Veneris, 14° die Augusti, 1835. JOSEPH HUME, ESQUIRE, IN THE CHAIR. Chetwoode Eustace Chetwoode, Esq. called in; and further Examined. 512. YOU were requested to look for any papers that might be in your possession connected with the Loyal Orange Institution; have you found any?—I have. 513. What have you found ?—I have found a list of warrants held under the authority of the grand lodge of Great Britain. 514. To what period is that list made up?—It appears, by a memorandum of mine, to be corrected in manuscript up to November 1830. 515. Was that corrected by you ?-It was. 516. Was the last warrant issued under your directions while deputy secretary?—It was. [The same was delivered in; vide Appendix, No. 19.] 517. You carried on an extensive correspondence, while you were secretary, with the different lodges?-Yes; but as to the matter of correspondence, it would be difficult to make any thing of it; the description of persons with whom I had sometimes to correspond were not the most educated, therefore many of the letters were perfect nonsense; the writers sometimes appeared not to know themselves what they wrote about. 518. You got some money from them?—We did not get so much money as I thought the cause deserved. 519. Your books show that you received money which was transmitted from the different lodges?—Yes; some to me, and some to the treasurer. 520. Have you got any of the letters transmitting money to you ?—No; all those were taken from my chambers, as I have already stated. 521. A large quantity of correspondence between yourself as secretary and the Orange Lodges was carried away?—Yes, all I had in my possession. 522. Are you aware that the books which were taken away privately from you have been produced, and are on the table of the Committee?-I see some of them, but not all. 523. Do you mean to say that the papers and correspondence to which you allude, and which passed when you were in your official situation, were carried away by the same persons ?-I believe so; I found the place stripped, and I understood they were taken away at the same time, and by the parties I have already named. 524. The different lodges are numerically distinguished; are the numbers of the warrants regulated by the order in which they were issued ?--No, not in which they were issued; sometimes we had what we termed dormant warrants; No. 1. for instance, might be issued after No. 300; in that case No. 1. would have been dormant and re-issued, instead of increasing the number from 300. 525. What do you call a dormant warrant?-A warrant which had existed, but having been given up, was not in operation. 526. Are you able to point out the warrants that were granted during your official appointment, distinguishing those issued subsequently ?—I do not think I could. 527. You cannot tell at what time any specific warrant was originally granted? -I cannot from this book. 528. Is there any book from which the Committee could ascertain it ?--I do not think there is; those contained in that list were all issued during the time I was in office; they were renewed after the Duke of York accepted the office of grand master, and the old warrants were then given in. 529. This book was published in 1826, therefore it does not contain a list of warrants up to the time you ceased to be in office, which was in 1831 ?—It is corrected up to November 1830. C. E. Chetwoode, 14 August 1835. C. E. Chetwoode, 14 August 1835. 530. Are your alterations in manuscript up to November 1830?—Yes. 531. Is there any printed list up to November 1830 ?-I think there is no other list in existence but that. 532. There is a memorandum in the circular in February 1831, in which it is stated that, for the price of 2 s., correct lists up to that time could be obtained; there ought to be therefore a subsequent publication ?-There was no other list published, that is a correct list, up to 1830, partly in manuscript; I did not say whether it was in print or in manuscript; I was in progress of having all the printed lists altered in manuscript; therefore, if they had applied, they would have got them partly in manuscript and partly in print. 533. Do you know whether Colonel Fairman got lists printed?--I think not; I think there was no one published since that time. 534. Can you state what number of warrants were issued during the time you were in office?-All those in that list were issued, but some of them had been in existence before the entire warrants throughout the institution, being renewed at one time. 535. At what time was that?—I think about 1821 or 1822, that all the old warrants were called in and new documents issued. 536. Were any of the warrants, contained in this list published in 1826, renewed subsequent to the publication?—I dare say some of them have been cancelled and sent in, and others issued in their stead. 537. This book purports to be deputy grand secretary's general register of members' names; was that kept by you?--[The same being shown to the Witness.]—Yes. 538. You perceive in this book the pages are divided into several columns with different headings perfected to each column; that the first column states the date of the return, the second contains the number of the warrant; this book, therefore, contains not only the statement of the number of warrants, but also the period at which those warrants came into operation?—No; that is not the meaning; there were periods when every master was to make a return of the then existing members, and this-[Witness points to the first column]--is the date of the return from which those names were taken; the date of the return means the date of the list containing the number of persons who usually meet under the masters holding warrants; and here, in a second column, are the numbers of the warrants; and in the third the names of the persons usually assembling under each warrant. 539. As far as you are yet advised, you are not aware that there is any body from whom the committee can ascertain at what date the warrants were issued? -I do not think there is; the only document to which I should look to ascertain that point would be to these printed reports. 540. Take, for instance, the 17th of February 1831, where it appears that 24 warrants were issued under the resolution of the lodge of that date?—Yes; that is the only document to which I could refer then; I should look back to the previous reports if I wanted to find whether this warrant existed before that period. 541. The Committee wish, therefore, for the reports of the grand lodge from its institution in 1822 to the present time; can you procure them?-I cannot. 542. Were they taken away from you?-All that were in my apartments (I mean my chambers at Lyon's Inn, where I transacted the business of the society,) were taken away. 543. Do you think there was a complete set ?-There ought to have been ; there was more than enough to make, perhaps, two or three sets. 544. The Committee observe in the list of warrants, you do not state the name of the person to whom the warrant was given, but the name of the place where it was held ?-Precisely so. 545. What means have you of reference to any parties who hold that warrant? -To the large book or register; the officers were changed annually, and therefore the person, to whom the warrant was originally granted would be master but one year, unless re-elected. 546. What is meant by the stroke against a particular number in the printed list; what is meant by the pen being put through?-1 presume that had ceased, and that the number was issued to another. 547. Wherever the name and number are scratched out, the Committee are Esq. to understand the situation of the lodge was changed?-The house of meeting C. E. Chetwoode, was changed, or the warrant had been issued to another person, or became dormant since the list was printed. 548. You were yesterday asked to account for the omission of all entries in the book of proceedings, from the 15th of June 1829, to the 16th of February 1832, although it appeared that there had been a circular issued on the 17th of February 1831; and you now are about to produce other circulars in that interval respecting the proceedings, during which there is no entry on the minute-book; the Committee understand that it is your own wish to explain the circumstance?-From the 15th of June 1829, the last entry in the book, there was no meeting of the institution until the 4th of November 1830; there was that interval, during which there was no meeting whatever of the grand lodge. 549. Was there none of the Committee?—No, the members at remote parts of the country may have met, but not the grand lodge. I have now brought the report of that meeting of the 4th November 1830, which I find in print, though not entered there.-[The same was delivered in; vide Appendix, No. 2.]-I also deliver in the circular of the 4th of June 1831.-[The same was delivered in; vide Appendix, No. 2.]-It appears that I omitted to enter this in the minute-book. 550. Have the goodness to look at the document now shown to you, and state what it purports to be ?-This appears to be a statement transmitted, I presume, to me; I found it among my papers; it relates to warrant 53, belonging to the 50th regiment of foot; it is to the following effect: "A Statement of the circumstances of the destruction of the Warrant 53, belonging to the 50th Regiment of Foot. The warrant was obtained previous to an order of the Horse Guards prohibiting Orange Lodges sitting in regiments of the army. The lodge sat on the 11th of March last, and after that period, Major Anderson, at that time commanding the 50th regiment sent for the deputy master, private George Armstrong, when the following conversation took place: Major. I understand that you hold unlawful meetings in the regiment?' Master. 'I have not, sir.' -Major. Are you master of an Orange Lodge?' Master. I am, sir.'Major. Where is your warrant?' Master. It is in the Star Inn, sir.'Major. 'Will you let me see it?' Master. 'Yes, sir, you shall see it immediately.'-The master fetched the warrant from the Star Inn without the knowledge of the members of the lodge; the Major immediately ordered Ensign and Adjutant White to tear and burn the warrant, without any authority for so doing; and the members of the regiment here are very numerous, and their humble prayer and fervent desire is that their warrant may be restored. And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. Henry Nicholls, the Light Company, 50th Regiment of Foot. May 29, 1830." 6 551. A petition, it appears, was presented to the grand lodge?-The application was intended for the grand lodge, and I presume I laid it before the body, but I have no immediate recollection of it. 552. Is there any entry upon the subject of it ?-I am not aware of any, but I wish to state that the prayer of the petition was never complied with; the applicant never got the warrant, as it appeared that the commanding officer did not sanction it; at least it was not granted during my time in office. 553. Do you know the date of the warrant ?-I do not; I believe it was an Irish warrant, but it appearing to be destroyed by direction of the commanding officer, the grand lodge of Great Britain would not grant another, and without a warrant an Orange meeting cannot be held. 554. Is that the only document you have found?-I have not been able to find any other; I have heard that one of the books of which Condell, Osborn and Payne plundered my chambers has never been given up to the proper authorities, and I believe that Condell also withheld a large quantity of papers. 555. What is the meaning of those words in the minute-book, "Entered in the Alphabet, John Eades"?--I do not understand it, unless it is an index he means. 556. Was there any rough book of the proceedings kept ?—No, I kept no rough book; I always made out my minutes at the meeting, and not being allowed a clerk, I had not time to make the entries in a proper manner. 557. What were the pass-words taken on admission to the institution in Ireland, at the time you were a member?-I took an oath to the society, though oaths are not now administered in the Orange Institution; therefore I appeal to the Committee whether I should answer that question. 14 August 1835 C. E. Chetwoode, 14 August 1835. 558. Did you take any oath in England?—No. 559. Did you take any oath to conceal the pass-words of the Loyal Orange Institution in England ?-That which I took in Ireland I consider to bind me as to both institutions. 560. Did not the Orange Lodge of Great Britain form itself with at least some modifications and some differences on the model of the Irish institution? -I cannot say; the grand lodge of England assumed to itself the power of regulating the society throughout Great Britain, independently of Ireland. 501. Were there not different pass-words and signs in England and Ireland? -The institution in England, up to a certain period, took their signs and words from that of Ireland, the latter being the parent institution. pass 562. It is stated in the rules of the grand lodge of Ireland, that the grand secretary shall communicate every six months to the deputy grand secretary of the Loyal Institution of Great Britain; was that the case while you remained? -I had very frequent communications, but I do not think the correspondence with Ireland was regular. 563. Did they not communicate to you the pass-words and signs? —Only when there was a change made. 564. The same pass-words and the same signs were adopted by the grand lodge in England and in Ireland?-I believe that on one or two occasions latterly the English adopted their own; I do not know the present signs or pass-words. The system of signs and pass-words adopted by the Orange Institution in Ireland, on its revival in 1828, were framed by me, and in use in Great Britain. 565. Do you mean in 1832, when the new system was introduced?—Yes. 566. Do you mean to say, that the grand lodge of Great Britain adopted pass-words and signs, and that those were afterwards adopted by the Orange Lodge of Ireland?-It happened precisely so, in 1828; the Act of Parliament passed, prohibiting political societies in Ireland, was thought to apply to all having that character; the Orange Institution accordingly dissolved itself, in obedience to that Act; but when the Act expired, the society was revived. On the 15th September 1828, I attended the general meeting held in Dublin, and on that occasion they took our signs and pass-words. 567. Did your lodge cease to act during the time the lodge in Ireland ceased to act?-No; the law did not apply to Great Britain. 568. Was the Duke of York grand master of both societies?-No. 569. When did the Duke of Cumberland become grand master of both ?On the revival of the Orange Institution in 1828. 570. He being at that time grand master of Great Britain ?—Yes. 571. Does it appear, by the minutes in the books, on what day he accepted, and in what form the application was made to him to accept the office?-Our books do not show it, but I apprehend it will appear from the books of the Orange Institution in Ireland. 572. What was the date?-September 1828; it was on my proposition that His Royal Highness was made grand master for Ireland. 573. When was the Duke of Cumberland made grand master in England? --I think it was immediately on the death of the Duke of York, in 1827, immediately on his return from Berlin. 574. The pass-words and the signs having been interchanged between the two countries, the Orangemen of the one country would readily recognize the Orangemen of another?-Yes, the same as the Masonic order. 575. In truth, the two branches may be said to belong to one trunk?—The English originated from the Irish. 576. And on the revival, the Irish originated again from the English ?—Yes, so far as adopting the signs and pass-words, though they managed their own general affairs separately. 577. They were integral parts of one system, with one head ?--Yes, but the grand lodge here has no interference whatever with the grand lodge in Ireland in the management of their affairs. 578. Have you not stated that you received reports from them from time to time? We exchange our reports merely for information, that each may know what the other is doing; for instance, as to expulsion of members we hold that if a member is expelled from one he is not worthy to go to the other. 579. The Committee are to understand that the Duke of Cumberland being the 14 August 1835. the grand master of the empire, the grand officers of the lodge in England C. E. Chetwoode, manage their own affairs in Great Britain; the grand officers of the lodge in Esq. Ireland manage theirs; both acting on the same principle, but altered by the particular circumstances of each country?—Yes; and as to the grand mastership, as it affects Ireland, it is merely nominal. His Royal Highness, I believe, has never been in Ireland, nor has he sat in any of those lodges, nor taken any part in their proceedings, so far as I am informed. 580. During the time you were deputy grand secretary, had you any communications respecting lodges in the colonies?-I never had any communication, except perhaps an exchange of a warrant, or very rare communications. I had a letter from Malta at one time, I think, that I had one from Gibraltar, but on nothing of a particular nature. 581. Was any question raised in your lodge, whether under the lodge in Great Britain or the lodge in Ireland, the warrants for the colonies should be granted?-I do not recollect any discussion upon the subject; the regimental lodges were all Irish I believe, if any such existed. 582. Are they in Irish regiments?—I should suppose not exclusively; the Orange system got into the army principally in consequence of the regiments being quartered in Ireland, particularly during the troubles. 583. This is a list of warrants you have produced; do you observe that between 93 and 95 there is one wanting?—Yes. 584. Look at this document entitled "Military Loyal Orange Institution, No. 94"?-[Vide Minutes of yesterday.]—I have never seen this document before, but I can tell what it is: it is an old Irish certificate, under an Irish warrant, 1734. I know there was an application for 94, and I think it will be found issued; but this is not the document, this is an old warrant. 585. Do you observe this remarkable circumstance, that in your list of warrants, between 93 and 95, there is an omission of No. 94 ?--It was dormant when that list was printed. 586. That produced to you is No. 94, intituled "Military District"?—This is an old form of certificate that does not accord with our forms; it is an old certificate from Ireland. 587. This is dated the 25th of March 1830?—Yes; this is, I perceive, not a warrant; it is a certificate. 588. It is a certificate that gives a reference to the number of the lodge that was then in existence at Malta?-Yes; No. 94 it appears was issued to this brigade in lieu of an Irish warrant. 589. The Committee have produced to you a certificate from a regiment, the second battalion of the Rifle Brigade, appearing to be quartered at Malta; that certificate is dated the 25th of March 1830; the heading of that certificate contains a reference to the lodge; the original number in the warrant appears to be 1,734; in place of that original number, which has been defaced, the number in the manuscript 94 is substituted?—Yes. 590. Have the goodness to refer in your list of warrants produced by yourself, and belonging to the grand lodge of Great Britain to No. 94, and explain the circumstance?-In the list of British warrants, No. 94 appears to be attached to the Rifle Brigade, 2d battalion; this is in manuscript. 591. So that in the list of warrants produced by you and belonging to the grand lodge of Great Britain, there is an exact correspondence with the statement in that certificate, intituled "Military District ?"-I wish to account for this awkward document, for it is not a regular one, and for the circumstance of the Rifle Brigade holding an English warrant. The English warrant I think was granted to the man, Mr. Heaseman, in lieu of the old Irish warrant 1,734. 592. What object had they for desiring that exchange?-Merely fancy, because they chose to sit under an English warrant; perhaps the majority of the members were Englishmen, and they chose to sit under an English war rant. 593. You were in the habit of cancelling Irish warrants, and substituting English ones, without any inquiry?—Yes, and that was the case here; no doubt the reason this certificate was used was this: they happened to have some of those old papers, which they got printed themselves, an irregular practice with some, to save the expense of the proper document, supplied from the grand lodge; therefore they altered the number, to correspond with the new English warrant. 594. In the printed reports, as signed by you, of the proceedings of the |