Note:  This material was scanned into text files for the sole purpose of convenient electronic research. This material is NOT intended as a reproduction of the original volumes. However close the material is to becoming a reproduced work, it should ONLY be regarded as a textual reference.  Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph W. Omholt, PM in May 2007.

 

GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY

THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

 

VOLUME II


 

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717-23  

 

CHAPTER TWO

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723-60  

 

CHAPTER THREE

 FREEMASONRY IN YORK 

 

CHAPTER FOUR

HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND

"ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS"

 

CHAPTER FIVE

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761-1813

 

CHAPTER SIX

HISTORY OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1814-1930

 

CHAPTER SEVEN

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY - SCOTLAND

 

CHAPTER NINE  

FREEMASONRY IN IRELAND

HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND


 

ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME II

 

H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught, K.G., Grand Master of England since

1901   Frontispiece

FACING PAGE

 

The Room on the First Floor of the Goose and Gridiron Tavern,

London           2

 

Anthony Sayer. First Grand Master of the Lodge of England, 1717-18  10

 

John Theophilus Desaguliers, F.R.S. Grand Master, 1719; Deputy Grand Master, 1722-6    18

 

Martin Folkes, F.R.S. Deputy Grand Master, 1724 78 The Sword of State of the Grand Lodge of England 86 Frontispiece to the Book of Constitutions, 1756-7           98

 

William Preston, famous as an instructor in Masonic Ritual and founder

of the lectures bearing his name     128

 

Seals of Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter of England 140 English Seals 142 Six Silver Jewels (Pierced Type) 208 Frontispiece to the Book of Constitutions, 1784 210 Freemasons' Tavern from 1789 to 1867 222 H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex. Grand Master, 1813-43 232 Clothing of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of England (Colour) 234 Jewels of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of England (Colour)            240

ix


 

x          ILLUSTRATIONS

FACING PAGE

English Provincial Grand Lodge Clothing (Colour)           2.46

 

England-Private Lodge Jewels and Clothing (Colour)     2.52.

 

H.R.H. Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, K.G. (Afterwards King Edward VII). Grand Master of England, 1874-1901   254

 

Regalia of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of Ireland (Colour) 2.66 Jewels of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of Ireland (Colour) 2.72. Ireland - Private Lodge Jewels and Clothing (Colour) 2.88

 

Clothing and Regalia of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scot

land (Colour)  376

 

Clothing of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Colour) 384 Jewels of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Colour)       390

 

Jewels of the Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Continued)

and Scottish Provincial Grand Lodge Regalia (Colour)   396

Typical Examples of Scottish Lodge Aprons (Colour)      400

 

Scottish Private Lodge Jewels (Being Those of the Lodge of EdinburghMary's Chapel - the Oldest Lodge in the World) (Colour)   404

 

Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Members of the Masonic Fraternity

 

Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett, William Ellery, Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Samuel Huntington, Thomas Jefferson, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lewis, Philip Livingston, Thomas McKean, Robert Morris, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Robert Treat Paine, John Penn, George Read, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, Richard Stockton, Matthew Thornton, George Walton, William Whipple, John Witherspoon, Oliver Wolcott                                                At end of volume


 

GOULD'S HISTORY

OF

FREEMASONRY

 

THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

 

VOLUME II


 

A HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

 

VOL. II

 

CHAPTER I

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23

 

UNFORTUNATELY the Minutes of the Grand Lodge of England, founded June 24, 1717, are not in existence prior to June 24, 1723.

 

For the history, therefore, of the first six years of the new regime, we are dependent mainly on the account given by Dr. Anderson in the Constitutions of 1738, nothing whatever relating to the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, except the General Regulations of 1721, having been inserted in the earlier edition Of 1723. From this source the following narrative, in which are preserved as nearly as possible both the orthographical and the typographical peculiarities of the original i s derived KING GEORGE I enter'd London most magnificently on 20 Sept. 1714. And after the Rebellion was over A.D. 176, the few Lodges at London finding themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren, through fit to cement under a Grand Master as the Center of Union and Harmony, vii. the Lodges that met,

 

1. At the Goose and Gridiron Ale‑house in St. Paul's Church‑Yard.

 

2. At the Crown Ale‑house in Parker's‑Lane near Drury‑Lane.

 

3. At the Apple‑Tree Tavern in Charles‑street, Covent‑Garden.

 

4. At the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Channel‑Row, Westminster.

 

They and some old Brothers met at the said Apple‑Tree, and having put into the Chair the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge), they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge pro Tempore in Due Form, and forthwith revived the Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges (call'd the Grand Lodge) resolv'd to hold the Annual ASSEMBLY and Feast, and then to chuse a GRAND MASTER from among themselves, till they should have the Honour of a Noble Brother at their Head.

 

Accordingly On St. John Baptist's Day, in the 3d year of KING GEORGE I, A.D. 1717, the ASSEMBLY and Feast of the Free and accepted Masons was held at the foresaid Goose and Gridiron Ale‑house.

 

Before Dinner, the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge) in the Chair, proposed a List of proper Candidates ; and the Brethren by a Majority of Hands elected MR. ANTONY SAYER, Gentleman, Grand Master of Masons, who being forthwith invested with the Badges of Office and Power by the said f Mr Jacob Lamball, Carpenter,) Grand oldest Master, and install'd, was! Capt. Joseph Elliot,f Wardens. duly congratulated by the Assembly who pay'd him the Homage.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3

 

Sayer, Grand Master, commanded the Masters and Wardens of Lodges to meet the Grand Officers every Quarter in Communication,' at the Place that he should appoint in his Summons sent by the Tyler.

 

ASSEMBLY and Feast at the said Place 24 June 1718.

 

Brother Saver having gather'd the Votes, after Dinner proclaim'd aloud our Brother GEORGE PAYNE Esqr Grand Master of Masons who being duly invested, install'd, congratulated and homaged, f Mr John Cordwell, City Carpenter, Grand recommended the strict Ob‑ Mr Thomas Morrice, Stone Cutter, Wardens. servance of the Quarterly Com munication ; and desired any Brethren to bring to the Grand Lodge any old Writings and Records concerning Masons and Masonry in order to shew the Usages of antient Times : And this Year several old Copies of the Gothic Constitutions were produced and collated.

 

ASSEMBLY and Feast at the said Place, 24 June 1719. Brother Payne having gather'd the Votes, after Dinner proclaim'd aloud our Reverend Brother JOHN Theophilus Desaguliers, L.L.D. and F.R. S., Grand Master of Masons, and being duly invested, install'd, congratulated and homaged, forthwith reviv'd the JMr Antony Sayer foresaid,~Grand old regular and peculiar Toasts or l Mr Tho. Morrice foresaid, Wardens. Healths of the Free Masons. Now several old Brothers, that had neglected the Craft, visited the Lodges; some Noblethen were also made Brothers, and more new Lodges were constituted.

 

ASSEMBLY and Feast at the foresaid Place 24 June 1720. Brother Desaguliers having gather'd the Votes, after Dinner proclaim'd 'aloud GEORGE PAYNE, Esq` ; again Grand Master of Masons; who being duly invested, install'd, congratulated and homag'd, began the usual Mr Thomas Hobby, Stone‑Cutter,! Grand Demonstrations of Joy, Love {Mr Rich. Ware, Mathematician, ~ Wardens. and Harmony.

 

This Year, at some private Lodges, several very valuable Manuscripts (for they had nothing yet in Print) concerning the Fraternity, their Lodges, Regulations, Charges, Secrets, and Usages (particularly one writ by Mr Nicholas Stone the Warden of Inigo Jones) were too hastily burnt by some scrupulous Brothers ; that those Papers might not fall into strange Hands.

 

At the Quarterly Communication or Grand Lodge, in ample Form, on St John Evangelist's Day 172o, at the said Place It was agreed, in order to avoid Disputes on the Annual Feast‑Day, that the new Grand Master for the future shall be named and proposed to the Grand Lodge some time before the Feast, by the present or old Grand Master : and if approv'd, that the Brother proposed, if present, shall be kindly saluted; or even if absent, His Health shall be toasted as Grand Master Elect.

 

1 N.B‑It is call'd the Quarterly Communication, because it should meet Quarterly according to antient Usage. And When the Grand Master is present it is a Lodge in Ample Form; otherwise, only in Due Form, yet having the same Authority with Ample Form.
 

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, I7I7‑23 3

 

Also agreed, that for the future the New Grand Master, as soon as he is install'd, shall have the sole Power of appointing both his Grand Wardens and a Deputy Grand Master (now found as necessary as formerly) according to antient Custom, when Noble Brothers were Grand Masters.

 

Accordingly At the Grand ‑Eoage in ample Form on Lady‑Day I72I, at the said Place Grand Master PAYNE proposed for his Successor our most Noble Brother.

 

John Duke of Montagu, Master of a Lodge; who being present, was forthwith saluted Grand Master Elect, and his Health drank in due Form ; when they all express'd great joy at the happy Prospect of being again patronized by noble Grand Masters, as in the prosperous Times of Free Masonry.

 

PAYNE, Grand Master, observing the Number of Lodges to encrease, and that the General Assembly requir'd more Room, proposed the next Assembly and Feast to be held at Stationers‑Hall, Ludgate Street; which was agreed to.

 

Then the Grand Wardens were order'd, as usual, to prepare the Feast, and to take some Stewards to their Assistance, Brothers of Ability and Capacity, and to appoint some Brethren to attend the Tables ; for that no strangers must be there.

 

But the Grand Officers not finding a proper Number of Stewards, our Brother Mr 3ostah `Jillónau, Upholder in the Burrougb Soutbwark, generously undertook the whole himself, attended by some Waiters, Thomas Morrice, Francis Bailey, &c.

 

ASSEMBLY and Feast at Stationers‑Hall, 24 June 1721 in the 7th Year of King GEORGE I.

 

PAYNE, Grand Master, with his Wardens, the former Grand Officers, and the Masters and Wardens of 12 Lodges, met the Grand Master Elect in a Grand Lodge at the King's Arms Tavern St Paul's Church yard, in the Morning ; and having forth with recognized their Choice of Brother MONTAGU they made some new Brothers, particularly the noble PHILIP Lord Stanbope, now Earl of Cbesterfaeld : And from thence they marched on Foot to the Hall in proper Clothing and due Form; where they were joyfully receiv'd by about 15 o true and faithful, all clothed.

 

After Grace said, they sat down in the antient Manner of Masons to a very elegant Feast, and dined with joy and Gladness. After Dinner and Grace said, Brother PAYNE, the old Grand Master, made the first Procession round the Hall, and when return'd he proclaim'd aloud the most noble Prince and our Brother.

 

JOHN MONTAGU, Duke of Montagu, GRAND MASTER of Masons ! and Brother Payne having invested his Grace's WORSHIP with the Ensigns and Badges of his Office and Authority, install'd him in Solomon's Chair and sat down on his Right Hand; while the Assembly own'd the 'Duke's Authority with due Homage and joyful Congratulations, upon this Revival of the Prosperity of Masonry.

 

MONTAGU, G. Master, immediately call'd forth (without naming him before) as it were carelesly, :31ohn !$eal, M.D. as his Deputy Grand Master, whom Brother Payne invested, and install'd him in Hiram Abbiff's Chair on the Grand Master's Left Hand.

 

In like Manner his Worsbi call'd Mr osiab Villeneau, Grand forth and appointed p {Mr Thomas Morrice,} Wardens. who were invested and install'd by the last Grand Wardens.

 

Upon which the Deputy and Wardens were saluted and congratulated as usual.

 

4 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 Then MONTAGU, G. Master, with his Officers and the old Officers, having made the zd procession round the Hall, Brother '‑Desagultórs made an eloquent Oration about Masons and Masonry : And after Great Harmony, the Effect of brotherly Love, the Grand Master thank'd Brother Villeneau for his Care of the Feast, and order'd him as Warden to close the Lodge in good Time.

 

The Grand ‑Lodge in ample Form on 29 Sept. 1721, at King's‑Arms foresaid, with the former Grand Officers and those of 16 Lodges.

 

His Grace's Worship and the Lodge finding Fault with all the Copies of the old Gothic Constitutions, order'd Brother James Anderson, A.M., to digest the same in a new and better Method.

 

The Grand ‑.oa,qe in ample Form on St. JoxN's Day 27 Dec. 1721, at the said King's Arms, with former Grand Officers and those of zo Lodges.

 

MONTAGU, Grand Master, at the Desire of the Lodge, appointed 14 learned Brothers to examine Brother Anderson's Manuscript, and to make Report. This Communication was made very entertaining by the Lectures of some old Masons.

 

Some general notes on the foregoing may here be interpolated.

 

It must be borne carefully in mind, that the revival of the Quarterly Communication was recorded twenty‑one years after the date of the occurrence to which it refers; also, that no such " revival" is mentioned by Dr. Anderson in the Constitutions Of 1723.

 

In an anonymous and undated work, but which must have been published in 1763 or the following year, we are told that "the Masters and Wardens of six Lodges assembled at the Apple Tree on St John's Day, 1716 and, after the oldest Master Mason (who was also the Master of a Lodge) had taken the Chair, they constituted among themselves a GRAND LODGE pro tempore, and revived their Quarterly Communications and their Annual Feast" (The Complete Free‑mason or, Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets, p. 83). All subsequent writers appear to have copied from Anderson in their accounts of the proceedings of 1717, though the details are occasionally varied. The statement in Multa Paucis is evidently a blend of the events arranged by Anderson under the years 1716 and 1717 and that the author of Multa Paucis had studied the Constitutions Of 1738 with some care, is proved by his placing Lambell [Lamball] and Elliot in their proper places as Senior and Junior Grand Warden respectively. The word six can hardly be a misprint, as it occurs twice in the work (pp. 83, III).

 

On removing from Oxford to London in 1714, Dr. Desaguliers settled in Channel‑Row, Westminster and continued'to reside there until it was pulled down to make way for the new bridge at Westminster. George Payne, his immediate predecessor as Grand Master, lived at New Palace Yard, Westminster, where he died February 23, 1757. Both Desaguliers and Payne were members in 1723 of the Lodge at the Horn Tavern in New Palace Yard, Westminster, which is described in the Constitutions of 1738 (p. 185) as "the Old Lodge removed from the RUMMER and GRAPES, Channel Row, whose Constitution is immemorial." (Now the Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge, No. 4.) Although Payne is commonly described as a " learned antiquarian," he does not appear to have been THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 5 a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The Gentleman's Maga.Zine, vol. xxvii, 1757, p. 93, has the following: " Deaths.‑Jan. 23. Geo. Payne, Esq., of New‑Palace‑yd. Promotions.‑Arthur Leigh, Esq., secretary to the tax‑office (George Payne, Esq., dec.)." For detailed biography of George Payne by Albert F. Calvert, see Masonic News, April 14, ig28.

 

Between 1717 and 172o‑both dates inclusive‑there are no allusions in the newspaper files at the British Museum, or in contemporary writings, which possess any bearing on Masonic history. In 1721, however, the Society, owing, it may well have been, to the acceptance by the Duke of Montagu of the office of Grand Master, rose at one bound into notice and esteem.

 

If we rely upon the evidence of a contem orary witness, Masonry must have languished under the rule of Sayer, Payne and Ksaguliers. An entry in the diary of Dr. Stukeley reads Jan. 6, 1721. I was made a Freemason at the Salutation Tavern, Tavistock Street [London], with M` Collins and Capt. Rowe, who made the famous diving engine.

 

The Doctor adds I was the first person made a Freemason in London for many years. We had great difficulty to find members enough to perform the ceremony. Immediately upon that it took a run and ran itself out of breath thro' the folly of the members.

 

Stukeley, who appears to have dined at Stationers' Hall on the occasion of the Duke of Montagu's installation, mentions that Lord Herbert and Sir Andrew Fountaine‑names omitted by Anderson‑were present at the meeting and states that Dr. Desaguliers " pronounced an Oration," also that " Grand Master Pain produced an old MS. of the Constitutions " and " read over a new sett of Articles to be observed." ' The following reasons for becoming a Freemason are given by Dr. Stukeley in his autobiography His curiosity led him to be initiated into the mysterys of Masonry, suspecting it to be the remains of the mysterys of the antients ; when, with difficulty, a number sufficient was to be found in all London. After this it became a public fashion, not only spred over Brittain and Ireland, but [over] all of Europe.

 

The Diary proceeds Dec. 27th, 1721.‑We met at the Fountain Tavern, Strand and by the consent of the Grand Master present, Dr. Beal [D.G.M.] constituted a lodge there, where I was chose Master.

 

Commenting on this entry, T. B. Whytehead observes Nothing is named about the qualification for the chair and, as Bro. Stukeley had not been twelve months a Mason, it is manifest that any Brother could be 6 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, I7I7‑23 chosen to preside, as also that the verbal consent of the Grand Master, or his Deputy, was sufficient to authorize the formation of a Lodge. (The Freemason, July 31, I88o.) The statement in the Diary, however, is inconsistent with two passages in Dr. Anderson's narrative, but as the consideration of this discrepancy will bring us up to March 25, I72z, the evidence relating to the previous year will first be exhausted.

 

This consists of the interesting account by Lyon of the affiliation of Dr. Desaguliers as a member of the Scottish Fraternity. (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 15 I.) Att Maries Chapell the 24 of August I7zI years‑James Wattson present deacon of the Masons of Edinr., Preses. The which day Doctor John Theophilus Desauguliers, fellow of the Royall Societie and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Grace James Duke of Chandois, late Generall Master of the Mason Lodges in England, being in town and desirous to have a conference with the Deacon, Warden and Master Masons of Edinr., which was accordingly granted and finding him duly qualified in all points of Masonry, they received him as a Brother into their Societie.

 

Likeas, upon the 25th day of the sd moneth, the Deacons, Warden, Masters and several other members of the Societie, together with the sd Doctor Desaguliers, haveing mett att Maries Chapell, there was a supplication presented to them by John Campbell, Esqr., Lord Provost of Edinbr., George Preston and Hugh Hathorn, Baillies ; James Nimo, Thesaurer ; William Livingston, Deacon‑convener of the Trades thereof ; and George Irving, Clerk to the Dean of Guild Court,‑‑and humbly craving to be admitted members of the sd Societie ; which being considered by them, they granted the desire thereof and the saids honourable persons were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and Fellow‑Crafts accordingly.

 

And sicklike upon the 28th day of the said moneth there was another petition given in by Sr. Duncan Campbell of Lochnell, Barronet ; Robert Wightman, Esqr., present Dean of Gild of Edr. ; George Drummond, Esq., late Theasurer therof ; Archibald M'Aulay, late Bailly there ; and Patrick Lindsay, merchant there, craveing the like benefit, which was also granted and they receaved as members of the Societie as the other persons above mentioned. The same day James Key and Thomas Aikman, servants to James Wattson, deacon of the masons, were admitted and receaved entered apprentices and payed to James Mack, warden, the ordinary dues as such. Ro. Alison, Clerk.

 

Dr. Desaguliers's visit to Edinburgh appears to have taken place at the wish of the magistrates there, who, when they first brought water into that city by leaden pipes, applied to him for information concerning the quantity of water they could obtain by means of a given diameter. (T. Thomson, History of the Royal Society, 1812, bk. iii, p. 4o6.) At this time, says Lyon, a revision of the English Masonic Constitutions was in contemplation ; and the better to facilitate this, Desaguliers, along with Dr. James Anderson, was engaged in the F. II‑10 i It is difficult to reconcile these remarks with some others by the same writer, which appear on the next page of his admirable work, viz.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 7 examination of such ancient Masonic records as could be consulted. Embracing the opportunity which his sojourn in the Scottish capital offered, for comparing what he knew of the pre‑symbolic constitutions and customs of English Masons, with those that obtained in Scotch Lodges and animated, no doubt, by a desire for the spread of the new system, he held a conference with the office‑bearers and members of the Lodge of Edinburgh. That he and his Brethren in Mary's Chapel should have so thoroughly understood each other on all the points of Masonry, shows either that, in their main features, the secrets of the old Operative Lodges of the two countries were somewhat similar, or that an inkling of the novelty had already been conveyed into Scotland. The fact that English versions of the Masonic Legend and Charges were in circulation among the Scotch in the middle of the seventeenth century favours the former supposition ; and if this be correct, there is strong ground for the presumption that the conference in question had relation to Speculative Masonry and its introduction into Scotland. (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, pp. 15 2, 15 3.) Some years ago and when unaware of Desaguliers' visit to Mary's Chapel, we publicly expressed our opinion that the system of Masonic Degrees, which, for nearly a century and a half, has been known in Scotland as Freemasonry, was an importation from England, seeing that in the processes of initiation and advancement, conformity to the new ceremonial required the adoption of genuflections, postures, etc., which, in the manner of their use‑the country being then purely Presbyterian ‑were regarded by our forefathers with abhorrence as relics of Popery and Prelacy.

 

The same distinguished writer then expresses his opinion that on both the 25th and the 28th of August, 17z1, " the ceremony of entering and passing would, as far as the circumstances of the Lodge would permit, be conducted by Desaguliers himself in accordance with the ritual he was anxious to introduce " and goes on to account for the Doctor having confined himself to the two lesser Degrees, by remarking that " it was not till 1722‑z3 that the English regulation restricting the conferring of the Third Degree to Grand Lodge was repealed." Lyon adds that he " has no hesitation in ascribing Scotland's acquaintance with and subsequent adoption of, English Symbolical Masonry, to the conference which the co‑fabricator and pioneer of the system held with the Lodge of Edinburgh in August 17z1." The affiliation of a former Grand Master of the English Society, as a member of the Scottish Fraternity, not only constitutes a memorable epoch in the history of the latter body, but is of especial value as affording some assured data by aid of which a comparison of the Masonic Systems of the two countries may be pursued with more confidence, than were we left to formulate our conclusions from the evidence of either English or Scottish records, dealing only with the details of the individual system to which they relate.

 

Two observations are necessary. One, that the incident of Desaguliers's affiliation is recorded under the year 1721‑though its full consideration will occur later 8 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 ‑because, in investigations like the present, dates are the most material facts, yet, unless arranged with some approach to chronological exactitude, they are calculated to hinder rather than facilitate research, by introducing a new element of confusion.

 

The other, that nowhere do the errors of the " Sheep‑walking School " of Masonic writers stand out in bolder relief than in their annals of the year 1717, where the leading role in the movement, which culminated in the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, is assigned to Desaguliers.

 

Laurence Dermott in the third edition of his Ahiman Re.Zon, published in 1778, observes Brother Thomas Grinsell, a man of great veracity (elder brother of the celebrated James Quin, Esq.), informed his lodge No. 3 in London (in 1753), that eight persons, whose names were Desaguliers, Gofton, King, Calvert, Lumley, Madden, De Noyer and Vraden, were the geniusses to whom the world is indebted for the memorable invention of Modern Masonry.

 

Dermott continues Grinsell often told the author [of the Ahiman ReZon, i.e. himself] that he (Grinsell) was a Free‑mason before Modern Masonry was known. Nor is this to he doubted, when we consider that Grinsell was an apprentice to a weaver in Dublin, when his mother was married to Quin's father and that Quin himself was seventy‑three years old when he died in 1766. (Ahiman Re.Zon, 3rd edit., 1778.) Passing over intermediate writers and coming down to the industrious compilation of Findel, we find the establishment of the first Grand Lodge described as being due to the exertions of " several Brethren who united for this purpose, among whom were King, Calvert, Lumley, Madden," etc. "'At their head," says this author, " was Dr. J. Theophilus Desaguliers." (History of Freemasonry, 136.) Now, it happens, strangely enough, that at an Occasional Lodge held at Kew on November 5, 1737, the eight persons named by Dermott (and no others) were present and took part at the initiation and passing of Frederick, Prince of Wales 1 (Book Constitutions, 1738, p. 137.) Resuming the thread of the narrative, the Constitutions proceed Grand‑Eo6ge at the Fountain, Strand, in ample Form, 75 March 1772, with former Grand officers and those of 24 Lodges.

 

The said Committee of 14 reported that they had perused Brother Anderson's Manuscript, viz., the History, Charges, Regulations, and Master's Song and, after some Amendments, had approv'd of it: Upon which the Lodge desir'd the Grand Master to order it to be printed. Meanwhile Ingenious Men of all Faculties and Stations being convinced that the Cement of the Lodge was Love and Friendship, earnestly requested to be made Masons, Affecting this amicable Fraternity more than other Societies, then often disturbed by Warm Disputes.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 9 Grand Master MONTAGU'S good Government inclin'd the better Sort to continue him in the Chair another Year; and therefore they delay'd to prepare the Feast.

 

This conflicts with the entry, already given (December 27, 1721), from Dr Stukeley's Diary. According to Anderson, the Grand Lodge was held at the " King's Arms " in " ample Form "‑i.e. the Grand Master was present‑on December 27, 1721‑the ordinary business, together with the lectures delivered at this meeting, must have taken up some considerable time and it is unlikely that either before or after the Quarterly Communication, the Grand Master, the Deputy and a posse of the brethren, paid a visit to the Fountain.

 

At this point and with a view to presenting the somewhat scattered evidence relating to the year 1722, with as much chronological exactitude as the nature of the materials available will permit, some further extracts from Dr. Stukeley's Diary are introduced, as the next portion of Dr. Anderson's narrative runs on, without the possibility of a break, from June 24, 1722, to January 17, 1723.

 

May 25th, 1722.‑Met the Duke of Queensboro', Lord Dumbarton, Hinchinbroke, &c., at Fountain Tavern Lodge, to consider of [the] Feast of St. John's.

 

Nov. 3rd, 1722.‑The Duke of Wharton and Lord Dalkeith visited our lodge at the Fountain.

 

Two remarkable entries in Dr. Stukeley's Diary are: " Nov. 7th, 1722.Order of the Book instituted." " Dec. 28th, 1722.‑I din'd with Lord Hertford, introduced by Lord Winchelsea. I made them both members of the Order of the Book, or Roman Knighthood." These current notes by a Freemason of the period merit careful attention, the more so, since the inferences they suggest awaken a suspicion that, in committing to writing a recital of events in which he had borne a leading part, many years after the occurrences he describes, Dr. Anderson's memory was occasionally at fault and, therefore, one should scrutinize very closely the few collateral references in newspapers or manuscripts, which antedate the actual records of Grand Lodge.

 

The entries in Stukeley's Diary of May 25 and November 3, 1722, are hardly reconcilable with the narrative (in the Constitutions) now resumed.

 

But Philip, Duke of Wharton, lately made a Brother, tho' not the Master of a Lodge, being ambitious of the Chair, got a Number of Others to meet him at StationersHall 24 June 1722. And having no Grand Officers, they put in the Chair the oldest Master Mason (who was not the present Master of a Lodge, also irregular), and without the usual decent Ceremonials, the said old Mason proclaim'd aloud Philip Wharton, Duke of Wlharton, Grand Master of Masons, and JMr. Joshua Timson, Blacksmith, J Grand but his Grace appointed no lMr. William Hawleins, Mason, Wardens, Deputy, nor was the Lodge opened and closed in due Form. Therefore the noble Brothers and all those that would not countenance Irregularities, disown'd Wharton'so: F. _ __" :~ v 10 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 Authority, till worthy Brother MONTAGu heal'd the Breach of Harmony, by summoning The Grand ‑Co6ge to meet 17 January 1721 at the King's‑Arms foresaid, where the Duke of IY>harton promising to be True and Faithful, Deputy Grand Master Beal proclaim'd aloud the most noble Prince and our Brother.

 

PHILIP WHARTON, Duke of Vharton, GRAND MASTER of Masons, who appointed Dr. ~ósaa~ultórs the Deputy Grand Master, 1 Joshua Timson, foresaid, Grand for Hawkins demitted as always out of James Anderson, A.M., { Vardens, } Town.

 

When former Grand Officers, with those of 2 5 Lodges, paid their Homage.

 

G. Warden Anderson produced the new Book of Constitutions now in Print, which was again approv'd, with the Addition of the antient Manner of Constituting a Lodge. Now Masonry flourish'd in Harmony, Reputation, and Numbers; many Noblemen and Gentlemen of the first Rank desir'd to be admitted into the Fraternity, besides other Learned Men, Merchants, Clergymen, and Tradesmen, who found a Lodge to be a safe and pleasant Relaxation from Intense Study or the Hurry of Business, without Politicks or Party. Therefore the Grand Master was obliged to constitute more new Lodges and was very assiduous in visiting the Lodges every Week with his Deputy and Wlardens ; and his Vorship was well pleas'd with their kind and respectful Manner of receiving him, as they were with his affable and clever conversation.

 

Grand ‑.oage in ample Form, 25 April 1723, at the White‑Lion, Cornhill, with former Grand Officers and those of 3o Lodges call'd over by G. Warden Anderson, for no Secretary was yet appointed. When WHARTON, Grand Master, proposed for his Successor the Earl of Dalkeitb (now Duke of Buckleugh), Master of a Lodge, who was unanimously approv'd and duly saluted as Grand Master Elect.

 

The Duke of Wharton, born in 1698, was son of the Whig Marquess, to whom is ascribed the authorship of Lilliburlero. After having, during his travels, accepted the title of Duke of Northumberland from the Old Pretender, he returned to England and evinced the versatility of his political principles by becoming a warm champion of the Hanoverian government; created Duke of Wharton by George I in 1718. Having impoverished himself by extravagance, he again changed his politics and, in 1724, quitted England never to return. He died in indigence at a Bernardine convent in Catalonia, May 31, 1731. The character of Lovelace in Clarissa has been supposed to be that of this nobleman ; what renders the supposition more likely, the True Briton, a political paper in which the Duke used to write, was printed by Richardson.

 

At this meeting, according to the Daily Post, June 27, 1722, " there was a noble appearance of persons of distinction " and the Duke of Wharton was chosen Grand Master and Dr. Desaguliers Deputy Master, for the year ensuing.

 

The authority of Anderson, on all points within his own knowledge, is not to be lightly impeached. But it is a curious fact, that the journals of the day (and the Diary of Dr. Stukeley) do not corroborate his general statement,‑e.g. the Daily Post, June 20, 1722, notifies that tickets for the Feast must be taken out " before THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 next Friday " and declares that " all those noblemen and gentlemen that have took tickets and do not appear at the hall, will be look'd upon as false brothers " ; the Veekly journal or British Gazetteer, June 30, 172z, describing the proceedings, says " They had a most sumptuous Feast, several of the nobility, who are members of the Society, being present; and his Grace the Duke of Wharton was then unanimously chosen governor of the said Fraternity." Findel, following Kloss, observes : " Only twenty Lodges, ratified [the Constitutions] ; five Lodges would not accede to, or sign them " (History of Freemasonry, p. 159). This criticism is based on the circumstance, that twenty‑five Lodges were represented at the meeting of January 17, 1723, whilst the Masters and Wardens of twenty only, signed the Approbation of the Constitutions of that year. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Constitutions submitted by Anderson in January 17z3, were in print and that the vicissitudes of the year 1722 must have rendered it difficult to obtain even the signatures of twenty, out of the twenty‑four representatives of Lodges by whom the Constitutions were ordered to be printed on March 25, 1722.

 

A biography of Dr. James Anderson appears in England's Masonic Pioneers, by Dudley Wright.

 

Dr. Anderson's great work was his Royal Genealogies (1732 and 1736), produced, it is said, at the cost of twenty years' close study and application (Scots Magazine, vol. i, 1739, p. 236). At the close of his life, he was reduced to very slender circumstances and experienced some great misfortunes, but of what description we are not told. The Pocket Companion for 1754 points out " great defects " in the edition of the Constitutions, published the year before his death (1738) and attributes them either to " his want of health, or trusting [the MS.] to the management of strangers." " The work," it goes on to say, " appeared in a very mangled condition and the Regulations, which had been revised and corrected by GrandMaster Payne, were in many cases interpolated, in others, the sense left very obscure and uncertain." Upon the whole, it is sufficiently clear, that the New Book of Constitutions (1738), which contains the only connected history of the Grand Lodge of England, for the first six years of its existence (1717‑2 3), was compiled by Dr. Anderson at a period when troubles crowded thickly upon him, very shortly before his death. This of itself would tend to detract from the weight of authority with which such a publication should descend to us. Moreover, if the discrepancies between the statements in the portion of the narrative reproduced and those quoted from Multa Paucis, Dr. Stukeley's Diary and the journals of the day, are carefully noted, it will be impossible to arrive at any other conclusion‑without, however, impeaching the good faith of the compiler‑than that the history of the Grand Lodge from 1717 to 1723, as narrated by Anderson, is, to say the least, very unsatisfactorily attested. Dr. Anderson died May z8, 1739 (London Evening Post, May z6 to May 29, 1739; Read's Wleekly journal, June z ; London Daily Post, May 29, 1739). It is a little singular that none of the journals recording his decease, or that of his brother 12‑ THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 Adam (1765), give any further clue to the place of their birth, than the brief statement that they were " natives of Scotland." It is at least a remarkable coincidence‑if nothing more‑that almost the same words are used to describe James Anderson, the compiler of the Laws and Statutes of the Lodge of Aberdeen (1670) and James Anderson, the compiler of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England (1723). Thus the assent of the seventeenth Lodge on the English Roll, in 1723, to the Constitutions of that year, is thus shown XVII. James Anderson, A.M. I Master. The author of this nook, f The assimilation into the English Masonic System of many operative terms indigenous to Scotland, is incontestable. Now, although there are no means of deciding whether Anderson was initiated in, or joined the English Society, there is evidence from which it may be inferred either that he examined the records of the Lodge of Aberdeen, or that extracts therefrom were supplied to him.

 

However this may be, Dr. Anderson was certainly a Scotsman and to this circumstance must be attributed his introduction of many operative terms from the vocabulary of the sister kingdom into his Book of Constitutions. Of these, one of the most common is the compound word Fellow‑craft, which is plainly of Scottish derivation. Enter'd Prentice also occurs and, though presented as a quotation from an old English manuscript, it hardly admits of a doubt that Anderson embellished the text of his authority by changing the words " new men " into " enter'd Prentices." Allusions to the Freemasonry of Scotland are not infrequent. " Lodges there," with "Records and Traditions "‑" kept up without interruption many hundred years'"‑are mentioned in one place (Constitutions, 1723, p. 37) and in another that " the Masons of Scotland were impower'd to have a certain and fix'd Grand Master and Grand Warden "‑here, no doubt the writer had in his mind the Laird of Udaucht, or William Schaw.

 

Again, in the " Approbation " appended to his work, Anderson expressly states that he has examined " several copies of the History, Charges, and Regulations, of the ancient FRATERNITY, from Scotland " and elsewhere (Constitutions, 1723, P. 73) The word Cowan, however, is reserved for the second edition of the Constitutions (Preface, p. ix and pp. 54, 74), where also the following passage occurs, relative to the Scottish custom of Lodges meeting in the open air, a usage probably disclosed to the compiler by the records of the Aberdeen Lodge, or by his namesake, their custodian. The words run The Fraternity of old met in Monasteries in foul Weather, but in fair Weather they met early in the Morning on the Tops of Hills, especially on St. JOHN Evangelist's Day, and from thence walk'd in due Form to the Place of Dinner, according to the THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 13 Tradition of the old Scots Masons, particularly of those in the antient Lodges of Killwinning, Sterling, Aberdeen," etc. (Constitutions, 1738, p. 91.) The next task.will be, to compare the Masonic systems prevailing in Scotland and England respectively, at a date preceding the era of Grand Lodges, or, slightly to vary the expression, to contrast the usages of the Craft in the two Kingdoms, as existing at a period anterior to the epoch of transition.

 

The difficulties of disentangling the subject from the confusion which encircles it are great but not insuperable. Dr. Anderson's narrative of occurrencestermed with lamentable accuracy, " The Basis of Masonic History "‑has become a damnosa hareditas to later historians. Even the prince of Masonic critics, Kloss, has been misled by the positive statements in the Constitutions. It is true that this commentator did not blindly follow (as so many have done) the footsteps of Anderson. For example, he declares that Freemasonry originated in England and thence was transplanted into other countries, but he admits, nevertheless, that it is quite possible, from Anderson's History, to prove that it went out from France to Britain, returning thence in due season, then again going to Britain and, finally, being reintroduced into France in the manner affirmed by French writers. (Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Frankreich (1725‑i83o), Darmstadt, 1852, pp. 13, 14.) Sir David Brewster, in his compilation, alludes to numerous and elegant ruins then still adorning the villages of Scotland, as having been " erected by foreign masons, who introduced into this island the customs of their order." He also mentions, as a curious fact, having often heard‑in one of those towns where there is an elegant abbey, built in the twelfth century‑that it was " erected by a company of industrious men, who spoke a foreign language and lived separately from the townspeople " (Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, pp. go, cgi). As Brewster had previously observed that the mysteries of the Free Masons were probably the source from which the Egyptian priests derived that knowledge, for which they have been so highly celebrated (ibid., p. 13), it seems that a good opportunity of adding to the ponderous learning which characterizes his book was here let slip. According to the historians of the Middle Ages, the Scots certainly came from Egypt, for they were originally the issue of Scota, who was a daughter of Pharaoh and who bequeathed to them her name. (Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. i, p. 312 ; Lingard, History of England, vol. ii, p. 187.) It would, therefore, have been a very simple matter and quite as credible as nine‑tenths of the historical essay with which his work commences, had Sir David Brewster brought Scottish Masonry directly from Egypt, instead of by the somewhat circuitous route to which he thought fit to accord the preference.

 

It is not a little singular, that in Lawrie's History of Freemasonry‑to quote the title by which the work is best known‑a Masonic publication, it may be observed, of undoubted merit (Hughan, Masonic Sketches and Reprints, pt. i, p. 7), whilst the traditions of the English Fraternity are characterized as " silly and uninteresting stories," those of the Scottish Masons are treated in a very different manner. Thus, 14 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑2j the accounts of St. Alban, King Athelstan and Prince Edwin, met with ‑in the Old Charges, are described as " merely assertions, not only incapable of proof from authentic history, but inconsistent, also, with several historical events which rest on indubitable evidence." In a forcible passage, which every Masonic writer should learn by heart, Brewster then adds, " those who invent and propagate such tales, do not, surely, consider that they bring discredit upon their order by the warmth of their zeal ; and that, by supporting what is false, they debar thinking men from believing what is true." (See Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, pp. 91, 92.) Findel, following Kloss, remarks, " The inventors of Masonic Legends were so blind to what was immediately before their eyes and so limited in their ideas, that, instead of connecting them with the period of the Introduction of Christianity and with the monuments of Roman antiquity, which were either perfect or in ruins before them, they preferred associating the Legends of their Guilds with some tradition or other. The English had the York Legend, reaching back as far as the year g26. The German Mason answers the question touching the origin of his Art, by pointing to the building of the Cathedral of Magdeburg (876) ; and the Scottish Mason refers only to the erection of Kilwinning‑i 140 " (History of Freemasonry, pp. 105, io6).

 

A speculation might be advanced, though it rests on no shadow of proof, but is nevertheless a somewhat plausible theory, that the Italian workmen imported by Benedict Biscop and Wilfrid, may have formed Guilds‑in imitation of the Collegia, which perhaps still existed in some form in Italy‑to perpetuate the art among the natives ; hence the legend of Athelstan and the Grand Lodge of York. But unfortunately, Northumbria was the district most completely revolutionized by the Danes and again effectually ravaged by the Conqueror.

 

The legend pointing to Kilwinning as the original seat of Scottish Masonry, based as it is upon the story which makes the institution of the Lodge and the erection of the Abbey (1140) coeval, is inconsistent with the fact that the latter was neither the first not second Gothic structure erected in Scotland. (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 242.) Moreover, there is the assurance on good authority that a minute inspection of its ruins proves its erection to have been antedated by some eighty or ninety years. Still, whether at Kilwinning or elsewhere, it is tolerably clear that the Scottish stone‑workers of the twelfth century came from England. The English were able to send them and the Scots required them. Also, it is a fair presumption from the fact of numerous Englishmen of noble birth having, at the instance of the King, settled in Scotland at this period, that Craftsmen from the South must soon have followed them. (See The Freemason, June i g, 1869.) Indeed, late in the twelfth century, " the two nations, according to Fordun, seemed one people, Englishmen travelling at pleasure through all the corners of Scotland; and Scotsmen in like manner through England." (Rev. G. Ridpath, Border History of England and Scotland, 1810, p. 76; Sir D. Dalrymple, Annals of Scotland, vol. i, p. 158.) When the Legend of the Craft, or, in other words, the Masonic traditions THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 15 enshrined in the Old Charges, was or were introduced into Scotland, it is quite impossible to decide. If, indeed, a traditionary history existed at all in Britain, before the reign of Edward III, as it seems to have done, this, for several reasons, would seem the most likely period at which such transfusion of ideas occurred. It is true that probability in such decisions will often prove the most fallacious guide. Le vraisemblable n'est pas toujours vrai, and le vrai n'est pas toujours vraisemblable. Yet it is free from doubt that after the war of independence in the thirteenth century, the Scottish people, in their language, their institutions and their habits, gradually became estranged from England. (J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, 1853, vol. i, p. 516.) A closer intercourse took place with the French and " the Saxon institu tions in Scotland were gradually buried under foreign importations." " The earliest ecclesiastical edifices of England and Scotland show the same style of architecture ‑in many instances the same workmen. When, after the devastations of the war of independence, Gothic architecture was resumed, it leaned, in its gradual development from earlier to later styles, more to the Continental than the English models ; and, when the English architects fell into the thin mouldings and shafts, depressed arches and square outlines of the Tudor‑Gothic, Scotland took the other direction of the rich, massive, wavy decorations and high‑pointed arches of the French Flamboyant " (Burton, p. 518).

 

But, even if we go the length of believing that English Masons, or, at least, their customs, had penetrated into Scotland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the circumstances of that unfortunate kingdom from izc96 to 140o have yet to be considered. Throughout this period, Scotland was continually ravaged by the English. In izc96, they entered Berwick, the richest town Scotland possessed and, not only destroyed all the property, but slew nearly all the inhabitants, after which they marched on to Aberdeen and Elgin and completely desolated the country. (Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. iii, pp. 13, 14.) In i z98 the English again broke in, burnt Perth and St. Andrews and ravaged the whole country, south and west. (Ibid.) In 1322, Bruce, in order to baffle an English invasion, was obliged to lay waste all the, districts south of the Firth of Forth. In 1336, Edward III destroyed everything he could find, as far as Inverness whilst, in 1355, in a still more barbarous inroad, he burnt every church, every village and every town he approached. Nor did the country fare better at the hands of his successor, for Richard II traversed the southern counties to Aberdeen, scattering destruction on every side and reducing to ashes the cities of Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Perth and Dundee. (Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 15, 16.) It has been estimated, that the frequent wars between Scotland and England since the death of Alexander III (1286), had occasioned to the former country the loss of more than a century in the progress of civilization. (Pinkerton, History of Scotland, vol. i, pp. 166, 167.) In the fifteenth century, even in the best parts of Scotland, the inhabitants could not manufacture the most necessary articles, which they imported largely from Bruges. (Mercer, History of Dunfermline, p. 61.) At Aberdeen, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, there was not a mechanic in the town capable to execute the ordinary repairs 16 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 of a clock. (W. Kennedy, Annals of Aberdeen, 1818, vol. i, p. 99.) Lyon, in chap. xxiv of his History, prints the Seal of Cause, incorporating the Masons and Wrights of Edinburgh, A.D. 1475 and observes (p. 233), " The reference which is made to Bruges in the fourth item, is significant, as indicating one of the channels through which the Scottish Crafts became acquainted with customs obtaining among their brethren in foreign countries." He adds, " the secret ceremonies observed by the representatives of the builders of the medixval edifices of which Bruges could boast, may have to some extent been adopted by the Lodges of Scotch Operative Masons in the fifteenth century " (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. z34).

 

Dunfermline, associated with so many historic reminiscences, at the end of the fourteenth century was still a poor village, composed of wooden huts. (Mercer, op. cit., p. 6z.) At the same period, the houses in Edinburgh itself were mere huts thatched with boughs and, even as late as 16oo, they were chiefly built of wood. (G. Chalmers, Caledonia, vol. i, p. 8oz ; Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. iii, p. 30.) Down, or almost down, to the close of the sixteenth century, skilled labour was hardly known and honest industry was universally despised. (Buckle, op. cit., p. 31.) If it be conceded, therefore, that prior to the war of independence the architecture of Scotland and, with it, the customs of the building trades, received an English impress, the strong improbability‑to say no more‑of the influence thus produced having survived the period of anarchy which has been briefly described must also be admitted. Neither is it likely that French or other Continental customs became permanently engrafted on the Scottish Masonic system. Indeed, it is clear almost to demonstration, that the usages wherein the Masons of Scotland differed from the other trades of that country were of English derivation. The Old Charges here come to our aid and prove, if they do no more, that in one feature, at least, the Scottish ceremonial was based on an English prototype. The date when the Legend of the Craft was introduced into Scotland is indeterminable. The evidence will justify an inference, that a copy of our manuscript Constitutions was in the possession of the Melrose Lodge in '1581. Still, it is scarcely possible, if this date is accepted, that it marks the introduction into Scotland of a version of the Old Charges. From the thirteenth century to the close of the sixteenth, the most populous Scottish cities were Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Perth and St. Andrews. (Buckle, op. cit., vol. iii, p. z9.) English craftsmen, or English craft usages, it may be supposed, passed into Scotland by way of the great towns rather than of the smaller ones. Melrose, it is true, stands on the border line of the two countries and its beautiful Abbey, as previously stated, is also betwixt the two in style. But even were we to accept the dates of erection of the chief ecclesiastical buildings, as those of the introduction of Masonry into the various districts of Scotland, it would be found, says the historian of the Lodge of Melrose, that Kelso stood first, Edinburgh second, Melrose third, Kilwinning fourth. (Masonic Magazine, February i88o.) On the whole we shall, perhaps, not go far astray, in assuming that the lost exemplars of the Old Charges extant in both kingdoms, or, to speak more correctly, those of the normal or ordinary versions, were in substance identical. This would carry THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 17 back the ceremony of " reading the Charges," as a characteristic of Scottish Masonry, to the period when our manuscript Constitutions assumed the coherent and, as it were, stereotyped form, of which either the Lansdowne (3) or the Bucbanan (15) MSS. affords a good illustration. As against this view, however, it must not escape recollection that the only direct evidence pointing to the existence in Scotland of versions of the Old Charges before the seventeenth century, consists of the memorandum or attestation, a copy of which is appended to Melrose MS., No. 2 (ig) now given in full. It runs Be it knouen to all men to whom these Extracted be me presents shall come that Robert Wincester upon hath lafuly done his dutie to the science the i 2 3 and 4 of Masonrie in witnes wherof J. [I] John dayes of Wincester his Master frie mason have December subscribit my name and sett to my mark anno in the Year of our Lord 15 81 and in the raing MDCLXXIIII. of our most Soveraing Lady Elizabeth the (22) Year.

 

If it is considered that more has been founded on this entry than it will safely bear, or, in other words, that it does not warrant the inference, with regard to MS. i g being a copy of a sixteenth‑century version, a further supposition presents itself. It is this. All Scottish copies of the Old Charges may then date after the accession of James I to the English throne (1603), and the question arises, Can the words " leidgeman to the King of England " be understood as referring to this monarch ? If so, some difficulties would be removed from the path, but only, alas, to give place to others.

 

When James at the death of Queen Elizabeth proceeded to England, the principal native nobility accompanied him. (Irving, History of Dumbartonsbire, 1860, pp. 137, 166 ; Bishop Guthry, Memoirs, 1702, pp. 127, 128.) Nor was this exodus restricted to the upper classes. Howell, writing in 1657, assigns as a reason for the cities of London and Westminster, which were originally far apart, having become fully joined in the early years of the seventeenth century, the great number of Scotsmen who came to London on the accession of James I and settled chiefly along the Strand. (Londinopolis, p. 346.) It may, therefore, be contended that if, about the close of the sixteenth century, the Masons' Lodges in England had ceased to exist, the great influx of Scotsmen just alluded to, might reasonably account for the Warrington meeting of 1646, before which there is no evidence of living Freemasonry in the south. This, of course, would imply either that the Scottish Lodges, which existed in the sixteenth century, then possessed versions of the Old Charges, or that, for some period of time, at least they were without them.

 

The latter supposition would, however, be weakened by the presumption of the English Lodges having died out, since it would be hardly likely that from their fossil remains the Scotch Masons extracted the manuscript Constitutions, which they certainly used in the seventeenth century.

 

18 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 It is not improbable that William Schaw, the Master of Work and General Warden, had a copy of the Old Charges before him when he penned the Statutes of 1598 and 1599 and, with regard to the Warrington Lodge (1646), that it was an outgrowth of something essentially distinct from the Scotch Masonry of that period.

 

On both these points a few final words remain to be expressed, but before doing so, it will be convenient to resume and conclude the observations on the general history of Scotland, which have been brought down to the year 1657 and show the possibility of the legislative Union of 1707 having conduced in some measure to the (so‑called) Masonic Revival of 1717.

 

At the accession of William III (1689) every Scotsman of importance, who could claim alliance with the revolutionary party, proffered his guidance to the new King through the intricacies of his position. But the clustering of these gratuitous advisers became so troublesome to him, that the resort of members of the Convention to London was prohibited. (Burton, History of Scotland, vol. i, P. 19.) After the Union of the two Kingdoms (1707), the infusion of English ideas was very rapid. Some of the most considerable persons in Scotland were obliged to pass half the year in London and, naturally, came back with a certain change in their ideas. (Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii, p. 85.) The Scotch nobles looked for future fortune, not to Scotland but to England. London became the centre of their intrigues and their hopes. (Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. iii, p. 165.) The movement up to this period, it may be remarked, was entirely in one direction. The people of Scotland knew England much better than the people of England knew Scotland‑indeed, according to Burton, the efforts of the pamphleteers to make Scotland known to the English, at the period of the Union, resemble the missionary efforts to instruct the people about the policy of the Caffres or the Japanese. (History of Scotland, 18 5 3, vol. i, p. 523.) A passing glance at the Freemasonry of the South in 1707‑the year of the Union between the two kingdoms‑has been afforded by the essay of Sir Richard Steele. Upon this evidence, it is argued with much force, that a Society known as the Freemasons, having certain distinct modes of recognition, must have existed in London in 1709 and for a long time before.

 

This position, with the reservation that the words " signs and tokens," upon which Steele's commentator has relied‑like the equivalent terms cited by Aubrey, Plot, Rawlinson and Randle Holme‑do not decide the vexata quaestio of Masonic Degrees, will be generally conceded. But we are here concerned with the date only of Steele's first essay (1709). Whether the customs he attests were new or old will be considered later. It will be sufficient for the present purpose to assume, that about the period of the Union, there was a marked difference between the ceremonial observances of the English and of the Scottish Lodges. This conclusion, it is true, has yet to be reduced to actual demonstration, but the further proofs‑notably the Lodge procedure of Scotland‑will presently be cited, when every reader will be able to form an independent judgment with regard to the proposition laid down.

 

v r THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 19 r~ It seems a very natural deduction from the evidence, that during the ten years which intervened between the Treaty of Union (1707) and the formation of the Grand Lodge of England (1717), the characteristics of the Masonic systems, which existed, so to speak, side by side, must frequently have been compared by the members of the two brotherhoods. Among the numerous Scotsmen who flocked to London, there must have been many Geomatic Masons, far more, indeed, than, at this lapse of time, can be identified as members of the Craft. This is placed beyond doubt by the evidence that has been handed down. To retrace our steps somewhat, we find that the Earl of Eglinton, Deacon of Mother Kilwinning in 1677, having " espoused the principles which led to the Revolution, enjoyed the con fidence of William the Third." (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 52.) Sir Duncan Campbell, a member of the Lodge of Edinburgh, was the personal friend and one of the confidential advisers of Queen Anne. Sir John Clerk and Sir Patrick Hume, afterwards Earl of Marchmont, were also members of this Lodge. (Lyon, op. Cit., pp. 90, 117.) The former, one of the Barons of the Exchequer for Scotland, from 1707 to 1755, was also a Commissioner for the Union, a measure, the success of which was due in no small degree to the tact and address of the latter, who was one of the foremost Scottish statesmen of his era. (See Burton's History of Scotland, vol. i.) The Treaty of Union also found an energetic supporter in the Earl of Findlater, whose name appears on the roll of the Lodge of Aberdeen in 1670. Inasmuch as the names just cited are those of persons at one end of the scale, whilst the bulk of the Scottish Craft were at the other end, it is plainly inferential, that many Masons of intermediate degree in social rank must also have found their way to the English metropolis.

 

Let the next endeavour be, by touching lightly on the salient features of Scottish Masonry, to show what the ideas and customs were, from which the founders or early members of the Grand Lodge of England could have borrowed. In so doing, however, there is no notion of entering into any rivalry with the highest authority upon the subject under inquiry. Great assistance has, however, been derived from notes freely supplied by Lyon and it must be remembered, as Mackey points out, that the learned and laborious investigations of the Historian of Mother Kilwinning and Mary's Chapel, refer only to the Lodges of Scotland. He adds, " There is not sufficient evidence that a more extensive system of initiation did not prevail at the same time, or even earlier, in England and Germany." " Indeed," he continues, " Findel has shown that it did in the latter country." (Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, s.v. " word.") Passing over the alleged identity of the Steinmetzen with the Freemasons, the remarks of the veteran encyclopxdist will be generally acquiesced in. They are cited, however, because they justify the conclusion, that some statements by Lyon, with regard to the Freemasonry of England, are evidently mere obiter dicta and may be passed over, therefore, without detracting in the slightest degree from the value of his work as an authentic history of Scottish Masonry. Among these is the allusion to Desaguliers as " the pioneer and co‑fabricator of symbolical Masonry," a popular delusion, the origin of which has been explained.

 

zo THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 Turning to the Schaw Statutes, which seem to be based upon the Old (English) Charges or Manuscript Constitutions, we find ordinances of earlier date referred to. These, if not the ancient writings with which they have been identified, must have been some regulations or orders now lost. However this may be, the Schaw Statutes themselves present an outline of the system of Masonry peculiar to Scotland in 1598‑99, which, to a great extent, can be filled in by aid of the further documentary evidence supplied from that kingdom, dating from the succeeding century.

 

The Schaw Statutes have been given, though not in their vernacular idiom. For this reason a few literal extracts from the two codices, upon which some visionary speculations have been based, become essential. Many of the clauses are in close agreement with some which are to be found in the Old Charges, whilst others exhibit a striking resemblance to the regulations of the Steinmetzen and of the craft guilds of France. Schaw, there can hardly be a doubt, had ancient writings from which to copy. That trade regulations, all over the world, are characterized by a great family likeness may next be affirmed and, for this reason, the points of similarity between the Scottish and the German codes appear to possess no particular significance, though with regard to the influence of French customs upon the former, it may be otherwise.

 

Lyon's dictum, that the rules ordained by William Schaw were applicable to Operative Masons alone, will be regarded by most persons as a verdict from which there is no appeal. This point is one of some importance, for, although addressed ostensibly to all the Master Masons within the Scottish realm, the Statutes have special reference to the business of Lodges, as distinguished from the less ancient organizations of the Craft known as Incorporations, holding their privileges direct from the Crown, or under Seals of Cause granted by burghal authorities. (Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 16.) The purposes for which the old Scottish Lodges existed are partly disclosed by the documents of 1598 and 1599, though, as the laws then framed or codified were not always obeyed, the items of the Warden‑General point, in more than one instance, to customs that were more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Of this, a good illustration is afforded by the various passages in the two codes which appear to regulate the status of apprentices. Thus, according to the Statutes of 1598, no apprentice was to be made Brother and Fellow Craft until the period of his servitude had expired. That is to say, on being made free, or attaining the position of a full Craftsman, he was admitted or accepted into the fellowship, or, to use a more modern expression, became a member of the Lodge.

 

That the apprentices in Schaw's time, stood on quite a different footing from that of the Masters and fellows, is also attested by the second code and that their status in the Lodge during the seventeenth century was still one of relative inferiority to the members (see Lyon, op. cit., p. 413) in some parts of Scotland, is as certain as that in others they laboured under no disability whatever, and were frequently THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 11 elected to the chair. (Freemasons' Magazine, July to December, 1863, pp. 95, 154, 236.) Beyond providing for the " orderlie buiking " of apprentices, the Schaa Statutes are silent as to the constitution of the Lodge at entries. On the other hand, care is taken to fix the number and quality of Brethren necessary to the reception of Masters or Fellows of Craft, viz., six masters and two entered apprentices. (Lyon, op. cit., p. io.) The presence of so many Masters was doubtless intended as a barrier to the advancement of incompetent Craftsmen, not for the communication of secrets with which entered apprentices were unacquainted ; for the arrangement referred to proves beyond question that whatever secrets were imparted in and by the Lodge were, as a means of mutual recognition, patent to the intrant. The " trial of skill in his craft " (Lyon, p. 12), the production of an " essay‑piece " (ibid., p. 13) and the insertion of his name and mark in the Lodge Book, with the names of his " six admitters " and " intendaris " as specified in the act, were merely practical tests and confirmations of the applicant's qualifications as an apprentice and his fitness to undertake the duties of journeyman or master in Operative Masonry; and the apprentice's attendance at such an examination could not be otherwise than beneficial to him, because of the opportunity it afforded for increasing his professional knowledge. (Lyon, p. 17.) No traces of an annual " tryall of the art and memorie and science thairof of everie fallow of craft and everie prenteiss " were found by Lyon in the recorded transactions of Mary's Chapel or in those of the Lodge of Kilwinning. But, as already mentioned, the custom was observed with the utmost regularity by the Lodge of Peebles (see Masonic Magazine, vol. vi, p. 3 5 5) and is alluded to with more or less distinctness in the proceedings of other Lodges. (Masonic Magazine, vol. vii, p. 369.) It has been shown that the presence of Apprentices at the admission of Fellows of Craft was rendered an essential formality by the Schaw Statutes of 1598. This regulation appears to have been duly complied with by the Lodges of Edinburgh and Kilwinning (Masonic Magazine, vol. i, p. 11 o) and, in the former, at least, the custom of Apprentices giving or withholding their consent to any proposed accession to their own ranks was also recognized. But, whether the latter prerogative was exercised as an inherent right, or by concession of their superiors in the Craft, the records do not disclose. The earliest instance of the recognition of Apprentices as active members of the Lodge of Edinburgh is furnished by a Minute of June i 2, i 6oo, whence it appears that at least four of them attested the entry of William Hastie, (Lyon, OP. cit., p. 74), whilst, in those of slightly later date, certain Entered Prentices are represented as " consenting and assenting " to the entries to which they refer. The presence of Apprentices in the Lodge during the making of Fellow‑Crafts is also affirmed by Lyon, on the authority of Minutes which he cites,‑a " fact," in his opinion, utterly destructive of the theory which has been advanced, " that Apprentices were merely present at the constitution of the Lodge for the reception of Fellows of Craft or Masters, but were not present during the time the business was going on." (Lyon, op. cit., Freemasons' Alagazine, July to December 1863, Zz THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 PP. 95, 237.) A Minute of 1679 shows, however, very plainly, ,that whether in or out of the Lodge, the Apprentices were, in all respects, fully qualified to make up a quorum for the purposes either of initiation or the reception of Fellows.

 

December the 27, 1679: Maries Chappell. The which day Thomas Wilkie deacon, and Thomas King, warden and the rest of the brethren convened at that tyme, being represented unto them the great abuse and usurpation committed be John Fulltoun, mason, on [one] of the friemen of this place, by seducing two entered prentises belonging to our Lodge, to witt, Ro. Alison and John Collaer and other omngadrums, in the moneth of august last, within the sheraffdome of Air: Has taken upon himself to passe and enter severall gentlemen without licence or commission from this place : Therfore for his abuse committed the deacon and maisters hes forthwith enacted that he shall receave no benefit from this place nor no converse with any brother; and lykwayes his servants to be discharged from serving him in his imployment ; and this act to stand in force, ay and whill [until] he give the deacon and masters satisfaction. (See Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 99.) It has been sufficiently demonstrated, though the evidence is not yet exhausted, that the Apprentice, at his entry, was placed in full possession of the secrets of the Lodge. But one must be careful not to confuse the Masonic nomenclature pre vailing in the two kingdoms respectively. The term Free Mason, of which, in Scotland, except in the Old Charges, the use first appears in the records of Mary's Chapel, under the year 1636 and does not reappear until 1725, was, in that country, until the eighteenth century, a mere abbreviation of Freemen Masons. (Lyon, p. 8o.) Thus, David Dellap, on being made an Entered Apprentice at Edinburgh in 1636, must have had communicated to him whatever of an esoteric character there was to reveal, precisely as we are justified in believing must have happened in Ashmole's case, when made a Free Mason at Warrington in 1646. Yet, though the latter became a Free Mason at admission, whilst the former did not, both were clearly made Brethren of the Lodge. (Lyon, p. 23.) The bond of brotherhood thus established may have been virtually one and the same thing in the two countries, or it may, on the other hand, have differed toto calo. But unless each of the Masonic systems be taken as a whole, it is impossible adequately to bring out the distinction between the two. Consulted in portions, dates may be verified and facts ascertained, but the significance of the entire body of evidence escapes us‑we cannot enjoy a landscape reflected in the fragments of a broken mirror.

 

Proceeding, therefore, with our examination of Scottish Masonry, it may confidently be asserted, that though the admissions of gentlemen into the Lodge of Edinburgh, both before and after the entry of David Dellap (1636), are somewhat differently recorded, the procedure, at least, so far as the communication of anything to be kept secret, was the same.

 

Believers in the antiquity of the present Third Degree are in the habit of citing the records of the Lodge of Edinburgh, as affording evidence of Gentlemen Masons having, in the seventeenth century, been denominated Master Masons. The entries of General Hamilton and Sir Patrick Hume are cases in point. But though each F. II‑I I THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 23 of these worthies was enrolled as a Fellow and Master, their Masonic status did not differ from that of Lord Alexander and his brother Henry, who were enrolled, the one as a Fellow of Craft, the other as a Fellow and Brother. The relative position, indeed, of the incorporation and the Lodge placed the making of a Master Mason beyond the province of the latter. (Lyon, p. Zio.) " Only in four of the Minutes, between December 28, 1598 and December 27, 1700, is the word Master employed to denote the Masonic rank in which intrants were admitted in the Lodge of Edinburgh; and it is only so used in connexion with the making of theoretical Masons, of whom three were gentlemen by birth, two master wrights." It is worthy of observation, also, as Lyon forcibly points out, " that all who attest the proceedings of the Lodge, practical and theoretical Masons alike, are in the earliest of its records in general terms designated Masters‑a form of expression which occurs even when one or more of those to whom it is applied happen to be Apprentices." The same historian affirms that " if the communication of Mason Lodges of secret words or signs constituted a Degree‑a term of modern application to the esoteric observances of the Masonic body‑then there was, under the purely Operative regime, only one known to Scotch Lodges, viz., that in which, under an oath, Apprentices obtained a knowledge of the Mason Word and all that was implied in the expression." (Lyon, op. cit., p. 23.) Two points are involved in this conclusion. One, the essentially operative character of the early Masonry of Scotland; the other, the comparative simplicity of the Lodge ceremonial. Taking these in their order, it may be necessary to explain that a distinction must be drawn between the character and the composition of the Scottish Lodges. In the former sense all were Operative, in the latter, all, or nearly all, were more or less Speculative. By this must be understood that the Lodges in Scotland discharged a function, of which, in England, no trace is met, save in the manuscript Constitutions, until the eighteenth century. It is improbable that the Alnwick Lodge (1701) was the first of its kind, still, all the evidence of an earlier date (with the exception noted) bears in quite a contrary direction. The Scottish Lodges, therefore, existed, to fulfil certain operative requirements, of which the necessity may have passed away, or at least has been unrecorded in the south.

 

There are to be found some allusions to the presence, side by side, of the Operative and Speculative elements, in the Lodges of Scotland. The word Specu lative has been turned to strange uses by Masonic historians. It is argued that the Speculative ascendancy which, in 1670, prevailed in the Lodge of Aberdeen, might be termed, in other words, Speculative Freemasonry. This is true, no doubt, in a sense, but the horizon advances as well as recedes. " The idea in the mind is not always found under the pen, any more than the artist's conception can always breathe in his pencil." Without doubt, the Earls of Findlater and Errol and the other noblemen and gentlemen who formed a majority of the members of the Lodge of Aberdeen (1670), were Speculative or Honorary, not Operative or practical Masons. The same 24 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 may be said of the entire bead‑roll of Scottish worthies whose connexion with the Craft has been already glanced at. But the Speculative element within the Lodges was a mere excrescence upon the Operative. From the earliest times, in the cities of Scotland, the burgesses were accustomed to purchase the protection of some powerful noble by yielding to him the little independence that they might have retained. Thus, for example, the town of Dunbar naturally grew up under the shelter of the castle of the same name. (G. Chalmers, Caledonia, vol. ii, p. 416.) Few of the Scottish towns ventured to elect their chief magistrate from among their own people; but the usual course was to choose a neighbouring peer as provost or bailie. (Tytler, History of Scotland, vol. iv, p. 416.) Indeed, it often happened that his office became hereditary and was looked upon as the vested right of some aristocratic family. (Buckle, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 33‑) In the same way the Lodges eagerly courted the countenance and protection of the aristocracy. Of this, many examples might be given, if, indeed, the fact were not sufficiently established by the evidence. (Lyon, op. cit., p. 81.) But the hereditary connexion of the noble house of Montgomerie with the Masonic Court of Kilwinning must not be passed over, as it shows, that to some extent at least, the Mother Lodge of Scottish tradition grew up under the shelter of Eglinton Castle. (Lyon, pp. 11, 52, 245 ; R. Wylie, History of Mother Lodge, Kilwinning, 1878.) " The grafting of the non‑professional element on to the stem of the Operative system of Masonry," is said to have had its commencement in Scotland about the period of the Reformation (Lyon, p. 78), nor are we without evidence that will justify this conclusion. According to the solemn declaration of a church court in 165 2, many Masons having the " word " were ministers and professors in " the purest tymes of this kirke," which may mean any time after the Reformation of 156o, but must, at least, be regarded as carrying back the admission of honorary members into Masonic fellowship, beyond the oft‑quoted case of John Boswell, in 16oo. But as militating against the hypothesis, that honorary membership was then of frequent occurrence, the fact must be noted, that the records of Lodge of Edinburgh contain no entries relating to the admission of gentlemen between 16oo and 1634,‑the latter date, moreover, being thirty‑eight years before the period at which the presence of Geomatic Masons is first discernible in the Lodge of Kil winning. But, whatever may have been the motives which animated the parties on either side‑Operatives or Speculatives‑the tie which united them was a purely honorary one. (Lyon, p. 82.) In the Lodge of Edinburgh, Geomatic Masons were charged no admission fee until 1727. The opinion has been expressed that a difference existed between the ceremonial at the admission of a theoretical and that observed at the reception of a practical mason. This is based upon the inability of non‑professionals to comply with tests to which Operatives were sub jected ere they could be passed as Fellows of Craft. (Lyon, p. 82.) Such was probably the case and the distinction is material, as arising naturally from the presumption that the interests of the latter class of intrants would alone be considered in a court of purely Operative Masonry.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 25 Passing, however, to the second point‑the simplicity of the Lodge ceremonial ‑this expression is used in the restricted sense of the Masonic reception common to both classes alike‑the Operative tests from which gentlemen presumably were exempt are of no further interest in this inquiry. The Geomatic class of intrants, if we follow Lyon, were " in all likelihood initiated into a knowledge of the legendary history of the Mason Craft and had the Word and such other secrets communicated to them, as was necessary to their recognition as Brethren, in the very limited Masonic circle in which they were ever likely to move‑limited, because there was nothing of a cosmopolitan character in the bond which [then] united the members of Lodges, nor had the Lodge of Edinburgh as yet become acquainted with the dramatic Degrees of Speculative Masonry." (Lyon, pp. 82, 83.) Subject to the qualification, that the admission of a joining member from the Lodge of Linlithgow, by the Brethren of the Lodge of Edinburgh, in 1653 (see Freemasons' Magazine, September 18, 1869, p. 222) attests that the bond of fellowship was something more than a mere token of membership of a particular Lodge, or of a Masonic Society in a single city, the proceedings at the entry or admission of candidates for the Lodge are well outlined by the Scottish historian. The ceremony was doubtless the same‑i.e. the esoteric portion of it, with which alone we are concerned‑whether the intrant was an Operative Apprentice, or a Speculative Fellow‑Craft, or Master. The legend of the Craft was read and " the benefit of the Mason Word " conferred. The Schaw Statutes throw no light on the ceremony of Masonic initiation, beyond justifying the inference, that extreme simplicity must have been its leading characteristic. The Word is the only secret referred to throughout the seventeenth century in any Scottish records of that period. The expression " Benefit of the Mason Word " occurs in several statutes of the Lodge of Aberdeen (1670). The AtchesonHaven records (1700) mention certain " disorders of the Lodge " which it was feared would " bring all law and order and, consequently, the Mason Word, to contempt." The Haughfoot Minutes (1702) mention a grip.

 

The same records detail the admission of two members in 1710, who " received the word in common form" (Freemasons' Magazine, Oct. 2, 1869, p. 3o6), an expression which is made clearer by the laws of the Brechin Lodge (1714), the third of which runs‑" It is statute and ordained that when any person that is entered to this lodge shall be receaved by the Warden in the common form," etc. (Masonic Magazine, vol. i, 1873‑74, p. iio.) Liberty to give the Mason Word was the principal point in dispute between Mary's Chapel and the journeymen, which was settled by Decreet Arbitral in 1715, empowering the latter " to meet together as a society for giving the Mason Word." (Lyon, p. 142.) The secrets of the Mason Word are referred to in the Minutes of the Lodge of Dunblane and what makes this entry the more remarkable is, that the secrets in question were revealed, after due examination, by two Entered Apprentices from the Lodge of Kilwinning‑in which latter body the ceremony of initiation was of so simple a character, down at least to 1735 (Freemasons' Magazine, August 29, 1863, p. 154), as to be destructive altogether of the construction which has been placed 26 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 upon the report of the examiner deputed by the former Lodge, to ascertain the Masonic qualifications of the two applicants for membership. In the last‑named year (1735), two persons who had been severally received into Masonry by individual operators at a distance from the Lodge, being found " in lawful possession of the Word," were recognized as members of Mother Kilwinning " in the station of Apprentices." The custom of entering persons to the Lodge‑in the observance of which one Mason could unaided make another‑has been already cited as suggesting a total indifference to uniformity in imparting to novitiates the secrets of the Craft. (Freemasons' Ma gaZine, July to December 1869, p. 409.) The Masonic ceremonial, therefore, of a Lodge addicted to this practice will not carry much weight as a faithful register of contemporary usage. For this reason, as well as for others, the evidence of the Dunblane records seems wholly insufficient to sustain the theory for which they have served as a foundation.

 

In this view of the case, there will only remain the Minutes of the Lodge of Haughfoot as differing in any material respect from those of other Lodges of earlier date than 1736. From these we learn that in one Scottish Lodge, in the year 1702, both" grip" and "word" were included in the ceremony. Unfortunately the Minutes commence abruptly, at page i i, in continuation of other pages now missing, which, for an evident purpose, viz. secrecy, have been torn out. The evidence from this source is capable of more than one interpretation; while to the gloss already put upon it, another may be added. The passage‑" of entrie as the apprentice did" ‑may imply that the candidate was not an Apprentice, but a Fellow‑Craft. " Leaving out (the common judge)‑they then whisper the word as before and the Master Mason grips his hand in the ordinary way." (Lyon, pp. 175, 213.) But if the candidate already possessed the Apprentice or Mason Word, this Word must have been a new one. " As before " could hardly apply to the identity of the Word, but to the manner of imparting it, i.e. whispered, as in the former Degree. So also the ordinary way must mean in the manner usual in that Degree.

 

Of the two conjectures with regard to the singular entries in the Haughfoot Minutes, either may possibly be true; but, as they stand without sufficient proof, it must be granted likewise that they may both possibly be false. At least they cannot preclude any other opinion, which, advanced in like manner, will possess the same claim to credit and may, perhaps, be shown by resistless evidence to be better founded.

 

Under any view of the facts, however, the procedure of the Lodge of Haughfoot (1702) must be regarded as being of an abnormal type and, as it derives no corroboration whatever from that of other Lodges of corresponding date, the impossibility of determining positively whether both grip and word were communicated to Scottish Brethren in the seventeenth century must be admitted.

 

The old Scottish Mason Word is unknown. It has not as yet been discovered, either what it was, or to what extent it was in general use. Neither can it be determined whether, at any given date prior to 1736, it was the same in Scotland as THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 z7 it was in England. Each nation, indeed each different locality, may have had a word (or words) of its own. If the use of any one word was universal, or to speak with precision, if the word in Scotland was included among the words which, we are justified in believing, formed a portion of the secrets disclosed in the early English Lodges, it was something quite distinct from the familiar expressions which, at the introduction of Degrees, were imported into Scotland.

 

The minutes of Canongate Kilwinning contain the earliest Scottish record extant of the admission of a Master Mason under the modern Masonic Constitution. This occurred on March 31, 173 5 . But it is believed by Lyon that the Degree in question was first practised north of the Tweed by the Edinburgh Kilwinning Scots Arms. This, the first speculative Scotch Lodge, was established February 14, 1729 and, with its erection came, so he conjectures, " the formal introduction of the Third Degree, with its Jewish Legend and dramatic ceremonial." This Degree is for the first time referred to in the Minutes of Mother Kilwinning in 1736, in those of the Lodge of Edinburgh in 1738. The Lodges of Atcheson's Haven, Dunblane, Haughfoot and Peebles were unacquainted with it in 176o and the Degree was not generally worked in Scottish Lodges until the seventh decade of the eighteenth century.

 

But the love of mystery being implanted in human nature never wholly dies out. A few believers in the great antiquity of Masonic Degrees still linger. Some cherish the singular fancy that the obsolete phraseology of the Schaw Statutes reveals evidence confirmatory of their hopes, whilst others, relying on the axiom‑" that in no sense is it possible to say, that a conclusion drawn from circumstantial evidence can amount to absolute certainty," find in the alleged silence of the Scottish records, with regard to any alteration of ritual, a like consolation. Some rays of light may be shed on the general subject, in the following extracts from the Minutes of the Lodge of Kelso, which seem to reduce to actual demonstration, what the collateral facts or circumstances satisfactorily proved have already warranted us in believing, viz. that the system of three Degrees was gradually introduced into Scotland in the eighteenth century.

 

Kelso, 18th June 1754.‑The Lodge being ocationaly met and opened, a petition was presented from Brother Walter Ker, Esq. of Litledean and the Rev. Mr. Robert Monteith, minister of the Gospel at Longformacus, praying to be passed fellow‑crafts, which was unanimously agreed to and the Right Worshipful Master, deputed Brother Samuel Brown, a visiting Brother, from Canon gate, from Leith, to officiate as Master and Brothers Palmer and Fergus, from same Lodge, to act as wardens on this occasion, in order yt wee might see the method practiced in passing fellow crafts in their and the other Lodges in and about Edr. [Edinburgh] and they accordingly passed the above Brothers Ker and Monteith, Fellow Crafts, who gave their obligation and pay'd their fees in due form. Thereafter the Lodge was regularly closed.

 

Eodem Die.‑The former Brethren met as above, continued sitting, when upon conversing about Business relating to the Craft, and the forms and Practice of this Lodge in particular, a most essential defect of our Constitution was discovered, viZ.‑that 2.8 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 this lodge had attained only to the two Degrees of Apprentices and Fellow Crafts, and knowing nothing of the Master's part, whereas all Regular Lodges over the World are composed of at least the three Regular Degrees of Master, Fellow Craft, and Prentice. In order, therefor, to remedy this defect in our Constitution, Brothers Samuel Brown, Alexander Palmer, John Fergus, John Henderson, Andrew Bell, and Francis Pringle, being all Master Masons, did form themselves into a Lodge of Masters‑Brother Brown to act as Master, and Brothers Palmer and Fergus as Wardens, when they proceeded to raise Brothers James Lidderdale, William Ormiston, Robert Pringle, David Robertson, and Thomas Walker, to the rank of Masters, who qualified and were receiv'd accordingly.

 

" In the above minute," says the historian of the Lodge (W. F. Vernon, History of the Lodge of Kelso, pp. 47, 48), " we have clearly the origin of a Master Mason's Lodge in Kelso." Indeed, is it not possible to go further and to contend, that the second Degree was also introduced at the same meeting ? But without labouring this point, which the evidence adduced will enable every reader to determine in his own mind, there is one further quotation.

 

December 21, 1741.‑Resolved that annually att said meeting [on St. John's day, in the Councill house of Kellso], there should be a public examination by the Master, Warden and other members, of the last entered apprentices and oyrs [others], that it thereby may appear what progress they have made under their respective Intenders, that they may be thanked or censured conform[able] to their respective Demeritts.

 

The cumulative value of the evidence just presented is greater than would at first sight appear. Quoting the traditionary belief of the Melrose Masons, who claim for their Lodge an antiquity coeval with the Abbey there, which was founded in 1136, Vernon considers he has at least as good authority‑in the absence of documents‑for dating the institution of Masonry in Kelso, at the time when David I brought over to Scotland a number of foreign operatives to assist in the building of the Abbey of Kelso (1128). " The very fact," he urges, "that the Abbey was dedicated to St. John the Evangelist and the Virgin Mary and that the Kelso Lodge was dedicated to the same saint, would seem to bear out this idea." (Op. it., p. 5.) But, whatever the measure of antiquity to which St. John's Lodge, Kelso, can justly lay claim, its existence is carried back by the evidence of its own records, to 1701, from which we also learn that it preserved its independence‑i.e. did not join the Grand Lodge of Scotland‑until 1753‑ (Op. cit., p. 38.) We find, therefore, an old Operative Lodge, one working by inherent right‑in which, rather than in those subordinate to a new organization, we might naturally expect that old customs would remain for the longest time unmodified‑testing, in 1741, the Craftsmen and Apprentices " according to their vocations," in strict conformity with the Schaw Statutes of 15 99. The continuance of this practice up to so late a period, coupled with the circumstance that the Third Degree was introduced into the procedure of the Lodge, after its acceptance of a Charter, prove therefore, to demonstration, that the tests and " tryalls " enjoined by William Schaw were not the preliminaries THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 29 to any such ceremony (or ceremonies) as the Brethren of St. John's Lodge were made acquainted with, in 1754. Thus, two facts are established. One, that the examinations which took place periodically in the old Lodges of Scotland were entirely of an Operative character. The other, that the alleged silence of the Scottish records with regard to the introduction of degrees is not uniform and unbroken. If we may believe " a Right Worshipful Master, S. C." [Scottish Constitution], the Lodge of Melrose, in 1871, " was carrying on the same system that it did nearly zoo years before." He states, " I entered into conversation with an old Mason, whose father belonged to the Lodge and he told me, that his father told him, his grandfather was a member of the Melrose Lodge and their style of working was the same as at present. I made a calculation from this and it took me back nearly Zoo years " 1 (The Freemason, December 30, 1871). Without accepting the fanciful conjecture above quoted, it is highly probable, that the Lodge of Melrose, which did not surrender its independence for many years, was longer in becoming indoctrinated with the English novelties than the other Lodges‑whose acceptance of the Speculative system, as they successively joined the Grand Lodge, may be inferred from the example of the Lodge of Kelso.

 

The Kelso Minutes, which have been strangely overlooked, indicate very clearly the manner in which the English novelties must frequently have become engrafted on the Masonry of Scotland, viz., by radiation from the northern metropolis. No other records are equally explicit, those of the Lodge of Edinburgh, especially, leave much to be desired. The office of clerk to this body, during the transition period of the Lodge's history, was held by Robert Alison, an Edinburgh writer, who, by the guarded style in which he recorded its transactions, has contributed to veil in a hitherto impenetrable secrecy, details of the most important epoch in the history of Scottish Freemasonry, of which from his position he must have been cognizant. (Lyon, p. 43.) But the silence‑or comparative silence of these early records with respect to Degrees, will satisfy most minds that they could have been known, if at all, but a short while before being mentioned in the Minutes which have come down to us. The Lodge of journeymen, then composed exclusively of Fellow‑Crafts, took part in the erection of the Grand Lodge in 1736, by which body it was recognized as a lawful Lodge, dating from 1709. The historian of the Lodge, who expresses a well‑grounded doubt whether the grades of Apprentice and Fellow‑Craft were identical with the Degrees of the same nameinforms us, that it contented itself for forty years with the two grades or Degrees referred to, as no indication of its connexion with the Master's Degree is found until 1750. On St. John's Day of that year, it made application to the Lodge of Edinburgh, to raise three of its members to the dignity of Master Masons. The application was cordially received and the three journeymen were admitted to that Degree " without any payment of composition, but only as a brotherly favour." For the same privilege, a fee of fourpence was imposed on two Brothers in the following year; but on August 16, 1754, the Master announced, that their Mother Lodge of Mary's Chapel had made an offer to raise every member of the journeymen Lodge 30 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 at the rate of twopence per head. (William Hunter, History of the Lodge of fourngmen Masons, No. 8, 1884, pp. 68, 69.) Whether the two grades, into which the members of journeymen and the Kelso Lodges were divided, were identical with the Degrees of the same name, is immaterial to the point under consideration. If the Degree of Fellow‑Craft was incorporated with the procedure of the Kelso Lodge prior to June 18, 1754, the Minute of that date sufficiently attests how imperfectly it had taken root. The secrets communicated in the journeymen Lodge‑at least during that portion of its history which is alone interesting to the student of our antiquities‑‑can be gauged with even greater precision.

 

The Decreet Arbitral of 1715 has been happily termed the Charter of the Journeymen Lodge. By this instrument, the Incorporation of Masons are absolved from accounting to the journeymen, " for the moneys received for giveing the Masson Word (as it is called), either to freemen or journeymen," as well before the date of the Decreet Arbitral as in all time to come. Next, " for putting an end to the contraversaries aryseing betwixt the said ffreemen and journeymen of the said Incorporation of Massons, anent the giveing of the Masson Word and the dues paid therefore," the arbiters decide that the Incorporation are to record in their books an Act and Allowance, allowing the journeymen " to meet togeither by themselves as a Society for giveing the Masson Word and to receive dues therefor." But " the whole meetings, actings and writeings " of the latter were to be confined to the collecting and distributing of their funds obtained from voluntary offerings, or from " giveing the Masson Word." Also, it was laid down, that all the money received by the journeymen, either by voluntary donations or " for giveing the Masson Word," was to be put into a common purse and to be employed in no other way than in relieving the poor and in burying the dead. In the third place the journeymen were to keep a book and to strictly account for " all moneys received for giveing the Masson Word " or otherwise. The Deed of Submission and the Decreet Arbitral, together with the Letters of Horning, which complete the series of these interesting, though not euphonious documents, are printed by Provost Hunter in the work already referred to and, with the exception of the last named and most mysterious of the three‑which is rather suggestive of a popular superstition‑also by Lyon in his admirable history.

 

It is a singular fact, that the differences thus settled by arbitration were between the journeymen and the Incorporation, not the Lodge of Mary's Chapel. Nor is the Lodge ever referred to in the proceedings. If, therefore, the idea is tenable that incorporations and guilds were custodians of the Mason Word, with the privilege or prerogative of conferring it, or of controlling its communication, quite a new line of thought is opened up to the Masonic antiquary. The practice at Edinburgh, in 1715, may have been a survival of one more general in times still further remote from our own. The Scottish Lodges may, at some period, have resembled agencies or deputations, with vicarious authority, derived in their case from the incorporations and guilds.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 31 Leaving, therefore, this point an open one, we learn from the Decreet Arbitral of 1715, in which it is six times mentioned, that there was only one word.

 

The same conclusion is brought home to us by a Scottish law case reported in 1730. In this, the Lodge at Lanark sought to interdict the Masons at Lesmahagow from giving the Mason Word to persons resident there. (Lord Kames, Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, vol. ii, p. 4.) In each of these instances, only one word‑the Mason Word‑is alluded to. It is sufficiently apparent that the ancient formulary of the Scottish Lodges consisted of the communication of the Word and all that was implied in the expression.

 

The form of oath and some portions of the catechism given in Sloane MS., 3329 ‑a writing which, in the opinion of some high authorities, is decisive as to the antiquity and independence of the three Degrees‑savour so much of the Scottish idiom that they are here introduced.

 

THE OATH The mason word and every thing therein contained you shall keep secrett you shall never put it in writing directly or Indirectly you shall keep all that we or your attend=s [companions, associates] shall bid you keep secret from Man Woman or Child Stock or Stone and never reveal it but to a Brother or in a Lodge of Freemasons and truly observe the Charges in a y Constitucion all this you promise and swere faithfully to keep and observe without any manner of Equivocation or mentall resarvation directly or Indirectly so help you god and by the Contents of this book.

 

So he kisses the book, etc.

 

The following are extracts from the catechism: (Q.) What is a just and perfect or just and Lawfull Lodge ? (A.) A just and perfect Lodge is two Interprintices, two fellow Craftes, and two Mast's, more or fewer, the more the merrier, the fewer the betty chear, but if need require five will serve, that is two Interprintices, two fellow Craftes and one Mast= on the highest hill or Lowest Valley of the World without the crow of a Cock or the bark of a Dogg.

 

(Q.) What were you sworne by? (A.) By God and the square.

 

Although it is tolerably clear that Degrees‑as we now have them‑were grafted upon Scottish Masonry in the eighteenth century, a puzzle in connexion with their English derivation still awaits solution. It is this. The Degrees in question‑or to vary the expression, the only Degrees comprised within the old landmarks of Freemasonry‑viz. those of Master Mason, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice, bear titles which are evidently borrowed from the vocabulary of Scotland. Master Mason, it is true, was a term common in both kingdoms, but viewed in conjunction with the others, the three expressions may be regarded as having been taken en bloc from the operative terminology of the northern 32 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 kingdom. Thus, we find England furnishing Scotland with Masonic Degrees, which, however, bear titles exactly corresponding with those of the grades of Operative Masonry in the latter country. This is of itself somewhat confusing, but more remains behind.

 

If the Degrees so imported into Scotland had a much earlier existence than the date of their transplantation, which is fixed by Lyon at the year 1721, but may, with greater probability, be put down at 1723 or 1724, then this difficulty occurs. Either the Degrees in question existed, though without distinctive titles, or they were re‑named during the epoch of transition and, under each of these suppositions, we must suppose that the English (Free) Masons, who were familiar with Symbolical Degrees, borrowed the words to describe them from the Scottish Masons who were not! It is true, evidence may yet be forthcoming, showing that Degrees under their present appellations are referred to before the publication of the Constitutions of 1723. But the conclusions must be based upon evidence and the silence of all extant Masonic records of earlier date, with regard to the three Symbolical Grades of Master Mason, Fellow Craft and Apprentice, will be conclusive to some minds that they had then no existence. This, however, does not imply that Degrees or grades in Speculative Masonry had their first beginning in 1723. It is almost demonstrably certain that they did not. But they are first referred to in unequivocal terms in the Constitutions of that year and the titles with which they were then labelled cannot be traced (in conjunction) any higher, as Speculative or nonOperative terms.

 

In the Schaw Statutes (1598) will be found all the Operative terms, which, so far as the evidence extends, were first turned to Speculative uses by the Freemasons of the south. Master Mason, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice, as grades of Symbolical Masonry, are not alluded to in any book or manuscript of earlier date than 1723. Indeed, with the exception of the first named, the expressions themselves do not occur in the printed or manuscript literature preceding the publication of Dr. Anderson's Boob of Constitutions (1723). The title, Master Mason, appears, it is true, in the Halliwell Poem and, though not used in the MS. next in seniority (the Cooke), will also be found in several versions of the Old Charges. The term or expression is also a very common one in the records of the building trades and is met with occasionally in the Statutes of the Realm, where its earliest use‑in the Statute of Labourers 035o)‑has somewhat perplexed historians. The words mestre mason de franche pere were cited by Papworth as supporting his theory‑" that the term Freemason, is clearly derived from a mason who worked free‑stone, in contradistinction to the mason who was employed in rough work." (Transactions R.I.B.A., 1861‑62, pp. 37‑6o.) Upon this and the commentary of Dr. Kloss, Findel founds a conclusion that " the word Free‑Mason occurs for the first time in the Statute 25, Edward 1110350)," (History of Freemasonry, p. 79) which is next taken up and again amplified by Steinbrenner, who, although he leaves out the word Mason, in his quotation from the statute, attaches to mestre de franche .P‑ ere a most arbitrary and illusory signification. " Here," he says, Free‑mason‑how he THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 33 gets at the second half of the compound word is not explained‑" evidently signifies a Free‑stone‑mason‑one who works in Free‑stone, as distinguished from the rough mason, who merely built walls of rough unhewn stone." (Origin and Early History of Masonry, 1864, p. III.) "This latter sort of workmen," observes Mackey‑who, after quoting the passages just given, in turn takes up the parable and, it may be remarked, accords to Steinbrenner the entire merit of the research, out of which it arises‑" was that class called by the Scotch Masons ` Cowans,' whom the Freemasons were forbidden to work with, whence we get the modern use of that word." (Encyclopaedia, s.v. " Freemason.") But nowhere, except in the documents of the Scottish Craft, do we meet with the names, which have been employed from the year '1723, to describe the Freemasons of the two lower Degrees. " Fellows " and " Apprentices "‑‑or more commonly " Prentices "‑are constantly referred to, but not " Fellow‑Crafts," or " Entered Apprentices "‑titles apparently unknown, or at least not in use, in the south. " Cowns " are also alluded to by the Warden General, but English Masons were not familiarized with this expression until it was substituted by Anderson in the Constitutions of 1738 for the terms " layer," " lyer," " lowen," " loses," etc., where they are used in the Old Charges to distinguish the ordinary workman from the sworn Brother.

 

The terms or expressions, Master Mason, Fellow Craft, Entered Apprentice and Cowan, appear, from documentary evidence, to have been in common use in Scotland, from the year 1598 down to our own times. These operative titles now conferred on the recipients of Degrees‑are named in the Schaw Statutes (1598), the records of Mary's Chapel (16oi) and the laws of the Aberdeen Lodge (1670). (Lyon, pp. 73, 423, 425.) There, so to speak, they are presented en bloc, which makes the references the more comprehensive and significant, but all three titles occur very frequently in the early Minutes of Scottish Lodges, though that of Master Mason is often curtailed to Master.

 

The word Cowan has been previously referred to, but in support of the argument that the operative vocabulary of the sister kingdom furnished many of the expressions of which we find the earliest southern use in the publications of Dr. Anderson, a few additional remarks will be offered.

 

According to Lyon‑" of all the technicalities of Operative Masons that have been preserved in the nomenclature of their Speculative successors, that of Cowan, which is a purely Scotch term, has lost least of its original meaning." (Lyon, p. 24.) By Dr. Jamieson, it is described as " a word of contempt; applied to one who does the work of a mason, but has not been regularly bred "‑i.e. brought up in the trade. (Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Languages, 1808.) But the term is best defined in the Kilwinning Records, viz. a mason without the word‑or, to vary the expression‑an irregular or uninitiated operative mason. (Lyon, p. 412 ; Freemasons' Magazine, August 29, 1863.) That it was commonly used in this sense, in the early documents of the Scottish Craft, is placed beyond doubt.

 

We find it so employed in the Minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh‑I 5 99‑ 34 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 of the Glasgow Incorporation of Masons‑16oo, 16z3‑of Mother Kilwinning 1645, 1647, 1705‑and of the Lodge of Haddington‑1697. (Lyon, pp. 24, 25, 411.) Possibly, however, from the fact, that so simple and natural an explanation affords no scope for the exercise of learned credulity, there is hardly any other word, except, perhaps, Essenes and Mason, which has been traced to so many sources by etymologists.

 

Thus, its origin has been found in the chouans of the French Revolution, " of which the h was omitted by the English, who failed to aspirate it conformably to cockney pronunciation." (Oliver, Historical Landmarks, 1846, vol. i, p. 142.) Again, in Egypt, we are informed, cohen was the title of a priest or prince, a term of honour. Bryant, speaking of the harpies, says, they were priests of the Sun and, as cohen was the name of a dog as well as a priest, they are termed by Apollonius, " the dogs of Jove." (Oliver, op. cit., p. 349.) " Now, St. John cautions the Christian brethren that ` without are dogs ' (KVVes), cowans or listeners (Rev. xxii. 15) ; and St. Paul exhorts the Christians to `beware of dogs, because they are evil workers' (Phil. iii. 2). Now, KVWV, a dog, or evil worker, is the Masonic Cowan. The above priests or metaphorical dogs were also called Cercyonians, or Cer‑cowans, because they were lawless in their behaviour towards strangers." So far Dr. Oliver, whose remarks reappear in the arguments of very learned men, by whom the derivation of cowan has been more recently considered. (See The Freemason, 1871, pp. 43, 73, 121 and 441.) Dr. Carpenter, who examines and rejects the reasoning of Dr. Oliver, thinks the meaning of the word may be found in the Anglo‑Saxon cowen, which signifies a herd, as of kine, but which we use metaphorically, to denote a company of thoughtless people, or a rabble.

 

By an earlier writer (Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1835, p. 4z8), it has been traced to the Greek word aKOVW, to hear, hearken, or listen to, of which the present participle aKOVwv, would‑so thinks Dr. Viner Bedolfe‑signify a " listening person." In a good sense, a " disciple "‑in a bad sense, an " eavesdropper." Kvcev, a dog, in the opinion of this writer, is also doubtless from the same root, in the sense of one who listens‑as dogs do‑and the two ideas combined, he believes, would probably give us the true meaning of the word.

 

After the subject had been debated for nearly seven months in the columns of the Masonic press, Dr. Carpenter thus sums up the whole matter. " I think," he says, " we have got pretty well at the meaning of the word cowan, as it is used in the Craft. D. Murray Lyon will not take offence at my saying, that I much prefer Dr. Bedolfe's conjecture to his, although the phrase ` cowans and eavesdroppers,' in the old Scottish ritual, shows that cowan was not synonymous with listener or eavesdropper there. We have cowans‑and intruders, however‑the intruder being a person who might attempt to gain admission without the word and the cowan something else. I got listener through the Anglo‑Saxon; Dr. Bedolfe, through the Greek ; but we agree in the import of the word, and in its use amongst Masons." (The Freemason, 1871, p. 4570 The preceding observations, in conjunction with others from the pen of THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 35 the same writer, indicate, that without questioning the use of the word cowan by the Operative Fraternity in the sense of a clandestine or irregular mason, the doctor demurs to this having anything whatever to do with the origin and use of the word by the Speculative Society. " The Operatives," he says, " sometimes admitted a Cowan‑the Speculatives never." (Ibid., p. 425.) In the original edition of Jamieson's Dictionary, two meanings only of the word are given. One has been cited, the other is a dry‑diker, or a person who builds dry walls. After these, a third meaning, or acceptation, is found in the edition of 1879, " Cowan‑one unacquainted with the secrets of Freemasonry." Its derivation is thus given :‑Suio‑Gothic (the ancient language of Sweden)‑kujon, kughjon, a silly fellow : hominem imbellem, et cujus capiti omnes tuto illudunt, kujon, appellare moris est. (Ihre, Lexicon La pponicum, Holmix, 1780.) French‑coyon, coyon, a coward, a base fellow. (Cotgrove, French and English Dictionary, 1650) qui fait profession de lachete, ignavus‑Dict. Trev. (Trevoux, Dictionnaire Universelle FranFois et Latin, 175 2.) The editors of this dictionary deduce it from Latin quietus.

 

But the term is evidently Gothic. It has been imported by the Franks ; and is derived from kufiv‑a, supprimere, insultare. But the same etymology was given in the first edition of the work and in connexion with the two purely operative (and only) explanations of the word. For this reason the quotations from the original dictionary and its modern representative have been separately presented, that the etymological subtleties for which the term under examination has served as a target may appropriately be brought to a close, by citing the new uses to which the old derivation has been applied.

 

It is true that Cowns were sometimes licensed to perform masons' work, but always under certain restrictions. Their employment by Master Masons, when no regular Craftsmen could be found within fifteen miles, was allowed by the Lodge of Kilwinning in the early part of the eighteenth century. It was also the custom of Scotch Incorporations in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to license cowans‑Masters and journeymen (see The Freemason, 1871, p. 409)‑who were at once thatchers, wrights and masons. Liberty to execute hewn work was, however, invariably withheld. Maister Cowands were, under restrictions, admitted to membership in some Masonic Incorporations, but their reception in Lodges was strictly prohibited. (Lyon, p. 24 ; Masonic Magazine, 188o, pp. 113, 114.) Among the regulations enjoined by the Warden General, there are some which must be considered. The customs to which these gave rise, or assisted in perpetuating, partly reappear in the Free‑masonry of the south. But inasmuch as there are no English Minutes or Lodge records of earlier date than the eighteenth century, the clue, if one there be, to usages which, with slight modifications, have lasted, in some instances, to our own times, must be looked for ex necessitate rei in the Statutes, promulgated by William Schaw, after‑we may suppose, as in the somewhat parallel case of Etienne Boileau‑satisfying himself, by the testimony of representative craftsmen, that they were usual and customary in the trade.

 

A general or head meeting day was named by the Master of Work, upon which 36 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 the election of Warden was to be conducted. This, in the case of Kilwinning and its tributary Lodges, was to take place on December 2o, but in all other instances on the day of St. John the Evangelist. The latter fact, it is true, is not attested by the actual Statutes, but that both dates of election were fixed by William Schaw may nevertheless be regarded as having been satisfactorily proved by evidence aliunde.

 

The order of the Warden General for the election of Lodge Wardens, or what at all events is believed by the highest authority (Lyon, pp. 38, 39), to be his‑except within the bounds of Kilwinning, the Nether Ward of Clydesdale, Glasgow, Ayr and Carrick‑is as follows : " xvij Novembris, 15 99. First, it is ordanit that the haill Wardenis salbe chosen ilk yeir preciselie at Sanct Jhoneis day, to wit the xxvij day of Dcember." This Minute, assumed to be a memorandum of an order emanating from the Warden General, is followed by another: " xviij Decembees, 15 99. The qlk day the dekin & maisteris of the ludge of Edr. [Edinburgh] electit & chesit Jhone Broun in thair Warden be monyest of thair voitis for ane zeir [year] to cum." It may be observed, that elections frequently took place on the twenty‑eighth instead of the twenty‑seventh of December. The Minutes of the Melrose (1674) and other early Scottish Lodges afford examples of this apparent irregularity, though its explanation‑if, indeed, not simply arising in each case from the festival of St. John the Evangelist falling upon a Sunday (Masonic Magazine, vol. vii, p. 365)may be found in an old guild‑custom. Every guild had its appointed day or days of meeting. At these, called morn‑speeches (in the various forms of the word), or " dayes of Spekyngges tokedere [together] for here [their] comune profyte," much business was done such as the choice of officers, admittance of new brethren, making up accounts, reading over the ordinances and the like. One day, where several were held in the year, being fixed as the " general day." (L. Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, p. xxxiii.) The word morning‑speech (morgen‑spat) is as old as Anglo‑Saxon times. Morgen signified both morning and morrow; and the origin of the term would seem to be that the meeting was held either in the morning of the same day, or on the morning (the morrow) of the day after that on which the guild held its feast and accompanying ceremonies.

 

However this may have been, the custom of meeting annually upon the day of St. John the Evangelist, in conformity with the order of the Warden General, with the exception of Mother Kilwinning (December 2o) appears to have been observed with commendable fidelity by such of the early Lodges whose Minutes have come down to us. It was the case at Edinburgh‑1599 ; Aberdeen‑1670 ; Melrose‑1674; Dunblane‑1696 ; and Atcheson Haven‑1700. In each instance the earliest reference to the practice afforded by the documents of the Lodge is quoted. The usage continued and survives at this day, but of the celebration of St. John the Baptist's day‑or St. John's day in Harvest (Smith, English Gilds, pp. 313, 3 2 5), as distinguished from St. John's day in Christmas‑by any Fraternity THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 3 7 exclusively Masonic, we have the earliest evidence in the York Minute of June 24, 1713. Both days, it is true, were observed by the Gateshead sodality of 1671 ; but though the Freemasons were the leading craft of this somewhat mixed corporation, there is nothing to show, or from which it might be inferred, that the custom of meeting on Midsummer day had its origin in a usage of the Lodge, rather than in one of the guild. Indeed, the reverse of this supposition is the more credible of the two.

 

The objects of all guilds alike have been well defined by Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, in one of his Capitularies. (Cf. Wilda, Das Gildwesen im Mittelalter, 1831, pp. 2z, 35, 41.) He says, in omni obsequio religionis conjungantur‑they shall unite in every exercise of religion. By this was meant, before all things, the associations for the veneration of certain religious mysteries and in honour of saints. Such guilds were everywhere under the patronage of the Holy Trinity, or of certain saints, or of the Holy Cross, or of the Holy Sacrament, or of some other religious mystery. In honour of these patrons they placed candles on their altars and before their images, whilst in some statutes this even appears as the only object of the guild. (Brentano, p. ig.) But the definition given above must not be restricted to the social or religious guilds. It applies equally well to the town‑guilds or guilds‑merchant and the trade‑guilds or guilds of crafts. None of the London trades appear to have formed fraternities without ranging themselves under the banner of some saint and, if possible, they chose one who bore a fancied relation to their trade. Thus the fishmongers adopted St. Peter; the drapers chose the Virgin Mary, mother of the Holy Lamb or fleece, as the emblem of that trade. The goldsmiths' patron was St. Dunstan, reputed to have been a brother artisan. The merchant tailors, another branch of the draping business, marked their connexion with it by selecting St. John the Baptist, who was the harbinger of the Holy Lamb so adopted by the drapers. In other cases, the companies denominated themselves fraternities of the particular saint in whose church or chapel they assembled and had their altar. (Herbert, Companies of London, 1837, vol. i, p. 67.) Eleven or more of the guilds, whose ordinances are given us by Toulmin Smith, had John the Baptist as their patron saint and several of these, whilst keeping June 24 as their head day, also assembled on December 27, the corresponding feast oú the Evangelist. (Smith, English Gilds, p. loo.) Among the documents brought to light by this zealous antiquary, there are, unfortunately, none relating directly to the Masons, though it is somewhat curious that he cites the records of a guild, which, it is possible, may have comprised members of that trade, as affording almost a solitary instance of the absence of a patron saint. The guild referred to is that of the smiths (ffabrorum) of Chesterfield. (English Gilds, p. 168.) An explanation of this apparent anomaly is furnished by Brentano (On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 19) ; but leaving the point an open one, whether in the case before us Smith or his commentator has the best title to confidence, it may be remarked that the guild of the joiners and carpenters at Worcester also 38 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 appears not to have been under any saintly patronage; yet, on the other hand, we find the carpenters' guild of Norwich dedicated to the Holy Trinity, whilst the brotherhood of barbers in the same town and the fraternity of tailors at Exeter, were each under the patronage of St. John the Baptist. (Smith, English Gilds, PP. 27, 40, 209, 310.) The general head‑meeting day of the Alnwick Lodge, in 1701, was the Feast of St. Michael, but this, however, we find shortly afterwards changed to that of St. John the Evangelist.

 

The records of Mary's Chapel and Kilwinning are sufficiently conclusive of the fact, that the holding of Lodge assemblies on the day of St. John the Baptist was never a custom of the Scottish Fraternity until after the erection of their Grand Lodge. By the original regulations of this body, the election of a Grand Master was to take place on St. Andrew's day for the first time and " ever thereafter " upon that of St. John the Baptist. In accordance therewith, William St. Clair of Roslin was elected the first Grand Master on November 30, 1736, which day, in preference to December 27, was fixed for the annual election of officers by resolution of the Grand Lodge, April 13, 1737, as being the birthday of St. Andrew, the tutelar saint of Scotland. (Lyon, pp. 170, 235, 236.) Of all the meetings of the Lodge of Edinburgh that were held between the years 15 99 and 175 6, only some half‑a‑dozen happened to fall on June 24 ; and the first mention of the Lodge celebrating the festival of St. John the Baptist is in 175 7. (History of the Lodge of Kelso, p. 15 .) It will be quite unnecessary, in these days, to lay stress on the circumstance that the connexion of the Saints John with the Masonic Institution is of a symbolic and not of an historical character. The custom of assembling on the days of these saints is, apparently, a relic of sun‑worship, combined with other features of the heathen Paganalia. The Pagan rites of the festival at the summer Solstice may be regarded as a counterpart of those used at the winter Solstice at Yule‑tide. There is one thing which proves this beyond the possibility of a doubt. In the old Runic Fasti a wheel was used to denote the festival of Christmas. This wheel is common to both festivities. (Brand, Popular Antiquities of Great Britain, 1870, vol. i, p. 169.) In the words of one authority " the great prehistoric midsummer festival to the sun‑god has diverged into the two Church feasts, Eucharist and St. John's Day " ; whilst " the term Yule was the name given to the festival of the winter Solstice by our northern invaders, and means the Festival of the Sun." (James Napier, Fok Lore, or Superstitious Beliefs in the Lest of Scotland, 1879, pp. 149, 175.) Sir Isaac Newton tells us that the heathen were delighted with the festivals of their gods and unwilling to part with those ceremonies ; therefore Gregory, Bishop of Neo‑Cxsarea in Pontus, to facilitate their conversion, instituted annual festivals to the saints and martyrs. Hence the keeping of Christmas with ivy, feasting, plays and sports came in the room of the Bacchanalia and Saturnalia ; the celebrating May Day with flowers, in the room of the Floralia ; and the festivals F. II‑I2 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, I7I7‑23 39 to the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist and divers of the Apostles, in the room of the solemnities at the entrance of the Sun into the Signs of the Zodiac in the old Julian Calendar. (Observations upon the Prophesies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. john, =733, Pt. i, c. xiv, pp. 204, 205.) In the same way, at the conversion of the Saxons by Austin the monk, the heathen Paganalia were continued among the converts, with some regulations, by an order of Gregory I to Mellitus the Abbot, who accompanied Austin in his mission to this island. His words are to this effect : On the Day of Dedication, or the Birth Day of the Holy Martyrs, whose relics are there placed, let the people make to themselves booths of the boughs of trees, round about those very churches which had been the temples of idols and, in a religious way, to observe a feast. " Such," remarks Brand (Popular Antiquities, vol. ii, p. 2), after quoting from Bede, as above, " are the foundations of the Country Wake." But his observations are cited, not so much to record this curious circumstance, as to point out that the festival enjoined by the Pope may have become, for a time at least, associated with the memory of the Quatuor Coronati or Four Crowned Martyrs‑the earliest legendary saints of the Masons.

 

This will depend upon the meaning which should be attached to the word " martyrium." Dr. Giles, in his edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, gives us under the year 61g‑" The Church of the Four Crowned Martyrs (martyrium beatorum quatuor coronati) was in the place where the fire raged most." The fire alluded to laid waste a great part of the city of Canterbury and was suddenly arrested on its reaching the martyrium of the Crowned Martyrs, owing, we are led to suppose, partly to the influence of their relics and, in a greater measure, to the prayers of Bishop Mellitus. Now, Bede's account of the circumstance has been held by a learned writer to demonstrate one of two facts‑either the martyrium contained the bodies of the saints, or the martyrdoms had taken place upon the spot where the church was afterwards built. (Coote, The Romans of Britain, 1878, p. 420.) In a certain sense, the former of these suppositions will exactly meet the case. According to canon xiv of the ‑19th Council of Carthage, no church could be built for martyrs except there were on the spot either the body or some certain relics, or where the origin of some habitation or possession or passion of the martyr had been transmitted from a most trustworthy source. (Sir Isaac Newton, op. cit., pt. i, g. 230 ; COOte, op cit., p. 419.) Martyrium, which is derived from the Greek JaapnipLov, as used in the context, would seem to mean " a church where some martyr's relics are " ; and if this signification is adopted the instructions given by Pope Gregory I to Mellitus and the words in which the latter is associated by Bede, with the miraculous stoppage of the fire at Canterbury, A.D. Gig, are more easily comprehended.

 

" The chief festivals of the Stone‑masons," says Findel, " were on St. John the Baptist's Day and the one designated the Day of the Four Crowned Martyrsthe principal patron saints of the Stone‑masons." (History of Freemasonry, p. 63.) Yet although the Quatuor Coronati are specially invoked in the Strasburg (1459) 40 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 and Torgau (146z) Ordinances, in neither of these, or in the later code‑the BrotherBook of 1563‑do we meet with any reference to St. John.

 

On the other hand, there existed in 1430, at Cologne, a guild of stonemasons and carpenters, called the Fraternity of St. John the Baptist; but, although the records from which this fact is gleaned extend from 1396 to the seventeenth century, the Four Martyrs are not once named.

 

The claims of Jolm the Baptist to be considered the earliest patron saint of the German masons are minutely set forth by Krause in his Kunsturkunden, to which learned work readers who are desirous of pursuing the subject at greater length than the limit of these pages will allow must be referred.

 

Before, however, parting with the Saints John, there is one further aspect under which their assumed patronage of guilds and fraternities may be regarded. This we find in the heathen practice of Minne‑drinking, that is, of honouring an absent or deceased one, by making mention of him at the assembly or banquet and draining a goblet to his memory. Among the names applied to the goblet was minnisveig‑‑hence swig or draught. The usage survived the conversion‑and is far from being extinct under Christianity‑but instead of Thor, Odin and the rest, the minne was drunk of Christ, Mary and the saints. (Cf. Fort, c. xxxiii.) During the Middle Ages the two saints most often toasted were John the Evangelist and Gertrude. Both St. Johns were, however, frequently complimented in this way. Luitprand, by the words potas in amore beati Johannis pracursoris, evidently referring to the Baptist, whilst in numerous other cases cited by Grimm the allusion is as distinctly to the Evangelist. Minne‑drinking, even as a religious rite, apparently still exists in some parts of Germany. At Otbergen, a village of Hildesheim, on December 27 every year, a chalice of wine is hallowed by the priest and handed to the congregation in the church to drink as Johannis segen (blessing). (Jacob Grimm, Teutonic Mythology, 188o, vol. i, pp. 59‑6z.) Among the remaining customs, the observance of which was strictly enjoined by the Schaw Statutes, there are some that must not be passed over without further notice. Usages first met with in the Masonic system of one country will be more satisfactorily considered in connexion therewith, than by postponing their examination until they reappear in that of another country.

 

It is, indeed, in the highest degree probable, that most of the regulations ordained by the Warden General were based on English originals, though not exclusively of a Masonic character. Clauses zo and 21 of the earlier code (1598) are clearly based on corresponding passages in the Old Charges. The examination of journeymen before their " admission " as masters may have been suggested by a custom with which we are made familiar by the Cooke MS. (z) (lines 711‑719) ; and clause 1o of the same code is, strange to say, almost identical in phraseology with the tenth ordinance of the Guild of Joiners and Carpenters, Worcester, enacted in 1692, but doubtless a survival of a more ancient law. It imposes " a penalty of ,C5 for takeing an apprentice, to sell him again to ano= of the same trade." (Smith, English Gilds, p. zog.) THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, I717‑23 41 But the immediate task is, not so much to speculate upon the supposed origin of customs, first met with in Masonry in the sixteenth century, as to realize with sufficient distinctness the actual circumstances of the early Scottish Craft, before proceeding with the comparison for which we have been preparing.

 

The Schaw Statutes mention two classes of office‑bearers, which were wholly unknown, or, at least, are not mentioned, in any Masonic records of the south. These are quartermasters and intenders. The latter were represented in the majority of Scottish Lodges, but the former, though for a century holding a place among the Mlwinning fraternity, were never introduced into the Lodge of Edinburgh, nor is there any allusion to them (at first‑hand) elsewhere than in the Items of the Warden General and the Minutes of Mother Kilwinning. Whether either or both were survivals of English terms, which lapsed into desuetude, cannot be decided, though, at least, it merits passing attention that " Attendant," " Attender " and " Intendant," though shown as English words by Dr. Johnson, do not occur in the Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language by Dr. Jamieson. " Intender " is not given by either of these lexicographers. From the same source the Schasv Codices‑we learn that oaths were administered; one, the " great oath," apparently at entry‑and the other, the " oath of fidelity," at yearly intervals. The administration of an oath, the reception of fellows, the presentation of gloves, the custom of banqueting and the election of a Warden, as features of the Scottish system, demand attention, because, with the exception of the one referring to the choice of a Warden‑which officer, however, was present, teste Ashmole at the Warrington Lodge in 1646‑all of them reappear in the Masonic customs of the Staffordshire moorlands, so graphically depicted by Dr. Plot.

 

The references in the Schaw Statutes to gloves, banquets and the election of wardens, invite a few observations.

 

A high authority has laid down that the use o the gloves in Masonry is a symbolical idea, borrowed from the ancient and universal language of symbolism and was intended, like the apron, to denote the necessity of purity of life. (Mackey, Encyclopaedia, s.v. " gloves.") " The builders," says Mackey, " who associated in companies, who traversed Europe and were engaged in the construction of palaces and cathedrals, have left to us, as their descendants, their name, their technical language and the apron, that distinctive piece of clothing by which they protected their garments from the pollutions of their laborious employment." He adds, " did they also bequeath to us their gloves ? " (Mackey, op. cit., p. 314.) This is a question which the following extracts and references‑culled from many sources‑may enable us to solve. Gloves are spoken of by Homer as worn by Laertes and, from a remark in the Cyropadia of Xenophon, that, on one occasion, Cyrus went without them, there is reason to believe that they were used by the ancient Persians. According to Favyn, the custom of throwing down the glove or gauntlet was derived from the Oriental mode of sealing a contract or the like, by giving the purchaser a glove by way of delivery or investiture and, to this effect, he quotes 4z THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 Ruth iv. 7, and Psalm cviii. 9‑passages where the word commonly translated " shoe " is by some rendered " glove." (Le Thddtre d' honneur, Paris, 1623.) In the Life of St. Columbanus, written in the seventh century, gloves, as a protection during manual labour, are alluded to and A.D. 749 (circa), Felix, in his Anglo‑Saxon Life of St. Guthlac, Hermit of Crowland (chap. xi) mentions their use as a covering for the hand.

 

According to Brand, the giving of gloves at marriages is a custom of remote antiquity ; but it was not less common, so we are told by his latest editor, at funerals than at weddings. A pair of gloves is mentioned in the will of Bishop Riculfus, who died A.D. 915 ; and Matthew Paris relates that Henry II (1189) was buried with gloves on his hands.

 

A.D. 13oz. In the Year Book of Edward I it is laid down, that in cases of acquittal of a charge of manslaughter, the prisoner was obliged to pay a fee to the justices' clerk in the form of a pair of gloves, besides the fee to the marshal.

 

1321.‑The Bishop of Bath and Wells received from the dean and chapter a pair of gloves with a gold knot. (H. E. Reynolds, Statutes of Dells Cathedral, p. 1470 In the Middle Ages, gloves of white linen‑or of silk beautifully embroidered and jewelled‑were worn by bishops or priests when in the performance of ecclesiastical functions. (Planche, Cyclopadia of Costume.) 15 5 7.‑Tusser, in his Five Hundred Good Points of Husbandry, informs us, that it was customary to give the reapers gloves when the wheat was thistly (reprinted in the British Bibliography, I8Io‑I8I4, vol. iii) and Hilman, in his Tusser Kedevivus, 1710, observes, that the largess, which seems to have been usual in the old writer's time, was still a matter of course, of which the reapers did not require to be reminded. (Brand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 12 .) 158.‑A passage in Hall's Virgidemarium seems to imply that a Hen was a usual present at Shrove‑tide ; also a pair of Gloves at Easter.

 

According to Dr. Pegge, the Monastery of Bury allowed its servants two pence a piece for glove‑silver in autumn, but though he duly quotes his authority, the date of its publication is not given.

 

The allusions, so far, bear but indirectly upon the immediate subject, but some others of a purely Masonic character are now advanced which, for convenience sake, are grouped together in a chronological series of their own.

 

i 3th Century.‑An engraving copied from the painted glass of a window in the Cathedral of Chartres is given by M. Didron in his Annales Archdologiques. It represents a number of operative masons at work. All of them wear gloves. Further evidence of this custom will be found in the Life of Icing Off a, written by Matthew Paris, where a similar scene is depicted.

 

13 5 5.‑According to the records of York Cathedral, it was usual to find tunics [gowns], aprons, gloves and clogs and to give occasional potation and remuneration for extra work. Gloves were also given to the carpenters. From the same source of information we learn that aprons and gloves were given to the masons in 1371 ; THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 43 and the latter, in the same year, to the carpenters and, in 1403, to the setters. The last‑named workmen received both aprons and gloves (naprons et cirotecis) in 1404. Further entries elucidatory of the same custom appear under the years 1421‑22, ‑143z‑33, and 1498‑99, ending with the following in 1507 :‑For approns and glovys for settyng to the masons, 16d. (The Fabric Rolls of York, Minster (Publications of the Surtees Society, vol. xxxv).) 1372.‑The Fabric Rolls of Exeter Cathedral inform us that in this year six pairs of gloves were bought for the carpenters for raising the timber, i zd. (Oliver, Lives of the Bishops of Exeter, 1861, p. 385.) ‑1381.‑The chatelain of Villaines en Duemois bought a considerable quantity of gloves to be given to the workmen, in order, as it is said, " to shield their hands from the stone and lime." (Journal British Archceological Association, vol. i, 1845, P. 23.) 1383.‑Three dozen pairs of gloves were bought and distributed to the masons when they commenced the buildings at the Chartreuse of Dijon. (Ibid.) 1432.‑A lavatory was erected in the cloisters at Durham and the accounts show that three pairs of gloves at ild. each were given to the workmen. (J. Raine, A Brief Account of Durham Cathedral, 18 3 3, p. 91 .) 1486, 7.‑Twenty‑two pairs of gloves were given to the masons and stonecutters who were engaged in work at the city of Amiens. (journal British Archaeological Association, loc. cit.) The custom existed as late as 1629, under which year we find in the accounts of Nicoll Udwart, the treasurer of Heriot's Hospital,‑" Item, for sex pair of gloves to the Maissones at the founding of the Eist Quarter, xxs." (Transactions Archaeological Institute of Scotland, vol. ii, 18 5 2, pp. 34‑40.) Gloves are mentioned by William Schaw in 1599 and here we enter upon a new phase of the inquiry. Hitherto, as will be seen above, they were given to and not by the Masons, or any one or more of their number. The practice, of which we see the earliest account in the code of 1599, became‑if it did not previously exist‑a customary one in the old court of Operative Masonry, the proceedings of which, perhaps more than those of any other body of the same kind, the statutes in question were designed to regulate. Early in the seventeenth century it was a rule of the Lodge of Kilwinning that intrants should present so many pairs of gloves on their admission, but as the membership increased there was such an inconvenient accumulation of this article of dress that glove‑money came to be accepted in its stead. (Lyon, p. 47.) Gloves were required from Fellow‑Crafts at their passing and from Apprentices at their entry, in the Scoon and Perth (165 8) and the Aberdeen (1670) Lodges respectively ; but whether the custom extended to those who were entered in the former Lodge or passed in the latter it is difficult to decide. (See Masonic Magazine, vol. vii, 1879‑80, p. 134.) The largess expected was, however, more liberal in one case than in the other, for, according to the Aberdeen Statutes, intrants‑except the eldest sons and those married to the eldest daughters of the Fellow‑Crafts and Masters 44 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 by whom they were framed‑were obliged to present not only a pair of good gloves, but an apron also, to every member of the Lodge.

 

A regulation not unlike the above was enacted by the Melrose fraternity in 1675, requiring a " prentice " at his " entrie," also when " mad frie masson," to pay a certain number of " pund Scots & suficient gloves." In the former case, as we learn from a subsequent Minute (1695), the gloves were valued at four shillings and, in the latter, at five shillings a pair. (Masonic Maga.Zine, vol. vii, 188o, pp. 366, 367.) A similar usage prevailed in the Lodge of Kelso, as we learn by the Minute for St. John's Day, 1701. (Vernon, History of the Lodge of Kelso, P. 15.) This codifies the existing laws and we find that the Brethren, who as entered apprentices were mulct in the sum of " eight pound Scots with their gloves," were further required, in the higher station of " master and fellow of the craft," to pay five shillings sterling to the company's stock and " neu gloves to the members." (Vernon, op. cit., p. 16.) The obligation imposed upon intrants of clothing the Lodge‑a phrase by which the custom of exacting from them gloves and, in some instances, aprons, was commonly described, was not abolished in the Lodge of Kelso until about 175 5. The material point, however, for consideration is, that the practice, in Scottish Lodges, overlapped that portion of English Masonic history termed the " epoch of transition," since, from the point of view we are surveying these ancient customs, it matters very little how common they became after they were " digested " by Dr. Anderson in his Book, of Constitutions. In this we find, as No. VII of the General Re gulations‑‑" Every new Brother at his making is decently to cloath the Lodgethat is, all the Brethren present," etc. (Constitutions, 17z3, p. 6o.) Here, it would seem, as in so many other instances, Dr. Anderson must have had in his mind the Masonic usages of his native country, though we should not lose sight of the fact that the presentation of gloves by candidates to Freemasons and their wives was a custom which prevailed in the Staffordshire Lodges in 1686.

 

But, whatever were the authorities upon which Anderson relied‑and by the suggestion that the leading features of Scottish Masonry were not absent from his thoughts whilst fulfilling the mandate he received from the Grand Lodge of England, it is not meant to imply that he closed his eyes to evidence proceeding from any other quarter‑it is certain that the old Masonic custom, which, in 1723, had become a law, came down from antiquity in two distinct channels. This it is necessary to bear in mind, because whilst in the one case (Scotland) we must admit that the Speculative Masons have received from their Operative predecessors the gloves as well as the apron, in the other case (England) this by no means follows as a matter of course, since among the Freemasons of 1686 were " persons of the most eminent quality," from whose Speculative‑not Operative‑predecessors the custom which Plot attests may have been derived. Indeed, passing over the circumstance that until the sixteenth century‑at least so far as there is evidence to guide us‑gloves were presented to rather than by the Operative Masons, the stream of authority THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 45 tends to prove that the usage itself was one of great antiquity and there is absolutely nothing which should induce the conviction that its origin must be looked for in a custom of the building trades.

 

Indeed, the probability is rather the other way. The giving of gloves at weddings was common in early times, as already seen. Lovers also presented them to their mistresses and the very common notion that, if a woman surprises a man sleeping and can steal a kiss without waking him, she has a right to demand a pair of gloves‑has been handed down with a very respectable flavour of antiquity. Thus, Gay, in the sixth pastoral of his Shepherd's leek, published in 1714, has Cic'ly brisk Maid, steps forth before the Rout, And kiss'd with smacking Lip the snoring Lout For Custom says, who'er this venture proves, For such a kiss demands a pair of Gloves.

 

It might plausibly be contended, that the origin of the practice thus mentioned by Gay in 1714, must be looked for at a period of time at least equally remote with that of the Masonic usage, on which Dr. Anderson based the Seventh General Regulation of '1723.

 

Although banquets are not among the customs or regulations, ratified or ordained by the Warden General in 1598, they are mentioned in no fewer than three clauses of the Statutes of 1599. This, of itself, would go far to prove that the practice of closing the formal proceedings of a meeting with a feast or carousal was then of old standing. But a minute of Mary's Chapel (Lyon, p. 39), preceding by ten days the date of Schaw's second code, shows, at all events, that the banquet was a well‑established institution at the time when the latter was promulgated.

 

In the Lodge of Aberdeen ('1670) both initiation (or entry) and passing were followed by feasting and revelry, at the expense of the Apprentice and Fellow respectively. Nor did the exemption with regard to gloves and aprons, which, as seen, prevailed in the case of sons and sons‑in‑law of the " Authoires " and " Subscryuers " of the " Book," hold good as to banquets. From each and all a " speacking pynt," a " dinner " and a " pynt of wyne," were rigorously exacted.

 

The festival of St. John the Evangelist was especially set apart by the Aberdeen Brethren, as a day of feasting and rejoicing. A similar usage prevailed at Melrose, from at least 1670 and, in all probability, from times still more remote. The records of the old Lodge there first allude to the " feast of the good Saint John," in 1685, when for " meat and drink, and making it ready " was expended úi 1 os. 1od. Entries of the same character appear under later years, of which the following will suffice: " 1687‑for Meat & Drink & Tobacco, C,7 17s. 6d. 1698‑for ale, white bread, two legs of mutton, a pound of tobacco and pipes, and a capful of salt, úI I 5s. 7d." (Masonic Magazine, vol. vii, pp. 324, 325, 369.) A dinner on St. John's day, at the expense of the box, was indulged in by the Brethren of Atcheson's Haven and Peebles, at the beginning of the last century and a like custom obtained in the Lodge of Edinburgh down to 1734, in which year, 46 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 though the members resolved to meet as usual on the festival of the Evangelist, they decided that in future, those attending should pay half‑a‑crown towards the cost of the entertainment. (Lyon, p. 45 .) It has been observed with truth, that during a great part of the eighteenth century, hard drinking and other convivial excesses were carried among the upper classes in Scotland to an extent considerably greater than in England and not less than in Ireland. (Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii, p. 89.) Of this evil, the case of Dr. Archibald Pitcairne affords a good illustration. He was a man of great and varied, but ill‑directed ability. Burton styles him the type of a class, not numerous but influential from rank and education (History of Scotland, vol. ii, p. 5 5 9) ; and we learn from Wodrow that " he got a vast income, but spent it upon drinking and was twice drunk every day." (Analecta, vol. ii, p. 255.) Yet it is doubtful whether these habits had any real root among the poorer and middle classes. Indeed, it has been said that the general standard of external decorum was so far higher than in England, that a blind man travelling southwards would know when he passed the frontier by the increasing number of blasphemies he heard. (Lecky, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 89.) We now pass to the election of Wardens, for, though the subject of banqueting or feasting is far from being exhausted, further observations on this custom will more appropriately be introduced in another chapter. It forms, however, a leading feature of the early Masonry practised in North Britain and, as such, has been briefly noticed in connexion with other characteristics of the Scottish Craft, which reappear in the more elaborate svstem afterwards devised‑or found to be in existence‑in the south. The Schan, Statutes enjoin, as already seen, that a Warden‑who was to be chosen annually‑should " have the charge over every lodge." This regulation was complied with by the Lodge of Edinburgh in 1598, but, in the following year, the Deacon sat as president, with the Warden as Treasurer. This was in accordance with the ordinary usage which prevailed in the early Scottish Lodges, that when there was a Deacon as well as a Warden, the latter acted as treasurer or box‑master (Hunter, History of the Lodge of Journeymen Masons, p. 67.) Frequently, however, both offices were held by the same person, who we find designated in the Minutes of Mary's Chapel as" Deacon of the Masons and Warden of the Lodge." (Lyon, p. 41.) We meet with the same titles‑Deacon and Warden‑in the records of the Kilwinning (1643), the Atcheson Haven (17oo) and the Peebles (1716) Lodges, though they are there used disjunctively and apart. (Lyon, pp. 179, 418.) In each of these instances the Deacon was the chief official. Such was also the case in the Haddington Lodge in 1697, where, apparently, there was no Warden; whilst, on the other hand, the Lodge of Glasgow, in 1613, was ruled by a Warden and there was no such officer as Deacon. The wording of the Schaw Statutes may have led to this diversity of usage, as the two codes are slightly at variance in the regulations they respectively contain with regard to the functions of Wardens and Deaconsthe earlier set implying that the titles denoted separate offices, while, in the later one, the same expressions may be understood in precisely an opposite sense.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 47 According to Herbert, the Alderman was the chief officer, whilst the trade fraternities of London were called guilds. Eschevins, Elders and other names succeeded and were, in some instances, contemporaneous. The merchant tailors were unique in styling their principal, " Pilgrim," on account of his travelling for them. Bailiffs, Masters, Wardens, Purveyors and other names, became usual designations when they were chartered. From Richard H to Henry VII their chief officers are styled Wardens of the Craft, Wardens of the said Mystery, Masters or Wardens, of such guild as they presided over, Wardens and Purveyors, Guardians or Wardens, Bailiffs and Custodes or Keepers. (Companies of London, vol, i, p. 51.) In the Cooke MS. (z), we meet with the expression‑Warden under a Master. This takes us back to the early part of the fifteenth century and, about the same date, at York, as we learn from the Fabric Rolls of that cathedral, viz. in 14zz, John Long was Master Mason and William Waddeswyk the guardian (Warden] or second Master Mason. The same records inform us that William Hyndeley, who became the Master Mason in 147z, had previously received, in the same year, the sum of ,,C4 in wages, as Warden of the Lodge of Masons, for working in the office of the Master of the Masons, it being vacant by the death of Robert Spyllesby, for twentyfour weeks, at 3s. 4d. each week. (Transactions R.LB.A., 1861‑6z, pp. 37‑6o; Raine, The Fabric Rolls of York Minster, 18 5 8, pp. 46, 77.) These examples might be multiplied, but one more will suffice, which is taken from the oft‑quoted essay of Papworth. From this, we learn that whilst the great hall at Hampton Court was in course of erection, in 15 31, for King Henry VIII, John Molton was Master Mason at 1s. per day; William Reynolds, Warden at Ss. per week; the setters at 3s. 6d. per week; and lodgemen‑a somewhat suggestive term‑at 3s. 4d. per week. (Transactions R.LB.A., loc. cit.) From the preceding references, it will be seen that the employment of a Warden under a Master (or Master Mason) was a common practice in the building trades of the south, at a period anterior to the promulgation by William Schaw of the Statutes which have been so frequently alluded to. This fact may be usefully noted, as the next attempt will be to show that to a similar usage in Scottish Lodges, during the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth century, we are indebted for the highest of the three Operative titles used by Dr. Anderson in his classification of the Symbolic or Speculative Society of 1723. The Scoon and Perth (1658), the Aberdeen (1670), the Melrose (1675) and the Dunblane (1696) Lodges, were in each case ruled by the Master Mason, with the assistance of a Warden. (Masonic Magazine, vol. vii, 1879‑89, pp. 133, 134, 323, 366.) The latter officer appears, in every instance, to have ranked immediately after the former and is frequently named in the records of Lodges (e.g. those of Aberdeen and Dunblane) as his deputy or substitute. It is singular, however, that in those of Mother Kilwinning, where the practice was, in the absence of the Deacon or Master, to place in the chair, with full authority, some Brother present‑not in any one case, for more than a hundred years, do we find the Warden, by virtue of ranking next after the 48 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑z3 Master, to have presided over the Lodge. (Freemasons' Magazine, September z6, 1863, p. 267.) The instances are rare, where a plurality of Wardens is found to have existed in the early Lodges of Scotland, anterior to the publication of Dr. Anderson's Book of Constitutions (1723). Subsequently to that date, indeed, the transition from one Warden to two was gradually but surely effected.

 

We find that copies of the English Constitutions referred to were presented to the Lodges of Dunblane in 1723, of Peebles in 1725 (Lyon, pp. 416, 419) ; and, doubtless, these were not solitary instances of the practice. That the permeation of southern ideas was very thorough in the northern capital, as early as 1727, may be inferred from a Minute for St. John's Day (in Christmas) of that year. In this, the initiation of several creditable citizens, whose recognition as members of the Lodge of Edinburgh had been objected to by the champions of Operative supremacy‑is justified on the broad ground that " their admissions were regularly done, conform to the knowen lawes of this and all other weall Governed Lodges in Brittain." Ashmole's description of his initiation (see Dudley Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers), coupled with the indorsement on No. 25 of the Old Charges, point to the existence of a Warden, in two English Lodges at least, during the seventeenth century, who was charged with very much the same functions as those devolving upon the corresponding official under the regulations of William Schaw. It is tolerably clear, that Richard Penket in the one case (1646), and Isaac Brent in the other (1693), were the virtual presidents of their respective Lodges. But this is counterbalanced by other evidence, intermediate in point of time. Sloane MS. 3323 (14)‑dating from 1659 forbids a Lodge being called without "the consent of Master or Wardens " ; and the same officers are mentioned in two manuscripts of uncertain date‑the Harleian 1942 (i i) and the Sloane 3329, as well as in the earliest printed form of the Masons' Examination (The Freemason, October z, 188o) which has comedown to us. The Gateshead (1671) and Alnwick (1701) fraternities elected four and two Wardens each respectively ; and, in the latter, there was also a Master. The existence of a plurality of Wardens under a Master, in the Alnwick Lodgeif its records will bear this interpretation‑demands careful attention, as it tends to rebut the presumption of a Scottish derivation, which arises from the propinquity of Alnwick to the border and the practice of affixing marks to their signatures, a custom observed by the members of no other English Lodge whose records pre‑date the epoch of transition.

 

The scanty evidence relating to the Masonry of the south during the prehistoric period has been given in full detail. To the possible objection that undue space has been accorded to this branch of our inquiry, it may be said that the existence of a living Freemasonry in England before the time of Randle Holme (1688) rest on two sources of authority‑the Diary of Elias Ashmole and the Natural History of Dr. Plot. If the former of these antiquaries had not kept a journal‑and which, unlike most journals, was printed‑and if the latter had not undertaken the task THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1717‑23 49 of describing the phenomena of Staffordshire, we should have known absolutely nothing of the existence of Freemasons' Lodges at Warrington in 1646, at London in 1682, or in the moorlands of Staffordshire and, indeed, throughout England, in 1686. Now, judging by what light we have, is it credible for an instant that the attractions which drew Ashmole into the Society‑and had not lost their hold upon his mind after a lapse of thirty‑five years‑‑comprised nothing more than the benefit of the Mason Word, which in Scotland alone distinguished the Lodge‑Mason from the cowan ? The same remark will hold good with regard to Sir William Wise and the others in 1682, as well as to the persons of distinction who, according to Plot, were members of the Craft in 1686.

 

At the period referred to, English Freemasonry must have been something different, if not distinct, from Scottish Masonry. Under the latter system, the Brethren were Masons, but not (in the English sense) Freemasons. The latter title, to quote a few representative cases, was unknown‑‑or, at least, not in usein the Lodges of Edinburgh, Kilwinning and Kelso, until the years 1725, 1735 and 1741 respectively. It has, therefore, been essential to examine with minuteness the scanty evidence that has been preserved of English Masonic customs during the seventeenth century and, although the darkness which overspreads this portion of our annals may not be wholly removed, it is to be hoped that some light, at least, has been shed upon it. Yet, as Dr. Johnson has finely observed One generation of ignorance effaces the whole series of unwritten history. Books are faithful repositories, which may be a while neglected or forgotten, but, when they are opened again, will again impart their instruction : memory, once interrupted, is not to be recalled. Written learning is a fixed luminary, which, after the cloud that had hidden it has passed away, is again bright in its proper station. Tradition is but a meteor, which, if once it falls, cannot be rekindled.

 

CHAPTER II THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o HE year 1723 was a memorable one in the annals of English Masonry and affords a convenient halting‑place for the discussion of many points of interest which cannot properly be assigned either to an earlier or a later period. The great event of that year was the publication of the first Book, of Constitutions. The entire work deserves perusal; from this, together with a glance at the names of the members of Lodges in 1724 and 1725, may be gained a very good outside view of the Freemasonry existing at the termination of the epoch of transition.

 

The story of the formation of the Grand Lodge of England has been briefly told, but the history of that body would be incomplete without some further allusion to the " Four Old Lodges " by whose exertions it was called into existence.

 

ORIGINAL No. i met at the Goose and Gridiron, in St. Paul's Churchyard, from 1717 until 1729, removing in the latter year to the King's (or Queen's) Arms, in the same locality, where it remained for a long period. In 176o it assumed the title of the West India and American Lodge, which, ten years later, was altered to that of the Lodge of Antiquity. In 1794 it absorbed the Harodim Lodge, No. 467, a mushroom creation of the year 1790. Among the members were Thomas Harper and William Preston. Harper‑Deputy Grand Master of the Atholl Grand Lodge at the time of the Union‑was also a member of the Lodge of Antiquity from 1792 and served as Grand Steward in 1796. He was for some time Secretary to the Chapter of Harodim. Cf. Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 3 5 5 ; and Free. masons' Magazine, January to June, 1861, p. 449. At the Union, in 1813, the first position in the new roll having devolved by lot upon No. i of the Atholl Lodges, it became and has since remained No. 2.

 

According to the Engraved List of 1729, this Lodge was originally constituted in 1691. Thomas Morris and Josias Villeneau, both in their time Grand Wardens, were among the members‑the former being the Master in 1723, the latter in 1725. Benjamin Cole, the engraver, belonged to the Lodge in 1730; but, with these three exceptions, the names, so far as they are given in the official records, do not invite any remark until after Preston's election to the chair, when the members suddenly awoke to a sense of the dignity of the senior English Lodge and became gradually impressed with the importance of its traditions. From Preston's time to the present the Lodge of Antiquity has maintained a high degree of pre‑eminence, as well for its seniority of constitution, as for the celebrity of the names which have graced its roll of members. The Duke of Sussex was its Master for many years ; 50 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 51 and the lamented Duke of Albany, in more recent days, filled the chair throughout several elections.

 

ORIGINAL No. z met at the Crown, Parker's Lane, in 17 17 and was established at the Queen's Head, Turnstile, Holborn, in 17,23 or earlier. Thence it moved in succession to the Green Lettice, Rose and Rummer, and Rose and Buffalo. In 1730 it met at the Bull and Gate, Holborn; and, appearing for the last time in the Engraved List for 1736, was struck off the roll at the renumbering in 1740. An application for its restoration was made in 1752, but, on the ground that none of the petitioners had ever been members of the Lodge, it was rejected. (Grand Lodge Minutes, March 16, 175 2). According to the Engraved List for 1729, the Lodge was constituted in 1712.

 

ORIGINAL No. 3, which met at the Apple Tree Tavern in Charles Street, Covent Garden, in 1717, moved to the Queen's Head, Knave's Acre, in 1723 or earlier; and, after several intermediate changes‑including a stay of many years at the Fish and Bell, Charles Street, Soho Square‑appears to have settled down, under the title of the Lodge of Fortitude, at the Roebuck, Oxford Street, from 1768 until 1793. In 1818 it amalgamated with the Old Cumberland Lodge‑constituted 1753‑and is now the Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge, No. iz.

 

Dr. Anderson informs us that, after the removal of this Lodge to the Queen's Head, " upon some difference, the members that met there came under a New Constitution [in 17z31 tho' they wanted it not " (Constitutions, 173 8, p. 18 5) ; and accordingly, when the Lodges were arranged in order of seniority in 1729, Original No. 3, instead of being placed as one of the Four at the head of the roll, found itself relegated by the Committee of Precedence to the eleventh number on the list. This appears to have taken the members by surprise‑as well it might, considering that the last time the Four were all represented at Grand Lodge‑April icy, 17z7before the scale of precedence was adjusted in conformity with the New Regulation enacted for that purpose, their respective Masters and Wardens answered to their names in the same order of seniority as we find to have prevailed when the Book of Constitutions was approved by the representatives of Lodges in 1723. But although the officers of No. I I " represented that their Lodge was misplaced in the printed book, whereby they lost their Rank and humbly prayed that the said mistake might be regulated,"‑" the said complaint was dismiss'd." (Grand Lodge Minutes, July II, 1729). It is probable that this petition would have experienced a very different fate had the three senior Lodges been represented on the Committee of Precedence.

 

As Original No. 2‑also so numbered in 1729‑‑" dropt out " about 1736, the Lodges immediately below it each went up a step in 1740; and Original No. 3 moved from the eleventh to the tenth place on the list. If the Minutes of the Committee of Charity covering that period were extant, we should find, possibly, a renewed protest by the subject of this sketch against its supersession, for one was certainly made at the next renumbering in 1756‑not altogether without success, as will be seen by the following extract from the Minute Book of one of the Lodges Sz THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o ‑George, No. 4‑above it on the list. The George Lodge was then meeting at the George and Dragon, Grafton Street, St. Ann's. In 1767, when removed to the Sun and Punch Bowl, its warrant was " sold, or otherwise illegally disposed of," to certain Brethren, who christened it the Friendship, which name it still retains (now No. 6). Among the offenders were the Duke of Beaufort and Thomas French, shortly afterwards Grand Master and Grand Secretary respectively of the Grand Lodge of England.

 

July z2, 1755.‑Letter beiiag [read] from the Grand Secy : Citing us to appear att the Committee of Charity to answer the Fish and Bell Lodge [No. io] to their demand of being plac'd prior to us, viz. in No. 3. Whereon our R' Wors' Mas` attended & the Question being propos'd was answer'd against [it] by him with Spirit and Resolution well worthy the Charector he assum'd, and being put to Ballot was card in favour of us. Report being made this night of the said proceedings thanks was Return'd him & his health drank with hearty Zeal by the Lodge present.

 

But although defeated in this instance, the officers of No. i o appear to have satisfied the committee that their Lodge was entitled to a higher number than would fall to it in the ordinary course, from two of its seniors having " dropt out " since the revision of 1740. Instead, therefore, of becoming No. 8, it passed over the heads of the two Lodges immediately above it and appeared in the sixth place on the list for 1756 ; whilst the Lodges thus superseded by the No. 10 of 175 5, themselves changed their relative positions in the list for 1756, with the result that Nos. 8, 9 and io in the former list severally became 8, 7 and 6 in the latter‑or, to express it in another way, Nos. 8 and 10 of 1755 change places in 1756.

 

Elsewhere it has been stated : " The supercession of Original No. 3 by eight junior Lodges in 1729, together with its partial restoration of rank in 1756, has introduced so much confusion into the history of this Lodge, that for upwards of a century its identity with the `old Lodge,' which met at the Apple Tree Tavern in 1717, appears to have been wholly lost sight of." (Gould, The Four Old Lodges, P. 42.) The age of this Lodge cannot even be determined approximately. It occupied the second place in the Engraved Lists for 1723 and 1725 and, probably, continued to do so until 1728. The position of the Lodge in 1729 must have been wholly determined by the date of its warrant and, therefore, affords no clue to its actual seniority. It is quite impossible to say whether it was established earlier or later than original No. 2 (171z), nor pace Preston can one altogether be sure‑if the precedency in such matters to be regulated by dates of formation is assumed‑that the Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge would be justified in yielding the pas, even to the Lodge of Antiquity itself.

 

Alluding to the meeting at the Goose and Gridiron Ale‑house, on St. John the Baptist's day, 1717, Findel observes This day is celebrated by all German Lodges as the day of the anniversary of THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 53 b the Society of Freemasons. It is the high‑noon of the year, the day of light and roses, and it ought to be celebrated everywhere. (History of Freemasonry, p. 137.) It seems, however, that, not only is this remarkable incident in the history of the Lodge of Antiquity worthy of annual commemoration, but that the services of the Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge, in connexion with what may be termed the most momentous event in the history of the Craft, are, at least, entitled to a similar distinction. The first Grand Master, it is true, was elected and installed at the Goose and Gridiron, under the banner of the Old Lodge there, but the first Grand Lodge was formed and constituted at the Apple Tree, under similar auspices. Also the Lodge at the latter tavern supplied the Grand Master‑Sayer‑who was elected and installed in the former.

 

ORIGINAL No. 4 met at the Rummer and Grapes Tavern, in Channel Row, Westminster, in 1717 and its representatives‑George Payne, Master; Stephen Hall and Francis Sorell, Wardens‑joined with those of nineteen other Lodges, in subscribing the Approbation of the Constitutions in January 1723. The date of its removal to the tavern with which it became so long associated and whose name it adopted, is uncertain. It is shown at the Horn in the earliest of the Engraved Lists, ostensibly of the year 1723, but there are grounds for believing that this appeared towards the close of the period embraced by the Grand Mastership of the Earl of Dalkeith, which would render it of later date than the following extract from a newspaper of the period There was a great Lodge of the ancient Society of the Free Masons held last week at the Horn Tavern, in Palace Yard : at which were present the Earl of Dalkeith their Grand Master ; the Deputy Grand Master, the Duke of Richmond ; and several other persons of quality, at which time, the Lord Carmichael, Col. Carpenter, Sir Thomas Prendergast, Col. Paget and Col. Saunderson, were accepted Free Masons and went home in their Leather Aprons and Gloves. (Veekly journal or British Gazetteer, March z8, 1724.) The names of these five initiates, two of whom were afterwards Grand Wardens, are shown in the earliest list of members furnished by the Lodge at the Horn‑in conformity with the order of Grand Lodge, February 19, 1724. From this we learn that in 1724 the Duke of Richmond was the Master; George Payne, the Deputy Master; with Alexander Hardine and Alexander Choke (Senior Grand Warden, 17z6; Deputy Grand Master, 1727), Wardens. Among the private members were Desaguliers and Anderson, neither of whom in the years 17z4‑z5 held office in the Lodge. Unfortunately, the page allotted to Original No. 4‑‑or No. 3 as it became from 1729‑in the Grand Lodge Register for 1730, is a blank ; and, after that year, there is no list to consult for nearly half a century, when we again meet with one in the official records, where the names of the then members are headed by that of Thomas Dunckerley, " a member from 1768." Alexander Hardine was Master in I7z5, the office becoming vacant by the Duke 54 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o of Richmond's election as Grand Master. There is little doubt, however‑to use the quaint language of " Old Regulation XVII "‑by virtue of which the Duke was debarred from continuing in the chair of the Horn Lodge, whilst at the head of the Craft‑that " as soon as he had honourably discharg'd his Grand Office, he returned to that Post or Station in his particular Lodge, from which he was call‑'d to officiate above." At all events he was back there in 17zc9, for, on July i i of that year, the Deputy Grand Master (Blackerly) informed Grand Lodge, by desire of the Duke of Richmond, Master of the Horn Lodge, as an excuse for the members not having brought charity, like those of the other Lodges, that they " were, for the most part, persons of Quality and Members of Parliament," therefore out of town at that season of the year. The Duke was very attentive to his duties in the Lodge. He was in the chair at the initiation of the Earl of Sunderland, on January 2, 1730, on which occasion there were present the Grand Master, Lord Kingston, the Grand Master elect, the Duke of Norfolk, together with the Duke of Montagu, Lords Dalkeith, Delvin, Inchiquin and other persons of distinction. (IYreeo journal or British Gazetteer, January 3, I73o.) Later in the same year he presided over another important meeting, when many foreign noblemen, also William Cowper (Deputy Grand Master, 1726), were admitted members. He was supported by the Grand Master (Duke oú Norfolk) ; the Deputy (Blackerly) ; Lord Mordaunt ; and the Marquesses of Beaumont and Du Quesne. (Rawlinson MSS, fol. 29, Bodleian.) The Duke of Richmond resigned the Mastership in April 173 8 and Nathaniel Blackerly was unanimously chosen to fill his place. (London Daily Post, April z z, 173 8.) Original No. 4 was given the third place in the Engraved List for 1729 and, in 1740, became No. 2‑which number it retained till the Union.

 

On April 3, 1747, it was erased from the list, for non‑attendance at the Quarterly Communications, but was restored to its place September 4, 1751. According to the official records Bro. Lediard informed the Brethren that the Right Worshipful Bror. Payne, L.G.M., and several other members of the Lodge lately held at the Horn, Palace Yard, Westminster, had been very successful in their endeavours to serve the said ' Lodge and that they were ready to pay z guineas to the use of the Grand Charity; and, therefore, moved that out of respect to Bro. Payne and the several other L.G.M. [Late Grand Masters] who were members thereof, the Said Lodge might be restored and have its former rank and Place in the List of Lodges‑which was ordered accordingly.

 

Earl Ferrers was Master of the Horn Lodge when elected Grand Master in 1762.

 

On February 16, 1766, at an Occasional Lodge, held at the Horn Tavern, the Grand Master, Lord Blayney, presiding, H.R.H., William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, " was made an Entered Apprentice, passed a Fellow Craft and raised to the degree of a Master Mason." (Grand Lodge Minutes.) F. II‑I 3 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 55 This Prince and his two brothers, the Dukes of York and Cumberland, eventually became members of the New Lodge at the Horn, No. 313, the name of which, out of compliment to them, was changed to that of the Royal Lodge. At the period, however, of the Duke of Gloucester's admission into the Society (1766), there were two Lodges meeting at the Horn Tavern: the Old Lodge, the subject of the present sketch and the New Lodge, No. 313, constituted April 4, 1764. The Duke was initiated in neither, but in an Occasional Lodge, at which, for all we know to the contrary, members of both may have been present. But, at whatever date the decadence of the Old Horn Lodge may be said to have first set in, whether directly after the formation of a new Lodge at the same tavern, or later, it reached its culminating point about the time when the Duke of Cumberland, following the example of his two brothers, became an honorary member of No. 313. This occurred March 4, 1767 and, on April i of the same year, the Dukes of Gloucester and Cumberland attended a meeting of the junior Lodge, when the latter was installed its W.M., an office he also held in later years.

 

The Engraved List for 1767 shows the Old Horn Lodge to have removed from the tavern of that name, to the Fleece, Tothill Street, Westminster. Thence, in 1772, it migrated to the King's Arms, also in Westminster and, on January 1o, 1774, " finding themselves in a declining state, the members agreed to incorporate with a new and flourishing Lodge, entitled the Somerset House Lodge, which immediately assumed their rank." (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, P. 255.) SO far Preston, in the editions of his famous Illustrations, published after the schism was healed, of which the privileges of the Lodge of Antiquity had been the origin. But in those published whilst the schism lasted (1779‑89), he tells us, that " the members of this Lodge tacitly agreed to a renunciation of their rights as one of the four original Lodges, by openly avowing a declaration of their Master in Grand Lodge. They put themselves entirely under the authority of Grand Lodge ; claimed no distinct privilege, by virtue oú an Immemorial Constitution, but precedency of rank, considered themselves subject to every law or regulation oú the Grand Lodge, over whom they could admit of no control and to whose determination they and every Lodge were bound to submit." The value, indeed, of this evidence is much impaired by the necessity of reconciling with it the remarks of the same writer after 1790, when he speaks of the two old Lodges then extant, acting by immemorial constitution. (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792 and subsequent editions.) But the status of the junior of these Lodges stood in no need of restoration at the hands of Preston, or of any other person or body. In all the official lists, published after its amalgamation with a Lodge lower down on the roll, from 1775 to the present year, the words " Time Immemorial " in lieu of a date are placed opposite its printed title. Not is there any entry in the Minutes of Grand Lodge, which will bear out the assertion that at the fusion of the two Lodges there was any sacrifice of independence on the part of the senior. The junior of the parties to this alliance‑in 1774, the Somerset House Lodge, No. 2ig‑was originally con‑ 56 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o stituted May zz, 1762, is described in the Engraved List for 1763 as " On Board H.M. Ship the Prince, at Plymouth " ; in 1764‑66 as " On Board H.M. Ship the Guadaloupe ; and, in 1767‑73, as " the Sommerset House Lodge (No. z 19 on the numeration of 1770‑80) at ye King's Arms, New Bond Street." Thomas Dunckerley, a natural son of George II, was initiated into Masonry, January io, 1754, whilst in the naval service, in which he attained the rank of gunner ; and his duties afloat seem to have come to an end at about the same date on which the old Sea Lodge in the Prince and, lastly, in the Guadaloupe, was removed to London and christened the Somerset House, most probably by way of compliment to Dunckerley himself, being the name of the place of residence where quarters were first of all assigned to him on his coming to the Metropolis. In 1767 the king ordered him a pension of Cioo a year, which was afterwards increased to c8oo, with a suite of apartments in Hampton Court Palace.

 

The official records merely inform us that Dunckerley was a member of the Somerset House Lodge after the fusion, that he had been a member of one or both of them from 1768, beyond which year the Grand Lodge Register does not extend, except longo intervallo, viz. at the returns for 1730, a gap already noticed, which it is as impossible to bridge over from one end as the other.

 

After Dunckerley we meet with the names of Lord Gormanstone, Sir Joseph Bankes, Viscount Hampden, Rowland Berkeley, James Heseltine and Rowland Holt, later still of Admiral Sir Peter Parker, Deputy Grand Master. In 1828 the Lodge again resorted to amalgamation and absorbed the Royal Inverness Lodge, No. 648. The latter was virtually a military Lodge, having been formed by the officers of the Royal North British Volunteer Corps, of which the Duke of Sussex (Earl of Inverness) was the commander. Among the members of the Royal Inverness Lodge were Sir Augustus D'Este, son of the Duke of Sussex; Lord William Pitt Lennox ; Charles Matthews the elder, comedian; Laurence Thompson, painter, the noted Preceptor: and in the Grand Lodge Register, under the date of May 5, 18z5, is the following entry,‑" Charles James Matthews, Architect, Ivy Cottage, aged z4." The Old Lodge at the Horn, dropped from the second to the fourth place on the roll at the Union ; and, in 1828, assumed the title of the Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge, by which it is still described. A History of this Lodge, compiled by the Rev. Dr. A. W. Oxford, Past Grand Chaplain, was published in 1928.

 

Of the three Grand Officers, whose names have alone come down to us in connexion with the great event of 1717, there is very little said in the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge, over whose deliberations it was their lot to preside for the first year of its existence. Captain Elliot drops completely out of sight; Jacob Lamball almost so, though he reappears on the scene in 1735, on March 31 of which year he sat as Grand Warden, in the place of Sir Edward Mansell ; not having been present, so far as can be determined from the official records, at any earlier period over which they extend (i.e. between June 24, 1723 and March 31, 1735). He THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 57 subsequently attended very frequently and, in the absence of a Grand Warden, usually filled the vacant chair. Anderson includes his name among those of the " few Brethren " by whom he was " kindly encouraged " whilst the Constitutions of 1738 were in the press ; and if, as there seems ground for believing, the Doctor was not himself present at the Grand Election of 1717, it is probable that he derived his account of it from the Brother who was chosen Grand Senior Warden on that occasion. Lamball, it is sad to relate, in his latter years fell into decay and poverty and, at a Quarterly Communication, held April 8, 1756, was a petitioner for relief, when the sum of ten guineas was voted to him from the Fund of Charity, " with liberty to apply again." Even of Sayer himself there occurs only a passing mention, but from which we are justified in inferring that his influence and authority in the councils of the Craft did not long survive his term of office as Grand Master. It is probable that poverty and misfortune so weighed him down as to forbid his associating on equal terms with the only two commoners‑Payne and Desaguliers who, besides himself, had filled the Masonic throne; but there is also evidence to show that he did not scruple to infringe the laws and regulation, which it became him, perhaps more than any other man, to set the fashion of diligently obeying. He was one of the Grand Wardens under Desaguliers in 1719 and a Warden of his private Lodge, Original No. 3, in January 1723, but held no office in the latter at the close of the same year or in 1725, though he continued a member until 1730, possibly later ; but, from the last‑named date until some way into the second half of the eighteenth century, there is unfortunately no register of the members of Lodges. After 1730 Sayer virtually disappears from the scene. In that year we first meet with his name, as having walked last in a procession‑arranged in order of juniority ‑‑of past Grand Masters, at the installation of the Duke of Norfolk. He next appears as a petitioner for relief, finally in the character of an offender against the laws of the Society. With regard to his pecuniary circumstances, the Minutes of Grand Lodge show that he was a petitioner‑presumably for charity‑on November 21, 1724 ; but whether he was then relieved or not from the General Fund, the records do not disclose. A second application was attended with the following result April 21, 1730.‑Then the Petition of Brother Anthony Sayer, formerly Grand Master, was read, setting forth his misfortune and great poverty and praying Relief. The Grand Lodge took the same into their consideration and it was pro posed that he should have úZo out of the money received on acct of the general charity ; others proposed ú1o and others C15.

 

The Question being put, it was agreed that he should have ú15, on acct of his having been Grand Master.

 

He appears to have received a further sum of two guineas from the same source on April 17, 1741, after which date no allusion in the records, or elsewhere, to the first Grand Master of Masons is found.

 

George Payne is generally described as a " learned antiquarian," though 58 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o possibly on no other foundation of authority than the paragraph into which Dr. Anderson has compressed the leading events of his Grand Mastership. It may be that the archaeological tastes of a namesake who died in 1739 (Scots Magazine, vol. i, 1739, p. 423 ; George Payne, of Northumberland, F.R.S. ; Member of the Royal Academy at Berlin, of the Noble Institute of Bologna, etc.) have been ascribed to him ; but however this may be, his name is not to be found among those of the fellows or members of the Society of Antiquaries, an association established, or, to speak more correctly, revived, at about the same date as the Grand Lodge of England. Unfortunately there is very little to be gleaned concerning Payne's private life. His will is dated December 8, 175 5, was proved March 9, 1757, by his wife, the sole executrix, the testator having died on January 23 in the same year. He is described as of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster and appears to have been a man of good worldly substance. Among the various bequests are legacies of Czoo each to his nieces, Frances, Countess of Northampton; and Catherine, Lady Francis Seymour. Payne died at his house in New Palace Yard, Westminster, being at the time Secretary to the Tax Office. (Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xxvii, 1757, p. 93.) How long he had resided there it is now impossible to say ; but it is curious, to say the least, that when we first hear of the Lodge to which both Payne and Desaguliers belonged, it met at Channel Row, where the latter lived; also that it was afterwards removed to New Palace Yard, where the former died.

 

Payne, probably, was the earlier member of the two and the date of his joining the Lodge may be set down at some period after St. John the Baptist's Day, 1717 and before the corresponding festival of 1718. He was greatly respected both by the Brethren of the Old Lodge at the Horn and the Craft at large. The esteem in which he was held by the latter, stood the former in good stead in 1751, when, at his intercession, the Lodge in question, which had been erased from the list in 1747, was restored to its former rank and place.

 

During his second term of office as Grand Master, Payne compiled the General Regulations, which were afterwards finally arranged and published by Dr. Anderson in 17z3. He continued an active member of Grand Lodge until 1754 on April 27 of which year he was appointed a member of the committee to revise the Constitutions (afterwards brought out by Entick in 1756). According to the Minutes of Grand Lodge, he was present there for the last time in the following November.

 

John Theophilus Desaguliers, the son of a French Protestant clergyman, born at Rochelle, March 12, 1683, was brought to England by his father when about two years of age, owing to the persecution which was engendered by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He was educated at Christ Church College, Oxford, where he took the degree of B.A. and entered into deacon's orders in 171o. The same year he succeeded Dr. Keill as lecturer on Experimental Philosophy at Hart Hall. In 17I z he married Joanna, daughter of William Pudsey and proceeded to the degree of M.A. The following year he removed to the metropolis and settled in Channel THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 59 Row, Westminster, where he continued his lectures. On July z9, 1714, he was elected F.R.S., but was excused from paying the subscription, on account of the number of experiments which he showed at the meetings. Subsequently he was elected to the office of curator and communicated a vast number of curious and valuable papers between the years 1714 and 1743, which are printed in the Transactions. He also published several works of his own, particularly his large Course of Experimental Philosophy, being the substance of his public lectures and abounding with descriptions of the most useful machines and philosophical instruments. He acted as curator to within a year of his decease and appears to have received no fixed salary, being remunerated according to the number of experiments and communications which he made to the Society, sometimes receiving a donation of 'Cio, and occasionally ú30, ú40, or C50. (See Dudley Wright's England's Masonic Pioneers.) His lectures were delivered before George I at Hampton Court in 1717, also before George II and other members of the Royal Family, at a later period.

 

There is some confusion with regard to the church preferment which fell in the doctor's way. According to Lysons, he was appointed by the Duke of Chandos to the benefice of Whitchurch‑otherwise termed Stanmore Parva‑in 1714 (The Environs of London, 18oo‑11, vol. iii, p. 674), but Nichols says he was presented by the same patron, in the same year, to the living of Edgeware. (Literary Anecdotes, vol. vi, p. 81.) It is not easy to reconcile the discrepancy and the description of a Lodgewarranted April 25, 1722‑in the Engraved Lists for 1723, 1725, and 1729 viz. The Duke of Chandos's Arms, at Edgeworth, tends to increase rather than diminish the difficulty of the task.

 

In 1718 he accumulated the degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Laws and, about the same period, was presented‑through the influence of the Earl of Sunderlandto a small living in Norfolk, the revenue of which, however, only amounted to ,C70 per annum. This benefice he afterwards exchanged for a crown living in Essex, to which he was nominated by George II. He was likewise appointed chaplain to Frederick, Prince of Wales, an office which he had already held in the household of the Duke of Chandos and was destined to fill still later (1738) in Bowles (now the i Zth) Regiment of Dragoons.

 

When Channel Row, where he had lived for some years, was taken down to make way for the new bridge at Westminster, Dr. Desaguliers removed to lodgings over the Great Piazza in Covent Garden, where he carried on his lectures till his death, which took place on February 29, 1744. He was buried March 6 in the Chapel Royal of the Savoy. In personal attractions the doctor was singularly deficient, being short and thick‑set, his figure ill‑shaped, his features irregular and extremely near‑sighted. In the early part of his life he lived very abstemiously, but, in his later years, was censured for an indulgence in eating to excess, both in the quantity and quality of his diet. The following anecdote is recorded of his respect for the clerical character.

 

6o THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o Being invited to an illustrious company, one of whom, an officer, addicted to swearing in his discourse, at the period of every oath asked Dr. Desaguliers' pardon ; the doctor bore this levity for some time with great patience, but at length silenced the swearer with the following rebuke : " Sir, you have taken some pains to render me ridiculous, if possible, by your pointed apologies ; now, sir, I am to tell you, that if God Almighty does not hear you, I assure you I will never tell Him." (Literary Anecdotes, loc. cit.) He left three sons‑Alexander, the eldest, who was bred to the Church and had a living in Norfolk, where he died in 1751 ; John Theophilus, to whom the doctor bequeathed all that he died possessed of ; and Thomas, also named in the testator's will as " being sufficiently provided for "‑for a time equerry to George III‑who attained the rank of Lieutenant‑General and died March 1, 178o, aged seventy‑seven.

 

Lieutenant‑General Desaguliers served in the Royal Artillery‑in which regiment his memory was long fondly cherished as that of one of its brightest ornaments‑for a period of fifty‑seven years, during which he was employed on many active and arduous services, including the battle of Fontenoy and the sieges of Louisbourg and Belleisle. The last named is the only one of Desaguliers' sons known to have been a Freemason. He was probably a member of the Lodge at the Horn and, as we learn from the Constitutions of 1738, was‑like Jacob Lamball ‑among the " few Brethren " by whom the author of that work " was kindly encouraged while the Book was in the Press." In the pamphlet mentioned, Dr. Desaguliers is mentioned as being (in 1718) specially learned in natural philosophy, mathematics, geometry and optics, but the bent of his genius must subsequently have been applied to the science of gunnery, for, in the same work which is so eulogistic of the son, we find the father thus referred to, in connexion with a visit paid to Woolwich by George III and his consort during the peace of 1763‑71 It was on this occasion that their Majesties saw many curious firings ; among the rest a large iron cannon, fired by a lock like a common gun ; a heavy i z‑pounder fired twenty‑three times a minute and spunged every time by a new and wonderful contrivance, said to be the invention of Dr. Desaguliers, with other astonishing improvements of the like kind. (Duncan's History of the Koyal Regiment of Artillery, vol. i, 1872, p. zz8.) It is possible that the extraordinary prevalence of Masonic Lodges in the Royal Artillery, during the last half of the eighteenth century, may have been due, in some degree, to the influence and example of the younger Desaguliers.

 

The latter days of Dr. Desaguliers are said to have been clouded with sorrow and poverty. De Feller, in the Biographie Universelle, says that he attired himself sometimes as a harlequin, sometimes as a clown, that in one of these fits of insanity THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 17z3‑6o 61 he died‑whilst Cawthorne, in a poem entitled The Vanity of Human Enjoyments, laments his fate in these lines permit the weeping muse to tell How poor neglected DESAGULIERS fell 1 How he who taught two gracious kings to view All Boyle ennobled and all Bacon knew, Died in a cell, without a friend to save, Without a guinea and without a grave.

 

But, as Mackey justly observes (Eneyelop&dia of Freemasonry, p. z16), the accounts of the French biographer and the English poet are most probably both apocryphal, or, at least, much exaggerated. Desaguliers was present in Grand Lodge on February 8, 174z ; his will‑apparently dictated by himself‑is dated November 2.9, 1743. He certainly did not die " in a cell," but in the Bedford Coffee House. His interment in the Savoy also negatives the supposition that he was " without a grave," whilst the terms of his will, which express a desire to " settle what it has pleased God to bless him with, before he departs," are altogether inconsistent with the idea of his having been reduced to such a state of abject penury, as Cawthorne's poem would lead us to believe. Moreover, passing over John Theophilus, of whose circumstances we know nothing, is it conceivable that either Alexander, the eldest son, then a beneficed clergyman; or Thomas, then a captain in the artillery, would have left their father to starve in his lodgings, or even have grudged the expense of laying him in the grave ? These inaccuracies, however, are of slight consequence, as compared with those in which the historians of the Craft have freely indulged. Mackey styles Desaguliers " the Father of Modern Speculative Masonry " and expresses a belief " that to him, perhaps, more than to any other man, are we indebted for the present existence of Freemasonry as a living institution." It was Desaguliers, he considers, " who, by his energy and enthusiasm, infused a spirit of zeal into his contemporaries, which culminated in the Revival of the year 1717." Findel and others express themselves in very similar terms and to the origin of this hallucination of our literati, it will be unnecessary to do more than refer.

 

The more the testimonies are multiplied, the stronger is always the conviction, though it frequently happens that the original evidence is of a very slender character and that writers have only copied one from another, or, what is worse, have added to the original without any new authority. Thus, Dr. Oliver, in his Revelations of a Square, which in one part of his Eneyelopadia Mackey describes as " a sort of Masonic romance, detailing in a fictitious form many of the usages of the last centuries, with anecdotes of the principal Masons of that period "‑while in another, he diligently transcribes from it, as affording a description of Desaguliers' Masonic and personal character, derived from " tradition." There is no evidence to justify a belief that Desaguliers took any active part in, or was even initiated into Freemasonry, prior to the year 1719, when, as the narrative 62 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o of Dr. Anderson states, he was elected Grand Master, with Anthony Sayer as his Senior Grand Warden.

 

In 1713, possibly 1722‑for the events which occurred about this period are very unsatisfactorily attested‑he was appointed Deputy Grand Master by the Duke of Wharton and reappointed to the same office six months later by the Earl of Dalkeith ; again by Lord Paisley in 1725.

 

According to the Register of Grand Lodge, Desaguliers was a member of the Lodge at the Horn, Westminster (Original No. 4), in 1725 ; but his name is not shown as a member of any Lodge in 1723. Still, there can hardly be a doubt that he hailed from the Lodge in question in both of these years. The earliest Minute Book of the Grand Lodge of England commences This Manuscript was begun the 25th November 1723. The R` Hon le Francis, Earl of Dalkeith, Grand Mar; Br John Theophilus Desaguliers, Deputy Grand Mr.

 

Francis Sorell, Esgr.,lGrand Wardens. Mr John Senexf, Next follows " A List of the Regular Constituted Lodges, together with the names of the Masters, Wardens, and Members of each Lodge." Now, in January 1723, the New Constitutions were ratified by the Masters and Wardens of twenty Lodges. Among the subscribers were the Earl of Dalkeith, Master, No. XI; Francis Sorell, Warden, No. IV; and John Senex, Warden, No. XV. In the list of Lodges given in the Minute Book of Grand Lodge, these numbers, XI, IV, and XV, are represented by the Lodges meeting at the Rummer, Charing Cross ; the Horn, Westminster; and the Greyhound, Fleet Street, respectively. But, though the names of the members appear in all three cases, Lord Dalkeith no longer appears on the roll of No. XI (Rummer) ; and the same remark holds good with regard to the connexion between Sorell and Senex with Nos. IV (Horn) and XV (Greyhound) respectively. Sorell's name, it may be added, as well as that of Desaguliers, appears in the Grand Lodge Register, under the year 1725, as a member of the Horn.

 

It would seem, therefore, that, in 1723, the names of the four Grand Officers were entered in a separate list of their own, at the head of the roll. Past rank, or membership of and precedence in Grand Lodge, by virtue of having held office therein, it must be recollected, was yet unknown, which will account for the names of Payne and Sayer former Grand Masters‑appearing in the ordinary lists.

 

Desaguliers, it is certain, must have belonged to some Lodge or other in 1723 ; and there seems no room for doubt that the entry of 1725, which shows him to have then been a member of Original No. 4, merely replaced his name on the roll, from which it was temporarily omitted during his tenure of office as Deputy. Happily the lists of 1725 were enrolled in the Register of Grand Lodge, from returns furnished at a Quarterly Communication, held November 27, 1725 ; otherwise the omission THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 63 might have been repeated,‑as Desaguliers, who vacated the Deputy's chair on St. John's Day (in harvest) 1724, resumed it by appointment of Lord Paisley on St. John's Day (in Christmas) 1725. Subsequently he became a member of other Lodges, whose places of meeting were at Solomon's Temple, Hemming's Row (1725‑3o),‑James Anderson being also a member; The Bear and Harrow, in the Butcher's Row (No. 63, 1732),‑the Earl of Strathmore being the Master, whilst the Grand Master (Lord Montacute), the Deputy; as well as the Grand Wardens of the year, were among the members ; and of the University Lodge, No. 74 (173032). (Grand Lodge Minutes.) The following summary completes the Masonic record of the learned natural philosopher.

 

In 1719, whilst Grand Master, he " reviv'd the old regular and peculiar Toasts or Healths of the Free Masons." In 1721, at the annual feast, he " made an eloquent Oration about Masons and Masonry " ; and in the same year visited the Lodge of Edinburgh. The preface to the Constitutions of 1723 was from his pen. On November z6,1728, he " proposed that, in order to have the [Great Feast] conducted in the best manner a certain number of Stewards should be chosen, who should have the intire care and direction of the said ffeast, together with the Grand Wardens," which was agreed to. Twelve Brethren at once signed their names as consenting to act as Stewards in the following December; and the same number, with occasional intermissions, were nominated on later occasions until the Union, when it was increased to eighteen. On the same evening, the twelve " propos'd Dr. Desaguliers' Health for reviving the office of Stewards (which appeared to be agreeable to the Lodge in general) ; and the same was drank accordingly." In 1731, at the Hague, he acted as Master of the Lodge in which Francis, Duke of Lorraine‑afterwards Grand Duke of Tuscany‑was " made an Enter'd Prentice and Fellow Craft." (Constitutions, 1738, p. 129.) In 1735 he was present with the Duke of Richmond; the Earl of Waldegrave (British Ambassador) ; President Montesquieu ; Lord Dursley ; and a numerous company, at the opening of a Lodge in the Hotel Bussy, Rue de Bussy, Paris, where the Duke of Kingston; Lord Chewton ; the Count de St. Florentin (Secretary of State) ; and others, were admitted into the Society. (St. James's Evening Post, September 20, 1735.) Two years later‑namely, on November 5, 1737‑he again sat as Master at the initiation of a royal personage; on which occasion, Frederick, Prince of Wales, received the first two Degrees, which, however, were shortly afterwards followed by that of Master Mason, conferred at another Occasional Lodge, composed of the same members as the previous one. (Constitutions, 1738, p. 37.) In the same year‑also in 1738 and later‑he was a frequent visitor at the Lodge then held at the Bear Inn, Bath‑now the Royal Cumberland Lodge, No. 41 ‑‑from the Minutes of which we learn that he frequently sat as Master and dis charged the ceremonial duties incidental to that office. (T. P. Ashley, History of the Koyal Cumberland Lodge, No. 41, 1873, p. 26.) The Constitutions of 1738 were submitted in manuscript to the perusal of Desaguliers and Payne ; and the last 64 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o entry with regard to his active participation in the duties of Masonry records his farewell visit to the Grand Lodge, which took place on February 8, 1742.

 

It is highly probable that Desaguliers became a member of the Lodge at the Rummer and Grapes in Channel Row, Westminster, because its meetings were held in the vicinity of his dwelling. We first meet with his name in the records of Masonry in 1719 and there is nothing which should lead us to infer that he had then been for any long period a member of the Society. On the contrary, the evidence points in quite the opposite direction. Two meetings only of the Grand Lodge (after its pro tempore constitution in 1716) appear to have been held before the Assembly, on St. John the Baptist's Day, 1719, at which Desaguliers was elected Grand Master, viz. : those in 1717 and 1718, whereat Anthony Sayer and George Payne were severally chosen to fill the same high office. It seems very unlikely that either Payne or Desaguliers was present at the Assembly of 1717. Had such been the case, Anderson would hardly have failed to record the circumstance ; nor does it seem feasible that, if the name of one or the other had been included in the " List of proper Candidates " for the Masonic throne, proposed by the " oldest Master Mason " on the occasion in question‑as must have happened, had either of them been present‑the choice of the Lodges and Brethren would have fallen on Sayer.

 

It is certain that upon Anderson, rather than either Payne or Desaguliers, devolved the leading role in the consolidation of the Grand Lodge of England. His Boob, of Constitutions has been often referred to, but the General Regulations of 1723 were only designed " for the use of Lodges in and about London and Westminster." The Grand Lodge, however, both in authority and reputation, soon outgrew the modest expectations of its Founders.

 

It becomes essential to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the character of the Freemasonry existing in England at the date of publication of the first Book of Constitutions. In the same year there appeared the earliest copy, now extant, of the Mason's Examination or Catechism. The Constitutions of 1723, the Catechisms last referred to, the Briscoe MS. and Additional MS. 23,2oz, constitute the stock of evidence, upon which alone conclusions can be formulated.

 

The intrant, at his admission, became an Apprentice and Brother, then a Fellow Craft in due time and, if properly qualified, might " arrive to the honour of being the Warden, then the Master of the Lodge." " The third Degree," says Lyon, " could hardly have been present to the mind of Dr. Anderson, when, in 1723, he superintended the printing of his Book, of Constitutions, for it is therein stated that the ` Key of a Fellow Craft' is that by which the secrets communicated in the Ancient Lodges could be unravelled." (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 211.) We are also told that " the most expert of the Fellow Craftsmen shall be chosen or appointed the Master, or Overseer of the Lord's Work, who is to be called Master by those that work under him." The references to the status of a Fellow Craft are equally unambiguous in the General Regulations, one of which directs that when private Wardens‑i.e. Wardens of private Lodges‑are required to act as the Grand Wardens, their places " are to THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 65 [not may] be supply'd by two Fellow‑Craft of the same Lodge " (XV). Another (XXXVII), that " the Grand Master shall allow any Brother, Fellow Craft, or Apprentice, to Speak." Also, in " the Manner of Constituting a New Lodge," the expression occurs" The Candidates, or the new Master and Wardens, being yet among the Fellow Craft"; and, a little lower down, we read, " the Candidate," having signified his submission to the charges of a Master, " the Grand Master shall, by certain significant Ceremonies and ancient Usages, install him." It is in the highest degree improbable ‑not to say impossible‑that any secrets were communicated on such an occasion.

 

Throughout the first half of the eighteenth century, indeed considerably later, it was a common practice in Lodges to elect their officers quarterly ; and, apart from the fact that the Minutes of such Lodges are silent on this point, it is hardly con ceivable that a three months' tenure of office was preceded by a secret reception. But there is stronger evidence still to negative any such conclusion, for it was not until 1811 (Minutes, Lodge of Promulgation, February 4, 1811) that the Masters, even of London Lodges‑under the Grand Lodge, whose procedure we are considering ‑were installed as " Rulers of the Craft " in the manner with which many readers will be familiar.

 

We find, therefore, that the Freemasons of England, at the period under examination, were classified by the Constitutions of the Society under three titles, though apparently not more than two Degrees were then recognized by the governing body. On this point, however, the language of the General Regulations, in one place (Regulation XIII, is not free from obscurity. Apprentices were only to be made Masters and Fellow Craft in Grand Lodge, which expression has usually been held to point to what is now the third Degree in Masonry, but this interpretation is wholly at variance with the context of the remainder.

 

How can we reconcile Dr. Anderson's allusion to " the key of a Fellow Craft " with the possibility of there then being a higher or superior Degree ? The " Masters " mentioned in Clause XIII may have been Masters of Lodges, or the term may have crept in through the carelessness of Dr. Anderson. It must be recollected that the General Regulations are of very uncertain date. The proviso in question may have appeared in the code originally drawn up by George Payne in 1720, or it may have formed one of the additions made by Anderson between September 29, 1721 and March zs, 1722. If the earlier date be accepted, by " Masters " we may‑with less improbability‑understand " Masters of Lodges " and the clause or article (XIII) would then be in agreement with its fellows.

 

" Apprentices," says the Regulation, " must be admitted Masters and Fellow Craft "‑not Fellow Craft and Masters‑" only here." Apprentices, however, were not eligible for the chair; and in every other instance where their preferment is mentioned, they are taken from step to step by regular gradations. But if we get over this objection, another presents itself. Neither an Apprentice nor a Fellow Craft would be admitted, but would be installed, a Master of a Lodge. Next, let us scan the wording of the resolution which repealed the Regulation in question. The officers 66 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o of Lodges are empowered to " make Masters at their discretion." That this licence enabled them to confer the rank of Master of a Lodge ad libitum is an impossibility. Whatever the period may have been when Anderson joined the English Craft, his opportunities of grafting the nomenclature of one Masonic system upon that of another only commenced in the latter part of 1721 and lasted for barely six months, as his manuscript Constitutions were ordered to be printed March 25, 1722. He was, therefore, debarred from borrowing as largely as he must have wished‑judging from his fuller work of 173 8‑from the Operative phraseology of the Northern Kingdom; and it is quite possible that, subject to some trifling alterations, the first edition of the Constitutions was compiled between September 29 and December 27, 1721, as his " manuscript " was ready for examination on the latter of these dates. If, then, any further explanation is sought of the two titles which appear, so to speak, in juxtaposition in Regulation XIII, it would seem most reasonable to look for it in the Masonic records of that country, to which‑so placed‑they were indigenous. At Aberdeen, in 1670, Fellow Craft and Master Mason were used as convertible terms and the same may be said of other Scottish towns in which there were " Mason Lodges." Anderson was certainly a Scotsman and the inference is irresistible that to him was due the introduction of so many Scottish words into the Masonic vocabulary of the south.

 

It may be taken that a third Degree was not recognized as a part of the Masonic system up to the date of publication of the Boob, of Constitutions in January 1723. l\1ackey says : " The division of the Masonic system into three Degrees must have grown up between 1717 and 173o, but in so gradual and imperceptible a manner, that we are unable to fix the precise date of the introduction of each Degree." (Encyclop&dia, s.v. Degrees.) There is no evidence from which one can arrive at any certainty with regard to the exact dates, either of the commencement or the close of the epoch of transition. It seems certain that the second and third Degrees were not perfected for many years. As a matter of fact, we are only made acquainted with the circumstance that there were Degrees in Masonry, by the 1723 Book of Constitutions, from which, together with the scanty evidence yet brought to light of slightly later date, it can alone be determined with precision that a system of two Degrees was well established in 1723 and that a third ceremony, which eventually developed into a Degree, had come into use in 1724. Modifications continued to be made, however, for some time, while there is no absolute proof that these evolutionary changes were not in operation until about 1728‑29.

 

That a third, or additional, ceremony was worked in 1724, there is evidence to show, for three persons were " Regularly pass'd Masters " in a London Lodge, before February 18, 1725 (Additional MSS., z3, 2o2) and it is unreasonable to suppose that this was the first example of the kind. Here we meet with the word " pass " and it is curious to learn from the same source of authority that, before the Society was founded (February 18, 1725), the Minutes of which it records " a Lodge was held, consisting of Masters sufficient for that purpose. In order to pass Charles Cotton, Esq., Papitton Ball and Thomas Marshall, Fellow Crafts." (Ibid.) It THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 67 might be argued from these expressions, that Master, even then, was merely another name for Fellow Craft, or why should a Lodge be formed, consisting of Brethren of the higher title, to pass a candidate for the lower ? But some entries in the same records of a few months' later date draw a clearer distinction between the two Degrees. These, indeed, are not quite free from ambiguity, if taken alone, but all doubt as to their meaning is dispelled by collating them with an earlier portion of the same manuscript.

 

The Minutes of May iz, 1725, inform us, that two persons were " regularly passed Masters,"‑one " passed Fellow Craft and Master " and another " passed Fellow Craft " only. Happily the names are given and, as Charles Cotton and Papitton Ball were the two who were " passed Masters," it is evident that, in the " Master's Part," something further must have been communicated to them than had been already imparted. It is doubtful if the " Part " in question had at that time assumed the form and dimensions of a Degree. In all probability this happened later and, indeed, the way may only have been paved for it at the close of the same year, by the removal of the restriction, which, as 'we have seen, did not altogether prevent private Lodges from infringing upon what ought at least to have been considered the especial province of the Grand Lodge.

 

It is barely possible that the " Master's Part " was incorporated with those of the Apprentice and Fellow Craft and became, in the parlance of Grand Lodge, a Degree on November 27, 1725. By anew Regulation of that date‑which is given in full under its proper year‑the members of private Lodges were empowered to " make Masters at discretion." This, Dr. Anderson expands into " Masters and Fellows," the terms being apparently regarded by him as possessing the same meaning. But there is too much ambiguity in the order of Grand Lodge, to warrant founding any definite conclusion upon it. The Constitutions of 1738 help very little.

 

In general terms, it may be said that Master Mason is for the most part substituted for " Fellow Craft " in the second edition of the Constitutions. There is, however, one notable exception. In " The Manner of Constituting a Lodge," as printed in 1738, the " New Master and Wardens " are taken, as before, from the Fellow Crafts, but the Master, " in chusing his Wardens," was to call " forth two Fellow Crafts ('Master Masons).." With this should be contrasted an explanation by Anderson in the body of his work, that the old term " Master Mason " represented in 1738 the Master of a Lodge. (Constitutions, p. 1ocg.) It is probable that Regulation XIII, of the code of 1723, was a survival or an imitation of the old Operative custom, under which the Apprentice, at a certain period, was declared free of the Craft and " admitted or accepted into the fellowship," at a general meeting.

 

On taking up his freedom, the English Apprentice became a " Fellow " and master in his trade. This usage must have prevailed from very ancient times. Gibbon observes : " The use of academical degrees, as old as the thirteenth century, is visibly borrowed from the mechanic corporations ; in which an apprentice, after 68 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o serving his time, obtains a testimonial of his skill and a licence to practise his trade and mystery." (Miscellaneous Works, edited by Lord Sheffield, vol. i, p. 49.) So long as the governing body refrained from warranting Lodges in the country, there could have been no particular hardship in requiring newly made Brethren to be passed or admitted Fellows in Grand Lodge. In 1724, however, no fewer than nine provincial Lodges were constituted and it must have become necessary, if for no other reason, to modify in part a series of regulations, drafted, in the first instance, to meet the wants of the Masons of the metropolis.

 

It is unlikely that the number of Fellow Crafts‑as they must be called from 1723‑was very large, that is to say, in November 1725, the date when the law relating to the advancement of Apprentices was repealed. Out of twenty‑seven Lodges in the London district, shown by the Engraved List of 1729 to have been constituted up to the end of 1724, only eleven were in existence in 1723, when the restriction was imposed. Sixteen Lodges, therefore‑doubtless many othersbesides the nine country ones, must have been comparatively unfamiliar with the ceremonial of the second Degree ; and it becomes, indeed, rather a matter of surprise how, in each case, the Master and Wardens could have qualified as Fellow Crafts.

 

Some confusion must have been engendered at this time by the promiscuous use of the term Master, which was alike employed to describe a Fellow Craft and a Master of a Lodge and gave its name‑Master's Part‑to a ceremony then growing very fashionable. It is probable that about this period the existing Degrees were remodelled and the titles of Fellow Craft and Master disjoined‑the latter becoming the degree of Master Mason, the former virtually denoting a new Degree, though its essentials were merely composed of a severed portion of the ceremonial hitherto observed at the entry of an Apprentice.

 

These alterations‑if the supposition is correct‑were not effected in a day. Indeed, it is possible that a taste for " meddling with the ritual," having been acquired, lasted longer than has been commonly supposed ; and the " variations made in the established forms," which was one of the articles in the heavy indictment drawn up by the Seceding against the Regular Masons, may have been but a further manifestation of the passion for innovation which was evinced by the Grand Lodge of England during the first decade of its existence.

 

The Flying Post from April 11 to April 13, 1723 introduces us to a picture of the Freemasonry at that period, which, corroborated from similar sources, as well as by the Book, of Constitutions, amply warrants the belief that at that date and for some time preceding it, Apprentice, Fellow and Master were well‑established titles ‑though whether the two latter were distinct or convertible terms may afford matter for argument‑that there was a Master's Part, also that there were signs, tokens and points of fellowship. The question is, how far can the reading presented by the printed Catechism of 1723 be carried back ? Here the method of textual criticism might yield good results ; but this point, like many others, must be left to the determination of that class of readers fitted by nature and inclination to follow up all such promising lines of inquiry.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 69 It will suffice to assume that the Catechism of 1723 contains a reading which is several years older than the printed copy; or, in other words, that the customs it attests must have reached back to a more remote date. The whole tenor betrays an Operative origin, therefore, if composed or manufactured between 1717 and 1723, its fabricators must not be sought for among the Speculatives of that period; but, on the contrary, it will become essential to believe that this obsolete Catechismincluding the metrical dialogue, which, of itself, is suggestive of antiquity‑was compiled, a few years at most, before its publication in the Flying Post, by one or more Operative Masons ! The circumstances of the case will not admit of such a modern date being assigned to the text of this catechism. Conjointly with the other evidence‑and the undoubted fact of the " examination " in question having been actually printed in 1723 invests Sloane MS. 33z9 with a reflected authority that dissipates many difficulties arising out of the comparative uncertainty of its date‑the extract from the Flying Post settles many important points with regard to which much difference of opinion has hitherto existed. First of all, it lends colour to the statement in the " Praise of Drunkenness," that Masonic Catechisms, available to all readers, had already made their appearance in 1721 or 1722. Next it establishes that there were then two Degrees‑those of Apprentice and Fellow or Master, the latter being only honorary distinctions proper to one and the same Degree. It also suggests that in England, under the purely Operative regime, the Apprentice was not a member of the Lodge and only became so, also a Freemason, on his admission‑after a prescribed period of servitude‑to the degree of Fellow or Master.

 

It is impossible to define the period of time during which these characteristics of a Masonic system endured. Two obligations, not one only, as in the Sloane MS. and the Old Charges, are plainly to be inferred ; and, as the latter are undoubtedly the most ancient records we possess, to the extent that the Mason's Examination is at variance with these documents, it must be pronounced the evolutionary product of an epoch of transition, beginning at some unknown date and drawing to a close about 1724. Degrees appear to have made their way very slowly into the York Masonic system. Upon the whole, if we pass over the circumstance that there were two forms of reception in vogue about 1723 and, for a period of time before that year, which can only be the subject of conjecture, as there are no solid proofs to rest on, the evidence just passed in review is strikingly in accord with the inferences deducible from Steele's essay in the Tatler, from the wording of Harleian MS. 2054, from Dr. Plot's account of the Society and from the Diary of John Aubrey.

 

In the first of these references we are told of " Signs and Tokens like Freemasons " ; in the second, of the " Seurall Words & Signes of a Freemason " ; in the third, of " Secret Signes " ; and, in the last, of " Signes and Watch‑words," also that "the manner of Adoption is very formall and with an Oath of Secrecy." There is nothing to induce the supposition that the secrets of Freemasonry, as disclosed to Elias Ashmole in 1646‑in aught but the manner of imparting them 70 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o ‑differed materially, if at all, from those which passed into the guardianship of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717. In all cases, up to about the year 1724 and, possibly later, there was a marked simplicity of ceremonial, as contrasted with the procedure of a subsequent date. Ashmole and Randle Holme, like the Brethren of York, were in all probability " sworn and admitted," whilst the " manner of Adoption "‑to quote the words of John Aubrey‑was doubtless " very formall " in all three cases and quite as elaborate as any ceremony known in Masonry, before the introduction of a third Degree.

 

There is no proof that more than a single Degree, i.e. a secret form of reception, was known to the Freemasons of the seventeenth century. Ashmole was " made a Freemason," according to his Diary, in 1646 and he speaks of six gentlemen having been " admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons " in 1682, also of being on that occasion " the Senior Fellow among them," it having been " 3 5 years since he was admitted." Randle Holme's statement is less precise but from the entry, in Harleian MS. 2054, relating to William Wade, it is unlikely that the Chester ceremonial differed from that of Warrington.

 

It may well have been, however, that the practice in Lodges, consisting exclusively of Operative Masons, was dissimilar, but the solution oú this problem cannot be effected by inference or conjecture. In all probability when the second Degree became the third, the ceremonial was rearranged and the traditionary history enlarged. This view will be borne out by a collation of Dr. Anderson's two editions of the Constitutions. In both, the splendour of the Temple of Solomon is much extolled, but a number of details with regard to the manner of its erection are given in 1738, which are not in the work of 1723. Thus we learn that after " the Cape‑stone was celebrated by the Fraternity .‑. their joy was soon interrupted by the sudden Death of their dear Master, HIRAM ABBIFF, whom they decently interr'd in the Lodge near the Temple, according to antient Usage." (Constitutions, 1738, p. 14‑) As Hiram was certainly alive at the completion of the Temple (z Chron. iv. i i), it has been contended that the above allusion in the Constitutions is not to him, but to Adoniram (or Adoram), a tax receiver under David, Solomon and Rehoboam, who was stoned to death by the people (1 Kings xii: 18). According to J. L. Laurens, the death of Hiram is mentioned in the Talmud (Essais sur la Franche 1Mafonnerie, 2nd edit., 18o6, p. ioz); whilst for an account of the murder of Adoniram, C. C. F. W. von Nettlebladt refers us to what is probably the same source of authority, viz. the Gemara of the Jews, a commentary on the Mischna or Talmud (Geschichte Freimaurerischer Systeme, 1879‑written circa 1826‑p. 746). Both statements can hardly be true.

 

When the legend of Hiram's death was first incorporated with the older traditions, it is not easy to decide, but it seems to have taken place between 1723 and 1729; 1725 is, perhaps, the most likely year for its introduction to have taken place.

 

The prominence of Hiram in Masonic traditionary history or legends, in 1723, F. II‑14 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 71 or earlier, is wholly inconsistent with the silence of the Old Charges, the various Catechisms and the first Book of Constitutions, on a point of so much importance. In some of these he is, indeed, mentioned, but always as a subordinate figure, while there is no evidence to justify a belief that the circumstances of his decease, as narrated by Anderson, were in any shape or form a tradition of the Craft, before the year 1723. Had they been, we should not have had occasion to complain that what may be termed the apotheosis of Hiram has not been advanced by a due gradation of preparatory incidents. The legendary characters who live in written and speak through oral traditions are, in a certain sense, companions. We take more kindly to them, if, occasionally looking behind, we are prepared for their approach, or looking onwards espy them on the road before us. As a learned writer has observed, " it is not well for the personages of the historical drama to rise on the stage through the trap‑doors. They should first appear entering in between the side scenes. Their play will be better understood then. We are puzzled when a king, or count, suddenly lands upon our historical ground, like a collier winched up through a shaft." (Palgrave, History of Normandy and of England, vol. i, P‑ 351‑) We are told by Fort, that " the traditions of the Northern Deity, Baldur, seemingly furnished the substantial foundation for the introduction of the legend of Hiram." (Early History and Antiquity of Freemasonry, p. 407.) Baldur, who is the lord of light, is slain by the wintry sun and the incidents of the myth show that it cannot have been developed in the countries of northern Europe. " It may be rash," says Sir George Cox, " to assign them dogmatically to central Asia, but indubitably they sprung up in a country where the winter is of very short duration." (Mythology of the Aryan Nations, 1882, p. 336). Of the Hiramic legend‑which is purely allegorical‑it has been said, that it will bear a two‑fold interpretation, cosmological and astronomical.

 

The progress of the Degree is to a great extent veiled in obscurity and the By‑laws of a London Lodge of about 1730‑31 can be read, either as indicating that the system of two Degrees had not gone out of date, or that the Apprentice was " entered " in the old way, which made him a Fellow Craft under the new practice and, therefore, eligible for the " Superiour " or third Degree. The 3rd By‑Law of Lodge No. 71, held at the Bricklayers' Arms, in the Barbican reads That no Person shall be Initiated as a Mason in this Lodge, without the Unanimous consent of all then present, & for the better Regulation of this, 'tis Order'd that all Persons proposed be Ballotted for, & if one Negative appear, then the said Person to be Refused, but if all Affirmatives the Person to pay two Pounds seven Shillings at his Making, & receive Double Cloathing, Also when this Lodge shall think Convenient, to confer the Superiour Degree of masonry upon him, he shall pay five Shillings more ; & 'tis further Order'd that if any Regular & worthy Brother desires to be a Member of this Lodge, the same Order shall be observed as to the Ballot & he shall pay half a Guinea at his Entrance & receive single Cloathing." (Kawlinson MSS., C. 126, p. zo5.) 7z THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o But some entries in the Minutes of a country Lodge, on the occasion of its being constituted as a regular Lodge‑May 18, 1733‑are even more difficult to interpret, though the particulars they afford are as diffuse as those in the previous instance are the contrary. The presence is recorded, besides that of the Master and Wardens, of three Fellow Crafts, six Masters and four " Pass'd Masters." (T. P. Ashley, History of the Royal Cumberland Lodge, No. 41, 1873, P. z2.) The distinction here drawn between the two sets of Masters, it is by no means easy to explain, but it appears to point to an epoch of confusion, when the old names had not yet been succeeded by the new, at least in the country Lodges. The first meeting of this Lodge, of which a record is preserved, took place, December 28, 173z. Present, the Master and Wardens and seven members. No other titles are used. Among the members were George Rainsford and Johnson Robinson, the former of whom is described as Master, the latter as Pass'd Master, in the Minutes of May 18, 1733. It is possible, to put it no higher, that these distinctive terms were employed because some of the members had graduated under the Grand Lodge system, whilst others had been admitted or passed to their Degrees according to the more homely usage which preceded it. (Hughan, Origin of the English Rite, p. 25.) The Degree seems, however, to have become fairly well established by 173 8, as the Constitutions of that year inform us that there were then eleven Masters' Lodges in the metropolis. One of these is described by Anderson as, " Black Posts in Maiden Lane, where there is also a Masters' Lodge." This was No. 163 on the General List, constituted Sept. 2i, 1737. Its Minutes, which commence Feb. 9, 17 and, therefore, show the Lodge to have worked by inherent right before accepting a Charter, contain the following entries :‑Dec. 17, 1738.‑"'Twas agreed thatt all Debates and Business shall be between the E.A. and F.C.s Part." Feb. 5, 1740.‑The Petition of a Brother was rejected, " but unanimously agreed to Raise him a Master gratis." Sept. 2, 1742.‑" If a Brother entring is a Fellow Craft, he shall be oblidge to be raised master in 3 Months, or be fin'd Ss." These seem to have been at that time, in London‑although it may have been different in the country‑part and parcel of the Lodges, to which the way they are ordinarily described would have us to believe that they were merely attached. The use of the term " raise " in lieu of " pass " had also then crept into use, as may be seen in the paragraph above, though the latter was not entirely superseded by the former, until much later.

 

It must freely be conceded that the old manuscript Constitutions show evident traces of a Gallic influence, also that some indications are afforded in the work of a French historian‑whose writings command general respect‑of a ceremony performed at the reception of a French stoneworker, strongly pointing to a ritual not unlike our own. (Monteil, Histoire des Francais des Divers Etats, 1853, vol. i, p. 294.) But the difficulty experienced in recognizing in the legend of Hiram the builder, a common feature of the Companionage and the Freemasonry of more early times, is two‑fold.

 

In the case of the former, we may go the length of admitting that there is a THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 73 strong presumption in favour of the legend having existed in 1717, but, unfortunately, the most material evidence to be adduced in its support‑that of Perdiguier, showing that there was a Solomonic or Hiramic legend at all‑is more than a century later than the date of the event to which it has been held to refer. In cases of this kind, to adopt the words of Voltaire, the existence of a festival, or of a monument, proves indeed the belief which men entertain, but by no means proves the reality of the occurrence concerning which the belief is held.

 

Here, indeed, there is not quite so much to rely on, for Perdiguier expressly disclaims his belief in the antiquity of the legend he recounts ; but passing this over and, assuming that in 1841 the Companions, as a body, devoutly cherished it as an article of faith, this will by no means justify us in regarding it as a matter of conviction. As to the Freemasons, the legend made its appearance too late to be at all traceable to the influence of the Companionage though, with regard to the tradition which renders Charles Martel a patron of the Society, it may be otherwise. Charles Martel is said, by many writers, to have sent Stonemasons to England at the request of certain Anglo‑Saxon kings. This he may possibly have done, especially as he lived at a time when the Anglo‑Saxon kingdoms were in a most flourishing condition. But he certainly was not a great church builder, inasmuch as he secularized a large portion of the Church's property to provide for the sustenance of those troops, whom he was forced to raise to defend the Frankish monarchy against the Saracens and others.

 

With the exception of France, however, there appears no continental source from which it is at all probable that the English Masons borrowed either their customs or their traditions. Had they done so from Germany, the Masonic voca bulary would bear traces of it and German words easily become incorporated with our language. But it is impossible to find in the ritual, or in the names of the emblems of our art, the slightest symptom of Teutonic influence.

 

By the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and by the savage persecution which immediately preceded and followed it, France probably lost upwards of a quarter of a million of her most industrious citizens. In consequence, at the early part of the eighteenth century, every considerable town in England, Holland and Protestant Germany, contained a colony of Frenchmen who had been thus driven from their homes. Now, if at the time of this phenomenal incursion of Frenchmen, the English Masonic customs received a Gallic tinge, is it not reasonable to suppose that the same process would have been at work in other Protestant countries, to say nothing of Ireland, where the influx of these refugees was so great that there were no fewer than three French congregations established in Dublin ? On the whole, therefore, it seems not unreasonable to conclude that, if the English borrowed from the French Masons in any other respect than claiming Charles Martel as their patron, the debt was contracted about the same time that the name of the " Hammer‑bearer " first figured in our oral or written traditions.

 

One of the legendary characters who figures in Masonic history, who may be said to be the most remarkable of them all‑Naymus Grecus‑deserves a few 74 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o parting words. The longevity of this worthy Mason is tame and insignificant when compared with what is preserved in the literature of India. The most remarkable case is that of a personage who was the first king, first anchoret and first saint. This eminent man lived in a pure and virtuous age and his days were indeed long in the land; since, when he was made king, he was two million years old. He then reigned 6,300,000 years, having done which, he resigned his empire, and lingered on for ioo,ooo years more ! (Asiatic Researches, vol. ix, p. 305 ; Buckle, History of Civilization in England, vol. i, p. 136.) Returning to the history of the Grand Lodge of England, the following is an exact transcript of the earliest proceedings which are recorded in its Minutes AT THE GRAND LODGE HELD AT MERCHANT TAYLOR'S HALL, MONDAY, 24TH JUNE 1723 PRESENT His Grace the Duke of Wharton, G. Master.

 

The Reverend J. T. Desaguliers, LL.D., F.R.S., D.G.M.

 

Joshua Timson, G. Wardens. The Reverend MI. James Anderson,} ORDERED That William Cowper, Esgr., a Brother of the Horn Lodge at Westminster‑be Secretary to the Grand Lodge.

 

The order of the 17th Jan : 172', printed at the end of the Constitutions, page 91, for the publishing the said Constitutions was read, purporting, That they had been before Approved in Manuscript by the Grand Lodge, and were then (viz'), 17th January aforesaid, produced in Print and approved by the Society.

 

THEN The Question was moved, That the said General Regulations be confirmed, so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of MASONRY.

 

The previous Question was moved and put, Whether the words [so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of MASONRY] be part of the Question.

 

RESOLVED in the affirmative.

 

But the main question was not put. And the Question was moved, That it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of men, to make any Alteration, or Innovation in the Body of MASONRY without the Consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge.

 

And the Question being put accordingly, Resolved in the Affirmative.

 

The two Grand Wardens were sent out into the Hall to give Notice, That, if any Brother had any Appeal, or any matter to offer, for the good of the Society, he might Come in and offer the same, in this Grand Lodge and two other Brethren were appointed by the Grand Master, to take the Grand Wardens places in the mean while.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 75 The Grand Wardens being returned, reported they had given Notice accordingly.

 

Then the Grand Master being desired to name his Successor, and declining so to do, but referring the Nomination to the Lodge, The Right Honb'e. The Earl of Dalkeith was proposed to be put in Nomination as GRAND MASTER for the ensuing year.

 

The Lodge was also acquainted That in case of his Election, he had nominated Dr Desaguliers for his Deputy.

 

And the 3 S th General Regulation, purporting that the Grand Master being Installed, shall next nominate and appoint his Deputy Grand Master, &c., was read.

 

Then The Question was proposed and put by the Grand Master, That the Deputy nominated by the Earl of Dalkeith be approved. There was a Division of the Lodge, and two Brethren appointed Tellers.

 

Ayes, . ò 43 Noes, . . 42 As the tellers reported the Numbers.

 

Then The Grand Master, in the Name of the new Grand Master, proposed Brother Francis Sorrel and Brother John Senex for Grand Wardens the ensuing year. Agreed, That they should be Balloted for after Dinner.

 

ADJOURN'D TO DINNER.

 

After Dinner and some of the regular Healths Drank, the Earl of Dalkeith was declared GRAND‑MASTER according to the above mentioned Resolution of the Grand Lodge.

 

The late Grand Master, declaring he had some doubt upon the above mentioned Division in the Grand Lodge before Dinner, whether the Majority was for approving Dr Desaguliers, or whether the Tellers had truly reported the Numbers ; proposed the said Question to be now put again in the General Lodge.

 

And accordingly insisting on the said Question being now put and putting the same, his Worship and several Brethren withdrew out of the Hall as dividing against approving Dr Desaguliers.

 

And being so withdrawn, Brother Robinson, producing a written Authority from the Earl of Dalkeith for that purpose, did declare in his Name, That his Worship had, agreeably to the Regulation in that behalf, Appointed and did Appoint Dr Desaguliers his Deputy, and Brothers Sorrel and Senex Grand Wardens. And also Brother Robinson did, in his said Worship's Name and behalf of the whole Fraternity, protest against the above proceedings of the late Grand Master in first putting the Question of Approbation, and what followed thereon, as unprecedented, unwarrantable and Irregular, and tending to introduce into the Society a Breach of Harmony, with the utmost disorder and Confusion.

 

Then the said late Grand Master and those who withdrew with him being 76 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, I7z3‑6o returned into the Hall and acquainted with the foresaid Declaration of Brother Robinson, The late Grand Master went away from the Hall without Ceremony.

 

After other regular Healths Drank, The Lodge adjourned.

 

The Minutes of this meeting are signed by " JoHN THEOPHILUs DESAGULIERS, Deputy Grand Master." The Earl of Dalkeith presided at the next Quarterly Communication, held November 25, and the proceedings are thus recorded The following Questions were put I. Whether the Master and Wardens of the several Lodges have not power to regulate all things relating to Masonry at the Quarterly Meetings, one of which must be on St John Baptist's Day ? Agreed, nem. con.

 

z. Whether the Grand Master has not power to appoint his Deputy ? Agreed, nem. con.

 

Agreed, That Dr Desaguliers be Deputy Grand Master from the last Annual meeting.

 

Ordered.; That Brother Huddleston of the King's Head in Ivy Lane be expelled the Lodge for laying several Aspersions against the Deputy Grand Master, which he could not make good and the Grand Master appointed Mr Davis, Senr. Warden, to be Master of the said Lodge in Ivy Lane.

 

Agreed, That no new Lodge, in or near London, without it be Regularly Constituted, be countenanced by the Grand Lodge, nor the Master or Wardens be admitted at the Grand Lodge.

 

3. Whether the two Grand Wardens, Brother Sorrell and Brother Senex, are confirmed in their offices ? Agreed, nem. con.

 

The above is a literal extract from the actual Minutes of Grand Lodge ; but among the " alterations, improvements and explications " of the " Old Regulations " of the Society, or, in other words, the " New Regulations " enacted between the dates of publication of the first and second editions of the Book, of Constitutions, Anderson gives the following as having been agreed to on November z5, I7z3 That in the Master's absence, the Senior Warden of a lodge shall fill the chair, even tho' a former Master,be present.

 

No new Lodge to be owned unless it be regularly Constituted and registered. That no Petitions and Appeals shall be heard on the Feast Day or Annual Grand Lodge.

 

That any G. Lodge duly met has a Power to amend or explain any of the printed Regulations in the Book of Constitutions, while they break not in upon the antient Rules of the Fraternity. But that no Alteration shall be made in this printed Book of Constitutions without Leave of the G. Lodge.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 77 Of the foregoing resolutions, the first and third‑so Anderson informs uswere not recorded in the Grand Lodge Book. But, with the exception of the latter, which must have been necessitated at an early date, in order to preserve the requisite harmony on the Assembly or Head‑meeting Day, all of them seem to be merely amplifications of what really was enacted by the Grand Lodge. Anderson, moreover, it should be recollected, was not present (or at least his attendance is not recorded) at the Communication in question.

 

Grand Lodge met in ample form on February 19, 1724, when the following Questions were put and agreed to i. That no Brother belong to more than one Lodge at one time, within the Bills of Mortality.

 

2. That no Brother belonging to any Lodge within the Bills of Mortality be admitted to any Lodge as a visitor, unless personally known to some Brother of that Lodge where he visits and that no Strange Brother, however skilled in Masonry, be admitted without taking the obligacon over again, unless he be introduced or vouched for by some Brother known to, and approved by, the Majority of the Lodge. And whereas some Masons have mett and formed a Lodge without the Grand Master's Leave. ' AGREED ; That no such persons be admitted into Regular Lodges.

 

At this meeting, every Master or Warden was enjoined to bring with him a list of the members belonging to his Lodge at the next Quarterly Communication. Two further " Questions " were submitted to the Grand Lodge on April 28 and, in each case, it was resolved by a unanimous vote,‑firstly, that the Grand Master had the power of appointing the two Grand Wardens and, in the second place, that Charles, Duke of Richmond, should " be declared Grand Master at the next Annual meeting." According to Anderson (Constitutions, 173 8,p. I 18), the Duke was duly " install'd in Solomon's Chair," on June 24 and appointed Martin Folkes his Deputy, who was " invested and install'd by the last Deputy in the Chair of Hiram Abbiú" No such phrases occur in the official records and the only circumstance of a noteworthy character, associated with the Assembly of 1724, is, that the Stewards were ordered " to prepare a list for the Grand Master's perusal of twelve fit persons to serve as stewards at the next Grand Feast." During the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Richmond, the Committee of Charity‑at the present day termed the Board of Benevolence‑was instituted. The scheme of raising a fund of General Charity for Distressed Masons was proposed, November 21, by the Earl of Dalkeith and, under the same date, there is a significant entry in the Grand Lodge Minutes‑" Brother Anthony Sayer's petition was read and recommended by the Grand Master." It does not appear, however, that the premier Grand Master received any pecuniary assistance on the occasion of his first application for relief, though sums oú money were voted to him in 1730 and 1741 respectively as seen already.

 

78 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o Lord Dalkeith's proposal met with general support and, among those whose names are honourably associated with the movement in its earlier stages, may be mentioned Dr. Desaguliers, George Payne and Martin Folkes.

 

At the same meeting it was resolved, that all Past Grand Masters should have the right of attending and voting in Grand Lodge and it was AGREED, nem. con.‑That if any Brethren shall meet Irregularly and make Masons at any place within ten miles of London, the persons present at the making (the New Brethren Excepted) shall not be admitted, even as visitors, into any Regular Lodge whatsoever, unless they come and make such submission to the Grand Mast. and Grand Lodge as they shall think fit to impose upon them.

 

A few words must now be devoted to the proceedings of the Gormogons, an Order which first came under public notice in this year, though its origin is said to have been of earlier date. The following notification appeared in the Daily Post of September 3, 1724 : Whereas the truly ANTIENT NOBLE ORDER of the Gormogons, instituted by Chin‑Quaw Ky‑Po, the first Emperor of China (according to their account), many thousand years before Adam and of which the great philosopher Confucius was ecumenical Volgee, has lately been brought into England by a Mandarin and he, having admitted several Gentlemen of Honour into the Mystery of that most illustrious order, they have determined to hold a Chapter at the Castle Tavern in Fleet Street, at the particular Request of several persons of Quality. This is to inform the public, that there will be no drawn Sword at the Door, nor Ladder in a dark Room, nor will any Mason be receiv'd as a Member till he has renounced his Novel Order and been properly degraded. N.B.‑The Grand Mogul, the Czar of Muscovy and Prince Tochmas are enter'd into this Hon. Society ; but it has been refused to the Rebel Meriweys, to his great Mortification. The Mandarin will shortly set out for Rome, having a particular Commission to make a Present of this Antient Order to his Holiness and it is believ'd the whole Sacred College of Cardinals will commence Gormogons. Notice will be given in the Gazette the Day the Chapter will be held.

 

If we may believe the Meekly journal or Saturday Post, of the 17th of October following, " many eminent Freemasons " had by that time " degraded themselves " and gone over to the Gormogons, whilst several others were rejected " for want of qualification." But the fullest account of the Order is given in the second edition of the Grand Mystery of the Freemasons Discovered, published October z8, 1724. This has been closely dissected by Kloss, who advances three distinct theories with regard to the appearance of the Gormogons :‑I. That the (Ecumenical Volgi was no less than the Chevalier Ramsay, then at Rome in attendance upon the Young Pretender; II. That the movement was a deeply laid scheme on the part of the Jesuits to attain certain ends, by masquerading after the fashion of the Freemasons ; and III. That in the Gormogons we meet with the precursors of the Seceding Masons, or Antients. The first and last of these suppositions may be passed over, but the THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 79 second is more plausible, especially if its application is widened and for " Jesuits " read " Roman Catholics," since, curiously enough, the Order is said to have become I extinct in 1738, the year in which Clement XII published his Bull against the Freemasons.

 

The Plain Dealer of September 14, 1724, contains a letter from a Mandarin at Rome to another in London. The former congratulates the latter on the speedy progress he has made " from the Court of the Young SOPHY " and adds Your Presence is earnestly expected at ROME. The Father of High Priests is fond of our Order and the CARDINALS have an Emulation to be distinguish'd. Our Excellent Brother GORMOGON, Mandarin, CHAN FuE, is well and salutes you.

 

There are also several allusions to the Freemasons, which point to the prevalence of irregularities, such as we are already justified in believing must have existed at the time.

 

The following notice appeared in the Daily Journal of October z6, 1730 By command of the VOL‑GI.

 

A General Chapter of the most August and Ancient order GOR‑MO‑GON, will be held at the Castle Tavern in Fleet Street, on Saturday the 31st Inst., to commence at i z o'clock ; of which the several Graduates and Licentiates are to take Notice, and give their Attendance.

 

P. W. T.

 

An identical summons, signed F. N. T., will be found in the same journal for October 28, 1731, but that earlier chapters were held at the same place may be inferred from a paragraph in the British Journal of December 12,1724, which reads We hear that a Peer of the first Rank, a noted Member of the Society of FreeMasons, hath suffered himself to be degraded as a member of that Society and his Leather Apron and Gloves to be burnt and thereupon enter'd himself as a Member of the Society of Gormogons, at the Castle‑Tavern in Fleet Street.

 

This can only refer to the Duke of Wharton, whose well‑known eccentricity of character, combined with the rebuff he experienced when last present in Grand Lodge, may have led him to take this step. It is true, that in 1728 he constituted a Lodge at Madrid, but this would be in complete harmony with the disposition of a man who, in politics and everything else, was always turning moral somersaults; and the subsequent application of the Lodge to be " constituted properly " tends to show that, however defective his own memory may have been, his apostasy was neither forgotten nor forgiven by the Craft.

 

The number of renegade Gormogons was, probably, large, but the only secession from the Order published occurs in the Tleekly journal or British Ga.Zetteer of April i8, 1730, which has On Saturday last, at the Prince William Tavern, at Charing +, Mr Dennis, the famous poet and critick, was admitted a Free and Accepted Mason, at a lodge 80 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o then held there, having renounced the Society of the Gormogons, of which he had been a member for many years.

 

This John Dennis, poet, political writer and critic, was born in 1657 and died on January 6, 1734. He was, therefore, in his seventy‑third year when initiated into Freemasonry.

 

The Grand Lodge on May 2o, 1725, ordered that the Minutes of the last meeting should be read‑a formality noticed for the first time ; it was also " ordered, that his Grace the Duke of Richmond be continued Grand Mast. for the next half year ending at Christmas " and there occurs a singular entry, with regard to which we should remain entirely in the dark, were it not for the discovery of a manuscript in the library of the British Museum, by the late Matthew Cooke (Additional MS., 23,202 ; see Freemasons' Magazine, July to December, 1861, pp. 67, 85, 132, 304, 326, 387) that clears up the whole matter. The Minute runs Ordered, that there be a letter wrote to the following Brethren, to desire them to attend the Grand Lodge at the next Quarterly Communication (vizt.) William Gulston, Coort Knevitt, William Jones, Charles Cotton, Thomas ffisher, Thomas Harbin and ffrancis Xavier Germiniani.

 

All these Brethren, except ffisher and Harbin, were " made Masons " in the Lodge at the Queen's Head in Hollis Street and three of them‑Knevitt, Jones and Cotton‑by the Duke of Richmond, Grand Master. Harbin was a member of the same Lodge in 1725. Thomas ffisher was junior Warden of the Lodge at Ben's Coffee House, New Bond Street, in 1723.

 

The manuscript referred to informs us that these persons were membersand, with three exceptions, founders‑of an association, entitled the Philo Musicx et Architecturx Societas, Apolloni, established February 18, 1725, by seven Brethren from the Lodge at the Queen's Head in Holles Street and one other.

 

The Minutes of the Society extend to 296 pages and the last entry is dated March 23, 1727. Rule xviii ordains‑" that no Person be admitted as a Visitor, unless he be a Free Mason " and the ranks of the Society were recruited solely from the Craft. But if the applicant for membership was not a Mason, the Society proceeded to make him one and sometimes went further, for we find that on May i z, 1725, two brothers " were regularly passed Masters," one " was regularly passed fellow Craft & Master," another " was regularly passed Fellow Craft "‑the ordinance (XIII) of Grand Lodge, enjoining that such ceremonies should only be performed in the presence of that body, being in full force at the time.

 

The ordinary practice in cases where the candidates were devoid of the Masonic qualification was to make them Masons in the first instance, after which they were ordered to attend " to be admitted and properly inducted members." This, however, they frequently failed to do and, on March 17, 1726, two persons were ignominiously expelled for not taking up their membership‑for which they had been duly qualified‑though thrice summoned to do so.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 81 Geo. Payne, J. G. Warden, was present as a visitor on September 2, 1725 and the following entry occurs in the Minutes under December 16 of the same year A letter Dat. the 8th Instant from Brother Geo. Payne, Junt Grand Warden, directed in form to this Society, inclosing a Letter from the Duke of Richmond, Grand Master, dat. likewise the 8 Instant, directed to the Presid`. and the rest of the Brethren at the Apollo, in which he Erroneously insists on and Assumes to himself a Pretended Authority to call Our Rt. Worpfull and Highly Esteem'd Society to an account for making Masons irregularly, for which reasons as well as for want of a Due Regard, Just Esteem and Omitting to Address himself in proper form to the Rt. Worpfull and Highly Esteemed Society, Ordered That the Said Letters do lye on the Table.

 

The subject is not again referred to in the Minutes of the Society, or in those of Grand Lodge, but a week later‑December 23,1725‑three members of the Lodge at the Horn were present as visitors, including Alexander Hardine, the Master; and Francis Sorrell, Senior Grand Warden.

 

The preceding extracts throw a light upon a very dark portion of Masonic history. It is highly probable that Payne's visit to the Musical Society took place at the instance of the Duke of Richmond, by whom, as seen, three of the members were " made Masons." But the attendance of Sorrell and Hardine, after the Grand Master's letter had been so contemptuously disregarded, is not a little remarkable. Still more curious is the circumstance, that, at the very time their visit occurred, Coort Knevitt was also a member of the Lodge at the Horn. It may be taken, therefore, that the denunciations of the Grand Master were a mere brutum fulmen and led to no practical result. The Musical Society died out in the early part of 1727, but the Minutes show that the members persisted in making Masons until June 23, 1726 and, possibly, would have continued the practice much later had the supply of candidates lasted longer than it apparently did.

 

William Gulston, the prises, or president, of the Society during the greater part of its existence, whose name, it may be supposed, would have been particularly obnoxious to the rulers of the Craft, was a member of Lodge No. 40, at the St. Paul's Head, in 1730 and his name appears first on the list. There were 107 members in all and, among them, were Dr. Richard Rawlinson, Grand Steward 1734; John Jesse, Grand Treasurer 1738‑52; and Fotherley Baker, Deputy Grand Master 1747‑51. These were not the kind of men to join in fellowship with any person whose Masonic record would not bear investigation. It is reasonably clear that, down at least to 1725, perhaps later, the bonds of discipline so recently forged were unequal to the strain which was imposed upon them. Confidence is a plant of slow growth and, even were evidence wanting to confirm the belief that the beneficent despotism which arose out of the unconditional surrender of their inherent privileges by four private Lodges, was not submitted to without resistance 82. THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o by the Craft at large‑from the nature of things, no other conclusion could be adopted.

 

It may, therefore, be supposed that Gulston and the others gradually ceased to commit the irregularities for which they were censured and that they did so before the time had arrived when the Grand Lodge felt itself established on a sufficiently firm basis to be able to maintain in their integrity the General Regulations agreed to by the Masons of London and Westminster in 1723.

 

The evidence Additional MS. 23,zoz affords of the Fellow Craft's and Master's parts having been.actually wrought other than in Grand Lodge, before February 18, 1725, is of great value, both as marking the earliest date at which such ceremonies are known to have been worked and, from the inference we are justified in drawing, that at the period in question there was nothing unusual in the action of the Brethren concerned in these proceedings.

 

The Quarterly Communication, held November 27, 1725, was attended by the officers of forty‑nine Lodges, a number vastly in excess of any previous record of a similar character, which does not again reach the same figures until the November meeting of 173z. Two reasons may be assigned for so full an attendance‑one, the general interest experienced by the Fraternity at large in the success of the Committee of Charity, the report of which body, drawn up by William Cowper, the chairman, was to be presented to Grand Lodge ; the other, that an extension of the authority of private Lodges was to be considered and, as the following extract shows, conceded A Motion being made that such part of the 13th Article of the Gen". Regulations relating to the making of Masts only at a Quarterly Court may be repealed and that the Mast. of Each Lodge, with the consent of his Wardens and the Majority of the Brethren, being Masts., may make Masts at their discretion. Agreed, Nem. Con.

 

It is singular, that whilst forty‑nine Lodges are stated to have been represented in Grand Lodge on this occasion, the Engraved List of 17zg has only fifty‑four Lodges in all, forty‑four of which, no more, were constituted up to and inclusive of the year 1725. This is at first sight somewhat confusing, but the Engraved List of 1725 shows that sixty‑four Lodges existed in that year and there were many influences at work between the years 1725 and 1729, tending to keep down and still further reduce the number of Lodges.

 

The Duke of Richmond was succeeded by Lord Paisley, afterwards Earl of Abercorn, who appointed Dr. Desaguliers his Deputy and, during this Grand Mastership, the only event worth recording is the resolution passed February z8, 1726, giving past rank to Deputy Grand Masters, a privilege, it may be observed, also extended to Grand Wardens on May io, 1727.

 

The next to ascend the Masonic throne was the Earl of Inchiquin, during whose term of office, Provincial Grand Masters were first appointed and, on June 24, 1727, the Masters and Wardens of Private Lodges were ordered to wear at all THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 83 Masonic meetings, " the Jewells of Masonry hanging to a White Ribbon (vizt.) That the Mast. wear the Square, the Sen% Warden the Levell and the Junr. Warden the Plumb Rule " (Constitutions, 1738, N. R. XII).

 

About this period the question of Masonic precedency began to agitate the Lodges and the following. extract from the Minutes of Grand Lodge will afford the best picture of the manner in which their relative positions at the Quarterly Communications were determined, before any strict rule on the subject was laid down.

 

December icg, 1727.‑The Masters and Wardens of the Several Lodges following, attended and answered to their Names, vizt i. Goose and Gridiron, St. Pauls. 1o. Globe, Strand.

 

2. Rose and Rummer, Castle Yard. ii. Tom's Coffee House, Clare Market.

 

3. Queen's Head, Knave's Acre. 12. Crown and Scepter, St. Martin's.

 

4. Horn, Westr. 13. Swan, Greenwich.

 

5. Green Dragon, Newgate St. 14. Cross Keys, Henrieta St., Co: Garden.

 

6. St. Paul's Head, Ludgate St. 15. Swan, Tottenham High Cross.

 

7. Three Tuns, Swithin's Alley. 16. Swan and Rummer, Finch Lane.

 

8. Queen's Head, Great Queen St. 17. Mag: Pye, against Bishopsgate Church.

 

9. Ship, Fish St. Hill. 18. Mount Coffee House, Grosvenor St.

 

Here we find the Four Old Lodges at the head of the roll, arranged, moreover, in due order of seniority, reckoned from their age, or respective dates of establishment or constitution. This position they doubtless owed to the sense entertained of their services as founders of the Grand Lodge. But the places of the remaining Lodges appear to have been regulated by no principle whatever. No. 5 above becomes No. icg on the first list (I 7z9), in which the positions of Lodges were determined by the dates of their warrants of constitution. Similarly, No. 6 drops down to the number 18, 7 to 12, 8 to 14, 9 to 22, 13 to 25, whilst the No. 11 Of 1727 goes up to the sixth place on the Engraved List of 1729.

 

In the same year, at the Assembly on St. John's Day (in Christmas), the following resolution was adopted That it shall be referred to the succeeding Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, to enquire into the Precedency of the Several Lodges and to make report thereof at the next Quarterly Communication, in order that the same may be finally settled and entre'd accordingly.

 

In conformity with this regulation, " most of the Lodges present delivered the dates of their being Constituted into Lodges, in order to have precedency in the Printed Book " ; others did so on June 25, 1728 ; and, at the ensuing Grand Lodge held in November, the Master and Wardens of the several Lodges were for the first time " called according to their seniority." The Grand Officers, under whose superintendence the Engraved List of 1729 was brought out‑Lord Coleraine, Grand Master; Alexander Choke, the Deputy; 84 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o Nathaniel Blakerby and Joseph Highmore, Grand Wardens‑were invested with their badges of office on the aforesaid St. John's Day, 1727, at which Assembly, an application by the members of the Lodge at the King's Head in Salford, that their names might be entered in the Grand Lodge Books and themselves taken under the care and patronage of the Grand Lodge‑which was acceded todeserves to be recorded, both as showing the existence at that time of Lodges other than those forming part of the regular establishment, as well as the tendency of all such bodies gradually to become absorbed within the central organization. These accessions strengthened the authority of Grand Lodge, whose officers wisely forebore from interposing any obstacles that might hinder or retard a surrender of their independence by those Lodges which had not yet given in their adhesion to the new regime. Thus on November 26, 1728, a petition was presented from the Master and Wardens of a Lodge held for some time past at Bishopsgate Coffee House, declaring their intention and earnest desire to be Constituted as soon as it will suit the conveniency of the Deputy Grand Master to confer the honour upon them and humbly praying to be admitted among the regular Lodges at this Quarterly Communication.

 

The Deputy Grand Master‑Alexander Choke‑we are informed, " did dispense with their being at present irregular and admitted them into the Grand Lodge." At the same meeting, which was the last under the administration of Lord Colerane, it was settled, on the motion of Dr. Desaguliers, that there should be twelve Stewards for the future, who should have the entire care and direction of the Annual Feast. Also, it was ordered that, in the absence of any Officer of a Lodge‑Master or Warden‑one of the members, " but not a mere Enter'd Prentice," might attend the Grand Lodge, " to supply his Room and support the Honour of his Lodge" (Constitutions, 1738, N. R. XII).

 

Viscount Kingston‑who was afterwards at the head of the Craft in Ireland ‑was the next Grand Master and the proceedings of Grand Lodge were agreeably diversified on the occasion of his installation‑December 27, 1728‑by a petition being presented from several Masons residing at Fort William in Bengal, wherein they acknowledged the authority of the Grand Master in England and humbly prayed to be constituted into a Regular Lodge. The prayer was acceded to and the duty entrusted to George Pomfret, brother to one of the petitioners, then on the eve of proceeding to the East Indies, to whom was granted a Deputation for the purpose. Similar Deputations were granted to some Brethren at Gibraltar and to Charles Labelle (or Labelye), Master of the Lodge at Madrid‑originally constituted by the Duke of Wharton in 1728 (Grand Lodge Minutes, April 17, 1728) ‑but which the members subsequently prayed might be constituted properly under the direct sanction of Grand Lodge (ibid., March 27, 1729).

 

The deputation to the Gibraltar Masons was granted to them " for and on behalf of several other Brethren, commissioned and non‑commissioned officers and others, to be constituted a regular Lodge in due form " and the body thus legitimated, in a subsequent letter wherein they style themselves " The Lodge oú THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, '1723‑6o 85 St. John of Jerusalem lately constituted at Gibraltar," express their thanks to Grand Lodge for empowering them "to hold a Lodge in as due and ample manner as hath been hitherto practised by our Brethren " (Grand Lodge Minutes, December z7, '1729).

 

Lord Kingston made very handsome presents to the Grand Lodge and, so great was his sense of the responsibilities of his office that, on a message reaching him in Ireland from the Deputy Grand Master, stating his presence was desirable at the Quarterly Communication of November zs, '17zg, he forthwith embarked for England and " rode Post from Holyhead in two days and a half," in order to preside over the meeting,‑at the proceedings of which harmony appears to have prevailed, certainly did towards the end, for the records inform us, " that the Deputy Grand Master, having gone through all business, clos'd the Lodge with the Mason's Song." During the term of office of this nobleman, the Grand Lodge " ordain'd " that every new Lodge that should be constituted by the Grand Master, or by his authority, should pay the sum of two guineas towards the General Charity (Grand Lodge Minutes, December z7, '1729). We also first hear of those grave irregularities, which, under the title of " making Masons for small and unworthy considerations," are afterwards alluded to so frequently in the official records. According to the Minutes of March 27,'1729, Complaint being made that at the Lodge at the One Tun in Noble Street, a person who was not a Mason was present at a Making and that they made Masons upon a trifling expense only for the sake of a small reckoning ; that one Huddlestone of that Lodge brought one Templeman of the South Sea House with him, who was not a Mason and the obligation was not required." The Master and Wardens of the Lodge were ordered to attend at the next Quarterly Communication and, " in the mean time," to " endeavour to make the said Templeman a regular Mason." At the ensuing meeting the Master attended and his explanation was deemed satisfactory; but whether, with the assistance of his Wardens, he ultimately succeeded in bringing Templeman within the fold, the records leave undecided.

 

The Duke of Norfolk, who succeeded Lord Kingston, was invested and installed at an Assembly and Feast held at Merchant Taylors Hall, on January 2g, '1730, in the presence of a brilliant company. No fewer than nine former Grand Masters attended on the occasion and walked in the procession in order of juniority‑viz. Lords Colerane, Inchiquin and Paisley, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Dalkeith, the Duke of Montagu, Dr. Desaguliers, George Payne and Anthony Sayer.

 

Although this was the only time the Duke of Norfolk was present at Grand Lodge during his tenure of office, as he shortly afterwards went to Italy, his interest in the prosperity of the Institution is evinced both by his having personally con stituted several Lodges prior to his departure and having sent home many valuable presents from abroad, consisting of ('1) twenty pounds to the Charity fund; (2) a 86 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o large folio book for the records of Grand Lodge ; and (3) a sword of state (still in use), to be borne before the Grand Master, being the old trusty sword of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, which was next worn by his brave successor in war, Bernard, Duke of Saxe‑Weimar, with both their names on the blade.

 

In this year the pamphlet already referred to, entitled Masonry Dissected, was published by Samuel Prichard. " This work contained a great deal of plausible matter, mingled with some truth as well as falsehood ; passed through a great many editions ; was translated into the French, German and Dutch languages ; and became the basis or model on which all the subsequent so‑called expositions were framed " (Mackey, Encyclopedia, p. 6oi). It elicited a noble reply from an unknown writer, styled A Defence of Masonry, which has been commonly, though erroneously, ascribed to Dr. Anderson and produced one other good result by inducing stricter caution on the admission of visitors into Lodges. Thus we learn from the Minutes of Grand Lodge that, on August 28, 1730‑ Dr. Desaguliers stood up and (taking notice of a printed Paper lately published and dispersed about the Town and since inserted in the News Papers, pretending to discover and reveal the Misteries of the Craft of Masonry) recommended several things to the consideration of the Grand Lodge, particularly the Resolution of the last Quarterly Communication, for preventing any false Brethren being admitted into regular Lodges and such as call themselves Honorary Masons. The Deputy Grand Master seconded the Doctor and proposed several rules to the Grand Lodge, to be observed in their respective Lodges, for their security against all open and Secret Enemies to the Craft." The same records inform us that in the following December D.G.M. Blackerby took notice of a Pamphlet lately published by one Prichard, who pretends to have been made a regular Mason: In violation of the Obligation of a Mason wc'' he swears he has broke in order to do hurt to Masonry and expressing himself with the utmost indignation against both him (Stiling him an Impostor) and of his Book as a foolish thing not to be regarded. But in order to prevent the Lodges being imposed upon by false Brethren or Impostors: Proposed till otherwise Ordered by the Grand Lodge, that no Person whatsoever shall be admitted into Lodges unless some Member of the Lodge there present would vouch for such visiting Brother being a regular Mason and the Member's Name to be entered against the visitor's Name in the Lodge Book, which Proposal was unanimously agreed to.

 

It is a curious coincidence that the names of two of the earliest Grand Masters should be associated prominently with the proceedings of this meeting‑Desaguliers, as the champion of order and regularity ; and Sayer, alas, as an offender against the laws of that body over which he was called, in the first instance, to preside. The records state A paper, signed by the Master and Wardens of the Lodge at the Queen's Head in Knave's Acre, was presented and read, complaining of great irregularities having F. 11‑15 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 87 been committed by Bro. Anthony Sayer, notwithstanding the great ffavours he hath lately received by order of the Grand Lodge.

 

December 15, 173o.‑Br. Sayer attended to answer the complaint made against him and, after hearing both parties and some of the Brethren being of opinion that what he had done was clandestine, others that it was irregular‑the Question was put whether what was done was clandestine, or irregular only and the Lodge was of opinion that it was irregular only‑whereupon the Deputy Grand Master told B'. Sayer that he was acquitted of the charge against him and recommended it to him to do nothing so irregular for the future At this meeting the powers of the Committee of Charity were much extended. All business referring to Charity was delegated to it for the future, the Committee were empowered to hear complaints and ordered to report their opinion to Grand Lodge.

 

The Earl of Sunderland and Lord Portmore declining to be put in nomination for the Grand Mastership, Lord Lovell was elected to that office on March 17, 1731, on which occasion the following important regulations were enacted That no Lodge should order a dinner on the Grand Feast Day.

 

That none but the Grand Master, his Deputy and the Grand Wardens, should wear the jewels in gold or gilt pendant to blue ribbons about their necks and white leather aprons lined with blue silk.

 

That all who had served any of the three grand offices (i.e. Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master and Wardens) should wear the like apron lined with blue silk in all Lodges and Assemblies of Masons.

 

That Stewards should wear aprons lined with red silk and have their proper jewels pendant to red ribbons.

 

That all who had served the office of Steward should be at liberty to wear aprons lined with red silk " and not otherwise." That Masters and Wardens of Lodges might wear their aprons lined with white silk, and their respective jewels with plain white ribbons, " but of no other colour whatsoever." At the Quarterly Communication in June, a petition was presented, signed by several Brethren, praying that they might be admitted into the Grand Lodge and constituted into a Regular Lodge at the Three Kings in Crispin Street, Spittle fields. " After some debate, several Brethren present vouching that they were Regular Masons, they were admitted and the Grand Master declared, that he or his Deputy would constitute them accordingly and signed their petition for that purpose." Of the distinction then drawn between the Regular Masons and those hailing from Lodges still working by inherent right, independently of the central authority, the official records afford a good illustration.

 

These inform us that the petition for relief of Brother William Kemble was dismissed, " satisfaction not being given to the Grand Lodge, how long he had been made a Regular Mason " (Grand Lodge Minutes, June 24, 1731), whilst a similar 88 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o application from Brother Edward Hall, a member of the Lodge at the Swan in Chichester, resulted in a vote of Six Guineas, the latter alleging that he had been made a Mason in the said Lodge " by the late Duke of Richmond, six‑and‑thirty years ago " and, being recommended by the then holder of that title, the Grand Master of 1724, who was present during the consideration of the petition. (Grand Lodge Minutes, March z, 173 2.) The Duke of Lorraine, who had received the two first Degrees of Masonry at the Hague, by virtue of a Deputation granted to Dr. Desaguliers and others in 1731, visited England the same year and was made a Master Mason, together with the Duke of Newcastle, at an Occasional Lodge formed by the Grand Master, at Houghton Hall, the seat of Sir Robert Walpole, for that purpose. (Constitutions, 1738, p. 12g.) According to the Minutes of No. 3o,‑‑constituted at Norwich 1724, erased February 10, 18og, the Warrant assigned to the Lodge of Rectitude, Corsham, No. 632 (now No. 335)‑published in The Freemason, December 17, 1870 Ye Rt. Hon. ye Lord Lovell, when he was G.M. summoned ye M. and Bn. to hold a Lodge at Houghton Hall‑there were present the G.M., His Royal Highness the Duke oÇ Lorrain and many other noble Bn. and, when all was put into due form, ye G.M. presented the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Essex, Major‑General Churchill and his own Chaplin, who were unanimously accepted of and made Masons by Rt. W'pful Thos. Johnston, the then M. of this Lodge.

 

Among the distinguished members of the Lodge were Martin Folkes and Dr. Samuel Parr.

 

Lord Lovell was succeeded by Viscount Montagu and the latter by the Earl of Strathmore, at the time of his election Master of No. go, the University Lodge, at the Bear and Harrow in the Butcher's Row. He was installed by proxy, but presided over Grand Lodge on December 13, 173 3, when the following resolutions were unanimously agreed to That all such business which cannot conveniently be despatched by the Quarterly Communication, shall be referred to the Committee of Charity.

 

That all Masters of Regular Lodges (contributors within twelve months to the General Charity), together with all present, former and future Grand Officers, shall be members of that Committee.

 

That all questions shall be carried by a majority of those present.

 

It has been necessary to give the preceding resolutions somewhat at length, because they have been singularly misunderstood by Findel and other commentators. Thus the German historian assures us This innovation, viz., the extension of the Committee for the administration of the Charity Fund into a meeting of Master Masons, on whom power was conferred to make arrangements of the greatest importance, and to prepare new THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, ‑1723‑6o Sg resolutions, not only virtually annulled the authority vested in the Grand Lodge, but likewise greatly endangered the equality of the Brethren in the different Lodges. (Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. ‑1 5 4.) The criticism is misplaced. No such evils resulted, as, indeed, would have been simply impossible, upon the state of facts which the records disclose. Indeed, the Grand Lodge of ‑1753‑which sometimes has been supposed to have owed its existence to the series of innovations begun December ‑13, ‑1733 ‑delegated, in like manner, the management of its routine business to a very similar committee, styled the Steward's Lodge, the record of whose proceedings happily survives, whilst of that of its prototype, alas, only a fragment has been preserved.

 

Whilst, however, many important details must remain hidden, which might explain much that is obscure in this portion of our annals, it is satisfactory to know that all matters deemed to be of consequence‑and many that were not‑were brought up by the Committee of Charity at the next Quarterly Communication for final determination. It is when the Communications were held with irregularity that the loss is the greatest ; of this there is an early example, for during the administration of the Earl of Crawford, who succeeded Lord Strathmore, an interval of eleven months occurred between the meetings of Grand Lodge.

 

The former of these noblemen was initiated in the Lodge of Edinburgh under somewhat singular circumstances, as the following minute of that body attests Att Maries Chapell, the 7th day of August ‑1733. Present: the Right Honourable James Earle of Strathmore, present Grand Master of all the Lodges in England, and also chosen Grand Master for this present meetting. The which day the Right Honourable John Earle of Crawford, John Earle of Kintore and Alexander, Lord Garlies, upon application to the Societie, were admitted entered apprentices, and also receaved fellow crafts as honorary members. (Lyon, op. cit., p. ‑16‑1:) The Earl of Crawford was installed in office March 30, ‑1734 and the next meeting of Grand Lodge took place on February 24, ‑173 5, when Dr. Anderson, formerly Grand Warden, presented a Memorial, setting forth, that, whereas the first edition of the General' Constitutions of Masonry, compiled by himself, was all sold off and a Second edition very much wanted and that he had spent some thoughts upon some alterations and additions that might fittly be made to them, which he was now ready to lay before the Grand Lodge for their approbation‑Resolved‑that a Committee be appointed consisting of the present and former Grand Officers and such other Master Masons as they should think proper to call on, to revise and compare the same and, when finished, to lay the same before the Grand Lodge ensuing for their approbation.

 

Dr. Anderson " further represented that one William Smith, said to be a Mason, had, without his privity or consent, pyrated a considerable part of the go THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o Constitutions of Masonry aforesaid, to the prejudice of the said Dr Anderson, it being his sole property." It was therefore Resolved and Ordered‑That every Master and Warden present should do all in their power to discountenance so unfair a practice and prevent the said Smith's Books being bought by any member of their respective Lodges.

 

At this meeting the Minutes of the two last Committees of Charity were read and approved of. The cost of serving the Grand‑Mastership was restricted in future to the sum of thirty guineas and the following resolution was adopted That if any Lodge for the future within the Bills of Mortality shall not regularly meet for the space of one year, such Lodge shall be erased out of the Book of Lodges and, in case they shall afterwards be desirous of meeting again as a Lodge, they shall loose their former Rank and submitt themselves to a New Constitution.

 

In the following month‑March 31‑the Grand Master Took notice (in a very handsome speech) of the Grievance of making extraneous Masons, in a private and clandestine manner, upon small and unworthy considerations and proposed, that in order to prevent the Practice for the future No person thus admitted into the Craft, nor any that can be proved to have assisted at such Meetings, shall be capable either of acting as a Grand Officer on occasions, or even as an officer in a private Lodge, nor ought they to have any part in the General Charity, which is much impaired by this clandestine Practice.

 

His Worship, secondly, proposed, that since the General Charity may possibly be an inducement to certain persons to become Masons merely to be admitted to the Benefit thereof : That it be a Resolution of the Grand Lodge that the Brethren subscribing any Petitions of Charity should be able to certify that they have known the Petitioner in reputable or at least in tollerable circumstances.

 

These proposals of the Grand Master, together with some others referring to the fund of Charity, " were received with great unanimity and agreed to." Then a Motion was made that Dr. James Anderson should be desired to print the Names (in his New Book of Constitutions) of all the Grand Masters that could be collected from the beginning of time, also of the Deputy Grand Masters, Grand Wardens and of the Brethren who have served the Craft in the Quality cf Stewards, which was thought necessary‑Because it is Resolved, that for the future, all Grand Officers (except the Grand Master) shall be selected out of that Body.

 

The business of this important meeting having been brought to a satisfactory close, " his Lordship was pleased to order "‑so the Minutes inform us‑" a large quantity of Rack, that was made a present of, from Bengall, to be made into Punch and to be distributed among the Brethren." Lord Weymouth, who became the next head of the Society, was installed THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 91 April 17, 1735, but left all business to be transacted by his Deputy John (afterwards Lord) Ward, in which capacity the latter presided at a Quarterly Communication, held June 24 and, as the Minutes inform us very justly took notice of the great want of order that had sometimes happened in the debates of these Assemblies and earnestly recommended to those present, the preserving proper Decency and Temper in the management of the Debates; and advised that only one person should speak at a time, desiring only that the Practice of the Grand Lodge in this case might be a fitt Pattern to be followed by every Private Lodge.

 

On the same occasion, a memorial was read from the Stewards, praying i. That they might meet monthly or otherwise, as a Lodge of Master Masons (under the Denomination of the Stewards' Lodge) and be enrolled among the number of the Lodges as usual, with the times of their meeting.

 

z. That they might be so far distinguished (since all the Grand Officers are for the future appointed to be chosen out of their number) as to send a deputation of 12 from the whole body of Stewards to each Quarterly Communication. All the 12 to have voices and to pay half a crown apiece towards the expense of that occasion.

 

3. That no one who had not served the Society as a Steward might be permitted to wear the Coloured Ribbonds or Aprons. But that such as had been Stewards might wear a particular jewel suspended in the proper Ribbond wherein they appear as Masons.

 

On a division being taken, the privileges sought to be obtained were granted, " 45 of the Assembly being in the Affirmative, and 4z in the negative." It was also declared‑That the i z Stewards for any coming year might attend in their proper colours and on paying as usual for 4 Lodges, but are not to be allowed to vote, nor to be heard in any debate, unless relating to the ensuing Feast.

 

The twelve Stewards appeared for the first time in their new badges at a Grand Lodge, held December 11, 1735‑ Sir Robert Lawley, Master of the newly constituted Stewards' Lodge, " reported that Br. Clare, the Junior Grand Warden, had been pleased to entertain it on the first visiting Night with an excellent Discourse containing some Maxims and Advice that concerned the Society in General, which at the time seemed to their own Lodge and an hundred visiting Brethren," worthy of being read before the Grand Lodge itself‑which was accordingly done, it being " received with great attention and applause " and the lecturer " desired to print the same." After these amenities, the proceedings were diversified by the presentation of a petition and appeal, signed by several Masters of Lodges against the privileges granted to the Stewards' Lodge at the last Quarterly Communication. The Appellants were heard at large and, the question being put, whether the determina‑ 92 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o tion of the last Quarterly Communication, relating to that matter, should be confirmed or not. In the course of the collecting the votes on this occasion, there appeared so much confusion, that it was not possible for the Grand Officers to determine with any certainty what the numbers on either side of the question were. They were therefore obliged to dismiss the Debate and close the Lodge.

 

Martin Clare, the Junior Grand Warden, acted on this occasion as Deputy Grand Master and George Payne (by desire) as Grand Master, with Jacob Lamball and Dr. Anderson as his Wardens pro tempore.

 

To the presence, perhaps, in the official chairs, of the three veterans, whose services as Grand Officers began before those of the Grand Stewards had any existence, may be due the fact, that, for once at least, the pretensions of the latter met with a signal check. At the next meeting of the Grand Lodge, however, held April 6, 1736, Ward was present and in the chair, with Desaguliers sitting as his Deputy and against the influence of these two supporters of the Stewards' Lodge, combined with that of several noblemen who also attended on the occasion, Payne, Lamball and Anderson, though reinforced by the presence of a fourth veteran ‑Josiah Villeneau, Grand Warden in 1721‑must have felt that it would be useless to struggle.

 

The appeal does not seem to have been proceeded with, though the principle it involved was virtually decided (without debate) by the members of Grand Lodge being declared to be‑i. The four present and all former Grand Officers ; z. The Master and Wardens of all constituted (i.e. regular) Lodges; and 3. The Master and Wardens and nine representatives of the Stewards' Lodge.

 

It was not until June 24, 1741, that " the Treasurer, Secretary and Swordbearer of the Society were declared members of every Quarterly Communication or Grand Lodge " ; and it was only decided, after a long debate, on June 14, 175 3, that " the Treasurer was a ` Grand Officer,' by virtue of his office and as such, to be elected from amongst the Brethren who had served the Stewardship." As the right of the members of the Stewards' Lodge in general to attend the Committee of Charity appeared doubtful, the Grand Lodge wag of opinion they had not a general right to attend. But in order to make a proper distinction between that and the other Lodges, a motion was made [and adopted], that as the Master alone of each private Lodge had a right to attend, so that Master and three other members should attend on behalf of the Stewards' Lodge, at every succeeding Committee. (Grand Lodge Minutes, February 7, 1770.) Frederick, Prince of Wales, became a member of the Society in 1737 and the New Book of Constitutions was published in 1738, the same year in which the first Papal Bull was issued against the Freemasons. With the exception of these events and the issue of Deputations for the purpose of founding Lodges in foreign parts, there is nothing of moment to chronicle from April 15, 1736, when the sequence of Grand Masters was continued by the installation of the Earl of Loudoun, down THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 93 to May 3, 1739, when Henry, Marquess of Carnarvon, who followed the Earl of Darnley in the chair, in turn gave place to Lord Raymond.

 

On June 12, 1739, the members of Grand Lodge were " moved to take into their future consn. the complaint concerning the irregular making of Masons," brought before them in the previous June.

 

Whereupon the Grand Master [Lord Raymond] took notice, that although some Brothers might have been guilty of an offence tending so much to destroy the Cement of the Lodge and so utterly inconsistent with the Rules of the Society, yet he could not bring himself to believe that it had been done otherwise than through Inadvertency and, therefore, proposed that if any such Brothers there were, they might be forgiven for this time, which was Ordered accordingly; also that the Laws be strictly put in Execution against all such Brothers as shall for the future countenance, connive, or assist at any such irregular makings.

 

A summary of these proceedings is given in the Constitutions of 1756, 1767 and 1784; but in the edition last named, we meet with a note of fifty lines, extending over three pages, which, from its appearance in a work sanctioned and recommended by the Masonic authorities, has led to a wide diffusion of error with regard to the historical points it was placed there to elucidate. It does not even possess the merit of originality, for the compiler or editor, John Noorthouck, took it without acknowledgment from Preston, by whom the statements it contains were first given to the world in a manner peculiarly his own, from which those familiar with the general proportion borne by the latter's assertions to the actual truth will believe that the note in question rests on a very insecure foundation of authority. Besides the affairs of the Society in 1739, it also professes to explain the causes which led to the great Schism.

 

Lord Raymond was succeeded in April 174o by the Earl of Kintore, who had only retired from the presidency of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in the previous November. He was Master of the Lodge of _Aberdeen from 1735 to 1738 inclusive; also that as Grand Master of the Scottish, as well as of the English Craft, he was succeeded by the Earl of Morton.

 

On July 23, 1740 Br. Berrington informed the [Grand] Lodge that several Irregularities in the making of Masons having been lately committed and other Indecencies offered in the Craft by several Brethren, he cautioned the Masters and Wardens against admitting such persons into their Lodges. And thereupon, several Brethren insisting that such Persons should be named, the same was, after a long Debate and several Questions put‑Ordered accordingly. When Br Berrington informed the Lodge that Br George Monkman has a list of several such persons, he, on being required to do so, named Esquire Cary, Mansell Bransby and James Bernard, late Stewards, who assisted in an irregular Making.

 

The Minutes of this meeting terminated somewhat abruptly with the words When it being very late, the Lodge was closed.

 

94 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑60 No further proceedings in the matter are recorded, nor, indeed, are any irregularities of the kind again mentioned in the official records until 1749, when Lord Byron had entered upon the third year of his grand mastership. This, con jointly with the circumstance that Berrington and Monkman, as well as the others, were former Grand Stewards, whose position in those days corresponded very closely with that of Grand Officers in our own, demands very careful attention.

 

It is evident that the authority of Grand Lodge was in no wise seriously menaced between 174o and 1749, as the stream of historians would have us believe ; indeed, on the contrary, the absolute silence oú the records, with regard to infractions of Old and New Regulation VIII during the period in question, sufficiently proves that, for a time, at least, in the regular Lodges, they had entirely ceased. This supposition is strengthened, however, by the evidence last presented, from which it would appear that irregularities were committed by the thoughtless, as well as by those %A ho were wilfully disobedient to the laws ; and that, in both cases, the governing body was quite able to vindicate its authority.

 

On June 24, 1741, it was ordered by Grand Lodge that the proceedings of Lodges and the names of Brethren present at meetings should not, in future, be printed without the permission of the Grand Master or his Deputy. Also " that no new Lodge should for the future be constituted within the Bills of Mortality, without the consent of the Brethren assembled in Quarterly Communication first obtained for that purpose." The latter regulation, being found detrimental to the Craft, was repealed March z3, 1742 and, in lieu thereof, it was resolved " that every Brother do conform to the law made February i g, 172J, `that no Brother belong to more than one Lodge within the Bills of Mortality.' " Lord Ward, who succeeded the Earl of Morton in April 1742, was well acquainted with the nature and government of the Society, having served every office from the Secretary in a private Lodge to that of Grand Master. The adminis tration of the Earl of Strathmore, who next presided over the Society, is associated with no event of importance ; and of that of his successor, Lord Cranstoun, it is only necessary to record that on April 3, 1747, a resolution was passed, discontinuing for the future the usual procession on the feast day.

 

The occasion of this prudent regulation was, that some unfaithful Brethren, disappointed in their expectations of the high offices and honours of the Society, had joined a number of the buffoons of the day, in a scheme to exhibit a mockery of the public procession to the grand feast. (Constitutions, 1784, p. 253‑) Lord Byron was elected Grand Master on April 3o, 1747 and presided over the Fraternity until March zo, 175z, but was only present in Grand Lodge on those dates and, on March 16, 1752, when he proposed Lord Carysfort as his successor. During the presidency of this nobleman, which lasted for five years, the affairs of the Society were much neglected and to this period of misrule‑aggravated by the summary erasure of Lodges‑we must look for the cause of that organized rebellion THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 95 against authority. Only one Grand Lodge (besides the Grand Feast of April 30) was held in 1747 ; in 1748 there were two ; in 1749 and 1750, one each ; in 1751, two. Between, moreover, these several Communications, there were, in two instances, great intervals of time‑that of June 175o being held thirteen and that of September 17 fifteen, months after its immediate predecessor.

 

The same Grand Officers and Grand Stewards continued in office from 1747 until 1752, which is the more remarkable because the honours of the Craft were much coveted. The Stewards were an influential body and, from 1728 to 1747, with but two exceptions‑1742‑43 and 1745‑46, when Lords Ward and Cranstoun respectively had second terms‑twelve Stewards were annually appointed.

 

In Multa Paucis a statement occurs, which though the work is not one of much authority, must have had some foundation in fact, the more especially as the event it professes to record is only said to have happened about eleven or twelve years previously and, therefore, stands on quite another footing, historically speaking, from the earlier part of the same publication.

 

The following is the passage referred to Grand Master Byron was very inactive. Several years passed by without his coming to a Grand Assembly, nay, even neglected to nominate his successor. The Fraternity, finding themselves intirely neglected, it was the Opinion of many old Masons to have a consultation about electing a new and more active Grand Master and assembled for that Purpose, according to an Advertisement, which accidentally was perceived by our worthy Brother, Thomas Manningham, M.D., who, for the Good of Masonry, took the trouble upon him to attend at this Assembly and gave the Fraternity the most prudent Advice for their future Observance and lasting Advantage. They all submitted to our worthy Brother's superior judgement, the Breach was healed.

 

The Minutes of the Grand Lodge are provokingly silent throughout the period under examination and the only entry which needs allusion occurs under May z6, 1749, when a Bro. Mercado having acknowledged his fault and explained that a person made a Mason irregularly, had agreed to be regularly made the next Lodge night at the George in Ironmonger Lane, was, at the intercession of the Master and Wardens of the said Lodge, forgiven.

 

Lord Byron, who, we learn, " had been abroad for several years," proposed Lord Carysfort as his successor on March 16 and the latter was duly placed in the chair on March zo, 1752, when " all expressed the greatest joy at the happy Occasion of their Meeting, after a longer recess than had been usual." Dr. Manningham, who had been one of the Grand Stewards under Lord Byron, was appointed Deputy Grand Master, although, unlike all his predecessors in that office from .1735, he had not previously served as a Grand Warden, a qualification deemed so indispensable in later years, as to be affirmed by a resolution of the Committee of Charity.

 

96 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o This points to his having rendered signal services to the Society, which would so far harmonize with the passage in Multa Pauris and be altogether in keeping with the character of the man. (Constitutions, 1756, p. .258.) On June 18, 1752, complaint was made in Grand Lodge, " of the frequency of irregular makings‑when the Deputy Grand Master recommended the Brethren to send to him or the Grand Secretary the names of such as shall be so irregularly made and of those who make them." At this date, however, the secession had assumed form and cohesion and although the recusant Masons had not yet formed a Grand Lodge, they were governed by a Grand Committee, which was the same thing except in name.

 

On November 23, 175 3, it was enacted, That no Lodge shall ever make a Mason without due inquiry into his character, neither shall any Lodge be permitted to make and raise the same Brother at one and the same Meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, which on very particular occasions may be requested.

 

Also, That no Lodge shall ever make a Mason for a less sum than one Guinea and that Guinea to be appropriated either to the private Fund of the Lodge, or to the Publick Charity, without deducting from such Deposit any Money towards the Defraying the Expense of the Tyler, etc.

 

The latter resolution was not to extend, however, to waiters or other menial servants.

 

Lord Carysfort was succeeded by James, Marquess of Carnarvon‑son of the Duke of Chandos, a former Grand Master‑who, on investment‑March 25, 1754‑continued Dr. Manningham as his Deputy. In this year a committee was appointed to revise the Book of Constitutions; twenty‑one country Lodges were erased for nonconformity with the laws; and some irregularities were committed by a Lodge meeting at the Ben Jonson's Head in Pelham Street, Spitalfields, through which we first learn, in the records under examination, of the existence of so‑called Antient Masons, who claimed to be independentòof the Grand Lodge of 1717 and, as such, neither subject to its laws nor to the authority of its Grand Master.

 

According to Laurence Dermott, the members of this Lodge, No. 94, " were censured, not for assembling under the denomination of ` Antient Masons,' but for practising Antient Masonry " (Ahiman Kep,,on, 1778) ; which is incorrect, as they were guilty of both these offences. The former they admitted and the latter was substantiated by the evidence of " Bro‑ Jackson and Pollard, who had been refused admittance at those Meetings until they submitted to be made in their novel and particular Manner." (Grand Lodge Minutes, March 8, 1754; March 2o and July 24, 175 5.) For these practices the Lodge was very properly erased and it is curious that the only hands held up in its favour were those of the representatives of the Lodge then meeting at the Fish and Bell‑Original No. 3.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 97 The Marquess of Carnarvon was succeeded by Lord Aberdour, afterwards 16th Earl of Morton, a former Grand Master of Scotland (1755), May 18, 1757, of whose administration it will be sufficient to record that, on January 24, 176o, a resolution was passed to the effect that the sum of fifty pounds be sent to Germany, to be distributed among the soldiers who were Masons in Prince Ferdinand's army, whether English, Hanoverians, or Hessians.

 

In the Freemasons' Calendar of 1776, however, the disturbances, which we are told had their origin in 1739, are traced back to the time of Lord Loudoun, whose appointment of Grand Officers in 1736, Preston informs us, gave offence to a few individuals, who withdrew from the Society during the presidency of the Earl of Darnley, but in that of Lord Raymond " assembled in the character of Masons and without any power or authority from the Grand Master, initiated several persons into the Order for small and unworthy considerations." (Illustrations of Masonry, pp. 19, 2o.) Ultimately the story assumed the stereotyped form in which we now possess it. Successive editions of the Illustrations of Masonry, published in 1781, 1788, 1792 and later, inform us that in the time of Lord Carnarvon (1738) some discontented Brethren, taking advantage of the breach between the Grand Lodges of London and York, assumed, without authority, the character of York Masons ; that the measures adopted to check them seemed to authorize an omission of and a variation in, the ancient ceremonies; that the seceders immediately announced independency and assumed the appellation of Antient Masons, also they propagated an opinion that the ancient tenets and practices of Masonry were preserved by them ; and that the Regular Lodges, being composed of Modern Masons, had adopted new plans and were not to be considered as acting under the old establishment. (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 285, et seq.) Here we meet with an‑anachronism, for the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of 1738 are certainly confused with those of a much later date. But the chief interest of the story lies in the statement that changes were made in the established forms, " which even the urgency of the case could not warrant." Although, indeed, the passages last quoted were continued in the editions of his work published after 1789, they were written (1781) by Preston‑a very doubtful authority at any timeduring the suspension of his Masonic privileges, when he must have been quite unable to criticise dispassionately the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, against whose'authority he had been so lately in rebellion.

 

It is possible that the summary erasure of Lodges for non‑attendance at the Quarterly Communications and for not " paying in their charity," may have been one of the causes of the Secession, which must have taken place during the presidency of Lord Byron (1747‑5 2). In the ten years, speaking roundly, commencing June 24, 1742, ending November 30, 1752, no fewer than forty‑five Lodges, or about a third of the total of those meeting in the metropolis, were struck out of the list. Three, indeed, were restored to their former places, but only after intervals of two, four and six years respectively. The case of the Horn Lodge has been already 98 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o referred to ; but with regard to those of its fellow‑sufferers, No. 9 was restored, " it appearing that their Non‑Attendance was occasioned by Mistake " ; also No. 54, " it appearing that their not meeting regularly had been occasioned by unavoidable Accidents." On the principle that history repeats itself, the Minutes of Sarum Lodge, later in the century, may hold up a mirror, in which is reflected the course of action adopted by the erased Lodges of 1742‑52. This Lodge, which became No. 37 at the change of numbers in 178o, was erased February 6, 1777, for non‑compliance with the order of Grand Lodge, requiring an account of registering fees and subscriptions since October 1768.

 

" Our refusal," says their letter in reply, dated March 19, 1777, has arisen from a strict obedience to the laws, principles and constitutions, which expressly say, " that though the Grand Lodge have an inherent power and authority to make new regulations, the real benefit of the ancient Fraternity shall in all cases be consulted and the old landmarks carefully preserved." By the late attempt of the Grand Lodge to impose a tax on the Brethren at large, under penalty of erasing them from that list wherein they have a right to stand enrolled, as long as they shall preserve the principles of that Constitution, the bounds prescribed by these landmarks seem to have been exceeded; the Grand Lodge has taken upon itself the exercise of a power hitherto unknown; the ancient rules of the Fraternity (which gave freedom to every Mason) have been broke in upon ; and that decency of submission, which is produced by an equitable government, has been changed to an extensive and, we apprehend, a justifiable resistance to the endeavours of the Grand Lodge.

 

The Lodge was restored May 1, 1777, but on a further requisition from the Grand Lodge of two shillings per annum from each Brother towards the Liquidation Fund, the members met, November I9, 18oo and unanimously agreed not to contribute to this requisition. After which, a proposal for forming a Grand Lodge in Salisbury, independent of the Grand Lodge of England, was moved and carried. (F. H. Goldney, History of Freemasonry in Ililtshire, 188o, pp. i o9‑i 9.) The arbitrary proceedings of 174z‑5z were doubtless as much resented in London, as those of 1777‑99 were in the country. Though the last Lodge warranted in 175 5 bore the number 271, only zoo Lodges were carried forward at the closingup and alteration of numbers in 1756.

 

According to the Engraved Lists, Lodges were constituted by the Grand Lodge of England at Madrid in 1728 ; in Bengal, 1730; at Paris, 1,732 ; Hamburgh and Boston (U.S.A.), 1733 ; the Hague, Lisbon and in Georgia, 1735 ; in the West Indies, 1738 ; Switzerland, 1739 ; Denmark, 1745 ; Minorca, 1750 ; Madras, 175z; Virginia, 1753 ; and in Bombay, 1758. Deputations were also granted to a number of persons in foreign countries, but of these no exact record has been preserved.

 

Among the early Grand Masters who were Fellows of the Royal Society, may be named Dr. Desaguliers, the Duke of Montagu, the Earls of Dalkeith, Strathmore, Crawford and Morton, Lords Paisley and Colerane‑and Francis Drake, who

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1723‑6o 99  presided over the Grand Lodge at York. The Duke of Lorraine and the Chevalier Ramsay were likewise both Brethren and Fellows.

 

The following Deputies were also F.R.S. ; Martin Folkes, 1724; W. Grxme, 1739; Martin Clare, 1741 ; E. Hody, 1745‑46; so were Sir J. Thornhill, S.G.W., 1728 ; Richard Rawlinson, Grand Steward, 1734; whilst it may interest some readers to learn that William Hogarth, son‑in‑law of the former, served the Stewardship in 173 5. Of the other Grand Stewards down to the year 176o it will be sufficient to name John Faber, 1740; Mark Adston, 1753 ; Samuel Spencer, 1754; the Rev. J. Entick, 1755 ; Jonathan Scott, 1758‑59.

 

Editions of the Book of Constitutions appeared in 1723, 1738, 1746 and 1756. The last named was compiled by the Rev. John Entick and published by Jonathan, Scott; in it some alterations in and additions to the Ancient Charges, which had disfigured the second edition, were omitted. The spirit of toleration which breathes in the Masons' creed has been attributed by Findel and others to the influence of certain infidel writers. But of these, Woolston was probably mad and, as remarked by a contemporary, " the devil lent him a good deal of his wickedness and none of his wit." Chubb was almost wholly uneducated; and, although Collins, Tindal and Toland discussed grave questions with grave arguments, they were much inferior in learning and ability to several of their opponents and they struggled against the pressure of general obloquy. The deist was liable to great social contempt and, in the writings of Addison, Steele, Pope and Swift he was habitually treated as external to all the courtesies of life. A simpler reason for the language of the Charge, " Concerning God and Religon," will be found in the fact that Anderson was a Presbyterian and Desaguliers an Episcopalian; whilst others, no doubt, of the Grand Officers of that year were members of the older faith. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that they united on a platform which would divide them the least; and, in so doing, the churchmen among them may have consoled themselves with the reflection, that Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, had, many years before (1672), endeavoured to construct a system of morals without the aid of theology. At the same time it must freely be conceded, that the principles of inductive philosophy which Bacon taught, which the Royal Society had strengthened, had acquired a complete ascendancy over the ablest minds. Perhaps therefore the object of these prescient Brethren, to whom is due the absence of sectarianism in our Charges, may be summed up in the words of Bishop Spratt (1667), the first and best historian of the Royal Society, who thus describes the purposes of its founders As for what belongs to the members themselves, that are to constitute the Society, it is to be noted that they have freely admitted men of different religions, countries and professions of life. This they were obliged to do, or else they would come far short of the largeness of their own declarations. For they openly profess not to lay the foundation of an English, Scottish, Irish, Popish, or Protestant philosophy‑but a philosophy of mankind.

 

CHAPTER III FREEMASONRY IN YORK HERE has been cited the " Parchment Roll " as evidence of the character of the old Lodge at York from March 19, 171z, down to December 27, 1725, during which period the records testify that the meetings were simply entitled those of a Lodge, Society, Fraternity, or Company of " Antient and Honourable Assemblies of Free and Accepted Masons." Other evidences of the existence of the Lodge at York have also been given, dating back to the seventeenth century, notably the York MS. of A.D. 1693, facsimile of which has been given in Hughan's Old Charges, which contains " the names of the Lodg "; six in all, including the Warden. A still earlier relic is a mahogany flat rule or gauge, with the following names and year incised William X;X Baron 1663 of Yorke 3 Iohn Drake Iohn 0 Baron.

 

Todd, in The Freemason for November 15, 1884, is inclined to think that the John Drake mentioned was collated to the Prebendal Stall of Donnington in the cathedral church of York in October 1663 and, if so, Francis Drake, the historian, was a descendant, which, to say the least, is very probable.

 

Considerable activity was manifested by the York Brotherhood from 1723 ‑the year when the premier Grand Lodge of England published its first Book of Constitutions‑and particularly during 1725.

 

The following will complete the roll of meetings (1712‑30), of which the first portion has been already furnished.

 

This day Dec. 27, 1725, Being the Festival of St. John the Evangelist, the Society went in Procession to Merchant's Hall, where, after the Grand Feast was over, they unanimously chose the Worsp'. Charles Bathurst, Esqre., their Grand Master, Mr. Johnson his Deputy, Mr. Pawson and Mr. Drake, Wardens, Mr. Scourfield, Treasurer, and Inigo Russell, Clerk for the ensuing year.

 

Dec. 31, 1725.‑At a private Lodge held at Mr. Luke Lowther's, at the Starr in Stonegate, the underwritten Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. [Name omitted.] Jan. 5, 1725‑6.‑At a private Lodge held at Mr. John Colling's at ye White Swan in Petergate, the underwritten persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Thomas Preston. Martin Crofts.

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK Feb. 4, 1725‑6.‑At a private Lodge at the Star, in Stonegate, Sr William Milner, Bart., was sworn and admitted into the Society of Free Masons.

 

Wm. Milner.

 

Mar. 2, 1725‑6.‑At a private Lodge at the White Swan in Petergate, the undernamed Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Society of Free Masons. John Lewis.

 

Apr. 2, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Robert Kaye.

 

W. Wombell. Wm. Kitchinman. Cyril Arthington.

 

Apr. 4, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the following Gentleman was sworn and admitted into ye Antient Society of Free Masons.

 

J. Kaye.

 

May 4, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. James Boreham's, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into the Society of Free and Accepted Masons. Charles Guarles. Rich'. Atkinson. Sam'. Ascough. May 16, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. Lowther's at ye Star in Stonegate, the undermentioned Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Gregory Rhodes. June 24, 1726.‑At a General Lodge held at Mr. Boreham's in Stonegate, the undermentioned Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Jon. Cossley. Wm. Johnstone. At the same time the following persons were sworn and admitted into the Honb'e. Society, vizt., William Marshall.

 

Matt V% Cellar.

 

His mark. Benjamin Campsall. William Muschamp.

 

Wm. Robinson. Matthew Groul. John Bradley. John Hawman.

 

Hughan, it may be stated, is of opinion that the records of the regular monthly meetings were kept in a separate book.

 

July 6, 1726.‑Whereas it has been certify'd to me that Mr. William Scourfield has presumed to call a Lodge and make Masons without the consent of the Grand Master or Deputy, and the approbation of the whole Lodge, and in opposition to the 8th article of the Constitutions, I do, with the consent of the Grand Master and the approbation of the whole Lodge, declare him to be disqualify'd from being a member of this Society, and he is for ever banished from the same.

 

Such members as were assisting in constituting and forming Mr. Scourfield's 101 102 FREEMASONRY IN YORK Schismatical Lodge on the 24th of the last month, whose names are John Carpenter, William Musgreve, Th. Albanson, and Th. Preston, are by the same authority liable to the same sentence, yet upon their acknowledging their Error, in being deluded and making such submission as shall be judg'd Requisite by the Grand Master and Lodge at the next monthly Meeting, shall be receiv'd into the favour of the Brotherhood, otherwise to be banish'd, as Mr. Scourfield and their names to be eras'd out of the Roll and Articles.

 

If any other Brother or Brothers shall hereafter separate from us, or be aiding and assisting in forming any Lodge under the said Mr. Scourfield or any other Person without due Licence for the same, He or they so offending shall be disown'd as members of this Lodge and for ever Excluded from the same.

 

If the reference in the first paragraph is to Regulation VIII laid down by the Grand Lodge in London (as undoubtedly it is), then this must have been a more than ordinary breach, since expulsion was the penalty here inflicted and not the fine of five pounds ordained in the Regulation cited. The York authorities were evidently determined to put down with a strong hand all irregularities on the part of the Schismatics. The William Scourfield referred to was undoubtedly identical with the Grand Treasurer elected on December 27, 172‑5. There is no record as to who was the presiding officer on July 6, 172‑6.

 

July 6, '7z6.‑At a private Lodge held at Mr. Geo. Gibson's, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient and Honourable Society of Free Masons, vizt., Henry Tireman.

 

Will. Thompson.

 

Augt. 13, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. Lowther's at the Star in Stonegate, the underwritten Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons, vizt., Bellingham Graham.

 

Nic. Roberts.

 

Dec. 13, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the Right Honb'e. Arthur Ld. Viscount Irvin was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. A. Irwin.

 

This was Arthur Ingram, sixth Viscount Irwin, brotber of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth Viscounts. He was born at Temple Newsam, Yorks, in 1689, matriculated at Oriel College, Oxford, on June 2‑5, 17o6, entered as a Student at Lincoln's Inn on June 13, 17o6. He was M.P. for Horsham from June 1715 to April 1721, when he succeeded to the peerage. He was Lord‑Lieutenant of the East Riding in 172‑8. He died on May 30, 1736. These and other biographical details, which will be given, may be regarded as rebutting a statement sometimes made that the personnel of York Freemasonry was, on the whole, plebeian.

 

Dec. 15, 172‑6.‑At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the undernamed Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.

 

Jno. Motley. Wm. Davile. Thos. Snowsell.

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK 103 Dec. 22, 1726.‑At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the undernamed Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons. Richard Woodhouse. Robart Tilburn.

 

June 24, 1729.‑At St. John's Lodge held at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Freemasons, vizt., Basil Forcer.

 

John Lamb.

 

The same day Edward Thompson, Junior of Marston, Esqr., was chosen Grand Master. Mr. John Wilmer, Deputy Grand Master, Mr. Geo. Rhodes and Mr. Geo. Reynoldson, Grand Wardens, for ye year ensuing and afterwards the Grand Master was pleased to order the following appointment, viz., I do appoint Dr. Johnson, Mr. Drake, Mr. Marsden, Mr. Denton, Mr. Brigham, Mr. R. Marsh, and Mr. Etty to assist in regulating the state of the Lodge and redressing from time to time any inconveniences that may arise. Edwd. Thompson, Gr. Mr.

 

May 4, 17zo.‑At a private Lodge at Mr. Colling's, being the Sign of ye White Swan in Petergate, York, it was order'd by the Dep. Mastr. then present‑That if from thenceforth any of the officers of y Lodge should be absent from ye Company at ye Monthly Lodges, they shall forfeit the sum of one shilling for each omission. John Wilmer, Dep. G.M.

 

With regard to the last four entries, Findel, in his History of Freemasonry, writes After the Minutes of December 22, 1726, a considerable space is left in the page and then follow the Minutes of June 21, 1729, wherein it is said that two Gentlemen were received into the St. John's Lodge and their election confirmed by vote Edw. Thompson, Esq., Grand Master; John Willmers, Deputy Grand Master; G. Rhodes and Reynoldson, Grand Wardens. The Grand Master on his part appointed a Committee of seven Brothers, amongst whom was Drake, to assist him in the management of the Lodge and every now and then support his authority in removing any abuses which might have crept in.

 

The Lodge was, however, at its last gasp and, therefore, the Committee seem to have effected but little, for, on May 4, 1730, it was found necessary to exact the payment of a shilling from all officers of the Lodge who did not make their appearance; and with this announcement the Minutes close.

 

This, however, is not a fair inference. It is the custom at the present day to inflict a fine upon any officers of a Provincial Grand Lodge who may be absent without valid excuse from a meeting of the Provincial Grand Lodge and it was at one time, the rule to inflict a fine, not only upon officers, but also upon ordinary members who might be absent, without just cause, from a Lodge meeting.

 

It will be at once noticed that the Festival of St. John the Evangelist, 1725, was celebrated under somewhat different circumstances from any of those held previously, inasmuch as it was termed the " Grand Feast," the " President " of former years being now the " Grand Master " and a Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, Treasurer and Clerk were also elected. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that this expansion of the Northern organization was 104 FREEMASONRY IN YORK due to the formation of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717, of which doubtless the York Fraternity had been informed and who, therefore, desired to follow the example of the Lodges in London, by having a Grand Master to rule over them.

 

A point much discussed of late years is the number of Lodges which are essential to the legal constitution of a Grand Lodge, for even if the minimum were fixed at three or five, as some advocate, the York organization would be condemned as illegal. Laurence Dermott pronounced the Grand Lodge of England, constituted in London in 1717, to be defective in numbers, because he said, " in order to form a Grand Lodge, there should have been the Masters and Wardens of five regular Lodges" (see Ahiman Re.Zon, 3rd ed., 1778, p. 14). It must, however, be borne in mind, that in 1725, as in 1717, there were no laws to govern the Craft as to the constitution of Grand Lodges, the first of its kind being only some eight years old when the second Grand Lodge was inaugurated; and though the Northern Authority was not the result, so far as is known, of a combination of Lodges, as in London, clearly there was as much right to form such an organization in the one case as in the other.

 

It is to be regretted that the records of the " Four Old Lodges " do not antedate those of the " Grand Lodge " they brought into existence, as fortunately happens in the case of the single Lodge which blossomed into the " Grand Lodge of All England, held at York " and assuredly the priority of a few years cannot be urged as a reason for styling the one body legal and denying such a position to the other. Apparently for some years the York Grand Lodge was without any chartered subordinates, but that of itself does not invalidate its claim to be the chief authority, at least for Yorkshire and the neighbouring counties. That it emanated from an old Lodge at work for years prior to the creation of the London Grand Lodge, there cannot be a doubt ; the records preserved going back to 1712, whilst others ranging from 1705 were extant in the last century. These extend throughout and indeed overlap, that obscure portion of our annals, viz. the epoch of transition. It has long been assumed that this Lodge of 1705‑I z and later, is the same as the one alluded to in the Minster Archives of the fourteenth century. It may be so and the popular belief is perhaps the true one, but until it is supported by at least a modicum of evidence, it would be a waste of time to proceed with its examination. There is, however, absolutely nothing now to connect the York Lodge of the eighteenth and, very probably, of the seventeenth century, with any Lodges of earlier date, although, of course, the possibility and even the probability, of the former being a lineal descendent of the latter must be conceded.

 

In the brief registers of the meetings from 1725 to 1730, it will be seen that after the year 1725, even when Festivals were held, they are not described as Grand Lodge assemblies ; but that some of them were so regarded is evident from the speech delivered by Francis Drake, F.R.S., " Junior Grand Warden," at the celebration of the Festival of St. John the Evangelist in 1726. This well‑known antiquary was familiar with the Constitutions of 1723, for he styles Dr. Anderson " The Learned Author of the Antiquity of Masonry, annexed to which are our Constitu‑ FREEMASONRY IN YORK 105 tions " and adds, " that diligent Antiquary has traced out to us those many stupendous works of the Antients, which were certainly and without doubt, infinitely superior to the Moderns." Dr. Bell, in his Stream of English Freemasonry, says A noted Procession at York and a Charge delivered by Brother Francis Drake, Senior Grand Warden, which was so favoured by the Grand Lodge in London that it was printed by their printer and inserted amongst others published by their order.

 

Francis Drake was junior and not Senior Grand Warden, as may be verified by the title of the pamphlet, which was as follows A Speech delivered to the Worshipful and Ancient Society of Free and Accepted Masons, at a Grand Lodge held at Merchants' Hall, in the city of York, on St. John's Day, December the 27th, 1726. The Right Worshipful Charles Bathurst, Esq., Grand Master. By the Junior Grand Warden. Olim meminisse Juvabit. York Printed by Thomas Gent, for the benefit of the Lodge.

 

There is no date to the pamphlet, which was dedicated to Daniel Draper, Esq. Findel says that another edition was published in London in 1727 or 17zc9 and a further edition by Creake and Cole in 1734. Cole also reprinted the speech in his Constitutions of the Freemasons, for the edition of 1728 and it was reproduced in the Freemasons' Magazine for 1794, p. 3 z9, again in 18 5 8, p. 726. Hughan has also reproduced it in his Masonic Sketches.

 

There is a lengthy biography of Francis Drake in the Dictionary of National Biography, so that it is necessary here only to say that he was a Yorkshireman by birth, the son of the Rev. Francis Drake, Vicar of Pontefract, a living held by the family for three generations and Prebendary of York. He was born in 1695 and in early life established himself at York as a surgeon and practised with considerable reputation, but antiquarian researches became his favourite occupation, in which he was free to indulge, as he was possessed of sufficient means. He was elected F.S.A. on February 27, 1735‑6 and F.R.S. on June io, 1736. His principal work was Eboracum, or the History and Antiquities of the City of York from its Original to the Present Time, which was published in 1836. He also published a Parliamentary History of England to the Restoration and wrote many essays in the Archceologia and contributed many articles to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. He died in 177o and a memorial to his memory stands in St. Mary's Church, Beverley. In his oration Drake referred to the three classes of members of which the Lodge at York was composed, viz. " Working Masons; persons of other Trades and Occupations; and Gentlemen." He recommended the first carefully to read the Constitutions ; the second to obey the moral precepts of the Society and to attend to their own business‑" Let not Masonry so far get the Ascendant as to make you neglect the support of yourselves and Families "‑and the third, to acquire io6 FREEMASONRY IN YORK a knowledge of the Arts and Sciences and particularly Geometry and Architecture. Addressing the last class, he said 'Tis true by Signs, Words and Tokens, you are put upon a level with the meanest Brother; but then you are at liberty to exceed them as far as a superior Genius and Education will conduct you. I am creditably informed that in most Lodges in London and several other parts of this Kingdom, a Lecture on some point of Geometry or Architecture is given at every meeting. And why the Mother Lodge of them all should so far forget her own Institutions, cannot be accounted for, but from her extreme old Age. However, being now sufficiently awaken'd and reviv'd by the comfortable Appearance of so many worthy Sons, I must tell you that she expects that every Gentleman who is called a Free Mason should not be startled at a Problem in Geometry, a Proposition in Euclid, or, at least, be wanting on the History and just Distinction of the Five Orders of Architecture.

 

Drake's statement that " the first Grand Lodge ever held in England was held at York," we need not pause to examine, its absurdity having been fully demonstrated in earlier chapters. If, indeed, for " Grand Lodge," we substitute "Assembly," the contention may perhaps be brought within the region of possibility and the ingenious speculation that the meeting in question was held under the auspices of " Edwin, the first Christian King of the Northumbers, about the Six Hundredth year after Christ, who laid the Foundation of our Cathedral," is at least entitled to consideration, notwithstanding the weakness of its attestation. Not so, however, the assertions, that " King Edwin " presided as " Grand Master " and that the York Lodge is " the Mother Lodge of them all," which will serve rather to amuse, than to convince the readers of this history. The explanation offered by Drake with regard to " Edwin of the Northumbers " does not seem to have been popular at any time, either with the York Masons, or with the Craft at large, for the date ascribed to the apocryphal Constitutions of 9z6 has been almost invariably preferred by 'the Brethren in the north and Laurence Dermott was not slow to follow their example, as will be seen further on. The Old Charges explicitly refer to Prince Edwin temp. Athelstan and to no one else, as being the medium of procuring for the Masons the privilege of holding their Assemblies once a year, Where they would, one of which was held at York; and, therefore, it requires something more than the colourable solution of Drake, to set aside the uniform testimony of our timehonoured Operative Constitutions. Hargrove states that In searching the Archives of Masonry, we find the first Lodge was instituted in this city (York) at a very early period ; indeed, even prior to any other recorded in England. It was termed " The Most Ancient Grand Lodge of All England " and was instituted at York by King Edwin in 9z6, as appears by the following curious extract from the ancient records of the Fraternity.

 

Hughan says that the extract sent him, which he inserted in his Old Charges in reference to York, from Hargrove's History, 1818, p. 476, is deficient in the FREEMASONRY IN YORK 107 following line: " and gave them the charter and commission to meet annually in communicaytion." This clause is peculiar to the MS. noted by Hargrove, which so far has escaped detection.

 

The first writer who treated the subject of Masonry in York at any length was Findel (see his History of Freemasonry, pp. 83, 158‑70), but the observations of this.able historian have been to a great extent superseded by a monograph from the pen of Hughan, published in 1871 (History of Freemasonry at York, forming the first essay in Masonic Sketches and Reprints). The labours, indeed, of subsidiary writers must not be ignored. Many of the articles dealing with York and its unrivalled (English) Archives, in the late Freemasons' Magazine, represent work, which in other hands would have assumed the proportion of volumes. It is now difficult, if not altogether impossible, to trace how far each historian of the Craft is indebted to those that have preceded him. Especially is this the case with regard to subjects largely discussed in publications of an ephemeral character, such as the journals of the Fraternity. There quickly arises a great mass of what is considered common property, unless, as too often happens, it is put down to the account of the last reader who quotes it. It is true that he who shortens the road to knowledge lengthens life, but we are all of us more indebted than we believe we are to that class of writers whom Johnson termed " the pioneers of literature, doomed to clear away the dirt and the rubbish, for those heroes who pass on to honour and to victory, without deigning to bestow a single smile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progress." Among those members of the Craft to whose researches we are chiefly indebted for the notices of York and its Freemasons, which lie scattered throughout the more ephemeral literature of the Craft, are some to whom we may be allowed to allude. The name of the late E. W. Shaw (see particularly Freemasons' Magazine, January to June ‑1864, p.163) was familiar to a past generation of Masonic readers, not less so than that of the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford (see his " Archives of the York Union Lodge " in the Freemasons' Magazine for April 16, 1864), whose former labours, indeed, have been eclipsed by later ones. T. B. Whytehead and Joseph Todd may be next referred to, both diligent explorers of Masonic antiquities and to whose local knowledge visitors at the old shrine of Yorkshire Masonry are so much indebted.

 

Evidently it was the custom to style the ordinary meetings of the York Brethren " Private Lodges," those held on Festival Days in June and December being entitled " General " or " St. John's " Lodges. It appears that Brethren who temporarily presided, in the absence of the Presidents and (subsequently) Grand Masters, were described as Masters, but they could not have been the actual Masters of the Lodge, not only because there were three Brethren so entitled, who occupied the chair at the meetings held on July zi, August io and iz, September 6 and December i, 1725, but because the Rulers at that period were named Presidents. The regular monthly meetings were apparently distinct from the " Private Lodges," the latter being additional to the ordinary assemblies and, it may well be, were convened io8 FREEMASONRY IN YORK exclusively for "makings." The numerous gatherings of the Lodge indicate that the interest of the members was well sustained, at least for a time.

 

The Old Rules of the Grand Lodge at York are given by Hughan in his Masonic Sketches and Reprints as transcribed from the original, written on parchment, and now in the custody of the York Lodge, No. z36, which meets at the Masonic Hall, York. They are as follows Articles agreed to be kept and observed by the Antient Society of Freemasons in the City of York and to be subscribed by every Member thereof at their Admittance into the said Society.

 

Imprimis.‑That every first Wednesday in the month a Lodge shall be held at the house of a Brother according as their turn shall fall out.

 

z.‑All Subscribers to these Articles not appearing at the monthly Lodge shall forfeit Sixpence each time.

 

3.‑If any Brother appear at a Lodge that is not a Subscriber to these Articles, he shall pay over and above his club [i.e. subscription] the sum of one Shilling. 4.‑The Bowl shall be filled at the monthly Lodges with Punch once, Ale, Bread, Cheese and Tobacco in common, but if any more shall be called for by any Brother, either for eating or drinking, that Brother so calling shall pay for it himself besides his club.

 

5.‑The Master or Deputy shall be obliged to call for a Bill exactly at ten o'clock, if they meet in the evening and discharge it.

 

6.‑None to be admitted to the making of a Brother but such as have subscribed to these Articles.

 

7.‑Timely notice shall be given to all the Subscribers when a Brother or Brothers are to be made.

 

8.‑Any Brother or Brothers presuming to call a Lodge with a design to make a Mason or Masons, without the Master or Deputy, or one of them deputed, for every such offence shall forfeit the sum of Five Pounds.

 

q.‑Any Brother that shall interrupt the Examination of a Brother shall forfeit one Shilling.

 

io. Clerk's Salary for keeping the Books and Accounts shall be one Shilling, to be paid him by each Brother at his admittance and at each of the two Grand days he shall receive such gratuity as the Company [i.e. those present] shall think proper.

 

ii.‑A Steward to be chose for keeping the Stock at the Grand Lodge, at Christmas and the Accounts to be passed three days after each Lodge.

 

i2.‑If any disputes arise, the Master shall silence them by a knock of the Mallet, any Brother that shall presume to disobey shall immediately be obliged to leave the Company, or forfeit five Shillings.

 

13.‑An Hour shall be set apart to talk Masonry.

 

i4.‑No person shall be admitted into the Lodge but after having been strictly examined.

 

15.‑No more persons shall be admitted as Brothers of this Society that shall keep a Public House.

 

O.‑That these Articles shall at Lodges be laid upon the Table, to be perused by the Members and also when any new Brothers are made, the Clerk shall publicly read them.

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK 109 17.‑Every new Brother at his admittance shall pay to the Wait[er]s as their Salary, the sum of two shillings, the money to be lodged in the Steward's hands and paid to them at each of the Grand days.

 

18.‑The Bidder of the Society shall receive of each new Brother at his admittance the sum of one Shilling as his Salary [see Rule 7].

 

icy.‑No Money shall be expended out of the Stock after the hour of ten, as in the fifth Article.

 

These Laws were signed by " Ed. Bell, Master" and 87 Members ; and, though not unusual in character for the period, they are not unworthy of reproduction as the earliest regulations known of the old Lodge at York.

 

In the opinion of Hughan, although these Rules " offer a strange contrast to the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, published two years before, we can discover sufficient of the style of their meetings to see that the Freemasons of York, at that early date, had begun to bestir themselves and assume the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge; doubtless in consequence of the London Constitutions being published, a little rivalry being engendered between the two bodies and because public attention was being directed to the Fraternity." With regard to Rule 17, it has been assumed that this is a contraction for " waiters," but it is not improbable that it really means what it says. Raine, in his Glossary of the Fabric Rolls, published in 1859, says that " Waits are musicians who still parade the towns in the north of England at Christmas time. At Durham they had a regular livery and wore a silver badge. Their musical abilities at the present time are not of the most striking character, but formerly they were deemed worthy enough to assist the choristers of the Minster." Hughan, in Masonic Sketches, gives a " Schedule of the Regalia, Records, etc.," dated September 15, 1779, but it is much to be regretted that the " narrow folio manuscript Book, beginning 7th March 1705‑6, containing sundry Accounts and Minutes relative to the Grand Lodge," is missing, all the efforts of those most interested in the discovery having so far proved abortive. With that valuable document before us, it would doubtless be easy to obtain clues to several puzzles which at present confront us. Its contents were well known in 1778, as the following letter proves, which was sent by the then Grand Secretary (York) to B. Bradley, of London (J. W. of the Lodge of Antiquity), in order to satisfy him and William Preston (P.M. of the same old Lodge and author of the famous Illustrations of Masonry) of the existence of the ancient Grand Lodge at York before the year 1717 Sir,‑In compliance with your request to be satisfied of the existence of a Grand Lodge at York previous to the establishment of that at London in 1717 I have inspected an Original Minute Book of this Grand Lodge beginning at 1705 and ending in 1734 from which I have extracted the names of the Grand Masters during that period as follows 1705 Sir George Tempest Barronet.

 

1707 The Right Honourable Robert Benson Lord Mayor [of York].

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK 17o8 Sir William Robinson Bart. 1711 Sir Walter Hawksworth Bart. 1713 Sir George Tempest Bart. 1714 Charles Fairfax Esgr.

 

1720 Sir Walter Hawkesworth Bart. 1725 Edward Bell Esgr.

 

1726 Charles Bathurst Esgr.

 

1729 Edward Thompson Esqr. M.P. 1733 John Johnson Esgr. M.D. 1734 John Marsden Esqr.

 

It is observable that during the above period the Grand Lodge was not holden twice together at the same house and there is an Instance of its being holden once (in 1713) out of York, viz. at Bradford in Yorkshire when 18 Gentlemen of the first families in that Neighbourhood were made Masons.

 

In short the superior antiquity of the Grand Lodge of York to all other Lodges in the Kingdom will not admit a Doubt all the Books which treat on the subject agree that it was founded so early as the year 926 and that in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth it was so numerous that mistaking the purport of their Meeting she was at the trouble of sending an armed Force to dislodge the Brethren, it appears by the Lodge Books since that Time that this Lodge has been regularly continued and particularly by the Book above extracted that it was in being early in the present Century previous to the Era of the Aggrandised Lodge of London‑and that it now exists even the Compilers of the Masons Almanack published under the sanction of that Lodge cannot but acknowledge tho they accompany such their acknowledgement with an invidious and unmasonic Prophecy that it will be soon totally annihilated‑an event which we trust that no man nor sett of men who are mean enough to wish, shall ever live to see.

 

I have intimated to this Lodge what passed between us of your Intention to apply for a Constitution under it and have the satisfaction to inform you that it met with universal Aprobation‑You will therefore be pleased to furnish me with a petition to be presented for the purpose specifying the Names of the Brethren to be appointed to the several Offices and I make no Doubt that the Matter will be speedily accomplished.

 

My best Respects attends Brother Preston whom I expect you will make acquainted with the purport of this and hope it will be agreeable to him‑I am with true Regard Your most faithful Brother and Obedient Servant JACOB BUSSEY, G.S.

 

To Mr. Benjam. Bradley, N. 3 Clements Lane Lombard Street London.

 

York, 29th Aug't 1778.

 

It is necessary here merely to observe that Grand Secretary Bussey terms the chief officers prior to December 1725, " Grand Masters " instead of " Presidents," although the title of " Grand Master " was not adopted until 1725, when the Lodge assumed the rank of a Grand Lodge.

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK Presuming that the year in each case means the period of service and that the election or installation took place on the celebration of the (immediately) preceding Festival of St. John the Evangelist, that would really take the Register back to December 1704 ; when Sir George Tempest, Bart., was chosen to be the President; succeeded in 1707 by the Right Hon. Robert Benson, Lord Mayor of York (afterwards Baron Bingley) ; after whom came Sir William Robinson, Bart., for 1708 (M.P. for York, 1713) ; followed by other local celebrities, down to the year 1734. T. B. Whytehead observes most truly, that " a large proportion of the Masons at York were Lord Mayors, Aldermen and Sheriffs ; and even down to our own day it has been the same." Admiral Robert Fairfax, the " Deputy President " at Christmas 1721, was Lord Mayor in 1715 and M.P. 1n 1713 ; he was the grandson of Sir William Fairfax of Streeton and other instances might be cited of the distinguished social position of these early rulers of the Yorkshire Fraternity, most of whom were members of prominent County families. One is not, indeed, much impressed with the accuracy or critical value of the list of " Grand Masters " supplied by Jacob Bussey and for more reasons than one. Take, for instance, the names of some of the Presidents. Sir Walter Hawkesworth is recorded as the President, June 24, 1713, though not mentioned by Bussey after 1711 until 172o. Then, again, Charles Fairfax is not recognized as the chief Ruler in the minutes of Christmas 1716 and 1721, but is distinctly described as the Deputy President (" D.P.") ; neither is he anywhere termed the President in the existing Roll of 1712‑3o. His name certainly occurs as " The Worshipful Charles Fairfax, Esgre.," on June 24, 1714 ; but the same prefix was accorded to other temporary occupants of the chair, who were not Presidents at the time. The so‑called President of 1725 is simply entitled " Master " on July 2I in that year, as Scourfield and Huddy are in 1725. It is impossible, therefore, to arrive at any definite conclusion with regard to these officers as respects the list in question, nor can their status in the Lodge be even approximately determined upon the evidence before us.

 

Dr. J. Pearson Bell, of Hull, in his Stream of English Freemasonry, rather too confidently assumes that the tenure of office of the successive Presidents lasted from the years opposite their own names, until the dates placed by the same authority against those of their successors. This, of course, may have been sometimes the case; but we know for a certainty that it was not always so. For 1713 the same writer gives Sir Walter Hawkesworth instead of Sir George Tempest as the President, and one is inclined to agree with him in so doing, notwithstanding it is opposed to Bussey's statement. Dr. Bell bestows the title of " President " on Charles Bathurst for the year 1724 and " Edmund Bell or William Scourfield " Esquires for 1725. Charles Bathurst was not initiated until July 2i, 1725, unless, indeed, the office was held by his father, as T. B. Whytehead suggests (see The Freemason, November 8, 1884) was possible ; if so, the elder Bathurst died during his year of office and was succeeded by his son on December 27, 1725. It is possible that the year stated by the Grand Secretary was not the right one, for there are other discrepancies which have yet to be considered. So far as can now be conjectured, " George 112 FREEMASONRY IN YORK Bowes, Esq.," who was Deputy President on March 19, 1712 and August 7, 1713, was as much entitled to be described as President as either of the three gentlemen already mentioned. The Bowes were well‑known people and this George Bowes married a daughter of Sir John Legard, Bart., of Ganton. T. B. Whytehead has succeeded in tracing another Grand Master " of the Grand Lodge of All England at York," thus proving the incomplete character of the list of Masonic dignitaries supplied by the Grand Secretary of 1778. The discovery made by this excellent authority he thus relates in The Freemason of December zo, 1884 A short time ago I noticed in an old copy of Debrett a statement that the first Baronet of the Milner family was Grand Master of Freemasons in England. I knew that he had been " made " at York, as also that he had not been Grand Master of either of the Southern Bodies ; and after some inquiry and the kind assistance of Clements Markham and of Sir F. G. Milner, I have ascertained that the first Baronet was Grand Master at York in 1718‑9. In a MS. work in four volumes in the Leeds Library, entitled, A Collection of Coats of Arms and Descents of the Several Families of the Test Riding, from MSS. of John Hopkinson ; corrected by T. Wilson, of Leeds, is the following entry, under the name of Sir W. Milner " On St. John Baptist Day, 1718, at York, he was elected Grand Master of the Freemasons in England, being the 798 successor from Edwin the Great." This is an interesting addition to the list of the York Grand Masters.

 

The entry in the latest edition of Debrett runs: " Sir William Milner, 1st Bart., of Nun Appleton Hall, Yorks, M.P. for York 1722‑23 ; Grand Master of the Freemasons in England, was created a Baronet, 26 February, 1716‑17." In Foster's Yorkshire Pedigrees the entry is: " Sir William Milner, of Nunappleton, was educated at Eton and Cambridge, created a Baronet 26 February, 1717 ; elected M.P. for York in 17zz and 1727 ; elected Grand Master of the Freemasons in England in 1728, being the 798th successor of Edwin the Great. He died 23 November, 1745." William Milner, the father of the first Baronet, was a cloth merchant in Leeds, of which city he was mayor in 1697. He amassed a fortune, partly by his investments in the Aire and Calder navigation project. He erected a white marble statue to Queen Anne in the niche outside the Leeds Town Hall. He was granted a coat‑of‑arms in 1710 and, in 1711, he bought Nun Appleton and the manor of Bolton Percy.

 

The present Baronet, the seventh, the Right Hon. Sir Frederick G. Milner, who was appointed Past Grand Warden of England 111 1goi, on the occasion of the installation of the Duke of Connaught as Grand Master, is the great great‑great‑grandson of the first Baronet. He was initiated in the Churchill Lodge, No. 478, Oxford and afterwards joined the Eboracum Lodge, No. 1611, York, of which he was installed Master on November 1o, 1884. Strange to say, the discovery of the relationships was only made by the authorities of that Lodge just in time to furnish the materials for one of the most attractive FREEMASONRY IN YORK 113 features in the toast list at the subsequent banquet designed by the successful investigator.

 

It will be remembered that the next Grand Master, "Edward Thompson, Junior, of Marston, Esq.," was elected and installed at a " St. John's Lodge," held on June 24, 1729.

 

This is, perhaps, a fitting opportunity to notice some of the other personalities prominent in the York Freemasonry of the period.

 

Sir George Tempest, of Tonge, was the second baronet. He was born in 1672 and matriculated at University College, Oxford, at the age of sixteen years. He succeeded to the Baronetcy on June 23, 1693 and rebuilt Tonge Hall in 1702. He died in October 1745, at the age of seventy‑three years.

 

Robert Benson is an interesting character. He was the son and heir of Robert Benson, of Wrenthorpe, co. York (described as " an attorney of mean extraction ") by Bertha, daughter of Tobias Jenkins, of Grimston, in that county. He inherited an estate of ú1,500 a year from his father, which he largely augmented in later years. He was M.P. (sitting first as a Tory, but afterwards joining the Whigs) for Thetford, 1702‑5 and for the city of York from 1705‑13, of which city he was Lord Mayor in 1707, the year of his " Grand" Mastership. He was a Commissioner of the Treasury 111 1710‑11, under Harley's administration and Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1711‑13. On July 21, 1713, he was elevated to the peerage, under the style and title of Baron Bingley of Bingley, co. York. His elevation led to some antagonism among the more rigid members of that aristocratic body and provoked some pleasantries because of his lack of a coat‑of‑arms. He was a Director of the South Sea Company, 1711‑15 ; Privy Councillor from June 14, 1711, until September 17 14 and restored to the list on June 11, 1730, on taking office under Walpole. He was Ambassador at Madrid for Queen Anne, 1713‑14; and Treasurer to the Household of George II, 1730‑31. He obtained from the Crown the grant of an extensive tract called Bramham Manor, co. York, whereon he erected a stately mansion. He married, December 21, 1703, at St. Giles's in the Fields, Lady Elizabeth, daughter of Heneage Finch, first Earl of Aylesford (to whom he was introduced by the Earl of Portsmouth) by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Banks, Bart. He died at the age of fifty‑five years on April 9, 173 1 and was buried on April 14 in St. Paul's Chapel, Westminster Abbey. His widow died on February 26, 1757, at the age of seventy‑eight and was buried on March ii, also in Westminster Abbey. At his death his Barony became extinct, but was revived in favour of his son‑in‑law, George Lane Fox, M.P., but he also died without male issue, when the Barony again became extinct.

 

Sir William Robinson, of Newby, co. York, Knight and first Baronet, was the son of Thomas Robinson, a Turkey merchant. He succeeded to the estate of Newby on the death of his uncle, Sir Metcalfe Robinson, Bart. and was himself created a Baronet on February 13, 1689‑coo, having, apparently, been knighted a short time before. He was Sheriff for co. York, 1689‑go; M.P. for Northallerton, 1689‑go and from 16go‑5 ; and for York in nine Parliaments from 1698‑1722, FREEMASONRY IN YORK of which city he was Lord Mayor in 1700. He was great‑great‑gr,, Marquess of Ripon, who was Grand Master of England from 187( _.. .~,~. lie married on September 8, 1699, at Wheldrake, Mary, daughter of George Aislabie, of Studley Royal, co. York. He died on December 22, 1736, at the age of eighty. Sir Walter Hawkesworth of Hawkesworth, second Baronet, succeeded to the Baronetcy in February 1683 and married circa 1697, Judith, daughter of John Ayscough of Osgodby, co. Lincoln. He died at York on March 17, 1735, when the Baronetcy became extinct.

 

Charles Fairfax was a Jacobite and, in 1715, was fined for recusancy ; his house at York was searched and his gun confiscated. The same year he was brought before his brother Robert, Lord Mayor; Sir Henry Goodricke ; Sir Walter Hawkesworth ; and Sir William Robinson and sent to gaol.

 

Sir Thomas Gascoigne, of Porlington, co. York, was the eighth Baronet. He was born in February 1743 and succeeded his brother on January io, 1762. He renounced the Roman Catholic faith and read the recantation of its tenets before the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was M.P. for Thirsk, 1780‑4; for Malton from April to August 1784; and for Arundel, 1795‑6. He died on February ii, 181o, when the Baronetcy became extinct.

 

What Jacob Bussey, G.S., intended to convey by the words, " It is observable that, during the above period, the Grand Lodge was not holden twice together at the same place," is not altogether clear, as several consecutive meetings took place at James Boreham's, 1712‑z6 and at the " Starr in Stongate," 1725‑9. Moreover, there were Lodges held in other houses more than once in the year‑e.g. at John Colling's, in Petergate, 1724‑5. Evidently, as stated by Lucy Toulmin Smith in the Introduction to English Gilds, the feast was held occasionally (or regularly) at the houses of the Brethren by turns.

 

It is from this letter we learn that the Lodge was held at Bradford by the York Brethren, when some eighteen gentlemen were made Masons. No mention is made of the Lodge held at Scarborough in 1705, under the presidency of William Thomp son, Esq., though there is probability that it assembled under the banner of the old Lodge at York. Hughan states, on the authority of Samuel Middleton, of Scarborough, that William Thompson was M.P. for that town in 1705 and was appointed Warden of the Mint in 1715. He died in 1744.

 

Preston bases his account of the York Grand Lodge on the letter of its Grand Secretary (probably with subsequent additions from the same source).

 

From this account [says Preston] which is authenticated by the Books of the Grand Lodge at York, it appears that the Revival of Masonry in the South of England did not interfere with the proceedings of the fraternity in the North ; nor did that event taking place alienate any allegiance that might be due to the General Assembly or Grand Lodge there, which seems to have been considered at that time and long after, as the Mother Lodge of the whole Kingdom. For a series of years the most perfect harmony subsisted between the two Grand Lodges and private Lodges flourished in both parts of the Kingdom under their separate jurisdiction. The FREEMASONRY IN YORK only mark of superiority which the Grand Lodge in the North appears to ha retained after the revival of Masonry in the South, is in the title which they claim viz. The Grand Lodge of All England, TOTIUS ANGLIIE ; while the Grand Loc in the South passed only under the denomination of " The Grand Lodge of En glan, The distinction claimed by the York Masons appears to have originated w the Junior Grand Warden on December 27, 1726 ; at least, there is no earlier reference to it that can be traced. Hughan suggests (see Illustrations of Masonry, 1788 ed., pp. 245‑6) that the title may have been a retort upon the Pope, by whom Canterbury was given a precedence over York, the Archbishop of the former city being styled " Primate of All England " and the latter " of England " only.

 

Preston was a warm adherent of the Northern Grand Lodge during the period of his separation from the Grand Lodge of England and, assuredly, if all he states about its antiquity and character could be substantiated, no one need wonder at his partiality being so marked. He declares that " To be ranked as descendants of the original York Masons was the glory and boast of the Brethren in almost every country where Masonry was established; and from the prevalence and universality of the idea that York was the place where Masonry was first established by Charter, the Masons of England have received tribute from the first States in Europe " (Illustrations of Masonry, p. 246). What can be said of such a statement, when, as a simple matter of fact, not a Lodge abroad was ever constituted by the York Grand Lodge and as to the tribute mentioned, there is not the slightest confirmatory evidence respecting it to be found anywhere.

 

The fact is, Preston doubtless wrote what he thought ought to be the case, if it were not really so, or shall we say, what he considered might be true, if the means for a full investigation were granted him.

 

Preston's version of the breach which occurred between the two Grand Lodges ‑London and York‑is in the form of two distinct statements, one of which must be inaccurate, as both cannot be true. According to him, it arose out " of a few Brethren at York having, on some trivial occasion, seceded from their ancient Lodge, [and] applied to London for a Warrant of Constitution. Without any inquiry into the merits of the case, their application was honoured. Instead of being recommended to the Mother Lodge, to be restored to favour, these Brethren were encouraged to revolt ; and in open defiance of an established authority, permitted under the banner of the Grand Lodge at London, to open a new Lodge in the city of York itself. This illegal extension of power and violent encroachment on the privileges of antient Masonry, gave the highest offence to the Grand Lodge at York and occasioned a breach, which time and a proper attention to the Rules of the Order, only can repair 2) (Illustrations of Masonry, 1788 ed., p. 247). His second version of the " breach " is said to be due to the encroachment of the Earl of Crawford on the " Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Masons in the City of York, by constituting two Lodges within their district and by granting without their consent, 116 FREEMASONRY IN YORK three Deputations, one for Lancashire,/ umberland. This circumstance tl,resented and ever after seem to h, jealous eye. All friendly inte, supposed cause of unpleasar Provincial Grand Master f which it seems so trouble stance, all correspond P. 274) Those who ha view of the subject may have been led astray, for there is no ~' stantiate the allegation that at any time there was animosity side or the other; and, as Hughan, in Masonic Sketches and R, y shows, if Preston's explanations are accepted, the granting of the ~Jo. 59, Scarborough, on August 27, 1729, is quite ignored, besides wi._ shall find farther on, that a friendly correspondence on the part of the Yon_ Brand Lodge was offered the Grand Lodge of England, after the breach between them is said to have occurred, though the offer was not accepted.

 

It is singular also to note the error of Findel (who says in History of Freemasonry, p.165, that " Many Brethren at their own request received in London a Charter for the institution of a Lodge at York ") and other historians with respect to the invasion of the York Territory, A.D. 1734, for, as Hughan conclusively points out, there is no register of any Lodge being warranted or constituted in Yorkshire or its neighbourhood in that year. The fact is, the second Yorkshire Lodge was No. 176, Halifax, July 12, 1738 (now Probity No. 61), the first, as already stated, being the one at Scarborough of 1729 (see Four Old Lodges, pp. 51‑2).

 

It is not possible now to decide when the " Grand Lodge of All England " ceased to work‑that is to say, spasmodically, at least. Findel states (History of Freemasonry, p. 164) that " the York Lodge was inactive from 1730 to 1760 " and " at its last gasp " on May 30, 1730, when fines were levied for non‑attendance. The same able writer observes : " The isolated or Mother Lodge, which dates from a very early period, had, until the year 1730, neither made nor constituted any other Lodge " (Ibid., p. 166). If by the latter declaration, it is meant that a Lodge or Lodges were formed by the "Grand Lodge of All England," in 1730, there seems to be no evidence to justify the statement, but apparently collateral proof is not wanting to suggest the constitution, or at least the holding of Lodges in other parts of the country, besides York, under the authority of the Old Lodge in question, prior to 1730 ; the Assemblies at Scarborough and Bradford in 1705 and 1713 respectively being alone sufficient to support this contention.

 

That the Grand Lodge at York was not extinct even in 1734 is also susceptible of proof, for the Roll of Parchment, No. 9, still preserved by the present York Lodge, No. 236, which is a List of Master Masons, thirty‑five in all, indicates that meetings had been held so late as that year and probably later‑July 7, 1734, being nd for Durham and a third for Northodge at York at that time highly Grand Lodge at London with a (Ibid., p. 268). Yet another the granting of a Patent to the .; Marquess of Carnarvon, in 1738, . ork Brothers " that since that circumao Grand Lodges has ceased " (Ibid., FREEMASONRY IN YORK 117 attached to the 27th name on the Register. There are then eight more names to be accounted for, which may fairly be appr imately dated a few months farther on, if not into the year i~ 1735.

 

The following is the list to wb~ of parchment, z ft. 6 in. long and r is made. It is written on a slip eaded ASONS ,odge at ZORK.

 

`arm. Miln' gym. Wright Robt. Bainbridge Edwd. Tho. Lewis Wood Henry Tireman (illegible) John Rogers Frac Cordukes (illegible) Ric Denton July 1st 1734 John Johnson William Stephenson Steph Bulkley Henry Pearson Malby Beckwith Francis Benton Francis Drake Elbing Cressy James Hamilton Geo. Reynoldson Richard Thompson John Mellin Geo. Rhodes George Marsh George Coates Philemon Marsh Thos. Mason Christer Coulton Jno. Marsden Saml. Ascough James Carpenter Luke Lowther John Smith James Lupton John Wilmer James Boreham This list is not dated except between the names of Cordukes and Bulkley, but T. B. Whytehead says (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. xiii, p. 96) that it seems to him to point to the fact that it was begun when Edwd. Thompson was Master in 1729 and was signed subsequently by members in no particular order, but as they happened to have the opportunity of so doing.

 

There is no occasion to depend entirely upon the testimony of this Roll, for the Book of Constitutions, 1738, p. 196, contains the following reference to the York Lodge, which is not one likely to have been inserted, unless it was known that, about the time or year mentioned, the Lodge was still in existence.

 

All these foreign Lodges [i.e. those to which Deputations had been granted by the Grand Lodge of 1717] are under the Patronage of our Grant) Master of England.

 

But the old Lodge at YORK CITY and the Lodges Of SCOTLAND, IRELAND, FRANCE and ITALY, affecting Independency, are under their own Grand Masters, tho' they have the same Constitutions, Charges, Regulations, &c., for Substance, with their Brethren of England.

 

Then there are the several allusions to Freemasonry at York by Dr. Fifield Dassigny in 1774‑A Serious and Impartial Enquiry into the Cause of the Present FREEMASONRY IN YORK 119 was duly addressed by the retiring Master, Frodsham and, by request of the members, the charge was printed and published, going through more than one edition. It was entitled A Charge Delivered to the most Antient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, in a Lodge held at the Punch Bowl, in Stonegate, York, upon Friday, January 18, 1762, by Bro. Frodsham, at his dismission of the chair. T. B. Whytehead tells us (The Freemason, January io, i88o) that " as Bro. Seth Agar, the W.M. (from Jan. 3, 1763), soon afterwards became Grand Master of All England, it seems probable that the superior assumption of Grand Lodge had eclipsed the humble Punch Bowl Lodge and that the latter was deserted by its members." That the constitution of the Lodge of 1761 was actually the cause of the revival of the slumbering Grand Lodge cannot positively be asserted, but it appears to be most probable that the formation of the one led to the restoration of the other and yet, singular to state, the latter organization, though apparently owing a new lease of life to the existence of the former, was only able to shake off the lethargy of long years by absorbing the very body which stimulated its own reconstitution.

 

We will now cite the full account of the revival, which is given by Hughan (Masonic Sketches, p. s 1) from the actual records.

 

The Antient and Independent Constitution of Free and Accepted Masons Belonging to the City of York, was this Seventeenth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1761, Revived by six of the surviving members of the Fraternity by the Grand Lodge being opened and held at the House of Mr. Henry Howard, in Lendall, in the said City, by them and others hereinafter named. When and where it was further agreed on, that it should be continued and held there only the Second and Last Monday in every month.

 

Present Grand Master, . Brother Francis Drake, Esq., F.R.S.

 

Deputy G.M., . Brother George Reynoldson.

 

Grand Wardens, . Brothers George Coates and Thomas Mason. Together with Brothers Christopher Coulton and Martin Crofts.

 

Visiting Brethren.

 

Tasker, Leng, Swetnam, Malby Beckwith, Frodsham, Fitzmaurice, Granger, Crisp, Oram, Burton and Howard.

 

Minutes of the Transactions at the Rivival and Opening of the said Grand Lodge Brother John Tasker was by the Grand Master and the rest of the Brethren, unanimously appointed Grand Secretary and Treasurer, he having first petitioned to become a Member and being approved and accepted nem. con.

 

Brother Henry Howard also petitioned to be admitted a Member, who was accordingly balloted for and approved nem. con.

 

Mr. Charles Chaloner, Mr. Seth Agar, George Palmes, Esq., Mr. Ambrose 110 FREEMASONRY IN YORK Beckwith and Mr. William Siddall, petitioned to be made Brethren the first opportunity, who, being severally balloted for, were all approved nem. con.

 

This Lodge was closed till Monday, the 23rd day of this instant month, unless in case of Emergency.

 

The V.S.L. which, it is believed, was used at the meetings, is in the safe keeping of the Eboracum Lodge, No. 1611, and is inscribed, " This Bible belongs to the Free Mason's Lodge at Mr. Howard's at York, 1761." The names of George Reynoldson and Martin Crofts do not appear in the " List of Master Masons in the Lodge at York " already given, unless, which is improbable, they happen to be identical with the two illegible names. A fair assumption is that they were initiates between 1734 and 1761 and that the term " Revival " is an accurate designation.

 

Several of the visitors mentioned were members of the Lodge assembling at the Punch Bowl and the fact of their being present in such a capacity has been assumed as proof that the two Grand Lodges were on terms of amity, especially emphasized by the friendly action of the York organization later on, about which a few words have presently to be said.

 

A noticeable feature of this record is that the Grand Master, Deputy, and Wardens occupied their positions as if holding them of inherent right, the only Brother elected to office being the Grand Secretary, who was also the Grand Treasurer. It seems probable that Francis Drake and his principal officers must have acted in their several capacities prior to the dormancy of 1740‑50. If this was the case‑and there are no facts which maitate against such an hypothesisthen the Grand Master and his coadjutors were nominated and elected at assemblies of the Grand Lodge of which no record has come down to us.

 

The five candidates proposed on March 17 were initiated on May i 1, 176 1 ; mention is also made of a Brother being raised to the degree of a Master Mason on May 23 and Apprentices were duly passed as Fellow Crafts. Minutes of this kind, however, need not be reproduced in these pages, neither is there much in the rules agreed to in 1761 and later, which requires particularization.

 

The fees for the three Degrees and membership amounted to ú2 16s., which sum " excused the Brother from any further expence during Lodge hours for that Quarter, supper and drink out of and Glasses broke in the Lodge only excepted." The quarterage was fixed at six shillings and sixpence, " except as above." Candidates were only eligible for initiation on a unanimous ballot, but joining members, " regularly made masons in another Lodge," were elected if there were not more than two adverse votes ; the fee for the latter election being half a guinea. Careful provisions were laid down for the guidance of the officers in the event of Brethren seeking admission who were unable to prove their regularity. It was ordered on July 15, 1777, " that when a Constitution is granted to any place, the Brother who petitioned for such shall pay the fees charged thereon upon delivery ". ; and on November zo, 1778, the members resolved " that the Grand Master of All England FREEMASONRY IN YORK 12.1 be on all occasions as such stiled and addressed by the Title of Most Worshipful, and the Masters of all Lodges under the Constitution of this Grand Lodge by the Title of Right Worshipful." The secretary's salary was fixed at ten guineas per annum from December 27, 1779 and the Treasurer was required " to execute his Bond in the Penal sum of one hundred pounds." The fee for certificates was fixed at six shillings each, "always paid on delivery." Unless in cases of emergency two Degrees were not allowed to‑be conferred in one evening and " separate Ballot shall be made to each Degree distinct," as is still the custom under many Grand Lodges, but not in England, one ballot covering all three Degrees, also membership. There is no proof that the " Grand Lodge of All England " sided actively with either the Grand Lodge (Moderns) founded in 1717 or that of the "Andents " founded in 175 3. Passively, indeed, its sympathies would appear to have been with the older organization and, though it ultimately struck up an alliance with the Lodge of Antiquity, No. z, as will be noted later, in so doing a blow was aimed at the pretensions of both the Grand bodies claiming jurisdiction in the south.

 

We now approach an important innovation on the part of the York Grand Lodge, no less than the granting of Warrants for subordinate Lodges, in accordance with the custom so long followed by its London prototype. As previously intimated, the meetings of the old Lodge at York, held out of that city, do not appear to have led to the creation of separate Lodges, such as Bradford in 1713 and elsewhere. On this point it is impossible to speak with precision ; it cannot be affirmed positively they did not, but, on the other hand, there is no evidence to warrant even a random conjecture that they did.

 

So far as evidence is concerned, there is nothing to warrant the belief, so frequently advanced, that Charters were granted for subordinate Lodges by the Grand Lodge of All England, until after the" Revival" Of 1761. Prior to that date, indeed, it is quite possible that frequent meetings were held by the old York Lodge in neighbouring towns, but never (it would appear) were any other Lodges constituted by that body, as we know there were in 1762 and later.

 

No little trouble has been taken in an attempt to compile for the first time a list of the several Lodges warranted by the York authorities, but unfortunately there is not sufficient data to make the roll as complete as could be desired. The only one of the series that bears an official number is the first Lodge that was warranted, for it was not customary in this Lodge to assign numbers, which makes the task of tracing the York Lodges and of fixing their precedence a very difficult one.

 

" YORK " LODGES FROM 1762.

 

1. French Lodge, " Punch Bowl," York, June io, 1762.

 

2. Scarborough, Aug. 1cg, 1762.

 

3. " Royal Oak," Ripbn, July 31, 1769.

 

4. " Crown," Knaresborough, Oct. 30, 1769.

 

5 . " Duke of Devonshire," Macclesfield, Sept. 24, 1770 6. Hovingham, May 29, 1773 FREEMASONRY IN YORK 7. Snainton, near Malton, Dec. 14, 1778.

 

9. " Druidical Lodge," Rotherham Dec. zz, 1778.

 

io. " Fortitude," at the " Sun," Hollingwood, Lanc., Nov. z7, 1790Deputation for a " Grand Lodge." 8. " Grand Lodge of England, South of the River Trent," March 29, 1779. ] No. I, " Lodge of Perfect Observance," London, Aug. 9, I779.~ tNo. z, " Lodge of Perseverance and Triumph," London, Nov. 15, 1779‑f There was much correspondence about certain Masonic jewels between the Grand Secretary at York and a Bro. W. Hutton Steel, of Scarborough and others, extending from I 77z to 178 1. The jewels were said to have been used by a Lodge whose " Constitution was obtained from York," probably No. z as above. Bro. Steel presented them on December z6, 1779 and declared that " No meeting of a Lodge since 173 5 " had been held and that he was the " Last Survivor of four score Brethren." The impression is that this aged Brother referred to the Lodge No. 59, warranted by the Grand Lodge of England‑not All England‑in 17z9 and this opinion is strengthened by the fact that 1729 is engraved on these jewels, which are carefully treasured at York. Doubtless they were used by both the Lodges named prior to their becoming extinct.

 

In addition to these, one must add that in the Records and elsewhere, mention is made of petitions being presented to the Grand Lodge for the holding of Lodges, some of which were doubtless granted; but there is no register existing from which we can ascertain what charters were actually issued.

 

I. Petition addressed to the " G.M. of All England at York " and signed by Abraham Sampson, about the year 1771. He declared that he had been taken to task by the " Grand Lodge in London " for getting a Warrant for Macclesfield. The new Lodge was to be held at the " Black Bull, otherwise the Rising Sun, Pettycoat Lane, White Chappel," the first Master and Wardens being nominated.

 

II. A letter was read at the Grand Lodge held September 27, 1779, "Requiring the mode of applying for a Constitution," the petitioner being " Bro. William Powell," of Hull. J. Coultman Smith [History of the Warrant of the Humber Lodge, 18 5 5 ] declared that the Charter of the present " Humber Lodge," No. 5 7, of that town, was derived from the York Grand Lodge; but he is in error, that Lodge having been constituted by the "Atholl " Grand Lodge, London (see Gould's Atholl Lodges, pp. I3‑I4).

 

III. A letter was received from Doncaster, dated July II, I78o, to the effect that a Warrant had been applied for and granted. Probably there had been an application sent to the York Grand Lodge ; but a Charter had been obtained ad interim from London,‑the present St. George's Lodge, No. 242, of Doncaster, being the one referred to (see W. Delanoy's History of St. George's Lodge, I88I). IV. A petition was received for a Lodge to be held at the " Brush Makers' Arms, Smithy Door," at the house of John Woodmans, Manchester, dated December 23, 1787 ; but as the records of that period are missing, one cannot say what answer was given to the petitioners, but it is very likely that a Charter was granted.

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK 123 T. B. Whytehead has supplied the following interesting extract from the records, which establishes the fact that the year 1762 witnessed the first Lodge being placed on the Roll of the revived Grand Lodge at York. It would have simplified matters very considerably if this list, which was begun " in order," had been continued in like manner by the York officials.

 

Constitutions or Warrants granted by this Right Worshipful Grand Lodge to Brethren enabling them to hold Lodges at the places and in the houses particularly mentioned in such constitutions or warrants.

 

No. i. Anno Secundo Brother Drake G.M. On the io' day of June 1762 a constitution or warrant was granted unto the following Brethren, French Prisoners of War on their Parol (viz.) Du Fresne, Le Pettier, Julian Vilfort, Pierre Le Villaine, Louis Brusle, and Francis Le Grand, Thereby enabling them and others to open and continue to hold a Lodge at the sign of the Punch Bowl in Stonegate in the City of York and to make New Brethren as from time to time occasion might require, Prohibiting nevertheless them and their successors from making anyone a Brother who shall be a subject of Great Britain or Ireland, which said Lodge was accordingly opened and held on the said io' day of June and to be continued regularly on the second Thursday in every month or oftener if occasion shall require.

 

Of the second Lodge but little account has been preserved in the archives of the York Lodge, though, undoubtedly, a Minute‑book was sent to the Grand Lodge for safe custody, which contained the records either of this Lodge or of the one formed in 1729 by the Grand Lodge in London. Hughan declares he saw a Minute‑book, or extracts therefrom, in the York archives, being records of a Lodge opened at Scarborough " on Thursday the 19th August 1762 by virtue of a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons at York, Bro. Thos. Balderston, Rt. Worp'. M. ; Thos. Hart, S.W. ; John Walsham, J.W. ; Matt‑. Fowler, S." ; hence one is inclined to believe that the second on the roll is the Lodge referred to. Joseph Todd has kindly transcribed the few Minutes thus preserved, which begin March 25, 1762 (before the Warrant was received) and end August 30, 1768.

 

Of the third on the list there is no doubt, it having been duly " seal'd and signed " ; neither is there any as to the fourth, the Minute of October 30, 1769, reading as follows : " The three last‑mentioned Brethren petitioned for a Constitu tion to open and hold a Lodge at the sign of the Crown in Knaresborough, which was unanimously agreed to and the following were appointed officers for the opening of the same." It would seem that the belief in a Lodge having been warranted in the Inniskilling Dragoons by the York authorities‑which is held by Hughan‑on the same day as No. 4, must be given up, since Whytehead and Todd positively affirm that there is no reference whatever in the Minutes to such a Charter having been granted (see Atholl Lodges, p. z5). It is but fair, however, to state that the text of the Minutes of the procession suggest that a Lodge was formed, either in Inniskilling or in connexion with the regiment mentioned, as the record reads : " Many Brethren from York, as well as from the daughter Lodges of 124 FREEMASONRY IN YORK the Grand Lodge, established at Ripon, Knaresborough and Inniskilling, were present at this Festival." The earliest allusion to the Inniskilling Dragoons is in 1770, when the Brethren of the Lodge held in that regiment (doubtless No. 123 on the roll of " Atholl " Lodges) took part, with other visitors, in the Great Procession on the celebration of the Festival of St. John the Evangelist. It was arranged on December 17, Whytehead maintains that " the Brethren of the Inniskilling Regiment who carry the Colours and act as Tylers, as also all the Brethren in the said Regiment who are private soldiers to have tickets gratis." The hospitality thus exhibited to the members of a regimental Lodge by the Brethren at York, has been again and again exercised of late years by the " York " and " Eboracum " Lodges, no warmer reception being ever given to military Lodges than in the city of York. The Lodge at Macclesfield does not seem to have been successfully launched, as no fees were ever paid to the authorities at York ; and probably the existence of an " Atholl " Lodge in the same town from 1764 may have had something to do with the members of No. 5 transferring their allegiance.

 

There is nothing to add as to Nos. 6 and 7, but the ninth of the series, according to Hughan, was called " No. iocg " at Rotherham, the members evidently considering that the addition of one hundred to its number would increase its import ance. Some of its records found their way to York, ranging from December zz, 1778, tp March 26, 1779. There is no account of the Lodge at Hollingwood among the York documents, the only notice of its origin being the original Charter in the archives of the " United Grand Lodge of England," which has been transcribed and published by Hughan in Masonic Sketches, Part II, Appendix C. The Warrant was signed by Kilby and Blanchard, Grand Master and Grand Secretary respectively. It is to be regretted that this Charter is not included among the Masonic documents guarded in so zealous a manner at York. A volume of Minutes of the York Grand Lodge, 178o‑9z, is evidently still missing, though Hargrove saw it in Blanchard's hands so late as 18 i cg.

 

Hughan, in his History of Freemasonry at York and Whytehead, ably continuing the same subject, As Told by an Old Newspaper File (The Freemason, September 1884), have furnished the most interesting sketches of the proceedings of the York Grand Lodge from the " Revival " of 1761, as well as of those assembling under other Constitutions. It is not the intention, however, to do more than pass in review a few of their leading references. In the York Courant for December zo, 1763, is an advertisement by authority of J. S. Morritt, the Grand Master, the two Grand Wardens being Brooks and Atkinson, the latter Brother having been the builder of the Bridge over the Foss at York. He and his brother were initiated in 1761, " without paying the usual fees of the Lodge as being working masons," indicating (Whytehead suggests) the fact that the old Lodge at York recognized its operative origin. Several of the festivals were held at the Punch Bowl, an inn being much frequented by the York Masons. The Lodges favoured processions to church prior to the celebration of the festivals, many of the advertisements for which have been carefully reproduced by Whytehead. The J. S. Morritt referred to in the FREEMASONRY IN YORK 125 advertisement was John Sawrey Morritt, of Rokeby Park, co. York, who married Anne, daughter of Henry Peirse, of Bedale, M.P. for Northallerton. He was the father of J. B. S. Morritt, M.A. Cantab., one of the earliest travellers in Greece and Asia Minor, who published a description of the plains of Troy and several translations from the Greek poets and was himself M.P. in turn for Beverley, Northallerton and Shaftesbury. The son was also an intimate friend of Sir Walter Scott, who described Rokeby as one of the most enviable places he had ever seen and it was the subject of his poem Rokeby, which was lauded for the " admirable, perhaps unique, fidelity to local descriptions." It was the son who was entrusted with the secret of the authorship of Waverley. Both parents were buried in a vault in Rokeby Church, where their son erected to their memory a monument with a poetic inscription.

 

In the Courant for June io, 1770, is an announcement on behalf of the Lodge at the Crown, Knaresborough, for June z6,‑" A regular Procession to Church to hear Divine Service and a Sermon to be preached by a Brother suitable to the occasion," being the chief attractions offered by the Rev. Charles Kedar, the Master and Bateson and Clark, Wardens. In similar terms, another procession was advertised for December 27, 1770, to St. John's Church, Micklegate, York, the notice being issued by order of Grand Master Palmes. The sermon was preached by the Rev. W. Dade, Rector of Barmston, in the East Riding, author of A History of Holderness, the congregation including more than a hundred Brethren. It was usual to have both a summer and winter festival in York; so the zeal of the Fraternity was kept alive, so far as processions and festive gatherings could promote the interests of the Society.

 

The brief existence of the Lodge at the Punch Bowl, No. 259, constituted by the Grand Lodge of England (London) on January i z, 1761, did not deter the Brethren of the Grand Lodge of England from constituting another Lodge in York ‑the Apollo being warranted there as No. 450 on July 31, 1773. Whytehead (The Freemason, August 30, 1884) states that many distinguished Brethren were connected with this Lodge; and several of the members of the old Lodge, who should have stood by their mother, went over to the more fashionable body which met at the George Hotel, in Coney Street. The Apollo was evidently regarded as an intruder by the York Grand Lodge, as the Brethren of the latter convened their meetings on the same day and hour as those of the rival Society. In 1767 the Grand Lodge of England (London) was courteously informed by David Lambert, Grand Secretary of the York organization, that the Lodge formerly held at the Punch Bowl " had been for some years discontinued and that the most Antient Grand Lodge of All England, held from time immemorial in this city, is the only Lodge held therein." The Grand Secretary also added This Lodge acknowledges no Superior; it exists in its own Right; it grants Constitutions and Certificates in the same manner as is done by the Grand Lodge i26 FREEMASONRY IN YORK in London and as it has from Time immemorial had a Right and used to do and it distributes its own Charity according to the true principles of Masons. Hence he does not doubt that the Grand Lodge in London will pay due respect to it and to the Brethren made by it, professing that it ever had a great esteem for that body, and the Brethren claiming privileges under its authority.

 

The reason for this intimation was the sending of an official document, evidently inadvertently, from the Grand Lodge in London to the defunct Lodge, No. 259, which apparently fell into the hands of the Grand Master of the York Grand Lodge. It was laid before that body at its meeting held on December 14, 1767, when the Grand Secretary was instructed to write in the foregoing manner.

 

There is no evidence that the letter was honoured with a reply from the Grand Lodge of England, nor does there seem to be any evidence for the contention of Findel that the " correspondence proves that the York Lodge was then on the best of terms " with the Grand Lodge at London, although he is confirmed in that opinion by Hughari. There was no " correspondence," only a letter written from York to London, which was unacknowledged.

 

The York Grand Secretary had not the satisfaction of transmitting the intelligence of the decease of rival No. 2, for the latter outlived the York Grand Lodge by many years. The Lodge did not become extinct " about the year 1813," as Todd supposes (History of the York Lodge, No. 236, p. 16), but was transferred to Hull in 1817 ; the furniture, jewels and various Warrants being sold for some c6o. It was subsequently known as the " Phcrnix," until its final collapse about twenty years afterwards.

 

Another Lodge came on the scene and announced that its festival was to be held at " the house of Mr. William Blanchard, the Star and Garter, in Nessgate. York," on December 27, 1775. This was the Moriah Lodge, originally chartered by the Atholl Grand Lodge, London, in the 1st Regiment of Yorkshire Militia, as No. 176, Sheffield, October 14, 1772. Its stay in the city was probably of very short duration, being a military Lodge.

 

On January 29, 1776, the Grand Lodge of All England instituted the office of Chaplain and, on February 12, 1776, the Rev. John Parker, Vicar of St. Helen's, was initiated and passed and, on February z6, raised to the third Degree. No fees were charged, because of the services he was to render as Chaplain, in which office he was duly invested on March i 1 and it is said that he was a regular attendant at the meetings from that time, his place being " the seat next to the Master's right hand." On December 27, 1776, a service was held at St. Helen's Church, to which the Brethren marched in procession, wearing their Masonic clothing. New ribbons were voted to be obtained by the Grand Secretary " for the jewels of the Brethren, to appear in clean aprons and gloves." St. John's Day, 1777, witnessed the Grand Lodge being held at York Tavern and the Provincial Grand Lodge under the Grand Lodge of England (London) at Nicholson's Coffee House. Both bodies attended divine service, the former at St. Helen's and the latter at St. Martin's, suitable discourses being FREEMASONRY IN YORK 1i7 delivered by the Revs. John Parker and James Lawson respectively. Meetings by both bodies‑Grand and Provincial‑were frequently thus held on the same day. Still another Lodge was constituted by the " Mother of Grand Lodges," and this time on such a sure foundation that it has outlived all its early contem poraries. This was the Union Lodge, No. 504, which was first held by dispensation dated June 20, 1777, Joseph Jones being the first W.M. The subsequent and eventful career of this justly celebrated Lodge, we cannot now pause to consider and will simply remark that its name was appropriately changed to that of the York in 1870, when No. 236, time having but served to enhance its reputation. The last meeting advertised in the Courant by the York Grand Lodge was dated June 18, 17 ; but undoubtedly there were many assemblies of the Brethren held after that year, even so late as the next decade. Hargrove in History and Description of the Ancient City of York, 1818, vol. ii, pt. ii, PP. 478‑9, states As a further proof of the importance of this Lodge, we find it recorded that " On the z4th June 1783, the Grand Master, with all the officers, attended in the great room of the Mansion House, where a lodge in the third degree was opened, and brother Wm. Siddall, esquire, at that time the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor and Grand Master elect, was installed, according to an ancient usage and custom, The Most Worshipful Grand Master Mason of All England and was thus saluted, homaged and acknowledged." About the year 1787 the meetings of this lodge were discontinued and the last surviving member was Blanchard, proprietor of the York Chronicle, to whom the writer is indebted for information on the subject. He was a member many years and being " Grand Secretary," all the books and papers which belonged to the lodge are still in his possession.

 

Either Hargrove misunderstood Blanchard, or the latter possessed a very treacherous memory, since there is abundant evidence to prove that the Grand Lodge was in existence even so late as August 23, 1792, which is the date " of a rough Minute recording the election of Bro. Wolley as Grand Master, Bro. Geo. Kitson, Grand Treasurer, Bro. Thomas Richardson, S.G.W. and Bro. Williams, J.G.W." The York Lodge has an engraved portrait of Grand Master Wolley and T. B. Whytehead presented one to the Grand Lodge of England. Wolley afterwards changed his name to Copley.

 

There is also a list still extant, in Blanchard's handwriting, containing an entry of October 1, 1790, when a Brother was raised to the Third Degree; and as already mentioned the grant of a Warrant in that year by the same body, which does not savour of extinction. One need not add other evidences of the activity of the Grand Lodge, as the foregoing are amply sufficient. Even the Constitutions of 1784, published by the authority of the Grand Lodge of England, thus refers to the Northern Grand Lodge: " Some Brethren at York continued to act under their original constitution, notwithstanding the revival of the Grand Lodge of England; but the irregular Masons in London never received any patronage from them. The ancient York Masons were confined to one Lodge, 128 FREEMASONRY IN YORK which is still extant, but consists of very few members and will probably be soon altogether annihilated " (see Constitutions, 1784, p. zoo and Freemasons' Calendar, 11783, p. 23).

 

Here, doubtless, the wish was father to the thought, but the prediction of John Noorthouck was soon fulfilled, though it must not be overlooked that he acknowledges the antiquity and, so to speak, the regularity of the York Grand Lodge, at a period, moreover, when the secession of the Lodge of Antiquity from the Grand Lodge of England‑in which movement, though a member of No. 1, Noorthouck was not a participant‑had greatly embittered (for reasons about to be mentioned) the relations between the two earliest of the English Grand Lodges. John Noorthouck, stationer, is entered in the Grand Lodge register as having become a member of the Lodge of Antiquity in 1771, three years before Preston joined it. Both men were largely employed by the celebrated printer, William Strahan. That a Warrant or Deputation for the constitution of a " Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent," under the wing of the Lodge of Antiquity, was issued by the York authorities, has been already stated. The story of the two parties in the Lodge of Antiquity‑1779‑89‑each striving to extinguish or coerce the other; the apparent triumph of the minority, who had the support of their Grand Lodge; the secession of the majority; the expulsion of the leaders, including the famous author of the Illustrations of Masonry ; and the setting up of a rival Grand Lodge, is not only a long one, but is also far from being a pleasant study, even at the present time. It will, however, be brought within the smallest compass that is consistent with perspicuity and, as the whole story is so thoroughly interwoven with the history of the Lodge of Antiquity, and the claims‑real or imaginary‑‑advanced on its behalf by William Preston, it may be convenient to give in this place a short but comprehensive memoir of that well‑known writer, which will come in here, perhaps, more appropriately than at any other stage, since, in addition to the leading part played by him in the temporary alliance of the Lodge of Antiquity with the " Grand Lodge of All England," there are other reasons for the introduction of his Masonic record as a whole‑in the chapter devoted to Freemasonry in York. In those which respectively precede and follow, a great deal of the history which has been generally‑not to say, universally‑accepted, as fact, rests upon his sole authority. Whilst, therefore, the narrative which has been brought up to the beginning of the second half of the eighteenth century, is fresh in the recollection and, before proceeding with a description of the Great Schism, which becomes the next subject for our consideration, let us take a closer view of the writer, whose bare statement, unsupported by evidence, has been held sufficient‑by the majority of later historians ‑to establish any point in eighteenth‑century Masonry, that it might be called in aid of. In the ensuing pages, besides the official records of the four Grand Lodges, in existence during the period over which this sketch extends and other documents and authorities specially referred to, use has been made of the following works : Illustrations of Masonry, editions 1781, 1788, 1792 ; Freemasons' Magazine, vol. iv, 1795, P_‑3, et seq. ; European Magazine, vol. 1, 1811, p. 323 ; A State of FREEMASONRY IN YORK 129 Facts: Being a narrative of some late Proceedings in the Society of Free Masons, respecting William Preston, Past Master of the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 1. London, Printed in the year MDCCLxxv111.

 

William Preston, whose father was a Writer to the Signet, was born at Edinburgh, July z8, 1742, O. S. and came to London in 176o, where he entered the service of William Strahan, His Majesty's Printer.

 

Soon after his arrival in London, a number of Brethren from Edinburgh attempted to establish a Lodge (in London) under sanction of a Constitution from Scotland. Findel, in History of Freemasonry, p. 178, cites the application of some London Brethren to the Grand Lodge of Scotland and observes, " It was determined to refuse this request, lest by complying they might interfere with the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. The so‑called Ancient or York Masons received, then, at that time no support from Scotland. But the Grand Lodge of Scotland offered to recommend them to the [Antient] Grand Lodge of England," who granted them a dispensation to form a Lodge and to make Masons, bearing, curiously enough (175 6‑70) the same number (1I I) as that of Preston's Mother Lodge. Lawrie, in his History of Freemasonry, with an Account of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, 1804, p. 192, quotes the following Minute of the Grand Lodge of England, " According to the Old Institutions, i.e. of the Schismatics or ` Antients ' " March z, 1763.‑Bror. Robt. Lochhead petitioned for Dispensation to make Masons at the sign of the White Hart, in the Strand‑And a Dispensation was granted to him to continue in force for the space of 3o days.

 

Preston was the second person initiated under this Dispensation and the associated Brethren were afterwards duly constituted into a Lodge (No. III) by the officers of the " Antient " Grand Lodge in person, on or about April zo, 1763. After meeting successively at Horn Tavern, Fleet Street ; The Scots Hall, Blackfriars; and the Half Moon, Cheapside ; the members of No. 111‑at the instance of William Preston‑petitioned for a Charter from the " Regular " Grand Lodge, and the Lodge was soon after constituted a second time in Ample Form, by the name of the Caledonian Lodge (under which name it still exists, No. 134) on May 2i, 1 772. He instituted a Grand Gala at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand and delivered an oration, afterwards printed in the first edition of the Illustrations of Masonry, published in the same year.

 

A regular course of lectures was publicly delivered by him at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet Street in 1774.

 

At last he was invited by his friends to visit the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 1, then held at the Mitre. This he did, June 15, 1774, when the Brethren of that Lodge were pleased to admit him a member, and‑what was very unusual‑elected him Master at the same meeting.

 

He had been Master of the Philanthropic Lodge, at the Queen's Head, Gray's Inn Gate, Holborn, above six years and of several other Lodges before that time.

 

130 FREEMASONRY IN YORK But he was now taught to consider the importance of the office of the first Master under the English Constitution.

 

To the Lodge of Antiquity he now began chiefly to confine his attention and, during his Mastership, which continued for some years, the Lodge increased in numbers and improved in its finances.

 

During the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Beaufort and the Secretaryship of Thomas French, he had become a useful assistant in arranging the General Regulations of the Society and reviving the foreign and country correspondence.

 

Having been appointed to the office of Deputy Grand Secretary, under James Heseltine, he compiled for the benefit of the Charity, the History of Remarkable Occurrences, inserted in the first two publications of the Freemasons' Calendar and also prepared for the press an appendix to the Book of Constitutions, from 1767, published in 1776.

 

From the various memoranda he had made, he was enabled to form the History of Masonry, afterwards printed in his Illustrations. The office of Deputy Grand Secretary he soon after voluntarily resigned.

 

The Schismatic body, under whose banner he had been initiated, was regarded by him with very scant affection, a feeling heartily reciprocated by the Atholl (or Ancient) Grand Lodge, as the Minutes of that Society attest.

 

Thus, in November 1775, a long correspondence between William Preston, styled " a Lecturer on Masonry in London " and William Masson, Grand Secretary of Scotland, was read‑the former having endeavoured to establish an under standing between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the " Modern " Grand Lodge ‑but being referred by the latter to William Dickey, Grand Secretary, " Antients," for information, in a reply dated October 9, states : " It is with regret I understand by your letter, that the Grand Lodge of Scotland has been so grossly imposed upon as to have established a correspondence with an irregular body of men, who falsely assume the appellation of Antient Masons." The " Modern " Grand Lodge was, of course, the Regular or Constitutional Grand Lodge, established A.D. 1717, the so‑called " Antients " being a Schismatic body, dating‑as a Grand Lodge‑from 175 2‑3. The epithets " Antient " and " Modern," as applied to the rival Grand Lodges, will be dealt with in the next chapter‑meanwhile, it may be said that, whilst preferring the use of more suitable expressions, to distinguish between the two bodies, the terms actually employed will be given as far as possible when quoting from official records.

 

From the resolutions passed on this occasion, we find that the " Antient " Grand Lodge stigmatized, in terms of great severity, certain passages in Preston's writings, for example, where describing the " Antients," he mentions their rise into notice, " under the fictitious sanction of the Ancient York Constitution, which was entirely dropt at the revival in 1717 "‑and they placed on record an expression of surprise at " an Ancient Grand Lodge, being said to be revived by entirely dropping the old Constitutions." " Of equal sense and veracity," did they deem a further statement of Preston, " that the regular Masons were obliged to adopt FREEMASONRY IN YORK fresh measures and some variations were made in and additions to the established forms," remarking " that an adoption of fresh measures and variations was openly confessed, nor could human wisdom conceive how such a change could be constitutional or even useful in detecting impostors, though it was plain that such new change might be sufficient to distinguish the members of the new Masonical Heresy from those who adhered to the good old system." They also " thought it remarkable (if such alterations were absolutely necessary) that no account of them had been transmitted to Scotland or Ireland, as such alterations obliterated the ancient landmarks in such manner as to render the ancient system scarcely distinguishable by either of those nations, tho' ever famous for Masonry." The reference given in the Minutes is‑" p. 4, line 35, etc."‑and the publication quoted from must have been a pamphlet printed after the second edition of the Illustrations of Masonry. The passages referred to, slightly amplified, will be found (under the year 1739) in all the later editions ; also in the Freemasons' Calendar, 1776 ; and the Constitutions, 1784.

 

The dispute in which Preston's Lodge, at his instigation became embroiled with the " regular or Constitutional " Grand Lodge of England, originated in this way The Rev. M. H. Eccles, Rector of Bow, having been re‑elected Chaplain to the Lodge of Antiquity, engaged to preach an anniversary sermon on December 27, 1777, particulars of which were advertised in the Gazetteer for December 24. The Brethren proceeded to church informally, clothing as Masons in the vestry. On returning they walked to the Lodge room without having divested themselves of their Masonic clothing. John Noorthouck, a member, took exception to the latter action of the Lodge, but Preston claimed that " the proceedings of the Brethren on St. John's Day were perfectly conformable to the principles of the Institution and the laws of the Society." Preston cited the law respecting processions, but contended that it was not " calculated to debar the members of any private Lodge from offering up their adoration to the Deity in a public place of worship, in the character of Masons, under the direction of their Master." Noorthouck and Bottomley failed to obtain the consent of the members to a resolution terming the procession an " unguarded transaction," but, on Preston moving " that the Lodge of Antiquity disapproves of any general processions of a Masonic nature contrary to the authority of the Grand Lodge," it was passed unanimously. A memorial was presented to the Grand Lodge by, the minority, signed by the two mentioned and two others, four in all. A reply to this protest was also signed in open Lodge on January 27, 1778, by all but six (including Preston) and by six others subsequently who were not at the meeting, making a total of seventeen. The R.W.M., John Wilson and Preston waited on the Grand Secretary in the interim, imploring him to do his utmost to obtain an amicable settlement.

 

Hitherto, the quotations are mainly from Preston's Statement of Facts, but the subsequent proceedings, at the Committee of Charity, are given from the actual Minutes of that body.

 

132 FREEMASONRY IN YORK The Committee of Charity, on January 30, 1778, sided with the minority and, as Preston justified the proceedings of the Lodge, on the ground of its possessing certain " inherent privileges by virtue of its original constitution, that other Lodges of a more modern date were not possessed of," resolved that the Lodge of Antiquity possessed no other privilege than its rank according to seniority and " Mr. Preston was desired publicly to retract that doctrine, as it might tend to create a schism." This he refused to do, or to sign a declaration to the same purport and was forthwith expelled from the Society. At the Quarterly Communication ensuing, however, he presented the following memorial : " I am sorry I have uttered a doctrine contrary to the general opinion of the Grand Lodge and declare I will never in future promulgate or propagate a doctrine of any inherent right, privilege, or pre‑eminence in Lodge No. I more than any other Lodge, except its priority as the senior Lodge." The motion for his expulsion was then rescinded.

 

There, it might have been expected, matters would have been allowed to rest, but the lamentable course pursued by the majority in the Lodge, in expelling Noorthouck, Bottomley and Brearly, led to fresh disturbances. At the Quarterly Communication held April 8, 1778, the Master of No. i was directed to produce the Minute Book on the Z9th of the month and Preston's name was ordered to be struck off the list of members of the Hall Committee, " by reason of his having been chiefly instrumental in fomenting discord in the Lodge No. 1 ; and his being otherwise obnoxious to the greatest part of the Society." The outcome was a petition to the Grand Lodge of All England, signed by sixteen Brethren, amongst whom was William Preston. Hughan, in his History of Freemasonry at York, reproduces a copy of the letter sent on September 16, 1778, to the " Grand Lodge at York " from the Lodge of Antiquity, which reads as follows MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND MASTER AND BRETHREN The contents of Bro. Bussey's letter to Mr. Benjamin Bradley dated ye 29th ult. has been communicated to us and we are much obliged to that Gentleman for the information it contains, but humbly conceive that our meeting has not been clearly explained to him.

 

Though we should be happy to promote Masonry under the banner of the Grand Lodge at York, an application by petition for a Warrant for a Constitution to act as a Private Lodge here was never our intention, as we consider ourselves sufficiently empowered by the Immemorial Constitution of our Lodge to execute every duty we can wish as a Private Lodge of Masons.

 

What we meant to propose to Bro. Bussey, when we had the pleasure of seeing him in London, was that in order to the confirming of social intercourse between the York Masons and the Brethren in the South of England and thereby strengthen by Connexion, we were ready, if the Grand Lodge at York furnished us with sufficient and satisfactory proofs of their existence before 1717‑and provided the same met with their approbation, to accept from them a constitutional authority to act as a Grand Lodge in London, for that part of England South of the Trent and would willingly and faithfully acquit ourselves of any Trust which might be reposed FREEMASONRY IN YORK 133 in us by that respectable Assembly, of whose antiquity and the legality of whose proceedings we have the highest opinion.

 

This proposal of Ours we now ratify‑and in expectation of being favoured with the answer whether it has the happiness of meeting with your approbation or not, etc. etc.

 

Then, on September zz, ‑1778, Benjamin Bradley wrote over his own name to the Grand Secretary at York, a letter in which he said Your obliging favour of the z9th ult. came safely to hand. The information it gives is very satisfactory to me and to other friends here of the York Grand Lodge. I can have no longer a doubt of the authenticity of that Assembly and, as I shall have frequent occasion to quote the original Book from which you have extracted the names of the Grand Masters from 1705 to 1734 exclusive, hope it will be carefully preserved and all the other books preceding the date thereof, but this caution I have no occasion to give to Bro. Bussey, a gentleman ever strenuous in support of so antient and noble an establishment.

 

A Warrant or Deputation from York to a few members of R.W. Lodge of Antiquity to act as a Grand Lodge for that part of England South of the Trent with the power of Constituting Lodges in that Division, when properly applied for, a regular correspondence to be kept up and some token of allegiance to be given annually on the part of the Brethren thus authorized to act, in my humble opinion might tend to revive the Splendor of that Assembly, whose prerogatives appear to have been so grossly invaded.

 

Should such a plan succeed, I shall be happy to spread the Art of Free Masonry once more under the banner of York and endeavour to convince the Grand Lodge of London that the prophecy of their Calendar compilers is not likely to be fulfilled.

 

The following are the names of the Brethren I could wish to have specified in the Warrant or Deputation, should the Grand Lodge be prepared to grant one. John Wilson, Esq. (present Right Worshipful Master of the Lodge of Antiquity) as R.W. Grand Master.

 

William Preston (Right Worshipful Past Master of the Lodge of Antiquity) as Worshipful Deputy Grand Master.

 

Benjamin Bradley (present Worshipful Junior Warden of the Lodge of Antiquity) as Worshipful Senior Grand Warden.

 

Gilbert Buchanan (present Secretary to the Lodge of Antiquity) as Worshipful Junior Grand Warden.

 

John Seaby (present Senior Steward of the Lodge of Antiquity) as Grand Secretary.

 

And two other Brethren whom we may appoint hereafter out of said Lodge.

 

On January z9, 1779, the Master of No. 1 being called upon by the Committee of Charity to state whether their order (made October 30, 1778, at which meeting " a Pamphlet lately published by Bro. Wm. Preston under the title of ` a State of Facts,' was cited as containing `many severe, inflammatory and false Reflections upon the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge in general and upon the Conduct of Brother 134 FREEMASONRY IN YORK Heseltine, the Grand Secretary, in particular"'), respecting the restoration of Bottomley, Noorthouck and Brearly, had been complied with. " Bro. Wm. Rigge, the Master, stated that on the evening of the last Quarterly Communication, viz. November 4, last, it was resolved not to comply with the order of the Grand Lodge ; that the Lodge should withdraw itself from the authority of the Grand Lodge in London and immediately join what they called the York Grand Lodge, after which the health of James Siddell was drank as Grand Master of Masons, the said Bro. Wm. Rigge and Brother Le Caan only dissenting. And that it was further resolved to notify such proceedings to the Grand Secretary and that a manifesto should be published to the world." This manifesto has been reproduced in Hughan's Masonic Sketches and Reprints, and in Four Old Lodges.

 

It was further stated that a minority‑who were desirous of continuing their allegiance to the Grand Lodge‑opposed the violent proceedings of the majority and informed the latter, that they had no right to take away the books and furniture of the Lodge, which were the joint property of all the members, " notwithstanding which the factious junto, in defiance of every rule of justice, honour, or common honesty, in the deadest hour of the night, by force took away all the furniture, jewels and Books belonging to the Lodge and had since assembled under a pretended [and] ridiculous authority called by them the Grand Lodge of York Masons, of which one James Siddell, a tradesman in York, calls himself Grand Master." It was also reported that the Manifesto alluded to had been published and dispersed, also that the members who remained true to their allegiance had elected the said Wm. Rigge their Master and had restored Noorthouck, Bottomley and Brearly, to their rank and status in the Lodge. The following resolution was then passed by the Committee of Charity That whenever the Majority of a Lodge determine to quit the Society, the Constitution and Power of Assembling remains with the rest of the members who are desirous of continuing their alliance." After which John Wilson, William Preston‑described as a " Journeyman Printer "‑and nine others, were expelled from the Society and their names ordered to be " transmitted to all regular Lodges, with an Injunction not to receive or admit them as members or otherwise; nor to countenance, acknowledge, or admit into their Lodges, any Person or Persons, assuming or calling themselves by the name of York Masons, or by any other Denomination than that of Free and Accepted Masons, under the Authority of, or in Alliance and Friendship with, the Grand Lodge of England, of which his Grace the Duke of Manchester is at present Grand Master." These proceedings‑confirmed by Grand Lodge, February 3, 1779‑evoked a further pamphlet from the seceders, dated March z4 in the same year and issued from the Queen's Arms Tavern, St. Paul's, under the hand of " J. Sealy, Secretary " (the name is spelt indifferently Sealy and Seaby), wherein they protest against " the very disrespectful and injurious manner in which the names of several Brethren F. 11‑1 8 FREEMASONRY IN YORK 135 are mentioned" and "the false, mean and scandalous designations annexed to them." A copy of this pamphlet is to be found in the archives of the Lodge of Antiquity.

 

The expelled members, as we have seen, resorted to the " Deputation from the Grand Lodge of All England to the R. W. Lodge of Antiquity, constituting the latter a Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent, dated March z9, 1779 " and were soon actively engaged under their new Constitution. Hargrove says it was granted in 1799, but this is undoubtedly a typographical error.

 

John Wilson, late Master of No. i, was the first Grand Master and John Sealy the Grand Secretary, the inaugural proceedings taking place on June 24, 1779‑Preston having the office of Grand Orator conferred upon him on November 3. On April icg, 178o, Benjamin Bradley was installed as the second Grand Master, Preston being appointed his Deputy Grand Master and Donaldson and Sealy were elected Grand Treasurer and Secretary respectively. The only two Lodges formed under the auspices of this " feudal " Grand Lodge were numbered one and two, the junior being the first to be constituted. The ceremony took place at the Queen's Head Tavern, Holborn, on August 9, 1779. The Lodge was named " Perseverance and Triumph," No. z and had Preston for its first Master. On November 15, 1779, the "Lodge of Perfect Observance," No. i, was constituted at the Mitre Tavern, Fleet Street‑P. Lambert de Lintot being R.W.M. Some notes respecting Lintot will be found in The Freemason for February 11, March i i and May 6, 188 z. B. H. Latrobe was Grand Secretary in 1789 and, in a report to the " Grand Lodge of All England held at York," mentioned that " at the last Q.C., 29 Dec. 1789, the decayed state of the two Lodges was taken into consideration " and a deputation was appointed to make due inquiries. This was followed by a favourable result, which led that official to remark that, " upon the whole, the prospect before us seems to be less gloomy than that we have had for some time past." As the Lodge of Antiquity preserved a dual existence, the private Lodge and the Grand Lodge (offshoot of the York Grand Lodge) being kept quite distinct (on paper)‑though virtually one and the same body‑there were, in a certain sense, three subordinate Lodges on the roll of the " Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent." Further details respecting these Lodges are given by Hughan in his 'Masonic Sketches and Reprints, p. 5 9 ; and by Whytehead in The Freemason for May 14, 1881, May 11, 1882 and December 13, 1884. Of the Antiquity Grand Lodge, it need merely be recorded that there are but two Grand Masters‑John Wilson and Benjamin Bradley‑and two Grand Secretaries‑John Sealy and, later, B. H. Latrobe. During the suspension of the Masonic privileges by the Grand Lodge of England, Preston rarely if ever attended any meetings of the Society, though he was a member of many Lodges both at home and abroad. It was at this period of his life that he wrote the passages in his Illustrations concerning the " inherent rights " of the four Lodges of 1717, which have been since adopted by the generality 136 FREEMASONRY IN YORK of Masonic historians. In the edition of 1781, referring to the subject, he observes ‑" when the former editions of this Book were printed, the author was not suffi ciently acquainted with this part of the history of Masonry in England." It may be so and the reflections in which he indulges during the Antiquity schism were possibly the result of honest research, rather than mere efforts of the imagination. However, we now follow the example, and echo the words last quoted, of the writer whose memoir is being compiled, by asking the readers of Four Old Lodges to believe that when " that book was printed, the author "‑to the extent that he took on trust the loose statements in the Illustrations‑" was not sufficiently acquainted with those parts of the history of Masonry in England." A memorial from Preston respecting his expulsion was laid before Grand Lodge on April 8, 1789, but it was not even allowed to be read. At the ensuing Grand Feast, however, in the May following, wiser counsels prevailed and, mainly through the mediation of William Birch, afterwards Master of the Lodge of Antiquity, Preston and those expelled with him in 1779, all " expressing their desire of promoting conciliatory measures with the Grand Lodge and signifying their concern that through misrepresentation they should have incurred the displeasure of Grand Lodge‑their wish to be restored to the privileges of the Society, to the laws of which they were ready to conform," the Grand Lodge, being " satisfied with their apology," ordered that they should be restored to their privileges in the Society, as recorded in Grand Lodge Minutes of May 4, 1789 and printed, with some slight variation, in the Grand Lodge Proceedings of November 25, 1789. It has been said that Preston came out of this dispute the victor. Such was far from being the case. The attitude of the Grand Lodge of England was the same from first to last‑that is to say, in the view which it adopted with regard to the great question of privilege raised by the senior Lodge on its roll. The Manifesto of the latter was revoked. The " majority " party tendered their submission. The Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent passed into the realm of tradition and the members of the Lodge of Antiquity, reunited after many years of discord, have since that period and up to the present day, worked together in such love and harmony as to render the Senior English Lodge, all that even William Preston could have desired‑viz. a pattern and a model for all its juniors on the roll.

 

In 1787 Preston was instrumental in forming‑or, to use the Masonic equivalent, reviving‑the grand Chapter of Harodim, particulars of which are given in his work. But it is upon his Illustrations of Masonry that his fame chiefly rests. Of this twelve editions were published in the lifetime of the author ; and the late Godfrey Higgins was not far out in his statement that it " contains much useful information, but [Preston] had not the least suspicion of the real origin of Masonry " (Anaealypsis, 1836, vol. i, p. 817). It would be possible to go much further, but we should do well to recollect that " the times immediately preceding their own are what all men are least acquainted with," to quote Horace Walpole. It was Preston's merit that he sought to unravel many historical puzzles a stage or two removed from his own in point of time ; and it must be regarded as his misfortune that he FREEMASONRY IN YORK 137 failed in his laudable purpose. He was too prone to generalize largely from a very small number of solitary facts ; and of this a striking example is afforded by his observations on the early history of the Great Schism, upon which there has already been occasion to enlarge.

 

Preston died, after a long illness, on April 1, 1818, aged seventy‑six, and was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral. Among the bequests in his will were ú5oo consols to the Fund of Benevolence and IC130o consols as an endowment to ensure the annual delivery of the Prestonian lecture.

 

Returning to the history of Freemasonry at York, the following list of Grand Masters and Grand Secretaries from 1761, though not complete, is fuller than any before published.

 

GRAND MASTERS. GRAND SECRETARIES.

 

1761‑2. Francis Drake, F.R.S. John Tasker.

 

1763‑4. John S. Morritt. Do.

 

1764‑6. John Palmes of Naburn. Do.

 

1767. Seth Agar. David Lambert. 1768‑70. George Palmes (elder brother Thomas Williamson. of John).

 

1771‑2. Sir Thomas Gascoigne, Bart. Thomas Johnson.

 

1773. Charles Chaloner. Nicholas Nickson.

 

1774. Henry Stapilton. Do.

 

1775. Do. Joseph Atkinson.

 

1776‑8. William Siddall. Jacob Bussey.

 

1779, Do. John Browne.

 

1780. Francis Smyth, Jun. Do.

 

1781‑2. Robert Sinclair. Do.

 

1783‑4. William Siddall, or Siddell. William Blanchard.

 

1790. Thomas Kilby. Do. 1792. Edward Wolley (afterwards called Copley, of Potts Hall, near Stokesley). Do.

 

Henry Stapilton (1774‑5) was undoubtedly Henry Stapilton, of Wighill, son of Henry Stapilton, of Hatfield, co. York Lord of the Manor at Wighill. Therefore, he was a forbear of the same family as Lieutenant‑Colonel Miles J. Stapylton, Past Grand Deacon and Deputy Provincial Grand Master of North and East Yorkshire since 1913.

 

Charles Chaloner (1773) was a member of the Guisborough family which, in modern times, has given to the Craft, Richard, Lord Gisborough, Junior Grand Warden, 1921.

 

George Reynoldson was appointed Deputy Grand Master under Francis Drake, and F. Agar served in the like capacity under John Palmes.

 

138 FREEMASONRY IN YORK It is now necessary to advert to novelties which found their way into and were considered a part of the York Masonic system. The subject is one that requires very delicate handling and it is essential to avoid giving offence, either to those who believe that genuine Freemasonry consists of three Degrees and no more; or to the other and, perhaps, larger section of the Fraternity, who are not content with the simple system known to our Masonic forefathers‑Payne, Anderson and Desaguliers. On both sides of the question a great deal might be advanced which it would be difficult to answer ; but the endeavour will be to steer clear of difficulties that beset the path‑whether we incline in the one direction or the other‑by rigidly confining statements, as far as possible, to actual facts, and by carefully eschewing (within the same limitations) those points of divergence upon which all good Masons can agree to differ.

 

Happily the Freemasons of England, who composed their differences and were reunited on a broader platform in 1813, are justified in leaving the consideration of all moot points of discipline and ceremonial of earlier date to the antiquaries of the Craft, against whose research even the Solemn Act of Union cannot be pleaded as an estoppel (cf. The Four Old Lodges, p. 87 (111)) .

 

The additional ceremonies which had crept into use shortly before the fusion of the two Grand Lodges are pleasantly alluded to by William Preston, who observes (Illustrations of Masonry, ed. 1804, pp. 339, 340) It is well known to the Masons of this country that some men of warm and enthusiastic imaginations have been disposed to amplify parts of the institution of Freemasonry and in their supposed improvements to have elevated their discoveries into nesv degrees, to which they have added ceremonies, rituals and dresses, illsuited to the native simplicity of the Order, as it was originally practised in this country. But all these degrees, though probably deserving reprehension, as improper innovations on the original system of Masonry, I can never believe that they have either proceeded from bad motives or could be viewed in any other light than as innocent and inoffensive amusements By the Solemn Act of Union between the two Grand Lodges of Free‑Masons of England, in December 1813, it was " declared and pronounced that pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz., those of the Entered Appren tice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch " (Book of Constitutions, 1884, p. 16).

 

This is a little confusing. The Degree‑as we now have it‑of Installed Master not being mentioned at all, whilst that of the Royal Arch is brought in as the complement of certain other Degrees, which, it was expressly stated, were all that existed of their kind.

 

The Grand Lodge of York went further, as will shortly be told ; but it is first of all necessary to observe, that until quite recently the earliest allusion to Royal Arch Masonry (at York) was to be found in the " Treasurer's Book of the Grand FREEMASONRY IN YORK 139 Chapter of Royal Arch Masons," commencing April z9, 1768 ; but the fortunate discovery of Whytehead and Todd in 1879 now enables us to trace the Degree back to February 7, 1762. " Passing over the mention of the Royal Arch by the Atholl Masons in 1752, the next in order of priority is the precious little volume at York. . . . Its chief value consists in being the earliest records of a Chapter, including a Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, known " (see Hughan, Origin of the English Rite, 1884, p. 64).

 

Full particulars of this valuable Minute‑book will be found in Whytehead's article, entitled The Royal Arch at York, which appeared in The Freemason of November 7, 1879. Hughan, who has carefully examined the volume, does not consider that it could have been the first record of the Royal Arch at York, though it is the earliest preserved. The meetings are described as those of a Lodge‑not a Chapter‑up to April 29, 1768 ; and the association, though evidently an offshoot of Lodge No. 259 at the Punch Bowl, the chief officer (" P. H.") in 1762 being Frodsham, who was the first Master of that Lodge, it gradually obtained the support of the York Grand Lodge and ultimately developed into a Grand Chapter for that Degree. The special value of the volume is its record of the Warrants granted to Royal Arch Chapters in the neighbourhood of York, the first of which was petitioned for on December z8, 1769, being the date of the earliest issued by the Grand Chapter in London (" Moderns "), which was granted on February 7, 1770. The book ends on January 6, 1776, the thread of the narrative being continued in another volume, beginning February 8, 1778 and ending September io, 1781, which was recognized by Hughan amongst the books in the Grand Lodge of England. It may, however, be said that the three Principals in February 1778 were Jacob Bussey, S. ; George Kitson, H.T. ; and William Spencer, H.A. ; whilst John Coupland ,vas Secretary and Treasurer.

 

The York Lodge, by petition to the then Grand Master, Lord Zetland, secured its return to their archives, with the folio Minute‑book, and two old MSS., which were all at that time preserved in the office of the Grand Secretary. Four Royal Arch Warrants at least were granted, probably more.

 

i. Ripon . Agreed to February 7, 1770.

 

z. Crown Inn, Knaresborough April 1770 3. Inniskilling Regiment of Dragoons October 1770.

 

4. Druidical Chapter, Rotherham February 25, 1780.

 

These Chapters appear to have been held under the protecting wings of Craft Lodges, as is the custom now‑three out of the four preserving a connexion with the York Grand Lodge and the other, as already shown, being a regimental Lodge of the Atholl Masons. The Degree was conferred at York on Brethren hailing from Hull, Leeds and other towns, which suggests that a knowledge of Royal Arch Masonry even at that period was far from being confined to the schismatics (Atholl or Antient Masons) of London‑but of this more hereafter. The officers of the 140 FREEMASONRY IN YORK " Grand Lodge of All England " were elected " Masters of this Royal Arch Chapter whenever such Presiding Officers shall be members hereof. In case of default, they shall be succeeded by the senior members of the Royal Arch Chapter (May z, 1779)." The only copy of a York charter (R.A.) known, is given by Hughan (Masonic Sketches, pt. ii, p. 18) and was issued on July 6, 1780, to members of the " Druidical Lodge of Ancient York Masons at Rotherham," under the seal of the " Grand Lodge of All England." Hughan says that a strange form of ritual is contained among these old papers entitled " Royal Union Band of Holy Royal Arch in Templar priests. Order of Aaron,. etc.," to which only Knights Templar were eligible. The ritual, he says, is peculiar. In it Seven Pillars are referred to and the " City on top of the Hill‑the new Jerusalem " is kept prominent throughout. Part of the Minute‑book is likewise still in existence, belonging " to the Honourable Order Knights Templar assembled in the Grand Lodge room at York. Sir Francis Smyth, G.M." A unique meeting of the Royal Arch Degree (not the third, as Hargrove erroneously states) took place on May 27, 1778, in York Cathedral and is thus described : " The Royal Arch Brethren whose names are undermentioned assembled in the Ancient Lodge, now a sacred Recess with[in] the Cathedral Church of York, and then and there opened a Chapter of Free and Accepted Masons in the Most Sublime Degree of Royal Arch. The Chapter was held and then closed in usual form, being adjourned to the first Sunday in June, except in case of Emergency." This unusual gathering, in all probability, has supplied the text or basis for the " tradition " that the Grand Lodge in olden time was in the habit of holding its august assemblies in the crypt of the venerated Minster. In the Treasurer's Book it is said that " To be raised to the Fourth Degree [i.e. Royal Arch], being a member of the Grand Lodge of All England, shall pay to the Chapter ten shillings and sixpence and one shilling to the Tyler." On June z, 178o, the Grand Chapter resolved that "the Masonic Government, anciently established by the Royal Edwin and now existing at York under the title of The Grand Lodge of All England, comprehending in its nature all the different Orders or Degrees of Masonry, very justly claims the subordination of all other Lodges or Chapters of Free and Accepted Masons in this Realm." The Degrees were five in number, viz. the first three, the Royal Arch and that of Knight Templar. The Grand Lodge, on June zo, 1780, assumed their protection and its Minute‑book was utilized in part for the preservation of the records of the Royal Arch 'and Knight Templar Degrees. Hughan considers that the draft of a certificate preserved at York for the five Degrees of January z6, 1779, to November 29, 1779, " is the earliest official document known in Great Britain and Ireland relating to Knights Templar in connexion with Freemasonry " (see Hughan, Origin of the English Rite of Freemasonry, p. 68 ; and T. B. Whytehead, The Connection between the Templars and the Freemasons in the City of York, 1877).

 

FREEMASONRY IN YORK Of the Encampments warranted by the Grand Lodge of All England for the " Fifth Degree," i.e. the Knight Templar, two only are known, viz.

 

K.T. Encampment, Rotherham . . July 6, 178o.

 

Do., No. 15, Manchester . October io, 1786.

 

For particulars of the first see Hughan's A1asonic Sketches, pt. i, p. 6z ; and of the second, Yarker's Notes on the Orders of the Temple and St. John. What ultimately became of the first mentioned is unknown, but the second seems to have joined the Grand Encampment held in London, under " Thomas Dunkerley, G.M.," the Charter bearing date May zo, 1795.

 

It will be seen, therefore, that, though various methods were employed to preserve the vitality of the York organization, the prestige and prosperity generally of the rival Grand Lodges in London ultimately brought about its disappearance. It was never formally dissolved, but was simply absorbed in the Grand Lodge of England, formed in 1717. Notwithstanding the recognition of the Royal Arch Degree and subsequently of the Templar ceremony, the Grand Lodge of All England ‑if we except the transitory Grand Lodge formed in London‑never exercised any influence beyond Yorkshire and Lancashire; and hence all its Warrants, which have been traced from the earliest down to the latest records, were authorized to be held in those two counties only. The boast, therefore, of being " York Masons," so frequently indulged in, more especially in the United States, is an utterly baseless one, because the Grand Lodge of York (as we are justified in inferring) had outlived all its daughter Lodges‑which existed in England only‑before sinking into its final slumber at the close of the eighteenth century. Even at the height of its fortunes, the York branch of the Society was a very small one. Still, however, the relative antiquity of the Lodge‑which certainly existed in the seventeenth century and, probably, much earlier‑invests the history of Freemasonry at this traditional centre with an amount of interest which, it is hoped, will more than justify the space which has been accorded to its narration.

 

It does not appear to have been‑from the modern standpoint‑ever, legally, a Grand Lodge, i.e. a governing body formed by the co‑operation of other Lodges, as was the Grand Lodge of England. Noorthouck, in his Book of Constitutions, 1784, says that the " ancient York Masons are confined to one Lodge, which is still extant, but consists of very few members and will, probably, be soon altogether annihilated." Findel in his History of Freemasonry (p. 166), says of York Masonry Their right to assume the designation of Grand Lodge is, as we have seen from the foregoing history, more than doubtful and was entirely founded upon the legendary and improbable tale that a General Assembly had taken place formerly in York. A Grand Lodge, in the modern acceptation of the term, had never taken place at York. The isolated or Mother Lodge, which dates from a very early period, had, until the year 1730, neither made nor constituted any other Lodge 142 FREEMASONRY IN YORK and it was not until the publication of the London Book of Constitutions in 1723, that it laid any claim whatever to the appellation " Grand Lodge of All England." Before, however, passing from the subject, a few words have yet to be said respecting the seals used by the now extinct Grand Lodge of All England, for impressions of which I have to thank Joseph Todd; and with this description will be included, for the sake of convenience, that of some other arms, of which plates are given.

 

When a seal was first used by the York Masons it is now impossible to decide. The seal affixed to the York Constitutions and Certificates, as described by the Grand Secretary on December 14, 1767, in a letter to the Grand Lodge of England, was " Three Regal Crowns, with this Circumscription: Sigillum Edvini Northum. Regis " (see Hughan's Masonic Sketches, pt. i, p. 52). The same author styles this the " Counter " Seal in his Origin of the English Rite, 1884, but it is doubtful if it was used for that purpose. It may be the Old Seal of Prince Edwin's Arms, of silver, mentioned in the inventory of January 1, 1776, as " An iron screw press, with a Seal of Prince Edwin's Arms let into the fall " and also in the " Schedule of the Regalia and Records, etc.," of September 15, 1779. In the latter inventory is named " A Seal and Counter Seal, the first bearing the arms of Prince Edwin and the other the arms of Masonry." The seal‑in‑chief of the latter is of brass, and bears the legend : " + Sigil : Frat : Ebor : Per. Edwin: Coll : " above the three crowns being the year" A.D. gz6." The " Counter Seal " (of copper) contains the arms and crest, as used by the Atholl Masons, of which there will be occasion to speak further on.

 

It is quite clear that the first seal mentioned is the one referred to by Grand Secretary Lambert in 1767 and that it was set aside later on for the " Seal and Counter Seal " named in the inventory of 1779. Impressions of the latter are attached to the Warrant or Deputation to " The Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent," of March zg, 1779, and are in an oval tin box, opening with movable lids on both sides, happily still preserved by the Lodge of Antiquity. It would, therefore, be made between the dates of the two inventories1776‑1779 An engraving of these seals (seal and counter seal) is to be found in Hargrove's History of York, likewise in Hughan's work, Origin of the English Rite, 1884. The seal preserved of the Grand Chapter (York) is apparently the one mentioned in the records, March 3, 178o‑" Ordered that a Seal be provided for the use of the Grand Chapter, not exceeding half a Guinea." It was paid for on April 7. The design is of an unusual kind, being a rainbow resting on clouds at each end; below is a triangle and then a crescent and the legend, " Grand‑Royal‑Arch‑ChapterYork." It has been reproduced by Hughan for the first time, who, however, is not correct in treating the seal of the " Arms of Masonry " as the counter seal of the Grand Chapter, as it is distinctly stated in the inventory oú 1779 to be that of the FREEMASONRY IN YORK 143 Grand Lodge. We owe to W. H. Rylands the correct arrangement of the seals at York.

 

Colonel Shadwell Clerke, when Grand Secretary, kindly placed at disposal impressions of the seals preserved at Grand Lodge. Of these, the more important will be found engraved with those from York. In order to distinguish the seals of the two Grand Lodges of England, the title " Atholl " has been used in one case. It may be pointed out that the arms used by " The Grand Lodge of Masons," as it is styled on one of the seals, are those granted to the Mason's Company, with the colours changed, the addition of beavers as supporters and with a bird assumed to be intended for a dove, but here more nearly resembling a falcon, substituted for the original crest of 4 towered castle. The other Grand Lodge, called on seal No. 6, " of Free and Accepted Masons," bears the arms as given by Dermott in 1764 and called the " Arms of Masonry " in the York Inventory of 1779. Of these arms very little need be said, as their inscriptions, like those of the seals, sufficiently describe what they represent. They can, of course, be seen by students on application to the Librarian at Freemasons' Hall, London. They include reduced copies of the arms as given in the grants to the Masons' and Carpenters' Companies in the fifteenth century‑of the Marblers, Freemasons (the towers being in this instance gold) and the Bricklayers and Tilers, as painted upon the Gateshead Charter of 1671. The date, circa 168o, of the panel formerly in the possession of W. H. Rylands is, in the opinion of some antiquaries, the earliest to which it may be attributed; most probably the blue of the field in the first and third quarters has perished. As a banner is mentioned in the Inventories of January 1, 1776 and September 15, 1779, it must have been for some little time in the possession of the Lodge at York, otherwise it could not be the same as that mentioned in the Minutes under December 27, 1779, then said to be presented by William Siddall.

 

The arms of the Stonemasons of Strasburg from the seal circa 1725, is coloured according to the description given by Heideloff ; and, in the case of those of the Nurenberg, also loosely described by the same author, W. H. Rylands is of opinion that the description is perhaps to be understood‑following a usual custom in heraldry, that the arms and colours were the same as those of Strasburg, only " with this difference, it is the bend that is red," that is to say, the colours were simply reversed for distinction. The arms of the city of Cologne differ from those in the seal of the Masons of that city, found on the Charter, dated 1396. No colours are to be noticed on the original seal. In a very courteous reply to a request made by Rylands for help in the matter, Dr. H6hlbaum, Stadtarchivar of Cologne, although he agreed that the colours were most probably based on those in the arms of the city, was unfortunately unable to give any definite information on the subject. Three coronets on an azure field were the arms borne by the Grand Lodge of All England‑" Prince Edwin's arms "‑and are, therefore, the same as those given on the York Seals.

 

York, in those days, occupied much the same position in the North of England 144 FREEMASONRY IN YORK as Bath did in the West. It was the fashionable resort and had its regular season." Many wealthy families had their town houses in the cathedral city and these are still in existence, though degraded to offices and warehouses, whilst the once fashionable quarters have become distinctly slummy. As seen in the foregoing pages, the York Lodge, merging into the self‑styled Grand Lodge of All England, had for its rulers men of importance and it undoubtedly exercised considerable influence within its limited sphere of operations.

 

CHAPTER IV HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS " HE Minutes of that Schismatic body, commonly, but erroneously, termed the "Ancient Masons," begin in the following manner: TRANSACTIONS OF THE GRAND COMMITTEE OF THE MOST ANCIENT AND HONOURABLE FRATERNITY of FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS At the Griffin Tavern in Holborn, London, Feb. 5th, 175 z. Mr JAMES HAGARTY IN THE CHAIR.

 

(A note in the original states that " The above Mr. James Hagarty is a painter and lives now in Leather Lane, London.") Also present the Officers of Nos. z, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) 8, 9 and io, being the Representatives of all the Ancient Masons in and adjacent to London.

 

Brother John Morgan, Grand Secretary, Informed the Committee that he being lately appointed to an office on board one of His Majesty's ships, he recd. orders to prepare for his departure and therefore advised the Grand Committee to chose a new Secretary immediately.

 

Upon which Bro. John Morris, past Master of No. 5, and Bro. Laurence Dermott of Nos. 9 and Io, and past Master No. 26, in Dublin, were proposed and admitted as candidates for the office of Grand Secretary.

 

And Grand Secretary Morgan was ordered to examine the Candidates separately and report his opinion of their Qualifications.

 

After a long & minute Examination, Relative to Initiation, Passing, Instalations and General Regulations, etc., Bro. John Morgan declared that Bro. Laurence Dermott was duly qualified for the Office of Grand Secretary.

 

Whereon, the Worshipful Master in the Chair put up the Names of John Morris and Laurence Dermott, seperately, when the latter was Unanimously chosen Grand Secretary; and accordingly he was installed (in the Ancient Manner) by the F. III‑I 145 146 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Worshipful Mr James HagArty, Master of No. 4, then presiding officer, assisted by Mr John Morgan, late Grand Secretary and the Masters present.

 

After which Bro. Morgan (at the request of the president) proclaimed the new Grand Secretary thrice, according to ancient customs, upon which the new Secretary received the usual salutes and then the President and late Grand Secretary, John Morgan, delivered the books, etc., into the hands of the new Secretary, Upon certain conditions which was agreed by all parties, which conditions the said Worshipful Bro. James Hagarty can explain.

 

The Grand Committee unanimously joined in wishing Br. Morgan Health and a successful voyage and then closed with the Greatest Harmony. Having adjourned to Wednesday, the fourth of March next.

 

The explanation of this valediction is found in an entry in the Minute‑book against John Morgan's name‑" Gone on board a stationed ship." The Committee which acted at the meeting of February 5, 175z‑the first recorded meeting‑continued to officiate until September 14 of that year, when, as will presently be seen, they reconstituted themselves into a Grand Committee of twenty‑five members. There is an echo of an earlier meeting in the following document.

 

Hughan, in 1tilasonic Facts and Fictions, reproduces from a book discovered in Freemasons' Hall, London, the following RULES & ORDERS to be Observ'd By the Most ANCIENT and HON... Society of FREE and ACCEPTED MASONS.

 

As Agreed and Settled by a Committee appointed by a General Assembly held at the Turk's Head in Greek Street, Soho, on Wednesday, the 17th of July, 1751, And in the Year of MASONRY 5751 Phil McLou hlin James Shee By Sam' Quay g } f JosP' Kelly & Jn MORGAN, Gd Secrety Vizt For the GRAND.

 

They are as follows 1st THAT the Masters and Wardens do meet on the First Wednesday of every Month at the Turk's head, in Greek Street, Soho, or such other place as shall be agreed on, there to hold a Monthly Committee for the better Regulation and Govern ment of the Lodges AND to hear and determine all Matters and Disputes that may or shall arise in any of the Regular Lodges. AND that the Chair shall be taken the First Night by the Master of the Senr Lodge and every other Night by the other Masters each in his turn according to Seniority, until such time as there shall be a Grand Master & Grand Wardens appointed, then every Grand Lodge Night, the Grand Master to take the Chair; and in his Absence by the Deputy Grand and in the Absence of both by the Sent Grand Warden and in their Absence by the "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 147 Junr Grand Warden, if all the Grand Officers shou'd be Absent, then the Master of the Eldest Lodge & so on by all the Masters in their turn according to Seniority.

 

2nd THAT such meeting do consist only of the Masters and Wardens of all Regular Lodges and in the Absence of the Mastr or Warden, a Past Mastr may attend and bear the office in their absence for the time being and to have a Voice in the Grand equal to the present Members.

 

3rd AND if any Members do not appear before the Roll is call'd the sd Members shall be Fine'd in the Sum of Twopence and in case of Absence the whole Night, Sixpence, Except Sick, Lying in Confinement, or three Miles from the place of Meeting, that none be admitted but Mast Ward$ & Past Mast of Regular Lodges, & such as have been Regularly IVstalld and at the time of their Comeing to be members of a Regular Lodge of ANCIENT MASONS.

 

4th THAT No Brother be made either a Master or Warden of any Lodge except he hath been made a Mason One half Year, and Member of a Regular Lodge for that time.

 

5th No Person shall be made a Mason in any Lodge until first his Name, Occupation, and Place of Abode shall be reported to the Secretary with the time he is intended to be made in Order that the Secretary may apprize all Lodges of the same.

 

6th THAT no Old Mason be admitted a Member of any Lodge except he hath been made in a Regular Lodge and hath a proper Certificate of his good behaviour and his not owing anything in such Lodge and in case a Member of any Regular Lodge shall be desirous to become a Member of any other with an intent to belong to two or more Lodges then such Lodge he sues to come into must be assur'd that he is not indebted to the Lodge he then belongs to‑Registy 6d.

 

7th THAT all Complaints and Appeals must come before this Lodge by Petition.

 

8th No Admission or Warrant shall be granted to any Brothers to hold a Lodge until such time they have first form'd a Lodge of Ancient Masons and sitt regularly in a credible house and then to apply by Petition and such Petition to be Attested by the Masters of three Regular Lodges who shall make a Proper Report of them.

 

9th THAT on St. John's day the 24th of June & St. John's day the z7th of December the Master of every Lodge shall deliver into the Secretary of the Grand Lodge the Names of the Masters & Wardens that are appointed to serve for the Ensueing Half Year.

 

148 THAT on the first Grand Lodge Night after each St. John's day the Master of every Lodge shall deliver into the Grand Secrety the Names of the Members of his Lodge together with their Half Year's Dues. THAT is the Members of each Regular Lodge for the use of Indigent Brethren or otherways as the Grand Lodge shall think Proper, One Shilling each Member pr Quarter.

 

THAT if a Lodge should grow to Numerous, that Lodge to appoint Masters & Wardens to form a New Body, they applying to the Grand Lodge for Warrants & Constitution in one Month after the first Sitting Night & that no Lodge shall sitt on the First Wednesday of each Month, it being Grand Lodge Night, when the Mast & Wardens are requir'd to attend.

 

THAT every Person who shall be made a Mason in any Regular Lodge shall pay for his Register in the Grand Lodge Book for the sum of One Shilling.

 

THAT No Person or Member of the Grand Lodge at the time of Sitting shall interrupt the Grand Master or Grand Officers or any Brother then Speaking to the Grand Master ti'1 such Brother hath done and not then to Speak without first asking liberty in a Proper manner. Nor to hold any Private Committees during the Sitting of the Lodge, nor depart the Lodge without leave from the Grand Master under Penalty of being Fine'd at the Discretion of the Grand.

 

HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND i oth THAT if any Member of a Private Lodge shall be desireous of leaveing the Lodge he belongs to join another, he must have a proper Certificate from the Mast` of that Lodge and Notice to be given to the Secrety of the Grand Lodge of his leaveing the same, and the Mastr of the Lodge the sd Brother shall join shall report him to the Grand Lodge, in Order to have him Register'd in the Grand Lodge Book to ye Number of the Lodge he is then removed to and to Pay for the same the sum of Sixpence.

 

15th THAT the following be the Charges & Paid for the Constitution of a New Lodge.

 

Viz, FOR the Warrant . , o io 6 Regester for each Member . ò 0 1 0 Each Tyler J Grand Lodge . 0 3 6 J Tyler AND that all Warrants Constitutions Registers and Petitions for Constitutions be the Fees of ye Grand Secretary and that no Petitions be receiv'd but such as are wrote by the sd Secrety and he paid for the same.

 

11th 12th 13th 14th "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" i6th THAT the Grand Master have Power to Call a Committee at Pleasure or Deputy Grand Master or Grand Warden or whoever shall be in the Chair in their Absence ; & such Committee to Consist of Masters of Lodges only, & their Resolutions to be laid before the Grand Lodge the next insueing Night after such Committee held and that the sd Committee have Power to Adjourn from time to time not exceeding three Grand Lodge Nights.

 

THAT an officer, viz. Masters & Wardens of all Regular Lodges under the Constitution of this Grand Lodge who thro Negligence or Omission will be absent on a Grand Lodge meeting (he or they having a proper Summons sent him or them) shall be fin'd as the Grand Rules Specify and that all such fines shall be paid by the Body such Absentee belongs to and that if any of the Members refuse paying his or their Devidend of said fines. Such Member upon his Refusal shall be Excluded.

 

118th THAT upon the death of any of our Worthy Brethren whose names are or may be hereafter Recorded in the Grand Registry, &c., the Mr. of such Lodge as he then belonged to Shall immadiately Inform the G.S. of his Death and the intended time of his funeral, and upon this notice the Grand Secretary shall summon all the Lodges to attend the funeral in proper Order, And that Each Member shall pay One Shilling towards Defraying the expenses of said funeral or otherwise to his widow or nearest friend provided the Deceased or his friends Realy want and Require the same, otherwise the money so raised to be put to some other Charitable use, or as the Committee shall think proper, &c.

 

It is further Agree'd (To support the Dignity of this W.G. Lodge) that no Mem. hereof (on any G.L. meeting) be admitted to Sit herein without his proper Cloathing and jewell &c. Except upon some great Emmergency, in which case the Transgressor shall give Sufficient Reason for so doing.

 

The following Agreement in the First Register of the Ancients is in Laurence Dermott's well‑known Handwriting Whereas it is highly expedient for the Universal Benefit of the Ancient Craft that a Grand Master and Grand Lodge should govern and direct the proceedings of the several Ancient Lodges held in and about the Cities of London and West minster. And as the present low condition of the Ancient Society of Free and Accepted Masons renders the hope of obtaining a Noble Personage to preside over us at this time very precarious.

 

In order to preserve the present remains of the true Ancient Craft &c., We, the under Named, being the present Masters and Wardens of the Several Masonic Meetings called Lodges of true Ancient Masonry aforesaid, do agree (pursuant to the powers vested in us by our Respective Brethren of the several Lodges) to form a Grand Committee (we mean such a Committee) as may supply the deficiency of a Grand Master until an opportunity offers for the choice of a Noble Personage to govern our Ancient Fraternity. And that we will therein (by the Authority 1149 ISo HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Aforesaid) make Statutes and Laws for the better government and well Ordering of the said Fraternity, Receive petitions, hear Appeals and Transact Business (that is to say, such Business as ought to be peculiar to a Grand Lodge) with Equity and Impartiality. Dated in our Grand Committee Room on Thursday, the fourteenth day of September, New Stile, 175z, And in the year of Masonry 5752.

 

In the presence of: No. 2 John Doughty, Master Richd. Coffy, S.W. ? Peter Britain, J.W.

 

No. 4 Geo. Hebden, Master Hon. Ed. Vaughan, S.W.?Chr. Pidgeon, J.W.

 

No. 5 Richd. Stringer, Master Owen Tudor, S.W. ? Barth. Scully, JAX'.

 

No. 6 Edwd. Ryan, Master John Dally, S.W. ? John Wilson, J.W.

 

No. 8 Thos. Blower, Master Alexr. Fife, S.W. ? John Smith, J.W.

 

No. i i Andrew Francis, Master Wm. Turner, S.W. ? William Weir, J.W.

 

No. 12 John Cartwright, Master James Ryan, S.W. ? Barnaby Fox, J.W.

 

James Hagarthy and Henry Lewis, P.M.'s of No. 4, and Thos. Kelly, P.M. of No. 6, Lau.‑Dermott, G.S.

 

And Whereas several of the Lodges have congregated and made Masons without any Warrant (not with a desire of Acting wrong, but thro' the Necessity above mentioned), in order to Rectify such irregular proceedings (so far as is in our power) it is hereby Ordered That the Grand Secretary shall write Warrants (on Parchment) for the Unwarranted Lodges‑viz., the Lodges known by the Title of No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and that all the Warrants shall bear date July the Seventeenth, One Thousand Seven hundred fifty and One, being the day on which the said Lodges met (at the Turk's Head Tavern, in Greek Street, Soho) to revive the Ancient Craft.

 

That the Secretary shall leave proper spaces for the Grand Master, Deputy G.M., and Grand Wardens to sign all the said Warrants according to Ancient Custom.

 

That as soon as we shall arrive at the Great happiness of installing proper Grand Officers, the possessors of the Unsigned Warrants shall present them to the Grand Master for His Worship's Signature or Renewal, Until which time the said Warrants, as well as those which have or maybe (thro. necessity) granted in the like manner, shall be deemed good and lawfull.

 

Lastly, this our Regulation shall be Recorded in our Registry, to shew posterity how much we desire to revive the Ancient Craft upon true Masonical principles. Signed by Order, Lau. Dermott, G.S.

 

In the margin is written: " Apr. 14, 175 2, N. Stile, Geo. Hebden, Mastr. No. 4, in the Chair." W. R. Smith, writing in The Freemason, October 17, 1925, gives the following Summary of Reasons for considering the First Grand Committee to consist of more than the five who signed the Rules i.‑Jno. Morgan signs for " the Grand " Committee. The Committee must, therefore, have been larger than the four, for they sign for themselves.

 

2.‑The first Lodges were granted Warrants dated July i7, I751.

 

"ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS " 151 3.‑The Rules must have been drawn up between July 17, 1751, and February 5, 1752, for John Morgan, who signs them as Grand Secretary, resigned on that latter date.

 

4.‑The Minutes of February 5, 1752, the first Minutes, speak of no fresh appointment.

 

5.‑The Agreement also speaks of no break in the existence oú the Committee to September, 1752, The five who drew up the Rules are not on the Committee mentioned in the Agreement.

 

Of Laurence Dermott, the Grand Secretary of the Antients, it may be said, without erring on the side of panegyric, that he was the most remarkable Mason of that time. " As a polemic," observes a judicious writer (Mackey, Encyclopcedia of Freemasonry), " he was sarcastic, bitter, uncompromising and not altogether sincere or veracious. But in intellectual attainments he was inferior to none of his adversaries and, in a philosophical appreciation of the character of the Masonic Institution, he was in advance of the spirit of his age." Yet although a very unscrupulous writer, he was a matchless administrator. In the former capacity he was the embodiment of the maxim, de l'audace, encore de Z'audace, toujours de l'audare, but in the latter he displayed qualities which we find united in no other member of the Craft, who came either before or after him. In A Defence of Laurence Dermott and the Ancients, reproduced by Sadler in Masonic Reprints and Revelations, it is claimed that the upward progress of the Antients as an organized body may fairly be dated from Dermott's appointment as Grand Secretary.

 

As Grand Secretary and later as Deputy Grand Master, he was simply the life and soul of the body with which he was so closely associated. He was also its historian and, to the influence of his writings must be attributed, in a great measure, the marvellous success of the Antients.

 

The epithets of " Antient " and " Modern "applied by Dermott to the usages of his own and of the older Society respectively, produced a really wonderful result. The antithesis at once caught the public ear and, what is perhaps the strangest fact connected with the whole affair, the terms soon passed into general use, among the Brethren under both Grand Lodges. The senior of these bodies, it is true, occasionally protested against the employment of expressions which implied a relative inferiority on the part of its own members, but the epithets stuck and we constantly meet with them in the Minute‑books of Lodges under the older system, where they were apparently used without any sense of impropriety.

 

The memoirs of Laurence Dermott, for the most part inscribed by his own hand, are given us in the records of the Antients. By this is not meant that we have there his autobiography, but the personality of the man was so marked, that, with brief exceptions from the time the Minutes commence, down to the date of his last appearance in Grand Lodge, the history of that body is very largely composed of personal incidents in the career of its Secretary and Deputy Grand Master.

 

Some curious anecdotes may be gleaned from these old records ; and, if 152 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Warburton's dictum be sound and he set more value on one material historical anecdote, than on twenty new hypotheses in Philosophy, or a hundred good criticisms‑we cannot do better than trace the fortunes of Laurence Derm_ ott under the guidance of his own hand.

 

But before entering upon this task, a few preliminary words are essential. Laurence Dermott was born in Ireland, 1720 ; initiated into Masonry, in Ireland, January 14, 1740; installed as Master of No. 26, Dublin, June 24, 1746, which Lodge, according to the Pocket Companion for Freemasons (Dublin, 173 5), then met at the Eagle Tavern on Cork Hill and, in the same year, became a Royal Arch Mason. Shortly after this he came to England and, in 1748, joined a Lodge under the regular establishment, but had shifted his allegiance, and become a member of Nos. 9 and io, on the Roll of the Antients, when elected Grand Secretary by the latter, February 5, 1752, after having, as we have seen, satisfied his predecessor, that he was well suited for the office. This office he laid down in 1771 ; and, on March 27, that year, was appointed Deputy Grand Master, being succeeded, at his own request, by William Dickey, December 1777. He was again Deputy from December 27, 1783, until the recurrence of the same festival in 1787, when‑also at his own request‑he was succeeded by James Perry. His last attendance at Grand Lodge occurred June 3, 1789 and he died in June 1791, the authority for this latter date being W.M. Bywater, in his Notes on Lau. Dermott and his Work. Bywater was P.M. and historian of the Royal Athelstan Lodge, now No. icy, originally an Antient or Atholl Lodge. There is no allusion to his death in the Atholl Records ; and the only one met with in those of other Masonic jurisdictions is the following " June 4, 1 792. Resolved, that in order to show the just regard and respect of this Grand Lodge for our late Bro. Laurence Dermott, the patron and founder thereof, it be recommended to every member of this Grand Lodge to appear on St. John's Day next, with Aprons bordered with black or other marks of mourning," which is in the Early History and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, pt. ii, 1878, P. 119.

 

Dermott‑who, the Minutes of July 13, 175 3, inform us, " was obliged to work twelve hours in the day, for the Master Painter who employed him "‑in all probability owed his appointment as Grand Secretary to the influence of James Hagarty, in whose employment it is very possible he was at the time.

 

As time advanced, his circumstances in life improved, for, in 1764, the officers of No. 31 offered to become his security to the amount of C1,ooo, if he was chosen Grand Treasurer; in 1766 he was able to subscribe five guineas towards the relief of a brother in Newgate and ;E i o to the charity; in 1767 he " made a volluntary gift of the Grand Master's Throne, compleat, which cost in the whole C34 " ; and in 1768 he is described in the records as a Wine Merchant, in which business he appears to have continued until his death.

 

His attainments were of no mean order. The Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge ‑March 21, 1764‑informs us that, an " Arabian Mason having petitioned for relief, the Grand Secretary conversed with him in the Hebrew language," after "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 153 which he was voted úI Is. Of Latin he possessed at least a smattering, for when Grand Master Mathew, on being asked by him to name the text for a sermonJune 12, 1767‑replied, In principio erat sermo ille et sermo ille erat apud Deum erat clue ille sermo Deus‑the Secretary at once made a bow and said, Fungor officio meo. His education, Bywater points out (op. cit., p. 6), is attested by the correspondence which occasionally appears in the pages of the Transactions of the Antients ; while his firm and vigorous handwriting is indicative of his character, which was energy ‑frequently resisted, but, nevertheless, energy irresistible. He lectured on Masonic subjects and he wrote songs. It was the custom of the period to include songs at the end of Masonic books and he adopted the custom. Bywater also adds that he sung them to the Brethren, perhaps feeling that " A verse may finde him, who a sermon flies." Of his conscientiousness in the performance of his duties, the following, taken from the Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge, affords a good illustration March ig, 1766. N.B. The Grand Secretary was fined forswearing an oath, which fine he paid immediately ; and was ordered to withdraw, during which time the Stewards' Lodge order'd that the G.S. should be excused and that the fine shou'd not be inserted among the Transactions of the Steward's Lodge. Notwithstanding this lenitive order, the G.S. thinks he cannot violate that part of his Instalation Ceremony, which expressly says, that he shall not favour the undeserved. LAU. DERMOTT.

 

Therefore I have made this note.

 

Although frequently debarred by sickness from actual attendance at the meetings of Grand Lodge towards the closing years of his Secretaryship, the records afford numerous examples of his devotion to the best interests of the Society. Thus, under March 7, 1770, we find Heard a second letter from G. S. Dermott, humbly proposing that no part of the Grand Fund be appropriated, expended, disbursed, nor ordered towards defraying the charges of any Publick Feast, Musick or Procession for the future, the Funerals of Indigent Brethren (only) excepted‑and which was unanimously approved of.

 

In addition to his manifold labours as Secretary, he took upon himself the task of compiling a Book of Constitutions for the Antients. This work‑which will be hereafter considered‑passed through no fewer than four editions during the author's lifetime and, if his fame rested on nothing else, would alone serve as a lasting monument of his zeal and ability. Originally published at his own risk, its sale must have been very remunerative ; and on September 29, 1785, when the thanks of Grand Lodge were voted to him for " giving up his property of Ahiman Ke!Zon to the Charity," the endowment must have been a very substantial addition to that fund.

 

The expression Ahiman Ke7,on, which Dermott explained in a secondary title 154 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND as " A Help to a Brother," has received various interpretations. Dr. Crucefix has rendered it as a corruption of three Hebrew words‑achi, man, ratson‑signifying " the thoughts or opinions of a true and faithful Brother." Eight English editions were published in 1756, 1764, 1778, 1787 (these within the lifetime of Laurence Dermott), i 8oo, i 8oi, 1807 and 1813. The title has also been adopted by other jurisdictions, notably Ireland, Pennsylvania, Maryland and South Carolina.

 

It is worthy of notice, that in Ahiman ReZon, 1764 (second edition), whilst explaining the difference between " Antient and Modern " [Masonry], the author says : " I think it my duty to declare solemnly, before God and man, that I have not the least antipathy against the gentlemen, members of the Modern Society ; but, on the contrary, love and respect them." " Such," he adds in the third edition, fourteen years later, was my declaration in the second edition of this book ; nevertheless, some of the Modern Society have been extremely malapert of late. Not satisfied with saying the Antient Masons in England had no Grand Master, some of them descended so far from truth as to report, the author had forged the Grand Master's hand‑writing to Masonic warrants, etc. Upon application, His Grace the most Noble Prince John, Duke of Atholl, our present R.W. Grand Master's father, avowed his Grace's hand‑writing, supported the Ancient Craft and vindicated the author in the public newspapers.

 

He then goes on to say As they differ in matters of Masonry, so they did in matters of calumny ; for while some were charging me with forgery, others said, that I was so illiterate as not to know how to write my name. But what may appear more strange is, that some insisted that I had neither father nor mother ; but that I grew up spontaneously in the corner of a potatoe garden in Ireland. I cannot reconcile myself [he continues], to the idea of having neither father nor mother ; but . . . be that as it may, as I do not find that the calumny of a few Modern Masons has done me any real injury, I shall continue in the same mind as express'd in the declaration to which this notice is written.

 

In Masonic circles Dermott was probably the best abused man of his time and he revenged himself by holding up the members of the rival Society (i.e. the regularly constituted Grand Lodge of the Moderns) to the ridicule of the public. Of this, one example must suffice. Describing their innovations, he says There was another old custom that gave umbrage to the young architects, i.e. the wearing of aprons, which made the gentlemen look like so many mechanicks, therefore it was proposed, that no brother (for the future) should wear an apron.

 

This proposal was rejected by the oldest Members, who declared that the aprons were all the signs of Masonry then remaining amongst them and for that reason they would keep and wear them. [It was then proposed, that (as they were resolved to wear aprons) they should be turned upside down, in order to avoid appearing mechanical. This proposal took place and answered the design, for that "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 155 which was formerly the lower part, was now fastened round the abdomen, and the bib and strings hung downwards, dangling in such manner as might convince the spectators that there was not a working mason amongst them.

 

Agreeable as this alteration might seem to the gentlemen, nevertheless it was attended with an ugly circumstance : for, in traversing the lodge, the brethren were subject to tread upon the strings, which often caused them to fall with great violence, so that it was thought necessary to invent several methods of walking, in order to avoid treading upon the strings.] After many years' observation on these ingenious methods of walking, I conceive that the first was invented by a man grievously afflicted with the sciatica. The second by a sailor, much accustomed to the rolling of a ship. And the third by a man who, for recreation, or through excess of strong liquors, was wont to dance the drunken peasant.

 

Although the passages within crotchets were omitted after 1787, the remainder appeared in every later edition, including the final one of 1813. That such coarse observations could ever find their way into a work of the kind may occasion surprise ; but we should do well to recollect that when " journeymen painters " take to writing Books of Constitutions, some little deviation from the ordinary methods must be expected. But we gain a clearer insight into the real character of the man from the lines with which he concludes this portion of his work, wherein he expresses a hope‑renewed in the two succeeding editions published before his death‑that he may " live to see a general conformity and universal unity between the worthy masons of all denominations "‑a hope, alas, not destined to fulfilment.

 

Mutatis mutandis, the description given by Burton (History of Scotland, vol. ii, p. 344) of the split in the Associate Synod, will exactly describe the breach between, and reunion of, the Masons of England After long separation, these bodies, which had been pursuing their course in different lines, re‑united their forces. But, in the meantime, according to a common ecclesiastical habit, each body counted itself the Synod and denied the existence of the other, save as a mob of impenitent Schismatics.

 

As the earliest records of the Antients are in the handwriting of Laurence Dermott and date from his election as Grand Secretary, it is impossible to say how far, as an organized body, their existence should be carried back. The note to the Minutes of September 14, 175z, already quoted, affords the only clue to the difficulty and, as will be seen, is not of material assistance. It states that a General Assembly of Antient Masons was held at the Turk's Head Tavern in Greek Street, Soho, On July 17, 1751, when the Masters of z, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were authorized to grant Dispensations and Warrants and to act as Grand Master. And the Masters of three Lodges " did actually exercise such authority, in signing the warrant No. 8, from which [so the words run] this note is written, for Dermott never received any copy or manuscript of the former Transactions from Mr. Morgan, late Grand Secretary: Nor does Laurence Dermott, the present Grand Secretary, think that 156 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Bro. Morgan did keep any book of Transactions,‑though there is no certainty that he did not." This, notwithstanding that the Minutes of the Grand Committee contain the following entry Be it Remembered that M` John Morgan, late Grand Secretary, had a certain claim on the Manuscripts here said to be delivered to Laurence Dermott. Which claim was acknowledged by the G d. Committee as good and lawful and for that and other Good Reason which cannot be committed to writing. The Worshipful Grand Committee did agree with Brother John Morgan, late Grand Secretary, that the new Secretary, Lau. Dermott, should be solemnly bound never to deliver the said Manuscript (viz., a Large folio bound in White Vellum) to any person, But him the said John Morgan or his order in writing.

 

From this we learn that there were six Lodges in existence prior to July 17, 1751, but the exact dates of their constitution there are no means of determining; still it is not likely that the oldest of these Lodges was formed before 1747.

 

The members, for the most part, seem to have been composed of mechanics and shopkeepers (Sadler, Masonic Facts and Fictions, p. 68) ; many of them were evidently from the Sister Isle, as will be seen from the names of those who comprised the Committee for framing the regulations.

 

The proceedings of the Grand Committee, held March 4, 175z‑Bro. John Gaunt, Master of No. 5, in the chair‑are thus recorded by Laurence Dermott Formal complaints made against Thomas Phealon and John Macky, better known by the name of the " leg of mutton masons." In course of the examination, it appeared that Phealon and Macky had initiated many persons for the mean con sideration of a leg of mutton for dinner or supper, to the disgrace of the Ancient Craft. That Macky was an Empiric in phisic ; and both impostors in Masonry. That upon examining some brothers whom they pretended to have made Royal Arch men, the parties had not the least idea of that secret. That D= Macky (for so he was called) pretended to teach a Masonical Art, by which any man could (in a moment) render himself invisible. That the Grand Secretary had eNamined Macky and that Macky appeared incapable of making an Apprentice with any degree of propriety. Nor had Macky the least idea or knowledge of Royal‑Arch Masonry. But instead thereof, he had told the people whom he deceived, a long story about 12 white Marble Stones, etc., etc. And that the Rainbow was the Royal Arch, with many other absurdities equally foreign and rediculous.

 

Agreed and ordered‑that neither Thomas Phealon nor John Mackey be admitted into any ancient Lodge during their natural Lives.

 

A footnote on this page of the Minutes states This was the first time that Laurence Dermott acted as principal Secretary, nor did he take any fees before the 27th April, 175 2.

 

The only allusion to the Royal Arch, of earlier date than this Minute, will be found in Dr. Dassigny's Serious and Impartial Enquiry into the Cause of the present "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 157 Decay of Freemasonry in the Kingdom of Ireland, 1744. Reprinted by Hughan, in Masonic Memorials of the Union, 1874; also in Masonic Magazine, vol. ii, p. 368; Vol. iii, pp. 5, 62, 111.

 

The Minutes of the Grand Committee held on April i, 175 z, are also of interest The Copy of the Bye‑Laws for private Lodges as written by the late Grand Secretary was read and compared with Br. Dermott's Copy of the Bye‑Laws of his former Lodge, No. z6, in the City of Dublin and, the latter, being deemed the most correct copy, it was Unanimously Resolved, that the most correct copy should be received & acknowledged as the only Bye‑Laws for private Lodges in future and public thanks given to Bros. Philip M'Loughlin and J. Morgan for their good intentions and trouble in drawing up former Bye‑Laws.

 

The new President called on John Morgan, James Hagan and Laurence Dermott, to know what success they had in petitioning Lord George Sackville to accept the Chair. Their report was that they had waited on Lord George Sackville at Somerset House, in the Strand, that having read the petition, His Lordship told them politely that he had the highest veneration for the Ancient Craft and wished to promote it. But he was engaged to attend his father [the Duke of Dorset] Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and was inform'd that the Grand Lodge of Ireland had lately chosen him Grand Master and that upon his return to England he would accept the Chair, or recommend them to another Noble Man. Unanimously Resolved, Ordered that the thanks of the Ancient Craft be given to the Right Honourable Lord George Sackville for His Lordship's polite and very kind answer.

 

Lord George Sackville was Grand Master of Ireland in 1751 and 175 z, but he never occupied the Chair of the Antient Grand Lodge of England.

 

At the meeting of the Grand Committee held on May 6, 175 z A motion was made by John Hamilton, Past Master of No. 7 : That this Grand Committee be removed back to the Turk's Head Tavern, in Greek Street, Soho, where it had been long held under the title of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the Old Institutions. This motion was not seconded and, therefore, dropt.

 

Ultimately the Grand Committee decided to remove to the Temple Eating House, in Shire Lane, near Temple Bar. There is no confirmation of John Hamilton's statement that the Grand Committee had long met at the Turk's Head Tavern as a Grand Lodge and W. R. Smith thinks (The Freemason, October 24, 19z5) it seems probably to refer to preliminary meetings held by the promoters of the General Assembly.

 

Shire Lane, it may be stated, commenced on the north side of Temple Bar and ran across the site of the existing side of the Royal Courts of Justice. In earlier times it divided London from the fields, hence the name Shire Lane.

 

On June 3, 175 z, the Grand Committee met at the Temple, Shire Lane, when, having no Grand Master or Grand Wardens to install, the Grand Secretary was 158 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND re‑installed " according to the antient custom of installing Grand Secretaries and he was proclaimed and saluted after which he repeated the whole ceremony of installing Grand Officers &c., in the manner which he had learned from Br. Edward Spratt, the celebrated Grand Secretary of Ireland." In the Grand Committee held July i, 175 z, a complaint against Bro. Willoughby was heard and he was ordered to refund nine shillings to a Brother whom he had wronged. " Whereupon Bro. Moses Willoughby declared they might expell him, for he would not conform to the Rules of any Society upon Earth by which he should lose nine shillings." Expelled accordingly.

 

On August 5, 175 z The Grand Secretary again urged the necessity of chusing Grand Mr. upon which the Worshipful Master in the Chair made an Excellent Speech, wherein he labour'd to fire the Brethren with a spirit to pursue the Grand Design; and con cluded with saying " Future Ages will bless your memories for preserving and reviving the Antient Craft in England." On September z, in the same year, it was agreed that every sick member should receive one penny per week from every registered Mason in London and Westminster ; after which " the Lodge was opened in Antient form of Grand Lodge and every part of real Freemasonry was traced and explained " by the Grand Secretary, " except the Royal Arch." On September 14, 1752, there was an Emergency Meeting of the Grand Committee at the Temple Eating House, with George Hebden, W.M. of No. 9, in the Chair, the Minute of which reads as follows It was resolved that Dispensations and Warrants should be issued under the Grand Seal by the Grand Secretary, but those must be confirmed by the next Grand Master according to a Regulation inserted in the front of the Grand Registry Register.

 

Then follows a foot‑note to the entry which reads An order of this sort was made in a General Assembly of Antient Masons at the Turk's Head Tavern in Greek Street, Soho, upon the 17th day of July, 1751, wherein the Masters of Nos. z, 3, 4, 5, 6, and seven were authorized to Grant Dis pensations and Warrants and to act as Grand Master. And Richd. Price, Master of No. 3 ; Henry Lewis, Master of No. 4 ; John Gaunt, Master of No. 5 ; and Christopher Byrne, Master of No. 6, did actually exercise such Authority in signing the Warrant of No. 8 to James Bradshaw, Thomas Blower and Richard Darling Guest for holding a Lodge at the sign of the Temple and Sun in Shire Lane, Temple Bar, London, from which Warrant this note is written. For Dermott never received any copy or manuscript of the former transactions from Mr. Morgan, the late Grand Secretary, nor does Laurence Dermott, the present Grand Secretary, think that Brother John Morgan did keep any book of transactions in this form, though there is no certainty that he did not.

 

" ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS " 159 At the meeting of the Grand Committee on October 6, 1752, a motion was made from the Chair That application be immediately made to some honourable Antient Brother to accept the honour of the Grand Mastership or. Recommend us another. Resolved, it is the unanimous opinion of the Grand Committee that the Craft has flourished most and best when governed by a noble Grand Master. For though a General or Grand Committee have power to form new laws for the Fraternity, yet, to render them binding or render stability, a Grand Master is absolutely necessary to confirm them.

 

Finally it was arranged that every Brother should make due enquiries concerning proper persons and report the result at the next meeting.

 

At the meeting held in November 1752, the names of Lords Chesterfield, Ponsonby, Inchiquin and Blesington, as suitable noblemen for the office of Grand Master were laid before the Grand Committee, all being said to be Antient Masons.

 

Philip Dormer, fourth Earl of Chesterfield, K.G., who succeeded to the title in January 1725‑6, was the author of Chesterfield's Letters. In 1728 he was appointed Ambassador to the Court of Holland; in 173o he was made K.G. ; and from 1730‑3 he was Lord Steward of the Household. In 1744 he was admitted into the Cabinet and, from 1744‑6, he was Lord‑Lieutenant of Ireland.

 

Ponsonby Brabazon, Viscount Duncannon of the Fort of Duncannon, Co. Wexford and Baron Bessborough, was created Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, Leicester, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. In 1707 he was Captain of the Grenadiers in the Enniskillen or 27th Regiment; Sheriff and Governor of Co. Kilkenny in 1713 and of Co. Kildare in 1714. He was Privy Councillor to George I and George II; Commissioner of Revenues in 1739, in which year he was created Earl of Bessborough ; in 1751 he was Mareschal of the Irish Admiralty; and, afterwards, Lord Justice of Ireland; Vice‑Admiral of Munster in 175 5.

 

The family of Inchiquin descends in an unbroken male line from Brian Borrihmer, Prince of Thomond, North Munster and chief of the Dalgais, who became supreme monarch of Ireland in ioo2 and was slain in battle in the decisive victory of the Irish over the Danes at Clontarf, April z3, 1014. The Lord Inchiquin here referred to was William, the fourth Earl.

 

William Stewart, Viscount Mountjoy and Baron Stewart, also a Baronet, was created Earl of Blesington December 7, 1745. He was the only surviving son of William, the 2nd Viscount (16gz‑1727). He was Grand Master of Ireland in 1738 and 1739 and, upon his election, a picture was engraved of him, which is the earliest known portrait of a Noble Grand Master wearing all the insignia of his office. He was created a Privy Councillor of Ireland in 1746 and afterwards appointed Governor of Co. Tyrone. He died in Charles Street, Berkeley Square, W., August 14, 1769, when all his Peerage dignities became extinct.

 

Each of these names was duly considered by the Grand Committee and finally it was " Ordered that the Grand Secretary shall draw up a proper petition i 6o HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND To the Right Honourable Philip, Earl of Chesterfield, an Antient Mason, begging his Lordship's Sanction as Grand Master." The Secretary returned thanks for the honour done him in appointing him the Committee to wait on Lord Chesterfield and begged the Grand Committee would postpone the business until they had made choice of a more proper place to receive and install his Lordship, the Temple Eating House being very unfit for that business. The friends of the landlord objected to the Grand Secretary's request, " upon which there were many altercations on both sides, not fit to be written." The result was that the whole business was postponed.

 

At the meeting on December 6, 1752, it was Resolved unanimously; that the Lodges, who by neglect or disobedience have forfeited their Rank and Number, shall be discontinued on the Registry and the Junior Lodges who have proved themselves faithful friends of the Antient Craft, shall henceforth bear the Title or Number so forfeited: The distribution to be according to Seniority. The Grand Secretary desired to know whether there was any other books or Manuscripts more than had been delivered to him upon the znd of Feb. i 75.z. To which several of the Brethren answered that they did not know of any; others said they knew Mr. Morgan had a roll of parchment of prodigious length, which contained some historical matters relative to the ancient Craft, which parchment they did suppose he had taken abroad with him. It was further said, That many Manuscripts were lost amongst the Lodges lately Modernized, where a vestige of the ancient Craft [word erased] was not suffered to be revived or practized. And that it was for this reason so many of them withdrew from Lodges (under the Modern sanction) to Support the true Antient System. That they found the Freemasons from Ireland and Scotland had been initiated in the very same manner as themselves, which confirmed their system and practice as right and just, Without which none could be deem'd legal, though possessed of all the books and papers on Earth.

 

The Grand Secretary (Dermott) produced a very old Manuscript, written or copied by one Bramhall of Canterbury, in the reign of King Henry the seventh; which was presented to Mr. Dermott in 1748, by one of the descendants of the writer ‑‑on perusal it proved to contain the whole matter in the fore‑mentioned parchment, as well as other matters not in that parchment.

 

Br. Quay moved " that the thanks of the General committee be given to G. S. Dermott ; " upon which Bn. James Bradshaw [and others] protested against any thanks or even approbation of the Secretary's conduct, who, instead of being useful, had actually Sung and lectured the Brethren out of their senses. The Secretary said‑if he was so unfortunate as to sing any brother out of his Senses, he hoped the Worshipful Master in the Chair and the Grand Committee, would allow him an hour's time and he would endeavour to sing them into their senses again.

 

The request was granted with great good humour, the Secretary made proper use of his time and the W. Master clos'd and adjourned the Grand Committee to the Five Bells Tavern in the Strand.

 

The name of Abr‑ Ardizorf appears in the Minutes of this date. He was excluded on the day of the General Assembly, July 17, 1751, being " Deemd un‑ "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 161 worthy of ye Society," but had evidently been re‑admitted. His address is given as Broad Court, Bow Street, Covent Gard, but his occupation is not stated. Several resolutions of a financial character were passed in the early part of 175 3. On January 3, that every member of a Regular Lodge in and about the metropolis‑at this time there were no others‑should contribute fourpence a month towards raising a Charity Fund; on February 7, that the officers of Lodges might pay ten shillings per week to a sick member and seven to a member confined for debt, with the assurance of being recouped from the Grand Fund; and, on April 4, that one shilling be spent by each member at every meeting ; also that Lodges pay two shillings and sixpence for each newly‑made Mason, one shilling for joining members and " that the G. Secretary be free from Contributions or reckonings, whilst being entitled to every benefit of the Grand Lodge, except a vote in chusing Grand Officers." Lodges Nos. 2 to 17 were represented at this meeting.

 

At an Emergency Meeting held at the King and Queen, Cable Street, Rosemary Lane, on July 13, 175 3 The Grand Secretary humbly begged that the Lodge would please to appoint some certain person to deliver the summons's for the future, that he, the sd Secretary was under the necessity of delivering or paying for delivery for some months past as he was obliged to work twelve hours in the day for a Master Painter who employed him.

 

It was ordered that the Grand Tyler or the Grand Pursuivant should deliver the summonses. The W.M. in the Chair thanked the Grand Secretary for the last new song which he had composed and hoped " that the applause of his Brethren would induce Br. Dermott, G.S., to compose another against the next St. John's Day," which the Grand Secretary promised to attempt.

 

The first country Lodge on the roll of the Antients was constituted in this year. A petition for some Brethren residing at Bristol was read October. 3, when it was ordered " that the Grand Secretary shall proceed according to the antient custom of the Craft during the inter Ma gistrum." The London Lodges were usually established by means of a provisional dispensation in the first instance‑e.g. " June icg, 1753.‑Ordered a dispensation for John Doughty, for the purpose of congregating and making of Freemasons at the One Tun in the Strand, from this day unto the first Wednesday in July next " (Grand Lodge Minutes).

 

At the meeting of the Grand Committee held at the Five Bells Tavern in the Strand, December 5, 1753, when the Chair was taken by McLachlan McIntosh, Master of No. 3 The G.S. made a motion, i.e. That, as the Fraternity had not made choice of any of the Noble personages formerly mentioned in these Transactions and it being doubtful whether the Antient Craft Cou'd be honour'd with a noble G.M. at this 162‑ HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND time, he humbly beg'd that the Brethren wou'd make choice of some worthy and skilfull Master to fill the Chair for the space of six months successively. Accordingly Bro. Robert Turner, Master of No. 15, was nominated and unanimously Chosen to fill the Grand 1`Iaster's Chair for six months and, being instal'd and saluted.

 

His Worship chose Bro. William Rankin for his Deputy, who was also immediately install'd, saluted.

 

Then the Lodge proceeded in the choice of Gd. Wardens, when Bro. Samuel Quay, Past Master of No. z, was chosen Senr. Gd. Warden, and Bro. Lachlan McIntosh, of No. 3, was chosen junior Gd. Warden, who were also install'd and saluted according to Ancient Usage, and concluded with a most agreeable harmony.

 

The Committee then adjourned to St. John's Day, December 27, when the officers were again installed, the previous ceremony, for some reason, having been deemed irregular.

 

The Grand Committee now, of course, became transformed into Grand Lodge on the second anniversary of the appointment of Laurence Dermott, which was possibly one of the reasons which induced the members at the December meeting to vote him a jewel of the value of five guineas. This jewel was presented to him at the meeting of Grand Lodge held on February 6, 1754 and it was intended to be his own property and not that of Grand Lodge, nevertheless, a foot‑note to the Minute says that he delivered the jewel to his successor, William Dickey and that it was worn by succeeding Grand Secretaries. The " Grand Committee of the Antients, which subsequently developed into their `Grand Lodge,' was no doubt originally their senior private Lodge, whose growth in this respect is akin to that of the Grand Chapter of the Moderns, which, commencing in 1765 as a private Chapter, within a few years assumed the general direction of R. A. Masonry and issued Warrants of Constitution " (Atholl Lodges, p. ix).

 

On March 14 following, a Grand Committee of Masters was held at the Thistle and Crown, Church Court, Strand, the Grand Master being in the Chair. On the recommendation of the Grand Secretary, it was resolved to hold a monthly Com mittee of Masters at the Crown, St. Paul's Churchyard under the name of the Committee of Inspection to consider the merits of petitioners for charity.

 

The following Minute of the Grand Lodge held on June 5, 1754, is of value, particularly as supporting Sadler's opinion (Masonic Facts and Fictions) that the proceedings of the regular Grand Lodge in the early years of its existence were not entirely harmonious, at which opinion he arrived by a knowledge of the difficulties and contentions that beset the early career of its rivals. The Minute of the Antient Grand Lodge for the date mentioned reads as follows Heard the complaint of Brother Samuel Galbraith & others against John Hamilton, Master of No. i g, wherein it appeared beyond Hamilton's contradiction that the said Hamilton had wilfully villified every part of a Master Mason so as to render the Charge incapable of being committed to writing, &c., &c., &c. Agreed Unanimously (in the presence of the said John Hamilton) that it is "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 163 our opinion That John Hamilton, late Master of No. I9, is Unworthy the Name of a Freemason, and consequently unworthy of this or any other good Society. Ordered That this Transaction shall be recorded in the Grand Lodge Books to inform our Worthy Successors that the foregoing Character of the said Hamilton is the well proved and undoubted Opinion of us the Grand Officers and Officers of No. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 27, 30, 31, 35, the whole composing a Grand Lodge of 4 Gd. Officers i Gd. S.

 

14 Masters 28 Wardens 23 Pastmasters Amounting in the whole to 70 Members.

 

Witness, by Order, Lau : Dermott, G.S.

 

Upon which John Hamilton was turn'd down stairs and a General Order given that he should not be admitted into any Antient Lodge directly nor indirectly.

 

Sadler adds A Grand Ejector would have been an important personage in those days. It will be observed that the indefatigable Dermott never did things by halves. Not only were the direct or ordinary portals barred against the admission of this culprit, but access by such indirect means as trap‑doors, windows and chimneys was likewise denied him.

 

In all probability, however, the term " indirect " referred to the possibility of his seeking admission to a Lodge as a visitor on the introduction of some member. John Hamilton figured in another scene later on. On March 2, 175 7, he made an appeal for reinstatement and asked that he might be permitted to make a statement, when he would prove that the sentence against him was both cruel and unjust. After much discussion this privilege was granted. Then, according to the Minutes He said that the former complaint against him was groundless and malicious and carried against him by the wickedness and cunning of an Imposter, viz., Laurence Dermott, the Secretary, who had imposed on the whole Craft in saying that he was regularly made in Ireland, &c., whereas the said Dermott was only a clandestine Mason, made by James Hagan and others at a house in Long Acre, some years before. That his whole drift was to keep the Society in ignorance and with his singing and tricks to lull them on until they had accumulated a considerable sum of money and then to rob them. The late Grand Master, E. Vaughan Esq., stood up and said he found himself very unhappy in hearing such a vile character of the Grand Secretary, whom he had taken for a most deserving Brother and, therefore, earnestly moved the said Secretary should be immediately ordered to make his defence. This motion was put in execution, when the Secretary arose and begged leave to read a certain regulation, which, being carried, he read as follows 164 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND If a complaint be made against a Brother by another Brother and he be found guilty, he shall stand to the determination of the Lodge ; but if the complaint be made against a Brother, wherein the Accuser cannot support his complaint to conviction, such Accuser shall forfeit such penalty as the person so accused might have forfeited had he really been convicted of such complaint.

 

Then the Grand Secretary addressed himself to the Chair and said: " Right Worshipfull Sir and Brethren‑This is the Antient and most equitable Law made and observed by our ancestors, always approved and confirmed by you and, there fore, by this Law I stand or fall," to which the Right Worshipfull in the Chair replied : " As the Law of Masons has decreed, so shall all things here be done." Then his Worship called on the Accuser and told him he must prove his assertion. The Accuser ordered James Hagan before the Lodge, who, being asked whether he did make Lau. Dermott, G.S. a Freemason, he answered and declared he did not, neither did he ever teach him anything relative to Masonry, nor could he devise what reason Mr. Hamilton had for saying so. The Grand Master then asked Mr Hamilton if he had any other person to call on this occasion, upon which Lau Rooke rose and said that he verily believed that Br. John Hamilton's accusation was true. Being asked his reason for thinking so, he answered because Br. Hamilton told him so and at the same time swore to it in such a manner as to leave no doubt behind.

 

In defence Dermott was able to produce evidence from Thomas Allen, P.M. of No. 2, that he (Dermott) had faithfully served all Masonic offices in a Lodge held in his house in the City of Dublin before coming to England. Charles Byrne, the senior Master of No. 2, proved that Dermott had served the offices of junior and Senior Deacon, Senior Warden and Secretary of Lodge 26 under the Irish Constitution, of which he was installed Master on June 24, 1746, all being prior to his coming to England. Then Dermott produced a certificate of good conduct signed by Edward Spratt, Grand Secretary of Ireland. In the end it was Resolved, it is the opinion of this Grand Lodge that John Hamilton, late of No. icg, is unworthy of being admitted into a Masons Lodge or any other good Society; and therefore it is hereby ordered that the said John Hamilton shall not be admitted within the door of any Antient Lodge during his Life; and the said John Hamilton having been several times excluded for mal‑practices and again re‑instated, yet still continues in his vile offences and his clandestine makings are not the least.

 

There was another breeze on April 2, 175 5, when, according to the Minutes James Eastman, the Master of No. 18, stood up and declared that his business to the Grand Lodge on this night was to make a formal declaration that neither he nor any of the members of his Lodge would contribute to the Grand Funds, nor attend this Grand Lodge for the future.

 

Upon which the R.W.G. Master told Mr. Eastman that he was wellcome to stay away and, further, that if he knew anybody of like principles in this assembly he was also at liberty to take him or them.

 

" ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 165 Later in the proceedings G. W. Galbraith beg'd leave to resign his office on acct. of the ill‑usage which he had recd. at the hands of Lau. Rooke, the Master of No. 17. The Grand Warden was reconciled to his Office and Laurence Rooke declared off the Grand Charity, and demanded two shillings which he had formerly contributed to the Fund for relief of worthy Brethren in Distress.

 

The Grand Master told him that taking him in every sense he did realy believe him to be one of the poorest creatures in London, he wanted merit to receive a single farthing out of any Charitable Fund in the Universe.

 

An important resolution was passed at the Grand Lodge held on September 4, 1754, when it was ordered That our monthly meetings shall be published in the Daily Advertiser, with the Grand Secretary, L. Dermott's name annexed; that the said Secretary shall ! draw up such advertisements as prudence shall direct him and the expenses attending such publications shall be reimbursed him, the said Secretary, on every Lodge meeting.

 

At the next meeting on October z, 1754, Dermott recommended that a set of Grand Lodge jewels should be ordered and, at the same time, he thanked the Grand Lodge for the jewel which had been presented to him in the preceding February.

 

The Grand Lodge met on November 6, 1754, at the Bells, when a Committee of Charity, to be styled the Stewards' Lodge, was appointed, the proceedings of which were read at the next annual meeting of Grand Lodge. The functions of this Stewards' Lodge were identical with those of the Committee of Charity in the regular Grand Lodge, now relegated to the Board of Benevolence and, in part, to the Board of General Purposes. Several Lodges in arrears were declared vacant, and a Minute of October z introduces us to a practice unknown, under any other Masonic Jurisduction. It runs‑" Bro. Cowen, Master of Lodge No. 37, proposed paying one guinea into the Grand Fund for No. 6 (now vacant). This proposal was accepted and the Brethren of No. 37 are to rank as No. 6 for ye future." Robert Turner, the first Grand Master, who had been continued in office for a second term of six months, was succeeded by the Hon. Edward Vaughan on St. John's Day in December. During the administration of the latter, the first of a long series of Military Warrants was issued by this Grand Lodge, a fee of a guinea was imposed on every new Charter and the Grand Secretary was ordered to install and invest the several officers of Lodges, in cases where the retiring Masters " were incapable of [this] performance." In the Minute‑book of this date Dermott has made the following memo This year, 175 5, the Modern Masons began to make use of Certificates, though the Antient Masons had granted Certificates time immemorial.

 

166 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND In 1756 Dermott published the first book of Laws or Constitutions of the Antients under the title of Ahiman Re!Zon : Or a Help to a Brother, to which reference has already been made. The following extracts are given as showing the high opinion which the author had formed of Freemasonry and what ought to be the attitude of individual members A Mason in regard to himself is careful to avoid all manner of intemperance or excess, which might obstruct him in the performance of the necessary duties of his laudable profession or lead him into any crimes which would reflect dishonour upon the Antient Fraternity.

 

He is to treat his inferiors as he would have his superiors deal with him, wisely considering that the Original of Mankind is the same; and though Masonry divests no man of his Honour, yet doed the Craft admit that strictly to pursue the Paths of Virtue whereby a clear Conscience may be preserved is the only Method to make any Man noble.

 

A Mason is to be so far benevolent, as never to shut his ear unkindly to the plaints of wretched poverty; but when the Brother is oppressed by Want, he is in a peculiar manner to listen to his Sufferings with attention ; in consequence of which, Pity must flow from his breast and Relief with prejudice, according to his capacity.

 

A Mason is to pay due obedience to the authority of his Master and Presiding Officers and to behave himself meekly amongst his Brethren, neither neglecting his usual Occupation for the sake of company, in running from one Lodge to another, nor quarrel with the ignorant for rediculous Aspersions concerning it; But at his leisure Hours he is required to study the Arts and Sciences with a diligent mind, that he may not only perform his duty to his great Creator, but also to his Neighbour and himself; For to walk humbly in the sight of God, to do justice and love Mercy are the certain Characteristics of a Real, Free and Accepted Antient Mason; Which Qualifications I humbly hope they will possess to the end of Time ; and I dare venture to say that every true Brother will join with me in Amen.

 

Therefore, to afford succour to the Distressed, to divide our Bread with the industrious Poor and to put the misguided Traveller in his Way, are Qualifications inherent to the Craft and suitable to its Dignity and such as the worthy Members of that great Body have at all times strove with indefatigable pains to accomplish.

 

At the meeting of Grand Lodge held on June z, 1756, the question arose as to where the funds could be found for the purchase off‑andlesticks. After a long and heated discussion Dermott proposed that the sum of one guinea should be levied on every new Warrant granted in future, instead of the small amount hitherto paid to the Grand Secretary. This was agreed to unanimously and it was ordered That the thanks of this Grand Lodge shall be given to our Grand Secretary for his Excellent proposal and intreat him to continue in the study of the Interest and Honour of the Antient Craft.

 

The Earl of Blesington was elected Grand Master on December z7, 1756 and, in his absence, was installed by proxy. For four years he ruled over the "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 167 Society nominally, for he was present at none of its meetings. This, however, was not his fault for, as Lepper and Crossle point out in the History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, " the times were abnormal, the Seven Years War having broken out in 1756 and once again his services were required in his native country to raise means to relieve the poor during the long period of distress." His Deputy was William Holford, but the management of affairs appears to have been left almost entirely in the hands of Laurence Dermott.

 

At the meeting on March 2, 1757, it was ordered That no person be made a Mason in an Antient Lodge under the sum of 'C1, 5s. 6d. and cloath the Lodge if required.

 

That a General Meeting of Master Masons be held on the 13th Inst., to compare and regulate several things relative to the Antient Craft ; [and that] the Masters of the Royal Arch shall also be summon'd to meet, in order to regulate things relative to that most valluable branch of the Craft.

 

The Minutes of March 2, 1757, inform us that, on the date in question, Laurence Dermott produced a certificate, under the seal of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, signed by Edward Spratt, Grand Secretary. The latter was appointed Deputy Grand Secretary, December 27, 1742, succeeded to the higher office, June 24 1743 and brought out a Boob, of Constitutions for the use of the Lodges in Ireland, in 1751. The compiler styles himself " only a faithful Editor and Transcriber of the Work of Dr. Anderson," which appeared when "Lord Mountjoy," afterwards " Earl of Blessington," was Grand Master of Ireland, who appointed a select committee of the Grand Lodge, over which he presided, to compare the customs and regulations in use there, with those of the English Brethren and found " no essential differences," except in those rules of the latter relating to the Stewards' Lodge, which were therefore omitted.

 

The " Charges, General Regulations " and " the manner of constituting a Lodge," were copied by Spratt from Dr. Anderson's Constitutions of 1738. Dermott appears to have done precisely the same thing in his Ahiman Kezon, if, indeed, he did not copy at second hand from Spratt. Both compilers give the Old and New Regulations, in parallel columns, in the same manner as they are shown by Anderson, but, instead of taking the former from the edition of 1723, they reproduce the garbled and inaccurate version of 1738. Regulations XXIII to XXXIrelating to the Stewards' Lodge and to Feasts‑also XXXVII and XXXVIII, are omitted in the Irish and the Antient codes ; XXXIII and XXXIV are compressed into one Law (XXIV) ; and the No. XXXIX of Anderson is represented by the No. XXVII of Dermott and Spratt. The Old Regulations of the two latter terminate with this number. But they add a New one‑XXVII‑which is identical with the XL of Dr. Anderson and contains the ten articles or rules passed on the motion of Deputy Grand Master Ward, in 1736. O'd and New Regulation XXXIX in the Constitutions of 1738, are substantially reproduced in O.R. and N.R. XXVII of Ahiman Re!Zon, 1756. According to both codes, the 168 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Old Land Marks, to which the Section refers, are to " be carefully preserved " ; but Spratt and Dermott omit the injunction in the Old Regulation, requiring proposed alterations in the laws to be submitted " to the Perusal of the youngest Enter'd Prentice " and the statement in the New one (XXXIX),‑that the Grand Lodge can make ` NEw REGULATIONS without the consent of All the Brethren, at the Grand Annual Feast." In other respects, the Old Regulations, as given in Ahiman Re!Zon, 1756, are simply copied from Anderson or Spratt. The New Regulations, however, of the former, are not quoted by Dermott with the same fullness : but, as an example of the source of authority, whence the laws of the Antients were derived, it may be interesting to state, that the compiler of their Constitutions, adopted in its entirety Anderson's New Regulation VIII, consisting of a series of laws, passed by the original Grand Lodge of England in 1723, 1724 and 1735 respectively. Here Dermott simply walked in the footsteps of Spratt, who had done precisely the same thing in 1751 and the former also followed the latter, in curtailing the number of Old Regulations to XXVII and of New Regulations to XXVIII.

 

Indeed, in one respect only, which may be deemed material or otherwise, according to the fancies of individual readers, are the Irish and the Antient Grand Secretaries at variance. In the " Manner of Constituting a Lodge," we learn from Anderson and Spratt that the Grand Master is to say certain words and use " some other Expressions that are proper and usual on that Occasion, but not proper to be written." Dermott puts the same words into the mouth of the Grand Master, but requires them to be said " after some other Ceremonies and Expressions that cannot be written." The Royal Arch is alluded to in Ahiman Re!Zon, 175 6, termed "that part of Masonry." The first edition made its way into favour without any direct official sanction. The Brethren for whose use it was designed were syled the " Antient York Masons in England " ; the publication itself was dedicated to the Earl of Blessington, with the object, no doubt, of gaining the consent of that peer to figure as the first noble Grand Master‑a scheme which was eminently successful and reflects the greatest credit upon the sagacity of the Grand Secretary.

 

Lord Blessington attended no meetings of the Grand Lodge, but it is not a little singular that Dermott secured the services as titular Grand Master of the very nobleman under whose presidency the Grand Lodge of Ireland conformed to the laws and regulations enacted by the Regular or Original Grand Lodge of England. A second edition of Ahiman ReZon appeared in 1764 and extended to 224 pages, of which all but 96 were devoted to poetry and songs. It contained a " Philacteria " for persons desiring to become Free‑Masons, also a description of Modern Masonry. In the latter, Dermott introduced a catechetical method of arguing and decided that Freemasonry, as practised in the Antient (but not in the Modern) Lodges, was universal; that a Modern Mason might with safety communicate all his secrets to an Antient Mason, but not vice versa; that " a person made in the modern manner, not after the antient custom of the Craft, had no right "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 169 to be called free and accepted‑his being unqualified to appear in a Master's Lodge, according to the universal system of Masonry," rendering " the appellation improper " ; that a Modern could not be initiated or introduced " into a Royal Arch Lodge (the very essence of Masonry), without going through the Antient Ceremonies." He also laid down that the number of Antient Masons, compared with the Moderns, was as ninety‑nine to one.

 

In this edition we first meet with disparaging allusions to the older Society ; but in Ahiman ReZon, 1778, these increase in volume and are often couched in most offensive terms. For example, a note to Charge III, which forbids the initiation of women or eunuchs, has, " This is still the law of Antient Masons, though disregarded by our Brethren (I mean our Sisters) the Modern Masons." Also in another place it is urged by Dermott that the premier Grand Lodge, not having been established by the Masters and Wardens of five Lodges, was " defective in form and capacity " ; whilst, on the other hand, he contends that " the Grand Lodge of Antient Masons received the old system without adulteration ! " But Dermott certainly finds weak spots in the harness of his adversaries, when he inveighs against a statement in the Freemasons' Calendar and another by Samuel Spencer, Grand Secretary to the older Institution. The former alludes to the Ancient York Constitutions having been " entirely dropped at the revival in 1717 " ; the latter, made in reply to an Irish Mason who was an applicant for relief, informs him, " Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, or Antient ; so that you have no right to partake of our Charity." Such, remarks Dermott, was the character given them by their own Grand Secretary about fourteen years ago (Grand Lodge Minutes, December 5, 1759) ; how much they have changed for better or worse is no business of mine (Ahiman Re!Zon, 1778).

 

Many regulations originally taken from Anderson or Spratt are omitted in the third edition of Ahiman Re!Zon, e.g. New Regulations III and IV; whilst this is counterbalanced by the insertion of new laws passed by the Seceders, such, for example, as the privilege of voting accorded to Past Masters (N.R. XII) and the right of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight (O.R. XIII).

 

A fourth edition of the work appeared in 1787 and a committee of Grand Officers, with the nine Excellent Masters, was appointed, on March 4, 1795, to assist the Deputy Grand Master in bringing out a fifth, which was published in i 8oo, under the editorial supervision of Thomas Harper, upon whom also devolved the task of seeing the subsequent editions of 18o1, 1807 and 1813 through the press.

 

" The Royal Arch," says Laurence Dermott, " I firmly believe to be the root, heart, and marrow of Masonry." This opinion is expressed in his Ahiman Re!ton of 1756 and, doubtless, did much to popularize the Degree. The publication in question was not then one of authority, though it soon became so ; but not until 1771 can the Royal Arch be said to have formed an integral part of the system of Masonry practised by the Antients. It was wrought, no doubt, in the so‑called Antient Lodges from a much earlier period, but only as a side or by Degree. In 170 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND the list of subscribers prefixed to the work, seven names have the letters " A. M." appended. This Kloss reads as signifying " Arch Mason " (Geschichte der Fraumaurerei, 1847, p. 383) and he, therefore, concludes that in 1756 the Degree was very restricted in its scope. Here, however, the great Masonic critic has made too hasty a deduction from the evidence before him. The seven subscribers were all actual or Past Grand officers and, in every case, their Masonic rank was placed opposite their names. Thus‑" Edward Vaughan G.M., A.M." (Grand Master, Antient Masons) and so on. That Jeremiah Coleman, whose name also appears on the list, but without the letters " A.M.," was certainly an Arch Mason, doubtless many others, is to be inferred from the following notification which appeared in the Public Advertiser for 1756 (see Freemasons' Magazine, February 18, 1865 ; The Freemason, September 26, 18 84) To the Brethren of the Most Antient and Honourable, Free and Accepted Antient York Masons‑this is to give notice that your company is desired, viz. such as are concerned in E[xcellent] G[rand], commonly called [Royal] A[rch], at Bro. Sargent's, the Prince of Wales' Head, in Caple‑Street, near Wellclose Square, this day, at six in the evening, to accommodate P. L. R. S. as your forefathers were. By the order of P. T. Z. L. J. A., President. Jer. Coleman, Sec'y.

 

Kloss attributes the introduction of new Degrees into Britain to the influence of the French Masons, though he is careful to point out that the innovators in each country hood‑winked their compatriots by speaking of the novelties as foreign importations. There is apparently little doubt, however, that the Degrees of Installed Master and of the Royal Arch, had their inception in the Scots Degrees, which sprang up in all parts of France about 1740. The Minute‑books of two Lodges (Royal Cumberland, 41, Bath, January 8, 1746; Sarum Lodge, October icy, 1746) prove that it had taken root in this country some years at least before the period of time assigned as that of the commencement of the Separation. The records of the Lodge of Industry, Gateshead, supply information of an analogous if not identical character. These inform us that on July 1, 1746, it was " Enacted at a Grand Lodge, That no brother Mason should be admitted into the dignity of a Highrodiam " for less than Zs. 6d., or into that of " Domaskin or Forin " for less than 5 s. " Highrodiam " is very suggestive of " Harodim," of which it may have been a corruption; but the word " Domaskin " cannot be explained. The two Degrees or steps were, probably, some form of " Scots Masonry "‑a conclusion confirmed by the " N.B." which follows the entry given above. This reads : " The English Masters to pay for entering into the said Mastership Zs. 6d. per majority " (Masonic Magazine, vol. iii, 1875‑6, pp. 73, 75).

 

It is a'curious circumstance, that the only knowledge we possess concerning the Royal Arch before 1752 arises from an incidental allusion in a work of 1744 and an entry in the records of the Antients, informing us that Dermott became a member of that Degree in 1746. The former, occurs in Dassigny's Serious and Impartial Enquiry. Their meaning is not free from obscurity, but we are justified "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS " 171 in inferring that a few years before 1744 some person in Dublin pretended to have been made " Master of the Royal Arch " at York and thereby deluded many worthy people ; that " at length " a " Brother who had some small space before attained that excellent part of Masonry in London, plainly proved that his doctrine was false " ; also, that the Degree was restricted to Brethren who had passed the chair.

 

But this only proves that a side or by Degree, as yet unrecognized by the governing bodies at York and the three capitals, had found its way from London to Dublin and it is not certain from the language employed, whether in 1744, more than a single person at the latter city, was in possession of it.

 

An Arch‑Mason, therefore, was one who had received a Degree or step beyond the recognized afid legitimate three. Out of this was ultimately evolved the Degree of Installed Master, a ceremony unknown, in the older system, until the second decade of the nineteenth century, of which there is no trace among the Antients, until the growing practice of conferring the Arch upon Brethren not legally qualified to receive it, brought about a constructive passing through the chair, which, by qualifying candidates not otherwise eligible, naturally entailed the introduction of a ceremony, additional to the simple forms known to Payne, Anderson and Desaguliers. According to Kloss the Degree of Installed Master was identical, in nearly every respect, with one of the grades of Scots Masonry known on the Continent (op. cit., p. 424).

 

A Lodge under the title of Royal Arch, Glasgow, was erected by the Grand Lodge of Scotland on August 6, 175 5. But though from this it may be inferred that the innovation had penetrated into North Britain, the Charter only empowered the members to " admit and receive Apprentices, pass Fellow‑Crafts and raise Master Masons " (D. Murray Lyon, in a letter dated March 13, 1885). In the same way, a knowledge of the Degree by the Masons of Philadelphia, in 175 8, may be presumed from the fact that a Lodge constituted there in that year by the Antients bore a similar appellation (C. E. Meyer, History of the Jerusalem Chapter, No. 3, Philadelphia). Next in point of date, apart from any records of the Antients, supreme or subsidiary, we find the Royal Arch well established at York, 176z ; London, 1765 ; in Lancashire, 1767 ; at Boston (U.S.A.), 1769 ; and in Ireland, 1772.

 

The Royal Arch Minutes of the Antients commence November 5, 1783 and recite certain resolutions passed in the Grand Lodge, December 4, 1771 and in the Grand Chapter, January 3, 1772. To the latter there is a preamble to the effect that some persons had " lately pretended to teach Masonical Mysteries, Superior to, or necessary to be added to the Mystery of the Royal Arch " ; wherefore it was resolved That it is the clear opinion of this Grand Chapter that Royal Arch Masonry is (in itself) so stupendiously Excellent that it Is, truly, what the Roman Masons of Old said, Ut Nihil posit cogitare : Nothing cou'd be imagined more. Therefore to attempt an amendment or add to the Mysteries of the Holy Royal Arch, wou'd be a profanation of that which every good man (especially a Free‑Mason) wou'd amd ought to preserve pure and undefiled.

 

172‑ HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Inasmuch as at this period, the original Grand Lodge of England was coquetting with the myriads of Degrees which were then in existence on the Continent (Kloss, OP. Cit., p. 427), it is almost demonstrably clear that, had not Dermott drawn the line at the Royal Arch, the older Society would have eventually followed him, in adopting any number of foreign novelties, with the same complaisance which was shown in 1811 and 1813.

 

The Grand Chapter on the same occasion‑January 3, 177z‑took into consideration the matter referred to it in December 1771 and decided that those Brethren who had " been introduced 'into Royal Arch Masonry) contrary to Antient Custom should be remade gratis upon a recommendation from their respective Lodges." At the meeting held November 5, 1783, it was resolved " that this Chapter do perfectly coincide with the foregoing resolution and that masters and pastms. (Bond fide) only ought to be admitted Masters of the Royal Arch." It was also further agreed that the names of all Royal Arch Masons should be recorded in a book to be called Seper Enholah Kabbim, i.e. the Register of Excellent Masters ; that the Grand Lodge should meet at least twice in the year and, on one of those occasions, in conjunction with the Grand Officers select a certain number of Excellent Masters, which was not to exceed nine persons, who were to examine all persons undertaking to perform any of the ceremonies relative to the Royal Arch, the installation of Grand Officers, or to Processions. These Brethren, who were indifferently styled the nine Excellent Masters or Worthies (see Minutes of No. 194, now the Middlesex Lodge, No. 143), subsequently had their functions enlarged.

 

Royal Arch certificates were issued by the Antients in 1791 and the Degree is accorded great prominence in the editions of Ahiman Ke!Zon, published in 18oo and later years. Nevertheless, it does not appear to have been fully appreciated by the Antients, until the novelty was invested with so much importance by the Moderns, who decorated and embellished the Degree with many fanciful alterations and additions of their own creation.

 

The earliest Royal Arch Minutes are among the York Records; next in point of date are those of the body which ultimately became the Grand Chapter, tolerated, if not actually recognized, by the earlier Grand Lodge of England. The latter commence June 12, 1765, at which date the fee for passing the Arch was five guineas. In the following year, Lord Blaney, Grand Master and James Heseltine, Grand Secretary of the older Grand Lodge of England, became members, also Grand Master and Scribe respectively of the "Fourth Degree." On March 11, 1768, Edward Gibbon, the historian, was proposed by Dunkerley and Rowland Holt " and unanimously approved of " ; but there is no record of his exaltation or admission. In 1769 Warrants of Constitution were issued and, in the next year, the title of Grand and Royal Chapter was assumed. In 1773 the use of a distinctive apron was forbidden, until the Companions were allowed to wear such " in the Grand Lodge and in All private Freemason's Lodges." The Duke of Cumberland was elected perpetual patron in 1785. In 1796 the Grand Chapter became the "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 173 Grand Lodge of Royal Arch. The Earl of Moira was exalted in 1803 and the Duke of Sussex became a member in 18io. But the Degree was not formally recognized by the Society over which these Brethren in turn presided, until the Union and, when a complaint was presented from one Robert Sampson who had been expelled from Royal Arch Masonry‑December 29, 1791‑" for declaring his intention of exalting Master Masons for 5s. each." It was resolved‑November zi, 1792‑"that the Grand Lodge of England has nothing to do with the proceedings of the Society of Royal Arch Masons." On March 18, 1817, the two Grand Chapters followed the example of the Grand Lodges with which they were severally connected and amalgamated, under the title of the " United Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England." The Royal Arch Degree was originally conferred in the Lodge both by Antients and Moderns‑expressions which, having regard to the dates whereon this " Innovation in the Body Of MASONRY " was made by these two bodies respectively, may here be employed in their ordinary or popular signification. Chapters were first brought into use by the latter and the earliest of which a record has been preserved was well established in 1765. This, as previously stated, developed into a Grand Body and issued Warrants of Constitution to subordinate Chapters, after which the Degree gradually ceased to be worked surreptitiously, by Lodges under the older system. The York Brethren also met as a Chapter from April 29, 1768. Of this practice but one early example among the Antients has been found ; it occurs in the records of No. 174 Lodge, now the Royal Gloucester Chapter, No. 130 and is of value in more ways than one. First of all, it establishes the fact that the Royal Arch was not always worked in the Antient Lodges, for No. 174 was constituted April 22, 1772 and did not become acquainted with the Degree until October 7, 1783, on which date (we next learn) a Brother of No. 74 under the Irish Registry, attached to the second battalion of the 1st (or Royal) Regiment, assisted by three other " Arch Masons, held a Chapter for the purpose of Raising several Brethren to this Sublime Degree, in order to their holding a Chapter in Southampton." Under both Grand Lodges, the practice of " passing Brethren through the chair," or, in other words, of conferring upon them the Degree (without serving the office) of Installed Master, which had crept into the ritual of the Antients, was very common. Numerous examples of the. custom are given in the following Lodge Histories: Anchor and Hope, Bolton, No. 37 (G. P. Brockbank and James Newton) ; Relief, Bury, No. 42 (E. A. Evans) ; British Union, Ipswich, No. 114 (Emra Holmes) ; and under the Antients, Enoch, London, No. I I (Freemasons' Chronicle, vol. iv, p. 323) ; and St. John's, Bolton, No. 221 (G. P. Brock bank). In Nos. 37 and 42 it lasted until 1846 and 1850 respectively.

 

Undue stress has been laid upon the custom which prevailed under the two Grand Lodges of England, of requiring Brethren, who had already graduated under one system, to go through the ceremonies a second time under the other. The fees for registration may have been at the bottom of the whole affair and, in each 174 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND case, as the admission of Brethren from the rival camp in the capacity of visitors ‑until a comparatively late period‑plainly indicates, a re‑making was more a protest against the regularity than the validity of the Degree to which the postulant had been previously admitted. Lodges and Masons who went over to the enemy were said to have apostatized by the body with whom they were formerly in communion and all kinds of terms, of which " translated " is perhaps the most singular and expressive, are used in the records of Lodges to describe the status of a Brother who was " healed " or re‑made. But the practice of re‑making appears to have been dispensed with, in cases where an entire Lodge shifted its allegiance, or where a Warrant of Constitution was granted by either Grand Lodge to petitioners who had graduated under its rival (see W. Kelly, Freemasonry in Leicestershire, p. 24). Thus, the Minutes of No. 86, two months before it was chartered by the Antients, inform us that it was agreed to " make no new Masons for the feuther, till such time as we can procure a New Warrant, as the one we now act under is Illeagel, Being Modderant Constitution." The Warrant was granted in due course, but there is no mention of re‑makings until a much later period, when the entries become very instructive. For example, in the year 1774, two Brethren were remade, both of whom had been made in Scotland‑in the Union and Crown (now No. 103) and in the Kilwinning Lodges respectively.

 

Inasmuch as the Antients were then on the best possible terms with the Grand Lodge of Scotland, over which the Duke of Atholl ‑also their own Grand Master ‑at that time presided, the process of legitimation here resorted to was wholly uncalled for and unnecessary. But the entries tend to prove, that Brethren on passing from one Masonic jurisdiction to another, were re‑made, not because there were essential differences between the ceremonial observances peculiar to each system, but rather as a disciplinary requirement and from motives of policy.

 

Notwithstanding the bitter feud between the rival Grand Lodges of England, the Lodges on the two rolls worked together, on the whole, with greater love and harmony than might have been expected. Sometimes in a so‑called Antient Lodge the Business was Modern ; oftener still, Lodges under the older system, followed the method of working in vogue among the Antients.

 

Of a divided allegiance there are a few examples. Thus, the present Royal Gloucester Lodge, Southampton, No. 130, was warranted by the Antients in 177z and by the older Society twenty years later. Sometimes the members met in one capacity, sometimes in the other. Often it was resolved to abandon one of the Constitutions ; but which was to be dropped, the members could never finally decide, though each in turn was temporarily renounced on a variety of occasions. At the Union, however, the Lodge wisely clung to its original Charter, thus obtaining a higher position on the roll.

 

The members of both Societies constantly walked together in processions and their common attendance at church on these and similar occasions is very frequently recorded. A singular instance of their acting in concert is afforded by a Masonic address presented to Prince Edward‑afterwards Duke of Kent "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 175 ‑January 9, 1794, on his approaching departure from Canada. At the foot are two signatures, one to the left, the other to the right of the page‑the former being that of " William Grant, D.G.M. of Modern Masons," the latter that of " Thomas Ainslie, D.G.M. of Ancient Masons." A paragraph in the address runs We have a confident hope that, under the conciliating influence of your Royal Highness, the Fraternity in general of Freemasons in his Majesty's dominions will soon be united.

 

To which the Prince replied You may trust that my utmost efforts shall be exerted, that the much‑wishedfor Union of the whole Fraternity of Masons may be effected.

 

The first officers of the Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions were the Grand Master, Deputy, Wardens and Secretary, all of whom, except the Deputy, were elected year by year. The appointment of this officer was one of the prerogatives of the Grand Master, but in practice some experienced Brother was recommended for the office and the approval of the Grand Master followed as a matter of course. A new office, that of Treasurer, was created in 1754 and, in 1768, William Dickey was elected Deputy Grand Secretary. A Grand Pursuivant, also a Grand Tyler were appointed in 1771. In the following year there was a Grand Chaplain and a Sword‑bearer pro tempore, but the latter office, though apparently revived in 1788, did not become a permanent one until 1791A Deputy Grand Chaplain was among the officers for i 8og.

 

The Stewards' Lodge, or Committee of Charity, was invested with full power to hear complaints of a Masonic nature and to punish delinquents according to the laws of the Craft. Its chief function, however, was to deal with petitions for relief and the following are examples of the various grounds on which such applications were rejected January 17, 178 1. From a certified Mason of No. 15 3, Ireland‑" he having resided in London upwards of three years and never Inquired after a Lodge or visited." June 16, 1784. From James Barker of No. 81. "It appearing to the Stewards' Lodge, his being lame and otherwise disfigured at the time of being made, he ought not to be relieved." August zo, 1788. From Robert Brown‑on the ground of his " haveing no other certificate " than that of a Knight Templar, which had been granted him by " the Carrickfergus True Blue Lodge, No. 25 3, under the Registry of Ireland." November icg, 1788.‑From an applicant‑" not appearing to have any concern in Masonry from the time he was made." August 15, 1804.‑" Resolved, That T. Sculthorpe, being a person not perfect in body, but deformed and much below the common stature of man, was a very improper person to become and is now unfit to continue, a Member of this most ancient and honourable Fraternity‑and consequently not entitled to the advantages or privileges of Masonry in any Degree whatever." 176 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND April 17, 1805.‑From a member of the Union Lodge at Elbing‑" A Modern ? not able to make himself known as an Antient Mason." Sometimes very interesting points of Masonic Law were discussed or determined at the meetings of this body, e.g.

 

April 16, 1777.‑Dermott stated, that "although the Grand Master had full power and authority to make (in his presence, or cause to be made) Masons, when and where he pleased, yet he could not oblige any Lodge to admit the persons (so made) as members, without the unanimous consent of such Lodge and if the Grand Master made use of his privelidge in making of Masons, he ought to have made a sufficient number of them to form a Lodge and grant them a warrant, by which means they would be intitled to Registry, otherwise not." December 18, 18iI.‑A memorial was read from No. 225, complaining that one of their members had been refused admittance by No. 245, " on the ground of his being a Quaker, when, tho' regularly admitted on his solemn affirmative, the officers of No. 245 contended was a violation of the principles of the Constitution." The stewards were of opinion " that there did not appear any censure to either of the Lodges in what had been done, but upon a question so novel and peculiar, recommended that the final disposal of the matter be postponed until next Stewards' Lodge." The subject is not again mentioned in these records, but the Minutes of the Royal Gloucester Lodge, No. 130, inform us, that in a letter dated April 13, 1796, the Grand Secretary of the Antients had communicated to that body the decision of Grand Lodge, that a Quaker was ineligible for initiation, a ruling that is now obsolete.

 

It has been shown that the laws and customs of the Antient Masons were based on Irish originals. The former, Dermott simply appropriated from Spratt, the latter he appears to have introduced gradually into the ritual of the Seceders. But the author of Ahiman ReZon was by no means content to follow in the footsteps of any guide and boldly struck out a path of his own, which has become the well beaten track traversed by the Freemasons of England. The epithet of Moderns which he bestowed on the Brethren, under whose laws and customs he had been admitted into Masonry in his native country, was singularly out of place and, had the journeyman printer been as well skilled in polemical exercises as the journeyman painter, the former might completely have turned the tables on the latter.

 

In the first edition of his Ahiman Re!Zon, Dermott observes with regard to the New Regulations, " they have been wrote at different Times, by order of the whole Community," an admission which it would have taxed his resources to explain, had the slip been harped upon with the same wearisome iteration as in the somewhat parallel case of William Preston.

 

The extent to which Dermott added to, or improved upon, the ceremonies of the Craft, can only form the subject of conjecture, though the balance of probability inclines strongly in one direction.

 

Whatever customs or ceremonies Dermott had acquired a knowledge of in his Lodge, No. 26, Dublin, it may be taken for granted that he assisted in passing "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS " I77 on‑very much as they were taught to him‑in England. The By‑laws of the Lodge in question were adopted as a standard for the guidance of the Antient Lodges before Dermott had been two months installed as Grand Secretary. From this source (or from Scotland) must have been derived the office of Deacon, which was unknown to the older Grand Lodge of England until the Union. They are first named in the Minutes of the Antients on July 13, 175 3.

 

The degree of Installed Master, as well as that of the Royal Arch, may have been wrought in the Dublin Lodges before Dermott severed his connexion with the Irish capital. But neither of them derived at that time any countenance from the Grand Lodge of Ireland, by which body, indeed, if we may believe a writer in the Freewasons' Quarterly Review, 1844, p. 420, the proposal of their Grand Master the Earl of Donoughmore, in 1813, to acknowledge the Royal Arch Degree, met with such little favour, that they passed a vote of censure upon him and were with difficulty restrained from expelling him from Masonry altogether.

 

It is abundantly clear, however, that during the pendency of the Schism no other Degrees were recognized by the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, than the simple three authorized by the earliest of Grand Bodies.

 

On March 13, 175 7 the Grand Secretary "traced and explained the 1st, Zd and 3d part of the Antient Craft and Settled many things (then disputed) to the intire satisfaction of all the Brethren present, who faithfully promised to adhere strictly to the Antient System and to cultivate the same in their several Lodges." Forty‑six Brethren, representing twenty‑five out of the forty‑six Lodges, were present on this occasion.

 

In the following June a regulation was made, forbidding the officers of Lodges ‑under the penalty of forfeiture of warrant‑to admit as member or visitor, " any person not strictly an antient Mason, Certified Sojourners excepted." In the following year‑March 1, 175 8‑a letter was read from the Grand Lodge of Ireland, announcing " a strict union with the Antient Grand Lodge in London." In Masonic Facts and Fictions, Sadler reproduces (p. 86) the following copy of a letter sent to the Earl of Blesington by the Deputy Grand Master; which was read in the Grand Lodge, by the Grand Secretary on December 6, 175 8 My Lord and Rt. Worshipful Sir We, the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the Old Institution beg leave to return your Lordship our most sincere and hearty thanks for the great Honour your Lordship has been pleased to have done the Fraternity in condescending to be our Grand Master for two years last past and we hope your Lordship will excuse our non‑attendance in a public manner which we shou'd have gladly done, but were given to understand that it would be more agreeable to your Lordship if sent by our Secretary in this private manner.

 

The number of Warrants sign'd by your Worship is a convincing proof of the Prosperity of the Craft under your Lordship's sanction. And we have pleasure to assure your Worship That (notwithstanding the troublesome time of War, the bane of all good Society) we have not only been able to relieve a good number of F. 111‑3 178 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Indigent Brethren, but have also bought a Hundred pounds Stock in the 3 P.C. Annuities, 1726 and have still money enough in the Grand Lodge Chest to answer all demands that are likely to be made on us. We are sensible that it will be very pleasing to your Lordship to hear of the great number of Worthy Freemasons Ardently and Industriously engaged in Brotherly love and Charitable works. As such we most humbly entreat your Lordship may be pleased to continue to us the great honour of being our Grand Master for the year 1759 and as Masons we firmly promise that it shall be our constant care to endeavour by every laudable means to deserve the great Honour conferred on Your Lordship's Most Oblidged most Humble Servants and faithfull Brethren WILLIAM HOLFORD, D.G.M.

 

To this letter there came the following reply I aryl very sensible of the great Honour done me by the Fraternity and very glad to hear of their Prosperity and with all my heart accept their kind offer and shall always be willing to promote the Antient Craft.

 

The letter is signed " Blesinton " and that spelling is frequently adopted in Masonic literature, but in official documents the spelling is always " Blesington." There is an interesting Minute under date of December 5, 1759, which reads The Grand Secretary made a long and labour'd speech against any victuler being chosen a Grand Officer, which gave great offence to some persons in the Grand Lodge. The D.G.M. put the Question, viz.

 

Whether the Secy., Lau. Dermott, for his last Speech, Merited Applause, or Deserved Censure.

 

For applauding the Secretary 44 Against . 4 Upon which the R.W. Deputy said, " Brethren, there are 44 votes for the Secretary and 4 against him, by which it seems there are only 4 Publicans in the Room." A note in the Minute‑book dated December 16, 1759, states that one Carroll, from Ireland, had petitioned the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns) for assistance and had been told Your being an Antient Mason, you are not entitled to any of our Charity. The Antient Masons have a Lodge at the Five Bells in the Strand, &c. Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, or Antient, so that you have no right to partake of our Charity.

 

The next Grand Master was the Earl of Kellie, at whose accessionDecember 27, I 76o‑the number of Lodges on the roll was eighty‑three, being an increase of twenty‑four during the presidency of Lord Blesington. The most noteworthy were Nos. 65, Prov. G. Lodge of Nova Scotia (1757) and 69, Philadelphia (1758).

 

Thomas Alexander Erskine, 6th Earl of Kellie (for thus the name is spelled "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 179 in official documents, and not Kelly, the common form) was styled Viscount Fentoun, until he succeeded to the peerage on the death of his father in 1756. He was known as the Musical Earl, his composition and his performance on the violin being famous, while his " coarse joviality made him one of the best‑known men of his time." Dr. Burney says that the Earl " was possessed of more musical science than any dilettante with whom he was ever acquainted." He devoted himself to music, and studied at Mannheim under the elder Stamitz. For many years he was director of the concerts held at Edinburgh on St. Cecilia's Day by the Society named after the saint.

 

The Grand Officers of the previous year were continued in their offices and the " general thanks of the Fraternity " were conveyed to Laurence Dermott, who in reply " asked the Grand Lodge to believe two things, 1st, that he thought himself as happy in his Secretaryship as the Great Pitt was in being Secretary of State ; and idly, that he would exert his utmost powers for the Good of the Antient Fraternity, so long as he lived." The services of the Grand Secretary were again recognized in a very marked and unusual manner in the following June, when the Deputy Grand Master proposed that he should be " toasted with the No. of his years," and it was " unanimously agreed that Laurence Dermott, Esq., Grand Secretary, shall be Drank in form with 39, being now in the 39th year of his Age‑which was accordingly done." A footnote, however, in his own handwriting, informs us that " the Secretary was in his 41st year." On September 1, 1762, it was ordered, on the motion of the Secretary, who appears to have taken the lead in legislation, as well as in other things, that no one after October 2, ensuing, should be made a Mason, for a less sum than two guineas, of which five shillings was to be paid to the Fund of Charity, and one shilling to the Grand Secretary: Also, that the whole sum should be paid on the night of entrance, under the penalty of a guinea, to be levied on the warrant, which was to be cancelled within six months, in default of payment.

 

That this prudent regulation was not immediately complied with, at least in all quarters, there is evidence to show, for the records inform us‑under December 27, 1762‑that " David Fisher, late Grand Warden Elect, having attempted to form a Grand Lodge of his own and offered to Register Masons therein for 6d. each, was deem'd unworthy of any office or seat in the Grand Lodge." On March 2, 1763, one Robert Lockhart petitioned for a dispensation to make Masons at the sign of the White Hart in the Strand and such dispensation was granted him to continue in force for thirty‑one days. In the Freemasons' Magazine for January 1795 there is the following reference to this incident Soon after William Preston arrived in London, a number of Brethren from Edinburgh resolved to institute a Freemasons' Lodge in this city and applied to the Antient Grand Lodge in London who immediately granted them a Dispensation.

 

The Lodge was soon afterwards regularly constituted by the officers of the Antient Grand Lodge in person. It moved to the Horn Tavern, Fleet Street, then the 18o HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Scots Hall, Blackfriars and then to the Half Moon, Cheapside, where it met for a considerable time. At length, Mr. Preston and other members having joined a Lodge under the English Constitution, at the Talbot, Strand, they prevailed on the rest of the Lodge at the Half Moon to petition for a Constitution. Lord Blaney, at that time Grand Master, readily acquiesced and the Lodge was soon after constituted a second time, in ample form, by the name of the Caledonian Lodge.

 

On December 7, 1763‑the Grand Secretary was " Warranted and Impower'd to call and congregate a General Lodge in the town of Birmingham and there to adjust and determine all complaints, disputes, or controversies, in or between the members of the Lodge No. 71 (or any other Brethren), in Birmingham aforesaid." Matthew Beath was elected Grand Treasurer, June 6 and the members of No. 11o were admonished " for admitting Modern Masons into their Lodge," September 5.

 

This appears to have been the first appointment of a Grand Treasurer. The officers of Lodge No. 31 stated that if Dermott was chosen for the office they " would give undeniable security for any trust reposed in him not exceeding ,Cli,ooo." Dermott, however, declined to accept nomination.

 

On June 5, 1765, it was proposed That Every Past Master shall be a Member of and have a vote in all Grand Lodges during his continuance [as] a Member of any Lodge under the Antient Constitution.

 

11 This proposal occasion'd long various debates, several of the Masters and Wardens argued strenuously against the motion, while the presiding officer and three Masters were the only persons who spoke in favour of it." At length Grand Warden Gibson, who was in the Chair, put an amendment to the meeting, which was carried by a majority of zz votes‑there being 48 " for the past masters " and z6 " against them "‑Whereupon, it was " ordered and declared that from and after the third day of December 1765, all and every Regular past master, while a member of any private Lodge, shall be a member of this Grand Lodge also and shall have a vote in all cases except in making New Laws‑which power is vested in the Master and Wardens, as being the only true Representatives of all the Lodges, according to the Old Regulation the tenth." In the ensuing year‑March 5, 1766‑the Grand Master, with his Grand Officers and others, in fourteen coaches and chariots, drove in procession to the Grand Master's house near Soho Square, thence through Hampstead and Highgate, returning to the Five Bells Tavern in 'the Strand to dine.

 

Grand Lodge was not opened on June 24, 1766, but, instead, the Brethren, by permission of the Grand Officers, all met at the " Angell, in Whitechapel and walked in procession to Stepney Church, where a sermon founded on the general regulations of the Craft was preached by the Rev. Mr. Parker Rowlands, our most worthy Brother. After the sermon the Fraternity, amounting to a vast number, with their bands of Musick walked in like manner to the Angell aforesaid, where they separated, and each Lodge went to dine at the houses where held.'; "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" The question of a successor to Lord Kellie came up at the meeting of Grand Lodge in December 1766, in consequence of his continued absence from London. Dermott informed Grand Lodge that he knew of a fit and proper person for Grand Master who was possessed of a fortune of C16,ooo per annum, but who could not be communicated with for two or three weeks. The election was accordingly postponed. This was the Hon. Thomas Mathew, Provincial Grand Master for Munster in 1757, who, according to the Minutes of the Antients, was so " fond of the Craft that wherever he resided, whether in Great Britain, Ireland, or France, he also held a Regular Lodge among his own Domesticks." Mathew was a member of an old Catholic family, and father of the first and grandfather of the second Earl of Llandaff, with whose demise the peerage became extinct. He is described in Irish Masonic documents as of " Annfield in the county of Tipperary, Esq." He seems to have had no legal claim to the title of " Hon." During the nominal presidency of Lord Kellie, sixty‑two Lodges were added to the roll. Of these, seven were formed in regiments or garrisons and eight in the colonies or abroad. Omitting Philadelphia‑which received a second and third Warrant in 1761 and 1764 respectively‑we find that Lodges under the Antients were established at Charles Town, South Carolina, 1761 ; Amsterdam, 1762 ; Torlola, Marseilles, Leghorn, and Jamaica, 1763 ; St. Helena, 1764; and Minorca, 1766.

 

Thomas Mathew was privately installed early in 1767. The legality of the installation of the Grand Master in private was demurred to, November z 5, 1767 ; and the Deputy Grand Master stated " that the late Grand Master, the Earl of Blesinton, had been only privately installed by the Grand Officers and Secretary in his Lordship's library in Margaret Street." In the result, the installation of Grand Master Mathew was " declared regular." The Grand Master confirmed the statement made as to the installation of Lord Blesington, but stated his willingness to be re‑installed if it was the wish of Grand Lodge. He had previously been present at a Grand Lodge of Emergency held at the Five Bells, Strand, on June 1 z, 1767, when a sermon was ordered to be preached at St. Clement's in the Strand on St. John's Day, June 24 and a dinner to be provided. All the Grand Officers were present at that service, with the exception of the Grand Master and the Grand Secretary, both of whom were absent through illness. It was ordered that the ringers of St. Clement's should be paid one guinea, five guineas to be distributed among the poor of the parish and the beadles to be paid half a guinea.

 

On June 24, 1768, there was the customary procession, but Grand Lodge was not opened. The Minutes tell us that This day the Grand Officers and Brethren of several Lodges assembled at Deptford in Kent, where they heard an excellent sermon preached by the Rev. Parker Rowlands and from thence walked in Masonical procession to the Assembly Room at Blackheath, where they dined in form, but they did not think it proper to open Grand Lodge.

 

182 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND There now occur frequent entries‑" G. S. Dermott absent in the Gout," which must have necessitated the assistance of a Deputy Grand Secretary, to which office we find that William Dickey, Jun., P.M. No. 14, was elected, June 1, 1768. According to the Minutes of the Lebeck's Head Lodge, No. 246, under the Regular Grand Lodge, known as the Moderns, Dickey had been initiated, passed and raised in that Lodge, from No. 14, of the Antients, on September 2o, 1765. He retained the office of Deputy Grand Secretary of the Antients until 1771, and was subsequently Grand Secretary, 1771‑7; Deputy Grand Master, 1777‑81 ; President of the Grand Committee, 1782 ; and again Deputy Grand Master from December 27, 1794, until his death, July 27, 18oo.

 

The Grand Secretary and his Deputy had frequent disputes and the former accused the latter‑June 6, 177o‑of having resigned his post " when he [Dermott) was so ill in the gout that he was obliged to be carried out in his bed (when incapable to wear shoes, stockings, or even britches) to do his duty at the Gd. Steward's Lodge." At the next meeting of Grand Lodge‑September 5‑Dermott " beg'd the Grand Lodge would please to do him justice, otherwise he shd be under the disagreeable necessity of publishing his case." The Grand Secretary afterwards said " he should not give therh any further trouble concerning his affairs and that henceforth he would resign and for ever disclaim any office in the Grand Lodge." Further recriminations were exchanged on December 5. The records state, " Many warm disputes happen'd between Laurence Dermott, William Dickey, junior and others, the recording of which would be of no service to the Craft nor to the various speakers." At a subsequent meeting, held December icg, it was unanimously agreed that William Dickey had been in fault and the public thanks of the Grand Lodge were returned to Laurence Dermott for his great assiduity in his office.

 

John, third Duke of Atholl, was chosen Grand Master, January 3o and installed March 2, 1771, at the Half Moon Tavern in Cheapside. Dermott was appointed Deputy Grand Master; and on March 6, when Dermott occupied the Chair for the first time as Deputy Grand Master, William Dickey, Jun., was elected Grand Secretary. These two men worked in thorough accord from this time, although the election of the latter took place in opposition to the wishes of the former, who favoured the claims of a rival candidate for the Secretaryship‑which, to say the least, savoured slightly of ingratitude, since it was on the motion of William Dickey, Jun., that Dermott was recommended to the Duke of Atholl for the office of Deputy.

 

During the last four years of Dermott's Grand Secretaryship, twenty‑two new numbers were added to the roll, which would show an apparent list of 167 Lodges in 1771, as compared with 145 at the end of 1766. But this is misleading, because the Antients constantly allotted a vacant instead of a further number to a new Lodge. Of this practice there are some thirty examples down to the close of 1770; and therefore, assuming that in every case a new Warrant had received a new number, a grand total of at least 197 Lodges would have been reached by 1771. Within the "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 183 same period about 339 Lodges were constituted by the older Grand Lodge of England.

 

On the side of the Antients, two military Lodges and one each in Calcutta and Madras, were among the additions to the roll during the four years preceding 1771.

 

At a Grand Lodge, held September 4, 1771, Grand Secretary Dickey put the following question: " Is His Grace the Duke of Atholl Grand Master of Masons in every respect ? " which being answered in the affirmative, the proposer said, " he had several times heard it advanced that the Grand Master had not a right to inspect into the proceedings of the Royal Arch." The Secretary further complained of many flagrant abuses of that " most sacred part of Masonry and proposed that the Masters and Past Masters of Warranted Lodges be conven'd as soon as Possible, in order to put this part of Masonry on a Solid Basis." Meetings accordingly took place in October and November, with the proceedings of which Grand Lodge was made conversant by the Deputy Grand Master, December 4, 1771.

 

Dermott " expatiated a long time on the scandalous method pursued by most of the Lodges (on St. John's Days) in passing a number of Brethren through the Chair, on purpose to obtain the sacred Mystry's of the Royal Arch. The Deputy was answered by several Brethren, that there were many Members of Lodges, who from their Proffesions in Life (The Sea for Example) that could never regularly attain that part of Masonry, tho' very able deserving Men." Ultimately it was resolved unanimously‑" That no person for the future shall be made a Royal Arch Mason, but the legal Representatives of the Lodge, except a Brother (that is going abroad) who hath been 12 months a Registered Mason; and must have the Unanimous Voice of his Lodge to receive such Qualification." The case of those Brethren who " had been admitted among the Royal Arch Masons Illegaly," the Deputy suggested should be left to the next Grand Chapter, which was agreed to. This is the first mention of Grand Chapter in these records and there are no Royal Arch Minutes before 1783, although the Degree itself is referred to in 175z On March 4, 1772, it was resolved " that the Master and Wardens of every Lodge (within five miles of London) shall attend the Grand Lodge on every St. John's Day; on default thereof the Lodge shall pay ten shillings and sixpence to the Charitable Fund." This regulation was made more stringent in the following September, when it was ordered that the same officers and within the same radius, should attend all meetings of the Grand Lodge, when duly summoned by the Grand Secretary, or else pay a fine of five shillings and threepence, which was " to be levy'd on the Warrant." In the same year‑April 8‑" James Cock, P. Master No. 9, moved that a Chaplain (for the Grand Lodge) should be appointed annually, which was approved of and the Rev. Dr. James Grant was elected accordingly." Also, on June 3, 184 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND it was " agreed that a brother be appointed pro tempore to carry the Sword at Public Processions and that B`. Nash, Jnr. of No. z, carry the same next St. John's Day." At a Grand Lodge, held September z, a letter was read from T. Corker, Deputy Grand Secretary‑Ireland‑stating that " he cannot find any traces of the agreement, which was made between the two Grand Lodges in 1757," also, " that nothing could have been more advantageous to our poor fraternity than a strict adherence to such a resolution." Resolved, " that a Brotherly connexion and correspondence with the Grand Lodge of Ireland, has been and will always be found, productive of Honour and advantage to the Craft in both Kingdoms." A resolution in identical terms was passed with regard to the Grand Lodge of Scotland.

 

The reply of the latter was read May 3, 1773. It stated that the Grand Lodge of Scotland were of opinion that the Brotherly intercourse and correspondence (suggested), would be serviceable to both Grand Lodges. (See Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, pp. 205‑9).

 

The entente cordiale between the two Grand Lodges may have been due in a great measure to the fact, that the Duke of Atholl, then at the head of the Fraternity in the south, became Grand Master‑elect of Scotland, November 30, 1772 and Grand Master a year later. Indeed, at this, as at all other stages of his career, Dermott probably made the most of his opportunities and so sagacious a ruler of men must have been fully alive to the importance of securing the friendship of the Masons in the Northern Kingdom. The Minutes of the same meeting‑May 3‑then proceed In order to preserve (for ever) the Harmony subsisting between the two Grand Lodges, We [the Grand Lodge of England] think it necessary to declare that (from this time) no warrant should be granted by the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland, to any part of the World where either of them have a Provincial Lodge Established.

 

The next entry which will be transcribed, occurs under December 15, 1773 and is worthy of all praise.‑" Ordered, That any Lodges running in arrears with their Landlords, [and not paying the same] on or before St. John's Day, the Warrant shall be forfeited." On June i, 1774, Grand Secretary Dickey having reported that several Lodges assembled under an authority from a set of gentlemen called Modern Masons, it was resolved If any Lodge under the antient Constitution of England, from the time hereafter mentioned, viz., Europe, Six Months; Asia, Two Years; Africa and America, Twelve Months; to be computed from the 24th day of June 1774; that shall have in their possessions any Authority from the Grand Lodge of Moderns, or in any manner assemble or meet under Such Authority, Shall be deemed unworthy of associating with the members of the Antient Community, and the Warrant they "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 185 hold under this Rt. W. G. Lodge shall be immediately Cancel'd : Compleat notice of which the G. Sectry shall give to all Warrd Lodges under the Ancient Sanction. Resolved‑That all Antient Masons (of Repute) under the Sanction of the Moderns, that may be inclined to obtain an Authority from this R. W. G. Lodge, Shall, by applying any time before the 24th June 1776, be Warranted and the Expence of Such Warrant to be Charged only as a Renewal.

 

The death of the third Duke of Atholl‑from whom a letter was read September 7, expressing satisfaction that the " Antient Craft is regaining its ground over the Moderns "‑caused the election of Grand Officers to be postponed from December 7, 1774, until March ', 1775.

 

On the latter date, the Grand Secretary reported the following transactions of the Grand Master's Lodge Feb. 25, '775.‑Admitted. His Grace John the [fourth] Duke of Atholl [nephew of the third Duke] into the first, second and third Degree ; and after proper instructions had been given [it was] proposed that [he] should be Immedi ately Installed Master of the Grand Master's Lodge, which was accordingly done. The Grand Master's Lodge, throughout its history, before and after the Union, has always held the Number i.

 

Upon the Secretary reading the above transactions, His Grace the Duke of Atholl was unanimously elected Grand Master, and, on the 25th of the same month, duly installed in the presence of the Duke of Leinster and Sir James Adolphus Oughton, former Grand Masters of Ireland and Scotland respectively. In 175z General Oughton was Provincial Grand Master for Minorca, under the older Grand Lodge of England and informed that body " that the Craft flourished there in full vigour; that they adhered to their Rules [of] Decency and Regularity so strictly and invariably, that neither the envious, malicious, or inquisitive could find the least ground to exercise their Talents " (Grand Lodge Minutes‑' 723‑1 8' 3‑June ' 8, 1752). William Dickey was continued as Secretary and the new Grand Master " signed a Warrant appointing Bror Lau : Dermott, Esq., to be His Grace's deputy; and ordered that the said Deputy should be installed whenever his present indisposition would admit him to attend; which was in September in the same year. A series of discussions then took place relative to a lengthy correspondence between William Preston and the Grand Lodge of Scotland, which has been already referred to.

 

In the following year‑March 6‑it was ordered, " That in future every Modern Mason, remade under this Constitution, shall pay to the Charitable Fund, etc., Six Shillings, unless they produce a certificate of their having been made a Modern and in that case shall pay only three Shillings to the Fund." On St. John's Day (in Christmas) '777, " Dermott informed the Brethren that he had petitioned the Grand Master for liberty to resign his office of Deputy. His age, infirmities and twenty years' service, having constrained him to take such measures." A letter was then read from the Duke of Atholl, expressing approval 186 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND of William Dickey as Deputy Grand Master and stating that he had accepted the office of Grand Master of Scotland, " as he imagined it might accrue to the advantage of Antient Masonry in England by indubitably showing the tenets to be the same." At the same meeting gold medals were voted both to the new and to the retiring Deputy. Dermott availed himself of this respite from administrative labour to bring out a third edition of his Ahiman Ke!Zon (1778).

 

Dickey gave notice‑March 4, 1778‑" that on the first Wednesday in June next, he wou'd proceed to dispose of the Warrants, laying at this time dormant, for the support of the Fund of Charity " ; and in the June following it was resolved " that the Senior No. have the preference by paying to the Charity úi, is. od." This was rescinded on September 2, 1778.

 

On March 3, 1779, Charles Bearblock, P.M., No. 4, was elected Grand Secretary ; and on the motion of " Past Deputy Grand Master Dermott," it was resolved " that every Lodge within the Bills of Mortality, in future do pay to the fund of Charity Ten Shillings and sixpence for every new made member." The Quarterly Communication was not held on June 7, 178o, nor the Festival on St. John's Day, June 24, in consequences of the disturbances caused by the Gordon Riots.

 

On October 18, 1781, Lodge No. 213, in the Royal Artillery, was constituted at New York by the Rev. W. Walter, who, according to the customary practice, was empowered to act as Deputy Grand Master for three hours only, together with the Masters and Wardens of Nos. 16q, zio, 212, 134 (Scotland), and 359 (Ireland). In 1787 this Lodge purchased the ninth place on the List for five guineas. It became No. 17 at the Union, and it is now the Albion Lodge, Quebec.

 

On February 6, 1782, William Dickey was unanimously chosen President of the " Grand Committee," the Dukes of Atholl and Leinster having respectively declined, the former to retain, the latter to accept, the position of Grand Master if elected.

 

After an interregnum of a year and a quarter‑March 6, 1783‑William Randal, Earl of Antrim, was elected to the chair, Laurence Dermott was appointed Deputy and Robert Leslie was chosen Grand Secretary in the place of Charles Bearblock, " discharged from that office." On March 2q, 1784, there was a Grand Lodge of Emergency, at which Dermott presided, followed by a meeting of the Grand Committee, under the presidency of William Dickey, when a letter was read from the Deputy Grand Master, com plaining of an irregular and incorrect circular issued by the Grand Secretary, also of his having usurped the power of the Grand Master and Deputy, " more particularly in a dispensing power for congregating and forming a new Lodge." After much discussion, it having been recommended " that every matter heard before the Committee should be lost in oblivion," Dermott and Leslie " were called in and gave their assent thereto." The Grand Committee supported Dermott on the points of law involved in the dispute, but excused Leslie of having done wrong otherwise than by misconception.

 

"ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 187 In the following September Dermott " informed the Lodge that he would not act, not advise or suffer the Grand Master to act, with the present Grand Secretary, who he declared incapable of his office and, if again re‑elected, he would request leave of the Grand Master to resign his office." Leslie expressed surprise at the use of language as unmasonic as it was unmanly, especially after the Deputy had agreed to bury all differences in oblivion and charged the latter with having " descended to the grossest personal scurrility, unbecoming a Man, Mason, or Gentleman." The Grand Secretary was re‑elected, but afterwards " begged leave to decline any contest for the office " and, persisting in his resignation, a new election was ordered to take place in March, but on December i, it was carried by a unanimous vote, that the thanks of the Grand Lodge be conveyed to Bro. Leslie, Grand Secretary.

 

On the St. John's Day following, a letter was read from Dermott, objecting to the proceedings of the last Grand Lodge, particularly of its having " attempted to rescind the confirmed acts of a Grand Lodge [held] in due form." In support of this contention a great many authorities were cited, as will be seen from the following extracts.

 

The only business which you can do with propriety this day is to proclaim the Grand Masters and officers elect, leaving the Installation until a further day. I am not officially acquainted with the proceedings of the last meeting, but from what I have learnt they were erroneous, in attempting to rescind the formed acts of a Grand Lodge in due form (September i). It is amazing! ! that amongst such a number of Officers, Old Masons and even Candidates for the Secretaryship, none sh'd be found to point out the futility of such a measure, or remember the difference between a Grand Lodge inform‑a Grand Lodge in due form‑and a Grand Lodge in ample form, terms so materially significant, definite and useful in the general government of the Fraternity, as to have been constantly observed and continued amongst the Craft in this kingdom for upwards of 858 years. It requires but a moderate share of commonsense to know that no Act, Law, Regulation, Order, or Decree can be revised or rescinded or repealed without a power equal to that by which it was first made and formed.

 

For truth of this see Doct'. Anderson's Constitutions (1738), p. 16z; D'Assigny (1744), p. 5 6 ; Spratt's Constitutions (1754) ; and Ahiman ReZon. Furthermore, suppose the last Grand Lodge of December i was a Grand Lodge in due form, or what is much more important, a Grand Lodge in ample form (his Lordship Presiding), I say in such case the Grand Lodge could not rescind nor appeal any Rule, Order or Decree made by a former Grand Lodge (in due or ample form) without giving previous notice thereof in the general summonses, which was not the case on the first of December last. Hence it is manifest the present Grand Lodge are under the indispensable necessity of proclaiming the Earl of Antrim Grand Masterelect (with choice of Deputy).

 

The letter concludes with the following words 1[88 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Thus it is that justice may be obtained and harmony continued without endangering the Constitution or even giving a just cause of offence to any party. That Health, Prosperity, and Unanimity may attend on each of you is the earnest wish of R.W. and W. Brethren, Your most sincere friend and very obedient servant, Lau : DERMoTT, D.G.M.

 

The missive was read aloud more than once and, after a solemn pause, a vote of censure was unanimously passed on the writer, " the contents of the said letter and the conduct of the D.G.M.," appearing to the Grand Lodge " arbitrary, if not altogether illegal." The behaviour of Leslie at this juncture cannot be too highly commended. A new generation had sprung up, which was ill disposed to brook the petulance of the Deputy. Nothing but the forbearance of the Grand Secretary prevented an open rupture, in which case Dermott must have gone to the wall ; but in a noble letter to the Earl of Antrim, written September 1[o, 1[784, Leslie thus expresses himself: " I again beg your Lordship's pardon, when I hint that a continuance of your former Deputy may be most agreeable to the Grand Lodge and that the want of his assistance would be irreparable." On January 31[, 1785, " a letter [was] read from the Grand Master, appointing Lau. Dermott, Esq., his Deputy and wishing that any difference between the R.W.D[eputy] and Secy Leslie might be buried in oblivion‑the said letter was read twice and the R.W.D. put the same into his pocket without any motion being made thereon by the Lodge." The vote of censure passed at the previous meeting was removed. Dermott returned thanks, declined taking upon himself the office of Deputy Grand Master and repeated that " he would not work with Secy Leslie, upon which the Grand Lodge got into confusion and disorder for some time," being closed eventually by Dermott.

 

The following entry in the Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge tends to prove that, about this time, the bonds of discipline were much relaxed : June 1[5, 1[785.‑" B` Weatherhead Master of No. 5 was fin'd one shilling for swearing and he also chaling'd the Master of No. 3 to turn out to fight him with sword and pistol and us'd the W" G. J. Warden [Feakings] in a Redicules manner, which oblig'd him to close the Lodge before the Business was compleated." In March 1785 Leslie made way for John M'Cormick, but was again elected Grand Secretary, December i, 179o, an office which he filled until the Union; and a gold medal was voted to him December 1, 1813, " for his long and faith[ful] services as Grand Secretary for more than thirty years." Lord Antrim was installed as Grand Master, June 7, 1785, at the Paul's Head, Cateaton Street, to which tavern Grand Lodge had now removed and, at the same meeting, invested Laurence Dermott as his Deputy. In the following September the sum of one guinea was fixed as the amount to be paid when Modern Masons were made Antient. From this it may be estimated that the latter were more than holding their own in the rivalry which existed, an inference still further sustained "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" by the language of a communication addressed by the Grand Secretary to the Grand Master, March zo, 1786, informing him " that the Provincial Grand Lodge of Andalusia, which had been under the government of the Moderns for upwards of twenty years, had offered for a Warrant under the Antients," also that the said Grand Lodge consisted of none under the degree of an Ensign and who had refused to act longer under the authority of the Moderns, " tho' the Duke of Cumberland is said to be their Grand Master." At the following meeting the Deputy Grand Master ordered that a Grand Lodge of Emergency be summoned to meet on September z9, on which day the Grand Lodge met at the Paul's Head, when Dermott presided. It was then ordered that the Pursuivant and Tyler should wear their cloaks. One of the resolutions passed was a vote of thanks to Dermott for his condescension in giving Ahiman Re7,on to the Charity.

 

Dermott joined the public procession on St. John's Day, June 24, 1786, when he met the other officers at 9 a.m. " at the sign of the Black Prince, Newington, with all the respectable Lodges throughout the cities of London and Westminster and formed on the bowling green for procession to Camberwell Church and heard an excellent sermon on the ocasion by the Rev. Dr. Milne and after divine service proceeded to Grove House, Camberwell and dined in usual form and drank the toasts." At a Grand Lodge held December z7, 1787, opened by Dermott, James Perry, Junior Grand Warden, who had been recommended to the Grand Master for the office by Dermott himself, was invested as Deputy Grand Master. He then moved That the thanks of the G.L. be given to R.W. Lau : Dermott, Esq., P.Dep. G.M., who after forty‑seven years zealously and successfully devoted to the service of the Craft, had now retired from the Eminent station which he held, and to whose masonic knowledge and abilities, inflexible adherence to the Antient Laws of the Fraternity, and Impartial administration of office, the Fraternity are so much indebted.

 

The motion was carried without a dissentient vote ; and it was further resolved, " that a Committee be formed, consisting of the Grand Officers, to consider the best means of conferring some signal mark of the approbation of the Grand Lodge on the said Mr Deputy Dermott " and to report accordingly.

 

Laurence Dermott attended Grand Lodge in the following June, and was also present at Communications held on June 4, 1788, March 4 and June 3, 1789. After the last date the Minutes are altogether silent with regard to his name and even his death is unrecorded.

 

There were also present at the meeting on March 4, in addition to James Perry and Laurence Dermott, Thomas Harper, Senior Grand Warden; and James Agar, Junior Grand Warden, all of whom were voted, at different times, gold medals by the Society. In 1813 the Duke of Kent selected Thomas Harper, then Deputy I9o HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Grand Master, James Perry and James Agar, then Past Deputy Grand Masters, to assist him, on behalf of the Ancients, in preparing the Articles of the Union. Bywater informs us (op. cit.) that for some years Dermott resided in King Street, Tower Hill, but subsequently removed to Mile End, where, with his wife, he resided until his death, which took place in June 1791. His will was proved by Elizabeth Dermott, the sole executrix, on July 15, 1791, and is as follows In the Name of God, Amen. I, Laurence Dermott, of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, in the county of Middlesex, wine merchant, being of sound mind and memory, make this my last will and testament. Item. I bequeath my immortal soui to the immortal Creator of all things, my body to the earth, and all my worldly riches I bequeath to my dearly beloved wife, Elizabeth Dermott, which I appoint my whole and sole Executrix of this my last Will and Testament, the fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, One thousand seven hundred and seventy.

 

LAU : DERMOTT.

 

Signed and sealed in the presence of WM. WHITTAKER, FRANS. ALLEN, WILLIAM SMITH.

 

The place of his burial has never been ascertained, although Bywater made strenuous efforts to locate it.

 

When Dermott resigned the office of Grand Secretary (1770) there were 167 Lodges on the roll ; at the close of 1789 there were 25 8, showing an increase of 91. But within the same period, about 46‑as nearly as can be traced‑were constituted, or revived at vacant numbers, thus making a grand total of 137 new Lodges.

 

The expansion of the rival organization, between the same dates, was as follows 119 Lodges were added to its roll after 1770 and before 1780 ; and 125 during the ten years ending 1789, forming a total increase Of z44. But the real position of the Atholl Grand Lodge is not disclosed by these figures. In the Colonies and wherever there were British garrisons, the new system was slowly but surely undermining the old one. Forty‑nine Military Lodges had been constituted by the Antients down to the close of 1789 (sixty‑seven were chartered subsequently, making a total of 116) and the influence they exercised in disseminating the principles of which Dermott was the exponent, will be treated with some fullness hereafter. In this place it will be sufficient to say, that to the presence of so many Army Lodges in North America was mainly due the form which Masonry assumed when the various States became independent of the mother country. The actual number of Lodges working under what was styled the Antient Sanction at the period under examination cannot very easily be determined. For example, on October 24, 178z, there were four Lodges (the Union, St. George, Virgin, and Thistle) at work in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which, according to J. Fletcher Brennan, P. 375 of History of Freemasonry in the Maritime Provinces of British America (1875), "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 191 were" under Dispensation from the Warranted Lodges, Nos. 15 5 and 21 I ." Lodges St. George, Virgin and Thistle were held in the Nova Scotia Volunteers, the Royal Artillery and the 82nd Foot respectively : they are not included in the forty‑nine Military Lodges or the sixty‑seven mentioned above. Many local Warrants were granted subsequently by the Provincial Grand Lodge, but as none of these were exchanged for Charters from London until 1829, it would now be difficult to trace the dates they originally bore, but that at least seventeen Lodges were constituted under this jurisdiction, probably more, before the year 1790, there is evidence to show. Unfortunately the Atlioll records do not give the Lodges in existence under Provincial establishments and the earliest printed list was not published until 1804. In that year, however, we find that the Province of Gibraltar comprised 9 Lodges, Jamaica 15, Quebec ii, Niagara 12 and Halifax z9.

 

The Grand Lodge of England, previous to the death of Dermott, demanded no fees from Nova Scotia. The Provincial body was virtually an independent organization, paying tribute to none and exacting the respect due to any independent Grand Lodge of Freemasons. On August 7, 1787, Dermott wrote to Adam Fife, first Master of the Virgin Lodge: " Pecuniary submission is not the aim of the Mother Grand Lodge. To cultivate and establish the true system of Antient Masonry, Unity and Brotherly Love is the only point in view " (Brennan, op. cit., p. 424). In other parts of the world, Provincial Grand Lodges under the Antients also warranted a large number of subsidiary Lodges, but these, in the absence of lists, it is now, for the most part, impossible to identify. One of these bodies, however, before severing its connexion with England‑September 25, 1786‑had no fewer than forty‑six Lodges on its roll, all of which, up to that date, must be regarded as having been remote pendicles of the " Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions." James Perry continued to serve as Deputy until December z7, 1790, when he was succeeded by James Agar and, on the same day, Robert Leslie was invested as Grand Secretary in the place of John M'Cormick‑awarded a pension of a shilling a day during the remainder of his natural life " for his ffaithful services to the Craft." The remuneration of the Secretary was not large at this time, as the following Minutes show: June 3, 1790‑‑" A Motion was made to Raise the G. Secretary's Sallary and by the shew of hands it was carried to allow him io G[uineas], added to the five and to receive it Quarterly or half yearly, as he pleased to take it." Dec. 5, 1792‑" Ordered, That the sum of three shillings be in future paid to the Grand Secretary for a Master Mason's Grand Lodge Certificate; he paying the expense of parchment and printing the same." On the death of the Earl (and Marquess) of Antrim in 1791, John, fourth Duke of Atholl, was again elected Grand Master and installed January zo, 1792. In this year‑March 7‑it was Resolved and Ordered That a general uniformity of the practice and ceremonies of the Antient Craft may be preserved and handed down unchanged to posterity, the Lodges in 192 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND London and Westminster shall be required to nominate a Brother from each Lodge, who must be a Master or Past Master and otherwise well‑skilled in the Craft, to be put in Nomination at the Grand Chapter, in October of each year, to be elected one of the nine Excellent Masters ; who are allowed to visit the Lodges ; and should occasion require, they are to report thereon to the Grand Chapter, or the R.W. Deputy Grand Master, who will act as he shall deem necessary.

 

At the following meeting, held June 6, the Minutes of the preceding one were confirmed, also those of the Royal Arch Chapter relating " to the appointment of nine Excellent Masters to assist the Grand Officers for the current year." On November 18, 18oi, according to the Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge " A Motion was made and seconded that the nine Excellent Masters for the time being should have a Medal emblematic of their office, which should be given up, when they went out of office, for their successors, which was agreed to, subject to the opinion of Grand Lodge " ; and on June i, 1803, Grand Lodge " Ordered, That to prevent the intrusion of improper persons into the Grand Lodge, each member shall sign his name and rank in his Lodge, in a book provided for that purpose, in the outer porch. And the Excellent Masters for the time being shall be required, in rotation, to attend early, and carry the same into effect." In the ensuing September, in order " to accelerate the business of Grand Lodge," it was unanimously ordered " that the Grand Master or his Deputy do grant such Warrants as are vacant to Lodges making application for the same, giving the preference or choice to the Senior Lodges : And that the sum of Five Guineas, to be paid into the Fund of Charity, shall be the established fees for taking out such Senior warrant." On March 4, 1794, it was ordered‑that Country, Foreign, and Military Lodges (where no Grand Lodge was held) should pay five and London Lodges ten shillings and sixpence to the Grand Fund of Charity upon the registry of every new‑made Mason, exclusive (under both scales) of the Grand Secretary's fee, of a shilling. The Metropolitan Lodges were also required to pay a further sum of one shilling per quarter for every contributing member.

 

According to the Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge of November zo, 1793, the " annual compliment to the Secretary for the year 1793 " was placed at fifteen guineas ; on September 18, 1799, it was increased to thirty and on March z6, 18oo, it was lowered to ten.

 

James Agar was succeeded by William Dickey, who, December z7, 1794, again undertook the responsible duties of Deputy Grand Master, a position for which he was more eminently qualified than any man.

 

Until the December meeting of 1797, there is nothing of moment to record; but on that occasion " it was moved by Bro. Moreton of No. 63 and seconded by Bro. MGillevery of No. 3, That a committee be appointed by this R.W. Grand Lodge, to meet one that may be appointed by the Grand Lodge of Modern Masons, and with them to effect a Union." But, alas, the time for a reconciliation had not "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 193 yet arrived and it will therefore occasion no surprise that " the previous Question was thereupon Moved and Carried almost unanimously." The negotiations which preceded the fusion of the two Societies are very fully entered in the Atholl records, but the story of the Union will be best presented as a whole and, for this reason, its narration is postponed.

 

On July 3, 1798, a meeting took place for the purpose of establishing a Masonic Charity for educating and clothing the sons of indigent Freemasons ; a subscription was opened to carry this object into execution; and six children were immediately put upon the establishment. Donations of ten and two hundred guineas were voted by Grand Lodge in 1803 and i 8ocg respectively to this meritorious institution; and, on March 4, 1812, the London Lodges were ordered to pay five shillings, and the other Lodges half that sum, at every new initiation, to be added to its funds.

 

The Duke of Atholl was present at a Grand Lodge held May 6, 1799, when it was deemed essential " to inhibit and totally prevent all Public Masonic Processions and all private meetings of Masons, or Lodges of Emergency, upon any pretence whatever and to suppress and suspend all Masonic meetings, except upon the regular stated Lodge meetings and Royal‑Arch Chapters, which shall be held open to all Masons to visit, duly qualified as such." It was further resolved, " That when the usual Masonic Business is ended, the Lodge shall then disperse, the Tyler withdraw from the Door and Formality and Restraint of Admittance shall cease." Two months later‑July 12, 1799‑an Act of Parliament was passed‑39 Geo. III, cap. 79‑which will be referred to in another chapter; and from that date until the year 1802, no new Warrants were granted by the Atholl Grand Lodge, which contented itself with reviving and reissuing those granted and held before the Act in question was added to the statute‑roll.

 

At the death of William Dickey, Thomas Harper was selected to fill his place and received the appointment of Deputy, March 4, 1 This office he held until the Union and, during the protracted negotiations which preceded that event, was the leading figure on the Atholl side. He served as Senior Grand Warden from 1786 to 1788, was presented with a gold medal, March 3, 1790 and became Deputy Grand Secretary (by appointment of Robert Leslie), December 27, 1793. According to the Grand Chapter Register, he was made a Royal Arch Mason in No. 19o, at Charlestown, South Carolina and the date given is 1770. Here there is evidently a mistake, as the Lodge bearing that number was only constituted in 1774 ; but an earlier one (No. 92) was established at Charlestown, under the same jurisdiction, in 1761 and it is probable that the numbers of the two Lodges have been confused. At the period of his nomination as Deputy Grand Master, he was a member of both Societies and had served the stewardship in the older one, by which, as we shall afterwards see, he was successively expelled and reinstated during the somewhat tortuous proceedings which have yet to be recounted. The Lodge No. 19o here referred to was afterwards the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons of South Carolina and amalgamated with the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the same State in 1817.

 

F. III‑4 194 HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND Edward Harper, of the same address as Thomas Harper, viz. z07, Fleet Street, served as Deputy Grand Secretary under Leslie from December z7, x 8oo, until the Union. He was presented with a Gold Medal on December i, 18 13.

 

Beyond an addition to the minimum fee for installation, which was increased to two and a half guineas on December 4, 1 804 (and to three guineas on March 4, xc9xz), there are no entries calling for attention till we reach the year 18 o6, when the Minutes of the Stewards' Lodge, under April 16, inform us of a report made to that body by Grand Warden Plummer, to the effect that certain members of Nos. z34 and z64 " had lately taken upon themselves to address the Duke of Kent and requested His Royal Highness to adopt and take upon himself the office of Grand Master, to which address [the Duke] had been pleased to return an answer, under the impression that [it] had been written by the order, or under the sanction, of the Grand Lodge." At a subsequent meeting the incriminated parties " were severely reprimanded from the chair " and warned that similar conduct would be more severely dealt with in the future (Minutes of Stewards' Lodge, May z i, i 8o6).

 

On March 4, 1807, the Deputy Grand Secretary was granted an annual stipend of twenty guineas and it was ordered, " That in future, no Brother be permitted to hold or take upon himself the office of Master of a Lodge, unless he shall be first duly registered in the books of Grand Lodge." In the following year‑March z‑the Resolution passed May 6, 1799, inhibiting all Masonic Processions and Lodges of Emergency, was repealed; and on June i, salaries of thirty and twenty pounds respectively were voted to the Grand Pursuivant and Grand Tyler.

 

On September 4, 18 x x, on the motion of James Perry, it was resolved : " That from and after Saint John's day next, no Brother shall be eligible to be elected Master of any Lodge, unless he shall have acted for twelve months as Warden in the said Lodge and that he shall not be entitled to the privileges of a past Master, untll he shall have served one whole year in the chair of his Lodge." This was finally approved December 4, 1811. A rough memorandum, pinned into the Minutebook and endorsed " G. L. Extraordinary z3 Oct.," gives the same resolution, but in place of the last fourteen words (italicised above), has‑" until he shall have served full two months as Master in ye Chair of his Lodge." At the same period, as we shall presently see, the older Grand Lodge was also carrying out changes in its procedure, in view of the impending reconciliation. The Duke of Atholl presided at a special Grand Lodge, held May 18, 1813, in honour of H.R.H. the Duke of Kent, " Provincial Grand Master for Canada." The royal visitor " expressed in the warmest terms his unchangeable affection and attachment to Masonry `according to the Antient Institution' and to the Grand Lodge of England, in which those principles were so purely and correctly pre served." He further said, " that upon every occasion he should be happy to cooperate with them in exerting themselves for the preservation of the Rights and Principles of the Craft and that, however desirable a Union might be with the other fraternity of Masons, it could only be desirable if accomplished on the basis "ACCORDING TO OLD CONSTITUTIONS" 195 of the Antient Institution and with the maintenance of all the rights of the Antient Craft." The italicised expression is somewhat curious, considering that Prince Edward (afterwards Duke of Kent), when appointed Provincial Grand Master of Lower Canada by the Duke of Atholl‑March 7,179z‑held a similar office under the Prince of Wales, Grand Master of " the other fraternity." Prince Edward was accorded the rank of Past Grand Master‑under the older Masonic systemFebruary io, 1790 and, in the same year, became Provincial Grand Master for Gibraltar, an office he retained until i 8oo.

 

The Duke of Atholl resigned in favour of the Duke of Kent, November 8, 1813. The latter was installed as Grand Master, December i, and on the St. John's day following, the Freemasons of England were reunited in a single Society.

 

CHAPTER V THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1]61‑1813 HE first Lodge to adopt a distinctive title, apart from the sign of the tavern where it met, was the University Lodge, No. 74, in 173o. This was followed by the Grenadiers Lodge, No. 18q, in 1739 ; after which, the constitution in the latter year of the Parham, the Court‑House, the Bakers and the Basseterre Lodges in the West Indies, led to the usage becoming a more general one. Inasmuch, however, as the " signs of the houses " where the Lodges met were shown in the Engraved Lists, these, in some instances at least, must doubtless have been substituted for distinctive titles, in cases even where the latter existed. Thus the Grenadiers and the Absalom Lodges, Nos. iio and iig, are only described in 176o as meeting at the King's Arms and Tun, Hyde Park Corner and the Bunch of Grapes, Decker St., Hamburgh, respectively. This view is borne out by the list for 176o, wherein, out of 245 Lodges, one English Lodge only‑the last on the roll‑No. 245, the Temple Lodge, Bristol, appears with what may be termed, in strictness, a distinctive name. Nos. i and 70 are indeed styled respectively the West India and American and the Stewards' Lodges, but in each case the sign of the tavern is shown and these designations appear to have merely meant that the former Lodge was frequented by one class of persons, the latter by another. The same remark will hold good as regards the Scott's Masons Lodge, No. 115, which, according to the Engraved List for 1734, met at the Devil, Temple Bar, in that year.

 

But although only a single English Lodge has a name affixed to it in the list for 176o, no fewer than twelve Lodges in the West Indies, as well as four in Germany and the same number in Holland, appear with distinctive titles in the same publica tion. The majority of the West Indian Lodges bore saintly appellatives. Those in Germany were the Union of Angels, Frankfort 0742); the St. George, Hamburgh (1743) ; the St. Michael's, Mecklenburg (1754) ; and the Grand Lodge Frederick, Hanover (1755). In Holland there were the Lodges of Orange, Rotterdam and of Charity, Peace and Regularity, at Amsterdam. Other Lodges, for example, Solomon's Lodge, Charles Town, South Carolina (1735) and Providence Lodge, in Rhode Island (1757), bore distinctive titles before 176o, but in these and many similar cases the later lists are misleading, as both the Lodges named were only given places corresponding with their actual seniority, some years after the publication of the list under examination, the former being assigned No. 74, the latter No. 224, which were filled in the first instance by Lodges at Bristol and Santa Croix respectively.

 

z96 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 197 In 1767, the Lodge of which the Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master, was a member, assumed a distinctive title in lieu of the " sign of the house "‑the Sun and Punch Bowl‑whereby it had previously been described and the practice soon became very general. The happy designation bestowed on the New Lodge at the Horn may have helped to set the fashion, but at any rate, the Old Lodge at the Horn became the Old Horn Lodge in 1768. In the same year original No. 3 took the title of the Lodge of Fortitude and, in 1770, the senior English Lodge assumed the now time‑honoured designation of the Lodge of Antiquity.

 

The Lodges were re‑numbered in 1740, 1756, 1770, 1781 and 1792 and, as the same process was resorted to at the Union (1813), again in 1832 and 1863, much confusion has been the result, especially when it has been sought to identify Lodges of the past century with those still existing in our own. Some of the difficulties of this task have been removed, but the unmethodical way in which vacant numbers were allotted during the intervals between the general re‑numberings will always render it a somewhat puzzling undertaking to trace the fortunes of those Lodges of bygone days, which are undistinguished from the others, save by numbers and the names of the taverns where they assembled.

 

The positions on the roll during the numeration of 1756‑69 of the Lodges at Charlestown and Rhode Island are noticed elsewhere. The former found a place on the roll in the first instance as No. 251 and is described in the Engraved List for 1761 as Solomon's Lodge, Charles Town, S. Carolina, 1735. Immediately above it, strange to say, at the Nos. 247‑z 5 o, are four other South Carolina Lodges, stated to have been constituted, the two earliest in 1743 and 175 5, the two latest in 1756 respectively. In the list for the following year, however, a vacant niche was available at the No. 74 and Solomon's Lodge accordingly was shifted there from its lower position, the Lodge immediately below it being described as No. 75, Savannah, in the Province of Georgia, 1735. In the same way the Nos. 141‑143 on the list of 1756 were filled by Minorca Lodges up to the year 1766, but in 1768 they were assigned to Lodges in Boston and Marblehead (Mass.) and in Newhaven (Connecticut) respectively. At the next change of numbers (1770) the four remaining Lodges in South Carolina, misplaced in the official list, were lifted to positions on the roll tallying with their respective seniority. St. John's Lodge, New York, which was first entered in the Engraved List of 1762, was on the same occasion placed‑according to the date of its constitution‑among the Lodges of 175 7.

 

Certificates signed by the Grand Secretary were first issued in 175 5, in which year, it may be stated, the practice of " smoaking tobacco " in Grand Lodge during the transaction of business was forbidden, the Deputy Grand Master (Manning ham) observing, " that it was not only highly disagreeable to the many not used to it, But it was also an Indecency that should never be suffered in any solemn assembly." Lodges, more particularly during the first half of the eighteenth century, were, in many instances, formed long before they were constituted. The latter ceremony was of a very simple character. Usually it was performed by the Deputy Grand 198 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 Master in person and a record of the circumstance, duly attested by the signatures of the Grand or acting Grand Officers, forms, not uncommonly, the first entry in a Minute‑book. The officers were elected quarterly or half‑yearly, the former practice being the more frequent of the two. But one method was substituted for the other, with very little formality, as the following entries attest March 1, 1762.‑Agreed that every quart=. it be a ballotten for a new Master and Wardens.

 

December 20, 1762.‑This night it was agreed that Election‑night should be every six months. (Minutes of the Moira Lodge, No. 9z.) The installation of officers was devoid of the ceremonial observances peculiar to the Antients and, though the novelties of one system ultimately penetrated into the other, they were not considered orthodox or regular by Brethren of the Older School until the somewhat unconditional surrender of their Grand Lodge which preceded the Union. In what is now the Friendship Lodge, No. 6, we learn from the Minutes that, March 16, 175 8, "it being Election Night, the Send. Ward. took the Chair; the Junr Ward [the] S.W. ; y Secretary [the] Jr. W. ; and Br. J. Anderson was Elected Secretary." In the Moira, No. 92, on March 6, 176o, " Br Dodsworth, by desire, accepted of the Master's Jewell." The services of the Right Worshipful Master, as the presiding officer was then styled, were frequently retained throughout several elections, whilst, in case of illness or inability to attend the meetings, they were as summarily dispensed with. Thus, in a London Lodge, on February 2, 1744, the Master having " declared on the box," being sick, another Brother was forthwith elected in his room. (Minutes of Lodge, No. 163, now extinct.) Wine and tobacco were often supplied in the Lodge room. In one of the country Lodges it took several bottles to audit the Treasurer's account and, when that was done and the balance struck and carried out, it was a common practice to add a postscript of " One bottle more " and deduct that from the balance. (T. P. Ashley, History of the Royal Cumberland Lodge, Bath, No. 41, p. 25.) The following By‑law was passed by a London Lodge in 1773 : " That on account of the great expense incurr'd by allowing wine at supper and, in order to prevent the bad consequences arising therefrom, no liquor shall be paid for out of the Lodge Funds which is drunk out of the Lodge Room, except beer or ale drank at supper." In the Treasurer's Accounts of the same Lodge, under October zo, 1777, there is an entry recording the payment of one shilling and sixpence for Herb Tobacco for the Lodge of Instruction, an offshoot of the Lodge, established on the motion of Brother Wm. White‑afterwards Grand Secretary‑in 1773. (Brackstone Baker, History of the Lodge of Emulation, No. zi, 1872, pp. 8, 9.) By some Lodges, however, the consumption of liquors during the period of Masonic labour was strictly forbidden; and in the Moira Lodge, now No. 9z, THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 199 on February 4, 1765, a " Br Hutchinson paid a fine of 3 pence for drinking in ye Lodge." Frequently the Lodge, besides its normal functions, also discharged those of a benefit society. In such cases there was a limit as to the age of admission and persons over forty were generally ineligible as candidates. The rules ordinarily guard against an influx of members that might press with undue weight upon the finances. People following certain callings, such as soldiers, sailors, bricklayers and constables, were in most cases declared incapable of membership ; while there was frequently a general proviso that no one whose employment in life was either prejudicial to health or of a dangerous character should be proposed for admission. Virtually they were trades‑unions and, in one instance, a regulation enacts that the " proposed " must not " occupy any business which may interfere or closs [clash] with [that of] any member already entered." (Minutes of Lodge No. 163, now extinct.) The following is from the same records December z, 174z.‑A motion was made, Seconded and agreed to N.C., that the Box shou'd be shut up from this night for six months from all benefits (Deaths & Burials excepted), unless to such members who, during the aforesaid time, shall produce a person to be made a Mason, or a person to be entr'd a member ‑Which member so producing such shall Immediately become free.

 

The first two Degrees were usually conferred on the same evening, the third could also be included by dispensation. The fees and dues ordinarily charged in Lodges about the year 176o were as follows : for initiation and passing, 'Ci is. ; raising, 5 s. ; quarterage, 6s. It was customary for all who were present at a meeting to pay something " for the good of the house." Usually each member paid a shilling ; visitors from other Lodges, eighteenpence ; and St. John's men, or Brethren unattached, two shillings. Until comparatively late in the century, visits were freely interchanged by the Masons under the rival jurisdictions. If the visitor, though not personally known, could pass a satisfactory examination; this was sufficient; and even in cases of defective memory, the administration of an " obligation " generally qualified a stranger for admission. Of this custom two examples will suffice.

 

December 4, '1758.‑Brother Glover, of St. John's Lodg, being an Ancient Meason, having taken his obligation of this Lodg, paid the ujal fine of two shilling and became a member. (Minutes of the Moira Lodge, No. 9z.) October 15, 176z.‑Evald Ribe, M.D., Member of St. Edward's Lodge at Stockholm, took the obligation, & was proposed to become a member, & carried N.C. (Minutes of No. 246.) The usage at this period seems to have been, that Extraneous Brethren, as they are commonly termed in the records both of the Regular Masons and the Antients‑or, in other words, persons who had been admitted into Masonry under other jurisdictions‑were allowed to visit freely in the Regular Lodges. They Zoo THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 were apparently re‑made‑in the sense of going through the ceremonies a second time‑if they so wished, but not otherwise. According to the Minutes of the Lodge at the Lebeck's Head, William Dickey was present as a visitor several times before he was " made a modern Mason of," in conformity, there can be little doubt, with his own desire, as he did not become a member of the Lodge and, therefore, no pressure could have been put upon him. Evidently he could, had he liked, have attained membership in No. 246 in the same simple manner as Dr. Ribe, in connexion with whom, it may be observed that the first Deputation for the office of Provincial Grand Master at Stockholm‑under the Grand Lodge of England‑was granted by Lord Blayney in 1765 ; and that no Lodge constituted under it appeared on the English roll until 1769. As the earliest Lodge in Sweden for which a Charter was granted by the Antients was only established in 1773, St. Edward's Lodge, Stockholm, if of British origin, must, therefore, have been an offshoot of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, under a patent from which body a Lodge was erected at Stockholm in 1754. (Laurie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, p. 1340 Lord Aberdour held the office of Grand Master from May 18, 1757, until May 3, 176z, having filled the same position in Scotland from December 1, 1755, until November 3o, 1757. In the latter capacity he granted a Warrant of Con stitution to some Brethren in Massachusetts, empowering them to meet under the title of St. Andrew's Lodge, No. 8z. The petitioners were Antient Masons, in the sense of belonging to the body distinguished by that popular title. These, as observed by Findel (History, p. 353), "transplanted the dissensions prevailing in England and formed two opposing camps over the ocean." This Lodge, which was established November 13, 1756, resolved, in December 1768, to keep the Festival of St. John the Evangelist and "that none vulgarly called `Modern Masons ' be admitted to the Feast." (Proceedings, Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, 1870, PP‑ 159, 16z.) It ultimately became the Massachusetts Grand Lodge of Antient Masons and amalgamated, in 179z, with the St. John's Grand Lodge of the same State, as the governing body under the older Grand Lodge of England was then designated.

 

Precisely as in the mother country, the Masons were divided into two denominations and, even whilst Lord Aberdour was at the head of the Craft in both kingdoms, the Antients in St. Andrew's Lodge and the so‑called Moderns in the other Boston Lodges were at open variance. This is the more remarkable, because about the very time when a difference of procedure between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the original Grand Lodge of England was alleged to exist by the Brethren of Massachusetts, a letter was written by Dr. Manningham to a correspondent in Holland, informing him, in substance, after having consulted Lord Aberdour and several other Scottish noblemen and gentlemen that were good Masons, that the Masonic ceremonies were identical under the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the older Grand Lodge of England, both of which knew only three orders, viz., Masters, Fellow‑Crafts and Apprentices.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 201 Lord Aberdour was succeeded as Grand Master by Earl Ferrers in 1762 and the latter gave place, in turn, to Lord Blayney on May 8, 1764.

 

During the administration of this nobleman, the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Gloucester became members of the Society, when it was ordered by Grand Lodge, that they should each be presented with an apron, lined with blue silk and that in all future processions they should rank as Past Grand Masters, next to the Grand Officers for the time being.

 

In April 1766, a new edition of the Book of Constitutions was ordered to be printed under the inspection of a committee.

 

In the same month, at the Committee of Charity, a complaint was made that the Lodge at the Old Bell in Bell Savage Yard, Ludgate Hill, had been illegally sold. It appeared from the Respondents that they were Foreigners and had made (as they apprehended) a fair purchase thereof, had paid a valuable consideration for the same and did under that Constitution hold a regular Lodge at the Fountain in Ludgate Hill. It was determined under these circumstances that in Equity they had a Right to the Constitution and that they should be permitted to hold their Lodge under it, but that for the Future the sale of a Constitution should on no account be held valid, but [it] should immediately be considered as Forfeited.

 

A further illustration of the practice last referred to is afforded by the Minutes of the same tribunal for April 8, 1767, on which date a Br Paterson reported that the Constitution of the Lodge No. 3, held at the Sun and Punch Bowl, had been sold or otherwise illegally disposed of, that the same was purchasd by a Number [of] Masons, who now meet by virtue thereof, under the name of the Lodge of Friendship, at the Thatched House in St. James St. And that B` French was the person principally concerned, together with the Brethren of the Lodge formerly held at the Sun and Punch Bowl.

 

The decision of the committee was postponed but as a mark of high respect to his Grace the Duke of Beaufort and the Noblemen and Honourable Gentlemen meeting under the name of the Lodge of Friendship and in consideration of their being very young Masons [it was ordered], that the Constitution No. 3 shall remain with. them, even tho' it should appear upon further enquiry, that this affair hath been transacted contrary to the Constitution, but at the same time resolved, that this shall not be looked upon as a Precedent for the future on any account whatsoever.

 

A week later, the Minutes of the last Committee of Charity were read in Grand Lodge and confirmed, " except that part of them which related to Brother French," by whom an apology was made " in open Quarterly Communication." At this meeting the Duke of Beaufort was elected Grand Master and, in the following year, a vacancy occurring, he appointed French to the office of Grand Secretary.

 

ioz THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 At the Committee of Charity, held January zo, 1768, two letters were read from the Grand Lodge of France, desiring a friendly correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England, which was cheerfully agreed to. This was ratified at the ensuing Grand Lodge, held January z8.

 

At the April meeting of the same body, it was carried by a majority, that the practice of Brethren appearing armed in Lodges was an innovation upon the ancient usages and customs of the Society and it was resolved that " the Grand Master be requested to forbid such practice in future." In the following October, the Deputy Grand Master, who presided, informed the Committee " that the Duke of Beaufort was resolved to have the Society incorporated and proposed that the Brethren present should take into serious consideration the most effectual means to raise a fund for defraying the expense of building a hall." A week later, the Hon. Charles Dillon, Deputy Grand Master, explained in Grand Lodge the plan he had submitted at the Committee of Charity. Ten resolutions were thereupon passed, which were ordered to be printed forthwith and transmitted to all the Lodges on record. By these it was provided, that certain fees should be paid by the Grand Officers annually, by new Lodges at their constitution, by Brethren at initiation or joining and for dispensations. Many further articles or regulations were subsequently added. No. XI‑November icy, 1773requires each Lodge to transmit to the Grand Secretary a list of its members, with the dates of their admission or initiation ; also their ages, together with their titles, professions, or trades ; and that five shillings be transmitted for every initiate and half‑a‑crown for each joining member as registration fees ; and that no person initiated into Masonry, after October z8, 1768, shall be entitled to partake of the General Charity, or any other of the privileges of the Grand Lodge, unless his name be duly registered and the fees paid as above.

 

Article XII, enacted February zz, 1775, is simply a plan of granting annuities for lives, with the benefit of survivorship, or in other words it merely provides the machinery for a tontine.

 

The following is the XIIIth regulation Subscribers of Cz5 as a loan, without interest, toward paying off the hall debts, to be presented with a medal, to wear as an honourable testimony of their services and to be members of the Grand Lodge; a like medal to be given to every Lodge that subscribes, to be worn by the Master; and every subscribing Lodge is allowed to send one other representative to the Grand Lodge, besides the Master and Wardens, until the money be repaid.

 

A copy of the intended Charter of Incorporation was circulated among the Lodges, three of which, including the Stewards and the Royal Lodge, memorialized Grand Lodge, to discontinue the project; another, the Caledonian Lodge, actually entered a caveat against it, in the office of the Attorney‑General.

 

On April 27, 1769, the question was put, whether the Caledonian Lodge, THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 203 No. 325, should be erased, "but on Bro. E. G. Muller, Master of the said Lodge, publickly asking pardon in the names of himself and his Lodge, the offence was forgiven." Muller, however, was expelled from Masonry, February 7, 1770, "having brought an action against B`. Preston, Master of the Ionic Lodge, who assisted in turning him out of the Committee of Charity for his gross misbehaviour there " (Grand Lodge Minutes). The Master, Wardens and Secretary of the Caledonian Lodge were likewise expelled, April 26, 1771, " for sending a letter to the P.G.M. of the Austrian Netherlands reflecting upon the Grand Lodge of England in the grossest terms " (ibid.).

 

The Deputy Grand Master then stated that 168 Lodges had declared in favour of Incorporation and 43 against it and " a motion being made whether the Society should be Incorporated or not‑it was carried in the affirmative by a great majority." The design of incorporating the Society by act of parliament was abandoned in 1771, when, in consequence of the opposition it encountered, the Hon. Charles Dillon himself moved that the consideration of the bill should be postponed sine die, which was agreed to.

 

Meanwhile, however, a considerable sum had been subscribed for the purpose of building a hall and, on April 23, 1773, a committee was appointed to assume a general superintendence of the undertaking. It consisted of the Present and Past Grand Officers, Provincial Grand Masters, the Master of the Stewards' Lodge and the Masters of such ten other Lodges, within the Bills of Mortality, as they might nominate at their first meeting. Preston, who was himself a member of this committee, says that " every measure was adopted to enforce the laws for raising a new fund to carry the designs of the Society into execution and no pains were spared by the committee to complete the purpose of their appointment." Indeed, the new board soon usurped some of the functions of the Committee of Charity and a great deal of the ordinary business of the Society was remitted to it for consideration and despatch.

 

In the following year‑November 25, 1774‑the committee reported the purchase of premises in Great Queen Street at a cost Of C,3,I5o. The foundation stone of a New Hall was laid May 1, 1775, the building itself was opened May 23, 1776 and dedicated in solemn form t0 MASONRY, VIRTUE, UNIVERSAL CHARITY and BENEVOLENCE.

 

Although the leading occurrence during the presidency of the Duke of Beaufort was the plan of an Incorporation by Royal Charter, there are other of the proceedings under the administration of that nobleman to which it is necessary to refer.

 

The increase of foreign Lodges occasioned the appointment of a new office, viz., that of Provincial Grand Master for foreign Lodges in general, which was bestowed on John Joseph de Vignoles, Esq. The metropolitan Lodges were also placed under the control of a General Inspector or Provincial Grand Master; but the majority of the London Lodges disapproving the appointment, it was soon after withdrawn. (Preston, Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 308.) zoo THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 In 177o a friendly alliance was entered into by the Grand Lodge of England with the National Grand Lodge of the United Provinces of Holland and their dependencies. The former undertook not to constitute Lodges within the jurisdic tion of the latter and the Grand Lodge of Holland promised to observe the same restriction with respect to the Grand Lodge of England in all parts of the world. In the same year the Lodges were again renumbered, by closing up the vacancies on the roll and moving the numbers of the existing Lodges forward.

 

On April 2.6, 1771, the following resolutions were moved by Bro. Derwas of the Stewards' Lodge and approved of in the following November. None of them, however, appear to have been carried into effect 1. That the law made the zd of March 1731 giving a privilege to every acting steward at the Grand Feast, of nominating his successor, be abrogated.

 

z. That there shall in future be 15 stewards instead of 1 z.

 

3. That these 15 stewards shall be nominated by the Lodges within the Bills of Mortality in rotation, beginning with the senior Lodge; each of such Lodges having power to nominate one person at the annual Grand Feast, to serve that office for the year ensuing.

 

4. That if any of the 15 Lodges in turn to nominate a steward shall decline or omit to do so, then the privilege to pass to the next Lodge in rotation.

 

Similar proposals, for throwing open the privilege of the Red Apron to all the metropolitan Lodges in succession, were made at a much later date, but the remaining resolutions, affecting the Grand Stewards' Lodge or the body of its members, passed by the older Grand Lodge of England, prior to the fusion of the two Societies, will now briefly be summarized.

 

At a Grand Lodge held February 3, 1779, a representation was made by the Master and other Brethren of the Stewards' Lodge, that it had been usual of late for Brethren who served the office oú Steward, to neglect all attendance upon the Stewards' Lodge afterwards as members ; and when summoned and called upon for their subscriptions, to declare that they never considered themselves as members, whereby the fund of that Lodge was greatly injured, their books and accounts left in a very irregular state and the actual members much disgusted. To obviate these complaints, a resolution was passed in the following terms Whereas it appears from the Book of Constitutions to have been the invariable usage of the Society, to appoint the officers of the Grand Lodge from such Brethren only who have served the office of Grand Steward, Resolved, that in future, no Brother be appointed a Grand Officer, until he shall have served the office of Steward at a Grand Feast; nor unless he be an actual subscribing member of the Stewards' Lodge at the time of his appointment.

 

On April 18, 1792, it was ordered, "that the Stewards' Lodge be placed at the head of the List of Lodges without a Number " and this position it retained THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 105 at the Union. It had previously borne the following numbers: 117 (1736), 115 (1740) 70 (1756), 6o (1770), 47 (1781).

 

In 1794, the Board of Stewards raised the price of the tickets for the Grand Feast from half a guinea to one guinea, but the alteration being objected to, it was declared improper by the Committee of Charity.

 

Lord Petre was elected Grand Master in 1772 and the first edition of the Illustrations of Masonry, which appeared in that year, was published with his official sanction. This was a distinct innovation upon the ordinary usage with regard to Masonic publications, none hitherto, the Books of Constitutions alone excepted, having received the imprimatur of the Grand Lodge. The same patronage was extended to the second edition, which appeared in 1775, in which year the author was appointed Deputy or Assistant Secretary under James Heseltine, with a salary and his Illustrations of Masonry, as well as the Freemasons' Calendar for 1777 and an Appendix to the Book, of Constitutions‑brought out under his editorial supervision ‑were advertised for sale in the printed proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England for November 13, 1776. Through the same medium Hutchinson's Spirit of Masonry and the oration delivered by Dr. Dodd at the dedication of Freemasons' Hall, were also recommended to the Fraternity.

 

The Rev. William Dodd, LL.D., was appointed Grand Chaplain May i, 1775, on which date the foundation‑stone of the new hall was laid with Masonic honours. The dedication of this building gave rise to another new office, that of Grand Architect, which was conferred on Thomas Sandby, by whom the structure was designed. Both these officers were reappointed at the next Assembly and Feast‑June 3, 1776‑but in the following April, on a representation that Dr. Dodd had been convicted of forgery and confined in Newgate, he was unanimously expelled the Society.

 

The next Grand Chaplain was the Rev. Sydney Swinney, D.D., who was appointed by the Duke of Manchester in 1781, after which year the office remained vacant until 1785, when the Rev. A. H. Eccles was selected to fill it and retained the appointment down to 1802, being succeeded by the Rev. Lucius Coghlan, D.D., who likewise held it for many years and officiated as Grand Chaplain until after the Union. He was one of the Grand Chaplains, the other being Dr. Edward Barry of the United Grand Lodge of England, invested by the Duke of Sussex in 1814. The last‑named was Chaplain of the Antient Grand Lodge from 1791 to 1813.

 

Thomas Sandby retained the title of Grand Architect until his death and is so described in the official records and calendars, although not formally reappointed after 1776. At the Grand Feast in 1799, Robert Brettingham was invested as his successor and filled the office until the recurrence of the same festival in i 8oi, when William Tyler, the Architect of the Tavern, having been proposed as a candidate for the office, the Grand Master observed that the office of Grand Architect had been conferred on Brother Sandby only as a mark of personal attachment, he having been the Architect of the Hall, but that it was never intended to be a permanent z.o6 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 office in the Society. The Grand Lodge therefore resolved that the office of Grand Architect should be discontinued, but that, in compliment to Brothers Brettingham and Tyler, both these Brethren should be permitted to attend the Grand Lodge and wear an honorary jewel as a mark of personal respect.

 

This, in effect, brought them within the provisions of a regulation passed February 14, 1776, permitting past as well as actual Grand Officers to wear distinctive jewels, upon which innovation Preston remarks How far the introduction of this new ornament is reconcilable to the original practices of the Society, I will not presume to determine ; but it is the opinion of many old Masons, that multiplying honorary distinctions, only lessen the value and importance of the real jewels, by which the acting officers of every Lodge are distinguished. (Illustrations, 1792, p. 315.) No further offices were created during the administration of Lord Petre, nor is there much to add with respect to this section of Masonic history.

 

In 1773‑April z3‑it was Resolved, that no master of a public‑house should in future be a member of any Lodge holden in his house.

 

Three days later, at the annual Feast, the Grand Secretary informed the Grand Lodge of a proposal for establishing a friendly union and correspondence with the Grand Lodge of Germany, held at Berlin, under the patronage of the Prince of Hesse‑Darmstadt, which met with general approbation.

 

On November 24, 1775, it was resolved that an Appendix to the Book, of Constitutions and also a Freemasons' Calendar, should be published, the latter in opposition to an almanac of similar name brought out by the Stationers' Company and both matters were referred to the Hall Committee.

 

An Extraordinary Grand Lodge was held April 7, 1777, consisting of the Grand Officers, the Master, Wardens and assistants of the Stewards' Lodge and the Masters of seventy‑five private Lodges.

 

The Grand Secretary informed the Brethren that the object of the meeting was to take into consideration a report from the Hall Committee, concerning the proper means of discouraging the irregular assemblies of persons calling them selves Antient Masons ; and for supporting the dignity of the Society, by advancing the fees for initiation and for new Constitutions, or the revival of old ones. The report being read, it was resolved That the Persons who assemble in London and elsewhere in the character of Masons, calling themselves Antient Masons, by virtue of an Authority from a pretended Grand Lodge in England and at present said to be under the patronage of the Duke of Athol, are not to be countenanced or acknowledged as Masons by any regular Lodge or Mason under the Constitution of England; nor shall any regular Mason be present at any of their Conventions, to give a Sanction to their Proceedings, under the Penalty of forfeiting the Privileges of the Society; neither shall any Person initiated at these irregular Meetings be admited into any Lodge without being re‑made and paying the usual Making Fees.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 207 That this Censure shall not extend to any Lodge or Mason made in Scotland or Ireland under the Constitution of either of these Kingdoms ; or to any Lodge or Mason made abroad under the Patronage of any Foreign Grand Lodge in Alliance with the Grand Lodge of England, but that such Lodges and Masons shall be deemed regular and constitutional.

 

It was also resolved, that after May 1 then ensuing, no person should be made a Mason for a less sum than two guineas. That the fee payable at the constitution of a London Lodge should be six, for a country Lodge four, guineas and that two guineas from each should be appropriated to the Hall Fund. The following resolution, which was duly passed, concluded the business of the evening That all Lodges which have not complied with the Orders and Resolutions of the Grand Lodge in regard to the Regulations for building a Hall, &c., for the Use of the Society, be erazed out of the List, unless they transmit to the Grand Secretary, on or before each Quarterly Communication, an accurate List of all Members made or admitted since October 29, 1768, with the Registering Fee stipulated by the Regulations of that Date; or give some satisfactory Excuse for their Neglect.

 

The proceedings of this meeting were of a very instructive character. First of all, we, learn that the Original Grand Lodge of England had at last realized the vitality of the Schism, as well as the expediency of adopting more decided measures to check the rebellion against authority; next, that in addition to the functions which it was primarily called upon to discharge, a large portion of the ordinary business of the Society was transacted by the Hall Committee; lastly, that very arbitrary measures were being resorted to in order to coerce the Lodges and Brethren into raising the requisite funds to balance an increasing expenditure, out of all proportion to the ordinary or normal revenue of Grand Lodge.

 

Lord Petre was succeeded as Grand Master by the Duke of Manchester, who was invested with the ensigns of his office on May i, 1777 ; after which the former nobleman returned thanks for the honours he had received in the Society, assuring the Brethren of his attachment to its interests. Nor were these mere idle words. The amiable character of Lord Petre and his zeal as a Mason, may‑to use the words of a contemporary‑‑be equalled, but cannot be surpassed. He was a Catholic, but held his religious faith without bigotry and, by his liberality and worth, won the esteem of all parties. He was generally regarded as the head of the Catholic body in this country; therefore, his continuing to preside for five years over a branch of the Society against which the thunders of the Vatican had been launched in 1738, again in 1751, affords conclusive proof that in England, towards the close of the eighteenth century, the two Bulls issued by Roman Pontiffs against the Freemasons had been devoid of any practical result.

 

Lord Petre was present at and presided over, many meetings of the Society after the termination of his tenure of office. His last attendance appears to have occurred November 24, 1791, when, though the Acting Grand Master, Lord 2.08 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 Rawdon, was present, he took the chair as Past Grand Master. He died July 3, 1801 and, after his decease, it was ascertained that he expended annually ú5,000 in charitable benefactions.

 

During the administration of the Duke of Manchester, the tranquillity of the Society was interrupted by some private dissensions. An unfortunate dispute arose among the members of the Lodge of Antiquity and the contest was introduced into the Grand Lodge, where it occupied the attention of every committee and communication for twelve months. The result was a schism, which subsisted for the space of ten years, when the two bodies‑each claiming to be No. i‑were happily reunited.

 

The Grand Master, at a Quarterly Communication held February 2, 1780, laid before the Brethren a letter in the Persian language, enclosed in an elegant cover of cloth of gold, addressed to the Grand Master and Grand Lodge of England, from Omdit ul Omrah Bahaudar, eldest son of the Nabob of Arcot. This Prince had been initiated into Masonry in the Lodge at Trichinopoly, near Madras and his letter‑which acknowledged in graceful terms a complimentary address forwarded by the Grand Lodge, on the circumstance becoming known in this country ‑was so appreciated by the Brethren, that a translation of it was ordered to be copied on vellum and, with the original, to be elegantly framed and glazed and hung up in the Hall at every public meeting of the Society.

 

At the ensuing Grand Feast, Captain George Smith was appointed junior Grand Warden, though the Grand Secretary objected; that, being then Provincial Grand Master for Kent, he was disqualified for serving that office. Ultimately the objection was waived, Captain Smith offering to resign the Provincial GrandMastership, should the union of both offices in the same person prove incompatible. In the following November, a letter was read from Captain Smith, resigning the office of junior Grand Warden, but to prevent a similar difficulty occurring, it was resolved " that it is incompatible with the laws of this Society, for any Brother to hold more than one office in the Grand Lodge at the same time." At this Grand Lodge, the Grand Master was empowered, in consequence of the great increase of business, to appoint a joint Grand Secretary, with equal power and rank in the Society and William White, Master of the Stewards' Lodge, was thereupon appointed to that office.

 

On February 7, 1781, at the request of the Grand Lodge of Germany, Brother John Leonhardi was appointed their representative at the Grand Lodge of England and it was also resolved, that Brother Leonhardi should wear the clothing of a Grand Officer and rank next to Past Grand Officers, at all public meetings of the Society.

 

At the Communication in April 1782, the prospect of establishing a fraternal alliance, still nearer home, was discussed at some length. A report was brought up from the Committee of Charity, that the Grand Lodge of Scotland was disposed to enter into a regular correspondence and, after long debate, it was unanimously resolved, that it be recommended to the Grand Master, to use every means which THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 209 in his wisdom he may think proper, for promoting a correspondence and good understanding with the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland, so far as might be consistent with the laws of the Society.

 

At the same meeting, H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland and Earl Ferrers were severally proposed for the office of Grand Master and, on the question being put, the former was elected by a very great majority.

 

A motion was then made by Brother Dagge, that whenever a Prince of the Blood did the Society the honour to accept the office of Grand Master, he should be at liberty to nominate any peer of the realm to be the Acting Grand Master, which passed unanimously in the affirmative.

 

The Earl of Effingham was appointed to the new office and, as proxy for the Duke of Cumberland, was installed and invested at the ensuing Feast.

 

At a Communication, held April 9, 1783, among the Minutes of the preceding Committee of Charity, then confirmed, was one, representing that the Grand Secretary, Heseltine, had requested the opinion of the Committee, on an application made to him by Captain George Smith, to procure the sanction of the Grand Lodge for a book he intended to publish, entitled, The Use and Abuse of Free Masonry; and that the Committee, after mature consideration, had resolved, that it be recorrimended to the Grand Lodge not to grant any sanction for such intended publication.

 

Of the work in question, it has been well said, " that it would not at the present day enhance the reputation of its writer, but at the time when it appeared there was a great dearth. of Masonic literature‑Anderson, Calcott, Hutchinson and Preston, being the only authors of any repute that had as yet written on the subject of Masonry. There was much historical information contained within its pages and some few suggestive thoughts on the symbolism and philosophy of the Order." Captain Smith held an appointment in the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and was a member of a Lodge at that town, the proceedings of which formed the subject of inquiry at a Grand Lodge held November icy, 1783, when Captain G. Smith and Thomas Brooke were charged with the offence of " making Masons in a clandestine manner in the King's Bench Prison." In a written defence, it was pleaded that " there being several Masons in the Prison, they had assembled as such for the benefit of instruction and had also advanced some of them to the 3rd Degree. But a doubt arising whether it could be done with propriety, the Royal Military Lodge, No. 371, at Woolwich, adjourned with their Constitution for that purpose to the King's Bench Prison (Captain Smith being Master thereof), being one of those itinerant Lodges which move with the Regiment, the Master of which, wherever he is, having the Constitution of the Lodge, was by Captain Smith judged to have a right to hold a Lodge, make Masons, etc. That this happened previous to Thomas Brooke coming to the prison, but that he afterwards attended their meetings, not thinking it any harm." The two Brethren concluded their defence by " begging pardon of the Grand Lodge for any error they had committed " and expressing a hope, " that grace would be granted to them." Whereupon it was resolved " That it is the opinion of this Grand Lodge, that it is inconsistent with the principles  F. III‑f 209 210 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 of Masonry, that any Free Mason's Lodge can be regularly held for the purposes of making, passing, or raising Masons in any Prison or Place of confinement." At the next Quarterly Communication‑February i i, 1784‑the Royal Military Lodge, No. 371, was erased from the list and, in the following November, it was ordered that Captain Smith‑whose name disappears from the calendar of that year as a Provincial Grand Master‑should be summoned before the next Committee of Charity to answer for his complicity in a misdemeanour of a still graver character. The charge was proved to the satisfaction of that tribunal and, at a Quarterly Communication, held February 2, 1785 Captain John George Smith, late Provincial Grand Master for the County of Kent, having been charged with uttering an Instrument purporting to be a certificate of the Grand Lodge, recommending two distressed Brethren ; and he not appearing, or in any Manner exculpating himself, though personally summoned to appear for that Purpose, was duly expelled the Society.

 

A new edition of the Constitutions, which had been sanctioned in 1782, was brought out in 1784, under the direction of the Hall Committee, who secured the services of John Noorthouck (author of the New History of London, 1773 and Historical and Classical Dictionary, 1776) as editor or compiler. The work reflects credit on all who were concerned in its publication; the constant repetition of mere formal business and of the names of stewards and members present at the stated meetings of the Society, are very properly omitted, whilst it possesses a full index, " without which," as rightly observed by the editor, " no publication beyond the size of a pamphlet, can be deemed compleat." At the Grand Feast, in this year, James Hesel_tine, declining a reappointment, William White became sole Grand Secretary. The services of the former were gracefully recognized in 1785 byhis appointment as Senior Grand Warden, a position, however, which he resigned six months later, on being unanimously elected to the office of Grand Treasurer, November 23, 1785, vacant by the death of Rowland Berkeley.

 

The same evening a new office was created, that of Grand Portrait Painter and conferred on the Rev. William Peters, in acknowledgment of his elegant present of the portrait of Lord Petre, which, it was considered, " opened a Prospect to the Society of having its Hall ornamented with the successive Portraits of the Grand Masters in future." The Grand Portrait Painter ranked after the Grand Architect and before the Grand Sword‑Bearer. The office was regarded as a purely personal one, to be held by Peters, quamdiu se bene gesserit and, though his name is not included in the list of annual appointments declared on the Grand Feast Day, it duly appears among those of the Grand Officers of the Society published in successive editions of the Freemasons' Calendar, from 1787 to 1814. The new Grand Officer proved himself to have been in every way worthy of the mark of distinction conferred by the Grand Lodge;


 


THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 211 and, on November 28, 1787, a resolution was passed, conveying the thanks of that body to the Rev. W. Peters, G.P.P., for " his kind Superintendance and great Liberality, in the beautifying and ornamenting of the Hall." On April 12, 1786, complaint was made of the intolerant spirit of some of the regulations of the Grand Lodge at Berlin and the Grand Master and the Grand Officers were empowered to take such measures as they thought necessary for abrogating or altering the compact between the two Grand Lodges, entered into in 1773. The subject does not appear to have been further discussed at any subsequent communication of Grand Lodge, until November 26, 1788, when it was stated that the Grand Master and Grand Officers had found it expedient to dissolve and annul the compact referred to. At the same meeting a provisional agreement, entered into with the Provincial Grand Lodge of Frankfort, was laid before and ratified by Grand Lodge.

 

In November 1786 Admiral Sir Peter Parker was appointed to the office of Deputy Grand Master, which had become vacant by the death of Rowland Holt. The new Deputy, who was a distinguished naval commander, had previously served as Grand Steward and Grand Warden and then held the office of Provincial Grand Master for Jamaica. At this Grand Lodge also a motion was passed, that " in future the Grand Secretary be allowed a salary of úloo per annum for himself and clerks, exclusive of the usual fees " ; and it was resolved unanimously that the Rank of a Past Senior Grand Warden (with the Right of taking Place immediately next to the present Senior Grand Warden) be granted to Thomas Dunckerley, Esq., Provincial Grand Master for Dorset, Essex, Gloucester, Somerset and Southampton, with the City and County of Bristol and the Isle of Wight, in grateful Testimony of the high Sense the Grand Lodge entertains of his zealous and indefatigable Exertions, for many years, to promote the Honour and Interest of the Society.

 

The story of Dunckerley's life is not an easy one to relate. According to one set of biographers, his mother was the daughter of a physician (Freemasons' Magazine, vol. i, 1793, p. 378, vol. iv, 1796, p. 96 ; and, according to another, she was a servant girl in the family of Sir Robert Walpole (Gentleman's Magazine, 1795, pt. ii, P. 1052). By the former he is said to have been a natural son of King George II ; whilst by the latter he is alleged to have availed himself of the remarkable likeness he bore to the Royal Family, to get it represented to George III that the previous king was in truth his father. These accounts of his parentage are irreconcilable and some other difficulties present themselves when the two biographies are collated. Certain facts, however, are free from dispute. Born October 23, 1724, he was apprenticed to a barber and, very shortly afterwards, entered the naval service, from which he retired, with the rank of gunner, about 1764. His mother's apartments at Somerset House‑where her husband, his putative father, had been a porter‑were continued to him, by order (it is said) of the Duke of Devonshire. On May 7, 1767, a pension of Cioo a year was assigned to him by the king, from his 21z THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 176i‑813 privy purse, which was afterwards increased to C8oo, though with regard to the latter amount the evidence is hardly conclusive.

 

According to the stream of Masonic writers who all derive their information from the same fount‑the Freemasons' Magazine, Vols. I to IV, published in the eighteenth century‑Dunckerley was told of his close relation to George II in 176o, by a Mrs. Pinkney, for many years his mother's neighbour in Somerset House, to whom the secret had been confided by the latter. He was then on leave of absence from H.M.S. Vanguard, which had just arrived from Quebec; it has been asked, with much force, why he made no effort to communicate with any of the Royal Family until after the death of Mrs. Pinkney, the sole witness he had to verify his singular story. (Freemasons' Chronicle, December 7, 1878.) But whatever may be the true explanation of this mystery, he apparently at once rejoined his ship, which forthwith sailed for the Mediterranean. According to his own account, he was appointed gunner of the Vanguard by Admiral Boscawen and to the same position in the Prince by Lord Anson. The dates he gives as to these appointments are a little confusing ; but there can be no doubt that he served in both vessels and on board of each there was a Lodge. As one of these (i.e. the Prince) ultimately became the Somerset House Lodge, of which Dunckerley was undoubtedly a member, it is at least a reasonable supposition that he was in some way connected with the other (now the London Lodge, No. io8). Indeed, we may go still further and assume the strong probability of his having been the originator and founder of the Lodge on Board H.M.S. Canceaux, at Quebec, No. 224, which, together with five other Lodges in Canada, appears for the first time on the roll, in the Engraved List for 1770, immediately below the Merchants' Lodge, Quebec, No. ZZo, constituted in 1762 and next but one to the Somerset House Lodge, formerly on Board the Prince, also dating from 1762.

 

No other Sea Lodges than these three were constituted either before or since. One we know him to have been a member of. Another was held in the Vanguard, No. 254, constituted January 16, 176o‑in which, at the time, he held the positions of gunner and " teacher of the mathematicks "‑whilst the third was very possibly an offshoot of the other two. The Lodge, No. 224, is described in the official list as being on board a ship of war at Quebec.

 

It is a little curious that one of the five Lodges‑No. 226‑placed on the roll at the same time as No. 224, is there described as " In the 5 Zd Regt. of Foot, at Quebec." Thus at what has been termed" the Gibraltar of America," we find that in 1762 there was both a Sea and a Field Lodge; and it is almost certain that some others of the latter character had accompanied the expedition under General Wolfe (1759). Dunckerley, whilst on the North American station, indeed throughout the whole period of his service afloat‑after his admission into the Craft‑was doubtless an occasional visitor at Army Lodges. Most of these were under the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which issued no fewer than fifty‑one military warrants between 1732 and 1762 inclusive. The profound knowledge, therefore, of Royal Arch Masonry, which has been traditionally ascribed to Thomas Dunckerley, may have been THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 213 acquired in Irish Lodges, which doubtless worked the Degree in his time‑though it must freely be confessed that the common belief in the profundity of his Masonic learning is destitute of evidence to support it. He was initiated into Masonry on January 10, 1754 and is said to have delivered a lecture " on' Masonic Light, Truth and Charity " (printed by Dr. Oliver in his Masonic Institutes, vol. i, 1847, p. 137), at Plymouth in 1757, which is not so well substantiated. But even if we concede that the lecture in question was really given as alleged, it proves very little‑merely that Dunckerley was capable of stringing together a quantity of platitudes and constructing a sort of Masonic oration rather below than above the ordinary level of such performances.

 

The rank of Grand Warden may have been conferred out of respect to the Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master, whose uncle he was very generally supposed to be.

 

Dunckerley, who died in 1795, was a very worthy member of the Craft; but the loose statements of Dr. Oliver that " he was the oracle of the Grand Lodge and the accredited interpreter of its Constitutions " ; also that " his decision was final on all points, both of doctrine and discipline," are simply untrue‑which is the more to be regretted, as they have been copied and re‑copied by the generality of later writers.

 

At the next Quarterly Communication, held February 7, 1787, it was resolved that the sum of CI 5o be paid annually to the Grand Secretary and his clerks and that all fees should be carried to the account of the Society.

 

At the same meeting the Grand Master (who presided) stated that the Prince of Wales had been initiated into Masonry at a special Lodge held for that purpose at the Star and Garter, Pall Mall, on the previous evening. Whereupon the following resolution was passed by a unanimous vote That in testimony of the high sense the Grand Lodge entertains of the Great Honour conferred on the Society by the Initiation of the Prince of Wales, His Royal Highness shall be a member of the Grand Lodge, shall take Place next to and on the Right Hand of, the Grand Master.

 

A resolution of a similar, though not quite identical character, was passed at the next meeting of Grand Lodge, when it being announced that Prince William Henry‑afterwards King William IV‑had been received into Masonry in the Prince George Lodge, No. 86, Plymouth, it was proposed and carried without a dissentient vote, that an Apron lined with blue silk should be presented to H.R.H. and that, in all future Processions, he should rank as a Past Grand Master of the Society.

 

Precisely the same compliment was paid to other sons of King George III, all of whom, with the exception of the Duke of Cambridge, became members of the Craft‑the Duke of York, in the Britannic Lodge, No. 29, November 21, 1787; Prince Edward, afterwards Duke of Kent, in the Union Lodge, Geneva; 214 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 Prince Ernest, afterwards Duke of Cumberland and King of Hanover, at the house of the Earl of Moira, May i 1, 1796 ; and Prince Augustus, afterwards Duke of Sussex, in the Royal York Lodge of Friendship, Berlin, in 1798. Prince William, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, the King's nephew and son‑in‑law, was also a Freemason, having been initiated in the Britannic Lodge, May iz, 1795. He was accorded the usual privileges voted to Brethren of the Blood Royal, April 13, 1796. On March 25, 1788, the Royal Freemasons' Charity for Female Childrennow called the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls‑was established for maintaining, clothing and educating the female children and orphans of indigent Brethren. This Charity owes its existence mainly to the benevolent exertions of the Chevalier Bartholomew Ruspini. Here it will be sufficient to remark, that at a Grand Lodge, held February i o, 179o, an annual subscription of úz 5 was voted to the Institution ; and, on a motion by the Grand Treasurer, it was resolved unanimously That the charitable Institution, called THE ROYAL CUMBERLAND FREEMASONS' SCHOOL, established for the Support and Education of the Daughters of indigent Free‑Masons, should be announced in the Grand Treasurer's printed Accounts and also in the Free‑Masons' Calendar and that it be recommended to the Attention of the Society at large, as a Charity highly deserving their Support.

 

On February 6, 1793, a donation of twenty guineas was voted to the School and it was again recommended " as an Institution highly deserving the most effectual Support of the Lodges and Brethren in general " ; also, in almost identical terms, on February 8, 1804.

 

On May 4, 1789, the annual Feast of the Society was attended by the Duke of Cumberland‑Grand Master‑the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, Prince William Henry and above five hundred other Brethren.

 

In the following year, at the recurrence of the same Festival, Lord Rawdon ‑afterwards Earl of Moira and, later, Marquess of Hastings‑was appointed Acting Grand Master in the room of the Earl of Effingham and retained that position under the Prince of Wales, who was elected Grand Master, November z4, 1790.

 

On April 18, 179z, the Lodges were again ordered to be renumbered and, in the following May, at the Grand Feast, the Prince of Wales was installed Grand Master in the presence of the Duke of York, Lord Rawdon and a numerous company of Brethren.

 

The first number of the Freemasons' Magazine or General and Complete Library appeared in June 1793 and was continued monthly‑ till the close of 1798, when its title was changed. During a portion of its brief existence, it was published with the sanction of Grand Lodge.

 

The Prince of Wales again presided at a Grand Feast, held May 13, 1795. The Grand Master was supported by his brother, the Duke of Clarence ; and his cousin, Prince William, afterwards Duke of Gloucester. H.R.H. expressed his warmest wishes for the prosperity of the Society and concluded with a graceful compliment to the Acting Grand Master, the Earl of Moira, whom he styled " the THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 215 man of his heart and the friend he admired," hoping " that he might long live to superintend the government of the Craft and extend the principles of the Art." (Preston, Illustrations of Masonry, 1821, p. 301.) In 1794, when the situation of the British army and that of the allies in Flanders were extremely critical, the Earl of Moira‑who, in the previous year, had succeeded to the title and had been promoted to the rank of major‑general‑was despatched with a reinforcement of ten thousand men and fortunately succeeded in effecting a junction with the Duke of York, then nearly surrounded by hostile forces much superior in number. The French general, Pichegru, who was in the vicinity of Bruges with a force much greater than the British, was completely out‑generalled. This was one of the most extraordinary marches of which military history affords an example. After the Earl of Moira had cleared the French armies and was passing the Austrian corps under Field‑Marshal Clarfayt, the latter said to him, " My Lord, you have done what was impossible." Two works were published in 1797, which, though now seldom read and never cited in Masonic controversies, produced an immense sensation at the time and evoked an elaborate defence of the Society from the Earl of Moira. That illustrious Brother, however, in i 8og, practically admitted the justice of the strictures, which nine years previously he had applied himself to refute, by speaking of " mischievous combinations on the Continent, borrowing and, prostituting the respectable name of Masonry and sowing disaffection and sedition through the communities within which they were protected." The publications to which reference has been made were written by the Abbe Barruel and Professor Robison, both of them Freemasons, in the same year and without mutual consultation.

 

The former writer was the author of Memoires pour servir d Phistoire du Jacobinisme ‑translated into English by the Hon. Robert Clifford, in 1798‑and the latter of Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.

 

Both works aimed at proving that a secret association had been formed and for many years carried on, for rooting out all the religious establishments and overturning all the existing governments of Europe ; and that this association had em ployed, as its chief instruments, the Lodges of Freemasons, who were under the direction of unknown superiors, whose emissaries were everywhere busy to complete the scheme (Illustrations, 1821, p. 308). The Abbe had the candour to admit, that the occult Lodges of the Illuminati were unknown in the British Isles and that the English Freemasons were not implicated in the charges he had made‑but the Professor did not think it worth while to except the English Lodges from the reproach of being seditious, until his work reached a second edition, when he admits that " while the Freemasonry of the Continent was perverted to the most profligate and impious purposes, it retained in Britain its original form, simple and unadorned and the Lodges remained the scenes of innocent merriment, or meetings of charity and beneficence." So that, after all, his charges are not against Freemasonry in 2.16 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 its original constitution, but against its corruption in a time of great political excitement. Indeed, to use the well‑chosen words in which the author of the famous Illustrations of Masonry sums up the whole controversy The best of doctrines has been corrupted and the most sacred of all institutions prostituted, to base and unworthy purposes. The genuine Mason, duly considering this, finds a consolation in the midst of reproach and apostasy ; and, while he despises the one, will endeavour by his own example to refute the other. (Edit. 1821, P. 312.) On July 12, 1799, an Act of Parliament was passed, " for the more effectual suppression of societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes and for preventing treasonable and seditious practices." By this Statute‑39 Geo. III, c. 79‑it was enacted that all societies, the members whereof are required to take any oath not authorized by law, shall be deemed unlawful combinations and their members shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful combination and confederacy and shall be liable to a penalty of C2o.

 

Societies, however, " held under the Denomination of Lodges of Freemasons," were expressly exempted from the operation of the Act, because their meetings " have been in great measure directed to charitable Purposes " ; but it is " Provided always, That this Exemption shall not extend to any such Society unless Two of the Members composing the same shall certify upon Oath . . . that such Society or Lodge has, before the passing of this Act, been usually held under the Denomination of a Lodge of Freemasons and in conformity to the Rules prevailing among the Societies or Lodges of Free Masons in this Kingdom. . . . Provided also, that this Exemption shall not extend to any such Society or Lodge, unless the Name or Denomination thereof and the usual Place or Places and the Time or Times of its Meetings and the Names and Descriptions of all and every the Members thereof, be registered with such Clerk of the Peace as aforesaid, within two months after the passing of this Act and also on or before the Twenty‑fifth Day of March in every succeeding Year." The insertion oÇ these clauses was due to the combined efforts of the Duke of Atholl (Ahiman Re!Zon, 1807, p. 118) and Lord Moira. Indeed, the latter subsequently affirmed (see Lyon, p. 265) that the exemption in favour of Masonic meetings was admitted into the Act in consequence of his assurance to Mr. Pitt " that nothing could be deemed a Lodge which did not sit by precise authorization from the Grand Lodge and under its direct superintendence." But this statement, though emanating from the Bayard of the English Craft, is a little misleading. Doubtless the Freemasons were chiefly beholden to the Earl of Moira for the saving clauses of the Act‑an obligation most amply acknowledged by the Society at large by the Duke of Sussex in a speech delivered January 27, 1813. But, nevertheless, the letter of the Acting Grand Master, as he then was in both kingdoms, was based on wrong premises and suggested to the civil authorities THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 217 a course not in keeping with the principle of the Statute to which it referred (Lyon, p. 267). The Bill was much modified in its passage through Committee; but " the Act was ultimately framed so as to embrace as participants in its immunities ALL Lodges of Freemasons complying with its requirements, irrespective of any Grand Lodge control." On the passing of the Statute, it was assumed that no new Lodges could be constituted and, at a Grand Lodge, held November Zo, 1799, the common threat of erasure from the list for non‑compliance with its arbitrary regulations was invested with a new terror. The necessity of conforming to the laws was once more laid down, followed by this note of warning It behoves every Lodge to be particularly careful not to incur a Forfeiture of its Constitution at the present Period, as, in Consequence of the late Act of Parliament, no new Constitution can be granted.

 

Immediately after the passing of the Act, the Grand Lodge of Scotland consulted the Lord Advocate as to whether they might interpret the Act as applying to Grand Lodges, therefore enabling new subordinate Lodges to be constituted. He replied It appears to me impossible to maintain . . . that a Lodge of Free Masons, instituted since the i zth of July last, can be entitled to the benefit of the Statute. . . . The interpretation suggested cannot be adopted; and he concluded by advising them to go to Parliament for powers to establish new Lodges. (Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1859, p. 161.) Ultimately‑as we are told by Lawrie‑the Grand Lodge agreed, in i 806, upon the recommendation of the Earl of Moira, then Acting Grand Master Elect (of Scotland), to adopt the practice of the Grand Lodge of England, viz., to assign to new Lodges the numbers and charters of Lodges that had become dormant, or had ceased to hold regular meetings.

 

The practice, however, of the Grand Lodge of England, in this respect, has been slightly misstated. The Grand Master was frequently authorized to assign the warrants of erased Lodges " to other Brethren," but there was always the proviso, " with Numbers subsequent to the last on the List of Lodges." (Cf. Freemasons' Calendar, 1810, p. 34.) By a further Statute, 57 Geo. III, c. ig, passed on March 31, 1817, it was enacted that all Societies, the members whereof are required " to take any Oath not required or authorized by Laws, . . . shall be deemed and taken to be unlawful Combinations and Confederacies " and the members thereof " shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful Combination and Confederacy " and shall be punished as provided by 39 Geo. III, c. 79.

 

218 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 But by the next clause of the same Act, all societies " holden under the Denomination of Lodges of Free Masons, in conformity to the Rules prevailing in such Societies of Freemasons," are exempted from the operation of the Act, " provided such Lodges shall comply with the Rules and Regulations contained in the said Act of the Thirty‑ninth Year of His present Majesty, relating to such Lodges of Freemasons." It has been judicially determined, that an association, the members of which are bound by oath not to disclose its secrets, is an unlawful combination and confederacy‑unless expressly declared by some statute to be legal‑for whatever purpose or object it may be formed; and the administering an oath not to reveal anything done in such association is an offence within the Stat. 37 Geo. III, c. 123,5 'At a Grand Lodge, held April io, 1799, the Baron de Silverhjelm, Minister from the King of Sweden to the Court of Great Britain, presented to the Grand Master in the chair a letter from the National Grand Lodge of Sweden, soliciting a social union and correspondence, which was unanimously acceded to. (Illustrations, 18z1, pp. 3zo, et seq.) At the same meeting, the Earl of Moira, who presided, " acquainted the Grand Lodge that several Brethren had established a Masonic Benefit Society, by a small quarterly contribution, through which the members would be entitled to a weekly Allowance in Case of Sickness or Disability of Labour, on a Scale of greater Advantage than attends other Benefit‑Societies ; representing that the Plan appeared to merit not only the Countenance of Individuals, but of the Grand Lodge, as it would eventually be the Means of preventing many Applications for Relief to the Fund of Charity, whereupon it was‑ RESOLVED, That the Masonic Benefit Society meets with the Approbation of the Grand Lodge and that notice thereof be inserted in the printed Account of the Grand Lodge.

 

In the following year‑April 9, 18oo‑a further resolution was passed recommending to the Provincial Grand Masters " to give every Aid and Assistance in their Power, within their respective Provinces, to promote the Object and Intentions of the Masonic Benefit Society." The institution of this Society is included among the " Remarkable Occurrences in Masonry" printed in the Freemasons' Calendar for i 8oi and is continued in subsequent editions down to the year 1814, possibly later ; but the earliest post Union calendar available for present reference is the edition for 1817, in which there is no mention of the Benefit Society. (Illustrations of Masonry, 1821, PP‑ 319, 3zo.) On May 15, 18oo, the King was fired at from the pit of Drury Lane Theatre arid, at a Special Grand Lodge, held June 3, the Earl of Moira informed the Brethren that it had been convened for the purpose of considering a suitable address to be presented to His Majesty.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑A13 2‑1 9 The Acting Grand Master took occasion, in the course of his Speech, to allude to certain modern Publications holding forth to the World the Society of Masons as a League against constituted Authorities : An Imputation the more secure because the known Conditions of our Fellowship make it certain that no Answer can be published. It is not to be disputed, that in countries where impolitic Prohibitions restrict the Communication of Sentiment, the Activity of the human mind may, among other Means of baffling the Control, have resorted to the Artifice of borrowing the Denomination of Free‑Masons, to cover Meetings for seditious Purposes, just as any other Description might be assumed for the same object : But, in the first place, it is the invaluable Distinction of this free country that such a just Intercourse of Opinions exist, without Restraint, as cannot leave to any number of Men the Desire of forming or frequenting those disguised Societies where dangerous Dispositions may be imbibed: and, secondly, profligate Doctrines, which may have been nurtured in any such self‑established Assemblies, could never have been tolerated for a Moment in any Lodge meeting under regular Authority. We aver that not only such Laxity of Opinion has no Sort of Connexion with the Tenets of Masonry, but is diametrically opposed to the Injunction which we regard as the Foundation‑Stone of the Lodge, namely, " Fear God and Honour the King." In Confirmation of this solemn Assertion, what can we advance more irrefragible, than that so many of His Majesty's illustrious Family stand in the highest Order of Masonry, are fully instructed in all its Tendencies and have intimate Knowledge of every Particular in its current Administration under the Grand Lodge of England.

 

Lord Moira then produced an Address, which was read and unanimously approved and afterwards personally presented to the King by his son, the Prince of Wales, Grand Master of the Society. , Another Address, couched in similar terms of loyalty and affection, was voted by the Fraternity under the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Atholl and signed by order of that Grand Lodge‑June z4, i8oo‑by " Wm. Dickey, Deputy Grand Master." On February io, i8oz, a friendly alliance was resumed with the Lodges in Berlin and at the Grand Feast‑May i z‑on the application of four Lodges in Portugal, it was agreed to exchange representatives with the Grand Lodge there and that the Brethren belonging to each Grand Lodge should be equally entitled to the privileges of the other.

 

In 18o S the Earl of Moira, who then combined the functions of Acting Grand Master of English Freemasons with those of Commander of the Forces in Scotland, became the happy medium through which his own and the Grand Lodge of the Northern Kingdom were brought into fraternal union. In the same year‑November z7‑and through the same channel, a correspondence on terms of amity and brotherly communication was arranged with the Grand Lodge of Prussia.

 

Also at this Grand Lodge, the Brethren, to mark their sense of the services rendered to Masonry by the Acting Grand Master, " agreed that the Fraternity should dine together on December 7, it being the birthday of Earl Moira." Zzo THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 This practice continued to be observed by a large number of the metropolitan Lodges until the departure of that nobleman for India ; a survival of it still exists in the Moira Lodge, No. C92, which holds its annual festival on December 7, when the toast of the evening is, " the memory of Earl Moira, the patron of the Lodge." On December 31, i 8og, the foundation‑stone of Covent Garden Theatre was laid by the Prince of Wales, as Grand Master of England and Scotland. Passing over those events which formed any part of the protracted negotiations that preceded the Union, we are brought down to 1812, on February 1 z of which year the Duke of Sussex was appointed Deputy Grand Master, in succession to Sir Robert Parker, Admiral of the Fleet, who died in the previous December. At the ensuing Grand Feast, May 13, the Grand Lodge having resolved that a Grand Organist should be appointed, the Acting Grand Master accordingly nominated Samuel Wesley to that office.

 

In the course of this year the Earl of Moira was appointed Governor‑General of India and it was considered by the Fraternity as only due to his exalted merit, to entertain him at a farewell banquet before his departure from England and to present him with a valuable Masonic jewel, as a memorial of their gratitude for his eminent services.

 

January 27, 1813, was the day appointed and more than five hundred Brethren attended, including six royal dukes. The Duke of Sussex, as Deputy Grand Master, took the chair, being supported on the right by the Earl of Moira, on the left by the Duke of York. There were also present the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, Cumber land and Gloucester. The speeches were far above the ordinary level of such per formances. In happy terms, the chairman characterized the exertions of the Earl as having saved the Society from total destruction ; whilst in terms still happier, the guest of the evening acknowledged the compliment.

 

On Lord Moira's passage to India, the vessel in which he had embarked calling at the Mauritius‑as the head of the Masons of that island, he laid the first stone of the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Port Louis.

 

The Earl of Moira remained nine years in India and brought two wars to a successful termination. At the termination of his rule, every native state in that vast region was in either acknowledged or essential subjugation to our Government. James Mill, the historian of British India, says The administration of the Marquess of Hastings may be regarded as the completion of the great scheme of which Clive had laid the foundation and Warren Hastings and the Marquess of Wellesley had reared the superstructure. The crown ing pinnacle was the work of Lord Hastings and by him was the supremacy of the British Empire in India finally established.

 

In 1823, having in the meantime, December 7, 1816, been created Marquess of Hastings, he returned to England, whence, in the following year, he proceeded to Malta as Governor and Commander‑in‑Chief. He died November 28, 18z6, on board H.M.S. Revenge, at Baix Bay, near Naples.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 221 Contemporary records state that his excessive liberality and unbounded generosity had so impoverished him, that his ample fortune absolutely sank under the benevolence of his nature.

 

Before leaving Calcutta, he was presented with an address by the Freemasons (Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1836, p. S 3) and the late Sir James Burnes has placed on record how his Lordship, impressed with devotion for the Craft and love for all the Brethren, descended from his high estate as Governor‑General and Commanderin‑Chief in India and, within the halls of his own palace, offered the right hand of fellowship, with his parting benediction, to every soldier, individually, who wore an apron; acknowledging, also, his pride, that Masonic principles had influenced him in the exercise of his authority. (Ibid., 1846, p. i zq.) Whilst in the East, Lord Moira was styled " Acting Grand Master in India." The Regency of the United Kingdom was conferred by parliament upon the Prince of Wales, in February 1811, who, however, continued to preside over the Fraternity until 1813, when, declining a re‑election, the Duke of Sussex was unanimously chosen as his successor‑the Prince Regent shortly afterwards accepting the title of Grand Patron of the Society.

 

The Duke of Sussex was installed at the Grand Feast, held May 12, 1813 and the following Brethren were also invested as Grand officers : Lord Dundas, Deputy ; John Aldridge and Simon M'Gillivray, Wardens; John Bayford, Treasurer; W. H. White, Secretary; Rev. Lucius Coghlan, Chaplain; Chevalier Ruspini, Sword Bearer; and Samuel Wesley, Organist.

 

It has been truly said, " that the Duke of Sussex's whole heart was bent on accomplishing that great desideratum of Masons, the Union of the Two Fraternities who had been mistermed Ancient and Modern; and his high station in life certainly carried with it an influence which could not have been found in a humbler individual. (Preston, Illustrations, p. 367.) On November 4, 1779, the laws for the contribution of Lodges to the Hall Fund were ordered to be enforced and, at a Grand Lodge Extraordinary, consisting of the actual and past Grand Officers and the Masters of Lodges, held January 8, 1783, a variety of resolutions were passed imposing further regulations of a most onerous character.

 

" How far," observes Preston, " they are consistent with the original plan of the Masonic institution, must be left to abler judges to determine. In earlier periods of our history, such compulsory regulations were unnecessary." At a special Grand Lodge, held March 2o, 1788, it was resolved to pull down and rebuild Freemason's Tavern and, in order to augment the finances of the Society, it was ordered, that in London and within ten miles thereof, the fee for registry should be half a guinea, instead of five shillings, as stipulated by the regulation of October z8, 1768.

 

At this meeting also, a very extraordinary resolution was passed, that Lodges Zzz THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑x 8I 3 omitting for twelve months to comply with the preceding regulation should not be permitted to send Representatives, to or have any Vote in, the Grand Lodge.

 

On February 7, 1798, on the ground that debts had accumulated to the amount of C7,000, on account of the Hall and Tavern and that the sum of Cz 5 o was payable yearly under the Tontine, it was ordered, that every Lodge do pay, at the Grand Lodge in February, yearly to the account of the Hall Fund, two shillings for every subscribing member, over and besides all other payments directed to be made.

 

This regulation not being generally complied with, a committee was appointed to consider the best means of giving it due effect, on whose recommendation, it was resolved‑November zo, I799‑that it was the duty of Lodges to expel such of their members as neglected to make the prescribed payments, for which the former were accountable to the Grand Lodge and would be erased from the list for withholding, after February i z, then ensuing.

 

Country Lodges were afterwards given until November 1 Boo to pay their arrears, but the additional fee imposed February 7, 1798, was not abolished until the same date in 18 i o.

 

According to Preston, " the Lodges readily concurred in the plan of liquidating the debts," but this was not so. The number of Lodges erased from the list was very great. No fewer than nine in the metropolitan district were struck off at one swoop on February i z, i 8oo ; and, in previous years, from 1768, in which nineteen Lodges were removed from the roll, down to the close of the century, the erasures mount up to a total of two hundred and forty‑seven. Some of these, it is true, lapsed in the ordinary way, but the greater number were summarily struck out for not contributing to the Hall Fund. Others were restored ; for instance, on November 17, 1784, five Lodges were reinstated in their rank‑four of which had. been deprived of it in the previous April‑" having satisfied the Grand Lodge with their Intentions of discharging their Arrears." But in the great majority of cases, the erased Lodges ceased to exist, or went over to the Antients and the sentiments of the Sarum Lodge, No. 37, with regard to the arbitrary measures pursued by the Grand Lodge were, without doubt, shared by many other Lodges of that era, whose records have not yet fallen in the way of an equally competent investigator.

 

Besides the Lodges that have been incidentally referred to, we find from the official calendars, that Warrants of Constitution, under the authority of the Original Grand Lodge of England, found their way into North Carolina, 175 5 ; Quebec, 176z ; Honduras, 1763 ; Maryland, 1765 ; Bordeaux and Normandy, 1766; Grenoble, Canton (China) and Berlin, 1767; Naples, 1768 ; Sweden, 1769; the Austrian Netherlands, 1770 ; Leghorn and St. Petersburg, 1771 ; Strasbourg, Venice, Verona and Turin, 1775 ; Sicily, 1778 ; Malta, 1789 ; and Sumatra, 1796. Sea and Field Lodges, as they are happily termed in Multa Pauris, were.constituted in 176o and 175 5 respectively, the former on board His Majesty's ship the Vanguard, the latter in the 8th or King's Regiment of Foot.

 

It may be convenient to add, that, at the date of the Union (1813), the number of

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 223   Continental Lodges‑active or dormant‑shown on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England was as follows, viz. : in Germany, 3 5 ; Italy, 11 ; Russia, 8 ; Holland, 5 ; Flanders, 4 ; France and Sweden, 3. At the same period there were 15 Lodges in Military Corps, not stationary.

 

Numerous Lodges were established for the association of particular classes of Masons. Thus the Grand Stewards were formed into a Lodge in 173 5 and there were Lodges existing in the Army, Navy and Marines, in 1755, 1759 and 1761 respectively. A Sea Captains' Lodge was constituted at Wapping in 1751 and another at Yarmouth in 1759. The former afterwards moved to Fenchurch Street and a Mariners' Lodge was forthwith set up in its place. Lodges composed of Operative Masons were formed‑or received Constitutions‑in 1764 and 1766 No. 335, now extinct; also 364, now the Bedford Lodge, No. 157.

 

The Country Stewards' Lodge, No. 540, was constituted July 25, 1789 and, on November 25 following, it was resolved in Grand Lodge, " that in consequence of the trouble attending the office of Steward for the Country Feast of the Society, the Brethren who have served that office be permitted to wear a suitable jewel pendant to a green collar." The Country Feast was notified as taking place July 5, in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1785 and the two following years and a still earlier notice of it was discovered by H. Sadler, Grand Tyler, in the Grand Lodge Minutes for May 4, 1772, where it is recorded " that the Deputy Grand Master acquainted the Brethren that the Country Feast was to be held at the long room at Hampstead on the 25th June next." It appears to have been known as the " Deputy Grand Master's," or " Annual Country Feast of the Society." On November 25, 1795, the members of No. 540 were granted permission to line their aprons with green silk, or, in other words, to become a Green Apron Lodge, but the privilege was withdrawn at the next Communication‑February io, 1796 by a majority of five votes, the numbers being 5 3 to 48. The Country Stewards renewed their application to Grand Lodge, November 23, 1796 and the vote passed in their favour by a majority of Zo, the numbers being 73 for to 5 3 against.

 

The question of the Green Apron was again brought up, February 7,1797: Upon which Debates arose, but it being found difficult to ascertain the Sense of Grand Lodge by the holding up of Hands, a Division was proposed, but from the confusion, tumult and irregularity which took place thereon, the Grand Master in the Chair, found himself under the necessity, at a very late hour, of closing the Grand Lodge and Adjourning the whole of the Business.

 

At the next Communication, held April 12, on the motion of the Earl of Moira, who presided, the resolution passed in the previous November was annulled by a majority of 95, 54 Brethren voting that it should stand, 149 against, upon which, on a proposal made and seconded by members of the Country Stewards' Lodge, it was resolved, that the grant in November 1789, of a green collar and medal, be Zz4 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 also rescinded. The latter privilege, however, was restored to the Lodge in the February ensuing.

 

The Lodge, which became No. 449 in 1792, died out about i 8oz and is described in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1803 as the Lodge of Faith and Friendship meeting at Berkeley, Gloucestershire, whither the Constitution had evidently found its way from London, in conformity with a usage of which many illustrations might be given. The names of members of Lodges were then registered in two booksone for London, the other for the country. The last entry‑under the No. 449in the former bears date 1793 and the earliest in the latter, November 4, 18oz, when the name appears of " Wm Fitzharding, Ld Viscount Dursley, Berkley Castle (age 17)." " Ed. Jenner, M.D., Berkly," seems to have joined or been initiated "Dec. 30, 1802." But perhaps the most remarkable of the different kinds of Lodges, established for class purposes, were those formed for the association of foreign Brethren residing in this country. The earliest of these, held at the Soloman's Temple, Hemmings Row, in 1725, has been already referred to. Next in point of date comes the French Lodge at the Swan, Long Acre, No. zo, apparently so styled about 1732. This, which became the French Swan Lodge in 1736, was carried forward in the numeration of 1740 as the French Swan, No. i g and erased March 25, 1745.

 

Another French Lodge existed about the same time, No. 98, meeting at the Prince Ugen's [Eugene's] Head in 173z and at the Duke of Lorraine in 1734. In 1740 the Lodge met at the Union Coffee House in the Haymarket and was numbered 87. It would seem to have constituted the Lodge Union of Angels at Frankfort, in 1743, as the latter is acknowledged as daughter of the Union Lodge of London in the Warrant. Curiously enough, by that official document, permission is given for " the Masons of one and the other Lodges, to be members respectively of both." No. 87 died out before the change of numbers in 175 6.

 

In 1759 we meet once more, at the No. 122, with the Swan, the old French Lodge, in Grafton Street, but this title, acquired after 1756, was lost by 1764, in which year the Lodge assembled at the Two Chairmen, Charing Cross. In the Engraved List for 1778, it is described as the Lodge of Unity, a title it still retains as present No. 69.

 

On January 29, 1765, a French Lodge was constituted at the Horn, in Doctors Commons, as No. 3 31, which became No. 270 in 1770, but was extinct before 1778. In the following year, on June 16, a conference was held at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, at which it was determined to establish a new Lodge, to be composed of foreign Brethren and to work in the French language. The first Master was J. J. de Vignoles, who, at the next meeting, stated that he had received from the Grand Master a letter complying with their request as to the designation of the Lodge. This, Lord Blayney thought should be changed from L'Immortalite des Freres, to L'Immortalite de L'Ordre (as a more modest title), which suggestion was adopted.

 

THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 225 The Lodge of Friendship appears to have cultivated a very intimate acquaintance with this French Lodge, for a particular Minute of the latter records, under April 20, 1768, that " No. 3 have agreed to receive regularly the Brethren of L'ImmortalW de L'Ordre, on payment of the same nightly dues as their own members, namely, five shillings each ; and, finally, the Brethren of the two Lodges were considered as partaking of the advantages of membership of both " (Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1845, p. 33). The Lodge was originally numbered 376, became No. 303 in 1770 and was erased April 28, 1775. The establishment of another French Lodge in 1774, the Loge des Amis Rdunis, No. 475, at the Turk's Head, Gerrard Street, Soho, may have brought about this catastrophe. This, however, did not remain long on the roll, from which it was struck out, February 7, 1777. The next French Lodge, L'Esperance, No. 434, was constituted in 1768 and met at Gerrard Street, Soho, where, on removal to St. James's Street in 1785, its place was taken by a new Lodge formed in that year, L'Egalitd, No. 469. On the Engraved List for 1770, at No. 15 3, we find the Ancient French Lodge, White Swan, Grafton Street, which thus reappears upon the scene, its members having purchased their Ccnstitution between 1759 and 1763, in which latter year they met under it at the Fountain, on Ludgate Hill, the Lodge being then numbered 193.

 

In 1781 the Lodge became No. iz2‑a namesake having borne, singularly enough, the exact numerical position in 1759‑and in 1792, No. iio. On April 9, 1794, it united with No. 38o, Loge d'Egalitd (constituted 1785), under the title of Loge des Amis Rdunis and, on April 10, 1799, with L'Esperance, No. 238 (constituted 1768 as No. 434), under that of Loge de L'Espdrance. It was placed on the Union Roll as No. 134, but died out before 1832.

 

The experiment of founding a Lodge, to be composed of Germans, in which the ceremonies should be conducted in their national tongue, proved a more successful one. The Pilgrim Lodge, now No. 238, was established on these lines ; on August 25, 1779 and celebrated its centenary October 1, 1879. Not only are the proceedings carried on in the German language, but the method of working is also German. The Lodge possesses a choice library and is justly renowned for its excellent working and lavish hospitality. (Alasonic News, October 26, igzg, has a detailed history of this Lodge.) It has been shown that an earnest desire for a Masonic Union was expressed by the Masons of Lower Canada in 1794; also that a proposal to that effect was actually made in the Grand Lodge under the Duke of Atholl in 1797. The pro minent position occupied by the Prince of Wales in the older Society doubtless encouraged this feeling, which must have received a still further impetus from the popularity of his locum tenens, the Earl of Moira‑a nobleman in whom, as proved by later events, all parties reposed the fullest confidence. By the Scottish and Irish Masons the Schism in the English Craft was always regarded with pity and indignation; and, though a closer intercourse had been maintained by their Grand Lodges with one moiety of it, than with the other, this arose from the election of Irish and Scottish noblemen as Grand Masters, by the Antients, rather than from F. III‑6 2.26 THE GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND, 1761‑1813 any especial predilection on the part of Masons of those nationalities, for that Society.

 

The first proposal for a Union, made in either of the two Grand Lodges, took place in 1797 and fell to the ground. The next attempt to heal the Schism came from the other side, but was equally unsuccessful, though the negotiations which then proceeded and lasted for a year or two made it quite clear that the rank and file of the Craft were bent on a thorough reconciliation, which the misdirected efforts of the Masonic authorities had only retarded for a time.

 

At the Committee of Charity, held April io, 18oi, " a complaint was preferred by Br W. C. Daniel, Master of the Royal Naval Lodge, No. 57, Wapping, against Thomas Harper of Fleet St., jeweller, Robert Gill and William Burwood, for encouraging irregular meetings and infringing on the privileges of the Ancient Grand Lodge of all England, assembling under the authority of H.R.H. The Prince of Wales." The inquiry was adjourned in the first instance until the following November and, again, until February 5, 18oz, when, on the representation of the Grand Treasurer, " that having recently conversed with Br Harper and James Agar, Esq., it has been suggested that Union of the two Societies upon liberal and constitutional grounds might take place," the complaint was dismissed.

 

In order to pave the way for the intended Union, a committee was appointed and the Earl of Moira, on accepting his nomination as a member, declared that he should consider the day on which a coalition was formed as one of the most fortunate in his life.

 

It is alleged, that, although pledged to use his influence to effect a union, Harper covertly exerted himself to prevent it, being afraid of losing the power he possessed and the profit he derived from the sale of articles belonging to his trade. It is further said that, on two occasions in i 8o2, when proposals were made in the Antient Grand Lodge with reference to a fusion of the two Societies, he " violently " closed the proceedings of the meeting. The records of the Antients leave these points undecided, but they prove, at least, that a very inflammatory address, eminently calculated to stir up strife and to defeat any attempt to promote a reconciliation, vas read and approved in Grand Lodge‑December 1, 18oi‑and " ordered to be circulated throughout the whole of the Antient Craft" (Ahiman KeZon, 1807, PP‑ IZI‑5)ò At the Committee of Charity, held November ig, 18oz, the Earl of Moira in the chair, it was ordered " that the Grand Secretary do write to Thomas Harper and acquaint him that he is to consider himself as standing under a peculiar engagement towards the Grand Lodge " ; also, that his " non‑attendance at this Committee appears an indecoro