fortunately in time that the assertion of such a principle would have been incorrect. Had hon. Gentlemen taken the trouble of considering that this was an inconvenience to which the House ought not to be exposed? The course which he would acquiesce in was this; he would vote for a general Resolution descriptive of the constitution of the Orange Lodges—in a word for that Resolution which had formed the groundwork of the second Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman, and which would answer every purpose contemplated by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He should then be prepared to acquiesce in the Motion, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to allow evidence which had been taken to be laid before him. He should then have been prepared to acquiesce in a resolution that his Majesty be pleased to direct his Royal attention (that by-the-by was a new form of Address) to the nature and extent of the formation of Orange Lodges in his Majesty's army.
  Mr. Hume: That would be dictation to his Majesty.
  Sir Robert Peelwas aware that it was quite impossible that loyalty so sensitive as that of the hon. Gentleman could easily be satisfied. In future, when he heard any reflection cast upon the hon. Member for Middlesex, either for want of loyalty or for want of decorum, he should always be ready to state that when he had proposed to ask the Crown to grant a certain species of inquiry, the hon. Member had significantly shaken his head and cried out "No, no," and declared that such a course of proceeding would be dictating to his Majesty. He acquiesced in the Motion of the hon. Member calling for the number of the lodges in which these warrants had been registered, and must concur with him in asking how these warrants
  106
  had reached registration. He should protest against any special reference to the conduct of the Duke of Cumberland, and yet he should not desire to exempt that illustrious Duke from an inquiry instituted by the Crown. He thought that the objection of the noble Lord was well founded, and that it was impossible to name any individual in these Resolutions without implying some censure upon him. Now, to imply censure on persons who had not been heard in their defence, was clearly inconsistent with justice. At the same time, he would say, that the course pursued by the noble Lord was also open to objection. The noble Lord had proposed a short adjournment of the Debate, as if to give the Duke of Cumberland an opportunity of vindicating himself from the charges brought against him. Now, if that proposition were founded on the ground that the House was not in a condition to decide on the course which it ought to pursue, he had no objection to make against it. He trusted that that was the ground on which the noble Lord had put this question. He thought, however, that the mere proposal of giving the Duke of Cumberland an opportunity of going before the Committee to vindicate himself, implied a degree of censure against that illustrious individual. He confessed that he was prepared for one of two courses—either to continue to the present Committee the power of making the inquiries which they were now instituting, or to postpone it altogether. An hon. Gentleman had said, that he had no objection to extend this inquiry to the examination of the existence of Orange Lodges in England, and he would make no objection to such a proceeding. He had heard with great satisfaction, the opinion, that the result of this examination would be to provide for the termination of all Societies of this character. Such a conclusion would be most satisfactory. He, therefore, hoped that all persons of influence would exert themselves to counsel the abandonment of these institutions. He admitted that no good purpose would be served by Orange Societies, but he was not prepared to sanction a string of Resolutions condemning them on imperfect evidence. He never recollected such a course as that of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who supplied everything from his own Report which tended to support his Resolutions. If there were Orange Lodges in the army, that was in his opinion, ground for a

  107
  Special Report. But to propose a regular string of Resolutions, without one title of proof to confirm them, was a course not hitherto warranted by Parliament. He was not ready, however, to oppose the Question of Adjournment. In conclusion, the right hon. Baronet stated, that he would not acquiesce in any Resolution which in the present state of things implied censure on any party whatever.
  Viscount Howickcontended that the existence of Orange Lodges in the army was contrary to the orders of the army, and was a subject that must undergo immediate inquiry. In order to show how anxious Lord Hill was on the point, he would read to the House a letter written by his direction to Sir Edward Blakeney, now commander of the troops in Ireland. Letters to the same effect had also been addressed to the senior officer of the district in which the King's Dragoon Guards were stationed, and to the Major General commanding in Scotland. On the 30th of July, he had received a letter from Lord Hill, communicating those facts, which he would read to the House. The letter addressed to him was as follows:—
  Horse Guards, 30th July, 1835.
  My Lord,—I have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 27th instant, transmitting the copy of a letter which you had received from Mr. Hume, on the subject of the asserted existence of Orange Lodges in some of the regiments now quartered in Ireland.
  I have, in consequence, caused the letters, of which the inclosed are copies, to be addressed to Sir Edward Blakeney, who is in temporary charge of the troops in Ireland, to the senior officer of the district in which the King's Dragoon Guards are stationed in England, and to the Major-General commanding in Scotland, it appearing that the dépôt of the 64th, which had been for some time under orders for North Britain, had actually arrived there from Ireland.
  I will take care to forward the reports of these officers to your Lordship, as soon as they reach me, and, in the mean time, I think it right to state, that Lieutenant-Colonel Dixon, who is mentioned in Mr. Hume's letter, exchanged to the 40th regiment more than three years ago, and is now serving at Bombay.
  1 have, &c.
  (Signed) HILL.
  He would also read to the House, in order to show how anxious Lord Hill was that the proper inquiries should be instituted, in order to preserve the regulations of the service, the letter addressed by his command to Sir Edward Blakeney.
  108
  Horse Guards, 29th July, 1835.
  Sir—By Lord Hill's command, I have the honour herewith to transmit to you a letter and inclosure, which his Lordship has just received from the Secretary-at-War, whereby it appears that, in evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Commons, it is stated that Orange Lodges have existed, or exist, in the regiments specified in the margin,* in disobedience of the orders contained in the circular confidential letters issued from this department, under date the 1st of July, 1822, and the 14th of November, 1829. His Lordship desires that, immediately on receipt hereof, you direct the respective General Officers commanding the districts in which these regiments are at present stationed, to inquire into the circumstance represented by Mr. Hume in his letter to Lord Howick. The General Officers concerned are to call before them, and personally examine, the men named in Mr. Hume's letter, taking every possible means in the course of such examination to ascertain at whose instance the Orange Lodge was formed, if formed at all, whether any diploma was issued for the purpose, and by whom—whether any and what portion of the regiment was concerned in keeping the feeling of Orange party alive in the regiment—and in short, every circumstance that can tend, in any degree, however remotely or collaterally, to throw light upon a subject to which so much importance is attached.
  You will be pleased to take this occasion to communicate instantly with every regiment and dépôot under your command, and to ascertain for Lord Hill's information, how far the prohibitory orders issued against Orange Lodges have been infringed upon or disobeyed, and should you, in the course of these references and investigations, discover that these orders have in any instance been disobeyed by any Officer whatever, you will report him at once to the General Commander-in-Chief, in order to his being duly called to account for his conduct.
  As Lieutenant-Colonel Dixon is now with the 40th regiment in India, and as the 64th regiment is in Jamaica, you can only, for the present, refer to the dépôt of the last mentioned regiment for such particulars as its Commanding Officer may be able to furnish touching the Orange Lodge which is thus said to have existed in that regiment.
  I have only to add, that Lord Hill will be impatient to receive your reports, and those of the General Officers of districts, in consequence of these institutions.
  I have, &c.,
  (Signed) JOHN MACDONALD, A. G.
  From this letter the noble Viscount said, it appeared that no means had been left untried to institute an inquiry into the formation of Orange Lodges in the
  * 15th Hussars, Royals (2nd Battalion), 64th Regiment.

  109
  army. He must also remark, that it did not appear to him that an inquiry into this subject conducted by military authority was all that was required. Such an inquiry could scarcely by any means within the command of the Horse Guards extend beyond the officers and soldiers now serving, and if such persons were to be punished for holding Orange Lodges, it was quite evident that the House must inquire into the circumstance of warrants having been issued for the holding of such Lodges, bearing the signatures of persons high in rank, and especially of his Royal Highness Ernest Duke of Cumberland. Now, in assenting to the Motion of adjournment, the House did nothing implying a censure on that illustrious Prince, in absence of all explanation on his part. At the same time, he must say, that it would not have done for the House to have gone into an inquiry on this subject without adjournment, and without giving his Royal Highness an opportunity of making that explanation which the facts appeared to require. It appeared to him that the course proposed by his noble Friend was the best that the House could adopt, without prejudging the Question. His noble Friend proposed, that the hon. Member for Middlesex should omit those Resolutions which related to the military part of the subject, and that having done so, it would be necessary for the House to state hereafter the opinions which it would sanction.
  The further debate postponed to Tuesday next.