The history of Orangeism : its origin, its rise and its decline

Dedication

IRISHMEN AT HOME AND ABROAD;

TO PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC ALIKE;

TO THE ORANGEMAN AS WELL AS TO THE RIBBONMAN

Introduction

Jttst a few words before starting. The history of the Orange Institution has yet to be written. Why this is so might be accounted for by one, or other, or all of many reasons. While demanding no higher qualities than those possessed by every citizen of sense and understanding, who seeks in the present to draw a lesson from the past, it would be affectation to say that the task is not an onerous, in some respects a difficult one. We live in the hurry and contusion of excited times. Every man belongs to a party. Every party has a monopoly of virtue, in the opinion of its own members, and, reversing the telescope, can see little or no good in that which is opposed to it. In such a time it may be easily foreseen that qualities of patience and of research, though amongst the humblest, are amongst the rarest to be found, when notoriety is mistaken for distinction, when the ambition that clamours for a place receives censure as the next best substitute for praise, and when to be generally condemned as the leader of an ignorant faction is a gratification second only to being praised as the Tribune ol a free people. It is no wonder, then, that men who claim no merit but that which industry brings have hitherto shrunk from a , painful task which must result in little profit to themselves, and the certainty of their being placed in the pillory of some political faction, an aim for the rotten eggs of political partisans. Why those gentlemen who, from the pulpit, the platform, and the Press, have found it their interest to paint history as they would have it, have not undertaken as a labour of love the details of a lengthened narrative such as this, even in justification of themselves, is, on first sight, a matter of surprise. But there are some undertakings at v/hich even enthusiasm and selfishness stand alike appalled. Those who most benifited by the revolution against Charles were most backward in defending the measures which sent their king to the block. They should first grant themselves regicides before proceeding to justification. Those who gained a monopoly by the Bevolution of 1688 hurry in silence over the accusation of having called in a foreign Power. Their attempt to right themselves should be preluded by an admission that they were traitors. In a like sense may be interpreted the ominous silence which prevails amongst Orangemen in all things that

Till.

INTEODTJCTION.

have regard to the history of Orangeism. To gush forth from prostituted pulpits and political platforms to unlettered people requires, fortunately for those who practice it, but little thought and nj historical accuracy. The object is gained however. A delusion is continued which had its origin in bigotry, its reward in monopoly, and to which ignorance gives a prolonged existence. Others have thought, and for some time I have thought so too, that the game was not worth the candle. An Institution, they said, born in tumult must wither and die in the very dawn of religious and political freedom. The result is that we have at the present day, even amongst the majority of those who claim an exclusive lovalty and parade their Orangeism, a widespread bewilderment as to what was the origin and what the history of the institution they have sworn before their Maker to uphold. It is the object of its leaders that this ignorance should be perpetuated. Prejudice has no more invincible foe than knowledge, and the reign of one must be the dethronment of the other. To assist as far as I can by the aid of history to let id 4;,^ light of day upon an organization more dangerous than Nihilism, because it is in the gluae of loyalty ; more destructive than Communism’ because it turns the arms of a peoplB. against themselves ; more degrading than Ribbonism, being the servile tool of an autocratic conspiracy, shall then be the object to which in these pages I shall devote myself. My weapons may be rusty. They will be not the less invincible. Facts, from the great store-room of history, incidents, the pain of reading which will be lost in the memory of what terror and carnage associated with their enactment, and truths of recent date, best read by the light of past events — these shall be my weapons. Should they compell those interested to stand on their ilefence my object will be '-but half accomplished. The end is to bring conviction to upright men of all classes. “No people,” says Edmund Burke, “will look forward to posterity who do not often look backward to their ancestors,” and in this I find my justification. Whether we blush at their crimes, or teel elated at their heroism, the lesson will be the same. In their errors we may find a warning ; in their virtues an example.

The Author.

Contents

Introduction.

Cliapter I. — The Romance of its Origin.

,, II. — The Glorious Revolution; Retrospect of a Century.

Appendix

The Battle of the Diamond, ... ... ... ... .,.

Judge Fletcher’s Charge, ... ... ... ... "

Beport of the Select Committee (English) of the House of Commons, 1835,... Legal.— Orangeism Declared Illegal in Montreal, ... ... ...

. i i

„ 276 » 297

Errata.— At page 20, end of chapter VI., read ♦‘Loughgail” for “Timakeel.”

Owing to the hurry with whieh these pages were run through the Press and the impossibility of the Author reading the proof-sheets some errors have slipped in, for which the writer must claim the reader’s kind indulgence.

THE HISTORY OF ORANGEISM ;

|Is Origin, Hs ^isf, itnA Hs gtHme.

CHAPTEB I.— THE EOMANCE OP ITS OEIGIN:

Those who wish to escape the odiuin of all transactions connected with the Diamood massacre, and of any movement which might have found its origin in that event have gone backwards into history upon a voyage of discovery in the hope of finding some more creditable auspices as epoasors for the Orange Institution. The first Orange lodge, they say, was founded in the camp of William Prince of Orange, at Exeter, early in November, 1688.* Allowing for the excitement which must attend all declamations upon public platforms, it must still be held that the allusions, however vague, are put forward with an apparent seriousness sufficient to justify inquiry. William landed on the 5th November, 1688, at Torbay, in Devonshire, with a Dutch fleet of 52 mea-of-war, 25 frigates, 25 fire-ships, and 400 transports, conveying a land army of about 15,000 men (some authorities say 30,000, but they may be reasonably held as exaggerated), a force not exactly of that character best suited to investigate the birth of the Prince of Wales, which he ascribed as the reason o^' his coming, and .which he affected to consider as surreptitious. He set out for Exeter, where he

• This was the contention of a Mr. Bee’-s, D.G M , at an Orange mee ing in Downpatrick about eight ye irs ago; of the Eev. A' r. Smith, Armagh inalec'uie delivered t.bout the same time; and has hec me of late ^ears a matter of requeut refereno . upon Orange platfonaa.

stopped ten days to refresh his troops, and as Burnet puts it, in the History of His Own Time,” to give the country time to show its affection. It would appear, however, that the display of affection towards the aspirant to a Throne which was not vacant was anything but hopeful.

The rebellion of Monmouth had just terminated ; the time was passed when men grew old in camps, and the people, disgusted with fighting the battles of men who had little sympathy with their suffering, longed after peace. Dr. Vaughan, in his history of the English Eevolution (vol. 3, page 559), says — "Exeter received tha Prince with quiet submissivenes.” On William’s arrival the clergy as well as the magistrates were very timid and exceedingly backward.* The bishop rai; away, the dean followed his example, the clergy stood aloof, and only came when the Prince sent for them. But, " the rabble of the people,” we are informed by the last-mei^tioned authority, which upon this point, at least, is not to be doubted, as Burnet was the henchman of the Prince, mindful of favours to come;t "the rabble of the people came into him in great numbers so that he could have raised many regiments of

* " Bishop Burnet's History,” vol. iii,, fage 251.

t Bu net was mada B shop of Silishury by William at tb« elo.3e of the j ear lt8&.

HISTOET OF OEINGEISM.

foot if there had been any occasion for them.” And now comes the incident of which B arnet is the Bole authority (Harris, in his Life of William,” quotes Burnet), and upon which the Orange leaders of the present day build their castle-in-the-air of an ancient pedigree. The reader will please mark — After he had staid eight days at Exeter, Seymour* ** came in with several other gentlemen of quality '*and estate. As soon as he had been with the Prince he sent for me. When I came to him he asked ** me why we had not an association signed by all ** that came to us since ; till we had that done we " were as a rope of sand ; men might leave us when they pleased, and we had them under no tie ; ** whereas if they signed an association they would '' reckon themselves bound to stick to us. I an- " swered it was because we had not a man of his " authority and credit to offer and support such an ** advice. I went from him to the Prince, who approved of the notion, as did also the Earl of “ Shrewsbury and all that were with us. So I was ordered to draw it up. It was, in few words, an engagement to stick together in pursuing the end ** of the Prince’s Declaration, and that if any at- " tempt should be made on his person it should be revenged on all by whom, or from whom, any ** such attempt should be made. So it was en- ** grossed in parchment and signed by all those “that came in to him.”t Now, this passage, which I have troubled the reader with in its entirety, is the only authority that gives the colouring of truth to the oft-repeated assertion that the first Orange Lodge was founded at Exeter in William’s camp. In it there is no mention of a “ lodge,” or of an “ Orange institution no oath, and none of the mummeries of inauguration. These simple, country gentlemen not being, as the Eecorder of Exeter possibly well knew, of a character that would warrant William depending on their words were ask to give a written undertaking that they would support the Prince with their swords. This they did with a wUl, and as their swords had not even to be drawn on his behalf Burnet’s celebrated association fell through, and was never afterwards heard of. Sir Richard Musgra j'e, the paid chonicler and defender of the Protestant cause, himself disposes of the matter. He says “ In commemora- “ tion of that victory (the Battle of the Diamond), “ the hrst Orange lodge was formed in the County “Armagh, though the name of Orangemen existed some time before.”

♦ Tills ^ eymonr was Uecor Icr of Exeter in 168?. t “ Bu- net’s Histoiy,” . iii„ pigo 26;-'’',

That “some time before” cannot refer to the association spoken of by Burnet, for he makes no mention of “ Orangemen,” and Musgra ve, evidently from the tenor of his remarks, refers to its exis'^ence in the County Armagh a short time before September, 1795.

That there was an association seems beyond doubt, but that that association in no way forecasted the combination of litter days is equally reliable. Lingard says in his history (vol. xiv., p. 248) that soon after the invitation was seat to the Prince a “ secret association in his favour had been “formed among the officers of the arny encamped “on Hounslow Heath, and a communication est..b- “ I'shed between them and the club at the Rose “ Tavern, Covent Garden.” This cannot have been the same referred to by Barnet, for the latter originated after the arrival of William. The Orangemen would, therefore, be as justified in claiming this as their origin. But they do not. The secret is they cannot well afford to share the infamy. Bad as this silly old monarch may have been, his soldiers who formed this association were per j urers and traitors, and to this they added the crime of inhumanity. For when James sent his infant son to Portsmouth to escape to France Dartmoor’s fleet was lying at Spithead, and was ordered by the king— the reigning king, mark — to give the unfortunate baby conduct to France. The admiral would have done so, but was thwarted in his humane intentions by the “associated officers” on board. This is why the incident is not referred to, and why that other association of which Burnet speaks of is quoted as the authority.

Another and an effectual way of testing the question is to see how much of a similarity exists between the subscribers in the camp at Exeter under their chief and those who a century afterwards on the field of the Diamond, spattered and besmeared with the warm blood of their neighbours, while bestriding the mangled bodies of their countrymen and kinired, swore before heaven t® continue a war of extermination.

The Prince’s Declaration, which kis adherents at Exeter promised to pursue, and which was signed by him on the 10th of October of the same year, announced amongst other things “that he would suffer such as would live peaceably to enjoy all due freedom in their conscience.” So much for 1688. Come to 1795. I am justffied by every reliable authority who has written upon the subject in saying that this political Rip Van Winkle, the Orange Institution, revived, as alleged, after a

HISTORY OF ORANGEISM.

sleep of a century and seven yearfa has pursued a course of intolerance and of cruel unrelenting bigotry, unexampled in the history of this or any other country.

“ A Society,” says Coote in his H story of the Union, “ denominated, in honour of William IIT., the Ore nge Club, laboured with sanguinary zeal “ to check the extension of mercy to the rebels and to multiply the horrors of capital punishment.’, Plowden says, in his History of Ireland (vol. 1 page 53) “ It has teen asserted by well informed (though anonymous) authors, that the original “ obligation or oath of Orangemen was to the following effect, * I. A. B. do swear, that I will be true to King and Government ; and that I will ‘ exterminate the Catholics of Ireland as far as ‘ in my power lies.’ The frequency and earnestness with which the latter part of the oath has ‘‘been acted upon by Orangemen, has rendered the “charge of taking it too credible.”

O’Connor, in a pamplet written by him in 1797, “The present state of Ireland,” gives this form of oath as authentic, and the same genetlemen on examination before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, says “it came to my knowledge that the oath of extermination was administered.”

Lord Grosford, Governor of Armagh, addressing the body of magistrates of the County Armagh, on the 28th December, 1795 (three months after the battle of the Diamond) said, “ It is no secret that a persecution, accompanied with all the circum- “ stances of ferocious cruelty which have in all “ ages distinguished that calamity, is now raging in “ this county. The only crime which the wretched “ objects of this ruthless persecution are charged “ with, is a crime indeed of easy proof. If is “ simply a profession of the Eoman Catholic “falth.”^ •

■“Never did any society exhibit such a glaring inconsistency j rather such a positive contradic- “ tion between its professed principles and its actual “ practice. The practice of the society was to “ resort to every contrivance to insult, to domineer “ over, to offend, to irritate their Eoman Catholic “ neighbourfsj^ — Edinburgh Review, vol. clxxxiii.

Ml. Giattan said in 1796, in the House of Commons, “ These insurgents call themselves Orange- “meior Protestant Boys; that is a banditti of murders, committing massacre in the name of God, “ and exercising despotic power in the name of “ Liberty.”

Hay describes their conduct in the County of Wexford as inhuman. Even Musgrave furnishes a negative proof by passing over in silence their acts, or, when he does make reference to them, by attempting to shift the respousitility “ to the low classes of Protestants,” forgetting that according to every authority it was “ the rabble” who first belonged to the association.

In addition, we have a plain denial of the contention in the examination of Lioutenant-colonel Veriior, M.P., before the Select Committee of the House of Cemmons in 1835 (7th April), question 7. He was asked : —

“Were there any Orange Institution in existance previous to 1795 in any other form ? None.”

Surely this authority must satisfy the Orange - men themselves.

Indeed, whether William had a fixed aversion to all persecution, as Macaulay puts it, whether, as Froude states, “ he was studiously lenient,” and from inexperience of the Irish character, foolishly attempted to conciliate by indulgent terms, or whether be actually did desire, according to Godkin, to have the Treaty of Limerick rescored, one thing is certain — throughout the whole of the Revolution, and during the entire of William’s reign no incident is recorded, if we overlook his perfidy, which would justify Orangemen in subscribing themselves his followers, or enable them to claim an identity with ihose who surrounded him even when he had one foot upon the steps of the throne and the lawful king was seated upon it. The alleged connection of Orangeism with the camp of William must then be regarded, in an historical sense, as having no foundation in fact. I account for the claim by that desire found in most misguided people not utterly lost to a sense of their wrong-doing which prompts them to seek a parallel in history where it does not exist, or some more honoured name, to bear with them the burden of their iniquity.

♦ “ Parnell’s Historical Apology,” page 18. \ niSTOET OF OEANGEISM.