Lecture March 2006
INTRODUCTION: – Defining the parameters
The Subject is Orangeism – not the Orange Order, though both are interwoven. It is however good for us to note that Orangeism has been around for 300 years and the Orange Order or Orange Institution for 200 years.
The core values Orangeism established at the time of the Constitutional Settlement, and reflected in the life of William, are the core values – of brotherhood, religious piety, civil liberty, citizenship, and tolerance.
Founding fathers of the Orange Society in 1795 saw themselves as the guardians of the core values of Orangeism. This is reflected in the earliest statements of the Society – The Objects [later called BASIS] and The Qualifications of an Orangeman.
It will be evident that, the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland is a manifestationof Orangeism, and not Orangeism per se, the same is true today. As Presbyterian Minster, the Rev. William Bingham, a Deputy Grand Chaplain of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland expressed at a New Dialogue Labour Party fringe meeting in Brighton on 30th September 1997:
The Orange Order is merely the manifestation of Orangeism which is not a rigid belief system peculiar to Ireland but is a set of core values accepted and appreciated by many throughout the five continents.
* * *
The Presbyterian response to the Constitutional Settlement was mixed. Those from the Covenanting tradition stood aside from it because it did not acknowledge the Kingship of Christ or the doctrines of the Second Reformation. The restoration and increase of the Regium Donum, on 19th June 1690 by William, was however generally welcomed by the Synod of Ulster as a recognition and reward.
The Rev. Dr. Fred. C. Gibson, Superintendent of “The Irish Mission” of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, who was not a member of the Institution, wrote a pamphlet in the 1950’s entitled Orangeism Its Religious Origin, Its Scriptural Basis, Its Protestant Principles. In it he stated:
While the Orange Order, generally, has been closely associated with the political party which has been loyal to the Protestant Succession to the Throne, and the maintaining of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, nevertheless there is something more fundamental in the order than this, and that is the adherence to the principles of Protestantism.
1. THE EARLY YEARS OF FOUNDATION:
A. Evidence of the religious basis of the Orange Institution
During the recent years of public confrontation, the most widely heard allegation against the Orange Institution is that it was founded as a sectarian and anti-Catholic organisation. Regardless of the sectarian nature of the conflict which resulted in the “Battle of the Diamond”, on 21st September 1795, I would submit four pieces of evidence which put that allegation at least in a new light, if not to rest.
FIRST – The Qualification of an Orangeman
It is not always understood, even by those intimately involved in the Orange Order that the Qualifications of an Orangeman have changed significantly over the two-hundred years of the Institutions existence. When the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, which first met in Dublin on the 9th April 1798, the task of drawing up Rules and Regulations was addressed. According to R.M. Sibbett in his Orangeism in Ireland and Throughout the Empire, which is the only majorofficial History of the Orange Institution:
The chief business transacted by the Grand Lodge was the appointment of Mr Samuel Montgomery and Mr Harding Giffard to prepare Rules and Regulations for the use of all the Orange societies, thus setting aside the several county codes, and forming one code for the Orangemen of Ireland. The meeting was then adjourned till November.
When the Meeting was reconvened on 20th November 1798, the original hand-written Minutes contain, “Qualifications requisite for an Orangeman“, which read as follows:
He should have a sincere love and veneration for his Almighty Maker, productive of those happy fruits, righteousness and obedience to His commands – a firm and steady faith in the Saviour of the world, convinced that He is the only Mediator between a sinful creature and an offended Creator – Without these he can be no Christian – of a humane and compassionate disposition, and a courteous and affable behaviour. He should be an utter enemy to savage brutality and unchristian cruelty – a lover of society and improving company; and have a laudable regard for the Protestant religion, and sincere regard to propagate its precepts; zealous in promoting the honour of his King and country; heartily desirous of victory and success in those pursuits, yet convinced and assured that God alone can grant them; he should have a hatred to cursing and swearing, and taking the name of God in vain (a shameful practice); and he should use all opportunities of discouraging it among his brethren. Wisdom and prudence should guide his actions; honesty and integrity direct his conduct; and honour and glory be the motives of his endeavours. Lastly he should pay the strictest attention to a religious observance of the Sabbath, and also of temperance and sobriety.
Thirty-two years later the wording is revised. The Qualifications recorded in the “Laws and Ordinances of the Orange Institution of Ireland” in 1830 read:
An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Almighty Maker, a firm and stedfast faith in the Saviour of the world, convinced that he is the only Mediator between a sinful creature and an offended Creator. His disposition should be humane and compassionate; his behaviour kind and courteous. He should love rational and improving society, faithfully regard the Protestant religion, and sincerely desire to propagate its doctrines and precepts. He should have a hatred to cursing and swearing, and taking the name of God in vain; and he should use all opportunities of discouraging those shameful practices. Wisdom and prudence should guide his actions; temperance and sobriety, honesty and integrity direct his conduct; and the honor[sic] and glory of his King and Country, should be the motives of his exertions.
In the history of the Qualifications there are TWO material changes: – in May 1849 the following was added:
. . . he should strenuously oppose and protest against the errors and dangerous doctrines of the Church of Rome – he should, by all lawful means, resist the ascendancy of that church, its encroachments, and the extension of its power – but he should abstain from all uncharitable words, actions, or feelings towards his Roman Catholic brethren;
A further material change is made on 3rd June 1885:
. . . and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act or ceremony of Popish Worship;
The present Qualifications of an Orangeman, are also in the public domain, and require the assent of everyone joining the Organisation. In recent years, the high moral content of the Qualifications have been an embarrassment to some members. This has led some to state that the Qualifications are “aspirational”. This contradicts the words used in the initiation of a new member. After hearing the Qualifications read, the candidate is asked; “Are you prepared to assent(italics mine) to these?”. To make the Qualifications a mere aspiration would but a whole new, and hitherto unknown, concept into their content.
The Qualifications of today are substantially the same as the Qualifications of 1885, with the exception of the substitution of ‘Romish’ for ‘Popish’, and ‘any Roman Catholic’ for ‘his Roman Catholic brethren;’ Both these changes were made on 9th December 1998.
It is worth noting from a Presbyterian perspective that the Qualifications of 1798 and 1830, make no reference to Roman Catholics, either as individuals, or as a Church.
The Qualifications are often cited as proof of the allegations that are often made against the Institution, that it is an ‘anti-catholic’ organisation. However they remain no more ‘anti-catholic’ than the doctrinal standards of the three main Protestant churches As Professor Holmes has pointed out – “There is little difference, therefore, between the Qualifications of an Orangeman and a Presbyterian Church member”. [Presbyterians and Orangeism Page 10]
SECOND – the case of Mr. William McKenzie.
Historic, traditional Orangeism, is revealed on page 43 of the original hand-written minutes of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. They read:
Ordered that Mr William Mackenzie be summonsed to attend the Grand Lodge at Harrington’s on Thursday next at three o’clock. Mr McKenzie afterwards appearing in the room, it was unanimously agreed and ordered that the following advertisement be published in Sanders Evening Post, Hibernian Journal and Freeman’s Journal Viz.
“The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland finding that a Pamphlet purporting to contain Orange Songs and really containing expressions directly opposite to the fundamental principles of the Orange Institution, has been published and having taken the same into consideration:
Resolved that our 5th General Rule be published as the best refutation to said publication.
Rule 5th. “That no person do persecute or upbraid any one on account of his religious opinion, but that we will on the contrary be aiding and assisting to every loyal subject of every religious description.”
Resolved that a song to the tune of Croppies lie down in said publication, the chorus of which is changed to “Papists lie down” meets with our strongest disapprobation being directly contrary to our principles as reflecting on a part of our fellow subjects for their religious persuasion”.
Signed by Order
J. C. Beresford. Grand Secretary.
The resolute action of the Grand Lodge leadership, in these early days, is all the more commendable given the fact that this took place a few months after the failed 1798 Rebellion, when tension was high and feelings were strong.
THIRD – the prohibition of Politics
A Special Meeting of the Grand Lodge on Thursday 13th December 1798 declared:
Resolved that as many persons who are enemies of the Orange institution have endeavoured to injure and divide it by involving us in debates on politicalquestions, particularly by the present Question of the Union, that the Masters of the different Lodges in Dublin are entreated to discourage as much as possible any discussion or decision in their respective Lodges upon that or any other political subject as such conduct must tend to create division and produce injury and ruin to the institution. [The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland Minute Book 1798 – 1819 Page 55]
John M. Andrews, the former Prime Minister, speaking at Newry, as the Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, in June 1950, gave what Canon S.E. Long rightly regards as “the official Orange attitude to politics”:
I observe from reports in the press that there are a few Orange Brethren who feel that we are exclusively (Italics mine) a religious Order. While I agree that we aremainly (Italics mine) a religious body, the Order has been in the front rank for generations in preserving our constitutional position. The Orange ritual lays it down that it is the duty of Orangemen to support and maintain the laws and constitution. It is fundamentally important that we should continue to do so, for if we lost our constitutional position within the United Kingdom “civil and religious liberty for all” which we are also pledged to support would be endangered.
FORTH- the prohibition of marriages to Roman Catholics.
In the early years of the Institution it was not considered to be an offence for a member to marry a Roman Catholic. Neither was it considered to be an offence for someone having been married to a Roman Catholic, to apply for membership of the Orange Order.
Dr. Patrick Duigenan [Dig-en-an] (1735-1816) had, according to the majority of historical opinion, been born in County Leitrim to Roman Catholic parents who intended him for the priesthood. He converted to Protestantism and entered Trinity College Dublin, and went on to have a distinguished career in law and politics. The Orange historian, R.M. Sibbett, describes him as, “a prominent Orangeman, . . . a remarkable man”, and “a fluent writer, and an eloquent speaker”. [Page 532] He is described by Kevin Haddick-Fylnn as “one of the most curious men of his day, stuffed with enough learning to produce intellectual indigestion in an ordinary brain.”[Page 182]. James Kelly in his, Sir Edward Newenham MP 1734-1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution, describes him as – “the fanatical champion of ultra-Protestantism”[ Page 281]. Henry Grattan considered that Duigenan’s speeches inflicted a double injury: “the Catholics suffering from his attack and the Protestants from his defence”. [Plate 15 – Acts of the Union] According to the Orange Institution Web Site:- “Patrick Duigenen was Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Ireland and Sir Richard Musgrave, the historian of the “98″, was Grand Treasurer. These two men were to prove able apologists for the Order, and to them must be credited consequential developments in Orange Institution thinking and practice.” What is not said is that Patrick Duigenan married a practicing Roman Catholic, a Miss Cusack, and permitted her to have an in-house chaplain.[Kevin Haddick-Flynn:Orangeism: The making of a Tradition. Pages183-184] This fact, neither reduced his commitment to Orange principles, nor did it decrease his prominence within the Orange Institution of his day. Patrick Duigenan was the second Grand Secretary, of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. He was elected to office in succession to John Claudius Beresford on Sunday 12th July 1801. On his death he left his fortune to his wife’s nephew, Sir William Cusack – A Roman Catholic. Duigenan was also a famous dueller [Spelt – Dueller], his favourite instrument was said to be the blunderbuss.
The early Rule Books of the Orange Institution make no prohibition of marrying a Roman Catholic. Records reveal that in the period 1853 to 1860, members are expelled for “marrying a Papist”, but not under a specific rule to that effect. They were expelled under the general catch-all rule of; “behaviour unbecoming of an Orangeman”. The rule expressly prohibiting members marrying Roman Catholics first appears in Irish Orangeism in 1863. While this rule still forms part of the, “The Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal OrangeInstitution of Ireland” (1998), it is not always enforced. In Canadian Orangeism, this rule has been removed.
It will be evident therefore that Orangemen, at the foundation of the Institution, were not opposed to Roman Catholics because of their religion – but because of their politics. It was because they were seen as a threat to the Protestant Constitution. As the County Grand Master of Belfast Orangemen, John McCrea, wrote in The Twelfth 1988:- “When the Orange Order was established in 1795, the object of the Order was to aid all loyal subjects of every religious persuasion, . . .”
B. Early Presbyterian involvement.
Evidently Presbyterians were associated with the Orange Institution from the foundation years, though few ministers had any direct involvement. The Institution in the early years was predominantly Church of Ireland in membership. This is reflected in the Ritual of Orangeism.
Some people have suggested that in the early days of the Institution only members of the Church of Ireland were permitted to join. This idea may well have its origin in the forged rules which circulated in 1798, the 3rd of which read: – “Resolved that no member is to introduce a papist or Presbyterian, quaker or Methodist, or any persuasion but a protestant.” [The Formation of the Orange Order 1795-1798, Page 125]
Though Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the rebel cause were undoubtedly Episcopalian in their church background, many Presbyterians, particularly in the North, had been supporters of the radical thinking of the Society of United Irishmen, and had taken part in the 1798 Rebellion. This no doubt led to difficulties in the relationships between some members of the Church of Ireland, and the Presbyterian Church. This, I have no doubt, would have led to suspicion of Presbyterians within the body politic of the Orange Institution. Patrick Duigenan’s dislike of Presbyterians is revealed:- ‘They are all rebels in their natures … they sip sedition with their mother’s milk and no wonder they should always be ripe for insurrection.’ [Quoted James Kelly, ‘Relations between Presbyterians and Episcopalians in Ireland, 18th c.’, in Eire-Ireland (1988), p.38.]
However, Colonel Robert Hugh Wallace, Grand Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, (1903-1910) points out:
The founders of the Orange Boys Society were all, or nearly all, Presbyterians, and they joined the Orange Men’s Society after the Battle of the Diamond. Wilson, Master of Number One of the Dian, was a Presbyterian, and the members of the Presbyterian Church took well to the Institution. Many Methodists, at that time attendants at the services in the Established Church and the Presbyterian Church, were Orangemen. The Quakers were not excluded by any Rule of the Society. They excluded themselves. In later days, some of the most worthy Orangemen were members of the Society of Friends.
[The Formation of the Orange Order Page 126]
Hereward Senior, uses the correspondence of the young Lord Castlereagh, who had been appointed Chief Secretary on 3rd November 1798, to trace the earliest influx of Presbyterians into the Orange Order:
During the French landings in August and September, the membership of the Orange lodges was being swelled by the influx of protestant loyalists throughout Ireland, but principally by the presbyterians in Ulster.
[ORANGEISM IN IRELAND AND BRITAIN 1795-1836’(Routledge & Kegan Paul 1966) Page 112]
Senior also claims, “There were no dissenting clergymen or prominent dissenters among the early patrons of Orangeism.” [ORANGEISM IN IRELAND AND BRITAIN 1795-1836’(Routledge & Kegan Paul 1966) Page 40]
In affirming this Senior relies on the evidence of William Verner to the House of Commons Select Committee [H.C.1835 (377)]
However Ian McBride points to one Presbyterian Minister who associated himself with the new fledging Orange Association. He makes reference to the Rev. Thomas McKay on Page 221, as follows:
The correlation between evangelical commitment and loyalism is further strengthened by the fact that one of the three ministers of the Synod who joined the ESU (Evangelical Society of Ulster, formed in 1798
