§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that, before the House passed this stage of the Address, he was anxious to elicit from the Government some statement in regard to the Orange Society in Ireland. He had lately addressed two Questions to the Chief Secretary upon the subject. He had asked if the Government were aware that oaths and secret signs were enforced in connection with the existing Orange Lodges? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have answered the Question; but, before he was able to do so, the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) interposed with another Question. The noble Viscount asked—
If the Prime Minister is aware that since the issue of the Treasury Minute of the 15th March 1836, requiring public servants under the control of the Board to withdraw from the 1792 Orange Institution, that Society was dissolved, and has since been reconstituted upon a basis expressly excluding the use of oaths, illegal tests or declarations, and secret signs and symbols?He (Mr. Sexton) proposed to show the House that the impression conveyed in the Question of the noble Viscount was directly contrary to the fact. He believed he should be able to show that the Orange Society at the present moment did not exclude the use of these illegal tests and declarations, and that it was conducted upon a complete and elaborate system of signs and symbols. The Prime Minister, in replying to the Question, gave as his reason for refusing to enforce, in the Public Service in Ireland, the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 1836, that since that time the Orange Society had been transformed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case against the Orange Societies at that time was, first of all, that they were extremely extensive; but on the admission and avowed declaration of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who were members of the Orange Society, in that House, that Society was extremely extensive now. The second point of the Prime Minister was that it had reached very extensively into the Army. He would only remind the right hon. Gentleman of the appeal made at the meeting at Rosslea, by Lord Rossmore, to the sympathy that existed between Orangemen and the soldiers, and of the significant declaration that was contained in an exclamation which came from one voice at that meeting—"There are 400 Orangemen in the regiment"—a statement referring, no doubt, to the local Militia. The third point adverted to by the Prime Minister was, that the Orange Society was, at the time referred to—namely, 1836—presided over by a Prince of the Blood Royal. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware that any Prince of the Blood Royal gave his countenance to the Orange Society now; but, if not, it was, nevertheless, excited to acts of violence by the son of a noble Duke who had held the Office of Viceroy of Ireland; by Lord Lieutenants of counties; by magistrates; by Members of the House of Commons; and by High Sheriffs, who were entrusted with the administration of the law. He contended that the connection of these persons with the Orange Society of the pre- 1793 sent day constituted as grave a case as did the membership of the Duke of Cumberland in 1836. The fourth point urged by the Prime Minister was that the Orange Society was not exclusive in point of religion. He (Mr. Sexton) denied that since 1836 the Orange Society had made any change in that respect; and he asked if the right hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Member, pretended for one moment that Roman Catholics could be admitted? The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon two points which induced him to arrive at the conclusion that the Society was very different now from what it was in 1836. The right hon. Gentleman said those two points were that, in 1836, the Orange Society made use of secret signs; and the other was that the initiatory proceedings were attended by religious ceremonials partaking of the nature of an oath. Now, he took his stand on the declaration that the oath at the present moment was not administered, and that no secret signs or symbols were employed. He undertook to prove that years after the Society was reconstituted the members did use secret signs and symbols; and that as regarded the inner circle—the "Purple Arch," the "Purple Order," and the "Black Preceptory"—no person was admissible without the preliminary of an oath. The right hon. Gentleman had readily, and rather hastily, accepted the declaration of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton). The noble Viscount said—That since the issue of the Treasury Minute of the 15th March, 1836, requiring public servants under the control of the Board to withdraw from the Orange Institution, that Society was dissolved, and has since been reconstituted upon a basis expressly excluding the use of oaths, tests or declarations, and secret signs and symbols.Upon that statement the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said it was quite clear that the case of the Orange Society of to-day, whatever it might be, was totally different from the case of the Orange Society which was debated in 1836. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) proposed, by the statement of a few facts, to show that the case was just the same. Before doing so, however, he would refer to the Question he had put to the First Lord of the Treasury the other day—Whether, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court at Montreal, in 1832, by a 1794 unanimous judgment, declared the Orange Society in Canada to be illegal, he will, on an early day, move for or assent to a Motion for a Select Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon the nature, character, and tendency of the Orange Institution in Ireland, and with power to send for persons, papers, and records?The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to that Question, said—I have made inquiry of the Colonial Office, but we have no information as to that judgment; and I do not think that judgment, of itself, would constitute any reason for our assenting to the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. I wish to be understood as strictly limiting myself to the terms of the answer I have given, and as conveying no opinion on any other matter.He (Mr. Sexton) would assume for a moment that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was accurate, and that the Orange Society, after the year 1836, had not used oaths, secret signs, or symbols. How did the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement, as to the harmlessness of the Orange Society, with the letter of Lord Chancellor Brady on the subject? In 1857, did not Lord Chancellor Brady use the following language in a public document:—It is manifest that the existence of this (the Orange) Society, and the conduct of many of those who belong to it, tend to keep up through large districts of the North a spirit of bitter and factious hostility among largo classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and to provoke violent animosities and aggression. It is impossible rightly to regard any Association such as this as one which ought to receive countenance from any persons in authority who are responsible for the preservation of the peace?The Lord Chancellor of Ireland made this declaration at a time of social quiescence; and the year after the declaration was made a deputation from the Orange Society waited on Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was not then in Office. Three years before he had held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer; and soon after the deputation waited upon Lord Palmerston he resumed the same Office in the Ministry of Lord Palmerston. He (Mr. Sexton) wished to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the language used by his Chief on that occasion. Lord Palmerston said—I must really say that I think it is offensive, as regards the Government and institutions of the country, to say that the general government of the nation is not adequate to 1795 protect individuals from violence. I must be allowed to say that the very foundation on which the Orange Association rests casts a reflection on the institutions of the Empire.The noble Lord concluded with this remark—Nothing could he more desirable for the real interests of Ireland than the complete abandonment of the Association.Then, surely, a quarter of a century after those words were spoken by Lord Palmerston was too late in the day to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who stood next to him in position among the official persons of the time, to give effect to his words. He now came to test the declaration which was inferred in the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton)—that the Orange Society had been reconstructed since 1836, and all signs, oaths, and symbols done away with and abolished. He would refer the Prime Minister to an inquiry held at Magherafelt, in the county of Derry, in April, 1874, relative to a riot on the 17th of March at Bellaghy and Castledawson. Not only was it there sworn that the Orange Lodge was utilized for the purpose of "getting up" evidence for these inquiries, but it was elicited, in the cross-examination of some of the Orangemen, that an oath was taken upon their entering the Society, that secrets were revealed in the Lodge-room which they dared not disclose even for the purposes of the administration of justice. It was also sworn that there were secret signs and passwords in connection with the Institution. John Martin, an Orangeman, was asked in evidence—Are there secret signs and passwords in connection with the Institution? Witness objected to answer. Mr. Gaussen ruled that he was bound to answer, providing he did not tell what the secret signs and passwords were. Witness: There are secret signs and passwords in connection with the Orange Institution, and that is all I will tell you.—Is there a secret oath in connection with the Institution?—Mr. Gaussen: You are not bound to answer that question.The next question was—Is there a secret oath in connection with the Orange Institution?And he (Mr. Sexton) asked the House to observe that this was 38 years after the reconstruction of the Society. Mr. Gaussen, the presiding magistrate, said—You are not bound to answer that question.1796 Martin Davidson, a publican in Bellaghy, and an Orangemen for five years, and Master of Lodge 1,511, was prevailed upon by the Court to answer, and corroborated Martin's evidence by saying—Of course there are secret signs and pass words in connection with the Orange Society.One of the counsel, Mr. M'Erlean, then said that—There were three orders in the Society that were sworn—the Purplemen, the Knights of Malta, and the Black Preceptory—and every one of these orders was illegal. The 37 Geo. III. c. 173, made it an offence against the law for anyone to take an oath not required by law, to subscribe or assent to any oath or declaration or test not sanctioned by law.The next witness, Andrew Kennedy, said—He did not know that he ever knew an Orangeman who had not the signs and passwords.—Mr. Rea: Is this the first time you were ever sworn in a Court of Law?—Yes.—Is this the first time you have ever been sworn?—Mr. Gaussen: You are not bound to answer that.—Mr. Rea: Well, of course, the refusal will do as well as if he answered. How often have you been sworn before this day, which you say is the first time you ever were sworn in a Court of Justice?—I was sworn once.—About how long ago is that?—I don't remember. Is it a year, or two years, or three years?—It might be about two years ago since I was sworn.—Was it in Magherafelt, in Bellaghy, or in Castle-dawson?—It was in Castledawson.—Was it be-fore a magistrate? No.—The Chairman: Well, now, you see, there's the point, because no one can lawfully administer an oath except a magistrate.—Mr. Rea; Wasn't it as a member of the Orange organization that the oath was administered?—I decline to answer.—Well, is it because it would subject you to a criminal prosecution you decline to answer?The Court decided that he was not bound to give a reason, and the witness refused to give one. William Gray, a letter-carrier, and a member of the Orange Society for about eight or nine years, was sworn, and in cross-examination by Mr. Rea, gave corroborative evidence relative to the existence of signs and passwords, which he believed always came from Dublin, and were given him from the Master of the Lodge—Were you ever sworn outside a Court of Justice?—(After a pause) I'll not answer that question.—Were you ever sworn on the Evangelist except in a Court of Justice or before a magistrate?—I don't see that I have a right to answer that question.—The Chairman: Can't you answer the question?—Witness; I was once.—Mr. Rea: Was that in Castledawson or Bellaghy?—It was in Castledawson.—Wasn't it about seven or eight years ago?—It was 1797 between seven and eight years ago.—Now, you need not answer this question if you don't like. Wasn't it as a member of the Orange Society that you were sworn? You may decline to answer it if it would tend to criminate you.—No answer.—Do you decline to answer it on that ground?—I do.He (Mr. Sexton) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to lay on the Table a copy of these sworn informations, so that he might satisfy himself and the House by what must be considered most authentic evidence. He thought the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), who contended that the Society was reconstructed 38 years ago on the basis of the exclusion of all oaths, secret signs, and symbols, would now see that as recently as nine years ago it was proved in a Court in Ireland that secret signs, oaths, and symbols were the basis of the Institution. It was well known that there was an outer circle, to which men like the noble Viscount were admitted without taking an oath; but, even in that outer circle, he believed every person who was initiated was told that, although the law forbade the administration of an oath, he might administer it to himself. No man could procure admission into the inner circle, or the Knights of Malta, or the Black Preceptory without taking an oath. With regard to the legality of this Society, the Primo Minister told him the other day that he had no information in regard to a judgment which had been given by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Montreal, in the case of "Grant v. The Mayor of Montreal," for unlawful arrest while attempting to hold an Orange procession. The dispute out of which the proceedings arose took place as far back as 1878. On the 12th of July of that year, there was a demonstration at Montreal to commemorate the "Battle of the Boyne." The Mayor of the city, however, took steps to prevent the display. The District Master who headed the party was arrested immediately on his emerging from the Orange Hall; with him five of his fellow-ringleaders. All the others were surrounded and beleaguered in their Hall until they were glad to get out, and to be allowed to proceed to their homes under protection from the hostile crowds that had assembled. They were marched out in small bodies between lines of armed soldiers, and thus escorted out of danger. It was the Mayor who ordered the arrest of the District Master and his five bre- 1798 thren, thus setting an example which it would have been well to have imitated more generally elsewhere. But in return for this act of kindness, and for which a vote of thanks ought to have been passed to him, he was proceeded against in the Civil Courts for 10,000 dollars damages for illegal arrest. The case was heard in 1880, and the suit was dismissed by the Superior Court, but upon the technical ground that the plaintiff had not given the Mayor, as defendant, the full notice required by law. The case was taken to the Court of Appeal—as might be expected, where such mighty interests were at stake—and five Judges of that High Court not only sustained the previous decision, but, what was eminently more satisfactory, they went much further, and deciding on the merits of the suit, declared that by virtue of Chap. X., Sec. 6, of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, the Orange Order—Is an illegal body, and its members may be prosecuted and found guilty of misdemeanour, for the reason that the Orange oath enjoins secrecy.He (Mr. Sexton) would conclude by reading a short extract from a letter from a gentleman, who gave his name and address, and who lived in a part of Ireland where correct information as to the Orange Society was easily obtained. This gentleman said—Mr. Gladstone seems to know very little about the Orange Society if he savs it is not established upon a religious basis. There is an order in the Orange Society, and there is not much mystery about the fact, that they were obliged to take oaths. This rule was in force in the Purple and Black Preceptory,' and those who say there is no secrecy in it, or that it is not a religious Society, do not know what they are talking about. They have signs and oaths which they take (this description is graphic) which would send the hon. Member for Northampton into fits.He (Mr. Sexton) had now laid before the right hon. Gentleman the matters of fact on which he relied in asking him, first of all, to prevent persons from being members of it who were receiving pay from the public purse; and, secondly, to assent to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain whether the Orange Society had or had not given up oaths, secret signs, and symbols. The Orange Society boasted of its solidarity all over the world; and he thought he had proved conclusively, by the judgment of the Court of Montreal, that not 1799 only was it illegal in Ireland, but also in Canada. He regretted that he had been obliged to trouble the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that night; but as the Question which he had placed upon the Table upon the subject had been ruled out of Order, for some reason which was beyond his understanding, he had found himself obliged to trouble the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the time and temper of the House would be spared if the officials of the House were requested not to impede and embarrass Members in the discharge of their duty.
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he was sorry not to have been in the House when the hon. Member for Sligo commenced his observations; but he had not been aware that the subject was intended to be brought on that night. He believed Notice had been given of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and also that a Bill was to be introduced on the subject by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan). A Question put to the Prime Minister the other night inferred that the Orange Society enforced oaths, signs, and passwords, or symbols of that sort. Now, the Orange Society was dissolved in 1836, and reconstituted in 1845 on a new basis. In that year a Committee was appointed to draw up rules for the guidance and organization of the Society; and in order that there might be no mistake, and that the Society might be reconstituted on a strictly legal basis, the rules were submitted to a well-known counsel. The hon. Member had quoted the opinion of Lord Chancellor Brady; he (Viscount Crichton) was about to quote the opinion of a lawyer quite as eminent—namely, Lord Chancellor Sir Joseph Napier. The following was the case submitted to Sir Joseph Napier, then Mr. Napier:—
Counsel is herewith sent the Rules and Ordinances of the Orange Institution, and will please to peruse the same and advise. First, whether the Orange Society, retaining its former name and acting by affiliated branches, can he reorganized consistently with the law as it exists at present? Secondly, in what manner, if at all, this reorganization can he effected; and he will please peruse and remodel the Rules, so as to render them conformable to law; and, thirdly, is it lawful for a magistrate holding the Commission of the Peace to advise or encourage such reorganization?The opinion given by Mr. Napier was—First, that no form of oath can in any manner, or under any pretence, lawfully be 1800 used in the proposed Association; secondly, that secret signs and passwords, or other secret modes of communication, cannot be employed or sanctioned; and, thirdly, that no test or declaration can be used that has not been approved and subscribed by two Justices of the Peace in the county, registered by the Clerk of the Peace, and sanctioned by the majority of the Justices at the next General Sessions after it is approved in the first instance.Mr. Napier went on to show how the Rules could be made to conform to the law, and said—I have remodelled the Rules and Ordinances so as to render them consistent with law, and so as to be capable of adoption either with or without a test or declaration.The Rules as revised by Mr. Napier were practically the Rules now in force in the Orange Institution of the present day. There was one change made in the year 1862. In that year some legislation had passed through Parliament which rendered it necessary that there should be a revision of the Rules. The revision was made under the advice of the present Vice Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Chatterton), and that was the only alteration which had been made since 1845.
§ MR. SEXTONasked in what year the alteration itself was made?
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, bethought it was in the year 1862. And these were the only Rules under which the Orange Society was organized. The hon. Member for Sligo had talked about a number of Orders in connection with the Orange Institution—such as the Knights of Malta, and others; but he (Viscount Crichton) had never heard of them himself. Indeed, he had always believed that the Knights of Malta were a Masonic Order, and he had never hoard of them in connection with this Society. The only two recognized Orders of the Association were the Orange and the Purple. He held in his hand a copy of the Rules and Ordinances of the Orange Institution of Ireland, revised and adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, and he was quite willing to supply the hon. Member with a copy, believing that the hon. Member might use it with advantage to himself. In regard to the qualifications of officers, the Rule laid down was not to
Admit, or assist at the admission, of any Member into any other Order, purporting to be part of the Orange system, than the Orange and the Purple, which were the only Orders recognized by the Orange Institution.1801 Directly after this Rule came the general laws; and the first law of the Orange Institution was as follows:—The Orange Institution consists of an unlimited number of Protestant Brethren, whose admission is not regulated by the taking, subscribing, or assenting to any oath, or any illegal test or declaration.These were the whole of the Rules in the Orange Institution which bore upon this subject, and he thought they were a complete answer to the statements of the hon. Member for Slige.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I make no complaint against the hon. Member for Sligo for having now called the attention of the House to this subject. On the other hand, I have not the smallest doubt of the good faith and perfect accuracy of the noble Viscount opposite in all he has stated; but I am not sure whether those statements can be regarded as covering the whole ground. I must own that when I came to the House I did not in the slightest degree anticipate that the hon. Member for Sligo would have produced documentary evidence of the character he has detailed to the House. He has referred to proceedings which seem to have been of a loyal, regular, and solemn character in Canada; and he has likewise referred, if I understand him rightly, to more than one legal proceeding in Ireland, one of them relating to a number of persons, and in all of these several cases he gives evidence more or less of the apparent existence of secret signs and likewise of oaths in the Orange Society of the present day. The noble Viscount most properly referred to the Rules of the Society, and the last extract he read does appear certainly to imply that there could be no other Rules, and no inner, secret, concealed system, under which conditions might be imported into the the existing Societies, such as do not appear in a regular and acknowledged Rules. With regard to the case of Canada, I presume, and should suppose, that that case is identical with the case of Ireland—that the Orangeman of Canada is the same thing as the Orangeman of Ireland. [Viscount CRICHTON dissented.] The noble Viscount may know more about it than I do, and I am not giving any conclusive judgment on any portion of this case; neither docs the hon. Gentleman opposite ask me for one. But what I think is this—that, to 1802 a certain extent, the hon. Member for Sligo has established a presumptive case, I may add to my great sorrow and regret. I do not know to what extent it may exist. Possibly further investigation may dissipate altogether the inferences now drawn; but as they now stand, they are clearly and intelligibly before us. The noble Viscount, in the very fair observations he has made, has not offered any comments that tend to discredit or disprove the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo, beyond citing the Rules of the Orange Society, which appear undoubtedly to provide that there shall be no inner system of concealed regulations. But that can be hardly considered, I think, as setting aside the very direct and plausible evidence produced by the hon. Member for Sligo. The hon. Member has referred to Lord Palmerston, and to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not give the exact date of Lord Palmerston's words.
§ MR. SEXTONThe 15th of February, 1858.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not quite certain that Lord Palmerston was in Office in February, 1858. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to inform me?
§ MR. SEXTONYes; he was.
MR. GLADSTONEOh, he was in Office. What I was going to say, how-over, was this—that I look with great respect, indeed, on the character of Lord Palmerston in his capacity of a gentleman connected with Ireland, and of one who always looked with a generous spirit on the religious animosities which prevailed in that country. I am not, therefore, surprised that Lord Palmerston, rather as a man connected with Ireland, than as Prime Minister, should have used dissuasive language in regard to a Society which he must have regarded as calculated to keep up religious animosity. It would be a venturesome act on my part to speak confidently of Orange Societies with which I am not so conversant as Lord Palmerston was; but I am not surprised at the language used by him, or by Lord Chancellor Brady. The hon. Member for Sligo has said—"Will the Government accede to a Select Committee for the purpose of investigating these matters?" I think he will feel that it would be rash and premature on my part to give an answer to that question at the present moment. 1803 I should like to have an opportunity of considering a little further what has fallen from him, and I should also like to have an opportunity of consulting with my Colleagues on the subject. I think, therefore, that I should not be justified at the present moment in assenting to the appointment of such a Committee. There are many things to be considered in the matter, and we should not be justified in appointing a Committee unless we found the evidence produced by the hon. Member has stood, at least, the test of preliminary examination. If, however, the hon. Gentleman, in further prosecution of the task he has undertaken to-night, will give a Notice to that effect, I will take care that he shall have, on the part of the Government, an early answer. And, in the meantime, I shall be glad to be made acquainted with any circumstances that may tend to diminish or extenuate the force of what has been stated to-night. Unless hon. Members opposite are able to do that, it appears to me that the matter which has been laid before the House by the hon. Member for Sligo is of considerable importance.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he should not have troubled the House with any remarks if it had not been that the speech of the Prime Minister appeared to have produced the impression that there was something behind the Rules of the Society.
MR. GLADSTONEI hope I have explained myself quite clearly that nothing lies behind the Rules to the knowledge of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton); but, undoubtedly, the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite is that apparently there may be some system lying behind the Rules which may exist without the knowledge of gentlemen who are connected with the Society.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that that might be so; but the impression conveyed to the mind of every person who heard the right hon. Gentleman was that there might be something behind to which the Rules themselves were opposed. He (Mr. Tottenham) had been a member of the Society, and also a member of the Purple Order, for many years; he had never taken any oath on any subject; and he thought he might say the same for the noble Viscount, who had been initiated in the mysteries of 1804 the Society on the same day as himself. He might add that he had never been made cognizant of any signs, grips, or passwords.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had no wish to detain the House after the remarks of the Prime Minister. He thought it would be unbecoming on his part to do so. He simply wished to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and of the House to an important fact which had cropped up in the reading of the Rules of the Society by the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton). One of the marks and signs of the Association, and one upon which it was declared illegal in former times, was that it excluded people of different religious denominations, and confined the Society to one denomination only. They now had it from the printed Rules that it was only Protestants who were qualified for admission into the Society. He took that to be a very important fact in the matter, and he hoped it would not escape the attention of the Prime Minister or of the House. He would only say one word more. He begged the Prime Minister to consider an important question in relation to this grave matter. It was constantly alleged by Gentlemen who appeared as the champions of the Society, in that House and out of it, that it was a loyal Society; that it was a bulwark of loyalty in Ireland; and a safeguard for the integrity of the Empire. Now, that was exactly what he wanted to challenge. He contended that, in the North of Ireland, the Society, far from promoting loyalty, had been the cause of disloyalty—that loyalty could not flourish, or grow, or extend in any part of Ireland where this Society existed; and that, as far as regarded the integrity of the Empire, this Orange Society did more harm than good. In point of fact, it was a peril to the integrity of the Empire. In the name of loyalty the Catholics of the North of Ireland were continually intuited and outraged by the Society. That being the case, the natural consequence was that the very word "loyalty" was made hateful by the conduct of the people who professed to be its champions. This Orange Society was a stone in the wound of Ireland, and prevented that wound from healing. Year after year the people of the North of Ireland were called upon to celebrate his- 1805 toric events which ought to be allowed to pass into the domain of ancient history. Religious animosities were kept alive; and he asked Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration whether or not the Orange Society was not provocative of disloyalty among large masses of the people; whether it was not an obstacle to the spread of loyalty; and whether it did not prevent the union of the people in peace and contentment under the Crown? If that were so, these facts constituted, in his opinion, a very heavy clause indeed in the indictment against the Orange Society, and he hoped they would be taken fully into consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Member seemed to forget that the National Party in Ireland usually set aside St. Patrick's Day—the 17th of March—for their demonstration. The hon. Member complained of symbols, and insults, and disloyalty in the North of Ireland; but he would remind him that although he might not like to see loyal men making use of symbols, Orangemen were equally annoyed at seeing disloyal symbols and language made use of by the opposite Party. He would only detain the House to point out that there was a great difference between the Orange Society in Canada and the Orange Society in Ireland. They were not subject to the same laws.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, on Thursday next, if he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the character of the Orange Society?
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not intend to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan) in his attack upon the Orange Society. He rose for the purpose of saying that he could corroborate the evidence read by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). A Report had been published of the evidence given before a Committee of Inquiry in 1874, which he had read very carefully; and although he could not at the moment lay his finger on the exact place where it appeared, he knew that the Report contained ample evidence with regard to the riots having originated with the Orange body. Again, when the Coercion Bill was introduced 1806 by the late Government, Mr. Johnstone suggested that the Orange Society should be excluded from its operation, and the late Mr. Butt also moved that the Freemasons should be exempt from the Act. Mr. Johnstone did not take a Division on his Motion, but he declared that secret signs and passwords were obsolete in the Rules of the Association; and he (Mr. Biggar) gathered from that circumstance that he allowed judgment to go by default, and that he acknowledged the secret signs and passwords which then existed. He did not gather from the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), or the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), any disavowal of the fact that there were signs and passwords, in spite of the Rules of the Association; but whether or not the hon. Gentleman and the noble Viscount were at fault on this question, it seemed to him most strange that secret signs and passwords should exist in the Society without their knowledge.
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONI beg to say that I denied their existence distinctly.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMAnd I also.
§ Question put, and agreed to:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.