Sir,—David Rutland (‘Letters’, HI Winter 1998) raises the question of whether there is a connection between Freemasonry and Orangeism. There is certainly a perception among Roman Catholics in Ireland that such a connection exists. Both institutions, in fact, deny a connection. In The Orange Order—An Evangelical Perspective (1993) the Grand Chaplain of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, and the Deputy Grand Chaplain of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland state: ‘there are no connections between the Freemasons and the Loyal Orange Institution’. The Freemasons’ Pocket Reference Book (fourth edition, London 1963) states: ‘It need hardly be said that there has never been the slightest connection with the Craft, in fact, in the early part of the nineteenth century private Masonic lodges not infrequently forbade their members to have anything to do with certain organisations, including the Orange’.
Irrespective of denials some are not convinced. In Inside the Brotherhood (1993) Martin Short claims:
It seems that when Masons have common political aims, but cannot pursue them through Freemasonry, they set up parallel public movements. These bring additional advantages. They attract a mass working-class following for the cause in question without diluting Freemasonry or its middle-class ethos. They also give the Craft a wider but secure recruiting base for its own ‘non-political’ activities. Only a minority of Orangeman would be socially acceptable in Ulster’s Masonic lodges, but those that are may be discretely approached and would probably be pleased to join.
Discounting conspiracy theories, I would postulate that Masonry and Orangeism tend to be confused because of characteristics which they share: both meet in lodges, wear regalia, have several degrees of membership and claim lofty and pious ideals. The stereotype would also include societies like the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Loyal Order of Ancient Shepherds, the Odd Fellows and the Buffaloes. Many of these modelled themselves on Masonry simply because it was the largest and most prestigious society and had perfected the brotherhood formula. But this cannot be held to imply that these societies had/have formal connections—subterranean or otherwise—with the Craft.
The truth is that Orangeism, like many other brotherhoods, had its origins in the melange of secret societies which arose in the late eighteenth century when almost every new society was constituted as a brotherhood. The list would include the Society of United Irishmen, the Defenders and (a little later) that curious brotherhood founded by Daniel O’Connell, the Ancient Order of Liberators.
Interestingly, to find direct connections between the Craft and devotees of William of Orange, one has to go to the Netherlands, the first continental country to which Freemasonry was exported from Britain. Lodges were established in the Hague and in Amsterdam in 1734, but a few years later were closed down by the States of Holland who referred to them as ‘improper gatherings…unseemly conventions’. Apparently their Orangeist and British affiliations aroused the hostility of the ruling De Witt faction. It was not until the revolution of 1747, which restored the Orangeist stadholder William IV, that the Craft was able to re-constitute itself. Since then its connections with the House of Orange have been close and in 1816, the second son of King William I, Prince Frederick William, became Grand Master and so remained for sixty-five years until his death in 1881. He was also Grand Master of Belgium in 1871 and presided over a Grand Orient which had Masonic jurisdiction in both countries. To this day members of the House of Orange hold high positions in the Grand Orient of the Netherlands whose orbit covers numerous lodges in South Africa and in former Dutch colonies as well as in the home country.—Yours etc.,
KEVIN HADDICK FLYNN
West Finchley
London
Sir,—David Rudland (‘Letters’, HI Winter 1998) is correct in pointing out that the role of Freemasonry in Irish history has not received the scholarly attention it deserves. Freemasonry was indeed ‘a battlefield of political thought’ in the 1790s—as was Irish society at large. The Masons were not immune to political and sectarian tensions. Often the local and individual circumstances rather than any interpretation of the diffuse Masonic ideology dictated where an Irish mason stood in1798.
However, given the rapidly changing political situation of the1790s, quoting resolutions passed by Masonic lodges has its pitfalls. Those quoted by Mr Rudland were published in the winter of 1792-93, in the immediate aftermath of the Catholic Convention and the demand for parliamentary reform. Some of the Masons who supported such resolutions no doubt went on to become rebels in 1798, but most did not. A radical by the standards of 1782 could be a moderate reformer in 1792-93 and a loyalist by 1798. For instance, the Belfast lodges of which Samuel Kennedy (lodge no. 762) and Henry Joy McCracken (no. 763) were or had been members, had by 1797 both passed resolutions supporting the government. The Grand Master of the Irish Masons himself, Lord Donoughmore, remained a strong supporter of Catholic emancipation, yet supported the government in 1798 (raising a yeomanry corps into which Catholics were admitted).—Yours etc.,
PETRI MIRALA
Trinity College
Dublin