The Builder Magazine

December 1926 - Volume XII - Number 12

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Political Anti-Masonry, 1827-1843 - By BRO. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSSON, PH.D.

Old Convivial Craft Customs By BRO. WILLIAM L. BOYDEN, Washington, D. C.

The Comacines and the Traveling Gilds - By BRO. W. RAVENSCROFT, England

The Gild and the Lodge - By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN

FURTHER NOTES ON THE GILD - By Bro. W. RAVENSCROFT

The Background of Masonic History in the 18th Century By PROF. E. E. BOOTHROYD, Canada

 

EDITORIAL

MISUNDERSTANDING

WALTER CLIFFORD BURRELL

 

THE NORTHEAST CORNER - Bulletin of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association

 

The Precious Jewels - By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN - (Continued)

 

THE WOMEN ARE INTERESTED

 

"HOW SOON CAN I BE GIVEN TREATMENT?"

 

THE LIBRARY

THE LIFE OF HENRY HOWARD MOLYNEUX HERBERT, FOURTH EARL OF CARNARVON, 1831‑1890

DEBITS AND CREDITS

THE MAN NOBODY KNOWS

THE BOOK NOBODY KNOWS

 

THE QUESTION BOX and CORRESPONDENCE

THE YOUNG MAN WITH GREAT POSSESSIONS

MORGAN AND THE OBLIGATION

THE ORDER OF ST. JOHN AT JERUSALEM

THE COMPASSES

THE POSITION OF THE LESSER LIGHTS

REQUEST FOR BACK NUMBERS

 

----o---

 

Political Anti-Masonry, 1827-1843

 

By BRO. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSSON, PH. D.

 

WHETHER viewed in its cultural, economic, social, religious or political aspects, there is no period in American history more fascinating than is the Jacksonian period. It was an era characterized by change and controversy in every field. It was a period of triumphant democracy in which the fight for free public schools was first successfully waged. American literature reached a high plane and some of the greatest American writers of all time flourished during the epoch. Canals, roads and railroads were rapidly developed, inventions multiplied, agriculture flourished, trade and commerce rapidly expanded, and improvements on an unprecedented scale were projected, only to be stopped by the panic of 1837.

 

The period saw the beginning of the organized labor movement, the launching of the real movement for the abolition of slavery, the rise of the woman's rights movements, the development of an organized movement against intoxicating liquors, and progress towards abolition of imprisonment for debts. Improvement was brought about in the care of the insane and advancement was made in prison reform. The organized peace movement was definitely projected during this era. Communistic experiments were made on a large scale, though more after 1840 than before. It was a period of religious readjustment and change. Especially in the newer sections of the country the evangelical churches made great gains. Unitarianism assumed an organized form and took its stand beside Universalism in the fight between liberalism and orthodoxy in religion. The year 1830 saw the organization in New York of the Mormon Church. It was, in fact, a period of "isms"--and this should not be overlooked in explaining why it was possible to organize, during the period, such a fanatical party as was the Anti-Masonic.

 

Even surpassing all these things in interest was the political history of the period. Space does not permit a discussion of the heated controversies which raged over such matters as the civil service, the Second Bank of the United states, internal improvements, the removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River, foreign relations, the specie circular and the distribution of the surplus. Rather, attention must be focused on the political party development of the period, especially on the abortive attempt to build a great national party on the basis of opposition to the Masonic Institution.

 

Viewed from the standpoint of national history the Anti-Masonic party would be of little importance were it not for the fact that during its short life it contributed to our national political system the national nominating convention and at least the "germ" of the national platform. From the Masonic viewpoint, the Anti-Masonic party is a subject that cannot be lightly dismissed for it developed into the most highly organized and powerful foe that Masonry has ever had in the United states. Promoted by unscrupulous opportunists seeking political power and even aiming at the presidency of the United states, it almost succeeded in exterminating Freemasonry in some of the states. In view, then, of its contributions to national political practices and its baneful influence on the Masonic Institution, it should be of greatest interest to trace the origin, development and decline of the Anti-Masonic party.

 

POLITICAL ORIGIN OF ANTI-MASONRY

 

In seeking an explanation of the origin of the Anti-Masonic party it is not enough, as Charles McCarthy, the leading historian of the party, pointed out years ago, to say that it was started by the Morgan affair. Had not the political, social and religious conditions at the time been favorable for the formation of a new party it is highly improbable that any political developments would have followed the mysterious disappearance of William Morgan. That incident was merely the match which served to ignite the combustibles already prepared.

 

Assuredly, the political situation, both in the country as a whole, and in New York, was ripe for the appearance of a new party. In 1816, the decadent Federalist party had for the last time participated in a presidential election, and thereafter the old Republican party was without a rival. The Federalist disintegration proceeded rapidly, so that when the Republican President, James Monroe, shortly after his inauguration, made a tour of the old Federalist stronghold of New England, he was received with such cordiality that the expression "Era of Good Feelings" was applied to his administration.

 

But, while the surface of the political water appeared to be calm, underneath there was a great and increasing turmoil. After Monroe's second election, various individuals openly exhibited themselves as candidates for the presidential succession. The number of aspirants, at first about a score, dwindled until the election of 1824 saw four rivals in the field, John Quincy is Adams of Massachusetts, Henry Clay of Kentucky, William H. Crawford of Georgia and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee. The regular election proved indecisive, though Jackson received a plurality of the electoral votes. In accordance with Constitutional provision, the election was then settled in the House of Representatives in favor of Adams.

 

Clay, who had run fourth in the race and was therefore eliminated from the House election, used his influence for Adams, and after the latter assumed the presidency, received the coveted office of Secretary of state. This led to the famous charge that a "corrupt bargain" had been entered into by Adams and Clay. The charge, though never satisfactorily substantiated, was believed by many, including Jackson, who was changed from an indifferent contestant to an eager aspirant for the presidency. In the fall of 1825 he was nominated for that office by the Tennessee legislature and began an aggressive campaign to defeat Adams in 1828. The bitter rivalry thus engendered between Adams and Jackson divided the Republican party into factions, which were destined to develop into new political parties. Just what the emerging parties would be called no one at that time could tell. The fact remains that both the Adams and Jackson groups claimed the name "Republican" until after the election of 1828.

 

CLINTON AND VAN BUREN

 

The political situation in New York was even more favorable to the formation of new parties. There had been a long struggle in the state over the building of the Erie Canal, and the animosities developed by this struggle did not subside when the canal was completed in 1825. De Witt Clinton had led the canal forces and Martin Van Buren, the chief of the "Bucktails," had been the leader in opposition to the building of the canal. After Adams and Jackson became avowed rival candidates for the presidency in the election of 1828, it was necessary for Clinton and Van Buren, just as it was for other politicians throughout the country, to choose between them. Van Buren, previously a Crawford supporter, early took a stand in favor of Jackson. After considerable deliberation, Clinton also announced himself as a Jackson supporter. This produced consternation among his followers, many of whom preferred Adams to Jackson.

 

Not least among those who were followers and admirers of Clinton was Thurlow Weed, then an aspiring newspaper editor in Rochester. He, and many other Clinton adherents, had supported Adams for the presidency in 1824 and wished to do so again. To Weed and the other Adams men who were seeking to counteract the influence of Clinton's action, the Morgan affair must have appeared as a rainbow of hope.

 

To one familiar with Weed's long subsequent career as a shrewd political manipulator there is danger of giving him credit for more foresight than he actually possessed. Nevertheless, retracing the development of the Anti-Masonic party from a local party in Western New York to a national party contending for the presidency of the United states, the guiding hand of Weed is clearly discernible at all stages.

 

WEED AND THE MORGAN COMMITTEES

 

Through the activities of the "Morgan committees," including that of Monroe County of which Weed was a leading member, and inspired by Weed's newly established "Anti-Masonic Enquirer" and similar newspapers which soon cropped out, there was developed in Western New York, within a short period after Morgan's disappearance, a frenzied outburst against Freemasonry. To bring about this result, charges that Masons were interfering with and hindering the investigations were coupled with appeals to the religious prejudices of the people.

 

The Anti-Masonic writers on the subject have been wont to say that the popular indignation of the people led to a "spontaneous" resort to the ballot to bar Masons from political offices. But viewing the evidence in hand it is apparent that the "spontaneous" outburst was in reality the result of carefully conducted manuevers on the part of Weed and his associates. Anti-Masonic tickets were placed in the field in various town elections in Genesee and Monroe Counties in the spring of 1827 with a result most encouraging to the Anti-Masons. It is significant that Weed, in his Autobiography, begins his chapter on political Anti-Masonry by relating how he and others at the time counselled against political action and then in the same paragraph says:

 

Rochester had already become the centre of Anti-Masonry. From that point the movements, whether of a judicial or legislative character, emanated.

 

As Weed was the chief of the Anti-Masons in Rochester, it is clear that he was promoting political Anti-Masonry while professing to discourage it!

 

Animated by the success of. their first venture into politics, the Anti-Masonic leaders threw their full energies into the work of perfecting a party organization, promoting conventions and securing suitable candidates to run in the approaching elections. They also continued their propaganda designed to win converts to their cause. The influence of the alleged finding of Morgan's body on Oct. 7, 1827, must have been great, for it supported the claims that Morgan had been drowned by the Masons. The decision that the body was Monroe's and not Morgan's was not reached until Oct. 29. As the election began on the following Monday, Nov. 5, it was too late, in view of the poor communication facilities of the time, to re-act on the voters. Therefore, the body was "a good enough Morgan until after the election", whether or not Weed actually made the remark. In disseminating their propaganda, the Anti-Masons did not omit to point out that Governor Clinton, a high Mason, had gone over to the political camp of Jackson, also a prominent Mason. (1) They also spread false reports that Clinton had approved of the Morgan abduction.

 

As a result, in the fall of 1827, Timothy Childs was elected to the state assembly from Monroe county on an Anti-Masonic ticket, and fourteen others claimed as Anti-Masons were also elected to the same body, much to the gratification of Weed and company. The new party was gaining momentum and numerous conventions were got up in 1828, for the purpose of further crystallizing sentiment. These included a convention of seceding Masons at Le Roy, Feb. 19 and 20, 1828, followed by a second convention of seceding Masons also at Le Roy, on July 4, 1828. This convention drew up a "Declaration of Independence" from the Masonic Institution, in imitation of the national Declaration, and the document was signed by one hundred and three seceding Masons, varying from an Entered Apprentice to the possessor of twenty-one degrees. Conspicuously heading the list is the name of Solomon Southwick. The only other persons in the list who attained any prominence as Anti-Masons were David Bernard, author of Light On Masonry, John G. stearns, Edward Giddins, Samuel D. Greene, and David C. Miller.

 

THE ANTI-MASONIC TICKET

 

Meanwhile an open Anti-Masonic convention had been held at Le Roy, March 6 and 7, with twelve counties represented. A set of twenty Anti-Masonic resolutions was drawn up and an address to the people was issued. On Aug. 4, 5 and 6, 1828, the Anti-Masons held a convention at Utica for the purpose of nominating a state ticket for the fall election. Francis Granger was nominated for governorship, but after several weeks declined the nomination, as he preferred to run for the office of Lieutenant Governor on the ticket of the Adams Republicans. Temporarily, Thurlow Weed lost control, for the radical Anti-Masons met at Le Roy, on Sept. 7, and nominated Southwick for the office of Governor. In the ensuing election, which resulted in the selection of the Jacksonian candidate, Martin Van Buren, Southwick ran a poor third. However, the Anti-Masons succeeded in electing seventeen assemblymen and four state senators, including William H. Maynard. In this election the Anti-Masons cast their votes for Adams for President since his statement had been spread abroad that he was not, never was, and never should be a Mason.

 

"The election of 1828," said Weed, "imparted increased confidence, vigor and strength to the Anti-Masonic party." Southwick, who had for a short time occupied a place of leadership, was pushed aside and thenceforth Thurlow Weed, aided by such lieutenants as William E. Seward, Millard Fillmore, Francis Granger, John C. Spencer, Myron Holley, Henry Dana Ward, Frederick Whittlesey, Albert H. Tracy, William H. Maynard, and others, guided the destinies of the Anti-Masonic party in New York. A state convention was convened at Albany on Feb. 19, 1829, with delegates present from forty counties. This convention, says McCarthy:

 

Marks a new starting point in the history of the party in New York. . . It was all the more effective because the political nature of it was concealed by an outward show of Anti-masonry with all its verbiage and proscriptive declarations.

 

Though Southwick was allowed to open the convention with a long address, there was no question as to the Weed faction controlling the meeting. Weed, from the state Anti-Masonic Central Committee, presented a long report on the development and progress of AntiMasonry. The most significant action taken by the convention was in regard to a national convention. A report on the subject was submitted by a committee, headed by Granger and including Seward in its membership. After hearing the report and supporting speeches, the convention resolved to call a national convention to meet at Philadelphia on Sept. 11, 1830, (2) to be composed of delegates from each state equal in number to the electoral vote of the state. It was further stated:

 

The objects of which Convention, when assembled, shall be to adopt such measures as to them, in their deliberate wisdom, shall appear to be the most effectual to annihilate the Masonic Institution, and all other secret societies which claim to be paramount to our Laws, and are hostile to the genius and spirit of the Constitution.

 

In evaluating the significance of this resolution it must be remembered that the national parties styled the Democratic party and the National Republican party had not yet adopted those designations. There was an Adams party and a Jackson party but definite names were not adopted until after Jackson's inauguration as President, March 4, 1829. (3) In view of this, it is quite evident that Weed and his associates were seeking to make their party a chief national party in opposition to the Jacksonians. From 1829 until its demise in 1833, the Anti-Masonic party in New York was primarily an anti-Jackson party, and its continued attacks on Masonry were but "camouflage" for the real political motives of the opportunistic leaders.

 

Before adjourning, the Albany Convention memorialized the state legislature for legislation against "extra judicial oaths." It also decided that, while Morgan deserved a monument, the time was not ripe for its erection because of the doubtful "probability of its remaining undisturbed." It took action to raise a fund by subscription, to be held in trust, the income from which was to be used "for the future support of Mrs. Morgan, and the support and education of her two children." (4)

 

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MASONS

 

After the convention, the Anti-Masons continued to use all the devices at their command to keep up an excitement against the Masons. They made liberal use of newspapers, pamphlets and "lectures." The "Morgan trials" were continued with renewed vigor and desperate attempts were made to secure convictions of accused Masons. Meanwhile, by declaring in favor of further canal building and other internal improvements, they attracted to their standard many of the old Clintonians and Adams men.

 

THE "TOLERATION MOVEMENT

 

In some of the towns of Western New York an attempt was made to stem the tide of Anti-Masonry by organizing a "Toleration and Equal Rights Party." In the local spring elections of 1829, "toleration" tickets were successful in a few towns. "The Craftsman" of April 14, 1829, which had previously exhorted the voters "to unite under the banner of Toleration and Equal Rights, and with becoming regard to their privileges, as freemen, uphold their institutions," claimed victories in seven of the sixteen towns of Monroe County, six of seven in Genesee County, four in Livingston County, and in all the towns of Cayuga and Seneca Counties. It is surprising that nothing more was heard of this "party" after these elections.

 

In the fall elections of 1829, the Anti-Masons showed increased strength though the Jacksonians easily controlled the state as a whole. (1830 was the year the Anti-Masons exhibited their greatest strength in New York.) On Feb. 25, 1830, a convention was held at Albany and thirty-six delegates were chosen to attend the national convention. On Aug. 11, 1830, another state Anti-Masonic convention was held at Utica with forty-five counties represented. Francis Granger was nominated for Governor and a bid for the workingmen's support was made by nominating Samuel Stevens of New York city for Lieutenant Governor. Fourteen resolutions were adopted and an address to the people was issued. In the fall election, Granger was defeated but he carried eighteen counties and received 120,361 votes as compared with 128,892 votes for Enos Throop, who was elected. It is significant that ten counties which had been Anti-Masonic in 1828 were carried by Throop, the Democrat-Republican candidate, in 1830. The Anti-Masons were admitted to have elected thirty three members of the Assembly, and they elected state senators in three districts, including Seward in the Eighth District.

 

In spite of the great show of strength in 1830, Weed was disappointed. In 1831 the party lost ground and in 1832 again went down to defeat, not only in New York but nationally as well. After an even more disastrous defeat in the fall elections of 1833, Weed and his colleagues were ready to give up. As Weed said in his Autobiography:

 

The election of 1833 demonstrated unmistakably not only that opposition to Masonry as a party in a political aspect had lost its hold upon the public mind, but that its leading object [?], namely, to awaken and perpetuate a public sentiment against secret societies, had signally failed.

 

A meeting of leaders of the party was held late in 1833 which "resulted in a virtual dissolution of the Anti-Masonic party" in New York.

 

Meanwhile, Anti-Masonry had been making headway in other states. In Pennsylvania conditions were also favorable for the introduction of Anti-Masonry. Long before the Morgan affair, as early as 1821, there had been manifested hostility on the part of some Presbyterians towards Masonry, and in 1823 the Methodists. of the state had shown an unfriendly attitude towards the Fraternity. Other religious sects in the state were also fertile ground for the seeds of Anti-Masonry brought in from New York as early as 1827. Furthermore, as in New York, there was a quarrel of long standing over internal improvements which favored the organization of a new party.

 

Political Anti-Masonry made its first appearance in the fall of 1828, but did not make much headway until the following year. On June 25, 1829, a convention of Anti-Masons from eleven counties met at Harrisburg and nominated Joseph Ritner for Governor. In the fall election the Anti-Masons polled a considerable vote and, while Ritner was defeated, elected fifteen members of the House and one member of the Senate of the state legislature. On Feb. 26, 1830, practically all the counties of Pennsylvania were represented in an Anti-Masonic convention at Harrisburg, called to choose delegates to the national convention. In this convention, Thaddeus Stevens began his career as the leading Anti-Mason of Pennsylvania.

 

In the fall elections, 1830, the Anti-Masons succeeded in electing six Congressmen, four members of the state Senate and twenty-seven members of the state House of Representatives. In May, 1831, another state convention was held to choose delegates to the Baltimore national convention, but was poorly attended. That fall the Anti-Masons elected six state senators and twenty members of the House. On Feb. 22, 1832, a fourth state convention met at Harrisburg and for a second time nominated Ritner for Governor. That fall he ran a very close second to George Wolf, the Democratic candidate. For a time thereafter Anti-Masonry declined in Pennsylvania, but was kept alive through the activity of Stevens and his chief lieutenant, Ritner. Finally, in 1835, by a coalition of Anti-Masons and Whigs, Ritner was elected Governor. During his three year regime every possible effort was made to legislate Masonry out of existence, but without success. With Ritner's defeat in 1838, political Anti-Masonry practically disappeared in Pennsylvania, though Stevens attempted to revive it as late as 1843.

 

THE RESULTS IN VERMONT

 

In no state were the Anti-Masons so completely successful as in Vermont. Political Anti-Masonry really began there in 1829, when on Aug. 5 a state convention was held at Montpelier. That fall the Anti-Masons elected thirty-three out of the two hundred and fourteen members of the state legislature. In 1830, the Anti-Masons showed increased strength. By 1831 they were strong enough to secure a plurality in the popular election for their gubernatorial candidate, William A. Palmer, and then secure his election at the hands of the legislature. They also elected one hundred and fourteen members of the state legislature. In 1832, they again elected Palmer as Governor and also elected three members of Congress. In 1833 and 1834, Palmer was re-elected but thereafter lost his popularity, and as a result of a deadlock in the legislature in 1835, Silas H. Jennison, elected by the Anti-Masons as Lieutenant Governor, became the Governor. In 1836, the Anti-Masons joined with the Whigs and disappeared as a distinct party in Vermont.

 

THE RESULT IN MASSACHUSETTS

 

The Anti-Masons made a determined but futile effort to control the political situation in Massachusetts. Political Anti-Masonry began in the state in 1828, but it was not until the notorious "Suffolk Committee" was organized at a meeting of Anti-Masons at Boston, Aug. 27, 1829, that headway was made. The first state Anti-Masonic convention met in Faneuil Hall, at Boston, on Dec. 30 and 31, 1829, and Jan. 1, 1830. Resolutions were adopted and a long address to the people of the state, drawn up by a committee headed by Moses Thacher, was issued. This convention also elected delegates to the Philadelphia national convention. The members of the "Suffolk Committee" were designated to serve as a state Anti-Masonic committee. In 1830, the Anti-Masons elected three state senators and between twenty and twenty-five members of the lower house of the legislature.

 

On May 19 and 20, 1831, a second state Anti-Masonic convention was held in Boston. Various reports were made and Anti-Masonic resolutions were adopted. Later in the year, the Anti-Masons nominated Samuel Lathrop for Governor but he was defeated in the election. In 1832, the Anti-Masons put an electoral as well as a state ticket in the field, the latter again headed by Lathrop, but the National Republicans won the election. The convention of that year adopted a reply to the "Declaration" of the Masons of Boston, this reply having been drawn up by the state Anti-Masonic committee and including thirty-eight "Allegations Against Freemasonry." Letters were then addressed to the Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter of the state challenging them to sue the Anti-Masonic committee for libel, so that a trial could be held to determine whether the Anti-Masons were justified in their charges against Masonry, or the Masons were right in declaring the charges false. Nothing came of these challenges.

 

In 1833, against his wishes, John Quincy Adams was nominated by the Anti-Masonic convention for the governorship, but failed of election. In 1834 the Anti-Masons succeeded in getting the legislature to investigate Masonry but nothing came of the investigation. That year the state convention nominated John Bailey for Governor but he ran a poor third in the election. In 1835, most of the Anti-Masons of Massachusetts joined the Whigs, and the merger was completed in 1836.

 

RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT

 

Rhode Island was another of the New England states where political Anti-Masonry exhibited considerable strength. Anti-Masonry appeared in the state in 1829, and was given form by a convention held the next year. In 1831, the Anti-Masons memorialized the state legislature to investigate Freemasonry, which was done, though the investigation was "fruitless." In 1832, the legislature passed an act forbidding extra judicial oaths. A very unusual situation occurred in Rhode Island in 1832 when a coalition was formed between the Anti-Masons and the Democrats. As a result, William Sprague, an Anti-Mason, was elected Speaker of the lower house of the state legislature. Beginning with 1833, the Anti-Masons, for five successive years, elected their candidate, John Brown Francis, to the governorship. It was not until 1838 that political Anti-Masonry in Rhode Island disappeared.

 

In Connecticut political Anti-Masonry began late in 1828. On Feb. 11, 1829, a state convention was held at Hartford. In 1832, the Anti-Masons showed their greatest strength in Connecticut when, by a coalition with the National Republicans, they elected eight state senators, sixty-seven members of the state House of Representatives, and one United States Senator. The strength of the party soon dwindled, and in 1835 the Anti-Masons were practically absorbed by the Whigs.

 

Political Anti-Masonry made little headway in states other than those already mentioned. In Maine, a state convention was held at Augusta, July 4, 1832. The party had a candidate for the Governor, Thomas A. Hill, in the elections of 1832, 1833 and 1834, but his strength was negligible. At least two conventions were held in New Hampshire, one on June 1, 1831, and another on Feb. 6, 1833, but no political successes were achieved by the Anti-Masons.

 

THE RESULTS ELSEWHERE

 

In other states political Anti-Masonry was nothing more than a "local infection." It made some headway in New Jersey where at least one convention was held --that at New Brunswick on Aug. 24, 1830. In Ohio, Anti-Masonry exhibited its chief strength in the northeastern part. At least three conventions were held in this state, the first convening at Canton on July 21, 1830, with twelve counties represented, the second at Columbus on Jan. 11, 1831, and the third also at Columbus, on June 12, 1832. Anti-Masons in Indiana were a factor in only a few local elections. There is record of a convention held in the state in March, 1830. At least one Anti-Masonic convention was held in Kentucky, at Carthage, on Jan. 22, 1829. In Michigan Territory the Anti-Masons held a convention in June, 1829, and that year were strong enough to elect John Biddle as Territorial Delegate to Congress. Local outbreaks of political Anti-Masonry occurred in Marengo and Tuscaloosa Counties in Alabama, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and in Boonsboro district, Maryland. There is no other evidence available to show that political Anti-Masonry made any headway in the South. The fact that Delaware had one delegate present at each of the Anti-Masonic national conventions is evidence that that state was also slightly tainted with political Anti-Masonry.

 

THE COLLAPSE OF THE MOVEMENT

 

An account of political Anti-Masonry would not be complete without a consideration of the ephemeral career of the national Anti-Masonic party. As has been suggested, Weed and others early conceived the project of making the Anti-Masonic party a leading national party in opposition to the Jacksonians, and with this in view secured the calling of a national convention to meet at Philadelphia. At the time of the calling of the convention little was definitely known as to the actual strength of the Anti-Masons outside of New York. It must have been disappointing to the leaders when there appeared at Philadelphia, on Sept. 11, 1830, delegates from only ten of the twenty-four states and from one territory. While a total of one hundred and eleven delegates attended, it should be noted that thirty-three were from New York, twenty eight from Pennsylvania and seventeen from Massachusetts. Connecticut sent eight delegates, New Jersey seven, Ohio seven, Vermont six and Rhode Island two, while Delaware, Maryland and the Territory of Michigan each sent one delegate.

 

The convention organized with Francis Granger of New York as President. During the five days the convention was in session the time was spent mainly in formulating and listening to reports. On the first day fourteen different committees were appointed, to report on such matters as "the pretensions of freemasonry," "the true nature of Masonic oaths and obligations," "the truth of the disclosures" of Masonry, "the abduction and murder of William Morgan," "the effects of Freemasonry on the Christian religion," "the nature and spirit of anti-masonry," and "measures . . . to effectuate the extinction of Freemasonry." The various reports were the subject of extended debate which on occasion grew heated. It is apparent that some of the delegates were anxious to air their views and took full advantage of their opportunity to do so.

 

Among the matters of interest which came before the convention was the proposal of a New York delegate that a committee be appointed "to inquire into the pecuniary circumstances and situation of the family of Capt. William Morgan, and to report what measures, if any, should be adopted for their support." After some discussion the proposal was rejected. Thaddeus Stevens was most active in opposing the resolution, and, as his expressions show how little some of the leaders connected the Morgan affair with the AntiMasonic party, the record of the debates containing his objections may be quoted, as follows:

 

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, thought that this convention, as such, had nothing to do with the family of Capt. Morgan. The abduction and murder of that individual, did not constitute the basis of anti-masonry. That was perhaps a providential circumstance in its favour. The investigation and proceedings of the convention in regard to free-masonry should be coolly and dispassionately conducted. The resolution would be looked upon as intended to inflame the feelings and passions, rather than to appeal to the judgment; to excite the sympathies, rather than open the eyes, of the people, on the subject of masonry.

 

It was apparent that the time was not ripe for putting a presidential candidate in the field, but the matter was referred to a committee. After the committee's report had been debated with considerable heat, it was

 

Resolved, That it is recommended to the people of the United states, opposed to secret societies, to meet in convention, on Monday, the twenty-sixth day of September, 1831, at the city of Baltimore, by delegates equal in number to their representatives in both houses of congress, to make nominations of suitable candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, to be supported at the next election; and for the transaction of such other business as the cause of Anti-Masonry may require.

 

A long address to the people, prepared by Myron Holley, was adopted and signed by all the delegates in attendance. It was chiefly a denunciation of Masonry and an appeal to the people to use the ballot against the Institution. This address is important since, if it was not the first national party platform, it was at least the "germ" of such a platform. If a platform is a declaration of a party's principles and policies, this address fulfilled the requirements of a platform.

 

SECOND NATIONAL CONVENTION

 

The party leaders hoped, by holding a second national convention in 1831, to have a more representative gathering, but in this they were to be disappointed. There assembled at Baltimore, on the appointed date, only one hundred and fourteen delegates from twelve states, including thirty-seven from New York, twenty eight from Pennsylvania, fourteen from Massachusetts, nine from Ohio, six from New Jersey, five from Vermont, six from Connecticut, four from Rhode Island, two from Maine, and one each from New Hampshire, Delaware and Maryland.

 

After the convention had been organized with John C. Spencer of New York as President, the rules and orders of the Philadelphia convention were adopted, various committees were appointed, and the work of the convention was got under way. Special reports by Henry Dana Ward for the "National Committee of Correspondence," Benjamin F. Hallett of Rhode Island "On the Construction of Masonic Penalties," and John C. Spencer "On History of Judicial Proceedings" in the "Morgan cases" regaled the convention while the matter of candidates was being considered.

 

Before the convention various individuals had been mentioned as possible Anti-Masonic presidential candidates. John C. Calhoun would have received favorable attention had it not been for his known connection with the movement in South Carolina to nullify the Federal tariff laws. Richard Rush of Pennsylvania had been mentioned and may have entertained hope of receiving the nomination. John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts was supported by New Englanders but had expressed himself as not wishing to be nominated. Then, too, there were many who felt that his name would not attract voters to the party. Henry Clay might easily have received the nomination, but he was a Mason and refused to renounce the Fraternity. (5) He had come dangerously close to it when he wrote, Jan. 23, 1831:

 

I have been urged, entreated, importuned, to make some declaration short of renunciation of Masonry, which would satisfy the Antis. But I have hitherto declined all interference on that subject. While I do not, and never did care about Masonry [?], I shall abstain from making myself any party to that strife. I tell them that Masonry and Anti-masonry has legitimately in my opinion nothing to do with politics; that I never acted, in public or private life, under any Masonic influence; that I have long since ceased to be a member of any lodge; that I voted for Mr. Adams, no Mason, against General Jackson, a Mason.

 

Thaddeus Stevens and perhaps other Anti-Masonic leaders went to the Baltimore convention with the intention of securing the nomination of John McLean of Ohio, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court and ex-Postmaster General of the United states. He had privately expressed a willingness to accept the nomination if it were assured that he would be the sole candidate in opposition to Jackson. But by the summer of 1831 it was very evident that the National Republicans would name a candidate of their own, and the indications were that Clay would be the candidate. In fact he had already been put forward as a candidate by various National Republican gatherings throughout the country. Therefore McLean wrote, under date of Nashville, Sept. 7, 1831, declining "to distract still more the public mind," by allowing himself to be named as an additional candidate.

 

WIRT AS ANTI-MASONIC CANDIDATE

 

Distracted by this frustration of their hopes, a delegation of Anti-Masons called on William Wirt, an ex-Attorney General of the United States, then residing in Baltimore, and persuaded him to accept the party's nomination for the presidency. Wirt, who early in life had taken the Entered Apprentice Degree, and whose conversion to Anti-Masonry coincided with the assembling of the convention, reluctantly agreed to accept the nomination. He, and probably some of the real Anti-Masonic leaders, hoped that the National Republicans would concur in the nomination when their national convention should assemble in December, 1831. Having secured at least a nominal candidate for the presidency, the Anti-Masons named Amos Ellmaker of Pennsylvania for the vice-presidency, drew up Anti-Masonic resolutions, adopted a platform in the form of an address to the people and adjourned to await the developments of the campaign.

 

Were it not for the fact that the address contained the usual denunciations of Masonry, it might have been a platform drawn up by a convention of National Republicans--in fact it was clearly designed to attract voters of that party. There could no longer be any doubt that the Anti-Masonic party, in spite of its pretensions, had become essentially an anti-Jackson party. The events of the campaign were ample justification for such a conclusion.

 

After the National Republicans, in their national convention at Baltimore, in December, 1831, formally nominated Clay, Wirt, aged and sickly, became thoroughly disheartened and, after the party leaders refused to allow him to withdraw, refused to lift a finger to promote his own election. In private correspondence he expressed the hope that Clay would win.

 

THE INSINCERITY OF THE LEADERS

 

The active Anti-Masonic leaders showed how insincere all their pratings against Masonry since 1826 had been, when they entered into coalitions with the National Republicans in various states. The Jackson official organ, the Washington "Globe," frequently called attention to these coalitions and denounced them in that vehement language which made its editor, Francis Preston Blair, the outstanding political editor of the period. It was the intention of the National Republican and Anti-Masonic leaders, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, to manipulate the electoral vote so as to give it to either Clay or Wirt, whichever appeared to have the best prospect of being elected. Clay entered into the arrangement wholeheartedly, as a letter written to Weed, dated Washington, April 14, 1832, plainly indicates. He said, in part:

 

I received your favor of the 9th inst., as I did the previous ones, communicating the progress of measures to produce cooperation between the Anti-Masons and the National Republicans in the state of New York. I most earnestly hope that such cooperation may be cordially produced, to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

The cooperation referred to was brought about, for the two parties united on the same state and electoral ticket. This gave the Democrats an opportunity to ridicule their opponents as the "Siamese Twin Party."

 

Every possible means was employed by the coalition to defeat Jackson. The one hundred and sixty Anti-Masonic newspapers, headed by Weed's "Albany Evening Journal," were aided by numerous almanacs and tracts of various kinds in spreading the party propaganda. Jackson's staunch adherence to the Masonic Fraternity was not overlooked, nor did the Anti-Masons neglect to point out that four members of his cabinet, Edward Livingston, the Secretary of state, Lewis Cass, the Secretary of War, Levi Woodbury, the Secretary of the Navy, and William T. Barry, the Postmaster General, were prominent Masons. But all the efforts were without avail, for after the smoke of the battle had cleared away in the fall of 1832 it was found that Jackson had been easily re-elected, receiving two hundred and nineteen electoral votes. Clay received fortynine electoral votes, while the Anti-Masonic candidate, Wirt, received only the seven electoral votes of Vermont. The Anti-Masons had hoped to poll at least a half million votes but Clay and Wirt together received only 530,189 votes while Jackson received 687,502.

 

The overwhelming defeat of the Anti-Masons in the election of 1832 was a blow from which they never recovered. The New York leaders, who had been primarily responsible for the origin and development of the party, were convinced that they could not ride to power under the aegis of an Anti-Masonic party. After they dissolved the party in New York it was only a matter of time until the whole political Anti-Masonic movement collapsed. Though it showed strength in some states, as has been pointed out, until 1838, and even held a national convention at Philadelphia, Nov. 13, 1838-with only four states, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania represented--its doom was inevitable. The American people could not be fooled forever and when they saw that the issue of Anti-Masonry was being kept up chiefly to supply aspiring political opportunists with a vehicle in which to attempt to ride to power, they refused to lend enough support to keep the party alive. Thus there passed off the stage the first of a large number of minor parties which have afforded variety to American political campaigns.

 

NOTES

 

(1) Throughout the period the Anti-Masons sought to create the impression that Masons were bound to work for each other's political advancement, but the history of the period is full of refutations of the absurd charge. It is true that Clinton became a Jackson man, but there were dozens of Masons who bitterly opposed Jackson politically. For example, Henry Clay, P. G. M. of Kentucky, and John Marshall, P.G.M. of Virginia, were most bitter opponents of Jackson. Hezekiah Niles of Baltimore, P.G.H.P. of Maryland, was editor of Niles' Register, one of the most powerful anti-Jackson newspapers in the country. William Winston Seaton of Washington, one of the editors of the National Intelligencer, the chief organ of the National Republicans and later of the Whigs, did not let his Masonry diminish the intensity of his attacks on Jackson.

 

(2) This date was the anniversary of the day on which Morgan had been taken from Batavia in 1826. For a time the AntiMasons sought to have the day set aside for special observance.

 

(3) In 1829 the Adams party began calling themselves "National Republicans" while the Jacksonians still called themselves "Republicans" or "Democratic Republicans." It was not until January, 1832, that they officially used the term "Democratic" Party--the term then being used in their call for a national convention. In applying the temlls to parties before 1829, Weed and others writing years afterwards, were in error. (See Bibliographical Notes)

 

(4) It is doubtful if Mrs. Morgan received much, if any benefit from this action as she married, late in 1830, a seceded Mason named George W. Harris, and evidently removed westward. Rob Morris cites evidence to show that Harris divorced her at Council Bluffs, Iowa, in 1856.

 

(5) Clay had demitted in 1824 from Lexington Lodge, No. 1, of Kentucky, but he did not renounce Masonry. He had previously served as Grand Master of Kentucky and had been chiefly instrumental in promoting, in 1822, the project for a General Supreme Grand Lodge of the United States.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

The most complete and authoritative though not exhaustive work on the subject of political Anti-Masonry, the use of which is indispensable in any study of the subject, is Charles McCarthy's "The Antimasonic Party: A Study of Political Antimasonry in the United States, 1827-1840 " in the American Historical Association Annual Report for 1902, Vol. I, pp. 365-574. Though written by a Catholic it exhibits a commendable spirit of fairness.

 

Brief accounts of political Anti-Masonry are [Erik McKinley Eriksson's] "The Anti-Masonic Party," in Masonic Service Association Bulletin No. 10, Erik McKinley Eriksson's "The AntiMasonic Party," in THE BUILDER, Vol. 7 (March, 1921), pp. 71-77; Emery B. Gibbs' "The Anti-Masonic Movement," in THE BUILDER, Vol. 4 (December, 1918), pp. 341-348; and J. Hugo Tatsch's "An American Masonic Crisis," in Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, Vol. XXXIV (1921), pp. 196-209.

 

A brief general treatment of Anti-Masonry in national politics is contained in the first volume of Edward Stanwood's History of the Presidency From 1788-1916' (Boston, 1916), 2v. New York politics are vividly dealt with in De Alva Stanwood Alexander's Political History of the State of New York (New York, 1906-1923), 4v., and in Jabez D. Hammond's The History of Political Parties in the State of New York . . . (Albany, 1842), 2v. It should be noted that the account of Anti-Masonry in the second volume was written by Frederick Whittlesey, an Anti-Mason.

 

Of great importance for the accounts of prominent AntiMasonic leaders are Thurlow Weed's Autobiography and Memoirs and William H. Seward's Autobiography. Biographies, memoirs and other works relating to such leaders as Thaddeus Stevens, John Quincy Adams, William Wirt and Millard Fillmore, not to mention a whole host of lesser leaders, have also been consulted. William L. Stone's Letters on Masonry and Anti-Masonry . . . (New York, 1832), gives much interesting material. The "Introductory Remarks" in [Henry Gassett's] Catalogue of Books on the Masonic Institution . . . (Boston, 1852) supply the dates for some Anti-Masonic conventions not mentioned by McCarthy.

 

In addition to newspapers hitherto cited, the following Washington newspapers were carefully studied: the Washington "Globe," the Jackson official organ, 1830-1837; the "National Intelligencer," the chief organ of the National Republicans and the "United States Telegraph," the ex-official organ of Jackson's administration.

 

The present writer has prepared a study of these journals, a small part of which has been published under the title "Official Newspaper Organs and the Campaign of 1828," in The Tennessee Historical Magazine, Vol. VIII (January, 1925), pp. 231-247. It was from this study that the information concerning party cognomens was derived. "Niles' Register," published throughout the period at Baltimore, is a mine of useful information. Its bias is decidedly anti-Jackson.

 

Typical of the Anti-Masonic almanacs examined were the following: Edward Giddins' The Pennsylvania Anti-Masonic Almanac . . . 1830 (Lancaster, 1830); Giddins' Anti-Masonic Almanac . . . 1831 (Utica 1831); Giddins' Anti-Masonic Almanac . . . 1832 (Utica, 1832), Avery Allyn's The Anti-Masonic Sun Almanac . . . 1832 . . . (Philadelphia, 1832); and the New England Anti-Masonic Almanac for the years 1831, 1832, 1833 and 1834 (Boston). The almanacs are of interest chiefly because of the free use they made of cartoons and caricatures, which were, generally speaking, rarely employed at that period of history.

 

While it has been necessary to depend on works already cited for much of the material on political Anti-Masonry, the following pamphlets containing convention proceedings have been studied at first hand: Masonic Anti-Masonic Proceedings [Le Roy, Feb. 19 and March 6, 1828], N.P., N.D., 16 pp.; Proceedings of the Anti-Masonic Convention for the State of New York Held at Utica, Aug. 11, 1830 . . . (Utica, 1830), 16 pp.; Proceedings of the Antimasonic State Convention of Connecticut Held at Hartford Feb. 3 and 4, 1830 (Hartford, 1830), 32 pp.; Brief Report of the Debates in the Anti-Masonic State Convention . . . Massachusetts . . . 1829 . . . (Boston, 1830), 48 pp.; Abstract of the Proceedings of the Anti-Masonic State Convention of Massachusetts . . . 1829 . . . (Boston 1830), 32 pp., Abstract of the Proceedings of the Antimasonic State Convention of Massachusetts . . . 1831 (Boston, 1831), 78 pp.; Anti-masonic Republican Convention of Massachusetts . . . 1832 . . . (Boston, 1832), 55 pp.; Anti-Masonic Convention of Massachusetts . . . 1833 . . . (Boston, 1833) 48 pp.; Antimasonic Republican Convention for Massachusetts . . . 1834 . . . (Boston, 1834), 40 pp.; The Proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, Held at Philadelphia Sept. 11, 1830. Embracing the Journal of Proceedings, the Reports, the Debates and the Address to the People (Philadelphia 1830), 164 pp.; and The Proceedings of the Second United States Anti-Masonic Convention, Held at Baltimore, September, 1831; Journal and Reports . . . Resolutions, and the Address to the People (Boston, 1832), 88 pp.

 

The following pamphlets are useful in giving an insight to various political activities of the Anti-Masons: A Legislative Investigation Into Masonry [Rhode Island] . . . (Boston, 1832), 85 pp.; Report of the Committee Appointed by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to Investigate the Charges in Circulation Against Freemasonry and Masons in Said State . . . (Providence 1832), 149 pp.; An Investigation Into Free Masonry by a Joint Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts . . . 1834 (Boston, 1834), 76 pp.; The Petition to the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, Against Extra-Judicial Oaths [1833] . . . (Hartford, 1834), 8 pp.; Address of the Anti-Masonic State Convention Held at Augusta, July 4, 1832 . . . N. P., N. D., 8 pp., John Clarke's Address to the People of Pennsylvania Read to the Anti-Masonic Convention Held at Harrisburg, Feb. 25, 1830 . . . (Lancaster, 1830), 34 pp.; Report of a Committee to the New York Senate, Together With Extracts From Other Authentic Documents. Illustrating the Character and Principles of Free Masonry . . . (New Haven, 1829), 24 pp.; Report of the Select Committee on That Part of the Governor's Message Relating to the Abduction of William Morgan. Made to the [New York] Assembly, Feb. 16, 1829 (Albany, 1829), 68 pp.; Report of the Committee on the Abduction of William. Morgan Made to the [New York] Senate, Feb. 14, 1829 (Albany, 1829), 27 pp.; Report of the Special Counsel on the Subject of the Abduction of William Morgan to the [New York] Senate (Albany, 1830), 35 pp., Appeal to the "Original Antimasons" of New York by the Editor of the Boston Daily Advocate [Benjamin F. Hallett] (Published as "Extra" "Boston Daily Advocate," July, 1834), 32 pp., Report on Secret Societies and Monopolies by a Joint Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1836 (Boston, 1836), 48 pp.; and Resolutions Adopted by the Antimasonic Members of the Legislature of Massachusetts and Other citizens . . . Opposed to the Nomination of Martin Van Buren . . . (Boston, 1836), 24 pp.

 

----o----

 

Old Convivial Craft Customs By BRO. WILLIAM L. BOYDEN, Washington, D. C.

 

A PEEP into the past, disclosing from actual records many quaint and curious customs of the Fraternity in regard to refreshment. In an age when a strong head, ability to drink and not be drunken, was considered an admirable quality in a man, temperance still had its original meaning of reasonable use, without abuse of any of the pleasures of life.

 

CRITICISMS have often been made in times gone by, charging that the Masonic institution was responsible for a great deal of intemperance. In the olden days refreshments, both solid and liquid, were items of legitimate expense, regularly charged and regularly charged and regularly paid for at the old time inns. Although this usage has been radically changed and the bibulous features of Masonic gatherings have long since been discontinued, unwarranted conclusions are still drawn from the curiosities of the old books of account and books of record. In this particular, Masonic usages a hundred years ago cannot be fairly tested by current standards of Masonic conduct. The denominational organizations and their membership could not successfully meet a similar test. Neither the one nor the other should now be called to book upon more exacting standards of conduct than were set up by the moral sense of contemporaries. Liquors seem to have had, in former times, as respectable standing in the bill of fare at public places of entertainment, in the homes, and in public gatherings, as do coffee, tea and other beverages in the social arrangements of the present day. From the church, the lodge room and from places of social assemblages, it was viewed in the same light. The temperate use of it as a beverage was regarded as no offense against religion, morals or good manners. Considering the habits of the great mass of mankind at that period it is worthy of note and commendation that this essential Masonic duty, the restraint of improper desires and passions, was so faithfully observed by the Craft, not only in their seasons of social recreation and refreshment, but in other circumstances and relations.

 

The following is taken from the History of Rising Sun Lodge, Royalton, Vt., printed in 1907, which touches upon this old custom:

 

"Not to treat a caller or visitor, and especially the minister when he called at one's house, was deemed inhospitable and rude. Illustrating this condition, a good old Christian lady years ago related to me an experience of her own which occurred when she was a little girl. The minister of the parish called at her home. The family supplies happened to be 'shy' on rum, and her good mother, ashamed at the prospect of not being able to entertain her guest aflter the usual manner, called the little girl into another room, lifted her out of a back window and sent her post haste to a neighbor to obtain a supply of the 'ardent' wherewith to regale the parson."

 

And the Rev. Bro. Joshua Young, in an address before Old Colony Lodge, Massachusetts, some years agone said:

 

"The use of intoxicating liquors was discontinued, in more than one Masonic lodge, long before they were banished from ministerial councils, ordinations and funerals."

 

WHAT THEY DRANK

 

In addition to the liquors generally known, the brethren seemed to favor several concoctions popular at the time, such as Negus, so-called from its inventor, Colonel Negus, in the time of Queen Anne, 1702-1714, a mild, warm punch or wine, usually port or sherry, with a little lemon and not much sugar; rum punch was made from wine, rum, oranges and lemons; another favorite drink alnong those of the Craft who were seafaring men was Rumbo. Smollett, in 1751, in his "Peregrine Pickle," refers to the use of Rumbo, sometimes called bumbo. It was a strong drink made up of rum, sugar and nutmeg, a sort of sailor's grog.

 

Lyon, in his history of the Lodge of Edinburg, says:

 

As appears from occasional scraps of the treasurer's accounts, one shilling per bottle was the price of the punch that was used in the lodge, and the quantity named was no unusual allowance on festive occasions to each attending operative apprentice, to the officer, to the stewards "when making punch in the meeting," and to each visiting brother. "Cold toddy" seems at a much later period to have been the favorite lodge drink, and one of the minutes of the year 1809 is made to record the surreptitious removal of "forty-one bottles of this beverage, the property of the lodge."

 

That lemons formed an important part of the bibulous menu is evidenced from a minute in a lodge in Durham, England, where it is recorded under date of Aug. 21, 1787:

 

On the same night, Br. Robt. Darnel, made a motion that there should be lemons provided against the next and every succeeding lodge night, which was unanimously agreed to,

 

Here is a sample of what was paid for liquid refreshments after punches and the like passed out of fashion, taken from the records of Apollo Lodge, Troy, New York:

 

Apollo Lodge, to Jonth. Hatch, Dr.

to 21 lbs. cheese at 8d......... 0  14  0 

1 gal. wine ........................... 0  10  0 

1/2 lb. tobacco ..................... 0   1   0 

6 pipes ............................…. 0   0   0 

50 segars ............................. 0  1   6

 

                                              1  7  6

 

Troy, 2d April, 1799.

 

Here is a typical bill for refreshments in Rising Sun Lodge, No. 7, Royalton, Vt. Note the spelling:

 

The Rison Son Lodge, bot of Moses Cutter-

1 qt. Gin ..............................$ .38 

1 qt. W.I. Rum ......................  .38 

1 qt Brandy............................  .38 

3 1/2 lbs. "Cheas" .................  .35 

4 doz. crackers .....................  .48

 

Royalton, April 19, 1826.

 

PURCHASED WHOLESALE

 

Frequently where lodges could afford it, they purchased their wine in large quantities, it being much cheaper that way, and stored it in the cellar below the lodge. A "pipe" was a wine measure containing about 126 wine gallons; a pipe of port contained about 138 wine gallons, Sherry 130, Madeira 110, Lisbon 140. As early as 1738 we find recorded in the Turk's Head Lodge, Wiltshire, England:

 

It was agreed that as fault was found with the wine, a pipe of good wine should be fixed upon by some of the brethren, and that upon their approbation, the whole should be bottled off, and the Mason's seal placed on each bottle and kept for the use of the lodge only.

 

In the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, Edinburgh, June 4, 1740, the Master informed the lodge

 

That for the benefit and use of the lodge there wa.s commissioned from London, one puncheon containing one hundred and eight English gallons of Rum, and one barrel containing two hundred and fifty-five and one-half pounds of sugar, which being arrived, Brother Thos. Trotter generously advanced the money for the same, amounting conform to the Invoice and Bro. Allan's receipt yron, to the sum of Fifty-four pounds, seventeen shillings and seven pence sterling.

 

In Master's Lodge, No. 2, Albany, N. Y., Nov. 21, 1786, it was resolved

 

That the Treasurer take order to procure for the use of the lodge, one quarter caske of Lisbon, or sherry wine, five gallons spirits, two loaves sugar and two dozen glasses.

 

From a minute in the Old Dundee Lodge, London, Nov. 27, 1788, it would seem that the purchase by brethren of the lodge, of the necessary "spirits," was

 

not at all satisfactory, for it was resolved on that date

 

That one of the Stewards order from some person not a member of this lodge a certain Quantity of wine and Licquors as Necessary.

 

In the Shakespeare Lodge, London, Feb. 24, 1803, it was

 

Resolved That Messrs. Dunlop and Hughes be ordered to send a Pipe of Red Port, similar to the sample now produced, for the use of the Lodge, sealed with the Seal of the Lodge, and that Brother George Harvey be requested to draw up certain regulations to be observed in future in the Cellar, respecting the same, to be submitted at the next meeting of the Lodge for their consideration.

 

REGULATING THE COST

 

Only a few years after the establishment of lodges in this country, we find the following among the regulations of St. John's Lodge, No. 1, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1739, relative to the use of liquors:

 

13. The Junior Warden is to keep an account of what liquor comes in for the use of the Lodge, which is not to exceed 2 shillings 6 pence per head, in failure of which he is to forfeit the surplusage (without a dispensation from the Master and members) the said Warden to render an account to the Secretary, who is to settle the same with the Master and Treasurer before the Lodge is closed.

 

Sept. 14, 1764, the Lodge of Emulation, London:

 

Moved and seconded, that no Liquor be made and mixed anywhere by any member of this Lodge, but in the Lodge, under the penalty of every member being at the expence of the Liquor he shall make contrary to this order, which is carried in the affirmative.

 

The Lodge of Unity, No. 183, London, had this among its by-laws in 1782:

 

Article 3rd. All liquor drank at the Lodge during Lodge hours and the beer drank at supper by the brethren not exceeding a pint each to be charged in the bill of expenses that night but no liquor called for before or after Lodge hours shall be allowed by the Lodge.

 

Lodge No. 43, Lancaster, Pa., was evidently averse to keeping a charge account in the matter of refreshments, for in 1785, its fourth by-law provided "That no brother come to the lodge without money to pay the expenses of the night."

 

That some innkeepers encouraged the meetings of lodges at their places by giving the rent free for the sake of the trade, is evident, as we find in the history of Solomon's Lodge, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., in 1787, that the paying of rent at Bro. Poole's apparently became irksome or not sufficiently "speculative," for Bro. Emott moved that the lodge fall into our former mode of buying our liquors of Bro. Poole and pay no rent."

 

St. John's Lodge, Leicester, England, March 5, 1794,

 

Resolved that every member pay on each Lodge evening, two shillings for his supper and for ale during Lodge hours. Members chusing to take Wine or Liquors to pay for them extra.

 

And Union Lodge, Norwich, England, passed a resolution May 25, 1810, that visiting brethren should be charged the price of a bottle of wine.

 

Here is an extract from the minutes of Shakespeare Lodge, London, June 23, 1831, which is very suggestive:

 

The Secretary stated to the Lodge that in order to prevent any errors relative to the number of bottles of wine charged in the bill, which appeared to him to have on more than one occasion exceeded the number drunk, he had with the appreciation of the W. M. provided a quantity of wine tickets.

 

How some of the lodges refreshed themselves, and absent one hour, and being rather intoxicated was order'd to where, is indicated in the ensuing extract from the sit as a private memberrecords of the Mariners' Lodge, England:

 

The Lodge to find two shillingsworth of malt Liquor and one Pint of Gin, Rum and Brandy for every Lodge night only --the Lodge not to be closed for refreshment, but the refreshment to be brought into the Room and put on a Table, any one who chooses may partake thereof, paying 6d for the same. To have no Spirits admitted into the Room during the time the Lodge is open unless paid for by the person calling for it.

 

TREATING

 

The custom of treating the brethren of the lodge was quite a prevalent one, being sometimes required, but more often voluntary. One of the lodges in Norfolk, England, exacted, in 1724, that:

 

Every Masber on his election shall treat ye brethren with two bottles of wine and ye Wardens with one bottle each, and on their second election the Master one bottle and ye Wardens a bottle between them.

 

When a member was blest with a lewis or lewisa (son or daughter) he usually celebrated the event as is evidenced from the records of the Turk's Head Lodge, Wiltshire, England:

 

August 16, 1739. Brother Mills having been lately blessed with a lewis, was pleased to present this Lodge with a crown bowl of punch upon that happy occasion, and the young lewis' health was drunk to in form.

 

September 20, 1739. Our Brother Delarant presented the Lodge with a bowl of punch on his having a lewisa born, and her health was drunk in form.

 

The Lodge of Felicity, London, on June 21, 1748, records:

 

This being Election night Bro. Griffon was Elected Master and chose Bro. Harforth and Bro. Morse Wardens and Bro. Gibbs Secr., the Master paid a bottle, the Wardens and Secretary paid each one shilling for the Honour done them.

 

FINES AND FORFEITS

 

In the Turk's Head Lodge, Wiltshire, England, Dec. 21, 1738, Bro. Hetherington was called upon by the Master for his lecture, but excused himself on account of business preventing him, but promised it on the next lodge night, or the voluntary forfeiture of a gallon of wine. Caledonian Lodge, London, in 1765, had as one of its regulations:

 

That if any member of this Lodge come disguised in liquor, he shall be admonished by the presiding officer, for the first offense; For the second, of the same nature, he shall be fined one shiiling; And for the third, or refusing to pay his fine, he shall be excluded without any benefit from the lodge.

 

In Mount Vernon Lodge, Albany, N. Y., 1773, one of the articles of its regulations provided that

 

On lodge evening no member under a fine of one shilling shall have more drink than for six pence in the lodge room without the Master's consent.

 

In a lodge in wigan, England, under date of Feb. 25, 1801, "Bro. John Taylor being disguis'd in liquor he was admonished by the Worshipful and ordered home." In the early records of Jerusalem Lodge, London, the Secretary states that "Brother Perdue having drank a public Toast without his Apron, paid one shilling as a forfeit for that neglect."

 

The Worshipful Master himself was called to account in the Lodge of Antiquity, Bolton, England, Oct. 11, 1799:

 

The Worshipful was fined 2 shillings six pence fro being absent one hour, and being rather intoxicated was order'd to sit as a private member.

 

GETTING ECONOMICAL

 

Many lodges, not only as a matter of economy, but realizing that refreshments were more often the means of the brethren becoming better acquainted with each other and that expensive wines and liquors were not necessary for this purpose, began to retrench and adopted such measures as a London lodge did in 1773 when it enacted a by-law:

 

That on account of the great expense incurr'd by allowing wine at supper and in order to prevent the bad consequences arising therefrom, no liquor shall be paid for out of the Lodge funds, which is drunk out of the Lodge room, except beer or ale drank at supper.

 

Temple Lodge, Albany, N. Y., April 1, 1801:

 

Resolved. That in future the Stewards substitute beer for brandy and spirits for the refreshments in the Lodge.

 

And in the same month, on the other side of the Atlantic, Royal York Lodge, London,

 

Resolved that the usual glass of brandy after supper be discontinued.

 

Altamont Lodge, Peterborough, N. H., May 7, 1816:

 

Voted to exclude the use of Ardent Spirit in this Lodge, and substitute therefor crackers and cheese and cider.

 

DECLINE OF TUE CUSTOM

 

The dawn of the nineteenth century saw the drinking custom on the wane, and we begin to find the minutes of lodges recording its discontinuance. In 1816 the Grand Lodge of New York enacted "That the use of distilled spirits in lodge rooms, or any adjoining room, is expressly forbidden." May 30, 1825, Altemont Lodge, Peterborough, N. H.,

 

"Voted that no account for spiritous liquors shall be allowed or paid for out of the funds of the Lodge after this date."

 

The Grand Lodge of Connecticut recommended the disuse of ardent spirits at its meeting in May, 1822, and the Grand Lodge of Vermont, Oct. 11, 1826, by a vote of 80 to 28, ruled

 

"That no ardent spirits or public dinner shall hereafter be furnished this Grand Lodge at any of its communications."

 

And on Oct. 9, 1827, the Grand Lodge recommended to all subordinate lodges to

 

"Dispense with the use of ardent spirits on all public occasions."

 

In 1842 the Grand Master of Ohio, who was a member of Lancaster Lodge, introduced a series of resolutions in that lodge which were unanimously adopted wherein the Masonic virtue of temperance was construed to mean total abstinence, and the members of the lodge drew up and subscribed to a form pledge to neither touch, taste, nor handle any ardent spirits, and

 

Resolved that hereafter no person shall be initiated into the mysteries of Masonry in the Lodge, or be received into fellowship with the same, who shall not previous thereto express his willingness to subscribe to this pledge.

 

AMUSING INCIDENTS

 

Here is where a brother having lost money in providing refreshments on the particular evening, June 26, 1740, in the Lodge of Edinburgh, Scotland, was given a chance to recoup his losses, as appears from the minutes of that date:

 

And in regaird Brother Patrick Grant hath been att a considerable trouble and expence in providing liquors and other necessaries for this meeting, of which a very small part hath been disposed of, by reason of the small company that have attended the same, it was therefore likewise unanimously resolved upon that he have the benefits of furnishing liquors and other necessaries to their next quarterly meeting, preferable to any other persons whatsoever.

 

In Barrat and Sachse's "Freemasonry in Pennsylvania," quoting the minutes of a lodge Dec. 24, 1770, we are left to conjecture that the brethren had a special purpose in attending the meeting of the Grand Lodge, but were not given the opportunity of accomplishing their object, for it reads:

 

Drank 3 bowls Toddy in about 3 hours which we waited on the Grand Lodge, paid our Reckoning and went home.

 

And from the same source, under date of Aug. 17, 1771, we find the following amusing decision:

 

The Determination of this Body that Bro. Glenn and Bro. Topham should shake hands and drink to each other and forget all former Animosity.

 

Our predecessors were charitable in the higher sense also, and when an unfortunate brother fell through drink, they did not give him up, rather they tried to raise him up. As an illustration we quote the records of Union Band Lodge, No. 35, Saintfield, Ireland:

 

Saintfield, 4th Dec. 1777.

 

I . . . do hereby as a Mason promise before this Lodge that I will abstain from all intoxicating drinks for 12 months, with the exception of refreshments in Lodge.

 

Signed W. J. M.

 

This unfortunate brother pleaded to be allowed one bottle of porter a day, but it was denied him. They might as well have allowed him, yet they forgave him again.

 

If anyone fondly imagines that the following suggestion was a recent invention the records of Union Lodge, Nantucket, Mass., over a century ago, prove to the contrary, for we find, Nov. 2, 1795, a committee was appointed to confer with brother . .

 

respecting his misconduct in abusing himself with making use two (sic) freely of strong Drink.

 

At the communication of Dec. 14, the brother denied that he was intoxicated, but was "taken with cramp & could prove it."

 

Dr. William G. Hill, a member of Hiram Lodge, Raleigh, N. C., and at the time (1842) its Junior Warden, took a very active part in having the use of refreshments in a liquid form discontinued at the meetings of the Grand Lodge, it being the custom to have a banquet at the close of each session, when it is said the members had a "merry time." The Stewards provided the refreshments, and when the report of a committee on the subject came up for consideration, he used this emphatic language:

 

Why, Most Worshipful Grand Master, the Stewards in their extravagant expenditures furnish enough refreshment to keep themselves drunk the entire session, enough to make the whole Grand Lodge drunk on the night of the banquet and then have enough left to keep Hiram Lodge drunk the balance of the year.

 

----o----

 

The Comacines and the Traveling Gilds

 

By BRO. W. RAVENSCROFT, England

 

THE position in which the authors of the article in THE BUILDER for May courteously place me as a Comacine advocate, permits, and I think, encourages, the pleasure of some further remarks in reply to their article, relieving me also of the responsibility of apology for doing so.

 

It seems to me, then, if I rightly read what they have written, that the outstanding point to be dealt with is involved in the question, "What do we mean by the 'making of Masons' or rather 'builders' as applied to the Operative Masonic Gilds of the Middle Ages ?" If such was nothing more than the conferring of degrees, secrets and occult knowledge to be accompanied by festivities and other functions, religious and otherwise, then one must admit that these lodges may have been semi-permanent, ephemeral, accidental, etc. But I am going to claim that while such initiations are admitted, and I suppose nowhere denied, the Gilds of the Middle Ages were much more than that. And I make this claim upon what I regard as the surest foundation, viz.: the evidence written down in stone and wood, but, of course, more particularly the former; evidence which cannot be and is not subject to being tampered with as so much of that put down on paper may be. Permit me to note, then, the following:

 

First: Up to the 12th century there was from the downfall of Rome such remarkable correspondence in the development of plan, detail and ornament in work done throughout England from the North to the South with that of the Comacine builders as to make the conclusion inevitable that some rule, authority or custom controlled design and that, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of transit and other communication, nothing short thereof could produce such result and that the education which produced this must have been the principal item in the making of Masons.

 

And it is a remarkable confirmation of this that down to the village church, and in later days, the barn and the cottage, down to the simplest buildings which had any pretense at architecture, as well as to the cathedral, stronghold and more important buildings, an influence is so apparent that to an expert it is not difficult to discern from a single stone with any moulds or ornament upon it within almost a quarter of a century to what period it would belong. And this is the more remarkable since it does not follow that because the evidence of "style" is present the workmanship is skilled. One could give numbers of instances to show that while the design was, so to speak, authorized, the workmanship was clumsy and bad; the work, in fact, of an inadequately trained craftsman.

 

Second: The foregoing remarks as to some authority under heading 1, apply equally to the periods which followed, viz.: the Gothic period and that of the Renaissance and I have purposely divided them into these periods because between each there came an important revolution. I refer to the incoming of Gothic Architecture at say about the beginning of the 13th century and the "revival of learning about that of the 15th century." The change from Norman work to Gothic work during 50 years was radical in construction, design and ornament. So was that at the time of the Renaissance, but contrary to what might have been expected, there was no sudden abandonment of one style for another but periods of development during which with precision transition intervened until one style had disappeared before the incoming of the successor and all through the various changes within the Gothic time the same remark applies and at the Renaissance upheaval the old was gradually merged with the new until quite lost--witness the Elizabethan and Jacobean mansions and other structures.

 

Third: After the incoming of the Renaissance the whole order changed. The Reformation not only suppressed the Monasteries but also the Gilds. The former, in many instances, became the homes of the nobility, the latter the Clubs of Speculative Masons, until so far as architecture was concerned, A would build in the style of "Queen Anne" and B, next door, in that of "Mary Anne" or any other Anne.

 

Surely this justifies the conclusion that down to the time when the Gothic period was ended and the classic revival was in full vogue, nothing can account for the stone written history I have briefly sketched short of an organized body, or, if one prefer it, organized associations directing and controlling at least the architecture of Western Europe. And, roughly speaking, the end of the Gothic period and the decay of the Gilds synchronizes with the beginning of Speculative Masonry when good fellowship began to be the chief characteristic in evidence.

 

Lastly, if I may be permitted a reference to the "Master Mason" for May, 1926. I read therein an article or English Freemasonry before the year 1717 (in which Bro. F. F. Gould's views are set forth) and under the heading of "Oral Tradition" three very eminent men are quoted as having written on this very point--Sir Christopher Wren, Sir William Dugdale and Elias Ashmole. Before the year 1717, in which, under the heading, "Oral Traditions,' three very eminent men are quoted as having held this opinion. The passages are to be found in Gould's Concise' History [Revised Edition, pages 53, 99 and 100] and are discussed at length in chapter twelve of the larger work. The earliest in date is the report of Dugdale's belief by John Aubrey, which is as follows:

 

Sir William Dugdale told me many years since, that about Henry the Third's time, the Pope gave a bull or patent to a company of Italian Freemasons, to travel up and down all Europe to build churches. From those are derived the Fraternity of adopted Masons.

 

In the memoir of Elias Ashmole in the Biographia Britannica we are told by Dr. Knipe:

 

What from Mr. Ashmole's collection I could gather was that the report of our Society taking rise from a Bull granted by the Pope in the reign of Henry III to some Italian architects to travel all over Europe to erect chapels was ill-founded. Such a Bull there was, and those architects were masons. But this Bull, in the opinion of the learned Mr. Ashmole, was confirmative only and did not by any means create our Fraternity or even establish them in this kingdom.

 

The remaining quotation is from the Parentalia or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens:

 

The Italians (among whom were yet some Greek Refugees), and with them French, German and Flemings, joined into a Fraternity of Architects, procuring Papal Bulls for their Encouragement and particular Privileges; they styled themselves Freemasons, and ranged from one Nation to another, as they found Churches to be built.

 

It seems to me that these opinions should be considered very carefully. One is inclined to wonder why, because traditions had grown up around these pronouncements which were extravagant and false, he should, therefore, have dismissed the lot. I am inclined to think that had he been acquainted more fully with the Comacine theory, and the steady development and sequence of changes in English architecture he would have concluded otherwise.

 

----o----

 

The Gild and the Lodge

 

By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN

 

IT would seem as if Bro. Ravenscroft had, in the preceding article, put his finger on the real point at issue in posing the question, "What do we mean by the making of Masons as applied to the Operative Gilds?" When, in the article in THE BUILDER for May, to which he refers, we set forth a hypothesis of the relationship of the lodge to the gild we had in view only the ritual significance of the term. If it be permitted to go so far afield for a parallel, we might adduce the puberty rites of savage races, which are known to those practicing them as "making men." The anthropological analogies to Masonry must be handled with great reserve and caution on account of the tendency there has been to build upon them hasty and ill considered speculations. But in this case we are only seeking an illustration. According to the savage the half-grown boy becomes a man by virtue of his initiation into the tribal mysteries. Yet though this is