The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-21 00:00:00

ORANGE LODGES.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN, Chairman of the Committee
on Orange Lodges, brought up a Report, and moved that the
Committee have leave to report to the House from time to
time the evidence brought before them. This motion was con..
sidered necessary, in consequence of the Committee being un-
able to complete parts of the evidence for want of some authen-
tic documents which they had not yet received from the Right
Hon. the Secretary of the Irish Orange Institution.
Mr. JACKSON begged to call the attention of the House
to some statements which had gone abroad relative to the issue
of warrants for the formation of Orange lodges among the
military, under the sign manual of his Royal Highness the
Duke of Cumberland. He was authorized to state that from
300 to 500 warrants received the signature of his Royal High-
ness, as Imperial Master of the Orange Institution, but they
were not filled up by him, nor were they-intended to be used
for the establishment of Orange Lodgesamongst the military;
and if such an use had been made of them, it was entirely
without the knowledge or consent of his Royal Highness.
Mr. H. MAXWELL said if blame was attached to any
parties connected with these warrants, there was none due to
his Royal Highness, who, when an application was made to
him for a warrant for the formation of an Orlnge Lodge in a
Regiment gave a positive refusal. He had full permission
and authority from his Royal Highness to give a direct
contradiction to the imputation, that he had ever given
his consent to the establishment of military Orange lodges
through the medium of the Horse Guards.—( Hear.)
Captain CURTE IS would remind the Hon. Members who
had just addressed the House, that the Duke of Cum-
berland was at present an officer in the army.—( Hear.)
A Lodge had been formed in the regiment in which he com-
manded, and which was composed chiefly of Roman Catholics,
without the knowledge and permission of the officers—
( Hear.) It appeared to be the wish of some persons to
excite ill-will and indignation between the Protestants and
Roman Catholics in the army.—( Hear, hear.) He did
not know what the intention of Mr. Hume was, but he hoped
he would persevere in this business; but if he did not, and no
other Hon. Member took it up, he should consider it his duty
to do so. —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN said it was clear that orders and war-
rants had been issued and used in the manner alluded to, but
the question was, whether, if these orders were unauthorised
or forged, who were thepersons that had sent them out ? He
would beg the Honourable Member to take care, and would
ask him who sent five Members down from the Grand
Lodge to Monaghan, because he was there at the time, and
lie witnessed the greatest mischief resulting from that deputa-
tion? Who set up one part of the peasantry against another,
and excited such confusion that it could not be subdued, nor had
it yet subsided ? If those orders were unauthorised, then
these persons had been entrapped by the forger and fabricator
of the Duke of Cumberland's name.—(Cries of " Sign ma-
nual.") He knew very well that the warrants were signed in
blank, but be wanted to know who filled them up.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Had the Committee any means
of ascertaining the names of the grand Committee, because, if
they had not, how could the forger be discovered ? This matter
could not rest here. Under the authority of these warrants
men had assembled together armed, and had gone forth Ewing,
and wounding and killing persons. Let them read the Inquest
taken before the Coroner at Belfast, and there they would see
that while regiments in which existed no Orange Lodges re-
fused to fire, that portion of the military which belonged to
Orange Lodges were always ready to do so. A stop must be
put to these proceedings, even if they waited here until
Christmas. The House could not separate until something
decisive was done.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. WILSON PATTEN said the names of the Orange
Lodge Committee were before the Committee at the present
time, and be believed that more evidence would be laid before
the House in a few days.

Mr. H. MAXWELL could not answer some of the re-
marks of the Hon. Gentleman opposite in reference to a war-
rant issued in 1821, because he was not a member of the
Orange Institution, until 1823. He was not aware until be
beard it mentioned in Committee that there was a single
Orange Lodge connected with the army:
Mr. RUTHVEN said the complaint was not so much to
be levelled against the warrants as the institution itself.

If the Duke or Cumberland sent over blank stamps to those
parties, to be used as they pleased, he did give his Illustrious
authority to the matter--they had been used most wickedly
before, but never so much so as in the present instance, when
they had been sent to the military to inflame them, which even
the Duke of Cumberland had no right to do.
The motion was then agreed to, and the first Report was
brought up by Mr. W. Patten.
ABERDEENUNIVERSITIES.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he wished to ask the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen what were his intentions with re-
spect to a very important Bill which he had introduced
respecting _ the junction of the two Universities of that
city ?—( Hear.) That was a question which had excited very
considerable interest in the North, and ought not to be pressed
on so late in the Session: He (Sir R. Peel) was not op-
posed to the principle of the Bill, the union of the two
colleges, but it would be very important that that should
be done with the good will of all parties. There
was no chance of doing so at this period of the session,
and if it was pressed he would give it all the opposition in his
power ; but if it was allowed to stand over till next session he
( Sir R. Peel) wouldnot say a word upon the matter.
Mr. BANNERMAN had no doubt the Hon. Baronet had
received many letters upon the subject, and seen Much
of the ill-natured controversy that had been going on
upon the matter. Every sort of abuse had been heaped
upon him (Mr. B.), and the terms spoliation, ruin, and robbery
of the Universities had been used when speaking of his con-
duct, and it had been said that he had -had, for the sake
of popularity, introduced a measure of such a character as no
one had ever had the hardihood to do before. He was sorry
that he saw no chance of carrying the details of the Bill this
Session, and he of course had no objection to give-in to the
suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. He had been charged
with hurrying on the Bill ; the fact was, that he had,
given notice of the Bill more than three months
ago, and those notices were published in the Aberdeen news-
papers. Besides, he had himself given notice to the two Prin-
cipals. He was afraid if they waited for the cordial union
of both parties upon this measure, they must wait till the mil-
lenium.—( A laugh.) He was almost ashamed to state that
he had been found great fault with for filing the Com-
mittee on the Bill for Thursday next, because that was
the day fixed upon in the North for a day of fasting and hu-
miliation. He had wished to have fixed it sooner, but did think
they would be as well employed as those in Scotland.
Sir R. PEEL said he interfered only as a Member of the
'lonic, and with an anxious desire to have all parties pleased
with the result.

IRISH COERCION ACT.
Lord J. RUSSELL—In the absence of my Noble Friend
the Secretary for Ireland, I have been requested to give notice
that it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the suppression of
local disturbances in Ireland. And likewise of a Bill respect-
ing amendments to the Acts relating to the Police of
Ireland. The House is aware that an Act which was
passed last year, called the Coercion Act, would expire on the
first of August, and I must inform the House that it is not
the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose any
renewal of that Act.—(Tremendous cheering from the Minis-
terial side of the (louse.) My Noble Friend will state the
ground on which he proposes to introduce the two Bills of
which I have given notice.

CORPORATION BILL.
The Noble LORD then moved the Order of the day for
the third reading of the Municipal Corporation Bill.
Sir RICHARD V Y VYAN, in pursuance of the notice
which he had given, rose to offer a few observations on this
Bill before it should pass that House. The fact
of this Bill having been brought in by his Majesty's
Ministers did not alter his opinion of it—he considered it a
a Bill of spoliation. —( Hear, hear.) On what grounds
did this Bill sweep away the rights of all the freemen
of England? He bad heard no argument that could pal-
liate this act of injustice, which he considered one of the
first of a series of inroads on the Constitution. If they
could parry this first blow there was hope that the Constitution
might be preserved. The present system of Corporations
were said not to be in harmony with the times in which
we lived.—( Hear, hear.) He should like to know what
Institution was in harmony with the principles of those who had
advocated general Reform for the last few years? The Hon.
Baronet then referred shortly to the several Acts which had
passed relating to Corporations, and said, that up to the
present moment, with the exception of the Scotch Bill, which
passed a session or two ago, there was no precedent whatever
for Parliamentary interference with existing charters of the
Municipality. The Noble Lord opposite ( Russell) and his
Majesty's Ministers had done what no Government before—
e—no, not the revolution Government of 1646 had attempted.
As far as Bristol was concerned this Bill took away those honours
which had been recognized by many Charters. The Lord Mayor
of London did not keep his gilded coach for his own benefit,
but for that of the public—it was for the purpose of exciting
the apprentice, who saw it in passing, to good conduct, so
that he might hope to arrive at the same civic dignity.
—( Hear.) There was no excitement about the Bill in the
country, it was not called for by the country, for there were not as
many petitions presented in its favour, as it did away with Corpo-
rations. lie did not think the Irish Church Bill was to be put in
competition with this Bill, for as long as they had Protestant
ascendancy to rely upon they were safe ; but having once
given way on this Bill, there were many measures which they
might expect—which were sure to follow. At present the
King selected the gentlemen who were to act as Ma-
gistrates, but they were residents of the county, and
were not sent down to the place.-._( Hear, hear.) Again,
the office held by the Judges was an independent office.
Now, if ithis Bill was passed, and a general system substituted,
the present noble constitution of magisterial power would be
endangered. The rights of Peers were considered inviolable
by law, and why were they inviolable ? Only because they
were considered so. What was to prevent a Bill from being
brought in to-morrow by some Hon. Gentleman of strong
opinions, to take from Peers their right to sit in the other
House of Parliament ? What was there to render the robe
of a Peer more sacred than the _gown of. an Alderman r. As.
to the rights of freemen, the Bill was a measure of spoliation.
Not content withextendintgtmhe. rights The oNf
ofbreleemzonni, the framers
of the measure
ot that a
persons
t freemenwh
were
o accompaniedopento theirri persuasivery—toth a
einsinruautminegntas bddryes:
small sum of money. Was poverty, then, to be deemed a dis-
qualification for municipal and political rights? If so, no rank.

'~,"~

was a guarantee : all gentlemen were not honest—all Peers
were not rich. Before Hon. Members made up their minds
that men because they were poor were to be suspected of dis-
honesty, let them reflect whether the same experiment might
not soon be tried in another place. A Baron might be bribed
by an Earl's Coronet--a Marquis by a Duke's, for, after all,
these were only abstract distinctions : they were honourable
distinctions, indeed, but not necessary for the maintenance of
the Constitution. When a Baron had been bribed by the
coronet of an Earl, and a Marquis by that of a Duke, then the
House might have a right to consider whether these inferior
privileged persons, who bad been convicted of no offence,
should be deprived of their rights, however insignificant.
Some admitted that the rights of existing freemen ought to
be preserved—some said they would preserve the rights of
the children of freemen already born—and some said that
they would preserve at least the municipal, if not the Par-
liamentary rights of persons in this situation. He (Sir R.
Vyvyan) maintained that the freeman's child was in precisely
the same situation as the heir apparent of a peer of the
realm. He maintained that the alderman with his rank was
in precisely the same situation as a Peer of Parliament who
bad not an hereditary seat in the House of Lords, as the
Scotch and Irish Peers. He would say also that the alder-
man's position as a maeistrate elected for life was, in the eye
of the law of England, similar to that of the peer elected for
life to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, whether they
considered the peer's right or the alderman's title—whether
they looked at the right of the freeman's child in connection
with the right of the son of a peer—in whatever way the sub-
ject were considered, he ( Sir R. Vyvyan) maintained that the
rights of the aldermen and freemen were as sacred in the eye
of the law as the rights of the most elevated personages in
the kingdom. It was the vice of the present Bill that at the
expense of one principle it went to set up another. It was an
attempt to set up generally the republican principle of repre-
sentation, upon the ruin of the principle of vested right. It
was against that principle of the Bill that he mainly pro-
tested, although he considered it vicious and dangerous in
many other respects. " And here let me ask," said the Hon.
Baronet, " will an hereditary aristocracy support the principle
of a Bill which is against all hereditary right ? Will the Peers
now declare that an old charter of incorporation is worth less
than a patent of nobility on which the ink is scarcely dry?"—
(Hear, hear.) The Peers had now to fight their own battle.
The first step that they took in this instance would be irrevo-
cable. They would have to decide, when this Bill was sent
up to them, whether their Lordships were to be maintained
on the doctrine of temporary expediency, or upon the prin-
ciple of vested right.—( Hear.) Whichever way they decided,
they might rest assured that they were going far to aid those
who, sooner or later in the progress of the movement now go-
ing on in England, would make a decided attack upon their
privileges, and upon that House of Parliament in which they
hitherto had exercised their political functions. The present
system of the Corporations of England generally was said not
to be in harmony with the times in which they were living.
He (Sir R. Vyvyan) should like to know what institutions of
the country were in harmony with the principles and doctrines
of many of those who for the last few years had become the
advocates ofgeneral reform ? They (the House of Commons)
were not justified is proceeding with a Bill, unless they ad-
mitted all the principles contained in it. The House of Peers
would not be justified in supporting the Bill then under con-
sideration, unless prepared to enter into a calm and delibe-
rate consideration of all the great questions involved in it.
If this Bill were passed, the House would be bound to pass
the Irish Municipal Bill without any discussion at all.—( Hear,
hear.) Then, in the case of the Universities, up to the pre-
sent moment those learned bodies had rested their right to
admit or elect members of their body upon their charters.
According to the principle of this Bill, Parliament might dic-
tate to them whom they should admit—whom they should
elect.—( Hear, hear.) Yet the right of the Universities to
decide for themselves, was a right admitted by the law of the
land. He would not then discuss the claims of the Universi-
ties. He came back to the Municipal Corporations. In the
city of Bristol, Corporation influence had nothing to do with
the return of Members to Parliament. The Corporation
of that city no more pretended to nominate any individual to
a seat in Parliament, than any one of the Noble Peers who
resided in the neighbouring counties. He begged to call
the attention of the House for a moment to that part of the
Report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry which
relatectm the city of Bristol. The Chamber of Commerce
of that city complained that they had been treated most un-
fairly by the Commissioners. They said that on examining
the Report laid before Parliament, they felt it right to state
that the observations contained in that part of it which re-
ferred to the trade of the city was altogether erroneous and un-
founded, and in every respect the very reverse of the fact. In
addition to this, he (Sir R. Vyvyan) could state from informa-
tion which he had received upon the subject, that he believed
every attempt was made, as far as the city of Bristol was con-
cerned, to render the inquiry as odious and as disagreeable as
it could be to those who were interested in it. Having made
that statement, he might follow the example set by his Right
Hon. Friend ( Sir Robert Peel) in the case of the borough of
Tamworth, and express a hope that Bristol might be exempted
from the operation of the Bill. He feared, however, that such
a demand on his part would not be attended with the same con-
sequences as a somewhat similar demand made by a gent. in
the olden time, as recorded by Dean Swift. " Some hur.dred
years ago," said the Dean, " when the Peers were so great
that the Commons were looked upon as little better than serfs,
a Bill was brought in for making some new addition to the
power and privilege of the Peers. After it had passed through
some of its preliminary stages, one Mr. Drew stood up, and
said he very much approved of the Bill, and would give his
vote to have it passed. But for some reason best known to
himself, he desired that a clause might be introduced ex-
cepting the family of the Dre%%s. This opened the eyes of
the rest, and consequently the Lill was thrown out." He (Sir
R. Vyvyan) feared that his claiming an exemption for Bris-
tol would not be attended by the same consequences. He
would shortly sum up his reasons for protesting against the
Bill. First, it attacked the prerogatives of the Crown in a
way in which the prerogatives of the Crown had never been
attacked before. Secondly, it attacked the privileges of per-
sons in the highest and lowest positions in every municipality
in the country, and thereby it would furnish a precedent for
an alteration in the appointment of magistrates and of militia
officers, and of the right of admission to the Universities. The
preservation of these Corporations was intimately interwoven
with the security of the Constitution. They were respected
by the Protector Cromwell. One of the charges against
James 11. was that he had attempted to invade these privile-
ges ; and one of the first determinations of the Parliament of
1688 was, that the rights of all chartered boroughs should
be restored and respected. He strongly objected, also, to
the motive of this measure. The King might, it is true,
have the power to dispose of these charters if he pleased, but
it would have been better if such a measure had emanated from
Parliament than from a Prince of the House of Brunswick. It
was dangerous to furnish precedents for paltering with the
people's liberties, however specious might be the arguments
advanced in their support. The time might come when such
precedents might be carried out to an extent subversive of
the monarchy itself; and the extreme of the most ultra prin-
ciples established on its ruins. It would be well to look
to the origin of the term ultra. It took its rise in the first
French Revolution, when the ultra-montane party attained
the ascendancy. On the restoration, Louis gave the French
a charter. That charter was objected to by the emigrants,
and such persons as were blind to the signs of the times—
( Ministerial cheers)—and who thought they could bring back
France into the position in which she was before 1789. An
experiment to effect this was tried in 1830 and failed, Charles
the Tenth became an exile, and those who made the experi-
ment lost their power. But could any man compare the po-
sition of the present powers in France, with that of those who
espoused Conservative principles in England ? We have an
hereditary monarchy, we have an hereditary aristocracy, and
we have as yet these municipal institutions which the Go-
vernment, indeed, were about to invade, but which we say
are in accordance with the spirit of the British Constitution.
If not, then so far as they were not, he and those who
adhered to Conservative principles were willing to conform
those institutions with that spirit. Having given the po-
litical franchise to persons in towns and boroughs possess-
ing a 101. a year qualification, he admitted it would be only
just that the municipal franchise should also be given to them.
He agreed also that the system of self-election was one which
was not in harmony with the feeling of the age : and provided
the rights of the magistrates were respected, he was willing to
assent to new charters being granted, which would take away
the power of self-election from any small corporate bodies.
But he would not agree to sacrifice the rights of his fellow-
citizens. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave
to bring up the petitions.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that as the Hon. Baronet
had declared that it was not his intention to go to a division on
the third reading, it was not necessary for him (Lord J. Rus-
sell) to occupy the time of the House with an answer to the
speech made by the Hon. Baronet. Besides, he had already
at such considerable length stated his opinion both on the
general principle and the details of the Bill, that it was
quite unnecessary for him to address the House any fur-
ther on the subject. He would say, then, that he had no
doubt the Hon. Baronet did wisely in not dividing the House
on the third reading. The reason why he had come to that
determination, no doubt, was because he had found that the
general sense of the House and of all parties in it was in favour
of the provisions of the Bill, and that if he had proceeded to a
division, he would have had but little chance of mustering a
very large number of supporters. He (Lord John Russell)
took it for granted, after the very strong statement, and after
the severe denunciation which the Hon. Baronet had made
against this Bill—as being a measure of the most revolutionary
tendency—as amounting in effect to spoliation of the rights of
property—and as adopting the most republican principles—
after all these invectives and strong protestations against the
Bill, he ( Lord John Russell) had no doubt that the Hon. Ba-
ronet would have thought it his duty to divide the House against
it if it had not been tolerably certain that such a division would
have shown that the principle and general provisions of the
Bill did meet ;with the concurrence, and were in accordance
with the sentiments, of the great majority of the House; and
that that majority were of opinion that the Blil was at this
time called for by the general voice of the country, and that it
was due to the spirit of the age, and even in justice towards
these Corporations themselves that such a Bill should become
the law of the land.—( Cheers.) Ho took, therefore, the pro-
test of the Hon. Baronet coupled with his declaration that he
would not divide the House, as one of the strongest admissions
of the goodness and the policy of this measure. If he wanted
further proof of the soundness of this Bill, he had it in the fact
that a petition had been presented from the city of Coventry,
of ars, entirely opposite nature from the one now presented by
the Hon. Baronet from that city—signed by 2,600 house-
- holders and freemen, praying that, with the exception of
one particular part of the Bill relating to apprenticeships, the
House would pass the Bill. Therefore, whether by the gene-
ral consent of this House, or whether by the expressed opi-