HC Deb 04 March 1835 vol 26 cc536-54
Mr. Finn

rose to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) which he had been desirous of asking on the preceding evening. In order that the nature of his question might be clearly understood, he would state to the House the grounds upon which he put it. In the "Court Circular" of the 26th February, 1835, the following statement appeared:—Viscount Cole presented 182 addresses from the Orangemen of Fermanagh, two from Mayo, and one from Manor Hamilton, declaring their loyalty and attachment towards his Majesty, and thanking him for the late exercise of his prerogative."—"Mr. Leicester, M.P., from the Orangemen of the county of Cork."—"Earl of Roden, four addresses from the Protestants of the counties of Down and Waterford, belonging to the Orange Institution, thanking him for dismissing his Ministers." The question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this: had those addresses been thus presented to his Majesty from these bodies styling themselves Orangemen; and had his Majesty and his Majesty's Ministers consented to receive those Addresses? The latter question was, of course, involved in the former.

Mr. Secretary Goulburn

really could not speak to the facts, upon which the hon. Gentleman had grounded his question. He had always understood that when persons waited on his Majesty, at the usual levee days, with addresses, the course was to put the addresses into the hands of his Majesty, and then to withdraw. Certainly, he could not inform the hon. Gentleman whether the addresses, to which he alluded, were accepted in any other than the usual manner.

Mr. Ronayne

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself had not, within the last few weeks, received officially addresses from professed Orange Lodges in Ireland, to be presented to his Majesty, and to which he (Mr. Goulburn) had returned an answer, that the same had been most graciously received by his Majesty.

Mr. Secretary Goulburn

replied, that since he had been Secretary of State for the Home Department, be had followed the rule respecting the presentation of addresses, which he found adopted by his predecessors. That rule was, that when persons forwarded to him addresses to be presented to his Majesty, he presented them accordingly, provided there was nothing unbecoming in the language in which they were couched, or objectionable in their general character. Certain addresses had, he admitted, been lately presented by him to his Majesty, in which the persons signing them, described themselves as belonging to Orange Societies, and others had been presented by certain persons describing themselves, as members of Trades' Unions. In such cases, no other answer was given from the Throne, than that the Address of A.B., &c. had been received. No notice was taken in the answer, of the designation which the persons might have given themselves in the address.

Mr. Ewart

begged to ask whether those Trade Unions were leal or illegal unions? He apprehended if the Dorchester labourers, who were convicted last year of being of an illegal Union, had, as such members, sent an address to the Crown, it would have been the duty of Ministers to advise the Crown to refuse the acceptance of that address. It was therefore material, on this question, to know whether the cases were parallel?

Mr. John Stanley

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was the practice for the Crown to return an answer to an address, in terms expressive of the gracious manner in which it had been received?

Mr. Secretary Goulburn

said that from all the inquiries he had made, he believed that the course which had been pursued with respect to the addresses in question, was the same as was pursued in all other cases; but what were the express terms of the answer on this occasion, he could not tell. The reason why an address was not objected to, on account of the designation of the parties, provided there was nothing objectionable in the matter and manner of the address itself, was, that otherwise the Secretary of State would be under the necessity of investigating every case where the persons signing the address gave themselves a particular description, before he could present that address to the King. He certainly considered, that in what he had done, he had acted according to the usual mode.

Lord Morpeth

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that in 1831, the Duke of Wellington refused to receive an address, because the parties to it described themselves to be members of a political union.

An Hon. Member

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he, as Minister of the Crown, considered an Orange Lodge to be legal or illegal; and whether he thought it right to offer an address from an illegal society to his Majesty?

Mr. Secretary Goulburn,

after a pause, said he thought what he had already stated, was sufficient to convince the house that the answer given to these addresses was a mere matter of form, and implied no recognition of the legality of the societies to which the individuals belonged. The addresses were acknowledged, not as addresses coming from societies, but as coming from individuals.

Mr. John Stanley:

Perhaps the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could tell him whether, when petitions were presented to the Throne supposed to originate from unrecognised societies, it had ever been the practice to add, to the acknowledgment of such petitions, the words "graciously received?"

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could not exactly answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. He apprehended that a great deal must depend upon the language of the petition. ["No, no!"] A great deal must depend upon the language of the petition. ["No, no!"] Language might be used in a petition to the Throne, coming from a body, calling itself a political union, or a trades' union, of such a nature as might alone justify a Minister in refusing to present it; but he apprehended that a petition coming from a trades' union would not on that account alone be refused by the Minister. He had himself heard discussions in Parliament, on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne having denounced political unions, whether the House of Commons would be justified in receiving petitions coming from such unions, and the sense of the House was, that they ought to be received. ["No, no!"] Did the House uniformly reject petitions, because they professed to come from political unions, or from persons calling themselves members of a political union? With respect to the addresses presented to his Majesty, he apprehended that it would be a most painful duty to be imposed, either on his Majesty or his Ministers, to refuse receiving those addresses, on account of the presumed illegality of certain acts performed by the persons who signed them. The rule ought to be to widen, rather than contract, the avenue, by which the people might approach the Throne. He was certain that that was the principle upon which the House would act. On the part of the Crown he would say, "You must apply your principle uniformly." If the House of Commons did not inquire too narrowly into the character of the parties who petitioned it, nor undertake to presume the illegality of bodies signing petitions, it was but natural that his Majesty should receive petitions front his subjects, without a very minute inquiry into the particular societies from which they came. Then, with respect to the exact nature of the answers of the Crown to parties addressing it, they were but mere matters of form. Indeed, no actual answer was given, for the words amounted only to an acknowledgment that the addresses had been received. He did not exactly recollect what the rule was, but the usual terms, he believed, were that the petitions or the addresses (as the case happened to be) had been graciously received. At all events, he was sure that it was a good rule to pursue, unless they were always to assume that the petitioners or addressers were members of an illegal body.

Mr. John Stanley:

The effect of such an answer was this—that it was considered as a recognition, by the Crown, of the legality of the society to whom it was addressed. He wished to know whether this was the fact.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

hoped not. It was but the recognition of the act of an individual, or of individuals. It was, in short, holding this language to the party—"I will not debar you of your right to approach me as an individual, because it happens that you belong to a society I disapprove." That was a very different thing from saying, that the society was a legal body.

Mr. Sheil

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, would have any objection to lay before the House a copy of the answer, given by the Duke of Wellington to the Political Union when it addressed the Throne, and also copies of those answers which he has himself given to the addresses of the Orange Societies? The House would then be able to ascertain whether the answer of the Duke of Wellington, was founded upon the title of the address, or upon the matter contained in it. The right hon. Gentleman had met one objection by stating that the rejection of a petition might be founded on the matter, and not the title of it. But the objection of the Duke of Wellington was not to the matter of the petition, but to the body from whom it came, it being a body not recognised by law. Certainly, it had ever been held, that secret societies were not legal, and he might appeal to many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, to say whether Orange Societies were secret or not.

Mr. Secretary Goulburn

had no objection to lay any one or all of the addresses on the Table, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished.

Mr. Sheil:

And the answers?

Mr. Secretary Goulburn:

And the answers returned by me.

Mr. Sheil:

And, also, by the Duke of Wellington?

Mr. Secretary Goulburn

did not know whether he could undertake to produce the answer of the Duke of Wellington.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that there must be some mistake as to the time when the answer was said to have been given by the Duke of Wellington. The Duke left office in November, 1830, and during the Administration of his noble friend, he was Secretary of the Home Department, so that he did not conceive that the Duke of Wellington could have returned any answer at all.

Mr. Shaw

said, it appeared to him unnecessary to raise the question of the propriety of receiving petitions from certain societies in connexion with addresses to the Crown; for he recollected that that question had been repeatedly raised and discussed in the House on previous occasions. Petitions had been presented to the House from individuals describing themselves to belong to Orange lodges or political unions, and their reception having been objected to, it had been distinctly laid down by the Chair that a petition professing to come from a society in a corporate capacity—from a political union, for instance—could not be received. But when a petition was presented from individuals stating themselves to be members of any particular society, the House had not thought it necessary to inquire into the nature of the society, but had received the petition as coming from the individuals by whom it was signed. He was in no way connected with Orange or any other societies, but he must say, in justice to those Orange societies, that it had never been decided that they were illegal. Their illegality had been asserted by certain individuals, but there was no pretence for saying that it had been established by law. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen were so impatient to raise this Question. He had no doubt, that many opportunities would be afforded them during the present Session, to discuss it thoroughly.

Mr. O'Connell

admitted that no judicial decision had been pronounced as to the legality or illegality of Orange lodges. But for what reason? Because of the difficulty of obtaining evidence as to the nature of those lodges. But he believed it would not be denied that more than one judge had expressed an opinion of their illegality; and he knew that more than one witness had protected himself from disclosing the nature of Orange lodges, from revealing the oaths of secresy which the members of those lodges swore, and the signs by which they recognised each other, by the plea that he was not bound to give answers which would criminate himself, and the court in such a case had ruled that the witness was not bound to answer the questions put to him. He knew, that among the upper classes of Orangemen the oath was not taken. [Mr. Lefroy. Nor among any class.] On the contrary, he could prove that the lower orders of Orangemen still continued to take the oath. The Statute Law of Ireland declared any society illegal which had any secret oaths, tests, or declarations. Now, no one he thought would assert that a man could enter an Orange lodge without giving a test by which he might be known. It would be recollected that Alderman King refused at the bar of that House to disclose what that test was, because he was bound to secrecy by an oath. Therefore, the existence of secret tests was established beyond all doubt. He recollected that in a Committee of the House of Commons in 1825, a whole chapter of scripture was read as forming the oath of the Orangemen. But the correctness of that representation was denied by Mr. Brownlow, himself an Orangeman, who admitted that a portion of the chapter was read at the Orange clubs, but denied that the following words, which formed part of the chapter, were read—"Thy foot shall be wet with the blood of thy enemy: the tongue of thy dog shall be red with the same." These words were in the same chapter, if not in the same verse, with those which it was admitted were read in the Orange Associations; and they could not fail to furnish a very happy stimulant to Christian charity to those gentlemen who administered the Government of Ireland, at a time when Orangeism was so much encouraged as it was at present—when the last appointment of chairman to quarter sessions was that of a young gentleman, a nephew of Lord Farnham, and when the Lord-Lieutenancy of the county of Meath was given to the hon. Mr. Plunkett, a candidate at the last election, and whose nominator was a declared Orangeman. It was high time, then, that the country should know precisely what Orangeism was. There was no doubt of this, that Roman Catholics could not be Orangemen, and he would put it to the Government whether it was right to give protection or countenance to societies from which all Catholics, without exception—from which such men as Lords Fingall and Killeen (who certainly could not be charged with being agitators) were excluded, merely on account of their religion. Such societies certainly ought not to be encouraged; at all events, when addresses to his Majesty came from them, the Minister of the Crown had a right to know what was the nature of their secret oaths and tests, in order that he might be enabled to form an opinion with respect to their legality.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought the main question after all was this—did the Crown mean by returning the answer to the addresses presented by the Orange Societies, to give any sanction to those societies, or to declare an opinion that exclusive confederacies, whether legal or illegal, bound together by secret oaths and declarations, were societies that ought to exist; he had no hesitation in saying, that by a compliance with a mere matter of form, or by the inadvertent use of an expression, it was not the intention of the Crown, or of Ministers to encourage any exclusive confederacy, or to imply an opinion that such a confederacy was lawful.

Sir Henry Hardinge

did not intend to discuss the question of the legality or illegality of Orange lodges, but he rose to notice the charge made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin against the Irish Government, of being influenced, in making appointments, by a desire to encourage Orangeism. Now, he would ask the hon. and learned Member whether he meant to assert that the appointment of Sir E. Sugden to the Chancellorship had been induced by such a feeling? In the next place, he would inquire who was the present Attorney-General in Ireland? [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] He did not think that the noble Lord opposite would join in cheers, and hon. Members on the other side ought to recollect that that learned gentleman had been employed by the late Whig Government.—Did the hon. and learned Member for Dublin quarrel with the appointment of Mr. Serjeant Pennefather, as Solicitor-General? Was not that learned gentleman highly eminent in his profession? With respect to the appointment of assistant-barristers, he could only say that he had, on the part of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, requested the legal advisers of the Crown, whenever any vacancy occurred, to make out a list of the applicants, placing their names according to their legal merit. Mr. Robinson, the individual to whom the hon. and learned Member had referred, had his name placed very high on that list (he would not say whether first or second), and neither he nor the Lord-Lieutenant was aware, that that individual was connected with Orange societies. He believed that he was not so connected, and he knew that be was no relation of Lord Farnham. With respect to the appointment of the hon. Mr. Plunkett to the Lord-Lieutenancy of the county of Meath, he could assure the House that the first person from whom he had heard of that appointment was the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He was prepared to defend every appointment made by the present Government, and he could declare that it was the serious intention of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to make all appointments, and legal ones especially, with the utmost impartiality, and with reference only to the merits of the individuals, the efficient performance of the duties assigned to them, and the welfare and prosperity of Ireland.

Mr. O'Connell

admitted, that for his statement respecting the hon. Mr. Plunkett he had no authority but the newspapers. As for Mr. Robinson, the other individual to whom he had alluded, he had certainly imagined that he was the nephew of Lord Farnham. He was, however, agent to Lady Farnham.

Mr. Anthony Lefroy

said, that he did not at present intend to discuss whether or not the Orange society was a legal one. He earnestly hoped that this, which was the true Question at issue, would soon be brought fairly before the House, as he had no doubt it would appear that it was as legal as it was a loyal society. The very fact that Orange processions were put an end to by an Act of Parliament, whilst the Act recognised the society itself, was a strong indication that it was not considered an illegal one. But his purpose in rising was, to give the most direct and unqualified contradiction to the assertions of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in all of which, as respected the Orangemen, he had endeavoured to mislead the House, as much with regard to the legal appointments in Ireland and the connexion which had existed between Lord Farnham and Mr. Robinson. The hon. and learned Member argued that the addresses ought not to have been received as coming from "an illegal society associated by oaths." That they were so associated he denied. He admitted, that originally Members did take an oath, but the moment this practice was declared to be contrary to law, the Orangemen, true to their principles, and steady in their respect for the laws, abandoned their bond of union, and nothing was now requisite for being eligible than the reputation of being a good Christian and a loyal subject. This test, indeed, might exclude some persons who complained that, they could not become Members, and they might so continue to complain till the improvement of their principles entitled them to such an honour; he would only further add, that he trusted English Members would not be misled by the false accusations, and calumnious attacks that were frequently made upon the Orange body, by certain Members of that House, though they were not always contradicted at the moment by himself or his hon. Friends; as this arose, not from acquiescing in them, but from preferring to treat them with contempt, rather than to occupy the time of the British Parliament, which might be much more profitably employed than in refuting unfounded charges.

Mr. Serjeant O'Loughlen

was surprised to hear Orange societies lauded in that House, even by Gentlemen on the other side. In addition to what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would mention an occurrence which had taken place in the metropolis of Ireland since the formation of the present Administration, which he thought would satisfy the House of the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member, of the countenance given by the Government to Orange clubs. In December last a meeting took place in Dublin of the Orangemen of the county and city. At that meeting the Lord Mayor presided, and one of the most violent speeches was delivered by Mr. M'Cleary, who, in the course of his harangue, read some verses, probably of his own composition, every stanza of which concluded in the following manner— —"Our hope is the Lord on high; Then put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry. And every time these words were repeated, the meeting were described as raising a shout by way of chorus. Within one short month after this disgusting exhibition, the lord Mayor, who so presided, was honoured by the company of the Representative of Majesty in Ireland, at the Mansion House, attended by all the officials of his Government. Now, if the Government did not mean to patronize the Orange faction in Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant and his Secretary would not have attended that dinner. He put it to the sense of the House whether any institution at which such sentiments as those he had alluded to were uttered, could be tolerated as not being essentially injurious to the peace and prosperity of the country; and whether, instead of being countenanced by the Government, it ought not to be immediately put down.

Sir Henry Hardinge,

after having been so personally alluded to, felt it necessary to make one observation in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He assured the hon. and learned Member, that the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had something else to do than merely read the songs any person might sing at public meetings. Until this moment he never heard of any such song having been sung; and he appealed to the House, whether, because on the 9th of December, before either the Lord-Lieutenant or himself was appointed, a person chose to sing a song before the Lord Mayor, which they might disapprove of, both he and the Lord-Lieutenant were to be precluded from paying that respect which was due to the first magistrate of the city of Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have an extraordinary idea of the law, in accusing them of countenancing a party faction, because, in the observance of that courtesy which had always been shown to the chief magistrate, they had attended a dinner at the Mansion-house. He repeated, that he had never heard of the song; but if he had, he should not consider that the Lord Mayor was never to be visited by the Lord-Lieutenant, because a person had been imprudent enough to sing such a song before him.

Mr. Serjeant O'Loughlen

begged to set the right hon. Gentleman right. The lines he had quoted, were not only part of a song—they expressed a sentiment, and were attached to every verse. It was the sentiment which he considered most objectionable and indecent. The right hon. Gentleman might not have been aware of the fact before; but he certainly ought not to have remained in ignorance of it.

Mr. Ronayne:

The right hon. Secretary had challenged inquiry into the conduct of the Irish Government. He would ask that right hon. Gentleman to look about him, and glance at two of the Privy Councillors he had made. He did not mean to say that these two individuals were themselves members of Orange Societies; but they were the recognised friends and supporters of that system in Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen could not help knowing, that the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, was an attached friend of the Orangemen, and he had been promoted by the present Government. He must also be aware that an office of high importance had been offered to Lord Roden, (the Grand Master of the Orangemen,) which he did not think fit—perhaps from delicacy, to accept. The very appointment of such persons in Ireland, was quite calculated to inspire the people of that country, with the notion that they were again to be handed over to Orangemen, and to be again oppressed by them, as they had been for the last quarter of a century. The hon. Member for the county of Longford, (Mr. A. Lefroy) seemed to think that the Orangemen had been hardly dealt with, and declared that they could not be deemed a faction. He would ask him this question, as he seemed to be perfectly initiated in their secrets:— Was it allowable to make any man an Orangeman who happened to be a Roman Catholic; or to make the son of a Roman Catholic an Orangeman; or could a man who married a Roman Catholic become an Orangeman? ["Yes!"] Well, be that as it might, notwithstanding the in- dignation of the hon. Gentleman, he would tell him that the people of Ireland regarded the Orange faction as a class that professed a monopoly of loyalty, and that so long as they were permitted to trample on the Catholics with impunity, they would be the obsequious servants of the Crown; but that when the King sent an individual to Ireland, to administer justice in that country with impartiality, they were quite ready to assail him with bludgeons, brickbats, and bottles. The Orange faction in Ireland had been—not inaptly—described as A race of reptiles, raised in troubled times; Nursed in blood, and cherished in their crimes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought himself justified in suggesting, that considering the nature of the subject under discussion, and the mode in which it had been brought before the House, the conversation had been sufficiently prolonged. Could he have given a better pledge of his entertaining an earnest wish and desire that the Government of Ireland should be conducted with the strictest impartiality, than selecting for the offices of Lord-Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, two such individuals as his noble friend (the Earl of Haddington) and his right hon. Friend near him (Sir Henry Hardinge)?—two individuals, not more distinguished for their ability and judgment, than for the consistency which they had eminently displayed throughout the whole of their political lives, in their constant and persevering advocacy of every claim of the Roman Catholics.

Mr. Hume

considered it to be a notorious fact, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had laid before his Majesty, addresses from bodies, which, even if they were not, strictly speaking, illegal, were so considered by the public at large, and whose objects could not be misunderstood. It used to be a general custom to publish in The Gazette, a list of all the addresses presented to his Majesty. That practice had been discontinued-he supposed, because the addresses for the removal of the present Ministers were in the proportion of about four to one, compared with those in their support. He had had the honour to be in company with the Duke of Wellington, on business, during the period of his holding the Seals of several offices, and he then inquired why the practice had been discontinued. The Duke said that it had been considered proper to desist from publishing the addresses generally, and that the fairest course appeared to be to print none, either on the one side or the other. Now, this might be all very well; but the question was, whether, if they had all been published, Ministers would not have suffered from a comparison between those in their favour and those against them? besides, he wished to know, why the established rule had been departed from at all. If the statements which had been made were correct, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, might be as much the abettor of treason as the most popular Radical out of the House. He was decidedly of opinion that the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was correct; that these were illegal societies, and that the Home Secretary, in presenting addresses from them, and returning answers thereto, was the abettor of what was illegal and improper. The right hon. Baronet had told them that no harm was intended. Was this any defence for the reception of such addresses, and returning gracious answers, calculated to encourage the idea that they had been favourably received? The point at issue, was, whether a public officer had been the abettor of an illegal society. This was quite enough, without going to Dublin in search of fresh topics of discussion. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given a sufficient explanation of the charge, which was one of a very serious nature.

Lord Howick

entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it would be much better to defer the discussion of the question until the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should, in performance of his promise, have laid the King's answer on the Table of the House. His purpose in rising simply was to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the right hon. Baronet disavow, in the manner he had done, all desire to countenance or encourage the maintenance of those unhappy party divisions which had so long prevailed in Ireland. He confessed that many of the appointments which had been made by the present Government, taken in conjunction with some of the circumstances which had been adverted to on that side of the house—particularly that mentioned by the learned Serjeant (Loughlen)—did create in his mind an exceedingly unpleasant impression. Anxious as he had been—anxious as he always should be—that agitation, from whatever quarter it might proceed, should be resisted, and as far as possible, put down; he confessed he was extremely sorry to witness proceedings on the part of Government, which, by throwing some degree of suspicion on their impartiality and fairness, might tend to impede their efforts to restrain the agitation pursued by some gentlemen in that House, whose course they are much in the habit of reprobating. He repeated, that he was very happy to hear the right hon. Baronet so strongly disclaim intentions which some acts of his Government certainly had seemed to imply. He hoped that the discussion which had taken place that evening, irregular as perhaps it might be in some degree, would not be without very great and important advantages, in marking, as distinctly as he thought it had done, the sense of that House, that these Orange associations, which were the means of perpetuating party divisions in Ireland, ought not to be encouraged.

Sir Robert Bateson

concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down, in wishing that all party differences in Ireland were at an end. He wished to appeal particularly to English Members, when he requested the House not to be led away by the exaggerated statements they had heard. He was not, nor ever had been, an Orangeman. He was not a party man. ["Oh!"] He repeated it, he had never been connected with any party in his life; but he would say that the Orangemen of Ireland had been most falsely maligned in that House. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of them as reptiles: he should have thought the hon. Gentleman had too great a respect for his patron saint to suppose that there existed such a thing as a reptile in all Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had said that the Orangemen of Ireland were not Christians; and yet, on some occasions, that hon. and learned Gentleman had praised and commended them most highly, when he thought he could gain them over to his own purposes, and induce them to join in the outcry for the Repeal of the Union. When he and his party found, however, that they could not attain their end, then he turned round, and flung upon them every species of calumny and foul abuse his fertile imagination could dole out. These attacks were reiterated in that House, before English gentlemen perfectly unacquainted with the real state of the case; and enormities were heaped on the heads of the Orangemen of Ireland, utterly unfounded and untrue. These bodies were, in his opinion, kept up mainly by the agitation carried on in different parts of Ireland, by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, to obtain the Repeal of the Union, and the separation of the two countries. He believed in his heart, that a greater number of Orangemen were associated together now, for the purpose of preserving the constitution of the country, and preventing its severance from this portion of the empire. He believed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party, were to cease that baneful agitation which the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had condemned, Orangemen would drop away of themselves. He believed their only object was self-defence, and self-preservation. ["a laugh!"] Hon. Members might laugh, but it did not disprove what he had said. An hon. Member had stated, that the addresses in question were treasonable, or that they emanated from a treasonable body. Why, what was their purport? They thanked his Majesty for having dismissed from the councils of his Cabinet the members of one Administration, and adopting another. If these addresses had prayed his Majesty to reinstate his former Cabinet, or to form one of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and his party, they would have heard, he suspected, very little of their containing anything of a treasonable nature. It was not true that these Orange bodies were treasonable societies; it was not true that any oaths were taken by their members; he placed explicit reliance on the declaration made by his hon. Friend in this respect. He regretted to have trespassed at all upon the time of the House, but as a man wholly unconnected with party, and anxious only for his country's good, he could not sit still, and hear a body of loyal men, who had been the salvation of Ireland on more than one occasion, stigmatized without rising to enter his protest against such a tissue of unfounded and false accusations as he had heard that night.

Colonel Conolly

was much obliged to the noble Lord, the Member for Northum- berland, for the very dispassionate manner in which he had treated the subject. He had thrown oil upon the troubled waters, and calmed the irritation which it was sought to produce in that House. He could not patiently hear these calumnies uttered against a set of men combined only in their own defence. Unless they had combined, the events of the last four years would have left them neither property nor life. He said so distinctly; he said so of his own knowledge; he said so as a magistrate and a landlord. He maintained that the Protestant Orangemen of the north of Ireland had been the great bulwark which had resisted the treasonable language and dangerous practices of the agitators throughout the country. He could not restrain his indignation when he heard the appointment of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, cavilled at, and objected to. There was not in that House—there was not in the empire—a more honourable or more upright man, or one better calculated to fulfil the duties of his station, or one whose appointment did greater credit to the Ministry who had selected him; no one was more highly estimated within the circle in which he moved than the gallant Colonel; his manly bearing, his upright conduct, and his daring denial of the misrepresentations made in that House, had very naturally brought upon him the indignation of those who pursued a very different course from that by which he was guided. He would speak to the question; the question was,—whether this loyal body was illegal; he hoped he should not weary the House, but he would not sit down until he had explained, or attempted to explain, the constitution of that body, and the claim they had to the support of every loyal man and well-wisher to the integrity of the empire. These charges ought not to be allowed to remain here; it was a much more manly and open way of proceeding to carry the war into the enemy's camp, instead of recognising, and allowing, he would say, in a great measure, the gross, indecent, almost treasonable, course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and his party. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman ever proposed the King's health at a public dinner as the first servant of the Crown—he meant of the people? "Call ye that loyalty: endeavouring to disparage both the Crown and the Monarch in the eyes of his people?" Had anything that could be done to lower and disparage the Government, or assail all the authorities of the land in every possible way, been left undone by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the two last Parliaments? There was not one of the constituted authorities who had escaped his strong and marked vituperation. We are accused," continued Colonel Conolly, "I say we, for I will proudly identify myself with the honourable and loyal body of Orangemen, with a monopoly of loyalty. Why, what gives us that monopoly? To whom are we indebted for it? To those who take up the trade of agitation—to those who disparage all the constituted authorities—to those who speak disrespectfully of the Monarch, and outrage the laws by every possible method in their power—who delude the ignorant, and drive them to actual violence—who misconstrue the law, and hold out prospects of impunity to those who are ignorant enough to be misled by them—who wean the people of Ireland from their legitimate allegiance, and induce them to form notions that the Government of England is hostile to them, that they can get no justice from this Parliament, and that they must effect the separation of the two countries, before they can obtain it." He would not say before the British House of Commons, that such language was wilfully and designedly false; but he would say, that if Gentlemen on the other side of the House, had a mind to terminate the existence of Orangeism, let them forsake their own illegal combinations, and leave the country in a state of tranquillity. Allusion had been made by the learned Sergeant to the dinner at the Mansion-house, in Dublin. He (Colonel Conolly) had had the honour of being present on the occasion, and he declared that an entertainment less savouring of party, he never attended, anything more dignified or proper than the declarations of the Lord Lieut-tenant, and though the right hon. Gentleman was present, he would say of the Secretary for Ireland also, he never heard, he never listened to, language of a more moderate kind, and no allusion was made which could bear the construction sought to be put upon it. He was delighted to hear the manly declaration of the Lord Lieutenant that certain persons should meet with no tenderness at his hands; but that those who consulted their own personal interest and advantage, in promoting agi- tation, and driving the pauper and deluded population to acts of violence and outrage, should be treated as they deserved. No wonder that language like this, tending to promote the peace and welfare of society, should meet with the vituperation of some persons in that House.

Colonel Verner,

as a member of a society, which he regarded as the saviours of their country, wished to say a few words. He could positively assure the House that the principle of that society was, to maintain the laws, to preserve the connexion with Great Britain, to protect property and life, and to defend the King. Such, he could positively declare, were the objects for which the Orangemen were embodied. He was not surprised that some hon. Gentlemen were opposed to Orange societies in Ireland; but he was surprised to find that others joined in the outcry; it was, however, only a proof to him how much that body was misrepresented in that House. If the society were such as it had been represented by hon. Members opposite, why was it that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had at one time preached conciliation to that body. He wished that hon. Members would bear those facts in mind. He could give his testimony, along with that of the gallant Colonel who spoke last, as to the entertainment given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin—that entertainment was intended as a mark of proper respect from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Lieutenant, upon his arrival in that country. It was stated that objectionable toasts were given at that dinner—he was aware that some of those were objectionable, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite; for amongst them were such toasts as "The King," "The Established Church," and "Sir Robert Peel and his Colleagues."

Subject dropped.

The House resolved itself into a