Protestant Traditions and the Paths to Peace: Beyond the Legacies of Plantation

ALL CHANGE BUT NO CHANGE: Can we learn the lessons from the past?

When it was first suggested to me that I should present a paper on the ‘reception of history today in Orangeism and Unionism’ I immediately thought that I had drawn the short straw! Surely I thought NOTHING changes in Orangeism and Unionism – even the reception of history. Therein lies the dilemma. The subject could be addressed by the now four famous words – “never, never, never, never”. But that would not be an adequate response – for as we know events have moved on at an enormous rate.

What I propose to do in this paper is to look at the broad history of Orangeism and Unionism from the beginning of the orange tradition at the end of the seventeenth century, to the present issues facing us today – at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

I want to look at some of the major events in this period to see how they were understood then and how they are received now.


When William and Mary responded to the invitation to accept the throne of England and William, Henry, Count of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, arrived at Torbay on 5th November 1688, the orange tradition was born.

It has long been popularly understood that William saved us, not only from ‘Popery, brass money and wooden shoes’, but also established civil and religious liberty in these islands.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft, writing in the London Times stated; “The best principles of the Glorious Revolution haven’t always been on display in Northern Ireland. But William the Deliverer was a true hero, and “the ould Boyne water” a famous victory. You don’t need a sash or a Lambeg drum to drink the Orange toast, to ‘Civil and Religious liberty’”.(1)

Martin Mansergh recognised the contribution of “aspects of the philosophy of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1689 which led eventually towards democracy and government by consent, even if the practice in Ireland was for a long while totally deplorable”. (2) He might well have added that the practice in Britain was not far behind.

How are these events understood today?  The fickleness of human nature means that, in the words of the Simon and Garfunkel song “. . . the man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest” (3) We are all – Catholic/Protestant, Nationalist/Unionist – guilty of selective history.

The orange constituency still understand these events in the words of the Address“Brother you have been initiated into the Orange Institution and we now proceed to give you a little of the history of our noble order and its workings. Orange associations were formed in England in 1688 to advance the interests of William the 3rd Prince of Orange. In whose name we associate, whose memory we cherish and who on the 1st July 1690 on the banks of the Boyne defeated the combined forces of Popery and tyranny in this country.” (4)

This of course is a very selective view of history and assumes that full ‘civil and religious liberty’ for all, was established by William following the Battle of the Boyne. Leaving the scandal of the Treaty of Limerick to the side, how does that explain the exodus of 250,000 Presbyterians from Ireland in the century following the battle? If it was not famine which drove them out it was freedom. William’s achievements were noble but they were but the beginning. They laid the foundations upon which others built. In that sense, ‘William the Deliverer was a true hero, and “the ould Boyne water” a famous victory.’


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. 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. (5)

The founding fathers of the Orange Institution, who drew up these Qualifications, make no reference to Roman Catholics either as individuals or as a Church.

These original Qualifications are not received as history today because they were unknown – at least until I published them. The Grand Chaplain of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, Rev. Canon S. E. Long some years ago declared his lack of knowledge of such Qualifications. I never heard any reference to them in my forty plus years of membership.

Dr. Patrick Duigenan (1735-1816) was the second Grand Secretary, of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. According to the majority of historical opinion, [R.B. McDowell has recently taken up a contrary opinion (6)] he had 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”. (7)  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.” (8) James Kelly describes him as – “the fanatical champion of ultra-Protestantism”. (9)  Henry Grattan considered that Duigenan’s speeches inflicted a double injury: “the Catholics suffering from his attack and the Protestants from his defence”.

Patrick Duigenan married (cir. 1782), as his second wife, a practicing Roman Catholic, [Angelina Berry] and permitted her to have an in-house chaplain.(10) 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.

Like the early Qualifications, Duigenan’s marriage to a practicing Catholic was not the subject of much pamphleteering in recent years in orange circles. These were not the subjects addressed in the Orange Standard, the monthly periodical of the Orange Institution. Like so many early events in Orangeism there is a selective view history. The effect of this is that past and present generations have been unaware of the peculiar Irish nature of the Orange Institution.

The recent publication (June 2009) Beyond the Banners described on the Grand Orange Lodge Web Site as “the exhaustive account of the history of an Institution which is the Protestant community’s largest fraternal organisation worldwide”, makes no reference to these significant events in the early history of the Institution.(11) Neither the original Qualifications or  Patrick Duigenan are worthy of a mention in this ‘exhaustive account’.


The first major challenge to face the Orange Institution in the nineteenth century was the Act of Union, an Act which divided the fledging organisation. Many of the aristocratic brethren held seats in the Irish Parliament yet this did not prevent the Grand Lodge on the 4th December 1798, when Legislative Union was first mooted, advising those under its jurisdiction:

“strictly to abstain from expressing any opinion pro or con upon the question of a Legislative Union between this country and Great Britain, because that such expression of opinion, and such discussion in Lodges could only lead to disunion; that disunion might lead to disruption; and the disruption of the Society in the existing crisis would but promote the designs of the disaffected, and, in all human probability, lead to the dismemberment of the Empire”. (12) 

Thomas Verner, the Grand Master of Ireland, representing the northern gentry, favoured the Act of Union, while John Claudius Beresford, the Grand Secretary was opposed to it.  Irish Protestants in 1800 tended to see their parliament as a protection of their position. An attitude which was to be repeated a century later in relation to the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Three Dublin Lodges, who held influence and power because of their numerical and intellectual strength, protested against the Grand Lodge injunction forbidding discussion of the Act of Union.  They demanded that a Grand Lodge be elected which would “support the independence of Ireland and the Constitution of 1782”. Accordingly, Sunday on 12th July 1801, George Ogle was elected Grand Master, by 14 votes to 12, in opposition to Thomas Verner, a position he held until his death on 10th August 1814.  Patrick Duigenan was elected to the office of Grand Secretary at the same meeting.

The Institution, following the resurrection of the Grand Lodge in 1828, accepted the Qualifications of 1830.  The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland had dissolved itself on 18th March 1825 as a result of the implementation of the “Unlawful Societies (Ireland) Act” of 9th March that year.  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[sic] 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.(13)

Again there is no reference to Roman Catholics. This is significant considering that the Catholic Emancipation Act had been passed the previous year.

Catholic Emancipation caused genuine concern among Protestants in general and Orangemen in particular. The genuine fear, in the mid-nineteenth century, was that Roman Catholics would return Roman Catholic Members to Parliament, who would unbalance the question of the ‘Constitutional Settlement’. The Orangemen of Dublin took this matter seriously, as is evidenced by a ‘Bottle Riot’ at the Theatre Royal in Dublin, on 14th December 1822, when Orangemen threw a bottle at the Lord Lieutenant Richard Wellesley, because he had expressed support for Catholic Emancipation.  When Daniel O’Connell formed the Catholic Association in the following year, both O’Connell and the activities of the Catholic Association were hotly contested.

The Orange Institution, in the middle of the nineteenth century, came out in opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland.   The reason for such strong opposition was that the Church of Ireland was seen as a bulwark of Protestantism against the encroachments of Rome.  The disendowment of the Church lands, some £7 million being confiscated by the government, which accompanied disestablishment was also seen as a threat in the removal of ‘Protestant lands’.  There was also the fear, often expressed both in resolutions of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland and in addresses to parliament, that this would have some effect on the question of Legislative Union. This may appear rather strange, since fifty years previously at least half of the membership of the Institution opposed the Act of Union. Which fact proves that some things do change – but we do not talk about it.

William Johnston of Ballykilbeg, (1829-1902) the Orange folk hero, is one of the most misunderstood heroes of Orangeism. His portrait appears on many orange banners under the caption – ‘When shall we see his like again’. His memory was resurrected at the time of the Drumcree crisis, when he was eulogised as the man for our time. However, there is a huge difference between defying The Party Processions Act, leading a procession from Newtownards to Bangor with green fields on either side, and parading along the Garvaghy Road. By doing so and defying the law Johnston went to prison, and was not the last to make a name by doing so. But he also defied the policy Grand Lodge and he was asked the following year to explain his actions to a meeting of the Grand Lodge. He had previously defied the Grand Orange Lodge in their opposition to the Grand Black Chapter. He further defied Grand Lodge policy when he announced that he intended to support a bill to introduce a secret ballot for Parliamentary elections. The Grand Lodge had opposed the introduction of such an act.

It is what is often left unsaid which shows the complexity of the man. His daughter Ada converted to Catholicism and on Easter Sunday 1898 was received into the Catholic Church. While it was a great disappointment to the orange hero, he, none-the-less drove her in his trap to Ballykilbeg Chapel Sunday by Sunday before proceeding to his own Parish Church.

Parnell and the Land League posed a real challenge in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Protestants of Ulster were just as interested as their southern neighbours in the “three F’s”. Many of them, particularly the Presbyterian small farmers, supported Parnell in spite of being urged not to do so by their leadership. In fact in the County Tyrone by-election of 1881, the radical Liberal T.A. Dixon, who evidently had the support of Orangemen, defeated the County Grand Master Colonel W.S. Knox.

As Marcus Tanner has summarised it:

Ulster’s tenant farmers would not fight for the Tory Anglican Establishment and they benefited just as much from the provision of the Land Acts as the Catholics.  It was Home Rule that turned them from Liberals to Unionists. (14)

The lesson is that self-interest is a powerful weapon – but this was not remembered at the time of the Belfast Agreement.

The Rev. Dr. Richard Routledge Kane (1841-1898), was the County Grand Master of Belfast (1885-1898).  Dr. Kane was the Rector Christ Church (Church of Ireland) in Belfast, and according to R. M. Sibbett, had a “distinguished career in the interests of Protestantism and civil and religious liberty throughout the Empire”.(15) Dr. Kane was not only a great advocate of the Irish language but was also, one of the patrons of the Belfast Gaelic League which had been founded in 1895. It is also said that he signed the Minutes of Lodge meetings in Irish.

In The Twelfth 1986, an annual booklet published by the County Grand Orange Lodge of Belfast, the Rev. S.E. Long a Grand Chaplain of The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland wrote an article entitled “Belfast’s Orange Champion: Rev. Dr. R.R. Kane (1841-1898)”.  In an otherwise excellent synopsis of Kane’s life, the Rev. Long fails to mention Kane’s advocacy of the Irish language and his connection with the Gaelic League.  He probably knew that those reading the article would have little sympathy with this important element in Kane’s life. The politicising of the Irish language by the ultra-nationalists has borne bitter fruit within the Unionist constituency, where prejudice has fed on the propaganda, which seeks to air-bush the Irish dimension from the historical portrait of Orangeism.

How are these significant events and people of the nineteenth century received in the Orange and Unionist world of today? The short answer is they are not because they are ignored. No attempt has been made to understand these crucial events and personalities of the nineteenth century, let alone learn their lessons. To reassess the events and personalities of nineteenth century Orangeism in the present climate, might well lead to a better and more accurate understanding for present and future generations.

The recent publication by the Orange Institution Beyond the Banners, already referred to, makes no reference to some of the ‘unmentionable’ aspects of the events and personalities of the nineteenth century. It does however reveal how Kane embraced the Irish culture “Kane was an enthusiast of the Gaelic language, and allegedly signed his Lodge minutes in Irish, declaring, ‘My Orangeism does not make me less proud to be an O’Cahan’.” (16)

It is worth remembering that Orangeism became unionist at the end of the nineteenth century – it is not exclusively unionist in its DNA. There would be little sympathy today for the strong opinions expressed by the first Grand Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, Mr John Claudius Beresford.  Speaking against the proposed Act of Union, at a meeting in Dublin on 10th January 1799, he declared that he was, “Proud of the name of an Irishman, I hope never to exchange it for that of a Colonist . . .” (17)

Great Irishmen of the past have been air-brushed out of the history of nineteenth century Orangeism. These include notable Irishmen and Orangemen like Isaac Butt, a member of Trinity College Lodge and founder of the Dublin University Magazine – a platform for Orange writers and intellectuals, in the first half the century and Dublin Resident Magistrate, and Deputy Grand Master of Dublin, J.H.Nunn in the later half.

J.H. Nunn resigned from the Orange Institution following the passing of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act in 1871. At the December meeting of the Grand Lodge in that year he proposed that, “all statements and provisions in the existing Rules and Formularies of the Orange Institution, which imposed any obligation on its members to maintain the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, be expunged there-from.” (18) The defeat of his resolution may not in itself have driven him from the Orange Institution, but the resolution passed immediately following may well have been the direct cause.

The Grand Secretary of County Monaghan, G. Knight, proposed a resolution which declared:

Though the Loyal Orangemen and Protestants of Ireland feel they have been discouraged and discountenanced by the British Government, and though having great reason to complain of certain Acts of Parliament injurious to cause of Protestantism, yet, feeling assured that the great majority of an Irish Parliament, meeting in Dublin, would be composed of men hostile to our faith, and enemies of civil and religious liberty, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, any encouragement given by members of this Institution to Home Rule, as at present advocated, is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of Orangeism, and we therefore condemn it. (19)

This resolution of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland effectively committed the Institution to oppose Home Rule, ‘as at present advocated’.


The running sore which was carried over from the nineteenth century into the twentieth was the Home Rule crisis. The Orange Institution came out against Home Rule as did the majority of Protestants because they saw Home Rule as Rome Rule. The Institution gave birth to the Ulster Unionist Party, where Loyalty to the British Throne and Constitution took precedence over the unity of the people and the island of Ireland.

The bleak years of the first half of the century confirmed in the Orange and Unionist mind that Home Rule did mean Rome Rule. The special place in the Constitution of the Irish Republic for the Roman Catholic Church, and the blatant sectarian incidents like Feathered-on-Sea, all served to reinforce the Unionist and Orange position.

The depletion of the Protestant population within the twenty-six counties told its own tale. Those who came North after partition, and not all did, had their own stories to tell. Some told of the blatant sectarian attacks of which they were the recipients, some of the economic hardships which they were forced to face. The migration of Protestants from the South into the towns, villages and rural communities of the North became a visual aid to Northern Protestants that “cherishing all the children of the nation equally,” was a pipe dream.

The spectacle of Government Ministers of the Irish Republic unable to enter a Protestant Church for the funeral of President Douglas Hyde, in St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1949 or Lucan Presbyterian Church for the funeral of the Rev Dr. Irwin in 1954, communicated the message that the Irish Republic was a cold house for Protestants.

The special place for the Roman Catholic Church has gone from the Constitution. Roman Catholics can now attend Protestant churches. It is ‘all change but no change’, as the Orange Institution has officially failed to reciprocate these changes. I say officially as in practice this rule, of attending Roman Catholic Services, is like many others, kept in the breach. Minister Éamon Ó Cuív said, at the opening of an Ulster-Scots centre recently that his aim was to demonstrate “that the Republic I serve is a warm home for all its citizens”.

For an organization, like the Orange Institution, which still claims to be ‘Christ-centred, Bible-based, Church-grounded.'(20), it seems inexcusable that there has been no reciprocation to the huge changes which have taken place in the Irish Republic in recent years. As we shall see later, this attitude was to be challenged by the Dublin and Wicklow Lodge.

The second half of the twentieth century saw the rise of interest in Ulster-Scots Culture. Recent attempts to present the Orange Institution as a ‘cultural’ organisation – even exclusively in terms of the Ulster-Scots culture is not an accurate reflection of the make-up of the Institution, either at its foundation or in the present day.

At the end of the eighteenth century the Orange Society was made up of the two main religious/social groups. The Anglo-Irish represented the Anglican religion of the English settlers, while the Ulster-Scots (Scots-Irish) represented the religion of the Scottish Presbyterian settlers from lowland Scotland. In the present day, members of the Institution can largely trace their origins to either one of these two groups. It is therefore wrong to associate the Institution exclusively with only one of these groups – the Ulster-Scots.

This emphasis on the ‘cultural’ nature of Orangeism serves to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the history of Orangeism where many of the orange heroes of the past enthusiastically embraced an Irish Culture.

It is however ironical that this Ulster-Scots manifestation of Orangeism has failed to implement the words of the Scottish national poet Robert Burns:

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
(O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.) (21)

As the twentieth century drew to a close the once unionist monolith fragmented over the Belfast Agreement of 1998. The lessons of the past were not learned, particularly the lesson of self-interest as people voted for a future rather than a past. The Belfast Agreement may well have been “Sunningdale for slow learners”, but generally, the unionist leadership of every hue failed to understand that every time they went to the negotiating table they went from a position of increasing weakness. On the broader political landscape this may well be an allegation launched against the first leader of Irish Unionism – Edward Carson.

Ultimately the confrontation over parades and the division and bitterness over the Belfast Agreement did a disservice to both Orangeism and unionism.

But both unionism and Orangeism did a disservice to themselves over a much longer period.

In what I found to be a very depressing book, “Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland since 1945: The decline of the loyal family”, Henry Patterson and Eric Kaufmann catalogue the repetition of the failures in both organisations. (22) It reminded me of that often quoted remark of A.J.P.Taylor  “Like most of us who study history, he [Napoleon III] learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones”. (23)

However the ‘never, never,’ approach was challenged in the summer of 1940 when Britain faced a bleak future. According to John Bew, “Brookeborough, . . . was also willing to sacrifice the Union for a united Ireland if it contributed to defeating Nazism.” (24)


The twenty-first century has already provided many challenges to both Orangeism and unionism.

One of the first major events new millennium was to take place on 19th November 2001 when the Gaelic Athletic Association scrapped their infamous Rule 21. If the GAA could scrap a Rule created in the heat of the events of the 1920’s surely, one might think, the Orange Institution could reciprocate these changes and change their prohibitive rules.

In 1849 and 1885 additions to the Qualifications included the phrase often quoted:

. . . and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act or ceremony of Popish Worship;

The rule 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 Orange Institution of Ireland” (1998), it is not always enforced. In Canadian Orangeism, this rule has been removed.

The real challenge for Orangeism in the twenty-first century is to change in response to changing circumstances. Very few within Orangeism or Unionism are willing to challenge the prevailing attitude of the retention of the status quo of ignorance. However this challenge was issued by Dublin Orangemen last year. A member wrote:

“Is it not now time for the Orange Institution to change also? Is it not time to remove from the ‘Qualification of an Orangeman’ those references to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? References which they find offensive, and many of us find anachronistic.”(25)

The century opened with the continuing discussion on the connection between the Orange Institution and the Ulster Unionist Council. It is worth noting as, John Bew points out, “none of the formative figures in unionism . . . had a comfortable relationship with the Orange Order”. (26)

While the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland passed a resolution not to send delegates to the Ulster Unionist Council, it was in fact the Ulster Unionist Council which ‘broke the link’ with the introduction of new rules in 2006, thereby ending a relationship which effectively began in 1886. (27)

After the Reverend Alan Harper was elected Archbishop of Armagh in succession to Robin Eames on 9th January 2007 he publically declared that it was time to dispose of the Act of Settlement 1701.

In a debate on the BBC Radio Ulster programme “Talkback” the Orange Chaplain the Rev. Dr. Eric Culbertson claimed that if the Act of Settlement was revoked it would be “detrimental to the Gospel”. I for one cannot understand either the logic, let alone the theology of such a statement. I could understand the theology if the Church of Ireland was established by law – which it is not!

It is still a matter of ‘all change but no change’. Underlying all this is the inability to analyse the events of the past. If the Act of Settlement was to keep a powerful political Roman Catholic Church at bay and prevent it encroaching on the ‘liberties of England’, now that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer a political power, how can the retention of the Act of Settlement be justified? These are the questions which need to be addressed.

Given the fact that during the Stormont years Irish history was not taught in State Schools, is it any wonder that the orange and unionist population are ignorant of the events of the past? If they are not aware of the events they will not be able to analyse then and apply their lessons to today.

The challenge which is the responsibility of all of us, both individually and collectively is this – how do we change hearts and minds? How do we educate the present generation, particularly those in ‘deprived communities’, in the events of the past and enable them to learn it’s lessons? If we fail to do that in this generation, we are committing future generations to repeat the mistakes of the past.

As Coleridge wrote:- “If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!” (28)


  1. The London Times 12th July 2000
  2. The Legacy of History – Martin Mansergh –Page 148
  3. The Boxer – Simon and Garfunkel
  4. Orange Address given following initiation.
  5. Grand Lodge of Ireland Minute Book Page 45-46
  6. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP 2004/5) R.B. McDowell ‘Duigenan, Patrick(1734/5-1816)’. McDowell does not mention that Duigenan was the Grand Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland  
  7. Orangeism in Ireland and Throughout the Empire by R.M. Sibbett (Tynne & Co.,  Ltd. London 1938)  Vol.1  Pages 531-532
  8. Orangeism: The Making of a Tradition by Kevin Haddick-Flynn  (Wolfhound Press  1999) Page 182
  9. Sir Edward Newenham MP 1734-1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution –  James Kelly (Four Courts Press ) Page 281
  10. Orangeism: The making of a Tradition. Kevin Haddick-Flynn: Pages183-184.  Also Peter Judd in From the United Irishmen to Twentieth Century Unionism, Sabine Wichert (ed), (Four Courts Press 2004), Page 80
  11. Beyond the Banners – Dr David Hume, Dr Jonathan Mattison, David Scott,  Booklink 2009
  12. Grand Lodge of Ireland Minute Book Page 55 
  13. Laws and Ordinances of the Orange Institution of Ireland (1830)
  14. Ireland’s Holy Wars Marcus Tanner (Yale University Press 2001) Page 265
  15. R.M. Sibbett – Orangeism in Ireland and throughout the Empire Vol.2 Page 603
  16. Beyond the Banners – Dr David Hume, Dr Jonathan Mattison, David Scott, Booklink 2009 Page 98
  17. Sibbett Vol. 1 Page 443
  18. Sibbett Vol. 2 Page 539
  19. Sibbett Vol. 2 Page 539
  20.   <>
  21. Robert Burns, Poem “To a Louse” – verse 8
  22. Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland since 1945: The decline of the loyal family. Manchester University Press 2007
  23. Listener 6 June 1963
  24. Ulster Unionism and a sense of history by John Bew [History & Politics Papers – WEB]
  25. Dublin and Wicklow LOL1313 Newsletter Issue 8 Summer 2008 Page 6
  26. The Glory of Being Britons: Civic Unionism in Nineteenth-Century Belfast – John Bew, Irish Academic Press 2009. Page 15
  27. Northern Ireland. A Political Directory 1968-1999 – W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott. Page 380
  28. Samuel Taylor Coleridge – Table Talk 1835


Publication information

Paper presented at the conference “Protestant Traditions and the Paths to Peace: Beyond the Legacies of Plantation”, held at University College Dublin on 9 June 2009.

IBIS is grateful to the Department of the Taoiseach for its support in funding the conference.