The Sash Canada Wore: a Historical Geography of the Orange Order in Canada by Cecil J. Houston, William J. Smyth (review)

REVIEWS 211 imaginative historianwill stillprovidenewandfreshinsights intothelife of nineteenth-century Canada. MICH^EL J. •'Iv^ University ofOttawa The Sash Canada Wore: aHistorical Geography ofthe Orange Order inCanada. CECIL j. I-IOVSTON andWILLI^nJ.SnYTI-I. Toronto, Universityof TorontoPress,198o. Pp.xii, 2x5, illus.$15.oo. Social historians haveawaited thisstudy of theOrangeOrderbyCecilHouston andWilliamSmythfor sometime,excitedbythepromiseof a freshapproach toKingBilly'sCanadianfollowers. TheSash Canada Wore willsatisfy manyand disappoint others. Providinga chronological andgeographical accounting of theriseandfall of theOrangeOrder, thisslimvolumecontains thefirstsystematic attemptto tell uswhereand whenlodgeswereestablished, how theythrived,and the numbersof supporters involved.Houstonand Smythcovera century-and-ahalf unevenly, and tell us most about Ontario and about the nineteenth century.By i9oo that provincecontainedapproximately63 per centof the country's 145ø activelodges and6o,ooomembers. Thisquantitative depiction isacommendable achievement andthevolumewillproveinvaluable tosocial historians in the future. It is when the authorsmove beyondthe numbersthat they have so assiduously cultivated thatthisstudydisappoints. Throughout,theahistorical drift of thiswork understates vasttransformations in the economy,society, politics, andcultureof nineteenth-century Canada,blurringthehistoryof the Order intooneall tooundifferentiatedentitythat,in the twentiethcentury, predictably succumbs to 'modernization.' The authorsdefendthisahistorical approach on thegrounds that'theapparenthistorical correlations mightwell be spurious,'and argue insteadthat the 'importanceof the order and the reasons for itsgrowth...areclearly indicated byitsgeography' (•9). At theroot ofthistreatmentof theOrangeLodge,then,isageographic determinism that translates intothetruismthatOrangeism spreadassettlement developed. Thisstress uponsettlement cantellusmuch,butcoupledwiththeauthors' viewof Orangeism aspartof a'Canadian colonial identity'(7)itallows themto dismissthe notion that economic crisisstimulated the Order. Their own data, however,revealthat fully one-thirdof the lodgesestablished during the nineteenthcentury were founded in the commerciallytroubled period i854-6o. They haveno difficultyin rejectingKealey's hypothesis that the Orange-Green confrontations ofVictorianTorontowerehighlyritualistic and concerned with territoriality,despitetheir failure to discuss the riotsthemselves . Whiletheirtreatmentofthesocial dimension ofthelodgeispioneering, itisunimaginatively bland and avoids discussion ofthetension between rough andrespectable formsof behaviour. On theimportantpolitical placeof the 212 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW OrangeOrder Houstonand Smythrely on the secondary literatureand seldom venture ontoterrainasyetunstudied. TheUpperCanadian election of •836,forinstance, isvirtually unmentioned, whilepopularToryism inthelater periodisa subject welloutside of theirconcerns. All of whichleadsto theanalysis of the social composition of theOrder. Houston andSmytharguethatCanada's Orangemen wereadiverse lot,and camefrom a widearrayof occupational, ethnic,andreligious backgrounds. Thisiseasily established for theruralareas thatwerenodoubtthebackbone of Orangeism.In the industrialcity,however,the problemof class intervenes. Nowhereare HoustonandSmythat suchpainsto avoidtheimplications of their researchas in their analysis of Toronto'sOrangemen.Their study confirms Kealey's findings thatthecity's lodges weredominantly working class, but Houstonand Smythseemuncomfortable with suchevidence andbend overbackwards to minimizetheimportance of labouringOrangemen. They denythepossibility thatspecific lodges formedhavens forparticular trades or recruited fromspecific shops or factories, in spiteof enticing, if fragmentary, evidence fromtheirownandKealey's workthatpoints in thisdirection. And theyare quickto suggest, on the basis of an •894 sample, thatthedistinct minorityof Orangemen(one-fifth)whomthey canclassify asbusiness and professional menwereperhapsresponsible for cultivating anattachment to respectability withinOrangehalls,although theyadmitthatthis'middle-class group'hadno monopoly onleadership. TheSash Canada Worethusbacks awayfrom thedifficultquestion of class, andin the process skirtsimportantanalytic questions. HoustonandSmyth claimthatthisisappropriate,for theyarguethat'It isimpossible tocreatean Orangestereotype, exceptin termsof protestantism andloyalism' (• ••). It wouldbe foolhardyto denythat muchof the historyof Orangeism turnson protestantism andloyalism, especially in thecountryside, butbyfocussing on thisdual allegiance the authorshaveproduced just the stereotype thatthey wanttoavoid.Asanyonewhohaslookedatthenineteenth-century history of theworkingclass knows,therewassomething elseatworkaswell.It appeared instrikeprocessions, headed byanOrangeband.It appeared intheperson of RobertGlocking,Toronto unionistand Orangeman,expelledfrom •.o•.657 for marryinga catholic.It appearedin CapeBreton,whereOrangeDan MacDougallandJamesB. McLachlanled the minerstowardsinternational unionism. And it appeared in Hamiltonwhereshoemaker JohnPrykestood at thecentre ofthecity's labourmovement intheyears from •865to•9•4. Hewas anOrangeman; hewas also aFreethinker. Thereisnotmuchplace inthisbook fordevelopments andpersonalities such asthese,just asthereisnoplace foran understanding oftheambivalent legacy thatOrangeism willedtotheCanadian working class. Hadtherebeensuch places inthisworkitwouldhave beenmore satisfying andless disappointing. •R¾^•D.•'^•.MER McGill University ...