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 III 

 

CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD

‑ THE RISE OF ADDITIONAL RITES‑ THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY I

 

CHAPTER TWO

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE

 

CHAPTER THREE

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE

 

CHAPTER FOUR

FREEMASONRY IN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 161

 

CHAPTER FIVE

 FREEMASONRY IN RUSSIA

 

CHAPTER SIX

 FREEMASONRY IN DENMARK AND HOLLAND

 

CHAPTER SEVEN

FREEMASONRY IN SWEDEN,

 NORWAY AND FINLAND - FREEMASONRY IN ITALY -

 FREEMASONRY IN BELGIUM - FREEMASONRY IN SPAIN

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

FREEMASONRY IN SWITZERLAND

 

CHAPTER NINE

 

CHAPTER TEN

 

CHAPTER ELEVEN

 

CHAPTER TWELVE

 FREEMASONRY IN PORTUGAL

 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN MALTA PAGE - FREEMASONRY

 IN POLAND

 

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

 

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN BOHEMIA AND CZECHO‑SLOVAKIA

 

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

FREEMASONRY IN RUMANIA AND JUGO‑SLAVIA

 

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

 FREEMASONRY IN TURKEY, GREECE AND CYPRUS

 

ILLUSTRATIONS VOLUME III

 

King Gustav of Sweden Frontispiece PACING PADS A Masonic Lodge in Paris, 1740 16 Comte de Clermont 26 Regalia of the Grand Orient of France (Colour) 40 Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orleans 42 Joseph Bonaparte 54 Napoleon Bonaparte, at the Lodge of Faubourg St. Marcel 56 A Masonic Banquet ‑ A Toast 66 The Reception of an Apprentice 84 A Freemason's Lodge, Frederick the Great Presiding 9o F. L. Schroeder, Ritual Reformer, 1744‑1816 92 Freemason's Sword of Frederick the Great 94 A Representative Selection of German Lodge Jewels (Colour) io8 J. G. Fichte, Masonic Historian and German Philosopher, 1762‑1814 132 Altar in the Little Temple, Berlin 144 A Master with Apron 158 Headquarters of the Grand East of the Netherlands, at The Hague 204 Lodge Room at Copenhagen, Denmark 206 Masonic Temple, Amsterdam 214 Masonic Temple, Amsterdam ‑ West End 218 Freemasons' Hall, Oslo, Norway 222 A Rare Swiss Jewel of the Second Degree 234 is ILLUSTRATIONS Heinrich Zschokke Grand Master Giuseppe Garibaldi The Duke of Cumberland Prominent Churchmen, Members of the Masonic Fraternity PAQNO PAOH 2‑4o zso 2.5 6 Hosea Ballou, Edward Bass, Gregory T. Bedell, Sr., Thomas C. Brownell, Thomas Chalmers, Philander Chase, Leighton Coleman, James E. Freeman, Alexander V. Griswold, Thomas Starr King, William H. Odenheimer, Henry C. Potter, Samuel Seabury At end of volume GOULD'S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOLUME III A HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD VOL. III CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY IT has been regarded as a matter for astonishment that, in the short space of from ten to twenty years after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, Freemasonry should have obtained a firm footing in the remotest parts of the continent of Europe. The circumstance, however, seems to be a natural result. England at that time was, without doubt, the centre of all eyes and any important movement in this country was bound to attract especial attention from the world at large. Marlborough's brilliant achievements abroad had made her weight felt on the Continent ; the States of Europe were distracted and impoverished by constant wars, whilst England was at least undisturbed within her own frontiers and had become exceedingly wealthy. Her possession of Hanover brought her into close contact with Germany, but her alliance and, above all, her large subsidies, were desired by each of the contending States in turn and, as a consequence, her capital was the rendezvous of thousands of foreigners. In these circumstances the formation of the Grand Lodge could barely have escaped notice ; but, when noblemen of high position and men celebrated for their learning began to frequent the assemblies, to accept office, to take part in public processions, proudly wearing the jewels and aprons, no foreigner resident in the City of London could fail to be struck with the phenomenon. For in those days London was not a province of vast extent. It was a city of ordinary dimensions and each citizen might fairly be expected to be acquainted with every part of it, as well as with the personal appearance of its chief notabilities. A duke or earl was not lost amongst the millions of people who now throng the thoroughfares. His person, equipages and liveries were familiar to the majority of residents, his words and actions the talk of every club and coffee‑house. The Fraternity, so suddenly brought into prominence, must have attracted everyone's attention and many visitors to the metropolis must have been introduced into its circle. Returning to their own country, what more natural than a wish to enjoy there also those charming meetings 2 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF where kindliness and charity prevailed, where the strife of parties was unknown, where the slightest allusion to political or religious controversy was forbidden. What more natural than that those debarred from visiting its shores should desire to benefit by the new whim of " those eccentric islanders" and that, given a sufficient number of the initiated in any one town, Lodges should be formed ? Even before regular Lodges were constituted, it cannot be doubted that informal receptions into the Fraternity took place whenever a few Freemasons met together. Wherever the earliest Lodges existed, there are found traces of previous meetings and, in no other way, can the presence in the first stated Lodges, of undoubted Freemasons initiated elsewhere, be accounted for. There seems little doubt that, within five years of 1717, Freemasons were by no means scarce on the Continent. But little doubt can exist that no single Freemason ever lived on the Continent or elsewhere, whose Masonic pedigree did not begin in Great Britain. No former association, guild or otherwise, ever grew into a Fraternity of Freemasons outside these islands, nor was any connexion with the building trades of the Continent ever claimed by the first Freemasons of Europe. The Craft there is a direct importation from England and, in its infancy and for many subsequent years, was confined entirely to the upper classes without the least admixture of the artisan. Even in Germany the language of the Fraternity was French, being that of the court and of diplomacy. All the earlier Minutes are recorded in that tongue and all the names of the first Lodges are French. For a few years the references are invariably to England and to English usages but, about 1740, a change took place. In contradistinction to English Masonry, a Scottish Masonry, supposed to hail from Scotland, but having no real connexion with the sister kingdom, arose, which was presumed to be superior to the hitherto known Craft and possessed of more recondite knowledge and extensive privileges.

 

Fertile imaginations soon invented fresh Degrees based upon and overlapping the English ritual. These Scottish Degrees were supplemented by additions of Chivalric Degrees, claiming connexion with and descent from all the various extinct orders of knighthood, till finally we meet with systems of 7, 10, 25, 3 3, go and, eventually, 95 Degrees! The example was no doubt set in France and the fashion spread throughout Europe, till the Craft's stated origin in the societies of English builders was utterly lost sight of. It has been maintained that the impulse was given by the partisans of the Stuarts‑refugees in France at the court of St. Germain ‑and that it was the result of intrigues to win the Craft to their political purposes. Colour is lent to this view by the fact that the earliest names mentioned in connexion with French Freemasonry are those of well‑known adherents of the Pretender. That Scotsmen and Englishmen residing in Paris should take the lead in an essentially English institution, does not appear sufficiently remarkable to warrant such a conclusion and, in the absence of anything like proof, cannot be entertained. In a solitary instance‑the Strict Observance‑it is possible that some such political design may have been cherished but, if so, it was dropped as useless almost before it was conceived and, certainly, the Stuarts themselves, on their own showing, never ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 3 were Freemasons at all. Contemporary records are so scarce, that little argument can be adduced on either side, whereas any amount of assertion has been freely indulged in. As the inducement to change possibly arose from the unlucky speech of a Scotsman‑the Chevalier Ramsay‑every arbitrary innovation was at first foisted on Scotland, as the most likely birthplace‑in contradistinction to England, the land of the original Rite. How could a new Rite be fathered on France, Spain, Germany or Italy, where twenty years previously, as could at once be demonstrated, no Freemasonry had ever been heard of ? There was absolutely no choice but Scotland, or peradventure Ireland, so Scotland obtained the credit of every new invention. The alleged connexion with the Jacobites was clearly an afterthought. What is designated as Scots Masonry was unknown before the date of Ramsay's speech, but it appeared shortly afterwards. There is, therefore, a certain plausibility in representing the two as cause and effect ; but the man and the discourse will now be considered and an endeavour made to present the facts in what seems to be their true light, for probably never was any character in Masonic annals with, perhaps, the single exception of the Baron von Hund, more unjustly held up to opprobrium and the scorn of posterity. Yet von Hund has always had a few upholders of his probity, whereas until quite recently no name has been too bad for Ramsay. Every petty author of the merest tract on Freemasonry has concurred in reviling a dead man on whose public or private life no slur can be cast, who was highly esteemed by great and good men of his own generation‑whilst even writers of weight and authority have not disdained to heap obloquy upon him without one thought of his possible innocence. The general accusation against Ramsay is, that he was a devoted partisan of the exiled Royal Family of England; that he delivered or wrote a speech; that, in this speech, he wilfully and knowingly, oú malice prepense, fouled the pure stream of Masonic history ; and that he so acted in the interests and to further the intrigues of a political faction. In view of acknowledged principles, no impeachment of a Freemason could be more serious, no action more reprehensible. Therefore, such a charge should only be brought on the clearest possible proof. Now the only particle of truth is, that Ramsay certainly did write the speech. As for the other statements, if it can be shown that Ramsay was not a partisan of the Stuarts the whole libel loses the little consistency it ever possessed.

 

Rebold (Histoire des trois grander‑loges, Paris, 1864, p. 44) says : " Ramsay was a partisan of the Stuarts and introduced a system of Masonry, created at Edinbro' by a chapter of Canongate‑Kilwinning Lodge, in the political interests of the Stuarts and with the intention of enslaving Freemasonry to Roman Catholicism." The statement respecting the Edinbro' Chapter is too absurd to require refutation. Even the usually critical and judicious Kloss (Geschichte der Frehnaurerei in Frankreich, Darmstadt, 18 52, vol. i, p. 46) declares " that it is clear that Ramsay purposely introduced higher Degrees in order to make a selection from the ranks of the brotherhood in the interests of the Stuarts and to collect funds for the Pretender " ; whilst Findel does not scruple to call him " infamous." Two 4 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF writers only have attempted to clear Ramsay's good name. Pinkerton (Notes and ,Queries, 4th series, December 18, 1869), the first of these, unfortunately takes up wrong ground. He argues that the speech is evidently a skit on Freemasonry and, therefore, not Ramsay's at all ; further, that in view of Pope Clement's Bull‑In Eminenti‑Ramsay, who was a sincere convert to Romanism, could not by any possibility have been a Freemason. But facts have since come to light which render it probable that the speech was delivered on March 21, 1737, whilst the Bull is dated 1738 ; while it is well known that, in spite of repeated Bulls, many conscientious members of the Roman Church have been at all times, are even now, members of the Craft. A few years ago, however, the Rev. G. A. Schiffmann, who, on other occasions, has shown that he possesses an unprejudiced mind and the courage of his convictions, published a pamphlet study of Ramsay (Andreas Michael Ramsay, Eine Studie, etc., Leipzig, 1878) and, although a few trifling details in his work may be subject to correction, his viewsin spite of Findel having done his best to prove their fallacy‑are in the main those which merit the adoption of every critical reader. Had Masonic history always been studied in the same spirit of fearless, candid inquiry, there would be fewer fables and errors to correct. Although Schiffmann held an official appointment in Zinnendorff's Grand [National] Lodge, he, in 1870‑6, gave expression to his opinion of the duplicity and deceit on which the whole Rite was based, supporting the Crown Prince's demand for inquiry and reform. He was consequently expelled in 1876, but received with high honour by all the more enlightened Lodges of Germany.

 

One of the most romantic figures in the history of Freemasonry is the Chevalier Andrew Michael Ramsay. He was born in Ayr on June 9, 1686, his father being a baker and, apparently, a strict Calvinist. The dates ascribed to his birth vary considerably. Rees' Cyclopadia states he died in 1743, aged 5 7, which would place his birth in 1686, as stated. Chambers' Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen gives the date as June 9, 1688. Findel also has 1686 and that date has been accepted by D. Murray Lyon. But, according to his own account (if correctly reported), he must have been born in 168o‑i, because in 1741 he told Heir von Geusau that he was then sixty years old. This would make him sixty‑two at the time of his death in 1743. Herr von Geusau was tutor to the son of the sovereign prince of Reuss, whom he accompanied in his travels through Germany, France and Italy. In Paris they met Ramsay, then tutor to the Prince of Turenne. Geusau kept a careful diary, anecdotal, personal, historical and geographical of the whole tour. This diary came into the possession of Dr. Anton Friedrich Buesching, who made extensive use of it for his Geography. He further gave copious extracts from it in Beitrdge Zu der Lebensgeschichte denkavurdiger Personen, Halle, 1783‑9, 5 vols. In vol. iii some fifty pages are devoted to Ramsay's conversations with Geusau, respecting himself in general and his Masonic proceedings in particular, together with Geusau's reflections thereon. The Diary has unfortunately never been published in extenso, all allusions therefore by Masonic writers to Geusau's Diary are really to this collection ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY S of anecdotes of celebrated men. The value of the work consists in the fact that we have here a contemporary account of Ramsay, written with no ulterior object and, although at second‑hand, Ramsay's own words concerning his Masonic career. Geusau was not a Freemason‑a fact which enhances the value of his testimony.

 

After a brief period of tuition in a school at Ayr, Andrew entered Edinburgh University at the age of fourteen and, for three years, studied classics, mathematics and theology. He attained some fame in classical research and, throughout his life, the great Greek thinkers were his constant study and delight. Eventually he broke with Calvinism and was attracted to the mystical writings of Antoinette Bourignon, who was at that time enjoying a considerable following in Aberdeen. It was at one time believed that the famous Quietist travelled through Scotland in the dress of a hermit. She became famous at a time when both Scottish Episcopalianism and Scottish Catholicism had lost nearly all their spiritual vigour. As the outcome of her teachings, Ramsay got into touch with Poiret and the Quietist Movement in France, although he had become known as a Deist.

 

On leaving the University he took up the work of a tutor and was engaged to teach the two sons of the Earl of Wemyss. About 17o6, however, he left Britain, only to return to it for short periods. He went first to Flanders, where he entered the army under the Duke of Marlborough, who was then engaged in the War of the Spanish Succession. In 171o he obtained an introduction to Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai and, as the outcome of an interview with him, Ramsay left the army and took up his abode with Fenelon, to study religion and to endeavour to gain peace of mind. He entered the Catholic Church in order to come directly under the Quietist Movement and he remained with Fenelon until the death of that dignitary in January 1715. Ramsay afterwards wrote the life of Fenelon, which was published at The Hague in 1723, in which there are vivid sketches of Madame Guyon and the violent Bishop Bossuet, the bitter opponent of Fenelon.

 

There is no need to wonder that Ramsay was attracted by the beautiful life, words and actions of the celebrated Archbishop, whose all‑embracing Christianity never shone more conspicuously than during the Flemish campaigns and by whom he was converted to the Roman faith. There is no proof or symptom of proof that Ramsay became such a fervid Ultramontanist as has been stated. The character of his master would almost forbid it. Fenelon was one of the pillars of the Gallican Church, which was by no means in servile submission to that of Rome, although in communion with it; and the liberal breadth of his views was so widely spread as to incur the enmity of the great Bossuet and the open hostility of the Jesuits. Ramsay's printed works breathe a spirit of toleration worthy of his master. To Geusau we are indebted for an anecdote which goes far to prove that he was no bigot. During his short residence at Rome an English lord lived at James's Court who was married to a Protestant lady. A little girl was born to the couple and, the parents being in doubt as to their proceedings, Ramsay advised that she should be christened by one of the two Protestant chaplains of the household and exerted himself to such good effect in the cause as to win the consent of the Cardinal Chief of the G INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Inquisition. And Geusau, himself a Protestant, declares that Ramsay was a learned man, especially well informed in both ancient and modern history. He praises his upright and genial nature, his aversion to bigotry and sectarianism of all kinds and avers that he never once made the least attempt to shake his faith. Was this the kind of man to pervert Freemasonry in the interest and at the bidding of the Jesuits ? After Fenelon's death Ramsay went to Paris and became tutor to the young Duc de Chateau‑Thierry and gained the friendship of the Regent, Philippe d'Orleans. The Regent was the Grand Master of the Order of St. Lazarus, into which he admitted Ramsay, who thus became known as the Chevalier Ramsay. This Order was founded in the fourth century in Palestine and erected hospitals for lepers, which were known as Lazarettes. It was founded as a military and religious community, at the time of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Popes, princes and nobles endowed it with estates and privileges, but the knights were driven from the Holy Land by the Saracens and, in i2gi, migrated to France and to Naples in 1311. It is now combined with the Order of St. Maurice and is conferred by the King of Italy, who is Grand Master, on persons distinguished in the public service, science, art, letters and charitable works, to which last‑named its income is devoted.

 

Ramsay remained in Paris until 1724, when he accepted the post of tutor to Charles Edward and Henry (afterwards Cardinal of York), the two young Princes of the exiled House of Stuart, sons of the Pretender, James Francis Edward (James III), who had been on terms of friendship with Fenelon. He found the strange, though interesting, Court of St. James at Rome an uncomfortable abode and, after about a year, he resigned his position, in consequence of the constant intrigues and petty jealousies that surrounded the unfortunate James. Ramsay was an ardent Jacobite and he described the Pretender as " a very clever, fine, jovial, free‑thinking man." In 1725, Ramsay was offered the post of tutor to the Duke of Cumberland, the second son of George II, but refused because of his adoption of the Roman Catholic faith and because he had no liking for that reigning monarch. He was, however, given a safe conduct to Britain and, towards the end of 1728, he arrived in London and immediately proceeded to Scotland, where he became the guest of the Duke of Argyll at Inverary. The Duke possessed one of the largest libraries in the United Kingdom, was a man of culture and a friend to higher education.

 

Ramsay made his way quickly into literary circles. He was in Oxford in 1728 as the guest of the Marquis d'Abais. On March 12, 1729, he was made a member of the Gentlemen's Society at Spalding, the membership of which was composed largely of Freemasons and, in the same year, he was elected F.R.S. , whilst, in the following year, Oxford conferred upon him the degree of D.C.L., he having previously been admitted a member of St. Mary's Hall. There was a strong minority opposed to him, which showed itself after the Earl of Arran, then Chancellor of the University, had proposed him for the honour. The opposition was on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic, a ‑Jacobite and had been in the service of the Pretender. Dr. King, the principal of St. Mary's Hall, spoke in Ramsay's defence and concluded ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 7 his speech by saying: Quod instar omnium est. Fenelonii magni archi prasulis Camara censis alumnum prasento vohis. Thefe were 85 votes in favour of his receiving the degree and 17 against. He was the first Roman Catholic to receive a degree at Oxford since the Reformation.

 

Hearne's Diary, under date of April 2o, 173o, has the following entry Last night Mr. Joyce and I (and nobody else) spending the evening together in Oxford, he told me that the Chevalier Ramsay (who is gone out of town) gave (before he went) in consideration of Dr. William King's Civilities to him in Oxford, the perpetual right of printing his Travells of Cyrus in French (wch is) original, (the English being a translation and the Right given to another) provided the profits be turned to the benefit of St. Mary Hall. Inquirie more of this. Mr. Joye was one of the witnesses to the deed of gift.

 

Chambers (Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen, 1835, vol. iv, p. 137) is under a mistake in stating that the degree was conferred upon him by Dr. King, principal of St. Mary's Hall. Dr. King not being Vice‑Chancellor, could not have conferred the degree, though he might have been instrumental in procuring it for him. The only record of members of St. Mary's Hall is the buttery‑book and Ramsay's name first appears there as charged for battels on the same date but, although his name is kept on the books for some years afterwards, he is never again charged, so that it is to be presumed he never went into residence. Curiously enough the usual entry of his admission to the Hall cannot be found, while another peculiarity is, that he is always described in the buttery‑book as " Chevalier Ramsay, LL.D.," probably in error, this being the Cambridge degree, whereas the Oxford degree was D.C.L. Evidently this man, taking such a prominent position in London life, could not have been a notorious Jacobite intriguant.

 

Ramsay's work, the Travels of Cyrus, had been published in Paris in 1727 and immediately attained world‑wide popularity, although the author was denounced by the critics as a " deistical, freethinking, socinian, latitudinarian, despiser of external ordinances." The work was widely translated and editions published at London, Glasgow, Breslau, Lisbon, Madrid, Naples and Leyden ; the last British edition being published at London in 1816. It had, as an appendix, A Discourse upon the Theology and Mythology of the Pagans, the design of which was to show that " the most celebrated philosophers of all ages and of all countries have had the notion of a Supreme Deity, who produced the world by his power and governed it by his wisdom." That Ramsay was no Freethinker is proved by the opening lines of his poem on " Divine Friendship " O sovereign beauty, boundless source of love, From Thee I'm sprung, to Thee again I move 1 Like some small gleam of light, some feeble ray That lost itself by wandering from the day.

 

Or some eclips'd, some faint and struggling beam That fain would wrestle back from whence it came. So I, poor banished I, oft strive to flee Through the dark maze of nothing up to Thee 1 8 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF When Ramsay returned to France, he accepted the post of tutor to the Vicomte de Turenne, son of the Duc de Bouillon. He became actively associated with Freemasonry and it is claimed that he instituted new Degrees, the funds of which were devoted to the assistance of the exiled Stuarts. In 1737 he was Chancellor or Orator of the Grand Lodge of France, during the Grand Mastership of Lord Harnouster, when he delivered an oration, which has made his name famous in the annals of the Craft. This was published afterwards as the Relation apologique du FrancMafonnerie which, Kloss says, was the first thorough and circumstantial defence of the Craft. It was publicly burned at Rome by command of the Pope, on the ground that it was a work which tended to weaken the loyalty of the people. The incident is referred to in the Gentleman's Magazine for 173 8, in the following words There was lately burnt at Rome, with great solemnity, by order of the Inquisition, a piece in French, written by the Chevalier Ramsay, author of the Travels of Cyrus, entitled An Apologetical and Historical Relation of the Secrets of Freemasonry, printed at Dublin, by Patric Odonoko. This was published at Paris in answer to a pretended catechism, printed there by order of the Lieutenant of Police.

 

That Ramsay was a Freemason and Grand Chancellor of the Paris Grand Lodge is known from his conversations with Geusau, but he never stated when and where he was initiated. Inasmuch as he was in Flanders in 1709 and did not return to England till 172.5 at the earliest, he could scarcely at that time have been a member of the Craft, unless " entered " at Kilwinning previous to the era of Grand Lodges. Lyon (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 308), however, vouches for the fact that he was not a member of Kilwinning. It would appear probable that he was initiated in London circa 1728‑c9. Among his fellow members of the Gentlemen's Society of Spalding, were no fewer than seven very prominent Freemasons and among his brother Fellows of the Royal Society, from '1730 to 1736 (the probable limit of his stay in England), were Martin Folkes, Rawlinson, Desaguliers, Lord Paisley, Stukeley, the Duke of Montagu, Richard Manningham, the Earl of Dalkeith, Lord Coleraine, the Duke of Lorraine (afterwards Emperor of Germany), the Earls Strathmore, Crawford and Aberdour, Martin Clare and Francis Drake. In such a company of distinguished Freemasons, it can scarcely be doubted that Ramsay soon became a prey to the fashion of the hour and solicited admission to the Fraternity, also that the Lodge to which he is most likely to have applied was that of the " Old Horn," of which Desaguliers and Richard Manningham were members. This supposition cannot be verified, because that Lodge (unlike some of the rest) has preserved no list of its members for 1730. If he left the Continent circa 1726, he could scarcely have been initiated there, except perhaps by individual Brethren, in an irregular manner, because the first Lodge heard of‑out of Britain‑was held at Paris in '1725. The facts, however, are by no means as clear as might be desired.

 

The Almanac, des Cocus was published in Paris from 1741‑3. Pinkerton states it was a vile and obscene publication. If so, it merely reflected the lascivious ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 9 tendencies of the age and country and there is no reason on that account to declare that Ramsay could be the author of no part of its contents. It naturally treated the subjects of the day and,might have published his Oration without previously consulting the writer. In the edition for 1741 appeared " Discourse pronounced the new articles Of 1738, with various introductions by the author. He claims to at the reception of Freemasons by Monsieur de R‑, Grand Orator of the Order." The next publication of the same Oration was in 174z by De la Tierce (Histoire, Obligations etStatuts delatr. ven. ConfraternWdesF.M., etc., 1742, 1745), who describes himself as a former member of the Duke of Lorraine's Lodge, London, whose book is in substance a translation of the Constitutions of 17zI, supplemented by i have produced facts omitted by Anderson ; indeed gives a very detailed account of the Grand Masters, from Noah onwards, reserving a disti‑n‑gui‑s‑he‑d‑place to Mistaim. The introduction preceding the " Obligations of a Freemason " consists of " the following discourse pronounced by the Grand Master of the Freemasons of France, in the Grand Lodge, assembled solemnly at Paris, in the year of Freemasonry, five thousand seven hundred and forty." It reappeared in other publicapublica tions, London, 1757 and 1795 (in French) ; the Hague, 1773 (also French); in the appendix to the second (1743) and third (176z) editions of the first translation into German of Anderson's Constitutions (Frankfort, 1741) ; and elsewhere. It will be observed that the Almanac, attributes,the speech to a Mr. R. and gives no date; Tierce, to the Grand Master in 1740; whilst, according to Kloss (Gescbicbte, etc., op. cit., vol. i, p. 44), the German translations merely state that the Grand Orator delivered it. That the speech was Ramsay's is known from his confession to Geusau and the only remaining matter of doubt is the exact date of its delivery. Jouast (Histoire du Grand Orient de France, Paris, 1865, p. 63) maintains that it was delivered on June 24, 1738, on the occasion of the installation of the Duc D'Antin as Grand Master, referring to the Duke some expressions therein which probably applied to Cardinal Fleury ; states that the speech was first printed at the Hague in 1738, bound up with some poems attributed to Voltaire and some licentious tales of Piron. If such a work really existed at that date, it was probably the original of the Lettre pbilosopbique par M. de V‑, avec plusieurs pieces galantes, London, 175 7 and, again, in 1795 ; but Kloss, in his Bibliograpbie, knows nothing of it.

 

Thory dates the appearance of Ramsay as Orator, December 24, 1736 (Acta Latomorum, Paris, 1815, vol. i, p. 3z). But J. Emile Daruty would appear to have settled the matter almost beyond doubt, by the discovery, in a very rare work (P. E. Lemontey, Histoire de la Regence et de la Minorite de Louis XV, jusq'au Ministere du Cardinal de Fleury, Paris, vol. vii, pp. z9z et seq.) of the two following letters (Recbercbes sur le rite Ecossais, etc., Mauritius and Paris, 1879, pp. z87, 288), addressed by Ramsay to Cardinal Fleury, the all‑powerful prime minister of France.

 

March zo, 1737.

 

Deign, Monseigneur, to support the Society of Freemasons [Ramsay used the English spelling] in the large views which they entertain and your Excellency will render your name more illustrious by this protection than Richelieu did his by 1o INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF founding the French Academy. The object of the one is much vaster than that of the other. To encourage a society which tends only to reunite all nations by a love of truth and of the fine arts, is an action worthy of a great minister, of a Father of the Church and of a holy Pontiff.

 

As I am to read my discourse to‑morrow in a general assembly of the Order and to hand it on Monday to the examiners of the Chancellerie [the censors of the Press‑prior to publication], I pray your Excellency to return it to me to‑morrow before mid‑day by express messenger. You will infinitely oblige a man whose heart is devoted to you.

 

March zz, 1737 I learn that the assemblies of Freemasons displease your Excellency. I have never frequented them except with a view of spreading maxims which would render by degrees incredulity ridiculous, vice odious and ignorance shameful. I am persuaded that if wise men of your Excellency's choice were introduced to head these assemblies, they would become very useful to religion, the state and literature. Of this I hope to convince your Excellency if you will accord me a short interview at Issy. Awaiting that happy moment, I pray you to inform me whether I should return to these assemblies and I will conform to your Excellency's wishes with a boundless docility.

 

Cardinal Fleury wrote on the margin of this letter in pencil, Le roi ne le vent pas. This probably explains Ramsay's meteor‑like appearance in Masonic annals; for the only sign we have of his activity in Lodge is connected with this speech. Thory's assertions that he promulgated a new Rite was made sixty years afterwards without a shadow of proof. His speech may possibly have given rise to new Degrees, but what grounds are there for ascribing their invention and propagation to him ? But precisely because Ramsay is only known by this one speech, does it appear probable, that in the above letters he is alluding to this one and no other ; if so, it was beyond doubt delivered on March s.i, 1737.

 

The speech itself‑in its entirety‑is unknown in an English garb and, as the various versions differ slightly, the translation chosen is that of De la Tierce, which is generally accepted as the most correct.

 

RAmsAY's ORATION The noble ardour which you, gentlemen, evince to enter into the most noble and very illustrious Order of Freemasons, is a certain proof that you already possess all the qualities necessary to become members, that is, humanity, pure morals, inviolable secrecy and a taste for the fine arts.

 

Lycurgus, Solon, Numa and all political legislators have failed to make their institutions lasting. However wise their laws may have been, they have not been able to spread through all countries and ages. As they only kept in view victories and conquests, military violence and the elevation of one people at the expense of another, they have not had the power to become universal, nor to make themselves acceptable to the taste, spirit and interest of all nations. Philanthropy was not their basis. Patriotism badly understood and pushed to excess, often destroyed in these warrior republics love and humanity in general. Mankind is not essentially ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY II distinguished by the tongues spoken, the clothes worn, the lands occupied or the dignities with which it is invested. The world is nothing but a huge republic, of which every nation is a family, every individual a child. Our Society was at the outset established to revive and spread these essential maxims borrowed from the nature of man. We desire to reunite all men of enlightened minds, gentle manners and agreeable wit, not only by a love for the fine arts but, much more, by the grand principles of virtue, science and religion, where the interests of the Fraternity shall become those of the whole human race, whence all nations shall be enabled to draw useful knowledge and where the subjects of all kingdoms shall learn to cherish one another without renouncing their own country. Our ancestors, the Crusaders, gathered together from all parts of Christendom in the Holy Land, desired thus to reunite into one sole Fraternity the individuals of all nations. What obligations do we not owe to these superior men who, without gross selfish interests, without even listening to the inborn tendency to dominate, imagined such an institution, the sole aim of which is to unite minds and hearts in order to make them better, to form in the course of ages a spiritual empire where, without derogating from the various duties which different States exact, a new people shall be created, which, composed of many nations, shall in some sort cement them all into one by the tie of virtue and science.

 

The second requisite of our Society is sound morals. The religious orders were established to make perfect Christians, military orders to inspire a love of true glory and the Order of Freemasons to make men lovable men, good citizens, good subjects, inviolable in their promises, faithful adorers of the God of Love, lovers rather of virtue than of reward.

 

Polliciti servare fidem, sanctumque vereri Numen amicitir?, mores, non munera amare.

 

Nevertheless, we do not confine ourselves to purely civic virtues. We have amongst us three kinds of brothers : Novices or Apprentices, Fellows or Professed Brothers, Masters or Perfected Brothers. To the first are explained the moral virtues ; to the second the heroic virtues ; to the last the Christian virtues ; so that our Institution embraces the whole philosophy of sentiment and the complete theology of the heart. This is why one of our Brothers has said Freemason, illustrious Grand Master, Receive my first transports, In my heart the Order has given them birth, Happy I, if noble efforts Cause me to merit your esteem By elevating me to the sublime, The primeval Truth, To the Essence pure and divine, The celestial Origin of the soul, The Source of life and love.

 

Because a sad, savage and misanthropic philosophy disgusts virtuous men, our ancestors, the Crusaders, wished to render it lovable by the attractions of innocent pleasures, agreeable music, pure joy and moderate gaiety. Our festivals are not what the profane world and the ignorant vulgar imagine. All the vices of heart and soul are banished there and irreligion, libertinage, incredulity and debauch I2 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF are proscribed. Our banquets resemble those virtuous symposia of Horace, where the conversation only touched what could enlighten the soul, discipline the heart and inspire a taste for the true, the good and the beautiful.

 

O noctes ccznaque Deum . . .

 

Sermo oritur, non de regnis domibusve alienis . .red quad magis ad nos Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitamus ; utrumne Divitiis homines, an lint virtute beati ; Quidve ad amicitias usus rectumve trahat nos, Et qua sit natura boni, summumque quid ius.

 

Thus the obligations imposed upon you by the Order, are to protect your Brothers by your authority, to enlighten them by your knowledge, to edify them by your virtues, to succour them in their necessities, to sacrifice all personal resentment, to strive after all that may contribute to the peace and unity of society.

 

We have secrets ; they are figurative signs and sacred words, composing a language sometimes mute, sometimes very eloquent, in order to communicate with one another at the greatest distance, to recognize our Brothers of whatsoever tongue. These were words of war which the Crusaders gave each other in order to guarantee them from the surprises of the Saracens, who often crept in amongst them to kill them. These signs and words recall the remembrance either of some part of our science, of some moral virtue or of some mystery of the faith. That has happened to us which never befell any former Society. Our Lodges have been established, are spread in all civilized nations and, nevertheless, among this numerous multitude of men never has a Brother betrayed our secrets. Those natures most trivial, most indiscreet, least schooled to silence, learn this great art on entering our Society. Such is the power over all natures of the idea of a fraternal bond 1 This inviolable secret contributes powerfully to unite the subjects of all nations, to render the communication of benefits easy and mutual between us. We have many examples in the annals of our Order. Our Brothers, travelling in divers lands, have only needed to make themselves known in our Lodges in order to be there immediately overwhelmed by all kinds of succour, even in time of the most bloody wars, while illustrious prisoners have found Brothers where they only expected to meet enemies.

 

Should any fail in the solemn promises which bind us, you know, gentlemen, that the penalties which we impose upon him are remorse of conscience, shame at his perfidy and exclusion from our Society, according to those beautiful lines of Horace Est et fideli tuta silencio Merces ; vetabo qui Cereris sacrum Vulgarit arcanum, sub iisdem Sit trabibus, fragilemque mecum Salvat phaselum.. . .

 

Yes, sirs, the famous festivals of Ceres at Eleusis, of Isis in Egypt, of Minerva at Athens, of Urania amongst the Phcenicians, of Diana in Scythia were connected with ours. In those places mysteries were celebrated which concealed many vestiges of the ancient religion of Noah and the Patriarchs. They concluded with banquets and libations when neither that intemperance nor excess were known into which the heathen gradually fell. The source of these infamies was the admission ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 13 to the nocturnal assemblies of persons of both sexes in contravention of the primitive usages. It is in order to prevent similar abuses that women are excluded from our Order. We are not so unjust as to regard the fair sex as incapable of keeping a secret. But their presence might insensibly corrupt the purity of our maxims and manners.

 

The fourth quality required in our Order is the taste for useful sciences and the liberal arts. Thus, the Order exacts of each of you to contribute, by his protection, liberality or labour, to a vast work for which no academy can suffice, because all these societies being composed of a very small number of men, their work cannot embrace an object so extended. All the Grand Masters in Germany, England, Italy and elsewhere, exhort all the learned men and all the artisans of the Fraternity to unite to furnish the materials for a Universal Dictionary of the liberal arts and useful sciences, excepting only theology and politics. [This proposed Dictionary is a curious crux‑it is possible that the Royal Society may have formed some such idea ? But at least Ramsay's express exclusion of theology and politics should have shielded him from the accusation of wishing to employ Freemasonry for Jesuitical and Jacobite purposes. With the exception of the constant harping on the Crusades, there is so far nothing in the speech of which to complain.] The work has already been commenced in London and, by means of the union of our Brothers, it may be carried to a conclusion in a few years. Not only are technical words and their etymology explained, but the history of each art and science, its principles and operations, are described. By this means the lights of all nations will be united in one single work, which will be a universal library of all that is beautiful, great, luminous, solid and useful in all the sciences and in all noble arts. This work will augment in each century, according to the increase of knowledge, it will spread everywhere emulation and the taste for things of beauty and utility.

 

The word Freemason must therefore not be taken in a literal, gross and material sense, as if our founders had been simple workers in stone, or merely curious geniuses who wished to perfect the arts. They were not only skilful architects, desirous of consecrating their talents and goods to the construction of material temples ; but also religious and warrior princes who designed to enlighten, edify and protect the living Temples of the Most High. This I will demonstrate by developing the history or rather the renewal of the Order.

 

Every family, every Republic, every Empire, of which the origin is lost in obscure antiquity, has its fable and its truth, its legend and its history. Some ascribe our institution to Solomon, some to Moses, some to Abraham, some to Noah, some to Enoch, who built the first city, or even to Adam. Without any pretence of denying these origins, I pass on to matters less ancient. This, then, is a part of what I have gathered in the annals of Great Britain, in the Acts of Parliament, which speak often of our privileges and in the living traditions of the English people, which has been the centre of our Society since the eleventh century.

 

At the time of the Crusades in Palestine many princes, lords and citizens associated themselves and vowed to restore the Temple of the Christians in the Holy Land, to employ themselves in bringing back their architecture to its first institution. They agreed upon several ancient signs and symbolic words drawn from the well of religion in order to recognize themselves amongst the heathen and Saracens. These signs and words were only communicated to those who 14 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF promised solemnly, even sometimes at the foot of the altar, never to reveal them. This sacred promise was therefore not an execrable oath, as it has been called, but a respectable bond to unite Christians of all nationalities in one confraternity. Some time afterwards our Order formed an intimate union with the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. From that time our Lodges took the name of Lodges of St. John. This union was made after the example set by the Israelites when they erected the second Temple who, whilst they handled the trowel and mortar with one hand, in the other held the sword and buckler. [This idea forms the groundwork of all subsequent Scots grades : Knightly Scotch Masons who, in the old Temple, rediscovered the Sacred Name, the trowel in one hand, the sword in the other. Ramsay's allusion, it will be observed, is not to any existing Degree of his day, but an innocent allegory in illustration of his thesis.] Our Order, therefore, must not be considered a revival of the Bacchanals, but as an Order founded in remote antiquity, renewed in the Holy Land by our ancestors in order to recall the memory of the most sublime truths amidst the pleasures of society. The kings, princes and lords returned from Palestine to their own lands and there established divers Lodges. At the time of the last Crusades many Lodges were already erected in Germany, Italy, Spain, France and, from thence, in Scotland, because of the close alliance between the French and the Scotch. James, Lord Steward of Scotland, was Grand Master of a Lodge established at Kilwinning, in the West of Scotland, MCCLXXXVI [this passage has been seized upon by the inventors of Scots rites, all pretending to hail from Heredom Kilwinning, asserting the superiority in point of antiquity and pure tenets of the Grand Lodge held therewhich body, it is almost unnecessary to say, never existed], shortly after the death of Alexander III, King of Scotland, and one year before John Baliol mounted the throne. This lord received as Freemasons into his Lodge the Earls of Gloucester and Ulster, the one English, the other Irish.

 

By degrees our Lodges and our Rites were neglected in most places. This is why of so many historians only those of Great Britain speak of our Order. Nevertheless it preserved its splendour among those Scotsmen of whom the Kings of France confided during many centuries the safeguard of their royal persons.

 

After the deplorable mishaps in the Crusades, the perishing of the Christian armies and the triumph of Bendocdar, Sultan of Egypt, during the eighth and last Crusade, that great Prince Edward, son of Henry III, King of England, seeing there was no longer any safety for his Brethren in the Holy Land, whence the Christian troops were retiring, brought them all back and this colony of Brothers was established in England. As this prince was endowed with all heroic qualities, he loved the fine arts, declared himself protector of our Order, conceded to it new privileges and then the members of this Fraternity took the name of Freemasons after the example set by their ancestors.

 

Since that time Great Britain became the seat of our Order, the conservator of our laws and the depository of our secrets. The fatal religious discords which embarrassed and tore Europe in the sixteenth century caused our Order to degenerate from the nobility of its origin. Many of our Rites and usages which were contrary to the prejudices of the times were changed, disguised, suppressed. Thus it was that many of our Brothers forgot, like the ancient Jews, the spirit of our laws and retained only the letter and shell. The beginnings of a remedy have already been made. It is necessary only to continue and, at last, to bring everything back to ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 15 its original institution. This work cannot be difficult in a State where religion and the Government can only be favourable to our laws.

 

From the British Isles the Royal Art is now repassing into France, under the reign of the most amiable of Kings, whose humanity animates all his virtues and under the ministry of a Mentor [evidently Cardinal Fleury], who has realized all that could be imagined most fabulous. In this happy age when love of peace has become the virtue of heroes, this nation [France] one of the most spiritual of Europe, will become the centre of the Order. She will clothe our work, our statutes, our customs with grace, delicacy and good taste, essential qualities of the Order, of which the basis is the wisdom, strength and beauty of genius. It is in future in our Lodges, as it were in public schools, that Frenchmen shall learn, without travelling, the characters of all nations and that strangers shall experience that France is the home of all peoples. Patria gentis human&,.

 

Now to what does this speech amount? a mere embellishment of Anderson! Builders and princes had united in Palestine for a humane purpose; the Society had been introduced into Europe, especially Scotland ; had perished and been reintro duced into England by Prince Edward. From that time they had continued a privileged class of builders‑Ramsay no longer claims for them knightly attributes ‑and had lost their moral tenets during the Reformation, becoming mere operative artisans ; they had lately recovered or revived their old doctrines ; and France was destined to be the centre of the reformed Fraternity. The introduction of the legend of the Crusades may be taken to be a natural consequence of Ramsay's position in life, of the high nobility and gentry he was addressing, to whom the purely mechanical ancestry may have wanted toning down. But surely the Oration is not such a very heinous one ? More dangerous and absurd speeches are still made in the Craft. That inventive minds, for their own purposes, may have seized upon and falsely interpreted certain passages, is no fault of Ramsay. It was looked upon with approbation by his contemporaries; it is simply impossible to find in it any indication of a desire to pervert Masonic ceremonies. One or two points may be further inquired into. The cause of the allusion to Kilwinning may simply be that Ramsay was from Ayr and, probably, as an antiquary acquainted with its very ancient history, brought in the Lodge merely as an ornament. His choice of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem may easily be accounted for. It was not the St. John of Malta, nor was he ever known to allude to the Templars. The fact is, he was himself a Knight of St. John of Jerusalem and thus paid a tribute to his own Order. In 1714‑19 Helyot's great work on the spiritual and temporal orders was published at Paris (Hilt. des Ordres Monastiques, Religieux et Militaires). The third volume contains the history of the Order of St. Lazarus, of which Ramsay was a knight. Who can doubt that he read it ? This states that in the fourth century an Order of St. Lazarus was established in Palestine and erected everywhere hospitals for lepers, which were called Lazarettes. Later on the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were established. The two associations united and worked under the same master, called the Master of the Hospital. When the Order of St. John added the vow of celibacy, these two separated. One retook the name of St.

 

16 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Lazarus, the other changed theirs to St. John the Baptist. At the time that the Hospitallers were in the service of the King of Jerusalem, they consisted of three Orders‑knights to fight, servitors to nurse and clerics or chaplains. King Henry of England increased considerably their income, but France did most for the Order and it ultimately took refuge in that country. The Grand Master of that day was styled Grand Master of the Holy Order of Lazarus cis et translvare. In 1354 the Grand Master empowered John Halliday, a Scot, to rule over the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Order in Great Britain. In some sort, then, Ramsay was a descendant of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which, however, as such, was extinct and thus may be understood the very natural selection made of that Order on which to found his romance.

 

Following the Oration we have a copy of Statutes in usage [at that time] in France. These are a paraphrase, more or less, of Anderson's Old Regulations. One in particular must be quoted, because they are all attributed to Ramsay‑though without rhyme or reason‑and because this especial one has been used to prove that he intended to employ Freemasonry for the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion.

 

Every incredulous brawler who shall have spoken or written against the holy dogmas of the ancient faith of the Crusaders shall be for ever excluded from the Order; etc., etc.

 

But who would think that this was meant to exclude Protestants ? The ancient faith of the Crusaders was Christianity. At a time when the Protestants were not thought of, no distinction could possibly be made between them and the then Universal Church. It would be absurd to call the Crusaders Roman Catholics in contradistinction to Protestants. The article simply means that Masons must be Christians ; must be of the Catholic Church: whether Roman, Anglican, Greek or any other variety, was not even thought of. Therefore, even should these articles owe their inspiration to Ramsay‑owing to want of evidence‑they are quite powerless to strengthen the odious calumny under which he has so long lain.

 

One other matter must be referred to, although of no great importance. In 1736, the Lieutenant‑General of Police in Paris, Herault, is said to have obtained, through an opera dancer, Madame Carton, a Masonic examination, mainly a trans ation of Pritchard's Masonry Dissected, which he caused to be published as an exposure of Freemasonry. In reply to this appeared Relation apologique et historique de la Socidtd des F.M., par J. G. D. M. F. M., Dublin, Chez Patrice Odonoko, 1738, 8░‑2nd edition, in London, 1749. It was burned at Rome, as mentioned already, by, the Public Executioner, on February 1, 17 Many ingenious attempts have been made to prove the truth of this statement and to show the community of style and ideas between Ramsay's Oration and the Relation. As long as there was reason to suppose that the Oration was delivered in 1740, it was difficult to decide why Ramsay should have been selected to father this production and the very audacity of the assertion carried conviction with it. It could only be assumed that the ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 17 correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine was possessed of certain private information. But if the Oration was delivered in 1737, it is easy to conceive that the Relation might well have been attributed to the same hand in 1738. A mere guess at the hidden authorship. This fact tends to corroborate the Oration's date of 1737, for it may safely be affirmed that Ramsay did not write the Relation. Its style is far less pure than his, the orthography is totally distinct. Ramsay doubles all his consonants in such words as apprendre, combattre, dffcile ; the author of the Relation writes aprendre, combatre, dificile, etc. The initials of the author, J. G. D. M. F. M., might perhaps be read as J. G., Dr. Med., Free Mason.

 

A word must, however, be said as to the case for the plaintiff.

 

Dr. George Oliver paid the Chevalier a high tribute for inventive genius, when he said If I had not found certain unmistakeable inventions of a Master's part at an earlier date than the period when the Chevalier Ramsay flourished, I should have assigned the invention of this legend to him, as he was possibly the fabricator of the Degrees called Ineffable, which exemplify and complete the allegory of Hiram Abiff and, if judiciously managed, might, together, have formed a pleasing fiction.

 

Prince Charles Edward Stuart is said to have established the Rite de la VielleBrethren at Toulouse, which he denominated 1~cossais Fideles, in honour of the kind reception his aide‑de‑camp, Sir Samuel Lockhart, had received from the Free masons in Scotland. The Degrees of Ramsay were blended in this Rite. Ramsay issued a manifesto to the town of Arras, giving to the Lodge there the power to confer his Degree of the Eagle and Pelican. This thus formed the first authorized Chapter for the working of the higher grades.

 

There were nine Degrees in Ramsay's system, the first four of which comprehended Symbolical Masonry and formed the first Chapter. The second Chapter was composed of four further Degrees and comprehended what was called the Masonry of the Crusaders. The third Chapter was formed of those who had been admitted to the ninth or last Degree or into the secrets of Scientific Masonry. The three Chapters were united into a Consistory.

 

It would appear indisputable that Freemasonry was used as a tie to cement the adherents of James more closely to each other, notwithstanding the Papal denunciations of the Craft. Ladislas de Malezovich, in his Sketch of the Earlier History of Masonry in Austria and Hungary (A.Q.C., vol. v) claims that Ramsay must be regarded as the father of the Higher Degrees, for, in his famous oration, he first connected ‑without historical foundation‑Masonry with the Crusades and the great historical orders of knighthood. He asserts that Ramsay established three Degrees, viz. Ecossais, Novice and Knight Templar and that out of this system sprang up, with a number of others, the so‑called Rite de Clermont, which was founded at Paris, in 1754, by the Chevalier de Bonneville, although some claim that this was of Jesuit origin and that the Jesuits introduced several new Degrees, founded on Ramsay's system, which they used for the extension of their order. Ramsay, he says, added four other Degrees, making seven in all, viz. Maitre Ecossais, Maitre Elu or F. Iv‑2 18 INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY ABROAD‑THE RISE OF Chevalier de 1'Aigle, Chevalier illustre de Templier, also called Knight of the Most Holy Sepulchre; and Chevalier Sublime or Knight of God.

 

Baron Hunde, then a Protestant (though he afterwards became a Roman Catholic at the importunity of his wife), contrived to obtain admission to the Order. The lessons he learned there formed the nucleus in his mind for a new system of the Degrees, seven in all, which he introduced into Germany, under the imposing title of Templeorden or Orden des Stricten Observantz.

 

Oliver, in his Historical Landmarks, asserts that Ramsay changed the names of the Degrees from Irlandais to Ecossais, as he was a Scot by birth and made use of the existing machinery for the purpose of excluding all Masons who were not pre pared for partisanship. In inventing the new Degrees, Ramsay claimed that they dated their origin from the Crusades and that Godfrey de Bouillon was the Grand Master. He began, says Oliver, like all other innovators, by exacting the most inviolable secrecy from his novices. He told them that silence and secrecy are the very soul of the Order and you will carefully observe this silence, as well with those whom you may have reason to suppose are already initiated as with those whom you may hereafter know really belong to the Order. You will never reveal to any person, at present or hereafter, the slightest circumstances relative to your admission, the Degree you have received; nor the time when admitted. In a word, you will never speak of any object relating to the Order, even before Brethren, without the strongest necessity.

 

Oliver also asserts that, stimulated by the success which attended the promulgation of his manufactured Degrees in France, Ramsay brought his system of pretended Scottish Freemasonry into England, with the intention, it is supposed, of extending it indefinitely, if he found it acceptable to the English Fraternity, being commissioned by the Pretender, as an agent, to convert his interest with the Freemasons to the advantage of his employer. The attempt, however, failed and the overtures of Ramsay were unceremoniously rejected.

 

Ramsay, continues Oliver, returned to Paris, where he was received with enthusiasm and his system became the root and stem of so many additional Degrees of Scottish Masonry (so called) that their number cannot accurately be ascertained.

 

According to Burnes's History of the Knights Templar, Ramsay appeared in Germany under the sanction of a patent with the sign‑manual of Edward Stuart appointing him Grand Master of the seventh province; but, although he had invented a plausible tale in support of his title and authority‑both of which he affirmed had been made over to him bythe Earl Marischal on his death‑bed‑and of the antiquity of his Order, which he derived, of course, from Scotland, where the chief seat of the Templars was at Aberdeen, the imposture was soon detected; it was even discovered that he had himself enticed and initiated the ill‑fated Pretender into his fabulous order of chivalry. The delusions on this subject, however, had taken such a hold in Germany that they were not altogether dispelled until a deputation had actually visited and found, among the worthy and astonished Brethren there, no trace, either of very ancient Templars or Freemasonry.

 

ADDITIONAL RITES‑THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY 19 But if Ramsay stands acquitted of wilfully perverting Freemasonry, can he be brought in guilty of unintentionally being the cause of the numerous inventions ,which so soon followed his discourse ? Given a nation such as we know the French to be, volatile, imaginative, decidedly not conservative in their instincts, suddenly introduced to mysterious ceremonies unconnected with their past history ‑given a ritual which appeals in no way to their peculiar love of glory and distinction‑which fails to harmonize with their bent of mind‑it was almost inevitable that some " improvements " should have been attempted. Add to this a certain number of more or less clever men, ambitious to rise at once to an elevated position in the Craft, perhaps to replenish their purses by the sale of their own inventions. All these elements existed, as events have proved and thus France was ready for the crop of high grades which so soon sprang up. Finding in Ramsay's speech indications which they could twist to their own purpose, they cleverly made use of them as a sort of guarantee of the genuineness of their goods. But they soon went far beyond any allusions contained in the Oration, for not a word can there be found pointing to the various degrees of vengeance, Elus, Kadosch, etc., or to the Templars. Although this speech did not suggest additional Degrees, it is probable that it aided intending inventors in their previously conceived designs. The distinction is a fine one and not worth arguing. It will suffice to have proved that Ramsay did write the speech, that his intentions were quite compatible with the most absolute innocence, that he was neither a Stuart intriguer nor a Jesuit missionary in disguise. As already remarked, he immediately disappeared from the Masonic stage, although he lived for seven years afterwards. His name had not previously been mentioned in connexion with Freemasonry, therefore, if any persons assert that he was the concocter of a new rite of seven Degrees, the onus of proving anything so wildly improbable rests entirely upon themselves.

 

Ramsay's great and final secret was that " every Mason is a Knight Templar." His monumental work was published posthumously at Glasgow in 1749 and was entitled The Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion. It created con siderable stir in Roman Catholic circles, as the author enunciated views at variance with the doctrines of that Church. It was highly praised by Jonathan Edwards and Dr. A. V. G. Allen, in his Biography of that Calvinistic divine, describes the book as one of the most remarkable works of the eighteenth century.

 

Always a great linguist, Ramsay, towards .the end of his life, studied Chinese and became able to read that difficult language. His intimate friends were few in number, his chief confidant in Edinburgh being Dr. John Stevenson. He was also acquainted with Dean Swift and on friendly terms with J. B. Rousseau and Racine. Ramsay passed away on May 6, 1743, at St. Germain‑en‑Laye, where he was buried and, at his own request, on his tomb was engraved Universitv Religionis vindex et Martyr. His heart was removed from his body and transferred to the nunnery of St. Sacrament at Paris. He was survived by his wife, who was a daughter of Sir David Nairn.

 

CHAPTER H FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE A NATIVE historian of French Freemasonry would, naturally, turn first of all to the archives of the Grand Orient of France. These have been utilized to their full extent, but unfortunately they contain little to aid research before the commencement of the nineteenth century.

 

The Grand Librarian thus describes them in an official report (Rebold, Histoire des trois Grandes Loges, p. 173) The library consists only of some few profane [i.e. non‑Masonic] volumes, about forty volumes in German, some English works and a bundle of pamphlets. The minutes of the Grand Orient from 1789 onwards are in a tolerably satisfactory state. In a portfolio are to be found the minutes of the Grande Loge de Conseil from 1773 to 1778 ; those from 1788‑18oo are very incomplete. There is no collection of its circulars to subordinate Lodges and it would be impossible to form a complete series of printed calendars. The earliest is that of 1807 and numerous intervals occur in subsequent times.

 

Kloss (Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Frankreich, vol i, p. 193) adds that no complete list of French Lodges is anywhere in existence of a date preceding the end of the last century.

 

French Freemasonry is supposed to date from about the year 1721 and, as no Minutes whatever, relating to any earlier period than 1773, are to be found, it is obvious that, failing contemporaneous writings, the history of its first half century must be open to much doubt. The first comprehensive account of the French Craft appeared in 1773 as a five‑page article, s.v. " Franche‑Macgonnerie," by De Lalande, in the Encyclopedie Yverdon. Joseph Jerome Lefrangais de Lalande, the celebrated astronomer and director of the Paris Observatory, was born July ii, 1732 and died April 4, 1807. He could, therefore, have scarcely been initiated before circa 1750, so that his account of early French Masonry resolves itself into hearsay. He was Master of the famous Lodge of the Nine Sisters (or Muses) at Paris, of which Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones, together with the French leaders of the arts and sciences, were members. Subsequent writers have been enabled to make use of some few pamphlets, circulars, or exposures and none had more opportunities in this respect, or availed himself of them to greater advantage, than Kloss. Another historical contribution is that of De‑la‑Chaussee in his Memoire Justifzcatif, a printed defence of his official conduct, which had been impugned by Labady, published in 1772.

 

20 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 2i The first real historian of French Freemasonry was Thory (18 I2‑15, Annales Originis Magni Galliaruna Orientis and Arta Lato)vorum) and his principal successors in chronological order have been Von Nettlebladt (circa 1836,Gescbicbte Freimaurischer Systeme, published 1879), Kloss (1852, op. cit.), Rebold (1864, op. cit.), Jouast (1865, Histoire du Grand Orient de France) and Daruty (1879, Recherches sur le Rite Ecossais). De‑la‑Chaussee's work is a defence of his own particular conduct and, therefore, not always to be trusted implicitly. Thory wrote nearly ninety years after the first beginnings of Freemasonry in France. His early facts are taken from Lalande and, in the total absence of any other authority, every later historian has been more or less obliged to follow him. It may also further be remarked that Thory was an uncompromising partisan of the High Degrees and can be proved to have distorted historical facts and misquoted documents to suit his own views. Nettlebladt was as strong a partisan of Zinnendorff's system and equally guilty of historical perversion. Kloss was painstaking, though sometimes blinded by his hatred of the High Degrees. Rebold suffered under the same defect, combined with a prejudice against the Grand Orient, of which his party became a rival. Jouast, on the contrary, wrote as the avowed advocate of that body and errs in the opposite direction; whilst Daruty, a member of the rival Ancient and Accepted Rite, with a personal grievance against the Grand Orient, is very one‑sided in his views and not sufficiently critical in his acceptance of alleged facts. In these circumstances it will be seen that the history of the first fifty years of French Freemasonry cannot be otherwise than a series of possibilities, probabilities, surmises and traditions ; whereas, in recording that of the following hundred and fifty years one must steer very carefully between contending opinions‑with a leaning towards those of Kloss in doubtful matters.

 

According to De Lalande, or tradition, which, in this case, amounts to much the same thing, the first Lodge in France was founded in Paris by the Earl of Derwentwater in 17 z5 on a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England. It is true that a Lodge at Dunkirk (Amitie et Fraternite), which affiliated with the Grand Orient in 1756, then claimed to have been constituted from England in 1721 ; that claim was allowed; but, as it certainly never was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England at all, its alleged early origin may be ascribed to the ambition of its members. Anderson, in his Book. of Constitutions, mentions the 1725, but not the 17z1, Lodge. The colleagues of Lord Derwentwater are stated to have been a Chevalier Maskelyne, a Squire Henquelty, with others, all partisans of the Stuarts. The Lodge assembled at the restaurant of an Englishman called Hurre, in the Rue des Boucheries. A second Lodge was established in 1726 by an English lapidary, Goustand. Neither of these names has the sound of being English. A circular of the Grand Orient‑September 4, 1788‑mentions as existing in 1725‑3o five Lodges, Louis d'Argent, Bussy, Aumont, Parfaite Union and Bernouville. Lalande ascribes no name to Derwentwater's Lodge and calls the Louis d'Argent the third Lodge in Paris. Clavel (who was an active Freemason and Master of the Lodge Emeth) makes the Lodge of 1726 the third in Paris, says it was called St. Thomas and was zz FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE identical with the Louis d'Argent. Ragon agrees, but gives the date as 1729. Rebold looks upon these names as those of two distinct Lodges under the dates 1726 and 1729 respectively and thinks the first one identical with Derwentwater's Lodge. Speaking of the latter Lalande says (Daruty, Recherches, etc., p. 84, note 4z) In less than ten years the reputation of this Lodge attracted five to six hundred Brethren within the circle of the Craft and caused other Lodges to be established.

 

Nothing, however, can positively be said of these early Lodges for want of contemporary evidence. If we turn to the English Engraved Lists we find that whatever Lodge (or Lodges) may have existed in Paris in 1725 must have been unchartered, for the first French Lodge on the roll is on the list for 1730‑2, No. go, the King's Head, Paris (see Gould's Four Old Lodges, p. 5o). King's Head is identical with Louis d'Argent‑a silver coin bearing the effigy of King Louis. In 1736‑9, No. go is shown at the Hotel de Bussy, Rue de Bussy and the date of constitution as April 3, 173z. This was known afterwards as Loge d'Aumont, because le Duc d'Aumont was initiated therein. The first two of the five Lodges cited by the Grand Orient in 1788 were, therefore, in reality one and the same. In 1740 it became No. 78 and met at the Ville de Tonnerre, Rue des Boucheriesin 1756 it received the number 49 and was erased in 1768. It would appear probable ‑more cannot be said‑that Derwentwater's Lodge is identical with this Lodge; that it was an informal Lodge and did not petition for a Warrant till ‑173z. Further proof of irregularity is afforded by extracts from the daily papers (reprinted in Masonic Magazine, vol. iv, 1876, p. 419).

 

St. James's Evening Post, September 7, 1734.‑We hear from Paris that a Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons was lately held there at her Grace the Duchesse of Portsmouth's house, where his Grace the Duke of Richmond, assisted by another English nobleman of distinction there, President Montesquieu, Brigadier Churchill, Ed. Yonge and Walter Strickland, Esq., admitted several persons of distinction, into that most Ancient and Honourable Society.

 

St. James's Evening Post, September 20, 173 5.‑They write from Paris that his Grace the Duke of Richmond and the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers .‑. .‑. now authorized by the present Grand Master (under his hand and seal and the seal of the Order), having called a Lodge at the Hotel Bussy in the Rue Bussy, [several] noblemen and gentlemen‑were admitted to the Order. . . .

 

It is noteworthy that this assembly was held in the premises of the only Lodge then warranted in France, but was evidently not a meeting of that Lodge, as it was " called " or convoked by the Duke of Richmond and Dr. Desaguliers. On May 12, 1737‑the same journal informs us‑on the authority of a private letter from Paris, that " five Lodges are already established." Of these one only is known to have been warranted. The second in France was constituted at Valenciennes as No. 127 (Four Old Lodges, p. 52), but dropped off the English roll (as No. 40) in 1813. The third on August 22, 1735, as No. 133, by the Duke of Richmond and FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 23 Aubigny, at his castle of Aubigny (see Anderson's Constitutions, 1738), and was erased in 1768. It is also known that, at that time the English Lodge at Bordeaux (Loge 1'Anglaise, No. zoo) was working, though not yet warranted by the Grand Lodge of England and it seems certain that no other French Lodge received an English Charter until 1766. It is, therefore, clear that of these five Paris Lodges, four were either self‑constituted or derived their authority irregularly from the first, Au Louis d'Argent, No. go.

 

The earliest publication which fixes a date for the introduction of Freemasonry into France is the Sceau Rompu of 1745 (Le Sceau Romp, ou la Loge ouverte aux profanes, par un francmafon, Cosmopolis), twenty‑eight years before Lalande. It states As regards Freemasonry, its introduction may be placed at eighteen years ago [consequently in 1727], but at first it was worked under the deepest secrecy.

 

Lalande says Lord Derwentwater was looked upon as Grand Master of the Masons ; he afterwards went to England and was beheaded. My Lord Harnouester was elected in 1736 by the four [Clavel says six, the St. James's Evening Post mentions five] Lodges which then existed in Paris ; he is the first regularly elected Grand Master. In 173 8 the Duc d'Antin was elected General Grand Master ad vitam for France. . . . In 1742 twenty‑one Lodges existed in Paris.

 

On the other hand, a Frankfort publication (Grundlicbe Nacbricbt) of 1738 declares that nothing was heard of the French Craft before 1736 ; whilst another Frankfort publication of 1744 (Der sicb selbst vertbeidigende Freimaurerei) affirms that at the end of 1736, there were six Lodges in France and more than sixty Masons [one‑tenth of the number cited by Lalande], who at that date [which is usually assigned to Lord Harnouester] elected the Earl of Derwentwater to succeed James Hector Maclean, who had served some years previously. How is it possible to reconcile all these conflicting statements ? Putting aside the above solitary reference to an alleged Grand Master Maclean anterior to Derwentwater, as a question impossible of solution with our present knowledge, it may well be asked how came Derwentwater to be a Mason at all ? Charles Radcliffe was the brother of James Radcliffe, third and last Earl of Derwentwater. They were arrested for rebellion in 1715 and James was beheaded. Charles escaped to France and assumed the title‑which had been forfeited for high treason ‑became concerned in the rebellion of 1745 and was beheaded on Tower Hill December 8, 1746 (Collins, Peerage of England, 1812, vol. ix, p. 407), meeting his fate as became a brave gentleman (General Advertiser, December 9, 1746). Having left England before the revival, where was he initiated ? Not in Paris apparently, because he opened the first Lodge there. Also, why does the St. James's Evening Post, which mentions many men of lesser note in its Masonic news, never say a word about Charles Radcliffe, who was then at the head of the Craft in France ? Moreover, who were the Chevalier Maskelyne and Squire Henquelty, his colleagues ? Their identity cannot be traced. Maskelyne is an English name, that of a Wiltshire 24 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE family, from which Nevil Maskelyne, the distinguished Astronomer‑Royal, born in 1734, was descended, but there is no identification of this Chevalier Maskelyne with that family. The name Henquelty has been spelt in various ways‑Heguetty, Heguetty, Heguelly, etc. Above all, who was Lord Harnouester ? It must be admitted that Frenchmen‑indeed, Continental writers generallyare not renowned for orthographical accuracy. By them Charles Radcliffe is invariably styled " Dervent‑Waters," even M. de St. Simon continually calls the eldest son of John Dalrymple, created Viscount Stair by William III, " Mi‑lord Flairs." The editor of the private reprint of Heutzner, on that writer's tradition respecting " the Kings of Denmark who reigned in England," buried in the Temple Church, metamorphosed the two Inns of Court, Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn, into the names of the Danish Kings, Gresin and Lyconin. Erroneous proper names of places occur continually in early writers, particularly French ones. There are some in Froissart that cannot be at all understood. Bassompierre is equally erroneous. Jorchaux is intended by him for York House; and, more wonderful still, Inhimthort proves by the context to be Kensington ! " (Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, ed. 1859, vol. i, p. 327). But can the utmost ingenuity convert Harnouester into the similitude of any name known to the English peerage ? The only satisfactory hypothesis is that, previously to 1738, there existed in Paris one and, in the Departments, two regularly constituted Lodges, besides several others more or less irregular and that the fashion had, probably, been set in the first instance by refugees at the court of the Pretender and by other English visitors to the capital. Whether these Scottish names were not an afterthought, consequent on the rage for what is termed Scots Masonry which arose in 1740, or whether they really played an important part in the early days of the Craft in France must be left undecided.

 

We first appear to touch really solid ground in 173 8, when the Duc d'Antin, a. peer of France, said to have been initiated by the Duke of Richmond at Aubigny in 1737, was elected Grand Master ad vitarri of French Freemasonry. That, from this moment, French Freemasonry, as such, distinct from the English Lodges. warranted in France, was recognized as existing, may be gathered from Anderson's. Constitutions of 1738 (p. 196).

 

All these foreign Lodges are under the patronage of our Grand Master of England, but the old Lodge at York City and the Lodges of Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy affecting independency, are under their own Grand Masters; though they have the same Constitutions, Charges, Regulations, etc., for substance, with their brethren of England.

 

This also tends incidentally to prove that up to this date French innovations on the rite of Masonry had not made themselves known. There is no authentic record that the Grand Lodge of England or any Grand Master of England ever granted a Warrant, Deputation, Dispensation, or Authority for the establishment of a Provincial Grand Master or Grand Lodge of France. Mackey in his Revised History of Freemasonry (Clegg's edition, p. i z66), says FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 25 It has been very plausibly urged that the granting of such a Deputation to the titular Earl of Derwentwater would have been a political impossibility. He was a convicted disloyalist to the English Government and his execution had only been averted in 1715 by his escape from prison.

 

In opposition to this Rebold (Histoire des trois Grander Loges, p. 44) says Lord Derwentwater, who, in 1725, received from the Grand Lodge at London full power to constitute Lodges in France, was, in 1735, invested by the same Grand Lodge with the functions of Provincial Grand Master. When he quitted France to return to England, where soon after he perished on the scaffold, a victim to his attachment to the Stuarts, he transferred the full power which he possessed to his friend, Lord Harnouester, whom he appointed as the representative during his absence, of his office of Provincial Grand Master.

 

Thory says that Derwentwater was chosen Grand Master by the Brethren at the time of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris, whilst Lalande (Encyclopedie) says that, as the first Paris Lodge had been opened by Lord Derwentwater, he was regarded as the Grand Master and so continued until his return to England, without any formal recognition on the part of the Brethren.

 

In 1743 d'Antin died and, on December 11, 1743, sixteen Masters of Paris Lodges elected as his successor Prince Louis de Bourbon, Count de Clermont. The country Lodges accepted the nomination. Of the chief fact‑Clermont's election‑there can be no doubt ; the other statements are on the authority of a Grand Orient publication of 1777. Admitting them, we arrive at the probable number of Lodges in Paris and at the conclusion that Grand Lodge consisted only of the Paris Masters and that the Provinces were not represented in the governing body. But, whilst the Grand Orient in 1777 thus lays claim to only sixteen Lodges, Lalande in 1773 had referred to twenty‑one. Perhaps five were not represented ? Meanwhile the new Society had awakened the suspicions of the police under Louis XV who, in 1737, ordered his courtiers, under threat of the Bastille, to abstain from joining it. The meetings of English Masons resident in Paris appear to have been tolerated, but the police sought to prevent Frenchmen from joining. The same year Chapelot‑an innkeeper‑was severely fined for receiving a Lodge on his premises. On December 27, 1738, the Lieutenant‑General of Police, Herault, dispersed an assembly in the Rue des Deux Ecus (Acta Latomorum, vol. i, p. 38) and really did imprison some of the members for a time. His machinations with the opera danseuse Carton in the same year and the consequent issue of the Relation Apologique, are well known. All this did not prevent the Count de Clermont from accepting the Grand Mastership ; nor did his acceptance prevent the police interdicting Masonry once more in 1744 and, in 1745, descending on the Hotel de Soissons, seizing the Lodge furniture and fining the proprietor, Leroy, heavily. This seems to have been the last act of the French authorities against Freemasonry. Findel, quoting Lalande, says that 26 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE at first only the nobles solicited and obtained admittance into the Lodges and, as long as this was the case, Freemasonry remained unmolested; but, when the middle classes began to take an interest in it and the Lodges were gradually formed of less immaculate materials, the expediency of suppressing them altogether began to be debated. Louis XV, urged thereto, it is alleged, by his Father Confessor and his mistress, published an edict in 1737, in which he declared that, as the inviolable secrets of the Masons might cover some dreadful design, he prohibited all his loyal subjects from holding any intercourse with them. All Freemasons belonging to the nobility were forbidden to appear at Court. But, instead of being discouraged by this prohibition, curiosity was only the more awakened. Lodges were assembled in secret and the number of candidates for initiation increased daily. The wealthy Englishmen resident in Paris warmly defended the cause, nor could they easily be intimidated. One of them had the temerity boldly to announce publicly that a Lodge would meet for the purpose of electing a Grand Master.

 

Findel also says that Herault published the Ritual which was found among the confiscated papers.

 

The Bull issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738 was non‑effective in France, it not being published in that country; nor was that issued a few years later by Pope Benedict XIV. One of the results of the Bull, however, was the formation of the Society known as the Mopses, whose customs are described in L'Ordre des Francsnaafons trahi. This Society is said to have originated in Germany in order to take the place of the Masonic Order among Catholics, who composed the membership. Instead of an oath, the word of honour was taken and several of the Princes of the German Empire became Grand Masters of the Society, into which women were admitted as members.

 

During the period just sketched, it has always been maintained that Ramsay introduced a Rite of five Degrees between 1736‑8, called the Rite de Ramsay or de Bouillon. Beyond mere assertions, echoes of Thory, there is not the slightest evidence that a Rite de Ramsay ever existed. The appellation is a comparatively modern one, not being heard of until Thory invented it. Nevertheless, about 1740, various Rites or Degrees of what has been called Scots Masonry did spring into existence, followed shortly afterwards by Scots Mother‑Lodges controlling systems of subordinate Scots Lodges. At first all these had reference to the recovery of the lost word, but before long additions were made. In 1743 the Masons of Lyons invented the Kadosh Degree, comprising the vengeance of the Templars and thus laid the foundation for all the Templar rites. It was at first called junior Elect; but developed into Elect of 9 or of Perignan, Elect of 15, Illustrious Master, Knight of Aurora, Grand Inquisitor, Grand Elect, Commander of the Temple, etc. 1751 is given as the date of the Lodge St. John of Scotland, subsequently Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles and Mother Scots Lodge of France; 1754 as that of the establishment of the Chapter of Clermont ; 1754 of Martinez Paschalis's Elect Coens, etc. These dates may not be altogether accurate, but that they are sufficiently so is probable. Three works (Le Secret des Francsmafons, Perau, Geneva, 1742 ; L'Ordre de Francsmafons trahi, Amsterdam, 1745 ; and Catechisme des Francsmafons, Leonard Gabanon FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 27 (Travenol, Paris) a Jerusalem, 1744. Cf. Kloss, Bibliog., Nos. 1848, 1850, and 1851) Of 1742‑5 make no mention of anything beyond the Master's Degree, but the Sceau Rompu of 1745 alludes to the connexion with the Knightly orders, as do Travenol's further editions of his Catdcbisme in 1747 and 1749. Le parfait Mason ou les veritables Secrets des quatre grades d'Aprentis, Compagnons, Maitres ordinaires et Ecossais, etc., of 1744 professes to expose a Scots Degree, speaks of there being six or seven such and says that " this variation of Freemasonry is beginning to find favour in France " ; and the Franc Mafonne of 1744 reproaches the majority of the Paris Masters with not knowing that Freemasonry consists of seven Degrees. Article zo of the Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge, dated December 11, 1743, reads As it appears that lately some Brothers announce themselves as Scots Masters, claiming prerogatives in private Lodges and asserting privileges of which no traces are to be found in the archives and usages of the Lodges spread over the globe, the Grand Lodge, in order to cement the unity and harmony which should reign amongst Freemasons, has decreed that these Scots Masters, unless they are Officers of Grand Lodge or of a private Lodge, shall not be more highly considered by the Brothers than the other apprentices and fellows and shall wear no sign of distinction whatever.

 

It was possibly on account of the intrigues of these so‑called Scots Masons that Clermont's Grand Lodge in 1743, according to Thory, took the title of Grande Loge Anglaise de France. Thory, for his own purposes, has chosen to consider that the title implied a connexion with England, a sort of Provincial Grand Lodge for France. Anderson, in 1738, acknowledged that the independent authority of the Grand Master of French Freemasonry was recognized in England. As a member of the High Degrees, Clermont naturally felt disinclined to see in the title either a protest against innovation, or a disclaimer of any connexion with the Scots Masters ; but, in order to support his assertions, he has been disingenuous enough to invent an alleged correspondence with England, of which not a trace exists.

 

He belonged to the royal family of Orleans and was the uncle of the Duke of Chartres, afterwards Duke of Orleans, the father of Louis Philippe, the popular King of France.

 

Louis de Bourbon, Count de Clermont, was born in 1709 and entered the Church, but, in 1733, joined the army‑the Pope granting a special dispensation and allowing him to retain his clerical emoluments‑succeeded Marshal Richelieu as commander, but got soundly thrashed by Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick at Crefeld in July 175 7, left the army, retired from court, applied himself to science and works of benevolence and died June 15, 1771 (Allgemeines Handbucb).

 

Although elected Grand Master in 1743, it was not until 1747 that he succeeded in obtaining the royal permission to preside, even then he appears to have taken no great interest in the affairs of the Craft. Under his rule a state of confusion and mismanagement arose. Thory attributes it chiefly to the low character of his Deputies, as well as to the irremovability of the Masters of Lodges; Kloss and 28 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Rebold to the factions and strife of the different systems of High Degrees; others to the neglect of the rulers ; and many of the exposures to all these causes, combined with the negligence shown in admitting men of worthless character to the privileges of the Society. Almost the only clue we possess in this labyrinth is the already cited Memoire Justificatif of Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee in his quarrel with Labady. Unfortunately no copy is procurable.

 

Taking these allegations in their order, let us first inquire into the personality of the Deputies of the Grand Master and of a later class of officials called Substitutes. Thory and, following him, all French writers, knew of only one Deputy, the banker Bauer, appointed in 1745. But Kloss shows clearly enough that two others, La Cour and Le Dran, had previously filled the office, so that it was probably an annual appointment. We also hear of another called Dache. Bauer is charged with having neglected his duties ; but, if the office was only held for one year, his neglect could not have been of vital importance. In 1761 it would appear that the office no longer existed, having given place to that of Substitute. Clermont's Substitut Particulier was Lacorne, a dancing master. This wretched person has been burthened with the sins of many other people. La Chaussee refers to him merely as having assisted the Duke at some initiations and speaks of him as an amiable man. Thory (Acta Latomorum, vol. i, p. 78 andAnnale.r Originis,p. 20), on his own authority, improves upon this. He declares that Lacorne's amiability extended so far as to assist Clermont in his amorous intrigues, which procured him his post of Substitut Particulier ; that he surrounded himself with all the lowest characters in Masonry, out of whom he composed the Grand Lodge; that all the better members retired, setting up a rival Grand Lodge in 1761 ; that the split was only healed on June 24, 1762, by revoking Lacorne's appointment in favour of Chaillou de Jonville as Substitut General. It is probable that at this epoch there were two bodies claiming to be the Grand Lodge for a few months, but the facts are evidently distorted, as the signatures to Morin's patent in 1761 will sufficiently attest. We there find Lacorne associating intimately with the elite of the Craft‑the Prince de Rohan, Chaillon de Jonville (Master of the Premier Lodge of France), Count Choiseul, etc. and that the assembly of the Emperors is called at Lacorne's request. This does not look as if he were a despicable pandar, nor as if his associates were the dregs of Masonry. Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee, who was a co‑signatory of the same document, makes no such charge against him. As to Lacorne's being deposed in favour of Jonville, that very patent records their signatures side by side‑each with his wellknown title of Substitute‑General and Substitute‑Particular. It is evident, therefore, that one office was not merged in the other, but that they were co‑existent. Another charge is, that the Lodges were proprietary, presided over by irremovable Masters who had bought their patents and, in order to make a profit out of them, initiated every applicant, however unworthy. That this may have happened in some few cases, especially where the Master was an innkeeper, cannot be denied; the taunts of some of the contemporary so‑called exposures would almost imply as much ; but, considering how many high names were enrolled in the Craft at FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 29 this period, it cannot be imagined that the evil was of intolerable extent. Thory maintains that from the very first, Patents of Constitution were made proprietary, but Lalande says that, in 1738, the Masters were elected quarterly. Nevertheless, irremovable Masters did exist at the period we are considering and there is proof of their existence as early as 1742, i.e. before Clermont's time. Lalande again gives the reason. Grand Lodge was composed of the Paris Masters only, not the Provincial and, to avoid the effect of inexperienced Masters assuming the rule of the Craft, the Paris Masters were made such ad vitam. That this agrees with facts, so far as they are known, may be inferred from the Minutes of the Versailles (a Provincial) Lodge which elected its W.M. yearly (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 47). In view of the questions arising out of Morin's patent, it is well to note that this Lodge calls the Grand Lodge " The Grand Lodge of St. John at Paris." The statutes of the Grand Lodge of 175 5 ordain, in Article 29, that the Master shall be elected annually on St. John the Baptist's Day. But, although Masters ad vitam doubtless existed, even in considerable numbers, there is no proof that the Lodges were proprietary, nor would such a state of matters have conduced to the prosperity of the Grand Lodge funds. The perpetual Masters, say a few of them who were innkeepers, may have had a bad effect upon the status of the Craft in general, but it is scarcely possible to connect them with the dissensions in Grand Lodge. Kloss has furnished the true reason in the strife of rival high‑grade systems and Rebold, Findel and Jouast were perfectly justified in accepting his conclusions.

 

Studying the history of the Grand Lodge chronologically, the facts appear to be as follow. In 1754 the Chapter of Clermont was established and granted supplementary Degrees, being joined chiefly by the elite of the Craft. In 175 5 Grand Lodge revised its statutes and dropped the title of English which it had hitherto borne, possibly in deference to the wishes of its members, many of whom belonged to the Clermont Chapter and all were probably admitted to some of the various Scots Degrees. No copy of these statutes is to be found in France, but Kloss was enabled to use a magnificently illuminated edition belonging to a Frankfort Lodge. (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. z8. Published in full with translation, in The Freemason, June and July 18 8 5, by G. W. Speth, from a certified copy of the original manuscript. Cf. also the letters on the subject in previous numbers of The Freemason, beginning January 17, 1885, between Speth and the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, who combats the views entertained by Speth.) They are headed, Status dresses par la Resp. L. St. Jean de Jerusalem de I'Orient de Paris gouvernee par le trds haut et trds puissant Seigneur Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont, Prince du Sang, Grand Maitre de toutes les Loges regulieres de France, pour servir de Reglement a toutes celles du Royaume. They consist of forty‑four articles, and conclude thus Given at Paris, in a Lodge specially summoned for the purpose and regularly held between square and compass, in the presence of 6o Brothers, Masters and Wardens. In the year of the Great Light 575 5, on July 4, of the vulgar era 1755ò 30 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Attached is the " mysterious seal of the Scots Lodge," in red wax with gold and sky blue thread; signed, Louis de Bourbon. Articles i, z and 3 contain the Mason's duty to God, his sovereign and the civil authorities. Article 4 preaches the equality of rich and poor. Articles 5 and ii describe the moral requisites of a Mason. Article 13 gives the age of a candidate as twenty‑five‑a Lewis may be made and passed before that age, but not raised. Article ig provides that the Master on the day of St. John Baptist shall fix the dates of the twelve ensuing monthly meetings. Article z1 provides for the relief of applicants of all nations. Article 23, " Only the Master of the Lodge and the Scots Masters are permitted to remain covered," etc. Article 29 enacts that the Lodge is to attend Mass on St. John's Day, elect its Master, who shall appoint the officers, etc. Article 3 3 refers to the governing body as Grande Loge de France, omitting the word Anglaise. It therefore becomes evident that the Grand, like every private Lodge, possessed a title and that it was St. John of Jerusalem‑an echo possibly of Ramsay's discourse. Article 4z is important The Scots Masters are to superintend the work. They alone can censure faults. They are always at liberty to speak (prendre la parole), to be always armed and covered and, if they fall into error, can only be impeached by the Scots Masters.

 

That there must have been a powerful high‑grade influence at work in Grand Lodge can no longer be doubted, but it must not therefore be imagined that Grand Lodge worked the so‑called High Degrees; this was doubtless done by the same individuals, but in another capacity and in Chapter.

 

In 1756 the Knights of the East were established, consisting principally of the middle class, in rivalry of the Chapter of Clermont and the two organizations probably intrigued for the direction of Grand Lodge, the triennial election of Grand Officers forming, of course, the chief ground of battle.

 

In 175 8 arose the Sovereign Council of the Emperors of the East and West. This was probably only a development of the Clermont Chapter and very likely possessed a preponderating influence in Grand Lodge, as we know that both the Substitute‑General and the Substitute‑Particular were members of the Council. It bestowed Warrants for the Lodges of the Higher Degrees, nominated Grand Inspectors and Deputies for the furtherance of the so‑called " Perfect and Sublime Masonry " throughout Europe and organized, in the interior of France," several special Councils, such, for example, as the Conseil des Princes du Royal Secret at Bordeaux.

 

1761.‑The Lodge was divided into two camps, each arrogating to itself the authority of Grand Lodge, but Thory goes beyond the truth in his statement, that Lacorne withdrew with a rabble and set up a Grand Lodge of his own. In this year, indeed, the faction (or Grand Lodge) headed by Lacorne and Jonville, held a joint meeting with the Emperors, which resulted in the grant to Morin of his famous patent.

 

1761.‑Owing to a quarrel, the College de Valois, the governing body of the Knights, was dissolved and a Sovereign Council of the Rite took its place.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 31 The triennial election of Grand Officers took place June z4. A compromise having been effected between the rival camps, each faction ensured the election of some of its members. There not being room for all, Lacorne was unprovided for. As to his removal by the Count de Clermont, it rests only on Thory's assertion. As an indication of the probable innocence of Lacorne, it is a curious fact that the only mention of his name in any documentary evidence which has been handed down, occurs in his own signature to Morin's patent. Nothing whatever of his official career as a Mason is known and from that moment he entirely disappears from the scene. The two momentarily separated Grand Lodges now only formed one.

 

1765.‑At the next election, it would appear as if the battle had been fought out to the end and that the Emperors had secured almost all the offices. This gave rise to violent debates and recriminations, both in Lodge and in print, which ultimately became unendurable. As a consequence the most violent were banished; they appear to have belonged some to one faction, some to another. But the Emperors must always have had a great support in Brest‑de‑la‑Chaussee, the Grand Keeper of the Seals and Chaillou de Jonville, the Substitute‑General. Among the exiles may be mentioned Daubertin, the former secretary of the Emperors and Labady, Chaussee's subsequent enemy.

 

On August 14, 1766, to put an end (if possible) to all strife, the Grand Lodge issued a circular forbidding its Lodges to have anything to do with any High Grades whatsoever. It is probable that this was the result of another battle royal. That the Knights had been thoroughly worsted may be gathered from the fact that on October z, 1766, Gaillard, the Grand Orator, moved and carried that the decree be repealed and insisted upon the necessity of incorporation with the Council of the Emperors. The proposal was placed before the private Lodges by circular for their consideration. The Knights retaliated by a circular denouncing all Templar degrees ; they themselves not working any of that description.

 

On February 4, 1767, the Knights made a last effort in Grand Lodge and this time came to blows. Labady, who had been expelled, afterwards declared before a committee of the Grand Orient, August 13, 1773, that he had been present at this meeting and had engaged in a personal quarrel. From which it appears probable, as before stated, that the excluded Brethren entered Grand Lodge by force and were expelled by the stronger party.

 

The report of these occurrences having reached the ear of the King, a decree of State was laid before Grand Lodge on February 21, 1767, ordering it to cease to meet. Freemasonry itself, however, was laid under no ban, but the dissolution of Grand Lodge made the governance of the Craft very difficult and, of course, prevented the proposed amalgamation with the Emperors. The direction of affairs remained in the hands of Jonville and Chaussee and it is the latter's conduct during the interval that was afterwards impugned by Labady, who, on his side, formed a Grand Lodge of his own and entered into correspondence with the Provincial Lodges ; but Chaussee, who, of course, kept possession of the seals, etc., issued 32 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE a circular giving the names of the excluded Brethren and so prevented his doing much mischief. In this way the strife was continued and, in spite of the dissolution of Grand Lodge, new Lodges were chartered, the Warrants being antedated by Chaussee (see Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 78‑i 2o).

 

On June 15, 1771, the Grand Master, the Count de Clermont, died. As his death was followed by the establishment of two new and rival Grand bodies, neither of which can exactly claim to be the successor of his Grand Lodge, its history may be considered closed at this point. Rebold asserts that from 1743 to 1772 it had constituted over 3oo Lodges in all and has rescued the names and dates of seventy‑four, of which he gives a list (Histoire des trois Grander Loges, pp. 53‑5).

 

One curious fact remains to be mentioned before we proceed to the establishment of the Grand Orient of France. The following is an extract from the English Book of Constitutions January 27, 1768.‑The Grand Master informed the Brethren that two letters had been received from the Grand Lodge of France expressing a desire of opening a correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England; and the said letters being read, Resolved, that a mutual correspondence be kept up and that a Book of Constitutions, a list of Lodges and a form of a deputation, bound in an elegant manner, be presented to the Grand Lodge of France.

 

As the original Grand Lodge of France had ceased to exist legally for over a year, it would be interesting to know from which Grand Lodge these letters came, whether from Jonville or from Labady and, above all, to whom the answer was directed and how its arrival was ensured. Apparently the English rulers knew nothing whatever of French Freemasonry and took it all as a matter of course; but as will presently be shown, the English Grand Lodge was never kept au courant of passing affairs and, in consequence, on more than one occasion, acted outrageously towards its own most faithful Continental daughters. This official recognition of the Grand Lodge of France did not apparently entail any acknowledgment of its sole sovereignty. In 1767 England had constituted the English Lodge at Bordeaux, according it seniority from 1732 and the Lodge Sagesse at Havre and, in 1767, one at Grenoble. Subsequently to the receipt of the letters it warranted in 1772 the Lodge Candour at Strasburg (which, in 1774, became the seat of government of the Province of Burgundy under the Strict Observance) and, in 1785, the Parfaite Amitie at Avignon Languedoc. None of these Lodges was carried forward on the roll of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813 ; and those at the Louis d'Argent and at Aubigny were erased on the same day that the letters from France were received, because they had either " ceased to meet or had neglected to conform to the laws of the Society." The death of the Count de Clermont was the signal for momentous events. His influence at court had long been nil ; if, therefore, he could be replaced by someone of more power, the Grand Lodge might again be allowed to meet. This really took place and the new Grand Lodge thereafter immediately split into two rival FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 33 Grand Lodges. Up to the present it has been necessary to pick the way to a great extent between conflicting traditions but, in describing approaching events, a choice must be made between diametrically opposite views based on documentary evidence, of which a great quantity exists. No point of Masonic history has given rise to greater bitterness and recrimination than the foundation of the Grand Orient. It has been vatiously maintained that it was a base scheme of the Brethren exiled in 1765, to revenge themselves on the former Grand Lodge; that it was the work of a rabble of no standing ; that it was a deeply laid device of Montmorency ; that it was brought about by the High Degrees ; that it was a usurpation of the Provinces ; that it was un‑Masonic and illegal; and that it was a conspiracy of the Commissioners of Grand Lodge‑together with other accusations equally diverse and imaginary. Exigencies of space prevent these allegations being brought before the bar of history, or dwelling upon them in any way. They are all the fruits of a marked enmity to the Grand Orient ; the example was set by Thory. That writer, like all the others, can only make a lame attempt to prove his charges by tampering with documentary evidence, or by wholesale suppression and perversion. There follows, therefore, a bare recital of events in chronological sequence, further details of which can be seen in Kloss's History of French Freemasonry, vol. i, pp. 121‑86 and in the pages of Jouast. The strife between De‑la‑Chaussee and Labady‑so frequently alluded to ‑is interwoven with these proceedings and contributed, possibly, not a little to the ultimate results.

 

In the first place it will be well to cite the names of the exiled Brethren, viz. *Perrault, *Pethe, *Peny, Hardy, Duret, Guillot, *Daubertin, *Guillot, *Lacan, Bigarre, Morin and *Labady. Of these, Daubertin and Labady were certainly members the Council of the Emperors and, possibly, also some of the others, though this is uncertain and they all appear to have held the status of simple citizens. The seven whose names are marked with an asterisk were Masters ad vitam of Paris Lodges and Guillot was a Paris Master, but whether elected or irremovable cannot be ascertained.

 

From subsequent statements of De‑la‑Chaussee and the Duke of Montmorency, we learn that the latter had already been preferred to high office under the Count de Clermont, who had appointed him Substitute, in which capacity he had initiated the Duke of Chartres in his own Lodge. The date of this initiation is nowhere stated.

 

Tradition has it, that immediately on the death of Clermont‑June 15, 1771the exiles communicated with Anne Charles Sigismond, Duke of MontmorencyLuxemburg and, through him, induced Louis Philippe Joseph, Duke of Chartres from 1787 Duke of Orleans, a Prince of the blood Royal, father of Louis Philippe, born April 13, 1747, guillotined as Citizen Egalite, November 6, 1793‑to declare that if he were elected he would accept the post of Grand Master. In view of the social position of the exiles, we may perhaps inquire with Kloss whether the Duke of Luxemburg did not act on his own initiative and simply communicate the result through these Brethren. But this is a matter of small moment F. IV‑3 34 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1771 June 2i.‑Six days after Clermont's death a meeting was held of the Paris Masters, who then and there resolved to revive the Communications of Grand Lodge. As the Grand Lodge consisted of the Paris Masters only, they were doubt less within their rights. At whose suggestion the Lodge was convoked is not clear, but it was summoned and very properly, according to Masonic usage, presided over by De Puisieux (initiated December 15, 1729), assisted by Leveille and Le Lorrain, the three Senior Masters of Lodges present. As the assembly was proceeding to elect a new Master, the exiles were announced and admitted. They demanded restitution of their rights, throwing the blame of past events on Zambault, Grand Secretary, then deceased. They retired and the Grand Lodge agreed not to go into the matter too closely, out of respect for Zambault's memory, but hinted that this Brother's conduct in other respects tended to justify the charge. The exiles were readmitted and received with open arms and the kiss of peace. One of them, Duret, then announced the glorious news that through their efforts the Dukes of Chartres and Luxemburg had consented to accept the offices of Grand Master and Substitute‑General respectively. In order not to waste time, it was decided not to consult the Provinces pro bac vice‑and the election was fixed for June 24. A committee was then appointed to verify De‑la‑Chaussee's acts during the interregnum. These were Martin, Pirlet, Leroy, Daubertin, Bourgeois, Sec.Gen. ; Duret, Le Lorrain, Lescombart, Bruneteau, Guillot and Labady, four of whom were former exiles. Although the reinstatement of the exiles was accomplished on this day, it was not placed on the Minutes before October 17, possibly because this meeting of the Grand Lodge was considered informal.

 

1771 June z4.‑Grand Lodge. Unanimous election of the two Dukes ; appointment of a deputation to the Duc de Chartres to acquaint him thereof and to pray his acceptance of office. The deputation consisted of Peny, Duret, L'Eveille, Guillot, Daubertin and Bruneteau‑with the exception of L'Eveille and Bruneteau ‑all former exiles. The Duc de Chartres showed no great anxiety to take over the duties of his office and, from 1771 to 1778, the Duke of Luxemburg, who soon assumed the title of General Administrator, was, in all but the name, the real Grand Master.

 

August 14.‑Grand Lodge. Approbation of revised Statutes in 5 3 and 41 Articles. Legend on seal, Grande Loge des Maitres de 1'Orient de Paris. " Art. 1. G. Lodge is composed of the Masters of all regularly constituted Lodges." It will be observed that there is here the first step in a very salutary reform. Article 3 gives Wardens a consultative voice in Grand Lodge, but no vote. Article 5 ordains that the twenty‑seven Grand Officers be elected from the Paris Masters only. These Grand Officers formed the Loge de Conseil or Managing Board. Article 8. The Loge de Conseil to meet monthly.

 

October 17.‑Circular of Grand Lodge announcing past events and calling upon the Lodges in the Provinces to appoint Deputies to attend the installation of the Grand Master at a date to be subsequently decided. It gives a list of the Grand Officers, of whom may be named as important for our researches, Daubertin, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 35 Secretary‑General ; Guillot, Treasurer ; Duret, Warden of the Seals ; Labady, Secretary for the Provinces ; Bigarre, 2nd Expert; Maurin, Assistant Secretary for the Provinces. So that of twenty‑four officials six belonged to the exiled party. 1772 January 29.‑Committee reported on De‑la‑Chaussee's acts during the interregnum. Labady, among others, signed " of his own free will and accord " and all was pronounced in order, showing a balance of 2oi livres, 16 sols, against De‑la‑Chaussee, who was granted an Honorary Diploma as Past Grand Warden of the Seals.

 

April 5.‑Chartres signs a document, wherein he says that in view of the resolution passed in Grand Lodge June 24, 1771 and in the Sovereign Council of the Emperors, August 26, 1771, he has accepted the offices of Grand Master of all regular Lodges in France and Sovereign Grand Master of all Councils, Chapters and Scots Lodges of the Grand Globe of France. This last phrase was the newest title of the organization of the Emperors.

 

April i8.‑Grand Lodge. The Duke of Luxemburg is congratulated on the birth of a son and proposes that the Lodge St. Jean de Montmorency‑Luxemburg, in which the Grand Master had received initiation, shall be made members of Grand Lodge. Agreed that they shall all have seats and votes in Grand Lodge and that three in turn shall sit and vote in the Loge de Conseil. These Brothers were all members of the nobility and thus helped to weaken the majority in Grand Lodge, composed of Parisian perpetual Masters. Labady, as Secretary for the Provinces, then reported on the state of the Lodges and reviewed the past legislation from 1765. The speech is lost, but it contained a malicious impeachment of De‑laChaussee and was the immediate cause of the Memoire Justificatif. It will be remembered that, during the interregnum, Chaussee officiated for the Grand Lodge and that Labady attempted to set up a Grand Lodge of his own. The embittered personal quarrel which ensued is sad to contemplate but, perhaps, not unnatural. Labady had on February z9 thoroughly approved De‑la‑Chaussee's acts, so that his conduct was inconsistent, to say the least. The Grand Master's manifesto of April 5 was read to and approved by Grand Lodge.

 

1772 July.‑Circular to all Lodges reporting past events and preparing their Deputies to receive an invitation for the installation in November or December. July 26.‑Meeting of the Emperors of the East and West, Sublime Scots Lodge, President, the Duke of Luxemburg. The Grand Orator Gaillard, SecretaryGeneral Labady, Baron Toussainct and De Lalande were appointed a Deputation to Grand Lodge to renew proposals of fusion made October 2, 1766.

 

August g.‑Grand Lodge. President, Puisieux. Appeared the Deputation of the Emperors. Gaillard submitted the proposal, Bruneteau, Grand Orator of Grand Lodge, replied. It was unanimously and irrevocably decided that the Supreme Council of the Emperors of the East and West‑Sublime Mother Scots Lodge‑shall be, and from this moment is, united to the very respectable G.L. to constitute with it one sole and FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE inseparable body, uniting all Masonic knowledge and legislative power over all the Degrees of Masonry under the title of Sovereign and very respectable Grand Lodge of France.

 

The Commissioners of the Emperors had been empowered to request the appointment of Grand Lodge Commissioners and, with them, to revise the Statutes, the revision to be approved of at a joint meeting of the two bodies. The Grand Lodge appointed their Grand Secretary, Daubertin‑himself an Emperor and a signatory of Morin's patent‑Bruneteau, Lacan and Boulainvilliers. These are the eight commissioners who were afterwards accused of treachery to Grand Lodge. It will be observed that Labady, Daubertin and Lacan were old exiles.

 

August z9.‑Grand Lodge. The Commissioners receive extra instructions. I. They are to obtain audience of the Administrator‑General and request him to represent to Grand Lodge the possible inconvenience of his accepting the Presidency of other Councils, Chapters, etc. III. To circulate such representation, when obtained, amongst the Lodges. IV. They are enjoined to occupy themselves at once with the preparation of the necessary reform of the abuses which had crept into the Craft. The other instructions may be omitted. It will be observed that No. IV gives them very wide powers indeed.

 

September 4.‑Luxemburg declares that, although he had accepted the Presidency of the Lodge of the Knights of the East [erected March 7, 1771], Grand Lodge may be assured that he will never acknowledge any foreign body as independent of it and that, in this particular case, he will never allow said Lodge any special jurisdiction, etc., etc. From this it would appear that the Knights of the East were then so reduced in number as to consist of no more than one Lodge, that only lately re‑established. He also informed Grand Lodge that the Grand Master had fixed December 8 for his installation and ordered that all Parisian and Provincial Lodges be informed of the fact; that they be requested to accredit Deputies for the festival ; that they be further informed Commissioners would then be appointed to examine the proposed new statutes.

 

1772‑September 12.‑A circular to the above effect was sent to all the Lodges. September 17.‑Circular signed by seven of the eight Commissioners, Lalande failing to sign. After describing the disorders produced by so many independent Chapters all claiming a supremacy over Grand Lodge, it continues The Grand Lodge is occupied with the means of meeting this evil. . . . Since it resumed work its first care has been devoted to this subject, . . . and it has united with the Sovereign Council of the Emperors, etc., to form one sole body, etc., etc. ; . . . further, it intends to examine all Grades, to bring them back to their original form and to indicate their rank. We have been specially instructed to make the necessary preparations. . . . We flatter ourselves you will help us by forwarding your views upon the administration in general, etc.

 

October 9.‑Grand Lodge. Labady v. De‑la‑Chaussee. Resolved by 30 to 15 as follows: I. All titles conferred by Chaussee during the interregnum, except‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 37 ing that of W.M., are declared nul. II. Chaussee is within fourteen days to deliver to Grand Lodge all documents in his possession. III. He is to refund to the Treasurer, according to his own proposal, 336 livres. V. He is to pay the Tyler 6 livres for unintentionally accusing Boucher de Lenoncourt of having been excluded from Grand Lodge. VI. Chaussee is acquitted of all other faults imputed to him in Labady's essay. De‑la‑Chaussee was, apparently, not satisfied, for, on March 9 following, appeared his Memoire Justificatif.

 

November 16.‑Circular postponing the installation. Several Deputies returned to the Provinces, the greater number, however, remaining in Paris to participate in the work of the Commissioners.

 

December io.‑Last meeting of the revived Grand Lodge. None was subse quently called under the pretence of superior orders. As a matter of fact the decree against the meeting of Grand Lodge had never been revoked.

 

December 24.‑The old Grand Lodge of France was declared to have ceased to exist.

 

1773‑March 5.‑Meeting at the Hotel de Chaulnes, the residence of the Duke of Luxemburg, between the eight Commissioners and the Deputies of Provincial Lodges. Jouast gives the list of these Deputies; including the Duke of Luxemburg and the Grand Officers they number ninety‑six and, for the most part, were men of high position or attainments. Nor were they all Provincials. Either as Grand Officers or Provincial Deputies, the Paris Masters were represented by Bodson, Bruneteau, Daubertin, Baron Clauzels, Gaillard, Gouillard, Guillot, Labady‑alone the proxy of twenty‑seven Lodges in the Provinces‑Lacan, Lafin, De Lalande, the Abbe Boulainvilliers and others. But it will, of course, be seen that the Parisians were in a minority for the first time in French Freemasonry. Nothing was decided at this meeting, but the first two chapters of the new Constitutions were read.

 

March 8.‑Meeting of the Provincials only. The election of June 24, 1771, by the Paris Masters was confirmed amid acclamation. Count Buzen~ois de Luxemburg, Bacon de la Chevalerie and Richard de Begnicourt were elected to form with three Paris Masters (Baron Toussainct, De Lalande, and Bruneteau), a Deputation to inform the Dukes of the confirmation. Resolved to join the deliberations of the. Paris Brethren respecting the welfare of the Order.

 

March 9.‑Meeting of Commissioners and Provincial Deputies. President, Luxemburg. The sole and unique tribunal of the Order was proclaimed with the title of " National Grand Lodge of France," exercising in the greatest amplitude the supreme power of the Order. The first two chapters of the new Constitutions were accepted, subject to definition. A committee of definition was appointed, consisting of Buzen~ois, B. de la Chevalerie, Chev. Champeau, R. de Begnicourt, De Bauclas, Morin, Toussainct, De Lalande and Bruneteau, the four latter being Paris Masters. Chaussee's Memoire, which had recently appeared, was brought to the notice of the meeting. A Judicial Committee was appointed to take it into consideration, revise the decision of October 9, 1772 and adjudicate in the matter, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE their judgment to be without appeal, to be made known to all the Lodges and Chaussee to refrain from further publishing his Memoire. Hence the scarcity of that valuable document. The Committee consisted in great part of the same members as the committee of definition; only to avoid any chance of partiality, the Paris Masters were replaced by Provincials. President, De Bauclas ; members, Count BuzenCois, Begnicourt, Abbe Roziers, Guillotin, Furcy, Varenne de Beost, Mariette de Castaing. They received their written authority the next day, Pyron was added to the number as Secretary, Carbonnel as a member of the former Committee, but in each case without a vote.

 

March ig.‑Labady demanded permission to print his defence and offered to accept a coadjutor in his office of Secretary for the Provinces. The first request was denied and he was relieved of his appointment during inquiries. Begnicourt, Castaing and Buzencois, being on the point of leaving Paris, were replaced by Lamarque 1'Americain of St. Domingo, Lucadon and the Abbe Jossot. This Commission sat seventeen times.

 

The last meeting of the Commissioners and Provincial Deputies had taken place on March 9. It was probably felt that the former could scarcely be considered to represent Grand Lodge in arriving at a decision, as their duty was merely to prepare a scheme; but that the Provincial Lodges being represented by Deputies, the Paris Masters should follow suit. Whether that was the reason or not, a long interval occurred and, during the delay, twenty Paris Masters met and chose three Deputies, viz. De Mery d'Arcy, Leroy and Mangeau ; a second division‑or as it was termed, column‑of fifteen Masters, chose two Deputies, Regnard and Gouillard, Senior; a third column, of twelve Masters, chose four Deputies, Richard, Joubert de la Bourdiniere, Count de Jagny and Herault ; while a fourth column, of fourteen Paris Masters, elected two Deputies, Packault and Theaulon. As they took care not to elect members already on the board, they thus strengthened their own side considerably.

 

April 7.‑Meeting of Provincial and Paris Deputies, Commissioners and Grand Officers. Toussainct appointed Secretary to the Board of Revision‑this name is not historic and is merely used for convenience.

 

April i 3.‑A fifth column, of twenty Masters, elected three Deputies, Gerbier, Martin and Caseuil, Jun.

 

April 14.‑Board of Revision. Junction of last‑named Deputies.

 

April i7.‑Board of Revision. The first chapter of the new Statutes as amended by the new Commissioners adopted with enthusiasm.

 

April 22.‑Board of Revision. The second chapter read amidst partial applause. In recognition of his services Luxemburg was permitted to nominate ‑pro hac vice‑all the officers of Grand Lodge.

 

May 24.‑Board of Revision. Savalette de Langes, in the name of Chaillon de Jonville, acknowledged the two Dukes as regularly elected and resigned his appoint ment. Jonville now disappears from the scene as mysteriously as Lacorne had previously done. First chapter of the Statutes confirmed with acclamation.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 39 May ZS.‑Board of Revision. Count Buzen~ois de Luxemburg and fifteen honorary Grand Officers elected, installed and acclaimed. Revision proceeded with. June 2.‑Board of Revision. Confirmation by the Administrator‑General of all officers elected. The second chapter of the Statutes also confirmed. Three members of the Committee of Definition being absent, were replaced by the Marquis de Tonnerre, Varenne de Beost and Leroy, the latter being a Paris Master.

 

June 7.‑Board of Revision. Final confirmation of the first two chapters.

 

June 14.‑Board of Revision. First signs of dissatisfaction on the part of the Paris Masters. They began to perceive that a most salutary reform‑the abolition of perpetual Masters‑affected their vested interests. The Statutes_, strange to say, presented at the first meeting of the Board on March 5, recognized as Masters, only such as should have received the 15 Degrees and the last three, i.e. 18 in all. It must not be forgotten that the Grand Lodge was at that time practically identical with the Emperors, so that we are left somewhat in the dark as to whether the Emperors really worked 25 Degrees. If they did not, then there can remain no doubt that the Grand Constitutions of B in 1762, which particularize 25 Degrees, were really manufactured‑like the last 8 Degrees themselves‑in America. The new Committee of 9‑March 9‑had, however, defined as follows Article 4. The Grand Orient acknowledges in future only such Masters as shall have been freely elected to this office by the Lodge.

 

Article 5. The Masonic body of France shall in future be represented in the Grand Orient by all actual Worshipful Masters or by the Lodge deputies.

 

The term Grand Orient had first been used in a circular of June 5, 1772, by the unreformed Grand Lodge. Grand Orient is a term used by the Latin races, such as those of France, Spain, Italy and the South American States and is, in a sense, synonymous with Grand Lodge. The Grand Orient frequently exercises jurisdiction over the High Degrees. This is, however, the first instance of its use. It will be perceived that these two articles not only struck a blow at the perpetuity of a Paris Master's tenure of office, but also changed entirely the nature of Grand Lodge, which had previously consisted of these monopolists only. However, concessions were made to their protests. Article 4 was maintained, but it was agreed that each Master ad vitam should resign " name and seniority to his Lodge " and receive in recompense the title of Founder and Past Master ; all charges incurred by him for purchase of Warrant, jewels and furniture, etc., to be refunded by the members. He might be re‑elected but could not be forced to accept an inferior office ; took precedence immediately after the Master and was a member of Grand Lodge. To enjoy these prerogatives, however, those who held a personal Warrant, but no Lodge, were required to affiliate with one forthwith. This justifies the conclusion that every one of the Paris Masters of the 5 Columns‑81 in number‑could not actually have presided over a Lodge, a rather curious state of things. This was, of course, the opportunity for Labady, who had been, pending process, relieved of his office on March 19.

 

40 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE June 17.‑Paris Masters' Grand Lodge. A general assembly of the old Grand Lodge was called. Present 4z of the 81 Paris Masters ; in all, 48 Parisians, including Labady, Toussainct (Sec. of the Board of Revision), De Lalande, Bruneteau, Lacan and Boulainvilliers. Gaillard and Daubertin did not appear. The powers granted to the 8 Commissioners of August 9, 1772, were withdrawn; the 15 Deputies declared divested of their charge; and a protest sketched out by a Committee of 18. Lalande and Toussainct withdrew before the Minutes were signed; Bruneteau, Gaillard and Daubertin subsequently joined the new Grand Orient; of the eight Commissioners, three only‑Labady, Lacan, and Boulainvilliers‑went back to the old Paris Masters' Lodge.

 

June 18 and 2o.‑Meetings of this Committee and preparation of the protest. June zi.‑Board of Revision. Labady presents himself as the emissary of the Old Grand Lodge and hands in the protest, which, after many " whereas's," declares that every act of the board is illegal, null, of no value, calls upon the Lodges to rally to their old Grand Lodge, to help him in persuading the Duke of Luxemburg to put himself once more at their head. He then declared the so‑called National Grand Lodge non‑existent and desired to withdraw from several Brethren the title of Deputy (of various Lodges) with which he had formerly entrusted them. The meeting declared this to be impracticable and Labady retired. New honorary Grand Officers were appointed, the third chapter of the Statutes agreed to and it was ordered that the first three chapters should be printed.

 

June 24.‑Grand fete given to the new Grand body by the Duke of Luxemburg ; present 81 convives.

 

June z6.‑Last meeting of the Board of Revision. The fourth chapter of the Statutes approved of and ordered to be printed and a circular detailing the whole course of events drawn up and confirmed. The assembly then separated and, from this day, may be dated the final completion of the National Grand Lodge of France, which, however, soon changed its name to Grand Orient. Among the 45 officials of the new Grand Lodge are ig Paris Masters, who therefore resigned their privileges.

 

Kloss and Jouast‑who are in substantial accord‑are authorities for the foregoing. These writers rely, on the following publications. The numbers within parenthesis refer to the Bibliograpbie der Freimaurerei by Dr. Kloss. Statuts et Reglements de la Grande Loge de France, arrete par deliberation du 14 aout 1771 (zo3 and 41zz) ; Grand Elu, etc., Paris, 1781 (1916) ; La tres R.G.L. de France a toutes les loges reguldres, June z4, 1771 (021); Proces‑Verbal de la scdance, etc., du 18 juin 1772 (4123) ; La trds R.G.L. de France a toutes les loges reguNres, May 18, 1772 (4124) ; Extrait des Rgistres de la Soup. G.L. de France, September i z, 1772 (41 z6) ; Mdmoire Justificatif, 1772 (4128) ; La Grande Loge Nat. de France a toutes, etc., 1773 (4129) ; Statuts du Grand Orient de France, etc., 1773 (4130) ; Extrait des Registres, etc. (4131) ; La tr~s R.G.L. de France a toutes, etc., 1773 (4132) ; Au Grand Orient de France, etc. (4341) July 23.‑The old Lodge‑which, in future, will be referred to as the Grand FRANCE REGALIA OF THE GRAND ORIENT THIS plate shows some old specimens of the clothing worn in Lodges under the Grand Orient of France. The Grand Lodge of England has no present fraternal intercourse or relationship with this Grand Orient, on account of its violation of all Masonic principles of late years, by the expunging of the name of T.G.A.O.T.U. from its laws and by its avowed political tendencies. No authoritative details of the present clothing, therefore, can be given.

 

No. i is a Master Mason apron of satin, embroidered in coloured silks, gold and spangles. The edging is of blue ribbon and, on the fall, is an irradiated star enclosing a G. On the body of the apron are the sun and moon and two stars ; the letters M and B ; the crowned compasses ; the tetragrammaton in an irradiated triangle and acacia branches.

 

No. 2 is an older specimen, is printed on leather and hand‑coloured, with an edging of crimson silk. The design is very handsome and shows, amongst a number of other emblems, a temple on a chequered floor ; the two pillars J and B, with two acacia trees ; altars, working tools, &c.

 

No. 3 is more recent and is embroidered in gold and colours on a white satin ground with the blazing star and G, the temple, the letters M and B, the level, the compasses and two acacia sprays. It is bound with red silk and the flap is imitated by a semicircle of red edging.

 

No. q. is an old M.M. sash of blue silk, on which are embroidered seven stars, the square and compasses, with level, and acacia, the letters D, M and M, with a red rosette at the point, whilst the inside is lined with black silk, embroidered with the emblems of mortality and " tears," in silver, for use when working the 3rd Degree.

 

No. 5 is the jewel of the W.M., consisting of a square, compasses, star and acacia leav es.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 41 Lodge‑met again and on July 29 held a festival in the name of the Duke of Luxemburg, whom it continued to look upon as its head.

 

It may be admitted that the taunts and gibes of Thory and his congeners are misplaced, that all things were done in perfect order and with due legality. The Paris Masters, that is, the old Grand Lodge, concurred in all the proceedings until their vested rights were threatened. That the Grand Lodge was justified in abrogating these rights in the general interest must be freely conceded. " In all countries [and communities] the legislative power must, to a general intent, be absolute." Compensation was offered, which was not always the case‑witness the emancipation of the slaves in the United States. Neither, indeed, could the Masters raise any valid objection to their privileges having been cut down by a mixed body of Metropolitan and Provincial Deputies, because, on August 14, 1771, they had themselves enacted Article I of the first new Statutes. They might certainly have contended that the compensation offered was inadequate and have said, " If you prefer a new Grand Lodge, well and good, we are satisfied with the old one and will revive it by virtue of our inherent authority." This is what practically they did, but when they proceeded to stigmatize the new body as illegal, they went altogether beyond their province. Both parties, therefore, were strictly " within their rights " and to cast imputations upon one or the other is unjust. Nor can either of them be denominated a rabble‑certainly not the brilliant assembly of the new Lodge and, with equal certainty, not the older body, because, in spite of the possibly worthless character of Labady himself, it comprised within its ranks many honourable men and some who were highly distinguished both by their social position and intellectual attainments. A very peculiar fact is, that the Council of the Emperors was quite overlooked in the new Statutes, so much so that they soon showed themselves again as an independent body.

 

August 13.‑Sitting of the judicial Commission. De‑la‑Chaussee v. Labady.

 

Seventeenth meeting. Report. i. The Commission refers the validity of Consti tutions delivered during the recess to the Grand Orient. 2. De‑la‑Chaussee to make a stipulated declaration before the next assembly. 3. The money alleged to be owing is remitted for want of proof. 5. The fine of 6 livres formally imposed is unjustified. 5. General acquittal. The declaration stipulated for, which he eventually made most handsomely, was to the effect that he was sorry he had published his Memoire, or that it should be considered that he intended to injure any person, which was far from being his intention. Labady is convicted of having maliciously renewed on April 18, 1772, unfounded charges, of which he had himself acquitted De‑la‑Chaussee on January 29 previously and of having failed to clear himself of Chaussee's counter charges. He is therefore suspended for nine months and other charges made against him by private Lodges are left to the judgment of the Grand Orient.

 

September i.‑National Grand Lodge. Chaussee reinstated and made a Grand Officer.

 

September io.‑The Grand Lodge issued a circular stamped with the old seal, 42 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE calculated in many ways to lead to confusion, especially as it made use of Montmorency's name and was signed by Duret and Labady, names familiar in another capacity to the Provinces. Montmorency forgot himself in his anger and obtained a lettre de cachet under which Labady and Duret were imprisoned, in order to force them to deliver up the documents, seals and archives of the old Lodge. They were shortly released, but without the desired effect being produced. The Emperors made common cause with the Grand Lodge at first, but, after 1775 circa, were once more quite independent, although we do not hear much more of them. Labady became their Secretary‑General and, in 1780, they erected a bust to this Masonic martyr, bearing the punning lines, " Whilst abhorring vice, fly the pit of perdition " (La Chaussee de perdition). A librarian by profession, he appears to have made an income by selling cheap rituals, those of the Emperors included.

 

The Composition of the new body as finally settled by the last board meeting of June z6, 1773, was a distinct advance on any previous Grand Lodge in France. The entire Brotherhood, or confederacy, which took the title of Grand Orient and met for the festivals, was composed of all the Masters or their Deputies. Out of these members, 77 were chosen to form the Grande Loge Nationale, viz. the Grand Master, Grand Administrator and Grand Conservator, 15 officers d'honneur of the Grand Orient, at their head being the representative of the Grand Master; 45 officers (en exercice)‑composing the subsidiary boards‑7 Lodge Masters of Paris and 7 of the Provinces. The Grande Loge Nationale thus constituted, met quarterly. The subsidiary boards were‑1. The Loge de Conseil or Chamber of Appeal. z. The Chambre d'Administration or Board of General Purposes. 3. The Chambre de Paris or Metropolitan Board; and 4, The Chambre des Provinces for the Lodges outside Paris. The three superior officers were elected ad vitam and the honorary officers for the whole duration of the Grand Master's tenure ; the working Officers, i.e. the other 45, went out by thirds each twelve‑month, but were eligible for re election by the Grand Orient. On December z7, 1773, the Grande Loge Nationale was dissolved as such and its members, from thenceforth, constituted the Loge de Conseil, meeting monthly. In its place the whole of the Grand Orient was to meet quarterly, so that at last every Lodge was represented by its Master or Deputy in the governing body. From that date, therefore, the Grande Loge Nationale a 1'Orient de Paris became the Grand Orient of France.

 

Up to October 14 the Grand Master had refused to receive the deputations from Grand Lodge. On that day he received them and appointed the date of his instal lation. It was to take place after his return from a visit to Fontainebleau.

 

October z8.‑Installation of the Duc de Chartres in his own house in the Rue de Montreuil.

 

December z7.‑Grand Orient constituted as above. A commission consisting of Bacon de la Chevalerie, Count Stroganoff and Baron Toussainct was appointed to revise and examine all the High Degrees and all Lodges were directed to work meanwhile in the three Symbolic Degrees only.

 

December z7.‑The Grand Lodge‑professing to work under the auspices of FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 43 the Duc de Chartres‑appointed its officers in his name, inveighed against the Grand Orient as illegal and forbade its members to visit Lodges of the rival body. It assumed as its full title Tres respectable Grande Loge, seul et unique Grand Orient de France.

 

1774.‑March 7.‑Grand Orient. Proposal to establish thirty‑two Provincial Grand Lodges in order to lighten the labours of Grand Orient. Subsequently carried on October zo, but the resolution produced little effect, as there were never more than four or five established. In 18o6 they were declared unnecessary and, in 18io, were entirely done away with (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 198).

 

June z4.‑Resolution not to admit artisans until they shall have attained the Mastership in their trade. Domestic servants were declared ineligible, except as Serving Brothers. In the course of this year, members of the theatrical profession were precluded from receiving the privileges of the Craft, on the ground of their being too dependent on the favour of the public. An exception was made, however, in the case of musicians.

 

Deputies to Grand Orient were only allowed to represent in future five Lodges each and Grand Orient formally approved of Lodges of Adoption in which ladies were admitted to ceremonies somewhat resembling Freemasonry. These Lodges soon became brilliant assemblies, that is, having regard to the persons who took part in them, especially under the Empire, but, inasmuch as they are scarcely of Masonic interest, there will be no further allusion to them.

 

August 12.‑The Grand Orient having completed its new premises in the Rue Pot‑de‑Fer, took possession of them. The grand address on this occasion was delivered by De Lalande.

 

September 9.‑A new Lodge, St. Jean de Chartres, was constituted at Mousseaux near Paris, for H.S.H. the Duc de Chartres, in which he occupied the Master's chair. December z7.‑On the proposal of Luxemburg the Honorary Grand Officers were in future to hold their offices subject to re‑election every three years ; their appointment was left in the hands of the Grand Orient.

 

In this year‑1774‑three Templar Directories were formed at Lyons, Bordeaux and Strasburg. The Grand Orient is stated to have been at the head of 144 Lodges, of which 64 had been constituted or rectified during the year and the Grand Lodge had constituted 3 new ones (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. zo4).

 

1775.‑February 3.‑The Inquisition dispersed the Mere Loge du Comtat Venaissin and, during the year, the old Grand Lodge warranted eight Lodges in Paris and nine in the Provinces.

 

1776.‑March z4.‑The Grand Orient replaced the former Committee to inquire into the High Grades, by Guillotin, Savalette de Langes, Morin, De‑la‑Chaussee and De Lalande.

 

May 31.‑From the beginning of 1775 a Commission had been engaged in formulating a compact between the Scots Directories of the IInd, IIIrd, and Vth Provinces and the Grand Orient. Several of the Commissioners representing the Grand Orient were already members of the Strict Observance system, so that it is 44 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE not surprising that the treaty concluded on this date was more advantageous to the Directories than to the Grand Orient. The Templar Lodges were to use their own ritual and obey their own Superiors, but had to be chartered by the Grand Orient and pay fees to that body, returning also a list of their members. Mutual visiting was to be permitted and, although a French Mason was not allowed to belong to two French Lodges at one and the same time, he might under this Concor dat belong to one Lodge under each of the two contracting systems. Many French Lodges protested, for two especial reasons. By the treaty French Masons were rendered subject to unknown (and presumably foreign) Superiors, which Superiors were themselves no party to the contract. It is probable that the success of the Scots Philosophic Rite, a Scots system purely French, may be ascribed to the feeling of patriotism thus awakened.

 

The circular of June 24, 1776, announcing the conclusion of the treaty, was not issued till later and contains an appendix of August icy, with a list of 205 LodgesParis, 34; Provincial, 148 ; Regimental, 23. Some, however, are described as dormant. In the same year the Lodge Neuf Sceurs (Nine Muses) was founded by De Lalande. It comprised much of the literary, artistic and scientific talent of Paris. On April 7, 1778, a few weeks before his death, Voltaire, whose pungent pen had previously satirized Masonry, was initiated in this Lodge.

 

December q.‑The Grand Orient refused to recognize the Contrat Social as a Mother‑Lodge and ordered it either to withdraw its pretensions or to submit to erasure. This recent head of the new Scots Philosophic Rite replied by electing a Grand Master, constituting a Lodge at Rome (December 31), also by a circular discountenancing Templar Degrees (February 2o, 1777). On May 18, 1778, the Lodge was erased, to which it replied by a circular‑July 5, 1778‑which procured it the adhesion of many Lodges (Kloss, op. Cit., vol. i, pp. 230, 231).

 

1777. July 3.‑Grand Orient. The Duc de Chartres attended for the first time since his installation, the only occasion on which he is mentioned as being present.

 

October 3.‑Circular of the Grand Orient chiefly respecting the High Degrees. It adverts to the Committee as being still at work on the subject, counsels the Lodges to await the end of its labours, meanwhile to confine themselves to three Degrees. It may almost be assumed that the document owes its origin to the increasing influence of the Scots Philosophic Rite and of another recent invention, the Sublime Elects of Truth, whose field lay chiefly in Rennes and the north of France. It was, however, powerless to prevent the rise in 1778 of yet another Rite, the Academy of True Masons, at Montpellier, with alchemical tendencies.

 

Of the Grand Lodge all we know is that on January i 9, 1777, it installed three representatives of the Grand Master‑still assumed to be the Duc de Chartres ; and that, according to Thory, it constituted five Lodges.

 

November 21.‑The Grand Orient forbade its Lodges to assemble in taverns. To ensure the exclusion of irregular Masons, le mot de semestre was introduced in this year, the knowledge of which was necessary to obtain admission to a strange FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 45 Lodge. It was changed half‑yearly and communicated through the Masters of Lodges.

 

1778. January i8.‑The Grand Lodge published a circular, to which was attached a list of its Lodges. It enumerates zoo Paris Masters of Lodges, besides 27 absent and 247 in the Provinces. Now, as the Masters of the five Paris Columns in 1773 were only 81 in number and Thory, the great partisan of this Grand Lodge, has only claimed that, in the interval, it had constituted 16 Lodges, if we admit that these were all Paris Lodges, also that the list of 81 was not a complete list of all the Paris Masters, we shall still have great difficulty in converting the number from 81 to zoo ! It is also known for a fact that many of the 81 Masters joined the Grand Orient. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the number of Masters by no means corresponded with that of the Lodges, in fact that the great majority of these Masters had no Lodges to preside over. As regards the Provinces, Jouast asserts, after due comparison, that many of these Lodges were also on the list of the Grand Orient and suggests that the Grand Lodge simply continued to carry forward all such as had not actually announced their affiliation with the former.

 

February z6.‑The Grand Orient published a list, in all z5 8 Lodges, of which there were in Paris 34 and 7 dormant; in regiments 30 and i dormant. In this list a Lodge in the Irish Regiment " Walsh," quartered at Bapaume, claims as its date of constitution March z5, 1688 ! It is scarcely necessary to refute this assumption. Of foreign Lodges we find 4 at St. Domingo, 5 at Guadaloupe and i at Martinique. Of Strict Observance Lodges there are 6, besides 3 Directories.

 

November z 5 to December 27.‑The Convent des Gaules‑under the Strict Observance‑was held at Lyons.

 

For the next few years nothing very remarkable is to be recorded of the rival Grand bodies, but the systems opposed to either or both of them began to multiply exceedingly and to wax strong. In 1768 the Martinists, confined hitherto to Bordeaux, Lyons and Marseilles, made a settlement in Paris ; in 1770 the Illumines of Avignon came to the front; and, in 17'80, the Emperors had apparently recovered momentarily some strength and consistency.

 

1779.‑October 8.‑On this date Cagliostro founded his Egyptian Rite in a Strasburg Lodge and this androgynous system had arrived at such favour in 1784 that the Duke of Luxemburg actually accepted the dignity of a Grand Master Protector. In the same year the Lodge Constance at Arras erected the Chapitre Primordial de Rose Croix. Its patent is alleged to have been granted by the Pretender, Charles Edward, April 18, 1745. According to Thory's version it commences, " We, Charles Edward Stuart, King of England " ; whilst Jouast gives it as pretendant roi d'Angleterre 1 It will be sufficient to point out that Charles Edward did not call himself " King " during his father's lifetime, or Pretender at any time. The use of the latter term indeed he, very naturally, left to others. Moreover, no historian has yet shown that he ever was in Arras, where, according to this legend, he remained for a period of six months‑whilst we have it on his own authority that he never was a Freemason at all.

 

9 46 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1780.‑In this year the Chapter at Arras founded another in the capital under the title of Chapitre d'Arras, de la Vallee de Paris, with constituent rights, which it exercised to a large extent and, finally, went over‑with its progeny‑to the Grand Orient in 18oi. The original Chapter at Arras remained, however, independent. In 1779 Count Schmettau, who had some thirty years previously carried the Scots Degrees to Berlin, imported the Zinnendorff Rite into Paris and established a Lodge there ; and in the following year‑1780‑the Lodge Amis Reunis (Philalethes) began to make progress with its system and was immediately followed by the Philadelphes of Narbonne. The Grand Lodge, in 1780, appointed three Honorary Presidents, who were to supply the place of the Grand Master in his absence from the meetings. 1781.‑March 6.‑The Scots Directory of the Strict Observance for Septimania at Montpellier became a party to the pact already subsisting between the Grand Orient and the other Directories.

 

July ii.‑Grand Lodge issued a circular and a list of Lodges. Of the Masters of 1772, 47 were still in existence ; 4 Lodges date from 1774, 7 from 1775, 8 from 1776, 5 from 1777, 9 from 1778, 18 from 1779, 7 from 178 o, and 3 from 1781 ; there were also z8 Provincial Lodges : in all, 136.

 

November 5.‑Compact between the Grand Orient and the Scots Philosophic Rite.

 

1782. January 18.‑The Grand Orient erected a Chamber of Grades to continue and conclude the work of the Committee previously appointed. With such a number of rivals all conferring High Degrees it became urgent to take some step or other. December 27.‑Grand Orient. A question arose as to the eligibility of a blind candidate. Given in his favour by 24 votes to i g. The Minutes were not confirmed on January 21, 1783 and, on April 4 ensuing, a contrary decision was arrived at In 1803, however, after the Egyptian campaign, owing to the prevalence of ophthalmia among the officers, blindness ceased to be a bar to admission.

 

1783.‑May 16.‑Circular of the Grand Orient calling upon its Lodges to send copies of all High‑Grade rituals in their possession to the Chamber of Grades, as a help to its labours.

 

Then followed a series of remarkable events, which ultimately relieved the Chamber of Grades of its commission, by placing in its hands four extra Degrees all ready made‑‑culminating in that of the Rose Croix. Kloss produces cogent reasons for looking upon the whole transaction as a prearranged drama calculated to supply the Grand Orient with what a brand‑new Rite would have lacked, i.e. a respectable antiquity. It is, however, evident that the Rite Francais was invented neither by the Commission nor the Chamber of Grades, but simply accepted by the latter. Space will only admit of the most material facts being quoted.

 

Among the Paris Lodges dependent upon the Grand Orient at the beginning of 1784 there were 9, each of which possessed a Rose Croix Chapter, probably selfconstituted. Roettiers de Montaleau, the most conspicuous Mason of postrevolutionary days, was a member of one of these fraternities.

 

1784. January 18.‑Montaleau brought forward in his Chapter a compre‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 47 hensive plan which was to redound to the benefit of the Rose Croix Grade and a Committee was appointed to secure the co‑operation of other Chapters under the Grand Orient.

 

February 2.‑Present 8o Knights Rose Croix, representing seven Chapters ; Montaleau, Grand Orator, proposed that the seven Chapters should unite and form a Grand Chapitre General de France, gradually to. attract and absorb all other Sovereign Chapters and form the sole constitutive capitular body in France. A pact of union in 8 articles was then and there drawn up and agreed to. Three only need be adverted to. Article 6. Affiliation will only be conceded to Chapters grafted on Lodges under the Grand Orient. Article 8. Grand Chapter resolves at once to prepare a simplified revision of all existing High Degrees. This, we see, was practi cally undertaking the work confided to the Chamber of Grades. Article 7 ordered statutes to be drawn up.

 

March i g.‑Grand Chapter General. New Statutes approved and confirmed. It will be perceived that the Chapter was less dilatory than the Chamber of Grades ; also that the assertions of Thory and his followers that this body was the result of a fusion between the Emperors and the Knights is unfounded.

 

October.‑Grand Orient. Waltersdorff complained of these proceedings in Grand Orient, which, as he was one of those who met in Grand Chapter General, looks like a piece of prearranged by‑play.

 

November 2o.‑The Grand Chapter General seized the opportunity procured by Waltersdorff's speech to declare that it was only " acting for the greater honour of Grand Orient and, in order to lay its acquired light at the feet of Grand Orient, so soon as that body should decide to use its undoubted right of conferring High Degrees." After this the Grand Orient and Grand Chapter entered into pourparlers and Act I is closed. But if the fusion had then taken place the Grand Orient would only have possessed a usurped authority with no flavour of antiquity, so the curtain rises on Act II.

 

Dr. Humbert Gerbier de Werschamp now appears upon the scene claiming to be the sovereign authority in Rose Croix matters. He produced three documents in support of his claim. i. In Latin, given at the Orient of the World and Sanctuary of Edinburgh, January 21, 172I, constituting a Grand Chapter, Rose Croix, at Paris, for France, in favour of the Duc d'Antin. This voucher was very unskilfully manufactured, for, not to mention the alleged Edinburgh authority, it must be remembered that there was no Freemasonry in France before 1725 at the earliest. Also that the Duc d'Antin was not made Grand Master until 1738‑in fact in 1721 he was only fourteen years of age, then Duc d'Epernon, his grandfather the Duc d'Antin being still alive (Daruty, Recbercbe sur le Rite Ecossais, p. 94). But it was necessary before all things to produce an earlier authority than that of the Chapter of Arras (1745). 2. A certificate from the Lodge of Perfect Union at Paris, signed Antin, under the date June 23,1721, in favour of Brother Quadt as a Chevalier Rose Croix. This was to prove that Antin's Chapter had really been at work. 3. A certificate, dated February 6, 176o, signed by De Tellins‑who is not otherwise 48 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE known‑Substitute‑General of the Count de Clermont, from the Grand Chapter of France, appointing Gerbier Tres Sage ad vitam of the said Chapter. These documents are worthless, really beneath contempt. One is known to have been manufactured in a cafe and the wine stains are plainly perceptible ; but they answered the required purpose and are preserved in the archives of the Grand Orient, constituting, in effect, the foundation of its claim to control the High Degrees. Owing to these parchments, no Frenchman, in the midst of all the ensuing party strife, ever questioned the right of the Grand Orient to confer the 18░ or Rose Croix grade. But the old Paris Masters were not to be outdone ; they immediately concocted another fabulous genealogy, proving the existence of a Chapter connected with their Lodge, dating from still earlier times, viz. 1686 ! and managed to bring over the Arras Chapters in Paris to their side.

 

As regards this last date it was apparently thought necessary to produce an earlier authority than the alleged Charter of the Welsh regiment of 1688, so as to make the Chapter referred to the first of its kind in France.

 

1785.‑March 24.‑Treaty of fusion in thirteen articles between the Chapitre General de France and Gerbier's Grand Chapitre de France. Gerbier deposited his papers in the archives, ceded his rights, received the title of Past Grand Master; and Roettiers de Montaleau was appointed Grand Master of the Rose Croix.‑Close of Act II.

 

We now come to an interlude not arranged by the Grand Orient.

 

December 13.‑A self‑constituted Chapter at Rouen asked for affiliation, which was refused, but reconstitution was offered. With this the Lodge was not satisfied and applied to the Royal Order of Heredom of Kilwinning at Edinburgh for a patent.

 

1786.‑February 17.‑Opening of Act III. The Grand Orient resolved to amalgamate with the Grand Chapter and commissioners were appointed.

 

May i.‑The Royal Order of Scotland grants to Jean Matheus of Rouen a patent as Provincial Grand Master of all France. His installation followed on August 26 and Louis Clavel was named Deputy Grand Master. Thus arose a fresh rival system to that of the Grand Orient. In 1811 this system comprised twenty‑six Lodges and Chapters. (Thory, Annales Originis, p. 173, gives a list of these ; two were Colonial, two Italian, one at Brussels.) 1787. July I3.‑The Grand Orient approves of a Treaty of Fusion in twentyfour articles between the Grand Orient and the Grand Chapter. The Grand Chapter follows suit on August 4 and a circular of September zo conveys the information to the Lodges. Article 6 provides that the Chapter shall in future be called Chapitre Metropolitain, receiving a patent from Grand Orient, recognizing its activity from March 21, 172I. Article ii, the present Orders, i.e. collections of grades, in number 4‑worked by the Chapter, are to be continued till otherwise decreed. The ritual was never altered in any great degree, so that there are the four extra Degrees of the French Grand Orient, denominated the Modern or French Rite. The first order comprised all the Kadosh or Degrees of Vengeance, renamed FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 49 Secret Elect; the second, the Scots Degrees, called the Order of the Scottish Knights ; the third, the Crusading Degrees, under the style of Knights of the East and West ; and the fourth, the Christian or Rose Croix Degrees, under the appellation Knights of the Eagle and Pelican. Article 15 provides for new Statutes. 1788.‑August 13.‑Installation of the Metropolitan Chapter. End of Act III.

 

November zi.‑Epilogue. Rearrangement of the Grand Orient into the three following Boards :‑Of Administration, Symbolic Freemasonry and High Degrees. December 5.‑New Statutes approved and communicated by circular of January 19, 1789, also a list showing forty‑five Chapters at work. Thus the curtain falls on this very pretty little comedy. (For further details, see Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 280‑330ò) Nothing of very great importance remains to be recorded anterior to the French Revolution. Both systems (Grand Orient and Grand Lodge) apparently continued to prosper until 1788 or 1789, at which time they arrived at their greatest prosperity. Then came the political troubles and, one by one, the Lodges closed. The Etat of the Grand Orient, November 16, 1787, enumerates 636 Lodges, of which 3 0 were dormant. Of these, 35 were in the colonies, 71 in various regiments, 17 in foreign countries, 67 in Paris. The Grand Lodge Etit of 1788 shows 88 Paris, 43 Provincial and Colonial Lodges, the latter being mostly warranted during the years 1780‑7. Under the two governing (or Grand) bodies, there were, therefore, 767 Lodges (more or less) and if to these are added the Lodges of the Scots Philosophic Rite (37) of the Philalethes, the Illumines, the Royal Order of Scotland, the various Scots Mother‑Lodge systems, the English Lodge (No. Zoo) at Bordeaux, the number might easily reach goo or more. The first to close its doors was the Philosophic Rite‑July 31, 1791‑on the 16th it had sent a circular to its Lodges, advising them to cease from working, if required to do so by the magistrates and not to forget their duty towards their sovereign, Louis XVI. It is therefore not at all surprising to find that many of its members fell victims to the guillotine. 1791.‑In this year the Grand Lodge ceased to meet and, on October 13, the French branch of Royal Order of Scotland. The Grand Orient constituted two Lodges and, in 1792, three more. On February 24, 1793, it issued a circular, stating that it had taken precautions to preserve the archives and, on the same date, the Grand Master, the Duke of Orleans, published the following abject manifesto in the journal de Paris.

 

From Citizen Egalite to Citizen Milscent.

 

Notwithstanding my quality of Grand Master, I am unable to give you any information concerning these matters to me unknown. . . . However this may be, the following is my Masonic history:‑At a time when truly no one foresaw our Revolution, I joined Freemasonry, which presents a sort of picture of equality, just as I entered Parliament, which presented also a sort of picture of freedom. Meanwhile I have exchanged the shadow for the substance. Last December the Secretary of the Grand Orient applied to the person who in my household filled F. 1v‑4 50 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the post of Secretary of the Grand Master, in order to hand me a question relating to the affairs of this Society. I replied to him under date of January 5, as follows :" As I know nothing of the composition of Grand Lodge and, moreover, do not believe that there should exist any mystery, nor any secret assembly.in a republic, more especially at the commencement of its rule, I desire in no way to be mixed up with the Grand Orient, nor with the assemblies of Freemasons." . . . L. P. J. Egalite.

 

On August 8, 1793, the Grand Orient published a circular announcing that on May 13 the office of Grand Master had been declared vacant. In the usual stamps impressed on this document the fleurs‑de‑lys had been effaced.

 

1794.‑In this year‑it may be remarked‑Freemasonry in France had practically ceased to exist.

 

Three Lodges only in Paris had the courage to continue working throughout the reign of terror. The Master of one of these, the Amis Reunis, was Roettiers de Montaleau, whose acquaintance has already been made. Born at Paris in 1748, he was made in the celebrated Scots Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles in 1772 and joined the Grand Orient in 1780; in 1785 became Grand Master of Grand Chapter; in 1788, President of the Chamber of Paris and, in 1793, of the Chamber of Administration, his predecessor having been removed by the guillotine. He was subsequently imprisoned, but July z8, 1794, which restored so many wretched ddtenus to their liberty, broke also his bonds. Thory attributes to him the preservation of the Grand Orient archives. In 1795 he ventured to summon the remnant of the Grand Orient together with other Masons not previously eligible ; and to resume work. The members of the Grand Orient had in great part consisted of personages attached in one way or another to the court of Louis XVI, so it is not surprising to find that, even on June z4, 1797, the number which assembled was only forty. Montaleau was offered the post of Grand Master, which he modestly declined, but accepted, however, the title of Most Worshipful (Grand Venerable) and, in that capacity, presided over Grand Lodge. The first new Constitution was issued to a Geneva Lodge June 17, 1796 ; and the report of June 24 only includes eighteen Lodges, of which three met at Paris.

 

1796.‑October 17.‑Grand Lodge also reassembled for the first time since 1792. This governing body found itself in an even worse plight than its chief rival. In the Grand Orient certain members were dispersed, others killed, the same may be said of each private Lodge, but these at least retained the power of revival as soon as a few members once more met together. But with the Grand Lodge, if a Paris Master was killed or had fled his Lodge, being proprietary, became extinct and it is asserted that, at the period now under consideration, very few of the perpetual Masters remained alive.

 

Montaleau saw his opportunity arrive and at once seized it. He made personal overtures to the Grand Lodge, which lasted for more than a year, but ultimately were crowned with success. On May 3, 1799, he was able to inform the Grand Orient that the Grand Lodge was ready to accede to a fusion. A committee was appointed FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 51 and, on May zo, Grand Lodge also named its commissioners. On May zi a contract in nine articles was drawn up, agreed to by the Grand Orient on May 23 and by the Grand Lodge on June 9. Article z abolished Perpetual Masters. Article z prolonged their tenure of office for nine years and provided for certain honourable compensations. Article 3 withdrew the appointment of officers from the Master and conferred it on the Lodge. The others need not be specially alluded to.

 

1799. June z2.‑Formal junction of the two Grand bodies. June z8, Grand Festival. There were present 4 Past Grand Officers, the first on the list being Lalande. Among the 28 officials of the Grand Orient there were 5, and among the ‑15 Masters 9 of the old Grand Lodge (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 3 5 8).

 

The following figures will show the rate at which the Craft recovered itself in these early years. On December z7, i8oo, we know of 74 Lodges which had resumed work and of these, 23 were in Paris. In i8oz there were 114 Lodges, of which 27 were in Paris, also 37 Chapters seem to have been in existence at that time.

 

I8oi. June z4.‑The Scots Philosophic Rite recommenced work under the lead of the Lodge St. Jean d'Ecosse, the Social Contract having almost taken its last sleep during the Revolution.

 

The Grand Lodge having united with the Grand Orient, it was only natural that its former Chapter and all the dependent Chapters of Arras should follow suit. It will be sufficient to state that this final step was completed on December z4, I8oi.

 

But, although the Grand Orient had thus made an ally of its former most powerful rival, many others still remained in the field. The Philalethes had died out during the Revolution and the Scots Directories of the Strict Observance were still dormant; but the Provincial Chapter of Arras, the Scots Mother‑Lodge of Marseilles, the Scots Philosophic Rite and the Royal Order of Scotland, besides various other smaller Rites unnecessary to name, were warranting Lodges and Chapters in every direction. Even many of its own Lodges, not content with a single comprehensive Scots Grade‑the Rite Fran~ais‑had opened Lodges and Chapters to work one or more of the Scots Degrees, whose number was infinite, while the latter found a leader in Abraham, the publisher of a Masonic paper called the Mirror. A curious circumstance in all these quarrels is, that we invariably find one and the same member highly placed in two or more Rites that were fighting to the death. To give a solitary example : Thory was the life and soul of the Scots Philosophic Rite, yet, from 1804 to 1813, he was also Treasurer of the Grand Chapter of the Grand Orient and a member of it still in 1814. In i8o8 he was Tersata or Grand Master of the Royal Order of Scotland in Paris ; and, until 18 z r, he was the Secretary of the Holy Empire in the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. Members of these Scots Lodges‑grafted on the Grand Orient Lodgesassumed airs of superiority and, at last, in i 8oi, appeared at the Lodge Reunion des Etrangers at Paris in clothing unrecognized by the Grand Orient. The result was an official indictment of their proceedings on November 17 and, again, on March z5, Sz FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 18o2. This was met by a circular from Abraham in June 18oz calling upon the Scots Masons to rally round the standard. A meeting of the Scots Masons was accordingly held on August S and elicited another circular from the Grand Orient on November 12, 18oz ; the ultimate result being a very embittered feeling on both sides (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 373‑400) 1803.‑August 5.‑The Grand Orient resolved to reappoint Grands Officers Honoraires. This was an institution dating from Luxemburg's time, by which all officers of the Grand Orient were duplicated, one set for active service, the other for show on state occasions, the latter class being, of course, composed of very highly placed court personages. On this occasion the leading idea was, that by appointing generals and other military officers, as well as state officials, the active support of the First Consul would be acquired. Among the Honorary Officers and members actually elected on September 30 then ensuing, may be mentioned Murat, the Governor of Paris ; Lacepede, the Director of the Jardin des Plantes ; De Lalande, Director of the Observatory; Generals Beurnonville and Macdonald and Marshal Kellermann. Meanwhile French Freemasonry followed the French arms and increased so remarkably that, on March z3, 1804, upwards of 3oo Lodges were in existence and a corresponding number of Rose Croix Chapters. But, although outwardly prosperous, the spirit of Masonry had, to a great extent, departed, to make way for a fulsome adulation of Napoleon, far exceeding the bounds of loyalty so properly set up in all countries by the Craft. Lodges were convoked for no other purpose than to celebrate the victories of the French idol of the day. Even the orators ceased to confine themselves to Masonic themes, in order to vaunt the majesty and power of the French army‑and of its hero. This excess of patriotism naturally led to very awkward results in 1814 ; and a continuance of the practice was followed by very similar consequences at every subsequent change of Government. Yet, although this feature of Continental Freemasonry need not be further dwelt upon, it must not, however, be forgotten that the French Brethren might have adduced very weighty reasons for the habit into which they had fallen. The Craft there has never existed by virtue of the freedom of the subject‑to assemble when and where he likes, provided he transgresses not the law. It has never rested on any such solid basis, but simply on the sufferance of the civil authorities and, at any moment, even under the third Republic, a mere police decree might compel every Lodge in France to close its doors. Ought one, therefore, in fairness, to wonder very greatly that the French Masons have always been time‑servers, or that they should have abased themselves at successive periods, with a boundless docility, at the shrine of authority ? In 1804 Hacquet appeared on the scene with his revived Rite of Perfection z5░ and De Grasse‑Tilly with the Ancient and Accepted Rite 33░. Around the latter rallied all the disaffected Scots Masons and the Scots Philosophic Rite granted them the use of its temple. From January 11 to September 1804, Tilly lavished his 3z and 3 3 Degrees right and left and erected his Supreme Council; and, on October z z, 1804, the Grande Loge Gdnerale Ecossaise was constituted, all the various Scots FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 53 Rites assisting and becoming constituent parts of that Grand Lodge. Even the Rite Philosophique for a time effaced itself, in spite of Thory's assertions, for on September 6, 1805, it was distinctly agreed " from this day the Lodge St. Jean d'Acosse resumes its title and attributes of a Mother‑Lodge." This, to a certain extent, was an advantage to the Grand Orient, as it reduced its innumerable rivals to one body, with whom it might be possible to treat. The new Grand Lodge had, without his previous consent, 'proclaimed Prince Louis Buonaparte as its head. The Grand Orient replied on November 7, 1804 (Kioss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 423), by resolving to petition the Princes Joseph and Louis Buonaparte and Marshal Murat to accept its highest offices. But here, as we know by repeated statements of Cambaceres at a later period, the Emperor himself stepped in and directed his brother, Joseph, to accept the office of Grand Master and the Chancellor, Prince Cambaceres, that of Associate Grand Master, holding the latter directly responsible for the good conduct of the Craft and for its internal peace. In fact, as events proved, the astute Emperor was apprehensive lest, by altogether suppressing the Craft, he might encounter the attendant ill‑will of such a numerous body and, therefore, resolved to make it subservient to his interests and keep it under the powerful control of his most trusted Minister. From that time every one who wished to please the Emperor became a Freemason and the highest officials were soon made members and officers of the Grand Orient. That Cambaceres thoroughly understood his mission and, with a firm hand, kept peace among the rival factions, will shortly become clear. No sooner was the Grand Scots Lodge established, than Roettiers de Montaleau took measures to avert the blow and caused negotiations to be opened for a union. Marshal Massena represented the Grand Orient and Marshal Kellermann the Scots Masons; then, when matters were somewhat in trim, they were joined by Montaleau and Pyron. But here again we are startled to find, as was always the case, that all four of the Commissioners were officers of the Grand Orient. Pyron, however, who was a thorough‑going partisan of the Supreme Council, eventually libelled the members of the Grand Orient infamously and was suspended for several years. Matters were so hurried that the pact of union was signed before the necessary alterations in the Constitutions of the Grand Orient were settled, which gave rise to the subsequent quarrels.

 

At midnight on December 3, 1804, in the palace of Kellermann, the treaty was concluded and signed in duplicate; but Pyron was incomprehensibly allowed to retain both copies. The instrument contained the following passage: " The G.O. therefore declares that it incorporates with itself the Brethren of every Rite." When Pyron at a later period‑March 1, 1805‑was forced to deliver up these writings, we may imagine the consternation of the Grand Orient at reading the following substituted passage: " The G.O. therefore declares that it incorporates itself with the Brethren of every Rite." This slight distinction represents the different views of the contracting parties. The Scots Masons desired to rule Grand Lodge by force of their High Degrees, whilst the Grand Lodge intended to rule all Degrees through those members of its body who possessed them. On one hand FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the 33░ was to be supreme; on the other hand it was to be accountable, like every other body, to the Grand Orient in its collective capacity.

 

1804.‑December 5.‑Grand Orient. The treaty was approved and, at mid night, the Scots Masons, De Grasse‑Tilly at their head, were admitted. De GrasseTilly and Montaleau each received the oath of fealty to the Grand Orient from the other, one as representative of the Grand Master in the Supreme Council, the other as representative of the Grand Master in the Grand Orient. Kellermann and Massena were deputed to wait upon his Majesty and to request him to permit his brothers to preside over the Order.

 

December i g.‑Circular of Grand Orient announcing the union and informing its Lodges that in future it would grant Warrants of Constitution for each and every Rite. In order to carry this plan out, it was decided to form a Grand Chapitre General to confer all Degrees above the 18░ or Rose Croix, which was the limit of jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Chapter. It was therefore necessary to confer the 33░ on various members of the Grand Orient, which was accordingly done on the 29th of the same month (Rebold, Histoire des trois Grandes Loges, p. 102).

 

1805. January z.‑Inauguration of the Grand Chapitre General and election of Grand Officers. Joseph Buonaparte and his brother Louis were proposed as Grand and Deputy Grand Masters (ibid., p. 98). The former was not at that time a Mason, not did he ever attend a Lodge meeting, although he signed all official documents as Grand Master and even certificates of initiation. Rebold (ibid., p. i o6) asserts that he was made by Cambaceres, Kellermann and Murat on April 15, 1805, at the Tuileries and that a circular issued two days later announced the fact to the Lodges. It may be so, but Rebold does not quote his authority and the circular has escaped the notice of all other writers, even of Thory, who, writing only eleven years afterwards, ought to have been well aware of the fact, if such it were. The exact date of Joseph's accession is somewhat doubtful, for, although Jouast says he was appointed by the Emperor‑October ii, 18o5‑Cambaceres, on April 27 previously, in promising to attend the meetings of the Grand Orient as often as possible, already speaks of Joseph as the Grand Master. Prince Louis seems never really to have been elected ; in fact in 1815 he left for Holland.

 

July 2i.‑Circular of the Grand Orient announcing the formation of a Directory of Rites. This Board was to rule all the allied Rites and all such as might in future be aggregated. The members were to be chosen by the body of the Grand Orient but, although necessarily possessing the highest Degrees of the various Rites, were to be in no way privileged in the Grand Orient or to assert any supremacy over the other members. The new Board, or Grand Committee, of course, destroyed all hopes which the members of the Supreme Council had conceived of ruling the Craft autocratically by virtue of their 3 3'.

 

September 6.‑Protest of Scots Masons in the palace of Kellermann and, on September 16, the pact of union was declared broken. But here the power of Cambaceres made itself felt and the Supreme Council, instead of at once warranting Lodges, Chapters, Consistories and other bodies, prudently resigned itself to FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 55 raising individual Masons to its highest Grades; and, as the Grand Orient already worked a Rose Croix Grade equal to the 18░ Ancient and Accepted Rite, it merely advanced its members on application. So that for years subsequently the Supreme Council, instead of being a governing and constitutive body, was nothing more than a private Lodge of the 33░. The Grand Orient, on the other side, although counting among its most faithful members more than one Grand Inspector‑General, was quite content to let matters remain on this footing. The arrangement has sometimes been called a compact or treaty. It was nothing of the kind ; there is no proof that it was even a verbal understanding. The fact is, the Supreme Council was simply restrained by Cambaceres from aggressive measures and the Grand Orient was only too glad to see the threatening danger thus averted. There existed, doubtless, a sort of implied but unexpressed understanding to let matters rest on both sides, but no mutual agreement of any sort, not did the Grand Orient ever admit that the compact of union was vitiated. Most of the allied Scots Rites recovered their liberty at the same time; Hacquet's Rite of Perfection (Heredom 25') remained, however, true to the Concordat and worked under the shield of the Grand Orient, but gradually became extinct. Hacquet himself, although at the head of his own Rite, filled nevertheless important offices in the Ancient and Accepted Rite and De Grasse‑Tilly, on the other hand, for many years subsequently appears on the list of officers of the Grand Orient. With the exception of one Consistory of the 3z░, which it dissolved in 181 o, it was not till 1811 that the Supreme Council began to erect Tribunals, Councils, etc., but not Lodges or Chapters.

 

18o5.‑October 21 .‑Joseph Buonaparte was proclaimed Grand Master in the Grand Orient and, on December 13, Prince Cambaceres was installed as first Assistant Grand Master.

 

December z7.‑The Grand Orient celebrated the solstitial fete of the Order and, at the same time, the victories of the French armies. At this meeting, le mot de semestre, which had not been given for many years, was again communicated.

 

i8o6. July i.‑Cambaceres was elected Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33░ and installed as such August 13.

 

Shortly afterwards‑October z5‑he was also elected Honorary Grand Master (Tersata) of the Royal Order of Scotland in Paris.

 

November i 7.‑The Grand Orient published its new Statutes, chiefly remarkable for suppressing any further erection of Provincial Grand Lodges. It feared they might become powerful rivals. Grand Orient was to be composed of a Deputy from each Chapter and Lodge, such Deputy to be a resident Parisian. A Deputy might represent as many as five Lodges. There were also 169 Grand Officersviz. 7 Grand Dignitaries, 63 honorary and 99 working officers, the last‑named being chosen from the Deputies. These officers formed six Boards (Ateliers) 1. Grande‑Loge d'Administration ; II. Grande‑Loge Symbolique ; III. GrandeChapitre ; IV. Grande‑Loge de Conseil et d'Appel ; V. Grande‑Loge des GrandeExperts; and VI. Grande‑Directoire des Rites. A certain number of Deputies also served on these Boards, with the exception of No. VI, which was composed ex‑ 5 6 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE clusively of Grand Officers. The whole scheme was of a most centralizing character and it will be perceived that Provincial Lodges were forced to entrust their affairs to Paris Deputies.

 

The Ordre du Temple (New Templars) was instituted circa 1805 and grafted on Les Chevaliers de la Croix, a Lodge‑formed October 14‑from which its members were subsequently recruited. The pretensions of this Society‑which claimed a lineal descent from the Knights Templars and did not even profess to be a Masonic body‑are elsewhere referred to. It ultimately developed religious views of a some,vhat peculiar nature, but of its remaining history, it will be sufficient to add, that it lay dormant during the restoration, revived about 1830 and apparently died of inanition about 1845. In 1807 a Portuguese called Nunex grafted on another Paris Lodge the Ordrf of Christ, also a Templar Rite with a Templar Degree beyond the 3 3 ░ of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. It erected a few subordinate Chapters at Perpignan, Limoges, Toulouse, etc., but soon died out. A proposed new Ordre de la Misericorde in 1807 never acquired any substance. An Order of St. Sepulchre also arose and, according to Begue‑Clavel, died out with its commander, ViceAdmiral Count Allemand, in 18i9. The latter was an important personage in the strife between the rival Supreme Councils. It will be seen that the era of new Rites had not yet closed.

 

1807. January zg.‑The Rit Primitif de Narbonne joined the Grand Orient and deputed three representatives to the Grand Directoire des Rites.

 

March z6.‑Cambaceres was installed Supreme Chief of the French Rite in the Metropolitan Chapter and, on March 3o, Grand Maitre d'Honneur of the Rite Philosophique.

 

April 4.‑Death of De Lalande. January 30, 18o8, of Roettiers de Montaleau.

 

1808. January z3.‑Cambaceres installed Grand Master of the Order of Christ. February 8.‑Montaleau's son‑Alex. H. N. Roettiers de Montaleauappointed to succeed him as representative of the Grand Master, chiefly as a compliment to his father's memory. He was installed on the i zth.

 

March 8.‑Cambaceres was installed Grand Master of the Rit Primitif de Narbonne and, in June, of the Ve Province at Strasburg. In March and May 18og the Ile and IIIe Provinces at Lyons and Montpellier followed suit. In the same year he was elected Protector of the High Alchemical Grades of Avignon. Being thus at the head of all the Rites of any importance, one can understand how the peace was kept.

 

18og.‑August 11.‑The Grand Orient allowed its Lodges and Chapters to cumulate several Rites, i.e. to work as many as they pleased under as many different warrants, all of which were to be obtained from the Directoire des Rites.

 

181 o.‑December zg.‑The existing Provincial Grand Lodges (three in number) were dissolved (Rebold, op. cit., p. i 19).

 

1811. January i 9.‑The Ancient and Accepted Rite resolved to commence instituting subordinate bodies beyond the 18░. The fact is, they found that such FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 57 ,were being erected without their Warrant by private individuals and their hand was thus forced.

 

June 24.‑Renewal of the former Concordat with the Scots Directories. August 9.‑A circular of Grand Orient was issued, severely censuring certain foreign jurisdictions and a few French Lodges for refusing to initiate Jews.

 

1813.‑October 27.‑The Supreme Council for America recognized the sole authority of the Grand Orient and sought amalgamation. Political events prevented further action.

 

Of this period little remains to be recorded. From 1796 to 1813 the Grand Orient practically acquired sole and supreme authority in Masonic matters, other Rites being merely subsidiary or supplementary, but not antagonistic. Its Lodges increased remarkably in France itself, also beyond the borders, for every fresh conquest meant an increase of French Masonic jurisdiction. In 1813, however, owing to the members being in such great numbers with the army, very many Lodges became dormant. On the restoration in May 1814 of Louis XVIII almost all the Imperialists who were officials of the Grand Orient became conspicuous by their absence. The Craft immediately became effusively Royal and the number of its Lodges dropped suddenly, owing to the reacquired independence of so many European States. During the Hundred Days the Craft was once more violently Imperial and, after Waterloo, it professed to breathe freely at last, owing to the removal of the Napoleonic incubus. On July 1, 1814 (Rebold, op. Cit., p. 123), several Lodges united to celebrate the return of Louis XVIII and their labours were concluded by a unanimous vote and oath to " protect the Lilies and die in defence of the Bourbons." The Grand Orient made speed to declare the Grand Mastership vacant and‑May ii‑voted i,ooo francs for the restoration of the Statue of Henri IV, whilst, on June 24, its orators expatiated on the joy which Masonry felt in at length seeing its legitimate king surrounded by his august family.

 

According to Rebold's list the progress of the Grand Orient was as follows 1803, 6o new Chapters and Lodges ; 1804, 49 ; I 8o5, 67 ; I 8o6, 47 ; 1807, 56 ; 18o8, 47; 1809, 44 ; 1810, 36 ; 1811, 27 ; 1812, 27 ; I8I3, I8 ; I8I4, 7‑but these figures do not include the dormant Lodges which resumed work. The last list under the Empire, published in IS 14, gives 764 active Lodges and z9o Chapters in France ; in the infantry, 63 Lodges and 24 Chapters ; in the cavalry, 7 Lodges and z Chapters ; in the auxiliary forces, 4 Lodges ; in the colonies, 16 Lodges and 7 Chapters ; abroad, 31 Lodges and 14 Chapters‑in all, 886 Lodges and 337 Chap ters. When we remember that, after the Revolution, the report of the Grand Orient on June 24, 1796, could only enumerate 18 Lodges, it must be confessed that the Craft had advanced by leaps and bounds. The list of 1814 also mentions 6 dormant Lodges as about to reopen and that there were applications for 3 5 new Lodges and 24 new Chapters, bringing the total number up to iz88, the result of eighteen years' activity.

 

At this period the Grand Orient of France was in communication with the Grand Lodges of Baden in Swabia, of the kingdoms of Italy and Naples, of Poland FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE and Lithuania, of the Three Globes at Berlin, of the Duchy of Warsaw, of Vienna and of the kingdom of Westphalia (Kloss, op. cit., vol. i, p. 5 8z). The Grand Lodges at Frankfort, Hanover, The Hague, etc., were ignored by French Masons as having no right to exist in territory occupied by France.

 

One further allusion, which is of historical interest, will be made to Dr. Guillotin, an officer of the Grand Orient, who died March z6, 1814. There is the authority of the Grand Orator on June z4 of that year, for the statement that his last days were embittered by the thought, that his name had been so prominently connected with the excesses of the Revolution ; the dreaded instrument which bore his name having been suggested by him out of pure pity for the former sufferings of condemned criminals (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 3). This oration consequently refutes the so often alleged fable that Dr. Guillotin's head was one of the first to fall under his own invention.

 

On the whole, the restoration had a disastrous effect on French Freemasonry. Apart from the number of foreign Lodges which naturally reverted to their own native jurisdictions, a great number of French Lodges had so identified themselves with Napoleon and were so largely composed of his adherents, that nothing remained for them but to close their doors, at least for a time. In addition to this, the police and clergy under the restored family were by no means favourable to the Craft and prevented its progress. The king himself firmly refused to allow a prince of his family to be placed at its head and no Grand Master, consequently, was elected, but, in his place, three Deputies of the non‑existent Grand Master or Grand Conservators and one representative of the Grand Master, viz. Montaleau. General‑afterwards Marshal‑Beurnonville offered the king to become surety for the good behaviour of the Craft, if allowed to assume the command, to which His Majesty agreed, so that the General, as first Deputy Grand Master, or first Grand Conservator, took the place previously occupied by Cambaceres. The precarious state of toleration in which the Craft managed to drag on its existence is reflected in its own conduct. The individual initiative of the Lodges was everywhere hemmed in and fenced around ; representations of the police, even if unfounded, were immediately followed by erasure of the supposed peccant Lodges ; Masonic publications were on several occasions forbidden bythe Grand Orient, which did its best to suppress them entirely; and, in sympathy with the government, the increasing centralizing tendency of its authority was day by day more pronounced. The influence of political events is shown by the fact that immediately after the Hundred Days more than 45o Lodges became dormant (Rebold, op. cit., p. 145).

 

I8'4. July i.‑The Grand Orient declared the Grand Mastership (Joseph's) vacant and sent a Deputation to Cambaceres to require and accept his resignation. July zcg.‑The Grand Orient received a report of the fruitless efforts of its Committee to induce the king to grant them a Royal Grand Master; elected and proclaimed in his stead three Grand Conservators, Marshal Macdonald, General Beurnonville and Timbrunne, Count de Valence. Montaleau was elected special representative of these three officers and, among the other officers of later interest, FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 59 may be mentioned the following members of the Ancient and Accepted Rite Lacepede, Kellermann, Rampon, Muraire, Perignon, Lefevre, Massena, Clement de Ris, Beurnonville, Montaleau, Valence, De Segur, Challan and Tour d'Auvergne. Beurnonville declared that he would extend his protection to the Grand Orient alone, as in his eyes it was the legal Masonic authority (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 4, i1).

 

August ig.‑The Grand Orient, at a meeting of one of its Boards, the Grande Loge de Conseil, resolved to exercise the control to which it laid claim over all rites of Freemasonry (ibid., p. s) and, on August 26, informed the Supreme Council of its intention, announcing that it had appointed a Committee to treat with them.

 

As the events which followed this step are, even at the present day, the source of mutual recriminations between the members of the two leading systems of French Freemasonry, the facts will be related in chronological order with minuteness of detail, allowing readers to arrive at their own conclusions. A few introductory ,vords, however, are necessary, in order that the position of the parties may be clearly understood. The Grand Orient, although shorn of some of its higher dignitaries, had not been severely crippled by the change of government. The Supreme Council, on the other hand, which largely consisted of military officers attached to the late Emperor, had fallen into a state of paralysis and was quite dormant. This is admitted on all sides. The last list of the Supreme Council enumerates the following members : Cambaceres, *Valence, Pyron, Thory, Hacquet, *Challan, *Kellermann, *Lacepede, d'Anduze, Renier, *Massena, *De Ris, *Beurnonville, *Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay, Rapp, Chasset, *Segur, *Rampon, Langiers‑Villars, Peny, Rouyer, *Montaleau, Joly ; honorary members, De GrasseTilly, Trogoff, Baillache, *Tour d'Auvergne, d'Harmensen and De Villiere. Of these thirty‑one Brethren, the twelve whose names are in each case distinguished by an asterisk, are known to have been Officers of the Grand Orient. Moreover, Hacquet and some of the others were members of the same body; all were, of course, in the circumstances which had hitherto obtained, members of Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient, because the Ancient and Accepted Rite had not, so far, warranted any bodies under the 18░.

 

September 8.‑Jolt' reported the announcement of August 26 to the Supreme Council, which on September 23 appointed a Committee of Inquiry, consisting of Beurnonville, Muraire and Aigrefeuille, the two former being officials of the Grand Orient (ibid., p. 6).

 

October 28.‑The Supreme Council handed in an answer declining a fusion, signed *Valence, Pyron, Thory, *Hacquet, *Challan, *De Ris, *Beurnonville, *Perignon, *Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay, *Lefevre, *Segur, Langiers‑Villars, Peny, Rouyer, Joly and Desfourneaux. This list is remarkable and affords evidence of the continual play of cross purposes in French Freemasonry. Desfourneaux was not a real member at all of the Supreme Council for France, but of the Supreme Council for America, dormant until better times ; the nine names marked * were Officers of the Grand Orient and General Beurnonville, its Senior Grand Conservator‑who Go FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE had declared he would acknowledge no authority but that of the Grand Orient itself. But, still more remarkable is the fact, that a Committee previously‑ appointed by the Grand Orient on August 22, to prepare a report on the subject, did unanimously ‑November 12‑approve of a fusion‑or, in the language of the Scots Masons, a usurpation‑and that of the nine members of this Committee, two were Joly and Hacquet, who signed the answer of October 28, as above.

 

November i 8.‑The Grand Orient considered the report and resolved to resume its inherent authority over all Rites, to dissolve the Directory of Rites as no longer necessary, etc. Among the signatures we find Joly's ; the others, with the excep tion of Montaleau's, are not given in any work at command. The results of this resolution on the organization of the Grand Orient may now be taken out of their chronological sequence. That body separated the legislative from the administrative functions of the 33░ and it constituted on one hand a Chambre du Supreme Conseil des Rites (another name for the old Grand Chapitre) to warrant and administer ALL bodies beyond the 3░, on the other a Grand Consistoire des Rites divided into two sections. Section i, the Grand Council of Prince Masons, to initiate into the 32░ or the equivalent Degree in the other Rites and to delegate the right to other Consistories in France. Section 2 to be the sole authority conferring the 3 3'. The Grand Consistory was erected September i 2 and inaugurated November zz, 1815. It will be observed that the autocratic powers of a few 33░ members were thus suppressed and that they became only an integral part in one combined whole‑the Grand Orient.

 

November 25.‑The Supreme Council issued a circular protest against the action of the Grand Orient on the preceding 18th. This was only signed by Muraire, Aigrefeuille, d'Aunay and Pyron (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 8). So that apparently all the others had joined the party of the Grand Orient.

 

December 3.‑De Grasse‑Tilly returned, revived the Supreme Council for America and attempted to assume the place left vacant by the moribund Supreme Council for France.

 

December 28.‑Installation of a modified list of Grand Officers. Among these are found the following former members of the Supreme Council for France Beurnonville, Valence, Lacepede, Kellermann, Rampon, Muraire, Massena, Challan, Tour d'Auvergne, De Ris, Hacquet, Montaleau, Perignon and, possibly, others, as Kloss does not give the complete list (ibid., p. i2). As it includes Muraire, it would appear as if the protesting remnant of the Supreme Council had been reduced to three. Of course those who were not in Paris at the moment, owing to political reasons, cannot be reckoned with. Certain it is, that the great majority had at this time rallied to the Grand Orient, although some afterwards went back to their previous allegiance. But of what effect can a majority be, in a society where one single 3 3 ░ man who may hold out, is allowed to make others and, with them, reconstruct the whole edifice ? 1815.‑March 15.‑Napoleon lands at Cannes, when the Grand Orient reinstated Prince Joseph and Cambaceres and became imperialist. On June 18 the FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 61 Emperor was overthrown at Waterloo and the order, " As you were," was passed along the line.

 

August i 8.‑The Supreme Council for France issues a fresh circular protest, which had affixed to it the signatures of Aigrefeuille, Thory, Hacquet, Muraire, d'Aunay, De Tinan and Pyron. Here we meet with the last sign of this body for some years, with the exception of Joly's resignation on November io following, when he joined the Grand Orient. That Hacquet should have signed is incomprehensible, seeing that he presided over‑the Grand Consistory of Rites, or, in other words, was the head of the Scots branch of the Grand Orient. Muraire and Lacepede, it may incidentally be observed, had, however, at that time deserted the Grand Orient.

 

December 27.‑This meeting of the Grand Orient is of interest, because it afforded Admiral Sir Sidney Smith an opportunity of presenting several printed projects for freeing the white slaves in Algiers.

 

1815 is also remarkable as being the year in which the Rite of Misraim began to arouse attention. Joly, to whom allusion has frequently been made, was a member at the time and so, of course, was Thory, who seems to have joined every thing 1 Joly and other members of the Grand Orient united in a petition to that body, that the new Rite might be placed under the xgis of the Grand Consistory of Rites, which, however, was rejected on January 14, 1817 (Rebold, op. cit., p. 1 z6).

 

1817.‑August 8.‑The Grand Orient passed a resolution‑embodied in a circular, September 18, 1817‑declaring all soi‑disant Masonic bodies not warranted by itself, to be irregular and clandestine and forbidding its Lodges to recognize any such associations as Masonic, or to exchange visits with their members (Kloss, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 37). This attitude was persisted in by the Grand Orient until 1841. The Ancient and Accepted Rite, on the other hand, always professed tolerance and acknowledged as legitimate all Masons, under whatever jurisdiction. As a stroke of policy coming from the weaker side, this action was eminently well conceived and met with the success which has invariably attended every such proceeding, from historic times down to the present day. It would nevertheless be difficult for an English Mason to dispute the strict legality of the proceedings of the Grand Orient ; nor, from the point of view of that body, would it be altogether easy to call in question their expediency ; but, even as in England at the time of the rival Grand Lodges, so in France, the prohibition of mutual recognition was constantly broken by the subordinate Lodges of the Grand Orient, which more than once entailed erasure. At all great meetings, it may be observed, of the Supreme Council, members of the Grand Orient were present in large numbers and were invariably well received.

 

October 7.‑The Grand Orient prohibited its Lodges from assembling at the Prado because the Supreme Council for America and a Misraim Lodge met there. It was not until September 12, 18zi, that the proprietor of the Prado purged himself of his offences and the Grand Orient reinaugurated the premises, besprinkling them 62 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE with water to exorcize the unclean spirits of the past ; a proceeding which brought down upon its head the Homeric laughter of its rivals, indeed, of all Paris. November 7.‑A letter was read from Marshal Beurnonville enjoining the Grand Orient to follow the example of the Government and to look upon all Lodges not dependent upon itself as secret societies prohibited by the law.

 

December 27.‑The Grand Orient declared the Rite of Misraim to be illegal and erased a Lodge for taking its part. It also called upon its own members to leave the Rite within thirty‑three days, an order which they one and all obeyed.

 

1818.‑February 23.‑The Supreme Council for America, having completed its organization, met for the first time. The list of Grand Officers comprises names which subsequently became of importance, but none was connected with its past proceedings except those of De Grasse‑Tilly and Desfourneaux, the latter of whom signed the document of October 28, 1814, which professedly emanated from the dormant Supreme Council for France, of which he was not even a member.

 

March 24.‑Constitution of the Rainbow Lodge as the Mother‑Lodge of Misraim.

 

April 8.‑The Supreme Council marked its new departure by warranting two Craft Lodges. This is the date of its first attack upon the Craft in the sense that expression is understood generally.

 

August 7.‑Pyron, in a circular, attempted to revive the Old Supreme Council for France, but unsuccessfully. He died on September 28 following.

 

August 18.‑De Grasse‑Tilly, having been deposed by the Supreme Council which he had constituted anew, issued a manifesto and retired with his adherents to the Pompei.

 

October 15.‑The Grand Consistory of Rites, established September 15, 1815, issued its Statutes.

 

November 9.‑The Supreme Grand Scots Lodge, at the Pompei (De GrasseTilly's), completed its Statutes, which, however, were not published until July 9, 1810.

 

181g.‑April 24.‑This date marks the commencement of one of many efforts on the part of the Grand Orient to conciliate the Ancient and Accepted Rite. The negotiations were conducted with the Supreme Council at the Pompei, the one in the Prado being moribund and the ancient Supreme Council for France, or rather what remained of it, not having yet awoke from its slumber. On the day in question, the highest officials of the Supreme Council met at a ball in a Paris Lodge‑Commanders of Mount Tabor‑two influential members of the Grand Orient, de Mangourit and Boulle. As a consequence of advances made by the latter, commissioners were appointed and, on May 2, Roi and Baccarat on the one side and de Mangourit and Boulle on the other, held a conference. Boulle's proposal was as follows A friendly fusion, the Count de Cazes to be third Deputy Grand Master, Baron Fernig to be Lieutenant Grand Commander, the other members of Supreme FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 63 Council to receive posts or become honorary members, all members of the 33░ to be recognized and all former inimical manifestoes to be annulled.

 

This liberal offer surprised the other side, who had only come prepared with a proposal that the independence of the Supreme Council should be acknowledged and harmony‑though not fusion‑established between the rival bodies. Accord ing to Kloss, on May 7, additional commissioners were appointed by both parties ; whilst if we follow Jouast, this occurred two days previously. The names, however, of the Supreme Council representatives given by these two authorities do not agree. Conferences were held on June 16, from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and, again on June zi and the Grand Orient appears to have been so confident of a happy result as to prepare for the festival of reunion. But the negotiations were wrecked on the usual rock. The Grand Orient insisted that the united body ought not only to be supreme but singly governed ; but the Supreme Council refused to part with its fancied prerogative of ruling the first three Degrees. The Supreme Council wished to absorb and rule the Grand Orient, whilst the latter wished to place the other side in the same position as its own branch of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. The independence within itself of a small body of men‑an imperium in imperionaturally enough could not be tolerated and the other side would accept nothing less. The Count‑afterwards Duc‑de Cazes appears to have been unfeignedly sorry at the rupture of these negotiations ; and Lacep6de demitted from the Supreme Council in order to accept the post of Grand Administrator‑General in the Grand Orient. The circular of Grand Orient of July 31, 18 i,g, gives a complete history of all these transactions and conclusively proves that the Grand Orient never relinquished the rights acquired by the Concordat of 1804, but merely held them in suspense until 1815, at which date the great majority of the old Supreme Council had joined it in erecting the Grand Consistory of Rites.

 

i 82o. June 2o.‑The Grand Orient renewed its decree forbidding Masonic assemblies in public‑houses, but excepted four by name.

 

1821.‑March 9.‑Vassal opened the discussion on the projected new Statutes. These were not presented in a complete form to the Grand Orient until 1826, although the Committee of Revision had been appointed in 1817.

 

April 23.‑Death of Peter Riel, Marquis de Beurnonville, Marshal and Peer of France, Senior Grand Conservator of the Grand Orient; born May 10, 1752. Valence, one of his co‑Deputy Grand Masters, had deserted to the Supreme Council. Lacepede took the position vacated by the decease of Beurnonville and was replaced in 1823 by Count Rampon. The Marquis de Lauriston succeeded Valence in 1822. May 4.‑What remained of the original Supreme Council for France met, after a repose of six years and, on the 7th, amalgamated with the Pompei Council for America; the united body becoming the Supreme Council for France and the French possessions. The Articles of Union were signed by Valence, Muraire, Segur and Peny. The Prado Council attempted to organize a festival as a counter demonstration on June 28 and July 31 and then incontinently expired. Hacquet 64 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE demitted and threw in his lot finally with the Grand Orient, Lacepede becoming Grand Director of Ceremonies in his place. It was discovered that of the ancient (or original) Supreme Council eight members were dead, three in continuous absence and four others resigned. In the list of the new Supreme Council we find the following names of members of the old‑Counts *de Valence, *Segur and *Muraire, Baron de Peny, Thory, *Challan, Counts *Lacepede, De Grasse‑Tilly, *Rampon, *De Ris and Langier‑Villars, the seven marked‑with an asterisk having all at different times, sanctioned, by their participation therein, the former action of the Grand Orient in assuming the control of this Rite. It is singular that De Ris and Rampon for many subsequent years held high office in the Grand Orient. Through this constant shuffling of names and transfer of allegiance, the study of French Freemasonry is beset with almost insuperable difficulties.

 

June 24.‑Lacepede‑notwithstanding the occurrences of May 7‑presided in the Grand Orient at the proceedings in memory of Beurnonville. He afterwards resigned his membership, retaining only that of the Supreme Council.

 

August 6.‑Erection by the Supreme Council of the Very Illustrious Lodge of the Supreme Council, to admit members to the 30░‑33░. The Lodge de la Grande Commanderie had been constituted on June 24 preceding, to admit to the z9░ inclusive.

 

December zi.‑The Grand Orient denounced the Rite of Misraim to the civil authorities and, on September 7, 1822, the latter took advantage of a slight infraction of the police rules to suppress the meetings of the Rite, which became dormant (Rebold, op. cit., pp. 133, 134).

 

1823.‑November 2o.‑The Royal Order of Scotland (Heredom) united with the Grand Orient and, on November 25, the Grand Orient met to mourn the death of Louis XVIII.

 

1824.‑The accession of Charles X does not seem to have been very beneficial to the Craft. In this year many Lodges in the Provinces were forcibly closed by the police.

 

1826. June 26.‑The new Constitutions, commenced in 1817, were completed and laid before the Grand Orient; they consisted of 898 articles. The Grand Orient‑in its entirety‑was to consist of a Grand Master (not appointed at this time), three Deputy Grand Masters (Marshals Macdonald and Lauriston and Count Rampon), Grand and Past Grand Officers and Masters and Deputies from the Lodges. The Boards, or Grand Committees (Chambres), were to be five in number.

 

1. Correspondence and Finance, or La Chambre d'Administration. z. La Chambre Symbolique. 3. La Chambre des Hauts Grades, or Supreme‑Conseil des Rites. These three Boards were called Chambres Administrative. 4. Counsel and Appeal ‑a composite body‑consisting of nine officers of each of the three first Boards and some others. The members were required to possess the highest grades of the Rites practised. Besides hearing appeals, this Board settled the agenda paper for the Grand Orient. 5. La Comite Central et d'Elections, formed by the union of the three first, or Administrative Boards. Its functions were to nominate to all FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 65 the different offices. Besides these, there was a Grand College of Rites, formed of all members of the Grand Orient holding the W‑33' and directed by thirty‑six officers of that body, its duty being to grant the W‑33% or the corresponding ones of the other Rites and to warrant Consistories of the 32'.

 

These Constitutions‑containing more than 40o regulations for private Lodgeswere declared subject to revision every five years.

 

November 30.‑We now meet with another series of efforts to accomplish a fusion between the two rival Rites. On this date Benou wrote anonymously to the Duc de Choiseul, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, urging a union. Choiseul answered anonymously on December 5, expressing a willingness to treat on the basis of the Concordat of 1804. On the 6th these letters were laid before the Chambre des Rites, which appointed Commissioners and prepared a room for the committee. Benou informed Choiseul of the foregoing on the 7th. On the loth the Supreme Council for France appointed its Commissioners. The first meeting took place December zz, and the Deputies from the Grand Orient handed in their proposal‑complete fusion : Choiseul to be made a Deputy Grand Master ; Muraire, President of the College des Rites ; 15 members of the Supreme Council chosen by Choiseul, to be made Grand Officers ; 5 others to enter the College des Rites, 5 the Chambre Symbolique and 5 the Chambre d'Administration ; all Choiseul's Lodges to be acknowledged, etc. It will be seen that, as on every other occasion, the Grand Orient was the first to make overtures and proffered generous terms. But the same cause was ever destined to nullify the most well‑meant efforts. Besuchet (Secretary to this Committee of Fusion) relates an anecdote of these meetings. General Pully, in order to explain the views of his colleagues, betook himself to professional terms and remarked, " We wish to enter in amongst you with shouldered arms as a battalion square (bataillon carre). Yes, was the reply ; it only needs that you should place your fieldpieces at the four corners and we shall doubtless conclude a famous treaty of peace ! " After this declaration of first principles, it will occasion no surprise that, in spite of frequent meetings and interminable colloquies, the Supreme Council announced‑April 8‑that further negotiation was useless, whereupon the Com mittee dissolved. On April 13, I8z7, the Grand Orient received the report of its Commissioners, and the proceedings closed.

 

I83o.‑The documentary evidence preserved, presents very little of importance, till we come to the three revolutionary days of July z8‑30, which deposed the elder branch of the Bourbons and placed Louis Philippe on the throne. The Lodge of the Trinosophes atParis feted the event onAugust 6 and a Deputation of the Supreme Council attended, Muraire at its head. Bouilly and Merilhon of the Grand Orient took the opportunity of improving the occasion by desiring that the auspicious political events should be followed by a fusion of the two Rites. Muraire replied and concluded by expressing a wish to exchange the kiss of peace with Bouilly.

 

Then followed a truly French scene. Desetangs seized each orator by the hand, led them into the middle of the Lodge and, amidst the acclamation of the assembly, F. IV‑5 66 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE they threw themselves into each other's arms. A speech in honour of Lafayette, the hero of the hour, followed. On October 1o the Supreme Council gave a fete in honour of Lafayette, at which he was present and the official chairs of the Lodge were partly vacated in favour of officers of the Grand Orient, who attended in a body. A similar festival in compliment to Lafayette was given by the Grand Orient, at which the Supreme Council assisted. But these reunions were only of passing importance; the rivalry was very soon resumed.

 

This would seem a fitting point to review the progress of both systems since the last comparison. In 1827 they stood thus : Grand Orient, Paris, 67 Lodges, 37 Chapters, 6 Councils 30░, 1 of the 3z░ ; in the Provinces, 203 Lodges, 78 Chapters, 8 Councils 30░, 1 Tribunal 31░, 5 Councils of the 3z░ ; in the Colonies, abroad and in regiments, zo Lodges, 18 Chapters, 3 Councils 30░, z Councils 32░ : in all, 450 bodies, besides 156 dormant. At the same date the Supreme Council had only warranted z7 bodies. In 1831 the Grand Orient stood thus : 268 Lodges, 130 Chapters, z7 Councils in France ; abroad 54 : in all, 479 bodies. Of these, 114 met in Paris, 97 were still dormant. At the same date the Supreme Council ruled over i o Lodges and 8 Chapters in Paris ; in the Provinces, i o Lodges, 4 Chapters, i Council ; abroad i Lodge : in all, 34. The net result as regards these, the only two remaining constituent bodies in France, is thus : 513 Lodges, all told ; which compares unfavourably with the 1,288 of 1814. According to Rebold's lists, the annual progress of the Grand Orient was (Lodges and Chapters) in 1814, 7 ; 1815, 1 ; 1816, 6 ; 1817, 8 ; 1818, 17 ; 181g, 23 ; 1820, 9 ; 1821, 14 ; 1822, 10 (35 at least closed during the preceding two years) ; 18 z3, 5 ; 18 z4, 12 ; 18 z5, 15 ; 1826, 1z (though the grand total was no higher than in 18zo) ; 1827, 6 ; 1828, 6 ; i8zcg, 17 ; 1830, 9 (more than 6o, however, ceased work during this year).

 

The first efforts of the Grand Orient, on the accession of Louis Philippe, were directed to procuring his assent in the nomination of the Duke of Orleans as Grand Master. Failing in this, the office was still considered vacant and held, as it were, in commission by the three Grand Conservators or Deputy Grand Masters, as they were variously styled. These were the Marquis de Lauriston (1822), Count Rampon (1823), Count Alexander de Laborde (1825) ; Roettiers de Montaleau, Jun. (1808); being still the representative of the Grand Master.

 

According to the Statute requiring a revision of the Constitutions every five years, this duty was entrusted to a Committee, October 27, 1831. A report was furnished to the Grand Orient‑March 24, 1832‑and remitted to the Boards. Here it underwent revision from June 1z, 1832, to June 11, 1833 and returned to the Committee, who apparently went to sleep over it for the next six years. 1833.‑August 2i.‑The Grand Orient was obliged to caution its Lodges against inter‑meddling with politics. During the whole of this reign, 1830‑48, the Lodges showed a tendency to political discussions, which often began innocently enough with politico‑economic questions and humanitarian projects, but were not kept within due bounds. Many Lodges were, in consequence, from time to time suspended, some at the instance of the police and, on these occasions, the Grand FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 67 Orient was so anxious to make submission, that it occasionally refrained from any inquiry into the alleged offences. The first to suffer was the Indivisible Trinity of Paris, September ii.

 

18 A police law of April io, placed the Lodges still more under the arbitrary control of the police ; so much so, that the Grand Orient thought of asking the special protection of government, but Bouilly induced the members to reject this dangerous project. The result was, however, that the Grand Orient became more pusillanimous than ever and even sought to suppress all Masonic publications. In this it could not succeed, but it could and did exclude their authors and the next to suffer was Peigne (1835), the editor of the Revue Mafonique. This course of action was by no means new to the Grand Orient, but earlier examples could not have been mentioned without excluding matters of more importance.

 

The anathema pronounced by the Grand Orient on the Supreme Council was a constant source of remonstrance from its own Lodges. In 1835 fresh efforts at a fusion were made, but the proposals on either side were a counterpart of those of i 8z6 and, therefore, failed.

 

1836.‑The Grand Orient received continual complaints as to the tardy progress made with the revision of the Statutes. At one tumultuous meeting the President closed the Lodge, but the members would not disperse. Besuchet harangued the assembly and proposed to withdraw from the tyranny of the Grand Orient by forming a new body with the title Central and National Grand Lodge. As a consequence, on October 14 and z8, the Orator and his Lodge were alike suspended. Six other Lodges then ranged themselves on the side of the Schismatics ; and, on January 14, 1837, at the recommendation of Laborde, not only were these also suspended, but the names of their members were even handed in to the civil authorities. In 1836, Bouilly succeeded Montaleau as Representative of the Grand Master.

 

1837.‑The Committee of Revision complained of the difficulties under which they laboured and, on October 27, their meetings were, in consequence, declared to be private and visitors were pronounced incapable of taking part in their discussions.

 

1838.‑Rise of the Rite of Memphis.

 

1839.‑A general amnesty was granted to all previous Masonic offenders on January 4. The new Statutes were at length produced‑March 15‑and approved and published on June z4. There were few alterations of importance. Honorary officers were discontinued; all articles making it impossible for members of the two Masonic jurisdictions to inter‑visit were withdrawn. As a check to the admission of members already verging on pauperism, a minimum initiation fee was fixed for each separate Degree. Visitors to the Grand Orient were deprived of the right of addressing the Lodge‑which, in spite of the absence of voting power, had, in i8zg and 1836, led to scandalous tumults. The historical introduction to these Statutes (or Constitutions), affords a melancholy proof of the lamentable Masonic ignorance of those by whom they were compiled.

 

November 13.‑The Loge 1'Anglaise, No. zoo, Bordeaux, petitioned the Grand 68 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE Orient to put an end to its enmity with the Supreme Council. In 1840 several other Lodges joined in the plea for toleration and a circular of the Grand Orient‑October i9, 184o‑which sought to awaken slumbering animosities, was severely criticized on all sides. The Supreme Council seized the opportunity December 15‑of once more proclaiming that it opened its arms to all Masons, either as members or visitors ; and, in spite of the intolerance of the Grand Orient, it forbade its own Lodges from entering upon reprisals of any sort.

 

1841.‑A last effort at a fusion was made by the Grand Orient and, in order to ensure success, it was agreed that the negotiations should be conducted by the five highest dignitaries on either side. These, severally headed by Bouilly and the Duc de Cazes, met for the first time on March z8, 1841. The Supreme Council proposed a return to the tacit understanding of 18o5, that the Grand Orient should place all Degrees above the 18░ under the authority of the Supreme Council. Each body to remain independent, but under the same Grand Master and two Deputy Grand Masters, one for each Rite; with the joint title "The Grand Orient of France and the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite United." The Grand Orient could not accept those terms, but it made every possible concession. Nothing, however, would satisfy the Supreme Council but absolute supremacy and the conservation of their hierarchical system. Later‑June z9‑it declared that no fusion could ever be possible between two bodies so fundamentally different in organization. In the same year‑November 6‑the Grand Orient at length gave way to the wishes of its Lodges, and decreed " That Lodges under its jurisdiction might interchange visits with those under the Supreme Council." From that time all quarrels were buried and the two Grand bodies have worked side by side in peace, although the Grand Orient has never ceased to confer the 33 Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, or the Supreme Council to warrant Lodges of the Craft.

 

1842.‑February ii.‑Baron Las Cases was named Deputy Grand Master vice De Laborde and installed on the 19th ; and‑September 3‑Bertrand was installed as Representative of the Grand Master in the place of Bouilly deceased.

 

1843.‑Ragon, the author of Cours Philosophique et Interprdtatif des Initiations Anciennes et Modernes, was censured‑September zcg‑for publishing the second part of that work and‑October zo‑Begue‑Clavel was expelled for publishing his Histoire Pittoresque. On November 8, however, the latter penalty was commuted to a formal censure.

 

1844.‑September 6.‑The Lodge of the Trinosophes at Paris affiliated a Brother Noel de Quersoniers, aged I 15 (Rebold, op. cit., p. 186).

 

1845.‑In this year there began a series of Congresses to discuss questions of general and Masonic interest, such as pauperism, schools and cognate subjects, some of which approached perilously near to the vwlum prohibitum, viz. current politics. The Revolution of 1848 was already in the air. The first Congress was heldJuly 3o‑at La Rochelle ; and August 31, the Lodges at Strasburg inaugurated one at Steinbach in honour of Erwin, the architect of the cathedral, at which many German Lodges were represented. Six Lodges met at Rochefort June 7, 1846 ; FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 69 others assembled at Strasburg, August 18 ; at Saintes, June 5‑7, 1847 ; at Toulouse, June zz. A further one was projected at Bordeaux for 1848, but the Grand Orient stepped in on January 17, 1848 and forbade these Congresses altogether.

 

1846.‑February z7.‑The Grand Orient held a Lodge of mourning for its deceased members‑1843‑5‑amongst whom was Joseph Napoleon, last Grand Master of France.

 

April 3.‑Reports and complaints that the Prussian Lodges refused to receive as visitors Frenchmen who were Jews, were taken into consideration. The Grand Orient expressed its indignation and instructed its representatives at the Berlin Grand Lodges, to endeavour to procure an alteration in the Statutes of those bodies, but, at the same time, strictly enjoined French Lodges to refrain from reprisals. A more pronounced action on the part of England may have possibly assisted in bringing one at least of those bigoted Grand Lodges more into harmony with the spirit of the age.

 

June i.‑The Supreme Council issued its first code of Regulations. 1847.‑April z.‑Bertrand was elected Deputy Grand Master and was succeeded in the office of Representative‑June z4‑by Desanlis. On December 17 the Commission entrusted with the revision of the Statutes made its report to the Grand Orient.

 

1848.‑March 4.‑The Grand Orient met after the overthrow of the Monarchy and the formation of a Provisional Government and resolved to send a Deputation to the latter expressing sympathy with the Revolution and joy at finding that its own maxim of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity had become the watchwords of the nation. Thus, again, it was unable to refrain from political action‑and worship, more or less sincere, of the rising sun. These sentiments were expressed to the Lodges in a circular of the 13th. The Deputation presented itself on the 6th and was received by Cremieux and Garnier‑Pages, members of the government, both wearing Masonic regalia. The addresses on either side may be passed over with the bare comment that, though confining themselves to the letter of the truth respecting the role of the Craft, they violated its spirit by implication. But political events also tinged the preparations for passing the new Constitutions just announced as complete. A resolution was agreed to‑March 2o‑ordering a new election of Deputies in all Lodges to assist at the framing of the new ordinances and a circular of the z 5 th calls upon all Lodges, without regard to Rites and jurisdictions, to send Deputies to form in the Grand Orient a really National Masonic assembly for all France. A further circular of April 7 was still more explicit. It invited all Lodges and Masons in France to come and aid in establishing a Masonic unity of government. Here we plainly recognize the cloven hoof, the idea presumably being, to utilize the awakened democratic spirit of the nation, to the detriment of the aristocratically governed Supreme Council.

 

At the close of this epoch it will be convenient to review the progress of the Grand Orient from 183o. According to Rebold's list, the following Lodges, Chapters, etc., were constituted by the Grand Orient in 1831, 4 [it had lost over go 70 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE bodies of all sorts in the year and the number of its Lodges was reduced to 2209] ; 11832, 14; 11833, 4 ; 1834, 8 [but some 115 had become dormant] ; 1835, 6 ; 1836, 10 ; 11837, 3 ; 1838, 4 [but so many Lodges had become dormant that there remained only 2116 active ones] ; 11839, 111 ; 1840, 3 ; 1841, 6 ; 11842, 6 ; 1843, 4; 1844, 8 ; 1845, 7 [the number of active Lodges had risen to 28o] ; 1846, 9 ; 11847, 9 [but as upwards of 3o had closed, the number of Craft Lodges only reached 2‑55]. The same year the number of bodies of all sorts under the Supreme Council amounted to 71.

 

A further incentive to the unusually liberal action of the Grand Orient, may be found in a movement then recently initiated, of which, as it was of short duration, an account will here be given before proceeding with the history of that body. Curiously enough, this democratic attempt arose in the bosom of the oligarchical Ancient and Accepted Rite ; or, rather, the fact is not really curious, because the worst tyranny usually gives birth to the most republican sentiments. A detailed account of this movement, which deserved a better fate than befell it, is concisely given by Rebold in his Histoire des trois Grander Loges.

 

It would appear that, in the course of 1847, a few earnest Masons discussed the possibility of erecting a really representative Grand Lodge, on the model of the Grand Lodge of England, confining itself to the simple ceremonies of the Craft.

 

The first step was taken by the Lodge Patronage des Orphelins of the Ancient and Accepted Rite under its Master, Juge Jun. and a manifesto was issued‑March 5, 1848‑in conformity with certain resolutions duly passed August io, 1847. After inveighing against the monstrosities in the direction of affairs under both Rites, it declared that the time had arrived for the Lodges, which are the basis of the Craft, to govern themselves for themselves and to assert their absolute right to form their own By‑laws, subject to the confirmation of the Grand Lodge. It proposed that each Lodge should send three representatives to form a National Grand Lodge (no Deputy to represent two Lodges), to choose their own Grand Officers, to work only three Degrees and to suppress all others ; that in private Lodges each member should be at liberty to address the chair‑a right hitherto confined to the Orators and High Degree Masons‑the liberty of the Masonic press to be established, the Grand Lodge to have no right to control the election of Deputies, etc. These clauses indicate very plainly the grievances of the Craft. It concludes No more Rites of 7, 3 3, or of coo Degrees, each anathematizing and fighting with the others ; but one simple Rite, founded on good sense, comprising in itself all useful instruction and which shall at length annihilate the nonsense, the revolting absurdities and the perpetual strife which these brilliant fantasies have introduced amongst us.

 

Six other Lodges of the Ancient and Accepted Rite soon joined this party and were, naturally enough, erased. A committee was appointed, which‑March iowaited on the authorities at the Hotel de Ville, to obtain police permission for their future action and to congratulate the Provisional Government. Lamartine's reply FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 71 was as poetical as might have been expected; space forbids its insertion. The next step was to placard Paris with an invitation to all Masons to meet in General Assembly on April 17. The circular was forwarded to all the Lodges, signed by Barbier, Vanderheyen, Jorry, Du Planty, Juge, Minoret, Lefran~ois, Desrivieres and Dutilleul. Juge, however, almost immediately afterwards withdrew ; he had conceived the fanciful idea of causing the new Grand Lodge to be inaugurated by the Grand Lodge Union of Frankfort, with himself as Grand Master. On April 17 the assembly met and resolved to call a larger one, requesting each Lodge in France to send three Deputies. At this second assembly 400 Masons appeared, by whom, unanimously, the original self‑elected Committee was directed to prepare a code of ordinances. Full meetings of the new Grand Lodge were held on November z9, December 14 and 17 ; each article was discussed and the code adopted on the last‑named date. A report and manifesto, dated February z5, 1849, signed, among others, by Rebold, was then forwarded together with the new Constitutions, to every Lodge in France. On April z9, the Committee summoned a meeting of Grand Lodge for May 19 following, announcing that no insignia beyond that of the three Degrees would be permitted. At this meeting seven Grand Officers were elected, viz. the Marquis du Planty, M.D., Mayor of St. Ouen‑Master of the Grand Lodge; Barbier, Avocat General ‑S.W. ; General Jorry‑J.W. ; Rebold‑Grand Expert; Humbert‑Secretary General, etc. During the whole of that year the Grand Lodge occupied itself with settling its rituals, organization, etc., but does not appear to have attempted to seduce the Lodges under other governing bodies, from their allegiance ; and, in answer to all inquiries, refrained from persuasion, contenting itself with forwarding its manifesto and Constitutions. It is more than probable that more energetic proceedings would have resulted in the ruin of the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council but they were not taken.

 

In 18 5 o the Supreme Council and the Grand Orient both applied to the authorities to suppress the new body ; whilst fear on the one hand, caution on the other and the apparent wish to reform itself evinced by the Grand Orient, combined to diminish the number of Lodges which adhered to the National Grand Lodge. At this time they were only eight. Towards the end of the year, several Lodges in France‑for one cause or another‑were closed by the police and the enemies of the National Grand Lodge were astute enough to throw the blame on their young rival. The result was, an edict of the Prefect of Police, dated December 6, 1850, dissolving the Lodge. The Grand Lodge resolved to obey the authorities and issued a circular to that effect to all its members on January 10, 18 51. On January 14 it held its final meeting. Its 5 Lodges and more than Goo visitors, met on the occasion, when, amid a mournful silence the President delivered his valedictory address and closed the Lodge. Had it not been for Rebold himself, matters might have turned out differently. On December 14, 1848, some members of the Provisional Government of the Republic, who also belonged to the Grand Lodge, came to a meeting of the latter, prepared to counsel its members to petition the government to dissolve both the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council and to hint that 72 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE the request would meet with a ready compliance. Rebold, however, who was taken into their confidence, evinced a strong repugnance to make use of the Civil arm and so worked upon the members in question, that the communication was never made. Herein he showed much Masonic feeling, but little worldly wisdombut to return to the Grand Orient.

 

i 848. June 9.‑The Deputies summoned by the Grand Orient assembled and were addressed by the president Bertrand, Junior Deputy Grand Master. One sentence of his allocution will describe the purpose of the meeting. " To revise the whole Masonic Code and to establish the institution on new bases, in consonance with the present state of feeling." The Master dissolved the old Grand Orient by laying his insignia qn the table before him and was unanimously elected President of the new constituent assembly. The powers of the Deputies were examined, five officers elected to administer the Craft ad interim, etc., etc. From then to August 10, 1849, twenty‑six meetings were held and, on the latter date, the new Constitutions were confirmed by the Grand Orient thus newly erected. In spite of the liberal promises of the circulars of 1848, the organization was scarcely more democratic than previously, but one fact deserves mention, for the first time in French Freemasonry this code unequivocally declares (Art. i), that the basis of Freemasonry is a belief in a God and the immortality of the soul.

 

i 8 5 o.‑December 13.‑Appointment of Berville as Senior Deputy Grand Master and of Desanlis as President of Grand Orient and Representative of the Grand Master. They were installed on the 27th following.

 

18 51. June i 2.‑The following words sum up the report made to Grand Orient on this date : " Confusion in the archives, confusion in the property, confusion in the finances, this is what our researches have disclosed, this is what we are forced to report to you." On December io, following, in view of political disturbances which were then anticipated, the Grand Orient ordered all Masonic meetings to cease. In the same month Louis Napoleon was elected President of the Republic for ten years, and‑January i, 18 5 2‑the Grand Orient withdrew its prohibition. The existence of Freemasonry appearing very precarious, Prince Lucien Murat was asked whether he would accept the Grand Mastership and, having obtained the permission of his cousin, signified his assent. Whereupon, he was unanimously elected‑January 9, 18 5 2, received the 3 3 ░ on the 27th‑and was installed February 26. On the same date Bugnot was invested as President of the Grand Orient, rice Desanlis, who had resigned that office July i i, 18 5 i .

 

The first act of the new Grand Master was to adopt measures for the erection of a Masonic Hall in the Rue Cadet. He succeeded, thanks to a large loan (i25,000 francs) from his son, but the expenses were for years a heavy burden on the resources of the Craft. A house was purchased and sufficiently altered, in part, to be opened formally on June 30 of the same year.

 

1853.‑March ii.‑Desanlis was installed as second Deputy Grand Master and, on April 12, three members were nominated for the Presidency of the Grand Orient from whom the Grand Master selected Janin, who was installed on the 29th. It FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 73 was on this occasion that Murat gave the first indication of the despotic manner in which he intended to rule. On the occasion in question, the Grand Secretary, Hubert, had voted against the candidate most acceptable to the Prince‑which, although a salaried officer, he was quite entitled to do‑but he was immediately relieved of his duties by the Grand Master, in spite of the fact that, during his short tenure of office, he had contrived to increase the correspondence tenfold, to restore order in the bureau and to convert the financial deficit of the Grand Lodge into a balance on the other side.

 

1854.‑December 15.‑The Grand Master convoked a Constituent Convent for October 15 to " take measures for Masonic unity and to assure to the directing power the means of action which are indispensable, etc." On the 16th the Convent met and verified the mandates of the Deputies and the following day the questions to be discussed were submitted, the first being the modifications of the Constitutions. The Grand Master allowed it to become known, through Desanlis, that the Government had resolved not to permit in future a deliberative and legislative assembly. It required that all power should be in the hands of the Grand Master, who would be assisted by a Council‑that this was the only way to offer the Government a valid guarantee, etc. The Commission of Revision was chosen from those members most likely to be amenable to such thinly veiled hints‑and proceeded to work. On October 26 it brought up its report, which was so badly received and gave rise to such tumult, that the sitting was prematurely closed. As the whole spirit of the new ordinances may be gathered from one single article, it is here reproduced side by side with the corresponding paragraph of 1849 1849 1854 Art. 3 z.‑The Grand Orient, the legislator Art. 3 i.‑The Grand Master is the Supreme and regulator of the Order, is possessed of all Chief of the Order, its representative near its power. It exercises directly the legislative foreign Masonic jurisdictions and its official power, delegates the executive to the Grand organ with the Government ; he is the executive Master, assisted by a council and confides the administrative, and directing power. administrative to Boards (Chambres) formed of its own members.

 

In fact Murat had determined to rule the Grand Orient and the Craft after the manner of a general in the field, who directs everything, although he may and, for his own convenience, occasionally does, ask the advice of his stag'‑the members of which, however, would hold their offices by a very frail tenure, were they in the habit of often disagreeing with their chief. In spite of protests and struggles, the Convent was obliged to ratify these Constitutions on October z8. Next day the members of the Council were appointed and, on the 3oth, the Grand Master by a decree appointed Desanlis and Heuillant Deputy Grand Masters. The most noticeable name on the Council is that of Rexes, of whom more will be heard. In order to convey some faint impression of the pitiable state of subserviency into which the Craft was reduced during this period of its history, a few of Murat's many arbitrary acts may now be cited.

 

74 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE On May 13, 1856, a member of the Grand Orient demanded that certain decrees of the Grand Master should be submitted to the assembly. He was informed that such decrees could not be discussed and, continuing to urge the point, was ordered to resume his seat. Blanche, a member of the Grand Master's council, on one occasion indignantly exclaimed, " But what are we then ? " " Nothing without me," said Murat, " and I‑I am everything, even without you." Blanche resigned his seat. In 1861, Murat suspended, in one month, more than 40 Presidents and Deputies of Lodges for opposing the arbitrary government of the Grand Orient. Previously‑April 16, 185 8‑he had distributed, of his own will, the 40 Paris Lodges amongst the 13 Chapters of the city and, on November 30, of the same year, he decreed that no Masonic writings should be published, except by the printers to the Grand Orient. A Lyons Lodge was suspended‑March 31, 1859‑for having " permitted itself to discuss a decree of the Grand Master " and a similar fate befell a Paris Lodge on May 9, ensuing. In 18 5 8, the Grand Master warned the assembly general " to deliberate only on such subjects as are placed before it by his council and, on no account to wander, accidentally or otherwise, from the ordre du jour." These are only a few incidents taken at haphazard, yet, something, after all, may be urged in Murat's favour. He was the first French Grand Master who ever interested himself in the slightest degree in the affairs of the Craft. His intentions were doubtless good‑according to his lights‑his speeches often had a true Masonic ring, but he was apparently much misled by worthless and ambitious members of his Council and wholly unable to appreciate the beauties of self‑government, or to divest himself of the effects of his barrack training. In his eyes the Craft was a regiment and himself the colonel and there‑so far as he was concerned‑was an end of the matter. Discussion meant mutiny and was therefore to be kept under with a firm hand.

 

i 855.‑February 26.‑The Grand Master invited all the world to a Masonic Congress at Paris, to be held June i. Desanlis resigned the position of Deputy Grand Master March 3o and, on June 4, was made an Honorary Grand Officer, and Razy appointed Deputy Grand Master ad interim.

 

June 7.‑The Grand Masonic Congress assembled under the presidency of Heuillant, Deputy Grand Master and was officially opened on the 8th by Murat in person. The Grand Orient was represented by twenty‑two members and officers. Five foreign Grand Bodies had accepted the invitation, but did not put in an appearance, viz. the Grand Lodges of Switzerland, Hamburg, Louisiana, Saxony and the Supreme Council of Luxemburg. Three‑the Grand Lodges of Haiti, New York and Sweden‑had appointed Deputies, but they were unable to arrive in time. Four Grand Lodges and one Provincial Grand Lodge were really represented, viz. Columbia, Ireland, Virginia, Holland and the Provincial Grand Lodge of Munster. Inasmuch as there are some ninety Grand Lodges in the world, besides any number of Provincial Grand Lodges, the outlook was not encouraging. Only five proposals were agreed to; these were of the most unimportant description and not one of them was carried into effect.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 75 18 5 7. June 6.‑By a decree of Murat, Doumet was appointed Deputy Grand Master, vice Desanlis resigned; and Razy, who had acted ad interim, was made an Honorary Grand Officer. A decree of September 30 placed Rexes at the head of the correspondence of the Grand Orient and entrusted him with other important charges. In fact, the Deputy Grand Master became such an unimportant personage that Heuillant resigned. From that time the Grand Orient was practically under a triumvirate‑Murat, Doumet and Rexes. This paved the way for a very disgraceful transaction. On June 2, 186o, Murat accepted the resignation of Rexes, but asked him to continue his duties ad interim. On the i ith Rexes presided over the Grand Master's Council and delivered a message to the effect that the finances of the Grand Orient being now capable of supporting the charges upon them, the Grand Master was unwilling to ask any longer for the services of such an important officer as Rexes' successor would be, without offering,, an equivalent. The Council was therefore requested to name the sum it could set apart for the purpose and, on the i 8th, offered a maximum of 9,ooo francs per annum. As a matter of fact, the finances of the Grand Orient showed a large and increasing annual deficit, but the Council was chiefly composed of Brethren, who are best described as the creatures of the Grand Master. Moreover, as Rexes' successor could only be appointed from among themselves, each member felt that he had at least a chance of being appointed to an office worth some C350 a year. Their consternation, however, maybe imagined when a decree appeared‑June zi‑stating that on and after July i the office formerly occupied by Rexes would be endowed with a salary of 9,ooo francswhich was followed by another of July 17, appointing Rexes himself to this office and instructing him to assume thenceforth the title of Representative of the Grand Master.

 

We now approach some scandalous series of scenes in French Freemasonry. Many thinking Masons had, long since, become disheartened; in fact, very many Lodges in France had, for years, preferred to declare themselves dormant rather than live on shamefully. Only one hope remained, the Grand Master was not appointed ad vitam and the next election was no longer far distant. Murat had been appointed on June 9, 1852 ; Art. 30 of the Statutes provided for a renewal of election every seven years but, as the election was confirmed by the Constitutive Convent‑October 28, 1854‑his appointment was regarded as bearing that date. The new election ought, therefore, to have taken place October 28, 1861, but Murat, in convoking the General Assembly falling due May zo, 1861, had warned the Grand Orient to take that opportunity of renewing the election, in order to avoid double journeys and expenses to the Deputies. Already the attention of the Brethren had been called to the liberal tendencies of Prince Jerome Napoleon, as exemplified by his parliamentary conduct, which contrasted favourably with the Ultramontane votes of Prince Murat and there is no doubt that canvassing on a large scale had been used to promote his possible candidature. The first open act of hostility was an article in the March‑April number of Initiation, respecting the approaching election and contrasting the two princes much in Hamlet's style, with regard to the Two Pictures. At some time in April a number of the Paris Masters addressed a letter to Prince Napoleon. Space will only admit of a short extract Whereas Prince Murat's attitude of late incapacitates him from acting any longer as the representative of the Craft, whereas we have finally decided not to re‑elect him, but have cast our eyes on you, who, though not yet the representative of the Craft, have nevertheless always proclaimed its principles aloud ; whereas it behoves us under present circumstances to choose a leader who will, etc., etc., we have decided to nominate and elect your Imperial Highness and beg to remind you that, being a Freemason, you owe certain duties to the Fraternity, etc., etc.

 

The Prince's reply, stating his readiness to accept the office, if elected, was received by the Masters, April icy. About the same time, or shortly afterwards, appeared a circular of Murat to the Lodges respecting the election. It speaks of an intrigue organized amongst some Masons, desirous of utilizing Freemasonry for political ends, to produce a schism on the occasion of the election. The name of an illustrious prince having been used to cover these machinations, the Grand Master desirous not to enter into rivalry with a member of the Imperial family, had inquired of Prince Jerome whether he intended to stand ; and this prince had answered, that, having ceased to occupy himself with Freemasonry since 1852, he should certainly decline a nomination. Murat therefore warned the Brethren against these intriguers, but disclaimed any idea of wishing to influence the election. It appears that Jerome omitted to inform Murat of his change of views until May 17 and the latter was thus placed in a very equivocal position, because, at the time his circular appeared, Jerome's letter was already in the hands of the Paris Masters. On May 2 a decree of Murat suspended the author of the newspaper article in question, as being in the highest degree disrespectful to the Grand Master whose civil actions it had ventured to criticize. About the same time Rexes reported several Brothers for daring to intrigue to procure the nomination of Prince Jerome and denounced them as factious. On May 14 they were consequently suspended.

 

Two of them were members of the Grand Master's Council. Among the names of nine others is that of Jouast. This wholesale suspension of voters was certainly a curious way to avoid influencing the elections. After all this it is easy to conceive that, when the Grand Orient met, it was in no very equable frame of mind. 186i.‑May 2o.‑First meeting of the Grand Orient. President‑Doumet, Deputy Grand Master. The first business was necessarily of a routine character, to verify the powers of the deputies. Rousselle proposed that this should be undertaken by a Committee of Scrutineers nominated ad hoc by the assembly, as in the olden days, not by the Grand Master's Council as had been arbitrarily carried out since 1852. After debate Rousselle carried the day ; each of the nine Boards (or Chambers) of the Grand Orient named one member to form a Committee of nine Scrutineers. Only one belonged to the party of the Grand Master. From that moment the majority escaped from the control of Rexes.

 

May 2I.‑The Committee of Scrutineers and the Boards met, when the Scru‑ FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 77 tineers commenced the examination of the mandates. Dissatisfaction became soon openly expressed and, in his excitement, Hovins, the member of the Grand Master's party, so far forgot himself as to exclaim, " Your methods will produce excitement and the police will be called upon to interfere." The Boards began to review past decrees and rejected almost all the propositions of the Grand Master. They decided that it would be wise to at once elect the new Grand Master and were about to resolve themselves into a plenary seance, when a decree of that very morning was presented to them, suspending the sittings of the full Orient till the 24th, but per mitting the Boards to continue sitting. A Committee to interview the Grand Master and procure the repeal of this decree was about to be elected, when Doumet expressed his intention of taking that dutyupon himself the first thing in the morning, it being then five o'clock and too late. The meeting broke up, to resume at eight o'clock‑at which hour the committee rooms being occupied by private Lodges, all nine Boards met in the large hall in separate groups to continue their work. Whilst thus engaged, Rexes strolled into the room, struck his hand on the table to procure silence and said, " Sirs, I come to tell you that you are not legally assembled, the hour is unsuitable, you must retire." On being remonstrated with, he exclaimed, " If you persist I must call in the police " and withdrew. Steps were taken that one man only should protest for all, if the police interfered and the work was con tinued. Meanwhile a squad of police entered the building under the orders of Rexes. Masons leaving their private Lodges met these in the corridor and ordered them to leave. Rexes ordered the police to clear the building. The Masons present, answered by warning the police that they were the proprietors of the building, both as shareholders and as rent‑payers and that Rexes was their salaried servant. Rexes exclaimed, " Sirs, you are ruining Freemasonry." " Sir," they replied, " you disgrace it." In the end the police retired. The Committees, who had meanwhile remained undisturbed, not being able to meet as a Grand Orient, had, in each Board, separately elected Prince Napoleon and drawn up a Minute to that effect, after which they left to meet the next day at nine o'clock.

 

May 22.‑Doumet and the Council called upon the Grand Master, who, after persuasion, consented that they might announce to the assembly the repeal of the decree. The Council returned to the hall and was about to summon the Boards to meet as a Grand Orient, when Rexes appeared and announced that the Council had misunderstood the Prince. The indignant members sent to request Murat's presence; but meanwhile Doumet was called away to the Ministry of the Interior and, as he did not reappear, the Boards were not summoned. These meanwhile obtained 98 signatures to the Minute of Election out of a possible 152 and left, in order to return at eight o'clock to resume their departmental work. On arriving at that hour they found the building closed, not only to themselves, but to private Lodges whose night of meeting it was. The Lodge of the United Brothers had even prepared for a brilliant soiree and were not made acquainted with the order until their arrival at the Hall.

 

May 23.‑A deputation waited upon Prince Napoleon at ten in the morning 78 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE and handed him a written report showing that, debarred from effecting a regular election, they had had recourse to the best means available, accompanied by a Minute of the election signed by 98 Deputies. They were graciously received and proceeded thence to a notary public in order to deposit with him a Minute of the election, etc. They then separated to meet at two o'clock as a Grand Orient. But Rexes had meanwhile interviewed the Prefect of the Police and, when the Brethren arrived, they found this notice on the door‑" Freemasons are forbidden to meet for the election of a Grand Master before the end of next October. Signed Boitelle," etc., etc.

 

May z4.‑The members of the Grand Orient published a formal and dignified protest against all these proceedings, attaching, very naturally and, it may be, justly, all the blame to Rexes, the only one interested, to the extent of g,ooo francs per annum, in the then existing arrangements.

 

May 28.‑The Opinion Nationale published a letter from Prince Napoleon thanking the Fraternity for their sympathies ; but, in view of the strife which the election was engendering, requesting that his name might be no more mixed up in the matter. Then followed decrees of Murat. The Grand Orient would not be convoked till October. Lodges in the metropolitan department of the Seine were suspended till further notice. A third, on May 29, after many " whereas's," goes on to say All Brothers who have taken part in these illegal and un‑Masonic meetings in the hotel of the Grand Orient, without our authority and in spite of our prohibition, are hereby declared unworthy; as soon as their names shall be known and, failing a disavowal on their part, they will be suspended. [Then follow the names of 24 Brothers who were known and consequently suspended.] Signed Murat.

 

July z9.‑In a long manifesto, very dignified and Masonic, but misstating the facts, Murat declared that thenceforth the duties devolving upon him as Grand Master had ceased to be pleasing. In fact he declined re‑election and appointed a Committee composed of Boubee, Desanlis, Rexes and the Grand Master's Council to manage affairs until the election in October.

 

September zg.‑The Grand Master's Council convoked an extraordinary General Assembly for October 14. As its sole business was to elect a Grand Master the sitting was to close on the same date. This was followed by a dignified letter of advice from Murat to the Fraternity and the publication of a private letter of Prince Napoleon begging the Craft to give their votes to some other Brother. October i o.

 

We, Prefect of Police, on information received, in the interests of public security, do decree; all Masons are hereby interdicted from meeting in order to elect a Grand Master before the month of May 186z. Signed Boitelle.

 

This naturally raised further protests, amid which October z8 arrived and the Order was without a Grand Master. Murat's time had lapsed and no successor FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 79 had been elected. In these circumstances a committee handed in the name of three Brothers to the Minister of the Interior, as administrators of the Craft and claimed that their legal power should be acknowledged ; but Murat had already advised the minister of five of his own appointing, so that there now were two Committees claiming to rule the Craft and more discord.

 

i862.‑January I I.‑At last the Emperor took the matter into his own hands Napoleon, by the grace of God, .‑. .‑. whereas, etc. Art. i. The Grand Master of Freemasons in France, hitherto elected every three years according to the Statutes of the Order, is now appointed directly by me for the same period. Art. z. His Excellency, Marshal Magnan, is appointed Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France. Art. 3. Our Minister of the Interior is charged with the execution of this decree. Given at our palace of the Tuileries, 1 i Jan. 18 62. Napoleon.

 

January i z.‑Rexes waited upon Magnan to receive instructions for his initiation. This took place on the following day, Rexes and four others conferring upon him from the i ░ to the 3 3 ░ at one sitting ! This, of course, was exceedingly irregular and Blanche and Sauley told the Marshal so the day succeeding, when they in turn came to make arrangements. Their conversation with the new Grand Master resulted in Rexes's immediate impeachment, trial and degradation from his office.

 

It will scarcely be expected that the Craft should have prospered during these troublous times. According to Rebold's lists, the Grand Orient constituted Lodges and Chapters, etc., in 1848, 7 ; 1849, 8 ; 1850, 9 ; 1851, 4 ; 185z, 4 ; 1853, 2 ; 18 5 4, 2 ; 18 5 5, o [about i o had become dormant this year ; the total number of Craft Lodges was only i 8o active, as against z 5 5 in 1847] ; 18 5 6, z ; 18 5 7, 5 [and 5 relieved from suspension] ; 1858, i z ; 1859, 7 [and 3 reinstated] ; i860, 9 [and 7 reinstated] ; 1861, 5 [and 3 reinstated].

 

In 185 z, at the election of Murat, the bank book of the Grand Orient showed a credit to the amount of over 50,000 francs (~z,ooo) ; at the close of his term, October 31, 1861, it presented a deficit of 68,446 francs.

 

One more and last fact to show the decadence which had overtaken the spirit of Masonry during the past lamentable period. In order to provide funds for the continually increasing needs of the Grand Orient, the Grand Master's Council had hired out a part of its premises, within the very walls of its own hotel, to serve as a ballroom for the use of the demi‑monde. Need it be wondered that thoughtful and earnest Masons, meeting within the same walls, should have grown indignant at this forced proximity of a school of morals to a rendezvous of immorality and that, in their own corridors, the sons of light should jostle the modern representatives of Phryne and the Bacchantes.

 

At the entrance of Magnan on the scene, the position of the rival jurisdictions `vas, as nearly as can be estimated : Grand Orient‑France, 15 8 Lodges, 5 Chapters, Councils, etc. ; Algeria, i i Lodges, 7 Chapters ; Colonies and abroad, zo Lodges, 14 Chapters : in all, 189 Lodges, 8o Chapters. Ancient and Accepted Rite‑France, 41 Lodges, io Chapters ; Algeria, Colonies and abroad, 9 Lodges, 5 Chapters 8o FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE in all, 5 o Lodges, 15 Chapters. Rite of Misraim‑5 Lodges. Grand total of French Freemasonry :‑244 Lodges practising Degrees of the Craft and 95 bodies‑composed of Masons‑playing at philosophy.

 

January 15.‑Magnan presided over the Grand Orient for the first time and appointed as his Deputy Grand Masters, Doumet and Heuillant. He was installed on the 8th February. His speeches on these occasions foreshadowed his subsequent conduct. He admitted, in so many words, that his appointment by the Emperor was an infraction of the Landmarks, but he promised to rule constitutionally and to obtain as soon as possible, the restoration to the Grand Orient of its privileges, and observed, " Your Grand Master is but one Brother the more primus inter pares." Of this Latin phrase he was very fond, often using it to define his position. Under his sway order and regularity were soon restored and the arbitrary character of Murat's administration considerably amended. Magnan, however, could himself occasionally play the tyrant, as his action respecting the Ancient and Accepted Rite will show. Soon after his nomination he met Viennet, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, whom he informed that he read the Emperor's decree as appointing him to be Grand Master of all French Freemasons and concluded " prepare to receive me as your Grand Master also, I will no longer suffer petites eglises." Viennet smiled and retired. On February i, he wrote kindly to Viennet, announcing his formal intention of reuniting dissenting Lodges to the Grand Orient. Viennet replied on the 3rd, pointing out that the Constitution of the Supreme Council rendered this absolutely impossible and that so long as a single 33░ man remained, he would become the head of the Rite, etc. On April 30 Magnan addressed a circular to all the Scots Lodges For many years a deplorable schism has desolated French Masonry, . . . a Sovereign Will desires to‑day its unity ... and has confided to me the universal direction of all French Rites. . . . I trust you will not force me to use measures repugnant to my fraternal feelings. . . . Presidents of Lodges under the ex‑Supreme Council, do not misunderstand the position: it is from me, from the Grand Orient, that you now hold. . . . On June 9 I trust to be surrounded by the Deputies of all Lodges. Signed Magnan.

 

No satisfactory answers arriving, on May 22 he issued a decree abolishing the Supreme Council.

 

Whereas . . . by this decree the Emperor recognizes only one Masonic authority, that of the Grand Orient. . . . Art. i. The Masonic powers known as Supreme Council, Misraim, etc., are dissolved, etc., etc.

 

Viennet replied on May 2 5 M. le Marechal, for the third time you summon me to recognize your authority. . . . I declare I will not comply. . . . The Imperial decree named you Grand Master of the Grand Orient, established 1772, but gave you no authority over ancient Masonry dating from 1723. . . . The Emperor alone has power to dissolve us. If he should believe it to be his duty to do so, I shall submit without hesitation ; but as no law obliges us to be Masons in spite of our wishes, I shall permit myself, for my own part, to withdraw from your domination. Signed Viennet.

 

Shortly afterwards the Emperor expressed to Viennet his wish to see a fusion accomplished. The latter replied that he could not, according to the Statutes, allow a fusion, but would dissolve the Supreme Council if the Emperor wished it. As nothing further was done, it is probable the Emperor hinted to Magnan to let the matter drop. The circular of April 30 above mentioned caused, however, the dormant Rite of Memphis to petition for admission under the College of Rites, which took effect on October 18.

 

1862.‑March 25.‑Magnan wrote to the Minister of the Interior that, as he was now the person responsible to the Emperor, he must insist on the decrees closing several Provincial Lodges being annulled. To which Persigny consented on the 29th.

 

May Zo.‑Magnan summoned the Grand Orient to meet on June 9 to revise the Constitution. Accordingly, on that and succeeding days it was slightly altered, the change consisting in increasing greatly the number of the Grand Master's Council, which was made entirely elective and vested with the administrative power, subject to a veto of the Grand Master, who preserved the executive functions. This was certainly a step in the right direction. In 1862, 22 Lodges and Chapters were constituted and 3 restored from dormancy to activity‑a joyful sign of progress. 1864.‑May.‑Magnan, having restored order and won the general approbation of the Fraternity, induced the Emperor to restore to the Craft its right of election and was immediately re‑elected by the Grand Orient. He died May 29, 18 1865. June 5‑io.‑Meeting of the Grand Orient. General Mellinet was elected Grand Master. A movement in favour of abolishing all High Degrees made itself strongly felt and the motion was only lost on the 7th by 86 votes to 83‑a very narrow majority.

 

1868.‑In this year even the Supreme Council made advances towards a more liberal Constitution. The lately appointed Sovereign Grand Commander, Cremieux, caused his appointment to be confirmed by the Lodges and thus abrogated the hitherto existing right of a Sovereign Grand Commander to appoint his successor‑a great blow at the autocratic nature of the institution.

 

1869. July 8.‑The Grand Orient passed a resolution that neither colour, race, nor religion, should disqualify a man for initiation. This procured the friendship of the Supreme Council of Louisiana, the first Grand Body to receive ex‑slaves, but entailed the rupture of amicable relations with almost all the other Grand Lodges in the United States.

 

1870. June.‑At the General Assembly, Mellinet resigned the office of Grand Master, which the Grand Orient resolved to abolish and, until the confirmation of a resolution to that effect, elected and installed Babaud‑Lariviere.

 

F. Iv‑6 8z FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 1871.‑September 6.‑The Grand Orient confirmed the above resolution, the Grand Master resigned and was appointed President of the Council. In 187z he was succeeded by St. Jean, M.D., as President. Although it is possible that true Freemasonry might exist without a Grand Master, subsequent events proved that this was only the first step in a series marking the decadence of the French Craft, which resulted in its being ignored entirely by almost all the Freemasons of other countries. The Lodges had become filled by men of advanced socialistic ideas. Their influence made itself felt in a sphere which should have been jealously kept free from political or religious controversy; and the French Fraternity, which, as seen, never did possess a distinct idea of the true purposes of the Craft, or of its history and origin, gradually and surely effaced every landmark till it arrived at its present pitiful condition. One landmark, that it should not interfere in the politics of its native land, it had, from the very first, constantly overstepped ; the deposition of the Grand Master‑himself the type of a constitutional monarch‑was the reflex action of the Republican feelings of its members. We shall next see it intermeddling in the most ridiculous fashion with international politics and, finally, effacing the very name of the Deity from its records. One single virtue it retains ; it still exercises great charity in the narrowest sense ; charity in its divine signification, in its highest attributes, it has seldom exemplified. At various times, individual Lodges have indeed excelled in all that Freemasonry should be, but, as a whole, the Freemasons of France have ever been wanting in dignity and independence ; and their representative bodies, whether Grand Lodge, Grand Orient, or Supreme Council, have been arbitrary, quarrelsome, slavishly subservient to the Government, repressive towards their Lodges, bureaucratic and devoid of all idea of their true mission.

 

A general Masonic Congress was projected for December 8 in reply to the (Ecumenical Council at Rome in 1869, but it was first delayed, then rendered impossible by the Franco‑German war of 1870 1871.‑September 16.‑Ten Paris Lodges published a ridiculous circular, citing the German Emperor and Crown Prince to appear before them and answer to a Masonic charge of perjury! In November, another Paris Lodge summoned a convent of impartial Masons to meet on March 15, 1871, at Lausanne, in Switzerland and try their cause of complaint against Brothers William and Frederick of Hohenzollern, i.e. the Emperor and Crown Prince. All the Grand Lodges of Europe and America, those of Germany excepted, were invited to attend and, in case of the non‑appearance of the accused, they were threatened with divers pains and penalties. It is surprising that the Grand Lodge Alpina of Switzerland should have even deigned to protest and, of course, nothing else was ever heard of this insane project. During the time of the Commune, many Paris Lodges united in a public demonstration against the French Government; and, after the war, many a Lodges throughout the country excluded all Germans from their membership ; even the Loge 1'Anglaise, No. 204, of Bordeaux, descended to this exhibition of I,, malevolence. The number of Lodges under the Grand Orient was considerably FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 83 reduced at this time by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and the formation of a Grand Orient in Hungary, where many French Lodges existed.

 

1873.‑September zz.‑The Grand Orient held its centenary festival. On this occasion the High Degrees, as such, were refused participation by III votes against 99. The Chapters, etc., threatened to secede from the Grand Orient in consequence, but few really did so. The war had very much thinned their ranks and reduced their importance.

 

1875.‑In this year the veteran academician Littre was initiated ; his reception was considered in the Craft as an anti‑clerical demonstration and awakened much satisfaction in consequence.

 

1877. September Io.‑The Grand Orient resolved to alter the first article of the Constitutions of 1849. As already pointed out, on August Io, 1849, for the first time in French Masonry, it was distinctly formulated " that the basis of Free masonry is a belief in God and in the immortality of the soul, and the solidarity of Humanity." With the consent of two‑thirds of the Lodges, this now reads, " Its basis is absolute liberty of Conscience and the solidarity of Humanity." The rituals were then changed in conformity ; all allusions to The Great Architect of the Universe being everywhere eliminated, though it was not forbidden to be used. At one time any ritual containing this reference may be used, on the formality of obtaining permission from the College of Rites, but this permission was refused to Loge Le Centre des Amis in 1913. In consequence of this measure, the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, Ireland and Canada ceased to be in communion with the French Craft. Not that the relations between England and the Grand Orient had ever been very close. The latter was, doubtless, tacitly acknowledged by England as an independent Masonic power, never formally so. No correspondence passed between the two, no exchange of representatives was ever made. But French Masons who were formerly received and welcomed in all English Lodges could, afterwards, only be admitted, on certifying that they were made in a Lodge acknowledging T.G.A.O.T.U. and that they themselves hold such a belief to be a prerequisite to Freemasonry.

 

In December 1877, the United Grand Lodge of England appointed a Committee of eleven to consider the matter and, in the following February, that Committee reported that the alteration in its Constitutions by the Grand Orient of France was " opposed to the traditions, practice and feelings of all true and genuine Freemasons from the earliest to the present time." The following circular, which is placed in the hands of every candidate for initiation in a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France, will be of interest GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES PROPOSED FOR INITIATION The Candidate for initiation should read carefully the following instructions, which will enable him to understand the principles of Freemasonry and to decide 84 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE whether he will persevere in his application. At his initiation he will be questioned upon the general sense of these instructions.

 

Freemasonry is essentially a philanthropic, philosophic and progressive institution, having for its object the search for truth, the study of morality and the practice of brotherhood. It aims at material and moral development and the intellectual and social perfection of humanity. Its principles are mutual toleration, respect for others and for self and absolute liberty of conscience. Regarding metaphysical conceptions as belonging exclusively to individual appraisement, it refuses all dogmatic affirmation. Its motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

 

The duty of Freemasons is to extend to the whole of humanity those fraternal ties which bind together the whole body of Freemasons throughout the globe. The duty of the individual Freemason is, on every occasion, to assist, enlighten and protect his Brother, even at the risk of his own life and to shield him against injustice. Freemasonry regards work as one of the essential duties of humanity. It honours equally manual labour and intellectual work.

 

Initiation consists of several Degrees or Grades. The three first Degrees are those of E.A., F.C. and M.M., the last alone conferring full Masonic rights upon the candidate. Nothing can dispense with these Degrees as prescribed by the ritual. No one can be admitted and enjoy the privileges attached to the title of Freemason i. If he is not of full age‑that is, at least 2i years ; z. If he is not of irreproachable reputation and morals ; 3. If he has not honourable and sufficient means of existence ; 4. If he does not possess at least education sufficient to comprehend Masonic teachings.

 

The Masonic qualification, together with its rights and privileges, are lost i. By dishonourable action; z. By undertaking work regarded in the social scale as notoriously disreputable ; 3. By the violation of the Masonic obligations undertaken on initiation.

 

No one can be admitted until his application has been considered by a special committee appointed for that purpose and every admission is subject to ballot.

 

The Grand Orient of France does not constitute Lodges in foreign countries where there is existing a regular Masonic organization in fraternal communication with it.

 

Freemasonry having to provide its own working expenses and funds for other fraternal purposes, the candidate must, immediately prior to his initiation, pay to the Treasurer of the Lodge to which his application has been made the sum of .............. and undertake to pay an annual fee of ............

 

NoTE.‑Freemasonry has at all times granted full liberty to all creeds and faiths. The United Grand Lodge of England, in contradistinction to the Grand Orient of France and Lodges allied to it, imposes the obligation of a belief in a Living, Supreme Being, whilst the Grand Orient regards all creeds as personal matters. The United Grand Lodge of England, while proclaiming the liberty of human conscience, yet at the same time believes in the imposition of a dogma, which compels not infrequently acts of hypocrisy. The Grand Orient of France, adopting a logical, sincere and tolerant attitude, objects to the imposition of such a religious belief, which is a modern innovation in Freemasonry and takes its stand on the individual liberty of each of its members, a liberty to be exercised in the paths of honour and brotherhood.

 

FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 85 As was the case in 1848, from the bosom of the autocratic Scots Rite the cry arose for the autonomy of the Craft; it was the Ancient and Accepted Rite Masons, who, feeling most the yoke, made one more effort to free themselves from the irresponsible rule of the High Degrees.

 

On January 3, 1879, papers were read in the Lodge, La Justice, No. 133, Ancient and Accepted Rite and subsequently printed, calling for‑ a judicious rearrangement of the Constitutions. On March 15 following, the first Section of the Grande Loge Centrale (corresponding to a Grand Lodge of Master Masons) met. A Bro. Ballue of the Lodge justice dropped a proposal of amendment into the box. On April 15, five members of the first Section, viz. the Vice‑President Goumain‑Cornille ; the Senior Warden Denus ; the Orator Mesureur ; the Secretary Dubois ; and Ballue, Master of justice, issued a circular embodying these proposals, calling upon Masters of Lodges for support. A few extracts from this circular will define the grievances of the Lodges and explain the wished‑for reforms.

 

Scottish Freemasonry in France is passing through a crisis, crushed by the dogmatic authority which rules it. . . . Without control over the finances of the Rite, our Lodges find their existence seriously menaced by the many taxes and dues which weigh upon them. All manly effort is blamed, all work inspired by the spirit of liberty censured, all initiative is rendered sterile by excessive regulations which condemn all to a fatal stagnation. . . . We ask then to be free, . . . etc.

 

The chief points of the proposal to the first Section were (i) The President of the first Section to be elected by members of the Masters' Lodges ; (2) the first Section to itself arrange the dates of its meetings and the agenda paper, instead of this being done by the Supreme Council; (3) the Supreme Council to confine itself to governing the High Degrees, but the Lodges to govern themselves, through their Deputies assembled in the first Section.

 

In a word, it was sought to establish a procedure, like that obtaining in England with regard to the Craft and the Royal Arch.

 

It will readily be understood that strife at once arose. Lodge La justice and the first Section were both accused of irregularity in issuing circulars without the previous consent of the Supreme Council. Their accusers, however, committed precisely the same offence and were not reprimanded by the Supreme Council, whereas at a meeting of the first Section on May zo, 18 79 (the officers having been all replaced by others), a decree from the Supreme Council was read, suspending for two years the five subscribers to the circular, closing Lodge justice and forbidding the first Section to entertain the proposal of said Lodge. Hereupon ensued a scene of disorder, the President quitted the chair, the gas was turned off and the meeting broke up.

 

1879. July 14.‑No fewer than sixteen Lodges protested against the recent proceedings of the Supreme Council, and‑August 12‑a circular was issued signed by 103 Masons, announcing the formation of a provisional Committee of five for the following purposes 86 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE (i) To inform the Supreme Council of the resolution to form a Grande Loge Symbolique under the obedience of the Supreme Council, or temporarily outside such obedience; and (z) to obtain as soon as possible the support of the various Lodges who had already shown themselves favourable to the movement.

 

Cremieux, the Sovereign Grand Commander, then intervened and, of his own accord, reinstated all the suspended members, but the Supreme Council disavowed his act on October 3o, by erasing the names of the six most prominent offenders. This naturally meant war to the knife and nine Lodges issued a circular on November zo, declaring that they thereby constituted themselves into a Grand Independent Symbolic Lodge and inviting the other Lodges to join them. Therein, they curiously profess to remain, as ever, Ancient and Accepted Masons ; they did not wish to establish a new Rite, but to resume the rights and power which the Supreme Council had usurped in their despite. Their motto is thus expressed‑" The government of the High Degrees to the Supreme Council, that of the Lodges to the Grand Lodge." This retention of the (so‑called) Scottish Rite, with its 3 3 Degrees, has been further emphasized by a change of title to Grande Loge Symbolique Ecossaise, but in Lodge or Grand Lodge no Degree beyond that of Master Mason is recognized. The first constituent assembly was called for December zo, 1879. The Supreme Council replied to this on November z9 and December 5 by erasing more names; and on February io, 188o, all hopes of a reconciliation were destroyed by the death of the Sovereign Grand Commander, Cremieux.

 

On February 12 the new Grand Lodge received the permission of government to hold its meetings and announced its existence at home and abroad by circular of March 8. It was composed of 12 Lodges‑8 at Paris and i each in Havre, Saintes, Lyons and Egypt.

 

i88o.‑March ii.‑The Supreme Council, thoroughly worsted, issued a general amnesty, but it was too late. The Grand Lodge had attained a separate existence and refused to give up its independence; but it acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council, in all matters concerning the High Degrees, over such of its members as passed beyond the 3rd Degree.

 

Its Constitutions, approved August 23, i88o, deserve a few words of notice. The first declaration of principles reads, " Freemasonry rests on the solidarite humaine." This evasion of the acknowledgment of a Divine Power placed it outside Anglo‑Saxon Freemasonry. It required of its members loyalty to their country and abstention from politics in Lodge. The Grand Lodge is composed of deputies from each Lodge, who need not be members of the Provincial‑but must be of the Paris Lodges and residents in the metropolis. Three members of Grand Lodge are elected as the Executive Commission; they may not accept or hold Grand Office. A President directs the meetings of Grand Lodge, but he is not a Grand Master, having no executive power. Also‑unheard‑of liberality in French Masonry‑no restriction or censorship is placed upon Masonic publications, whether emanating from an individual or a Lodge. The remainder of the 71 articles breathe a like spirit of liberty with order and were it not for the agnostic FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 87 principles of that new body, it would appear worthy of support. Its jurisdiction on November i o, 1884, extended over 26 Lodges, of which i g were in Paris, S at Lyons, 1 at Havre, and 1 at Tours.

 

In October 1913 there was formed by Loge Le Centre des Amis and Loge 1'Anglaise of Bordeaux, La Grande Loge Nationale Independente et Reguliere pour la France et Les Colonies Fran~aises, which requires its Lodges to observe the following rules SDuring the work the Bible shall always be upon the altar at the first chapter of t. John.

 

The ceremonies shall conform strictly to the Ritual of the Rectified Regime, revised in 1778 and approved in 1782. [This is a Deistic Rite similar to English and American practice.] Communications shall always be opened and closed with prayer in the name of The Grand Architect of the Universe. Lodges shall insert upon their documents the inscription A.L.G.D.A.DTU [the initials of the French words meaning, " To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe "].

 

Religious and political discussions shall not be allowed in the Lodges.

 

The Brethren shall never officially, as a Lodge, take part in political affairs. Each Brother shall reserve his own personal liberty of action.

 

Lodges of this obedience shall receive as Visitors only the Brethren belonging to bodies recognized by the Grand Lodge of England.

 

This Grand Lodge was recognized officially by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1913, when the following message was read from the Grand Master A body of Freemasons in France, confronted by a prohibition on the part of the Grand Orient to work in the name of the T.G.A.O.T.U., have, in fidelity to their Masonic pledges, resolved to uphold the true principles and tenets of the Craft and have united several Lodges as the Independent and Regular National Grand Lodge of France and of the French Colonies.

 

This new body has approached me with the request that it may be recognized by the Grand Lodge of England and having received full assurance that it pledged to adhere to those principles of Freemasonry which we regard as fundamental and essential, I have joyfully assented to the establishment of fraternal relations and the exchange of representatives.

 

In 1924 the Grand Orient severed relations with the Supreme Council but retained its relations with the Grand Lodge of France (formed in 188o).

 

THE ENGLISH LODGE, No. 204, BORDEAUX This Lodge, L'Anglaise, No. Zoo, merits a short sketch. Not because it founded a new system, but because, for a long series of years, it remained independent of the Grand Bodies of France‑clinging to its English parentage and usurped the privileges of a Grand Lodge. Another claim to notice is, that 88 FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE throughout the Masonic revolutions of the eighteenth century, it remained true to the three Grades of English Freemasonry, a distinction which it probably alone shares with the Lodge Union in Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main. It is the only Lodge still active in France which was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England and retains to this day, as part of its title, the last number granted to it on the roll of that body.

 

This Lodge first appears on our roll in the list for 1766, where it is shown at the number 363, with the clause, " have met since the year 1732." According to the Handbuch, its first meeting was held under the presidency of Martin Kelly, Sunday, April 27, 1732 and, doubtless, its original members consisted largely of English merchants. The labours of the Lodge appear to have been several times suspended, but from 1737 they were for many years uninterrupted, although the civil authority ordered it‑but in vain‑to close its doors in 1742. It constituted in 1740 the Lodge, La FranFaise, in Bordeaux; in 1746, two Lodges in Brest ; in 1751, one at Limoges ; 1754, one at Paris ; 175 5, one at Cayenne; 1760, one at Cognac; and in 1765, one each at Perigueux and New Orleans. Over these Lodges it exercised the patriarchal sway of a Mother‑Lodge‑i.e. all the authority of a Grand Lodge without its representative character. In 1749 it threatened to erase Loge La Franraise unless it ceased at once to content itself with a promise instead of an oath and, from the fact that the latter did not receive a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of France until 1765, it may be concluded that it made due submission. In 1782 it showed itself equally active in enforcing pure and ancient Freemasonry, for it threatened the proprietor of the building in which it met, to leave the premises if he continued to allow a Rose Croix Chapter to assemble there. On March 8, 1766, the Lodge obtained a Warrant of Confirmation from the Grand Lodge of England as No. 363, which number was successively altered in 1770 to 298, in 1781 to 240 and, in 1792, to 204. The Lodge would appear at one time to have joined the Grand Orient, being included in the list of that body for 1776 as constituted May 11, 1775. The Calendar of the Grand Orient of 1810 gives, however, the date as 1785 and that of 1851 as 1778. In 1790 L'Anglaise was once more independent, for on August 31 of that year this Lodge and four others of Bordeaux formed a separate body and it only joined the Grand Orient definitely in 1803, preserving its number 204 and date of 1732. None of its daughter Lodges received at any time an English number or constitution. During this long period its rivalry was a cause of much uneasiness to the rulers of the Craft in France. To‑day it is registered as No. 96 on the register of the Grand Lodge of France and. is, therefore, no longer in communion with the Grand Lodge of England.

 

CHAPTER III FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE HE whole organization of German Freemasonry was demolished by the Great War of IgI4.‑I 8. Until that event the Craft was divided in its allegiance amongst eight Grand Lodges. There were also five perfectly regular and recognized Lodges which were " a law unto themselves." Besides these, many Grand Bodies of the Craft lived their span and died and, without some allusion to their former existence, a history of German Freemasonry would be incomplete and incomprehensible. An endeavour will, therefore, be made to describe all these communities and this branch of the inquiry will conclude by a reference to various combinations of German Masons, which do not come under the heading of Grand Lodges. The Chart given with this Chapter will serve to present the various governing bodies in their contemporaneous aspect.

 

GRAND LODGES I. THE GRAND LODGE OF HAMBURG Of all the German Grand Lodges this deserves the first mention, for two reasons, its earliest beginnings can be carried farthest back along the stream of time and, in the purity and legitimacy of its English origin, it is only equalled by the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union, at Frankfort, which, however, falls slightly behind it in point of antiquity.

 

The earliest date connecting the Craft with Hamburg, is contained in a speech delivered January 30, 1765, by Dr. Jaenisch, then Provincial Grand Master, who, according to Nettlebladt, Geseb. Freim. Systeme, p. 5 5 5, declared that his appoint ment as such dated from the time of his departure from London between 17i8‑zo. This assertion can only be explained by supposing that at this very early period Jaenisch had received some verbal permission to make Freemasons on the Continent; anything more definite or formal is inconceivable.

 

The next reference to Hamburg occurs under the administration of the Duke of Norfolk (see Constitutions, 1756, p. 333), when a Monsieur Thuanus, sometimes called Du Thom, was appointed in 1729 Provincial Grand Master for the circle of Lower Saxony. This person, however, is no more heard of, therefore his influence, if ever exercised, must have been of a very fugitive character.

 

In 1733 the Earl of Strathmore is stated by Preston (i8zi, p. z13) to have granted to eleven German Masons a Deputation to open a Lodge at Hamburg, concerning which there is no further information.

 

89 go FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The Minutes (in French) of an anonymous Hamburg Lodge have been preserved, dated December 6, 1737. According to these, the meeting was held under the presidency of Karl Sarry, English Provincial Grand Master for Prussia and Branden burg. This gentleman's name is not mentioned in the English records, but he may have had some reason for assuming the above title nevertheless. The Lodge in question is usually considered to have developed into the Absalom. If so, it performed the unnecessary act of obtaining a fresh Charter, because it was almost certainly already warranted in 1733, for in the Engraved List for 1734 we find No. 124 at Hamburg without a date and, in the later List for 1740, as No. io8, constituted in 1733. Findel says the reason for the previous non‑adoption of the name was because Luttmann did not receive his patent as Provincial Grand Master until 1740. It is possible, however, that it was the Lodge of the eleven German Masons, as above. On October 23, 1740, Lodge Absalom at Hamburg was warranted as No. 119 (see Engraved List, 1756), the dates and numbers both showing that the Lodges were considered distinct in England. If one Lodge was a continuation of the other, it is somewhat difficult to account for these two Warrants and the consequent loss of seniority. In all probability when, in 1740, Luttmann was appointed Provincial Grand Master for Hamburg and Lower Saxony, he applied for a Warrant for a new Lodge Absalom‑and that the old Lodge gradually died out. The latter had been ruled in turn by Brothers Carpser, Von Oberg and Luttmann himself. The most remarkable incidents of the existence of this old Lodge are, that on March 7, 1738, according to Nettlebladt, it drew upon itself the very short‑lived prohibition of the magistrates and, in the same year, sent a Deputation to initiate the future Frederick the Great.

 

Lodge Absalom was warranted October 23, 174o and, on the 3oth, Luttmann received his patent as Provincial Grand Master. He was also the Master of Absalom, but having perfected and opened the Provincial Grand Lodge in 1741‑the highest Masonic authority in Germany‑he resigned the chair of the Lodge in 174z and, says Keller in Gescb. der Freim. in Deutscbland, 18 5 9, p. 82, accepted the position of Treasurer. Even Marschall, the Provincial Grand Master for Upper Saxony, did not disdain to occupy a Warden's chair in this Lodge whilst residing at Hamburg.

 

The first act of the Provincial Grand Master, was to legitimate an existing unchartered Lodge in Hamburg, under the name of St. George, September 24, 1743. This Lodge first appears in the English List of 1744 as No. 196. The constitution of a Lodge in Brunswick followed in 1744; at Copenhagen, 1745 ; Hanover, 1746 ; Celle, 1748 ; Oldenberg, 1752 ; Schwerin, 1754; and at Hildesheim, 1762. The last two received English numbers, but the subsequent history of all was very soon divorced from that of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg. Scarcely was the Provincial Grand Lodge established before Scots Masonry made itself felt. In 1744 Count Schmettau, who had carried the Scots Degrees to Berlin, introduced them to Hamburg and erected the Scots Lodges Schmettau and Judica, of which von Oberg and von Ronigk, the Masters of St. George and Absalom, became respectively the Scots Masters (Handbucb, s.v. Hamburg). At the same time many FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 91 surreptitious Lodges sprang up and, in 1749, there even existed a clandestine Tylers' or Serving Brothers' Lodge, in which other Serving Brethren were initiated (see op. cit.). In 1747 there was at Hamburg an African Lodge, which, although it passed away and left no trace, has been viewed as a forerunner of von Koppen's Rite of African Architects, '1768‑97.

 

Luttmann (a dyer), who resigned in 1759 and had ceased to exist in 1764, was followed‑November zo, '1759‑by Gottfried J. Jaenisch, M.D.‑born 1707; initiated in Lodge Absalom, December '18, '1743 ; and died May z8, '178'1. The latter's patent as Provincial Grand Master was signed by Lord Aberdour (Constitutions, '1767) ; but he was scarcely installed before, in 1762, he associated himself with the Degrees of the Clermont Chapter introduced by Rosa from Berlin. The way was thus prepared for the Strict Observance.

 

In the first month of '1765, Schubart arrived in Hamburg, where he consorted with Bode, who had been present at Johnstone's Altenberg Convent. The rule of the Strict Observance, which required noble birth of its candidates, proved no bar to Schubart's success in this notably plebeian city, for Hund was induced to sanction Schubart's proposition whereby enhanced fees not only ensured knighthood, but also ennoblement. A prominent Hamburg Mason at this time was Joh. Gottfr. von Exter, M.D.‑born in Bremen 1734‑who was made a knight (together with Jaenisch) by Schubart, January ", '1765. The Templar missionary promised to raise Hamburg to the position of an independent Prefectory. Accordingly, on January 30, Jaenisch appeared in the Provincial Grand Lodge, dissolved all Lodges formerly warranted by its authority, closed the Provincial Grand Lodge, declared the Strict Observance Rite the only true one, reconstituted the Lodges Absalom and St. George and proclaimed Hamburg as the Prefectory Ivenach. (Nettlebladt, Geschichte Freimaurerei Systeme, p. 5 5 8). Bode, who had been made in the Absalom Lodge‑February ", '176i‑became for a time a leading light in the Strict Observance. The Chapter, which had been formed of i z members, grew in the space of a few weeks to 29. The generality of the Fraternity proved, however, by no means enthusiastically disposed towards the new Rite; for, in '1768, the two Hamburg Lodges were practically dormant and the Grand Lodge closed (Handhuch, s.v. Hamburg), a state of things which permitted other systems to force an entrance.

 

In 1768 Rosenberg‑who is mentioned in connexion with Russia‑erected in Hamburg the Lodge of the Three Roses, Sudthausen that of Olympia, both according to the Swedish Rite. But Zinnendorff, who had cast off the Strict Observance in '1767 and founded his own rival Swedish Rite in '1768, came to Hamburg in '1770, and reconstituted these two Lodges under his own system; and, in '177'1, founded two others, the Pelican and Red Eagle, in Altona, a suburb of Hamburg. At the head of Olympia, afterwards the Golden Sphere, was J. Leonhardi‑not to be confounded with Leonhardi of Frankfort‑who was for many years Zinnendorff's representative in the Grand Lodge at London. (For Leonhardi's actions in London, see History of Loge der Pilger, Masonic Nears, London, October 26, '1929.) The first two Lodges took part in the formation‑June 24, 1770‑Of Zinnendorff's Grand 92 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE National Lodge. Meanwhile, in spite of the efforts of the Provincial Grand Master for Foreign Lodges, De Vignolles, who seems to have been the only English Mason who thoroughly understood the character of Zinnendorff's usurpation, the Grand Lodge of England had recognized the sole authority in Germany of the Grand National Lodge at Berlin‑November 30, 1773‑so that when Jaenisch at length attempted to resume his duties as English Provincial Grand Master, he found that his patent had been annulled by Lord Petre, May 31, 1773. In the letter of Heseltine, the Grand Secretary, demanding the immediate return of his patent, jaenisch is deservedly reproached, not only with regard to former acts of negligence, but for having made an illegal use of the document for the furtherance of the Sect of the Strict Observance (Nettlebladt, p. 778). The proceedings of Zinnendorff, however, in whose favour the letter was issued, were no less illegal and far more reprehensible. In 1774 fourteen Brethren deserted Zinnendorff's Lodges and were constituted by Jaenisch as a Strict Observance Lodge under the name Emanuel, thus forming the third Lodge of the system which had once been the Provincial Grand Lodge and was destined to become so again. This Lodge was, of course, not immediately registered in England and first appears in the list for 1792, as No. 508, with the note " have met since 1774." In the same list (1792), Lodges Absalom and St. George, which were dropped out at the closing up of numbers in 1770, reappear. The year 1774‑September 8 ‑witnessed the initiation in this Lodge Emanuel, of Fried. Ludwig Schroeder, one of the most prominent reformers of German Freemasonry, who was born at Schwerin, March 3, 1744. Schroeder's public career as an actor and dramatic poet is well known and, in his later function of impresario, he was, at least, equally successful. At a comparatively early age he was enabled to devote his well‑earned leisure to the reform of the Craft; here also success attended him. He was Master of the Emanuel Lodge, 1787‑99; Deputy Provincial Grand Master of Lower Saxony, 1799‑184; and Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg from 1814 until his death, September 3, 1816. His first acts as a Freemason showed no promise of his future career, for in 1774, being then only an Apprentice, he opened a clandestine Lodge in Hamburg, Eliza of the Warm Heart, which lasted until 1777.

 

In 1776 the Princes Karl of Hesse and Ferdinand of Brunswick founded the Lodge Ferdinand Caroline in Hamburg, the fourth Lodge of the Hamburg system. In 1792 this Lodge received the English No. 509, with the date of 1776.

 

In 1778 Bode was Master of Absalom ; Dresser of St. George. This latter not being acceptable to the Brethren, who under the Strict Observance rules, were powerless to remove him, the Hamburg Fraternity seized the occasion of Karl's presence in Altona‑then a town of Denmark, although apparently a suburb of Hamburgto offer him the presidency of all four Lodges. This he accepted‑March 28, 1778‑but disappointed the Brethren in his choice of a Deputy; so the ruse having failed, the Chapter was induced to influence him to resign the office in 178o, accepting the title of Protector, allowing the Lodges, pro hac vice, to choose their own Masters. Dresser, as will be easily understood, was not re‑elected.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 93 Meanwhile, the Hamburg Fraternity had grown tired of the Strict Observance, which was itself moribund. On May z8, 1781, Jaenisch died and was succeeded by Dr. von Exter, under whom‑by amalgamation‑the four Lodges became two and renounced the Templar Rite. Exter, however, was won over by the New or Gold Rosicrucians and announced himself as a Grand Master under this system, with Dresser as Deputy. Through the latter, Hamburg was nearly induced by the Wetzlar Brotherhood to join the newly‑formed Eclectic Union as a third Directoral Lodge; but the negotiations were interrupted by his death. At this period Aug. Graefe, a former Provincial Grand Master for Canada, arrived in Hamburg as the representative in Germany of the Grand Lodge of England. He was a strong opponent of Zinnendorff, although accredited to his Grand Lodge by a patent dated March 24, 178 5 and strongly encouraged a return to first principles, holding out hopes of the Provincial Grand Lodge being revived (Keller, pp. 19q, zoo).

 

In 1783 Hamburg was invaded by Eckhoffen with a Lodge oú Asiatic Brothers and, in 1785, Schroeder returned from Vienna (Findel, P. 497), his influence soon making itself felt throughout the Hamburg Craft.

 

In 1786, the negotiations with England being now complete and Zinnendorff disowned, the two Hamburg Lodges redivided into the original four and, on August 24, Graefe installed von Exter as Provincial Grand Master for Hamburg and Lower Saxony (Keller, pp. zoo, zo1). Exter's patent was dated July 5, 1786. In 1787 Schroeder was elected Master of Lodge Emanuel and soon after was intrusted with the revision of the Statutes. He completed his work in 1788 and laid the first stone of his reform by establishing the Old Charges of 17 2 3 as the foundation of all Masonry. But, whilst bent on cutting down extravagance on the one hand, he was equally energetic in preventing extreme measures on the other; and it must be ascribed to his influence that a proposal made in 1789 to forego rites and ceremonies of all kinds was rejected (Findel, pp. 497, 498).

 

This return to English Freemasonry was naturally distasteful to Karl of Hesse, Ferdinand's coadjutor, in the direction of the Rectified Strict Observance. He, therefore, in 1787, erected a Lodge, Ferdinand of the Rock, at Hamburg, which was, of course, looked upon as clandestine, as were also at this time the Zinnendorff Lodges. In September 179o Bode, who had migrated to Gotha, issued a circular proposing a General Union of German Lodges. The circular failed to shake the allegiance of a single Hamburg Lodge, but possibly it had the effect of stimulating Schroeder to further measures, for we next find that‑at his instigation‑the Scots Lodges and Degrees were abolished in 1790‑1, thus leaving nothing but pure English Freemasonry. This step was followed in 1795 by the adhesion of Lodge Ferdinand of the Rock, which, in the Freemasons' Calendar for 1798, appears as No. 56z, with the words " have met since 1788 " in a parenthesis.

 

At Exter's death‑April 12, 1799‑Beckmann became Provincial Grand Master and Schroeder Deputy (Nettlebladt, p. 598). The latter, who had previously revised the Constitutions, now turned his attention to the Ceremonial and, having discovered what he imagined to be the earliest diction, recast it in a form more 94 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE applicable to the times. The result was a simple yet impressive Ritual, differing little from the English, which was approved and accepted by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, April 29, 18o1. Its daughter Lodges had meanwhile increased from 5 to 9 (Nettlebladt, pp. Goo, 6oi).

 

In i 8oz Schroeder procured the acceptance of what, until quite lately, was the distinguishing feature of the Hamburg system, viz. the Engbund‑i.e. Select Bond. It was intended to forestall any hankering after High Degrees by rendering it possible for Master Masons to become historically acquainted with all the High Degrees of the various Rites. At the same time, to raise its value as a distinction, it was not open to all Master Masons, while it possessed its own means of recognition, etc. Certain Grand Officers and all Masters of Lodgeswere ex officio members and, in each Lodge, a certain number of the Master Masons were admitted. The Hamburg En gbund was a sort of Grand Engbund for all the private ones; a further selection from each En gbund conducted the correspondence with the others. This second division was called the Correspondence Circle. The members, as such, exercised no influence over their Lodges and their intention was, by research into all the usages and fallacies of the High Degrees, to demonstrate their uselessness and absence of historical basis.

 

Under its new guise the Provincial Grand Lodge of Hamburg prospered for some years, until, in 1811, the success of the French arms and Napoleon's Interdict rendered it impossible to continue the connexion with England. On February i i, 1811, therefore, the Provincial Grand Lodge declared itself independent, under the name of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg (Nettlebladt, p. 613). At that time its sway was exerted over i z Lodges (Findel, p. 499). The remainder of its history is uneventful enough.

 

Beckmann died‑June z8, 1814‑and was succeeded as Grand Master by Schroeder ; at whose death‑September 3, 1816‑Beseler was elected and, at his resignation, Schleiden, July z8, 1825. In 1828 W. H. Goschen (a member of Loge der Pilger, No. 238, London) was appointed the first representative at the Grand Lodge of England. In 1834 Schleiden resigned and was succeeded by Moraht. On December 6, 1837, Lodge Absalom held its centenary festival and, in 1838, the Grand Lodge of England appointed H. J. Wenck as its first representative at Hamburg. Hamburg was from that time closely allied with England and its representative often enjoyed the special honour of being appointed Grand Secretary for German Correspondence. Moraht died February 13, 1838 and was succeeded by Dav. Andr. Cords, under whom the Constitutions were revised in 1845. The latter was followed by his former Deputy, Dr. H. W. Buek, in 1847 and, under this Grand Master, the Constitutions were again revised in 1862. The 150 years' jubilee of Freemasonry was held in 1867.

 

In 1869 it was considered expedient that the historical acquirements of the Engbund should no longer be reserved as the special privilege of a select few. The Grand Engbund was therefore dissolved and reconstituted as a private Engbund, open to all Master Masons ; the daughter associations followed suit. They then FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 95 existed as purely literary Masonic societies ; but the want of the previous cohesion and superior direction had so seriously hampered their efforts, that in '1 878 the Lodge at Rostock made proposals for re‑establishing the former organization (Findel p. 5oi). The completion of Dr. Buek's twenty‑fifth year as Grand Master was celebrated by the Grand Lodge, June 24,187z. He then resigned and was followed by Glitza. In 1874 and 1875 the Grand Lodge of Hamburg recognized the coloured Lodges of Prince Hall in Boston and of Ohio and, in 1877‑8, the Constitutions underwent a last revision.

 

In 1878 the Grand Lodge of Hamburg ruled over 32 Lodges, of which 5 were in that city and i g in other parts of Germany, 8 being abroad. In Hamburg itself there existed 9 other Lodges owing allegiance to other German Grand Lodges. The total number of Masons under the Grand Lodge was 3,726, an average of I16 per Lodge. Two foreign Lodges were then added, one at Bucharest, another at Vera Cruz (Cosmopolitan Calendar, 1885). With a solitary exception, Hamburg was the only German Grand Lodge which warranted Lodges outside the Empire; it ignored the American theory of Grand Lodge sovereignty, possessing no fewer than three Lodges in New York itself. The Pilgrim Lodge (Loge der Pilger) in London, works in German according to the Hamburg or Schroeder Ritual, but under the rule of the Grand Lodge of England.

 

The history of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg may thus briefly be summarized ‑173o, Du Thom, Provincial Grand Master; 1733‑40, anonymous Lodge; 174065, Provincial Grand Lodge for Hamburg and Lower Saxony under Luttmann and Jaenisch ; 1765‑82, a part of the Strict Observance system ; 1782‑8, under Exter, indoctrinated with the fancies of the New Rosicrucians, though always‑it must in fairness be recorded‑inclining more and more towards a return to the practice under the Grand Lodge of England; 1786‑1811, Provincial Grand Lodge once more ; from 1811 to 18 5 5, Grand Lodge of Hamburg.

 

II. THE MOTHER GRAND LODGE OF THE ECLECTIC UNION, FRANKFORT‑ON‑THE‑MAIN This system claims emphatically the first place in an English Mason's regard for two reasons other than antiquity, viz. the filial persistency with which it adhered under most difficult circumstances to its connexion with England and the strong common sense which, under every allurement, kept it practically free at all times from the blighting influence of High Degrees, Strict Observance and other Masonic ‑aberrations. The Lodge Union of Frankfort and its allies have never ceased for one moment to work in the purely English and only Freemasonry of three Degrees. Individual members have taken accessory Degrees, have even been commissioned by the Lodge to join other Rites in order to report upon their value and have always reported adversely! The history of this body affords no mysteries to be cleared up ; its Minutes are full and complete from the earliest one to the latest ; its records are admirably preserved; every statement‑on their authority‑rests on documentary evidence and, from '1742, literally no question is open to doubt.

 

96 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The annals of the Eclectic Union have been written by three of its own membersKloss (Annalen der Loge fur Einigkeit, 1842.), Keller (Geschich. des Eklektischen Freimaurerbundes, 18 5 7), and Karl Paul (Annalen des Eklektischen Freimaurerbundes, 18 8 3. The Handbuch also gives a parallel account, s.v. Frankfurt and Eklektisches‑Bund), and as to facts do not differ in the slightest degree. Paul's account is compiled in chronological order, therefore, no difficulties of verification can be experienced.

 

Frankfort, from its position as a free town of the Empire, the seat of Germany's largest banking houses, the coronation city of its Emperors and the place of meeting of the Imperial Diet, enjoyed obvious advantages for the early propagation of Freemasonry. Evidence, indeed, is not wanting of informal meetings of the Craft at a very early date. But the first indications of a permanent Lodge are the records of fines inflicted as per cash‑book of the Union Lodge under date of March 1, 1742. In the same year‑March zg‑By‑laws were drawn up and signed by the members, June 27. On the last date the Lodge was formally constituted by General de Beaujeu, Marquis de Gentils and Baron won Schell, styling themselves Grand Master and Grand Wardens pro tempore. It is not known by what right they assumed to represent the Grand Lodge of England in this matter ; but even if the offices were self‑conferred, in this very irregularity itself may be perceived a striving after the regularity which has since so honourably distinguished this Lodge. That the act (if a usurpation) was soon afterwards condoned, may be gathered from the Charter granted by Lord Ward, Grand Master‑February 8, 1743‑which recites that Brother Beaumont, oculist to the Prince of Wales, having assured " us " that the Lodge had been constituted in due form, under the name of Union, as a daughter of the Union Lodge in London, " we do hereby recognize it, etc. and order that the members of either Lodge be considered equally members of the other." Its first Master was Steinheil, its first Warden De la Tierce, who in 1742 produced one of the earliest translations of Anderson's Constitutions (1723) for the use of the Lodge. In the Engraved List, 1744‑5, it is depicted as a Union of Angels and its date of constitution is acknowledged, June 17, 1742, with the number 192. Its proceedings were conducted in French until 1744, when it was resolved to work alternately in German and French.

 

In 1743 Count Schmettau, whose name has several times been mentioned, established a military Lodge in Frankfort, which amalgamated with the UnionJanuary 17, 1744‑and in 1745 the Union assumed the powers of a Mother‑Lodge by constituting the Lodge of the Three Lions at Marburg, which was not, however, registered in England at the time and first appears in the Engraved List for 1767 as No. 393.

 

In 1746‑October 24‑the Lodge resolved to close its doors, owing to the paucity of attendance and other reasons. It was reopened August 16, 1752, by Steinheil. In 1758 a Constitution was granted to a very short‑lived Lodge at Mayence and the occupation of Frankfort by the French army gave rise to several irregular Lodges in the city. The Lodge strove its best to preserve order, but ineffectually for some time, until it at length singled out for mutual support and FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 97 assistance a Lodge which had grown up in the Swedish regiment, Royal Deux Ponts, quartered at Frankfort. On May 12, 1761, it constituted the Lodge Joseph of Union in Nuremberg and‑May 29, 1762‑legitimated the Royal Deux Ponts Lodge. The invitation of the Berlin Three Globes‑March 8, 1765‑to join the Strict Observance, was declined, also a proposal to pay Schubart's expenses in order that he might instruct them in the new Rite. The Daughter‑Lodge at Nuremberg was, however, at this time won over to the Templars, although it did not formally sever its connexion with Frankfort till two years later‑1767. The greatest blot on the history of the Lodge Union, is its refusal from a very early date to recognize the eligibility of Jewish candidates, an error nevertheless which it amended much earlier than many other German Lodges. In 1766 it refused a warrant to Cassel, because Jews were among the petitioners. At this period J. P. Gogel, a former Master of the Lodge, whose commercial pursuits often called him to England, was commissioned to petition for a Provincial Grand Lodge patent for Frankfort, which was granted by Lord Blaney, Grand Master‑August zo, 1766‑to J. P. Gogel, Provincial Grand Master for the Upper and Lower Rhine and of Franconia. Gogel produced his patent in Frankfort‑October z8‑and the Provincial Grand Lodge was accordingly constituted on the 31st, with the Lodges Union of Frankfort, Marburg, Deux Ponts and Nuremberg as daughters. On this occasion Gogel declared that he invested the Lodge Union with his personal rights and that no Provincial Grand Master should, in future, exercise the office for more than two or three years. In this he exceeded his powers, because a Provincial patent is always a personal distinction, a Provincial Grand Master not being elected by the Province, but appointed by the Grand Master; and, as events proved, the well‑meant intentions of Gogel were incapable of realization. The officers of the Provincial Grand Lodge‑Deputy Grand Master, Senior and Junior Wardens‑were the Masters of the Union, Marburg and Nuremberg Lodges respectively; but the members, at first all Master Masons, afterwards Wardens‑present and past‑were drawn from the Union only. Out of the latter, each of the other Lodges might select a repre sentative. It will be seen that the Union, subsequently the other Lodges in Frank fort, were always exceptionally favoured. Among the first members of the Provincial Grand Lodge were Karl Br6nner, Peter F. Passavant and F. W. Mohler. In 1767 the Nuremberg Lodge threw off' its allegiance and joined the Strict Observance, whose emissary, Schubart, had arrived in Frankfort in December 1766. His propaganda failed to influence the Provincial Grand Lodge or its daughter, Union, but he succeeded in erecting, in February 1767, a Lodge of the Three Thistles at Frankfort, which for many years proved a thorn in the side of the Brethren.

 

According to his promise Gogel resigned‑October 23, 1768‑but was reelected‑November 1o, 177o‑Mohler serving as Grand Master in the interim. The former, on his return from England in 1772, constituted a Lodge at Strasburg, which almost immediately afterwards seceded to the Strict Observance. In the same year the Deux Ponts Lodge also joined the enemy.

 

F. 1v‑7 98 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE In December 1772 Prince Ludwig George Karl of Hesse, an enthusiastic convert to von Hund's system, addressed a letter to the Provincial Grand Lodge, expatiating on the advantages of the new Rite, invited the Grand Lodge to join him and quietly proposed that Gogel should abdicate in his favour ! The offer was declined.

 

On November 30, 1773, Zinnendorff concluded his compact with England, by which all the existing German Lodges were handed over to him. The Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort, however, was given the choice, during Gogel's life, either of retaining its then existing position, or of making terms for a Provincial Grand Patent with Zinnendorff. In either case, after Gogel's death, the district was to revert to the newly erected National Grand Lodge for all Germany, i.e. Zinnendorff's Prince Ferdinand, Provincial Grand Master for Brunswick, was granted the same alternative. The treaty was not communicated at once to Frankfort and, whatever excuses England might have urged in extenuation, so far as regarded Hamburg, which had strayed from the right road, its action was not only uncalled for, but highly discreditable in the case of Frankfort, the truest daughter the English Grand Lodge ever had cause to rejoice over. No excuse whatever can be pleaded, except the profound ignorance of the Grand Lodge of Englandor, it may be, of its Secretary, James Heseltine‑with regard to the true state of the Craft abroad, an ignorance which, in the opinion of all dispassionate inquirers, will heighten rather than extenuate, the grave error related.

 

In 1774 the Marburg Lodge formally threw off its allegiance, leaving the Union as the sole support of the Provincial Grand Lodge. In spite of this isolated position Gogel accompanied a letter of inquiry respecting the arrangement with Zinnendorff by a contribution of ú3o for Freemasons' Hall and C4 for the Charity. At the same time he pointed out that the only truly English Lodge in Germany was the Frankfort Lodge and that both the Zinnendorff and Strict Observance systems were something totally different. This and further protests on Gogel's part only produced an answer from England in 1775, in which, after praising Frankfort as the best and only support of true Freemasonry, he was nevertheless advised to come to some arrangement with Zinnendorff. It being quite evident that, in these circumstances, England would not acknowledge a successor to Gogel‑in whose name the Provincial patent was made out, on which Frankfort based its claimsit was determined that he should not resign his office as at first intended. Freemasonry in Frankfort, however, languished and, between 1775 and 1777, no sittings of Grand Lodge were held. From 1777‑8o negotiations, initiated by the Landgrave Karl of Hesse, were carried on with this Prince, who held out special inducements to Frankfort to join the Strict Observance. Gogel, Bronner, Pas savant and Ktisstner were advanced to the highest Degree of this Rite as a test and‑advised against it. The negotiations then fell through at the last moment. Knigge, with the teachings of the Illuminati, failed even to obtain a hearing from the Lodge in 178o, although here again several Brethren‑for example, Kusstner, Bronner, J. P. von Leonhardi, Pascha, Noel, Du Fay, etc.‑gave the Society a trial. The Provincial FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 99 Grand Lodge refused to yield to, or capitulate with, Zinnendorff and, with its daughter Union, plodded on its lonely road.

 

In 1782‑March iz‑Gogel died; on the 17th Peter F. Passavant was elected Grand Master; on the 18th Pascha, who was about to leave for London, was commissioned to apply for a new Provincial patent, made out this time in the name of the Lodge, not in that of the Grand Master, also to procure answers to several other questions. In London he failed to obtain the ear of Grand Lodge, except through J. Leonhardi, Master of the Pilgrim Lodge (Loge der Pilger), who, as Zinnendorff's representative, was scarcely likely to assist him. The utmost concession offered to Pascha was, that like the Berlin Royal York, the Frankfort Union should content itself with the position of an English constituted Lodge, independent of any German superior. The result is not surprising. The Frankfort Fraternity decided‑November 24, 1782‑to assert, maintain and exercise its acquired rights as the Provincial Grand Lodge for the Upper and Lower Rhine and Franconia, omitting the title English. They contended‑with much forcethat the right of assembling as a Provincial Grand Lodge had been granted to them, quamdiu se bene gesserint, therefore could not be revoked, except by mutual consent, or on cause shown, that the Frankfort body had been guilty of misconduct or neglect.

 

It will be remembered that it was precisely at this period that von Hund's Templar system received its coup de grdce at Wilhelmsbad and German Freemasonry entered upon a transition state. From the consequent confusion emerged the Eclectic Union. In order thoroughly to understand this movement, we must for the moment turn to the free city of Wetzlar‑on‑the‑Lahn, in Rhenish Prussia. In that city the Frankfort Three Thistles warranted in 1767 a Strict Observance Lodge, Joseph of the Three Helmets. To this was added the Scots Lodge, Joseph of the Imperial Eagle‑‑a mother Lodge, which warranted a whole string of Strict Observance Lodges. The Templar Chapter was, in 1777, transferred from the unfruitful soil of Frankfort to Wetzlar, at its head being von Ditfurth. On the decay of the Templar system, the Scots Lodge assumed the position of an independent Provincial Grand Lodge. Von Ditfurth then conceived the idea of the Eclectic Union and communicated with Bronner of Frankfort, who revised his suggestions ‑considerably improving them‑and at a meeting of the Frankfort Provincial Grand Lodge‑February 9, 1783‑sketched out the future lines of the proposed body. The result was a joint circular to all German Lodges from the two Provincial Grand Lodges in question, dated March 18, and 2i, 1783. The daughter Lodges‑one at Wetzlar excepted‑to the number of 14, immediately gave in their adhesion to the new organization, viz. at Wetzlar, Munich, Augsburg, Neuwied, Munster, Lautern, Cassel, Rothenburg, Aix‑la‑Chapelle, Salzburg, Wiesbaden, Brunn, Giessen and Bentheim‑Steinfurth.

 

On August z4, 1783, after due consideration, the Union Lodge also joined and, in December of the same year, the Strict Observance Lodge of the Three Thistles (at Frankfort) rejected the Rectified Templar Rite and amalgamated with the Union Lodge.

 

100 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The success of the new organization was such, that by 1789 no fewer than 5 3 Lodges had expressed a desire to be enrolled under its banner, including Lodges in Copenhagen, Warsaw, Kiew, Naples, etc. ; but a great number of these could not be accepted for political and other reasons, while many others had soon after to be closed on similar grounds.

 

The chief features of the Eclectic Union were as follow :‑Perfect equality of all Lodges among themselves and entire independence of any superior authorityMasonry, by common consent, held to be composed of three Degrees only uniformity. of ritual in those three Degrees‑every Lodge free to superimpose any fancy Degrees it chose (hence the term Eclectic), but the Degrees so conferred and the members thereof were to enjoy no recognition as such in the Lodge‑the Master to be elected and himself to appoint the other officers‑the bond of union to consist in the regular communication to each Lodge of every other Lodge's proceedings‑the Provincial Lodges for Frankfort and Wetzlar to be the two centres, undertaking this work of distribution under the name of Directorial Lodges‑the Master Masons of other systems to be admitted as visitors to the Lodges, without any recognition of professedly superior Degrees of which they might be in possession ‑Warrants of Constitution to be granted in the name of the Eclectic Union by either of the Directorial Lodges, etc. The permission to add High Degrees soon lapsed by non‑user and was subsequently withdrawn, even before the Statutes were definitely altered ; with the result that an attempt, a very few years afterwards, to introduce the Royal Arch into Frankfort was summarily suppressed. The Wetzlar Lodge also from the first took a less leading position than Frankfort and gradually died out. In 1783 the Ritual was revised, conformably in all essentials with the English Rite, save that it insisted upon the candidate being a Christian‑an enactment which was the cause of much trouble.

 

In 1784 the Harmony and Concord and, in 1785, the Compasses, Lodges at Trieste and Gotha respectively, joined the Eclectic Union.

 

In 1785 Graefe, of whom mention has already been made in connexion with Hamburg, offered his services to Frankfort and negotiations with England were commenced.

 

On May 21, 1786, Passavant died and was succeeded as Provincial Grand Master by J. P. von Leonhardi. At this date the roll of the Union showed 25 Lodges, 7 of which, however‑probably for political reasons‑were unnamed in the published list.

 

Through Graefe's exertions, a compact was entered into with EnglandMarch 1, 1788‑reinstating the Provincial Grand Lodge. The clauses of most interest to this sketch are 1i, granting the Lodge permission to elect its own Grand Master every two or three years ; 12, promising on the part of London not to issue Warrants in the Jurisdiction of Frankfort, except in cases where the Provincial Grand Lodge could not grant them; 56, Frankfort Lodges might obtain English registry on payment of the usual fees.

 

The last Minute of the Wetzlar Lodge which reached Frankfort is dated July i 1, FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 101 1788 ; it expresses a wish to conclude a similar treaty with England. But the Lodge was already moribund and the desire was never realized.

 

On January 13, 1788, new Statutes were passed by 3o Lodges, of which 8 by desire were unnamed. It is noteworthy that the Provincial Grand Lodge was still formed exclusively of members of the Union Lodge, every other Lodge being allowed‑as before‑to appoint one of these as its representative.

 

Leonhardi's patent as Provincial Grand Master for the Upper and Lower Rhine and Franconia, signed by Lord Effingham, Acting Grand Master, is dated February zo, 1789 ; on its receipt the installation festival was held, October z5, 1789; and Kloss remarks that no fewer than 29 Lodges sought and obtained English registry (Annalen der Loge Zur Einigkeit, p. 238). A careful comparison of the English Lodge lists, however, shows at most io Lodges. These are, according to the numeration from 1792 to 1813, Nos. 456, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479 and 588. On December 5, 1789, Leonhardi was elected Provincial Grand Master for a second term.

 

The peculiar position of the Grand Lodge as a Directorial Lodge of the Union and, at the same time, a Provincial Grand Lodge under England, gave rise to some apprehensions respecting the future independence of the private Lodges. Bode cleverly seized this incident to lend colour to his circular issued November 24, 1790, by the Eclectic Lodge at Gotha, calling on all Eclectic Lodges to rearrange themselves under a new organization with the title of German Masonic Union. As a result the Gotha Lodge was naturally erased from the roll of Eclectic Lodges. In the same year the Lodge at Carlsruhe closed for political reasons, that at Giessen on account of quarrels among its members. The Lodge at Nuremberg, Three Arrows, protested against Gotha's exclusion, because it had been effected without the assent of the other Lodges or hearing Gotha's defence; ultimately, in 1792, it severed its connexion with the Eclectic Union and joined the Gotha or Bode's Union.

 

In 179o a few members of Lodge Union attempted to introduce the Royal Arch. Although they kept the Chapter entirely separate from the Lodge, they met with decided opposition from the other Brethren and the Degree was soon suffered to lapse. After many years it is heard of again. In 1842 the three surviving members of this stillborn Chapter deposited a sealed case in the archives containing the statutes, rituals and documents, to be opened after their deaths. On August 30, 1791, von Ditfurth, of Wetzlar, resigned his office of Provincial Grand Master, also that of Master of his Lodge, from which time Frankfort reigned supreme without even the shadow of a rival.

 

Leonhardi resigned his office‑October 19, 1792‑‑and was succeededFebruary 6, 1793‑‑as Provincial Grand Master by Johann Karl Bronner. During this year the Lodge at Kaufbeuren closed for political reasons. These made themselves also felt in Frankfort, so that‑June 8, 1793‑Bronner closed the Grand Lodge. On the 9th the French troops entered the city and, although the private Lodges still showed some slight activity throughout the occupation, the Grand Master did not reopen Grand Lodge until October z9, 1801. Of all the former toe FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE Eclectic Lodges only seven survived these eight troublous years‑those of Aix‑laChapelle, Altenburg, Frankfort, Hildesheim, Munster, Rudolstadt and Krefeld ; of these only the Frankfort Union had remained faithful to the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union.

 

Unfortunately this long slumber had induced the English Lodge Royal York, at Berlin, which, in 1798, had constituted itself a Grand Lodge, to consider the Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort as extinct and, in consequence‑December 4, i 8oi‑it warranted a Frankfort Lodge, Socrates of Constancy. Bronner protested against this infraction of jurisdiction and, in his appeal to England in 1805, com plained of being left for three years without any replies to his letters. This letter also was left unanswered, for which perhaps the wars may be responsible; but the consequent strained relations between Frankfort and Berlin prevented the former joining a union which the Royal York, the Grand Lodge of Hanover and the Provincial Grand Lodge for Hamburg had formed among themselves. This Lodge Socrates remained as a stumbling‑block for many subsequent years.

 

Between 1803 and 1805 the Grand Lodge was once more closed, to which act many reasons, political and otherwise, contributed. Meanwhile the Nuremberg Lodge (formerly of the Eclectic Union) had endeavoured to induce Frankfort to accept Schroeder's Ritual. The Provincial Grand Lodge for Frankfort once more, in spite of England's neglect, showed her filial allegiance by declining‑February 27, 1805‑to accede, being unable to take upon herself the responsibility of eliminating the obligation without superior permission. This subject also formed part of Bronner's letter already alluded to.

 

In 1806 Frankfort became a Grand Duchy, with Karl von Dalberg over it as Prince Primate (Farm Primas). Bronner petitioned for permission to prosecute Masonic work and closed the Provincial Grand Lodge until a reply was received. This arrival‑verbally transmitted‑July 2, 1808, to the effect that, as Prince Primate, he must ignore their labours, but, as Karl von Dalberg, he would permit them. On July 12, 1808, the Grand Orient of France warranted a Lodge in Frankfort, composed chiefly of Jews, under the name of the Nascent Dawn. This Lodge also was a source of trouble and vexation in later days.

 

But the Provincial Grand Lodge was strengthened in 1808 by the reawakening of the Ulm Lodge, in i 8ocg by the revival of the Lodges at Carlsruhe and Freiburg and by a new Lodge at Heidelberg. In this same year the above Lodges at Carlsruhe and Freiburg, together with an old Lodge at Heidelberg, joined in erecting a National Grand Lodge, Union of Baden, without, however, seceding from the Eclectic Union; merely ceasing to own allegiance to the Provincial Grand Lodge as such. On May 3, 1811, a compact was made with the Lodge Socrates, in view of its adhesion to the Provincial Grand Lodge, that the latter should in future be composed of members of the Socrates and Union Lodges equally, but that the Grand Master should always be elected from the Union. Lodge Socrates accordingly entered the Eclectic Union‑May 12, 1811. June 24, Lodge Joseph of Nuremberg, which had been constituted by the Union in 1761 and had seceded to the Strict Observance FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 103 in 1767, took advantage of its jubilee to join the Eclectic Union. Per contra the Ulm Lodge was compelled to close by a royal decree.

 

Bronner died March 22, i 8 i z, and was succeeded as Grand Master by Jean Nod Du Fay.

 

April 4, 1813, a new Lodge was warranted at Offenbach ; but a Grand Ducal decree of February 16 of the same year, closing all Lodges in Baden, robbed the Eclectic Union of its daughter Lodges in Freiburg, Heidelberg and Carlsruhe.

 

A decree of the Prince Primate of April 30, 1813, detrimental to the progress of Freemasonry, had little time allowed it in which to take effect; the events of 1814 being still more detrimental to the Prince himself.

 

1814 witnessed a revisal of the Ritual, in which the oath was ordered to be recited but not taken. With the exception of a few exclusively Christian allusions, this Ritual remained in force until 1871.

 

1816 brought an accession of strength in the Lodges Ernest at Coburg and St. John the Evangelist of Concord at Darmstadt. A new Lodge was constituted at Giessen, May 29, 1817 and, on the 25th of the same month, a Lodge at Worms warranted by the Grand Orient of France in 1811 was affiliated. In 1817 also, a quarrel arose between the Frankfort Provincial Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of England. The Lodge Nascent Dawn, chiefly Jewish, warranted by the Grand Orient of France in 18o8, sought anew Constitution. The Jewish element rendering a resort to the Provincial Grand Lodge futile, the Brethren applied to the Landgrave Karl of Hesse, who at once enrolled them among the rectified Templar Lodges, even forced upon them a Scots Lodge with the peculiarly Christian Degrees of that Rite. As a natural consequence, the Lodge split up. The Christians retained Karl's warrant for Lodge Karl of the Dawning Light, whilst the Jews applied to the Duke of Sussex and were constituted as the Nascent Dawn. Both Lodges were treated by the Provincial Grand Lodge as clandestine and much bitterness arose. The Grand Lodge of England, however, in this case had clearly acted within the meaning of 1z of the 1788 compact, although perhaps more time for reflection ought to have been granted to the Provincial Grand Lodge. The latter body, however, by its notorious prohibition of Jewish members, had put itself quite out of court.

 

In 1818 a new Lodge at Mayence was warranted, but seceded to the Royal York Grand Lodge in 1821.

 

Du Fay died February z4, i8zo and, on August 5, Leonhardi, under whom the compact of 1788 was made with England, was elected Grand Master for the second time. It was fated that under him also the broken bonds which he had himself reknit should finally be severed. It was resolved‑August 5, 1821‑to make one more effort to obtain redress from England for its alleged encroachment and this having failed, it was agreed‑January 13, i8zz‑to renounce the English supremacy. Accordingly‑March z7, 1823‑the Provincial Lodge assumed the title of " The Mother Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union " and notified this 104 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE act to the Masonic world by a circular of November 14, 1823. All allusions to a mere directorial Lodge, primus inter pares, were apparently dropped for ever.

 

The Grand Lodge commenced its new career with a following of 9 Lodges.In Frankfort, z‑Union, Socrates; in Nuremberg, z‑Three Arrows, Joseph; and i each in Darmstadt, Giessen, Coburg, Offenbach and Worms.

 

Leonhardi, who resigned March 3, 1826 and refused a re‑election on account of his advanced age, died November 23, 18 Constantine Fellner succeeded him as Grand Master.

 

On May z following Dr. George Kloss was first elected a member of the Grand Lodge. This celebrated Mason, skilful physician, diligent Masonic student and historian, was born at Frankfort July 31, 1787, admitted to the Fraternity at the age of 18 as a Lewis‑September z8, 1805‑by the Lodge Union, of which he was elected Master in 1828. His Masonic works have been quoted so repeatedly in these pages, as to render any further allusion to them unnecessary. As a Masonic critic, he was emphatically facile princeps and, owing to the strength of his convictions acquired by the study of Masonic documents, it is easy to conceive that from the moment of his entering Grand Lodge, that body would have no peace until it renounced its errors, at the head of which Kloss naturally placed the exclusion of Jews‑as he doubtless would have done in the case of any members of a particular race or religion‑from the benefits of the Craft.

 

With the altered position of the Grand Lodge there remained no valid reason why the Grand Master should be elected from the members of the Union Lodge only. The Socrates Lodge now commenced to agitate for a status in all respects equal to that of the Union and, in 1828, a revision of the Constitutions was commenced, but the work lasted many years.

 

Owing to the religious intolerance of the Grand Lodge, its territory was once more invaded by the Grand Orient of France, which‑December z, 183zwarranted a Lodge, Frankfort Eagle, composed largely of Jews. In the following years a strong feeling favourable to the Jewish Lodges and to the Landgrave Karl's Lodge, Karl of the Dawning Light, sprang up in the Fraternity and was reflected by the younger members of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Officers, who were all old members, finding themselves powerless to stem the current, resigned in a body ‑November 14, 1834‑and, on December z3, Johann Friedrich Fiedler was elected Grand Master, with Kloss as his Deputy. The Landgrave Karl died August 17, 1836 and his Lodge almost immediately afterwards began to negotiate for admission to the Union. On September 24 following, Fielder died andMarch 3, 1837‑Kloss was elected Grand Master. In 1839 one of Karl's Lodges ‑in Alzey‑joined the Eclectic Union.

 

1840 witnessed two important steps. On March 9 it was resolved to admit Jewish Brethren as visitors. This being the date of Kloss's retirement from office, he could, at least, congratulate himself that the battle was half won. He was succeeded as Grand Master by Gerhard Friedrich, D.D. The second step FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 105 was the conclusion of the negotiations with the Lodge Karl of the Dawning Light and its admission to the Eclectic Union, September z7, 1840.

 

The centenary festival of the Union Lodge was held June 27, 184z, when, as already stated, the documents of the long‑forgotten Royal Arch Chapter were deposited in the archives and the proceedings were graced by the presentation of Kloss's Annals of the Union Lodge‑‑an invaluable mine of Masonic lore‑compiled for the occasion.

 

Kloss was re‑elected Grand Master, May 12, 1843 and, under his inspiration, the Grand Officers made a vigorous effort to render the Grand Lodge ordinances less sectarian in their tenor, but unsuccessfully, as the motion was adjouned sine die‑December 4, 1843.

 

But, although most of the Eclectic Lodges were tending towards a more enlightened view on this subject, the newly‑joined Lodge, Karl of the Dawning Light, showed itself strongly conservative. It still insisted on working the Scots Degrees and allowed itself great licence with the Eclectic Ritual. This led to expostulations, recriminations and strife, finally to its exclusion, July z, 1844. The Lodges at Darmstadt and Mayence took the part of Lodge Karl and seceded in September 1845 ; these three then united in order to found the Grand Lodge of Concord at Darmstadt on a purely and rigidly Christian basis. The gap caused by the absence of these Lodges was only partially filled in the same year by a new warrant for a Lodge Of Brotherly Truth at Hamburg, granted to nine dissenting members of the Golden Sphere (Zinnendorff Rite).

 

A necessary statute, the Reorganization Act, was at length passed, December 27, 1845. The arrangements which chiefly interest us were, that the High Degrees were absolutely forbidden; the Grand Lodge was composed of two representatives from each Lodge, to be chosen by them from subscribing members of the Frankfort Lodges (at this time only two, Union and Socrates)‑they were, however, permitted in lieu of this to depute two of their own members ; the Grand Master and the Grand Officers were to be elected for a term of three years from among the representatives.

 

June 17, 1846, Gerhard Friedrich was again elected Grand Master. In the following year‑October 1‑the Grand Lodge was reorganized, as provided by the above Act and the voting for Grand Master resulted in the election of Franz Fresenius, of the Socrates Lodge‑the first holder of that office who was not a member of the Union Lodge.

 

December 15, 1847, twelve more Brethren of the Golden Sphere Lodge in Hamburg were granted an Eclectic Constitution as the Lodge of the Brother‑Chain. At length, early in 1848, the last relic of intolerance was cast aside and the ritual purged of its specifically Christian requirements. This resulted in immediate negotiations with the Jewish Lodge Nascent Dawn, which, however, did not bear fruit for some months. The other Jewish Lodge, Frankfort Eagle, joined the Grand Lodge of Hamburg in the same year. On July 15, 1848, Past Grand Master Fellner died.

 

io6 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE The revision of the Statutes‑November 13, 1849‑is of interest, as, by a clause which insisted that country Lodges should choose their representatives, one from each Frankfort Lodge, the whole power was once more thrown into the hands of the metropolitan Fraternity. It was also decided to elect the Grand Master alternately from the two Frankfort Lodges.

 

Meanwhile, the members of Lodge Karl had altered their views since assisting at the birth of the Darmstadt Grand Lodge. A few of them formed a new Darmstadt Lodge in Frankfort, Karl of Lindenberg ; but Lodge Karl itself, with the majority of the Brethren, rejoined the Eclectic Union, June 30, 1850.

 

In the same year‑December z‑Dr. J. W. J. Pfarr was elected Grand Master, after whom‑November z8, 1853‑came Fresenius once more, then Pfarr again, December 1, 1856. The most important event of these six years was the death of Dr. Kloss, February io, 1854.

 

In 18 5 8 a Constitution was granted to Wiesbaden‑May z‑and the Statutes of Grand Lodge were revised in December, so as to place Karl on an equality with the other two Frankfort Lodges ; the Grand Master to be elected from each Lodge alternately every two years.

 

In 1859‑January 13‑the Grand Duke of Hesse‑Darmstadt ordered all Lodges in his dominions to rally round the Darmstadt Grand Lodge. This entailed the loss of four Lodges to the Eclectic Union.

 

In the following year‑March z3‑the Grand Lodge was reconstituted under the new Act and Dr. George Dancker elected Grand Master. The roll comprised ten Lodges‑Union, Socrates and Karl, of Frankfort; Joseph and Three Arrows, of Nuremberg ; Brotherly Love and Brother‑Chain, of Hamburg; Ernest, of Coburg ; Libanon, of Erlangen ; and Plato, of Wiesbaden.

 

December 6, 1861, Johann Kaspar Bauer was elected Grand Master; December 4, 1863, Julius Fester; and, January iz, 1865, Dr. Dancker once more. In 1866 Frankfort became an integral part of the Kingdom of Prussia, in which, according to law, no Lodges were allowed to exist except those dependent upon one of the three Grand Lodges at Berlin. There was, therefore, much danger of the Eclectic Union being dissolved by the authorities. This, however, was obviated by the prudent and patriotic course of action pursued by its members. Under closely analogous circumstances‑and, presumably, for reasons which did not apply in both cases‑the Grand Lodge of Hanover was extinguished; but the law, although in force, had not been applied as regards Frankfort.

 

In 1867‑December 6‑Hermann H6rster (of Lodge Karl) was elected Grand Master; and, December 3, 1869, Heinrich Weismann, under whom‑December 8, 1871‑the Statutes were once more revised; the Grand Lodge still consisting of Frankfort Brethren as members, but country Lodges were to depute two of their own members as representatives, with votes in certain cases and a consultative voice in all. The Grand Master was to be elected for three years from the Frankfort Lodges only, dropping the rule of alternation. On January z6, 187z, Grand Lodge was reconstituted under the new Act and Weismann re‑elected.

 

FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE 107 A new Lodge was warranted at Hanau, April zo, 1872 and, on January io, 1873, the English Lodge at Frankfort, Nascent Dawn, which had been the chief cause of the local declaration of independence, joined the Eclectic Union, entering at once into all the privileges of the other three metropolitan Lodges.

 

Karl Oppel was elected Grand Master December 4, 1874. In 1877 a regular correspondence was resumed with England; and, May 26, 1878, the Darmstadt Lodge, Karl of Lindenburg, at Frankfort, was affiliated. Revised Constitutions were passed on September 21, A79; G. E. van der Heyden was elected Grand Master January 21, 1881 ; and, in 1882‑February 17‑‑another of the Eclectic Lodges was warranted at Strasburg.

 

The Centenary Festival of the Eclectic Union, held March 18, 1883, was graced by the distribution of the lucid and detailed Annals of that body, from the pen of the Grand Secretary, Karl Paul.

 

The epoch‑marking dates of the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union are:1742, constitution of Lodge Union; 1746‑52, state of dormancy ; 1766, erection of English Provincial Grand Lodge, 1775‑7, temporary closing of Provincial Grand Lodge, 1782, first period of independence; 1783, formation of the Eclectic Union ; 1789, reinstatement of the Provincial Grand Lodge at Frankfort; 1793, Provincial Grand Lodge closed in anticipation of the entry of French troops; 1801, reopened with one daughter only and territory invaded by the Grand Lodge Royal York; 1803‑5, Provincial Grand Lodge suspended; again, 1806‑8, whilst awaiting Karl von Dalberg's approbation; i808, invasion of jurisdiction by Grand Orient of France; i 8og, loss of Lodges by the formation of the Grand Orient of Baden ; 1814, abolition of the oath; 1817, invasion of jurisdiction by the Grand Lodge of England and Prince Karl of Hesse ; 1823, declaration of independence and proclamation of the Grand Lodge of the Eclectic Union, with 9 daughter Lodges ; 1834, first success of the enlightened party in Grand Lodge; 1840, Karl's Lodge absorbed the Jewish question partly settled; 1845, loss of Lodges by formation of the Grand Lodge of Darmstadt ; 1848, Jewish question solved and Jewish Lodges absorbed; 1859, loss of Lodges by forced union with Darmstadt ; 1866, incorporation of Frankfort with Prussia; 1883, Centenary Festival.

 

III. THE GRAND NATIONAL MOTHER‑LODGE OF THE PRUSSIAN STATES, CALLED "OF THE THREE GLOBES" The archives and Minutes of this Grand Lodge are complete from September 13, 1740, to 1914, with the exception of a short period in 1765. In 1840 O'Etzel, the Grand Master, compiled a history of the Grand Lodge based upon these Minutes, so that, as far as actual facts extend, its accuracy is unimpeachable. This was revised and continued in 1867, 1869, and 1875 ; and the Constitutions ordained in 1873 that every initiate should, in future, be presented with a copy. This history has been carefully collated with many accounts by other writers, whose works will be quoted whenever used, but otherwise the following io8 FREEMASONRY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE sketch is given on O'Etzel's authority and may easily be verified by the dates affixed. The edition employed is Geschichte der Grossen National‑Mutter‑Loge !Zu den drei Veltkuglen, etc., Berlin, 187 S .

 

In pursuing the history of this Grand Body, none can fail to be struck by a feature to which attention has already been directed in the case of the Eclectic Union, viz. the absence of a representative form of government. This, however is only a natural consequence when a Grand Lodge is established before the birth of any of the private Lodges, which it is destined to control‑the daughter Lodges, in all such cases, accepting the inferior and