GROWTH, says Dr. South, “is progress, and all progress designs, and tends to the acquisition of something, which the growing thing or person is not yet possessed of.”
This apothegm of the learned divine is peculiarly applicable to the history of that system of Speculative Freemasonry which, springing into existence at the “Apple Tree tavern,” in London, at the close of the second decade of the 18th century, made such progress in the acquisition of new knowledge as to completely change its character soon after the beginning of the third decade.
We have seen that it was derived from an older institution whose objects were altogether practical, and whose members were always engaged in the building of public edifices. But there were other members of the guild who were not Operative Masons, but who had been admitted to the privileges of membership for the sake of the prestige and influence which the Fraternity expected to obtain from their learning, their wealth, or their rank.
These unprofessional brethren, who were at first called Theoretic Masons or Honorary members, but who afterward assumed the title of Speculative Freemasons, began even in the very outset of what they were pleased, most inaccurately, to call a Revival, to exercise an unexpected and detrimental influence on the Operative Guild.
This influence was so exerted that Operative Freemasonry was gradually extruded from the important place which it had so long occupied, and finally, in and after the year 1723, ceased entirely to exist.
The gradual transformation from Operative to Speculative Free masonry is one of the most interesting points in the history of the institution, and is well worth our careful consideration.
Hardly more wonderful is the change from the insignificant acorn to the majestic oak, than was this expansion of a guild of workingmen, limited in their design and their numbers, into a Fraternity of moralists and philosophers, whose object was the elevation of their fellow-men, and whose influence has extended into every quarter of the civilized world.
Operative Freemasonry, which flourished in the Middle Ages and long after as an association of skillful builders who were in the possession of
architectural secrets unknown to the ruder workmen of the same craft, and who were bound to each other by a fraternal tie, no longer exists. Like the massive cathedrals which it constructed, it has crumbled into decay.
But Speculative Freemasonry, erected on its ruins, lives and will always live, a perpetual memorial in its symbols and its technical language of the source whence it sprang.
Let us inquire how the one died and how the other was born.
When on the 24th day of June in the year 1717 certain Freemasons of London met at the “Goose and Gridiron Tavern” and carried into effect the arrangement made in the previous February, by organizing a Grand Lodge, it is not to be presumed that any other idea had at that time entered their minds than that of consolidating the four Operative Lodges of which they were members into one body. The motives that actuated them were to produce a stronger union among the Craft than had previously existed, each lodge having hitherto been independent and isolated, and also to enlarge their numbers and to increase their influence, by throwing the door more widely open to the admission of gentlemen who were not otherwise connected with the Craft.
The fact is that the fashion then prevailed to a remarkable extent in London for men of like sentiments or of the same occupation to form themselves into clubs. The Freemasons, both Operative and Theoretic, in thus uniting, were doing nothing else than following the fashion, and were really instituting a club of a more elevated character and under a different name.
Hence the consolidation of the four Lodges was called a Grand Lodge, a title and an organization which had previously been unknown to English Freemasonry.
There was no thought, at that early period, by those who were engaged in the organization, of changing to any greater extent the character of the society. It was still to be a Guild of Operative Freemasons, but consisting more largely in proportion than ever before of members who were not professional workmen.
“At the revival in 1717,” says Dr. Oliver, “the philosophy of the Order was seldom considered, and our facetious brethren did not think it worth their while to raise any question respecting the validity of our legends; nor did they concern themselves much about the truth of our traditions. Their principal object was pass a pleasant hour in company with a select assemblage of brethren; and that purpose being attained, they waived all inquiry into the truth or probability of either the one or the other.”
The scanty records of the transaction, which Dr. Anderson, our only authority, has supplied, make no mention of those distinguished persons who afterward took a prominent part in affecting the transmutation of Operative into Speculative Freemasonry, and who were indeed the founders of the latter system.
It is said, though I know not on what authentic authority, that Dr. Desaguliers, the corypheus of the band of reformers, had been admitted five years before into the honorary membership of the Lodge which met at the sign of the “Rummer and Grapes,” and which was one of the four that united in the formation of a Grand Lodge.
If this be true, and there are good reasons for believing it, it can not be doubted that he was present at the organization of the Grand Lodge, and that he took an active part in the proceedings of the meetings both in February and in June, 1717.
Neither the names of Payne nor of Anderson, who subsequently became the collaborators of Desaguliers in the formation of Speculative Freemasonry, are mentioned in the brief records of those meetings. If they were present or connected with the organization, the fact is not recorded. Payne first appears in June, 1718, when he was elected Grand Master; Desaguliers in 1719, when he was elected to the same office. This would tend to show that both had been for some years in the Fraternity, since new-comers would hardly have been chosen for those positions.
It is not so certain that Anderson was a Freemason in 1717. It is not improbable that he was soon afterward admitted, for in September, 1721, he acquired such a reputation in the society as to have been selected by the Duke of Montagu, who was then the Grand Master, to digest the old Gothic Constitutions, a task of great importance.
Of one thing, however, there can be no doubt, that no one of these three persons, who were afterward so distinguished for their services in Speculative Freemasonry, had in 1717 been prominently placed before the Craft. In the selection of an officer to preside over the newly established Grand Lodge, the choice fell, not on one of them, but on a comparatively insignificant person, Mr. Anthony Sayer. Of his subsequent Masonic career, we only know that he was appointed by Desaguliers one of the Grand Wardens. He is also recorded as having been the Senior Warden at one of the four original Lodges after he had passed the Grand Mastership. He afterward fell into financial difficulties, and having received relief from the Grand Lodge, we hear no more of him in the history of Freemasonry.
It is to Desaguliers, to Payne, and to Anderson that we are to attribute the creation of that change in the organization of the system of English Freemasonry which gradually led to the dissolution of the Operative element, and the substitution in its place of one that was purely Speculative. The three were members of the same lodge, were men of education, were interested in the institution, as is shown by their regular attendance on the meetings of the Grand Lodge until near the middle of the century, and were all zealously engaged in the investigation of the old records of the institution, so as to fit them for the prosecution of the peaceful revolution which they were seeking to accomplish.
Among the multitudinous books contributed by Dr. Oliver to the literature of Freemasonry, is one entitled The Reversions of the falsehoods in which, unfortunately for the author’s reputation, were extended by French and Dutch translations. In this book he says of Anderson and Desaguliers that they were “two persons of little education and of low manners, who had aimed at little more than making a pretext, not altogether contemptible, for a convivial meeting.” (P. 71.) This is a fair specimen of Robison’s knowledge and judgment.
a Square, which contains much information concerning the condition of the ritual and the progress of the institution during the early period now under consideration. Unfortunately, there is such a blending of truth and fiction in this work that it is difficult, on many occasions, to separate the one from the other.
It is but fair, however, to admit the author’s claim that his statements are not to be accounted fabulous and without authority because its contents are communicated through an imaginary medium,” for, as he avers, he is in possession of authentic vouchers for every transaction.
These vouchers consisted principally of the contents of a masonic diary kept by his father, who had been initiated in 1784, and was acquainted with a distinguished Freemason who had been a contemporary of Desaguliers. With this brother the elder Oliver had held many conversations, as well as with others of the 18th century. The substance of these conversations he had committed to his diary, and this came into the possession of his son, and is the basis on which he composed his Revelations of a Square.
If Dr. Oliver had given in marginal notes or otherwise special references to the diary and to other sources which he used as authorities for his statements, I do not hesitate to say that The Revelations of a Square would, by these proofs of authenticity, be the most valuable of all his historical works.
Still, I am disposed to accept generally the statements of the work as authentic, and if there be sometimes an appearance of the fabulous, it can not be doubted that beneath the fiction there is always a considerable substratum of truth.
According to Oliver, Desaguliers had at that early period determined to renovate the Order, which was falling into decay, and had enlisted several active and zealous brethren in the support of his plans. Among these were Sayer and Payne, the firsf and second Grand Masters, and Elliott and Lamball, the first two Wardens, with several others whose names have not elsewhere been transmitted to posterity.
There is nothing unreasonable nor improbable in this statement. It is very likely that Desaguliers and a few of his friends had seen and deplored the decaying condition of the four lodges in London.
It is also likely that their first thought was that a greater degree of success and prosperity might be secured if the lodges would abandon to some extent the independence and isolation of their condition, and would establish a bond of union by their consolidation under a common head.
Whatever views might have been secretly entertained by Desaguliers and a few friends in his confidence, he could not have openly expressed to the Craft any intention to dissolve the Operative guild and to establish a Speculative society in its place. Had such an intention been even suspected by the purely Operative Freemasons who composed part of the membership of the four lodges, it can not well be doubted that they would have declined to support a scheme which looked eventually to the destruction of their Craft, and consequently the organization of a Grand Lodge would never have been attempted.
But I am not willing to charge Desaguliers with such duplicity. He was honest in his desire to renovate the institution of Operative freemasonry, and he believed that the first step toward that renovation would be the consolidation of the lodges. He expected that an imperfect code of laws would be improved, and perhaps that a rude and unpolished ritual might be expanded and refined.
Farther, he was not, it may be supposed, prepared at that time to go. Whatever modifications he subsequently made by the invention of degrees which at once established a new system were the results of afterthoughts suggested to his mind by a sequence of circumstances.
That the change from Operative to Speculative Freemasonry was of gradual growth, we know from the authentic records that are before us.
In the year 1717 we find an Operative guild presenting itself in cold simplicity of organization as a body of practical workmen to whom were joined some honorary members, who were not Craftsmen; with an imperfect and almost obsolete system of by-laws; with but one form of admission; with secrets common to all classes, and which were of little or no importance, for the architectural and geometrical secrets of the medieval Craft had been lost; and finally with an insignificant and unpolished ritual, a mere catechism for wandering brethren to test their right to the privileges and the hospitality of the Fraternity.
Six years after, in 1723, this association of workmen has disappeared, and in its place we find a new society which has been erected on the foundations of that edifice which has crumbled into ruins; a society that has repudiated all necessary knowledge of the art of building; to which workmen may be admitted, not because they are workmen, but because they are men of good character and of exemplary conduct; with a well-framed code of laws for its government; with three degrees, with three forms of initiation, and with secrets exclusively appropriated to each; and with rituals which, produced by cultured minds, present the germs of a science of symbolism.
Operative Freemasonry no longer wields the scepter; it has descended from its throne into its grave, and Speculative Freemasonry, as a living form, has assumed the vacant seat.
That the transmutation was gradually accomplished we know, for six years were occupied in its accomplishment, and the records of that period, brief and scanty as they are, unerringly indicate the steps of its gentle progress.
From June, 1717, to June, 1718, under the administration of Anthony Sayer, Gentleman, as Grand Master, there are no signs of a contemplated change. He was not, if negative evidence may be accepted as the index of his character, the man to inaugurate so bold an enterprise.
His efforts seem to have been directed solely to the strengthening and confirming of the union of the Operative lodges by consulting at stated periods with their officers.
From June, 1718, to June, 1719, George Payne presided over the Craft. Now we discover the first traces of a sentiment tending toward the improvement of the institution. Old manuscripts and records were anxiously sought for that the ancient usages of the Craft might be learned. In preparing for the future it was expedient to know something of the past.
The result of this collation of old documents was the compilation of the “Charges of a Freemason,” appended to the first edition of the Book of Constitutions. The composition of this code is generally attributed to Anderson. Without positive testimony on this point, I am inclined to assign the authorship to Payne. He was a noted antiquary, and well fitted by the turn of his mind to labors of that kind.
Desaguliers was Grand Master from June, 1719, to June, 1720, His administration is made memorable by the first great change in the system.
An examination of the old manuscripts which had been collected by Payne must have shown that the body of the Craft had always been divided into two classes, Apprentices and Fellows, who were distinguished by the possession of certain privileges as workmen peculiar to each.
In the lodge they assembled together and partook equally of its counsels. But the prominence of the Fellows in rank as a class of workmen and in numbers as constituting the principal membership of the four old Lodges, very probably suggested to the mind of Desaguliers the advantages that would result from a more distinct separation of the Fellows from the Apprentices, not by a recognition of the higher rank of the former as workmen, because if a Speculative system was to be established, a qualification derived from skill in the practical labors of the Craft would cease to be of avail; but a separation by granting to each class a peculiar form of initiation, with its accompanying secrets.
The fact, also, that in some of the old manuscripts, which were then called the “Gothic Constitutions,” copies of which had been produced as the result of the call of Grand Master Payne, there were two distinct sets of “Charges,” one for the Masters and Fellows and one for the Apprentices, would have strengthened the notion that there should be a positive and distinct separation of the two classes as the first preparatory step toward the development of the new system.
This step was taken by Desaguliers soon after his installation as Grand Master. Accordingly, in 1719, he modified the one degree or form of initiation or admission which had been hitherto common to all ranks of Craftsmen.
One part of the degree (but the word is not precisely correct) he confined to the Apprentices, and made it the working degree of the lodge. Another part he enlarged and improved, transferred to it the most important secret, the MASON WORD, and made it a degree to be conferred only on Fellow-Crafts in the Grand Lodge; while the degree of the Apprentices thus modified continued as of old to be conferred on new candidates in the lodge.
Thus it was that in the year 1719 the first alteration in the old Operative system took place, and two degrees, the First and Second, were created.
The Entered Apprentice now ceased to be a youth bound for a certain number of years to a Master for the purpose of learning the mysteries of the trade. The term henceforth denoted one who had been initiated into the secrets of the First degree of Speculative Freemasonry, a meaning which it has ever since retained.In former times, under the purely Operative system, the Masters of the Work, those appointed to rule over the migratory lodges and to superintend the Craftsmen in their hours of labor, were necessarily selected from the Fellows, because of their greater skill, acquired from experience and their freedom from servitude.
But when the Theoretic Freemasons, the Honorary members, began to be the dominant party, in consequence of their increased number, their higher social position, and their superior education, it was plainly seen that any claim to privileges which was derived from greater skill in the practical art of building, from the expiration of indentures and from the acquisition of independence and the right to go and come at will, would soon be abolished.
The Operative members only could maintain a distinction between themselves founded on such claims. The Theoretic members were, so far as regarded skill in building or freedom from the servitude of indentures, on an equal footing, everyone with all the others.
But Desaguliers and his collaborators were anxious to retain as many as they could of the old usages of the Craft. They were not prepared nor willing to obliterate all marks of identity between the old and the new system. Nor could they afford, in the infancy of their enterprise, to excite the opposition of the Operative members by an open attack on the ancient customs of the Craft.
Hence they determined to retain the distinction which had always existed between Fellows and Apprentices, but to found that distinction, not on the possession of superior skill in the art of building, but in the possession of peculiar secrets.
The Second degree having been thus established, it became necessary to secure the privileges of the Fellows. These in the old system had inured to them by usage and the natural workings of the trade; they were now to be perpetuated and maintained in the new system by positive law.
Accordingly, in the following year, Payne made that compilation or code of laws for the government of the new society which is known as the “General Regulations,” and which having been approved by the Grand Lodge, was inserted in the Book of Constitutions.
It has been already abundantly shown that the whole tenor of these “Regulations” was to make the Fellow-Crafts the possessors of the highest degree then known, and to constitute them the sole legislators of the society (except in the alteration of the “Regulations”) and the body from which its officers were to be chosen.
Thus the first step in the separation of Speculative from Operative Freemasonry was accomplished by the establishment of two degrees of initiation instead of one, and by making the Fellow-Crafts distinct from and superior to the Apprentices, not by a higher skill in an Operative art, but by their attainment to greater knowledge in a Speculative science.
For four years this new system prevailed, and Speculative Freemasonry in England was divided into two degrees. The system, in fact, existed up to the very day of the final approval, in January, 1723, of the Book of Constitutions.The First degree was appropriated to the initiation of candidates in the particular, or, as we now call them, the subordinate lodges.
The Second degree conferred in the Grand Lodge was given to those few who felt the aspiration for higher knowledge, or who had been elected as Masters of lodges or as officers in the Grand Lodge.
The Operative members submitted to the change, and continued to take an interest in the new society, receiving in proportion to their numbers a fair share of the offices in the Grand Lodge.
But the progress of change and innovation was not to cease at this point. The inventive genius of Desaguliers was not at rest, and urged onward, not only by his ritualistic taste and his desire to elevate the institution into a higher plane than would result by the force of surrounding circumstances, he contemplated a further advance.
“Circumstances,” says Goethe, in his Wilhelm Meister, “move backward and forward before us and ceaselessly finish the web, which we ourselves have in part spun and put upon the loom.”
Desaguliers, with the co-operation of other Theoretic Freemasons. had united the four Operative Lodges into a Grand Lodge, a body until then unknown to the Craft; he had established a form of government with which they were equally unfamiliar; he had abolished the old degree, and inventedtwo new ones; and yet it appears that he did not consider the system perfect.
He contemplated a further development of the ritual by the addition of another degree. In this design he was probably, to some extent, controlled by surrounding circumstances.
The Fellow-Crafts had been invested with important privileges not granted to the Entered Apprentices, and the possession of these privileges was accompanied by the acquisition of a higher esoteric knowledge.
Among the privileges which had been acquired by the Fellow Crafts were those of election to office in the Grand Lodge and of Mastership in a subordinate lodge.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Fellows who had been elevated to these positions in consequence of their possession of a new degree were desirous, especially the Master of the lodges, to be farther distinguished from both the Apprentices and the Fellowv Crafts by the acquisition of a still higher grade.
Besides this motive, the existence of which, though not attested by any positive authority, is nevertheless very presumable, another and a more philosophic one must have actuated Desaguliers in the further development of his system of degrees.
He had seen that the old Operative Craft was divided into three classes or ranks of workmen. To the first and secede of these classes he had appropriated a degree peculiar to each. But the third and highest class was still without one. Thus was his system made incongruous and incomplete.
To give it perfection it was necessary that a Third degree should be invented, to be the property of the third class, or the Masters.
It is possible that Desaguliers had, in his original plan, contemplated the composition of three degrees, or it may have been that the willing acceptance of the First and Second by the Craft had suggested the invention of a Third degree.
Be this as it may, for it is all a matter of mere surmise and not of great importance, it is very certain that the invention and composition of the ritual of so philosophic a degree could not have been the labor of a day or a week or any brief period of time.
It involved much thought, and months must have beer occupied in the mental labor of completing it. It could not have been finished before the close of the year 1722. If it had, it would have been presented to the Grand Lodge before the final approval of the Book of Constitutions, and would then have received that prominent place in Speculative Freemasonry which in that book and in the “General Regulations” is assigned to the degree of Fellow-Craft.
But at that time the degree was so far completed as to make it certain that it would be ready for presentation to the Grand Lodge and to the Craft in the course of the following year.
But as the Book of Constitutions was finally approved in January, 1723, and immediately afterward printed and published, Desaguliers being desirous of keeping the new degree under his own control for a brief period, until its ritual should be well understood and properly worked, anticipated the enactment of a law on the subject, and interpolated the passage in the “General Regulations” which required the Second and Third degrees to be conferred in the Grand Lodge only.
Logical inferences and documentary evidence bring us unavoidably to the conclusion that the following was the sequence of events which led to the establishment of the present ritual of three degrees.
In 1717 the Grand Lodge, at its organization, received the one comprehensive degree or ritual which had been common to all classes of the Operative Freemasons.
This they continued to use, with no modification, for the space of two years.
In 1719 the ritual of this degree was disintegrated and divided into two parts. One part was appropriated to the Entered Apprentices; the other, with some augmentations, to the Fellow-Craft.
From that time until the year 1723 the system of Speculative Freemasonry, which was practiced by the Grand Lodge, consisted of two degrees. That of Fellow-Craft was deemed the summit of Freemasonry, and there was nothing esoteric beyond it.
On this system of two degrees the Book of Constitutions, the “General Regulations,” and the “Manner of Constituting a new Lodge” were framed. When these were published the Craft knew nothing of a Third degree.
In the year 1723 Dr. Desaguliers perfected the system by presenting the Grand Lodge with the Third degree, which he had recently invented.
This degree was accepted by the Grand Lodge, and being introduced into the ritual, from that time forth Ancient Craft Masonry, as it has since been called, has consisted of these three degrees.
There can be little doubt that this radical change from the old system was not pleasing to the purely Operative Freemasons who were members of the Grand Lodge. Innovation has always been repugnant to the Masonic mind. Then, as now, changes in the ritual and the introduction of new degrees must have met with much opposition from those who were attached traditionally to former usages and were unwilling to abandon the old paths.
From 1717 to 1722 we find, by Anderson’s records, that the Operatives must have taken an active part in the transactions of the Grand Lodge, for during that period they received a fair proportion of the offices. No one of them, however, had been elected to the chief post of Grand Master, which was always bestowed upon a Speculative.
But from the year 1723, when, as it has been shown, the Speculative system had been perfected, we lose all sight of the Operatives in any further proceedings of the society. It is impossible to determine whether this was the result of their voluntary withdrawal or whether the Speculatives no longer desired their co-operation. But the evidence is ample that from the year 1723 Speculative Freemasonry has become the dominant, and, indeed, the only feature of the Grand Lodge.
Bro. Robert Freeke Gould, who has written an elaborate sketch of the history of those times, makes on this point the following remark, which sustains the present views:
“In 1723, however, a struggle for supremacy, between the Operatives and the Speculatives, had set in, and the former, from that time, could justly complain of their total supercession in the offices of the Society.”
It is, then, in the year 1723 that we must place the birth of Speculative Freemasonry. Operative Masonry, the mere art of building, that which was practiced by the “Rough Layers” of England and the wall builders or Murer of Germany, still remains and will always remain as one of the useful arts.
But Operative Freemasonry, the descendant and the representative of the mediaeval guilds, ceased then and forever to exist.
It died, but it left its sign in the implements of the Craft which were still preserved in the new system, but applied to spiritual uses; in the technical terms of the art which gave rise to a symbolic language; and in the ineffaceable memorials which show that the new association of Speculative Freemasonry has been erected on the foundations of a purely Operative Society.
SPECULATIVE Freemasonry having been firmly established in London and its environs (for it did not immediately extend into the other parts of England), it will now be proper to direct our attention to its progress in other countries, and in the first place into the neighboring kingdom of France.
The unauthentic and unconfirmed statements of Masonic scholars, until a very recent period, had thrown a cloud of uncertainty over the early history of Freemasonry in France, which entirely obscured the true era of its introduction into that country.
Moreover, the accounts of the origin of Freemasonry in France made by different writers are of so conflicting a nature that it is utterly impossible to reconcile them with historical accuracy. The web of confusion thus constructed has only been recently disentangled by the investigations of some English writers, conspicuous among whom is Bro. William James Hughan.
Before proceeding to avail ourselves of the result of these inquiries into the time of the constitution of the first lodge in France, it will be interesting to present the views of the various authors who had previously written on the subject.
In the year 1745 a pamphlet, purporting to be an exposition of Freemasonry, was published in Paris, entitled Le Sceau Rompu, ou la Loge ouverte aux profanes. In this work it is stated that the earliest introduction of Freemasonry into France is to be traced to the year 1718. This work is, however, of no authority, and it is only quoted to show the recklessness with which statements of Masonic history are too frequently made.
The Abbe Robin, who in 1776 published his Researches on the Ancient and Modern Initiations, says that at the time of his writing
(1) “Recherches sur les initiations anciennes et modernes,” par l’Abbe Rxxx. The work, though printed anonymously, was openly attributed to Robin, by the publisher. no memorial of the origin of Freemasonry in France remained, and that all that has been found does not go farther back than the year 1720, when it seems to have come from England. But of the date thus ascribed he gives no authentic evidence. It is with him but a surmise.
Thory, in 1815, in his Acta Latomorum, gives the story as follows, having borrowed it from Lalande, the great astronomer, who had previously published it in 1786, in his article on Freemasonry in that immense work, the Encyclopedie Methodique.
“The year 1725 is indicated as the epoch of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris. Lord Derwentwater, the Chevalier Maskelyne, M. d’Henquelty, and some other Englishmen, established a lodge at the house of Hure, the keeper of an ordinary in the Rue des Boucheries. This lodge acquired a great reputation, and attracted five or six hundred brethren to Masonry in the space of ten years. It worked under the auspices and according to the usages of the Grand Lodge at London.
“It has left no historical monument of its existence, a fact which throws much confusion over the first labors of Freemasonry in Paris.”
In his record of the year 1736, he says that “four lodges then existed at Paris, which united and elected the Earl of Harnouester, who thus succeeded Lord Derwentwater, whom the brethren had chosen at the epoch of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris. At this meeting the Chevalier Ramsay acted as Orator.”
T. B. Clavel, in his Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Maconnerie, says that according to certain English and German historians, among others Robison and the aulic counsellor Bode, Freemasonry was introduced into France by the Irish followers of King James II., after the English revolution in 1688, and the first lodge was established at the Chateau de Saint Germain, the residence of the dethroned monarch, whence the Masonic association was propagated in the rest of the kingdom, in Germany and Italy.
Clavel acknowledges that he does not know on what documentary evidence these writers support this opinion; he does not, however, think it altogether destitute of probability. Robison, to whom Clavel has referred, says that when King James, with many of his most zealous adherents, had fled into France, “they took Freemasonry with them to the continent, where it was immediately received by the French, and was cultivated with great zeal, and in a manner suited to the tastes and habits of that highly polished people.” Leaving this wholly apocryphal statement without discussion, I proceed to give Clavel’s account, which he claims to be historical, of the introduction of Freemasonry from England into France.
The first lodge, he says, whose establishment in France is historically proved, is the one which the Grand Lodge of England instituted at Dunkirk in the year 1721, under the title of Amitie et Fraternite. The second, the name of which has not been preserved, was founded at Paris in 1725 by
Lord Derwentwater, the Chevalier Maskelyne, Brother d’Heguerty, and some other followers of the Pretender. It met at the house of Hure, an English tavern-keeper or restaurateur in the Rue des Boucheries in the Faubourg Saint Germain. A brother Gaustand, an English lapidary, about
the same time created a third lodge at Paris. A fourth one was established in 1726, under the name of St. Thomas. The Grand Lodge of England constituted two others in 1729; the name of the first was Au Louis d’Argent, and a brother Lebreton was its Master; the other was called A Sainte Marguerite; of this lodge we know nothing but its name, which was reported in the Registry of the year 1765. Finally there was a fourth lodge formed in Paris in the year 1732, at the house of Laudelle, a tavern-keeper in the Rue de Bussy. At first it took its name from that of the street in which it was situated, afterward it was called the Lodge d’Aumont, because the Duke of Aumont had been initiated in it. Ragon, in his Orthodoxie Maconnique, asserts that Freemasonry made its first appearance in France in 1721, when on October 13th the Lodge l’Amidie et Fraternite was instituted at Dunkirk. It appeared in Paris in 1725; in Bordeaux in 1732, by the establishment of the Lodge l’Anolaise No. 204; and on January 1, 1732, the Lodge of la Parfaits Union was instituted at Valenciennes.
Two other French authorities, not, however, Masonic, have given similar but briefer statements.
In the Dictionnaire de la conversation et de Za Lecture it is said that Freemasonry was introduced into France in 1720 by Lord Derwentwater and the English. The Grand Masters who succeeded him were Lord d’Arnold-Esler and the Duc d’Autin, the Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre and the Duc d’Orleans. In 1736 there were still only four lodges in Paris; in 1742 there were twenty-two, and two hundred in the provinces.
Larousse, in his Grand Universal Dictionary of the Nineteenth Century, simply repeats this statement as to dates, simply stating that the first lodge in France was founded at Dunkirk in 1721, and the second at Paris in 1725, by Lord Derwentwater.
Rebold has written, in his Histoire des Trois Grandes Loges, a more detailed statement of the events connected with the introduction of Freemasonry into France. His narrative is as follows:
“It was not until 1725 that a lodge was for the first time founded at Paris by Lord Derwentwater and two other Englishmen, under the title of St. Thomas. It was constituted by them in the name of the Grand Lodge of London, on the 12th of June, 1720. Its members, to the number of five or six hundred, met at the house of Hure, a tavern-keeper in the Rue des Boucheries-Saint Germain. Through the exertions of the same English gentlemen a second lodge was established on the 7th of June, 1729, under the name of Louis d’Argent. Its members met at the tavern of the same name, kept by one Lebreton. On the 11th of December of the same year a third lodge was instituted, under the title of Arts Sainte Marguerite. Its meetings were held at the house of an Englishman named Gaustand.
Finally, on the 29th of November, 1732, a fourth lodge was founded, which was called Buci, from the name of the tavern in which it held its meetings, which was situated in the Rue de Buci, and was kept by one Laudelle. This lodge, after “Lord Deroventwater, who, in 1725, had received from the Grand Lodge of London plenary powers to constitute lodges in France, was, in 1735, invested by the same Grand Lodge with the functions of Provincial Grand Master. When he left France (in 1745) to return to England, where he soon after perished on the scaffold, a victim to his attachment for the House of Stuart, he transferred the full powers which he possessed to his friend Lord Harnouester, who was empowered to represent him as Provincial Grand Master during his absence.
“The four lodges then existing at Paris resolved to found a Provisional Grand Lodge of England, to which the lodges to be thereafter constituted in France might directly address themselves as the representative of the Grand Lodge at London. This resolution was put into effect after the departure of Lord Derwentwater. This Grand Lodge was regularly and legally constituted in 1736 under the Grand Mastership of Lord Harnouester.”
Such is the story of the introduction of Speculative Freemasonry into France, which, first published by the astronomer Lalande, has been since repeated and believed by all French Masonic historians. That a portion of this story is true is without doubt; but it is equally doubtless that a portion of it is false. It will be a task of some difficulty, but an absolutely necessary one, to unravel the web and to distinguish and separate what is true from what is false.
The names of three of the four founders of the first lodge in Paris present a hitherto insurmountable obstacle in the way of any identification of them with historical personages of that period. The unfortunate propensity of French writers and printers to distort English names in spelling them, makes it impossible to trace the names of Lord Harnouester and M. Hugety to any probable source. I have made the most diligent researches on the subject, and have been unable to find either of them in any works relating to the events of the beginning of the 18th century, which have been within my reach.
Lord Derwent-Waters, as the title is printed, was undoubtedly Charles Radcliffe, the brother of James, the third Earl of Derwentwater who had been beheaded in 1715 for his connection with the rebellion in that year, excited by the Old Pretender, or, as he styled himself, James III. Charles Radcliffe had also been convicted of complicity in the rebellion and sentenced to be beheaded. He, however, made his escape and fled to the continent. At first he repaired to Rome, where the Pretender then held his court, but afterward removed to France, where he married the widow of Lord Newburghe and remained in that city until the year 1733.
He then went for a short time to England, where he appeared openly, but afterward returned to Paris and continued there until 1745. In that year the Young Pretender landed in Scotland and invaded England in the attempt, as Regent, to recover the throne of his ancestors and to place his father upon it.
Charles Radcliffe, who had assumed the title of the Earl of Derwentwater on the demise of his nephew, who died in 1731, sailed on November 21, 1745, for Montrose in Scotland, in the French privateer Soleil, for the purpose of joining the Pretender. He was accompanied by a large number of Irish, Scotch, and French offiers and men. On the passage the privateer was captured by the English ship-of-war Sheerness, and carried, with its crew and passengers, to England.
On December 8th in the following year Radcliffe was beheaded, in pursuance of his former sentence, which had been suspended for thirty years.
Of Lord Harnouester, who is said by the French writers to have succeeded the titular Earl of Derwentwater as the second Grand Master, I have been unable to find a trace in any of the genealogical, heraldic, or historical works which I have consulted. The name is undoubtedly spelled wrongly, and might have been Arnester, Harnester, or Harnevester. The change made by the Dictionnaire de la Conversation, which converts it into “d’Arnold-Esler,” only adds more confusion to that which was already abundantly confounded.
Maskelyne is an English name. It was that of a family in Wiltshire, from which Nevil Maskelyne, the distinguished Astronomer Royal, born in 1734, was descended. But I am unable to identify the Chevalier Maskelyne, of the French writers, with any person of distinction or of notoriety at that period.
I am equally at a loss as to M. Hugetty, a name which has been variously spelt as Heguetty and Heguelly. The name does not, in either of these forms, indicate the nationality of the owner, and the probable transformation from the original forbids the hope of a successful investigation.
One fact alone appears to be certain, and fortunately that is of some importance in determining the genuineness of the history.
The titular Earl of Derwentwater was a Jacobite, devoted to the interests of the fallen family of Stuart, and the English, Irish, and Scotch residents of Paris, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, must have been Jacobites or adherents of the Stuarts also. The political jealousy of the British Government at that time made it unpleasantly suspicious for any loyal subject to maintain intimate relations with the Jacobites who were living in exile at Paris and elsewhere.
This fact will be an important element in determining the genuineness of the authority claimed to have been given to Lord Derwentwater by the Grand Lodge at London.
The German historians have generally borrowed their authority from the French writers, and on this occasion have not shown their usual thoroughness of investigation.
Lenning simply states that the first lodge of France was founded at Paris in 1725, and that it was soon followed by others.
Gadicke had previously said that Freemasonry was introduced into France from England and Scotland in the year 1660, but while it flourished in England it soon almost entirely disappeared in France.
Afterwards in the year 1725, England again planted it in France, for in that year three Englishmen founded a lodge in Paris which was called the English Grand Lodge of France.
Findel is a little more particular in his details, but affords us nothing new. He says that “it is impossible to determine with any certainty the period of the introduction of Freemasonry into France, as the accounts handed down to us are very contradictory, varying from the years 1721, 1725, 1727, to 1732. In an historical notice of the Grand Lodge of France, addressed to her subordinate lodges, there is a statement specifying that Lord Derwentwater, Squire Maskelyne, a lord of Heguerty and some other English noblemen, established a lodge in Paris in 1725, at Hure’s Tavern.
Lord Derwentwater is supposed to have been the first who received a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England. It is recorded that other lodges were established by these same authorities, and amongst others the Lodge d’Aumont (au Louis d’Argent) in 1729, in la Rue Bussy at Laudelle’s tavern, the documents bearing the date of 1732 as that of their foundation.”
Kloss, who has written a special work on the history of Freemasonry in France, supported as he says by reliable documents, adopts the statements made originally by Lalande in the Encyclopedie Methodique, and which were repeated by successive French writers.
So, on the whole, we get nothing more from the German historians than what we already had from the French.
We come next to the English writers, whose information must have been better than that of either the French or German, as they possessed a written history of the contemporary events of that period. Therefore it is that on them we are compelled to lean in any attempt to solve the riddle involved in the introduction of the Speculative institution into the neighboring kingdom. Still we are not to receive as incontestable all that has been said on this subject by the earlier English writers on Freemasonry. Their wonted remissness here, as well as elsewhere in respect to dates and authorities, leaves us, at last, to depend for a great part on rational conjecture and logical inferences.
Dr. Oliver, the most recent author to whom I shall refer, accepts the French narrative of the institution of a lodge at Paris in 1725, and adds that it existed “under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England by virtue of a charter granted to Lord Derwentwater, Maskelyne, Higuetty and some other Englishmen.”
Elsewhere he asserts that the Freemasonry which was practiced in France between 1700 and 1725 was only by some English residents, without a charter or any formal warrant. In this opinion he is sustained by the Committee of the Grand Orient already alluded to, in whose report it is stated that “most impartial historians assert that from 1720 to 1725 Freemasonry was clandestinely introduced into France by some English Masons.”
The author of an article in the London Freemasons’ Quarterly Review, (1) under the title of “Freemasonry in Europe During the Past Century,” says that “the settlement in France of the abdicated king of England, James II., in the Jesuitical Convent of Clermont, seems to have been the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris, and here it was (as far as we can trace) the first lodge in France was formed, anno 1725.” The writer evidently connects in his mind the establishment of Freemasonry in France with the Jacobites or party of the Pretender who were then in exile in that kingdom, a supposed connection which will, hereafter, be worth our consideration.
Laurie (or rather Sir David Brewster, who wrote the book for him) has, in his History of Freemasonry, when referring to this subject, indulged in that spirit of romantic speculation which distinct guishes the earlier portion of the work and makes it an extravagant admixture of history and fable.
He makes no allusion to the events of the year 1725, or to the lodge said to have been created by the titular Earl of Derwentwater, but thinks “it is almost certain that the French borrowed from the Scots the idea of their Masonic tribunal, as well as Freemasonry itself.” And he places the time of its introduction at “about the middle of the 16th century, during the minority of Queen Mary.”
After all that has hitherto been said about the origin of Speculative Freemasonry, it will not be necessary to waste time in the refutation of this untenable theory or of the fallacious argument by which it is sought to support it. It is enough to say that the author entirely confounds Operative and Speculative Freemasonry, and that he supposes that the French soldiers who were sent to the assistance of Scotland were initiated into the Scotch lodges of Operative Masons, and then brought the system back with them to France.
Preston passes the subject with but few words. He says that in 1732 Lord Montagu, who was then Grand Master, granted a deputation for constituting a lodge at Valenciennes in French Flanders, and another for opening a new lodge at the Hotel de Bussy, in Paris.”
The word “new” might be supposed to intimate that there was already an older lodge in Paris. But Preston nowhere makes any reference to the Derwentwater lodge of 1725, or to any other, except this of 1732. We learn nothing more of the origin of Freemasonry in France from this generally reliable author.
We now approach an earlier class of authorities, which, however, consists only of Dr. Anderson and the contemporary records of the Grand Lodge at London.
In 1738 Dr. Anderson published the second edition of the Book of Constitutions. In the body of the work, which contains a record, frequently very brief, of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge from 1717 to June, 1738, there is no mention of the constitution of a lodge at Paris, or in any other part of France.
In a “List of the lodges in and about London and Westminster,” appended to the work, he records that there was a “French lodge,” which met at the “Swan Tavern” in Long Acre, and which received its warrant June 12, 1723. In the list its number is 18.
This fact is only important as showing that Frenchmen were at that early period taking an interest in the new society, and it may or may not be connected with the appearance, not long afterward, of a lodge at Paris.
In the list of “Deputations sent beyond Sea” it is recorded that in 1732 Viscount Montagu, Grand Master, granted a Deputation for constituting a lodge at Valenciennes, in France, and another for constituting a lodge at the Hotel de Bussy, in Paris.
According to the same authority, Lord Weymouth, Grand Master in 1735, granted a Deputation to the Duke of Richmond “to hold a lodge at his castle d’Aubigny, in France.” He adds, referring to these and to other lodges instituted in different countries, that “all these foreign lodges are under the patronage of our Grand Master of England.” (4)
This is all that Anderson says about the introduction of Freemasonry into France. It will be remarked that he makes no mention of a lodge constituted at Dunkirk in 1721, nor of the lodge in Paris instituted in 1725. His silence is significant.
Entick, who succeeded Anderson as editor of the Book of Constitutions, the third edition of which he published in 1756, says no more than his predecessor, of Freemasonry in France. In fact, he says less, for in his lists of “Deputations for Provincial Grand Masters,” he omits those granted by Lords Montagu and Weymouth. But in a “List of Regular Lodges, according to their Seniority and Constitution, by order of the Grand Master,” he inserts a lodge held at La Ville de Tonnerre, Rue des Boucheries, at Paris, constituted April 3, 1732, another at Valenciennes, in French Flanders, constituted in 1733, and a third at the Castle of Aubigny in France, constituted August 12, 1735. He thus confirms what Anderson had previously stated, but, like him, Entick is altogether silent in respect to the Dunkirk lodge of 1721, or that of Paris in 1725.
Northouck, who edited the fourth edition of the Book of Constitutions, appears to have been as ignorant as his predecessors of the existence of any lodge in France before the year 1732. From him, however, we gather two facts. The first of these is that in the year 1768 letters were received
from the Grand Lodge of France expressing a desire to open a correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England. The overture was accepted, and a Book of Constitutions, a list of lodges, and a form of deputation were presented to the Grand Lodge of France.
The second fact is somewhat singular. Notwithstanding the recognized existence of a Grand Lodge of France it seems that in that very year there were lodges in that country which the Grand Lodge of England claimed as constituents, owing it their allegiance; for Northouck tells us that in 1768 two lodges in France, “having ceased to meet or neglected to conform to the laws of this society, were erazed out of the list.”
It may be that these were among the lodges which, in former times, had been created in France by the Grand Lodge of England, and that they had transferred their allegiance to the Grand Lodge of their own country, but had omitted to give due notice of the act to the Grand Lodge which had originally created them.
Our next source of information must be the engraved lists of lodges published, from 1723 to 1778, by authority of the Grand
Lodge of England. Their history will be hereafter given. It is enough now to say, that being official documents, and taken for the most part from the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, they are invested with historical authority.
The earliest of the engraved lists, that for 1723, contains the designations of fifty-one lodges. All of them were situated in London and Westminster. There is no reference to any lodge in France. The list for 1725 contains the titles of sixty-four lodges. The Society was extending in the kingdom, and the cities of Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Chichester, and Chester are recorded as places where lodges had been constituted. But no lodge is recorded as having been created in France.
In the list of lodges returned in 1730 (in number one hundred and two), which is contained in the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, a lodge is recorded as being at Madrid in Spain, the number 50 being attached, and the place of meeting the “French Arms,” which would seem almost to imply, but not certainly, that most of its members were Frenchmen. Lodge No. 90 is said to be held at the “King’s Head, Paris.” This is the first mention in any of the lists of a lodge in Paris. The name of the tavern at which it was held is singular for a French city. But as it is said by Bro. Gould to be copied from “the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge,” it must be considered as authoritative.
We next find an historical record of the institution of lodges in France by the Grand Lodge of England in Pine’s engraved list for 1734. Bro. Hughan has said that the first historical constitution of a lodge at Paris is that referred to in Pine’s list of 1734; but the lodge No. 90 at the “King’s Head,” recorded as has just been shown in the Grand Lodge list of 1730, seems to have escaped his attention.
Pine’s list for 1734 contains the names of two lodges in France: No. 90 at the Louis d’Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries, at Paris, which was constituted on April 3, 1732, and No. 127 at Valenciennes in French Flanders, the date of whose Warrant of Constitution is not given.
In Pine’s list for 1736 these lodges are again inserted, with a change as to the first, which still numbers as 90, is said to meet at the “Hotel de Bussy, Rue de Bussy.” The sameness of the number and of the date of Constitution identify this lodge with the one named ln the list for 1734, which met at the Louis d’Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries.
The list for 1736 contains a third lodge in France, recorded as No. 133, which met at “Castle Aubigny,” and was constituted August 22, 1735.
In Pine’s list for 1740 the three lodges in France are again recorded as before, one in Paris, one at Valenciennes, and one at Castle d’Aubigny, (1) but the first of them, formerly No. 90, is now said to meet as No. 78, at the Ville de Tonnerre, in the same Rue des Boucheries. This was apparently a change of name and number and not of locality. It was the same lodge that had been first described as meeting as No. 90 at the Louis d’Argent.
In Benjamin Cole’s list for 1756 the lodge’s number is changed from 78 to 49, but under the same old warrant of April 3, 1732, it continues to meet at “la Ville de Tonnerre,” in the Rue des Boucheries.
It is unnecessary to extend this investigation to subsequent lists or to those to
be found in various works which have been mainly copied from the engraved lists of Pine and Cole. Enough has been cited to exhibit incontestable evidence of certain facts respecting the origin of Speculative Freemasonry in France. This evidence is incontestable, because it is derived from and based on the official records of the Grand Lodge of England.
The date of the Constitution of this lodge in the list for 1736 is August 22d. In the present and in subsequent lists the date is August 12th. The former date is undoubtedly a typographical error,
It was the custom of the Grand Lodge to issue annually an engraved list of the lodges under its jurisdiction. The first was printed by Eman Bowen in 1723; afterward the engraver was John Pine, who printed them from 1725 to 1741, and perhaps to 1743, as the lists for that and the preceding year are missing. The list for 1744 was printed by Eman Bowen; from 1745 to 1766 Benjamin Cole was the printer, who was followed by William Cole, until 1788, which is the date of the latest engraved list.
..The engraved lists,” says Gould, ..were renewed annually, certainly from 1738, and probably from the commencement of the series. Latterly, indeed, frequent editions were issued in a single year, which are not always found to harmonize with one another.” (1)
The want of harmony consisted principally in the change of numbers and in the omission of lodges. This arose from the erasures made in consequence of the discontinuance of lodges, or their failure to make returns. It is not to be supposed that in an official document, published by authority and for the information of the Craft, the name of any lodge would be inserted which did not exist at the time, or which had not existed at some previous time.
We can not, therefore, unless we might reject the authority of these official lists as authoritative documents, and thus cast a slur on the honesty of the Grand Lodge which issued them, refuse to accept them as giving a truthful statement of what lodges there were, at the time of their publication, in France, acting under warrants from the Grand Lodge at London.
Bro. Hughan asserts that the first historical record of the Constitution of a lodge at Paris is to be referred to the one mentioned in Pine’s list for 1734, as having been held au Louis d’Argent in the Rue des Boucheries, and the date of whose Constitution is April 3, 1732.
It is true that Anderson’s first mention of a deputation to constitute a lodge in Paris is that granted in 1732 by Viscount Montagu as Grand Master, and I presume that there is no earlier record in the Minutes of the Grand Lodge, for if there were, I am very sure that Bro. Hughan would have stated it.
But how are we to reconcile this view with the fact that in the list of lodges for 1730 a lodge is said to be in existence in that year
This list, as printed by Bro. Gould in his interesting work on the Four Old Lodges, is now lying before me. It is taken from the earliest Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, and is thus headed, “List of the names of the Members of all the lodges as they were returned in the year 1730.”
Now if this heading were absolutely correct, one could not avoid the inference that there was a “regular lodge “ in Paris in the year 1730, two years before the Constitution of the lodge recorded in Pine’s list for 1734, for among the lodges named in this 1730 list is “90. King’s Head at Paris.”
For a Parisian hotel, the name is unusual and therefore suspicious. But the list is authentic and authoritative, and the number agrees with that of the lodge referred to in the 1734 list as meeting at the Louis d’Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries.
Indeed, there can be no doubt that the lodge recorded in the list for 1730 is the same as that recorded in the list for 1734. The number is sufficient for identification.
Bro. Gould relieves us from the tangled maze into which this difference of dates had led us. He says of the list, which in his book is No. 11, and which he calls ..List of lodges, 1730 -32,” that this List seems to have been continued from 1730 to 1732.”
The list comprises 102 lodges; the lodge No. 90, at the “King’s Head, Paris,” is the fifteenth from the end, and was, as we may fairly conclude, inserted in and upon the original list in 1732, after the lodge at the Rue des Boucheries had been constituted.
So that, notwithstanding the apparent statement that there was a regular lodge, that is, a lodge duly warranted by the London Grand Lodge in 1730, it is evident that Bro. Hughan is right in the conclusion at which he has arrived that the first lodge constituted by the Grand Lodge of England
in Paris, was that known as No. 90, and which at the time of its constitution, on April 3, 1732, met at the Tavern called Louis d’Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries. Its number was subsequently changed to 78, and then to 49. It and the lodge at Valenciennes are both omitted in the list for 1770, and these were probably the two lodges in France recorded by Northouck as having been erased from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England in 1768. With their erasure passed away all jurisdiction
(1) Page 50. of the English Grand Lodge over any of the lodges in France. In the same year it entered into fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of France. The lodge at Castle d’Aubigny is also omitted from the list of 1770, and if not erased, had probably voluntarily surrendered its warrant.
Thus we date the legal introduction of lodges into France at the year 1732. But it does not necessarily follow that Speculative Freemasonry on the English plan had not made its appearance there at an earlier period.
The history of the origin of Freemasonry in France, according to all French historians, from the astronomer Lalande to the most recent writers, is very different from that which it has been contended is the genuine one, according to the English records.
It has been shown, in a preceding part of this chapter, that the Abbe Robin said that Freemasonry had been traced in France as far back as 1720, and that it appeared to have been brought from England.
Rebold has been more definite in his account. His statement in substance is as follows, and although it has been already quoted I repeat it here, for the purpose of comment.
Speaking of the transformation of Freemasonry from a corporation of Operatives to a purely philosophic institution, which took place in London in 1717, he proceeds to say, that the first cities on the Continent where this changed system had been carried from London were Dunkirk and Mons, both in Flanders, but then forming a part of the kingdom of France. The lodge at Mons does not seem to have attracted the attention of subsequent writers, but Rebold says of it that a it was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England on June 4, 1721, under the name of Parfaite Union. It was, at a later period, erected into the English Grand Lodge of the Austrian Netherlands, and from 1730 constituted lodges of its own...
This narrative must be rejected as being unsupported by the English records.
There may have been, as I shall presently show, an irregular lodge at Mons, organized in 1721, but there is no proof that it had any legal connection with the Grand Lodge of England.
Of the lodge at Dunkirk, Rebold says that it assumed the name of Amitie et Fraternite, and that in 1756 it was reconstituted by the Grand Lodge of France. Of the constitution of this lodge by the Grand Lodge at London, in 1721, we have no more proof than we have of the Constitution of that at Mons, and yet it has been accepted as a fact by Dr. Oliver and some other English authors. Rebold, however, is the only French historian who positively recognizes its existence.
He then tells us the story as it has been quoted on a preceding page of the foundation of the lodge of St. Thomas in 1725 at Paris by Lord Derwentwater and two other Englishmen, and of its constitution by the Grand Lodge at London on June 12, 1726.
Now the fact is, that while we are compelled to reject the statement that the Grand Lodge at London had constituted this lodge in the Rue des Boucheries in 1726, because we have distinct testimony in the records of the Grand Lodge that it was not constituted until 1732, yet we find it equally difficult to repudiate the concurrent authority of all the French historians that there was in 1725 a lodge in the city of Paris, established by Englishmen, who were all apparently Jacobites or adherents of the exiled family of Stuart.
Paris at that time was the favorite resort of English subjects who were disloyal to the Hanoverian dynasty, which was then reigning, as they believed, by usurpation in their native country.
Clavel tells us that one Hurre or Hure was an English tavernkeeper, and that his tavern was situated in the Rue des Boucheries. It is natural to suppose that his house was the resort of his exiled countrymen. That Charles Radcliffe and his friends were among his guests would be a strong indication that he was also a Jacobite.
Radcliffe, himself, could not have been initiated into the new system of Speculative Freemasonry in London, because he had made his escape from England two years before the organization of the Grand Lodge. But there might have been, among the frequenters of Hure’s tavern, certain Freemasons who had been Theoretic members of some of the old Operative lodges, or even taken a share in the organization of the new Speculative system.
There was nothing to prevent these Theoretic Freemasons from opening a lodge according to the old system, which did not require a Warrant of Constitution. The Grand Lodge which had been organized in 1717 did not claim any jurisdiction beyond London and its precincts, and there were at that time and long afterward many lodges in England which paid no allegiance to the Grand Lodge and continued to work under the old Operative regulations.
It can not be denied that the Grand Lodge which was established in 1717 did not expect to extend its jurisdiction or to enforce its regulations beyond the city of London and its suburbs. This is evident from a statute enacted November 25, 1723, when it was ..agreed that no new lodge in or
near London, without it be regularly constituted, be countenanced by the Grand Lodge nor the Master or Wardens admitted to Grand Lodge.”
Gould, who quotes this passage, says: “It admits of little doubt, that in its inception, the Grand Lodge of England was intended merely as a governing body for the Masons of the Metropolis... Even as late as 1735 complaint was made of the existence of irregular lodges not working by the authority or dispensation of the Grand Master.
What was there then to prevent the creation of such a lodge in Paris by English Freemasons who had left their country? A lodge would not only be, as Anderson has called it, “a safe and pleasant relaxation from intense study or the hurry of business,” but it would be to these exiles for a common cause a center of union. Politics and party, which were forbidden topics in an English lodge at home, would here constitute important factors in the first selection of members.
It was in fact a lodge of Jacobites. These men paid no respect to acts of attainder, and to them Charles Radcliffe, as the heir presumptive to the title of Earl of Derwentwater, was a prominent personage, and he was, therefore, chosen as the head of the new lodge. (4)
The tavern in which they met was kept by Hure or Hurre, or some name like it, who, according to the statement of Clavel and others, was an Englishman. His house very naturally became the resort of his countrymen in Paris. As it was also the Locate of the Jacobite lodge, it may be safely presumed that Hure was himself a Jacobite. Thus it came to pass that to signify that his hostelry was an English one, he adopted an English sign, and to show that he was friendly to the cause of the Stuarts he made that sign the “King’s Head,” meaning, of course, not the head of George I., who in 1725 was the lawful King of England, but of James III., whom the Jacobites claimed to be the rightful king, and who had been recognized as such by the French monarch and the French people.
Thus it happens that we find, in the engraved list for 1730, the record that Lodge No. 90 was held at the “ King’s Head, in Paris.”
It may be said that all this is mere inference. But it must be remembered that the carelessness or reticence of our early Masonic historians compels us, in a large number of instances, to infer certain facts which they have not recorded from others which they have. And if we pursue the true logical method, and show the absolutely necessary and consequent connection of the one with the other, our deduction will fall very little short of a demonstration.
Thus, we know, from documentary evidence, that in a list of ..regular lodges”
begun in 1730, and apparently continued until 1732, there was a lodge held in Paris at a tavern whose sign was the ..King’s Head,” and whose number was 90. We know from the same kind of evidence that in 1732 there was a lodge bearing the same number and held in the Rue des Boucheries.
All the French historians tell us that a lodge was instituted in that street in 1725, at a tavern kept by an Englishman, the founders of which were Englishmen. The leader we know was a Jacobite, and we may fairly conclude that his companions were of the same political complexion.
Now we need not accept as true all the incidents connected with this lodge which are stated by the French writers, such as the statement of Rebold that it was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1726. But unless we are ready to charge all of these historians, from Lalande in 1786 onward to the present day, with historical falsehood, we are compelled to admit the naked fact, that there was an English lodge in Paris in 1725. There is no evidence that this lodge was at that date or very soon afterward constituted by the Grand Lodge at London, and, therefore, I conclude, as a just inference, that it was established as all lodges previous to the year 1717 had been established in London, and for many years afterward in other places by the spontaneous action of its founders. It derived its authority to meet and “make Masons,” as did the four primitive Lodges which united in forming the Grand Lodge at London in 1717, from the ..immemorial usage” of the Craft.
As to the two lodges which are said to have been established in 1721 at Dunkirk and at Mons, the French generally concur in the assertion of their existence. Ragon alone, by his silence, seems to refuse or to withhold his assent.
There is, however, nothing of impossibility in the fact, if we suppose that these two lodges had been formed, like that of Paris, by Freemasons coming from England, who had availed themselves of the ancient privilege, and formed their lodges without a warrant and according to ..immemorial usage.”
What has been said of the original institution of the Paris lodge is equally applicable to these two.
It would appear that a Masonic spirit had arisen in French Flanders, where both these lodges were situated, which was not readily extinguished, but which led in 1733 to the Constitution by the English Grand Lodge of a lodge at Valenciennes, a middle point between the two, in the same part of France, and distant not more than thirty miles from Mons and about double that distance from Dunkirk.
Rebold says that the lodge at Dunkirk was re-constituted by the Grand Lodge of France in 1756, and he speaks as if he were leaning upon documentary authority. He also asserts that the lodge at Mons was, in 1730, erected into a Grand Lodge of the Australian Netherlands. He does not support this statement by any evidence, beyond his own assertion, and in the absence of proofs, we need not, when treating of the origin of Freemasonry in France, discuss the question of the organization of a Grand Lodge in another country.
Before closing this discussion, a few words may be necessary respecting the connection of the titular Earl of Derwentwater with the English lodge.
A writer in the London Freemason of February 17, 1877, has said, when referring to the statement that the lodge at Hure’s Tavern had received in the year 1726 a warrant from the Grand Lodge at London, “of this statement no evidence exists, and owing to the political questions of the day much doubt is thrown upon it, especially as to whether the English Grand Lodge would have given a Warrant to no Jacobites and to a person who was not Lord Derwentwater, according to English law.”
But there was no political reason in 1726, certainly not in 1732, why a Warrant should not have been granted by the English Grand Lodge for a Lodge in Paris of which a leading Jacobite should be a member or even the head.
Toward Charles Radcliffe, who, when he was quite young, had been led into complicity with the rebellion of 1715 by the influence of his elder brother, the Earl of Derwentwater, and who had been sentenced to be beheaded therefor, the government was not vindictive.
It is even said by contemporary writers that if he had not prematurely made his escape from prison, he would have been pardoned After his retirement to France, he remained at least inactive, married the widow of a loyal English nobleman, and in 1833, two years after he had assumed, when his nephew died without issue, the title of Earl of Derwentwater, he visited London and remained there for some time unmolested by the government. It was not until 1745 that he became obnoxious by taking a part in the ill-advised and unsuccessful invasion of England by the Young Pretender, and for this Radcliffe paid the penalty of his life.
The Grand Lodge at London had abjured all questions of partisan politics or of sectarian religion; some of its own members are supposed to have secretly entertained proclivities toward the exiled family of Stuarts, and there does not seem to be really any serious reason why a Warrant should not have been granted to a lodge in Paris, though many of its members may have been Jacobites.
I do not, however, believe that a warrant of constitution was granted by the Grand Lodge of England to the lodge at Paris in 1726. The French historians have only mistaken the date, and confounded the year 1726 with the year 1732. Both Thory and Ragon tell us that the lodge has left no historical monument of its existence, and that thus much obscurity has been cast over the earliest labors of Freemasonry in Paris.
One more point in this history requires a notice and an explanation.
Rebold says that in the year 1732 there were four lodges at Paris: 1. The lodge of St. Thomas, founded in 1725 by Lord Derwentwater and held at Hure’s Tavern. 2, A lodge established
(1) Thory, in the “Histoire de la Fondation de Grand Orient of France.. p. 20, and Rayon in the “Acta Latomorum,” p. 22. in May, 1729, by the same Englishmen who had founded the first, and which met at the Louis d’Argent, a tavern kept by one Lebreton. 3. A lodge constituted in December of the same year under the name of Arts-Sainte Marguerite. (1) Its meetings were held at the house of one Gaustand, an Englishman. 4. A lodge established in November, 1732, called de Buci, from the name of the tavern kept by one Laudelle in the Rue de Buci. This lodge afterward took the name of the Lodge d ‘Aumont, when the Duke of Aumont had been initiated in it.
It will not be difficult to reduce these four lodges to two by the assistance of the English lists. The first lodge, which was founded by Radcliffe, improperly called Lord Derwentwater, is undoubtedly the same as that mentioned in the 1730 list under the designation of No. 90 at the “King’s Head.” Rebold, Clavel, and the other French authorities tell us that it was held in the Rue des Boucheries
Now the list for 1734 gives us the same No. 90, as designating a lodge which met in the same street but at the sign of the Louis d’Argent. This was undoubtedly the same lodge which had formerly met at the “King’s Head.” The tavern may have been changed, but I think it more likely that the change was only in the sign, made by the new proprietor, for Hure, it seems, had given way to Lebreton, who might have been less of a Jacobite than his predecessor, or no Jacobite at all, and might have therefore discarded the head of the putative king, James. The first and second in this list of Rebold’s were evidently to be applied to the same lodge.
The fourth lodge was held at the Hotel de Buci. Here, again, Rebold is wrong in his orthography. He should have spelt it Bussy. There was then a lodge held in the year 1732 at the Hotel de Bussy. Now Anderson tells us, in his second edition, that Viscount Montagu granted a deputation “for constituting a lodge at the Hotel de Bussy in Paris.” But the lists for 1732, 1734, 1740, and 1756 give only one Parisian lodge which was constituted on April 3, 1732, and they always assign the same locality in the Rue des Boucheries, but change the number, making, however, the change from 90 to 78, and then to 49, and change also the sign, from the “King’s Head” in 1732 to the Louis d ‘Argent in 1734, and to the Ville de Tonnerre in 1740 and 1746 calls it A Sainte Marguerite, which is probably the correct name. The Arts in Rebold may be viewed as a typographical error.
But it is important to remark that while the Engraved List for 1734 says that No. 90 met at the Louis d’Argent in the Rue de Boucheries, the list for 1736 says that No. 90 met at the Hotel de Bussy, in the Rue de Bussy, and each of these lists gives the same date of constitution, namely, April 3, 1732.
I am constrained, therefore, to believe that the lodge at the Hotel de Bussy was the same as the one held first at Hure’s Tavern in 1725 as an independent lodge and which, in 1732, was legally constituted by the Grand Lodge of England, and which afterward met either at the same tavern with a change of sign or at three different taverns.
The first, second, and fourth lodges mentioned by Rebold, therefore, are resolved into one lodge, the only one which the English records say was legally constituted by the deputation granted in 1732 by Lord Montagu.
As to the third lodge on Rebold’s list, which he calls Arts-Sainte Marguerite, but which Clavel more correctly styles A Sainte Marguerite, there is no reference to it, either in the English engraved lists or in the Book of Constitutions. It is said to have been founded at the close of the year 1729 and to have held its meetings at the house or tavern of an Englishman named Gaustand.
I can not deny its existence in the face of the positive assertions of the French historians. I prefer to believe that it was an offshoot of the lodge instituted in 1725 at Hure’s, that that lodge had so increased in numbers as to well afford to send off a colony, and that, like its predecessor, the lodge A Saints Marguerite had been formed independently and under the sanction of “immemorial usage.”
Hence, I think it is demonstrated that between the years 1725 and 1732 there were but two lodges in Paris and not four, as some of the French writers have asserted. Bro. Hughan is inclined to hold the same opinion, and the writer in the London Freemason, who has previously been referred to, says that he thinks it “just possible.” The possibility is, I imagine, now resolved into something more than a probability.
Having thus reconciled, as I trust I have, the doubts and contradictions which have hitherto given so fabulous a character to the history of the introduction of Speculative Freemasonry into France, I venture to present the following narrative as a consistent and truthful account of the introduction of the English system of Speculative Freemasonry into France. It is divested of every feature of romance and is rendered authentic, partly by official documents of unquestionable character and partly by strictly logical conclusions, which can not fairly be refuted.
It was not very long after the foundation of purely Speculative Freemasonry in London by the disseverance of the Theoretic Masons from their Operative associates and the establishment of a Grand Lodge, that a similar system was attempted to be introduced into the neighboring kingdom of France.
Freemasons coming from England, either members of some of the old Operative lodges or who had taken a part in the organization of the London Grand Lodge, having passed over into France. founded in the year 1721 two independent lodges which adopted the characteristics of the new Speculative system, so far as it had then been completed, but claimed the right, according to the ancient usage of Operative Freemasons, to form lodges spontaneously without the authority of a Warrant of Constitution.
These lodges were situated respectively at Dunkirk and at Mons, two cities in French Flanders, and which were at that time within the territory of the French Empire.
Four years after, namely, in 1725, a similar lodge was founded in Paris, at the sign of the “King’s Head,” a tavern which was kept in the Rue des Boucheries by an Englishman named Hure or Turret or some other name approximating nearly to it. French historians inform us that the name of the lodge was St. Thomas, but this name is not recognized in any of the English engraved lists. Then and for some time afterward English lodges were known only by the name or sign of the tavern where their meetings were held. But there is no reason for disbelieving the assertion of the French writers. The number and the place of meeting were the only necessary designations to be inserted in the Warrant when it was granted. Of the one hundred and twenty-eight lodges recorded in Pine’s list for 1734, not one is otherwise designated than by its number and the sign of the tavern. So that the fact that the lodge is not marked in the English lists as “the Lodge of St. Thomas,” is no proof whatever that its founders did not bestow upon it that title.
The founders of this lodge were Charles Radcliffe, the younger brother of the former Earl of Derwentwater, Whose title he six years afterward assumed, and three other Englishmen, of whose previous or subsequent history we know nothing, but who are said by the French writers to have been Lord Harnouester, the Chevalier Maskelyne, and Mr. Heguetty.
These men were, it is supposed, Jacobites or adherents, passively at least, of the exiled family of Stuarts, represented at that time by the son of the late James II., and who was known in France and by his followers as James III. From this fact, and from the character of the tavern where they met, which was indicated by its sign, it is presumed that the lodge was originally formed as a resort for persons of those peculiar political sentiments.
If so, it did not long retain that feature in its composition. The institution of Speculative Freemasonry became in Paris, as it had previously become in London, extremely popular. In a short time the lodge received from French and English residents of Paris an accession of members which amounted to several hundreds.
In December, 1729, another independent lodge was formed under the name of A Sainte Marguerite, which was held at the tavern of an Englishman named Gaustand. It was probably formed by members of the other lodge whose number had, from the popularity of the institution, become unwieldy. Of the subsequent career of this lodge we have no information. The records do not show that it was ever legally constituted by the Grand Lodge of England.
In 1732 Lord Montagu, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge at London, granted a deputation for the Constitution of the original lodge in Paris, which was then holding its meetings at the Hotel de Bussy, in the Rue de Bussy. It was accordingly constituted on April 3, 1732. But at the time of the Constitution it appears to have returned to its old locality, as it is recorded in the first part of the lists in which it is mentioned as meeting in the Rue des Boucheries at the “ King’s Head Tavern,” and in the second list at the Louis d’Argent, which, as I have already said, I take to be the same house with a change of sign.
Thus the fact is established that the new system of Speculative Freemasonry was introduced into France from England, but not by authority of the English Grand Lodge, in the year 1721 by the founding of two independent lodges in French Flanders, and into Paris by the founding of a similar lodge in 1725.
In 1732 the Grand Lodge of London extended its jurisdiction over the French territory and issued two deputations, one for the constitution of the lodge in Paris, and the other for the constitution of a lodge in French Flanders at the city of Valenciennes.
The former was constituted in 1732, in the month of April, and the latter in the following year.
The further action of the English Grand Lodge in the constitution of other lodges, and the future history of the institution which resulted in the formation of a Grand Lodge in France, must be reserved for consideration in a future chapter.
THE pretension, so stoutly maintained by many Freemasons who have not thoroughly investigated the subject, that there was a General Assembly of Masons held, and a Grand Lodge established, at the city of York in the year 926, by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstan, is a tradition derived from the old Legend of the Craft. As such it has already been freely discussed in the preceding division of this work, and will not be further considered at this time.
The object of the present chapter will be to inquire into the time when, and the circumstances under which, the modern Theoretic Freemasons of York separated from the Operative association and, following the example of their antecessors in London, established a purely Speculative society to which they, too, gave the name of a Grand Lodge.
To distinguish it from the Grand Lodge which had been established eight years before in London, they applied to that body the title of the “Grand Lodge of England,” while in a somewhat arrogant spirit they assumed for themselves the more imposing title of the “Grand Lodge of all England,” epithets which were first employed by Drake in his speech at York in 1726.
There is not the slightest evidence that the Grand Lodge in London ever accepted this distinction of titles, involving, as it did, an acknowledgment of the supremacy of its rival. Neither Anderson, Entick, nor Northouck have used in their successive editions of the “Book of Constitutions” these epithets. In these editions the body in London is always called simply ..the Grand Lodge.” It is not until 1775 that we meet with a more distinctive name. In the Latin inscription on the corner-stone of the Freemasons’ Hall, which was laid in that year, Lord Petre is designated as “Summus Latomorum Angliae Magister,” or chief Master of Masons of England, while the Grand Lodge is called ..Summus Angliae Conventus,” or Chief Assembly of England.
This distinction was suggested by the ecclesiastical usage of the kingdom, which, dividing the government of the church between two Archbishops, calls the Archbishop of York the ..Primate of England,” while his brother, the Archbishop of Canterbury, of somewhat more elevated rank and more extensive jurisdiction, is dignified as the ..Primate of All England.”
Angliae and totius Angliae are the distinctions between the two Archbishops, and so, also, they became the distinctions between the two Grand Lodges.
Operative Freemasonry was established with great vigor and maintained with strict discipline at York during the building of the Cathedral in the 14th century. Of this fact we have the most undoubted evidence in the Fabric Rolls of York Minster, which were published several years ago by the ..Surtees Society.”
These ..Rolls,” extending from 1350 to 1639, were made up during the progress of the work. They consist of accounts of contracts at different periods and regulations adopted from time to time for the government of the workmen. A fragment remaining of one of the Rolls, with the date of 1350, records that the Masons and the Carpenters who at that time were employed on the building were respectively under the control of William de Hoton, as the Master Mason, and Philip de Lincoln as the Master Carpenter. As Bro. Hughan very correctly remarks, ..Without doubt the Master Mason thus referred to was simply the chief among the Masons, the others being Apprentices and Craftsmen.”
One of the Rolls contains a code of rules which had been agreed upon in 1370. It is entitled Oridinacio Cementariorum. This is interesting, as it shows what was the internal government of the Craft at that period.
These regulations were made by the Chapter of the Church of St. Peter’s at York, under whose direction the Minster was being built. They did not
emanate from any General Assembly or Grand Lodge, nor even from a private lodge, but were derived from the ecclesiastical authority with which in that age Freemasonry was
The existence of these Rolls was discovered by Mr. John Browne, who based upon them his “History of the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, York.” They were printed at Durham in 1859 by the Surtees Society, and edited by Mr. James Raine, Jr., the Secretary of the Society, who has enriched the work with valuable notes, an Appendix, and a Glossary. closely connected. Whether these Masons were acquainted with the old manuscripts which Anderson called the Gothic Constitutions it is impossible to say. We have no copies of any which date before the end of the 15th century, except the Halliwell MS., and the date of that is supposed to be 1390, which is twenty years after the adoption of the regulations by the Chapter of the Cathedral for the government of the Freemasons of York.
It is, however, almost, if not absolutely, demonstrable that the Halliwell MS. is a copy and a combination of two distinct poems, and it is, therefore, not unlikely that the York Masons, as a guild, were familiar with and even governed by its “ points and articles.”
The rules preserved in the Fabric Rolls were only intended for the direction of the Masons in their hours of labor and of refreshment, and contain no Legend of the Craft. A faithful copy of the Ordinacio Cementariorum, or Constitution of the Masons, translated into modern and more intelligible English, (1) will be interesting and useful as showing the guild organization of the Craft at York in the 14th century. This Ordinacio runs as follows: ..It is ordained by the Chapter of the Church of Saint Peter of York that all the masons that shall work in the works of the same
Church of Saint Peter shall, from Michaelmas day to the first Sunday of Lent, be each day in the morning at their work in the lodge, which is provided for the masons at work within the enclosure at the side of the aforesaid church, (2) at as early an hour as they can clearly see by daylight to work; and they shall stand there faithfully working at their work all day after, as long as they can clearly see to work, if it be an all work day; otherwise until high noon is struck by the clock, when a holiday falls at noon, except within the aforesaid time between Michaelmas and Lent;
and at all other times of the year they may dine before noon if they will, and also eat at noon where they like, so that they shall not remain from their work in the aforesaid lodge, at no time of the year, at dinner time more than so short a
The earlier Rolls are written in the Low Latin of the Middle Ages. The later ones from 1544 are in the vernacular tongue of the times. The one about to be quoted is in a northern dialect, and is, as Mr. Raine observes, remarkable on account of its language as well as its contents.
This confirms the statement made in the “Parentalia” that the Traveling Freemasons, when about to commence the erection of a religious edifice, built huts, or, as they were called, ..lodges,” in the vicinity in which they resided for the sake of economy as well as convenience. time that no reasonable man shall find fault with their remaining away; and in time of eating at noon they shall, at no time of the year, be absent from the lodges nor from their work aforesaid over the space of an hour; and after noon they may drink in the lodge, and for their drinking time, between Michaelmas and Lent, they shall not cease nor leave their work beyond the space of time that one can walk half a mile; and from the first Sunday of Lent until Michaelmas they shall be in the aforesaid lodge at their work at sunrise and remain there truly and carefully working upon the aforesaid work of the church, all day, until there shall be no more space than the time that one can walk a mile, (1) before sunset, if it be a work day, otherwise until the time of noon, as was said before; except that they shall, between the first Sunday of Lent and Michaelmas, dine and eat as beforesaid, after noon in the aforesaid lodge; nor shall they cease nor leave their work in sleeping time exceeding the time in which one can walk a mile, nor in drinking time after noon beyond the same time. And they shall not sleep after noon at any time except between Saint Elemnes and Lammas; and if any man remain away from the lodge and from the work aforesaid, or commit offense at any time of the year against this aforesaid ordinance, he shall be punished by an abatement of his wages, upon the inspection and judgment of the master mason; and all their times and hours shall be governed by a bell established therefor. It is also ordained that no mason shall be received at work on the work of the aforesaid church unless he be first tried for a week or more as to his good work; and if after this he is found competent for the work, he may be received by the common assent of the master and keepers of the work and of the master mason, and he must swear upon the book that he will truly and carefully, according to his power, without any kind of guile, treachery, or deceit, maintain and keep holy all the points of this aforesaid ordinance in all things that affect or may affect him, from the time that he is received in the aforesaid work, as long as he shall remain a hired mason at the work on the aforesaid work of the church of Saint Peter, and that he will not go away from that aforesaid work unless the masters give him permission
Time of a mileway. A common method at that period of computing time. “Way. The time in which a certain space can be passed over. Two mileway, the time in which two miles could be passed over, etc.” - Halliwell, “Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words.” We had ..half a mileway” above. to depart from the aforesaid work; and let him whosoever goes against this ordinance and breaks it against the will of the aforesaid chapter have God’s malison and Saint Peter’s.”
We learn from this ordinance, and others of the same import contained in these Fabric Rolls, that the Masons who wrought at the building of the York Cathedral in the 14th century were an entirely Operative guild, like their brethren who, at about the same time, were engaged in the construction of the Cathedrals of Cologne and Strasburg.
They confirm the statement made in Wren’s Parentalia that the lodge was a building contiguous to the edifice they were constructing, and that in it they not only worked, cutting and otherwise preparing the stones, but also ate and slept there. Over them there was a superintendent of their work who was called the Master Mason.
What were the duties of the Magister Cementarius or Master Mason may be learned from an indenture between the Chapter and William de Hoton in the year 1351, a copy of which will be found at page 166 of the Fabric Rolls.
While overlooking other works, which shows that he might have different contracts at the same time, he was not to neglect the work of the Minster.
If he became affected with blindness or other incurable disease so that he should be unable to work, he was to employ and pay an assistantsubcementarius - who was to be the Second or Deputy Master of the Masons - Magister Secundarius Cementariorum.
He was to oversee the building and to receive a salary of ten pounds of silver annually, and to be furnished with a dwelling-house within the inclosure of the Cathedral. (1)
But while the Master Mason had the direct supervision of the workmen, there was an officer above him who was called the Magister
From the “Fabric Rolls” the following list of Master Masons, who superintended the work from its beginning to its close, has been obtained by Mr. Raine: 1351, William de Hoton and William de Hoton, junior, probably the son of the first; 1368, Robert de Patrington; 1399-1401, Hugh de Hedon; 1415, William Colchester; 1421, John Long; 1433, Thomas Pak; 1442-43, John Bowde; 1445-47, John Barton; 1456, John Porter; 1466, Robert Spyllesby; 1472, William Hyndeley; 1505, Christian Horner; 1526, John Forman. In the lists of workmen many names foreign to Yorkshire will be found, and the names of foreigners also occur, such as Begon Baious and James Dum. - Preface to “Fabric Rolls,.. xx.
Operis, or Master of the Work. This is shown by another agreement with Robert de Patrington in 1368, wherein it is said that his salary is to be paid to him “by the hands of the Master of the work of our said church” per manus Magistri operis dicta ecclesiae rostra.
Now, this Magistri Operis, or Master of the Work, sometimes called the Operarius, was not a member of the body of Masons, but, according to Ducange, an officer in Monasteries and Chapters of Canons, whose duty it was to have charge over the public works.
When the Cathedral was finished, the occupation of these Operative Masons ceased. But there were other religious edifices in the province on which they were subsequently employed, so that there was a continuous existence of Operative lodges during the succeeding centuries.
While the Freemasons were working on the York Minster, other guilds of Freemasons, or, rather, branches of the same guild, were employed in the construction of other cathedrals in different parts of England.
Thus the Cathedral of Canterbury was repaired and greatly enlarged about theyear 1174; that of Salisbury was begun in 1220 and finished in 1260; that of Ely was begun in 1235 and finished in 1252, and Westminster Abbey was begun in 1245 and finished in 1285.
If the Fabric Rolls of these edifices should hereafter be discovered, ample evidence will doubtless be furnished of the existence of a common guild of Freemasons everywhere in England, similar to that which we now know existed at York during the same period of time, namely from the middle of the 14th to the middle of the 16th century, which was precisely the age of our oldest manuscript Constitutions.
The history of Operative Freemasonry at York and in the north of England was about the same as it was in London and in the south of the kingdom. There were times when it flourished, and times when it began to decay.
In another respect there was a similarity in the character of the guilds of both localities.
The York Lodge, like the lodges of London, and indeed of every other country, at first consisting only of practical workmen, began in time to admit into its association men who were not craftsmen - men of rank or wealth or influence, who became honorary members, and in the course of time gradually infused a Speculative element into the lodges.
There is really no historical evidence whatever that during the period in which the Freemasons were occupied in the construction of the Minster there was any other lodge than that which was connected with the works, and under the control of the Cathedral Chapter. It is, however, very presumable that from long continuance it had abandoned the nomadic character so common with the Traveling Freemasons of the Middle Ages, and had assumed a permanent form, and thus become the parent of that Lodge which we find existing in 1705 in the city of York.
Anderson asserts that the tradition was “firmly believed by the old English Masons,” that on December 27, 1561, (1) Queen Elizabeth sent an armed force to break up the annual Grand Lodge that was then meeting at York.
“But Sir Thomas Sackville, Grand Master,” says Anderson, “took care to make some of the chief Men sent Freemasons, who then joining to that communication made a very honorable report to the Queen, and she never more attempted to dislodge or disturb them.”
This story has been repeated by Preston and by others after him; but as all of them give it on the mere authority of Anderson, and as no other evidence has ever been adduced of its truth, we shall be compelled to reject it as historical, and receive it only as Anderson has called it a “tradition.” Were it true, it would settle the question that there was a Grand Lodge at York in active existence in the 16th century.
In the “Manifesto” of the Lodge of Antiquity in 1778, it is asserted that “in the year 1567 the increase of lodges in the south of England being so great . . . it was resolved that a person under the title of Grand Master for the south, should be appointed with the approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to whom the whole Fraternity at large were bound to pay tribute and acknowledge subjection.”
Bro. Woodford, in his very able article on “The Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in England,” appended to Bro. Hughan’s “Unpublished Records of the Craft” (p. 170), seems to attribute the particularizing of this date to the unknown author of “Multa Paucis.” But the fact is that this date is first mentioned by Dr. Anderson, in the 2d edition of the “Book of Constitutions,” p. 81. If this statement were authentic it would not only confirm the fact that there was a Grand Lodge of York in the 16th century, but also that it exercised a supremacy over all the lodges of the kingdom.
Unfortunately for the interests of history the ..Manifesto” of the Lodge of Antiquity was written for a particular object, which renders it partisan in character and suspicious in authority. And since there is no other evidence that in 1567 there was a Grand Lodge at York, or that it then appointed a Grand Master for the south of England, we are forced to dismiss this narrative of the Lodge of Antiquity with the Sackville story to the realm of fable, or at least of unsupported tradition.
The theory of the existence of a lodge at the city of York at the beginning of the 17th century is founded on the fact that in the year 1777 there was in the possession of the Lodge of York a manuscript Constitution of the date 1630, which is presumed to have been written at the time for the lodge in that city.
Such is the implied reasoning of Bro. Woodford, and although not absolutely conclusive, it may be accepted as probable, especially as Bro. Hughan tells us that there is evidence that a lodge existed there in 1643.
But the authentic history of that Society of Freemasons which met in the city of York, really begins with the year 1706.
In the Inventory of Regalia and Documents which were in the possession of the Grand Lodge of all England taken by a committee in 1779, and which inventory is still in possession of the Lodge at York, one of the articles is recorded as being ..A narrow folio Manuscript Book, beginning 7th March 1705-6, containing sundry Accounts and Minutes relative to the Grand Lodge.”
This manuscript is now unfortunately mislaid or lost, but the report of the committee is satisfactory evidence that it once existed, and hence we have a sufficient proof that there was a lodge in the year 1706 and very probably long before in the city of York.
It has been usual to quote the date of the commencement of the Minute Book of old York Lodge as 1705. But in the original the date is “7th March 1705-6.” But March 7, 1705, of the old style is, according to the new style, March 18, 1706. So also, some writers speak of the first meeting of the four lodges in London as occurring in 1716, because Anderson’s date is February, 1716-17. They should remember that February, 1716-17, means always 1717.
In a work entitled the Stream of English Freemasonry, by Dr. J.P. Bell, a list is inserted of Grand Masters, as the author calls them, from the year 1705. But as Bro. Hughan observes, the presiding officers were always styled Presidents or Masters until 1725, when the Grand Lodge was organized and the office of Grand Master adopted.
Now, between 1705 or 1706, when we get the first authentic records of the existence of a lodge of Freemasons in the city of York, until the year 1725, when it assumed the rank and title of a Grand Lodge, the condition of guild Masonry or Freemasonry appears, so far as we can judge from existing records, to have been in about the same condition as it was in London just before the establishment of a Grand Lodge in that city at nearly the same period, with this difference, that in London there were four lodges and in York only one.
We have seen that from a very early period the guild of 0perative Freemasons had existed in independent lodges established near the cathedrals or other public buildings in the construction of which they were engaged. We have seen this system pursued at the building of the Cathedral of York, and the written Constitutions which governed them then and there are extant in the Fabric Rolls of the Minster which have been published by the Surtees Society.
At that time the lodges were purely operative in their character. Subsequently, as in Scotland and in the south of England, persons of distinction, who were not working Masons, were admitted among the Craft, and thus the system of Theoretic or Honorary Members of the lodge was established.
The result was the same here as it had been elsewhere. The Operative element gradually yielded to the Speculative, which at the beginning of the 18th century had become in York more completely dominant than it was in London at the same period.
The manuscript book of Minutes beginning in March, 1706, has been lost, but there is extant a Roll which begins March 19, 1712, or rather 1713, for it appears that there is the same confusion of styles. The next minutes according to Bro. Hughan are of June, August, and December, 1713, which clearly shows that the minutes for March are of the same year, unless we suppose that there was a lapse of more than a year in the meetings -a thing not at all supnosable.
At the lodge in March several members were sworn and admitted by Geo. Bowes, Esq., Deputy President. The Master was at that time a Speculative Freemason. In December, 1713, a ..Private Lodge” was held, at which, says Hughan, “gentlemen were again admitted members, and at which Sir Walter Hawksworth, Knight and Baronet, was the President.”
A ..General Lodge of the Honorable Society and Company of Freemasons,” so ran the Minutes, was held on Christmas, 1716, by St. John’s Lodge, when John Turner, Esq., was admitted to the Society. These Minutes are signed, “Charles Fairfax, Esq. Dep. Prest. “
All of which prove that at that time the Freemasons of York knew nothing of a Grand Lodge or a Grand Master, and that there was, even then, much more of the Speculative than of the Operative element in the Society.
From 1713 to 1725 there appears to have been but one lodge in the city of York, which did not, however, assume the title of a Grand Lodge, but in its minutes is called a “Private Lodge,” and on a few occasions a “General Lodge.” The presiding officer was called the President, who was assisted by a Deputy President.
There were at that time in the north of England many purely Operative lodges, and these as well as the York Lodge, which was more Speculative than Operative in its character, paid little or no attention to the proceedings of the Speculative Masons in London.
They gave no adherence to the Grand Lodge established in 1717, and were for a long time averse to the newly invented system by which Operative Freemasonry was displaced by a purely Speculative organization.
Still there were no signs of dissension while they all, in their implicit belief in the Legend of the Craft, assigned to the city of York the honor of being the birthplace of English Freemasonry. The Mother Lodge, as it was supposed to be, beheld without opposition the organization of the Grand Lodge at London, nor did it resist the Constitution in 1724 by that body of a lodge at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the adjoining county of Durham, nor of another in 1729 at Scarborough, in the countv of York.
The fact is, that from 1713 to 1725 the ‘Old Lodge at York,as Anderson calls it, appears to have exercised but little energy. From 1713 to 1716 it held, says Findel, but one or two yearly meetings, and none at all from 1717 to 1721, and only three meetings in the following two years.
But the publication in 1723 of its Book of Constitutions by the Grand Lodge at London, appears to have awakened the Lodge of York into a new life.
For unless we suppose an improbable coincidence, it is very evident that some stimulus must have been applied to its energies, since in 1725 it met eleven and in 1726 thirteen times.
The year 1725 was to the Lodge at York what the year 1717 had been to the four lodges of London. The same result was achieved, though the course adopted for attaining it was different.
The Grand Lodge at London had been formed by the union of four lodges, a method that has ever since been followed, except as to the precise number, in the organization of all modern Grand Lodges.
The Grand Lodge of York was established, if we can depend on the very meager details of history that have been preserved, by the simple change of title from that of a Private Lodge to that of a Grand Lodge. This change took place on December 27,1725, when the Grand Lodge was formed by the election of Charles Bathurst as Grand Master with a Bro. Johnson as his Deputy, and Bros. Pawson and Francis Drake as Wardens. Brothers Scourfield and Inigo Russel were respectively the Treasurer and Clerk.
The Grand Lodge now openly denied the superior authority of the body which had been established in London eight years before, and while it was content that that organization should be known as the “Grand Lodge of England,” it assumed for itself the more pretentious title of the “Grand Lodge of all England.”
In thus constituting itself a Grand Lodge by a mere change of title, and the assumption of more extensive prerogatives, the ..Old Lodge at York” had asserted its belief in its own interpretation of the Legend of the Craft.
“You know,” says Bro. Drake, its first Junior Grand Warden, ..we can boast that the first Grand Lodge ever held in England was held in this city; where Edwin, the first Christian king of the Northumbers, about the sixth hundredth year after Christ, and who Francis Drake, the author of this passage, which is taken from a speech delivered by him before the Grand Lodge at its session of December 27, 1726, was an antiquary who is well known by a work in folio published by him in 1735 on the History and Antiquities of the City of York. He was in respect to Freemasonry the Desaguliers of the Northern Grand Lodge. To him it was indebted for its first establishment and for the defense of its right to the position it had assumed.
Though he had been initiated only a year before his advancement to the position of Grand Warden, he seems to have taken at once a great interest in the institution and to have cultivated its history.
He was the first to advance the theory that the Edwin who is said in the Legend of the Craft to have convoked the General Assembly at York, was not the brother of Athelstan, but the converted King of Northumbria, and that the date of the Convocation was not in the 10th, but in the 7th, century.
This theory is now accepted by a great number of Masonic historians as the most plausible interpretation of the Legend.
Drake also exhibited in his speech a very sensible idea of what was the true origin of Freernasonry. He traces it to a purely Operative source, an opinion which is the favorite one of the historians of the present day.
The Grand Lodge at York, thus constructed by a mere change of title, had, in reality, by that act acquired a more plausible claim to be called a ..Revival” than the Grand Lodge at London. It assumed to be a resumption of its functions by a Grand Lodge which had always been in existence since the days of Edwin of Northumbria, and which had been dormant for only a few years.
If this theory were sound, most undoubtedly the establishment of the Grand Lodge in 1725 would have been a real revival. Unfortunately, the facts are wanting which could support such a theory. There is not the slightest evidence, except that which is legendary, that there ever was a Grand Lodge or a Grand Master in the city of York until the year 1725.
The fact is that, according to the modern principles of Masonic jurisprudence, the Grand Lodge of all England, as it styled itself, was not legally constituted, unless it be admitted that it was a mere continuation or revival of a former Grand Lodge at the same place. But this fact has not
been established by any historical proof. The Grand Lodge was, therefore, really only a “Mother Lodge.”
This system, where a private lodge assumes the functions and exercises the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, under the title of a ..Mother Lodge,” was first invented by the French innovators at a later period, and never has been acknowledged as a legal method of constitution in any English-speaking country.
Laurence Dermott has asserted that to form a Grand Lodge it was necessary that the representatives of five lodges should be present. He had selected this number designedly to invalidate the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England, which had been formed by four lodges. His authority on Masonic law is not considered as good, and now the principle appears to be settled by the constant usage of America, and by its recognition in Great Britain and Ireland, that the requisite number of constituent lodges shall be limited to not less than three.
Some idea of the kind seems to have prevailed at an early period among the Masons of the south of England, although it had not been formulated into a statute, for Anderson, in 1738, spoke of the body which had been established, not as the “Grand Lodge,” but as ..the old Lodge of York City.”
So much I have deemed it necessary to say as a curious point of history, but the question of the legal constitution of the Grand Lodge of York is no longer of any judicial importance, as it has long since ceased to exist, and the lodges which were constituted
This is the very epithet applied by Drake to the Grand Lodge in his celebrated speech. He calls it “the Mother Lodge of them all.” See the extract from the speech farther on in this chapter. Except in Scotland, where the Lodge of Kilwinning assumed the title of “Mother Lodge,” and issued warrants for Daughter Lodges. But the act was never recognized as legal by the Grand Lodge of Scotland.by it were, on its dissolution, legitimately enrolled on the register of the Grand Lodge of England.
Besides the change from a Private Lodge to a Grand Lodge, which was made in 1725, others were adopted at the same time, which are worthy of notice.
In 1725 and afterward the meetings of the Grand Lodge, which heretofore had been held in private houses, were transferred to taverns, in which they followed the example of their southern brethren. The ..Star Inn” and the ..White Swan” are recorded in the minutes of the first places of meeting.
In the earlier minutes we find the Craft styling themselves ..the Honourable Society and Company of Freemasons.” In 1725 they adopted the designation of the ..Worshipful and Ancient Society of Free and Accepted Masons.” The adoption of the word “Accepted” assimilated the Freemasons of York to those of London, from whose Book of Constitutions the former evidently borrowed it.
The minutes after 1725 record the initiation of “gentlemen,.. and the speech of Junior Warden Drake at the celebration in 1726 refers to three classes, the “working Masons,” those who “are of other trades and occupations,” and “gentlemen.”
But there are many proofs in the records of the lodge that the second and third classes predominated, and that the Grand Lodge of York was earnestly striving, by the admission of non-Masons as members, to eliminate the Operative element, and, like its predecessor at London, to assume an entirely Speculative character.
It does not appear that at York there was that opposition to the change which had existed at London, where the Speculative element did not gain the control of the Society until six years after the organization in 1717. The Lodge at York had begun to prepare for the change twelve years before it assumed the rank of a Grand Lodge, for, in 1713, at a meeting held at Bradford, eighteen ..gentlemen.. were admitted into the Society.
Findel and Hughan both visited the city of York at different periods and made a personal inspection of the lodge records. It is to the “History of Freemasonry,” by the former, and to the “History of Freemasonry in York,” by the latter, that I am indebted for many of my facts. Preston, though furnishing abundant details, is neither accurate nor impartial, and Anderson and his successors, Entick and Northouck, supply scarcely any information. Some intimation of the character of the Grand Lodge at the time of its establishment may be derived from the speech by Bro. Drake in 1726.
From the records we learn also that the “Regulations” adopted by the Grand Lodge at London were adopted for the government of the body at York. Indeed, it is very probable that the publication of these ..Regulations” in 1723 had precipitated the design of the York Freemasons to organize their Grand Lodge.
There is no doubt that in the general details of their new system they followed the ..Regulations” of 1723. The titles of the presiding officers were changed in accordance with the London system from President and Deputy President to Grand Master and Deputy Grand Master, and it is supposable that other changes were made to conform to the new ..Regulations.”
Indeed, Anderson expressly states that the lodge at York had “the same Constitutions, Charges, Regulations, etc., for substance as their Brethren of England,” that is, of London.
But, in addition to the London ..Regulations,” the lodge at York had another set of rules for its government, which are still extant in the archives of the present York Lodge. They are contained on a sheet of parchment which is indorsed, “Old Rules of the Grand Lodge at York, 1725, No. 8.”
These rules are said by both Findel and Hughan to have been adopted in 1725 by the new Grand Lodge. This is probable, because they are signed by ..Ed. Bell, Master,” who is recorded as having been the Grand Master in 1725; and they are subsequently referred to in the minutes of July 6, 1726, with the title of the “Constitutions.”
But I think it equally probable that they were originally the rules which were made for the regulation of the lodge long before it assumed the rank and title of a Grand Lodge.
As the Constitution of a Grand Lodge, these rules are in remarkable contrast with the ..Regulations” which were compiled by Payne for the use of the Grand Lodge at London and were published in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions.
They are nineteen in number, and with the exception of a single article the eighth -they have the form of a set of rules for the regulation of a social and drinking club rather than that of a code of laws carefully prepared for the inauguration of a great moral and philosophical institution such as Speculative Freemasonry soon became, and such as it was evidently the design of Desaguliers, Payne, and Anderson to make it.
But even as the rules of a mere club they are interesting, inasmuch as they make us acquainted, by an official authority, with the condition of Speculative Freemasonry at York, and with the social usages of the Craft there, in the second and third decades of the 18th century.
As they have been published in full only by Bro. Hughan in his History of Freemasonry in York, a most valuable work but of which both the English and American editions were unfortunately too limited in the number of copies to make it generally accessible, I have, therefore, thought that it would not be unacceptable to the reader to find them reprinted here. A few marginal annotations have been added which are partly intended to prove the truth of the opinion that the rules were not framed in 1725 after the Grand Lodge had been established, but had been previously used for the government of the private lodge, and were only continued in force by the Grand Lodge.
Rules Agreed to be Kept and Observed by the Ancient Society of Freemasons in the City of York, and to be Subscribed by Every Member Thereof at Their Admittance Into the Said Society.
Imprimis.
1. That every first Wednesday in the month a lodge shall be held, at the house of a Brother according as their turn shall fall out.
2. All subscribers to these articles, not appearing at the Monthly lodge, shall forfeit sixpence each time.
3. If any Brother appear at a lodge that is not a subscriber to these articles, he shall pay over and above his club the sum of one shilling. It will be remarked that the title “Ancient Society of Free and Accepted Masons” which was adopted by the Grand Lodge is not here used, but the “Ancient Society of Freemasons,” which was the form employed by the “Private Lodge” in all the minutes prior to 1725. This is a very strong proof that the Rules were not framed after the Grand Lodge had been organized.
4. The Bowl shall be filled at the monthly lodges with Punch once, Ale, Bread, Cheese and Tobacco in common, but if anything more shall be called for by any brother, either for eating or drinking, that Brother so calling shall pay for it, himself, besides his club.
5. The Master or Deputy shall be obliged to call for a Bill exactly at ten o’clock, if they meet in the evening and discharge it.
6. None to be admitted to the Making of a Brother but such as have subscribed to these articles.
7. Timely notice shall be given to all the Subscribers when a Brother or Brothers are to be made.
8. Any Brother or Brothers presuming to call a lodge with a design to make a Mason or Masons, without the Master or Deputy, or one of them deputed, for every such offense shall forfeit Five Pounds.
9. Any Brother that shall interrupt the Examination of a Brother shall forfeit one shilling.
10. Clerk’s Salary for keeping the Books and Accounts shall be one shilling, to be paid him by each Brother at his admittance, and at each of the two Grand days he shall receive such gratuity as the Company shall think proper.
11. A Steward to be chose for keeping the Stock at the Grand Lodge, at Christmas and the Accounts to be passed three days after each lodge.
12. If any dispute shall arise, the Master shall silence them by a knock of the Mallet; any Brother that shall presume to disobey, shall immediately be obliged to leave the Company or forfeit five shillings.
13. A Hour shall be set apart to talk Masonry.
14. No person shall be admitted into the lodge but after having been strictly examined.
15. No more persons shall be admitted as Brothers of this Society that shall keep a Public House.
16. That these articles shall at lodges be laid upon the Table, to be perused by the Members, and also when any new Brothers are made, the clerk shall publickly read them.
17. Every new Brother, at his admittance, shall pay to the Waits, as their Salary, the sum of two Shillings, the money to be (1) In the whole of the nineteen rules this is the only one in which we find the title “Grand Lodge.” The epithet “Grand,” or perhaps the entire article was inserted, it is to be supposed, when the rules of the Old Lodge were adopted, confirmed or continued by it, when it became a self-constituted Grand Lodge. It was necessary to appoint a Treasurer, here called a Steward, to take charge of the stock or fund of the Grand Lodge and to account for all expenditures. I am inclined to believe that the rule, like the other eighteen, was originally framed by the lodge, but on account of the financial importance of the subject made more specific when it was adopted by the Grand Lodge, so as to define precisely what fund it was, that had been entrusted to the Steward.
18. The Bidder of the Society shall receive of each new Brother, at his admittance, the sum of one shilling as his Salary.
19. No money shall be expended out of the Stock after the hour of ten, as in the fifth article.
These rules appear to me to throw very considerable light upon the rather uncertain subject of the condition of Freemasonry in the city of York before and at the time of the establishment of what is known as the “Grand Lodge of all England.”
Whether the usual theory that York was the birthplace of English Freemasonry, and that it was founded there in the Ioth century by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstan, as the old manuscripts say, or in the 7th century by Edwin, King of Northumbria, as was, for the first time, advanced by Drake in his speech made in 1726 - whether this theory is to be considered as an historical statement, or merely an unsupported tradition, is a question that need not now be discussed.
The architectural history of the church, cathedral, or, as it is now commonly called, the Minster of York, may be comprised in a few lines.
In 627 a wooden church was built by Edwin, King of Northumbria, at the suggestion of Bishop Paulinus, who had converted him to Christianity.
Grand Days, says Brady (Clavis, Calendaria I., 164), were Candlemas Day, Ascension Day, Midsummer Day, and All Saints’ Day. They were so called in the Inns of Court. The lodge might, however, have had, as its Grand Days, the festivals of St. John the Baptist and of St. John the Evangelist. This is merely problematical.
The members were to receive “timely notice” when a Brother was to be made (Rule 7). He who served the notices and summoned the members was called the “ Bidder.”
Bede says that the wooden church was temporarily erected for the public baptism of the king, but that immediately afterward he began a large stone edifice which included the wooden one, which was finished by his successor, Oswald. “Hist. Eccles.,” ii., 14 In 669 Bishop Wilfrid, the successor of Paulinus, made many important repairs and furnished the interior anew.
In 741, according to Roger Hovedon, the Minster was destroyed by fire.
In 767, according to Alcuin, who assisted in the work, Archbishop Albert erected a most magnificent basilica. This church, Raine thinks, was in existence at the time of the Norman Conquest, but in 1069 it was destroyed by fire.
In 1070 Bishop Thomas, the Norman, rebuilt the church from its foundations.
This church remained without alteration until 1171, when Archbishop
Roger began to build a new choir. Raine doubts the story that the church of Archbishop Thomas was, in 1137, destroyed by fire.
In 1240 Archbishop Roger built the south transept, and immediately after commenced the building of the north transept.
In 1291 Archbishop John Romain laid the first stone of a new nave, which was completed in 1340 by Archbishop Melton.
It is at about this period that we become, through the Fabric Rolls, familiarly acquainted with the usages of the Freemasons who were employed from that time to its completion in the construction of the Minster under the direction of the Chapter of the church.
In 1361 the Presbytery was begun and completed in 1373 by Archbishop Thoresby.
In 1380 the choir was commenced, and the works being carried on without interruption, it was completed in 1400.
In 1405 the work of the central tower was begun and finished at an uncertain period.
In 1432 the southwestern tower was begun, and at a later date the northwestern tower was erected, both being completed about 1470, when the painted vault of the central tower was set up and finished.
In 1472, the work having been completed, the Cathedral was reconsecrated.
It is thus seen that for the long period of eight hundred and forty-five years, with intervals of cessation, the great work of building a cathedral in the city of York was pursued by Masons, most of whom were brought from the continent.
Roger, the Prior of Hexham, who lived in the 12th century, tells us that Bishop Wilfrid, while building the first stone church at York, brought into England Masons and other skillful artisans from Rome, Italy, France, and other countries wherever he could find them.
Of the usages and regulations of these Masons, or of their organization as a guild or fraternity, we have no knowledge except that which is derived from conjecture or analogy.
But it is historically certain from the authority of the Fabric Rolls, to which such frequent reference has been made, that from the beginning of the 14th century Freemasons were employed in the construction of the cathedral which was then in course of erection, and that these Freemasons were organized into a body similar in its organization to that of the workmen who were engaged in the building of the cathedrals of Cologne and of Strasburg.
It is a singular coincidence, if it be nothing more, and it is certainly of
great historical importance, that no manuscript Constitution yet discovered is claimed to have an older date than that of the 14th century, and about the time when the Freemasons of York were occupied in the construction of the cathedral of that city.
Hence it would not be an unreasonable hypothesis to suppose that the Freemasons who built the Cathedral of York in the 14th century were the original composers of the first of the “Old Constitutions,” and of the Legend of the Craft which they all contain.
This would rationally account for the fact that in this Legend the origin of Freemasonry in England, as a guild, is attributed to Masons who congregated in the city of York, and there held a General Assembly.
If the Freemasons of the southern part of England had been the fabricators of the first copy of these Constitutions, they would have been more likely in framing the Legend to have selected London or some southern city as the birthplace of their guild, than to have chosen for that honor a city situated in the remotest limits of the kingdom, and of which, from the difficulties of intercommunication, they would have no familiar knowledge.
But, on the other hand, nothing could be more natural than that the Freemasons who were living and working at York in the 14th century should have had a tradition among themselves that at some time in the remote past their predecessors had held a great convocation in their own city, and there and then framed that body of laws which were to become the Constitution of the Craft.
It is a self-evident proposition that there must have been a time when, and a place where, the first manuscript Constitution was written, and the Legend of the Craft was first committed to writing.
As to the time, we know of no manuscript that is older than the 14th century. The earliest is the Halliwell poem, and it has been assigned by competent authority to the year 1390. But there are good reasons for believing that the work published by Mr. Halliwell is really a compilation made up of two preceding poems, which might have been composed a few years before, and which would thus be brought to the very period when the Freemasons were at work on the York Cathedral.
As to the place where, we have only the internal evidence of the Legend of the Craft which, as I have before said, would indicate from the story of the Assembly at York that the Legend was fabricated by the Freemasons of that city out of a tradition that was extant among them.
That the Halliwell poem does not particularize the city of York by name as the place where the General Assembly was held, is no proof that it was not so stated in the unwritten tradition out of which the poem was constructed. The tradition was probably so well known, so familiar to the
Masons at York, that the writer of the poem did not deem it necessary to define the Assembly further than by the name of him who called it. But two centuries after, when the Freemasons of the south of England began to make copies of the Legend, they found it necessary to follow the tradition more closely and to define York as the place where the Assembly was held.
And then, too, these southern English Freemasons sought to impair the claim of their northern Brethren, and thus in the Cooke MS., written more than a century after the Halliwell poem, the “ Legend of St. Alban” is introduced, and the Masons of Verulam are said, instead of those of York, to have had “charges and maners” that is, Masonic laws and usages, “first in England.´ But the later manuscripts admit the decay of Masonry after the death of St. Alban, and its subsequent revival at York.
Now, as the Halliwell poem speaks of the Assembly as having been held at “that syte,” and as the subsequent manuscripts name that city as York, and retain the same tradition as the poem, we may, as Bro. Woodford justly says, fairly conclude that the “syte” or city in the Halliwell poem refers to York.
We need not absolutely determine, even if we could, whether Freemasonry was first established in England as a guild, at the city of York, as the earliest manuscript and the prototype of all the others says; or whether after its decadence subsequent to the rule of St. Alban, it was only revived in that city. Nor need we seek to settle the question whether the General Assembly was held and the Charges instituted by Edwin, the brother of Athelstan, in the Ioth century, as all the old manuscripts say, or by Edwin, King of Northumbria, in the 7th, as was first advanced by Mr. Drake in 1726 (a theory which has since been adopted by several scholars), or finally by the Freemasons who built the York Cathedral in the 14th century, which appears to me to be the most plausible of all the hypotheses.
This need not, however, affect the probability of the fact that similar organizations existed among the Freemasons who at the same time were employed in the constructions of cathedrals in other parts of England and Scotland, of whose existence we have historical certainty, but of whose customs and regulations we have no knowledge because their Fabric Rolls have been either irrecoverably lost or have not yet been discovered.
Accepting, then, any of the three theories which have just been alluded to, we will arrive at the conclusion that Freemasonry assumed at the city of York that form which was represented at first by the building corporations or Craft guilds, known as Operative lodges in the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and which in the 18th underwent a transmutation into that system of Speculative Freemasonry of which the Masonic lodges of the present day are the lineal offspring.
It is true that such an hypothesis is based on tradition only and on a recorded legend. But this tradition is so universal and is sustained by so much of logical inference and by so many collateral authentic circumstances, which can only be explained by a reference to that tradition, that the tradition itself becomes invested with an almost historical character.
Resuming, then, the history of the rise and progress of the Grand Lodge of all England, we find its germ in the guild of those Operative Freemasons who, certainly in the 14th and 15th centuries, were employed in the construction of the Cathedral of York, even if we do not choose to trace them to a remoter period.
There is no reason to suppose that there was a cessation of the labors of the York Lodge when the Cathedral was completed in 1472. (1) We infer not only that it continued to exist, but that it extended its influence, for there is abundance of proof that there were many lodges in other parts of England, and the old manuscript charges show that these lodges were all regulated by one common law and by similar usages.
But of the especial history of the lodge at York during the 16th century we have no authentic information. We infer, however, that it was in existence early in the 17th, because a manuscript copy of the “Old Constitutions” and the “Legend” was prepared for it in 1630. This manuscript was in the archives of the lodge in 1777, but was afterward lost.
There is also in the archives of the York Lodge another and a later manuscript Constitution which is still extant, and which bears the date of 1693. The lodge was, we may presume, at that time in active operation.
We have next an authentic record that the minutes of the lodge as early as 1704 were at one time in existence. These minutes have been unfortunately mislaid or lost, and the earliest records of the lodge which have been preserved, commence with the year 1712.
I will not cite the unreliable statements of Preston and some other writers, that there was a Grand Lodge and a Grand Master at York in the 16th century, because they are entirely without proof. We are studying history, not amusing ourselves with fiction.
As the church had been in fact rebuilt, it was reconsecrated on July 3, 1472, and that day was deemed to be the feast of the dedication of the church of York in future. Willis, “Architectural History of York Cathedral,” p. 47.
But we do know that there was an Operative lodge at York about the close of the 14th century and for many years previous, and we also know that there was an Operative lodge in the same city about the beginning of the 17th century which was continued until the beginning of the 18th, and with no evidence to the contrary, we rightly infer that the one was the descendant or successor of the other.
Dr. J. P. Bell, in a work entitled the Stream of English History, gives a list of the presiding officers of the lodge from 1705 to 1781. I have not been able to get access to a copy of this work, and I am indebted for what I know of it to Bro. Hughan, who refers to it in his History of Freemasonry in York.
Hughan says that the List may be relied on. The author is, however, in error in assigning the title of Grand Master to the officers who presided from 1705 to 1724. They were, until the latter date, called ..Presidents” or “Masters,” and it was not until the lodge assumed the rank of a Grand Lodge in 1725 that the title of ..Grand Master” was adopted.
Up to the year 1725 the lodge at York was strictlywhat it called itself, a “Private Lodge,” and in its minutes it bears the name of St. John’s Lodge.
Preston says that in 1705 there were several lodges in York and its neighborhood. But I fail to find any other proof of this fact than his own assertion. Unfortunately, the disputes between the Lodge of Antiquity, of which Preston was a member, and the Grand Lodge of England, in which the Grand Lodge of York took a part, had created such a partisan feeling in Preston and his friends against the former and for the latter body, that his authority on any subject connected with York Masonry is of doubtful value. His natural desire was to magnify the Grand Lodge which had taken his own lodge under its protection, and to depreciate the one against which it had rebelled.
Until the contrary is shown by competent authority we must believe that in 1705 there was but one lodge at York, the same which twenty years afterward assumed the title and functions of a Grand Lodge.
From its earliest records we find that, though this was an Operative lodge in name, because at that time all Masonic lodges were of that character, yet the Theoretic members greatly predominated in numbers over the practical or working Masons. It was thus gradually preparing the way for that change into a purely Speculative institution which about the same time was taking place in London.
It appears from the speech of the Junior Grand Warden, Drake, delivered before the Grand Lodge in 1726, that there were at that time three classes of members in the York Lodge, namely, “working Masons, persons of other trades and occupations, and Gentlemen.” To the first of these classes he recommended a careful perusal of the Constitution, to the second class he counselled obedience to the moral precepts of the Society, and attention to their own business, without any expectation of becoming proficients in Operative Masonry. “You cannot,” he says, “be so absurd as to think that a tailor, when admitted a Freemason, is able to build a church; and for that reason, your own vocation ought to be your most important study.” On the ..gentlemen” only, did he impress the necessity of a knowledge of the arts and sciences, and he especially recommended to them the study of geometry and architecture.
Francis Drake, (1) the author of this Speech, was a scholar of much learning and an antiquary. Like his contemporary, George Payne, of the London Grand Lodge, whom he resembled in the nature of his literary pursuits, his ambition seems to have been to establish a system of pure Speculative Freemasonry, to be created by its total severance from the Operative element.
Something of this kind he distinctly expresses in the close of his Speech before the Grand Lodge.
“It is true,” he says, addressing the Gentlemen or Theoretic members, “by Signs, Words, and Tokens, you are put upon a level with the meanest brother; but then you are at liberty to exceed them as far as a superior genius and education will conduct you.
He was born in 1695, and in early life established himself at York as a surgeon and practiced, Britton says, with considerable reputation, but the investigation of antiquarian researches was his favorite pursuit. He published a “Parliamentary History of England to the Restoration” and many essays in the “Archaeologia” and in the “Philosophical Transactions.” His principal work, however, and the one by which he is best remembered, was published at London in 1736 under the title of
“Eboracum,” or the “History and Antiquities of the City of York from its Original to the Present Time.” From its title we learn that Drake was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a member of the Society of Antiquaries of London. The work is in two folio volumes and illustrated by many engravings, which, considering the most of them were donations to himself and his work, made by his wealthy patrons, might have been executed in a better style of art.
I am creditably informed that in most lodges in London, and several other parts of this kingdom, a lecture on some point of geometry or architecture is given at every meeting. And why the Mother Lodge of them all should so far forget her own ins stitutions can not be accounted for, but from her extreme old age. However, being now sufficiently awakened and revived by the comfortable appearance of so many worthy sons, I must tell you that she expects that every Gentleman who is called a Freemason should not be startled at a problem in geometry, a proposition in Euclid, or, at least, be wanting on the history and just distinctions of the five orders of architecture.”
On December 27, 1725, the lodge resolved itself into a Grand Lodge (I know not how to use a better term), and Charles Bathurst, Esq., was elected Grand Master, with Mr. Johnson for his Deputy, and Messrs. Pawson and Drake, both of whom had been initiated in the previous September, as Grand Wardens.
On the festival of St. John the Evangelist, in the following year, Bathurst was again elected Grand Master, and the Society marched in procession to Merchants’ Hall, where a Speech was delivered by Bro. Francis Drake, the Junior Grand Warden.
Like its sister of London, the Grand Lodge at York was troubled with schism at a very early period of its existence. William Sourfield had convened a lodge and made Masons without the consent of the Grand Master or his Deputy. For this offense he was expelled, or as the Minutes say, “banished from the Society for ever.”
It was agreed that John Carpenter, W. Musgrave, Th. Alleson, and Th. Preston, who had assisted Sourfield in his illegal proceedings, should, on their acknowledging their error and making due submission, be restored to favor.
Findel gives the following account of the subsequent proceedings which was taken by him from the Minutes of the Grand Lodge
..After the Minutes of December 22, 1726, a considerable space is left in the page, and then follow the Minutes of June 21, 1729, wherein it is said that two Gentlemen were received into the St. John’s Lodge and their election confirmed by vote: Edw. Thompson, Esq., Grand Master; John Willmers, Deputy Grand Master; G. Rhodes, and Reynoldson, Grand Wardens. The Grand Master on his part appointed a Committee of seven brothers, amongst whom was Drake, to assist him in the management of the lodge, and every now and then support his authority in removing any abuses which might have crept in.
“The lodge was, however, at its last gasp, and therefore the Committee seem to have effected but little; for on May 4, 1730, it was found necessary to exact the payment of a shilling from all officers of the lodge who did not make their appearance and with this announcement the Minutes close.”
At this time, according to Findel, there were no lodges subordinate to the Grand Lodge. His statement, however, that after the meeting in May, 1730, it was inactive until 1760, is shown by the records to be not precisely accurate.
The fact is that the lodge, or the Grand Lodge, after 1729, must for some years have dragged out a life of inactivity. Bell’s list shows that there were no Grand Masters (probably because there were no meetings) in 1730, 1731, and 1732. John Johnson, M.D., is recorded as Grand Master in, 1733, and John Marsden, Esq., in 1734.
There are no records of Grand Masters or of Proceedings from 1734 until 1761. During that period of twenty years, while the Grand Lodge of England was diffusing the light of Speculative Freemasonry throughout the world, the Grand Lodge of all England was asleep, if not actually defunct.
From this long slumber it awoke in the year 1761, and the method of its awaking is made known to us in the Minutes of the meeting which have been preserved.
As this event is one of much importance in the history of Freemasonry at York, I do not hesitate to copy the Minute in full.
The Ancient and Independent Constitution of Free and Accepted Masons, belonging to the City of York, was, this Seventeenth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1761, Revived by Six of the Surviving Members of the Fraternity by the Grand Lodge being opened, and held at the House of Mr. Henry Howard, in Lendall, in the said City, by them and others hereinafter named.
When and where it was farther agreed on that it should be continued and held there only the Second and Last Monday in every Month.
Grand Master, Brother Francis Drake, Esq., F.R.S.
Deputy G. M. “ George Reynoldson.
Grand Wardens “ George Coates and Thomas Mason.
Tasker, Leng, Swetnam, Malby, Beckwith, Frodsham, Fitzmaurice, Granger, Crisp, Oram, Burton, and Howard.
Minutes of the Transactions at the Revival and Opening of the said Grand Lodge:
Brother John Tasker was, by the Grand Master and the rest of the Brethren, unanimously appointed Grand Secretary and Treasurer, he having just petitioned to become a Member and being approved and accepted nem. con.
Brother Henry Howard also petitioned to be admitted a Member, who was accordingly ballotted for and approved nem. con.
Mr. Charles Chaloner, Mr. Seth Agar, George Palmes, Esq., Mr. Ambrose Beckwith, and Mr. William Siddall petitioned to be made Brethren the first opportunity who, being severally ballotted for, were all approved of nem. con.
This Lodge was closed till Monday, the 23d day of this instant Month, unless in case of Emergency.
The Grand Lodge, thus revived, had at first and for some years but one constituent lodge under its obedience, or, to speak more correctly, the Grand Lodge of all England and the Lodge at York were really one and the same body. While it claimed the title and the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, it also performed the functions of a private lodge in making Masons. But it afterward increased its constituency, and in the year 1769 granted Warrants for opening lodges at Ripon, at Knaresborough, and at Iniskilling.
In 1767 the Grand Lodge of England, at London, had addressed a report of the business done at its quarterly communication to a lodge held at the Punch Bowl, in the city of York, and to which lodge it had granted a Warrant, as No. 259, on the 12th of January, 1761.
But this lodge having ceased to exist, the document appears to have fallen into the hands of the Grand Master of the York Grand Lodge. It was laid before the Grand Lodge at a meeting held on the 14th December, 1767, when it was resolved that a letter should be sent by the Grand Secretary to the Grand Lodge at London.
In this letter the pretensions of the York Grand Lodge are set forth in very emphatic terms. It is stated that “the Most Ancient Grand Lodge of all England, held from time immemorial in this city (York), is the only Lodge held therein.”
It is also stated that “this Lodge acknowledges no Superior, that it exists in its own Right, that it grants Constitutions and Certificates in the same manner as is done by the Grand Lodge in London, and as it has from Time immemorial had a Right and used to do, and that it distributes its own Charity according to the true principles of Masons.”
Hence it does not doubt that the Grand Lodge at London will pay due respect to it and to the Brethren made by it, professing that it had ever had a very great esteem for that body and the brethren claiming privileges under its authority.
Findel says that “a correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England in London, in the year 1767, proves that the York Lodge was then on the best of terms with the former.”
I confess that I fail to find the proof of this feeling simply because there is no proof of the correspondence of which Findel speaks. A correspondence is the mutual interchange of letters. The Grand Lodge in London had sent an official communication to a lodge in the city of York, ignoring, in so doing, the Grand Lodge of York. This was itself an act of discourtesy. The lodge having been discontinued, this communication comes into the possession of the Grand Lodge at York, for which it had not been originally intended. It sends to the Grand Lodge at London a
letter in which it asserts its equality with that Grand Lodge and the immemorial right that it had to grant Warrants, which right it trusts that the Grand Lodge in London will respect.
It appears to me that this language, if it means anything, is a mild protest against the further interference of the London Grand Lodge, with the territorial jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in York.
It is true that in the close of the letter the York Grand Lodge expresses its esteem for the Body at London and its willingness to concur with it in anything that will affect the general good of Masonry.
The letter was dignified and courteous. It asserted rights and prerogatives, which it need not have done if they had not been invaded, and it made the offer of a compact of friendship.
To this letter there is no evidence that the Grand Lodge of England deigned to make a reply. It was treated with frigid silence, and hence there was no correspondence between the two bodies.
Bro. Hughan, however, concurs with Bro. Findel, so far as to say that this letter is of much consequence in proving that the two Grand Lodges were on excellent terms.
I am very reluctant to differ with two such authorities on Masonic history, but I can not consider that the conclusion to which Bro. Hughan has arrived is a legitimate one. The letter certainly shows a desire on the part of the Grand Lodge of York to cultivate friendly relations with that in London. But there is no evidence that the amicable feeling was reciprocated.
On the contrary, all the records go to show that the Grand Lodge at London was aggressive in repeated acts which demonstrated that it did not think it necessary to respect the territorial rights of the Masonic authority at York.
In 1738 Dr. Anderson speaks of it not as a Grand Lodge, but as “the Old Lodge at York” which he says “affected independence.” It was evidently, in his opinion, merely a lodge that was unwilling to place itself under obedience to his own Grand Lodge.
That the Grand Lodge of England refused to recognize the authority of the lodge at York in its sovereign capacity as a Grand
Lodge having territorial jurisdiction over the north of England or even over the two Ridings of Yorkshire is shown by the records. In 1729, four years only after the lodge at York had assumed the title of a Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of England constituted a lodge at Scarborough; in 1738 another at Halifax; in 1761, a third and fourth at the city of York, and at Darlington the one two months before and the other three months after the York Grand Lodge had been resuscitated; in 1762, a fifth at Orley; in 1763, a sixth at Richmond; and in 1766, a seventh at Wakefield, all situated within the county of York, and one in the very city where the Grand Lodge held its sessions.
It is not surprising that the York Grand Lodge in time resorted to reprisals, and as will presently be seen, most decidedly invaded the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge at London.
Dr. Bell, in his History of the Grand Lodge of York, (1) says that “the two Grand Lodges continued to go on amicably until the year 1734, when in consequence of the Grand Lodge of England having granted Warrants, out of its prescribed jurisdiction, shyness between the lodges ensued.”
Both Bell and Findel, who make the same statement as to a lodge warranted in 1734, are wrong as to the date, for no lodge was constituted in York by the Grand Lodge of England in that year. But as it had constituted one in 1729, I am ready to give credit to the account of the ..shyness.” The mistake of a date will not affect the existence of the feeling.
Preston commits the same error as Bell and Findel concerning the Constitution of two lodges in York in 1734. (2) But he adds what is of importance, considering his intimacy with the subject, that the Grand Lodge in York highly resented the encroachments
It is from Preston that Bell and Findel have derived their authority for the statement of lodges having been constituted in 1734. Bro. Hughan investigated the subject with his wonted perseverance and says that “there is no register of any lodge being warranted or Constituted in Yorkshire or neighborhood in A.D. 1734. We have searched every List of Lodges of any consequence from A.D. 1738 to A.D. 1784, including the various editions of the Constitutions, Freemason’s Calendars, Companions and Pocket Books, etc., but can not find any “Deputation granted within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of all England, during 1734 by the Grand Lodge of England.” “History of Freemasonry in York,” p. 47. of the Grand Lodge of England on its jurisdiction and “ever after seems to have viewed the proceedings of the Brethren in the South with a jealous eye; as all friendly intercourse ceased, and the York Masons from that moment considered their interests distinct from the Masons under the Grand Lodge in London.”
Soon after the revival of the Grand Lodge it was visited by Preston and Calcott, two distinguished Masonic writers, and Hughan supposed that about this time the Royal Arch degree was introduced into the York system by the latter. This subject will, however, be more appropriately considered in a distinct chapter devoted to the history of that degree.
From the time of its re-opening in 1761 until near the close of the 18th century the Grand Lodge appears to have flourished with considerable activity.
The festival of St. John the Evangelist was celebrated in 1770 by a procession to church, and a sermon on the appropriate text “God is love.” Representatives from the three lodges at Ripon, Knaresborough, and Iniskilling were present. Sir Thomas Gascoigne was elected Grand Master.
In the same year a Warrant was granted for the Constitution of a lodge at Macclesfield in Cheshire, so that there were now at least four subordinates acknowledging obedience to the York Grand Lodge.
A controversy having sprung up between the Lodge of Antiquity in London and the Grand Lodge of England, the former body withdrew from its allegiance to the latter, and in 1778 received a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of York, authorizing it to assemble as a Grand Lodge for all that part of England situated to the south of the river Trent.
This episode in the history of the Freemasonry of England, Findel says that from 1765 the name of “Bro. Drake is seldom mentioned.” If we consider that at that date Drake had reached the seventieth year of his age, and that five years afterward, in 1770, he died, we will find ample cause in the infirmities of age for his withdrawal from participation in the active duties of Masonic labor. (3) This baronet was a lineal descendant of Nicholas Gascoigne, the brother of that celebrated Chief Justice who in the reign of Henry IV. committed the heir apparent to the throne, the “Merry Prince Hal,” to prison for contempt of court. He was a native and resident of Yorkshire, having seats at Barstow, Lasingcroft, and Parlington, all in the county. See Kimber and Johnson’s “Baronetage of England,” London, 1771, vol. iii., P. 352. which involved very important results, demands and must receive a more detailed consideration in a distinct chapter.
It is scarcely necessary to pursue the minute history of the Grand Lodge of York from that period to the date of its final collapse.
The last reference in the minutes of the lodge at York to the Grand Lodge of all England has the date of August 23, 1792. It is a rough minute on a sheet of paper, which records the election of Bro. Wolley as Grand Master, George Kitson as Grand Treasurer, and Richardson and Williams as Grand Wardens.
We have no evidence from any records that the Grand Lodge ever met again. It seems to have silently collapsed; the lodge at York continued its existence as a private lodge, and finally came under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England.
In fact, as the Rev. Bro. Woodford has stated, the York Grand Lodge was never formally dissolved, but simply was absorbed, so to say, by the predominance of its more prosperous southern rival of 1717.
In bringing this history of the rise and progress of Speculative Freemasonry in the city of York to a close, I am almost irresistibly impressed with the opinion that the “Old Lodge at York” was never, in the legal sense of the word, a Grand Lodge. It was not formed, like the Grand Lodge at London, by the union and co-operation of several private lodges. It was never recognized as such by the Grand Lodge of England, but was always known as the “Old Lodge at York.”
Anderson so called it in 1738, and his successor, Northouck, writing in 1784, says of it that “the ancient York Masons were confined to one lodge, which is still extant, but consists of very few members, and will probably be soon altogether annihilated.”
It was simply, like the lodges of Kilwinning in Scotland and of Marseilles in France, a “Mother Lodge,” a term which, in Masonic language, has been used to denote a private lodge which, of its own motion, has assumed the prerogatives and functions of a Grand Lodge by granting Warrants. This title was applied to it by Drake,
But it continued at all times to exercise the function of a ..making Masons,” a function which has been invariably delegated by Grand Lodges to their subordinates.
As late as the year 1761, when, after a long slumber, the Grand Lodge was revived, one of its first acts was to ballot for five candidates who were, on the first opportunity, initiated by it.
In the rules adopted for its government in 1725 the title of “Lodge” is used by it five times as the designation of the Society, and that of “Grand Lodge” only once in reference to the funds.
Their rules are signed by Ed. Bell, who calls himself not “Grand Master,” but simply ..Master.” In the vacillating position in which the Freemasons of York had placed themselves, between a desire to imitate their London brethren by establishing a Grand Lodge and a reluctance to abandon the old
organization of a private lodge, they entirely lost sight of the true character of a Grand Lodge, as determined by the example of 1717.
It is not, therefore, surprising, as Bro. Hughan remarks, that these rules should offer a strange contrast to the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England which had been published two years before.
There can, however, be little or no doubt, as the same astute writer has observed, that in consequence of the publication of the London Constitutions the Freemasons of York is began to stir themselves and to assume the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.”
It is to be regretted that in borrowing from their Brethren the title of a Grand Lodge, the York Freemasons did not also follow their example by adopting the same regularity of organization.
In view of all these facts it is impossible to recognize the body at York in any other light than that of a Mother Lodge, a body assuming, without the essential preliminaries, the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, while to the body established at London in 1717 must be conceded the true rank and title of the Mother Grand Lodge of the World, from which, directly or indirectly, have proceeded as its legitimate offspring all the Grand Lodges which have been organized in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Now, what must we infer from these historical facts? This and no more nor less: that there never was, as a legitimate organization, a Grand Lodge of York or a Grand Lodge of all England, but only a Mother Lodge in the city of York, which assumed the title and prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, but exercised the functions both of a Grand and a private lodge -an anomaly unknown to and unrecognized by Masonic law.
It is much easier to write the history of the organization of the Grand Lodge of Scotland than that of England. The materials in the former case are far more abundant and more authentic, and the growth of the organization was more gradual, and each step more carefully recorded.
In England almost the only authority or guide that we have for the occurrences which led to the establishment of the Grand Lodge, in the year 1717, is the meager history supplied by Anderson in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions.
The four old Lodges suddenly sprung, as we have already seen, into being, with no notification of their previous existence, and no account of the mental process by which their members were led to so completely change their character and constitution from the Operative to a purely Speculative institution.
In Scotland, on the contrary, the processes which led to the change are well marked - the previous condition of the lodges is recorded, and we are enabled to trace the distinct steps which finally led to the establishment of the Grand Lodge in the year 1736.
It would appear from historical evidence that in the 17th century there were three methods by which a new lodge could be formed in Scotland. The first of these was by the authority of the King, the second by that of the General Warden, perhaps the most usual ways and the third was by members separating from an old and already established lodge, and with its concurrence forming a new one, the old lodge becoming, in technical terms, the mother, and the new one. the descendant.
All of these methods are referred to in a minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh in the year 1688. A certain number of the members of that lodge having left it, without its sanction formed a new lodge in the Cannongate and North Leith. Whereupon the Lodge of Edinburgh declared the
Cannongate and Leith Lodge to have acted “contrary to all custom, law, and reason,” inasmuch as it had been formed in contempt of the Edinburgh Lodge, and “ without any Royal or General Warden’s authority.” This is said to be “Mason Law,” and for its violation the lodge was pronounced illegal, all communication with its members, or with those who were entered or passed in it, was prohibited, and it was forbidden to employ them as journeymen under a heavy penalty. In a word, the lodge was placed in the position of what, in modern parlance, we should call “a clandestine lodge.”
But the old law for the organization of new lodges seems by this time to have become obsolete, and the denunciation of the Edinburgh Lodge amounted to a mere brutum fulmen. The Cannongate and Leith Lodge continued to exist and to flourish, and almost a half century afterward was recognized, notwithstanding its illegal birth, as a regular body, and admitted into the constituency of the Grand Lodge.
We may therefore presume that at or about the close of the 17th century the Scottish lodges began to assume the privileges which Preston says at that time belonged to the English Masons, when any number could assemble and, with the consent of the civil authority, organize themselves into a lodge.
At the beginning of the 18th century there were many lodges of Operative Masons in Scotland, which had been formed in one of the three ways already indicated. The two moist important of these were the Lodge of Edinburgh and that of Kilwinning. The latter especially had chartered several lodges, and hence was by its adherents called the Mother Lodge of Scotland, a title which was, however, disputed by the Lodge of Edinburgh and never was legally recognized.
A preliminary step to the establishment of a Speculative Grand Lodge must have necessarily been the admission into the ranks of the Operative Craft of non-professional members. We have seen the effect of this in the organization of the Grand Lodge of England. In Scotland the evidences of the result of the admission of these non-professionals is well shown in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh. The contentions between the Operative and the non-operative elements for supremacy, and the final victory of the latter, are detailed at length. If such a spirit of contention existed in England, as an episode in the history of its Grand Lodge, no record of it has been preserved.
The earliest instance of the reception of a non-professional member is that of Lord Alexander, who was admitted as a Fellow Craft in the Lodge of Edinburgh on July 3, 1634. On the same day Sir Alexander Strachan was also admitted.
But the mere fact that these are the first recorded admissions of non-operatives among the Craft does not necessarily lead us to infer that before that date non-operatives were not received into lodge membership.
On the contrary, there is a minute of the date of the year 1600 which records the fact that the Laird of Auchinleck was present at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh, and as one of the members took part in its deliberations. William Schaw, who was recognized as the General Warden and Chief Mason of Scotland in 1590, was, most probably, not an Operative Mason. Indeed, all the inferential evidence lies the other way.
Yet his official position required that he should be present at the meetings of the lodges, which would lead to the necessity of his being received into the Craft. The same thing is pertinent to his predecessors, so that it is very evident that the custom of admitting non-operatives among the Craft
must have been practiced at a very early period, perhaps from the very introduction of Masonry into Scotland, or the 13th century.
It will be seen hereafter how this non-operative element, as it grew in numbers and in strength, led, finally, to the establishment of a non-operative or Speculative Grand Lodge.
But attention must now be directed to another episode in the history of Scottish Masonry, namely, the contests between the Masters and the Journeymen, which also had its influence in the final triumph of Speculative over Operative Masonry.
Taking the Lodge of Edinburgh as a fair example of the condition and character of the other lodges of the kingdom, we may say that during all of the 17th century there was observed a distinction between the Master Masons or employers and the Fellow Crafts or Journeymen who were employed.
The former claimed a predominant position, which the latter from necessity but with great reluctance conceded. It was only on rare occasions that the Masters admitted the Fellows to a participation in the counsels of the lodge.
This assumption of a superiority of position and power by the Masters was founded, it must be admitted, upon the letter and spirit of the Schaw Statutes of 1598 and 1599.
In these Statutes the utmost care appears to have been taken to deprive the Fellows of all power in the Craft and to bestow it entirely on the Wardens, Deacons, and Masters.
Thus the Warden was to be elected annually by the Masters of the lodge, all matters of importance were to be considered by the Wardens and Deacons of different lodges to be convened in an assembly called by the Warden and Deacon of Kilwinning; all trials of members, whether Masters or Fellows, were to be determined by the Warden and six Masters; all difficulties were to be settled in the same way. In a word, these Statutes seem to have passed over the Fellows in the distribution of power and concentrated it wholly upon the Masters.
But this evidently very unjust and unequal distribution of privileges appears toward the middle of the 17th century, if not before, to have excited a rebellious spirit in the Fellows.
This is very evident from the fact that from the year 1681 enactments began to be passed by the Lodge of Edinburgh against the encroachments of the Fellows or Journeymen, who must have at or before that time been advancing their claim to the possession of privileges which were denied to them. “Though there can be no doubt,” says Lyon, “that all who belonged to the lodge were, when necessity required, participants in its benefits, the journeymen appear to have had the feeling that it was not right that they should be entirely dependent, even for fair treatment, on the good-will of the Masters.”
It was in fact but a faint picture of that contest for supremacy between capital and labor, which we have since so often seen painted in much stronger colors. The struggle in the Masonry of Scotland began to culminate in the year 1708, when a petition was laid before the Lodge of Edinburgh from the Fellows, in which they complained that they were not permitted to inspect the Warden’s accounts.
The lodge granted the petition, and agreed that thereafter “six of the soberest and discretest Fellow-Craftsmen” should be appointed by the Deacon to oversee the Warden’s accounts. The lodge also granted further concessions and permitted the Fellow Crafts to have a part in the distribution of the charity fund to widows.
But these concessions do not appear to have satisfied the Fellows, who, as Lyon supposes, must have been guilty of decided demonstrations, which led the lodge in 1712 to revoke the privilege of inspecting the accounts that had been conferred by the statute of 1708.
This seems to have brought matters to a climax. At the same meeting the Fellow Crafts who were present, except two, left the room and immediately proceeded to organize a new lodge known afterward as the Journeymen’s Lodge. Every attempt on the part of the Masters’ Lodge to check this spirit of independence and to dissolve the schismatic lodge, though renewed from time to time for some years, proved abortive. The Journeymen’s Lodge continued to exercise all the rights of a lodge of Operative Masons, and to enter Apprentices and admit Fellows just as was done by the Masters’ Lodge from which it had so irregularly emanated.
Finally, in 1714, the most important and significant privilege of giving the “Mason Word” was adjudged to the Lodge of Journeymen by a decree of Arbitration.
The lodge, now perfected in its form and privileges, flourished, notwithstanding the occasional renewal of contests, until the organization of the Grand Lodge, when it became one of its constituents.
There can, I think, be no doubt that this independent action of the Journeymen Masons of Edinburgh led to an increase of lodges, when the prestige and power of the incorporated Masters had been once shaken. Twenty-four years after the establishment of the Journeymen’s Lodge we find no less than thirty-two lodges uniting to organize the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
Another event of great importance in reference to the history of the Grand Lodge is now to be noticed. I allude to the process through which the Masons of Scotland attained to the adoption of a Grand Master as the title of the head of their Order.
There can be no doubt that the Grand Lodge of Scotland was organized upon the model of that of England, which had sprung into existence nineteen years previously. As the English Grand Lodge had bestowed upon its presiding officer the title of Grand Master, it was very natural that the Scotch body, which had derived from it its ritual and most of its forms, should also derive from it the same title for its chief.
But while we have no authentic records to show that previous to 1717 the English Masons had any General Superintendent, under any title whatever, it is known that the Scottish Masons had from an early period an officer who, without the name, exercised much of the powers and prerogatives of a Grand Master.
On December 28, 1598, William Schaw enacted, or to use the expression in the original document, “sett down” certain “statutes and ordinances to be observed by all Master Masons” in the realm of Scotland. In the heading of these Statutes he calls himself “Master of Work to his Majesty and General Warden of the said Craft.” In a minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh, of the date of 1600, he is designated as “Principal Warden and Chief Master of Masons.”
Now in the Statutes and Ordinances just referred to, as well as in a subsequent code of laws, ordained in the following year, there is ample evidence that this General Warden exercised prerogatives very similar to those of a Grand Master and indeed in excess of those exercised by modern Grand Masters, though Lyon is perfectly correct in saying that the name and title were unknown in Scotland until the organization of the Grand Lodge in 1736.
The very fact that the Statutes were ordained by him and that the Craft willingly submitted to be governed by codes of laws emanating from his will -that he required the election of Wardens by the lodges to be submitted to and to be confirmed by him, “that he assigned their relative rank to the lodges of Edinburgh, of Kilwinning, and of Stirling,” and that he delegated or “gave his power and commission” to the lodges to make other laws which should be in conformity with his Statutes - proves, I think, very conclusively that if he did not assume the title of Grand Master of Masons of Scotland, he, at all events, exercised many of the prerogatives of such an office.
It is true that it is said in the preamble to the Statutes of 1598 that they are “sett down” (a term equivalent to “prescribed”) by the General Warden “with the consent of the Masters;” but the acceptance of such consent was most likely a mere concession of courtesy, for the Statutes of 1599 are expressly declared in many instances to be “ordained by the General Warden,” and in other instances it is said that the law or regulation is enacted because “it is thought needful and expedient by the General Warden.” All of which shows that the Statutes were the result of the will of the General Warden and not of the Craft. That the Masters accepted them and consented to them afterward was very natural as a matter of necessity. There might have been a different record had they been uncompliant and refused assent to regulations imposed upon them by their superior.
Therefore, though the theory of the existence of Grand Masters in Scotland under that distinctive title at a period anterior to the organization of the Grand Lodge must be rejected as wholly untenable, it can hardly be denied that William Schaw, under the name of General Warden, did, at the close of the 16th century, exercise many of the prerogatives of the office of Grand Master.
Schaw died in 1602, and with him most probably died also the peculiar prerogatives of a General Warden, but the Scottish Craft appear not to have been in consequence without a head.
This leads us to the consideration of the St. Clair Charters, documents of undoubted authenticity but which have been used by Brewster in Laurie’s History, under a false interpretation of the existence of the office of Grand Master of Masons in Scotland, from the time of James II., an hypothesis which has, however, been proved to be fallacious and untenable.
There are two ancient manuscripts in the repository of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, which are known by the title of the St. Clair Charters. The date of the first of these is supposed to be about the year 1601, and is signed by William Schaw as Master of Work, and by the office-bearers of five different lodges. The date of the other is placed by Lyon, with good reason, at 1628. It is signed by the office-bearers of five lodges also.In the Advocates’ Library of Edinburgh there is a small manuscript volume known as the “Hays MSS.” which contains copies of these charters, not materially or substantially varying from the originals in the repository of the Grand Lodge.
The genuineness of these original manuscripts is undeniable. Whatever we can derive from them in relation to the position as signed by the Scottish Craft to the St. Clairs of Roslin in the beginning of the 17th century will be of historical value.
By them alone we may decide the long-contested question whether the St. Clairs of Roslin were or were not Hereditary Grand Masters of the Masons of Scotland. The Editor of Laurie’s History of Freemasonry asserts that these charters supply the proof that the grant to William Sinclair as Hereditary Grand Master was made by James II. Mr. Lyon contends that the charters furnish a conclusive refutation of any such assertion. The first of these opinions has for a long time been the most popular. The last has, however, under more recent researches been now generally adopted by Masonic scholars. An examination of the precise words of the two charters will easily settle the question.
The first charter, the date of which is 1601, states (transmuting the Scottish dialect into English phrase) that “from age to age it has been observed among us that the Lords of Roslin have ever been patrons and protectors of us and our privileges, and also that our predecessors have obeyed and acknowledged them as patrons and protectors, which within these few years has through negligence and slothfulness passed out of use.” It proceeds to state that in consequence the Lords of Roslin have been deprived of their just rights and the Craft subjected to much injury by being ..destitute of a patron, protector, and overseer.” Among the evils complained of is that various controversies had arisen among the Craftsmen for the settlement of which by the ordinary judges they were unable to wait in consequence of their poverty and the long delays of legal processes.
Wherefore the signers of the charter for themselves and in the name of all the Brethren and Craftsmen agree and consent that William Sinclair of Roslin shall for himself and his heirs purchase and obtain from the King liberty, freedom, and jurisdiction upon them and their successors in all time to come as patrons and judges of them and all the professors of their Craft within the realm (of Scotland) of whom they have power and commission.
The powers thus granted by the Craft to the Lord of Roslin were very ample. He and his heirs were to be acknowledged as patrons and judges, under the King, without appeal from their judgment, with the power to appoint one or more deputies. In conclusion the jurisdiction of the Lords of Roslin was to he as ample and large as the King might please to grant to him and his heirs.
The second charter was issued in 1628 by the Masons and Hammermen of Scotland. It repeats almost in the same words the story contained in the first that the Lords of Roslin had ever been patrons and protectors of the Scottish Craft, and adds the statement that there had been letters patent to that effect issued by the progenitors of the King, which had been burnt with other writings in a fire which occurred in a year not stated within the Castle of Roslin.
The William Sinclair to whom the previous charter had been granted having gone over to Ireland, the same evils complained of in the beginning of the century were renewed, and the Craft now in this second charter grants to Sir William Sinclair of Roslin the same powers and prerogatives that had been granted to his father, as their ..only protector, patron, and overseer.”
The contents of these two charters supply the following facts, which must be accepted as historical since there is no doubt of the genuineness of the documents.
In the first place there was a tradition in the beginning of the 17th century, and most probably at the close of the 16th, if not earlier, that the Sinclairs of Roslin had in times long passed exercised a superintending care and authority over the Craft of Scotland.
This superintendence they exercised as protectors, patrons, and overseers, and it consisted principally in settling disputes and deciding controversies between the brethren without appeal, which disputes and controversies would otherwise have to be submitted to the decision of a court of law.
The tradition implied that this office of protectorate of the Craft was hereditary in the house of Roslin, but had not been exercised continuously and uninterruptedly, but on the contrary had, in the beginning of the 17th century, been long disused.
It is true that there is no reference in the first charter to any crown grant, at least in explicit terms, but it speaks of the Lord of Roslin as lying out of his “just right” by the interruption in the exercise of the prerogative of patron, and if he had or was supposed to have such “just right,” then the implication is strong that it was founded on a royal grant. The second charter is explicit on this subject and asserts that the record of the grant had been destroyed by a conflagration. This statement is very probably a myth, but it shows that a tradition to that effect must have existed among the Craft.
We may imply also from the language of the first charter that the Craft were in some doubt whether by this non-user the hereditary right had not been forfeited, since it is required by them that Sinclair should ..purchase and obtain” from the King permission to exercise the jurisdiction of a patron and judge. In fact the sole object of the charter was to authorize William Sinclair to get the royal authority to resume the prerogatives that had formerly existed in his family. Whether the Craft were correct in this judgment, and whether by lying in abeyance the hereditary right had lapsed and required a renewal by the royal authority are not material questions. It is sufficient that such was the opinion of the Scottish Masons at the time.
Lastly, the two charters are of historical importance in proving that at the time of their being issued, the title of Grand Master was wholly unknown to the Craft.
The Editor of Laurie’s History is, therefore, entirely unwarranted in his theory, which, however, he presents as an undoubted historical fact that the Sinclairs of Roslin were “Hereditary Grand Masters of Scotland.”
Equally unwarranted is he in making Kilwinning, in Ayrshire, the seat of his mythical Grand Lodge, not, as has been urged by Bro. Lyon, because the Sinclairs (1) had no territorial connection with Ayrshire, but simply because there is not the least historical evidence that Kilwinning was the center of Scottish Masonry, though the lodge in that village had assumed the character of a Mother Lodge and issued charters to subordinates.
The true historical phase which these charters seem to present is this: In the 17th century, or during a part of it, the Operative Masons of Scotland adopted the family of Sinclair of Roslin as their patrons and protectors, and as the umpires to whom they agreed to refer their disputes, accepting their decisions without appeal, as a much more convenient and economical method of settling disputes than a reference to a court of law would be. Out of this very simple fact has grown the mythical theory, encouraged by fertile imaginations, that they were Grand Masters by royal grant and hereditary right.
The immediate superintendence of the Scottish Masons seems, however, to have continued to be invested in a General Warden. In 1688, when there was a secession of members from the Lodge of Edinburgh, who established an independent lodge in the Canongate, one of the charges against them was that they had “erected a lodge among themselves to the great contempt of our society, without any Royal or General Warden’s authority.”
But the St. Clairs were the patrons and the General Wardens were the Masters of Work, while no reference was made to nor any word said of the title or the prerogatives of a Grand Master.
The point is, therefore, historically certain that there never was a Grand Master in Scotland until the establishment of the Grand Lodge, in 1736.
As early as the year 1600 we find the record of the admission of a nonprofessional into the Lodge of Edinburgh. The custom of admitting such
persons as honorary members continued throughout the whole of the 17th century. Before the middle of the century, noblemen, baronets, physicians, and advocates are recorded in the minutes as having been admitted as Fellow-Crafts. The evidence that at that time the Speculative element had begun to invade the Operative is not confined to the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh. There are records proving that the same custom prevailed in other lodges.
Much importance has rightly been attached to the fact that there is an authentic record of the admission of two gentlemen into an English lodge of Operative Masons in the year 1646. There are numerous instances of such admissions before that time in Scottish lodges. Indeed it has been well proved by records that it was a constant habit, from about 1600, in the Scottish lodges, to admit non-masons into the Operative lodges.
There ought not to be a doubt that the same practice prevailed in England
at the same time. That there is no proof of the fact is to be attributed to the absence of early English lodge minutes. The Scottish Masons have been more careful than the English in preserving their records.
The minutes of the Scottish lodges, and the one authentic record contained in Ashmole’s Diary, furnish sufficient evidence that in the 17th century the Operative Masons were admitting into their society men of wealth and rank, scholars, and members of the learned professions. This was undoubtedly the first step in that train of events which finally led to the complete detachment of the theoretic from the practical element, and the organization of the present system of Speculative Freemasonry.
The change from an Operative to a Speculative system was very sudden in England. At least, if the change was gradual and foreseen, we can not now trace the progress of events because of the absolute want of records.
In Scotland the change was well marked and its history is upon record. It was much slower than that in England. It was not until nineteen years after the Grand Lodge of England was organized that a similar organization took place in Scotland. And whereas the English lodges all assumed the Speculative character at once, after the Grand Lodge was established, and abandoned Operative Masonry altogether, some of the Scottish lodges, for many years after their connection with the Grand Lodge of Speculative Masonry, retained an Operative character, mingled with the Speculative.
The closing years of the 17th century were marked in Scotland by contests between the Masters and the Journeymen Masons, the former having long secured the dominant power. These contests led in the Lodge of Edinburgh to a secession of the FellowCrafts, who having been denied certain privileges, formed an independent lodge, which after some years of conflict with the Mother Lodge received by a decree of arbitration the power of admitting Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts and what appears to have been deemed of vast importance, the privilege of communicating the ..Mason Word.”
This seems to have been at that time the sum of esoteric instruction received by candidates on their admission.
Another cause of contest in Scottish Masonry at that period was the growing custom of receiving non-professional members into the lodges of Operative Masons. This custom had originated at least a century before, and there are records in the 17th century from its very commencement of the presence in the lodges as members of persons who were not Operative Masons. But in the early part of the 18th century the practice grew to such an extent that at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh in the year 1727, out of sixteen members present only three were operative Masons. And in the same year a lawyer was elected as Warden or presiding officer of the lodge.
In the year 1700 there were several lodges in various parts of Scotland. Although perhaps all of them contained among their members some persons of rank or wealth who were not Masons by profession, still the lodges were all Operative in their character.
Seventeen years afterward the English Operative Masons had merged their society into a Speculative Grand Lodge. The influence of this act was not slow to extend itself to Scotland, where the non-professionals began slowly but surely to dominate over the professional workmen.
In 1721 Dr. John Theophilus Desaguliers, who was the principal founder of the Grand Lodge of England, paid a visit to Edinburgh. He was received as a brother by the lodge, and at two meetings held for the purpose, several gentlemen of high rank were admitted into the fraternity.
As the records of these meetings are of historic importance, as showing the introduction of the new English system of Speculative Masonry into Scotland, I shall not hesitate to give them in the very words of the minute-book, as copied from the original by Bro. Lyon.
“Likeas (likewise) upon the 25th day of the sd moneth (August 1721) the Deacons, Warden, Masters, and several other members of the Societie, together with the sd Doctor Desaguliers having mett att Maries Chapell, there was a supplication presented to them by John Campbell Esqr. Lord Provost of Edinbr., George Preston and Hugh Hathorn, Bailies; James Nimo, Thesuarer, William Livingston Deacon convener of the Trades thereof; and Geroge Irving Clerk to the Dean of Guild Court, -and humbly craving to be admitted members of the sd Societie; which being considered by them, they granted the desire thereof, and the saids honourable persons were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts accordingly.
“And siclike upon the 28th day of the said moneth there was another petition given in by Sr. Duncan Campbell of Locknell, Barronet; Robert Wightman Esqr., present Dean of Gild of Edr.; George Drummond Esq., late Theasurer thereof; Archibald McAuley, late Bailly there; and Patrick Lindsay, merchant there, craveing the like benefit, which was also granted, and they receaved as members of the societie as the other persons above mentioned. The same day, James Key and Thomas Aikman servants to James Wattson, deacon of the Masons, were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and payed to James Mack, Warden the ordinary dues as such.”
There can be no doubt that the object of Desaguliers in visiting Scotland at that time was to introduce into the Scottish lodges the esoteric ritual so far as it had been perfected by himself and his colleagues for the Masons of England. Bro. Lyon very properly suggests that the proceedings of the lodge on that occasion “render it probable that taking advantage of his social position, he had influenced the attendance of the Provost and Magistrates of Edinburg and the other city magnates who accompanied them as applicants for Masonic fellowship in order to give a practical illustration of the system with which his name was so closely associated with a view to its commending itself for adoption by the lodges of Scotland.”
Hence in these two meetings we see that the ceremonies of entering and passing were performed a or, in other words, that the two new degrees of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft, as practiced in the Grand Lodge of England, were introduced to the Scottish Masons. The degree of Master was not conferred, and for this omission Bro. Lyon assigns a reason which involves an historic error most strange to have been committed by so expert and skilled a Masonic scholar as the historian of the Lodge of Edinburgh and the translator of Finders work.
Bro. Lyon’s words are as follows: “It was not until 1722-23 that the English regulation restricting the conferring of the Third Degree to Grand Lodge was repealed. This may account for the Doctor confining himself to the two lesser degrees.”
But the facts are that the regulation restricted the conferring of the Second as well as the Third degree to the Grand Lodge; that this regulation, instead of being repealed in 1722-23, was not promulgated until 1723, being first published in the Thirty-nine Articles contained in the Book of Constitutions of that date; and that it was not repealed until 1725.
Now if it be said that the restriction existed before it was promulgated, having been approved June 24, 1721, and was known to Desaguliers, it would have prevented him from conferring the Second as well as the Third degree.
If, however, the regulation was in force in England in 1721, which I have endeavored heretofore (1) to prove to be very doubtful, Desaguliers, in violating it so far as respected the Second degree, showed that he did not conceive that it was of any authority in Scotland, a country which was not under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England.
If so, the question arises, why did he not, at the same meeting, confer the Third degree?
The answer is that the Third degree had not yet been fabricated. In the task of formulating a ritual for the new system of Speculative Masonry, Desaguliers, Anderson, and the others, if there were any who were engaged with them in the task, had, in 1721, proceeded no further than the fabrication of the ritual of the First and Second degrees. These degrees only, therefore, he communicated to the Masons of Edinburgh on his visit to the lodge there. Subsequently, when the Third degree had received its form, it was imparted to the Masons of Scotland. Of the precise time and manner of this communication we have no record, but we know that it took place before the Grand Lodge of Scotland was organized. Lyon says that the year 1735 is the date of “the earliest Scottish record extant of the admission of a Master Mason under the modern Masonic Constitution.”
The visit of Desaguliers and the events connected with it develop at least two important points in the history of Scottish Masonry.
In the first place, we notice the great increase of non-professional members over the working craftsmen, so that in six or seven years after that visit the Speculative element had gained the supremacy over the Operative which led, in the second place, to the adoption of various forms indicative of the growing influence of Speculative Masonry, such as the change of the title of the presiding officer from “Warden” to that of “Master,” and the substitution, in the nomenclature of the Craft, of the word “Freemason” for the formerly common one of “Mason.”
From all this, and from certain proceedings in the years 1727, 1728, and 1729 connected with the contests between the Theoretic and the Operative members of the lodges, “it may be inferred,” says Bro. Lyon, ..that, departing from the simplicity of its primitive ritual and seizing upon the more elaborate one of its Southern contemporaries, and adapting it to its circumstances, the ancient lodge of the Operative Masons of Edinburgh had, in a transition that was neither rapid nor violent, yielded up its dominion to Symbolical Masonry and become a unit in the great Mystic Brotherhood that had started into existence in 1717.”
The next step that was naturally to be taken was the establishment of a Grand Lodge in close imitation in its form and Constitution of that of the similar body which had been previously instituted in the sister kingdom. The record of the occurrences which led to this event is much more ample than the meager details preserved by Anderson of the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, so that we meet with no difficulty in writing the history.
It had long been supposed, on the authority of the History attributed to Laurie, that the Scottish Masons had been prompted to first think of the institution of a Grand Lodge in consequence of a proposition made by William St. Clair of Roslin to resign his office of ..Hereditary Grand Master.” This is said to have been done in 1736. Lyon, however, denies the truth of this statement, and says that more than a year before the date at which St. Clair is alleged to have formally intimated his intention to resign the Masonic Protectorate, the creation of a Grand Mastership for Scotland had been mooted among the brethren.
The authentic history is perhaps to be found only in the pages of Lyon’s History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, and from it I therefore do not hesitate to draw the material for the ensuing narrative.
On September 29, 1735, at a meeting of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, a committee was appointed for the purpose of “framing proposals to be laid before the several lodges in order to the choosing of a Grand Master for Scotland.” At another meeting, on October 15th, the same committee was instructed to “take under consideration proposals for a Grand Master.”
On August 4, 1736, John Douglas, a surgeon and member of the Lodge of Kirkcaldy, was affiliated with the Lodge of Canongate Kilwinning and appointed Secretary, that he might make out “a scheme for bringing about a Grand Master for Scotland.”
On September 20th the lodge was visited by brethren from the Lodge Kilwinning Scots Arms, who made certain proposals on the subject.
The matter was now hastening to maturity, for on October 6th the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge met for the purpose, as its minutes declare, of “concerting proper measures for electing a Grand Master for Scotland.” Proposals were heard and agreed to. The four lodges of Edinburgh were to hold a preliminary meeting, when proper measures were to be taken for accomplishing the desired object.
Accordingly delegates from the four Edinburgh lodges, namely, Mary’s Chapel, Canongate Kilwinning, Kilwinning Scots Arms, and Leith Kilwinning, met at Edinburgh on October 15, 1736. It was then resolved that the four lodges in and about Edinburgh should meet in some convenient place to adopt proper regulations for the government of the Grand Lodge, which were to be sent with a circular letter to all the lodges of Scotland. A day was also to be determined for the election of a Grand Master, when all lodges which accepted the invitation were to be represented by their Masters and Wardens or their proxies.
The circular, which brought a sufficient number of lodges together at the appointed time to institute a Grand Lodge and elect a Grand Master, is in the following words:
..Brethren: The four lodges in and about Edinburgh, having taken into their serious consideration the great loss that Masonry has sustained through the want of a Grand Master, authorized us to signify to you, our good and worthy brethren, our hearty desire and firm intention to choose a Grand Master for Scotland; and in order that the same may be done with the greatest harmony, we hereby invite you (as we have done all the other regular lodges known by us) to concur in such a great and good work, whereby it is hoped Masonry may be restored to its ancient luster in this kingdom. And for effectuating this laudable design, we humbly desire that betwixt this and Martinmas day next, you will be pleased to give us a brotherly answer in relation to the election of a Grand Master, which we propose to be on St. Andrew’s day, for the first time, and ever thereafter to be on St. John the Baptist’s day, or as the Grand Lodge shall appoint by the majority of voices, which are to be collected from the Masters and Wardens of all the regular lodges then present or by proxy to any Master Mason or FellowCraft in any lodge in Scotland; and the election is to be in St. Mary’s Chapel. All that is hereby proposed is for the advancement and prosperity of Masonry in its greatest and most charitable perfection. We hope and expect a suitable return; wherein if any lodges are defective, they have themselves only to blame. We heartily wish you all manner of success and prosperity, and ever are, with great respect, your affectionate and loving brethren.”
This circular letter was accompanied by a printed copy of the regulations which had been proposed and agreed to at the meeting. By these regulations the Grand Master was to name the new Grand Wardens, Treasurer, and Secretary, but the nomination was to be unanimously approved by the Grand Lodge, and if it was not these officers were to be elected by ballot. The requirement of unanimity would be very certain to place the choice of most occasions in the Grand Lodge. The Grand Master was to appoint his own Deputy, provided he was not a member of the same lodge. There were to be quarterly communications, at which the particular lodges were to be represented by their Masters and Wardens with the Grand Master at their head. There was to be an annual visitation by the Grand Master with his Deputy and Wardens of all the lodges in town. There was to be an annual feast upon St. John’s day, and several other regulations, all of which were evidently copied from the Articles adopted in 1721 by the Grand Lodge of England and published in 1723 in the first edition of its Book of Constitutions.
There were several meetings of the four Edinburgh lodges, and finally, on November 25, 1736, it was agreed that the election of Grand Master should take place in Mary’s Chapel on Tuesday, November 30, 1736.
But while these preliminary meetings were being held a rivalry sprung up (as might have been anticipated from the nature of human passions) between two of the lodges, in the choice of the proposed Grand Master.
The Lodge of Edinburgh nominated for that office the Earl of Home, who
was one of its members. But the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, which was really the prime instigator of the movement for the institution of a Grand Lodge, was unwilling to surrender to another lodge the honor of providing a ruler of the Craft.
William St. Clair, who, notwithstanding the high claims advanced for his family does not appear to have taken any interest in Masonry, had been received as an Apprentice and Fellow-Craft only six months before (May 18, 1736) by the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, and had been raised to the Third degree only eight days before the election, was placed before the fraternity by the lodge of which he was a recent member, as a proper candidate for the Grand Mastership It will be seen in the subsequent details of the election that the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge availed itself of a strategy which might have been resorted to by a modern politician.
What Lyon calls “the first General Assembly of Scotch Symbolical Masons” was, according to agreement, convened at Edinburgh on Tuesday, November 30, 1736. There were at that time in Scotland about one hundred particular lodges. All of them had been summoned to attend the convention, but of these only thirty-three were present, each represented by its Master and two Wardens.
While in this scanty representation, only one-third of the lodges having responded to the call, we see that the interest in the legal organization of the Speculative system and the complete abandonment of the Operative had not been universally felt by the Scottish Craft, we find in the method of conducting the meeting that the spirit and forms of the English Constitution had been freely adopted by those who were present.
The list of the lodges which united in the establishment of a Grand Lodge is given both by Laurie’s Editor and by Lyon, and it is here presented as an important part of the historical narrative. The lodges present were as follows:
Mary’s Chapel,
Dumfermling,
Kilwinning,
Dundee,
Canongate Kilwinning,
Dalkeith,
Kilwinning Scots Arms,
Aitcheson’s Haven,
Kilwinning Leith,
Selkirk,
Kilwinning Glasgow,
Inverness,
Coupar of Fife,
Lesmahagoe,
Linlithgow,
St. Brides at Douglas,
Lanark,
Peebles,
Strathaven,
Glasgow St. Mungo’s,
Hamilton,
Greenock,
Dunse,
Falkirk,
Kirkcaldy,
Aberdeen,
Journey Masons of Edinburgh,
Mariaburgh,
Kirkintilloch,
Canongate and Leith,
Biggar,
Leith and Canongate,
Sanquhar,
Montrose.
After the roll had been called, and the draft of the Constitution with the form of proceedings had been submitted and approved, St. Clair of Roslin tendered a document to the convention which was read as follows:
..I, William St. Clair of Roslin, Esquire, taking into my consideration that the Masons in Scotland, did, by several deeds, constitute and appoint William and Sir William St. Clairs of Roslin, my ancestors and their heirs to be their Patrons, Protectors, Judges or Masters; and that my holding or claiming any such jurisdiction, right or privilege might be prejudicial to the Craft and vocation of Masonry, whereof I am a member, and I being desirous to advance and promote the good and utility of the said Craft of Masonry, to the utmost of my power, do therefore hereby, for me and my heirs, renounce, quit claim, overgive and discharge all right, claim or pretence that I or my heirs, had, have or anyways may have, pretend to or claim, to be Protector, Patron, Judge or Master of the Masons in Scotland, in virtue of any deed or deeds made and granted by the said Masons, or of any grant or charter made by any of the Kings of Scotland, to and in favour of the said William and Sir William St. Clairs of Roslin, my predecessors; or any other manner or way whatsoever, for now and ever. And I bind and oblige me and my heirs to warrant this present renunciation and discharge at all hands. And I consent to the registration hereof in the books of Council and Session or any other judges’ books competent, therein to remain for preservation, and thereto I constitute . . . my procurators, etc. In witness whereof I have subscribed these presents (written by David Maul, Writer to the Signet) at Edinburgh, the twenty-fourth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and thirty-six years, before these witnesses, George Frazer, deputy auditor of the excise in Scotland, Master of the Canongate Lodge, and William Montgomery, Merchant in Leith, Master of the Leith Lodge.”
This document was signed by W. St. Clair and attested by the two witnesses above mentioned. The reading of it at the opportune moment, just before the election of Grand Master was entered upon, is the strategical point to which reference has already been made. It succeeded in securing, as had been expected by the promoters of the scheme, the immediate election of William St. Clair as the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
As a legal instrument the renunciation of his ancestral rights by St. Clair is worthless. Whatever prerogatives he may have supposed that he possessed as a Masonic “Protector, Patron, Judge and Master,” referred exclusively to the Guild of Operative Masonry, and could not by any stretch of law have been extended to a voluntary association of Speculative Masons, the institution of which was expressly intended to act as a deletion of the Operative organization whose design and character were entirely cancelled and obliterated by the change from a practical art to a theoretical science. The laws of Operative Masonry can be applied to Speculative Masonry only by a symbolic process. If the Lords of Roslin had even been the ..Hereditary Grand Masters” of the stonecutters and builders who were congregated in a guild spirit in the Operative lodges of Scotland, it did not follow that they were by such hereditary right the Grand Masters of the scholars and men or rank, the clergymen, physicians, lawyers, and merchants who, having no connection or knowledge of the Craft of Masonry, had united to establish a society of an entirely different character.
But in a critical point of view in reference to the traditional claims of the St. Clairs to the Hereditary Grand Mastership, this instrument of renunciation is of great value.
It is but recently that the historians of Freemasonry have begun to doubt the statement that James II. of Scotland had conferred by patent the office of Grand Master on the Earl of Orkney, the ancestor of the St. Clairs and on his heirs. Brewster had boldly asserted it in the beginning of the present century, and although it has been more recently doubted whether such patent was issued, the statement continues to be repeated by careless writers and to be believed by credulous readers.
Now the language used by St. Clair its his renunciation before the Grand Lodge of Scotland must set this question at rest. He refers not to any patent granted to his original ancestors the Earls of Orkney, but to the two charters issued in 1601 and 1628 in which not the king but the Masons themselves had bestowed the office of patrons and protectors, first on William St. Clair and afterward on his son.
James Maidment, Advocate, the learned Editor of Father Hay’s Genealogie of the Saint Claires of Roslyn, comes to this conclusion in the following words:
..Thus the granter of the deed, who it must be presumed was better acquainted with the nature of his rights than any one else could be, derives his title from the very persons to whom the two modern charters were granted by the Masons; and in the resignation of his claim as patron, etc., exclusively refers to these two deeds or any ‘grant or charter made by the Crown,’ not in favor of William Earl of Orkney, but of William and Sir William St. Clair, the identical individuals in whose persons the Masons had created the office of patron.”
But in the excitement of the moment the representatives of the lodges were not prepared to enter into any such nice distinctions.
The apparent magnanimity of Mr. St. Clair in thus voluntarily resigning his hereditary claims had so fascinating an influence that though many of them had been instructed by their lodges to vote for another candidate, St. Clair was immediately elected Grand Master with great unanimity.
The remaining offices were filled by the election of Capt. John Young as Deputy Grand Master; Sir William Baillie as Senior Grand Warden; Sir Alexander Hope as Junior Grand Warden; Dr. John Moncrief as Grand Treasurer; John Macdougal, Esq., as Grand Secretary; and Mr. Robert Alison, Writer, as Grand Clerk.
Upon the institution of the Grand Lodge nearly all the lodges of the kingdom applied for Warrants of Constitution and renounced their former rights as Operative lodges, acknowledging thereby the supreme jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge as the Head of Speculative Masonry in Scotland.
In a review of the proceedings which finally led to the establishment of a Speculative Grand Lodge in Scotland, several circumstances are especially worthy of remark.
It has been seen that from a very early period, as far back as the close of the 16th century, theoretical Masons, or persons who were a part of the working Craft, had been admitted as members of the Operative lodges.
The custom of receiving non-professionals among the brethren was gradually extended, so that in the early years of the 18th century the nonprofessional members in some of the lodges greatly exceeded the professional.
In this way the transition from Operative to Speculative Masonry was made of easy accomplishment, so that when the Grand Lodge was established, several of the leading lodges which were engaged in the act of organization were already Speculative lodges in everything but the name.
Another event, which exerted a great influence in hastening the change in Scotland, was the visit of Desaguliers in the year 1721 to Edinburgh. He brought with him the ritual of Speculative Masonry, so far as it had then been formulated in England, and introduced it and the newly adopted English lodges into Scotland. Lyon refers to the formation of the Lodge Kilwinning Scots Arms in February, 1729, as one of the results of the Masonic communication between the northern and the southern capitals, which had been opened by this visit of Desaguliers. It was from the beginning a purely Speculative lodge, all of its original members having been theoretical Masons, chiefly lawyers and merchants. It was one of the four Edinburgh lodges which were engaged in the preliminary steps for the organization of the Grand Lodge.
As an evidence of how extensively the theoretical principle had spread, so that the scheme of abandoning the Operative character of the institution must have been easily effected, it may be stated that of the twelve hundred brethren returned to the Grand Lodge as members of the several lodges represented at the first election of officers in that body, one half were persons not engaged in mechanical pursuits.
The influence of English Masonry is also seen in the fact that in the middle of the 17th century the English Legend of the Craft was known to and used by the Aitcheson’s Haven Lodge of Musselburg and the Lodge of Edinburgh as well as other Scottish lodges and was in all probability used in the initiation of candidates. As the two manuscripts which still remain in Scotland are known from their form and language to have been copies of some of the old English Records of the “Legend” and “Charges,” no better evidence than the use of them by Scottish lodges could be needed to prove that the English Masonry had been constantly from the 17th century exerting a dominating influence upon the Craft in Scotland which finally culminated in the organization of the Grand Lodge.
Finally, the Grand Lodge of Scotland presents an important and marked peculiarity in the cause and manner of its institution.
The first Grand Lodge of Speculative Masons ever established was the Grand Lodge of England organized in the year 1717 at London. From this Grand Lodge every other Grand Lodge in the world, with one exception, has directly or indirectly proceeded. That is to say, the Grand Lodge of
England established in foreign countries either lodges which afterward uniting, became Grand Lodges, or it constituted Provincial Grand Lodges which, in the course of time and through political changes, assumed independence and became national supreme bodies in Masonry.
But however instituted as Grand Lodges, they derived, remotely, the authority for their legal existence from the Grand Lodge of England, so that that venerable body has very properly been called the “Mother Grand Lodge of the World.”
The single exception to this otherwise universal rule is found in the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Of all Grand Lodges it alone has derived no authority for its constitution from the English body. The Scottish lodges existed contemporaneously with the English; at a very early period they admitted non-professional members and they began at the beginning of the 18th century to take the preliminary steps for their conversion from an Operative to a Speculative character. In this they were undoubtedly influenced by the English Masons, who about the same time had begun to contemplate the expediency of a similar conversion.
But although while the Scottish lodges, in organizing their Grand Lodge, were undoubtedly led to take the necessary steps by the previous action of the English lodges, and while they borrowed much of the forms and imitated the example of their English brethren, they derived from them no authority or warrant of Constitution.
The Masonry of Scotland produced from its own Operative lodges its Speculative Grand Lodge, precisely as was the case with the Masonry of England. And in this respect it has differed from the Masonry of every other country where the Operative element never merged into the Speculative, but where the latter was a direct and independent importation from the Speculative Grand Lodge of England, wholly distinct from the Operative Masonry which existed at the same time.
THE first important event in the history of English Freemasonry which seriously affected the harmony of the Fraternity, was the schism which occurred in the year 1753. The interposition of a new and rival authority in the north of England by the self-constitution of a Grand Lodge at the city of York in the year 1725, seems to have created no embarrassment, save in its immediate locality, to the Grand Lodge at London.
The sphere of its operations was limited to its own narrow vicinity, nor, until nearly half a century after its organization, did it seek, by traveling beyond those meager limits, to antagonize, in the south of the kingdom, the jurisdiction of the body at London.
But the schism which commenced at London and in the very bosom of the Grand Lodge in the year 1753, and to the history of which this chapter shall be dedicated, was far more important in its effects, not only on the progress of Speculative Masonry in England, but also in other countries. The Grand Lodge, which in the above-mentioned year was organized as a successful rival and antagonist of the regular Grand Lodge, has received in the course of its career various names. Styling itself officially the ..Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,” it was also called, colloquially, the “Grand Lodge of Ancients,” both designations being intended to convey the vain-glorious boast that it was the exponent of a more ancient system of Freemasonry than that which was practiced by the regular Grand Lodge, which had been in existence only since 1717. Upon that later system, as it was asserted to be, the Schismatics bestowed the derogatory designation of the “Grand Lodge of Moderns.” And so the schismatic body having been formed by a secession from the regular and constitutional Grand Lodge, its members were often called the “Seceders.” Subsequent writers have been accustomed to briefly distinguish the two rival bodies as the “Moderns.. and the ..Ancients;” without however any admission on the part of the former of the legal fitness of the terms, but simply for the sake of avoiding tedious circumlocutions.
Another and a very common title bestowed upon the schismatic body was that of the “Atholl Grand Lodge,” because the Dukes of Atholl, father and son, presided over it for many successive years, and it has also been sometimes called the “Dermott Grand Lodge,” in allusion to Laurence Dermott, who was once its Deputy Grand Master, and for a long time its Grand Secretary, and who was one of its founders, its most able defender, and the compiler of its Ahizman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions.
In the present sketch this body will, for convenience, be distinguished as the ..Atholl Grand Lodge,” and its members as the ..Ancients,” without, however, the remotest idea of conceding to them or to their Grand Lodge the correctness of their claim for a greater antiquity than that which rightly belongs to the Constitutional Grand Lodge, established in 1717.
The progress of the schism which culminated in the organization of the Atholl Grand Lodge was not very rapid. As far back as 1739, complaints were made in the Grand Lodge against certain brethren, who, as Entick euphemistically phrases it, were “suspected of being concerned in an irregular making of Masons.”
But the inquiry into this matter was postponed.
At a subsequent quarterly Communication held in the same year the inquiry was resumed, and the offending brethren having made submission and promised good behavior, they were pardoned, but it was ordered by the Grand Lodge that the laws should be strictly enforced against any brethren who should for the future countenance or assist at any irregular makings.
The language of Entick is not explicit, and it authorizes us to suppose either that the pardon granted by the Grand Lodge was consequent on the submission of the offenders which had been made before the pardon was given, or that it was only promissory and depended on their making that submission.
Some may have made the submission and received the pardon, but the reconciliation was by no means complete, for Northouck (1) tells us that the censure of the Grand Lodge irritated the brethren who had incurred it, and who, instead of returning to their duty and renouncing their error, persisted in their contumacy and openly refused to pay allegiance to the Grand Master or obedience to the mandates of the Grand Lodge.
..In contempt of the ancient and established laws of the Order,” says Northouck, “they set up a power independent, and taking advantage of the inexperience of their associates, insisted that they had an equal authority with the Grand Lodge to make, pass, and raise Masons.”
In the note, whence this passage is taken, and in which Northouck has committed several errors, he has evidently anticipated the course of events and confounded the ..irregular makings” by private lodges which began about the year 1739, with the establishment of the Grand Lodge of Ancients, which did not take place until about 1753.
This body of disaffected Masons appears, however, to have been the original source whence, in the course of subsequent years, sprang the organized Grand Lodge of the Ancients.
The process of organization was, however, slow. For some time the contumacious brethren continued to hold their lodges independently of any supreme authority. Nor is it possible, from any records now existing, to determine the exact year in which the Grand Lodge of the Ancients assumed a positive existence.
Preston tells us that the brethren who had repudiated the authority of the Constitutional Grand Lodge held meetings in various places for the purpose of initiating persons into Masonry contrary to the laws of the Grand Lodge.
Preston also says that they took advantage of the breach which had been made between the Grand Lodges of London and York, and assumed the title of ..York Masons.” In this statement he is, however, incorrect. There was never any recognition by the London Grand Lodge of the body calling itself the Grand Lodge of York, nor was that Grand Lodge in active existence at the time, having suspended its labors from 1734 to 1761.
The name of “York Masons,” adopted by these seceders, was derived from the old tradition contained in the Legend of she Craft, that the first Grand Lodge in England was established by Prince Edwin in 926 at the city of York.
Northouck assigns this reason for the title when he says that “under a fictitious sanction of the Ancient York constitutions, which was dropped at the revival of the Grand Lodge in 1717, they presumed to claim the right of constituting Lodges.”
The Grand Lodge at London now committed an act of folly, the effects of which remain to the present day. Being desirous to exclude the seceding Masons from visiting the regular lodges, it made a few changes in the ritual by transposing certain significant words in the lower degrees, and inventing a new one in the Third.
The opportunity of raising the cry of innovation (a phrase that has always been abhorrent to the Masonic mind) was not lost. But availing themselves of it, the seceders began to call themselves ..Ancient Masons,” and stigmatize the members of the regular lodges as ..Modern Masons,” thus proclaiming that they alone had preserved the old usages of the Craft, while the regulars had invented and adopted new ones.
At this day, when the turbulence of passion has long ceased to exist, and when the whole Fraternity of English Masons is united under one system, it is impossible duly to estimate the evil consequences which arose from this measure of innovation adopted by the Grand Lodge.
If it had made no change in its ritual, but confined itself to the exercise of discipline according to constitutional methods, provided by its own laws, it is probable that the irregular lodges would have received little countenance from the great body of the Craft, and as they would have had no defense for their contumacy, except their objection to the stringency of the Grand Lodge regulations, that objection could have been easily met by showing that the regulations were stringent only because stringency was necessary to the very existence of the institution.
Unsustained by any justification of their rebellion, they would, under the general condemnation of the wiser portion of the Fraternity, have been compelled in the course of time to abandon their independent and irregular lodges and once more to come under obedience to their lawful superior, the Grand Lodge of England.
But the charge that the landmarks had been invaded and that innovations on the ancient usages had been introduced, had a wonderful effect in giving strength to the cause of those who thus seemed in their rebellion to be only defenders of the old ways.
“Antiquity,” says one who was himself an Ancient York Mason, “is dear to a Mason’s heart; innovation is treason, and saps the venerable fabric of the Order.”
And so the seceders, instead of returning to their allegiance to the legitimate Grand Lodge, persisted in their irregularities, and making new converts, sometimes of individuals and sometimes of entire lodges, which were attracted by their claim of antiquity, at length resolved to acquire permanent life and authority by the establishment of a Grand Lodge to which they gave the imposing name of “The Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions.”
But the seceders themselves were not less obnoxious to the charge of innovating on the landmarks. One change in the existing ritual introduced by them was far more important than any mere transposition of passwords. This innovation having been extended by them into all the foreign countries where the Grand Lodge of the Ancients subsequently established lodges or Provincial Grand Lodges, and afterward compulsorily accepted by the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, at the union of the Grand Lodges at London in 1813, has entirely changed the whole system of Freemasonry from that which existed in the constitutional Grand Lodge of England during the 18th century.
This innovation consisted in a mutilation of the Third degree or “Master’s Part,” and the fabrication of a Fourth degree, now known to the Fraternity as the Royal Arch degree.
“The chief feature in the new ritual,” says Brother Hughan, “consisted in a division of the Third degree into two sections, the second of which was restricted to a few Master Masons who were approved as candidates and to whom the peculiar secrets were alone communicated.”
From the year 1723 and onward throughout the 18th century and the early portion of the 19th the Grand Lodge of Moderns practiced only three degrees. The adoption of a Fourth degree by the Grand Lodge of Ancients gave to that body a popularity which it probably would not otherwise have obtained. “Many gentlemen,” says Hughan, in the work just cited, “preferred joining the ‘Grand Lodge of Four Degrees,’ to associating with the society which worked only three.” And hence when, in 1813, the two rival bodies entered into a union which produced the present Grand Lodge of England, the Moderns were forced to abandon their ritual of three degrees, and to accept that of the Ancients. So in the second article of the Compact, it was declared “that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more; viz., those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow-Craft, and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch.”
This was evidently a compromise, and compromises always indicate some previous attempt at compulsion. The constitutional Grand Lodge sought to preserve its consistency by recognizing only three degrees, while it immediately afterward, and in the same sentence, sacrificed that consistency by admitting that there was a Fourth, called the Royal Arch.
The Ancients had clearly gained a victory, but without this victory the union could never have been accomplished. But this subject of the Royal Arch will be more fully discussed when we come to the consideration of the origin and history of that degree.
I have already said that it is impossible to determine the precise year in which the Grand Lodge of Ancients was established. Before its actual organization the brethren of the different lodges appear to have combined under the title of the “Grand Committee.” This body, it would seem, subsequently became the Grand Lodge.
The earliest preserved record of the transactions of this Committee has the date of July 17, 1751. On that day there was an Assembly of Ancient Masons at the “Turk’s Head Tavern,” in Greek Street, Soho, when the Masters of the seven lodges which recognized to which work I am also indebted for valuable information in the way of quotations from the “Atholl Records.” This is the earliest date cited in the “Atholl Records.” the Grand Committee as their head, namely, lodges Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, “were authorized to grant Dispensations and Warrants and to act as Grand Master.”
The first result of this unusual and certainly very irregular authority conferred upon all the Masters of private lodges to act as Grand Master was the Constitution in the same year of a lodge at the “Temple and Sun,” Shire Lane, Temple Bar, which took the number 8, and this appears to have been the first Warrant issued by the Ancients.
The Warrant, which is in favor of James Bradshaw, Master, and Thomas Blower and R.D. Guest, as Wardens, is signed by the Masters of lodges Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. This would imply that the authority and prerogatives of a Grand Master were conferred not upon each Master, individually, but upon the whole of them, collectively, or at least upon a majority of them. These Masters constituted a body which in its exercise of the prerogatives of a Grand Master has since found its analogue in the “Council of the Order” into which the Grand Orient of France has for some years merged its Grand Mastership, though the mode of organization of the latter body materially differs from that of the former.
This “Grand Committee,” whose presiding officer was called the “President,” exercised the functions of a Grand Lodge without the name until the close of the year 1752. In 1751 it granted Warrants for two other lodges, numbered respectively 9 and 10; in 1752 it constituted five more, respectively numbered as 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
It will be seen that in its legislation the Grand Committee refers only to No. 2 as its oldest lodge. No. 1 must, however, have existed, though not named as such in the records. But in the list of Atholl Lodges given by Bro. Gould, No. 1 is stated to have been called the ..Grand Master’s Lodge,” and its Warrant is dated August 13, 1759. In 1751 and 1752 it could not, however, have borne this title, because during those years there was no Grand Master recognized by the Ancients.
It was probably the senior lodge, the first which seceded from the legitimate Grand Lodge, and with which Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 subsequently united.
These were lodges which on account of their irregularities and schismatic proceedings had been stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England, and having assumed the name of Ancient Masons, had enrolled themselves under the lead of the oldest of their companions in secession.
This older lodge appears to have been the body known at first as the Grand Committee and which, some time after the organization of a Grand Lodge, received the title of “The Grand Master’s Lodge” and the precedence of lodges as No. 1.
It is only in this way that we can reasonably explain the apparent anomaly that of the seven lodges which must have been engaged in 1751 in the work of the Ancients, no mention is made of No. 1, but that upon No. 2, with the five other lodges of later numbers, was conferred the functions of
a Grand Master and the power of warranting lodges, while no mention is made of No. 1, the oldest of the seven. The fact was that No. 1 constituted the really governing body, known until a Grand Lodge was established as the Grand Committee. Bro. Gould, who has very carefully investigated the history of the Atholl lodges, entertains the same opinion.
He says: “The ‘Grand Committee’ of the ‘Ancients,’ which subsequently developed into their ‘Grand Lodge,’ was, no doubt, originally their senior private lodge, whose growth, in this respect, is akin to that of the Grand Chapter of the ..Moderns,’ which, commencing in 1765 as a private Chapter, within a few years assumed the general direction of the R. A. Masonry, and issued Warrants of constitution.”
Of this Grand Committee John Morgan was, in 1751, the Secretary. He appears to have been very remiss in the performance of his duties. His successor, Laurence Dermott, who was elected Secretary or Grand Secretary of the Committee February 5, 1752, reported that he had received “no copy or manuscript of the Transactions” from Morgan, and did not believe that that officer had ever kept a book of records. This neglect has thrown much obscurity on the early periods of the history of the Ancients.
The “Grand lodge of England, according to the old Institutions,´ appears to have been organized as a Grand Lodge on December 5, 1753, for on that day Robert Turner, the Master of Lodge No. 15, was elected the first Grand Master. Laurence Dermott, who was at that time the Secretary of the Grand Committee, became the Grand Secretary of the new Grand Lodge, and continued in that office until the year 1770.
In writing a sketch of the Grand Lodge of “Ancients,” it would not be fitting to the prominent position he occupied in its history to give to Dermott only an incidental notice. First as its Grand Secretary, and afterward as Grand Master, he gave to the scheme of organizing a body rivaling that of the Constitutional Masons, a factitious luster which secured it an extraordinary share of popularity. It must be admitted that this was, in great part, accomplished by scandalous statements, devoid of truth; while such a course must detract from his moral character, we can not deny to him the reputation of being the best informed and the most energetic worker of all the disciples and adherents of the so-called ..Ancient Masonry.” In the early years of the Grand Lodge of a ..Ancients” we look in vain for the name of any officer or member distinguished for social rank or literary reputation. We look in vain, among those who were prominent in its history, for such scholars as Anderson or Payne or Desaguliers. The name of Dermott shows the only star
in its firmament, not indeed peculiarly effulgent in itself, but whose brilliance is owing to contrast with the obscurity of those which surround it.
In some well written “Studies of Masonic History,” published in Mackey’s National Freemason, Bro. J.F. Brennan has thus described the successful efforts of Dermott to establish the popularity of his Grand Lodge.
..The history of that period, so far as concerns Laurence Dermott’s strenuous and persistent determination to establish upon a firm foundation his Grand Lodge, has, except in slight degree, never been published, if it has ever been written. Enough to say, that notwithstanding the most earnest antagonism manifested towards him by the 1717 organization, or its then succession, he
triumphantly did succeed, and not only divided the profits of Grand Lodgeism with the earlier organization in London, but as well led the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland to believe that the 1717 organization was a spurious body and therefore unworthy of recognition by those Grand Lodges while his Grand Lodge was really and properly the true Grand Lodge of English Freemasons. And not only did he thus succeed, but he also induced Freemasons in the then British American Colonies, which subsequently became the United States, particularly in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina to believe that in his Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons, alone was true Freemasonry extant; and so well did he succeed that while in several of those colonies he established under his Charter lodges assuming to be Grand Lodges, in Pennsylvania, notably, he induced all the lodges there already and for several years established to surrender their Charters and accept from him Charters preferably, and as authority for their practice of what he designated the real Ancient York and only true Masonry recognized or properly recognizable, and his Ahiman Rezon, a plagiaristic adaptation of the 1723 publication of Anderson, the only correct ..Book of Masonic Constitutions.’ “
Of a man so successful in intrigue we know but little, save what we derive from his connection with the body which he served so faithfully. Unlike Anderson and Desaguliers and Payne and Folkes and other lights of the legitimate Grand Lodge, he wrote nothing and did nothing, outside of Masonry, which could secure his memory from oblivion.
Laurence Dermott was born in Ireland in the year 1720. In 1740 he was initiated into Freemasonry in a Modern lodge at Dublin, and on June 24, 1746, was installed as Master of Lodge No. 26 in that city.
It is undeniable that Dermott was a man of some education. Brother Gould says that “besides English and his native Irish, Dermott seems to have been conversant with the Jewish tongue. All the books kept by him as Grand Secretary are plastered over with Hebrew characters, and the
proceedings of the Stewards’ lodge record, under date of March 21, 1764, ‘Heard the petition of G.J. Strange, an Arabian Mason, with whom the Grand Secretary conversed in the Hebrew language..... The Ahiman Rezon, while the title indicates a smattering at least of Hebrew, gives several proofs that Dermott was a man of some reading. He was not a profound scholar, but he was far from being illiterate.
In what year he removed to England is not known, but he afterward joined a lodge under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Grand Lodge. In 1751 he removed his membership to Lodge No. 1, on the registry of the “Ancients,” and was a member of it when on February 5, 1752, he was elected Grand Secretary of the seceders’ Grand Lodge. From that time he devoted all his energies and what abilities he possessed to the advancement of the cause of the “Ancients,” with what success has already been seen.
He was appointed Deputy Grand Master on March 2, 1771, by the third Duke of Atholl, who had just been elected Grand Master. On December 27, 1777, he resigned that position, and at his request W. Dickey was appointed as his successor by the fourth Duke of Atholl. He was again appointed Deputy on December 27, 1783, and was, at his own request, succeeded, on December 27, 1787, by James Perry, who was appointed by the Earl of Antrim, Grand Master at that time. Dermott’s last appearance in the Grand Lodge was on June 3, 1789, after which period he is lost sight of.
During this long period of thirty-seven years Laurence Dermott was untiring in his devotion to the interests of the “Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,” and to the propagation of what was called “Ancient York Masonry.”
Six years after its organization the legitimate Grand Lodge, established in 1717, had prepared and published a Book of Constitutions. Dermott felt it necessary that his own Grand Lodge should also have a code of laws for its government.
Accordingly, in 1756 he published the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of which he was the Grand Secretary, under the following title:
Ahiman Rezon: or a Help to a Brother, showing the Excellency of Secrecy and the first cause or motive of the Institution of Freemasonry; the Principles of the Craft and the Benefits from a Strict Observance thereof etc., also the Old and New Regulations, etc. To which is added the greatest collection of Masons’ Songs, etc. By Laurence Dermott, Secretary.
Other editions, with the title much abbreviated, were published subsequently, the last, by Thomas Harper, in 1813, the year before the union of the two Grand Lodges.
The third edition, published in 1778, has a much briefer title. It is the Ahiman Rezon: or a Help to all that are, or would be Free and Accepted Masons, with many Additions. By Lau. Dermott, D.G.M.
In this work, partly in an address “To the Reader” (pages i-xxi), and in what he calls ..A Phylacterial for such Gentlemen as may be inclined to become Free-Masons “ (pages xxii to xxviii), he gives a confused history of the origin of the Grand Lodge of Moderns and of his own Grand Lodge, claiming, of course, for the latter a priority of date, and decrying the former as a spurious innovation on genuine Freemasonry.
His attempted history is, on account of its meager details and its assumptions, unsupported by any authority, utterly without value. As a specimen of its worthlessness as an historical document, the following narrative of the Grand Lodge at London in 1717 affords a fair sample:
“About the year 1717,” he writes, “some joyous companions who had passed the degree of a craft (though very rusty) resolved to form a lodge for themselves in order (by conversation) to recollect what had been formerly dictated to them, or if that should be found impracticable, to substitute something new, which might for the future pass for masonry amongst themselves. At this meeting the question was asked whether any person in the assembly knew the Master’s part, and being answered in the negative, it was resolved, nem. con., that the deficiency should be made up, with a new composition, and what fragments of the old order found amongst them should be immediately reformed, and made more pliable to the humors of the people.” (2)
In this absurd way he proceeds to account for the invention of a ritual by the “Moderns,” which they adopted as a substitute for the genuine possessed by the “Ancients.”
It is indeed extraordinary that this unscrupulous writer should have had the audacity to assert that he and his followers were in possession of a system of Speculative Freemasonry much older than that which was practiced by the Grand Lodge, organized in 1717, and that they derived their authority to open and hold their lodges from this more ancient system.
The fact is that Dermott himself, like every one of those who before his appearance on the stage had separated from the Constitutional Grand Lodge and established what they called ..Lodges of Ancient Masons,” was originally made in a lodge of Moderns. Whatever he knew of Speculative Freemasonry was derived from a lodge in Ireland which had derived its authority and learned its lessons from the 1717 Grand Lodge at London.
The first schism, which took place in 1738, was not pretended to be based on the fact that the seceders were desirous of practicing an older and purer Masonry than that professed by the Grand Lodge at London. It was because they were unwilling to submit to the constitutional regulations which had been established by the Grand Lodge and because their irregular proceedings, in violation of those regulations, had met with necessary censure and deserved punishment.
It is true that after the secession and consequent erasure from the roll of these contumacious lodges, the Constitutional Grand Lodge, to prevent the visits of irregular Masons, had most unwisely made a few alterations in the modes of recognition.
These alterations were not adopted by the seceders, but retaining the old methods which had been in use, certainly as far back as 1723, some of them still earlier, they claimed to be “Ancient Masons,” because they adhered to the old forms, while they stigmatized the Masons who still maintained their allegiance to the Constitutional Grand Lodge as “Moderns,” because they practiced the new methods.
And this is in fact all there really is about this dispute concerning “Ancients” and “Moderns,” which for so many years distracted the English Craft, and the remembrance of which is to this day preserved and perpetuated in America, where Dermott Masonry at one time prevailed to a very great extent, by the title assumed by several Grand Lodges of “Ancient York Masons.”
The hypothesis that there was any Speculative Freemasonry distinct from Operative Freemasonry that can be traced to an earlier origin than that of the Grand Lodge established in 1717, was a fiction invented by its propagators under the influence of interested motives and ignorantly accepted by their successors as an historical fact.
We know from documents now extant that Laurence Dermott, who was entered, passed, and raised in a lodge of what he afterward called a lodge of “Moderns,” who afterward presided over a lodge of the same character in Ireland, and on his removal to England renewed his connection with a Modern lodge, and so remained until he was elected the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of “Ancients.”
It is almost impossible to believe, that with the knowledge which he must have had of current events, he could have honestly been of the opinion that there was any Speculative Freemasonry, or any Grand Lodge of Speculative Freemasonry, older than that established in 1717.
He must have known, too, while he was stigmatizing this body as illegal and sarcastically styling the system which it practiced ..the memorable invention of modern masonry,” that from it, and from it alone, every lodge of Speculative Masons, his own lodges included, either directly or indirectly had derived the authority for their existence.
Nothing more clearly shows the insincerity of Dermott’s denunciation of the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” than his conduct in reference to the Regulations. It is known that in 1721 the Grand Lodge approved the “General Regulations of the Free and Accepted Masons,” which had been compiled the year before by Grand Master Payne. In 1723 these were published by authority of the Grand Lodge, together with the “Old Charges,” which had been “collected from the old Records” and “the manner of Constituting a New Lodge” as practiced by Grand Master the Duke of Wharton.
In 1738, by authority of the same Grand Lodge, a second edition of the Book of Constitutions was published under the editorship of Dr. Anderson. In this edition Anderson made some material changes in the language of the “Old Charges,” and in ..the manner of Constituting a New Lodge,” so as to adapt them to the changes in the Ritual by which the Master Mason superseded the FellowCraft as the crowning degree of Speculative Freemasonry. He also published the ..General Regulations” in two columns; in the first were the “Old Regulations,” printed without change, and in the other column, opposite to them, were “the New Regulations, or the Alterations, Improvements or Explications of the Old, made by several Grand Lodges since the first edition.”
Now this second edition, having after inspection of the manuscript been “approved and recommended” by the Grand Lodge, ..as the only Book of Constitutions for the use of the lodges,” became the law for the government of those whom Dermott had called the “Modern Masons,” and the organization of which he had declared to be “defective in number and consequently defective in form and capacity.”
If such were his honest opinion, then he must have believed that the Grand Lodge of 1717, so constituted, was an illegal body, and consequently incapable of enacting any laws or regulations or instituting any ceremonies which could be of binding force upon the Fraternity which derived its existence from an older institution.
But we find that so far from repudiating the laws enacted by this illegal and defective organization, he adopted them in full for the government of his own Grand Lodge, which he had claimed to be the only perfect and legal one.
Therefore, when he compiled his Ahiman Rezon and bestowed it upon the ..Ancients” as their Book of Constitutions, Dermott, instead of seeking laws for its government in that older system, whose parentage he claimed, deliberately appropriated from the 1738 Book of Constitutions, without a change, except here and there a brief marginal comment, the whole of the “Old Charges,” the “Old and New Regulations,” and “the manner of Constituting a New Lodge.”
The irresistible conclusion from this is that while pretending to believe that the organization of 1717 was invalid and an innovation on an older system from which he and his adherents denied their existence, Dermott actually knew and felt that the organization was valid and legitimate, that the Grand Lodge then formed was regular and constitutional, and that the laws and regulations adopted by it were the only constitutional authority for the government of the Craft.
There can be no doubt that Dermott was insincere in his professions and consciously untruthful in his statements, and that while the Masonic schism was made by him the instrument for advancing his own interests, he was well aware that all his pretensions as to the superior antiquity of his own Grand Lodge, and his denunciations of the Grand Lodge of 1717 as a modern and illegal organization, were false.
But the rapid progress made by the Grand Lodge of ..Ancients.. in the popular regard, which, in the beginning was mainly attributable to the untruthful statements and the specious arguments of Dermott, for many years threw a veil over the defects of his character.
..Throughout his eventful career,” says Hughan, ..he always managed to secure a good working majority in his favor, and the extraordinary success of the schism was an argument in confirmation of his views, which the most of his followers acknowledged.”
Success, says Seneca, makes some crimes honorable, and Dermott, the falsifier of history, had for a long time an honorable name in England and America among the adherents of the Grand Lodge of which he was, if not the founder, certainly the chief supporter.
It is here proper to say a few words in relation to Dermott’s connection with the fabrication of the Royal Arch degree. This degree, which Dermott enthusiastically calls “the root, heart, and marrow of masonry,” was, undoubtedly, one of the most efficient elements in giving popularity to the lodges of the “Ancients,” because it presented as an additional and much extolled degree, an incentive to candidates which was wanting in the lodges of the “ Moderns.”
It is, however, incorrect to credit Dermott (as has been done by many writers) with its invention or even its introduction into the system of the “Ancients.” It was known to and practiced by the schismatic lodges, who were censured for their “irregular makings” as early as 1738, by the Constitutional Grand Lodge. Dermott, as we have seen, was made in a ..Modern” lodge in Ireland, became affiliated with a Modern lodge in London when he removed to England, and could have known nothing of the Royal Arch degree until he joined No. 9, an “Ancient,” in 1751.
That he afterward cultivated and perhaps enlarged or improved the degree, and gave to it a prominence which it did not at first possess, is not improbable. But it is an error to attribute to him its invention.
But this subject will be more appropriately and more fully treated in the Chapter to be devoted to the History of the Origin of the Royal Arch degree.
The third and fourth Dukes of Atholl played so prominent a part in the history of the Grand Lodge of “Ancients” as to give to that body, as has already been said, the distinctive title of the ..Atholl Grand Lodge.” It is indeed to the social influence of these noblemen, combined with the shrewdness and indomitable energy of Laurence Dermott, that the Grand Lodge was indebted for the remarkable success which it achieved.
The Grand Lodge at the date of its organization out of the ..Grand Committee” had elected, on December 5, 1753, Robert Turner, who was the Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 15, as Grand Master. In 1754 Edward Vaughan was elected to that office. In 1756 the Earl of Blessington received the Grand Mastership, and was succeeded in 1760 by the Earl of Kelly, who, after five years of service, was followed in 1766 by the Hon. Thomas Mathew, who served until 1771.
In 1771 John, the third Duke of Atholl, was elected Grand Master. The Duke was a member of the Scottish Craft, and in the following year was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, so that, as he continued in his English office until his death, in 1774, he was at the same time Grand Master both of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and of the ..Ancient” Grand Lodge of England. The effect of this unusual concurrence of two offices, whereby the leader ship of the Craft in two countries was vested in the same person, was seen in a close union which about that time was cemented between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and that of the ..Ancients” in England.
In 1782 the Earl of Antrim was elected Grand Master, and served until 1790. From 1773 to 1779 the Earl had been Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.
This shrewd policy of electing leading Masons in the two sister kingdoms to the highest position in the “Ancient “ Grand Lodge of England, very soon displayed the effect which Dermott had wisely expected to be produced.
On September 2, 1771, the Grand Lodge of ..Ancients,” meeting at the “Half Moon Tavern” in Cheapside, Laurence Dermott being in the chair as Deputy Grand Master, adopted the following resolution, which the Grand Secretary was ordered to transmit to the Grand Lodge of Ireland:
..It is the opinion of this Grand Lodge that a brotherly connection and correspondence with the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ireland has been and will always be found productive of honor and advantage to the Craft in both kingdoms.”
At the same time it was ordered that the Grand Secretary should annually transmit to the Grand Lodge of Ireland the names of officers elected and any other information that might be of interest to the Craft.
It was further ordered that no Mason made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of Ireland should be admitted as a member nor partake of the General Charity of the Grand Lodge of England unless he produced a certificate from the Irish Grand Secretary.
At the same meeting, on the proposition of Dermott, a correspondence was ordered to be opened with the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
The response from both the Grand Lodges of Ireland and of Scotland was very satisfactory to the “Ancients.”
On November 5, 1772, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, Viscount Dunluce being Grand Master, adopted a resolution which declared that it entirely agreed with the Grand Lodge of England that a brotherly connection and correspondence between the two Grand Lodges had been and always would be found of honor and advantage to the Craft in both kingdoms.
It was also ordered that the particular occurrences of the Grand Lodge of Ireland should from time to time be continued to be transmitted to the Grand Secretary of England, and that “hereafter no English Mason shall be considered worthy of their charity without producing a certificate from the Grand Lodge of England.”
The letter suggested by Dermott was sent to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. It was of the same purport and almost in the same language as that transmitted to Ireland, except that the Grand Lodge of England expressed the opinion that a brotherly connection and correspondence with the Grand Lodge of Scotland “will be found productive of honor and advantage to the fraternity in general.”
There is no reference, as I have stated in the preceding note, to any former correspondence, but only the proposal for a future one.
On November 30, 1772, the Earl of Dumfries being Grand Master, and the Duke of Atholl being present as Grand Master elect, the letter and resolution of the “Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions” being read (so says the record), “the Grand Lodge were of opinion that the brotherly love and intercourse which the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of England were desirous to establish would be serviceable to both Grand Lodges and productive of honor and advantage to the fraternity.” (2)
The Grand Lodge of Scotland accordingly commenced the correspondence by transmitting the names of the officers that day elected, and ordered the same to be done yearly, together with any other information that might be of honor and advantage to the Craft.
It also ordered “that no Mason, made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,’ shall be admitted a member of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, nor partake of the general charity without having first produced a certificate of his good behavior from the Secretary of the Grand Lodge of England.” (1)
The reader will notice a very important difference in the phraseology of the orders of the two Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, which if intentionally made would indicate the feelings of each to the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England.
The Grand Lodge of Ireland, addressing the Grand Lodge of ..Ancients,” calls it a the Grand Lodge of England,” and refuses recognition to any “English Mason” who does not produce a certificate from it.
The necessary effect of this order would be to repudiate the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” and to place all its members under the ban as illegal Masons. It is very evident that no member of a lodge of “Moderns” would seek or obtain a certificate from the Grand Lodge of “Ancients,” and without this, if he visited Ireland, he would be debarred by the terms of the Order from all his Masonic rights and privileges. Such an order would, according to the views of the present day, be considered as a recognition of the Grand Lodge of “Ancients” as the only regular Masonic authority in England.
The Grand Lodge of Scotland was more prudent in its choice of language. It specifically designated the body in England with which it was about to establish a brotherly correspondence as “the Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,” and required only Masons made under its sanction to present its certificates. Thus we may justly infer that Masons made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” were not excluded from Masonic visitation if they had the certificate of their own Grand Lodge.
The Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, however, subsequently reconsidered their action and eventually assumed the position of neutrality or indifference in the contest, but, says Hughan, ..during the period that they especially countenanced the refractory brethren, the latter made considerable out of the fact, and proclaimed their alliance with these two Grand Lodges far and near.”
Looking at the subject from the legal stand-point of the present day, one can not but be greatly surprised at the action taken by the Irish and Scottish Masons.
Here are two Grand Lodges, the former of which was indebted to the legitimate Grand Lodge of England for its organization and the latter for its ritual, deliberately ignoring that body and acknowledging as legitimate a schismatic association which their ancient ally had declared to be irregular.
Evidently Masonic jurisprudence had not then assumed those formal principles by which it is now distinguished and by which it governs the institution.
Scarcely less surprising is it that the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England appears to have taken no notice of these proceedings, nor entered any protest against their want of comity. Neither Preston nor Northouck, in their chronicle of the times, make any reference to this manifest invasion of legitimate authority. It is passed over by both in silence as something which they either deemed inexplicable or not worthy of mention.
The Grand Lodge itself, when four or five years after it repeated its denunciation of the “Ancients,” treated the two Grand Lodges which had sustained its rival with a courtesy which under similar circumstances at this day it would hardly repeat.
On April 7, 1777, the Constitutional Grand Lodge held an ..extraordinary” communication to take into consideration “the proper means of discouraging the irregular assemblies of persons calling themselves ancient masons,” when the following resolution was passed:
..It is the opinion of this Grand Lodge, that the persons calling themselves ancient masons, and now assembling in England or elsewhere, under the patronage of the Duke of Atholl are not to be considered as masons, nor are their meetings to be countenanced or acknowledged by any lodge or mason acting under our authority. But this censure shall not extend to any mason who shall produce a certificate or give other satisfactory proof of his having been made a mason in a regular lodge under the Constitution of Scotland, Ireland, or any foreign Grand Lodge in alliance with the Grand Lodge of England.”
So the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland were recognized by the Constitutional Grand Lodge as in friendly alliance with it, notwithstanding that the one had repudiated all English Masons who were not ..Ancients,” and the other had acknowledged the Grand Lodge of “Ancients” as a regular and legally constituted organization.
The comparison which is thus afforded of the energy of the “Ancients” and the apathy of the “Moderns” would alone sufficiently account for the rapid success and growing popularity of the former body, were there no other causes existing to produce the same result.
It was very natural that the “Ancient” Grand Lodge, elated by this success and popularity, should in an official document issued in 1802 have declared that its members “can not and must not receive into the body of a just and perfect lodge, nor treat as a Brother any person who has not received the obligations of Masonry according to the “ Ancient” Constitutions as practiced by the United Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the regular branches that have sprung from their sanction.” (1)
The schismatics had now claimed to be regular, and the regular Masons were relegated by them to the realms of schism. It is the nature of men, says the Italian historian Guicciardini, when they leave one extreme in which they have been forcibly held to rush speedily to the opposite. Just before the middle of the 18th century the ..Ancient” Masons, who were embraced in only a few lodges, were accepting the censures of the Constitutional Grand Lodge for their irregularities, and were humbly but not sincerely making promises of reformation. At its close they were denouncing their old masters as irregular and proclaiming themselves to be the only true Masons in England.
Mention has been frequently made of the successful progress of the “Ancients” in the propagation of their system. The authentic records of the time afford the most satisfactory evidence of this fact.
Commencing its organized opposition to the regular Grand Lodge in 1751, under a superintending head styled the “ Grand Committee,” which was in fact the premier lodge, and six others, it constituted in 1751 and 1752 seven others. In 1753 these lodges organized the “Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions.” In the course of the next four years it constituted thirty additional lodges in London and ten more in various parts of the kingdom, namely, two at Bristol, three at Liverpool, and one each at Manchester, Warrington, Coventry, Worcester, and Deptford, so that at the end of the year 1757 there were or had been fifty-four lodges in England acknowledging allegiance to the “Ancient “ Grand Lodge.
But its operations were not confined to the narrow limits of the kingdom. Lodges and a Provincial Grand Lodge were established in Nova Scotia as early as 1757, and in a few years there were lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges in Canada, in the American colonies, in the West, at Minorca in the Mediterranean, in the distant island of St. Helena, and in the East Indies.
In 1774 the third Duke of Atholl died, being at the time, as he had been since 1771, the Grand Master of the “Ancients.”
His son and the successor to his title, John the fourth Duke, was not a Mason at the time of his father’s death. On February 25, 1775, as we learn from the Minutes of the Grand Committee, (1) he received the first three degrees in the Grand Master’s Lodge of Ancient Masons, and was immediately chosen as Master of that lodge. On March 1st, in the same year, only four days after his initiation, he was unanimously elected to succeed his father as Grand Master.
The object of Dermott and his companions in thus elevating a mere tyro to the magistral chair was simply to retain for their Grand Lodge the great influence and patronage of the Scottish House of Atholl. In 1782 the Duke was succeeded by the Earl, afterward the Marquis, of Antrim, an Irish nobleman, who held the office of Grand Master until 1791.
The Duke of Atholl was then re-elected, and continued to preside over the Grand Lodge until the year 1813, when he resigned and was succeeded by the Duke of Kent, who assumed the office as a preliminary step toward the union of the two Grand Lodges, which was consummated in that year.
The following is a correct list of the Grand Masters of the “Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,” or more familiarly speaking, the “Grand Lodge of Ancients,” or the ..Atholl Grand Lodge,” from its birth to its death. It was first compiled by Bro. W.J. Hughan, and published in his Masonic Memorials. I have verified it (though verification was hardly necessary of so accurate an historian) by collation with other authorities.
1753, Robert Turner
1754-55, Edward Vaughan
1756-59, Earl of Blessington
1760-65, Earl of Kellie
1766-70, Hon. Thomas Mathew
1771-74, John, third Duke of Atholl
1775-81, John, fourth Duke of Atholl
1782-90, Earl of Antrim
1791-1813, John, fourth Duke of Atholl
1813, Duke of Kent
The following is a list of the Grand Secretaries who served during the same period:
1752, John Morgan,
1752-70, Laurence Dermott,
1771-76, William Dickey,
1777-78, James Jones,
1779-82, Charles Bearblock,
1783-84, Robert Leslie,
1785-89, John McCormick,
1790-1813, Robert Leslie.
It is inconceivable how Preston could have committed so grave an historical error as to say, “the fact is, that the ‘Ancients’ after their secession continued to hold their meetings without acknowledging a superior till 1772, when they chose for their grand master the Duke of
Atholl.” He was apparently utterly ignorant of the fact, here shown, that
their first Grand Master was elected in 1753, and that from that time until the dissolution of their Grand Lodge in 1813 the office was filled by an uninterrupted succession of Grand Masters. Voila justement comme on ecrit l’histoire. In conclusion it is necessary to say something of the character and pretensions of the Grand Lodge which created a Masonic schism that lasted in an organized form for sixty years, and which extended its influence into every part of the civilized world where the English language was spoken.
The Freemasons, who about 1738 seceded from the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England, and soon after began to call themselves “Ancient Masons,” and who stigmatized the regular members of the Craft as “Moderns,” were not incited to the secession in consequence of any innovations that had been made upon the ritual by the Grand Lodge from which they separated.
Those innovations were the consequence and not the cause of their secession. They were made by the Grand Lodge, so as to produce a change in the working that would exclude the visits of the seceders to the regular lodges. They were indeed not very important and did not at all affect the traditional history or the symbolic system of Speculative Freemasonry. The adoption of them was certainly, however, a very great error, and the seceders were not slow to avail themselves of the charge of innovation, so distasteful to the Masonic mind, to produce a feeling of sympathy in their behalf.
But the truth is that the first innovation, and this, too, a very important one, was made by the “Ancients” themselves, and the practice of it was the cause of the censures passed by the regular Grand Lodge, which was the first step that led to the final separation.
It is important to settle the nature of this innovation, because it is really the “ chief corner-stone” on which the schism of the “Ancients” was founded, and because one of the almost contemporary historians of the Regular Grand Lodge has committed a grave error in respect to it.
Northouck, who in 1784 gave us the best edited edition of the Book of Constitutions, in speaking of the conduct of the Masons engaged in the “irregular makings “ which in 1739 elicited the censures of the Grand Lodge, has the following passage:
“In contempt of the ancient and established laws of the Order, they set up a power independent, and taking advantage of the inexperience of their associates, insisted that they had an equal authority with the Grand Lodge to make, pass, and raise masons. At this time no private lodge had the power of passing or raising masons; nor could any brother be advanced to either of these degrees but in the Grand Lodge, with the unanimous consent and approbation of all the brethren in communication assembled.”
It is unaccountable that Northouck should ignorantly or designedly have made an assertion so entirely untruthful as that which is contained in the last clause of the above-cited paragraph.
It is true that in 1723, at about the time of the fabrication of the Second and Third degrees a clause was inserted in the 13th of the Thirty-nine Regulations which declared that “Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow Crafts only here (in the Grand Lodge) unless by dispensation.” This was done, in all probability, to secure the proper conferring of the newly fabricated degrees in the hands of their inventors and of experienced Masons, instead of entrusting them to Masters of lodges who might be incompetent to preserve the purity of the ritual.
But this objection was soon obviated as the degrees became more common, and the inconvenience of the Regulation being recognized, it was repealed in 1725.
On November 22, 1725, they adopted a new regulation that ..The Master of a lodge with its Wardens and a competent number of the lodge assembled in due form can make Masters and Fellows at discretion...
Seeing that this new regulation was published both by Anderson in 1738 and by Entick in 1756 in their respective editions of the Book of Constitutions, with which Northouck must have been familiar, especially with the latter, and seeing also that there is no provision restraining the passing and raising of Candidates by private lodges contained in the code of Regulations published by Northouck in his edition, but on the contrary, one which expressly recognizes that right, it is, as I have said, unaccountable that he should have ignorantly committed the error of which he has been guilty, nor is it to be believed that he would have done so designedly.
The truth is that the act which called down upon certain Masons the censures of the Grand Lodge, and which finally produced 280, where this new Regulation will be found. Nor shall any Lodge be permitted to make and raise a brother at the same meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy, on very particular occasions. “ Regulations published by Northouck in his editions of the “ Constitutions,” p. 392. the separation, was not the conferring of the Second and Third degrees in their lodges, for this was a prerogative that had long before been conceded to them, but it was the conferring of the Master’s degree in a form unknown to the existing ritual of the Grand Lodge, and the supplementing it with an entirely new and Fourth degree.
The “irregular making of Masons,” which according to Entick was complained of in 1739, was the mutilation of the Third degree and the transferring of its concluding part to another degree called the “Royal Arch.”
The Chevalier Ramsey, a Freemason of much learning, was the inventor of a series of degrees supplementary to the system of Craft Masonry, which have furnished
the substratum for most if not all of the Modern Rites. Among these was one now known to ritualists as the “Royal Arch of Solomon.”
Ramsey went to England in the year 1728, where he received from the University of Oxford the degree of Doctor of the Laws. He sought, it is said, to induce the Grand Lodge to adopt his system of high degrees. But the leading members of that body were extremely conservative and refused to make any change in the ritual.
But there were some of the Fraternity with whom he was more successful. It is not by any means intended to affirm that the Royal Arch degree of Ramsey was accepted in the form or even with the legend which he had invented.
This would not be true. But the theory advanced by Ramsey doubtless awakened in their minds new views and suggested ideas which were novel, but which were believed to be essential to the perfection of Masonic symbolism.
From the earliest times of Speculative Masonry the “Word,” or, as it was called by the Masons of Scotland, the ..Mason Word,” had always held a prominent place in the Masonic ritual, and was, we have every reason to believe, one of the few symbols retained by the Speculative out of the Operative system. The triangle, it will be remembered, always in Christian Iconography an emblem of the Godhead, was a favorite architectural ornament used by the Stonemasons of the Middle Ages.
Adopted by the Speculative Freemasons, it was placed by them, when they fabricated their ritual, as a prominent symbol in the Master’s degree, to which it had been transferred from the original degree or ritual common to all the Craft.
But the Master’s degree as it was constructed by Dr. Desaguliers and his collaborators was as to the history of this “Word” imperfect. The legend detailing the method by which it had been lost to the Craft was preserved, but no provision had been made to account for its recovery.
The legend was not carried out to its denouement. The story was left unfinished, and although the “Word” was there and was communicated to the Master, no one could tell, for he was not informed, how it got there.
Now Ramsey, who was a thinker and a man of much learning, had seen this defect in the Masonic scheme and had supplied the deficiency by the invention of his “Royal Arch of Solomon.” He thus perfected what he had found unfinished, and gave completeness and connection to all the details of the allegory.
Some of the English Masons had doubtless seen the fault in the system of Desaguliers which had been adopted and sanctioned by the Grand Lodge. When Ramsey arrived in England and proposed his new arrangement by which that fault was to be amended, though the Grand Lodge, as the representative of the Fraternity, refused to accept his system, and preferred to “stand on the old ways,” imperfect as they were, there were brethren not so strictly conservative in their views who were impressed with the advantage of accepting the suggestions of Ramsey. These brethren were the seceders who, about the year 1738, were concerned in “irregular makings,” that is, who undertook to confer the Master’s degree in a form different from that which was sanctioned by the Grand Lodge.
At this distance of time it is impossible to know, with anything like precision, what were the precise changes made by the “Ancients” in the old and accepted ritual of the “Moderns.” It is, however, very satisfactorily evident, from the course of contemporaneous history and from the succession of events, that that change, whatever it was, finally led to the development of the Royal Arch degree, such as it is now practiced, as a necessary completion of the Master’s part, and therefore as a recognized section of Ancient Craft Masonry.
In so far, then, the secession of the “Ancients,” however unjustifiable it was in its inception as a violation of Masonic law, was in its subsequent results of great advantage to the system of Speculative Freemasonry. It gave to Masonic symbolism a completeness and perfection that was altogether wanting under the old arrangement of only three degrees, and supplied a break in the history of the “Word” which it is strange that the ritualists of the earlier period of the 18th century had not perceived nor appreciated.
The introduction of this degree was for a long time vehemently opposed by the regular Grand Lodge as an innovation on the landmarks. They even treated it with contempt.
To a petitioner from Ireland applying for relief the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” replied: “Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancient, so that you have no right to partake of our charity.”
But the innovation was advocated with such ability and became so popular that the regular Grand Lodge was compelled to succumb to what was evidently the wish of the Fraternity, and at length to adopt what they had so persistently condemned.
On June 12, 1765, a Royal Arch Chapter was formed in connection with the “ Moderns,” which was in the subsequent year converted into a Grand Chapter. Hughan says it “was virtually, though not actually, countenanced by the Grand Lodge. It was purely a defensive organization to meet the wants of the regular brethren, and prevent their joining the Ancients for exaltation.” (3)
In 1813, at the union of the Grand Lodges, the “Holy Royal Arch” was legally recognized as a constituent part of Ancient Craft Masonry.
A doubt is, however, cast over the accuracy of Bro. Hughan’s assertion that in 1766 the Grand Chapter was even virtually countenanced by the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” by two contemporaneous records.
The first is the declaration already given of the Grand Secretary of the “Modern” Grand Lodge, made about that time, that they were “neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancients ;” and the other a letter written on June 7, 1766, by the same Grand Secretary to the Provincial Lodge of Frankfort-on-the-Main, in which he declares that the Royal Arch is “ a Society which we do not acknowledge and which we regard as an invention designed for the purpose of introducing innovations amongst the Brotherhood and diverting them from the fundamental rules which our ancestors laid down for us...
In this conflict of authority there appears to be but one reasonable explanation. It is probable that some of the “Modern” Masons, tempted by the success and popularity of the Arch degree among the “Ancients,” had independently formed a chapter of their own, and soon converted it into a self-created Grand Chapter, just as the lodge at York, forty years before, had resolved itself into a Grand Lodge.
Although this was done without the sanction of the Grand Lodge, and though it was precisely the same innovation which in 1738 had met with the severe censure of that body, it is to be presumed that no notice was taken of the act, because experience had taught the Grand Lodge that the best policy would be not to endanger by opposition a second rebellion from its authority.
So Royal Arch Masonry was permitted to exist by sufferance. But the victory of the “Ancients” was fully accomplished in 1813, when the Grand Lodge of “Moderns” was compelled to recognize that which they had at first styled an innovation and to acknowledge the Royal Arch to be a component part of Ancient Craft Masonry.
Thus the two Grand Lodges continued to move in parallel but not amicable lines, both indulging at times in mutual recriminations and each denouncing the other as irregular. The ..Ancients,” as well as the “Moderns,´ extended their jurisdiction beyond the limits of England into foreign countries. They exercised this power, however, in a different manner.
The Grand Lodge of “Moderns” usually appointed Deputations or Provincial Grand Masters in various countries, by whom lodges were organized, and afterward Provincial Grand Lodges.
The ..Ancients” never practiced this method. It was their usage to grant Warrants, directly, for the establishment of lodges, and these, as soon as there were a sufficient number, proceeded to organize Grand Lodges, under the incorrect title of “Ancient York Masons.”
Such was the universal practice on the American Continent, where the Grand Lodges established under the obedience of the Grand Lodge of a ..Moderns” and those organized by the York or Ancient Lodges preserved the distinctive principles of their parents and inherited their angry passions.
But such a condition of things was too alien to the benign and fraternal sentiments of Freemasonry to be perpetuated. Movements toward a reconciliation were inaugurated toward the close of the 18th century, and finally, in 1813, the Atholl Grand Lodge was forever dissolved by a fusion of the two contending bodies in England into the now existing body under the title of the “United Grand Lodge of England.” This excellent example was speedily followed by similar amalgamations in all the States where the rivalry had prevailed.
But the fusion in England, which closes the history of the Atholl Grand Lodge, is too important an event to be treated otherwise than in a separate chapter.