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, . ň 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 independentňof 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.
