Ars Quatuor Coronatorum Vol. 56
Ars Quatuor Coronatorum Vol. 56
Ars Quatuor Coronatorum Vol. 56
Ars J~ +3tc
@luatuor <loronatorum
BE ING THE TRANSACTION OF THE
o .. • .• • .. • • • • .. • • . . . • ••• 0 .
FROM THE ISABELLA MISSAL
VOLUM . LVI
OBITUARY.
a Ababrelton, R. R. de R, 310
Baker, Lt. Ool. F. 310
Barker, L. C. 133
Clare, S. 135
Cross, A. J. 310
Darling, A. 310
Dix, R.' A. 135
~lkington, G. C. ... 135
Jford, Sir J. H. 310
Franks, F. J. 310
Golby, F. W. 205, 310
Greenhill, U. G. 135
Hines, ~. ~. 135
Johnston, J. A. 13:)
Jolly, T. F. 135
McVandish, Lt. Col. P. D. 135
Miller, D. L. 135
Paynter, H. H. 136
Perry, T. J. 136
Ridge, H. M. 310
Scott, J. W. P. 136
Sealigson, L. 136
Sumner, A. E. ... 136
rrhatcher, T. H. 310
Wright, J. H. 136
Jones 38
The Lodge at the Sun and Punch Bowl, 59; Thomas Dunckerley, 59;
Romance of Birth, 60; Foreign Service, 61; Influential
Acquaintances, 61; Retirement and Return to England, 71; Masonic
Activities, 72; State of Lodges in General, 73; Royal Arch Ohapter
at 'Turk's Head', Soho, 74; Somerset House Lodge,' 75; Lord
Blayney, 76; ANew Order in Masonry, 77; Thomas French, 84;
Principal Personages in Grand Lodge.' 85; Lodge of Friendship,
91; Illegal Disposal of Warrant, 92; Removal to ' Thatched House',
93; Appendix, 103.
NOTES.
. Smith's Pocket Companion, Du~lin, 1735 ... 300
Further Extracts from the Diary of Count Jacob dela Gardi 308
INDEX
PAGE PAGE
A.himan llezo-n 16, 222 Handy Book to List of Lodges
Andalusia, Prov. G. Lodge 174 -Lane 17
Appeal for War Funds 267 Hiram 14
Assembling' of a Lodge 224
Augustan Style 40 Illustrations of' ~Uasonry-
Preston ... 138
Bacchus affair 247 Incorporation, Bill of 86
Breast plate 253
Incorporations :
Carpenters' Company of Canterbury:-
Canterbury 296
Charter 114 Durham : .. 296
List of Freemen ... 127 Exeter 296
List of Masters 126 Gateshead 297
Ipswich 297
Uatechisme des plrancs-Marons 4 Kendal ... . .. 297
Changes in Ritual and Customs 140 N ewcastle-on-Tyne 297
Conjelleratio'n Ge'nera·le d'IL Oxford ... . .. 297
Travail ... ... 41
Constitutions-Noorthouck 138 Ireland, Grand Lodge of 104
Irregular Makings .. . 149
Constitutions : -
J ach-in and Boaz .. . 10
Cole 15 Jewels, Unanimity Lodge 221
Cooke 39
Grand Lodge, No. 1 89 Linnecar's Miscellaneous Works 261
Taylor 208
Woodcock 308 Lodges referred tQ:-
Convi viality in Freemasonry 209, 277 Amity No. 137, Poole 162
Cord of Amity 234, 274 Anchor and Hope No. 37,
Corporations Act, 1661 119 Bolton ... 194
Antiquity 139
Deacons 142, 213 Apollo, York 224
Depression, Period of 151 Aux Trois Coours ... . .. 143
. Derg, Lough ... 131 Bacchus No. 383, Halifax -251
Bank of England No. 263 ... 184
Evolution of the Lodge 277 Bedford No. 157 ... 158, 162
Ben Jonson's Head ... 141
Britannia No. 139, Sheffield 162
Exhibits :- Cadogan No. 162 ... . .. 163
Caledonian No. 134 162
J achin and Boaz, 6th edition 3 Chequer .... 21
J achin and Boaz, 1800 3 Crown, Bristol 142
Jachin and Buaz, modern First Volunteer No. 620
reproductfon ... 3 Dublin 175
Mahhabone, 2nd edition 3 Fortitude and Old Cumber-
Photographs of Newspaper land 139
Advertisement of first Friendship No. 6 ... 76, 93, 161
edition of Three Distinct Friendship No. 277, Oldham 198
Knocks 3 George and Orown No. 3tH, 224
Photogra phs of pages of Gibralter No. 25 ... 213
J achin and Boaz 3 Golden Lyon, Leeds 249
Good Report No. 136 162
,Exposures, French 4 Grand Stewards ... 143
Great Lodge, Swaffham 157
Freeman 0/ Oity of Can.teTbury Guadeloupe No. 279 71
-Cowper 118 Harmony No. 133, Faver-
Freemason Stripped Naked 24 sha,m 162
Friendship Lodge- List of Honour and Generosity 90
Members ... 78, 103 Humber No. 57 ... 284
Integrity No. '163, Man-
Gild, The English 291 . chester 163
,; Leicester 292 Kilwinning High Knight
" Lincoln 293 Templar 275
" Palmers' 295 ,La Parfaite Union, Namur 143
Grand Officers 74 Lebeck's Head No. 246 ... 172
Index. vii.
PAGE PAGE
'Lodges referred to:- l\fystery Plays 207
PAGE PAGE
Persons referred to:- Persons referred to:-
Dermott, L. 13, 157 Knight, H. 119
Desaguiliers, Dr. J. T. 46 Knoop, D. 209, ~ll, 294, 296
Devonshire, Duke of 70 Knox, Lieut. J. 155
Dillon, Hon.. C.... 77, 85, 167 Lagerfelt, K. R. 128
Doyle, Gen. Sir J. 181 Lambert, Rev. G. 292
Drake, Franci's ... 220 Lane, J. oo. 17
Dring, E. H. 8 Lawley, Sir R. 152
Dunckerley, T. 59, 160, 276 Legge, Capt. Hon. E. 61
Dutton J. 231 Linnecar, A. H. 243
Egerton, Rev. F. H. 182 Linnecar, R. 213
Entick, J. 21 Locke, J. 43
Fell, I. 24 Loxdale 174
Ferrars, Earl ... 83 Lumley, Hon. C. 64
Ferrers, Washington 152 Lyon, J. Murray 277
Fife, T. ... '" 255 l.\1.anningham, T. 146, 151
Findel, J. G. 143 l\Iannini, Antonio 133
Fitzgerald, Lieut. P. 257 Marlow, Oapt. B. 61
Flather, D. 244 Marshall, Capt. S. 61
Fraser, Col. S. 71, 165 Martin, A.dm. W. 61
French, T. 77, 184 Matthews, Sir T. 61
Fullrnan, C. 157 Meadows, Capt. C. 61
Galloway, J. 74, 84 Merz, C. H. 207
Gardiner, Capt. R. 157 Milnes, R. S. 257
Gardner, G. C. 300 Milward, J. 148
Garland, R. 257 Montague, Duke oJ 40
George Augustus, P. of W. 60 Morton, Earl of 150
Gibbs, H. 126 Nevinson, J. 226
Gilbertus Cambrensis 132 Nicoll, W. 10
Gloucester, Duke of 158 N orris, Sir J. 61
Glover 172 North, Lord 61
Go~el, .T. P. 157 O'Brien, .J. 304
Goodyear. H. S. 220 Oughton, General J. A. 67
Gordon, L(wd William 61 Padgett, R. 207
Gore, J .... 22 Parker, W. 214
Gould, R. F. 17, 254 Payne, G. 40, 81
Grafton, Duke of ... 61 Pearson. W. 248
Graham, J. 226 Pennell; J. 13l
Graham, W. T. 148 Perry, J. 130
Granby, Marquis of 61 Peyton, Capt. J. 61
Grey, Ed ward 167 Philipps, Sir R. 78
Griffin, W. 75 Pontusson de la Gardie
Grinnard 81 Count, J. 128
Gross, C .... 292 Poole Rev. H. 295
Guinnett, J. 165 Powe iI, A. C. 178
Hanson, T. W. 211, 214 Power, M. 231
Harcourt, Lord 61, 68 Praed, Capt. P. 257
Hawkesworth, E. 260 Preston, W. ', ... 14, 211
- Hawkins, E. J..J. 44 Prich~rd, S. 4
Hazlitt, . W. C. 292 Pryce, E. 232
Heasly, G. B. 300 Rathold de PaszthO', Lau-
Heaton, W. E. 4 rence 133
Henry of Saltrey 132 Raymond~ Viscoun.t de
Hertz, Rev. J. H. 45 Pereahoe ... 133, 149
Hese1tine, J. 61, 75, 85 Rallhan, Dr. 157
Hills, G. P. G. - 294 Revis, J. 81, 150.
Hody, E. 152 Robinson, - - 61
Hoey, J .. 17 Roch, Thomas 120, 123; 298
oo
PAGE PAGE
Persons referred to:- Persons referred to:-
CONTR I BUTO RS
PAGE PAGE
Baxter, R. H. 28, 50, 108, 190 Lepper, J. H.
Booth, H. C .... 56 50, 108, 128, 138, 198, 274, 300
Bullamore, G. W. 35, 112, 189, 281
Parkinson~ R. E. 131
Covey-Crump, W. W. 29, 51, 187, 276 Pick, F. L. 49, 107, 184, 273, 291
PooIe, H. 28
Edwards,' L. 32, 54, 186 Pope, S. 114, 304
Elliott, H.· E. 56
f
I LLUSTRAT~ONS
PAGE PAGE
Every Young Man's Oompanion- Letter (copy) from Sarn1 Spencer
Title page, 4th edition 24 to W. Appleyard ... , .. 214
P1'eernason St1'ipped Naked- ~{ahhabone - Title page, 1st
Title page 24 ~~~ ~
Mahhabone - Title page, 2nd
Hiram-Title page, ·lst edition 24 edition .. 24
24 Minute book (page of first book)
" " 2nd" George and Crown Lod~
Hiram- Title page, 3rd edition
(Irish) 24 No. 361 ... 237
H iram-Title page, Belfast Minute· book (page) - Royal
edition 24 Arch Section of Lodge
Hiram-Title page, Wilkinson's No. 361 ... 236
edition 24 Portrait-F. L. Pick ... Frontispiece
Portrait-Richard Linnecar 240
.Tachin and - Boaz-Title page
1st edition 24 8hibboleth-Title page, London
J achin and Boaz-Title page ~~~n U
2nd edition 24 8hibboleth~Title page, Dublin
J a.chin. and Boaz-Title page edition 24
:ird ·edition 24.
J achin and Boaz-Title page Thr-ee Distinct Knocks-Title
5th -edition"" 24 page, 1st edition ... . ... 24
J ach-in and Boaz-Title page Three Distinct J( nocks-Title
6th edition ... 24 page, 2nd edition 24
Jachin and Boaz-Title page Three Distinct Knocks-Title
6th edition, further Issue 24 page," 5th edition ... '" 24
Jachin and Boaz-Title page Three Distinct Knocks-Title
Dublin edition 24 . page, 6th edition ... ... 24
Jewels of Principals, Unanimity Three Distinct Knocks-Title
Chapter, Wakefield ... 25 page, 8th edition ... ... 24
Jewels of Sojourners, Unanimity Thr-ce Distinct Knocks-Title
Chapter 'Vak;efield 25 page, 3rd edition (Irish) ... 24
ThTce Distinct Knocks-Title
Leeds ~f ercury, Extracts, 16th page, 5th edition (Irish) ... 24
Jan.: 1721 .... 269
letter (copy) from W. Appleyard War Funds Appeal-Resolution
to E. Kilvington .. , 215 -Lodge No. 361 268
Ars ^
mtuoT 'Moronatoram
BEING THE TRANSACTIONS of the
(SCi
CONTENTS
PAGE
Proceedings. 1st January. 1943 1 Proceeding.s. 7th May, 1943 58
Audit Committee Thomas Dunckerley and the Lodge' ol'
Exhibits Friendship 59
The So-called " Exposures of Free¬ The Carpenters' Company of the City
masonry of the Mid-Eighteenth of Canterbury . . 114
Century 4 The Union of the Grand Lodges of
Proceedings, 5th March, 1943 .37 England in 1813
Freemasonry and the fdea of Natural Lough Derg .. ^
Religion 3S Obituarv
The membership is limited to forty, in order to prevent the Lodge from becoming unwieldy.
No members are admitted without a high literary, artistic, or scientilic qualification.
The annual subscription is \wo guineas, and the fees for' initiation and joining are twenty guineas and five
guineas respectively. .'
The funds are wholly devoted to Lodge and literary purpuse.s. and no portion is spent in refreshment. The
members usually dine together after the meetings, but at their own individual cost. Visitors, who are cordially
w'elcome, enjoy the option of partaking—oh the same terms—of a meal at the common table.
The stated meetings are the first Friday ;n January, March, May, and October, St. John's Day (in Harvest!,
and the 8th Nbvember (Feast of the Quatuor Coronati).
At every meeting an original paper is read, which is followed by a discussion.
The Transoctions of the Lodge. Ars Qualuor Cororiatorum, contain a summary of the business of the Lodge,
the full text of the papers read in Lodge together with the discussions, many essays communicated by the brethren
but for which no time can he found at the meetings, biographies, historical notes, reviews of Masonic publications,
nqtes and queries, obituary, and other matter,,
The Antiquarian Reprints of the Lodge, Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha. appear at undefined intervals,
and consist of facsimiles of documents of Masonic interest with commentaries or introductions by brothers well
informed on the subjects treated ot.
The Library has been arranged at No. 27, Great Queen Street, Kingsway, London, ulieie Mem.bei-.
of bot)t Circles may consult the books on application to the Secretary.
To the Lodge is attached an outer or
CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE.
This was inaugurated in January, 1887, and now numbers about 2,000 members, comprising many of tli*;
most distinguished brethren of the Craft, such as Masonic Students and Writers. Grand Masters, Grand
Secretaries, and nearly 300 Grand Lodges. Supreme Councils, Private Lodges, Libraries and other corporate
bodies.
The members of our -Correspondence Circle are placed on the following footing:—
1. —The summonses convoking the meetings are posted to them regularly. They are entitled to attend all
the meetings of the Lodge whenever convenient to themselves ; but. unlike the members of the Inner Circle, their
attendance is not even morally obligatory. When 'present they are entitled to- take part in the discussions on the
papers read before the Lodge, and to introduce their personal friends. They are not i-isitor.s at our Lodge
meetings, but rather associates of the Lodge.
2. —The printed Transactions of the Lodge are posted to them as issued.
3. —They are, equally wdth the full members, entitled to subscribe for the other publications of the Lodge,
such as those mentioned under No. 7 above. .
4. —Papers from Correspondence Members are gratefully accepted, and so lar as pos.= ible. recorded m the
Transactions. j r,
' 5_They are accorded free admittance to our Library and Reading Room.
A Candidate for Membership of the Correspondence Circle is subject to no literary, artistic, or scientific
qualification His election takes place at the Lodge-meeting following the receipt of his application.
The annual subscription is only £1 Is., and is renewable each December for the following year. Brethren
joining us late in the year suffer no disadvantage, as they receive all the Transactions previously issued m the
same members of the Correspondence Circle enjoy all the advantages of the full
members, except the right of voting on Lodge matters and holding office. v , ^
Members of both Circles are requested to favour the Secretary with communications to be read in Lodge and
subsequently printed. Members of foreign jurisdictions will, we trust, keep us posted from time to tirne in-the
current Masonic history of their districts. Foreign members can render still further assistance by furnishing us
at intervals with the names of new Masonic Works published abroad, together with any printed reviews of
such publications. . , , • ^ j . j i.
Members should also bear in mind that every additional member increases our power of doing good by
publishing matter of interest to them. Those, therefore, who have already experienced the advantage of association
with us are urged to advocate our cause to their personal friends, and to induce them to join us. Were each
member annually to send us one new member, we should soon be in a position to offer them many more advantages
than we already provide. Those who can help us in no other, way, can do so in thi^s.
Every Master Mason in good standing throughout the Universe, and all Lodges, Chapters, and Masonic
Libraries or other corporate bodies are eligible as Members of the Correspondence Circle.
(Slnatnov ©oronatatntm,
BEING THE TRANSACTIONS of the
VOLUME LVI.
The Reiinrt of the Audit Committee, as folliiivs, was received, adopted, and
entered upon the .Minutes; —
The Cnminittee mot at .the Offices, No. 27, Great Queen Street, London, on
Friday, danuary 1st, 1943.
The Secretary produced his Books, and the Trea.surer’s Accounts and Vouchers,
which had been examined bj' tbe Auditor and certified as being correct.
BRF.TUnF.N,
During the year Bro. H. H. Hallett was admitted to full membership of the
Lodge, which is now 25.
We have had to record a further large number of re.signations frc.ni the Corre¬
spondence Circle resulting ]jrineipally from the unfortunate influences of the War.
Volume liii (1940) has been issued, and the first part of Volume liv (1941) is
nearing completion. Efforts will continue to be made to bring the publication of
A.O.C. up to date.
A brief -statement of the activities of the Lodge during the year has again
been drawn up, but owing to the exigencies of the time has not been generally
circulated.
We desire to convey tbe thanks of the Lodge to tlie Brethren who continue to
flo much good work as Local Secretaries.
A few changes during the past year have occurred among.st Local Secretaries,
but under present circumstances it has not been found possible to make definite
re-arrangements.
W. I. GRANTHAM,
in the Chair.
Transactions of the ifuatiior ('oronati Lodge.
Receipts Expenditure
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Cash in hand 317 7 5 Lodge 22 17 0
Lodge ... 51 9 0 Salaries, Rent, Rates, and
Subscriptions ... 1310 5 9 Taxes 751 2 5
Cash in advance and un- Lighting, Firing, Telephone,
appropriated 96 16 6 Cleaning, Insurance, Car¬
Medals 11 16 0 riage and Sundries 172 7 6
Binding 44 9 4 Printing, Stationery ... 684 13 0
Sundry Publications ... 67 16 5 Medals 31 6 8
Interest and Discounts 32 10 2 Binding ... 22 17 2
Publication Fund 25 15 5 Sundry Publications 19 16 9
Library 3 3 6
Postages 120 9 4
Local Expenses 3 6 11
Cash at Bank ... 126 5 9
£1958 6 0 £1958 6 0
EXHIBITS
A cordial vote of thanks was passed to Bro. S. N. Smith, who lent the objects
for exhibition. . ‘
proved (1 think) to be the first issue. Another edition, evidently for the Irish
market,' “Price a British Sixpence”, also appeared in 1760, a copy of which
is in the library of Grand Lodge.
In this same year, 1760, appeared also Three Bisii/ict 1\ nocks, the first
of the third group of these “exposures”, the group with which this paper is
chiefly concerned.
This group consists of Three Distinct knocks, first issued in 1760; Jac/nn
and lioaz in 1762; 11 iram in 1764; The Mi/steri/ of Freemnsonry Explained
in 1765; Shihholeth in 1765; Mahhahone in 1766; and The Freevuison Stripped
Faked about 1769. But the whole group was derived from Three Distinct
Knocks; Jachin and Boar, reproduced it almost word for word, and the others
copied Jachin and Boar.
It is not dated. The title-page of this, as of the earlier editions, has a list
of the contents—not, how'ever, in the order in which they come in the book.
In this edition the various items are numbered, and it has a List of Lodges
“Brought down to the Year 1768 ” whicli could not very well have heeji
included in any earlier edition. In other respects the fifth edition might have
been a reprint of a third or fourth edition, but it is not printed from the
same type iis the first and second editions, and there are a few minor
alterations in the text. The date " Fthruary JO, 1760 ” no longer appears
near the end cf the book, and the I^atin quotations whioh followed it are omitted.
A story of the shabby way in which one Brother treated another who owed
him a small debt, which comes just before the “enter’d Apprentice’s Reasons”
in the first two editions, is omitted from the fifth. The positions of the
Senior Warden and Senior Deacon are corrected in the Plan. In the Preface
it is no longer said that the Master Key was “ publish’d the other Day ” ;
there is a misprint in the date of Masonry Dissected ■, and there is a reference
to the attack on the author of Three Distinct Knochs which had been made
by Laurence Dermott, Secretary of the “ Antient ” Masons, in the second
edition of his Ahinian liezon in 1764. In this attack Dermott said that the
author w'as a bricklayer named Daniel Tadjmle; but his story is both extremely
coarse and quite unconvincing.'
It should bo noted that the last of Lodges is that of the “ Moderns ”.
This seems ina])propriate in a book which pretends to expose “ Antient ” Free¬
masonry, and suggests that the original author no longer had an interest in
the publication. A curious misprint should also be noted, by which the printer
gave to page 77 the number 203 (which was the catch-word at the bottom of
the previous page, referring to the number of the next Lodge) and carried this
numeration to the end of the book, so that the last page is numbered 210
instead of 84.
The fifth was followed by a sixth, a seventh and an eighth edition
which, although so called on the title-page, were not really new editions but
actually re-issues of the fifth, being reprinted from the same type and main¬
taining the error in pagination.
The publication of one of these was announced on 11th January, 1775,
by an advertisement" in The I’uhlie Advertiser, which was repeated on 16th
January and 2nd and 3rd February, but unfortunately without stating which
edition it was.
There is a copy of the sixth edition in the library of the Grand Lodge
of Ireland; the late Bro. Dring possessed a copy of the seventh edition,'' but
I do not know its present whereabouts; and a copy of the eighth edition is
in the “Wallace Heaton Collection” recently presented to Grand Lodge.
This eighth edition is, almost certainly, the last one published by
Serjeant, and the last to be printed in England for more than 20 years until
revived, about 1805, by A. Cleugh, T. Hughes and B. Crosby.*
Soon after its appearance in London the book was reprinted in Dublin.
The first Irish edition was published there on 2nd July. 1760, and was
announced in the following advertisement in Faidhner’s Diihlin Journal, in the
Soon after this the publication seems to have been acquired by Dillon
Chamberlaine, Printer, Bookseller and Publisher in Smock Alley, who issued
an edition on 11th August, 1761. This was advertised in Faulkner’s Dublin
Jonnud in the issue dated “From Saturday August 8 to Tuesday August 11,
1761 ”. It was advertised also in the next issue and again a month later in
the issue dated “From Saturday September 19 to Tuesday September 22, 1761 ”.
In all three adverti.sements this issue is still styled the “Third Edition”,
presumably because it was only a reprint of the third edition already noticed.
But, as the next edition published by Dillon Chamberlaine was called the fifth
edition, his so-called “Third Edition” evidently takes the place of a fourth.
In Faulkner’s Dublin Journal dated “From Saturday January 9 to
Tuesday January 12, D62 an advertisement announced that “ tomorrow [f.r.,
on 13th January] at 12 o clock wull be published by Dillon Chamberlaine in
Smock Alley ... the FIFTH EDITION of THE THREE DISTINCT
KNOCKS . . ”. This edition was again advertised in the same paper in the
issues dated 16-19 Jan., 19-23 Jan:, 26-30 Jan:, 2-6 Feb:, 16-20 Feb:, and
30 March-3 April, 1762. A copy of this edition is in the library of the Grand
Lodge of Ireland. Tlie imprint is: —
These Irish editions follow the text of the first English edition exactly
including the error in the Plan.
The fifth edition was the last one published by Dillon Chamberlaine—
who, as we shall see, took over the publication of a rival “ exposure’’—and the
book probably did not appear again in DubliiU for some years, until it was
A second edition was soon called for, and was announced by an advert¬
isement in The Pubhe. Advertiser on 20th October,-* 1762, This Day is
published. Price Is. 6d. / The Second Edition Corrected, of / JACHIN and
BAOZ ■*; or An Authentick / Key to the Door of FREE MASONRY, both
ancient and mo- / dern . an even longer advertisement than before,
which ends “ The Corrections and Additions may be had gratis by the
Purchasers / of the former Edition”. The library of the Freemasons' Hall
at Leicester possesses also a copy of this second edition.-’ The imprint is: —
It will be noticed that in this second edition the words “both ancient
and modern” are added, and that it is described as “corrected”. It is
interesting, therefore, to compare the two editions with each other and with
Three Distinct Knocks. The preface to the latter, with its dedication to the
Irish Masters, is omitted. Instead Jachin. and Boaz has a short introduction
in which the author states that he is a frequent visitor at a number of Lodges
in London—all of them “ Modern ”—and explains how he acquired his knowledge
of Masonry. He begins his text with four pages, derived from Burd’s Master
Key, on the origin of Masonry and the customs of Lodges. Some of this is
a paraphrase of the original; much of it is reprinted unchanged, and it is
curious to note that he even reproduces the French terms “assistants (instt^d
of Wardens) and “Rule and Compass” (instead of Square and Compass). He
then has a section “How to Open a Lodge and set He Men to Work”, which
is reprinted almost verbatim from Three Distinct E nocks. After this are six
pages describing the preparation of a Candidate and the ceremony of Initiation.
Most of this comes from the Master Key, but the wording of the Oath is that
given in the Entered Apprentice’s Lecture of Three Distrnct K?iocks, from which
book is taken also the plan and description of the Drawing on the floor of the
Lodge. The plan is set up from type (instead of being engraved, as in Ihree
Distinct Knocks) and the error in the positions of the Senior Warden and
Senior Deacon is corrected. Then comes “ the Entered Apprentice s Lecture ,
and this, and the whole of the remainder of the book, is reprinted, almost word
for word, from Three Distinct Knocks. The book ends ■with the statement that
the author is “ready to answer any Question . . which must be . . .
directed for R.S.” and left with his Publisher, and an assertion that he will
attend-and visit at the Lodges mentioned in the Introduction “as he has done
for some years past”.
In the Third Degree the two books differ in one place. In both, the
Candidate is made to advance by one step in the First Degree, and to take two
steps in the Second Degree. But in the Third Degree, according tO' Three
Distinct Knocks the Candidate takes one, two and three steps; whereas Jachin
and Boaz makes him take one, two and two steps. I think this is a slip; but
it occurs not only in the first edition, but also in the second and all subsequent
editions of J achin and Boaz.
It should be noted that in the first edition of Jachin and Boaz the
Entered Apprentice’s Word is the same as that in Three Distinct Knocks, and
the Fellow Craft’s Word is also the same in both books. In the third degree
again the Word is the same in both books; but Jachin and Boaz gives, in a
footnote, an alternative Word—the one that was given in Prichard’s Masonry
Dissected in 1730—with the information that this was the Word given “in the
Modern Lodges”.
In the second edition of Jachin and Boaz is an alteration, corresponding
with the addition “both ancient and modern” on the title-pages; the Words
of the Entered Apprentice and of the Fellow Craft are interchanged, so that
they no longer agree with those given in Three Distinct Knocks, and in this
reversed order they remain in every subsequent edition. These words are also
interchanged in a footnote referring to the two Wardens’ columns, which occurs
in a brief description of how the Master proceeds to “call the Men off from
Work”. Oddly enough, although the names of the columns are altered, their
significations are nOt—so that Jachin is made to signify “ strength ” and Boaz
“to Establish in the Lord”—and thus they continue in all subsequent editions.
Except that in the preface one is omitted from the list of Lodges to
which the author ■ professes to be a frequent visitor, this reversal of the words
of the first and second degrees is the only alteration made in the second edition.’
Soon after its publication in London this book also was reprinted in
Dublin, where the publisher was Dillon Chamberlaine, who had brought out
the fourth and fifth Irish editions of Three Distinct Knocks. He announced
the publication by a long advertisement in Faulkner’s Dublin Journal in the
'In Misc. Lat., xiv., 26, it is stated that in “ Jachin and Boaz, in the earliest
edition, that of 1762 ” the pass-words are differently arranp;ed from those in Three
Distinct Knocks. This is not correct; they are exactly the same in both books, and
there is no change in this respect in the later editions of Jachin and. Boaz.
12 //(I/is/icliniis of tJio Qudtiior Coroiioli l^o/Iyc.
issue diitc'd " Ktoin Tuesdiiy July 12 to Saturdiiy July 16. 1763.” ' He ended
Ills advertisement thus:—This valualJe Ihimplilet contains the
substance of the Three Distinct Knocks, and the blaster Key to Masonry,
together with such a Number of curious and interesting Particulars relative to
the whole secrets of IMasonry, as will render the purchasing or reading any
other Books on the Subject entirely unnecessary”. There is a eojiy of this Irish
(‘dilion-• ill the library of Grand Ijodge. The imprint is: —
LONDON: Printed for W. NIC'OLL. And, / DUBLIN:
Ke-printed, and sold by DIIJ.ON CHAM BEK LAINE, / in Smock-
Alley ; and the rest of the Booksellers.
It is not dated.
It IS noteworthy that this Irish edition was reprinted from the /irii
English edition, so that the words “both ancient and modern” do not appear
on. the title-page, and the words of the Entered Ajiprentice and tlie Fellow
Craft agree with those given in Three Distinct Knocks. The book was reprinted
in Dublin by Wilkinson, in or about 1777, evidently from Dillon Chamberlaine’s
edition.
In London a third edition was published on 20th July, 1763, on which
day it was announced by a long advertisement in The. Piihlic Advertiser which
was repeated in the same pajier on 28tli July and in Nicoll’s paper, Lloyd’s
Evening Post, in the issue dated “From July 22 to July 25”. There is a copy
of tl lis edition’’ in the library of Grand Lodge. The imprint is: —
The THIRD EDITION / LONDON: / Printed for W.
NICOLL, at the Paper-Mill, St. Paul’s Church-Yard. MDCCLXIII.
This edition has, at the end of the book, a list of “Modern” Lodges
which probably goes dowui to No. 297, constituted 4 May, 1763.' Except for
this innovation it differs from the second edition only in having a Note of seven
and a half lines after the Preface, in which the authoi' thanks the public for
“ the uncommon Reception this Piece has been favoured with ”.
After an interval of five months Nicoll again advertised the Third edition
in his paper JJoyiPs Eveninij Post'' in the issue dated “From December 26 to
December 28, 1763 ”. This no doubt refers to a second impression of this
edition.
Thorp, in his liihliography, lists a fourth edition with the date 1763;
but Nicoll’s advertisement in December shows that no edition bearing this number
can have been issued in 1763, nor was a fourth edition advertised either in
’ This advertisement was repeated in the next issue, in that of 23-26 Jnlv,
of 30 J idy - 2 Auk: and in a shortened form in that of 13-16 Aug, Another advert¬
isement in the issue of 3-6 kSept : had tliese words added:—” As a spurious Fdition
of this Work is hawked about the Town, the Publick are desired to take Notice
that the genuine one is printed by D. OHAiMBERLAlNE in Smock-Alley, and has
his Name to the Imprint.” The" advertisement was repeated in this form in the
issue.s of 24-27 Sept:, 1-4 Oct:, 8-11 Oct:, and 10-13 Dec:, 1763. The book was
not advertised in Favlkner’s Dublin Journal in 1764. nor again until the issue of
29 June - 2 July, 1765, when Dillon Chaniberlaine's address had been changed from
Smock Aliev to Dame Street.
2 Octavo, A'*, B—CA, D* : A4 bound in at the end, after D4. Title pa,go,
verso blank, iii. to vi., 1 to 41, 1 page of advertisements.
3 Octavo, A—I'*. Half-title, verso blank, title-page, verso blank, (v.) to viii..
1 to 63 ("), verso blank or with page of advertisements (?), up. 9 and 10 not
numbered. Plan on p. 9 This copy lacks the half-title and the last leaf.
' The last leaf is missing from the only copy that I have been able to consult,
but I think that the edition cited by Lane" (Handy Book, ii. 62) may really have
been the third edition (and not the fourth, as he states). Lane does not include,
in the words which he quotes from the imprint, the number of this edition, as he
has done in the case of several others, nor docs he cite the third edition. Perhaps
the COPY Lane consulted was a third edition with the title-page damaged.
'■i It was also advertised at York on 29th November, 1763—See comments by
llro. D. V. Johnson.
The So-called “ E.rpostiren ” of Fr<-etiummrij.
Nicoll’s own paper or The FuhUc Advertiser in 1764. When, however, Nicoll
did publish his next edition about ten months later he called it the fifth-, so
evidently he afterwards regarded this second impression as his fourth edition.
Nicoll announced the publication of the fifth edition by an advertisement
in his paper TAoyd's Evening Post in the issue dated “ From November 7 to
November 9, 1761 ” and in the next issue, also in The Public Advertiser on
the 10th and 15th November. Six weeks later he again advertised the fifth
edition in Lloyd's Evening Post of “From December 21 to December 24” and
The Public Advertiser of 26th December, 1764.' In these two, and subsequent,
advertisements there is an addition to his usual form of wording (derived from
that of the title-page of the book), viz. :—“Those Gentlemen who so often order
this Book and desire it to be sealed up and directed may safely continue their
Coinnissions, and the Biiblislier will punctually comply with their Orders
There are two copies of this edition ^ in the library of Grand Lodge ;
the imprint now has “The FIFTH EDITION ” and the date hlDCCLXIV,
but is otherwise unchanged. The list of Lodges has been brought down to
No. 318, constituted 16 August, 1764, and, instead of the Note after the
Preface, there is an “Advertisement” of a page and a half. In this the
author says that, since the last edition was printed, he has received several
anonymous letters of abuse, one of which he prints. He also refers to the
attack made on him by Laurence Dermott in the second edition of A Inman
Kezonp and he ends the “Advertisement” with an assurance, similar to that
in the advertisement for the book, to those gentlemen who so often send for the
book and “desire the Publisher to tie it up in Pajier, and seal it carefully,
that the hlesseiiger may not be acquainted with the Contents of the Parcel”.*
A year elapsed before a sixth edition was published. This was announced
by an advertisement in Nicoll’s paper, Lloyd’s Evening Post, of “ From December
27 to December 30, 1765 ” which was repeated in the next two issues of the
same paper. It was also advertised in The. London Chronicle,-' The Inindon
Evening Post'-' and The Puhlic Adririiser.''' There is a copy* of this edition
in the library of Grand Lodge, one in that of the Freemasons’ Hall at Leicester,
and another in that of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Worcestershire. The
imprint is as before, except that it is now, of course, “The SIXTH EDITION”
with the date MDCCLXV. The list of Lodges ha,s been brought down to
No. 340, constituted 19 April, 1765; but, in other respects, this edition is the
same as the fifth.
' It 'vas :ib;> advertised at York on 8th Janiiaiy, 17G)—See comments b\'
llro. (!. t'. Johnson.
2 Octavo, A—I'l. Half-title, verso blank, title-page, verso blank, (v.) to viii.,
1 to 64, on. 9 and 10 not numbered. Plan on n. 9.
* This wa.s announced by the following adverti,‘-ement in The I’uhlio Advertiser
on 21.st Septoinhcr. 1764. repeated on 22nd and 24th September:—“This Boy is
publish’d I Price Five Shillings, / with an engraved Frontispiece and Title Page,
/ The Second Edition, of / AHTMAN PEZON. / (Containing the Quintessence of
all that has hcen / nublished' on the subiect of Free ATasonrj-; also some j Account
of the Authors of the Three Distinct Knocks, / Bonz and Jachin, &c. Solomon’s
Teniole an Oratorio. / The greatest Collection of Mason's Songs that ever was /
nnhiished. With many other Additions which render it / the most u.seful Boot of
Constitutions now extant. / By LAURENCE DERMOTE r-u'cl. Secretary / Sold bv
Brother Robert Black, Bookbinder and Sta- / tioner in George-yard, Tower-hill,
London ”.
■‘A second issue , of the fifth edition is listed bv Thorn. dat“d 176": but
I think tbi.s must be a mistake, as no such issue was advertised in 1765 either in
Nicoll’s paper or in The Public Advertiser.
From Dec. .31 - .Tan. 2, and Jan. 2-4.
•' .From Jan. 2-4, and -Tan. 9-11.
' .Tan. 22, 1766. It was also advertised at York on 24th December, 176.5_See
comments tv llro. G. Y. .Tobnson. ’
* Octavo, A—T"*. Half-title, verso blank, title-page, verso blank, (v.) to viii.
1 to 64, pp, 9 and' TO not numbered. Plan on p. 9. ’
11 Tniusactions of the (fuaUior Coronati Lodijo.
HIRAM.
The publication of HIRAM, or the Grand Master Key to the Boor mf
both Ancient and Moelern Free Masonry, the third of this group of “exposures ’’,
1 Octavo, A—G;*, H—K^, L'*. Half-title, ver.so blank, title-page, verso blank,
(v.) to viii., 1 to 65, 3 ]ip. advts: , pp. 9 and 10 not numbered. Plan on p. 9.
This collation is from my own copv, which is in perfect condition. In this edition
F^ is incorrectlv signed as F’; evidently the figure 2 dropped out and was replaced
in error by a 3.
- 'rids has been incorrectly dated 1766 on the back, but the title-page is torn
through the date and ha.s obscured tbe last figure. It lacks the half-title and the
last leaf.
■'I 'Ihe same list was gi\’en in the fifth edition of Three Distinct Knocks.
^ Op. cit.
15
The So-etiHed “Exposures” of Fi-icjiinsoiiri/.
which is followed fairly closely but with the phraseology modernised here and
there. To this ho adds a history of the Craft in England, from the time of the
Norman Conquest down to the Grand-ilastership of the Duke of Wharton in
1722. This was taken directly and with very little change from the third edition
of Scott’s Forkrt V. ou\punion, which had recently been published on 16th April,
1764,' as was also the List of Lodges which concludes the book. This list,
which was brought down to No. 307, Constituted 28th November, 1763, is
arranged in Scott's Pocket Cotnpanion in an unusual manner, the Lodges being
tabulated according to their days of meeting (without their numbers beijig given),
instead of in their order of seniority on the List; and this peculiar arrangement
is followed exactly in Hiram. After the history there is a list of the Grand
Masters subseqiient to the Duke of Wharton, which also may have been taken
from Scott’s Pocket ('ompanion with the name of Lord Ferrers added, or perhaps
from the Engraved List for that year.
There is then a reference to the enquiries that should be made into the
character of every Candidate who desires to become a Member of this Honourable
Fraternity, with a long quotation from a speech on this subject by Bro. Edward
Oakley in 1728 and a shorter quotation from one by Rev. Bro. Entick, both
of winch are taken from Cole’s Coii.'-titutions.^
Then comes “ The. ('ercmony of Opening a Lodge, and Setting the Men
to Work ”. This is taken directly from Jachin and lioac, as are also the
succeeding pages descriptive of the three degrees, but in these there is some
rearrangement and one or two alterations. The names of the Wardens’ columns
(in the “ Calling Off ”) are now as they were in Three })i.^iinct Knocks, with
their correct significations; and the Steps in the Third Degree are given as one,
two and three—again as in Three Distinct Knocks. There is also a reference,
after the Fellow-Craft’s Lecture, to further questions being asked, particularly
in the Irish Irndges, which quite clearly comes from Three Distinct Knocks-, so
that it is evident that the author consulted that book as well as Jachin and
Boaz, although most of this part of his book is taken from the latter.
After the Third Degree comes “ The Manner of Constituting a Lodge,
according to Ancient Custom”. This comes from Scott’s Pocket Companion with
little change, but into the ceremony is interpolated the new IMaster’s Oath from
the “Instalment cf a Master’’ in Jachin and Boa-..' Then comes “--1 Prayer
frequently used at the making of a Member ”, which is the second of two such
prayers given in Scott’s Pocket Companion. This is followed by a “Description
of the Claps belonging to each Degree of Masonry ” from Jachin and Boaz, and
the “Manner of Drinking among Masons in a I.odge” partly from Jachin and
Boaz and partly from Three Distinct Knocks. There is then a list of “Toasts
used by Masons”, all of which are taken from the second edition of Ahimam.
Eezon.-' The Toasts are followed by “Songs used by Free-Masons in all good
Lodges’’. All of these, except the last, are taken from the 1762 edition of
Cole’s Constitutions, and are printed exactly as given there. The Entered
Apprentice’s Song’’ has the “Ladies’ verse’’ at the end, preceded by the note,
“The following Verse is generally sung between the Fifth and Sixth Verses’’;
and, in the song “ T.et IMasonry be now my Theme’’, the third verse begins
“Let noble Crawford’s Health go round’’—the Earl of Crawford having been
Grand Master in 1734.^ The last song, “With Harmony and Flowing Wine”,
and “Solomon's Temple. An Oratorio’’ which follows it, are both taken from
Ahiman liezon. After the Oratorio comes the List of Lodges, which has already
been noticed, and this concludes the book.
Very soon after its publication in London this book, like its two^ pre¬
decessors, was reprinted in Dublin, evidently by arrangement with the original
publishers. It was advertised in Faulkner’s Dublin Journal in the issue dated
“From May 18 to May 21, 1765’’. “This Day was published, Price Eight-
pence, HIRAM; or the Grand Master Key of Freemasonry . . . Printed
for Messrs Griffin & Toft of London, and James Hoey, junior, in Parliament
Street, Dublin’’. Unfortunately I have not been able to discover a copy of
this edition,^ but it is cited by Lane in his Ilandi/ Book to the List of Tjodr/es.
where the imprint is quoted as:—“Printed for Messrs Griffin & Toft in
London, and Mr J. Hoey Jr. in Parliament street, Dublin. 1765’’. Lane says
that this Irish edition has the same list of Lodges as the first London edition.
Hoey again advertised Hiram in the second number of his new paper,
The Dublin Hercurijdated “From March 18 to March 22, 1766’’. In this
advertisement the price of the book is reduced from 8d. to 6|d., and, instead
of the List of Lodges, there is " . . . an Appendix, disclosing the other
Secrets of Freemasonry not divulged by the author. . . Printed for Griffin
and Toft, in London; and J. Hoey, Jun. in Dublin’’. From this advertisement
it is evident that this was the second edition, though that is not stated. The
advertisement did not appear again in Hoey’s paper until the issue of “From
July 29 to Aug. 2, 1766 but then it was repeated in almost every issue
until the end of September, and five times subsequently to the middle of
December. It was again repeated in April, 1767, and frequently during that
year until December, and again in April, 1769, and in March, 1770.The
wording of all these advertisements is identical, and corresponds closely with
that of the title-page of Hoey’s third edition, of which there is a copy ^ in
the library of Grand Lodge. The imprint of this edition is: —
[THIRD EDITION] / BY A MEMBER OF ROYAL
ARCH / PRINTED / For Mess. GRIFFIN and TOFT in London ;
and Mr. / J. HOEY, junior, in Parliament-street, / Dublin. 1773./
The Appendix “disclosing the other Secrets of Free-Masonry not divulged by
the author’’ is reprinted from a book called The Freemason Examined, by
Alexander Slade, which had been published in 1754.®
Hiram was reprinted also in Belfast, where it was advertised ’’ on 14th
February, 1766, in the Belfast News IjCtter as “just published by the Printers
hereof. Price lOd.’’ It was again advertised on 28th November, 1766, and
'■ Til the 1764 edition, of Scott’s Pocket Companion this is corrected to “ noble
Aberdoiir’s health
- Tn T'horp'.s liihliography it is said to be a Duodecimo of 93 pages.
■' The. name of this paper was changed to Iloey’s Dublin Mercury] beginning
with No. 604 of “From September 4 to September 6, 1770 ”.
'* Protiablv also in 1768, but I have not examined that year.
^ Duodecimo. A—[Frontispiece ?], Title-page, verso blank, pp. (3) to 72.
’Three engraved pliitcs. The three plates are copied from those in “ L’Ordre des
Fram-s-Marons Trnhi These same plates are to be found in Wilkinson’s edition
of Solomon in all his Clary (Dublin, 1777), which has in addition a fourth plate as
frontispiece. It .seem.s ]irobable, therefore, that Hoey’s third edition had a‘frontis¬
piece which has been lost. There is also a copy of this edition in the library of
the Freemason.s’ Hall at Leicester. This third edition was reprinted a few j^ears
later by Wilkinson, who called his the third edition also. Copies of Wilkinson’s
edition are in the library of Grand Lodge and that of the Freemasons’ Ha.ll at
Ijeicester.
® This was evidently intended to discredit Prichard’s Masonry Dissected. It
was reproduced in facsimile as No. 10 of the “ I>eicester Masonic Reprints’’.
' 1 am indebted to Hro. Philip Crossle for this information. The printers
of the Belfast News Letter were the brothers Henry and Robert Joy.
18 Trantiartiouf: of the Quntiior C'oruiucti Loeh/e.
2nd January, 1767. It was reprinted also in 1768. There is a copy of the
1768 edition in the library of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The imprint is: —
BELFAST: / Printed for HENRY and R.OBERT JOY,
Printers and / Booksellers. M.DCC.LXVIII.
It rvjll be noticed that the name of the London publisher is not given in the
imprint, which suggests that it was a “pirated” edition.
In the Belfast Nems Jjtiter of 16th January, 1781, the printers advertised
that they had then a few copies of Hiram for sale,^ but I do not know of
any edition later than this.
1777. There are copies of the fourth, fifth and sixth editions in the library of
Grand Lodge, and of the fourth and fifth editions in that of the Freemasons’
Hall at Leicester.
SHIBBOLETH.
' It was advertised at York on ]3th August, 1767 (see comments by Bro. G. Y.
Johnson), so it seems; probable that there was an earlier advertisement than this in
the London papers which T have missed.
- Press-Mark 4785, bb. 57.
’ Octavo. B—G-*, ; preceded by unsigned title-page. Title-page, verso blank,
pp. 1 to 52. There is no plan of the Drawing on the floor.
’ That it comes from Hiram,, and not directly from a Spencer-family MS, is
proved by the fact that in Shibboleth it is stated that " Edwin’s seat was a place
now called Auldby ”. This does not occur in Cole’s Constitutions, but was given as
a footnote in Hiram. In Shibboleth it is embodied in the text.
’The spelling is Carolos in the first edition of Masonry Dissected: this is
also the spelling in the second and third editions, and in the " Seventh Edition ”
which was published by T. Cooper in 1737. The earliest edition that I have been
able to consult which has the spelling exactly as in Shibboleth is that published
in Edinburgh by William Gray in 1752. The later London editions have Carolus
Marcel.
” There is no mention of the Installation of the Master.
■ Or perhaps from pages 157 to 215 of the second edition of Scott’s Pocket
Companion of 1759, or from Entick's 1756 edition of the Book of Constitutions.
20 'fjaiisactioit.s of thi- Qiiatuor Coioiiati Loihjo.
follows (pp. 45 to 52) the List of Lodges, which is "Brought down to April
19, 176i)’’, the last Lodge being No. 340.'
This book also was very soon reprinted in Dublin, where its publication
was announced by a long advertisement in Slcatcr’s (i(i:eteer, in the issue dated
" From November 16 to 19, 1765 ” :—" This Day is published by the Printer
hereof [Price a. British sixpence] SHIBBOLETH: Or, Every Man a Free-
Mason , . By a Pass’d Master”
There are copies of this Irish edition - in the libraries of the Quatuor
Coronati Lodge, of the Freemasons’ Hall at Tjeicester and of the Provincial
Grand Lodge of Worcestershire. The imprint is: —
JJUJiLIN: / Printed by WILL. SLEATER at Pope’s-llend
on Cork-Tim. / MDCCLXV.
From this Irish edition the List of Lodges is omitted; but four pages"
of Irish history, taken almost word for word from Flin’s Poch-et Comjxinion,
are interpolated into the historical part of the text, and a plan of the Drawing
on the floor of the Lodge, taken from Jacliui and lioaz, is also inserted.'* Six
songs, probably taken from Spratt’s 1751 Conxtif iitions, and "The Freemasons
Anthem’’, taken from a book called “The Free masons Songs with chorus’s in
three and four /‘arts’’, published in Edinburgh about 1760" by Bro. R.
Bremner, are also added at the end of the book.
Another edition of Shihholeth—no doubt a reprint of Sleater’s—was
published by Wilkinson of Dublin in or about 1777; but I do not know of
any other edition of this book.
MAH HA BONE.
Mahhahone, the sixth of this group of "exposures”, was published in
Liverpool, where it was announced by an advertisement in '\ViUiamso7i’s Liverpool
Advertiser' on 31st January, 1766:—"This Day is published. Price Is.
MAHHABONE. ... by J'*''*'* Q****** a. Regular Brother of Freemasonry
who has mounted the Steps of One, Two and Three. Printed for the Author
and sold by T. Cowburne in Liverpool.” A second edition, published both
in Liverpool and London,* appeared later in the same year.
There is a copy of the first edition in the "Wallace Heaton Collection”
recently presented to Grand Lodge, and another copy is in the possession of
Bro. O. E. L. France of Stalybridge. The imprint is: —
LIVERPOOL: / Printed by T. Cowburne, M,DCC,LXVI /
[Price One Shilhng.'\
On the title-page of this edition the author is described as " J. G. TuTroypatfio';.’'
The book begins with a list of "Contents” (pages 3 and 4), which is
* Ijane, in his Handy Book to the List of Lodges, says that this has “ numerous
typographical errors
- Octavo, A—F'*, G**. Title-page, verso blank, pp. (3) to 52. Plan on p. 23.
" Page 13, line 7, to page 17, line 7. Dublin, 1761. This is based upon
the history given in Spratt’s 1751 Constitutions, but is somewhat expanded.
'' Page 23.
" Dated “ 1760 ? ” in the British Museum catalogue.
“ It was advertised in Wilkinson’s edition of Solomon in. all his Glory, which
is dated 1777, and in several of Wilkinson’s other Ma.sonic reprints; but I do not
know of any surviving copy.
' No. 506. Williamsoids Liverpool Advertiser and Mercantile Chronicle was a
weekly paper which wa.s published by Robert Williamson, printer and bookseller, and
was the first Liverpool newspaper. I am indebted to Bro. C. H, Taunton, J.P.,
of Liverpool, for this information. It was also advertised at York on 15th April—
See comments bv Pro. G. ^ . Johnson.
® Duodecimo, A—L". Title-page, verso blank, pp. 3 to 132. Folding plate
between pp. 38 and 39. The second edition was advertised at Y’ork on 6th October,
1767—See comments by Bro. G. Y. Johnson.
Tlit So-called “Exposures” of Freemasonry. 21
' But in the third verse of the song “ Let Masonry be now my Theme ” the
name of Lord Blayne.v, then Grand Master, is substituted for that of Lord Crawford.
- The last Lodge is No. 340.
3 The J/iverpool General .idverfiser and Commercial Begiste.r was a weekly paper
started on 27th December, 1765, by John Gore, Bookseller, near the Exchange. The
first edition of Mahliabone wa.s not advertised in this paper.
* This advertisement was repeated every week for some months, and then at
intervals until 1769. In some of the advertisements the wording was '' This Day is
published ”, and in others “ Just published ”, which suggests that there were several
issues of this second edition.
5 Octavo, A—P"*, Frontispiece, Title-page, verso blank, 2 pp. not numbered,
(i.) to V., verso blank, (1) to 110; pages 1, 5, 12, 15, 26, 34, 47, 53, 62, 66, 68,
77, 86, 95, and 100 not numbered; pp. 101 and 102 are wrongly numbered 100 and
101 respectively.
'' See page 4 above.
It was advertised in The Public Advertiser on 31st March, 1766, and again
on 3rd and 25th April; also in St. James’s Chronicle of April 3-5. What was
evidentl.v a second issue was advertised in Lloyd’s Evening Post of June 9-11, in
St. James’s Chronicle of June 10-12, the London Evening Post of June 10-12 and 19-21,
and The Public Advertiser of 17th and 24th June, 1766. Apparently a third issue
was advertised in The Public Advertiser on 16th January, 1767. The second edition
was advertised in Lloyd’s Evening Post of May 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20, 1768. Bro.
F L. Pick tells me that the first edition was advertised in the Manchester Mercury
on lOth June and 8th July, 1766; it wars sold by A. Clark in Manchester.
Tin So-called “Exposures” of Vreemasonry. 23
In this edition, instead of the plan of the Drawing on the floor of the
Lodge taken from Jachin and Boaz, there is an engraved frontispiece not unlike
one of the plates—" A Lodge for the Reception of a Fellow Craft in
Solomon in all his Glory, but with symbols of all three degrees. On the first
page (not numbered) is “The Description and Explanation of the Frontispiece ,
and on the verso of this page is the “Advertisement” already noticed.
The “Vindication” and the author’s “Motives” are now combined into
one section (pp. i. to v.). This is followed by the section called The Grand
Lodge Door Opened” (pp. i. to 4), to which, in this edition, the author adds
something of his own, that “ the Apprentice’s Apron is tied round his Waist
with the Flap on the Inside, . The Fellow-Craft's Flap is put up, and
fixed to one of his Waistcoat Buttons and the Master’s Flap hangs
down upon the Outside . .
The “History” follows (pp. 5 to 25). This is rewritten, so that the
fact that it is taken from Iliram is not so obvious as it was in the first edition.
Entick’s speech is restored to the full length given in Hiram, and the
“Charges”, which followed it in the first edition, are now printed nearly^ in
their original position, but again slightly rearranged.
The Opening of the Lodge, the Lectures of the three degrees and the
“Instalment of a Master” (pp. 26 to 65) are the same as in the first edition.“
Then comes a section headed “ The First Rise of Modern Masonry ” (pp. 66
and 67). This is derived from the introduction to Prichard’s Masonry Dissected,
but some of it is the author’s own. Then follow twelve pages (pp. 68 to 79)
which are headed “Modern Masonry” and profess to be the “Moderns’
version of the Entered Apprentice’s, Fellow Craft’s and Master’s Lectures.
This catechism is a curious mixture; some of it comes from Masonry Dissected,
a few questions are from Jachin and Boaz, some are apparently the author’s
own, but the majority are from Solomon in all his Glory.
Page 81 is headed “The Whole of the following Particulars belong to
both Orders of Masonry, ANCIENT and MODERN,” and this page has a
sub-heading, “ The true Method of ... finding out a real Brother in
public Company ”. This page, and the first two paragraphs of the next, come
from Solomon in alT his Glory. The next paragraph—take a piece of stone
and ask a mason what it smells of—comes from Masonry Dissected, and the
remainder of this section from Jachin and Boaz.
Then comes “The Form of the different STEPS in Masonry” (middle
of p. 81), w'hich seems to be the author’s own, and is not very easy to follow.
The “Manner of Drinking”, the “Toasts” and the “Claps”, which come
next (pp. 82 to 84), are all taken from Hiram. Then come “Reasons for a
new-made klember going thro’ the different Ceremonies of Making in a Lodge ”
(middle of p. 84) and “The Secret Way of WRITING in Masonry” (p. 85),
both of which are taken from Solomon in all his Glory. Then follow the Songs
(pp, 86 to 94) and the Oratorio (pp. 95 to 99) from the first edition, but
the last song, “With Harmony and flowing Wine”, is omitted. The book
ends with a List of I.odges (pp. 100 to 110), the last one being No. 357 undated,
its predecessor being No. 352, constituted 8th November, 1765.
No other edition of Mahhahone seems to have been issued, except one
published by Wilkinson of Dublin sometime after 1777.^
' They came after the paragraph beginning “ A.D. 1070. The Norman
Prints instead of before it.
= The note on the Entered Apprentice’s Word (p. 38 in thi.s edition) is rather
lonjrer.
■' Jt IS not advertised in his edition of Solomon in nil his Glory, which is dated
1777, or in any of his other Masonic reprints.
24 Tniii.saclio/is of the. (fuatuor CoroiKili Loi/tje.
ArPENDlX
Three Distinct Knocks
Date of Publisher Remarks
Edition Issue
Publication
First First 3 Apr., 1760 H. Serjeant
First Second 7 July, 1760 Without Temple-Bar
First Third 12 Dec,, 1760 London
First Fourth 17 Sept, 1761 ditto
First Filth 20 Mar., 1762 ditto
Second ’ First 30 Nov., 1762 ditto
[ But possibly the ad¬
vertisements on 9th,
12th and 22nd Feb.,
1763, refer to a
Second Second 10 Dec., 1763 ditto ' second issue, in
which case this
would be the third
issue
Second Third 11 Apr., 1764 ditto Probably treated as
being a third Edition
Second Fourth 9 Feb., 1765 ditto Probably treated as
being a fourth Edition
Fifth — 15 Apr., 1768 ditto
One of these edi¬
tions was advertised
Sixth ditto on 11th Jan., 1775,
Seventh ditto but the advertise¬
ment did not state
which
The eighth was prob¬
ably the last edition
Eighth 9
ditto published in England
—until revived about
1805
First Irish First 2 July, 1760 H. Serjeant, London,
& Captain Bobadil,
Capel Street, Dublin
First Irish Second 22 July. 1760 ditto Treated as a second
edition
Third Irish First 11 Aug., 1760 ditto
Third Irish Second 11 Aug., 1761 H. Serjeant, London, Called “Third Edit¬
& Dillon Chamber- ion ” in advertise¬
laine. Smock Alley, ments, but treated
Dublin as the fourth
edition
Fifth Irish 13 Jan., 1762 ditto
Reprint Probably 1777 Wilkinson, Wine- Undated
tavern Street, Dublin
Shihboleth
London August, 1765 J. Cooke, Pater-noster
Row
Dublin 19 Nov., 1765 Will. Sleater, Cork Hill Revised for the Irish
market
Dublin Reprint About 1777 Wilkinson, Wine-tavern Reprinted from Sleater's
Street edition
Mahhahone
First 31 Jan., 1766 T. Cowburne, Liverpool
Second 28 Nov., 1766 Johnson & Davenport, Enlarged
Pater-noster Row, Lon¬
don ; and J. Gore,
Liverpool
Dublin Reprint About 1777 Wilkinson, Wine-tavern
Street, Dublin
A hearty vote of thanks was unanimously passed to Bro. Smith for his
interesting paper, on the proposition of Bro. Ivor Grantham, seconded hy Bro. H.
Poole; comments being offered hy or on behalf of R. H. Baxter, I), Knoop, W. W.
Covey-Oiump, L. Edwards, W. E. Heaton, H. H. Hallett, G, W. Bullamore, H,
Oarr, and G. Y. Johnson.
Discussion. 27
designed to be to the detriment of the Craft, may in actual fact have contributed
to some sliglit extent towards the ultimate union between the two rival bodies.
With these few observations 1 am happy to projjose this vote of thank?
and to pay a tribute to the industry of a brother in the senior service.
I have great jdeasure in seconding the motion proposed by the W.M. for
a hearty vote of thanks to Bro. Smith for a useful and interesting paper. 1
need not say much, for he has drawn attention to nearly all the points which
1 "liad in mind.
1, too, was struck by the very large number of issues or editions in England
alone, amounting (excluding those of Every Young .Van’s Cnnrjianwii) to some¬
where in the neighbourhood of 30 in 18 years. No doubt, as Bro. Smith seems
to suggest, it was the ‘‘curiosity of the public” which led to their inception,
though it is difficult to believe that this can account for more than a small
portion of the output. And I have been trying to think of methods that could
be used to establish what, I fancy, must be the opinion of most of us—that they
actualp- served as aides nihnoire to the Mason, and that this accounts for the
very large numbers of issues. A record of annotations relating to ritual matters :
of Lodge or private ownership of copies : of the nature of other matter bound up
with copies of these “Exposures”—these, and perhaps other data, might well
help to settle the question.
Then—and here is a subject for further research—we must discover to
what extent these publications, besides “stabilising” the ritual of the eighteenth
century, have actually influenced it: or whether they are merely a more or less
faithful record of a state of affairs which existed at the middle of the century.
Bro. Smith has done a useful service in carrying on the bibliographical
work relating to the “recurrent” Masonic literature of the eighteenth century,
to which, especially, Bro. Adams has recently made such useful contributions,
and which now needs little to complete it. I feel sure he wull receive the hearty
thanks of the Lodge for his paper.
I can speak definitely only of the Royal Brunswick Ledge, whose early
Minute Books are at present temporarily in my possession. That Lodge from
time to time admitted “Ancient” masons as joining members; these paid 5s.
more admission fee than a “ Modern ” joining member, on the ground that
they had to be “instituted into Modern IMasoiiry”, or “ initiated into the
Mysteries of Modern Masonry”. There is nothing in the Minutes to indicate
what that “institution” or “initiation” consisted of, but it may be noted
that it always took place when the Lodge was open in the First llegree.
Among the differences between immediate pre-Union and post-Union
practices in the Royal Brunswick Lodge (which sent a Deputation to the Lodge
of Reconciliation in March, 1815), the following may be noted: —
(i) Prior to the L’^nion, officers were appointed in the Third Degree,
after the Union in the First Degree.
(ii) There were no Deacons and no Inner Guard before the Union. They
were appointed at the first Lodge after the return of the Deputation from London.
(iii) The Minutes were never signed by the W.M. before the Union;
whereas afterwards they generally were.
(iv) Before the Union, an E.A. or a F.C. wishing to be passed or raised,
gave notice of his desire at one Lodge, and was generally advanced to the
higher Degree at the following Lodge. After the Union an E.A. was examined
“on the 11 Questions”, and a F.C. “on the 9 Questions”; when a brother
had proved his proficiency, it was formally proposed and seconded that he should
be passed or raised, as the case might be, at the next Lodge.
(v) Before the Union, the Lodge was closed in a lower Degree before
it was opened in a higher Degree; after the Union, the Lodge was successively
opened in the First, Second and Third Degrees and subsequently successively
closed in the Third, Second and First Degrees.
(vi) Before the LTnion, there is no reference in the Minutes to passwords
from one Degree to another. The same is true for several years after the Union.
The earliest reference to “ the introductory Sign and Word to the 3° ” occurs
in the minutes of 4th August, 1830.
I am convinced that a careful study of the pre-Union and post-Union
minutes of old Lodges, both “Ancient” and “IModern”, would help in the
elucidation and interpretation of the so-called “ Exposures ” of the mid-eighteenth
century, by placing them in their proper setting. It would also probably
demonstrate the great variations in the practices which prevailed, and the
consequent difficulty of generalising.
in open lodge. I do in fact remember without any details being told of a copy
of an “Exposure” in Grand Lodge Library, with corrections made apparently
by a genuine mason.
One wonders whether there is in existence any material, c.y., publishers
accounts, which would give us some idea of the number of copies of the pamphlets
circulated and how large was an impression and how large an edition.
boUitnoa all his (,'luri/ was advertised in the York Courant of 15tli
April, 1766. “This Day is published, Price 2s. Sold by . . Solomon
in all his Glory: Or, The Master Mason. . . . London, printed for G.
Robinson and J. Roberts, at Addison’s-Ilead in Pater-noster-Rowand again
in the York Courant of 7th June, 1768. “This Day is published. Price 2s.
bound, Sold by . . . The Second Edition, . . . Solomon in all his
Glory; . . Translated from the French Original published at Berlin, and
burnt by Order of the King of Prussia, at the Intercession of the Free-Masons.
London, printed for Robinson and Roberts, No. 25, in Pater-noster-Row’’.
The pamphlet Jadun and Boaz w'as mentioned at a trial that took place
in 1768; this must have caused some comment at the time and was most likely
reported in the Imndon Papers. The Newcastle Journal of 20th/27th February,
1768, gives the following account: —
The Leeds Intelliijcncer of 23rd February, 1768, gives some further details: —
Then as regards the "Moderns’' and " Antients ” ; although in the second
edition of Jarhiii and Boaz the words "both Ancient and Modern” were first
inserted, does this work give approximately the working of the " Antients’’?
Also is it possible to say that the other works he has mentioned were peculiar
to one or the other of these bodies 1
As regards the French works, the first being pubished in 1737. Eugen
Lennhoff, in his Freemasons, agrees with Gould that Masonry made its appearance
ill France in the year 1725; is there any record of the numbers printed of
the various editions of these works ?
In conclusion, I again heartily congratulate Bro. Smith on his verv
interesting and admirable paper.
The paper (undertaken at the suggestion of our late Bro. Vibert) was
begun some time before the War, and it was then my intention to follow it up
with a Second Bart—in which 1 had hoped to discuss the contents of these
Exposures ”, and to consider to what extent they could be accepted as true
pictures of contemporary hlasonic procedure. But 1 felt that a solid biblio¬
graphical foundation should first be laid, before a satisfactory discussion of the
contents of these pamphlets could be attempted. Unfortunately the War
prevented this continuation, and it was only by chance that I was able to be
present in Lodge to read the paper myself.
The way in which it was received gave me great pleasure, and I was
much interested in the comments. Most of them, however, refer to that aspect
of these pamphlets which I had intended to discuss in my Second Part.
It must be remembered that, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the principal business of a Lodge was “working the Lectures”.
Although, quite possibly, these pamphlets may not very accurately portray the
actual ceremonies, I thing that it can hardly be doubted that they would have
jiroved useful to Brethren for the jiurpose of the “ Lectures’.’. So that, although
originally intended as “Exposures”, they were in fact found useful by the
Brethren themselves; and it was due to this that they were so frequently
reprinted. I am glad to find, from the comments, that this view has such
weighty support. I share the opinion of our Master that these “Exposures”—
whatever their intention—must have done a lot to pave the way for the Union,
and am in complete agreement with the views expressed by Bro. Knoop in his
interesting comments.
Bro. Johnson has added some very useful information from the North,
and 1 have made additions to my footnotes to refer to this. I hope, w’hen the
War is over, to follow up in the London papers his discovery of the references
to the Trial of 1768, and look forward to sharing, in some measure, the “ great
entertainment of the Court and spectators ” !
Bro. Covoy-Crump’s suggestion as to the identity of “J.G.” had not
escaped the notice of Bro. Taunton; and I hope that the latter will be
stimulated to continue his researches. “ Jubela-o-um ”—yes, indeed; what is
the origin of these names ?
It would • be very interesting if someone coi.ild follow up Bro. Lewis
Edwards’ suggestion for discovering how many copies of these pamphlets were
in circulation ; but I expect thiit all the accounts of the publishers concerned
will have perished.
I note with satisfaction that Bro. Hiram Hallctt supports my (very slight)
alteration to the usual classification of these “Exposures”—by which I relegate
Burd’s ^foster-Key and Solomon in all Ilis Glory to the French group of
“Exposures”, thus leaving the third group as a homogeneous family. The
French group is of very great interest—especially as regards Pass-words and
Steps—but it needs a special knowledge, which I do not possess, to deal with
it adequately.
With reference to Bro. Baxter’s comment, Wilkinson’s reprints seem to
have been made in large numbers, as they are now comparatively common (I
have nearly all of them in my collection, as well as Sleater’s edition of
Shihholeth). Wilkinson, in accordance with his usual custom, advertised his
edition of Masiniry Dtsseeteei in his other reprints; but I do not know of a
copy w'ith that name on the Title-page. I suspect that he thought it would sell
better if he put it out as a new exposure; so that he gave it a new Title-page
with the name of Tuhal Cain, calling it a "second part” of Solomon in all His
Glory, which he had just reprinted.
I cannot agree with Bro. Bullamore about the steps. It may be noted
that the drawing in Jac.hin and Boaz shows three steps. Hiram corrects the
error in Jachsn and Boaz, but there is a new one introduced in Mahhahonr.
FRIDAY, 5th MARCH, 1943.
freemasons was stated before 1722; second, we shall invite their attention to
certain respects in which the taste of Anderson's contemporaries differed from
that of their medieval predecessors; third, we feel it necessary to lay stress on
certain consequences of the religious and political turmoil of the seventeenth
century; and fourth, we shall be occupied with some aspects of theology in the
earlier part of the eighteenth century.
The Cooke MS. of c. 1410 [11. 833-6] says of the mason that
hit behoveth hym fyrst princypally to [loue] god and holy chyrche
& alle halowis.
By the second half of the sixteenth century this statement had been modified,
by expansion of the former part and by omission of reference to the saints (all
hallows). Thus the First General Charge then laid it down :
That ye shall bee trewe men to god and holly Churchc and you vse
no Errour nor heresye by yo"' vnd'standing or discreacon but be yee
discreet men or wyse men in cache thing ((C'u/id Lodye No. 1 MS.).
It is not known when the Charge was first stated in these terms; possibly
that was done some considerable time before the date of the MS., 1583; but
the absence of reference to the saints was perhaps deliberate and may indicate
Reformation influence. In any event, masons who read or heard this Charge
presumably understood by holy church the Church of England; and when the
d/iS'. Con.'ititntloim of ]\fn>ioiiri/ reached Scotland, masons in that country must
in general have considered themselves charged to be faithful to the Kirk.
Members of both churches could, moreover, accept without difficulty the Invocation
occurring in the same MS. ;
The mighte of the Father of heaven and the wysedome of the glorious
soonne through the grace & the goodnes of the holly ghoste y* been
three p[er]sons & one god be w*^'' vs at o'' beginning And give vs
grace sc to' gou’ne vs here in o' lyving that wee maye come to his
blisse that neu’ shall have ending , Amen.^
One hundred and forty years later, in the First Charge, as stated in Anderson’s
Constitutions, not only, was there no mention of the saints, but there was no
reference to the Trinity. Indeed, no specifically Christian belief was made
obligatory by the Charge:
^ Tlii.s liivocntioM, too, may luive been comnosed originallv loii^ before lo83
'I'lie form hceii supKe.sts an earlier date; and the rhymes, heijinning, hjviiuj ending,
possibly indicate that the original was in verse. ' i . ■
40 Tranfsacfions of the Quatuor Coroiiati Lodije.
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
rational consideration the guide of conduct and the ultimate basis of belief ; and
in the second half of the century great influence was exerted by an evangelical
revival which went far tow'ards asserting the supremacy of right feeling and
simple faith over fallible human reason. Nevertheless, in the interval between
the dying down of the old fires of seventeenth-century puritanism, and the
revival of puritaiiism in its Methodist form, there came an age in which
“enthusiasm” in religion and politics was suspect, and a greater value was set
on calmness and common sense. That such a spirit should prevail in the lodges
of Anderson’s day is not strange. The majority of their members, no doubt,
had lived through the Revolution of 1688, and many of them could remember
something of the controversies and disturbances which preceded that event. After
the persecutions of the sixteenth century and the convulsions of the seventeenth,
men might well incline in religion, as Walpole did in political questions, to the
practice of qniela non movere ■, and it is not improbable that a large proportion
of those who joined tlie Craft in this period were influenced, as peaceable men,
by the masonic rule that topics likely to provoke hot discussion should be barred
from the lodges. Or, to use Anderson’s own words (ihid., p. 114):
Freemasons, it may be noted, w'ere probably not the first—and they were cer¬
tainly not the last body—to recognize the danger arising from political and
religious argument. The French Confederation Generale du Travail, for instance,
in its “Amiens Charter” of 1906, laid down the rule that individual trade
unionists w'ere free to join associations in accord with their private political or
philosophical opinions, but were prohibited from advancing these opinions within
their trade unions.
Rules of this kind are no doubt in part explained psychologically, as
arising from an emotional or sesthetic fear or dislike of conflict or disturlnince;
but even so there is an interest in the arguments by which men explain or
justify their attitude rationally. Above all things, Anderson and his contemp¬
oraries hated discord, as an architect might hate a building in w'hich the parts
W'ere at odds w'ith each other. The opposite, harmony cr unity, is justified
partly, no doubt, as a pleasurable and laudable thing in itself, but also as a
necessary condition for achieving the chief masonic end, perfection in the art,
in a speculative sense. This essential harmony was not to be reached by identify¬
ing masonry with any one of the prevailing creeds, or by teaching that all or
some of the creeds were false. It was rather to be sought by ignoring the creeds,
or at least ignoring the points in which they differed, and by asserting at the
same time that a freemason might have two distinct religious beliefs. As an
individual, he might profess the creed, or one of the creeds, of his country,
as a freemason, he must hold W'hat in the Sixth Charge is called “the oldest
Catholick Reli gion ” (ibid., p. 147).
NATURAL RELIGION
Our purpose is not to examine the logical validity of this position, but
simply to record it, and to discuss what was meant by “the oldest Catholick
Religion”. It may be presumed to be the same thing as “that Religion in
which all Men agree” and very much the same as “the 3 great Articles of
Noah” (ibid., pp. 143-4). It is also identical with what the FoeJ.-ef Companion
of 1734-5 calls “the Religion of Nature”, that is, in all probability, natural
as distinct from revealed, religion. ’
42 Traiixdi-tiDiix of the Qiiatuor (Joro/inti J.odijr.
This work, it is true, appeared after Anderson’s first edition of the Conxtitutionx ■,
but many of its statements may be found in earlier deist or latitudinarian
writers whom Tindal quotes as authorities, and his work is remarkable, not for
its originality, but because it draws conclusions which his predecessors had left
unstated. '*
In order to show that in the early eighteenth century there was nothing
very strange in making the cult of natural religion the basis of a society of
peaceable people, we may be allowed to cite a writer who, though there is no
conclusive evidence of a connection between him and the Craft, should be of
more than passing interest to freemasons. This was John Toland (1670-1722),*
the arjthor of Chrixliaiiif// not Mi/xterioiix and several other works, of which the
one most interesting to freemasons is his Paiittieixticon, published in Latin in
1720. In this curious book, after a short account of ancient and modern
societies of philosophers and artisans, he gives a statement of the beliefs of the
Pantheists and describes the meetings of their Socratic Societies ■'* ;
Tliougli tlic Eii'st Chiirge is not too clear on tlie point, it may be presumed
lliat' natural religion was regarded as the religion of masons not only in 1722
hut at all times ; it was the olth-st Catholic religion. The conclusion is, in the
17.48 edition of tin' Coiixlit iiiio/is, exjiressed in another way by referring to
masons as “Noachidae”, bound to keep the three great articles of Noah. The
term “Noachidae” occurs in a letter of 17,4,5 sent from Grand Lodge to the
Provincial Grand iMaster of East India in Calcutta. The original draft, sub¬
scribed “,T[ohn] R.[evis] Sec'*’ to the G. Lodge” is preserved in the Bodleian
Tiibrary,' and it is jicssible that Anderson borrowed the expression from the
letter, as there is a slight similarity between a passage in that letter and one
in the “historical” section of the ('unstitutions of 1738. We print the passages
side bv side :
We feel, however, that it is not safe to assume either that Anderson borrowed
the term “Noachidae” from the letter, or that the writer of the letter coined
the word, more especially as the adjective “Noachian ” has been traced as early
as 1678 [O.K.D.), and the word “Noachidae” may be equally old.
The expression “3 great articles of Noah” presumably conve3'ed some
definite meaning to Anderson’s contemporaries, but niodern masonic commentators
offer very varying explanations. Woodford (Kcnninr/’s Ci/cJupxdia, 515) suggests
that the 3 articles were (i) to abstain from idolatry and to worship the one
true God ; (ii) to honour God’s holy name and not to profane it or take it in
vain; (iii) not to commit murder. He goes on to state that to these three
precepts were subsequently added (iv) to avoid incest; (v) not to steal; (vi) to
be just; (vii) not to eat flesh with the blood in it. According to Hawkins
(Coiirixf- 164) the ancient Hebrews applied the name “ Noachidae ”
to members of other nations who practised the great principles of religion and
morality, without accei)ting Jewish doctrine and ceremony. Certain precepts
were binding njmn them, including (i) abstinence from blood, (ii) the prohibition
of murder, and (lii) the recognition of civil authority, which were expressly
enjoined upon Noah after the Flood (Genesis, ix, 1-7), and these probably con¬
stituted the three great articles of Noah. In all, he adds, there were seven
Noachian Precepts, the other four being the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy,
incest and theft. Begemann and Vibert have no use for these Biblical or
Talmudic explanations, the formei; (Freimmnerei in KniiJnnd, ii, 216-20), by
a rather laboured argument, reaches the conclusion that Anderson meant
Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth; the latter (Lei/islatioii of the ('raft. 11).
was of opinion that the sentence “the mason is to be a good man and true
' Hmrl. .MS., G. 136, No. o4, calendared in A.(,KC., xi, 35.
^ Tlie text of this pa.ssage is as printed in xi, 35-6; we ha\e teon
unable to consult the original.
Frc(-masoti?\i/ and the Idea of yaftira/ IleVxjion. 45
and strictly to obey the moral law,” which he suggests was based on GVin.scs,
vi, 9 (‘‘Noah was a just man and perfect and walked with God”), embodies
the grand articles of Noah, an opinion with which Bro. Lewis Edw'ards {A.Q.t .,
xlvi, 395) is apparently in sympathy.
Hebrew scholars have also discussed the Noachiaii Precepts; the Chief
Eabbi, the Rev. Dr. J. H. Hertz, in his comments on (lenesu, ix, 1-7, in his
edition of the Pentuteach, discusses what he describes as the seven command¬
ments given to the descendants of Noah, viz., (i) the establishments of Courts
of Justice, (ii) the prohibition of blasphemy, (iii) of idolatry, (iv) of incest,
(v) of bloodshed, (vi) of robbery, (vii) of eating flesh cut from a living animal.
He adds that ‘‘these constitute what might be called Natural Religion.” He
says nothing to suggest that any three of these commandments were more
important than the remaining four. In any case, w'e feel that a Biblical or
Talmudic explanation of the Articles of Noah best accords with the spirit of
the times in which Anderson wrote and with the other parts of the Charge, as
the Noachian Precepts were a sort of Talmudic version of natural religion or
the moral law binding on the Gentiles as descendants of Noah. Nor can we
see any reason for Anderson deliberately hiding his meaning in the w’ay that
Begemann and Vibert imply. Anderson’s writings are frequently obscure, but
that is unintentional on his part.
If we are right in taking the ‘‘religion in which all men agree” and
the ‘‘three great articles of Noah” as equivalent to ‘‘natural religion,” the
First Charge was wide in scope, and cannot, as has elsewhere been suggested,
be rightly interpreted as restricting membership of the Craft to entrants who
were Christian, of whatever denomination, or to those who were either Trinitarians,
Unitarians or Jews. The only persons explicitly excluded are the ‘‘stupid
atheist” and the ‘‘irreligious libertine,” and the two terms may have been
intended to describe the same man, that is ‘‘the fool” who ‘‘hath said in his
heart. There is no God” {Psalm, xiv, 1), and who, believing in no divine
sanctions, was considered to have no motive to obey the moral law. Theoretically,
that is, Moslems, Parsees and Hindus, for example, might be eligible. Anderson,
and presumably his colleagues, believed that the Zoroastrians were freemasons
and that in Eastern Asia in his day there was still a remnant of them ‘‘ who
retain many of the old usages of the Freemasons” {Constitiitio)is of 1738, 23).
It may, nevertheless, be questioned whether the London and Westminster lodges
in Anderson’s day would have admitted Orientals. Begemann {op. cit., ii, 207)
holds that the First Charge should be interpreted as excluding Jews, on the
ground that Anderson wrote a pamphlet against modern Jews and Anti-
trinitarians, but in our view Anderson’s personal opinions and beliefs do not
enter into the problem ; he was endeavouring to set down in writing the tenets
and principles prevailing among masons of his day, even if he was not very
successful in doing so in a concise and lucid manner. It is known, as a matter
of fact, that Jews were admitted to the Craft within a few years of the
publication of Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723, though whether it was the
original intention of the Charge, or only a proceeding rendered possible by its
somew'hat obscure w’ording, we cannot say.
concord in the lodge ; and many members who valued that harmony probably
never troubled their heads with any controversy about miracles or revelation.
Pennell, it may be noted, in his Irish edition of the ('unxtitiilioiix in 1730, though
following closely Anderson’s text of the First Charge, printed immediately after
the Charge a definitely Christian prayer to be said at the opening of the Lodge,
or at the making of a Brother.
The early eighteenth-century lodges were not societies of philosophers or
doctrinaires. There were doubtless some “intellectuals” among the accepted
masons, but the underlying tenets of freemasonry, such as the comparative
freedom from tests, the exclusion of political and religious discussions from
the Lodge, and the practice of charity, had grown up gradually among
the operative masons, the results probably of empirical sohrtions of pract¬
ical difficulties, rather than actions based on fundamental beliefs. In due
course these tenets were adopted by the speculatives from the operatives. The
name of not a single founder of Grand Lodge in 1717 is known; of the officers
of Grand Lodge prior to the publication of Anderson’s (’auxtit iitioits in 1723,
the only one who can be described as an “intellectual” is the Rev. Dr. J. T.
Desaguiliers, who was a lecturer in natural philosophy, a Fellow and Curator
of the Royal Society, and Chaplain to the Duke of Chandos and to the Prince
of Wales. He has heen described by Murray Lyon as the co-fabricator and
pioneer of Engish symbolical masonry (the Rev. James Anderson being pre¬
sumably cast for the other leading part), but quite wrongly in our opinion, as
we have endeavoured to show elsewhere. Masonic tenets, principles and ritual
were a slow growth and not the sudden creation of any one or two men.
The early minutes of Grand Lodge throw no light upon the tenets of
freemasonry, ■ other than the practice of charity, to which many refetences occur.
A mention of relief is found in the Sixth Section of Anderson’s Sixth Charge
(“ Behaviour towards a strange Brother”), but it is not so strongly or so happily
phrased as the reference to charity in the “Charge to new admitted Brethren”
(printed in Smith’s I’oc.li^t Cmpanion oi 1734-5) which is as follows:
Masons Discover’d (1725), there is an attack, not so much upon the tenets of
freemasonry, but upon the religious views of certain unnamed, and presumably
prominent, masons, as can be judged from the following passages.
It is not possible from the various passages quoted, or from any other
surviving evidence with which we are acquainted, to draw an exact picture of
the tenets and principles of freemasonry in the early eighteenth centnry. The
available evidence, such as it is, points to a Society, following on the lines of
its operative predecessor, more or less interested in probems of geometry or
architecture, mildly imbued with the spirit of Charity, imposing apparently few
or no religious or political tests in wdiat concerned its candidates, and certainly
remarkably free from religious disputes and political dissensions. Above all,
meetings of the Lodges, which one and all assembled in taverns or coffee houses,
were probably convivial gatherings. This can be deduced net only from the
observations of non-masons, but also from official or semi-official masonic public¬
ations. Thus George Payne’s Regulations of 1721, printed in _ Anderson’s
Conslitulions of 1723, show that Grand Lodge itself centred round the Annual
Feast, and both Anderson’s Charges and the “ Charge to new admitted
Brethren” stress the need for avoiding intemperance and excess.
^ See the essay on Charity Schools appended to his F<ih\e of the Bees.
T/ii/is„(/ioii.s' of the (fimtuor Vorountl Lo<l(i(.
of I'l-iuice. Ill the latter country, believers in a natural religion were not
wanting: Voltaire was a distinguished and influential example. But they found
arrayed against them the combined power of Church and State. The former
refused utterly to recognize as true any religious belief or organization bnt
itself , and the Government of Louis XIV in 1685, in revoking the Edict of
Nantes, instituted a jirocess of the kind which in modern Germany would be
called [co-ordination]. Protagonists of freedom of thought,
therefore, were far less likely than in England to stop short of a desire to
frru.vcr I'nifdini- completely. In England, by abnegating a monopoly and by
jierniitting a good deal of freedom of interpretation, the Established Church,
however unpopular it might be at times, permitted compromises of various kinds,
and did not arouse against its creed and organization a hostility comparable to
that manifested in France against the alliance of the Boman Catholic Church
and the Bourbons. The English lodges had no motive to be anti-clerical, since
the private cults of members were permitted by the State, and open criticism
of the Establishment was possible. French lodges, on the other hand, were
likely to be gathering grounds of rebels, and their increasing anti-clericalism
culminated in a rejection of the Great Architect of the Universe.
A hearty vote of thanks was uiininmnusly iiassed to Bro. Kiinop and his
collaborator, Mr. G. P. Jones, for this valuable paper, on the propo.sition of the
W.M., secondexl by the S.W. ; comments beinp; offered by or on behalf of Bros. W. T.
Grantham, F. L. Pick. B. H. Baxter, J. H. Ix-ipier, W. W. Covey-Crump, L. Eduards,
F. B. Badice, H. H. Hallett, H, C. Booth, H. E. Elliott, W, J. Williams and
.1. W . Ha milton-Jones.
On several occasions during the last few years it has been my privilege,
either from one of the Wardens’ chairs or else from the floor of the Lodge, to
speak in support of a vote of thanks moved by the Worshipful Master in favour
of cur esteemed Past Master, Bro. Knoop. To-day I claim the Master’s pre¬
rogative of proposing such a vote of thanks myself from this chair ; and in doing
so I w'ould remind you that this is one of those occasions on which we are
indebted not merely to Bro. Knoop himself, but also to one of his non-masonic
colleagues, Mr. G. P. Jones. I am confident that we all regret our inability
to welcome in open lodge Bro. Knoop’s academic but non-masonic colleague.
I feel, however, that the value of such a paper as this is actually enhanced by
reason of the fact that the views expressed by a Freemason of learning' are
concurred in by an equally learned student who has not the advantage of that
inside information wdiich is enjoyed by a member of the Craft. It is therefore
with very great pleasure that I move that a hearty vote of thanks be accorded
not only to Ero. Kuoop, but also to his collaborator, Mr. Jones, for the paper
to which we have listened to-day with such interest and enjoyment.
Bro. Knoop, w'hose name will always be most closely linked with the
study of the economic history of the Craft, has to-day given us the benefit of
his researches into the association between the tenets of Freemasonry and those
of natural religion. The authors of this paper, in reviewing the changes to be
observed in the declared religious duties of Freemasons, have quoted from the
Coolf his. of about 1410, and then by way of contrast have quoted most, but
not all, of the First Charge as published in the 1723 edition of Anderson’s
(’otis/lftifioris. If I may make a suggestion to the joint authors of this paper
JJiiiciliistoii. 49
I would urge that the two versions of the First Charge as printed in the 1723
and 1738 editions of Ar.derson’s Coiistitshould be set out in full for the
benefit of readers when this paper comes to be published in our T/'/iiisncfiuns.
I put forward this suggestion because one of the expressions not quoted in this
paper in its present form appears to me to support the authors’ contention that
the “holy chyrche’’ referred to in the Cooke MS. must be regarded as meaning
to our medieval brethren in England the Church of England and to masons in
Scotland the Kirk of these days. The passage not quoted in this paper, to
which I refer, reads: —
It is with great pleasure that I second the vote of thanks to our authors
for an interesting and provocative paper. Whatever the intentions of Anderson
aud/or his committee of fourteen, it is obvious that throughout the whole of
the eighteenth century the Craft was predominantly Christian. References to
the Birth of the Messiah in the pre-Union Books of Constitutions^ passages in
most of the “Exposures’’ and in the Irish Constitutions, from Pennell to the
present day, provide ample evidence of the Christian basis of Freemasonry. On
the other hand, the framing of the First Charge, though couched so vaguely,
opened the door of the rapidly-expanding Freemasonry of the third and fourth
decades of the century and resulted in a measure of success and an extension of
Freemasonry to members of all creeds that could hardly have followed any
other formula.
50 Tidiisait/o/iK of the Qiiiitnor Corunati Lodyt.
Tlie paper by our Bro. Knoop and Dr. Jones leaves me in a little difficulty,
as I am far from being sure that I appreciate precisely what the authors are
driving at. They, sui’ely, do not )3y any means desire to introduce a topic of
religious discussion into the Lodge. I shall, therefore, endeavour to make my
few comments non-controversial.
Our authors say that Anderson held the Calvinistic beliefs of the Presbyt¬
erian Church in which he was confirmed and ordained. Now so far as I am
aware there is no confirmation in the Presbyterian Church, either Established
or Free. But jjerhaps the word here used bears a different implication to that
generally understood.
So far as the First Charge of a Freemason—“ Concerning God and
Beligion ”—is concerned, I am not sure that critics have read into it far more than
Anderson or the Committee ever intended. Our iilS. Old Charges required
adherence to God and Holy Church. There can be no doubt about the meaning
of that phrase; and, therefore, Anderson, in his Bool,- of Conut it iitionn, being
himself a nonconformist, would be w'ishful to remove any possible ban on those
of his and similar faith. Roman Catholics in early Grand Lodge days were
not without prominence in the Craft. We even had men of that faith occupying
the Grand IMaster’s Chair, or, as it is now’ fashionable to call it, the Throne.
I cannot think there was an intent to pave the way for the administration of
Deists in the sense of Jews, Unitarians or sects of that kind, although the
clause did undoubtedly lead to that later on.
Anderson’s days were long before the time of the Disruption in the
Church of Scotland, but even then there were simmerings of revolt against the
shackles of privilege and patronage.
I do not w'ish to carry this point any further, but I shall, nevertheless,
be glad if our authors will favour me with their views when they reply to the
discussion.
It is superfluous to say I am wholeheartedly in favour of the vote of'
thanks that I know w'ill be accorded to the writers of this ingenious and
ingenuous essay.
The subject of this paper is full of interest to every inquirer who has
sought an answer to the question ; at what period did our Society cease to
demand a profession of the Christian religion as one of the tests for its initiates ?
The matter under examination is a peculiarly delicate one for discussion
in open Lodge. In the first place I should like to congratulate Bro. Knoop on
the dexterity with which he has emulated the small Egyptian bird (I do not
know its proper zoological name), which ventures inside the jaws of the crocodile
in search of sustenance. With equal skill Bro. Knoop has gathered pabulum
close to the very fangs of controversy, without, as it seems to me, arousing the
hideous form, of religious debate. Some of us will not be so daring; and for
my own part any contribution I can add to the discussion will be concerned
m.erely with details of little importance, for my desire is to avoid raising the
much weightier issue involved in the psychological phenomenon of the abandon¬
ment of what was undoubtedly an Ancient Landmark.
That is as much as I care to say at the present time and in the present
place on such a subject.
I have next to record my complete agreement with Bro. Knoop, that
Dri Anderson is not to be held responsible for the essential contents of the
Charge “ Concerning God and Religion ”. To suggest that he could have imposed
such a fundamental change as the substitution of “Natural Religion’’ for
Discussion. 51
its aims and infliu'uci', was giving it a fresh lease of life among men of much
higher social j)osition,
I have never regarded the alleged innovation of 1717 and of 1722 as
representing at all Anderson’s "own personal beliefs”; though what Bro. Knoop
meant when he referred to Anderson being "confirmed” in the Presbyterian
t'hureh 1 do not understand, for (from the Church of England point of view)
the "Presbyterians have no "Confirmation” rite. Perhajis they use the term
"confirmed” in some other technical sense. I do not know it.
Just one other point. I question whether we shall really understand
Anderson’s attitude until we ascertain tor certain the fact about his alleged
expulsion from an Operative "Lodge ” (?) in London, which was asserted by
the late Bro. Stretton, of Leicester. There was a mystery about that which
neither Bro. Thorp nor I could then solve. I believe I still have (somewhere)
the dossier of correspondence which I had with Ero. Stretton at that time,
though 1 cannot now lay hands ujion it. I think it imiilied starting a rival
organization, w'hich subsequently developed into " Speculative Prelemasonry ”,
though (as 1 have already premised) Anderson and his con fid/•(-.< had never a
notion that it would become so—and certainly no attempt to make it so.
Probably, however, Bro. Knoop may regard all this as irrelevant to his
subj('ct; so T will come to an abrupt conclusion by joining in the vote of thanks
for his paper which I am sure will be unanimously passed.
The thanks of the Lodge are due to the authors of the paper for the
care and skill manifested in their Essay.
Their summary of the case and of the influences at work w'hich resulted
in the excision of certain clear statements of Christian lloctrine in the Old
Charges is supported by the evidence they adduce. The Charge concerning God
and Religion was a natural product of the sway towards Deism among some of
the most prominent of the leaders of the Craft at that time. The Charge under
consideration appears to have been drawn up without very much regard to the
subject. Thus W'e have the most singular fact that in an article on God and
Religion no mention is made of God, and, although stupid Atheists are excluded
from entry, the qualifying adjective (which should have been unnecessary) might
leave it open to the remark that only a certain class of atheists w’ere intended.
Literally polytheists are not excluded. The qualifications of being "Good men
and True” and " IMen of Honour and Honesty” were probably intended to
refer only to the human standards by which men judge themselves and each
other, and not to the Standards of conduct according to which the All-Seeing
Eye judges.
It is necessary that any comments should be made so that they do not
transgress the rule against discussion of Religious topics in the Lodge. Therefore
in the followung comments I have restricted myself to those matters which have
been made public in the Coustitntions themselves, and these have been left to
speak for themselves.
It seems desirable that we should consider the First Charge not as an
isolated paragraph, but as a statement made at the same time and in relation
to the same topics. In other words the text should be considered in relation
to its context. The fact that two Clergymen were concerned in the preparation
and presentation of the first two liouLu of Couniitutions indicates that they saw
no real inconsistency in the statements made in the Charge in question and the
clear statements embodied in the History preceding the same.
Discusaion. 53
The 1723 edition of the Coir^tiiutioris was, on the face of it, somewhat
unsatisfactory, for, although the First Charge is headed “I. Concerning God
and Religion”, there is not a single mention of the Deity in it. Ihe
fluctinitions of time resulted in the inclusion of ‘‘ He of all men should best
understand that God seeth not as man seeth, for man loohcth at the outv,'aid
appearance, but God looketh to the heart. A mason is, therefore, particularly
bound r.ever to act against the dictates of his conscience. Let a man’s religion
or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the order, provided
he believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth and practise the sacred
duties of morality. Masons unite with the virtuous of every persuasion in the
firm and pleasing bond of fraternal love; they are taught to view the errors
of mankind with compassion, and to strive, by the purity of their own conduct,
to demonstrate the superior excellence of the faith they may profess.” The
position brought about by the 1723 form of the First Charge could hardly fail
to induce an urge to expand, if not to elucidate, the real meaning of the 1723
form.
In the 1738 edition (p. 143) the Old Charges, as therein printed, are
stated to have been collected by the author from their old Records, at the
command of the Grand Master, the present Duke of Montagu, Approved by
the Grand Lodge, and ordered to be printed in the first Edition of the Bool:
of Coiisiii Ilf ions on 25th March, 1722.
A comparison between the 1723 and 1738 versions shows that what follows
is not the forpi approved and ordered to be printed on 25th March, 1722. On
the contrary the 1738 version of Charge I is much altered. It is 35 words
longer than in 1723. The much-debated phrases "as a true Noachidae ” and
“nor against Conscience” are introduced in the first paragraph; and in the
second paragraph the phrase ‘‘For they all agree in the 3 great Articles of
Noah, enough to preserve the Cement of the Lodge” has been introduced.
Such innovations as ‘‘Christian Masons” and ‘‘Christian usages” also
are inserted.
There is prefixed to each of the 1723 and 1738 editions an Historical
section. How far the History is to be read into the subsequent Charges we need
not attempt to decide. There are, however, certain assertions in this historical
part which should be in our minds as we consider the Charges themselves.
It must be remembered that this History was to be read at the Admission
of a New Brother. The first sentence begins thus: —
Adam, our first Parent, created after the Image of God, the
Great Architect of the Universe, must have had the Liberal Sciences,
particularly Geometry, written on his heart; for even since the Fall
we find the principles of it in the Hearts of his offspring.
Page 7. Nay, that Holy Branch of Shem (of wdrom as concerning the
Flesh Christ came) could not be unskilful in the learned Arts of Assyria.
Pages 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18 contain statements, mainly based on the Old
Testament, as to the divine guidance of the Israelites in architecture, including
references to the Tabernacle and the first and second Temples. Page 24.
after mentioning Augustus Caesar proceeds thus (‘‘in whose Reign was born
God’s Messiah, the great Architect of the Church ”).
The 1738 edition contains a longer version of the History.
It will suffice if passages on pages 41 and 42 are quoted hero.
Page 41. ‘‘At length Augustus having shut up the Temple of Janus;
for that all the world was at Peace. In the 26th year of his Empire,
after the Conquest of Egypt,”
‘‘The WORD was made FLESH, or the Lord Jesus Christ
Immanuel was born, the Great Architect or Grand Master of the
Christian Church. ’ ’
Tra/isact/oii.<! of iht Quatuor Coronati Lodiji:.
Pago 42. "Ill the 20th year after Augustus, or the Vulgar A.D. 34
"The Lord Jesus Christ, aged 36 years and about 6 months,
was Crucified, without the walls of Jerusalem, by Pontius Pilate the
Homan Governor of Jud®a, and rose again from the Dead on the
3d day for the Justification of all that believe in him."
The jiassages cited by me were authorized to be read in the Lodge.
I iirtherinore, at p. 74 of 1723 Coiistitiitiona, that volume was approved
"as the only Constitutions of Free and Accepted Masons amongst us to be read
at th(^ making of new Brethren, or when the Master shall think fit; and which
the new Brethren should jierusc before they are made”.
This seems to me to be a laudable provision, for it should not have been
left ojieii to any initiate to say that he was not entitled to read such Constitutions
before submitting to be bound by them.
One must thank Bro. Kiioop for having turned his attention to what
has seemed to many of us one of the most interesting points in the historv of
the Craft.
When it is recalled that w'ithin the two generations preceding Anderson’s
('oiistitiitioiix there had taken place the persecutions of the Scottish Covenanters
and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, it may be recognized how surprising
seems the tolerant and unsectarian character of the First Charge. I think it
w’ould be easy to misrepresent the Charge, how'ever, either by attributing to it
too great a suddenness or too great a universality. How'ever important the part
.Andersen played in the issue of the Constitutions, and in whatever degree the
work of those who helped in or approved his labours was nominal only, the
tolerant principles of the First Charge would never have been published had
they been peculiar to him. There must have been in existence at the time a
considerable body of opinion in favour of toleration which could not have been
sudden in its formation, but which might here be traced as a reaction from
the times of persecution.
If one looks at the records and the rituals of eighteenth century Free¬
masonry one may not see, nor could one expect to see, a perfect consistency in
regard to its unsectarian character. There are parts, c.p., the references ’ to
St. John, to suggest a Christian and sectarian character. There are points,
e.i/., the admission of Jewish brethren, to suggest an unsectarian character,
consistent with the First Charge. But on the w’hole I think it must be admitted
that this Charge does in fact represent a main characteristic of the Craft in
the eighteenth century and thereafter.
Finally, might one respectfully suggest, as a useful analogy to the idea
of a natural religion containing the basic principles of all civilized religions,
the idea of the law of nature, and the law of nations in which are contained
the basic principles of justice common to all civilized societies ?
to exaggerate this view. In 1722 Queen Anne had been dead 8 years only,
and anyone acquainted with that reign cannot fail to remember Dr. Sacheverell
and the famous affair in which he figured which led to the overthrow of a power¬
ful government and party. The cry of the “ Church in danger was feared
by all governments, and though the terror inspired by that hogey waned with
the passing of years, it was still powerful in 1722. We may remember that
years later, when Walpole was asked when he would repeal the laws against the
Dissenters, which for years he had rendered nugatory by administrative action,
he replied “Never”, knowing well the dangers of that course. The worship of
“Reason” was by no means universal, and there is evidence that, as Bro. Heron
Lepper has just stated, there were many Freemasons who objected to the change.
Clearly' the Freemasons who were the authors of that change belonged to
that party which, tired of the religious disputes of the previous century and
fearing a repetition of the turmoil they caused, did their best to avoid stirring
men’s passions and to let religious enthusiasm die down until it attained reason¬
able bounds. They must have been followers of the philosophy of the time,
and we may note in Anderson’s First Charge some of the philosophic jargon
current in that period.
It may not be unreasonable to speculate whether this change was not
introduced, partly at any rate, in order to attract new members from those
social classes to whom the Speculative Freemasons of the time looked to recruit
their ranks. It is possible that even then there were Brethren already enrolled
in their ranks who could not wholly subscribe to the Ancient Charges; and
to ease their consciences and to open the doors as widely as possible to new
entrants the religions qualifications were whittled down to the lowest common
denominator.
The decision once taken and challenged, a philosophical explanation had
to be found. Just as the political philosophers, when challenged on the point
of the Divine right of kings, had to invent the Social Contract and imagine a
fictitious “State of Nature”. The idea of a “State of nature” and “natural
man” naturally led to that of a “natural religion”. I understand, however,
that this theory, as propounded by Bishop Butler in his Analngy of lielii/iou,
envisaged a universe set in motion by a Higher Power, which then, however,
let it function according to its laws, without further interference from Itself.
This had to be adapted to the needs of Anderson and his colleagues, and one
of the most interesting parts of the paper is the authors’ explanation of what
“Natural” religion meant to the masonic innovators and how they used the
concept to justify the course they pursued.
To trace the growth and history of thought is an extremely difficult task,
and I wish to thank the authors warmly on the manner in which they have
performed it.
I have read the paper. Freemasonry and the Idea of Natural Reliyion.,
with very great interest. The authors have dealt with a difficult subject,' but
the evidence they have brought forward will, I think, modify whatever views
Brethren generally may have held after perusing various copies of the Ancient
Charges. It seems quite clear that Operative Masons were chiefly concerned
with the skill displayed in craftsmanship and that the Speculative Masons were
especially concerned in preserving harmony within the Lodges.
Grand Lodge formulated our Third Degree, based on the Hiramic element,
about 1725, and such an innovation would never have gained immediate accept¬
ance had not this element been embodied in our Masonic lore, so Anderson
and the Committee “of 14 learned brothers”, when they drafted our First
Charge, would never have gained for it an equally ready acceptance had it not
Ti-dihidctioiis of the Quatiior Coro/iati Lo(///e.
been a fiiiidaniental part of Masonry in the past, so ] think that the authors
are riglit in tlieir assumption that “Natural Religion was regarded as the
Religion of IMasons not only in 1722 but at all times.” It would seem that
this Committee decided to discard certain accretions which had been introduced
when cojhes had been made of various Ancient Charges, and to revert to one
of the old landmarks. Toleration always seems to h;ive been the great watch¬
word in the jiast, and brethren were left to supplement the fundamentals of
masonry according to their own individual inclinations. I heartily congratulate
the authors on their very interesting pajier and for the lucid manner in which
they have treated the subject.
that ere long he will be able to rejoin these interesting assemblies to whose
Transactions he contributes so generously.
I am passing through a Senior Warden’s chair, a stage at which many
Masons, I believe, give maximum attention and thought to our beloved ritual.
The paper to which I have listened to-day has done something to reconcile me
to what may be called the religious policy of Freemasonry as we know it in
this country. Undoubtedly our ritual owes something of its richness and sonority
to the influence cf the majestic liturgy of the Church of England. Some of us
at times feel that the principles of morality expounded in Freemasonry might
well be more closely adjusted to Christian teaching. It is to me delightful to
come upon a direct transcription, as we sometimes do, from the Anglican liturgy,
as in the prayer, taken direct from the Communion Service, with which one
of our ceremonies commences—
“ Almighty God, unto Whom all hearts be open, all desires known,
and from Whom no secrets are hid, cleanse the thoughts of our
hearts . .”
Nevertheless I am satisfied that only on the basis of “natural” religion—a
greatest common denominator, as it were—is it possible for Freemasonry to be
universally spread over the earth’s surface, and any gain from Christianising
the ritual would be offset by defections and dissensions. Unhappily, the more
closely we define and dogmatise the principles of religion, the more do we provoke
the forces of discord which would destroy the peace, love, and harmony on
which the Brotherhood is founded.
The author appeals to the philosophy of John Locke, whose principle of
tolerance had its limits, as, for instance, the exclusion of the Roman Catholics
owing to their allegiance to a foreign authority, and the exclusion of atheists
as men for whom the sanctity of an oath could not exist. These considerations
must have contributed to the framing of the picturesque phrase in the Emulation
version of the presentation of W,T. in the second degree ..." not to be
an enthusiast, persecutor, or sl-anderer of religion . . . ”, the first epithet
a warning against zealotry and intolerance in religion, the last against total
want of religious belief, and the middle term might well, .on occasion, be
appropriated to extremists on either hand.
One District Grand Lodge, one Lodge of Instruction and Sixteen Brethren
nere admitted to membership of the Corrcsiiondence Circle.
1 The. Ijife of Thomas Dnncherlcy his lAje Labours and Letters was written
in 1891 by Bro. Henry Sadler. It is the standard work on Dunckerlev. Quotations from
It are marked H.S. In the oO years that have elap.sed since its publication little or
no fresh information has come to light. When the Public Becords Office papers are
once more available for re.search it is possible that something more definite mav'be
learned about Dnnckerley .senior,
2 To these tliree objects may be added a fourth, the building of a Hall which
a as to he the Headquarters of the Society of English Freemasons, In October, 1768 the
minutes of the (.lommittee of Charity, the equivalent in those davs of our present Board
of General Pnrimsc's, run as follows Tlie Deputy Grand Master [Dillon] informed
the (.'oiumitti'e that the Duke of Beaufort was resolved to have the Society Incorporated
and propo.sod tile Brotliren present should take into serious consideration the I'nost
etfecliial means to raise a fund for the expense of building a Hall.” The foundation
.stone of the new Hall was laid 1st May, 1775, and the building opened 23rd March
If f6. ’
60 Transnrfio7is of the Quatuor Coroi:ati Lodge.
(2) They selected Grand Lodge officers, more particularly the semi¬
permanent ones such as Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer, who
were men of good education and standing.
(3) They reanimated a Lodge, the Lodge of Friendship No. 3, which
was to become the focal point of masonry, in securing the continued
appointment of distinguished masons to the principal offices in Grand
Lodge.
“In the year 1760 upon Mr. Dunckerley’s return from the siege
of Quebec, an event happened which could not but fill him with
astonishment; as it placed him in a new and most extraordinary
point of view'.—A Lady, receiving the Sacrament on her death-bed,
made a declaration in all the awful solemnity of the occasion, by
which it appeared that Mr. Dunckerley owed his birth to the first
Personage in the Kingdom, and Nature was determined that it never
should be questioned, for those who recollect the high Personage
alluded to, will require no further proof when they see the subject
of these Memoirs; but as this is a matter of much delicacy our
readers must excuse us from entering into a further particulars and
permit us to draw a veil over this part of the life we propose to
record, which, were we at liberty to illustrate, would prove a most
interesting part of the history.’’
Of his early days and service in the Navy the article gives the following
account: —
“ Honestas et Fortitude was a motto he took at ten years of
age, when a thirst for glory and a desire to engage in the bustle of
the world induced him to leave school abruptly and enter the Royal
Navy, where during 26 years con.stant service, he had the honour
and satisfaction to obtain the commendations and friendship of the
Tliomafi Dunclierlcy and the Ijodge of Friendshi'p■ 61
We have to thank Bro. White for this the only information w'e have
about ]\Jrs. Dunckerley.
The Hccond article in his obituary notice in the Gentleman’s Magazine.
1795, p. 973.
The writer of this article, in what was a magazine which recorded matters
of social interest, must have obtained his material from a number of rumours
of Dunckerley’s parentage which would have been current for many years before
his death. It is pure journalism and some of it is certainly inaccurate.
" Son of a servant maid in the family of Sir Robert Walpole at
Houghton". The germ of truth is here; I will deal with this presently.
“His mother died when young" is untrue; she died in 1760. "Got
on board the ship of Sir John Norris ” is probably true. Bro. Sadler, who
searched the Admiralty records thoroughly for Dunckerley’s Naval service, says
Tltomafi Duncherley and the Lodge of Friendship.
that Sir John Norris sailed in command of a fleet for the Mediterranean in
May, 1735, when Dunckerley was 10^ years of age. He also states that he
could find no record of his name in the ship lists of that fleet because owing
to his extreme youth it is probable that he was a supernumerary and only drew
rations.
“The Naval Academy employment” statement is also untrue.
The remarks alleged to have been made by Sir Edw'iird Walpole, to whom
is not stated, must be dismissed as unworthy of credence. Sir Edward died in
1784. Why the writer should have made a vicious attack on the probity of a
man so universally respected as Dunckerley is hard to understand.
An earlier mention of his birth is from York Conrant, Aug. 8th, ,1769.
“London Aug. 3. While his R.H. the D[ukeJ of C[umberlaiid]
was at Portsmouth he was visited by another natural relation of his,
no less a Person that the Son of his late M(ajesty). The Duke
received him not only with Politeness but with every possible Mark
of Respect and Affection. The story of this Gentleman’s birth had
been unknown for many years until the Beginning of the present
Reign, when to the honour of a great personage, as soon as he was
convinced of its authenticity, he settled an annuity on him of £500.”
Ilistonj of Lodge of Harmony No. , 255, by Bro. James Johnstone.
The third article to which I have referred is the following, which I quote
ill full. It is from the Freemasons Magazine, Eeb., 1796; —
“ Further Particulars Of The Late THOMAS DUNCKE.RLEY,
ESQ. Communicated In His Owm Hand-Writing By His Executors
Which Fully Contradict The Many Idle Stories That Have Been In
Circulation Respecting Him.
“Jan. 9, 1760, soon after my return from the siege of Quebec,
I received an account of my mother’s death ’ ; and having obtained
permission from my captain to be absent from duty, I went to London
and attended her funeral. Among the very few that I invited to
this ceremony was Mrs. Pinkney,^ who' had been many years a
neighbour to my mother in Somerset House.'' On our return from
the burial she desired I would call on her the next day (and not
bring my wife with me) having something of consequence to tell
me. I waited on her accordingly; and the following is the substance
of what she related to me, as 1 took it in writing: —
“Mary Dunckerley being dangerously ill with the gout in her
stomach (Jan. 2, 1760), and believing it will be her death, is desirous.
^ Mary Dunckerley received an annual bounty from the Privy Purse of £20,
liayablc at Chri.stmas from 173.5-17.'37. IP.P. Reoords.) She was Interred in the
burial ground of the Chapel Royal of the Savoy on 11th January, 1766. No monument
to her or tombstone is extant.
- Henry Pinkney was aiJiminted under porter and lamplighter at Somerset
House in February, 1716/17. He died in 1723. Several persons of this name held
minor Court appointments at this' period. Anne Pinkney was probably his widow.
She was buried in the Chapel Royal of the Savoy 15th April, 1761. It was not at
all unusual for the widows, of Court employees to be allowed to continue the use
of the apartments they occupied during their hinsbands’ lifetime.
^ Somerset House was part of the jointure of the Consorts of the Kings of
England. Henrietta, widow of Charles T, lived there for some years, and Catherine
of Braganza, widow of Charles II, resided there until she left for Portugal in 1692,
never to return. At about this date the building came to be used as a residence
for niinor Court officials as well as a Royal almshouse for their widows and other
recipients of Royal bounty. It remained a Royal jointure until 1775, when George III
exchanged it for Buckingham House. It was pulled down in that year, and the
pre.sent building, designed by Sir William Chambers, was erected on the' site’. Thomas
Dunckerley at about that time was given in lieu rooms at Hampton Court, according
to Law, History of Hampton Court, in suite 30, Clerk-of the Spiceries Lodgings.
64 rrniixacllorift of the QuaUietr Coronriti hodge.
at the request of her friend, Mrs. Pinkney, that the following acco>int
may be made known to her son in the most secret manner, and to
none but him.
At the latter end of November, 1723, Mr. Dunckerley went
to Chatsworth, in Derbyshire, on some business for the Duke of
Devonshire,^ and did not return till the May following. At Christmas
I went to see Mrs. Meekin ■ at Lady Ranelagh's.^ Mr. L[umly] ^
happened to come there, and paid me the greatest respect; and
hinted that I stood in my own light, or I might be the happiest
woman in England. I knew’ his meaning, but made no reply, and
went back to Somerset House the next day. A fortnight after, I
had an invitation to Lady Ranelagh’s and her coach was sent for
me. I was surprised to find Mr. L-y there again. He handed
me from the coach to the parlour; where to my future unhappiness,
I found the Prince of Wales,'’ whom I had too w’ell kno'wn before
my unhappy marriage. At his request (for I could deny him nothing)
I stayed several days, during which time he made me five visits,
and on Candlemas day I went home.
“Soon after I found myself sick and breeding, and was resolved
to make an end of my life. I was taken very ill; Lady Stanley
came to see me; but I could not let her know my disorder. Mrs.
Meeking came to see me; and I told her the consequence of what
had happened. The next day she came again, and brought me bank
bills for £50 inclosed in a cover from Mr. Lumley acquainting me
that it was by the Prince’s command. She said Lady Panelagh was
coming to see me; and in less than an hour her ladyship came; they
advised me to go in the country, and said a house was taken for
me at Richmond; but I was obstinate, and said I would not go out
of the house until I w'as brought to bed. I desired that they would
never let the Prince of Wales or Mr. L[umloy] know that I was
with child; and I never found they did. Dr. Mead attended me.
He ordered me to be bled, and in two days I could sit up.
“ Mr. Dunckerley came from Chatsworth in May, and seemed
not displeased to find me with child. I disdained to deceive him;
and told him what had happened. He commended my conduct with
so much joy, that I could not help despising his meanness; and his
barbarous behaviour to me in the last month of my time was what
^ Probably Mrs. Howard, afterwards Lady Suffolk, and the beautiful Mary
Bellenden, maids of honour to the Prince.ss of Wales. (H.S.)
2 liro. Sadler spells this name Boldness; in the article he quotes it reads Bolness.
2 Mrs. Cannon, midwife to the Royal family. Died llth December, 1754. (H.S.)
■4 Mrs. Walpole, wife of Robert Walpole of Houghton.
’ Sir Robert Walpole, b. 1676, d. 1745, was Prime Minister, 1st Lord of the
Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer 1715-17, and again held these offices
1721-42. He wasi created Earl of Orford 1742. He was Mr. Walpole until 1725, when
he was made K.B.
“ Captain Robert Sivanton, Commodore in the Fleet that sailed to West Indies
in 1761, where he served with distinction under Admiral Rodney. In 1762, while
serving in the same fleet, he was promoted Admiral of the Blue. General Murray,
who was in command of the operations at Quebec in 1760, when the siege was
relieved, wrote to Sir G. Amherst on May 19th, 1760; “ I have no words to express
the alacrity and bravery of Swanton, Deane, and Schomberg. The honour they have
acquired on this occasion should render their name.s immortal’’. This refers Jo the
action on 17th May, 1760, when the French Fleet was defeated at Quebec, at which
of course, Dunckerley was present.
Of) 'I'l/i/txactof thv (fiKituor Corouali Lodge,
^ First I/ord of the Admiralty 1751-56 and from 1757-62. He died 1762. (C.P.)
2 The rank of Gunner in the Royal Navy in the eishteenth century was an
important one. In a large ship there were four Wardroom Warrant officers. The
Ma.ster, who was responsible for navigation, the Chaplain, the Surgeon and the Purser.
There were also three Ixrwer Deck Warrant officers. The Gunner, who wa.s senior,
was responsible for all warlike stores, ammunition and the maintenance of the fighting
equipment; the Boafsicain was responsible for rigging, and the Carpenter for sjiars
and hull. In a small ship such as a sloop, in several of which Dunckerley served,
there would have been but one commissioned officer, the Captain, and if he were a
man who held the rank b.v influence and not for his professional ability, he would
have had to depend largely on the loyalty and efficiency of his warrant officers.
[Admiralty information.]
^ Henry, Baron Digby of Oeashill. Lord of the Admiralty 1763-65. M.P.,
Wilts., 1761-65. (C.P.)
^ Warrants were is.sued in 1776 “ for the payment of pensions to persons
formerly provided with apartments at Somer.set House.” One of these, T64/291,
dated 9th Oct., 1776, nominates Miss Mary Ann Dunkerley to receive a pension of £45.
'’The Hon. John Ruthven, brother to James, 6th Lord Ruthven, b. 1743, d.
1771. (CP.) He was made a Mason at the Royal Navy Lodge, Deal, in 1762. (H.S.)
" A younger brother of Alexander, 4th Duke of Gordon. He died in 1823. (H.S.)
Thomaa Duiichcrh'i) and tht Loihji- of Fnciidx/np. 67
" Sir,
"I saw General 0[ughton] last night, and am happy to
find that we have not been unsuccessful in our attempt to serve
you, and hope it will be an earnest to something better. My
friend Mr. W[orsley]'' had the happiness to lay your case
before a King, possessed of every virtue that can adorn a crown.
Don’t call on me tomorrow, for I am going to Chatham wdth
the Duke of Gloucester; any other time I shall be happy to see
a man possessed of so fair a character, which I value above
everthing in this life.
"Your friend and humble servant,
" H[arcourt].
Catherine Shorter ' in 1700, and was created 1st Earl of Orford in 1742. He
was Prime Minister 1715-17 and from 1721-42. His eldest son, Robert, succeeded
him as 2nd Earl of Orford in 1744. Robert Walpole, junr., married in 1727,
so the Mrs. W. mentioned in Dunckerley’s statement was not his wife.
Edward Walpole, the second son, was born in 1706 and died unmarried
in 1784. Mrs. W. therefore could not have been itis wife.
We may reasonably infer then that the Mrs. W. referred to was the wife
of Robert Walpole, senr.,^^"‘“^ and mistress of Houghton. It was an immense
house, and it is extremely likely that Miss Mary Bolnest was employed there
in some responsible capacity. We can picture her as a good looking and capable
young woman who had earned the affection of her mistress. She had already
captivated the Prince of Wales and she may also have attracted the roving eye
of the master of Houghton himself. Her mistress was taking no chances—she
must be married, of course, and removed from the vicinity. This was a problem
solved by the arrival of the convenient and acquiescent Mr. Dunckerley, “then
attending the Duke of Devonshire on a visit to Sir R. W. at Houghton”. This
gentleman we have every reason to believe resided at Somerset House, so both
objects of Mrs. Walpole were satisfactorily dealt with—marriage and removal.
This was a licentious age. The Beggar’s Opera gives us a glimpse of
contemporary morality. A young girl getting into trouble was nothing of note;
had she been employed in a menial capacity, she would have been discharged,
and there would have been an end of the matter.
To identify the husband is' not easy. The Privy Purse Records mention
three Dunckerley’s, Thomas, Adam and Richard, spelt variously—Donkly,
Dunkley and Dunkerley. The first Thomas Dunckerley was “Keeper of the
Closet”—the equivalent to-day of Verger of Somerset House Chapel. He held
also the appointment “ Marshall of the Hall ”, the duty of which officer was
to preserve order on occasions when the King ate in public.
He died in 1688, so he must be dismissed as the possible father. Adam
Dunkerley was a Yeoman of the Guard, 1694-1718, and first Porter of the gate
in 1720. John Meakins succeeded "A. Dunkerley deceased” as Porter of the
main gate on 11th January, 1728. Mary Dunckerley is mentioned in the records
of the Privy Purse office as having received a bounty of £20 per annum, payable
at Christmas from 1735-1757. The latter date must not be considered as a
final one; it was the date of the last record of entry. If the former date was
correct one might suppose that that was the date of the death of her husband,
but Adam died before 11th January, 1728. Adam Dunckerley in 1720 or 1721
could not have been a young man. As Yeoman of the Guard in 1694, he
would then have been about 20 years of age, so that in 1720 he would have
been about 50. However, he must be regarded as a possible but not probable
husband of Mary Dunckerley.
Lastly, we come to tlie third person of that name in the Privy Purse
Records—Richard Dunckerley, who was sworn “ Page of the Presence ” on 15th
October, 1691, in succession to John Dawson. Probably at that date he was a
lad of 14, which would have made him 43 in 1720. He held the office until
28th September, 1696; the note in the Lord Chamberlain’s record reads;
" Arnold Walwyn in Dunkley’s place, Dunkley surrendered.” Until a careful
examination of the records of the Lord Chamberlain’s office can be made,
Richard Dunckerley must for the moment be labelled the most probable nominal
father of Thomas Dunckerley.
1 think there is some excuse therefore for the statement in the Gentleman’s
Ma(ja~ine that Dunckerley, senior, ‘‘married her and got the place of porter
at Somerset House”.
■ Dunckerley’s narrative twice mentions the name of the Duke of Devon¬
shire ; firstly of his putative father having gone to Chatsworth in Derbyshire
on some business for the Duke of Devonshire from November, 1723-May, 1724;
and, secondly, when Mrs. W. discovered what had happened to his mother and
had her married to Mr. Dunckerley, who was then attending the Duke of
Devonshire on a visit to Sir R. W. at Houghton. This we may presume to
have been about 1720 or 1721.
The Duke of Devonshire was Lord Steward of the Household from 1707-10
and from 1714-16. Had he required a personal attendant of any kind he would
quite conceivably have made his selection from among the minor officials, or
servants of the Court; by reason of his position he could readily have allowed
him to retain his nominal office, at the same time making use of him in his
personal service.
Thomas Dunckerley’s own narrative must be regarded as a veracious one.
He states for example: —
^For date vide list of nrembers of Lodge of Harmony No. 255 at^Hamptoii
t'oiirt. Dunckerley applied for the Warrant and was first W.M. in 1785. (H.S.,
P’ Dunckerley’s letter to Sir Benjamin Craven, January 14th, 1792. (H.S.,
p. 248.)
Thomas Dunckerlet/ and the horhje- of Fnendshiji. 71
^ Visroiint Tqwnsheiid of Painham, Co. Norfolk, was born in 172.' Cr. Marque.ss
y'If- officer in cliartre of lifilitary O|ierations at the takinc of Quebec on tlie
death oi Molfe. Kk. Field Marshal 1795. Lieutenant-General of Or nance 1753-67.
IMa.ster-General of Ordnance 1772-83.
= Maria Con.stantia, b. 174,3, d. 1767, was the only damditer of Robert, 1st
Viscount Hampden, A Lady in Waiting to the Queen,
72 Traiinactio/is of tlit Quatuor Coronati Lodqc,
This proves that for a year after his arrival, mid November, 1766, at
Somerset House, he had been compelled to exist on a mere pittance. His
financial circumstances were not relieved until May 7th, 1767, when he was
given a Privy Purse pension of £100 a year by George III.
He had two consolations during this long period of uncertainty; firstly,
his unbounded enthusiasm for Masonry, which never flagged during his long
and influential masonic career, as is clearly shown in his correspondence with
Grand Secretaries, preserved in the Library at Freemason’s Hall; secondly,
during his naval service he had the good fortune to obtain the friendship of
many men of high social ranb, in some cases I have but little doubt by reason
of his romantic birth, which would have been well known by some of them.
Ultimately they did him good service in securing the recognition by the Crown
of his birth and a pension. The facts indicated show that he took immediate steps
to get into touch again with London Masonry; he was known at Grand Lodge
since 1760 or even hefore that date, and it is probable, from what we know of
his subsequent conduct, that he maintained a contact with Samuel Spencer after
their first meeting whenever his duties afloat permitted. In a letter dated
November 24th, 1786, he thanks William White, the Grand Secretary, for his
Past Grand Warden rank, and states: ‘‘I have served the Society 21 years as
a Grand Officer.” I can account for this only by assuming that Dunckerley’s
Inspectorship of 1760 was not made official until 1765.
On his return to England at the end of 1760 from-his second voyage to
Quebec on H.M.S. Vanguard he no doubt rendered an account of his Masonic
activities as “Inspector”. It will be remembered that he installed Col. Fraser
as Provincial Grand Master at Quebec on 24th June, 1760. He transferred the
Warrant of the Il.M.S. Prince Lodge No. 279 to H.M.S. Guadeloupe in August,
1764, on sailing, according to his own statement, in that ship. This would
have occasioned a previous visit to the Grand Secretary, or at all events some
communication with him. He was a member of the Old Dundee Lodge No. 18
from January 19th, 1761, until he “declared off” in 1768. This Lodge met at
Wapping, which is not far from H.M. Victualling Yard at Deptford, and it
is possible that Dunckerley had opportunities of attending this Lodge, when
H.M.S. Prince was taking in stores on various occasions during this commission.
He probably had an opportunity of visiting other Lodges, as no privilege was
more greatly enjoyed by the eighteenth century Mason than his “right of visit”.
He could attend at any Lodge whether known to members or not, and on
proving himself a Mason had the right to be admitted to the meeting. He
paid his own shot at the refreshment board, usually 1/-, and so was under an
obligation to nobody.
On 6th May, 1734, the Old King’s Arms Lodge minutes contain the
following:—“The consideration of the 2/- to be demanded from visitors on their
admission was brought on the carpet and at large considered, on which it appeared
that several societies in this Fraternity took great umbrage at this seeming
breaking off the communication which ought to exist among Masons”. This
seems to show that 1/- was the conventional fee for visitors at this date.
At the end of 1765 there were about 113 “Modern” Lodges and 34
“ Antient ” Lodges working in the Loiidon area. Lodges in London at this period
were mostly held in ale-houses and taverns, many of which were situated in the
labyrinth of mean streets lying between the river and what we now know as
Oxford Street and Holborn. The Lodge rooms would have been small. For
example, the Lodge room of the Goose and Gridiron, where No. 1 met, was
only 22ft. by 18ft. At some of the coaching inns accommodation may have
been better. The refreshments, either in food or drink, would have been on
a very humble scale. Ale ' was usually drunk, but occasionally, when thij
Lodge became possessed of unwonted funds by reason of two or three “ makings
punch was provided. Spirits were cheap, and a citizen in those days could
become more or less inebriated by the expenditure of 1/-. Lodge expenditure
on refreshment and tobacco was usually confined’ to a maximum of this sum.
In the Old Rules of the (jrand Lodge at York, 1725 [Gould, ii, 407], number
four reads “The Bowl shall be filled at monthly Lodges with Punch once. Ale,
Bread, Cheese and Tobacco in common.”
The members of these primitive Lodges were to a very great extent of
the lower middle-class, small tradesmen, artisans and workmen of all kinds. At
that time there was but little amusement for this class after working hours—
no theatres, no music halls; and by many of them the decency and decorum
of Masonic life and its comradeship and perhaps even its ethics inust have been
highly appreciated.- There were, of course. Lodges where many of the members
were educated men. Perhaps the Legal profession held Lodges in the various
Inns of Court, but I am certain these were few in number and must be regarded
as exceptional. This ale-house Masonry could hardly have made a favourable
impression on Dunckerley, who in the Navy must have been accustomed to
scrupulous cleanliness. Evil smells too "would waft in from the narrow, dirty,
ill-kept street, for sanitary arrangements were primitive in the extreme. In
Hogarth’s masonic picture “ Night ” an arm is seen at an upper window emptying
a certain homely utensil into the street, quite unheedful of the passers by. Sand
or sawdust lay on the floor, and there must have been an incessant din from
boisterous revellers in the bar or street. Smoking and drinking went on during
the actual ceremony, and as the evening drew on the conversation in that rough
age would not become more elevating; there would rarely have been present
anyone of education or refinement.-’
The ritual, too, must have been surprising in its variation, each Lodge
using any form of words which happened to be known by the master of the
evening, who would be entirely indifferent whether it was “ Antient ” or
“Modern”. Masonry may definitely be said to have been unfashionable at
this period, and to many masons the terms “Antient” and “Modern” would
have been meaningless, except as terms of abuse. As to the ritual used we
can only conjecture. This much we know, that candidates were usually made
and passed on the same evening, and that a third degree was not considered
obligatory, though Masters’ Lodges, however, wmre occasionally held for the
purpose of conferring it. I suggest that in some cases the ceremony might have
been very perfunctory—an obligation, a recital of the charges, and little else.
The ritual to which Dunckerley was accustomed up to this date was that
of tlie service Lodges, whether held aboard ship or abroad, and this was in the
vast majority of cases almost certainly that of the “ Antients
This rite is an elaborate one, more so than those in present use,- such
as Emulation, Taylors and Stability, which do not vary greatly. I can hardlj'
believe that Dunckerley would have been favourably impressed with London
I'itual.
If Dunckerley at this time made a critical survey of Grand Lodge, he
would hardly have been very impressed either by its dignity or authority. The
Grand Secretary alone received any remuneration, and this, by a resolution of
Q.C., 24th February, 1735, was limited to 30 Gns. The Grand Masters of this
decade were very irregular in their attendance. Lodges occasionally were erased
for irregular makings, for not being represented at Quarterly Communications,
or for their failure to make an annual contribution to Grand Charity ; but this
did not worry the recalcitrant ones; they merely shifted their quarters or not,
as they felt inclined, and carried on exactly as before. There was but a small
number of Grand Lodge officers—The Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master,
Senior and Junior Grand Wardens, Grand Treasurer, Grand Secretary and Grand
Sword Bearer, and a few of past rank; it was not until June 24th, 1741, that
the Treasurer, Secretary and Sword Bearer were accorded Grand rank.
The Official Visiting of Lodges, of which there were at the end of 1765,
about 113 ‘‘Moderns” in London, must have been almost non-existent. From
1751 to 1767, when the Lodge No, 3 met at the Sun and ranch TiowJ, not one
Grand Lodge officer visited it.
The spiritual or esoteric light of masonry at this time was not burning
brightly ; the Lodges must be regarded as a slightly more civilised and organized
form of the bar parlour; they drank their fill in comfort and privacy and
perhaps appreciated the mystical and ceremonial part of the evening. But we
must defend them to this extent—Minutes of the period show that drunkenness
in the Tjodge was strongly discouraged, and that the Brethren were always ready
to assist any member of their own Lodge who fell on evil times.
As to the general charity, administered by the Committee of Charity, the
Brethren, I think, were not sufficiently educated or enlightened at this era to
appreciate the need to support wholeheartedly this function of the Society. If
there were any enthusiastic masons among the Grand Imdge officers, Samuel
Spencer, who occupied the position of Grand Secretary from 1757 until his death
in 1768, might have informally consulted them in a doubtful case, but most of
the practical administration would have been almost entirely in his hands. His
private premises were the only headquarters address of Masonry. I can find
no record of Dunckerley’s appointment as Inspector in 1760, so we do not know
whether or not this was a permanent appointment or whether it was given to
others. I have mentioned that he states in a letter to the G.S. in 1786 that
he had been a Grand Lodge officer for 21 years, so it is possible that when
Dunckerley sailed with the lion. J. Ruthven in the Guadeloupe in August,
1764, this nebulous appointment was renewed to enable him to report on Masonry
in the Mediterranean. This would agree roughly with the period he mentions.
There were Lodges functioning at various ports in that sea garrisoned by
our forces, which would give scope for his masonic activities.
Whether, as I have surmised, Dunckerley visited numerous Lodges after
his retirement from the Navy cannot be proved, but it is a definite fact that
he made one visit which was subsequently to become of the greatest importance
to Dunckerley himself and Masonry in general.
On 8th January, 1766, he visited a Royal Arch Chapter at the TarJds
Head Tarern, Gerrard Street, Soho.' He was introduced by James Galloway,
' James Galloway. Prov.G.M. Cumberland, 1796, and of Hampshire, 1782 and
1786. J.G.W. in 1781. Secretary, Lodge of Friendship, 1767-1802.
2 James Hescltine, Grand Secretary, 1769-1804. S.G.W., 1785.
" Rowland Berkeley, Grand Treasurer, 1766-1786.
Samuel Spencer, Grand Secretary, 1767-1768.
Hon. Charles Dillon, S.G.W., 1767. Deputy Grand Master, 1768-74.
Rowland Holt, S.G.W,, 1768. Deputy Grand Master, 1775-86.
' Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master, 1767-72. In vol. ii, 114, Letter-book Grand
Lodge, a letter from Grand Secretary James Heseltine to John Peter Gogel, P.G.M
of lT|)|)er and Lower Rhine of Franceseia, dated 18th January, 1774, “ T also assure
you that our present G.M. [Ix)rd Petre] i.s not a member of the Roval Arch nor W'iis
the Duke of Beaufort, our late Grand Master, a member thereof.” From this it would
appear that Beaufort was elected, hut not exalted.
s Oriijin of the Kii<ilish Kite of Fieemusonnj. W, J, Hughan.
76 Traiisdc/ioiis of thr Qurituor Coroiiafi
Ileturiis of names of masons by Lodges were not called for by Grand Lodge
until 1768. In that year the Somcniit llouae lAxlgc made a most impressive
return of some ^0 names shown as hf'foyt: 1708. Among these are
nnmtiom'd lion. Charles Dillon, James Galloway, Eowiand Holt, Henry Errington,
Duke of Beaufort, Duke of Buccleugh, Lord Wenman, Viscount Gormanston,
Rowland Berkeley and James Hescltine, and, with the exception of the last two,
all of these and many others were founder members of the Lodge of Friendship
early in 1767.
We do not know when in 1766 these distinguished men joined the Somerset
House Lodge, nor do we know whether any of them were initiated in it.
The Somerset House Lodge minutes are extant only from 1783 to the
])resent day, so even the W.lMs. previous to that date are unknown. I think
many of these early members, when the Ladi/e of Frif/u/.diiji was formed, resigned
their membership of the Somerset House Lodge, with the .exception of Heseltine,
who was W.M. from 1783-91 and again in 1793, and Galloway W.M. in 1794.
1 cannot find any other names in the minutes of the SoDirr-^et House l^odije.
We have the record of a number of them in the list of members given in Vol. iv
of the minutes of the Lod</e of FrieiidsJi /p. Henry Errington “ withdrawm ”
1768. John Errington “excluded” 1780. Thomas Foley and Thomas Harvey
“expelled” 1768. Charles Townley “withdrawn” 1771. John Merrick
“excluded” 1767. Duke of Buccleugh “expelled” 1772; and many others
had but a brief sojourn. I think many of these were probably personal friends
of Charles Dillon, who joined the Somer-^ef House Lotfeje only to oblige him
and to act nominally as window-dressing for the “New Plan” which was
undoubtedly first mooted in this Lodge. When this New Plan was fairly
launched, their enthusiasm, if they had any, quickly evaporated, and, being
found useless, they were allowed to vanish away and their arrears of subscription
written off. In the earl}’ days of the Souterset House Lodge I suggest that it
was merely a convenient meeting place for Dunckerley and his active associates.
These were probably few, and it is unlikely that furniture or refreshments were
available for any considerable number of members.
It is remarkable that Lord Blayney did not become a member, either of
the Somerset House Lodge, or the Lodge of Frieudship. We have seen that by
joining the Turk'.s Heml, Royal Arch Chapter and accepting the office of “ Z ”
when Dunckerley was “ J ” he must have come into close personal contact with
Dunckerley. I can offer two explanations—firstly, he was an “ Antient ” in
all his convictions, as is shown later in the account of his visit to the Old
Dundee Lodge, and would not have enjoyed sitting in a “Modern” Lodge,
although he seems not to have minded being Grand Master of the “Moderns” !
and secondly, he was by birth and property a citizen of Ireland, where he would
have found Lodge ritual more congenial.
An engraving of Lord Blayney reveals him as a good-looking man,
certainly no weakling, but Dunckerley too could lead and had occupied for
more than 20 years in the Navy a position of considerable authority and
responsibility; moreover, was he not fully conscious that he was the son of the
late King of England, and Uncle by the left hand to his Majesty the present
King? His powerful personality, a persuasive tongue and always that almost
fanatical devotion to Masonry would have been difficult for this amiable Irish
Peer to withstand, even if he had wanted to do so. In a letter to Grand
Secretary White, dated November 15th, 1786, Dunckerley writes; “ Entre nous—
I am not only loved but feared ”. He knew his power in 1766 as he knew it
twenty years later. Blayney was Grand Master from 1765-1767, and would
probably have had much to do with the appointment of his successor in 1767.
I will go so far as to suggest that Dunckerley was the power behind the throne
of Grand Lodge at this epoch.
Thonuix ])\tiii-knl('>/ and the J^odfje of Fnendxhip.
At a very early date the Somerset House group must have realized that
the New Order would have a much better chance of succeeding m its objects
if it could ensure the appointment of a Grand Master who would be one of
the^mselves; he must be young, of high rank and social position, with time and
inclination to give freely to the cause. Wealth did not matter much, but if
he were wealthy it would be all to the good. Doubtless many names of the
aristocracy were scrutinized before the cTroice fell on the Duke of Beaufort, who
filled all these qualifications—he had just left Oxford, he was a mason made
in an “ Antient ” Lodge, he was of eminent respectability, of high rank and
possessed great wealth ; he would be susceptible to influence tactfully exercised
in a just cause—their cause. The very man—and so he proved to be. Whether
he was but a willing tool in the hands of older and cleverer schemers will never
be known, but I like to think he was infected with the enthusiasm of his
associates and collaborated with them to the utmost of his power.
The Grand Lodge officers in 1766 who would have had to arrange for
the appointment of Lord Blayney’s successor were probably Lord Blayney himself,
Samuel Spencer, the Grand Secretary, and Rowland Berkeley, the Grand
Treasurer; members by mid 1766 of the Tur/dx Heael Chapter. It is not sur¬
prising to find that the Duke of Beaufort was chosen ; the matter was probably
decided before the close of 1766, though his formal election in Grand Lodge
did not take place until April 15th, 1767.
It is impossible to say exactly when began the influx to the Somerset
House Lodge of so many men of good social position.
I am inclined to think that some of the earliest members were not of any
great social importance. Dunckerley would hardly at that time have been able
to come into contact with many men of rank, and that it must have been towards
the end of the year 1766 that the Lodge membership had attained to such
eminence. There must have been a great discussion by the principal wire-pullers
as to the formation of a Lodge which would be highly exclusive and so influential
that it would be able to control the appointment of Grand Lodge officers and
the continuation of that control. The moving spirits of the Lodge then were
almost certainly Dunckerley, the Hon. Charles Dillon, Rowland Holt, James
Galloway and Thomas French. In the early negotiations for the absorption of
the Lodge at the Sun and, Punch Boul No. 3 these are the names which recur.
By this time they w'ere probably aware that the Duke of Beaufort’s appointment
as Grand IMaster was settled, a very comforting piece of knowledge.
Everything seemed in order at this time for the Reformers to put their
plans into execution. The Lodge consisted of some 50 members (I shall presently
attempt to justify this figure). It had been fortified by the acquisition of a
number of fashionable men about town and it was ready to move into the
luxurious “Thatched House’’ Tavern, but at some date which I conjecture was
towards the end of 1766 or the very beginning of 1767 their plans were abruptly
halted. If this were the beginning of a chapter, it might be headed “The
absorption or peaceful penetration of the Lodge No. 3 at the Sun and- Punch
Bowl and the elimination of its existing members’’. Before I continue the
narrative we must consider the state of the Somerxet House Lodeje No. 279 at
this hypothetical date.
It met at Somerset House, as is definitely known. Somerset Flouse was
part of the jointure of the Queens Consort of England. Since 1692, when
Catlierine of Braganza left this country for good, it had ceased to be a Royal
residence, and must have been a constant drain on the purse of George HI.
It was a vast obsolescent building rapidly falling into disrepair. A few years
later, in 1774, George III exchanged it with the Government for Buckingham
House; it W'as then demolished and the present building erected by Sir Wm.
Chambers for the purpose of government offices. At various periods previously
to 1766 it had been used as barracks, and the habitable and more moderate-
7S TI'llinidclmux nf t/ii- (^jialimi' Coii/iiiiti Liiiliic.
sized rooms served as suites for persons who had same claim on the Royal bounty.
It would not have been dilFicult for Thomas Dunckerley, who was this kind of
resident, to obtain the use of some unoccupied room for the purjiose of Lodi^e
meetings. In winter, no doubt with a little judicious graft, he could have
arranged for the heating of it; liquid refreshments, which were in those days
the main creature comforts enjoyed by Lodges, would have been supplied by
one of tlie numerous ale-houses in the immediate vicinity.
There are no minutes of the Sviiiermt Hoiisr Lixlije extant before 8th
December, 1783, so we do not know what the subscription was; a normal amount
at that time was in the neighbourhood of 3/- or 4/- a quarter. We arc not
entirely without knowledge of the membership of the Lodge, for in the Grand
Lodge Register there is a list of the members. It will be remembered that a
rc'turn of names of members to Grand Lodge became obligatory in 1768. On
this list seventy-two names are noted as having joined previous to 1768 ”. I
see no reason for supposing this list to be other than chronological. The following
is a list of the first fifty ; of these twenty-three were subsequently elected
members of the Lodge of Friendship No. 3. To this number must be added
the name of Hon. Jolin Darner, who was elected to the Lodgt of Frii-iulghip
on 18th March, 1767. The minute reads: —
“Sir Richard Philipps Bt., Br. John Allen and the Honble Mr. John
Darner, all of them Masons of the Somerset House Lodge to he
admitted Members of this Lodge’’.
It is noteworthy that the name of Thomas French is absent. Of the remaining
twefity-two only four joined the Lodge of Friendship, namely, John Trent, 10th
February, 1768; Hon. Boyle Walsingham, 8th February, 1769; Eleazer Davy,
24th February, 1768; and John Williams, 26th hlay, 1768. I therefore suggest
that fifty or fifty-one members represented the strength of the Somerset House
Lodije at the time when a move to the “Thatched House’’ Tavern w'as being
considered, the remaining twenty-two having joined the Somerset House Lodge
after the formation of the Lodge of Friendship.
Date of Date of
election to election to
L. of Friendship L. of Friendship
No. 3 No. 3
1. Thomas Dunckerley Esq. 22 Feb., 1767 26. John Butler Esq. 10 Mar., 1767
2. James Galloway Esq. 22 Feb., 1767 27. Richard Wynn Esq.
3. John Allen Esq. 18 Mar., 1767 28. John Broadhurst Esq.
4. James Heseltine, Esq. 29. John Errington Esq. 22 Feb., 1767
5. Rowland Berkeley Esq. 30. Carter Pollard Esq.
6. John Derwas, Architect 31. Ascough Esq.
7. Rowland Holt Esq. 22 Feb., 1767 32. Col. Hodges
8. Hon. Charles Dillon 22 Feb., 1767 33. Sir Alex. McDonald Bt.
9. John Hatch Esq. 34. John Vesey Reynolds
10. Wm. Wybrow, Gent. 35. Geo. Brown, Gent.
11. Henry John Maskell, Apothecary 36. John Carey Esq.
12. Wm. Atkinson, ditto 37. Wilmer Willett Esq.
13. Ferdinando Gillio, Surgeon 38. John Francis Meyrick 10 Mar., 1767
14. George Gillio, Gent. 39. Geo. Barrowdale Esq.
15. John Day Esq. 10 Feb., 1768 40. Richard Cox Esq. 10 Mar., 1767
16. Duke of Beaufort . 10 Mar., 1767 41. Lord Gormanstone 25 Mar., 1767
17. Duke of Buccleugh 10 Mar., 1767 42. Wm. Allen Esq.
18. Viset. Wenman 10 Mar., 1767 43. Chas. Amcotts Esq. 18 Mar., 1767
19. Sir Richard Philips 18 Mar., 1767 44. Hon. Wm. Hanger
20. Thos. Foley Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 45. John Gunning Esq.
21. Thos. Skipwith Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 46. Henry Errington Esq. 22 Feb,, 1767
22. Thos. Harvey Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 47. Samuel Hayes Esq.
23. Lucey Knightley Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 48. Anthony Belches Esq.
24. Chas. Townley Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 49. Charles Gedon
25. Wm. Craven Esq. 10 Mar., 1767 50. Joseph Banks Esq.
The vertical columns of G.L. Register, provided to show residence, profession,
date of joining or initiation and resignation or death, are left blank except in two
or three instances. , ■ r
In G L Register of Lodges “ before 1768 ” there is another list sent in irom
Somerset House Lodge 279 at the Kings Arms, Bond Street. This is equally un¬
informative. It gives a list of eighty-six names, including Thomas French and Hon.
Thomas Diincherley and the Tjodye, of Frirndship. 79
John Darner, but, like the list 1768-1810, which I have quoted no details are Riven
1 very much doubt if any of the Reformers retained their membership of the bomersct
House Lodge after the migration to the Ivodge of I'^iendship.
Among the names are those of Rowland Holt, John Darner and Lord
Wenman, who were members of the Bont.an, Club, which was a select convivial
society of about twenty members. The qualifications of membership w’ere fiiatly
to have travelled and secondly a capacity for the enjoyment of much good
liquor. It met weekly at the “Thatched House” Tavern m St. Janies a Street.
Besides the three names mentioned above, Sir John Aubrey, who joined the
Lodge 22nd April, 1767, Hon. Peregrine Bertie on 10th March, 1767, Sir
Thomas Gascoigne, Bt., on 13th May, 1767, were also members of it, as was
Edward Gibbon, the Historian, who was initiated 23rd December, 1767. Of
the others, Dillon, Beaufort, Buccleugh and Philipps w’ere quite young men of
21 and 22, and Skipwith and Foley were about 25 years of age. All of these
might be described as smart young men about town who would be familiar with
the amenities to be enjoyed at the “ Thatched House ” Tavern. It is probable
that some of them became members of the Somerset House I.odye only to oblige
Dunckerley and on the understanding that that venue was to be regarded only
as temporary until arrangements had been completed for a move to the
“Thatched House” Tavern. The subscription was to be four guineas a year,
with a joining fee of five guineas. These figures would have been a shock to
many of the members Who were accustomed to the rates prevailing at that time
of 3/- or so a quarter. Some of them, moreover, may not have been able to
afford this heavily increased and unprecedented subscription, and perhaps, too,
some may have considered so fashionable a meeting place to be slightly unsuitable
to their habit of life. At this stage, which took place probably at the end of
1766, there would have been a general discussion in the Lodge. The matter
must have been keenly debated; the reformers were in a minority of about
twenty-four to twenty-seven, and had the matter been put to the vote in Lodge
the difference might well have been greater if, as is probable, some of the
young bloods would have been too indifferent to attend the meeting and record
their votes. It may have been that the prudent Dunckerley pointed out that
the new venture at the “Thatched House” was not absolutely certain of success,
and that although many of them.were willing to take the risk, the continuation
of the Somerset House Lodge must be preserved so that there would be a haven
of refuge if the more ambitious plan went wrong.
However it may have been settled, it was, I think, a perfectly amicable
arrangement. Those who were out for safety moved before January 28th, 1767,
to the King’s Arms in Bond Street (a receipt in Grand Lodge minutes of
that date, quoted by Sadler, is for “3 guineas from the Somerset House Lodge
at the King’s Arms”); the shabbiness and discomort of old Somerset House
was evidently too much for the members.
Heseltine, Grand Secretary in 1768, remained on most friendly terms
with Dunckerley until the death of the latter in 1795, as is shown in the
correspondence which is to be found in the library of Freemasons’ Hall. Under
the aegis of Heseltine and Rowland Berkeley the Semierset House Loelge prospered,
and, had the Lodge of Friendship waned, would have been a pillar of strength
for the Reformers to fall back on. On January 10th, 1774, it absorbed the Old
Horn Lodge, No. 2,^ a time immemorial Lodge in much the same state of senility
'■ The old Horn Lodge No. 2 apparently made no return of its members to
Grand Lodge from 1768 onwards until its absorbtion. Above the list of names of the
Somerset House Lodge No. 2 in Grand Lodge Register there is a group of 15 names
placed chronologically, which may have been copied from the records of the old Horn
.Lodge. The first, Arthur Wood, was made 14th September, 1769, the last, Whallcy, ioined
14th May, 1772. AVe do not know whether or not they resigned at the amalgamation in
the manner of the original members of the Lodge of Friendshi]). William White one
of the names on the list, was made 8th March, 1770. He became Joint Grand Secretary
with James Heseltine in 1780 and .sole Grand Secretary in 1784. It may well have
been that the arrangements for this amalgamation were effected by him.
80 'rritiixdvtidiix nf the (Jiin/iior hodi/f.
as the Sun and Punch Bowl, and thereby changed its number from 279 to 2.
In 1828 it united with the lioi/iil In vci iicss /jor/r/c, No. 648, a lodge which started
with rather grandiose ideas. Its name was derived from the second title of the
Duke of Sussex, who was Earl of Inverness, and who performed the consecration
ceremony on February 2iid, 1815. Small attendances, arrears of subscription,
which w^as five guineas, and prodigal expenditure brought the I;odge, which
had been started under such brilliant auspices, into a state of utter insolvency.
Sadler states that in 1827 “the proprietor of the Argyle Booms sent in a claim
for i£360 for banquets and the hire of rooms, etc., the latter being charged at
t!ie rate of ten guineas for each Imdge meeting. To meet this bill there W'as
about £300 of arrears and £100 owing by the late Treasurer.’’ The amalga¬
mation was effected on November 25th, 1828, and so the old Ship’s Lodge on
the H .M.S. I’nnct, No. 279, became, secondly, the H.M.S. u(i<l<-lou pc. l,o(hj(p
No. 279, thirdly the Somerset House Lodge of the same number, fourthly the
Somerset House Lodge No. 2, and lastly as it remains to-day, the lioipil Sumerxet
Jfousc and Inrcrncxx Tnidijc No. 4.
Dunckerlcy and his set had now to consider the best means of establishing
themselves at the “Thatched House” Tavern. By this course they would be
able to obtain the support of members of rank and education w'ho would lead
masonry out of the rut into which it had fallen and initiate a Rennaissance of
the Craft. The simple course for them to have pursued was to start a new
Lodge, but had they applied for a w’arrant the number w'ould have been in the
neighbourhood of three liundred and eighty.‘
1 suggest that another reason may have influenced the decision to break
away from the Somerset House Lodge. Lord Blayney,- who was wholly an
“ Antient ” in sympathy and leanings, although he happened to be Grand
Master of the “Moderns”, as wdll be seen in the account of the Old Dundee
Lodge given as a footnote, must have had the last w'ord in the appointment
of his successor, and he may have felt strongly that in view' of the extreme
youth, 22 years, of the Duke of Beaufort he should be an installed master
before he became Grand Master. He may even have stipulated that this omission
should be rectified before giving his assent and nomination. We have no record,
unfortunately, of those who held office in the Somerset House Lodtje at the
end of 1766, which I venture to think was the period of these stirring events,
nor do we know' whether the W.M. and his officers held office for one year or
six months; in either case the office would have been filled and the occupant
may have demurred at being asked to vacate it in favour of the Duke of Beaufort.
He may well have pointed out that it w'ould be contrary to the Constitutions
of JMasonry for him to do so.
Someone had an inspiration. Why not find some very ancient and decrepit
Lodge with a low number of seniority, amalgamate with it and, if possible,
The Lodge of Peace was warranted No. 382 on December 19th, 1766. (Lane.)
2 On 22nd May, 1766, Lord Blayney, Grand Master, after having^ given due
notice to the Lodge, paid a State Visit to the Old Dundee 'Lodge No. 18. He was
accompanied by Col. Salter, Deputy Grand INfaster, Thomas Dyne as S.G.W. vice Peter
Edwards, Rowland Berkeley Grand Treasurer, Samuel Spencer Grand Secretary, Francis
Johnstone Grand Sword Bearer and a Grand Steward. Sixty-seven members neic
present as well as thirteen members “ useing the sea '’. There was a making, and
Blavney noticed that the candidate was not H-w. He thereupon, speaking ex
cathedra, rebuked the Lodge for this departure from ancient tradition, and, when
the Lodve proved obdurate, he enforced obedience by the authority of Grand Lodge.
(C.C., 28th August, 1766.) “ Likewise the Grand Master ordered Bro. Edwards the
SGW to desire that upon making a Ma.son he may be b. d. f. d. agreeable to the
method practised in most other Lodges.” And again C.C., 11th September, 1766:
“ The Minute of last meeting relative to making b. f- ivas put up this night
and carried bv a majority That it should continue according to our Antieiit Custom.”
The seouel is in O C , 22nd Januarv, 1767, when the Old Dundee Lodge apologised
and agreed “to promi.se all due obedience for the future.” Gan there be any doubt
that Lord Blayney 'ivas a stahvart of the “ Antiente
T}iom(i>< DunckerJi'U (ind the Linhje of Fneii(hh (p.
Of the last twelve meetings from July 3rd to the end of the year 1766,
Bro. Grinnard, who was W.M. for the entire year, having been elected for four
successive quarters, attended eleven of them, as did Bro. Steel and Bro. Gibbons,
I.P.M. ; Bros. Farmer and Burn attended eight; Bros. Porte and Smith seven;
Bros. Lambert and Shand four; the rest of the members only occasionally.
The Lodge, therefore, at the time when French came on the scene, was
dependent almost entirely on the attendance of some seven members, and had
evidently fallen into one of those unaccountable declines with which every student
of Masonic history is familiar. French felt confident that if this Lodge was
properly and tactfully approached he would succeed in his quest. No doubt
several meetings took place, and many drinks were consumed by French,
Grinnard, W.M., Gibbons, I.P.M., and the Wardens Burn and Smith before
the treaty was finally agreed to, .subject of course to formal ratification by the
Lodge. French’s diplomacy was successful, and it was arranged that the
Constitution was, in the euphemistic phrase of the negotiators, to be “ exchanged
for another”, that the sum of thirty guineas was to be paid as consideration,
that the W.M. and his officers should resign and nominees of the purchasers
be elected in their stead, and, finally,^ that all the members of the Vendor
Lodge No. 3 should resign their membership. As we shall see in the minutes,
all these conditions were agreed to and in due course discharged.
Before setting out the minutes of the Lodge of Friend eh ip from 5th
February to 9th December, 1767, which cover the period of the regeneration
of the Lodge, some description must be given of the men who, for the ten
years or so previous to the appointment of the Duke of Beaufort as Grand
Master, held the principal offices in Grand Lodge.
John Revis was Grand Secretary from 1734-1757. During his tenure as
Grand Secretary Lord Byron was installed Grand Master by Lord Cranstoun
^ The Lodge at the Sun and Punch Bowl No. 3 was the senior constituted
Lodge, dating from 17th January, 1721.
2 Although thi.s condition was not mentioned in the minute.s, of March 2oth,
1767, the thirteen members of the old Ixjdge resigned en bloc.
82 Ti'ri/iKiicIio//s i)f tin- (Judludr Coronnii l.ixliji-.
oil 30th April, 1747. Byron was present on that occasion at the Grand Feast.
Ihe next Grand heast was held on 20th March, 1753, nearly six years later,
when Ijord Byron was again present to instal his successor. Lord Carysfort.
Between these dates he did not attend one meeting of Grand Lodge, nor was
there held a Grand Feast. Grand Secretary Revis was the principal executive
officer of the Graft. Would a keen mason have tolerated this state of affairs?
Why re-elect Lord Byron year after year ? One can only as.sume that Kevis
was either entirely indifferent to the duties of his office or that he was completely
out of touch with men who could have suggested another and better Grand
Master. In 1757 he was promoted to the very resjionsible office of Deputy
Grand Master, which he held until 1763. Very little is known of him save
that he was a linen draper who died in 1765, his age not stated; this is from
the LoikIoii Miujazint of that year (p. 598). His name appears in G.L.M.'s
list of 1723 as J.W. of the Crown and Anchor, nr. St. Clement’s Church, and
he was W.M. of the Lodije af A ntiqmf // in 1729, 1731 and 1733. It is unlikely
that he was a highly educated man.
Colonel John Salter succeeded Revis as Deputy Grand Master in 1763.
His obituary notice in (Jenlltman’s Magazine,, vol. Ivii, p. 743, 1787, reads: —
“ 1st Aug., 1787—at Turnham Green, in his 78th year, John Salter
Esqr., a Major-General of his Majesty’s forces and Lt.-Col. of the
first regiment of foot. He was originally a private in the Guards
and was taken from the ranks by the Duke of Cumberland. His
Highness caused him to be made a sergeant, and soon after was so
pleased with his voice and manner of giving the word of command
that he gave him a commission in the same regiment. This promotion
gave great offence to the other officers, who refused Mr. Salter their
countenance. Thus circumstanced he waited upon the Royal Duke
and stated the awkwardness of the situation.
‘Well, well,’ said the Duke. ‘Meet me to-morrow on the
parade.’
The Duke came down earlier than usual, and going up to the
colour stand, his Highness saluted Lord Ligonier and the officers of
the Regiment who were all in conversation together, but directing
his eyes around as if by accident he noticed poor Salter alone.
‘What,’ said his Higliness, ‘has that officer done that he is
drummed out of your councils ? ’—and going up to him took him by
the arm and walked up and down the parade with him in the
presence of the different battalions and their officers.
Lord Ligonier at this time accosting the Duke, entreated his
Highness’s company to dinner. ‘With all my heart,’ said the Duke,
‘ and remember Salter conies with me.'
His Lordship bowing, said ‘I hope so.'
After this ordeal Salter was well received by all the brethren
of the blade and by his merit raised himself to the rank he held
at his death.
About 14 years since he retired from public service, soniewliat
displeased and certainly ill-treated.”
The story narrated is very creditable to the Duke, showing a kindly and
generous action. Col. Salter’s connection with Grand Lodge dates from 1762,
when he was Senior Grand Warden and Grand Steward. He was Deputy Grand
Master 1763-68 and acted as Grand Master on seven occasions between 1763 and
1768. On April 29th at Grand Lodge the Grand Master the Duke of Beaufort
proposed Lord Petre as his successor. ‘‘Bro. Edwards, Past Senior Grand
Warden, proposed Major-General Salter. Both these propositions being seconded
the question was put, when there appeared a great majority in favour of Lord
ThonKix ])rinrlrrli\i/ and tin- l.othjf of Fririidahip. 83
Petre, who was accordingly declared Grand Master elect. ’ Salter opjiosoid
Dillon’s Bill of Tncorporation in 1772. He served with his regiment in the
Low Countries at Dettingen and Fontenoy. In 1770 he was promoted Majoi-
General and was head of the list of that rank in 1778. He resigned from the
ai-my in 1785, having been superseded in promotion by many officers who had
been junior to him. This explains the last paragraph of the notice in the
(1 e.I! tit-man’s Magazint.
Geo. Clarke was Grand Treasurer from 1753 to 1766. He was initiated
at the King’s Arms I.;odge (now No. 28) in 1736. He is described in the
minutes of that Lodge as an Apothecary. His duties would have been merely
nominal.
Samuel Spencer was Grand Secretary from 1757 to 1768. Calveit, in
Author’s Lodgt Transactions, vol. iii, p. 30, states that he is supposed to have
been a Sadler in Fenchurch Street, and considers him to have been a nonentity.
In the 1778 edition of Ahimati Eczon and in subsequent editions the following
letter from Samuel Spencer as Grand Secretary, dated 16th December, 1759,
is quoted. It is written in reply to an Irish Mason named Carroll who had
applied for relief—and had probably mentioned that he was a Royal Aich
companion ; —
“Your being and Antient mason, you are not entitled to any of our
Charity. The Antient Masons have a Lodge at the Five Bells in
the Strand and their secretary’s name is Dermott. Our Society is
neither Arch, Royal Arch or Antient, so that you have no right to
partake of our charity.’’
This intolerant and provocative letter was used by Ftermott for propaganda
purposes. We know nothing about Spencer personally except that he was a
native of Halifax.
As to the three Grand Masters who held office from 1757 to 1767, they
were Lord Aberdour, Earl Ferrers and Hord Blayney.
Lord Aberdour held office from 1757 until 1762. He was only 25 years
of age at the time of his appointment, and attended but four meetings of the
fourteen held during his term of office. There was no Grand Feast in the years
1759 and 1761. His full name was Sholto Charles Douglas, Lord Aberdour.
He was born in 1732 and educated at Glasgow University and Leyden; was
F.R.S. in 1754; succeeded to the title of 16th Earl of Morton in 1768; was
Lord of Police, Scotland, 1754-1774, and Grand Master Mason of Scotland
1755-56. His public duties in Scotland may have prevented his regular appear¬
ance at the Grand Lodge of England. Little is known of him personally. He
died in 1774.
Earl Ferrers, born in 1722, followed as Grand Master in 1762. He was
the 5th Earl, having succeeded in 1760 his brother Laurence, who was executed
at Tyburn for the murder of his land steward, an old man named Johnson.
Beyond this somewhat irrelevant detail, little is known of him personally. He
served in the Navy with distinction as Capt. Washington Shirley on H.M.S.
Temple at the Quiberon Bay operations. On 14th December, 1761, he was
made F.R.S. as a compliment for a series of very accurate observations he made
on the transit of Venus over the Sun . together with many other useful
and interesting discoveries tending to the improvement of mathematical and
nautical knowledge. [D.N.B.) He was promoted Vice-Admiral of the White
31st March, 1775, and Vice-Admiral of the Blue on 3rd February, 1776. He
retired from the Navy on succeeding to the title Earl Ferrers in 1760. He
married Miss Anne Elliot of Plymouth. He died on 1st October, 1778. He
attended four meetings of Grand Lodge out of the nine held during his term
of office, 1762 and 1763. He was W.M. of the Horn Lodge in 1762.
84 Triuixdcliiins of IIk' Qiiutiior Corotmti l.odijr.
Dunckeeley's Set
James Galloway was Steward to the late Duke of Cumberland {Gentleman’s
Magazine, vol. Ixxvi, p. 1075). He died' in 1806. He was Deputy Provincial
Grand Master of Cumberland in 1796 and of Hampshire in 1782 and 1796,
J.G.W. in 1781, Grand Superintendent of the Royal Arch, Cumberland and
Scotland, 1796, and Hampshire 1782 and 1796. In 'the minutes his name is
either Bro. Galloway or Galloway; even the modest prefix Mr. is not always
his due. He was like Thomas French, I think, of lower social position than
the others of the set and possibly made use of for his secretarial ability. He
was secretary of the Lodge of Friendship from 1767-1802.
Thomas French was a Linendraper in Bond Street, and was, like Galloway,
an early masonic friend of Dunckerley—it will be remembered that Galloway
Thomas Duncki-rlty and the Lodge of Fnendship. 85
introduced Diinckerley to the Turk’s Head Chapter, of which French was also a
member. Later on we shall see in the Minutes that he was made a scapegoat
for the acquisition of the Lodge at the Sun and Punch Bowl. There is little
doubt that he was made Grand Secretary in 1768 in succession to Spencer, who
opportunely died in that year, as a reward for his services in connection with
this acquisition. A minute of the Committee of Charity, 20th October, 1769,
reads : —
" It appeared that Five pounds had been allowed to Bro. Bartlett, and
by the Grand Treasurer’s accounts it had been paid into the hands
of Bro. French, who, there w'as the greatest reason to believe, had
never accounted for the same.”
"During the whole of his forty years of Masonic life he was deservedly
respected by the Craft in general.”
He served the office of Grand Secretary from 1769 until 1804, wLen "he died
on June 5th of an apoplexy; he is said to have died possessed of a fortune of
£200,000. He was interred under Islington Church.” {Gentleman’s Magazine,
vol. Ixxiv, p. 600.) He was initiated in the rhilanthropic Lodge No. 90 on
15th July, 1765. He was Senior Grand Warden in 1785, w'as W.M. of the
Somerset House Lodge from 1783-91 and again in 1793. He joined the Lodge
of Aiitigiiitt/ in 1768, became Secretary of it in 1769 and W.M. in 1770. He
was Grand Superintendent, Royal Arch, of Yorkshire, in 1793.
Hon. Charles Dillon was the eldest son of the 11th Viscount Dillon, and
was born in 1745. In 1776 he assumed the name and arms of Lee; and
succeeded to the title of 1788, when he became 12th Viscount Dillon of Castello-
Gallen. He was M.P. for Westbury 1770-1774; F.R.S. in 1767; Privy
Councillor in 1774; Governor of County Mayo 1778-1813; K.P. in 1798. In
1799 his Irish estates were said to be worth £20,000 a year. In sketches of
Irish PoJitu-fd Charurters, 1799, he is described as "possessing considerable
' Giblmri iv rite.s in Ins journal on 24th November, 1762, “ I dined at the Cocoa
Ireo ujth Holt, who, under an appearance of Oddity, conceals more real humour
good sense and even knorrledge than half those who laugh at him”. '
8G 'I i finxdclumn of tin: Qudtuor ( 'orondti Lodge.
Pinkston/ S.G.W. 1754, and others, on the grounds “That the Bill was not
for the good of the Society, but would be oppressive to themselves and others
of the Society, as well as of no good consequences to the public.
Col. Salter, it has been noted, had not been re-appointed Deputy Grand
Master in 1768 by G.M. the Duke of Beaufort. There was some opposition to
this expressed in Grand Ledge at the time, but the G.M. stood firm. Delendus
est Salter! and probably very good riddance. Was his resentment at being
superseded expressed by his opposition to the Bill ?
In the Xtn'caxtle Jonr/ud, November 26th, 1768, appears the following: —
“We are credibly informed that the English Society of Free and
Accepted Masons intend to apply for a Charter to make themselves
a legal body Corporate in order to annihilate the Society who call
themselves Antient Freemasons on account of the disgrace they have
brought on Freemasonry by indiscriminately admitting everyone into
it who can pay their fees, let their character be ever so infamous.”
This is, of course, mere gossip, but it reflects a current opinion of the
time. Had the Bill become law, no other body would have had the legal right
to call themselves Freemasons, and the Grand Lodge of the “Moderns” would
have become paramount; if at the same time a complete reversion to the
“Antient” ritual had taken place, there would then have been no occasion for
any other Grand Imdge. The Lodges of the “ Antients ” would have applied
for new Warrants and the Union of 1813 anticipated by 41 years. •
The Bill was finally abandoned on 1st April, 1772.
One is tempted to suggest that Dillon, w'hen faced with opposition, the
nature of which has not been recorded, lost interest and abandoned the project.
The minutes of the Committee of Charity, 22nd April, 1772, record
“that ilatthew' Brickdale of the Lodge of Ffiendahip be thanked for his zeal
in promoting in Parliament the Bill for Incorporating this Society, passed in
the affirmative one Bro. dissenting.”
Three distinct attempts had been made for some form of Incorporation,
that of Earl Ferrers- in 1763, the Duke of Beaufort’s in 1768, and finally
Dillon’s in 1772. All were abortive, Ltnless some hitherto undiscovered facts
are fortlicoming, the reasons will remain a mystery. Grand Lodge, judging by
the proceedings of the Committee of Charity, the equivalent of our modern
Board of General Purposes, was in favour of incorporation, at any rate in 1768
and 1772. The opposition does not seem on the evidence to have been over¬
whelming, and yet there must have been some powerful influence at wmrk to
defeat the Bill. The documentary evidence about the subject is exhaustively
set forth in Bro. Ivor Grantham’s paper in A.Q.C., vol. xiviii.
Henry-, 5th Duke of Beaufort, w'as born on 16th October, 1744; he
matriculated at Oriel College, Oxford, in 1760; rvas D.C.L. in 1763. He was
Master of Horse to Queen Charlotte 1768-70; Lord-Lieutenant for the County
of Monmouth 1771-1803, of Brecknock 1787-1803 and Leicester 1787-1799';
K.G. in 1786; and a Tory in politics. He died of gout of the stomach in
1803. (C.B.) On 2nd April, 1766, at the age of 22, he married Elizabeth, .
the second and youngest daughter of Admiral Hon. Edw’ard Boscawen ^ ; • by her
/ FlemiiiK Pinkston, member of St. Albans Lodge No. 29. In Commission of Peace,
Co, .Middle.sex. One of a committee of examiners of the Corporation of Surgeons in
Tamdon. . . . With respect to his professional abilities, few equalled, none surpassed
him, and the poor always reaped the benefit of his knowledge, d. 27th November
1792., rG.M. 62. 1153]. ’
- Karl Ferrers' effort was tentative and conditional on the building of a Hall.
It was not pnrKuecl.
^ Adiiurdl’s iriV/mr. Letters of Lady Frances Boscawen, wife of Admiral Sir
Ed. Hoscawen, by Brig.-Genl, 0. Aspinall-Oglander, a de.scendant of Lady Frances.
88 Trti/iguct/oiix of the Qiiafuor Coroindi Lod(je.
]u! liad a numerous family. His obituary notice in tlie Geiif/e/iian's Maqadiic
1808, p. <J94, tells us a little more.
Lodge No. 3, Sun and Punch Bowl, Holborn, Feh// ye 22nd, 1767.
Present—Brs. Grinard, R.W.M.; Smith, S.W. ; Burns, J.W. ; Steel,
P.M., Portes, Secy. ; Burras, Farmer, Gibbons, Roe, West, Higgins.
Balance £1. 8. 10
The nine invaders are duly elected, and so the second step is accomplished.
None of them were present.
The scheme was now assured; even had a “few determined and atrocious
brethren ’’ recanted there was a comfortable majority in its favour.
Sun and Punch Howl Lod/je. No. S, held by adjournment at the King’s
Head, High Holborn, 4 March, 1767.
Present—Brs. Grinnard, R.W.M.; Farmer, S.W. ; Smith, J.W.;
Gibbins, P.M . ; French, S. ; Williamson, Steel, Shand, Portes, Lang,
Weston, Pitt, Dillon, Galloway.
Paid House Bill & Tyler £4. 2. 4
“The Lodge was open’d in due form and the Minutes of last Lodge
were read and confirmed.
Br. French moved that this Lodge be removed to the Thatched
House in St. James's Street, and that a consideration be paid for
the Regalia of the T^odge, which Question being put was unanimously
approved of. And accordingly Thirty Guineas were paid into the
hands of Bro. Grinnard on that Acet. to such members as do not
choose to remove with the Lodge. The R.W. Master signified his
inclination to resign his office, which having received the assent of
the other officers and Brethren, Br. Galloway proposed the Honble
Br. Dillon as a proper Candidate for that Office, which being properly
seconded he was chosen unanimously: and immediately the Master
resigned the Ensign of his office, and invested the Master Elect
therewith. The other Officers resigned their offices and the R.W.
Master appointed Br. French S. Warden, and Br. Galloway Jr.
Warden. All business being over the Lodge was closed in due form ;
and adjourned during the Master’s pleasure—And then to meet at
the Thatched House, St. James’s Street.’’
This meeting was held at the King’s Head, Holborn—the reason for
this is not apparent. Lane states that the members who retired from the
old Lodge took a new Constitution on 17th June, 1767, and that this Lodge
remained at the “Sun and Punch Howl” until 1770, when it removed to the
“ (’/•oitn and Cushion ”. Its first number was 328. In the year 1863, when
there was a re-numbering of all Lodges, it become No. 165, which it holds
to-day. It was named the Lodge of Honour and Generosity in 1789. On 13th
January; 1768, the following entry occurs in the Lodge of Fi-iendshiji minutes: —
“To the Members who lately withdrew from the Lodge a Donation to enable
them to take out a new Constitution. The sum of £5. 15. 6d. ’’ I think this
was an act of grace and had no relation to the date of the constitution. The
House Bill was a record one; the rebirth of the old Lodge was evidently
celebrated with much cordiality. There could have been no ill-feeling about
the transaction, as the account, £4. 2. 4., was settled by the new members on
18th March, 1767.
The minute as regards the agreed-on 30 guineas is discreetly worded—
being “consideration for the Regalia 'of the Lodge’’, not as money paid in
settlement of an agreed-on figure. It is doubtful whether this equipment was
taken, though it may have been used until the sumptuous furnishings, ordered
on 20th March, were ready, when I hope it was returned to the Brethren at
the Sun and Pnnrh Bowl.
Yet another move in this cleverly devised scheme is safely achieved.
Grinard receives the 30 guineas and resigns his office. Dillon is unanimously
elected W.M. and chooses French and Galloway as his Wardens, after which
everyone went home full of punch, goodwill and fraternal affection.
Thomas Uunr.l-trley find tht hodgt of Frdluhhip. 91
Lodge No. 3. March 10th, 1767. The Lodge met at the Thatched House,
St. James’s Street in pursuance of Resolution and Adjournment of
last Lodge night.
Present—Brs. The Honble. Br. Dillon, R.W.M.; Thos. Dunckerley
Esqr., P.M. ; French, S.W.; Galloway, J.W. ; Rowland Holt Esqr. ;
The Duke of Beaufort.
“A Lodge of the Third or Master’s Degree was open’d in due form;
and the Minutes of the last Lodge were read and confirmed.
The R.W. jMaster proposed the Duke of Beaufort to be admitted
a Member of this Lodge, which being properly seconded His Grace
was ballotted for, and admitted unanimously.
Resolved that this Lodge shall be called, for the future. The
Lodge of Friendship. And that notice be given thereof to the Grand
Secretary, as also of the removal of the Lodge to this House.
The Master and Brethren took into consideration the present
situation of this Lodge, and the purposes and intentions of the
Members thereof: and also made a retrospect to the Bye Laws and
Usages of the Lodge; which appear’d very defective, with respect to
the Government & Conducting of the Lodge, agreeable to the views
of its present members.
Therefore they proceeded to frame and compile such Regulations
as seem’d most expedient, which were order'd to be laid before the
Brethren next Lodge Night.”
The R.W.M. Proposed the following Brethren to be admitted
members of this Lodge, viz., Thos. Foley, Esqr.,^ Thos. Hervey
Esqr.,^ Peregrine Bertie Esqr.,'* Charles Townly Esqr.,'* John F.
ileyrick Esqr.,'’ Lucy Knightly Esqr.,** Bichard Coxe,^ Robert
Pigott Esqr.,** Lord Wenman,'* The Duke of Buccleugh,*** Wm.
Craven Esqr.,'* Thcs. Skipwith Esqr.,*- and John Butler Esqr.***
And Bro. Holt proposed Br. Thos. Cholmondeley Esqr.*'*
The above Propositions were severally seconded in regular form :
and the Ballot being taken they were admitted unanimously.
The R.W. Master signify’d his intentions of resigning his office,
which the Brethren consenting to, he recommended to them to proceed
forthwith to Elect a proper person to succeed him therein : When
* Hon. Thom.as Fole.v. Succ. a,s 4th Lord Foley in 1777. D. 1793.
** Thomas Hervey, b. 1698. Equerry to Caroline, Queen of Geo. II. A friend
of Dr. Johnson, who said, ” If you call a dog Hervey I shall love it.”
** Hon. Peregrine Bertie, M.P. Oxford 1774-90. Nephew' of the 3rd Earl of
Abingdon. D. 1790.
* Charles Townley. Noted antiquary. B. 1737. His collection of Marbles
purchased after his death for the British Museum. D. 1805.
^ John Francis ileyrick, of Busby, Co. Pembroke. D. 1790.
** Lucy Knightley, M.P. Northants, of Fawnsley, Co. Northants. B. 1741, d.
1791.
Bichard Hippesly Oox, M.P. Somerset 1768-86, of Stone-Easton, C/O. Somerset,
n. 1741, d. 1786.
s Robert Piggott. of Chetwynd Park, Co. Salop. B. 1738. Food and dress
reformer. a friend of Voltaire, Franklin and Brissot.
Philip, 7th Vi.scount Wenman, M.P. Oxford 1768-96. B. 1742, d. 1800
Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleugh. B. 2nd September, 1746. Ed. Eton suc-
needed m 1751. In.stalled K.G. 1801, first President of the Royal Society of Scotland
1783 until his death in, 1812. He was a friend and patron of Sir Walter Scott His
record in the Lodge of Friendship is not a distinguished one. He did not attend
one meeting during the year of his office as W.M. in 1768. He was expelled for
non-payment of his subscription in 1772.
*' William Lord Craven, b. 1705. M.P. Warwick. 1746-64. D 1769
'** Thoiuas George Skipwith, M.P. of Newbold Hall, Co. Warwick. Succ as 4th
Baronet in 1//8. D. 1790.
J Butler AFP. B 1740. Slice, in 1791 as 18th Earl of Ormonde. D 1795
** 1 homas Cholmondeley. ALP, Chester. His eldest son, b. 1767, was elevated
to Peerage as Baron Delamere of \ ale Boyal, Chester.
‘J2 Tr(iii>i(irti(iiix of the (^ueituor f'oroiiati Lodije.
And so, on INlarch 18th, Dunckerley brings his carefully matured plan to
a successful conclusion.
The Tjodge at the Sun and I'linrh /jowl now becomes the Lodge of
h’l leiidy/iip No. ,'L The venue is at the fashionable ‘‘Thatched House” Tavern,
the Duke of Beaufort is elected a member, Dillon resigns the office of Worshipful
Master, and Beaufort is unanimously elected in his place, a Brother entitled by
rank and fortune to become a leader, and such as Dunckerley desired.
Dunckerley carefully avoided the danger of purchasing a constitution ;
that would definitely have been illegal, but the resignations of Grinard and
Dillon in succession, in each case follow'ed by the immediate appointment of
another Master, were irregular; and, as was to be expected, produced the
following repercussion: —
G'vdiul Tjodge Couimi/tee of (/Itarliij, Ap. 8th, 1767.
‘‘Bro. Paterson reported to this Committee that he had been informed
that the Constitution of the Lodge No. 3 held at the Sun and Punch
Howl in High Holborn had been sold or otherwise illegally disposed
of, and that the same was purchased by a Number (of) Masons
who now meet by Virtue thereof under the name of the J.odgc of
/•'ne/idsh ij/ at the Thatched House in St. James Street. And that
Bro. French was the person principally concerned together with the
Brethren of the Lodge formerly held at the Sun nnd ILinch How/
in negotiating such Illegal Transactions. Resolv’d that the con¬
sideration of this affair be postponed to the next CC and that Bro.
Paterson to deliver into the Grand Secretary the Articles Alleged
against the Brethren of the said Lodge and Brother French, that he
may send copies of them to the respective party’s wdth notice for
them severally to attend at the next Committee of Charity and
Answer to the charge exhibited Against them.
At the same time in pursuance of the recommendation of the Grand
Master in the Chair it was resolved that as a mark of High respect
to his Grace the Duke of Beaufort and other Noblemen and Honourable
Gentlemen who meet under the, name of the Lodge, of L'riendship
and in consideration of their being very Young Masons that the
Constitution No. 3 shall remain with them even though it should
appear upon future inquiry that this affair hath been transacted
contrary to the Constitutions but at the same time resolved that this
shall not be looked upon as a Precedent for the future on any account
whatever.
The Duke of Beaufort and Charles Dillon were about 22 years of age,
so this was made a convenient excuse for white-washing the whole affair.
Dunckerley, Galloway and Holt W'ere much older men.
French alone was formally censured.
It is generally considered that the rank of Grand Secretary was given
him in 1768 in consideration of his services and what he had had to put up with.
The Report of the Q.C., G.L.M., April 16, 1767, reads: —
“The minutes of the last Committee of Charity were Read and Con¬
firmed, except that part of them which related to the Brother French,
Thomd'! Dinifki'i'Iei/ (ind the lAidijC of Fnr iit/eh i ji. 93
' Charles Amcotts. M.P. Boston, Lines., of Harrington, Co. Lines. B. 1730,
(1. 1777.
T. , „ " Pl'iliPL Hh Bt.. of Picton Castle, Co, Pembroke B. 1744
Ld. Pembroke Coll., Oxford. Cr. Baron IMilford 1776 T) 18‘t3
■‘John Allen. Prov.G.M., Lancs., 1769-1807. J.G.W.'1 777. ’ One of the Solicitors
einiiloyed to draii' nn Hillon’s llill of Incorporation in 177P
Hon. John Darner. M.P. Elde.st son of Joseph, I'st Earl of Dorchester.
!)4 TraiixiK-lKiiixdf tJn- QuatuDr Coroiniti Loil(/(.
No. 3. The Lodge of Friendship. Thatched House, St. James’s Street. March
26th, 6767, being stated Lodge Night.
“Present—His Grace the Duke of Beaufort, R.W.M. ; 2. The Hoble.
Mr. Dillon, S.W.; 3. Br. Thos. French, J.W.; 4. Thos. Dunckerley
Esqr., P.M. ; 5. Rowland Holt Esqr., T.; 6. Br. Js. Galloway, S.;
7. Br. Jno. Allen; 8. John Butler Esqr.; 9. Charles Townley Esqr.;
10. Lucy Knightley Esqr.; 11. Lord Wenman; 12. R. Browne Esqr.;
13. T. Hervey Esqr. ; 14. The Honble. Captn. Bertie.
The following Thirteen Brethren named, desired permission To
withdraw themselves from the Lodge, as the places of their abode
are too far distant from this House, &c.—15. Bros. Grinarde; 16.
Gibbons; 17. Burrows; 18. Clarke; 19. Farmer; 20. Lang; 21.
Portes; 22. Steel; 23. Higgins; 24. Burn; 25, Pitt; 26. Palmer;
27. Shand.
Visitor—Br. Henry Aston Esqr.
The Lodge was open’d in due form., and the proceedings of last
Lodge and of the Committee of 20th inst., were severally read and
confirmed.
Bra. Charles Townley and John Butler Esqrs. were Passed from
the Entered Apprentice’s Degree, to that of Fellowcrafts.
Sir Frank Standish, Bart.,' who had been regularly proposed
and balloted for last Lodge Night, was Initiated into the Sacred
Mysteries and Accepted as an Entered Apprentice.
James Barton Esqr. was proposed by Br. Dillon, to be made a
Mason this Night, which being properly seconded: The Presiding
Officers and Brethren were pleas’d to dispense with the Bye Laws of
^ Sir Frank Stanclish, M.P. for Preston. 4th Baronet of Daxbury, Co. Lancs.
B. 1746, d. 1812.
T/ioman ])iiiic.l erli:ii am! the J.odyr of nf-iii/xhiJ). 95
this Lodge, in that respect And the Ballot being in his favoui, he
was Imtiated and Accepted as an Enter’d Apprentice.
The R.W.M. proposed that Brothers Lord Wenman, Lucy
Knightley, Charles Townley, and John Butler Esqr., be Raised to
the Third Degree.
Order’d that a Master’s Lodge be held for that purpose on
Tuesday, the 31st inst., between six and seven in the Evening.
To Caton the Tyler his Bill in full £1. 7. 0.
Balance £133. 0. 0.
All business being over the Lodge was closed in due Form, and
adjourned to Thursday, the 9th of April ensuing.”
The resignation of the 13 Brethren of the Sun and Punch Bowl is now
effected with the utmost propriety. It is satisfactory to know that ten out of
the number, thanks to the liberality of Dunckerley and his allies, continued at
that Tavern in a new Lodge, Honor and Gcnrro.siti/ No. 394,^ constituted on
17th June, 1767. The Grand Lodge Register records them as follows: —
Thomas Grenard, Watchmaker; David Gibbons, Taylor; William Burrows,
Carpenter; John Clarke, Watchmaker; Thomas Farmer, Painter; William Lang,
Cyder Merchant; Robert Ports, Cabinet maker; Hugh Higgins, Victualler;
John Shand, Tallow Chandler and Soapmaker; Burn, Baker. But several others
of the old members returned to the fold—Emanuel Grigson, Brewer; William
Roe, Whalebone Merchant; George Hall, Tobacconist; and Adam Stowers, Coal
Merchant.
I may mention that it is only through an inspection of G.L. Register
that we know their Christian names and vocations. The minutes gave neither.
In the account, the Tyler’s name, Caton,is mentioned in the minutes
for the first and only time. He was Grand Tyler in 1769, perhaps earlier.
Aprons cost 10/6 each instead of the humble 1/- of the past; no doubt they
were better ones.
Ao. S. The Lodge of Friendship, at the Thatch'd House, Si. James’s Street,
March 31st, 5767.
“In consequence of an order of last Lodge Night. The Brethren
following mett, and the Lodge was open’d in due form, viz., Brothers
His Grace the Duke of Beaufort, R.W.M.; The Honble Mr. Dillon,
S.W.; T. French, J.W.; T. Dunckerley Esqr., P.M.; Rowland Holt
Esqr., T.; J. Galloway, S.; Lucy Knightly Esqr.; Charles Townley
Esqr.; His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh; John Errington Esqr.;
James Barton Esqr.
At the particular request of Brother Barton, and for obvious
good reasons, the Brethren thought* fitt to Pass him from an Enter’d
Apprentice to a Fellow Craft, And Brothers Lucy Knightly, Charles
Townley, John Errington, and James Barton Esqr. were Raised to
the Sublime and Honourable Degree of Master Masons.
All Business being over the Lodge was closed in due form and
adjourned during the R.W.M.’s pleasure.”
Eleven master masons were present on this Masters’ night, and it is
quite possible that these were the only members eligible. In those days the
first two degrees were usually taken together; the third seems to have been
entirely optional and the ceremony at this period was usually confined to
Emergency meetings specially convened for the purpose of Raising. We have
ijo record of any statutory time to elapse between passing and raising, but it
seems as if some exception was made for the benefit of Bro. Barton.
We do not know whut manner of ritual was used, whether the "ancient”
01 modern foi'in, nor do we find any clue to this point in anv of the
subsequent ihinutes.
.Vo, :L The J.od(/e of Fnendship, at the Thatched }[oii.<>e, St. James’s Street,
London, .\ prd 9th, 5707.
Members present—20.
"The Lodge was opened in due form And the Minutes of last Meeting
were read and confirmed.
Jus. Scawen Esqr.' (Proposed last ^Meeting) was this night
balloted for and admited to be made a hlason in this Lodge. Brothers
Lord Gormanston,- Ogilvie,'* Hen. Aston,' and Edward Yeo
Lsqrs.,’’ projiosed last Meeting to become Members of this Lodge,
were balloted for, and admited.
Thos. Masters'’ and John Tempest Esqrs. were Initiated into
the Sacred Mysteries, and Accepted as Enter’d Aprentices.
The ILW.M. jiroposed Sr. Eobert Bernard, Bart.,t Alexr.
Bennett,! and Robert Shuttleworth + Esqrs., And Ero. Holt proposed
Sr. Peter Leicester Bart.,' John P. Pryce Esqr.," and John Aubrey
Esqr.," to be made ifasons in this Lodge. These propositions were
duly seconded and referr’d to Ballot on next meeting.
Br. Dillon moved that the Secretary of this Lodge, on account
of his extra trouble, shall be exempted from all Lodge expences.
It was determined in the affirmative unanimously.
The K.W.M. acquainted such Brethren as have served as Enter’d
Aprentices, that he will Pass them Fellow Crafts next Tileeting, or
the first stated Meeting that they can attend.
Resolved That Five Guineas be given to the general Fund of
Charity, at the Communication on the 15th Inst.”
All business being over the Lodge was closed in due Form, and
adjourned to Wednesday, the 22 Inst.
The Balance in hand at the end of the evening was X206. 10. 4.”
In the account, which I do not give in full, there is an item of interest—
"Paid Expencss of several old Members attending the Committee of Charity”.
This refers to the meeting held on April 8th to consider Bro. Paterson's
complaint concerning the illegal formation of the Lodge.
No. ,i. The Lodge of Fnend.ship, at the. Thatched Hon.se, St. James’s Street,
Jjondon, JJnd A prd, 5707.
"Present—Brs. His Grace the Duke of Beaufort, R.W.M.; Sir Richard
Phillipps, Bart., S.W. (Pro Tern); Thos. French, J.W. ; Thos.
Dunckerley Esqr., P.M. ; Jno Allen, Tr. and Secy (Pro Tern) ; Lord
Gormanston; J. Barton Esqr.; Captn. Barnard; Eobt. Browne Esqr.;
Hen. Errington Esqr.; Chas. Ogilvie Esq.
The Lodge was opened in due form in the Third Degree; and
Br. Sir Richard Philipps was raised to the Degree of a IMaster
Mason. This Lodge was then closed in due form And a Lodge of
the First Degree being open'd The Minutes of last meeting were
read and confirmed. And Sir Robert Bernard, Bart., Alexr. Bennett
Esqr., Robert Shuttleworth Junr. Esqr., Sir Peter Leicester, Bart.,
Jno. Pugh Pryce Esqr. and John Aubrey Esqr. were balloted for,
and unanimously accepted to be made Masons in this Lodge.
John Pugh Pryce and John Aubrey Esqrs., attended and were
Initiated and Accepted as Enter’d Apprentices.
Br. Beaufort the R.W.M. being elected Grand Master of Masons
to be install’d into that high office on the 27th of this month,
declared that by that means the office of Master of this Lodge would
be vacated; And proposed The Honble. Mr. Dillon, the S.W. of the
Lodge, to take on him that office and he was thereupon unanimously
elected to be Install’d next Lodge Night.
The following Brethren visited the Lodge this evening—John
Salter Esqr., D.G.M. ; Peter Edwards Esqr., S.G.W. ; Horatio Ripley
Esqr., J.G.W.; Sam Spencer, G.S.; Thos. Dyne, G.S.B.; and
Arthur Beardmore Esqr., P.G.W. (in 1754 J.G.W.)
Br. Dunckerley, on behalf of Br. Dillon, proposed Br. Theobald
Bourke Esqr., to be admited a member of this Lodge which was
duly seconded and referr’d to the Ballot next meeting.
All business being over, the Lodge was closed in due form and
adjourned to Wednesday, the 13th May next.
Balance £249. 8. 0.”
On this night all three degrees were worked. Sir Richard Philipps no
doubt acted as S.W. for the first degree which followed the ceremony of raising.
Perhaps the whitewashing of the irregularities we have noticed was
confirmed by the visit of all the Grand Lodge officers of the year, with the
exception of Lord Blayney, the Grand Master, and the Grand Treasurer,
Berkeley.
*Vo. 3. The Lodge of Friendship, at the Thatched House, St. James’s Street,
London, 13th May, 5767.
Fifteen Members present—.
“The Lodge was opened in due form And the Minutes of last meeting
were read and confirmed.
Br. Theobald Bourke who stands proposed to be admited a
member was Balloted for and admited unanimously.
Br. Errington proposed Br. Sir Thos. Gascoyne to become a
member, and the Rt. Honble. Lord Molineux to be made a Mason
in this Lodge.
.Br. Townley proposed Br. Robert Cotton Esqr. to become a
member of this Lodge; these propositions were severally seconded,
and referr’d to Ballot next meeting.
Br. Dunckerley in the absence and at the request of Br. Dillon,
R.W.M. Elect, nominated Sr. Richard Philipps. Bart., and John
Errington Esqr. to be W^ardens of this Lodge, winch was unanimouslv
approved of. The other Officers were continued. All business beino
over the Lodge was closed in due form, and adjourned to Wednesday"’
the 27th inst.’’
The account of Br. Simpkinson for the jewels, £115. 10. 0., was paid,
leaving a balance in hand of £123. 7. 0.
98 rrrnisdcfiii/is of the Quohior Corottol'i l.odi/c.
Ao, The Lo,t,/r of FrifMhhip, „l tlw Thotrhetl Houx,-, St. ./nnirFu Street,
Loiitloii, 27th Mai/, oTtil.
Present—Twelve Members—.
“The Lodge was open’d in due form and the Minutes of last Meeting
were rend and confirmed.
Lord Molineux ^ was Balloted’ for to be made a Mason, and
accepted.
Brothers Sir Thos. Gascoyne - and Robt. Cotton Esq r. were
Balloted for to be Members of this Lodge, and admitted.
James Scawen Esqr. attended and was Initiated into our
Mysteries, and accepted as an Enter’d Aprentice.
Order d that a Silver Square of five inches be provided for the use
of the Lodge.
Her Grace the Duchess of Beaufort having been nominated last
Meeting a Ltuh/ Putrone.'is of this Lodije, was now unanimously
Elected as such, Order’d that the same be notified to Her Grace,
and that she be requested to do the Lodge the Honor of her
Patronage, and that a pair of Gloves be presented to Her Grace.
Whereas Brothers John Francis Meyrick and Chas. Aincotts Esq.,
who at their own voluntary requests have been admited members of
this Lodge, have not thought fit to join the same; nor have obey'd
the Master’s summons general nor special, but have in private
conversation out of doors said that they did not intend to join the
same They are hereby excluded the Privilege’ of Membership, and
as their conduct cannot but be considered as disrespectful to this
Lodge, it is Resolved that they shall not be received as Visiters,
untill they have made their Peace, and their Grace is granted.
All business being over the Lodge was closed in due form, and
adjourned to Wednesday, the 3rd June next.’’
Balance £137. 5. 0.
LSir Watkin William Wynne, 4th Bt., of Wynnstay, Co. Denbigh. B. 1749,
S.d.W. 1771. D. 1789. Married sister of G.M. the Duke of Beaufort.
100 '/'r/tJisncf iij/is of the (^luitiior ('orointll Loihii .
The ('pisotle of thu swords inclines one to the belief that the Duke of
lieaufort, aged only 23 at this time, was under the influence of the older
nieinbeis of the Lodge, who should have known that this practice was irregular,
to say the least of it, and, as it turned out, caused the Grand Master a certain
loss of dignity in having to rescind his permission. It also seems to show that
Gland Lodge was at last beginning to be conscious of its power as a ruling
body. It decreed that no Lodge, even so distinguished a one as the of
presided over by the Grand Master himself, could be a law unto
self.
Several Alasonic historians in the past have published extracts from the
minutes of the J^odip- of nrii<lsluj). In every case they appear to have
regarded the “ peaceful penetration ” of the Lodge at the Him luul I’lmcli. Hau l
No. 3 solely as a means for Dunckerley and his set to secure control of a Lodge
of high numerical seniority. A well-known writer in recent years expresses his
views thus:—“They wanted a number on the list higher than 279, so in 1767
they made an illegal purchase of No. 3 Lodge and gave it the name of the
l.oitijr of Fnrii(hh Ip. Tlie story as read in the minutes of the Committee
ol Charity is disgraceful.’’ The proceedings were of course irregular, but
even if the above implication of a not very lofty motive be conceded, and if
that were the only motive, Dunckerley certainly saved an old Lodge from lapsing
into obscurity and erasure, and as to the members of it, what did they gain ?
A relief from all financial embarassment, and 30 guineas with w'hich to start
a new Lodge, No. 394, “Honor nnd (! r m ront p ’ \ which flourishes as No. 165
at the present day. I hope what I have w’ritten may dispel for good such a
hasty and fallacious generalization as is quoted above
As wm have seen in the minutes, on INlarch lOtli, 1767, the Duke of
Beaufort w'as installed, somew'hat irregularly, as first Worshipful Master of the
Loilijr of Frirmlsliiji. After his installation, some six weeks later, on April
27th, as Grand blaster, he made no changes in the principal offices, but he
appointed Dillon as S.G.W. On his appointment to his second year of office
on April 29th, 1768, the Grand Lodge personnel was drastically revised—Col.
Salter, the Deputy Grand Master, was replaced by lion. Charles Dillon, Rowland
Holt became S.G.W. Jaffray,' a protege (he supplied the gloves for the Duchess
of Beaufort), became J.G.W. and Thomas French succeeded Spencer, who had
opportunely died. French resigned or, as is more probable, was discharged
towards the end of 1768, and James Heseltine, a much better nominee, was
appointed in his place, lie was one of the pioneers of Dunckerley’s movement,
a member of the Somerset House Lodge. So at the end of 1768 Grand Lodge
was ruled by the following:—Grand Master, the Duke of Beaufort; Deputy
Grand blaster, Hon. C. Dillon ; Senior Grand Warden, Rowdand Holt ; Junior
Grand Warden, Henry Jaffray; Grand Treasurer, Rowland Berkeley; Grand
Secretary, James Heseltine; Gran.d Sw’ord Bearer, Thomas Dyne.
One hundred years ago at Rome there was a Theological College for
priests, the Accfulrmiu Errlmitixtirn, so exclusive and influential that it was
called the Nursery of Cardinals. It would appear that Dunckerley must have
had something similar in view when he re-created the hoihjr of Fnrii(/rlnji -
It w'as to be a Nursery of Grand Lodge Officers who would be worthy of their
office and assist in the renaissance of English Craft Masonry. He left nothing
^ Henrv Jaffra.v. glover in the Strand, was initiated in the OKA Lodge 7th
February. 1758. IV.M. 1761-63. Resigned 17th December, 1765. He wa.s W.M. Loihjr
of Eiiniiiifioii No. 21 1761-66. Joined Homersrt Ilinisr TaxIijc in 1775.
- The first idea of such a Lodge originated in Ireland, where in January, 1750,
the Grand Master’s Lodge w.as formed. It -was given great privileges, m.any of which
have been retained, .such as taking precedence (without a number) over all other Irish
Lidges, while it.s members have the right to wear Grand Irodge clothing and claim
the salute given to a Grand Officer, though they do not hold such a rank.—J.H.L.
ThotudH ])unrl.crh-;j ttitil flit Lodtjc of Fnvudahip. 101
made masons. It is incredible that Dunckerley would take orders from either
of them. Heseltiiie, according to Calvert, was made in the riulanthroinc Lodge
on 15th July, 1765. It is unlikely that Dunckerley would be under the sway
of a mason of some 18 months standing. Galloway was, as has been noted,
steward to the Duke of Cumberland and was probably responsible for the
clerical side of the SoDierset House. Lodge-, he was Secretary to the Lodefe. of
L rieodship from 1767-1802. French was a knowledgeable mason, made use of
for his general acquaintance with London Masonry. There remains only Rowland
Holt, a man of Dunckerley’s age, a member of Parliament, a country gentleman,
traveller, bon viveur and wit. He must frequently have been absent from
town, and I see no reason to suppose that he was other than an upholder of
Dunckerley’s enthusiasm.
Having founded two Lodges which were ultimately to steer the barque
of Masonry to a harbour of serene security,' he resigned from the J^odge of
Friendship on 10th January, 1770, and from that date preferred to devote
himself almost entirely to Provincial Masonry,'' of which he was Provincial
Grand Master in the Craft of 9 counties and Grand Superintendent of the
Royal Arch of 18. In the former capacity he was answerable only to the
Grand Secretary and in the latter probably only to himself. Besides these
activities he was Grand Master of the Knights Templar" in 1791. In London
he was evidently satisfied to leave Craft Masonry to others. There it was
well established, so he devoted his life from 1770 until his death in 1795 in
promulgating Provincial Masonry. Even if he organized but one Provincial
Grand Meeting a year in each Province it was a considerable undertaking to
be administered from Hampton Court, or, as is more probable, from a residence
in Salisbury. There were but few Lodges in each county when he took over
and in every case he increased the number. Sadler refers to various letters of
Dunckerley in private hands, and if at some future time these be collected it
will be possible to estimate more exactly the enormous amount of IMasonic work
he accomplished. His zeal and enthusiasm in his life-work never flagged; the
last letter recorded by Sadler, dictated by Ed. Robinson on 3rd November,
1795, refers to sums of money collected by him for forwarding to Heseltine,
the Grand Secretary.
'The minute of 13th March, 1771, reads: “The Duke of Beaufort |)roposed
the lit. Hon. Lord Petre to be made a Mason in this Lodge and was pleased to give
a Di.s|)ensation for an immediate ballott. AVhich being taken his Lordship was ajiroved
of. . . . Lord Petre attended and was initiated into the mysteries and received
an entered apprentice.’’ Lord Petre was passed and raised on 11th Afarch. 1772; lie
was elected AV.M. of the Lodge on tlie same evening. He became Grand Master on
4th May, 1772. The guiding hands of Beaufort and the Lodge, of Friendship was seen
in this predetermined appointment.
" Dunckerley was Prov. Grand Master of Hampshire and the Isle of AVight
in 1767, and his duties in this province would have entailed frequent absence from
London’; it is not certain where he was residing in 1770. The minute 10th January,
1770, relating to his resignation, is as follows:—“A letter was afterwards received
from’ Bro. Dunckerley, desiring leave to decline being any longer a member on account
of his residence in the country but that he may be an honorary member which was
agreed to.”
" In this capacity he was G.AI. and G. Gommander ^of the United Order of
Royal Ark and Mariner's [Freemasons’ Magazine, August, 1794],
Thomas Duiir.he.rley and the Lodge of Friendship. 103
AFFFNDIX I
List of Provincial Grand Masters who were members of the Lodge of Friendship
and Somerset House Lodge from 1767-1866.
John Allen Lancs. 1769— 1807
Rev. John .\iist%ii Surrey 1811— 1847
Rowland Alston Essex 1836— 1854
Col. Hon. G. Anson Staffs. 1837— 1853
Ltichard Barker Rutland 1798— 1813
John Rayford Cheshire 1810
John Bowes Durham 1837—1853
Benjamin Bond Cabell Norfolk 1854—1875
Lord H. J. Spencer Churchill Oxford 1837—1844
Rev. S. S. Colman Norfolk 1810—1813
John Dent, M.P. Worcs. 1792—1850
liord de Tabley Cheshire 1865— 1886
Alexander Dobie Surrey 1847—1871
George Durant N. Wales 1774—1791
Earl of Durham N orthumberland 1837—1845
Viscount Ebrington Devon 1820—1866
John Errington Northumberland 1771—1807
John Fawcett Durham 1847— 1880
Hon, W. T. Fiennes Kent 1829—1847
lion. John Forbes Oxford 1810—1836
Sir F. G. Fowke, Bt. Leics. 1851—1856
Capt. C. Frederick Kent 1774—1777
(’ol. William Gill Beds. 1799— 1812
*Sir A. S. Gordon, Bt. Hereford 1801—1814
Sir J. J. Guest, Bt. S. Wales 1836—1848
Sir J. M. Hayes, Bt. Oxford 1795—1810
Rowland Holt, M.P. Suffolk 1771— 1788
E. J. Hutchins WMles, S.E. 1848— 1856
Rev. John lluyshe Devon 1866— 1879
Earl of Limerick Bristol 1866—1889
Sir JJ. Mackworth WLdes, S. 1783—1790
■’Mames Meyrick Surrey 1795—1836
Earl of Monntnorris Hunts. 1800— 1825
Duke of Norfolk Hereford 1789—1790
*Thonias Parker Surrey 1772— 1795
[Lord Rancliffe] T. B. Parkins Derby, and Notts 1783-1802 1789—1792
Sir R. B. Phillips, Bt. Wales, S.W. 1848—1857
Viscount Pollington Yorks., W. Riding 1829—1861
Earl of Pomfret Northants. 1798
John Ramsbottom Berks, and Bucks. 1833—1847
*Sir John St. Aubyn, Bt. Cornwall 1758—1843
Marquess of Salisbury Herts. 1833—1844
Hon. W. Shirley Warwick. 1810—1843
Col. Sherborn Stewart Hampshire 1795—1819
Lord Suffield Norfolk 1845—1854
Sir Thomas Tancred, Bt. Yorks. 1771—1780
T. Th.om.<on Warwick. 1792—1810
Hon. R. B. Walsingham Kent 1770— 1774
Col. T. Wildinan Notts. 1823—1860
R. //. Willett Dorset 1854—1859
William Williams Dorset 1812— 1839
104 Transartions of tlir (funtuor ('oro/idli Lodoc.
*4FFEF mx ll
Grand Wardens
S. G. W. J. G. W.
1767 Hon. Charles Dillon Copt. .4. ('amphell
GS Rowland Holt 7/ . J of rag SH
69 Rowland Holt (’has. To pi or SH
70 Rowland Holt Sir W. W. Wynne, Bt.
71 ‘"Sir W. W. Wynne, Bt. TIba. Hodgson SH
72 *Adl. Sir Peter Parker, Bt. TF/a. Atkinson SH
73 ■^■Sir John Croft, Bt. .7. F. Gil Ho SH
74 Hon. T. Noel John Hat eh SH
75 *Thomas Parker John Hull SH
76 Col. John Deolen Geo. Harrison SII
77 Copt. H. I'asenl [GS] John Allen
78 He tin/ Ihigge SH *Chas. Marsh
79 Visit. Tomtrorth 235 *Geo. Hesse
1780 ./. Hungerford SH r. T. Tutt SH
81 *Sir J. St. Anbyn, Bt. *J. Galloway
82 Ftr H. Mock north SH F. Crespignp SH
83 Hon. W. Shirley G. IF. Carrington SH
84 Hon. IF. Void 235 ^Jas. hleyrick
85 .7. Heseltine SH
*Sir Lionel Darell
J/. ,7. Tjevg SH
86 'Sir N. Nugent, Bt. Sir N. Newnham, Bt.
SH James Curtis S4I
87 Tyord Ale.rr. Moedonald
Geo. Atkinson SH
88 T. Fitzherbert
IF a). Ti/ler SH
89 Geo. Shnm
Jos. J edd SH
1790 *H. Crathorne
91 Col. Thomas Swanston John Warre
SH /I. Lancaster SH
92 T. Thomson
93 J. Dent E. Armstrong
.4 . Tegort SH
94 John Dawes
G. Corn/ SH
95 *Johii hfeyrick
1{ .Brett inghnm SH
96 Geo. Porter
97 *Arthnr Gore *Johii Hunter
,V Gosling SH
98 Sir J. Earner
G. Hlockmore SH
99 Hon. T. W. Fermor
SH *J. Bayford (2)
,1800 E. 1). Batson
S. Q. Barter SH Hon. T. Brand
01 [331
R. Wilkinson
02 Wm. Rawlins
SH Will. Forsteen (99)
03 Earl of Kingston [33]
John Cooke.
04 ■*'Sherbonie Stewart
Sir A. S. Gordon
05 Sir Thomas D. Hesketh, Bt. SH
C. Jyaiiibert
06 John Elliot
R. H. -Croft
07 John Cobb
Wm. Camac
08 *A. A. Powell
SH Sir T. H. Far.quhar, Bt
09 77. Compton
TF/a. Bolland (99) J. B. Richards
1810 (21)
Sir C S Hunter
11 Emmannel Agar
Thomas Duncktrley and the Tjodge of Friendshi-ii. 105
S. G. W. J. G. W.
12 liev. J. Austin SH //. C. Selby SH
13 J. Aldridge SH S. McGtllivray SH
14 Rev. S. Hemming SH Isaac Lindo (1)
15 Isaac Lindo (1) Hon. A. Macdonald
16 Hon. A. Macdonald John Skinner
17 W. W. Prescott Yeats Brown (2)
18 T'j.sc^. Torrington (1) L. H. Petit
19 Sir G. Leeds, Bi. IF. P. Honey wood [357]
1820 J. Ramsbottom, M.P. P. T. Gardner
21 Sir F. G. Fowke SH V. Jones
22 W. J. Symons Hon. W. E. Twistleton
23 S. Marjoribanks R. H. Wdlett SH
24 F. H. Brandram G. Warre
25 Col. Hugh Baillie [2] C. M. Williams
26 Hon. E. Petre Sir Hedworth Williamson (2)
27 Richard Fercival (2) J. Pattison
28 Sir J. Easthope, Bt. B. Bond Cabbell, M.P.
29 Karl Howe Joshua Walker, M.P.
1830 Marquess of Salisbury C. Kemyss-Tynte [2]
31 Lord G. Lennox Lord H. J. S. Churchill
32 Lord H. J. S. Churchill Hon. T. Dundas (259)
33 Wm. Stuart R. Mee Raikes
34 Sir David- Pollock (1) GeO'. Stone
35 Rowland Alston E. A. Sanford (2)
36 Earl of Scarborough (2) Lord Suffield
37 Hon. Fox Maule H. J. Prescott
38 Lord Worsley (16) R. Steuart, M.P.
39 Hon. A. Moreton Adi. Sir J. Dundas
1840 E. T. Bainbridge J. J. Bodkin [33]
41 Hon. H. Fitzroy (16) Robt. Holland
42 Visct. Ingestre [33] Mark Milhank (259)
43 Archd. Hastie Sir G. B. Mdttheiii SH
44 Hon. TF. N. Colhorne (16) TF. H. Smith (2)
45 Sir R. B. Philipps, Bt. R. G. Alston
46 *Henry A. Hoare L. C. Hvmfrey (259)
47 A. C. Morris Hon. G. O’Callagban
48 FI. C. Vernon A. E. Campbell
49 F. Dundas (16) TF. F. Beadon (16)
1850 Sir F. B. Alston F. Pattison
51 IF. Cuhitt (259) R. Davies (16)
52 Lord D. C. Stuart T. A. Mitchell, M.P.
53 Ijord Londeshorongh (16) H. Stuart (2)
54 Bonamy Dobree E. Baldwin (1)
55 Col. TF. Stuart (2) Lord Cheylesmere
56 Visct. Goderich Thos. Tooke
57 Earl of Durham H. Fenwick (16)
58 Gen. J. S. Brownrigg Sir TF. S. Portal (16)
59 Lord de Tabley (16) Sir T. G. Hesketh, Bt. (5)
1860 J,ord, Ijondeshorough (16) A. Perkins (16)
61 T^ord R. Grosvenor (88) A. H. Novelli
62 Sir H. Williamson (357) John Havers (16)
63 Imrd Skelmersdale (16) G. C, Legh (16)
64 Col. .1. L. Cole Sir J. Ratcliffe
65 Sir J/. Hicks Beach (10) R. Cunliffe
66 Sir G. Greenall, Bt. Maxwell Close (16)
106 Tr/i/ixufIlo/ix of the, (^huitnnr Coroiidti lAjde/e.
A liearty lote ot thanks was iinaiiiinoiisly passed to Bro. Botch for his intere-sting
paper; coinnieiits being offered by or on belialf of Bros. W. I. Grantham, F. L.
Pick, R. H. Baxter, J. Heron Ijepper, H. H. Hallett, and G. W. Bullamore.
1 would close with a brief note on two of the members of the Lodge of
h rieiulship, both described in Bro. Rotch’s footnotes as Members of Parliament
for Preston. Sir Peter Leicester filled a death vacancy in 1767, shortly before
tin; dissolution of Parliament. At the election of 1768 the two baronets, Sir
Peter Leicester and Sir Ralph Standish, contested Preston as Tory candidates,
supported by the Mayor and Corporation, while the Whig candidates. Col. (later
General) Burgoyne and Sir Henry Hoghton, were supported by the Earl of
Derby, a violent opponent of the Corporation. Both parties imported gangs of
bludgeon men and much damage was caused during the months preceding the
election, the Mayor himself being put under the pump and at least one person
hilled. The Corporation claimed that only burgesses on the gild roll were entitled
to vote, and attempted to enforce this by a process of selection, but the Whigs
claimed that all adult male residents in the town were entitled to the franchise.
The two baronets were declared elected, but three petitions were promptly
presented and were considered by the entire House of Commons, who admitted
as valid the hundreds of votes rejected by the Mayor, almost all of which were
in favour of Hoghton and Burgoyne, so the parliamentary carrer of these two
members of the Lodge of Friendship was of brief duration. They were both
included in the list of important persons present at the Gild of 1762 and Sir
Frank Standish appears in the Lists of Burgesses of 1782 and 1802.
every turn debarred from examining not merely original documents but also
nearly every printed book that happens to be at all rare; and Bro. Rotch has,
in my opinion, done a great feat in adding to our knowledge of the men and
movements in the period reviewed in his essay. He is entitled to the gratitude
and thanks of all who are interested in such matters.
The paper we have just heard shoots at two targets, Thomas Duuckerley
and the Lodge of Friendship, and the two are combined into one mark when
Bro. Botch indulges in a little touch of theorising about the reason that lay
behind the revival of that famous Lodge in 1766. I should like to say a word
about eacli of his three objectives.
As regards Dunckerley : his romantic story, quite apart from his services
to Masonry, has been the scrutiny of so many scholars for the last fifty years
that it would be no small feather in one’s cap to add a single fact about his
life to our existing knowledge; but those who have read the proofs of this paper
will, I think, confess that Bro. Rotch’s researches have increased not only our
knowledge but our interest in and understanding of one of the greatest Masons
of all time. I would in particular draw the attention of the Lodge to the very
full biographical notes that are devoted to Dunckerley’s friends and associates.
They form an annotation to Sadler’s famous book which was badly needed and
should be gratefully welcomed.
Coming to the portion of the paper which deals with the Lodge of
Friendship, the whole crux of the matter is this ; was the revival of the Lodge
by the Duke of Beaufort and his friends legally done or not ? Here the Lodge
historian has to my mind understated his case. I can see in the whole transaction
nothing at variance with the Masonic laws then existent, with the one very
trifling exception of the Lodge having changed its place of meeting without first
having obtained the permission of the Grand Master. If such a proceeding is
to be magnified into a Masonic felony, then I am afraid there are very few of
our old Lodges which will escape whipping. Consider the event even in the
light of our laws as they stand to-day, and goodness knows, the code is much
more strictly administered now than then: I can see nothing unmasonic in a
Lodge that chooses to elect a number of joining members in order to keep going;
nor yet in its election of a new Master to succeed one who has resigned; nor
yet in the fact of its being generous with a grant of money to a section of the
Brethren who wish to retire from it and found a new Lodge; nor even in its
changing its place of meeting without having received proper permissioir. That
is the sum total of the charges made against the Lodge of Friendship; and I
am glad to think that the common sense of our Grand Lodge at that time was
strong enough to see the matter as a mere technical error capable of being
amended by atr apology.
We have reason to be grateful for the sound common sense that preserved
to us the Lodge of Friendship, which since that date has given more Grand
Officers to the Craft than any other Lodge in the English jurisdiction.
The mention of this last fact brings me a brief consideration of Bro.
Rotch’s suggestion, that the Lodge was revived in order to become a training
centre for the rulers of the Craft. Whether that idea underlay the proceedings
of Dunckerley and his associates does not matter so very much to us to-day,
for the Lodge did in fact become such a centre, and for the past 170 years has
been an example of what a Lodge can be in upholding the dignity of the Craft
and preserving the old traditions of good fellowship and willing service. I am
sure that every Brother who reads this fragment of its past history will be
delighted that one of its members is to give us the complete record of its
proceedings since 1721, and offer him thanks for the present sample in avid
expectation of further favours to come.
In closing I reiterate my personal thanks to Bro. Rotch and express our
acknovv'ledgments to the Lodge of Friendship for allowing its records to become
1 10 Tniiisiii / iini.'t of the (^iinfiior (I l.iidiji .
on this occasion subject matter for oiir Tninsdctions. I sincerely trust its
exanij)le will be; followed by other old Eiiglisli Tjodges, particularly those situated
in London. Once again Lodge of Friendship has set a good exanijde to tlie
Craft.
St. George’s Lodge, No. 315, Taunton, was warranted on July 13th, 1764,
and in the Minute Book the entry, dated August 1st, 1764, is as follows: A
visit from the R. War. John Revis, Deputy Grand Master of England, on his
return from visiting the Lodges in the West, when his Worship, after proper
inquiry into our Bye-laws, the method of working, etc., was pleased to express
his perfect approbation of the same ”. Besides having been the Grand Secretary
from 1734 to 1757, and the Deputy Grand Master from 1757 to 1763, William
Preston has recorded that Lord Ferrers, who was the Grand Master for 1762
and 1763, on hearing that Lord Blayney, his successor, would be in Ireland for
some time to come, he ‘‘invested John Revis, Esq., late Deputy Grand Master,
as proxy for his lordship, who continued in office two years , that is to 1765.
That Bro. John Revis should have been accorded this high distinction,
and that he should have undertaken the then arduous journey, at his age, of
visiting Lodges in the W^est of England, besides Taunton, probably those further
afield at Exeter, Plymouth, Falmouth, and other places, is hardly compatible
with the writer’s condemnatory remarks, nor is it with Preston’s recorded opinion,
that up to 1760 “this period seems to have been the golden era of Masonry
in England’’; he, however, admitted that when Earl Ferrers was the Grand
Master, 1762-63, “the Society seems at this time to have lost much of its
consequences, the general assemblies and communications not having been
honoured with the presence of the nobility as formerly’’. Perhaps the real
reason was that his brother, whom he succeeded to the Earldom in 1760, had
been executed at Tyburn for murder, and consequently the reputation of the
whole family had somewhat suffered in public esteem. But to continue the
quotation; “By the diligence and attention, however, of the late general, John
Salter, the Deputy Grand Master, the business of the Society was carried on
with regularity.’’ He was the Deputy from 1763 to 1767.
Another interesting matter in connection with Thomas Dunckerley is to
be found in Kenning’s Masotiir i'iidopxcUa, edited by the Rev. A. F. A.
Woodford, and published in 1878: “In 1767 King George III made a provision
for him by granting him first TlOO, and then £800 pension per annum, and
looms first at Somerset House and afterwards at Hampton Court Palace. He
then assumed the Royal Arms with the Bar Sinister, and the additional appellation
of Fitz-George. We have in our own possession a copy of Anderson’s Constitutions
of 1769 in which his book-plate is to be found, with the Regal Shield, the Bar
Sinister, ‘ Fato non merito’, and ‘Thomas Dunckerley Fitz-Gcorge ’. ’ ’
I now give, without comment, an extract from the Inaugural Address,
entitled “Thomas Dunckerley’’, of the late Bro. Egbert Lewis, P.A.G.D.C.,
published in the Transactions of the Somerset Masters’ Lodge, 1932: “Since
Sadler wrote a certificate has come to light, issued by Dunckerley and all in
his own handwriting, which recites that he has been given authority by the
Grand Secretary to make, pass and raise masons on board any ship under the
sanction of No. 254, the ‘Vanguard’ number, and that he has so made a brother
on board the ‘ Prince ' in April, 1762, before the warrant was issued. This
implies that the ‘Vanguard’ warrant was in fact an authority personal to
Dunckerley. The latter document issued for the ‘ Prince ’ Lodge may have
been of a similar character, and the circumstances rather suggest that it was.
Certainly he treated both the one and the other as though they were his personal
property. Not only so, but he took them as authority to form Lodges in
London, although the statement he makes in the certificate is that he has been
empowered to make masons on board any ship, a very different matter. But
Dunckerley seems on occasion to have done very much what he liked in matters
masonic.’’
Thomas Dunckerley was the Grand Superintendent of Somerset from 1782
and the P.G.M. from 1784, and that is why the Bath Brethren possessed two
oil paintings of him. The Somerset Masters’ Transactions, 1932, contains an
112 ritiiixacho/iK of t/i(' (^iKitnor Vuronati Loihji-.
illustration of tho portrait painted by Philip Van Dyke, now hanging in the
IMasonic Hall, Bath, and in those for 1916-1917 an illustration of the other,
painted by Beach, but now in the Masonic Hall, Barnstaple, acquired by the
Devonshire Brethren in 1843, with the very beautiful furniture of the Bath
Lodges, owing to their then financial difficulties.
In endeavouring to form a true conception of Thomas Dunckerley it is
as well to remember what Gould has written about him: “He was a very
worthy member of the Craft; but the loose statements of Dr. Oliver, that ‘ he
was the oracle of Grand Lodge, and the accredited interpreter of its Con¬
stitutions ’ ; also that ‘ his decision was final on all points, both of doctrine and
discipline ’, are simply untrue.’’
Before concluding I would refer to a few minor details. As Dunckerley
ran away to sea when he was 10^ years of age and ultimately became a school¬
master, it would be interesting if Bro. Botch were to give us a little information
as to the type of education provided for boys in the Navy at this period; the
list giving the names of the ships on which he served. Note 14, on p. 61, is
apparently not complete, and if dates were appended it would be all the better;
and, as a Gunner was a very important rank, surely his interesting explanation
should be embodied in his paper, instead of being relegated to the footnote, No.
2, on p. 66.
Although I am, for the present, unable to acquiesce in several of the
suggestions that Bro. Botch has made, yet I must again express my sincere
appreciation of his paper; he has given us an appealing outline of the life of a
very great Mason, and I cordially tender to him my grateful thanks.
a well dressed man to wander in the poor streets of Holborn; within living
memory the neighbourhood of Seven Dials had an evil reputation.
The fifth purpose referred to by him 1 had previously altered. I agree
with Bro. Grantham the efforts of the “Moderns” were prompted by a desiie
to defeat them by any means. I regret I cannot trace his A.Q.i xlvi, pp.
31-32, reference.
This paper is a chapter from the History of the Tmdge of Friendship,
which is almost completed, and I welcome any information which I can add to
the main body of this work.
Bro. Baxter regrets I have not searched Parish Eegisters for details of
Dunckerley 'ph't’s marriage. I have done so, but entirely without result. Thomas
Dunckerley may have been born in one of the Royal residences of which there
were several at Kew. The Parish records of this Church were destroyed by
fire about 100 years ago. Further information will be very acceptable.
Bro. Pick. A detailed list of Grand Wardens and Provincial Grand
Masters who were members of the Lodge of Friendship and the Somerset House
Lodge is given in this issue, but was not included in the proof. I hope this
will provide the evidence which Bro. Pick requires. The Leicester Standish
incident is most interesting. I hope I shall have space tO’ quote it in the
biographical notes on the members of the Lodge of Friendship, but there are
920 odd names. The Whigs must have been desperate fellows !
Bro. Bullamore. I quite agree with the last paragraph. “ Antient ” at
heart, he preferred to retain his loyalty to the London “Moderns” by devoting
himself to Provincial masonry and thus escaping from the ever recurring
squabbles. He had by 1770, when he resigned from the Lodge of Friendship,
accomplished all he set out to do, to make masonry accessible to and appreciated
by men of higher social position than had previously been possible and to secure
their services for the direction and governing of Grand Lodge.
Bro. Hallett quotes Preston, “This period [up to 1760] seems to have
been the golden era of masonry in England ”. T admit I cannot understand
what that great Freemason, whose name is worthy to be considered with those
of Dermott and Dunckerley, as outstanding in the history of the Craft, could
have had in mind in making this statement. The pension awarded to Dunckerley
in 1767 of £100 per annum is I think authenticated. I have come across
allusions to a pension of £800 having been granted at a later date, but until
the documents of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office are available for research, I
would prefer to think this figure is non-proven. ' I hope Bro. Hallett will assist
me in furthering my desire to examine the documentary evidence about the
H.M.S. “Vanguard” warrant. It should prove of great interest and I would
like to include it in my History of the Lodge of Friendship.
Lastly I must express my gratitude for the assistance and encouragement
given me by my friend .Bro. Lepper. His patience in answering my endless
queries about the “ Antients ” and “Moderns” proved inexhaustible. I wish
I could have been able to say straight out that Dunckerley’s aim was to combine
the two Grand Lodges and in the final coalition restore the “Antient” ritual.
To a great extent the union of 1813 was a triumph ritually for the “Antients”,
the old landmarks were restored, but the actual ritual agreed on was hardly
comparable to that of the Irish and Bristol workings. A better 2nd degree
should have been forthcoming. I hope I have proved my point about the creation
of a Lodge to influence Grand Lodge itself, but it seems to mo Dunckerley’s
even greater service to Masonry was in providing a safe and eminently respectable
venne in which Brethren of a certain class in life could conveniently meet. This
lead was quickly followed by other Lodges, and once this movement was started
masonry never looked back. The irregularities committed at the peaceful
penetration were in their day of no unusual occurrence, and I am glad Bro.
Lepper has emphasized this point.
114 / ions oj t]i(- Qiiafiioi’ (,’oroiiali TaxIijc.
w‘ the sume of iiij"* be the weke And we orden thay yf ony parson
or parsones of the seyd craft & Mistery doo make or worke any maner
of worke appartaynyng to the seyd Craft or Mystery of Carpenters
or Joyneres in ony house or openly onless he be free of the seyd
Cytie & of the seyd mystery or apprentisc or a J orneyman onless he
be reteyned be the yere w‘ a freeman of the seyd Citie upon payne
that euery persone that dothe make any suche worke to forfet for
euery suche defalt iij® iiij'* Also that his oste [host] or other persone
that meynetenythe ony suche person in his house to lose for every
suche defalt iij" iiij'* Also we orden that no forener onle he be
reteyned as ys before expressed from hensforthe shall fetche any maner
of worke belonging to the sayd Craft or mystery of Carpenteres &
Joyneres out of same Cytie to thentent [the intent] to worke the
same vppon payne of forfettor for every tyme that he or they shalbe
so taken vj“ viij'* Also we orden that no mysteri or craft Master
Wardens or felowship shall take vppon them to make any man free
but of ther owne mystery Craft or Craftes to them apoynted or
belongyng vppon payne for euery tyme so doyng the offenders to
forfet v*' [£5] the myte ther of [to the] Comon Chamber the other
haulfe therof to [the] Craft or misteri that he or they wold medyll
w* all Also we orden that yt shalbe law'full to the inhabitans of
the seyd Cytie after that warnyng gevyn to the seyde Master &
Wardens of the sayde Mystery of Carpenteres & Joyneres to take
any foriner myte (meet) or able to do ony worke apperteynyng to the
seyde mystery if the seyde Masters & Wardens of the seyd Craft &
Mystery do not provyde suche person & persones of the inhabitantes
of the seyd Cytie w”*^ be of the aforesayd Craft or Mistery of
Carpenteres and Joyneres and that so good chepe as ony forener shall
bue [be] Also we orden that eny person being an Inglisseman that
at any tyme hereafter shall ever ( * ) & work as a Jornyman of any
of the seyde Craftes or Mysterys w* in the sayd Citie be the space
of xiiij days shall pay to the Wardens of the seyd Craft iiij'* and
from that tyme forthe to pay euery quarter of the yere during suche
tyme as he shall contynue a Jorneyman in the seyd Cytie j'* this to
be levied by the Bedyll of the same Craft and that yt shalbe lawfull
for his Master to stopp it in his handes to remayne to the vse of the
sayd Craft & Mistery/ And yf such persone be ab alien [alien]
then he shall pay duble as muche as an Inglishman to be levied next
above mencionyd Also we orden that [yf] any maner of some of
money be any meanes or occasion above mencionyd shalbe forfeited
that then the one halfe thereof shalbe to thuse (the use) of the Mayor
and Comynalty of the seyde Cytie for and toward the comen charges
of the seyd Cytie and the other halfe ther [of] to the vse of the
felowship of the seyd Craft or mistery Also that the Wardenes the
seyd Craft or mistery shall w* in xv dayes next after any some of
money forfettyd be any meanes or occasion aboueseyd make Certyfycate
therof to the Mayer & Chamberleine of the seyd Citie for the time
being Provydyd always that [yf] y‘ shall happen any Master Wardens
or any other persone or persones beyng in thys felowship or in any
other liberties geuyn by the kyng to the Mayre & Aldermen of the
seyd Cytie that wyll take apon him to add or Subtract either to
enythynge [ ? ] yn this boke conteyned then the partie or parties
so doing shall forfet to the Chambre xP and thes contentes to stand
in as moche power & effect as they dyd before for euer Provydyd
also that this boke or anythyng conteyned shall not be at anytyme
MS. not clear.
118 Transacfioiis of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge.
We are told that “ the extensive use of tiling belongs to the seventeenth
century/ but this branch of the building trade appears to have been very active
in the City towards the middle of the sixteenth century. In Cowper’s Freemen
of the City of Cdnterhury there are no records of tilers having served an
aj)j)renticeship ; prior to 1544 there are recorded four only who purchased their
freedom, in 1499, 1500, 1505 and 1533 respectively. During 1544, the year
the Carpenters’ Company was incorporated, no less than ten tilers purchased
their freedom of the city and one obtained his by marriage, thus qualifying
themselves to become members of the new company formed that year.
One of the hills leading down to the City from the coast is to this day
called ‘'Tyler Hill’’; at the top of this hill in the woods tiles have been found,
showing that they had been made there, and in 1541-2 “ Hammond of Tyler
Hill sold 3000 tiles to the City
It will be noted- that among the trades mentioned as comprising the Com¬
pany in the “Deed of Incorporation’’ of the Carpenters’ Company was that of
“ Whytetawerafterwards erased; it will also be noted that the day appointed
for the “ Masse ” was the Sunday following the feast of “Crispin & Crispianus ’’,
also erased. By a decree of Burghmote, A.D. 1518, the fraternity of Shoe¬
makers and Cobblers were ordered to “come to Saint Augustine on the Feast
of the Assumption of Crispin & Crispinus and there make their solemn offering
at the Masse . . From this it would appear that the 1544 “Deed of
Incorporation ” of the Carpenters’ Company was copied from that of the Shoe¬
makers and Cobblers of 1518, both of which are now in the same “bundle”.
The Carpenters’ Company does not appear to have had a very successful
beginning for three years after its incorporation. We learn from the Burghmote
Book that iii 1547—
We are told that in the gilds " the qualification for office varied from
jJace to place: the gilds of Norwich expressly excluded the civic authorities”,**
but at Canterbury about 1490 “it was enacted that ‘two maistres of every craft
or mystery ’, who shall be Aldermen shall be chosen, one by the Mayor and
the other by the craft to maintain ‘ dewe order in the same and for the wele
encrease of the same, provided always that eny such maisters so elected shall be
none of the same craftis or mysteries whereof they shalbe so elected’”.' This
proviso has been described as a ” curious ” one ” which seems to annul the efficacy
of an otherwise promising bye-law”, but the reason for it appears to have been
political.
A necessary qualification for membership of the gilds was the freedom of
the City, one of the privileges of which was that of voting at municipal and
parliamentary elections. In this respect the member of the gild differed from
the itinerant operative mason, at whose assemblies the Cooke MSS. of circa 1400
informs us—
Here also we note the inclusion of the civic authorities to maintain ” dewe
order in the same”. It would seem that the Assembly was similarly placed in
this matter as were the gilds, although in some cases the gilds possessed a court
of their own to enforce their regulations. London Carpenters inflicted fines or
imprisonment for disobedience to its regulations and for disorderly conduct.
But the crafts must have often found difficulty in coercing recalcitrant members,
and their wea.kness served to increase their dependence upon the municipal
body.^ Later on it will be seen that this is what happened in the case of the
Canterbury Carpenters’ Company in the middle of the eighteenth century.
” Ill the latter Middle Ages . . . economic life was organized on the
basis of the town and the village, and the town, not the state, represented the
vital -principle of medieval economy; a municipal rather than a national policy
constituted the mainspring of social development”.^ This was carried out by
means of charters the municipal body had been able to obtain from the King
or other lords, and the liberality of the charters depended upon the price that
the burghers were ready to pay, for municipal privileges were to be obtained
only for valuable consideration. At the restoration the revival of opposition to
the crown was counteracted ” by excluding its opponents from municipal corp¬
orations which returned four-fifths of the members of the House of Commons”.'*
The Corporations Act of 1661 set up commissioners who, during the follow
ing three years, cleared up the uncertainties regarding the validity of the charters
under which the municipal corporations were acting. The House of Commons
did not allow the crown to make as thorough a revision of municipal liberties as
it hud hoped, but the general tendency was to restrict parliamentary elections
to Anglican common councils.
It was not until four years had passed, in 1G65, that the Corporation Act
was apj)lied by the municipality to the City Companies in Canterbury, for from
the llurghmote Book we learn—
” In 1682 King Charles 2nd issued his proclamation signifying his intention
of resuming all Chartered Immunities throughout the Kingdom”.- The Citizens
of Canterbury were served with a quo warraxio on 13th December, 1683, and
in August, 1684, the Charter of James the First w'as surrendered; and in the
charter of King Charles 2nd, by which it was replaced, was reserved a clause
reserving to the King in Council power to displace . . . any member of the
Corporation he might think fit. No official business is said to have been transacted
between May and October, 1684, when the charter of Charles 2nd was brought
to the City by Col. Rock and Capt. Joseph Roberts; the latter w'as made an
Alderman by Royal Commission and became Master of the Carpenters’ Company
1685-1690.
King Charles 2nd died in 1685, and in January, 1688, James 2nd seized
the charter granted by his predecessor, modelled it anew, replaced the Mayor
and several of the Aldermen in whom he could confide “to promote his designs
of taking away the Test. . . .”; but on certain information being received of
the Prince of Orange having set sail for England, the King issued his proclamation
the latter end of October following, to revoke the charter of Charles 2ud and
restore the charter of James the 1st, and the citizens then elected Mr. Henry
Gibbs Mayor for the remainder of the year.''
Nor did any king ever again attempt to override the local liberties of
England. Indeed the central government in the eighteenth century became only
too subservient to the Justices of Peace, and only too tolerant of abuse in any
Chartered Corporation or vested interest. The victory of law over arbitrary power
was upon the whole an immense gain for humanity, but for the next hundred
years and more the victory of law and vested interests produced an undue
admiration of things as they were in the days of Blackstone, Burke and Eldon,
all of whom appealed to the great conservative Revolution as the final standard
in human affairs. Because James 2nd had attempted to destroy the institutions
of the country, it too long remained impossible for anyone else to attempt their
reform.''
Consideration of these matters shows that the writer of the followdng letter ■'
in 1732 knew his subject, and suggests that the fears of the Mayor of the City
_there expressed in his proclamation and in the burlesque thereof—were more
real than might appear on the surface. This is also confirmed by the fight of
Thomas Roch against these conditions, :still existing, from 1745-1758.
1 Bunce’s E'xfrticia.
- I’roceedings of the City of C-y.
Till' Cai'peiifers’ Com pan i/ of the City of Canterbury. 123
regard for the Grand Lodge and their desire to promote the Grand Charity,
proposing to send something every quarter, notwithstanding their private charity
at Canterbury; “extracts from early Grand Lodge Minute Books emphasise by
tlieir entries even of the earliest Lodges, of payments and receipts pointing to
a mere benefit basis”.* It is not surprising that the Lodge formed in the City
in 1730, the aim and object of which he would, be in ignorance, engendered
suspicion in the mind of the Mayor.
THOMAS ROCH
In 1760 Thomas Roch published his book ProceedingH of the t’orporation
of C—y: Showing the Ahune of Corporation Government. This has been sum¬
marised and commented upon by William Brent in his Canterbury in the Olden
Time as follows: —
“ Thomas Roch, A.U. 1745, a Cabinet maker, native of Wales,
but born in Dublin, having purchased his freedom, was immediately
called upon by the ‘ builders ’ - to which fraternity he was considered
as bound to attach himself, to pay to the Master and wardens the
sum of £'^ for dues and fees. Roch at first resisted, but after a time
paid the demand, objecting, however, to the manner in which this
sum and other monies similarly obtained were spent, and having
likewise a strong suspicion that the demands made were not only
unjust but illegal, pressing as they did with peculiar severity upon
young tradesmen just entering intO' business—and other exactions
having been made upon him, such as a payment per head for each
wforkman employed—he determined to resist the impost. Upon his
refusal to pay, a process, follow'ed by a declaration extended to 192
sheets, for a sum of £1—4s. was served upon him. Hisi request to
inspect the charter and bye-laws not being complied with, he had to
move the Court of King’s Bench to obtain a sight of the same. Herein
was found no authority for the exactions that had been oppressively
levied for a long series of years. Several of the Aldermen being
Masters of the fraternities, the Corporation lent them their utmost
authority to the prosecution of the demands against Roch. Failing
in their attempt to adjudicate in their own local court, the prosecutors
carried the case to the assizes at Rochester, then before Lord Mansfield
at Maidstone, here, A.U. 1758, the plaintiffs, who declined to produce
their sham charter, were summarily non-suited. The decision caused
the general break up of the gilds and fraternities, although some of
them lingered on a few years longer. The principle, how'ever, w'as
established by the courageous resistance of one man, that compulsary
contributions to them were illegal, and that for a long series of years
the great mass of the freemen had been most unjustly taxed for the
benifit of a few interested officials.”
The first we hear of Roch is February 19th, 1744, when the Court of
Burghmote ordered that “ Thomas Roach of this City, Cabinet-Maker, be sued
for using his trade unless he purchase his freedom of this City”. This would
he soon after his arrival in Canterbury, as Roch claimed to be the first Cabinet¬
maker to wmrk at his trade in the City, and therefore he could not have worked
as a journeyman.
In 1753, about a ye.ar before the erasure of the Red Lion Lodge, the
jirosccution of Roch commenced before the Mayor’s Court; the publication of
Roch’s book in 1760, by which time the prosecution by the Carpenters’ Company
liad ended, coincided with the formation of a second Lodge (also “Modern”)
in the City.
Anti-Masciiic activity in the City suggested by the appearance in London
of the earlier “ Moll ” print may have accounted for the following public
aj)[)earaiice of Freoirasons in 1753 at Sandwich instead of at Canterbury, for it
will be noted that the procession “gain’d great apjilause from the spectators
etc.” which might not have been so had it taken place at Canterbury.
There are several passages in Roch’s Book” which suggest that he had
some knowledge of, or that he had in some way interested himself in, Masonic
affairs.
Roch maintained that, as the first Cabinet-maker to exercise his trade in
the City, he should not have been compelled to join the Carpenters’ Company,
composed as they were of builders, and he shows his resentment in the following
manner when describing the procedure on the annual feast day: —
“On the feast day they met at the Master’s house, where they
were entertained with bread and cheese and strong beer, which
frequently had such an effect on their limbs, as interfered with that
nice order, which should have been observed in ranks, when the Grand
Master marched them to hear a sermon on that solemn occasion
The following passage also occurs during the description of the events of
the day:—
JOHN BURK.
John Burk, Carpenter, was admitted into the Company “as a prentis ”
in 1650; he became a freeman of the City by apprenticeship in 1650 and in
1658 he served as a Warden of the Company. He was also the Town Crier, for
we learn that in 1651 the City “ paid to John Burk in lieu of his coate
1-00-00 ”.' Burk appears to have served as Jinison officer, for which his position
“ 1663: It. for the Cittie Seale ke.. to Mr. Burk 00—07—0.
“ 1663 : It. pd to Good wife Burke six shillings k fower pence
in set. (settlement) of a greater somme due to her
decesed husband John Burke”.’
Common Master of
Council¬ Aider- Mayor Carpenters'
man man Company
It will be noted that in most cases the Master of the Company had already
served as Mayor; it is obvious that these prominent citizens were not appointed
Master of the Carpenters’ Company for the purpose of regulating the conditions
of labour of the various tradesmen of whom the Company was composed ; this
was done by the Wardens, and at times there are recorded series of meetings
at which no Master was present.
r Booke of Accounts.
The ('(i)jieliters’ Coiiipaiii/ of the ('itij of Cunterhnnj. 127
MASONS
Freedom Uth 15th I6th 17th 18th
of City by Century Century Century Century Century
H • I.S'
j N
DICHCIUBED BY A SWEDISH VIS! Toil
wlio defended liini, and also others of opinion not only that lie ought
to be removed, but also deprived of the dignity of Brother. There
was an awful row. They spoke with a certain amount of heat, but
many quite well, and the Duke had to put the proposition 11 times
before it was accepted by the majority. The main question of the
proceedings was a discussion regarding the Union of the new and old
systems.^ The proposal was read out and received much applause.
The number of Lodges in London alone will be over 400.- The Duke
told me that one Lodge exists here composed of Jews only. From
this one can draw inferences about the broadmindedness existing in
Freemasonry. One Brother sent as a deputation from the Lodges
under the new system was announced and received with a lot of
ceremonial, lie told us that the project had been accepted by them
■nr.mo contradictutt, and the 27th December had been fixed as the
date for the great ceremony of L^nion between the two systems.
I did not get home till 1.30 in the morning, rather tired.
The 2nd^
It was scarcely 11 o’clock when the Master whom I wrote
about yesterday arrived with all his Officers and Mr. Blacker. Many
complimentary speeches were made, and I was really in great
embarrassment what to say. At last I had to accept a certificate
drawn up by the Lodge, in which they in the most flattering terms
requested me to receive the highest decoration the Lodge could bestow
and to be their first honorary member. It cost me the trouble later
of going to their Lodge several times.
This account speaks for itself, but a few explanatory notes may be of use.
Ill the Minutes of the Grand Lodge of England (“ Antients ”) of the
meeting held on Wednesday, 17th December, 1813, at the Crown and Anchor
Tavern in the Strand I find recorded among those present “ R.W. His Ex. The
Count La Gardje G.M. of the first Lodge of the North.” I take his narrative
to mean that by some- inadvertence he first of all attended a private Lodge,
who failed to recognise his Masonic or social rank, and then went on to attend
the historic meetings of two Grand Lodges, first the ‘‘Aiitients”, then the
“Moderns”, nor was he clear in his mind about which was the old and which
the new system.
When he speaks of a St. John's Master, I fancy he must mean a Master
Mason.
I have alluded to Bro. Blacker in a footnote, but much more could be
told of Bro. Perry, who made the witty speeches. James Perry (1756-1821)
was a literary man who edited in turn the European Magazine and the Morning
(hronicle. He was initiated in Mount Lebanon Lodge, now No. 73, in 1786,
and signed the Articles of Union as one of the Commissioners and a Past Deputy
Grand Master of the “Antients”. Many references to his Masonic activities
will be found in the pages of Sadler, Bywater, and Gould, and he attended
Grand Lodge for the last time in 1818.
I am sure we shall all be grateful to Bro. Lagerfelt for drawing attention
to this most interesting account of a great Masonic event, which is also a
reminder of the warm Fraternal Communication that exists between the Grand
Lodge of Sweden and our own.
John Heron Lepper.
LOUGH DERG.
order of Pope Alexander VI in 1497 many notables visited it, and some left
accounts of their experiences.
George Crissaphan, son of Count Crissiiphan, a Hungarian noble, served
ill the army of King Louis I of Hungary against Queen Joan of Naples, and
in his early twenties had risen to a command of importance. In this position
he conducted himself with great cruelty, and is said to have been guilty of two
hundred and fifty murders before he was twenty-four. Struck with remorse,
he made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. James of Compostella, where he spent
six months as a solitary; there he heard of St. Patrick’s Purgatory for the
first time and resolved to visit it, which he did towards the end of 1353. Four
manuscripts of Crissaphan’s vision are known, including one in Czech. It was
printed in the Czech language, and ran through several editions. The Latin
version has been printed by Professor L. L. Hainmerich (Copenhagen, A. F.
Host and Son, 1931).
Raymond, Viscount de Perelhos, made his descent in 1397, and the account
of his vision is one of the best known, owdng to its incorporation in his
Ctitho/ic History by Don Philip O’Sullivan Beare. Thence it passed into Spanish
literature, Th/a y Puryatorio dt S. F/ifricio by Jnan Perez de Montalvan,
])ublished first in 1627, and the drama E! Pnrgatorio dr Sou Patricio by Calderon
being the forerunners of many versions.
William of Stranton, a monk of Stranton in Durham, made his descent
on Easter Sunday, 1406; two fifteenth century manuscripts are in the British
Museum, Itoya] HU. XLIJI and Addit, d'lHt.l.
Antonio hlannini, a merchant of Florence, made his descent on Saturday,
7th November, 1411. He sent an account of his experiences in a letter to a
friend and compatriot in London, one Corso di Giovanni Rustichi. The original
letter is presumably lost, but it w'as sent to Florence by Rustichi, wdiere it was
copied by Salvestro Mannini, Antonio’s brother, who amplified it from the
verbal account of his brother on his return to his native city. It is almost
free from the supernatural and miraculous, and is a most circumstantial accouni:
of a pilgrimage early in the fifteenth century.
Laurence Rathold de Pasztho, a member of a noble Hungarian family,
visited Lough Derg about the same time as hlannini. The acount of his
adventures was set down early in the year 1412 by James Yonge, a notary of
Dublin; his original manuscript appears to be lost, but it is included in a
manuscript in the British Museum, Royal lOB. IX, which was completed in
1461 by a monk named Henry Cranebrook.
These all tell a fairly consistent story, though William of Stranton uses
his experiences to attack several evils of his day. Every difficulty w'as placed
in the way of the pilgrim ; he had first to obtain the sanction of the Archbishop
of Armagh, who sought to dissuade him from the enterprise; sanction obtained,
he had further to obtain the permission of the Bishop of Clogher, in wffiioh diocese
the Cave w^as situate, and also of the Prior of Lough Derg; if he persevered,
in spite cf all dissuasions, he had first to perform a fast of fifteen days, wdth
a daily meal of bread and water only. Before entering the Cave, for the last
time the Prior endeavours to dissuade the pilgrim, but if he persevere, his outer
clothing is removed and he is dressed in a white robe ; barefoot and bare-headed
the Mass for the Dead is sung, and the pilgrim conducted in procession to the
entrance; he is warned that he may be exposed to temptations, and told that
by uttering the prayer “ Doming Jesu Christe, fili Dei vivi, misere mihi peccatori ”
he will escape all danger. He is locked in the Cave, and expected to remain
tw'enty-four hours, though in some cases, owing to the rigour of the weather, a
loss period suffices.
The Cave itself was a crude artificial structure, partly below ground
level, but the visionaries speak of travelling some distance to an open plain,
where they are tempted, first to deny Christ, and then to sins of the flesh; by
134 Trunsuciioiin of the Quatuor (’oroiidt i Lodye.
uttering the prescribed prayer they are saved from falling. They are met by
ail aiigcdic guide, usually St. .Micliael, though William of Stranton patriotically
meets St. John of Bridlington and St. Hilda of Whitby. Laurence Bathold is
gieeted by a beautiful youth, clad in a green robe, with a red stole over his
sliouldeis, who salutes him with the words Laurence, shalom alecha.” Laurence,
fearing this to be another temptation, asks the youth who he is, and is told
that he is Michael the Archangel, his patron saint; the knight professed his
disbelief, whereupon the youth declares his belief in the Incarnate Son of God.
Laurence asks to be shown the souls of his deceased relatives, whether they be
in liell, purgatory or heaven. His guide tells him to follow in the name of
Jehovah, Hakkodesh, Adonai, Alpha and Omega, the Ever-present, Ab, Ben,
liuach Kodesh.”
The pilgrims are shown the place of torment, which, however, is not the
uttermost depths of hell, as the name of Christ redeems from utter despair, but
the passage from the place of torment to the abode of bliss, which is either the
I azoi sharp bridge, a frail ladder, or a narrow path on the side of a precipitous
cliff.
In 1497 Lough Derg was visited by an unnamed monk of Eymstadt, who,
on his return, complained to the Pope that not only the Diocesan, but also the
Prior of Lough Derg had demanded of him money before they would grant his
request ; not only did he not have any money, but he would not give it if he
had it, lest he commit the sin of simony. Yielding to his importunity, the
Prior caused him to be lowered to the bottom of a pit, where he spent the night
in fear and trembling, fortified by prayer. Morning came, and no vision was
vouchsafed to him, and he came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a
fraud. He caused his experience to be reported to the Pope, who ordered the
Purgatory to be demolished. Nevertheless, Lough Derg continued a place of
pilgrimage; another cave was constructed, and later two more. Nothing more
is heard of visions, and the place is one of severe penance. So it remains to
this day ; the fifteen days’ fast is now a station of three days, though the more
devout may make a station of six or even nine. For the vigil in the cave is
substituted a vigil in the Basilica, and emphasis is now’ laid on the penetential
exercises and austerities of the devotion.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the story is that no native of Ireland
ever seems to have had a vision at Lough Derg. All the native literature that
has survived dealing with Lough Derg tells of the austerities and religious
exercises and consolations which the pilgrimage yields to the devout.
• The vision of Tundal is a w'ell-known Irish account of a vision of the
other w’orld ; that wicked Knight beheld his vision in the year 1149, only four
years before the alleged descent' of the Knight Owen; yet the author, Bro.
Marcus, sends his hero to expiate his crimes, not in the body at Lough Derg,
blit in the spirit in Gorki If Marcus was aware of the efficacy of the pilgrimage
to Lough Derg, he must have ignored it in favour of a spot nearer home.
The accounts of the visions contain much that is reminiscent of initiation
into the Ancient Mysteries. Is it possible that they describe some sort of
ceremonial ? At any rate, the legends contain much that could have inspired
details of certain degrees, or at least they awaken chords of memory in the
present writer.
The literature relating to Lough Derg is extensive, but the foregoing
information is mainly derived from a scholarly little booklet. Saint Patrick'h
Purr/atory, by Ven. St. John D. Seymour, Archdeacon of Cashel (Tempest,
Dundalk, 1918).
Transactions of the. Quutuor Coroiiati Lodge.. 135
OBITUARY.
PUBLICATIONS.
COMPLETE SETS OF THE TJiAysAi.'TIONS. — A ITw complete Sets of .l;s (Juatuoy Ooronatorum,
Vol-. I.. to 1\ .. liave been made up lor sale. Priec.s iiiav be obtained on a])plieation to the .Secretar}'. Each
Toliiiiie' will be accompanied .>-0 far as jiossible, a ith the St. .John’s Card of the corresponding year.
OIJIJ VOLUMES.—.Sip-h copies of ,Volumes as remain over after completing sets, - are on sale to
members.
MASONIC REPRINTS.
CO.MPLF.TE -SF.T.S OF MA,^i>NiC ItEF HI NTS. -A few complete Sets of Quatuor Coronatorum Anti-
graplia. Vnls. i. to .\.. consi.sting mainly of exquisite, fac.similes. can be supplied. Prices may be obtained
on application to the Secretary, , •
ODD VOT.F.trES. -Vols. vi., vii.. ix.. and x. are on sale, to menibors, iirico .30.- per volume.
FAOSTMlLItS OF THE OLD CHARGES.-—Four Rolls. t*iz.. Grand Lodge Nos. 1 and 2 .MS.,
Scarborough 51S.. and the nnchunali MS. Lithographed on vegetable vellum, in the original Roll form.
Price, One Guinea each. ■'
AIF'ilBERSHIP MEDAL,
Breth ren of the Correspondence Circle are entitled to wear a membership Medal, to be
the .Secretary'only. Gilt. With bar, pin .anti ril^bon, .as a breast jewel, one guinea each. procured of
Q^uatuor doronati
No. 2076. LONDON.
SECRETARY:
Colonel F. M. RICKARD, P.G.Swd.B.
CONTENTS.
PACE
l’l'o(•(^e(lilll^>, 24th June. 194.'! i;!7 Siiiith’.s Pocket <‘oiiiiiaiiioii, Dublin,
17;!.-) . .
Tlio Traditioneris l:G
Kentish . ILoeister : City ol Cbinter-
I’roceediiii^s, Ist October, 194:! 20.1 biiry Jvibrary
In Meinoriam—l'’redei'iA AVilliain The Woodcock ACS. of the Old
Golby 20.1 Charlies
Early L^rccmasoiiry in AVaketleld 207 Further Flxtriicts Lroin Diary of
Count Jacob de la Gardic ,.i
I’l'oceedinrrs, StJi Noveiiiber. 194:! O:!!)
Obituary
LnauKiiraL Address ,291 St. John's ( ’a rd
The membership is limited to forty, in order to prevent tlie Lodge from becoming unwieldy.
No members are admitted without a high' literary, artistic, or scientific qualification.
The annual subscription is two guineas, and the fees for initiation and joining are twenty guineas and five
guineas respectively.
The funds are wholly devoted to Lodge and literary purposes, and no portion is spent in refreshment. The
members usually dine together after the meetings, but at their own individual cost.' Visitors, who are cordially
welcome, enjoy the option of partaking—on the same term.s—of a meal at the common table.
The. stated meetings are the first Friday in January, March, May, and October, St. John's Day (in Harvest),
and the 8th November (Feast of the Quatuor Coronati).
At every meeting an original paper is read, which is followed by a discussion.
The Transactions of the Lodge, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, contain a summary ,of the business of the Lodge,
the full text of the papers read in Lodge together with the discussions, m^ny essays communicated by the brethren
but for which no time can be found at the meetings, biographies, historical notes, reviews of Masonic publications,
notes and queries, obituary, and other matter.
The Antiquarian Reprints of the Lodge, Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrupha, appear at undefined intervals,
and consist of facsimiles of documents of Masonic interest with commentaries or introductions by brothers well
informed on the subjects treated of.
The Library has been arranged at No. 27, Great Queen Street, Kin.g.sway, London, where Members
of both Circles may consult the books on application to the .Secretary. •
To the Lodge is attached an outer or
CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE.
This was inaugurated in January, 1887, and now numbers about 2,000 members, comprising many of tfie
most distinguished brethren of the '.Craft, such as Masonic Students and Writers. Grand Masters, Grand
Secretaries, and nearly 300 Grand Lodges, Supreme Councils, Private Lodges, Libraries aPd other corporate
bodies.
The members of our Correspondence Circle are placed on th.c following footing:
1.—The summonses convoking the meetings are posted to them regularly. They are entitled to attend all
the meetings of the Lodge whenever convenient to themselves : but, unlike the members of the Inner Circle, their
attendance is not even morally obligatory. When present they are entitled to take part in the discussions-on the
papers read before Jhe Lodge, and to introduce their personal friends. They are not visitors at our Lodge
meetings, but rather associates of the Lodge.
< 2 —The printed Transactions of the Lodge are posted to them as issued.
3.—They are, equally with the full members, entitled to subscribe for the other publications .of the Lodge,
such as those mentioned under No. 7 above. - , , ■ ,u
4 _Papers from Correspondence Members are gratefully accepted, and so far as possible, recorded in the
Transactions. , ,. „
5 _They are accorded free admittance to our Library and Reading Room,
A Candidate for Membership .of the Correspondence Circle is subject to no literary, artistic, or scientific
qualification His election takes place at the Lodge-meeting following the receipt of his application.
The annual subscription is only £1 Is., and is renewable each December for the following year. Brethren
joining us late in the year suffer no disadvantage, as they receive all the Transactions previously issued in the
s3m0 ytsr
It will thus be seen-that the members of the Correspondence Circle enjoy all the advantages of the full
members except the right of voting on Lodge matters and holding office. ’
Members of both Circles are requested to favour tbe Secretary with communications to be read in Lodge and
subsequently printed. Members of foreign jurisdictions will, w'e trust, keep us posted from time to time in the
current Masonic history of their districts. Foreign members can render still further assistance by furnishing us
at intervals with the names of new Masonic Works published abroad, together with any printed reviews of
.,uch also bear in mind that every additional member increases our power of doing good by
niiblishing matter of interest to them: Those, therefore, who have already eifperienced the advantage of association
with us are urged to advocate our cause to their personal friends, and to induce them to join us. Were each
member' annually to send us one new member, we should 'soon be in a position to offer them many more advantages
than we already provide. Those who can help us in no other way, can do so in this.
Every- Master Maspn in good standing throughout the Universe, and all Lodges, Chapters, and Masonic
Librarie-s 'or other corporate bodies are eligible as Members of the Correspondence Circle.
glrtV) ill ^arocet
HJi L(jd,‘2;c met :;t I'Yeeiimsons’ Hall at J.l'^ [).in. Present : Bros.
lT;y.-6'om(?r. W. Ivor Grantham, M.A., LL.B., P.Pr.G.W.. Sussex.
W.M.; Lewi.s Edwards, P.A.G.R., I.P.M.; hied L. Pick,
E.C'./.S'., S.W.; F. P. Radice, as J.4V. ; Itrv. (.'anon . W.
Covey-Griim]), M.A., P.A.G.Cli., P.IM., Ohii]), ; J. Heron Lejiimr.
R..4., B.L., P.A.G.R., P.M., Trea.s. ; (AA. F. iH. Rickard, P.G.S.R..
Sec.; W. J. Williams, P.AI. ; Wallace E. Heaton, P.A.G.D.C. ;
and H. Hiram Hallett, P.G.St.B.
THE TRADITIONERS.
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
INTRODUCTION.
and their abettors from the countenance and protection of the regular
Lodges. To accomplish this purpose more effectually, some variations
were made in the established forms; which afforded a subterfuge,
at which the refractory Brethren readily grasped. They now assumed
the appellation of Ancient Masons, proclaimed themselves enemies to
all innovation, insisted that they preserved the ancient usages of the
Order, and that the regular Lodges, on whom they conferred the
title of Modern Masons,’ had adopted new measures illegal and
unconstitutional. ’ ’
The meat to be digested in these extracts is, of course, the acknowledg¬
ment that the -original Grand Lodge of England had, for its own purposes,
decided to change the ritual practised from time immemorial.
THE TBADITIONERS.
It is one thing to decree alterations in an established ritual, and quite
another to give effect to them. Beyond a doubt, many English Lodges, mainly,
T believe, in the metropolis and places within easy reach of it, did loyally
accept the recommendations of their Grand Lodge and change the old working;
but the great bulk of them had no opportunity of learning the new ritual, and
therefore continued to work as they had always been accustomed to work; while
even in London there were not a few recalcitrant bodies which, while retaining
their allegiance to the Grand Lodge and supporting it, by attending the
quarterly communications, contributing to the Charity Fund, and occasionallv
providing it with officers, still clung to the Old tradition, the Old ways of
working, the Old methods of recognition; and amongst these recalcitrants were
two Time-Immemorial Lodges, Antiquity the present No. 2, and Fortitude and
Old Cumberland the present No. 12. When we find Lodges such as these among
the dissatisfied, our wonder is lessened at the phenomenon of Lodges in the
provinces that remade Masons from other Modern Lodges according to the
ancient forms before accepting them as joining members.
We need a convenient term to describe such Freemasons as these, who
on the one hand were inflexibly loyal to the original Grand Lodge of England,
and on the other as loyal to the old ways from which they never varied. Quite
apart from a reluctance to change anything that might be a landmark,
they, in the aggregate, had found by experience that the rite they practised
was similar in all essentials to that followed by Freemasons in the sister
Constitutions of Ireland and Scotland, "as exactly as face answers face in a
glass’’, in the happy phrase employed by one of them; and the old forms had
also already taken root on the continent of America, where Freemasonry had
found a soil to suit it, and was growing with a vigour that promised a rich
harvest. Nothing then was to be gained by change, and much might be lost;
so they continued along the way they knew.
Such Freemasons as these, while ' Modern ’’ in their allegiance, were
Antient ’ in their working. Therefore it is misleading and confusing to have
to allude to them as "Modern’’ Masons tout court, and to employ such a
designation as " Anticnt-ritual-practising-Modem ’ ’ Masons would be a calamity
to any author aspiring to write in English, and that Bren gun of an adjective
may bo left as treasure trove for some future Teutonic historian of the Craft.
alternatives. The date at which this variation became established may, however,
have well been prior to 1730, and have arisen from a cause more natural than
deliberate change.
(i) Another subject of dispute, I have little doubt, was the de-Christ¬
ianization of Freemasonry; hut that had begun long prior to 1730.'
Of course there were other minor differences in practice that occasioned
a great deal of fuss and talk in the Lodge, of Promulgation years afterwards,
such as the positions of the Three Great Lights and the Wardens, the steps in
each |)egr(!0, and so on; but such insignificant vari.itions need not detain ns.-
REBUILDING BABEL.
The gravamen of the mistake made by our forefathers in 1730 was that,
as a result of the innovations, Freemasonry ceased to merit the title of T niversal.
The altered ritual led to disputes, not only at homo, but at times on
the continent of Europe, according to the particular British source from which
the Freemasonry of the foreign Lodge had been imported.
A few instances will show what was bound to happen.
In Germany, according to Findel,^ as early as the 30th November, 1744,
the members of the Lodge of the Three Globes in Berlin were agitated by doubts
about the ritual, and debated a proposal for altering the methods of recognition.
At Vienna in 1754 the Lodge Aux Trois Coeurs witnessed a quarrel
about whether two distinguished English visitors were true Freemasons or not.
The Master, Baron Spdreke, who had been made a Mason in Hanover, recog¬
nised them as such, but his ruling was disputed by some other visitors present,
who were members of the old Lodge Aux Trois Cannons, which had been founded
in Vienna in 1744 by a Mother Lodge in Prague, claiming existence from 1726
and a constitution by the Grand Lodge of England.^'
Our late Bro. Major N. H. S. Sitwell has quoted a case from Angouleme
during the Seven Years’ War, when some British prisoners interned there were
unable to prove themselves Masons to the local Brethren. Since most French
Masonry was of the Modern type, having been introduced after 1730, and most
military Masonry of the Antient, the failure to reach an understanding is not
so strange.
Then at Namur in 1775-6 in the Scottish Lodge' La Parfaite Union,
warranted 1770 by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, disagreements arose about the
transposition of words and the station of the Junior Warden. The ritual
taught by Bro. Captain John Cunningham, the Lodge’s founder, was discovered
to be much at variance with the system followed in the neighbouring Lodges,
which had had their instruction from Modern, sources in England. After a
royal row the party in favour of “No change’’ resigned, and the Lodge
conformed to the Modern ritual.’’
To conclude this tale of woe and misunderstanding, in the Grand Stewards
Lodge of the Antients in April, 1805, a Bro. Schultz from the TTnion Lodge
Klhinij, niuici' tho Orantl liodi'i' at Berlin, was “ not able to make himself
known as an Antient Mason’', and oonsi'qncntly received nothing from the
t.'harity Fund.
In cases such as the last the situation was understood by everyone, except
the unlucky petitioner, but in places abroad where was the authority to decide
who was the true Amphitryon? No wonder that in many of the French rituals
eoin])iled at the end of the eighteenth century we find the differences between
the Antient and Modern schools of Freemasonry explained at length.
I incline to the belief that in some English-speaking Lodges it early
became a custom to explain to the initiate, as soon as secrecy permitted, the
dilferenci’s belwecui the two systems.'
sti'i'ss about, lo be dcsoribod, wi- can assort tliat all were orthodox in the
1 raditionor sonso. ' \ ot Lliiiii^s wanit from bad to worse lioi'o under tlieii' I'ule.
hjvidoutly something more than JV'lasonio orthodoxy was required in that high
olliee at that ])eriod of depression.
A curious incident which took place in 1732 is worth recalling in this
connection. At a quarterly communication held in the Devil Tavern on the
21st November, Lord Southwell, “ late Grand Master of Ireland ”, was noted
in the contemporary Press as being present. However, in the original Minute
of Grand Tmdge lie appears as "Provincial Grand Muster”. While it still
remains to be discovered in what year Lord Southwell was Grand Master of
Ireland, he certainly never was a “Provincial Grand Master” there under the
Grand Imdge of England; though Secretary William Reid had to write up the
minutes according to instructions, the newspapers were under no such comjmlsion
to "bear like the Turk no brother near the throne.”-
Some light is afforded us by a significant passage in Anderson’s Conxfi-
tiitio/i-i of 1738, an addition to the text of 1723, where the author, himself a
Scot be it remembered, and apparently forgetting that he had recorded the
establishment of the Grand Lodge of Ireland (with the wrong date) in his
fabulous chronicle of jMasonic events, after an enumeration of Provincial Grand
IMasters speaks of the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland as " affecting
independency
The inference to be drawn from this sneer in ambush, the mine hidden
among the bombastic verbiage, is that Anderson and his clique, the men of
1730, did not attach aiiy validity to any such "Independency.”
That sound Masonic scholar H. J. Whymper held this view, and considered
that the great schism was due to Masons from the sister Constitutions, who,
of course, stood up for the rights and dignities of their Mother Grand Lodges;
his words are :
" A study of the records ... I think will convince most Brethren
that the great schism started from what is termed the ‘ irregular Makings ’ of
Masons, and that this in all probability came about from the assumption of
the Grand Lodge (of London and Westminster) that with its foundation all
Lodges of Freemasons, who could be got at, owed allegiance to it. We have
certain records that this assumption was resented, or ignored, and other records
point to the sam.e conclusion.” '
Indeed, there is a strong possibility, I fear, that during this period the
eldest of the Grand Lodges was showing herself more than a trifle arrogant
towards her sisters.
Thomas Manningham, M.I)., Deputy Grand Master 1752-57, stated the
case for Supremacy to the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Netherlands in a
letter written 3rd December, 1756, in these terms; —
"In your Letter you ask for a Grand Master over your Provinces, we
allow but one Grand Master, who is generally call’d Grand Master of Masons,
yet have several under the Denomination of Provincial Grand Masters, who
arc Brethren of Fortune and Character, and are appointed to act under the
Grand Master as his Deputy, and to govern their respective Provinces with the
' According to ,1. T. Thorp (.4.(?.C., xviii, D), the Far! of Kintorc was an
initiate of Mary Chanel, Fxlinburgh, and had ju'evionsly served as Grand itfaster of
Scotland; as also did Lords ^forton, Strathmore, and .thordour hoforc being summoned
to the throne in the Grand I/odge of England.
- Vide Chetwode Crawley in A.Q.C., xi, 30-.31. T,T-.r>
“ All these foreign Lodges are under the Patronage of our GRAND jMASTRR
of Kmdund- Rut the old Lodr/e at YORK CITY, and the Lodges of SCOTLAND,
TRELAND, FRANCE and ITALY, affecting Inde])endency, are under their own (Irand
Masters tho’ they have the same Constitutions, Chaiges, Itegulations, etc., for Sub¬
stance with their Brethren of England, and are equally zealous for the Avgiistan
sttiile ’and the Secrets of the antient and honourable Frnfernitii.” (Page 196.)
' ' ' ' .1.vi, 18.
Tin- Trnditioiie.r^. 147
Grand Master’s authority, such an officer I presume is what you mean by your
Request of a Grand Master.”
However, that was not what the Dutch Brethren meant at all, and they
said so, with the result that in his next letter, dated 12th July, 1757,
Manningham had to execute what is now called a “strategical withdrawal”,
in blunt English, a retreat ; —
“You mention your design of electing a noble Grand Master amongst
yourselves. I have communicated that part of your letter to our Grand Lodge,
they have no objection to such Election but seem pleas'd with your Intention,
neither will they claim more than brotherly Love and friendly Correspondence
from your Grand Master, and will use their utmost Endeavours to settle every¬
thing on a proper Basis and be cautious how they interfere with or grant
Constitutions for Holland.”'
From these letters we may deduce that the idea of a Grand Master of
Masons was still alive in 1756, but not meeting with much support from the
aggregate wisdom of the Grand Lodge of England. I think the proposed
Charter of Incorporation was its last sign of vigorous life.
Sadler’s account of the Grand Lodge of the Antients ascribed its forma¬
tion to the efforts of Irish, Scottish, and Yorkshire Masons who did not like
the new-fangled Modern ritual; in this view he was supported, naturally
enough, by Chetwode Crawley—et ego in Arcadia vi:ri\—and to a very great
extent their thesis is incontrovertible. However, it seems to me now, as a result
of a revision of all the evidence available to me, that neither of those two great
Masonic scholars gave a proper share of the responsibility to the Masons of
purely English origin .who threw in their lot with the sojourners from other
parts in order to combat innovation. Judging from the nomenclature of the
early lists of the Antients, not all of them hailed from North of the Tees or
West of St. George’s Channel, and the residue, no mean one, consisting of
Masons made in England in either irregular or non-regular Lodges might by
a stretch of malice have been termed seceders. The Irish and Scots must in all
fairness be put in another category, for they were, in a sense, upholding the
dignity of their respective Mother Constitutions by refusing to come in under
the established Grand Lodge of England with its assumption of power to dictate
orthodoxy to the whole world of Masons.
Such rifts, however, were below the surface. No open breach between
the jurisdictions became visible until 1758.
INTERNECINE WARFARE.
We can date the hardening of the Modern hearts to the later seventeen-
thirties. From that time on it became the custom to remake Masons from the
Irish or any other foreign Constitution prior to electing them to membership of
an English Lodge, even if that Lodge was Traditioner in its ritual. Thus
Lodge of Antiquity in the year 1737 fixed the reduced fee for which such a
remaking should be done.
The other side retaliated.
The following rare instance of an English Mason’s remaking in an Irish
Lodge I owe to the fraternal kindness of Bro! W. Jenkinson, who found it in
the Minute Book of Lodge No. 678, Markethill, Co. Armagh. It is dated 3rd
July, 1801 : —
“Lodge Met in due form the Masf in the Chair 12 Members presant
when M-- Will"' Chapman Coming to visit the Lodge in Conversation
it appeared he was and pass'* him selfe to be a Modern Mason
belonging to the Tyrian Lodge No. 379 England^ and he proving
Horace Waljjolc, himself a member of the Craft, wrote on the dth May,
174:i: “The Kree Masons are in so low repute now in England, that one has
scarce heard the ])roceedings at Vienna against them mentioned. I believe
nothing but a ])erse,cntion could bring them into vogue again here.’’ *
Th is was the period of processions of Mock Masonry to cast ridicule on
the Order. The witty thermometer of fashion has recorded the consequent fall
in entlmsiasm for the Craft among his own set, but proved a bad prophet about
its future popularity in England.
It was left to the private Lodges to carry on as best they might, for
neither Grand Master nor Grand Lodge was to do much to ensure a revival in
twenty years yet to come.
Lord Raymond was succeeded in April, 1740, by the Earl of Kintore,
who was followed in 1741 by the Earl of Morton, who was followed by Lord
Ward in 1742, and he by the Earl of Strathmore, who was followed by Lord
Cranstoun.
None of these Scottish chiefs distinguished himself as an inspiring leader,
to say the least of it; but the nadir of the Grand Lodge was probably reached
in (ho time of Imrd Byron, who was elected Grand Master on the 30th April,
1747, and continued in office till the 20th March, 1752, when he handed over
to Lord Carysfort.
Imrd Byron attended only three meetings of Grand Lodge during his
reign of five years; but this was not a bad average, for during the same period
there were no more than nine assemblies of the governing body: the Grand
Feast, 30th Ajjril, 1747; 16th December, 1747; 7th March, 1748; 22nd December,
1748; 26th May, 1749; 25th June, 1750; 4th September, 1751; 24th October,
1751 : and 16th March, 1752. . Lord Byron had an additional excuse for non-
attendance, for during most of the time he had been out of England.^
Fotherly Baker, the Deputy Grand Master, was present at and presided
over all the meetings except one in Lord Byron’s absence; on that one occasion
Lord Ward, a former Grand Master, presided. This earned him praise from
Preston, who, referring to Lord Byron, wrote:
“ Wlien business required his jmesence in the country^ Fotherly Baker
Esq., the Deputy Grand Master, and Secretary Revis were particularly
attentive to the Society in his absence. The first gentleman was
distinguished for his knowledge of the laws and regulations; the latter
for hi.s long and faithful services.' Under the direction of these
gentlemen the Society continued till the year 1752, when Lord
Carysfort accepted the office of Grand Master.’’
—///lisfrdOoNs of Frironaxoin-i/, 1775.
What Preston does not tell us is that “under the direction of these
gentlemen’’ the rank and file of Masons grew so restive that they summoned
> Wal|)ole’.s I^'tter.s (Lord Dover’s edit., 1833, I, 312). For the persecution of
Frccma.sons by Maria Theresa in 1743, vide .l.t^l.C., iv, 190.
- T'/dr A.Q.a., vi, 48. William, oth Lord Byron, wa.s born 1722. He joined
the Navy young, for he had the sea in his blood like his famous brother. Admiral
John llyVoii, and still more famous groat-ne|)hew, “ the inlgrim of eternity.’’ Even
after siicceediiig to the title at a time when England was at |)eace, he continued to
follow a dangerous, comfortless, and stern |)rofession, and was gazetted second lieutenant
aboard H.M.S. Viilkhrnd in .Tune, 1738. In 1747 he married Miss Elizabeth Shaw,
and had ai son and heir born in 1748. During the Jacobite rebellion he ^served as a
ca])tain in the Duke of King.ston’s regiment of horse. In December, 1763, he was
appointed blaster of the Buckhounds. He died in May, 1798, and was succeeded by
the grandson of Admiral John Byron. I do not consider it any part of my duty to
record in this note any of those events in the later life of Lord Byron that became
notorious. Those in search of such information can be referred to Thomas Moore’s
life of the poet. As a Grand Master, William Lord Byron was no wor.se a leader
than the general run of hi.s [U-pdccessors: as a man. no doubt he had his failings, to
which let an act of oblivion be extended by those who greet him as a Brother,
^ He is stated to have been abroad most of his term of office.
J Grand Secretary 1734-o6; Deputy Grand Master 1757-61.
The Trti'litioiiere. 151
(1) That no Lodge more than twelve months in arrear with its Charity
subscription should be represented on the Committee of Charity, which
in those days corre.sponded to our Board of General Purposes.
(2) That any metropolitan Lodge which had failed to meet regularly for
a year should be erased.
1
MuHn for Lfivers of 1764. p. 105.
2
I must Kue James .Marquis of Caruuivoti a good mark for liavine: frequently
attended Grand Podge in later years as a Past Grand Master. On 21.st Jtav 1765 he
presided over the Grand yembly and Fea.st in the ahsence of Lord Blavnev, as i.s
noted by Pro. llextall (.l.fLC', xxi, 230) • - >
15‘2 ’J'rri/ixurlI'/i/y of thf (^iiittiior i'oroimti
Oil the 3rd Ajiril, 1743, it was decided to discontinue iNlasonic processions
in public.
In November, 1753, Lodges were ordered to inquire into the characters
of candidates ; never to make and raise on one evening, except by dispensation ^;
and not to make a Mason for a less sum than one guinea. This provision was
a commendable move towards raising the social status of the private Lodges.
The Grand Lodge of the Antients adopted the same principle, and in September,
1762, went further by ordering that in future all candidates should pay not
less than two guineas for initiation.
Returning to the Modern legislation, on 14th June, 1753, the Grand
Treasurer, by virtue of his post, became a Grand Officer.
In November, 1759, it was decreed that no Lodge was to be deemed
regularly removed unless by permission of the Grand Master or his Deputy.
It must be evident, however, that none of these reforms, salutary though
they were, would have appealed to the humbler class of Freemason, from which,
as I believe, the bulk of the opposition to the Grand Lodge sprang.
Processions were dear to the hearts of many Craftsmen; to fix a fairly
high fee for initiation was to reduce the recruiting grounds of the poorer Lodges,
and the great majority of them were poor; while to enjoin an interval between
the conferring of Degrees was interfering with custom, and customs are like
wartime gin best left alone.
So these regulations, even if tending to a better discipline and higher
standard of social rank in the private Lodges, must have raised up more
malcontents among the rank and file of the Craft.
The Deputy Grand Masters during those bad days were: Martin Clare
(1741-2); Sir K. Lawley (1743); W. Vaughan (1744); E. Hody (1745-6);
Fotherly Baker (1747-52); Thomas Manuingham (1752-57); and John Revis
(1757-61). With the honourable exceptions of Manningham and Clare, none
of these Deputies, amiable and distinguished ns they were in private life, seems
to have exerted himself to any notable extent in serving and directing the
Brotherhood.
A BREAK IN THE CLOUDS.
Admiral John Byron, brother of the 5th Baron and grandfather of the
poet, had been known afloat by the name of “Foul-weather Jack”, and the
Grand Lodge while under the command of his noble relative might well have
thought the nickname applicable to more than one of the family. Even when
William Lord Byron left the Masonic quarterdeck, the storm, as we have seen,
continued to blow. The weather, however, began to improve with the election
as Grand Master of another sailor, the 5th Earl Ferrers, in the year 1762.
A younger son of the 3rd Earl Ferrers, Washington Shirley had had to
seek his fortune, and in the British Navy had risen to the rank of admiral.
His taste for the sciences and agreeable character in private life do not concern
me so much as the fact that he had followed the profession of arms from his
youth up. As a sailor he could not have failed to be well acquainted with
Lodges whose membership consisted largely or exclusively of Brethren from the
services, and consequently he must have been familiar with the ritual they
favoured ; whatever his own personal predilections may have been in the choice
of words does not matter ; for all I can tell, he may have preferred the Modern
truncated forms, though that I doubt; the essential difference between him and
his immediate predecessors on the throne of Grand Lodge lay in the circumstances
of his travels; for the winds had carried him into many ports, he had seen
Masonry at work on foreign soil, and had learnt that the English branch of the
■ Note that “ jna.king ” included two Degrees. It i,s possible that the conferring
of the E.A. and F.C. Degrees on one evening, according to ancient cu.stom, was in
some case.s yet another badge of tbe Traditioners. Such a practice would have removed
most/ of the poi.son from one of the Modern innovations.
The. Truditioiii'i’s. 153
the Craft was but one of many; he must have learnt, too, that the tree was
growing with such vigour that it could never be clipped into a standardized
pattern by the shears of ritual.
Earl Ferrers held his high office for two years, and presided over four
of the nine Communications held during that period. His predecessor. Lord
Aberdour, had attended once in a reign of four years.
In May, 1764, Ferrers was succeeded by Cadwallader 9th Lord Blayney.
The latter’s estates lay in the County ilonaghan, where a younger branch of
the Shirley family had been settled sinee the beginning of the eighteenth century,
so the first meeting of the two future Grand Masters may well have been in
boyhood; but whether or not there was old acquaintance, one certain tie existed
between the two men, that of the sword.
At least three of the Barons Blayney, the 7th, 9th, and 11th, were
Freemasons of note in their respective days, but it is Cadwallader the 9th Baron
with whom we shall be conesrned in this essay. 1 hope to demonstrate that
he is worth more attention than has hitherto been given him by Masonic
historians.
Born ill 1720, Cadwallader Blayney was the younger son of the 7th Baron,
‘'Blunderbuss” Blayney, and following the tradition of the family adopted the
army as his profession. The usual story, copied by one scribe after another,
is that he served with distinction in America, and was promoted to be captain
for bravery at Cajie Breton.' He must, if this tradition be true, have taken
part in the first capture of Louisbourg in June, 1745, an expedition organized,
by Sir William Shirley, governor of ilassachusetts, and carried to its successful
conclusion by levies from New England under Sir William Pepperell. No
regular troops shared in the campaign. Blayney must have been on the spot
to march with the New Englanders, but I have not discovered w'hen and w'hy
he went to America, and in no contemporary account of that campaign have
1 found confirmation of his •jiresence or of any outstanding piece of gallantry
on his part. Cape Breton w'as handed back to the French by the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, much to the annoyance of America; and it was not
till ten years later that the whole French colony fell again into our hands, and
stayed there.
The only document I have found to suggest Blayney’s presence in the
first campaign against Cajie Breton is his being gazetted Major in Pepperell’s
regiment of foot in ilarch, 1748. Sir William Pepperell was the general
commanding the American troojjs in 1745, and his regiment was later in the
same year raised out of the men who had served with liim. I doubt neither
the zeal nor the bravery of Blayney, and trust that further research will find
some firm basis for the ])ersistent tradition that he exhibited both qualities in
the field. Incidentally, the Cape Breton expedition was hard going. Here is
a bit of Governor Shirley’s report to the English Prime IMiiiister: —
‘‘Our Troops within the Compass of 23 days from the time of their
first landing erected five fascine Batteries against the Town consist¬
ing of Cannon ... all w'hich were transported by hand with
incredible Labour and Difficulty, and most of ’em above two Miles;
all the Ground over which they iverc drawn, except small Patches or
Hills of Rocks, being a deep Morass, in which while the Cannon
were upon Wheels they several times sunk so deep as not only to
bury the Carriages but the whole body of the Cannon likewise.
‘‘Horses and Oxen could not be employed in this Service, but
all must be drawn by Men, themselves up to the Knees in Mud at
the same time; the Nights in which the Work was to be done cold
and foggy; their Tents bad, there being no proper Materials for
Tents to be had in New England at the Outsett of the Expedition:
but notw'ithstanding these Diffierdties and many of the peoples being
barefooted and almost wdthout Cloaths by means of this Service (in
which they had worn ’em out) and their being taken down with
fluxes, so that at one time there w'as 1500 Men incapable of Duty,
occasioned by their fatigue, they w'cnt on chearfully without being
discouraged or murmuring, and by the help of Sledges transported
the Cannon and IMortars over these Ways, which the French had
always thought unpassable for such heavy Weights, aud was indeed
impracticable by any People of less Hesolution and Perseverance, or
less Experienced in removing heavy Bodies; and besides this they
had all their Provisions and heavy Ammunition which they daily
made Use of to bring from the Camp over the same Way upon their
backs.”—William Shirley to the ifuke of Newcastle, from Louisbourg,
28th October, 1745.
—Corrcsjiondence of William Shirlei/, New York, 1912, vol. i, page 275.
To resume the record of Blayney’s ])romotions : in 1753 he was given a
company in the Coldstream Guards, ranking as lieutenant-colonel. In 1761 he
became colonel of the 91st Begiment on the Irish Establishment. In 1762 with
the rank of Brigadier he sailed for Portugal with the expedition under James
Lord Tyrawley. In 1765 he was promoted IMajor-General, in 1772 Lieutenant-
General, was on the staff in Ireland, and served as C.-in-C. of Munster, lie
died in Cork, 13th November, 1775, while still holding that appeintment. Thus
he was a professional soldier for most of his life. His military duties kept him
out of England for most of the three years he was Grand Master here.
In September, 1761, Blayney succeeded to the title by the death of his
elder brother, who, to the amazement of those w'ho knew^ the family and
remembered its record, had gone into the .Church and received preferment as
Dean of Killaloe. It is doubtful if Blayney’s fortunes were improved to any
great extent by coming into the title, but in 1767 he married an heiress. Miss
Elizabeth Tipping, of Beaulieu, Co. Louth. Her dowry must have been welcome.
The fact that he died still in harness in November, 1775, need not be
ascribed to poverty, but there is no doubt that the Blayneys had been greatly
impoverished by the wars in Ireland during the seventeenth century, and the
9th Baron, w'ho had been left an orphan before he entered his teens, can have
had little to depend on beyond his pay in the army for the greater part of his
bfe, and seems to have died still poor, for the administration of his estate was
granted to a creditor by the Prerogative Court in Ireland on the 13th September,
1777.' The circumstance of his comparative poverty is of weight wdien we
come to estimate the kind of company he is likely to have mixed with in youth.
Freemasonry was in those times a cheap and popular way of beguiling tedium
with impecunious subalterns, as witnesses Lieutenant John Knox from the
‘‘beautiful City of Sligo”, who wrote in his diary on the 12th July, 1758, at
Annapolis, Nova Scotia; —
‘‘The detachment here is daily at exercise, nevertheless our time passes
very heavily; and, when the calendar does not furnish us with a
loyal excuse for assembling in the evening, we have recourse to a
Free-Mason Lodge, where we work so hard, that it is inconceivable
to think what a quantity of business, of great importance, is transacted
in a very short space of time.” -
BLAYNEY AS A FREEMASON.
I am unable to tell you when, where, in what Lodge, and under which
Constitution Lord Blayney was made a Mason, but two alternative probabilities
suggest themselves: (a) that he was initiated while still young, in a garrison
town, in a Military Lodge w'arranted by the Grand Lodge of Ireland; or (b)
that while in America prior to the campaign of 1745 he was brought to light
iji J{<jyal K>:(:lian<j;c! Lodg(^, Boston, now St. John’s No 1 on the Registry of
llie Grand Lodge of Massaclmsetts; though I need hardly point out that I am
going to base no argument on jrrobabilities that miglit vanish at the cockcrow
of sonu! contemporary record so far to me unknown. This much is certain where
so much is nebulous: his Lordship's j)olicy while Grand Master of England
leaves me, for one, in no doubt that, though he was then at the head of the
IModerns, Ins sympathies were all with the Antient forms, and he could have
become acquainted with the latter in either of the ways suggested above.
There is no need for any conjecture, however, about much of his Masonic
career in England.'
We find him installed as the first W.M. of the New I.odge, Horn Tavern,
We.stminster, No. 313, on the 4th April, 1764.“ On the 8th IMay following
he was elected Grand Master on the recommendation of Er.rl Ferrers, also a
idilitary ilason, to whom is the honour of having been the first Grand Master
in England for some considerable time to set an example of personal service to
the Graft.
Blayney continued to be Grand Master until the 27th April, 1767, when
he was succeeded by the young Duke of Beaufort; and during those three years
bis behaviour enables us to draw, with some certainty, inferences about his
sentiments'and motives: he seems to have aimed at two objects, good repute
and extended power for the Body of which he was Grand Master, and the
restoration of the Antient forms of ritual in those Lodges that had discarded
them.
As regards the first of these aims, while Blayney undoubtedly strove for
reconciliation and the consequent re-establishment of the original Grand Lodge
as the sole Masonic authority in this country, he may also have owned the
higher ambition of erecting it as the supreme Masonic authority in the world;
if so, he was entitled to his dream.
That' Blayney did not wholly succeed in his aims is beside the point.
While it is easy for us to see now, wdth the added wisdom of nearly two
centuries behind us, that the two matters of ritual and supreme authority in
England were so interdependent as to be inseparable, tO' have held such a point
of view in the seventeen-sixties postulates so much vision and intellectual power
that I find it hard to give Blayney all the credit for the idea. Without the
slightest wish to dis]iarage my countryman, my suggestion is that he was inspired
by brains much more astute than his own ; but in any case no small l iu/os is
duo to a man in high place who accepts and acts on good advice with tact,
dignity, and firmness, all of which qualities distinguished Blayney during his
term of nffice.
The firs! hint of bis leanings in ritual matters comes with his re-appoint-
ment of Colonel John Salter as Deputy Grand blaster; for Salter was also ,a
Military Mason, who rose from the ranks to die a Major-General, and, as I
have already stated, it can be taken as a.xiomatic that all Military Masons were
Antient in the matter of ritual, whatever their Constitution.'* According to
' Many, thoiiiih not all. of the following references to Blayney’s Masonic
activities are taken from Bro. tVonnarott’s ^IS. in the Library of Grand Lodge. For
piittiiif!; this ]\rs. at mv disposal I‘wish to express my thaiiks to Bro. F. A. lif. Taylor
for his fraternal kindness shown to me on this and many another occa.sion.
- Benamcd the Boyal Lodge in 1767, and amalgamated with the Boyal Alpha
Jyodge, No. 16, in 1324. _ i
Salter had been appointed D.G.IM. bv Earl Ferrers in 1763. and was continued
in that office till 1768. when the Duke of Beaufort appointed the bloii. Charles llillon
as D.G.M.. an act which gave oflence to .some of the Brethren. Salter began military
life as a private in the Guards, fought at Dettiiigen and Fontenoy, and was given
a commission bv the Duke of (hunberland for bravery. He was promoted .'\Ia.|or-
Geiicral in 1770', and became head of the list in 1778. He is said to have resigned
in 17^3 becjuisc juniors wore p«assed over Iiis head. He ^vas born in 1/10. and died
in 1787 vSalter opposed the Charter of Incorporation by every means in his power
In IMav 1772, he nas one of the iiiisiireessfill caiulidate.s when l.ord Petre was elected
Grand'Master by a very large majority.
The TkuJliloiii't'fi. 157
Nooi'tbouok,' lilayney was cut of Eiigiiind for the whole of 176'1 aiul iiiost^ oi
1765, so Salter’s office was no sinecure.
In' the following catalogue of Blayney’s doings please notice the amount
of personal service that was squeezed into the years 1766-67. ITc was no
lioi faii)eant when within the length of his cable-tow.
Blayney’s first year as Grand Master was not to pass without bringing
a reinforcement to the ranks of the Moderns that W'as to prove of great value
in the future, fjodge No. Ill of the Antients seceded, and was re-constituted
on the 15th November, 1764, by Colonel Salter as the Caledonian Lodge No. 325
at the Half Moon Tavern, Cheapside. This Lodge still exists as No. 134.
Among its members then was a very young Freemason named William Preston,
who was later to become the chief apologist and polemist for his new Constitution.
Here is his account of how his Mother Lodge changed its allegiance ;
“ Ijord Elayney, at that time Grand Master, readily acquiesced with
the desire of the Brethren, and the Tiodge was soon after constituted
a second time in ample form,'- by the liame of the ‘Caledonian
Lodge ’, the ceremonies observed, and the numerous assembly of
respectable Brethren who attended the Grand Officers on this occasion
must long be remembered to the honour of that Lodge.”
Nothing was involved here but a-change of allegiance, not of ritual.
Another notable event in Blayney’s first year as Grand blaster was the
constitution of the Great Lodge at Swaffham, Norfolk, the moving spirit in
w'hich was Captain Richard Gardiner, one of ‘‘His Majesty’s jollies, soldier
and sailor too ”, w'ho was an old comrade in arms and devoted to Blayuiey, who
himself became a member of the Lodge in the following year, 1765. From this
Lodge we get a clue to the ritual used by Blayney’s associates. One of its
joining members was Anthony Rellhan, M.D., who had been Grand Secretary
of Ireland in 1742. While holding that office he had appointed as his Deputy
Grand Secretary Edward Spratt, a famous exponent of the Irish or Antient
or Traditioner ritual, who had Laurence Dermott himself as one of his pupils,
a tuition of which the latter boasted later on when he had become Grand
Secretary of the Antients, We may therefore apprehend that Rellhan found no
unorthodoxy in Captain Gardiner’s ritual at Swaffham; but then, of course,
Gardiner was yet another military mason.'’
In 1765 Bl-ayney granted the first Deputation for a Provincial Grand
Master at Stockholm to Charles Fullman, secretary to the British Ambassador
in that capital.' This is an example of the Grand Master’s determination to
extend the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England.
After Sweden came Germany.
On the 20th August, 1766, Imrd Blayney appointed J. P. Gogel Provincial
Grand Master for the Upper and Lower Rhine and Franconia. Gogel was a
Past Master of Union Lodge, Frankfort, No. 192, which had been constituted
irregularly in 1742, and had its Constitution confirmed by the Grand Imdge
of England in 1743.-'’ This Lodge, in true Continental fashion, had assumed
the rights of a Mother Lodge, and constituted Daughter Lodges. The oldest
of these, the Lodge of the Three Lions at Marburg, established in 1745, was
not registered in England till Blayney’s time, and appears in the engraved list
if)i 17G7 as No. Germany at tliis jM-raod was soothing with conipc'tition
bclvvc'i'H I'ival jMasoiiic Ijodies, tlic eai'ly hissings of the witch’s cauldron fnll
ol .1 nuxtnie of rites that was to boil over there later on; and llro. Gogel could
have told the authorities in London something about the evils that attend divided
iMasonic jurisdictions as constantly as the ravens shadow Woden in the myth;
perhaps he did tell them ; perhaps the lesson was taken to heart.
On the 16th February, 1766, Blayney jiresided over “an occasional
Lodge” held at the Horn Tavern, Westminster, when H.H.H. the Duke of
Gloucester was made a Mason in the presence of his brother the Duke of York,
who had been made in Germany. This was the first initiation of a royal prince
on English soil since the making of Frederick Prince of Wales in 1737.' At
another “ Occasional Lodge ” held in the Thatched House Tavern on the 9th
February, 1767, Il.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland w'as made a Mason in his
turn ; and the three Princes subsequently became members of the New' Horn
Lodge, No. 313, which in consequence took the name of “Royal” in 1767.
Playney had every icason to congratulate himself on having secured such recruits
for Freemasonry in gemu'al and his own Lodge in particular, to say nothing
of the jjrestige accruing to the Grand Lodge of England.
Most of the year 1766 Blayney must have spent in England, for he
jmesided over Communications of the Grand Lodge on the 29th January, 9th
April, and 14th May. Moreover, he was also active outside London. On the
3rd April, 1766, he visited the Three Swans Lodga, No. 56, Salisbury; and
shortly before that had visited the Lodge at Swaffham.
On the 17th May, 1766, he constituted the Lodge of Operative Masons,
No. 364, now Bedford Lodge, London, No. 157, “which had not hitherto
conformed to the Grand Tjodge of England ”, though it had been in existence
as an operative or non-regular Ledge of good repute from as early as 1739 at
least.- More matter for satisfaction to a Grand Master yvhose heart was in his
work.
Tn the very vear when Blayney was installed Grand hfaster for the first
time, Laurence Dermott published the 2nd edition of his Ahinuin Rezon. This
edition was the first to contain his famous attack on the Modern ritual, explain¬
ing in language w'hich, though veiled, was plain enough to be understood by
the initiated exactly w'hat changes the innovators had made in the Masonic
ritual. Dermott of course would have based his charges on extreme cases; ;t
is unlikely that all of the Modern Lodges had discarded so many of the
landmarks. However, the attack was amusing as well as bitter, and must have
caused a good deal of laughter at the expense of the Moderns. It turned their
“improvements” into a brand of disgrace; denied them full knowledge of the
mysteries of Freemasonry because of their rejection of the Royal Arch; and
held them up as a pattern of ignorance and arrogance. This indictment was
a serious matter. Something had to be done to answ'er it. Grub Street did
its best; but its best was little more than abuse of the Antients for a pack of
alien sojourners united in iniquity.
“Some brethren of Ireland, w'ho affect singularity”—as they did
Inde.pendenci/\—“being refused the countenance of their own Grand Master,
and for other reasons too well known, were glad to assume the title of .1 iitieiit
York J/rt.s'on.s, and under that character have influenced some noble brethren
to preside over them. . . Though there are several persons of character
and ability among the Antient masons, the greater part of them are a set of
illiterate and mean persons, such as chairmen, porters, walking poulterers, and
the like, chiefly natives of Ireland, who, finding it not convenient to stay in
their own country, have fled hither to get iin honest livelihood . - • thej
have with the assistance of some honest Ycrkshirenien, who have come to London
on the same account, trumpt up what they call Aiitient or York ilasonty.
We can hardly call it merely a coincidence that on the 22nd May, 1766,
we find Blayney exercising liis authority, and kindly but firmly laying down
the law about a ritual matter. On that clay he went to Wapping to visit Old
Dundee Imdge, then No. 9, witnessed an initiation ceremony and, observing
that Old Dundee had abandoned (in accordance with the newer and moie
“ up-to-date ” working) some of the Antient forms to which he was accustomed,
said nothing at the time, but later on sent the T^odge a message through the
Senior Grand Warden, Bro. Edwards, and requested the members to alter their
ritual in one particular for the future. This the Lodge did, not without some
considerable demur. The whole story is told at length in the delightful history
of that fine old Tmdge written by my dear friend our late Bro. Arthur .Heiron,-
and the details can be omitted ; but not the conclusion to be drawn from the
whole incident, which is that Blayney was determined to restore Masonic ritual
to its primitive form in so/iie pfirticiilnrs. To what lengths he was jirepared to
go to accomplish this end we can only conjecture, but assuredly never so far
as to start a general proscription of the Modern forms. A resumption of much
that had been abandoned could be carried out without fuss. Persuasion, not
compnlsion, was the w'atchword.
In April, 1766, it was decided to print a new edition of the Cit i/tions-.
The Grand Lodge referred the matter to a committee, and the alterations
suggested by this body were approved early in 1767. The book itself did not
appear till after Blayney’s term as Grand Master.''
On the 24th June, 1766, St. John’s Day in Summer, the Anniversary
Feast of the Grand Lodge was held at the Grey Hound in Greenwich, Lord
Blayney presiding in person. This was the first time for many years that the
Grand Lodge of England had met on St. John’s Day. I have already referred
to the importance attaclied to this festival by the Antieiits. Nowadays we
should be inclined to say with a shrug : What’s in a date ? But other times
other customs, and this was one esteemed by our Antient Brethren. Undoubtedly
it had originally a religious basis. The Grand Lodge of Ireland still installs
its officers for the year on St. John’s Day in Winter. Blayney'’s choice of date
for the Grand Feast of 1766 was, I think, suggested by more than mere sentiment.
Captain Richard Gardiner travelled all the way from Norfolk to attend this
gathering, so St. John evidently had some sort of appeal to him too. His
reward was to have the health of his I.odge given by the Grand blaster and
drunk by the Grand Lodge with full Masonic honours.
It w'as in this same year of 1766, as we read in the Genfieinnn’Magazine,,
that the Grand Master provided material for a widely circulated paragraph in
the Press :
“Tons les freres qui ne sont pas ou qui n’ont pas ete Maitres de Logo
doivent se retirer pour donner a I’filu les caracteres de sa nouvelle
dignite ”.
Every Brother who is not or has not been Master of a Lodge must
retire, while the Master elect is given the tokens of his new office.
The rules go on to state that in the absence of the W.M. the Senior
Warden can preside, but if the Lodge had a Brother who had already served
as Master, then the Warden was to fix the days of meeting, but the Past Master
was to occupy the Chair.'
STATISTICS OF LODGES.
The figures recording the issue of Constitutions for the ten years ending
in May, 1767, are striking, though 1 shall not claim for them all that they
would go to show as mere figures; for the Seven Years’ War fell within the
jieriod, and alTected Freemasonry as it did so many other pursuits of humanity.
That does not lessen my gratitude to my friend Bro. C. D. Hotch, whose idea
it was that argument might be found in the number of Lodges warranted by
different Grand Masters. Here are the cut and dried statistics.
Lord Aberdour was Grand Master from 18th May, 1757, to 3rd May,
1762. During his five years the Grand Lodge of England constituted 44 Ijodges ;
7 in London, 30 in England and the Channel Isles, and 7 abroad. Of these
Lodges seven still survive.
During the same period the Grand Lodge of the Antients warranted 35
I.odges.
Earl Ferrers was Grand Master from May, 1762, to May, 1764. During
those two years the Grand Lodge constituted 35 Lodges: 3 of them in London,
25 in England, and 7 abroad. Of these Lodges four are still in existence.
During the same period the Grand Lodge of the Antients warranted 24
Lodges.
Those who like doing sums can work out averages for themselves, but a
mere glance at the figures shows that things had begun to improve under Lord
Ferrers.
A greater improvement was to come.
During the three years of his Grand Mastership Lord Blayney constituted
74 Lodges: 26 of them in the London area, 36 in England and Wales, and
the remainder in various parts of the globe: Alost, Amsterdam, Havre,
Grenoble, St. Heliers C.I.,' Bordeaux, and Stockholm in Europe; Jojipa
(Maryland), and the Virgin Isles B.W.I. in the Americas; and to complete
the list, three Lodges were erected in Madras, and one in Sumatra.
During this same period the Grand Imdge of the Antients warranted 20
Lodges.
Of the Lodges constituted by Lord Blayney 19 are still current, of goo>l
repute, and within measurable distance of celebrating their bicentenaries. Their
names and present numbers deserve to be put on record as a memorial to a
notable Grand Master, so here they are:
1 The first W.M. and leading light in this Jersey Lodge was Major Charles
Rhirreff who for thirty vears to come continued to be an ardent exponent of the
Traditio’ner ritual under 'both Grand Jwidges of England indifferently.
The TrnehtKiDer^. 16:
' According to Gould, IJ, 460, it wa.s a body of Boyal Arch Masons working
without any Warrant or connection with a particular Lodge. This shows a. difference
from the Antient practice of conferring the Royal Arch Degree ty virtue of a Craft
Warrant.
- From information. given me by the late Bro. W. Wonnacott.
The subject is fully treated in Hnghan’s EiujVmh Hite.
I r!"IIxdi l!HUM III 1hi‘ (^iiiifiii)r ('oniimti JjiiJijf.
Not(' lli(“ dates 071 which the Cr'aiid Chapter held its elections, St. JohTi's
Day ill Wiiitc'r, or theicahoiits.
Ill 1769 the Grand Chapter began to issue. Warrants. Blayncy seems
to have reniaiiied in Ireland this year, for on the 12th January, 1770, it was
reported to the Grand Chapter that he “was still abroad’’, and the Honourable
Charles Dillon was elected to succeed him as Grand Master in the Chapter.
Blayney, it would seem, had sought more Masonic light in yet other
directions. Tii the Minute Book of the Rite of Seven Degrees conducted by
Bambert de Diiitot in London his name appears as Grand Master of that Order
in 1772. Whether his consent had been obtained before that dignity was
conferred on him is a matter for speculation.
DUNCKERLEY IN QUEBEC.
On the 15th ifay, 1760, Dunckerley arrived at Quebec in H.M.S.
V/iii()u<ir<l, having in his possession a document from the Grand Lodge of
England that gave him authority to regulate the affairs of Masonry in the newly
conquered Canadian provinces, or in any other part of the globe he might visit
where no provincial Grand Master had been as yet appointed.' He found
that a Provincial Grand Imdge had already been established in Quebec by a
mass meeting of several military Lodges, who had assembled on St. John’s Day
in Winter, 1759, and elected Lieutenant John Guinnett, of Lodge No. 192
l.C.,“ Provincial Grand Master for the ensuing six months. The Lodges
represented on that occasion were five from the Irish Constitution and one from
the English, warranted by the Provincial Grand Master in Boston, Mass., to
which some authorities add a seventh Lodge, an Antient Warrant held in the
40th Regiment, while Scottish Freemasonry was represented by Colonel Simon
Fraser of the 78th Regiment. Whatever their numbers and whatever their
Constitutions, this miscellany of soldier Masons welcomed Dunckerley as “ One
of Ours”, accepted the doeument he had brought with him as conferring
regularity upon their proceedings, and thenceforth all the Masons in Quebec,
both military and civilian, w'orked under this authorization, electing their Pro¬
vincial Grand Masters half-yearly on the Days of St. John until, several years later
and much to their annoyance, that officer w'as nominated and appointed by the
Grand Master at home.
According to the account given by one who was present at the meeting
on the 24th June, 1760: “Brother Simon Fraser, Colonel of the Highland
Regiment, was elected to preside over the Lodges, and Brother Dunekerley, of
His • Majesty s Ship the Vanguard, who was possessed with a power from the
Grand of England to inspect into the state of the Craft wheresoever he might
go, honoured them with liis approbation of their conduct and installed Brother
Eraser in his high office.'
No argument is needed here to make us realise that these Masons from
different Constitutions would not have assembled together, nor Dunckerley have
associated with them in peace, love, and harmony, had any serious disagreement
in customs or ritual presented itself. Let me reiterate: the vast majority of
the Regimental Lodges were Antient or Traditioner in their working. It could
not have been otherwise. Ireland had the army to herself from 1732 to 1743,
when Scotland first began to issue ambulatory Warrants, and it was not until
17,55 that first the iModerns and then the Antients followed the lead given by
the sister Constitution across St. George’s Channel. Whenever it is possible to
trace any predilection for ritual in a military Mason of Modern allegiance,
he is invariably found to have been a Traditioner; and the military Lodges
generally can be regarded as the great propagators of the old tradition, not
only in the Americas, but all over the w’orld,-
It is almost a corollary that the same rule should apply to those Lodges
in ports and garrison towns where Freemasons from the services were w'ont to
foregather, Dunckerley’s own Mother Lodge, The Three Tuns at Portsmouth,
later known as Antiquity, must have had the old working. At any rate, it
conferred the Royal Arch Degree. We have the statement from his own pen:
“ 1 was exalted at Portsmouth in the year 1754 He was initiated on 'the
10th January in that year, and to have Exaltation following so rapidly on the
heels of the Craft Degrees was quite in the style of Antient iMasons in general,
pucc. Dermott who disapproved, and of Antient Military IMasons in particular.
The Th ree Tuns I>odge dated from 1725, and, according to Sadler, w’as the
pioneer of Freemasonry in Hampshire. '' Most of the members seem to have
been either naval or military officers of ,'i superior grade, or the higher class of
tradesmen.”' Such a membership would help to account for the conferring
of the Royal Arch in 1754. The bulk of the members would have been
accustomed to the ritual used in the military Lodges, in plain words, to the
Antient or Traditioner ritual.
Very well then; on the 16th October, 1760, Duuckerley as W.M. of the
Lodge No. ‘254 held aboard the Vawjuard signed a certificate, stating that
Brother Edward Grey “was received and Enter’d Apprentice the Second day
of October 5760, and Eellow Craft in this Lodge on the Nineth day of the same
Month and Year, and that after having sustain’d with Strength, Firmness,
and Courage, the most Painfull Works, and Severest Tryalls, we gave unto
him the most Sublime Degree of Master.”'
We can hold Dunckerley responsible for the jihrasing, if not the
orthography of this document.
DUNCKERLEY IN LONDON.
are considered in both jdaces as “of time immemorial usage’’, and I dare say
the members of Lodge of Friendship thought so too.'
DUNCKERLEY'S CAMPAIGN.
I need allude only in the briefest terms to the zest witli which
Dunckerley threw himself into the sport of baiting Laurence Dermott, his
great antagotiist, by inducing Antient Lodges to change their allegiance (and
ho induced many so to do), or seducing leading Antient Masons (and he seduced
not a few),' or of robbing him of whole provinces (as he did in the case of
Newfoundland), for all these matters have been admirably put on record in
Pro. Sadler’s !,ife of D n nrlf-rli-On one occasion the champion of the
Moderns overstepped the limits of what was fair, even in a Masonic war, and
the bitterness between the two rival Grand Lodges, which I think had been
gradually dying out for a matter of ten years, suddenly became as 'tt'ormwood
once again. This resumption of hostilities happened in the year 1777, a date
worth bearing in mind.
To understand the campaign we must first understand the man who
conducted it, so let us for a moment glance at his personality.
Dunckerley must have possessed personal charm and pleasant manners to
make him welcome in the social circles much higher than his own to which he
was admitted from an early age. The friends he made in the higher classes
of society were, as we know, of service to him when it came to establishing his
true parentage; but we can only surmise what gifts of his had led them to
take such an interest in his fortunes. Had he been a painter or a writer, we
could have termed them his patrons; but he had no immortality of the pen or
brush to bestow on men such as the Earl of Chesterfield, Lord William Gordon,
General Oughton," and so on ; thus we are led to conclude that they liked
the man for himself. How did their acquaintance begin ? Inside the walls of
a Lodge ?
One thing cannot be disputed : Dunckerley became immensely popular
wherever he went. Tliat popularity became a weapon of attack used in behalf
of his Grand Lodge. One instance will show it in action. In 1792 Dunckerley
obtained a new Modern Warrant for an Antient Lodge in Southampton, which
had already been in existence for twenty years. It retained its new allegiance
until Dunckerley’s death, and then reverted to the Antients. The circumstances
of this case suggest, among other things, that there cannot have been any
essential difference between this Lodge’s original working and Dunckerley’s, and
that affection for him as Provincial Grand Master led to this shifting of loyalties.
Now a pertinent question arises: if Dunckerley was an exponent of the
Antient or Traditioner ritual, why did he labour in the mills of the Moderns?
Any answer given must be largely a matter of speculation. IMine would
be this: loyalty to his Mother Constitution.
' Those of us who have been accii.stomed to see swords used in the ritual will
have mixed feoliiigs at finding their appearance in Lodfie defended in .Alexander
Slade's Freemason, e.rinnin’d, where that chastiser of Prichard a.sserts: “ Masoirs
alwa.ys swear by the sword, because they were always dTitiful subjects, conforming
chearfully to the Government under which they lived, and were ever ready (as they
now are) to defend it (when Necessity required it) sword in hand.’’ (dth edit., 17.52).
- I'irfr in particular up. 127, 142, 147, 155, 226, 229, 238,
3 Whether or not Chesterfield was an Antient Mason, as Rermott as.sertcd,
Dunckerley’s other friend General Sir .Tames Adolphus Oughtou must have heen a
Traditioner. In 1752 this distiuKuished soldier was appointed Provincial Grand Master
of Minorca, by the Modems. In 1769-7(1 he became Grand Master of Scotland. On
the 25tli February, 1775, he attended the Installation of the Duke of Athole as Grand
.Master of the .Aiitieuts, and was accomi[)anied on that occasion by the Duke of
Leinster, who had heen Grand .Master of Ireland in 1771, and was to fill the post
again in’ 1778. AVhat a blending of Alasonic colours!
The. Truihiiiiiicrs. 169
12th July 1757 Dr. .Mannuigliain Deput/j (Irand .Ma.'iter to Brother Saner at
the Hague.
“The only Orders that we know are Three, Masters, Fellow-
Crafts and Apprentices, and none of them ever arrive at
the Honour of Knighthood by Masonry.”
December 1759 Sa7nuel Spencer, Grand Secretary, to the needy Brother William
Carroll from Ireland.
“Your being an Antient Mason you are not entitled to any
of our Charity. The Antient Masons have a Lodge at the
Five Bells in the Strand, and their secretary’s name is
Dermott. Our society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, or
Antient, so that you have no right to partake of our
■ Charity.”
Perhaps Spencer knew of the compact of 1758 between the Grand Lodge,
of Ireland and the Grand Lodge of the Antients. If he did, though the fact
is bv no means certain, then he had a right to look on Bro. Carroll as coming
from a jurisdiction not in fraternal communication with his own Grand Lodge.
His repudiation of the Roj'al Arch as an unclean thing is, however, unequivocal.
7th December Thomas French, Grand Secretary, to the lF.il/. of the Sun
1768 Lodge, Bristol.
“There is only one circumstance in your minutes which you
are requested to correct, and that concerns Royal Arch
Masonry, which comes not under your inspection. You are
desired never to insert the transactions in your regular
Lodge Books, nor to carry on the business of that Degree
on your stated Lodge nights.”
Note that the Royal Arch is now referred to as a Degree, which does
not come “under the inspection” of the Master of a Craft Lodge; and that
if a Lodge chooses to hold meetings in that Degree, a date not falling on stated
communications must be chosen. Not a word about innovations or seductions!
Befor(! passing from this subject it will be as well to recall that, as Grand
hiuj)c-iinlcndent of Royal Arch Masonry, Dunckerley proceeded to spread know¬
ledge of the Degree in Bristol, Devonshire, Durham, Gloucestershire, Hereford¬
shire, Kent, Somerset, Surrey, Warwickshire, Cornwall, Dorsetshire, Essex,
Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk, Sussex, and Wiltshire.
T can hardly end my survey without giving a bird’s-eye view of the last
years of th(' two rival Grand Lodges as sejiarate entities.
The tree that w'as to bear fruit of peace and reconciliation had been of
slow' grow'th, and by the end of the century it was being tended by another
generation of Freemasons than that w'hich had planted the sapling.
To revert to the beginnings : round about the seventeen-sixties an amicable
frateimization became noticeable between Modern and Antient Lodges in London,
and Gould quotes three instances which may be regarded as leading cases.-
In December, 1758, Brother Glover, “being an Antient Meason having
taken his obligation of this liodg j)aid the ujual fine of two shillings and became
a member’’ of JMoira Lodge No. 92. Note that he had not been the first to
do so, if there be any virtue in that “ujual’’.
In October, 1764, the Antient Lodge, now Union Waterloo No. 13,
w'clcomed as a visitor “ Brother Jackson of No. 115 of the Modern Construtation.’’
In IMarch, 1766, William Dickey, junior, a stalwart of the Antients,
W'as made a Modern IMason in the Lebeck's Head Lodge No. 246, w'ithout in
consequence relinquishing his activities in behalf of the Antients.
Gould remarks on these three instances of fraternal communication that
the admission of Brethren from the rival camp as visitors indicates that the
re-making, it they became members, was a protest more against the regnlnr'iti/
than the vuliditi/ of the Degrees to which they had been admitted elsew'here.
' For a saiujile of the ,])revnilint: tolerance the Society of Antient iMasons of
the Dibivian Order or Boyal Ark .and ^tark Mariners is worth attention. As Grand
Noah of this Grdor DunckeHey chose for his Deputy Khene/.er Sihley, M.D. This
latter worthy was an qnt-and-out Antient Itfason. Initiated in Lodge No. 79, Ports¬
mouth, in 1784, he was the first W.Al. of No. 253. London, in 1789. Exalted in
No. 240 of the Antients in 1793, he joined the Caledonian Chapter No. 2 of the
Moderns in 1799. I have been thus prolix about Sibley’s Masonic career, because his
catholic taste in Boyal Arch Masonry, comprising both Antient and Modern vintages,
goes to show that there can have been no essential difference between tbc Degree
claimed as special knowledge by Derinott and the Degree as promoted by Dunckerley.
The one ceremony was conferred in a Lodge, the other in a Chapter. Po.ssihlv the
legends differed. ' I’he Royal Ai'ch has sheltered many variants of legend during its
existence. For Sil>ley riilc the paper by J. C. Mrookhon.se in .I.V.C., xxiv, p. 81 ct -og/.
- Gould, 11, 461.
The Tt(1(1 itKiiK-rs. 173
If I may translate liis eonehision into homelier language: both sihes vveie
prepared to turn the blind eye on a visitor’s idiosyncrasies in ritual, paiticulaily
when those differences were trivial, as they must have been in the cases quoted,
but not to bate a breath of the aspiration in a shibboleth, where the honour
of their respective Grand Lodges was concerned, which honour demanded a
recantation of heresy, even were the heresy of a tenuity of substance defying
comprehension or definition by the human intellect or the human tongue.
It was not in the nature of things, however, that the rival Grand Lodges
should view such an unofficial armistice with approval while war continued as
fiercely as ever in those parts of the line held by' the die-hards on either side.
The ju'ospects of a speedy reconciliation seemed brighter when Beaufort s,
to say nothing of Blayney’s, attachment to the Traditioner ritual began to make
itself felt; but Charles Dillon was too impetuous, and his attempt to obtain
a Charter of Incorporation for his Grand Lodge was taken badly by the
Antients, who, rightly or wrongly, imagined that the success of this project
would mean their own annihilation as a Grand Lodge in England. The scheme
failed, as w’e know, but in vanishing from human ken, like the fiend of folklore,
left behind it a nauseous stench to remind men that something unholy had
passed that way; and men’s nerves and tempers reacted to this stimulus.
The next milestone was, that on the 1st June, 1774, the Grand Lodge
of the Antients, on receiving a report that many of those Masons whom I term
Traditioners were w'orking under Modern Warrants, resolved :
“That all Antient Masons (of repute) under the Sanction of the
Moderns, that may be inclined to obtain an A.uthority from this
R. W. G. Lodge, Shall, by applying any time before the 24th June,
1776, be Warranted, and the Expence of Such Warrant to be charged
only as a Renewal.’’
So far so good; but then this olive branch w'as sprayed with gall by a
further resolution, which ordered the cessation of all fraternal communication
with such Traditioner Lodges as continued to work under their Modern Warrants.
The Grand Lodge of the Moderns, for its part, in April, 1777, held a
special Communication to “ devise means for discouraging the irregular assemblies
of persons calling themselves ancient masons”, and forbade its flock to counten¬
ance such persons in any way. It was careful, however, to exclude from the
censure some of those Masons who had formerly been considered unorthodox
and irregular ;
“That this censure shall not extend to any Lodge or Mason made in
Scotland or Ireland under the Constitution of either of these King¬
doms; or to any Lodge or Mason made abroad under the Patronage
of any Grand Lodge in alliance with the Grand Lodge of England,
but that such Lodges and Masons shall be deemed regular and
constitutional.’’ ^
Here was a change indeed from the days when the Grand Lodge “of
London and Westminster ’’ (to borrow Whymper’s phrase merely for the purpose
of emphasis) had arrogated to itself the supreme Masonic authority all over
the world.
I suggest that the Eldest of the Sister Grand Lodges had come to a
mood of sweeter reasonableness during the period of Ferrers, Blayney and
Beaufort.
1 This instruction of 1777 was not observed by all of the English Lodges. For
example, in Somerset House Lodge on the 8th April, 1793, “John Tubbs Esq. of
Stephen’s Green, Dublin, (an Ancient Mason), was proposed and duly seconded to be
initiated into the mysteries of Masonry It may well be that we have here an
instance of stern devotion to Alodern forms. Compare with what happeiie<l in
Shrew.sbury, to be related later.
174 / rniixiic/ifiNX of till: Qiiatiior (Uiroiirtti
Ihe date, April, 1777, at which this resolution was adopted, is snggestive
of other events of more world-wide importance. In America the Declaration
of Independence had been signed, and the battles of Trenton and Princeton
fought. The day of autocracy w'as drawing to a close for more things than
Freemasonry.
In spite of all regulations, however, fraternization between the two schools
continued, and gave rise to some ridiculous situations, as wdien in 1778 a Brother
who belonged to both Constitutions had, in the course of his duty, to read
aloud in his Modern Lodge a circular attacking Laurence Dermott, and for so
doing was tried by the Grand Lodge of the Antients, censured, and warned
to be more careful in future—a counsel of perfection to one thus placed between
the devil and the deep sea.
Incidents such as this made it obvious to every thinking Freemason that
a Union of the Craft in England was the only way to put an end to such farces.
At times in the later years of the century the two roads which had been
gradually converging towards a junction once again began to diverge. The
prejudices of individuals w'ere always a difficulty; ritual also seems to have
often been the glowdng coal that kept the fires of wrath smouldering.
For example, o'n the 20th March, 1786, the Grand Secretary of England
had to inform the Grand Master “that the Provincial Grand Lodge of Andalusi.n,
which had been under the government of the IModerns for upwards of tw'enty
years ’’ had applied for a Warrant under the Antients, and refused to act any
longer under the authority of the Moderns. Since that Provincial Grand Lodge
consisted almost completely of Militarv Masons, we can infer that in this case
scruples about ritual were involved.
Harmony w’as destroyed in some of the Traditioner Lodges for the same
reason. A sad example of what might happen is recorded in the Minutes of
Salopian Lodge, Shrewsbury, No. 262.'
This Lodge was warranted on the .3rd July, 1788, under the aegis of the
Deputy Provincial Grand Master, Major Charles Shirreff, a Traditioner of the
old school.- Though an adherent of the original Grand Lodge of England,
whose warrants he had established in various places abroad, he worked the
Antient ritual whole-heartedly and fanatically. His preferences in this way
were recorded by himself in letters still extant, and can also be discovered in
the early Minutes of the Salopian Lodge.
3rd July 1788, Brother E. T. Smith was raised to the Sublime Degree
of a Master Mason.
The by-laws make provision for the election of Wardens and Deacons
on the Lodge night preceding the Festival of St ,Tohn the Evangelist.
The Worshipful Master was regularly installed.
Both the Days of St John were observed.
27th December 1790, Brother Loxdale resigned the Chair; Brother
Barkley unanimously elected to it and duh/ installed-, he- then
immediately resigned office, and Brother Loxdale was unanimously
re-elected and “installed in proper form’’. This performance was
known as “Passing the Chair’’, as a preliminary to conferring the
Degree of Royal Arch.
Then a row about ritual took place in the Lodge, the' result of some
intriguing which later, in 1794, ousted Shirreff from his position as D.P.G.M.
The Lodge changed its working. Deacons were abolished in 1791, and Stewards
appointed in their stead ; and the Lodge was formed with the Wardens in the
West. In September, 1792, an Antient Mason, who had previously been made
welcome as a visitor, became a joining member, and was remade, all three Degrees
being given in one evening. In 1793 the ceremony of Installation ceas(‘d to be
observed.
Intransigence such as this did not help towards reconciliation.
Happily, however, those of the better sort who desired unity continued
to make their influence felt. On the return of Prince Edward, later Duke of
Kent,' from Canada, a Masonic address was presented to him in ,Ianuary, 1794.
“At the foot are two signatures”—those of the Deputy Grand Masters
of the Antient and Modern Grand Lodges. “ A paragraph in the address
runs: ‘ We have confident hope that under the conciliating influence of your
Royal Highness, the Fraternity in general of Freemasons in His Majesty’s
dominions will soon be united ’ ; to which the Prince replied : ‘ You may trust
that my utmost efforts shall be exerted, that a much-wished-for Union of the
whole Fraternity of Masons may be effected.’ ” "
The Duke got his wish, and we our Union in due course, but not without
bargaining and delay. Reconciliation became assured only when the Grand
Lodge of the Moderns declared for the Traditioner ritual, as it did by the
Lodge of Promulgation in 1809.
Now, Brethren, to conclude: my suggestion is that the Masonic Reunion
of 1813 sprang from seed planted almost fifty years before, whether by Lord
Blayney or another, but certainly’ by some Brother wdth wisdom enough to
foresee that there could be no Masonic Unity without agreement in the essentials
of ritual. Whoever he may have been, he certainly got no credit for prescience
during his lifetime, and perhaps would have scouted the idea that many
generations after his death anyone should take the pains to demonstrate that
he had deserved well of the Fraternity. Indeed, I can well imagine the comment
likely to come from a Mason and soldier, a veteran in both crafts:
“That I served and gave of my best is true; if the outcome has been
fortunate, it is well; if not so fortunate, nevertheless I served.”
A PPENDIX A.
VISITING TRADITIONERS.
1 Clarum ac venernJ)ilp iiomeii ! to recall the sorrow and pride felt and not
in England alone, at a, great loss suffered bv the Craft
2 Gould, II, 463.
17(1 I rdiixficlmuf: of Ijic ()iinti(or Coronati Ijtdijf .
Oct. 1/8.1 Ihonias Suitor, No. 144, lirohahly Sunderland, now Palatine l.oderc
No. 97.
Nov. 178;i Ben Hartwell, P.M. No. 272 Holyhead.
,, TMoses Lawrence, No. 100 London.
Aug. 1790 Addison, No. 65 Halifax, now I.,odge of Probitv No. 61.'
Feb. 1791 Killsby, No. 105 London.
Dec. 1798 Smith, No. 531 Great Yarmouth.
Apr. 1804 Captain Blackie or Blaikie, No. 273 Carlisle.
Alay 1804 Steward, No. 373 Gloucester.
All these were Modern Lodges.
Kilwinning High Knight Templar Lodge No. 584, Dublin, specialized in the
Additional Degrees at this period. The following “Modern” visitors from
England are noted in the IMinutes : —
Oct. 1782 Philip Henry “of Carolina”, who had been Exalted in the Grand
.Ian. 1783 Chapter of England 13th April, 1781, was present as a visitor during
Royal Arch and Craft ceremonies.
May 1783 Captain John Str/ifford Saunders, of Ledge of Benevolence, Wake¬
field, now Unanimity Lodge No. 154. At a later meeting on the
20th May Saunders was Exalted in No. 584.
Feb. 1784 Moses Lawrence, of George Lodge No. 100, London.
27 Apr. 1 784 Robert Blaikie or Blackie, of No. 273 Carlisle, was made a High
Knight Templar in No. 584.
From the Charity disbursements of the Grand I.odge of Ireland I take the
following : —
Dec. 1789 Thomas Power of No. 280. Burdvvan, India. The story of Free¬
masonry in India is one of ever-present influence by the Military
Lodges, and all that this implies about ritual. On this head see
also Appendix E.
Sep. 1804 Henry McArdel, No. 463, now Lodge of Friendship, Oldham.
APFEyDIX B.
TRADITIONER.S IN BRISTOL.
The following excerpts from the Minute Book of Lodge No. 27, Cork,
copied for me many years ago by the fraternal kindness of Bro. Philip Crossle,
speak for themselves: —
15th May 1751 "Bror* Jos Dalton & James Bonbonous of Bristol came to
Visit the Lodge, who being Examin’d by the Secretary &
Bror Sarsfield, and they makeing a good report of them,
they were allow’d to be admitted.”
4th Deer 1751 “Bror" Edwd Scott and Walter Hussey the former of a Lodge
of Bristol, and the latter of Mt Surat {Montserrat) requested
to be admitted as Visiting Brethren & were allow’d to be
receiv’d being fully Examin’d by the Secretary.”
16th Nov 1752 ‘‘Bror Geo Norris (being Reed an Enter’d apprintice in Bristol
and being Balloted for & admitted to be Reed last Lodge
Night) was pass’d to the Degree of a fellow craft.”
21st Mar 1753 "Our Bror® Norris (Sc Roberts were Rais’d to the Degree of
Master Masons.”
5th Ang 1783 ‘‘Visited by Bror James Whitechurch of No. 445 Sea Captain's
Lodge, Bristol.” '
Note particularly about the foregoing extracts, that a visiting Brother was
tested about his Masonic knowledge before being admitted to the I^odge ; and
that the secrets of the E.A. Degree must have been the same in Bristol and
Cork in the year 1752, which saw the birth of the Grand Lodge of the Antients.
This point of the identity of these secrets in those two districts is full of
importance to my argument.
My next example happened during the Seven Years’ War. In July,
1761, Fountain Lodge No. 74, Bristol, made Hercules Burleigh a Mason "in
consideration that he was soon going to sea”; and on the 6th January, 1763,
a Brother of the same name was inscribed as one of the Wardens in a new Irish
Warrant, No. 392, granted to the 66th Regiment of Foot, then in Ireland on
its way to Jamaica. I have little doubt that the two references are to one and
the same person, in which case we can quote the Grand Lodge of Ireland itself
as a witness to the orthodoxy of Masonry in Bristol.
In the main text of this essay I have already ollered some evidence to
suggest that the differences, if any, between the Craft as taught by Dunckerley
and that practised by the Antients can have consisted only in what I might
term "external forms”, and did not affect methods of recognition.
Happily there is some direct evidence given to strengthen this view of
the case by a neutral observer, who attended Lodges in an English province
under Dunckerley’s jursdiction. In the year 1795 this enthusiastic young Irish
Freemason during a stay in Bristol visited some of the local Lodges, Modern as
well as Antient. Writing more than fifty years later, he thus described his
impressions : —
" The difference between the ancient and modern masons was so trivial
that the wonder is, that the distinction should have lasted so long
as near a century. I was introduced into a modern Lodge in Bristol,
in the year 1795, as an ancient Mason, where I found enquiry after
the origin, ancient history and early practices of Freemasonry as
much alive as ever I witnessed it in ancient Lodges. The only
difference I could observe, was a slight variation from the ancient
in the ritual and formation of the Lodge, which I always considered
as too trivial to perpetuate a division.”-
APi'Eynix c.
TRADITIONERS IN PHILADELPHIA.
In the History of Freemasonry in PennsyJvanin, by Barratt and Sachse.
will be found the full text of the documents relating to the secession of Lodge
No. 4, Philadelphia. Among them is a copy of the letter, dated 10th January,
1758, from John Blackwood, late a member of No. 2, London, under the Grand
Lodge of the Antients, and subsequently of No. 4, Philadelphia. It is addressed
to Joseph Reed, secretary of No. 2 in London. Included was a petition to the
Earl of Blesinton, G.M.. the G. Wardens and Brethren of the Grand Lodge
of the Antients, signed by George Brooks, the Master, and twelve other members
of No. 4, Philadelphia, which ran:
“ We the under named having for many years past Resided in the City
of Philadelphia did form ourselves into a Body, being Antient Masons. Descend¬
ing from our Mother Lodges in England, Ireland, and Scotland . . . did
propose and apply to William Allen Esquire Grand Master of Pennsylvania
for a Warrant, which we readily obtained, but upon hearing we were Antients,
we were call’d before the Grand Lodge”, and, in short, were asked to change
our ritual, to which we answered, “ we neither could nor would and are
determined never to forsake the good old way”; whereupon our Warrant was
confiscated. Brothers Blackwood and Jones, who are English Masons, recently
arrived from that country, came to our rescue, and suggested that we apply for
an Antient Warrant from London.
So far the Petitioners. Bro. Blackwood, whose words flowed from his pen
in a stream both deep and clear, though neither dull nor gentle, proceeded to
embellish this tale of woe in his personal letter to Reed, and to economise space
I condense the narative as follows: —
He begins by announcing his recent arrival in Philadelphia in convoy ,
from Cork, and says he must not omit mentioning “that while in Ireland we
met some Brethren there, and on Comparing notes we found to our no Small
Satisfaction, that we agreed as exactly as face answers face in the glass.” A
very happy phrase to describe the agreement between the Irish and Antient
APPENDIX D.
the dismissals of odii'Pis in the Irish army by James 11 heeanse lliey wei'e
I’l'oleslaiits, has tliis rid'erema' to him: —
“If what Sir Thomas (Newcomen) says be true, a great many v(‘ry
good men, who have bought their employments, will be ruined;
esjiecially i\lr. Blayney, my liOrd Blayney’s brother, w-ho laid out all
his younger brother’s patrimony to purchase a company in my Lord
Mountjoy's regiment, and is aji honest, ingenuous young man.’’
Inittrell noted in his diary on the 16th December, 16911, that “ the lord Blany
jnitt in ’’ for the colonelcy of one of the four new regiments of foot that were
to be raised in Ireland to reinforce the British Army in Flanders. He was not,
however, successful in his application. Later in King William’s reign he became
governor of Sligo. Ob. 3rd January, 1705/6.
VII. CADWALIjADEH, son of the 6th Baron. Born 1693. During the
Lord Lieutenancy of the Earl of Wharton (1709-10) Jonathan Swdft recommended
Lord Blayney to his friend Joseph Addison, then Secretary of State for Ireland,
but it does not appear that the introduction brought any tangible advantage
to the young man, who later, as we have seen, demonstrated vi rt armh on the
11 owth Hoad his abhorrence of the Dean and all his works. Blayney obtained a
pension from government in 1723, and became Lord Lieutenant of Co. hlonaghan
and governor of Sligo. He was poor all his life. E. B. Shirley in his Jlh/anj
of Mana(jh<u\ (1879, p. 247) says of him ;
“The case of Lord Blayney was heard in the Irish House of Ijords on
the 25th IMarch, 1723, when he was given permission to sell some
land. It was stated that the estate had been much wasted by the
wars, and did not produce up to £400 a year until after 1699.’’
For Lord Blayney's appearance in Irish Freemasonry vide Bicentnuiri/
nifitor;/ of the (Jroiul T.odeje of Ireland.
The 7th Baron ob. 19th March, 1732-3.
VIII. CHARIjES TALBOT, son of the 7th Baron. He took orders and was
])referred to be Dean of Killaloe. His choice of profession amazed Lord Orrery,
wdio remarked in a letter to Swift dated 29th September, 1739 :
“ . . . and w'hat is more wonderfull, One of our Lords, the Baron
of Blayney, has quitted the broad Belt and Hanger for the Toga
Xtiana of the Church.’’ (Orrery I’apere, I, 267.)
The 8tli Baron ob. 15th September, 1761.
IX. CADWALLADER, younger son of the 7th Baron. Became “Grand
Master of Masons’’ in England. Born in 1720; ob. 21st November, 1775.
X. CADWALLADER DAVID, son of the 9th Baron. Born in 1769; ob. s. p
1784.
XI. ANDREW THOMAS, younger son of the 9th Baron. Born in 1770.
Entered the array 1789. In 1794 promoted Major in the 89th Regiment,
“Blayney’s Bloodhounds’’, part of which he helped to raise, and later became
its Colonel. Served in the campaign in Holland 1794, and after that in Malta,
Minorca, Egypt, Cape of Good Hope, Buenos Ayres, and the Peninsula. He
was taken prisoner at Malaga in 1810 and remained in captivity in France till
the downfall of Napoleon. Promoted Lieutenant-General in 1819.
For incidents in his Masonic career see an article of mine in Mi.^cellanea
Latomoriirn, xxv, p. 113 et sqq.
The 11th Baron died in 1834.
XII. CADWALLADER DAVID,* son of the 11th Baron. Born in 1802;
ob. s. p. in 1874, when the title became extinct.
1 The Hon. Cadwallader David Blayney, R.N. (later 12th Lord Bla.vney), was
initiated on 10th IMarcli, 1828, in St. John and St. Paid l.odKe, (Malta . and wa.s the
fourth of the family in direct descent from father to son to have heeoine a Fieeinason,
’Hk' TrailitioiK'rx. 181
AITENDIX A'.
This subject would make a long essay, still, cx pedt Herculem, and this
appendix shall be confined to short sketches of the careers of three famous
Military Masons who did the Craft some service, All three gave their allegiance
to the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, and all three practised the Antient ritual
They operated in districts as widely separated as the Channel Isles, America
and India. I select them as typical of the thousands of Masons, less distinguished,
who carried the Military Masonic ritual, that is, the Antient or Irish or
Traditioner ritual all over the world.
General Sir John Doyle, for whose career in the army and the Craft see
A.Qd’-, XV, 27, was initiated in May, 1792, in the Prince of Wales’s Lodge,
now No. 259. In 1807 he was appointed Provincial Grand Master of the Channel
Isles under the Moderns. That same year he was ''remade” an Antient Mason
in a Tmdge in Guernsey, subsequently known as Doyle’s Lodge of Fellowship,
where he was “entered, passed, and raised, and afterwards passed the chair.”
He would have probably been appointed their Provincial Grand Master by the
Antients, and ah unofficial Union accomplished in the Channel Isles, but for
local disputes in the Lodges about precedence which prolonged the rift for some
few years. I mention this particular incident in Doyle’s story because it shows
that this Mason, so distinguished for his benevolence and high-mindedness, while
remaining loyal to his original Constitution, the Moderns, yet had no scruple
in adopting the Antient ritual and badge in order, as I believe, to render
himself more useful to those humble Military Masons in the itinerant Tmdges
which garrisoned his bailiwick. When a future Deputy Grand Master of England
thus found himself compelled to bow to ancient custom, little wonder if lesser
lights in the British army are found shining in Lodge-rooms of the Traditioners.
My second choice is Surgeon Terence Gahagan, for whom see Malden’s
III(tf:<))ir// on the ('oast of CoroinandeJ. He was an Irishman, initiated about
1764 in some Lodge so far untraced. In 1767 he went to Madras as a military
surgeon, and spent long years in that part of the world. A zealous Freemason,
he worked with both Antients and Moderns indifferently, and in 1786 was the
moving spirit in bringing about a union in Madras between the adherents of
the two antagonistic Grand Lodges. Article II of this Union laid down :
“That the United Society shall and will at the initiation, passing, or
raising of a Member, insfruet him in the essentia! points irhich have
Distinejlushed the two Societies. The Provincial Grand Master, his
Deputy, and the Officers of the Lodge shall at their instalment take
an obligation to see it duly put in execution.”
Our Bro. Terence was evidently an expert in ritual, for we read that
when in September, 1789, he visited Lodge of Unanimity No. 150, Madras, as
D.P.G.M., a Masters’ Lodge having been opened, “a lecture in the sublime
degree passed round with a most instructive discourse by Bro Gahagan ”
6'., XXI, 29.)
In 1811, when news reached Madras of the resolution of the original
Grand Lodge of England “to work agreeably to the Old Landmarks”, Gahagan,
who was now Provincial Grand Master, declared “that he was a very old Mason
and certainly made as such in ancient form and was agreeable to do, so again. ”
There is little to quibble at in this resolve except the grammar.
.lust one otlier interesting fact about Ga.hagan need be mentioned here,
and ihe reader referred for many others to the book cited above. In 1775
i\Udeni Masonry had become extinct in Madras, and it remained extinct until
178,5, when Gahagan and Brigadier-General hi. Horne established a new
182 'I runsavttuns of (Jnutnor Coru/iati Lodgt.
iloduni Lodge ' ‘ Cainatic Military” at Arcot, and immediately afterwards began
negotiations with their Antient Brethren which resulted in the Union of 1786.
It would seem certain that during the ten years that jireceded this event Terence’s
f reeniasonry had been confined to the Antient vintage.
Madras was not the only district in India where the Traditioner working
made its weight felt. W. J. Songhurst has pointed out {A.Q.C., xviii, .51) a
good example of this in the history of Humility with Fortitude Lodge, Calcutta,
No. 229, which, originally constituted under the Moderns in 1773, took a
Warrant from the Antients in 1798. Even after the Union of 1813 this Lodge
remained faithful to the Traditioner working, traces of which can be seen in
a certificate issued in 1822.
My third choice. Major Charles ShirreS, would be well worth a long
monograph to illustrate the Military ritual, but I must content myself with
giving some leading dates and events in his life. He entered the army in 1753,
took part in the Cape Breton campaign, and was initiated at Louisbourg C.B.
in 1758, probably in a military Lodge warranted by the Modern Provincial
Grand Lodge in Boston. He served in America during the War of Independence,
and attained the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel. In January, 1781, he
became Deputy Quarter-Master-General of the British army stationed in New
York. In 1784 he retired on half-pay, reverting to the rank of major, and
settled in Shropshire.
During his life in the army ShirrefE was an active Mason. While
stationed in Jersey 1765-8 he founded a Lodge at St. Helier’s, No. 349, a
Blayney Warrant; and in 1777 another Lodge, under an Antient Warrant
No. 58, at St. Augustine, Florida.
Shirreff came home from America provided with a document, I know not
from what Body, authorizing him to confer Additional Degrees up to the ‘‘Non
Plus Ultra”, whatever that may have been in 1784; and his intention at that
time was to confine his Masonic activities henceforth to the spreading of this
Rite.
However, he was induced by the solicitation of friends to set about the
establishment of a Craft Lodge at Whitchurch, Shropshire, and from his letters
to the Grand Secretary we learn much about his Masonic sentiments. The
curious thing is that he seems to have arrived back in England knowing nothing
whatever about the great schism in Masonry. His own ritual is described in
one letter as follows:—‘‘Please to remember that I keep up to Antient Masonry
and will adhere to none other.” Yet he saw nothing incompatible in this
resolution wdth founding a Lodge at Whitchurch under the Moderns, or in
becoming in the following year (1786) Deputy Provincial Grand Master of
Shropshire. It is, however, of the utmost importance to note that in his corre¬
spondence with Grand Secretary William White relative to the foundation of
this Lodge, Shirreff emphasized the information that he had worked the Antient
ritual all his Masonic life and intended to continue in the same course.
In May, 1788, the Salopian Lodge, now No. 262, was established at
Shrewsbury by a dispensation issued by Shirreff. Its ritual for several years
was as Antient as Shirreff could make it; but then he began to have disagree¬
ments with prominent supporters of the Grand Lodge of the Moderns. A
skirmish with Dunckerley at Shrewsbury in 1790 was followed in 1795 by a
serious disagreement with the Rev. F. H. Egerton, Provincial Grand Master of
Shropshire, whom Shirreff had originally recommended for that position after
refusing it for himself on the grounds of poverty. Ritual matters evidently
formed no small jjart of the caxus hdl\, and in the upshot Shirreff resigned his
position as Deputy Provincial Grand Master. The historian of Freemasonry in
Shropshire has written :
The Traditioners. 183
A licai't}' vote of thanks was unanimously pa.ssed to Bro. Lepper for his valuable
pa[>er; comineuts being offered by or on behalf of Bros. . I. Grauthani, 1. L.
Pick, B. H. Baxter, D. Knoop, W. W. Cbvey-Crump, \j. Edward,s, F. B. Badice,
G. W. Bullamore and C. D. Botch.
the first quarter-century of the life of the United Grand Lodge, but well into
the lifetime of some of the earlier members of this Lodge.
Sir John Doyle, as Bro, Lepper points out, had some experience of
Freemasonry under both Constitutions, and our Bro. G. S. Knocker has told
us in A.Q.C., 1, of the curious duplicatipn of Lodges in the Island of Guernsey
and the circumstances which led to this. There was also a transfer of allegiance
in Stockport in 1806, when three " Antient” Lodges ceased to meet and warrants
were issued by the “ Moderns ” to the Lodges of Unity, Peace and Concord,
though the reason for this step is unknown to-day.
In conclusion, I would be very grateful for any additional information
Bro. Lepper can provide on an individual mentioned briefly in Appendix A
and elsewhere. Henry McArdel, of Lodge 463, now the Lodge of Friendship,
277, Oldham, is stated to have been relieved by the Grand Lodge of Ireland
in 1804. The records of the Lodge of Friendship are very complete, but a
search in the Minute Books, Treasurer’s Book and the Country Register of
Grand Lodge fails to reveal any brother of this or any similar name. The
“Irish ’’ founders of the Lodge w’ere members of Military Lodges and all bore
names commonly found in the Oldham district.
jettison the more extreme views of their own side and appreciate what was
model ate in that of their opponents, and ultimately by their power in affecting
the balance imposed a settlement on all concerned,—which is usually lasting
because, though it satisfies neither party, it does give both combatants the sub¬
stance of what they had fought for. As instances I might quote the party of
the Earl of Pembroke in the conflict between Thomas of Lancaster and the
Crown in the early years of the fourteenth century, and the “ Politiques ” led
by d Anville at the end of the French Wars of religion.
In the conflict now in question we have on the one side the Grand Lodge
party, conscious of merit m having set up Grand Lodge and in introducing
discipline and control, without which a great organisation cannot live, but
adopting strange and revolutionary ways owing to a lack of perspicacity which
in the end would have led Freemasonry to disintegration. Against this tendency
rose the party dominated by the great figure of Dermott, who nailed his colours
to the ancient landmarks, and bitterly attacked what he considered unwarranted
innovations. Its progress and the decline of Freemasonry under the “ Modern ”
Grand Lodge rule, so clearly indicated in Bro. Lepper’s paper, shows how
widespread was the sympathy elicited by the “Antients’” action. Yet the
establishment of a rival Grand Lodge could only lead to disruption. So long
as this state of affairs persisted there could be no compromise.
Then, as Bro. Lepper points out, the genius of Dunckerley perceived that
the position of the “ Modern ” Grand Lodge was untenable. Accordingly he
jettisoned what could not be defended and concentrated on what he considered
vital, one ritual and one Grand Lodge. Thus was laid the foundation of the
middle party among the ranks of the "Moderns”. The time w'as not yet ripe
for compromise, however. Having justified Dermott’s action by returning to
the old landmarks, Dunckerley, in loyalty to his own Grand Lodge, set about
destroying the rebel, instead of letting time do its work. He only called forth
in his opponents a spirit of loyalty similar but opposed to his own, and though
he gained some success the struggle went on as bitterly as ever.
But he had already achieved his great task of focussing attention on
essentials, and it was only a question of time before the middle party, firmly
based on those essentials, cast off the extremists on either side and brought
about the happy settlement which was in reality a victory for neither side, but
for common sense. Such is the picture, perhaps somewhat overdrawn, as now
presented to my eyes. But there is one great lesson more, it seems to me, to
be learnt from this. So often have I been told after witnessing a ceremony,
the perfoi'inance of which left much to be desired, that ritual does not matter
much, all that is needed in Freemasonry is good fellowship and cameraderie.
But these qualities, however praiseworthy in themselves, have seldom been enough
to hold together any association containing a large variety of men. A stronger
bond is needed, and I for one am convinced that a careless and slovenly per¬
formance of the work in our Lodges can only lead to apathy, ridicule and decay.
The love of colour and pageantry is deepseated in humanity, and I am sure
our beautiful and significant ceremonies, in which we can all join and unite,
constitute one of the strongest appeals of Freemasonry.
With much pleasure may I support the vote of thanks to Bro. Heron
Lepper for his paper? He has, I think, proved his main contention—that there
was in the eighteenth century a considerable force of Lodges and Brethren who,
whilst sincerely loyal to the “Moderns’” authority, remained staunchly faithful
to older forms of ritual; and, consequently, that our view must distinguish not
only “Antients” and “Moderns”, but also “ Traditioners ”. At first I did
not favourably incline to this new term, but have now reconciled myself to it.
That, during its first forty years of existence, the English Grand Lodge
in London showed neither strength in organization nor efficiency in management,
must be admitted. Moreover, the distance of many Lodges from central authority
(combined with the natural conservatism of itinerant military Lodges) must, as
Bro. Lepper has said, have seriously impeded the dissemination of innovations
or alterations in ritual working; especially after that Grand Lodge had
become suspect to those sororal powers in Ireland and Scotland which "affected
independence ”.
I venture, however, to suggest one little slip in regard to Lord Blayney’s
appointment of a Prov. Grand Master for Sweden in 1765. Our Brother says
188 TraiiKticlioih-i of the Qimti/o?' (Ujrijiiati T^odye.
Bro. Lepjier must in the last tw'o or three years have suffered from the
f\isilade of “Antient’’ v. “Modern’’ conundrums I have fired at him. This
admirable and comprehensive paper has doubtless been devised by him to secure
himself from a like molestation in the future. He gives a list of the various
innovations .introduced by the “ IModerns’’ in or about the year 1730. It is
difficult after a la])se of more than 200 years to follow the reasoning of those
in authority who enacted them. Legislation w'ithout sanctions could only have
proved ineffective; the news of the alterations wmuld soon have got round, and
the thirsty souks who made masons for 2/6 or a round of drinks would have
been able to instruct their clients with the requisite knowdedge to enable them
to enter any lodge. Even in lax times a visiting Brother would have been
vouched for or proved before he could enter a lodge. I am convinced that all
Service masons must have been in sympathy wdth the “Antient’’ ritual—Bro.
Lepiier lias proved this point decisively—but not necessarily wdth the governing
body which stood for it. Dermott’s life w'as devoted to masonry, and he evas
from about 1751 the moving spirit of his own organization, the “Antient’’
Grand Imdge. This position—his only place in the sun—would have been
jealously guarded by him and w'ould have made him a strong opponent to any
compromise between the rival Grand Lodges; the old story, “vested interest’’.
Had he lived we may wonder whether the union of 1813 would have been brought
about. In the minutes of the Lodge of Friendship I have sought in vain for
anv clue that may enlighten us on the form of ritual used from 1767 onwards.
The minutes record nothing, not even the names of the Brethren who performed
the ceremonies. Is it possible the Grand Lodge of the “Moderns” was in¬
different to the form of ritual used, but far from indifferent to what they
considered the presumptuous and provocative rivalry of an opposition Grand
Lodge ?
DlSCUHsioH . 189
acuH'ption howover was of practical use and was therefore retained by the Company
in a simplified form. We may infer what this would be like from a resolution
of the Melrose Lodge on St. John’s Day, 1764, when it was agreed that “the
Mason word be administered in a simpel way and maner free of everything
Sinfull and superstitious, only word, sighn and grip and some simpel questions
to distinguish a mason from a nother man’’.
From one of the exposures we learn that the “Antients” used prayers,
but that the “ Moderns ’’ usually omitted them. Such a debased ceremony would
be used for the acception of the masons who came to rebuild London after the
great fire. When an act of W. and M. was passed restoring to the London
guilds their ancient privileges, the accepted masons revived an annual feast and
elected Sir Christopher Wren as their head. After the rebuilding of London
some of the speculative members of the acception continued to meet, and it was
to deal with them that the “Moderns’’ Grand Lodge came into being when
the Company of Masons cut off the acception altogether.
At the Ll^nion, no doubt through Dr. Hemming, who was fanatically
Modern the pretence was maintained that all lodges were lodges of apprent¬
ices and that the Master was a fellow as denoted by his square. The higher
degrees were tolerated only, and it is curious that not many years ago a
determined attempt was made to render the Installation ceremony irregular and
unlawful. It was never a part of the accepted masonry of the “Moderns”.
For this and for the fuller and richer ceremonies we are indebted to the
“ Antient ” tradition, going back to the Society of Freemasons. Unfortunately,
the anti-Traditioner spirit still exists, and phrases such as “Loyalty to your
God, your King and your Country ” are being swept away with other interesting
and harmless usages. I have grave doubts that it was the desire of the Duke
of Sussex after the Union to renounce this expression and replace it with “civil,
moral and religious duties ”.
I very much doubt, however, w'hether any Brother acquiring his first
knowledge of eighteenth century ritual from Bro. Lepper’s present essay will
192 Trinisdilloiis of lhi‘ (fitaUior VnroiKiii Lodyf.
I'C'iilize tliat there was <a more or less continuous process of development and
modification throughout the century. The imjnession likely to be left on the
reader's mind will be:
(a) That there was a pre-1730 ritual, which the “ Antients ” and
the “ Traditioners ” continued faithfully to follow, /.r., they were, in
Bro. Lepper’s words, “loyal to the old ritual, from which they never
varied
(b) That the premier Grand Lodge in 1730 devised a brand-new
ritual which was adopted in many “ Modern ” lodges, and continued
to be used until the early nineteenth century, when the “Moderns’'
reverted to the “Antient” working.
1 propose to examine these two misconceptions in turn.
(a) It is difficult to discuss changes in, and modifications of, ritual except
in a properly tyled lodge, but there was at least one important difference
between “ Antients’’ and “Moderns” in 1809 (to judge by the minutes of the
special Lodge of Promulgation) to which Bro. Lepper does not refer, and
which will serve to illustrate my contention that the “Antients” (and the
“ Traditioners ”), as well as the “Moderns”, modified their ritual during the
eighteenth century. I allude to the methods of Opening and Closing in the
three degrees. According to the early masonic catechisms, there were no formal
Openings or Closings in 1730; the catechisms of the 1760’s suggest a separate
Opening in the 1°, but no separate Opening in 2° or 3°, and no formal Closing
in any degree. The methods of opening and closing presumably grew' up
gradually amongst both “Antients” and “Moderns” during the eighteenth
century, and w'ere obviously not identical in all lodges. Something similar w'as
probably true of other distinguishing features of “Antients” and “Moderns”,
(b) The changes introduced by the “Moderns” can best be . discussed
under three heads: (i) the nature of the changes; (ii) the date or dates of the
changes; (iii) the responsibility for the changes.
(i) The nature of the ehnngee.. In the essay, under the heading “The
changes in the Ritual,” are listed nine changes, some of which, I would venture
to suggest, were not changes in ritual, but changes in practices; eg., neglect of
the Days of St. Johfi, and preparation of the candidates. The same is true of
other differences between “Antients” and “Moderns” to which attention was
drawn by the Lodge of Promulgation, e.g., the mode of placing the three great
Lights, the seating of the 'Wardens, and the employment of Deacons.
(ii) The date or dates of the changes. According to Laurence Dermott,
the changes were made during the reign of King George I (1714-1727); according
to Preston in 1739; according to Grand Lodge itself, when directing private
lodges in 1809 to revert to the old practices, in or about the year 1739. Bro.
Lepper states categorically that Preston is not correct; relying presumably on
the remarks of Dr. Desaguliers regarding false brethren, recorded in the minutes
of Grand Lodge under date of 28th August, 1730, he ascribes the changes to
1730, though in one case he accepts an earlier date. He admits, however, that
the Passwords for the P.C. and M.M. w'ere first introduced at a later date than
1730, and that the variations in such passwords consequently demand a later
date.' Personally, I should have thought that another change listed by Bro.
Lepper, viz., “ A refusal to accept the Degree of Royal Arch as a part of
Freemasonry,” also demanded a later date. It is true that I myself have
suggested elsewhere that the esoteric knowledge now associated with the Supreme
Order may have existed in Masonry at the time of the foundation of Grand
Lodge in 1717, but that is very different from claiming that “the Degree of
Royal Arch” existed before 1740.
As some of the changes were apparently introduced before 1730 (see
advertisement of 1726 quoted by Sadler [A.Q.C., xxiii, 325] and referred to
Disciisxion. 193
by Bro. Lepper), some, probably in 1730 (see Minutes of G.Ij. and the references
in A Dinloyne betivcen Simon and Philip' to “the Desaguliers regulation”),
and others after 1730, I feel that it is misleading to refer to all the changes
as changes made in the year 1730. The changes which ultimately led to differences
between “ Antients ” and “Moderns” appear to have been introduced over a
period of years, some probably being deliberate alterations with the object of
detecting irregular masons, others probably being casual modifications introduced
in the course of time. The character of the changes is closely connected with
the responsibility for the changes.
(hi) The responsihiliti/ for the changes. Certain changes would un¬
doubtedly appear to have been introduced by Grand Lodge itself. That is
probably implied in the previously mentioned minute of 28th August, 1730.
when Dr. Desaguliers recommended several things to the consideration of the
Grand Lodge, more particularly the resolution of the last Quarterly Com¬
munication for preventing any false brethren being admitted into regular lodges.-
It is implied .even more clearly in the resolution of Grand Lodge of 12th April,
1809 {A.ipG., xxiii, 37):
That this Grand Lodge do agree in opinion with the Committee of
Charity that it is not necessary any longer to continue those measures
which were resorted to in or about the year 1739 respecting irregular
masons and do therefore enjoin the several lodges to revert to the
ancient Land Marks of the Society.
From these two minutes it would appear that the measures for which
Grand Lodge was responsible c. 1730 were (a) concerned with the ancient land¬
marks, and (b) intended to detect false brethren as-imposters. That being so,
it seems to me that only one of the nine “changes in the ritual” listed by
Bro. Lepper, viz., a transposition of the words of the E.A. and F.C. degrees,
complies with both conditions. Though all the changes may have been subjects
on which “Antients” and “Moderns” differed,^ 1 do question his assumption
that the “Modern” Grand Lodge, as an organization, was responsible for all
the changes, or for “imposing the new ritual on the private lodges”, to quote
a phrase used by Bro. Lepper. He himself admits that the efforts of Grand
Lodge can have been only spasmodic, not sustained. The picture he draws of
the somewhat moribund condition of Grand Lodge between c. 1740 and c. 1760
makes it unlikely that Grand Lodge showed much activity in the propagation
of changes of any description. The neglect of the Lectures, the omission of the
esoteric part of the ceremony of installing the Master Elect, and the inadequate
preparation of candidates, to mention only three of the changes listed by Bro.
Lepper, can be explained far more readily by the growth of an aristocratic
element amongst the “Moderns” than by any deliberate action on the part of
the “Modern” Grand Lodge.
As I disagree so strongly w’ith the first part of Bro. Lepper’s paper,
as it appears in the rough proof, I am very glad to find myself in complete
agreement with his main contention that the working of some “ Modern ” lodges
w^as either definitely “ Antient”, or at least strongly permeated with “ Antient ”
niy estimation, tlie greatest masonic scholar of a century, from 1717 to 1818
when referring to “The True Ancient System,” thus wrote, “1 cannot here
be so explicit as I could wish, let it therefore suffice that there are 22 S.’s,
T.’s and W.’s in the three degrees of Craft masonry, as worked by most foreign
lodges; whereas, those masons at present designated by the term Modern have
but 12, and the Ancient in England but 16. . . . The better to effect the
Union so long wished for the Moderns must recover these 10 chief things that
they have omitted and the Ancients recover 6.”
Personally, I should like to know if there was any truth in this state¬
ment. But whether he was right or wrong, I should prefer, after perusing his
many works, to call him ‘The Great Traditioner ”, rather than such a title
should be given to Thomas Dunckerley, who has left none by which it would
be possible to substantiate such a claim.
In conclusion, I would again tender my sincere congratulations to Bro.
Eepper for his latest Essay, which reveals his indefatigable zeal for enlightening
us concerning the past wonderful history of our Fraternity, in which we are
so deeply interested, and to which we all at times attempt to make some small
contribution.
I think that the Grand Lodge of the ‘' Antients ’ ’ came into existence
on the initiative of certain Irish, Scottish, (md—I emphasize the conjunction
English Masons, who disliked the changes that had been made in the landmarks
some years before; and who in the case of the Irish and Scots had the added
aggravation that the Grand Lodge of England did not acknowledge the ruling
bodies in Dublin and Edinburgh as of equal status with itself, nor the private
Lodges in either country as regularly constituted. In this connection I quoted
the passage from Whymper, and did so with approval; for it seems to me
to contain the first suggestion of the theme taken up later by Sadler and
elaborated in the most convincing of ways. That Sadler did not follow up all
the implications expressed in Whymper’s idea we know ; and I took the opport¬
unity of bringing it out of the lumber-room in the hope that the claim for
Masonic supremacy, if it was ever made, might prove a fruitful subject for
investigation. Sadler did much to explain the genesis of the “ Antients” as
a Grand Lodge ; and our knowledge of that body may yet be increased by some
other Brother who follows Whymper’s second clue tendered us in the passage
in question.
To continue: I am still of opinion that the establishment of the Grand
Lodge of the ” Antients” was mainly due to the drive of the Irish Masons
sojourning in the metropolis, and more particularly to the genius of one
Irishman, Laurence Dermott. As for the English Masons who supported it,
what I suggested in the essay, and what I still suggest is this: If any of them
can be shown to have originally belonged to Lodges under the authority of the
premier Grand Lodge, then they might by a “stretch of malice” have been
termed “seceders” by zealots with the watchword “My Grand Lodge right or
wrong. ’ ’
I am further of the opinion that Gould nad a “blind spot” for the
“Antients”; and that Crowe in the passage quoted went much too far in
attributing the Grand Lodge of the “Antients” solely to the Irish. But for
the Irish there, would probably have been no such Grand Lodge; on the other
hand, lacking English supporters, it would have been regarded as an alien
institution from the beginning and have found few recruits in the provinces.
As we know, this was never the case. Be it never forgotten either, that though
the first “noble” Grand Masters of the “Antients” were Irish, the peers
with whom the branch came to be chiefly identified were Scots, the Dukes of
Athol.
What we greatly need in this matter is to trace the Mother Lodges of
the English Masons who supported the “Antients” in the early days. To make
my own position unequivocal: I believe that Dermott’s personal acquaintance
with “Modern” Lodges was confined to visiting, and that he never became a
joining member in any of them. This belief of mine I have stated elsewhere,
more times than I can call to mind.
Now we come to a more delicate matter, that of ritual.
I tried to be careful in the essay to confine my condemnation of the
changes to what affected what I termed the "essentials”, let us say, a grip
for the hand, a sign for the eye, a word for the ear. Those being correct and
invariable, the manner in which they are communicated is negligible, provided
it be done with decency and order. But our forerunners in the eighteenth
century did not think so; and of course I have had to refer to some of the
shibboleths of the old school.
But are we safe in assuming that there were no standard or stereotyped
phrases that had already become dear to the ear of a Mason by 1730 ? And.
apart from identical phrasing, were there no symbols (e.g. preparation) that
called for and were given an explanation in suitable language ?
I shall not attempt to go into particulars, and will confine myself to one
example that occurs on the spur of the moment. Bro. Knoop assumes that the
202 Tr<iiisac.tif)nx of the Quatuor Coruiiati Lodge.
iiRitliods of opening and closing in the three Degrees grew up gradually amongst
both Antients and Moderns” during the eighteenth century. He may be
quite right; but we find Deacons as Officers of the Cork Lodge in 1727, and
some of the most important functions discharged by a Deacon in the Irish rite
take place at the opening and closing of the Lodge. The matter is worth
consideration.
Since Bro. Knoop has referred to my Prestonian Lecture of 1932, I may
describe it briefly as a valiant effort to explain in an hour’s address the
indications of ritual given us by contemporary documents during the eighteenth
century, and it contained no suggestion that any of the customs described had
come into being at or near the time when we first find them set forth in print
or manuscript. Spurious rituals are suspect from the moment of their appearance
as being the work of men untrustworthy in more important respects than a
mere memory for words. Therefore, in dealing with Prichard’s exposure of
17.10, for example, 1 pointed out the omission of certain matters to which we
attach importance in our existing ceremonies; while on coming to Three Distinct
A nods, I showed how many of the missing threads are found in that book
some thirty years later. I never dreamt of suggesting that all the additions
had accrued during the intervening years and were unknown prior to 1730.
That possibility, however, cannot be excluded in weighing the evidence.
Most students, including Bro. Knoop himself, will support me in thinking
that the publication of any book so popular as Three Distinct Knocks, or its
pirated successor, Jachin nnd liodz, has a tendency to stabilize forms of expression
found therein ; but that does not mean that those forms of expression came
into vogue only from the year of publication. In fact the Jneunre. in Prichard
are so easily filled from the text of the later book that I for one am left in
no doubt about the faultiness of the memory of the earlier author.
However, since I am concerned only with "essential points of recog¬
nition ”, 1 need not give much more space to what Bro. Knoop considers my
misconceptions, listed under headings A. and B., and content myself with
rejoining :
A. The "Moderns” did undoubtedly introduce a brand new method of
recognition.
B. Bro. Knoop is of course right: I have drawn attention to changes
in custom (e.g., St. John’s Festival) as well as in ritual. I have altered the
caption to correspond with this.
I doubt if we can draw any conclusions about the practices of the
"Antients” from the charges as printed in Ahiman Reion. Dermott copied
from Spratt, who copied from Pennell, who copied from Anderson. In any
case it is quite patent that Dermott personally had no qualms about the Craft’s
having been thrown open to all men of good will outside the Christian religion.
The catechisms used by the "Antients”, however, show the persistence of the
Christian symbolism. So does the first seal used by the premier Grand Lodge.
Enough evidence surely to suggest a possible bone of contention between Masons
of the old and new schools ?
The date when the changes w'ere made is more important. They had
come into existence long before Laurence Dermott was made a Mason, so he is
not competent as a witness, except from hearsay. The same applies, only more
so, to Preston. The reasons for the date, 1739, given by Preston I know not,
but it certainly was his statement which the Grand Lodge followed in 1809,
so the two can be considered together. I state categorically that it is not correct,
because we have a printed record showing the establishment of one of the most
important of the alterations two years before that date, in 1737.So I reject
J Bro. Smith drew attention to this " ex))Osiire ” in his paper. The text will
be found in (Gentleman’s Miuiazine for 1738, p. 54.
Discussion. 203
1739 as impossible. I think the Grand Lodge had too many troubles of another
kind in that year to add to them by tinkering with ritual matters.
Passwords, as I stated in the body of the essay, are a difficulty. I never
could bring myself to believe the statement that they originated on the continent.
Prichard has no reference to any such secret, nor does any hint of them occur
in the earlier documents. .However, the questions to which I lack answers are :
If passwords originated at Frankfort on Main, who introduced them into Great
Britain ? and why were they different in the “ Antient ” and ‘‘ Modern ” Lodges ?
Here is a new scent for some jolly huntsman to follow’.
Bro. Knoop’s reference to the Koyal Arch Degree fails, I think, to take
up my point. He and I are evidently at one in recognising that what might
be termed the vital germ of that Degree existed before 1717. I have never
claimed that this knowledge was used as a separate Degree before 1730; but
we cannot put this development long after 1730. It had certainly become a
Degree both in London and York before 1744, if w’e believe Dr. Dassigny.
Why the “Moderns” officially disowned any such knowledge I do not
know for certain, but there is evidence that it continued to be Christian in
some of its features till what might be termed a late period. That they did so
disown it, and sometimes thereby blacked the eye of truth, the extracts given
in the essay are abundant proof.
Just one last point. If the Grand Lodge of the “Moderns” did not
impose the ritual changes on such of the private Lodges as could be got at,
why the heresy trial in 1755 when the Lodge at Hen Jonson’s Head was expelled?
While taking leave of Bro. Knoop and thanking him for the immense
trouble he has gone to in annotating my essay, let me at the same time express
my extreme pleasure at receiving shortly after this paper w’as delivered a copy
of his delightful History of Royal Brnnsivlch Lodge, w'hich book shows that
body to have been one of those whom I have denominated “ Traditioner. ”
It w'as a great satisfaction to me to hear the comments by’Bro. Norman
Bogers, since they are a proof that my essay has induced a rereading of some
old Lodge records in its light. The results in this particular case are of course
most w’elcome to me as further evidence to show that Anchor and Hope Lodge
was a Traditioner.
I think there is no need to enter into a lengthy argument about whether
every Lodge constituted by the Premier Grand Lodge after 1730 adopted the
“Modern” ritual or not, because we have certai’i proof that some of them,
for example the Lodge in Philadelphia or Major Shirreff’s at Whitchurch, were
“Antient” in every detail of ritual; other Lodges that were definitely
“ Modern ” from the time of their institution, for example the Lodges con¬
stituted in Paris circa 1735, can sometimes be proved as such; but our great
difficulty in the vast majority of cases is to get any inkling about the ritual
favoured by an English Lodge, and the extracts so obligingly produced by Bro.
Rogers show that there is still much to be learnt from the documents available
in Lancashire. I most sincerely hope that he will oblige us yet further by
collecting the results of his researches into a paper for this Lodge.
I have given above my reasons for not accepting the year 1739 as that
in which the changes were made, but in any case the exact date has little bearing
on the value of Bro. Roger’s comments, for which I am duly grateful.
In dealing with the comments offered by Bro. Hallett I am at a loss
how to reply with becoming modesty to the kindness and generosity of his refer¬
ences to former work of mine, in particular that book written in collaboration
with Bro. Philip Crossle, who will, I am sure, feel just as gratified as I do at
hearing its praise from such a quarter; and so I will confine myself to a very
short .rejoinder on those points in the present essay about which Bro. Hallett
and I must agree to differ.
FRIDAY, 1st OCTOBER, 1943.
Also Bro. 0. C. Klagge, P.M., St. Mary’s Lodge No. 6,S, Visitor.
IN MEMORIAM.
Bro. Fred. Lomax Pick, F.f'.I.S., S.W.. wa.s unanimously elected Master of the
Lodge for the ensuing year; Bro. J. Heron Lepper, B.A.. B.L., P.A.G.R., wa.s
re-elected Treasurer; and Bro. G. H. Ruddle was re-elected Tyler.
One Lodge, one Chapter, one Masonic Club and thirty Brethren were elected
to membership of the Correspondence Circle.
Although several of the plays may be associated with definite gilds, there
is no evidence that the “ Noah” Play was connected with the Mason Gild. The
®^§S*^®tion has been made, not that the “Noah” Play is in any way the
ancestor of our masonic legends, but that, in course of time, the Mason Gild
confused the rehearsal of the Play with the admission ceremony to the Gild,
or telescoped the two, or converted the one into the other. An alternative
®'*§S®®tion is that the admission ceremony evolved from a confused recollection
of the Play, the moralising background of the two having much in common.
The long arm of coincidence would have to be much strained for the facts
to fit the theory. It has yet to be shown that there was, in fact, a Mason
Gild among the Gilds in Wakefield. So far I have found no clear evidence of
the existence of such a Gild. Bro. Noel Hopkins, the Provost of Wakefield
Cathedral, informs me that there is very little in the way of early records of
the Cathedral fabric, but there is certainly nothing which supports the theory
that there was an active Mason Gild in and around the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.
Had there been such a gild, however, it would still have to be shown
that it had some form of admission ceremony, and that it was responsible for
the presentation of the “Noah” Play. Drake’s York gives an account of the
Corpus Christi celebrations in that city, but I have not recently had access to
that work. I believe, however, that no such association existed at York.
In a work Ancient Mysteries Descrihed by William Hone, published in
1823, there is a description of some of the English Miracle Plays, and a refer¬
ence to the Corpus Christi celebrations in Newcastle. After stating that the
earliest mention of the performance of mysteries in Newcastle is in the ordinary
of the coopers for 1426, the author proceeds:—
“In 1437, the barbers played the baptizing of Christ. In 1568, the
offering of Abraham and Isaac was exhibited by the slaters. By the
ordinary of the goldsmiths, plumbers, glaziers, pewterers, and painters,
dated 1436, they were commanded to play at their feast ‘ the three
kings of Coleyn ’. . . . From the ordinary of different trades
it seems that about 1578, the Corpus Christi plays were on the
decline, and never acted but by special command of the magistrates
of Newcastle. They are spoken of as the general plays of the town
of Newcastle, and when thought necessary by the mayor to be set
forth and played, the millers were to perform the Deliverance of
Israel; the house-carpenters, the Burial of Christ; the masons, the
Burial of our lady Saint Mary the Virgin.”
There is also a statement that all that remains of the Newcastle Plays is a
vestige entitled “Noah’s Ark, or the shipwright’s ancient play, or dirge.” The
characters are God, an Angel, Noah and his wife, and the Devil.
As in the Wakefield Plays, the Noah Play seems to have none of the
specific features of the Noah story, as found, for example, in the Graham MS.
It is possible that the suggestion of an association between the Noah I'lay and
the Hiram legend arises from a confusion between the Play with its emphasis
on the ludicrous, and the story with its emphasis on the necromantic.
“ On New Years Day laft at Leedes was a meeting of the Antient and
and Honourable Society of Freemafons; and at Fontefract that Day
7 Night was another; where feveral neighbouring Gentlemen were
admitted; the Lodge confifting of about thirty Perfons in Number,
walk’d to feveral of their Brothers Houfes, having on white Gloves
and Aprons, Mufick before them, &c. Afterwards returning to the
Gallery of the Lodge Room, they drank the King, Frince, &c. with
the Earl of Pontefract and other Loyal Healths, Money was thrown to
the Croud by Handfuls, and the Night concluded with Illuminations,
&c.”
Indeed, it may be that the kind of transition we are looking for never in
fact took place. There may have been a greater measure of discontinuity than
has hitherto been supposed.
These Yorkshire meetings, at which comparatively large groups of local
gentlemen were admitted, may have been nothing more than festive occasions
warranted by a novel and fashionable excuse for conviviality. I see no reason
to suppose that there was, at the Bradford, Leeds and Pontefract meetings, any
ceremonial associated with the moralising of masonic W.T.s., though there may
have' been some communication of esoteric matter associated with recognition
secrets.
There seems, indeed, no logical objection to Murray Lyon’s view that some
person or persons, in the early eighteenth century, actually fabricated the
speculative or symbolical system of freemasonry. Bro. Knoop has given it as his
opinion that the weight of the available evidence is against this view, and I
am reluctant to do anything but regard this opinion with respect. That there
was some kind of relation between the old operative and the new' speculative
masonry is certainly in accordance with evidence, particularly if by “speculative ’’
we mean “non-operative”. But it seems to me that the importance of the
"convivial” stage in the transition has not been adequately realised. There
was a period in the early eighteenth century when almost any and every excuse
for social and convivial fraternity seems to have been eagerly embraced, and
it may be that some of the “operative” lodges had become no more than
associations whose chief bond was an occasional hearty supper.
Such lodges would in time quite naturally admit visitors who had no
connection with the craft of masonry. Once the lodge had become a more or
less social club, there w'ould presumably be no objection to the “non-operatives ”
becoming paying members. There may have been some pretence at formal
admission, more to keep up appearances than to preserve ancient traditions; or
there may have been some communication of recognition-secrets which w'ere in
effect a membership certificate. It would not be unreasonable to expect an influx
of members of a social class perhaps rather higher than that of most of the
original members.
Possibly one or two of the new-comers, having intelligent and enquiring
minds, would find an interest in discussing the early history of the operatives,
and would conclude that such records and traditions as remained to be worthy
of preservation.
I think the transition to be sought is that from this “ social and convivial ”
masonry to the present-day “social and moralising” masonry. It seems to me
quite natural that one or two ingenious ministers of religion, who had been
associated with the masonry of the day from the social standpoint, and were
interested in its “antiquities”, should adapt a process of moralising quite
common in their vocation to the tools of the mason’s craft, in an endeavour to
“improve and elevate”, in Sadler’s words, the society of which they had become
members.
Such a theory of the “transition”, I freely admit, draws to a large
extent on the imagination, but it must be conceded that the theories which hold
the field at the present time do not give much place to the undoubted fact that
the so-called speculative lodges of the early eighteenth century were largely
convivial in character. As will be seen from what follows, several, and probably
many, of the provincial Lodges retained a predominantly “convivial” character
until late into the eighteenth century. In regard to the lodge at Wakefield,
as I shall shortly show, there is plenty of evidence to support this contention.
Similar statements hold good for other old Yorkshire Lodges such as the ‘ Apollo ”
in York and “Probity” in Halifax.
Whereas the transition from “operative” to “convivial” seems in some
respects to have been marked by discontinuity, the transition from “convivial”
Earl/j Fvttma^onrI) ni Wakefield. 211
to ‘'moralising” was gradual and continuous, and in many lodges has become
more or less complete only in these latter years under the stress of war-time
difficulties
THE PLACE OF FREEMASONRY IN CULTURAL HISTORY
In one of the recent papers by Bro. Knoop and Dr. Jones, there is the
stimulating remark :
‘‘It is therefore to be desired that competent Brethren should investigate
the relationship between accepted or speculative masonry and the
political, philosophical, ethical, religious and scientific ideas of its
formative period, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries”.
I am not in any way competent to undertake such an investigation, but I do
perceive the danger of a non-scientific approach to a study of this kind. There
is a great temptation to search for facts to prove a case, or to support stubbornly-
held opinions. A classical example of biassed approach to this subject is that
in von Schlegel’s Philosophy of History. Yet I feel that a scientific investigation
on these lines may well throw light on the transition problem.
An ‘‘official” statement lays it down that masonry is a system of morality
illustrated by symbols and veiled in allegory. Using the terms of psychology,
we could say that masonry is a system whereby an accepted conventional
behaviour-code is inculcated in a peculiar manner. If we look upon ‘‘character-
building” as a process whereby an appropriate reaction and behaviour-pattern
is acquired, then modern ‘‘speculative” masonry may be regarded as being in
part such a process. The method is that of repetitive affirmation combined with
the dramatic rehearsal of a legend.
It is in this particular method that I suppose the ‘‘peculiarity’ of the
process lies. The teaching of the behaviour-pattern is partly by the repeated
affirmation of acceptable precepts which form part of the general behaviour-code
of the day, partly by the use of ritual allegory and legend, partly by the
sanction of vows and obligations, and partly by moral lessons drawn from the
‘‘symbolising” of the tools of a particular craft.
The precepts are not new; many, indeed, are very old. Inculcation by
repeated affirmation is not new. Yows and sanctions are as old as community
life. The use of dramatic ritual, of myth, allegory and legend goes back to
ancient days.
Nor is the occasional use of a craft implement as a symbol with moral
implications a novelty. One need mention only the hammer, the flail and the
scythe as tools of antiquity which were employed in the inculcation of moral
lessons. But I think the systematic symbolising of the whole range of implements
used in a particular craft was a novelty, and I think it was invented as a whole
m, and added to the convivial freemasonry of, the early eighteenth century.
It is possible that a comparison of the conventional precepts of freemasonry
with the conventional behaviour-code of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries would give some indication of the period of the introduction of the
moralising” element. An investigation on these lines awaits the attention of
some competent and unbiassed Brother.
FREEMASONRY IN WAKEFIELD
Ill 1738 was founded the present premier Lodge in the Province of West
YoiLshire ‘‘ Probity ” (now 61), in Halifax. Its story has been delightfully told
in Bro. Hanson s excellent history, The Lodge of Probity^ No. 01 17S8~19''iH
to which I^ am indebted for a good deal of' information' relating to the early
history of its ‘‘daughter” Lodge at Wakefield, the Lodge of Unanimity now
No. 154. ■’
' Knoop and .Jones: Mosonw History Old and Aeic, 1942.
212 I rdiixiiclmux of the nor f'oroiKifi Lodcjr.
Cash Book I is a paper backed foolscap book of 21 leaves. One leaf, presumed
blank, is missing. The pages are in a fair state of preservation, and most of
the writing easily legible. The period covered is from the 27th December, 1765,
to the 4th July, 1770.
Of the seven founders, five appear to have been masons for some time
before 1765. The two Walkers, father and son, were both surgeons, and lived
at Westgate End. From a list of members dated 1784 (see p. 259) it appears
that the younger Walker had been made a mason in Edinburgh, presumably
whilst pursuing his medical studies, and it is possible that the elder Walker
had a similar masonic provenance. Enquiries from the Grand Lodge of Scotland
have not, however, been able to elicit confirmation of this suggestion.
It is not impossible that many young medical students who went from
various parts of England to receive their professional training in Scotland, came
back not only with their medical qualification but also with a short experience
of Scottish masonry. This custom may, in fact, have been one of the minor
channels through which Scottish influence continued to be exercised upon English
masonry late into the eighteenth century. I suggest, too, that the convivial
aspect of freemasonry may have been predominant in the Scottish Lodges which
admitted the medical students.
Dr. Robert Amory was a prominent Wakefield physician, but of his
masonic origin the records disclose nothing. He came of an old family tracing
its descent from an Amory de Moutford, whose brother married the sister of
Henry HI. His father was “ the learned and ingenious but singularly whimsical ”
Early Freemasonry in Wakefield. 213
Thomas Amory, author of John Buncle.^ Dr. Amory died in 1805 at the age
of 74, and would be about 35 when the Lodge was formed.
The fourth of the founders was a book-keeper of the name of John Brown,
or Browne, who is noted in the Cash Book as P.M. I can find nothing in the
Wakefield records about this Brother beyond the fact that he was the first
Senior Deacon. In common with several Yorkshire Lodges of Moderns origin.
No. 361 had two Deacons from the commencement. I think that this indicates,
not the effect of “Antients ” influence, but that the oft-repeated statement that
Deacons were a peculiarity of the " Antients” system requires modification.
As long ago as 1887 Sadler drew attention to the notion that Deacons were
essentially an ‘‘Antients” feature, and cited instances of Deacons in ‘‘Moderns
Lodges. The number of such instances now known seems to be so considerable
that the existence of Deacons in an eighteenth century Lodge cannot be looked
upon as evidence of ‘‘Antients” associations or influence.
There is a John Brown mentioned in a 1764 list of members in Sheffield,
in Bro. David Flather’s paper on eighteenth century Freemasonry in that town.-
The entry is dated June 25th, 1764, and opposite the name is the note:
‘‘xpell’d for not paying his dues.”
Whether this is or is not the same man as the founder of the Wakefield
Lodge I cannot say. It may be that he simply left Sheffield and settled in
Wakefield, without formally ‘‘declining” his own Lodge and paying his dues.
On the other hand he is not recorded in the Sheffield list as ‘‘P.M.”,
and since the name John Brown is not uncommon, it may be that there were
several masons of that name in the district.
The sixth name on the list is Richard Linnecar, of whom there is more
to say later. He seems to have been an unusual man, and one of considerable
parts. He was a linen-draper, a wine-merchant, Post Master or “Deputy”,
Coroner of the West Riding, and something of a play-wright and poet. He was
to occupy the Chair of the Lodge for a quarter of a century, and to become one
of the best known masons of his day. According to the list of members (p. 259)
already mentioned, he was made a mason in Gibraltar in 1743. His Lodge is
given as No. 25. According to Lane, the number was 51 in 1729, and the
Lodge lapsed before the Union. Bro. Rickard, to whom I am indebted for
much help and guidance, tells me that Lodge No. 25 changed from “Moderns”
to “Antients” at some date unknown, but by conjecture perhaps about 1780.
It may be that at some period during Linnecar’s membership of No. 25 there
was an Antients atmosphere in the Lodge; if so, this would help to explain
certain apparently Antients ’ practices in the Wakefield Lodge during the
first few years of its existence. Linnecar would be about 21 or 22 years of age
when he became a member of the Gibraltar Lodge in 1743, but I cannot find
when he came back to England. He was elected Coroner in 1763, and must
therefore have been established in Wakefield for some years before this date.
I am indebted to Bro. G. Y. Johnson for the following extract from The
York Courant of the 1st February, 1763: —
' Hanson, loc. cit., p. 8/. The account iii the Cash Book, dated '26th January
1767, '(.e., a year later, almo.st certainly refers to a visit in connection with the Bovai
.-trch .section of the Lodge. See p. 230 prox.
216 rrdnsactions of the (fuatnur Coronafi Lodge.
5. 10. 0
if the post is p" here it will come to 2/ more
Early Freemasonry in Wakefidd. 217
The Deputation duly arrived safely, and has been in good keeping ever
since. William Walker acknowledged its receipt. Bro. Simpson was a prominent
member of the Halifax Lodge at the Old Cock. Of Bro. James Dixon, Bro.
Hanson says he was their greatest charity problem.- Bro. Simpson wrote to
Grand Lodge as directed; the reply appears to have come via Wakefield, and
the Halifax Brethren must have made application in the prescribed form, but
Grand Lodge do not appear to have granted relief. Another letter followed from
Halifax, written in December, 1768, indicating that no result had followed from
the petition—“from what good reason we know not’’—and announcing that
Bro, Dixon had since died.^
There is a copy of Walker’s letter in the Unanimity archives.
1 Ihiiisun. Inc. cil., p. 7‘2. “ The £1 Is. ^iven for C'harity to Hro. James Dixon
tlolivered into Bro. Norj'is hands and to be ]>aid by him as best seenvs meet ”
On 27 Nove/mber, l76o, it is ordered: “ That the Socy. in behalf of Bro. James Dixon
write Grand Lodfze to desire their Charity toward assisting said Bror.’’
2 Hanson, loo. cit., p. 72.
218 rrdiimvtioiix of thf Qiiatitor Cororiftti Jjodgt.
COPY OF WARRANT
Bi.a.y_ney, G.iM.
To (d! (uid I'vtrii oiir Right Wurshipfid, Worshipful, and Lovuig
lirc-thrni, Wr, The Right Honohable Cadwall.ader, Lord
Blayney, Baron Blayney of Monaghan, Lord. Lieutenant and
Ciistos Jtoi ulorum of saul County, in the Kingdom of Ireland,
and Major General in His Majesty’s Service, Grand Master of
the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted
M asons,
Send Greeting.
Lord Blaney was Grand Master at the time, and the Warrant is signed by
Colonel John Salter as Deputy. The Lodge was given the number 361, which
it retained until the enumeration of 1770, when it became No. 296. Subsequent
numbers were 237, 238, 202, 252, 179 and the present 154.
The various records indicate how the work of forming the Lodge was
shared out among the founders. Kilvington appears to have attended to money
matters. Wm. Walker Senr., the first Master, conducted most of the corres¬
pondence with London and Halifax, and in the meantime Kilvington and
Linnecar busied themselves with the arrangements for furniture and jewels.
Enquiries were sent out to various jewellers who supplied masonic regalia.
One reply came from Wm. Hancock in Sheffield. The letter is addressed to Mr"
Edw". Kilvington in Wakefield: —
220 J'raiiKactio/i>i of the Quatnor durondti Lodtjt.
It was, however, the offer from York which took the fancy of the Wakefield
Brethren : —
My dear Friend York Dec 25"'. 1765
I hope I shall agreeably Surprize you and
the Rest of my Brethren I by Chance met
with the Best Set of Jew'els I ever saw' they are
much Better than in our Grand Lodge
excepting that of the Grand Master’s which
is Gold I have made them all as good as new
I have put the Lace to them I Bought them
w'ith if you think proper to have it Now
that you can do at Wakefield the Price
of them is £3 . . 17s . . 0 alltogether I hope
you w'ill not think them dear I beg you
you will give the Best Wishes of a Mason to all
my unknown Brothers and tell them I
hope to drink there healths and yours at our Lodge
next friday Pray my Compliments to
your family
I am your most obliged
Amb. Beckwith
There were several Beckwiths associated with York masonry at this time.
Ambrose and Malby Beckwith are frequently mentioned in the minutes of the
“Apollo” Lodge.
The “Grand Lodge” to which Beckwith refers in his letter w'ill be the
York Grand Lodge which was revived on the 17th March, 1761, being “opened
in ‘ample form’, the Grand Master, Francis Drake, Esq., F.R.S., being present
in jierson. ’ ’ '
' Hughaii’.s Ai>oUo, p. 12. Tlie Minutes of the old “ Apollo ” Lodge have long
been ill the care of the “ Humber ” Lodge, No. 57, at Bull, Some time ago the
hiilldiug containing the .safe in wliich the IMiniite.s are kejit suffered the fate of so
many masonic temiiles, but fortunatejv the books were undamaged. I am indebted
to ■\V.Bro. H. S. Goodyear, the Trustees of the “ Humber ” Lodge, for the privilege
of examining the “ Apollo ” Minutes and Account books.
luirh/ Freeina^otir!/ in Wdle.fi'ld- 221
The Wakefield Brethren decided to acquire the jewels from York, and
Linnecar paid for them. An entry in the First Cash Book refers to the
transaction: —
St. John’s Day 24*’’ June 1766
Paid Linnecar M'' Beckwiths Bill for Jewells
£3. .16..0
Why the amount should be one shilling less than the quoted price is not clear.
However, there seems to have been a slight misunderstanding. Linnecar
acknowledged receipt of the jewels, and expressed appreciation of them. In
their eagerness to secure a set of jewels the Wakefield Brethren appear to have
assumed that the set would be the same as that specified in the offer from
Sheffield. They were disappointed to find that there was no Treasurer’s jewel.
Linnecar pointed this out to Beckwith, but the latter replied to the effect that
in his Lodge the Treasurer and Secretary were one person, and wore the
Secretary’s jewel.
To M’’. Linnecar
Wakefield
Dear Brother York Feb 9^'' (1766)
When I received your first, after your receipt
of the Jewels, which Gives me Pleasure to find
they Please, I was out of town. We have no other
Jewels but those I have sent you. the Secretary
with us is the Treasurer and uses none but the
Secretary’s Jewel but I have wrote to London
to a Brother to enquire if he can meet with
anything of the kind second hand. if he can’t I
will not delay making one for you as soon
as Pofsible (sic). My Brother Malby and M'’”. Beckwith
desires there Compliments and 1 heartily wish you
succefs in your Lodge and may Harmony
for ever attend it
I am dear Brother
Yours
Amb. Beckwith
Whether this offer was accepted we do not know. There is, however, an entry
in the Cash Book under date 12th June, 1766, showing that £1 . . 5 . . 0 was
paid for “a Treasurer’s Jewel”, but there is no mention of the maker’s or
supplier’s name.
It is of interest to note that in the Cash Account of the " Apollo ” Lodge
in York there are two items some years later which show a remarkable similarity
to the Wakefield transaction, and are a confirmation of Beckwith’s statement
about the Treasurer’s jewel: —
Nov. 17*'' 1773 Amb. Beckwith, Jewels per Receipt . . £5..0..0
Dec. 15**' Amb. Beckwith, Treasurer’s Jewel 1 . . 5 . .0
The Wakefield Brethren made many other purchases, The first pages of
the First Cash Book are interesting reading: —
£10 . 14 . 6
The right hand top corner of the page is missing, and the pence from
the first five items cannot be given.
The names Derby and Wilkinson are not those of contemporary Wakefield
masons. There is little doubt, I think, that “Bro. Derby’’ was the Pressic
Darby who was a printer and newspaper proprietor in Halifax, and a member
of the Old Cock Lodge. Bro. Hanson says ' “ that he was the publisher of
the Union Journal or Halifax Advertiser, and the S.W, of the earliest record
of the Lodge.
There was a Bro Wilkinson in the Halifax Lodge, the date of his
initiation being given as 11th July, 1764, though Bro. Hanson does not state
his vocation.^ The transaction recorded in the books of Lodge No. 361 may
thus indicate what this was.
One of the most interesting items in the list of purchases is that relating
to Ahyman Rezon. Why should a regular “Moderns” Lodge purchase the
‘ ‘ Antients ’ ’ manual so early in its career ? The transaction is not without
precedent. The Mother Lodge at Halifax had bought a copy of Himan Raison
' Hanson. loo. cit., p. 53. Darby appears to have left Halifax about this time.
2 p. 351.
Early Freemar^onry in Wal<efirJd. 223
in 1763, and paid only 4/- for it. That some importance was attached to its
possession is evidenced by the fact that the Halifax Brethren ordered and procured
another copy in 1773, by which time the price had risen to 6/-. Lodge No. 361
also procured another copy in 1768, the price this time being 5/-.
The Apollo Lodge at York also possessed a copy of Dermott’s famous
work. The fact that several Lodges owned, and apparently used, the Ahnnnn
liezon^ would seem to be against the theory that the Wakefield Lodge had any
special “ Antients ” leanings. It is probable that there was a good deal of
fraternising between “Antients” and “Moderns” in provincial Lodges; theie
is at least one instance recorded of an “ Antieiits ” visitor to Wakefield,^ and
there is a letter from Sheffield" which definitely states that the Wakefield
Brethren “worked Aiitients”, but I think the real reason for the use of the
book had reference to the Royal Arch. I think that far too much has been
made of Samuel Spencer’s famous remark: “Our Society is neither Arch, Royal
Arch or Ancient”, and that at this period the “Moderns” Grand Ijodge, if
they did not recognise the Royal Arch, certainly did not actively prohibit its
working.
The Lodges in Wakefield and Halifax both worked the Royal Arch, the
former from 1766 and the latter a year earlier.
TABLE FURNITURE
This subject stimulated an interesting correspondence in MiscrUanea
Latomorurn, vol. xxvi., last year. There seems to be little doubt that at the
period of the formation of Lodge 361 the use of a table in the Lodge was quite
common. Linnecar himself has left us some indication of the nature of the
“ furniture ” on the table. In his Misctllaneons lFu/7t.s, published in 1789,
we read (p. 254):
“The hieroglyphics and symbols, on the table and chairs of a lodge,
are the three great lights of masonry. The three lesser lights, the
twenty four inch gage, the common mallet, the pillars, &c. which
the brethren are early taught to explain; also the rough ashler,
which is a stone, as taken out of the quarry, which by the care and
skill of the workman, is brought to due form. This is emblematical
of the mind of man in his primitive state, w’hich is rude and
unimproved like that stone, ‘ till by the grace of God, a virtuous
education, and pious example, his mind is enlightened.
The perfect ashler, is a well wrought stone, a regular cube, tried by
the square and compass. Which should teach and excite us to try
and prove ourselves whether we have a conscience void of offence
towards God and towards man.
The tressel-board, is what the master draws his designs on, the better
to instruct the younger brothers. The Holy Bible is the tressel of
the great architect of the universe, wherein are laid down such good
and certain instructions, that if we faithfully attend to them, we
shall be enabled to build a house, without hands, eternal in heaven ! ”
From the fact that the furniture was on the table, I think we may infer that
the Brethren sat round on chairs or benches. It is possible that some part of
the "ceremony” took place in a relatively small space at the end of the room,
where there may have been a pedestal for the purpose of administering the
Ob., and that once this had been done, any subsequent perambulations would
take place round the table, ending in the candidate taking his place in the
seat assigned to him.
1 See p. 35 in MS.
^ See p. 70 in .MS.
2'24 Trintxdclitiiix of the Quatuor (Joronoti I.odiic.
I incline to the view that the practice of “squaring the Lodge” originated
from the physical necessity of progressing round the table in this way, and that
any symbolism associated at the present day with the act of “squaring” is
superimposed subsequently. Alternatively, the squaring may have been done
round the “ tressel-board ”, or the “drawing on the floor” which probably
occupied part of the space between the Lodge table and the position in the
extreme E. from which the Master administered the O.
I like to think that the description of the assembling of a Lodge at this
time, as given in Jackin and lioaz (first pub. in 1762; my edn. is dated 1814),
corresponds fairly well wuth what actually took place in the first few years of
the existence of Lodge No. 361
“It was timber framed with good barge boards, and was entered by
a low archway leading into the yard. Over the archway entrance
was a signboard bearing a representation of St. George mounted on
a white horse trampling a fiery dragon, while the Saint transfixed
it with his spear."
The George and Crown Yard still exists; on the 1823 map of Wakefield by
J. Walker it is shown extending from Silver Street to the Tammy Hall, a
large building with a frontage of about 230ft.
Bro. Warmington, the present West Riding Registrar of Deeds and a
P.M. of the Lodge, says that by 1795 many additions had been made to this
property, and that by the end of the century, if not at the time of the formation
of the Lodge, the George and Crown was much more than an Inn, and must
have been quite a centre of social activity. The deeds show that there were
on the premises by 1795
An Academy of Music
An Assembly Room
A Meeting House
A Circulating Library
From the fact that, in its beginnings, the Ledge possessed but little in
the way of “ furniture ’’ and that little probably locked away in boxes or
cupboards with the “3 locks and keys”, we might infer that at first they hired
one of the ordinary inn rooms for their fortnightly meetings; it was not till
1776 that they bought “3 chairs and their Thrones" and probably reserved a
room permanently.
There is evidence, too, that the convivial side of Freemasonry was
prominent in the early meetings. The receipts side of the accounts in the first
years seems to indicate that the rules observed were more like those governing
the affairs of a social club than of a solemn philosophical and speculative
assembly. The cash records show that Candles, Herb Tobacco and Glasses—
the latter often broken in a hearty “fire"—were among the oft-recurring items.
The custom of exacting “fines” for minor misdemeanours may indicate attempts
to curb premature conviviality and to restrain excessive exuberance.
£ s d
7th Aug. 1766 Bro. Amory and Bro. Dawson, for inattention
to the MasP* Mallet 0 0 6
2nd Oct. Bro. Nevinson for sitting down uncloth’d 0 0 3
18 Mar. 1767 Bro. W. Parker for Smooking when at Work 0 0 6
17th Jun Rec'*. for a Glafs from Bro. W". Walker burst
in a fire 0 1 0
Rec'*. from Bro. Kilvington for another Glafs
broke in a Fire 0 1 0
By D". from Bro. Walker a Glafs 0 1 0
24th Jun Kilvington for sitting down uncloathed 0 0 3
15th Jul Sill for D”. 0 0 3
D°. for D°. &c. 0 1 0
(one wonders what offence is hidden under that “ D”. &c.”
to warrant the heavy fine of one shilling !)
Sill & Nevinson for Tofsing up who shoud pay
for their suppers 0 0 6
Bro. Linnecar for unclothed 0 0 3
It would appear that the after-proceedings were not confined to liquid
refreshment, though the amounts recorded for “ expences " seem hardly enough
to cover for meals for all the Brethren present. Probably they paid for their
own suppers, but shared or paid from the Lodge funds the bill for the drinks.
226 'I'niii.-iac/Kiiix df fhe Quatnor ('oniniiti Lodi/r.
Wliatover the exact form of the proceedings round the table, there is
no douht that “toasting” had a large part m them, as will be seen later.
Ihere was a distinction between “work”, when “ smooking ” was not permitted,
and the later proceedings when glasses were often “broke in a Fire”, but the
Lodge was probably not closed until after everything was over.
This custom could probably be inferred from the manner in which the
expenses are always recorded in the minutes of each meeting—the minutes being
probably written up there and then.
There is an Apollo” minute dated 28th Sept:, 1774, which shows the
practice in York: —
Order'd that the Stewards examine the Bill every Lodge, A
if they find such Bill right, that they sign it & that the Treasurer
for the Future shall not pay any Bill unlefs such has been examined
by the Stewards A signed by them. Order’d that the Stewards call
for A settle each Bill before the closing of the Lodge A sign the same,
in case of their Neglect to be fined Is. for each offence.”
There were fines for “swearing Oaths”, the usual amount being one
shilling, but on one occasion this was reduced to 6d. when Capt. Tottenham was
overheard “swearing a gentle Damn”.
I picture the early meetings as merry affairs, but that there was a
serious side to the masonry of those days there can be little doubt. Linnecar's
j)/incellaiieuiis IFor/.i-, published so far as concerns the masonic portions at the
entreaty of several of the Brethren, is confirmation of this; the books they
bought and presumably used provide further evidence.
The Lodge grew in strength. The earliest Craft minute is dated St.
John’s Day (24th June), 1770, but the Cash Books show the names of those
who were admitted from the beginning, and paid the fee of £1. 11. 6 for the
first three “ steps ”. The first initiates of the Lodge are recorded on the first
‘' receipts ’ ’ page : —
1766
9 Jan’''’ By Cash rec"*. of Broh Armatage £1. 11. 6
By Do of Bro''. — White 1. 11. 6
By Do of Bro''. — Dawson 1. 11. 6
23 By Do of Bro’’. — Nevinson 1. 11. 6
7 Apr By Do of Bro''. — Graham 1. 11. 6
By Do of Bro''. Peter Cave 1. 11. 6
7 June By Do of Bro''. Bolton 1. 11. 6
The Kev. Jo. Armitage was the first clergyman to become a member or
the Lodge; he subsequently went to Hooton. Stephen White was an attorney
who, in the 1768 list, was reported “gone to Ripon ” ; he appears to have been
the second Senior Deacon of the Lodge. Thomas Dawson was the landlord of the
George and Crown, where the Lodge held its meetings, and he is shown in the
list of 1768 as J.D., but was not the first holder of that office. Jo. Nevinson,
a merchant, was the first Junior Deacon, and was Junior Warden in 1768.
James Graham was a druggist, Peter Cave a “Captain of Foot”, and Robert
Bolton or Boulton a Bookkeeper. They were all apparently quite young men,
and their interests and pursuits were those of their times. Dawson, the landlord
of the George and Crown, was a great supporter of the then popular “ sport ”
of cock-fighting, and encouraged “ mains ” between the Gentlemen of Wakefield
and those from other towns in the neighbourhood. There were several cock-pits
in Wakefield, but Dawson’s New Pit saw many great battles and much heavy
wagering. The inhuman and barbarous practice was suppressed by law in 1849.
The first list of members in the Wakefield collection is dated 1st January,
1768. It is on a single sheet, and appears to be a copy of a return sent to the
General Secretary on the 6th April, 1768.
I'jarly Freema^unri/ tn Wal'i'fii'ld. 227
uJ-f
O o T5
i> '5 i O o6 o o o o o o Q
^ > QOO Q 00000
;-icd
O
oo
•o 4) *0 ^ u a ”2 0)
.S'5 u td C
o 4> QO
~ j S' UJ O cO
•S w a-ts E 6 3 ; B
u 2 § ?? ^
^ooooooooo o *cn Q o•
Sqqqqqqqqq > - ■4 o c
QQgSs « .Q ^
«>
CQ Oh
S' o > Q Q Q “ S
W M’J3 ~ <D
CO
5 O 5 M
e »| 9
q;
>. >> a:i bjo
_ CJ u o o u UUUo|j>''Ji3Ju
c S-nS
c c w ►“
d d
QJ 4> <U O 4)
q4;qqoqq C3c (Uo. 4*c, dc 2;‘
3 o 4)Cl.0.l>iuC^EHm
^ o
?QQ ^ZQ Q<<QQ2.S^Q
gs e.s ror'^r''r''~i'~»oofnTtj'£)
O
o
o O
II, d ojj
o ed h • -fl
CA M a j- U u O ^ 44_ R C ^
H-S-S 4> 'O _ =
o o s ^ ° °
L- 2 S ■S ;3 "o S o ■ r\
s S . . ^
•O 13 ^
'5 SH di 2-gj= c to ocQ “Q '
w 4) 2o'=EoZ- 2 5 SSS“ 8 S-i
iSs ^ ce:; 2 m £ j uS tu S < ff: ft; oa ^ S o UQUUu2cOt/jj
u 1—>
i> 'c E
X> m ^
^ o
*5 Z O ^
^ S^ C
V
c 4> C Ef^ M _ o i 2 o T?
C
« ao O
cd t« w S i- = "S o ~ -s j: c . ° „
E CL»
cm-i-E t
o
V. 9-S = o-p.E - w cm: y 22 ^ cd iJ .£?-- -^2 a o
o^ ? H E >
;.^ E
S5 I.• - O O o "o E
^ oj ca 2 IQ n j < ^ > c S N M I I «
^ "S cd E ffl ^
,2-S u ;<Z QQ M •■E'ii-c E ^ ^ ^
^ 2(ji^
o « • c/5 Q
-12 O c J— -3 c “2
<4-1 1> M'S S'go-gc .S e/i w *5 ^
< OX °t5| ■-°l 2.-§
oi k; & hb: E (ij m S S ^
At the side of the List, which is dated 1768, Jan'''' 1st, is a note:
After you have sent in the List of the prefent Members of your
Lodge, you are, as often as you make or admit seven new ones to
transmit an Account of the same to the Grand Secretary, that they
may be registr’d. ’ ^
In a rough copy of the List, the name “Bolton' is spelled “Boulton" and
“ Knigge ” is spelled “Kneige”.
The List has many points of interest, not the least being the fact that
the Secretary, presumably Linnecar, thought it necessary to insert a column
228 1 rtni.^irtloiix af the Qiidtiiiir ('uroruiti l.ruh/e.
headed If Expell d, for what cause”? Only twelve of the twenty-nine names
in the list are those of active members. Edward Kilvington, one of the seven
bounders and the first J.W., had already left the lodge under somewhat of a
cloud.
There is in the collection an undated- letter from Kilvington to T)r. Amory :
Dear Sir,
Some time ago I desir’d Bror. Parker W'ou’d never summons
me to the Lodge which he was kind enough to observe, but yesterday
our worthy Bro. Linnecar sent me one, not knowung, T imagine, I
had desir’d the contrary. 1 am very sorry for what happened that
night cSi I have maturely considered the nature of all my obligations
to Masonry with that I made when I cancell’d my name & at present
cannh reconcile myself to attend. I shall always have the highest
opinion of Masonry & wdsh every blefsing may attend No 397 & all
its members
I am, D'' Sir, your affect". Serv‘. & Bro
E. Kilvington
Wednesday IMorn®.
The letter was probably written in 1768, after Amory had left the Chair; the
number, 397, is an error on Kilvington’s part. The Lodge was still No. 361 ;
No. 397, according to Lane, was a Lodge meeting in Soho.
Kilvington continued in the office of J.W. for a second year, but w'hen
Tottenham became Master in 1768, Armitage and Nevinson were his Wardens.
It may be that there w'as some coolness between Kilvington and Tottenham;
it may be that the Colonel, later to become General, ruled the Lodge with a
strong hand. According to the letter just quoted, Kilvington resigned; the
list written by Linnecar has it otherwise. Whatever the truth of the matter,
the Lodge lost one of its most enthusiastic Founders, and his name never occurs
again in the records.'
The members were drawn from a variety of vocations, the “professions”
in particular being well represented. Most of those wKo are noted as living
away from Wakefield had some connection or other with the towm, but it seems
to have been the custom to admit to the benefits of masonry certain individuals
who w'ere classified as “visitors”. Most of the Brethren thus described w'ere
initiated, passed and raised in the Lodge, and paid their fees of £1 : 11 : 6 for
the three degrees, but did not pay a subscription.
In some cases Brethren were admitted to further degrees after having been
presumably initiated in some other Lodge. Thus, the first mention in the Cash
Book of Jo. Roberts is on the 3rd June, 1767 : —
By Cash of Bro. Jo. Roberts for pafs^. F.C. ... 10s fid
and on the 24th of the same month he is recorded as paying another 10/6 “for
raising Mas".”
The Cash Book has only one reference to Bro. Dutton: —
Dec". 2. 1767 By cash rec’d of Bro". Dutton for being rais’d 10s 6d
Bro. Dutton was already a Mason, as is confirmed by the Second Royal Arch
Journal of the Lodge, one of the first pages of which contains a copy of the
certificate issued by the Lodge to Brethren raised to the Royal Arch: —
1 His brother, Thomas Kilvington, was a medical man who died in 1823 and
left Edw'ard Kilvington’s .son a sum of £13.000 for “ Christian purposes The son.
Rev Edivard Kilvington, who had been Perpetual Curate of O.ssett, near Wakefield,
from 1799, applied the legacy to the building of Holy Trinity Church in Ripon, and
became its first incumbent in 1827. He is buried beneath the Church.
Earh/ Freemasonrij in Wnli eficld. 229
' After tlii.s date the records of the Unanimity Chapter become confused with
those ()f the “ IVakcfield Chapter” now No. 495. The two Chapters appear to have
hold joint meetings, and made their record.s sometimes in one book and sometimes in
another. Se])arate Minnte.s for the Unanimity Chaiiter were resumed in 1865 and
the records continued to 1920, when the Chapter was transferred to Meltham.
230 Tr(iiisacti()))H of tht- Qiiatuor Curoiuiti Lodgt.
W. Walker Jun''.
Expences 3/6 E: Kilvington
Tyler 1/- R: Linnecar
R: Amory
Visitors Ja; Nevison
Lodge closed to the 3’''*. Sep’’. 1766
The elder Walker was apparently already a Royal Arch Mason, but I have been
unable to 6nd out where he was admitted to the degree. Armitage, Parker
and White had been made' R.A. only a few weeks earlier. Bro. T. W. Hanson,
in an address to the Prov. Grand Chapter of Yorkshire (West Riding) given on
the 31st May, 1933, records that these Brethren were admitted to the Rose and
Crown Royal Arch Lodge in Halifax on the 30th July, 1766. As the Wakefield
Lodge no doubt followed the model of the Old Cock Lodge in Halifax, so no
doubt did the Wakefield Royal Arch Lodge follow that at the Rose and Crown
in Halifax, which had itself commenced its R.A. activities in January, 1765.
The second R.A. meeting was held four days after the first: —
Royall Arch Lodge 3'''’. Sep''. 1766
Bro'^. Present
W. Parker. M'.
W. Walker. M''.
Jo: Brown. M''.
Stephen White -
Jo: Armitage
Bro''. W Walker Jun''. E: Kilvington R: Linnecar R. Amory &
Jo Nevinson took the fourth or Excellent degree of Royall Arch
s d
Expences 13 . . 10
£ S D Tyler 1
five Admifsion fees 2 . . 12 . . 6
S14 . . 10
At the next meeting the Brethren from Halifax paid a visit in strength.
From the numbers present this would seem to have been something of a cele¬
bration, but the Cash Book discreetly records expenses amounting to only 13/-.
Royall Arch Lodge held at the George and Crown, in Wakefield,
the 11th September 1766
Visitors Brothers present
W. Norris—Pro Tern : M''. W. Walker M'.
S. Lord W. Walker Jun'. M'
W. Newby E. Kilvington M'.
W". Appleyard W. Parker
Jo®. Poole R. Linnecar
R. Amory
Jo. Nevinson
S. White
Jo: Armitage
Lodge closed to the IS'". February 1767
Earl// Frf.e.masonry in Wakefield. 231
At the following meeting there was a single visitor, and no ceremony is recorded.
The date is 18th February, 1767, and the three Masters were Amory, Liiinecar
and White, Kilvington, Walker, Armitage and Brown were present, also
“Morris Power, of Lodge No. 39, Manchester’’
Lodge No. 39 was probably “St. Anns Church and Mitre in Manchester’’,
consecrated, according to Lane, in 1755.. It was an “Antients’’ Lodge, and
this is therefore an instance of an “Antients’’ visitor to a “Moderns” Lodge;
but 1 doubt whether it is a justifiable inference that the R.A. as practised
in Halifax and Wakefield was necessarily similar to that w’orked by the
“ Antients.” ‘
On the 27th May, 1767, there w'ere five Brethren present, with Amory,
Armitage and Linnecar as Masters, the expenses of the night being only 2/2^.
On the 23rd June Amory, Armitage and Kilvington were the Masters, the two
Walkers, Linnecar and Parker also being present. At neither of these two
meetings was there- a ceremony.
On the 19th August, 1767, Amory, Afmitage and Walker were the
Masters, and lunnecar was the only other member present. The minute reads: —
“ Brothers L. A. Tottenham and Thos. Holdford propos’d to be rais’d
Eoyall Arch, & pafsed in the Affirmative”
These two Brethren duly “took the fourth degree of Masonry, or Excellent
Royall Arch” on the 25th August, 1767, the meeting being also the last occasion
on w'hich Kilvington attended the R.A. Lodge.
The 16th December was a Regular Lodge Night, and was apparently
converted into a Royal Arch Lodge meeting. Col. Tottenham brought in two
of his friends, one of them the Bro. John Dutton already mentioned. The
minute reads : —
“ Broh Tottenham proposed Bro’'. John Dutton of Lodge N”. 14 and
Brother Sill, Capt". of the 62"'*. Rt. for most excellent Royal Arch
Masons, w°''. pafsed in the affirmative, and they being thought worthy
and that most sublime step. Captain Dutton was now made, as was Bro''.
Brooke, Tyler, proposed by Bro’'. Amory-but Captain Sill
could not attend.”
Dutton attended early in the following year as a visitor.
It will be observed that the principal officers were designated “Masters ”.
One is reminded of the present-day R.A. Regulation No. , which reads: —
“ According to ancient custom, a complete Chapter of this order of
Freemasonry consists of the Three Principals, who, when in Chapter
assembled, are to be considered jointly as the Master, and each
severally as a Master. .”
Frequently the three “Masters” of the R.A. Lodge were the Master and
Wardens of the Craft Lodge. In recording the transactions of the meeting
hold on the 3rd February, 1768, the secretary actually wrote- “M., S.W., and
J.W. ’ against the names of Tottenham, Armitage and Linnecar. He then
crossed out these abbreviations and substituted “M'.” in each case. At this
meeting Amory and Walker also were present, and Brothers Sill and Helsham
“were made Excellent Royal Arch Masons.”
The next two meetings were on the iTth February and 20th April, 1768.
No ceremony is recorded at either meeting, and the attendance is small. No
expenses are recorded, and it may be that a Craft meeting had preceded the
R.A. Lodge. On the 3rd February, 1768, there is a note; —
After the meeting on 17th Feb., 1768, the Principal Officers are no longer
designated by any abbreviation; the names of those present are simply recorded
without reference to office. This practice continued for several years, but after
1776 it became the custom to use the Craft designations, including “S.D.'',
“J.D. ’, "Sec.” and "Tyler.”
The above remarks refer to the records in the First R.A. Journal. In
the Second Journal, into which several of the earlier minutes had been copied,
the scribe has made a curious "improvement”. Instead of confining the title
of I\laster ” to the three Principal Officers, he has conferred it on all present,
giving the record an odd appearance. Thus, his list of Brethren present at the
meeting on the 18th February, 1767, reads: —
Robert Amory M.D. Ma^
Rich'’. Linnecar Ma''.
Stephen White Ma''.
Edw'’. Kilvington Ma^
W"', Walker Ma’’.
Jo: Armitage Ma'.
Jo: Brown Ma''.
The copyist evidently did not understand the use of the term "Master”
in this connection, and perhaps thought it meant "Master Mason”. I do not
think that we can read into this any reference to the custom of "passing the
Chair” before proceeding to the Royal Arch. This practice does not seem to
have been followed at Halifax, and there would be no reason for it to appear
in Wakefield.
The Brethren do not, however, seem to have been quite sure of their
ground with the Royal Arch. I do not know in what their uncertainty consisted,
but the two following letters, written about this period, do indicate that they
were seeking certain information. I have not been able to identify “ E. Pryce ”,
but it would seem that he was in some way connected with Grand Lodge in
London : —
" To
Mr. Wm. Parker,
Linnen Draper,
Wakefield, Lond°. 4th May 5768
Ykfs (vulgar error)
Broth'. Parker,
Dear Sir,
Upon a sick bed (which some thought would be my death one)
with reviving pleasure I receiv’d your agreeable Epistle : your genteel
list of Members, your Charity and your order for Books, the two
former have had the necefsary care taken of them in time, and the
latter as soon as my strength and time would permit.
1 hope you and the good Brethren when you come to know the
reason will pardon my delay.
Early Freemasonry in Wakefield. 233
The Ahymon Rezon 5“- and the sermon 6** which I find to be the
the only one Entick ever publish’d, for he never preached but 2 on
Masonry I could not without difficulty procure after sending three
times to his house to Stepney Churchyard.
However yesterday I sent the Book and one Sermon to come from
the White Bear by the Waggon, and if you would please to have
11 more of the same sort, pray signify it & I will send them:
We have had at the Feast 2'*. ins‘. some change of Officers
There are no copies of Bro. Parker’s letters, but a month later Bro. Pryce wrote
again : —
I look upon the next Minute as being of very great interest. It is probably
the earliest-known clear indication of the nature of the Royal Arch ceremony
in the latter half of the eighteenth century, and appears to be good evidence
that the "Moderns” working (presuming Wakefield to have followed the
"Moderns” in the R.A. as well as in the Craft) of that time was closely related
to that practised at the present time.
It has been stated that the “Antients ”, ■ in their R.A. working, followed
the Irish ritual. If the eighteenth century Irish R.A. was anything like that
of the present day, then the Wakefield R.A. Lodge certainly did not practise
the Irish working. The Minute reads: —
2'M fraiiKiirlKjii.': of the (fualuor (Joromiti Ijodyc,.
There are two additional interesting allusions in this letter. Besides the
"cord of love” we have the “Chair of Amity” and the “Wanderers in the
Wilderness”. Is it possible that at some point in the ceremony the candidate
was seated in a particular chair and was presented with the (1 ends of the)
cord, or is the reference to some privilege enjoyed by the Master or “ First
Principal ” ? The allusion to the “ Wanderers in the Wilderness ” has a familiar
ring, but somehow it does not quite fit into the modern R.A. working.
The Wakefield records contain one other reference to the “Cord ”. At a
meeting of the Chapter held in the Black Bull Inn on the 17th January, 1809,
a presentation was made by one of the members. The Minute states: —
It seems clear that some definite ceremonial usage was associated with the Cord,
and that it was not part of the normal regalia worn by each Companion, since
the Chapter would possess only the one cord. Linnecar’s portrait, which
clearly shows his Royal Arch sash and apron, has no sign of a “silken cord”.
Incidentally it should be noted that Linnecar wore his sash on the right shoulder.
There is a painting of a Companion of the early nineteenth century in the
Whitby Lodge, showing the sash similarly worn.
The next R.A. minute is a short one; four of the members, Nevingson
(sic), Linnecar, Parker and L. A. Tottenham, were present, and they enter¬
tained Bro. Jas. Whitley, a visitor from Halifax. There are, however, several
interesting points arising out of this short record. The meeting was on a Sunday,
the 10th November, 1771; the expenses are unusually high for so small a
gathering—they amount to £1 ..7.. 9, and the record ends with the note: —
There is nothing to indicate why there had been no Royal Arch meeting for more
than eighteen months, or why there should be another and even longer period
of inactivity.
236 Trmisnctioii.'i of the (fuatuor f’oro/infi Ijodyt.
On checking the Cash Book records, however, the agreement between the
H.A. minutes and the receipts of fees during the years 1766 and 1777 is not
quite exact. Bro. Brooke, who was made R.A. along with Capt. Dutton on the
16th December, 1767, was Tyler and presumably a "serving Brother”, and
thus paid no fee. Under date 4th July, 1770, the Cash Book has an entry:
but the Royal Arch Journal has no Minute referring to Capt. Tottenham’s
admission to the degree.
The earliest Craft Minutes are lost, but there happens to remain a single
tattered leaf recording four meetings in 1770. The fragment is a single frayed
foolscap sheet, much yellowed with age, and the ink has turned a dark brown.
George & Crown Lodge N". 361 St. Jn®. Day (1770)
The "social and convivial ” aspect does not appear to have been neglected.
The " expences” are not inconsiderable, and Bro. Nevinson’s name appears twice
in the list of members present. It is, however, the last of the four Minutes
which explains the discrepancy between the Cash records and the Royal Arch
Journal. Apparently the Lodge, in the absence of Craft business, decided to
resolve itself into the Royal Arch, and to admit Captain Tottenham to that
degree:—
Early Freemasonry in Wakefield. 22,1
The usual “Lodge clos’d to . has been omitted, and the cryptic
reference to “Joseph” must remain unexplained.
A point of interest is that Linnecar is for the first time in the history of
the Lodge shown as Master. The succession of Masters in the first few years
was: —
1766 W.Walker Senr.
1767 Dr. Robert Amory
1768 L. A. Tottenham
1769 Rev. J. Armitage
1770 Richard Linnecar
1771 Jo. Nevinson
1772 ?
1773 ?
1774 Richard Linnecar
to
1800
There is a curious period of inanition between 10th November, 1771, and 16th
January, 1776. There is only one item in the Cash Book on the expenditure
side of the accounts during this period: —
Which Lodge did he visit, and why ? Perhaps the Sheffield records may throw
some light on these questions, and give a hint as to the reason for the inactive
period at Wakefield.
There are rather more entries on the receipts side.
The next entries on both sides of the Cash Book are dated 16th January, 1776.
There are no Craft minutes extant for this period, but the first Royal
Arch Journal contains a note immediately after the minute of the meeting on
19th November, 1771: —
In the first Journal the note is recorded in an almost illegible hand. It ap])ears
at the head of the left-hand ])age, and is ruled off underneath. The copy in
the second Journal has not only been beautifully written, but has been
improved by the copyist. He has made it look as much like a minute as
possible : —
Brother Linnecar was appointed Master for this year, and the
Lodge to meet at the Masters pleasure.
Lodge closed to 10th June 1776 ”
In his zeal for tidying up the old minutes, the scribe has not noticed a curious
error in the two minutes which follow. In the first Journal, immediately under
the line ruling off the note mentioned, are entered the following minutes: —
EnC. 6..11
Brothers John Ball & Jn°. Mackerth & Jos*', (.s/c) Goodall propos’d
themselves to be rais’d Royal Arch Mason’s pafs’d in the Affirmative
and made accordingly
Broth''®. Present
R. Linnicar Mas''.
Visitors Broth''. Ball W. Walker S.D.
D°. Armitage A. H. Linnicar J.D.
Exp®. Bill : 15 : 9
Tyler ; 1:0
Enf*. 16 : 9
The Minute of 13th May should of course precede that of 10th June; it
seems to have been the custom for the Secretary to leave blanks after the phrase :
“Lodge clos’d to
and to fill in these blanks after the lapse of several meetings. The two minutes
were transposed for the reason given in the note (in small handwriting) imme¬
diately under the double line ruling off the minute of the-meeting on May 13th ,
the successive dates were added perhaps some months later, and when the minutes
were copied out years afterwards into the second R.A. Journal, the scribe added an
error of his own when he converted the note about Linnecar in 1774 into a minute
of a transaction at a meeting.
Whatever the reason for the partial suspension of the activities of the
Lodge immediately prior to 1776, there is no doubt that the beginning of that
year marked the commencement of a new era, and was in many ways the golden
age of the Lodge. Linnecar took the Chair in that year and retained it till
his death in 1800. There had undoubtedly been a decline in the affairs of the
Lodge, and the Brethren were intent upon a revival.
Linnecar, that man of many parts, wrote a “song” to mark the occasion,
and published a broadsheet, presumably for circulation among the Brethren of
the district. The first verse runs; —
The broadsheet version was a little broad in its humour, and when the “song”
was reprinted in Linnecar’s book, published in 1789, several of the sentiments
were modified, and the whole song referred back to the period of the formation
of the Lodge.
The version in the Miscellaneous Works is: —
God bless ! these poor people, pray let them rail on.
And let us, dear brethren, each strive to mend one !
That by our example, the world may all see.
To be good and virtuous, is free-masonry !
Derry down.
It is not clear why Linnecar should have left a blank in the last line but
one. The word “Wakefield” would scan, but when the ^lisce.JIniieoiix TrorZ-.';
was published, the Lodge had already been named “Unanimity” (in 1777).
The rest of the song is not without masonic interest. It indicates that
some of the various “exposures” current at the time were well-known to the
Brethren even in the Provinces, and had attracted sufficient general attention
to justify a little disparagement. Jachin and Boaz was first published in 1762,
and according to Bro. Vibert ran into 26 editions by the Union. Three Di.^iinrt
Knocks also went into a number of editions after publication in 1760.
Earli/ Freemasonif/ in Wdlefield. 241
X) Qo d o . iK co. a.
_
■ CO
p rJ CO q' O . Q cl
O) •— OJ O
< < ,.,
nq nD „
■0 *0 Qq
. iL •o’ rJ -d r-1 3
.QO Q O. S i/i ->
•o CO ro r4
:-§° •o
CO
fl . yi ^ _c Q ^ tA Vj Tj- O
4) — > s ? X
O o p o w >» >, r cj u-
>> wi > _ W- ^ Tl
S'2-o-a-S n>
"2 i'-S-3T3
C cd ^
•a ^ ffl • « S 5 '5—0
fl O CD
>»’ . . pa >» ^ rrt ^
t e-Sxi ® ^ F*i ^ ® CC »»s ^ c ’tt; c
®OxP’Sc:cooccc X
e 5 ’.i o.-Se
u. Bps XXo.E 0«J U <i>
H Pi « ^
Til “S .y;= J
^XXXXXXXXXXX p; Si [-
pa £ XI o ( ' OU. ^
o OL- O OOOpOOOOOOOO o o o o o
1_
Xt/5 tt ffi OQ CD go (Q mmmcSmicSmmmcnm ffi ffl m
cij >> >> ^^^
u CO CQ CD GQ QQ CD cccQCQaaQQQQQDasasfflaaaa CD CD CD CD GO
X
CO
<
U
a
<
-
Tl OC ^ I I VP
'“Ml O' oo I °° I I 1 ^ I I ^ !
I ^
^ 00 Tj- r-~ j 'CifM'XOrJ lox m oo j ^
I" '"Ml 11 I - M" I - 1 II 11 I
:<a oj
C
04
•o ■O(U-
5 TD T3
W- tJ)
O O
O bo o
•o W5 X ^ ■a .hJ
ZhJ J
c o
o « hJ
‘ ^ ^C l-
•. ■5:7
O^ « c .. °
flJ
.<
.
u <A v
pa n u 3 cd
>.
CJ o E-o
^ « 2 • S Jr.5PZ •€ ^ ■P E
-o ^o Z
^ fli ’Si"M’S!
^zizz o.y ^
O "O
(d U> V> O-
:JZ ^
"o o i-S E,„ , <pP ‘ ^
Cd O <■ :co
X u 5
« pa h «
w, o tn I o '5
'(vi O C
X pa
00
« X X
^
ox®
Pi o = '^" 5
•3 p. a o. 50 'yj W X
TX
g </3 I/)
«j ed ^ V) X
cd X 2 X X
®i5 v-
S ,o Cd (S n '£ tu o O -^CD
<£uu UW g w u tu « Si .
o o o o o o 3 ^ Cu o.
X X ft
X
« c.
J cr X X
HHH HHH mHHH < CO T UJ Pu’ Q u LU tu UJ - P^ H W
<
U
Q.
<
Brothers Present
Visitors Brothr. Richd. Linnicar Master
Brothr. Dr. Davison Win. Walker - S.W.
A. H. Linnicar J.W.
E. Wright - S.D.
Frans. Barstow - J.D.
Expences Bill . . 13 . . 0 W. Royston
Tyler . . 1 . .0 Thos. Andrews
Thos. Hardy
Entd. 14 . . 0 J. Mackerth
Tim Oxley
Robt. Beatson
Thos. Dawson
Heny. Andrews
Brother Dr. Davison proposed himself to be rais’d
Master Mason the next Lodge Night or the first
Lodge Night he attends
Lodge closed except on Emergency till the 17th April
Entd. 15 . . 0
ShfifReld, on the 29th December, 1773. He was raised in the same I^odge on
th(! 27th December, 1775,' and joined the Lodge in Wakefield on the 16th
January, 1776.
He does not appear to have been Master of his Sheffield Lodge, nor was
he ever regularly elected Master of the Lodge at Wakefield. It would appear
that at this period it was not essential for an "Installed ]\laster ” to preside
over the Lodge when conducting a ceremony. The expression "Passed (or Past)
Master’’ was not unknown in Wakefield; Tottenham, who had occupied the
chair in 1768, was noted as ‘‘P.M.’’ on at least one subsequent occasion. It
seems unlikely, however, that any distinctive secrets or ceremony were associated
with the assumption of the chair at that time. Nor do I think the ceremony
of “passing the chair’’ was ever practised in Wakefield, as a preliminary to
the Royal Arch. As will be seen from the Craft minutes now cited, Harry
Linnecar deputised for his father on more than one occasion, and presumably
conducted the ceremonies.
I imagine the reason why Ur. Davison was not made a Master Mason
on the same night as he "propos’d himself’’ for that degree is that a number
of those jjresent were not MMs. Davison did ultimately proceed to the "3rd
Step ’’, and was made a Royal Arch Mason on the 1st December, 1782. He was
attached, like so many of the Brethren, to the 90th Regiment.
It may be worthy of note that on the 17th April, 1776, several Brethren
"propos’d themselves’’ to be raised Master Masons, and were "made accord¬
ingly" without the proposals being put to the vote. When Bro. Henry Andrews
proposed himself to be made a Fellow Craft, the proposal had apparently first
to be approved.
The earliest Bye-Laws of the Lodge of which I have been able to secure
a copy are dated 1805. In these the point in question is covered by a rule
which reads; —
"Every Brother who has received the apprentices, or any other degree,
and is desirous of being advanced, shall move the Lodge for that
purpose, and his motion when seconded, shall be determined by ballot ’’
In two of the older Wakefield Lodges there is a curious custom at the present
time of giving notice regarding advancemment. After a candidate has been
initiated, or passed to the second degree, it is usual for his proposer to rise
and say:—
"W.M., I wish to give notice that Bro. A.B. will take a further degree
ill due course.’’
If by chance this announcement is omitted, there is often doubt in the minds
of the Brethren as to the legitimacy of proceeding to a further degree until the
"proper notice’’ has been given.
The next minute is a blunt record of a disappointment.
George k Crown Inn Lodge on emergency 27th April upon expectation
of two visiting Brethrn who did not come.
Brothers Present
Exps. Bill .... 6 . . 0 A. H. Linnicar Mastr. in absence
Tyler . 1 . . 0 of- R. Linnicar
Richd. Mawhood Jun. S.W.
Entd. ... 7.0 John Barstow J.W.
Thos. Dawson S.D
Timy. Oxley J.D.
W. Royston Secy.
Lodge closed till the 1st May except on emergency
From the flourish with which the name “W. Royston ” is written, it is
safe to assume that these minutes are in his writing. The whole of these 1776
minutes, with the exception of a short portion of the minute of 17th April, are
by his hand.
The minutes given above occupy the two sides of the first page or leaf.
Two leaves are missing from the centre of the section, and this would account
for the minutes of four or five meetings, which seems a reasonable assumption
from the Cash Book records.
The next minute corresponds, I imagine, to a modern Installation ,
but the occasion was in the middle of summer, and not, as is now the custom
in Wakefield, as near as possible to St. John’s Day in Winter.
Geo“. & Crown Inn Lodge, being S*. John’s Day, y®. 24^'’. June 1776
Lodge met and dined in due form.
£ s d
Exp\ Bill 3. 4. 0
Tyler 2. 6
Serv‘“. 2. 6
EntL £3. 9. 0
There were nine Brethren present, and the expenses were £3. 9, 0. I
like to try to picture this gathering on a bright summer evening in eighteenth
century Wakefield. The curtains would be drawn, we must presume, over the
leaded windows of the long room above the archway entrance into the George
and Crown yard. Inside the room, at the eastern end, would be the Master’s
chair on its raised dais, with the pedestal before it. A third of the room would
be vacant except for the squared carpet on which the ceremony was performed.
Then, stretching two-thirds the length of the room, at the western end would
be the Lodge table. On this occasion, what a sight would meet the eyes of the
Brethren ! Bro. Dawson, Mine Host, an old member and the Senior Deacon of
the Lodge, would have given of his best. The finest of the glass and silver in
the house would have been brought out to supplement the "mason’s glasses”
of the Lodge. The side tables would bear the bowls of cold punch, and there
would be an ample sufficiency of choice wines, selected and perhaps supplied by
the Master himself.
246 Traiisacfioii.s of the Qtiatuor Coronati Lodge.
The Lodge would be opened, formal business transacted, and the Brethren
would then take their seats at the table. The meal, we may imagine, would he
such as appealed to the tastes of the youthful and no doubt fastidious members
of the Lodge, nor would it disgrace the tradition of Wakefield hospitality. We
can picture the first toast loyally drunk—many of the absent members were
with their regiments—the drawing of the cloth, and the settling down to a merry
evening and the steady consumption of wines, and of “malt liquor’’ for the
good of the house. We can see the radiant and genial Linnecar in his best
form presiding over the little gathering of good fellows, who every now and
then would raise the roof with one of their “Derry Down’’ choruses. There
would be toasts, “sentiments’’, challenges, and an occasional glass broken in a
too vigorous “ fire ’’—and we may be sure that joy was unconfined and indeed
restrained only by the fleeting hour and the good example of the Master.
With the exception of lunnecar, who at this time would be about 53, they
were nearly all quite young men. Walker was about 35, but Mackerth, Royston,
A. H. Linnecar and some of the others were in their early twenties. Their
gatherings would be exuberant, but they would be kept in check to some extent
by the respect they had for the urbane and versatile Linnecar. We can realise
why he retained the chair for a quarter of a century; with the mellowing of
the years the respect of his Brethren would grow into something akin to
veneration, until there could clearly be no alternative to Linnecar in the chair
in his lifetime.
The meeting on St. John’s Day shows that all the officers were elected,
and that Linnecar must have occupied the Chair during the previous year.
Mackerth had already moved to Hooton, and was no longer a subscribing member,
although in later years he frequently attended the Royal Arch meetings as a
member.
The next meeting was a much quieter affair; six Brethren were present,
including one visitor, but the expenses amounted to less than 3s. per head.
Brother’s Present
R. Linnicar Mas®.
E. Wright S.W. Pro temp
Visitor T. Andrews D°.
Fredk. Wilkinson W. Royston Secy.
T s d T. Horrocks
Exps. Bill 15. 9
Tyler 1. 0
Waiter 3
Entd. 17. 0
Brothers Present
Visitor R. Linnicar Masr.
The Rev"*. J. Mackerth W. Walker S.W.
T. Andrews J.W.
£ s d T. Dawson S.D.
Exps. Bill 1. 0. 2 E. Wright J.D.
Tyler 1. 0 W. Royston Secy.
Heny. Andrews
Entd. £1. 1. 2 T. Horrocks
Linnecar, Master.
Free and Accepted Masons are defired
to meet tlie Brethren of the Lodge No. 296, at the George
and Crown in Wakefield, on Friday the 27th of December inft.
at ten o'clock in the forenoon, being St. John’s day, where a fer-
mon will be preached on the occafion, by the Rev Brother John
Mackareth.
Walker, Senior Warden.
A. H. Linnecar, Junior Warden.
Dinner to be upon the table at two o’clock.
The records also contain letters from the various Lodges in the vicinity; some
accepted and others declined on account of previous arrangements:
This old Lodge is now “Britannia ” No. 139, Sheffield. According to Lane,
it did not move to the “Old King’s Head, Change Alley’’ till the following
year.
There were two Lodges in Leeds at this time. One was “ The Talbot ’’
which had been warranted by the “Moderns” in 1754 as No. 243, and in the
1770 enumeration became No. 142. Accordint; to Lane, this Lodge was erased
in 1776, but according to the Wakefield records it was still active in this year,
since it was represented at the Wakefield Festival in December. The record of
the proceedings shows that the Brethren of “Lodge 243 ” were represented by
their Master, a Past Master, the two Wardens, Treasurer and Secretary.
The other Leeds Lodge was the “ Golden Lyon ”, which met at the Inn
of that name near Leeds Bridge. Lane says that this was a “ Master’s Lodge ”,
that it was warranted (“Moderns”) in 1761 with the number 258, and was
No. 205 at the time of the Wakefield Festival. It lapsed for want of members,
and was erased in 1786. The Brethren of 205 had made other arrangements: —
D"'. Sir
Your very kind favour of 19"'. Inst: giving our Lodge an
invitation to meet your's on the approaching S*'. John’s day, has
only this moment been put into my hands — On Account of the
shortnefs of this notice I am under the necefsity to tell you we cannot
have the pleasure to wait on you that day Having already made
the necefsary dispositions for celebrating the said Feast in our own
Lodge At any other time it will afford us much pleasure to pay a
Visit to our Bretheren at Wakefield
I am w"'. much respect & esteem
IF. Sir
Your affect fr‘‘. & Bro''.
Geo: Scott klh
M''. R,'’. Thnnecar, blaster of tlie l.eeds 23'‘. Dec''. 1776
Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons
N“. 296 Wakefield 10 forenoon
The Brethren of the Halifax Lodge decided to attend, and wrote a formal
note of acceptance, signed by the three ju'incipal officers: —
The letter is inscribed to: —
Masf. of the Lodge of Free Masons
N" 296
Wakefield
Right Worshipful Masf
Sen'', and Jiin''. Wardens & the rest of the Officers & Brethren of
the I.odge 296 at Wakefield
In answer to your favor of the
19“. Inst, as many of this Lodge as pofsible intend
themselves the ])leasure of paying you a Visit
on Friday next — We shall not exceed seven nor we
believe not lefs than five — We wish we could increase
the number
We are Dear Broth''®.
Your most obed''. hum’ Ser®.
&L Brethren
The three signatures are boldly and carefully written, and it is to be presumed
that these three Brethren at least attended the celebrations.
The Festival seems to have been a great success, if we may rely on a
document in the Wakefield Collection. This account reads as though it was a
report intended for the Press, and perhaps a search among contemporary journals
would show that it was actually published. The affair followed the lines of
Linnecar’s notes, and there is little doubt that the Brethren enjoyed themselves
hugely.
The account runs; —
“On Fryday last, being St. John the Evangelist’s Day, the Freemasons
of the Lodge at Wakefield, accompanied by the Brethren of the Lodges
81 and 243 and several Brethren from other Lodges, went in procession
from their Lodge, with a fine band of Martial Musick, belonging to
the 59th Regiment; and other performers, to Church, where a most
excellent Sermon was preached on the occasion by the Revd. Mr.
Mackreath; they were ushered into the Church by a grand piece of
iNlusick by Mr. Clementshnw ^ on the organ, which continued playing
till the service began. The greatest concourse of People were
assembled, the Church, Streets, and Windows were crowded with
Spectators. The text was the 16th Verse of the 3d. Chap of the
Prophet Malachi.’’
There follows a description of the Procession; it must have been a brave show; —
“Two Tylers, with drawn Swords
Musick, two and two
Stewards, with White Rods, Two and Two
Brethren of the Wakefield Lodge, Two and Two
LODGE 81
Treasurer and Secretary, with their Jewels
Senior and Junior Wardens, with their Jewe_ls
Past Master, with his Jewel
Master, with his Jewel
LODGE 243
Treasurer and Secretary, with their Jewels
Senior and Junior Wardens, with their Jewels
Past Master, with his Jew'el
Master, wdth his Jewel
LODGE 296
Treasurer and Secretary, with the Bible
with their Jewels
Senior and Junior Wardens, with their Jewels
Past Master, with his Jewel
Clergyman and Master, with their Jewels’’
The Festival had not been without incident;- the nature of the affront has long
been a mystery, but a letter in the Wakefield records throws some light on the
affair : —
Leeds, 10*”. Jan^. 1777
D^ B*.
I rec’d yours, and am sorry we could not have the pleasure
of your, and the brethren’s company, we are all very sorry for the
Worshipful, and Bh M°.Keraths poor state of health, which that God
may restore them to health is our prayers. Dr. Br., I desire most
humbly to beg the Worshipfuls and Every Br. who was present,
Pardon for my behaviour on St, John’s Day (at Night) to that
This minute is dated 26th August, 1778, but the Bacchus w’as not removed
from the List till 9th April, 1783.
The Royal Arch Lodge had also been active. There were several meetings
in 1776, and one in 1777. There was an emergency meeting on the 30th July,
1776, w'hen ‘‘Brother’s Daw'son, Andrews, Hardy k Oxley propos'd themselves
to be rais’d Royal Arch Masons—the next Lodge Night—balloted for & pafs’d
in y®. affirmative.” They were “rais’d” accordingly at the next meeeting,
on the 7th August, 1776. Brother Elias Wright was made Royal Arch on the
21st August, and Bro. Francis Barstow on the 13th December, 1776. It is not
clear to me how' these Brethren could “propose themselves”, unless they did
so when the Lodge was open in the Craft and then resolved itself into the Royal
The great Festival of the 27th December had been preceded on the
previous day by a Royal Arch meeting. The record is interesting by reason
of the light it throws on this practice of Brethren “proposing” themselves:
“Royal Arch Lodge — 26th December 1776 on emergency
Bror. Goodair & West was proposed to be raiz’d Royal Arch Masons
this Night, pafs’d in the affirmative & made accordingly.-
KNIGHTS OF MAI.TA
On enquiring further into the masonic history of these four Brethren we find
that Mackerth, Oxley and Horrocks were initiated in 1776, and that Wright
was one of the older members, having been made a Mason in 1766, the first year
of the Lodge. All but Horrocks were made Royal Arch Masons in 1776, before
the Malta meeting; Horrocks w^as made Royal Arch on the 5th January, 1778,
after the Malta meeting.
This seems to be an important point, since, as Bro. Songhurst pointed
out long ago, the Royal Arch qualification for the Order of the Temple goes
back to an early date. The connection between the two Orders, Temple and
Malta, w’as not alw’ays as close as it is to-day, but I gather that early references
to Malta are frequently associated with the Royal Arch.
Personally I feel that Gould was not far wrong when he said that the
Royal Arch originated in France at the time of the rise of the Scots degrees,’
and a contribution towards the evidence in favour of this view is suggested
below.^
I have mentioned that Horrocks was made a Royal Arch Mason on the
5th January, 1778, and the Journal contains a minute to this effect. There
is, however, no mention in the Royal Arch Minutes of either Fearnley or
Cockshott being raised to that degree, although they were proposed and accepted
at the same time as Horrocks. Cockshott appears later in the R.A. Minutes as
a visitor” on the 13th January, 1782, and Fearnley as one of the “Brothers
Present” at the Royal Arch meeting on the 27th December of the same year.
256 J'raii.siic.tiDiis of the Qua! nor ( 'oronafi Lodyr.
Thi; Cash Book discloses that these Brethren each paid 10s 6d. for their “4th
btep on the 5th Ajiril, 1779, although there was no Royal Arch meeting on
that date. It is a fair inference, I think, that the Royal Arch ceremony took
place in the Craft Lodge, as in the case of Capt. Tottenham in 1770, and that
it would be recorded in the Craft minute book now lost.
There are other instances of a similar kind. The Cash book records
payments, also on the 5th April, 1779, of 10s 6d. each for the “4th Step’’
by Cajit. South and Bro. Heurtley, but I cannot find these names in the Royal
Arch Journal as having been made Royal Arch.
There was a regular meeting of the Royal Arch Lodge on the 22iid February,
1779, when three military Brethren were “ raised ’’ to the R.A. The next meeting
was on the 19th March, 1781, and two members of the Lodge were made Royal
Arch. This was the first time in its history when the Lodge did not meet at the
George and Crown ; on this occasion they went to another of Wakefield’s old inns,
the “ Woolpacks,’’ which still stands on the north side of Westgate, and thrives
as a pojjular hostelry.
Ten months elajtsed before the Boyal Arch Lodge met again, this time on
Sunday, the 13th January, 1782, and at the George and Crown. The minute
records : —
1 Stokes and Flatfier : “ The Uisforn of Itoiinl Arrh Mn.soiirn in ShrjjiehL” 1922.
Stokes: “The llai/nl Brunswick Chapter of 1‘aradisc.”
Eurh/ Fn:('iita-‘<(>i!ri/ in II (ihfpiltl- 257
the Royal Arch Degree, were, probably for fiiiaiicial reasons, of commissioned rank.
On the 25th October, 1782, Capt. Phineas Mackworth Praed of the 90th, and
Daniel Vaughan, surgeon in the same Regiment, were “ raised Royal Arch ’
General Tottenham, Capt. Fitz and Capt. Forrest being among the visitors. On the
1st December, 1782, Capt. Charles Newton, Capt. Robert Towers Fawcett and Dr.
Will. Dawson, all of the 90th, were made Royal Arch, and on the 3rd February of
the following year
“Brother Cap‘". Lieu'. Thomas Fitzgerald of the 90tli Regiment,
originally made in Lodge No. 1 under the Grand Lodge of Ireland,
about 24 years of age, was raised to the Superlative Degree of a Royal
Arch Mason”
There was another meeting on the 5th February, 1783, when seven more Brethren
(no.ranks stated) from the 90th took the degree; another on the 18th February,
when two more were admitted, and still another on the 24th February, the record
reading : —
“ Rais’d Brothers John Stratford Saunders, Captain 90th Regt., Robert
Atkinson, Serg. & John Jackson, Private 90th Regim^. to the Super¬
lative Degree of Royal Arch Masons-
From the long lists of visitors at these meetings it would seem that a very goodly
proportion of the 90th Regiment in 1783 was composed of Masons; probably most
of them were of Irish Masonic origin, but received their Royal Arch Degree in
Wakefield.
About this time the 90th must have moved aw’ay. The meetings continue at
intervals to December, 1784, the attendance being round about a dozen on the
average. The Lodge resumed its normal existence after what must have been
an exhilarating and probably hilarious time in the company of the members of the
gallant 90th.
There is no record of a Royal Arch meeting until 1784, but the Cash Book
and other sources indicate that towards the end of 1784 the earl of Mexborough and
Col. James Low'ther were made Masons in the Lodge at Wakefield. In the following
year, these two gentlemen, together with Richard Linnecar, were made honorary
members of the Apollo Lodge at York, w'hich at this time was acting as the
Provincial Grand Lodge of Yorkshire. The meeting was held on the 19th January,
1785, Bro. J. Sawyer was in the chair, wuth Bros. Parkinson and Staveley as
Wardens. Bro. Rule, with whom Linnecar had done business on former occasions
and who was subsequently to supply much of the Royal Arch Chapter regalia, was
Treasurer.
The Deputy Provincial Grand Master, Bro. Richard Garland, proposed the
Earl of Mexborough and Col. Lowther, and Bro. Camidge proposed Linnecar; the
resolution “ pafsed Nem. Con.”
I have already mentioned that 1 had an opportunity, some months ago, of
studying the old Apollo books, which fortunately escaped the fate of the building
in v.'hich they were housed. Hughan’s Hl.tfoi i/ ot the A jioJIn Lodifr, Yorl:,
will be well remembered. It would appear from his second Chapter that he worked
from Tesseyman’s transcript, and this may account for a number of minor errors
which are apparent on comparing Hughan’s account wdth the actual Minute and
Cash Books.
In regard to the rapid Masonic rise of Richard Slater Milnes, Hughan’s
account ' is a little misleading. The Apollo minutes of 24th-June, 1784, record: —
At a meeting of tlic Apollo on the 22nd September, 1784, Bro. Caraidge proposed
that the D.B.G.M., Bro, Garland, should write to R. S. Milnes, Esq., to desire
him to iipjioint a day when he would attend the Lodge, i.e., the Apollo Lodge in
its capacity as Provincial Grand Lodge, to be installed as Provincial Grand Ma”ster.
Ihe Piovincial Grand Master of the time, Sir Walter Vavasour, did not seem to
care much for his office, and seldom attended the meetings of the Provincial Grand
Lodge. As a result of correspondence between him and the Apollo, he expressed
his willingness to resign the office, and the Apollo took the will for the deed.
Richard Slater Milnes of Wakefield appearing to them to be a fit and proper person
for the office of Provincial Grand Master, an approach seems to have been made
to him, and on the 3rd November, 1784, Bro. R. S. Milnes was duly installed and
invested.
The Cash Book of the Lodge at Wakefield makes it clear, however, that he
had been a Master Mason only three days, and that he had taken his 2nd and 3rd
degrees in Wakefield: —
" . . . whereas the appointment was duly notified to the ‘ Apollo,’ the
actual completion of the requisite authority was thus delayed.
My suspicion is that the Yorkshire Lodges arranged matters among themselves, and
notified London of a fait accompli.
Bro. Milnes does not seem to have proceeded to the Royal Arch in Wakefield.
Neither the Royal Arch Journal nor the Cash Book contain any reference to him in
this connection, but the 1784 returns record him as a member of the Lodge, and
show that at the age of 25 he was both a Member of Parliament and the Provincial
Grand Master for Yorkshire.
The Royal Arch Lodge continued to hold meetings with fair regularity,
drawing on the members of the Craft Lodge for its candidates. In practice most
members went forward as a matter of course; Masonry at this time was in W^akefield
a system of four degrees. On the 13th February, 1784, two Brethren from Don¬
caster, Charles Plummer and Edward Miller, were made Royal Arch.
Early Frettnas^onry in Wale field. 259
WAKEFIELD
2;^
IN
o o
Z-1
INN
aX oor^
x-^ •d
o B
e OW
CROWN
a: CT 03 E c
c d c c
o o o
c/7
c
c/5
03 03
EE EE
AND
1) (j flj flj
■dT3 T3T3
03 cd 03 03
ss SS
rJ r-i <Ni fN rJ
GEORGE
Os cN SC o m m — Tj-ri C Os Y SC tc cn — sn
ri fN ’-'
c a c
o _ _ o . . o , _ ( o o^ o o o
■•3-a 3 at • ^3’d • "d >
HELD
O o P 0 3 p- o p
zs Qu, zSo Z 3 O5 ^
c/)OQ^ :? z
sc rO
— — rM
238,
cd cd
No.
> O
^ E
• CiC
' P
UNANIMITY
dc -
2 ^ S2^ T3 C-d
C/5 cd ir-a
C 1)
’ 2
13 • • - • ^ *{5 • - • .
yc d d 6 6 6 _tc o o > S :E d;C d ■■ LC 5 tc o o o o op: o o o o
wd’d'd’d’d-s wdxj n ^ c/5 aj O (U’d^’5 4J-S ^ 1> CJ Crt .2 ; u’O’d'd’d-^ i/’d'd'O'd
^ ^id ■ ^ T -d ^ ci ^ p-i: p^ •d ''•^ -Ev-^
005^u0^555
1) 2o^oa cd cd ^ 1/ -o c .£P ^
2:5 P O V- CN w O
Deiu- -1 hJ
(U
0£
•d
OF
S . o
ra ^ nJ
o
LODGE
O y> 1
C-H v’ 2, n
p. fcS
IsO 1 ^B S E ,
d aj IaJ
C J2 WO C/5 O loo n O
-•o-o-g ii
O Etc CCL E^n '^SclQ^
o 3-8 —'-C ■“ ^2 da-22-s o o- o^i:-.; Cd u Si.SR I 83
THE
cdcdi-i/ — — — cd ' J3 Cd
Uco?U?C) 'o O oOmS •> uucci>'<uau cnO
c^
--O B ■>
o
gse £ r4 sc^ ,
OF
c'O fNCNfMCN I
O 1) W
,
MEMBERS
^ O
2 . ..cH
s55 s
•F <3
E ■■a c “
cd u. ■o
OF
« uJ § c -z o S i-Xi
„ cd—1 crt c ‘ c o-« ^ 6
y fe >.5 ^ j=2 ^
c^-a^ c w)
, ^
crt
—
c
O ii r"
rr: pj *d o
1/5 ^
is« ._ 5: 8
— .(ucda> u u. c o d o S §
LIST
The Secretary between 1782 and 1784 was Thomas Lang. For several
meetings he followed the custom of describing the three principal officers in the
Royal Arch Lodge as Master, S.W.- and J.W. On the 29th September, 1783, he
leverted to the old style of “ Master ' for each of the three, and this practice was
continued until 1793.
A meeting was held on the 27th December, 1784, at which six of the
Biethren and a visitor, Charles Mason, were present, but no ceremony was con¬
ducted. Theieafter the Royal Arch Lodge did not meet again until the 6th
February, 1788, when a new element appears in the affairs of the Lodge. The
minute reads: —
William Hodgson was one of the enthusiasts in Leeds Masonic activities, and
was the first Z. of the Unity Chapter in that City, the warrant being granted in
October, 1790. His keenness got him into trouble on one occasion, when two
Harrogate Brethren complained to Grand Lodge that Hodgson had in his possession
a manuscript of the lectures belonging to all four degrees in hfasonry, and that he
had obtained these for the purpose of “ teaching an intended Lodge and Chapter
at Leeds.' ’ '
John Meggitt was a bookseller in W^akefield ; he was also a bookbinder whose
work was much appreciated, and occasional examples of his art are still encountered.
Idstein and Lavaisse, I believe, were French prisoners of war, of whom
there were many in the district. At subsequent meetings other French names
appear: two of these Brethren, James Gabriel Hugueir (or Hugiere) and Julian
Franswa [xi<) were frequent visitors. The prisoners were on parole in Wakefield,
and included officers of the French Navy as well as Army.
The Cash Book confirms the transactions of the Royal Arch Lodge, and
shows that the Craft Lodge also was active. Occasional items of interest occur;
on the 21st February the Lodge bought a “Box for Ballotting” for which they
paid £1. On the 4th July in the same year they bought a copy of Noorthouck’s
“ Constitutions,’’ and had it bound by Bro. Meggitt two years later. The book is
still in the possession of the Lodge, bound in full calf, though the passage of time
has left the joints weak.
In 1787 they purchased “a Box for the Master’s Picture.” This was no
doubt for the well-known three-quarter length portrait of Linnecar, by Heniy
Singleton, who would be a young man of about 21 when he painted this picture.
An engraving was made from this portrait after Linnecar’s death in 1800, and
many copies are known.
The Lodge dispensed quite large numbers of small amounts for charity,
usually the record runs; —
In 1789 Linnecar published his book of 300 octavo pages. The dedication
IS to "John Berkenhout, Doctor of Physic, and the rest of his generous sub¬
scribers.” The contents comprise a tragedy, two comedies, a number of songs and
poems, and a section of 18 pages entitled " Strirturea on Freenuuoii r//’ The word
"Strictures” is, of course, used in its old sense of "incidental remarks or com¬
ments” and not as we now use it, to mean "adverse criticisms.” The plays are
not of great merit; indeed, Chetwode Crawley ' alluded to them as "Two
melancholy comedies and an insipid tragedy.” His " Hymn on Masonry ” became
well-known, and is frequently quoted: —
have interested the Brethren of Linnecar’s day, and though various legends he
cites are quite unhistorical, they must not be judged by the standards of a later
age. For example, Linnecar held the view that Masonry was at one time under
the personal patronage of St. John the Evangelist, and gives the following curious
account: —
“ From Solomon’s time all Lodges were dedicated to him, until the building
of the second temple, by Zerubbable, after the Bab3’’lonish captivity. Then
Zerubbable continued patron of Masonry until the destruction of Jerusalem,
by Titus.-Lodges were then broke up, and the masons were
dispersed, and it was some time before a sufficient number could assemble
to form a lodge ; at last they met in a city of Benjamin; when the'y deputed
five of the most eminent brethren to go to St. John the Evangelist, who
was then Bishop of Ephesus, to entreat him that he would honour them with
his patronage. St. John told them, he was very old, being turned of ninety,
but to support so good and ancient an institution, he would undertake the
charge—and from that daj', all lodges are dedicated to him.”
Chetwodc Crawley quite rightly labelled the whole story as preposterous, but it
was widely believed iii Linnecar’s day, and his book must have contributed largely
to the dissemination of the legend, and may to some extent be held responsible
for the persistence of the myth of association to the present time.
In the absence of the Craft minutes some of the Cash Book references are
tantalising : —
1789 Nov. 23 To Thos. Wood’s Bill mak®. up the
Curtain . 5s. 8d.
Dec. 28 To Thos. Whitehead’s Bill for
Joiner’s Work . £1 15s. lOd.
1790 Mar. 15 To Jon". Chanbers for Dying & pre
s®. a p«. of Serge . 5s. Od.
What, if any, was the connection between these three items 1 Did they relate to
the Lodge properties”? If so, to what degree or activity do they refer?
There is an item in 1791 which puzzles me completely: —
To Bro"'. Green for a W-h . £3 3. _
The context, which refers to ordinary Lodge expenses, throws no light on the
meaning. There are no other “hidden” entries like this. There are no Craft
minutes available for this period, and the E.A. Chapter did not meet between 8th
August, 1790, and 17th February, 1793. What was this “W-h” which
cost the formal sum pf three guineas ? There is no corresponding item on the
income side of the accounts, and there was not at this time a Bro. Green in the
Lodge, nor so far as I am aware, in Probity.
£1. 2. 0.
264 Tranmriunix of the Quatunr Coronati: I.odi/c.
The Brethren bad evidently decided to come forward and make application
for a Warrant or Constitution to form a regular Chapter, and such a Warrant was
apparently issued. The document was, however, lost between 1790 and 1865, and
a v.mrrant of confirmation was issued in the latter year.
It is jierhaps of interest to note that in 1865, when the Chajiter had been
more or less dormant for twenty years—its members attending the Wakefield
Chapter (then No, 727)—a list of “Founders” of the 1790 Chapter was yiriiited
in the new 1865 By-laws. The names given are: —
Richard Liiinecar, Z.
William Walker, H.
William Walker, ,liin., ,1.
John Smith,
John Kershaw,
Edward .Steer,
M. J. Naylor, D.D.,
Richard Acton,
David Dixon,
,lohn Whitworth
Of these, only Linnecar and one of the Walkers were members in 1790. The
younger Walker went to Hull many years earlier, and the others did not become
R.A. ilasons until many years later. The explanation is that the Royal Arch
Records were lost for many years, and were not available at the time of the 1865
revival; they were not found again until quite recently, and the list given above
must have been constructed partly from tradition and partly by guesswork.
Apart from the change of name from “Lodge” to “Chapter” and an
increase in the fee from 10/6 to 26/-, the new Constitution seems at first to have
made little difference. The 1790 and subsequent minutes read much like those of
preceding years. Linnecar continues to occupy the Chair as R.W. Master, with
his son and Bro. Meggitt as the other two Masters. In 1793, however, the designa¬
tions Z., H., and J., begin to be used, and have continued to modern times.
Occasionally there is some confusion in the minds of the Scribe as to whether H.
or J. should come first; there is one minute where Richard Linnecar’s name is
third on the list, but still as Z., though in the minutes he is almost always referred
to as the “ Right Worshipful.”
In 1793 the Lodge moved its place of meetings from the George and Crown
to the Black Bull, where it remained for the next 44 years. This was one of the
oldest of the Wakefield Inns. It was spoken of by Sir William Brereton in 1635,
Early Freemasonry in Wahefield. 265
and had the reputation of being “ an honest and excellent house ” The original
building was pulled down in 1772, and "an elegant house erected on its site.”
The accommodation was on a generous scale; stabling was available for nearly 100
horses, and later there was a theatre in its yard. At the time the Ijodge transferred
its activities to the Black Bull, the latter would be the best and most commodious
hotel in the town.
In the interval of three years during which the Chapter did not meet, a fair
amount of " work ” seems to have accumulated, and in the next few years attempts
were made to overtake this. The meetings were all well attended, and it is quite
probable that the better accommodation now available made feasible meetings on
a larger scale. The meeting on the 4th December, 1797, must have been something
of an occasion; two Brethren from Sheffield were "raised,” no fewer than 12
visitors being present in addition to 18 members of the Chapter. Linnecar, Meggitt
and Arnold were Z., H., and J. respectively, and the visitors were: —
S. Robinson, from Sheff''.
James Bentley P.P.
John Smithson P.P.
Samuel Smithson P.
Jo. Durham
Benj. Clarkson
John Leech
Hen’’. Higgins
Thos. Cocker
Chas. Land
Joshua Dawson
Samuel Brook
The minute reads: —
"The Bt. Worshipful propos’d Bro. Sami. Tomkin Senior Warden of the
Imdge at Sheffield No. 189 also the Worshipful propos’d Wm. Rowley
Junior Warden of the said Lodge to be rais’d to the most excellent
R.A. Chapter, was ballotted for, approv’d cfe rais’d accordingly.”
Samuel Robinson had been made R.A. in the Chapter in 1782, and the
Chapter of Paradise in Sheffield had certainly been active between 1783 and 1788.
According to Stokes and Flather “ there seems to be no record of transactions
between 1788. and the 24th December, 1797, on which date, less than three weeks
after the "exaltation” of Tompkin and Rowley, the two latter Brethren and
Samuel Robinson presided at the meeting in Shefiield, and exalted two new
members.
Tompkins and Rowley were enthusiastic Masons; they figured prominentlv
in Sheffield Masonry at that period, and Rowley in particular was a voluminous
correspondent. In later years he exchanged many letters with the Wakefield
Lodge.
THE "UNANIMITY” ROYAL ARCH JEWELS.
On the 10th March, 1799, the Cash Book has this interesting item :_
To Ja*. Rule Three Equilateral Triangles
for 3 Principals, Three Swords k Trowels
for Sojourners Silver £5. 15 gs
Bro. James Rule, whose name has already been mentioned on several occasions,
was a well-known Masonic figure in York. I am indebted to Bro. G. Y. Johnson
1 J AV AVaficer, " WakeftM its Iltstoru and Veuide," Ed. 2, p. .'525. Towards
tile end oi last century part of the old inn was converted into a modern liotel and the
re.st into offices. uuci, me
= Stokes and Flather, “ Royal Arck Masonry in Sheffield,” p 27
3 the jewels were exhibited at the meeting of Q.C. on 3rd May, 1940
266 Trnnsactionx of the Quatnor Coronnti Lodge.
for several items of information about him. Rule was a watchmaker and jeweller,
and was Master of the York Lodge (now No. 236) in 1781, 1782, 1784 and 1786.
lie became a joining meinber of the “ Apollo ” Lodge at York on the 7th January,
1777, and his name figures frequently in the “Apollo” minutes. He acted as
treasurer when Linn ocar was inaclt; aii honorary member, and generally seems to
have taken an active part in Masonic affairs in York. Two of the silver triangles
and the three sojourners’ jewels are still in the possession of the “Unanimity”
Lodge at Wakefield, The box in wliich they were discovered some years ago, after
long concealment among the accumulated rubbish of years, bore the inscription; —
Dut 1/8
M''. Rich. Linnecer
2 Wakefield
The silver Triangular Jewels have a 5|-inch side, the width being just
under 7/16 inch. They are suspended from faded silk ribbons 2 inches wide, the
colour of which may have been a deep purple. They are inscribed on one side
“ Omnipotent, etc ” and on the other, “ In the beginning, etc ”
The Trowels and Swords arc also silver. The swords are 4-7/8 in. long; the
trowels are 4j- in. long, and the jewels are suspended from faded light red silk
ribbons 1-3/16 in. wide.
Certain other jewels from the “Unanimity” collection were exhibited at
a Q.C. Meeting, but these are of later date, and there is no mention of them in the
Cash Accounts of the 18th century.
James Rule made jewels for other Lodges and Chapters,^ and it may be
that the crossed sword and trowel was the accepted jewel for the sojourners in the
Royal Arch of that period. If this was so, the fact is not without significance,
es])ecially when considered in the light of Gould’s remarks on the Scots Degrees.^
I am aware that this off-hand dismissal of the origin of the Royal Arch on the
part of Gould has not met with general acceptance, though Bro. Knoop ^ does
consider the possibility of an association between the R.A. and the Scots Lodges.
Gould goes on to say : —
“One chief idea, however, runs through all [the Scots degrees]—the
discovery in a vault by Scottish Crusaders of the long lost and ineffable
word—also, that in this search they had to work with the sword in one
hand and the trowel in the other.”
As regards the Royal Arch working in Wakefield in 1769 to 1799, the known facts
are the form of the jewels, and the nature of the toasts and sentiments in the 1769
minute.
I suggest that at the least there is a possibility that the R.A. legend of 1769
was in some wmy connected with Scots Masonry, and that at least one of the
features w'hich Gould notes as characteristic of the Scots degrees—the sword and
trow^el—persisted till 1799.
The other feature, relating to the vault, existed in 1769, and has persisted
dowm to modern times.
1 Jiro. G. y. Johnson sa.vs that there is a Hoval Arch jewel b.v lliilc at York,
and another at lYhithy. I have not, under present conditions, been able to examine
these.
2 Gould, “ Ili.sfory of Freemasonry,” vol. ii, p. 457.
3 Knoop, “ Pure Antient Masonry,” p. 59.
•I Gould, loc. cit. vol. iii, p. 92.
Early Freemasonry in Wakefield 267
Lane ^ pointed out that there was a “ Scotch ” or “ Scott’s ” Mason’s Lodge
in London in 1733, and posed the question ; “ If ‘ Scots ’ Lodges originated first in
France, and that not until 1740 . . . where did our English Brethren obtain
the distinctive appellation of a-“ Scotch,” or “Scott’s” Masons’ Lodge, and what
constituted its peculiarity in 1733 ?” So far as I am aware, this problem has not
been solved, and it would appear that no new knowledge is yet available.
Probably all that can be inferred from the Wakefield sojourners’ jewel is
that in the Royal Arch in Yorkshire, in the latter half of the 18th century, there
may have been some element similar to, if not derived from, one of the Scots
degrees. I think there is still something to be said regarding the influence of the
French prisoners-of-war who came to England in fair numbers during the 18th
century. There were certainly French prisoners in the Wakefield area in 1759,
and though I have not been able to prosecute the search with any completeness,
I think it not unlikely that there was contact of this kind with the French, in
Yorkshire, much earlier in the century. The Milnes family drew great profits
from their ventures, m the early years, in two privateers which they financed and
found for the purpose of harrying the French and Spanish vessels. Walker^
quotes several extracts from The Leeds Mercury of 1744, describing the exploits of
these two privateers, and mentioning the taking of French prisoners. Is it
altogether impossible that there may be some connection between the “ Dassigny ”
reference of 1744, and these French prisoners?
The Lodge was by no means parochial in its outlook, but took a great
interest in the affairs of the nation, as evidenced by the following extract from
the Tweeds Mercury of the 2nd February, 1793, for ivhich I am indebted to Bro.
G. Y. Johnson: —
In the early months of 1798, the Unanimity Lodge, under the leadership
of Linnecar, launched the famous appeal for funds to help the Government to
prosecute the war with France. The “ resolutions,” though couched in the language
of the day, breathe a spirit which finds exact acceptance at this present time.
The resolutions passed by the Unanimity Lodge in 1798 making an appeal
for War Funds were printed in full in the Leeds IritelUejencer. ^ These resolutions
were printed as an advertisement, and a paragraph in the same edition of the
paper, 9th April, 1798, is as follows: —
FREE MASONRY.
THE BRETIlllEN of the LODGE of
UNANIMITY at WAKEFIELD piirpofe go¬
ing in Fi'oceffion to the New Church, on Monday the
Twenty-fifth liift. to celebrate the Feaft of St John the
Baptift.
A SERMON will be preached by Brother MUNK-
HOUSE, D.D.—The Brethren of the Neighbouring
Lodges are requefted to favour and honor them with their
Company by Nine o’Clock.
Dinner will be on the Table at Two o’Clock.
Wakefield, June 9th, 1798.
On IMonda}' laft, the kfafonic Brothers of
the Imdge of Unanimity (No. 202) affembled
in their Ijodge-Room at the Black Bull, in
Wakefield, where they were joined by a nu¬
merous body of Brothers from this town and
the neighbouring places, and proceeded from
thence in due form, and in the dreffes of their
refpective offices and degrees, (accompanied
by a fine band of mufic) to St. John’s Church.
On the proceffion entering the church, Brother
Sampfon played the Dettingen Te Deum, which
was fucceeded by a recitative and air from the
opening of the Meffiah, fung by Mrs. Arnold;
who, after the morning prayer, alfo lung
He fhall feed his flock, &c. Before and after fer-
mon, a hymn on mafonry (written by the Maftcr,
and fet by Brother Sampfon) was performed by
the choir of the church, with admirable effect.
An occafional fermon was delivered by Brother
Munkhonfe, from Acts XX. verfe 32. which was
a fenfible, ingenious, and well-written dif-
conrfc, full of charity, practical piety, and
virtue. The proceffion both to and from the
church was conducted with the utmoft pro¬
priety. The number of fpectators from the
windows, and the croud that attended the
proceffion, were very great. It is computed
that there were not lefs than 1800 or 2000 people in
the church. The Brothers were accommo¬
dated at dinner with a room adjoining the Black
Bull, in which that fat down at one table 109,
together with the ftew’ards and others, the num¬
ber of’ the Brothers prefent amounting to 120.
To the affability and cheerfulnefs of the Right
Worfhipful Matter, (Linnecar) and the ex¬
treme care, attention, and management of the
ftewards, the Brothers were greatly indebted
for the regularity and decorum with which the
bufinefs of the day was conducted. Due re
gat'd was had to the objects of charity propofed
to the refpective lodges. Many mafonic, loyal
and conftitutional toafts were given from the
chair; and fome excellent fongs were fung by
the Brothers. The whole of the large affem-
Enrh/ Frecmasotiri/ in Wiikefii'ld 269
In the last years of the century, both Lodge and Chapter seem to have been
well established. The “ Unanimity'’ collection contains a double sheet of minutes
of four meetings of the I^odge in 1799. Two examples are typical of the records
of the time: —
“ At the Lodge of Unanimity held at the Black Bull Inn April 1st. 1799
Present
Julian Franswa R. Linnecar, Mar. Thos. Bedford
Zach Jillatt T. Hardy S.W. Jno. Staffer
Wm. Sampson J. Meggitt J.W. Jno. Carr
Geo. Fitton J. Robinson P. Hardcastle
S. A. Arnold Thos. Stott
Jno. Backhouse Rd. Sampson
H. Vickers
John Elwick
A. Peterson
Jno. Haigh
Bror. Jno. Sawyer of Huddlesey having been proposed & ballotted for
to be made an enterd Apju'entice, as was also Joseph Sawyer of Selby
and approv’d, they were botfi made accordingly.
Bror. Rd. Sampson propos’d himself to be raised («ic) to the sublime
Degree of Master Mason was approvd & to be rais’d next Lodge.
Bror. Wm. Sampson propos’d himself to be raised to (svc) second Degree
and approv’d to be rais’d.
All Bufinefs being over the Lodge was closed till Monday May the 6th
except on Emergency.
“ At the Lodge of Unanimity held at the Black Bull Inn to celebrate the
Festival of Holy St. Jno. the Bapt. June 24 1799
Present
Thos. Johnson R. Linnecar Mr. Wm. Dennison
Wm. Barker T. Hardy S.W. P. Ilardcastle
Wm. Bayley S. Arnold R. H. Wilson
J. Robinson Br. Elwick
R. Munkhouse Jno. Statter
R. Sampson
H. Vickers
Jno. Haigh
G. Strafford
W. Puckerin
G. Backhouse
Jno. Bird
Mr. Thos Johnson having been ballotted for and approv’d last Lodge
Night, was made and enter'd Apprentice accordingly
Mr. Wm. Barker was also made an enter’d Apprentice
The Rules w'ere read
270 Trnii.<ii<-li(iiiK of the (fiuiiiior ('oronatt f^oilyc.
the well-known Wakefield doctor known as Squire Statter, of whom many stories
are told. Walker ^ relates an anecdote of a meeting between Statter and Peter
Priestley, the parish clerk, sexton, and tombstone carver: —
“ Peter was lettering a gravestone in the churchyard through which a
public footpath ran, when Squire Statter, ancester of two generations
of Wakefield doctors, happened to pass by. Looking at the inscription
he remarked, “Why, Peter, you’ve spelt it wrong. Have I,
Doctor? ’’ said Peter, “ Well, well, pass it over. Doctor, I ve covered up
monny a blot o’ yours.”
The succeeding generations of Statters were all prominent Wakefield hreemasons
and members of the Unanimity Lodge.
The occasional lapses on the part of the Secretary in describing the Chapter
as “ Lodge,” and referring to the Principal Z as the “ Light Worshipful,” and the
custom of keeping the Craft and R.A. accounts together—a custom which continued
until late in the IQth century—indicate that the R.A. was not looked upon as a
separate degree.'
The Cash Book items confirm the Lodge and Chapter transactions in regard
to candidates taking the various degrees. The items of expenditure are mostly for
“Expenses of the Night,” postages, tyler’s fees, charitable donations and dues to
Grand and Provincial Grand Lodges.
On June 21st, 1798, there is the entry: —
To. Wm. Meggitt for Robes . £2. 19. —
To. Mrs. Puckrin for inakg. Do. 1. 2. 6
To H. Vickers for Caps & . 1. IL 6
Once again the record is tantalisingly vague. What were the “ Caps and-.”
Do they refer to regalia for the R.A. ? The association is quite possible, since it
was about this period that the Brethren bought the silver jewels from Janies Rule,
of York, and were presumably actively engaged in establishing the R.A. working
on a permanent foqting as regards furnishings and regalia.
On the 13th March, 1800, the Right Worshipful, Richard Linnecar, died
whilst conducting an inquest at Swillington in the Honour of Pontefract. He was
78 years of age, and must have retained full possession of his faculties to the end.
He had occupied the chair at his Lodge for more than a quarter of a century, and
he left it prospering and with a tradition of dignity and achievement to uphold.
It took the Lodge some little time to recover from the shock, but in the
following year Bro. Hardy, a woolstapler, who had been a member of the Lodge
since 1776, became Master, and Bro. Puckrin, a bricklayer, who had been initiated
in 1792, became First Principal of the Chapter in 1802. A pierced jewel of the
period, belonging to Puckrin, is still in existence.
In closing this first part of the account of the early history of Freemasonry
in Wakefield, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the Brethren of the
“ LTnanimity ” Lodge for their kindness in allowing me free access to their most
valuable records. I wish also to express my very great debt of gratitude to Bro.
David Flather for much kindly help, advice and encouragement extending over a
number of years ; also to Bro. F. M. Rickard for constant, patient and friendly
guidance. Many other Brethren in Wakefield and elsewhere have assisted me
with information, and to all of them I extend my grateful and fraternal thanks.
A hearty vote of thanks was unanimously passed to Bro. Rylands for his
interesting paper; comments being offered by or on behalf of Bros. \V. 1. Grantham,
P. L. Pick, J. Heron Lepper, 'VV. W. Covey-Crump, D. Knoop, G. Y. Johnson, F. R.
Radice, E. Hawkesworth, and G. W. Bullamore.
1771, and that on the occasion of their meeting in November, 1771, the members
then agreed not to meet again until an unspecified date in 1774. Let me
hasten to assure Bro. Rylands that I am not for one moment seeking to challenge
the accuracy of his transcription of the entries in these Royal Arch Journals ;
but I would venture to suggest that there is here clear evidence of faulty editing
of the Royal Arch Journals, that the records of many of the Royal Arch meetings
are missing, and that some well-intentioned person in editing these records
thoughtlessly inserted at the end of one set of minutes the date of meeting
recorded at the commencement of the next set of minutes to which he had
access, regardless of the length of the intervening period. I would therefore
urge Bro. Rylands to re-examine the Royal Arch Journals with this suggestion
in mind before he finally replies to our comments upon this paper. It is to
my mind inconceivable that the Royal Arch activities of the Lodge of Unanimity,
extending over a period of twenty-two years from 1766 to 1788, could have been
fully recorded upon no more than ten foolscap leaves in the Royal Arch Journals.
The author of this paper has unearthed a number of intriguing references
to the Royal Arch and one early allusion to the Knights of Malta. It is to
be hoped that those who contribute to the discussion upon this paper will be
able to throw further light uj^on these matters.
Bro. Rylands has also given us a number of cryptic quotations from the
early minutes of the Lodge of Unanimity. It ought not to be beyond the
ingenuity of the members of this Lodge of Research to offer solutions to these
problems. Let me venture to suggest that the " W-h ” in respect of
which three guineas was paid in 1791 was a winding-cloth upon which were
embroidered the customary emblems of mortality. The expression “winding-
cloth ” appears to have been in common use in the eighteenth century, but has
since become obsolete; the expression now used is “winding-sheet”. In Bro.
Heiron’s Ancient Vreemasonrij and the Old Dundee Lodge No. 18 will be found
a photograph of a specimen of this type of cloth, called in this instance a
“Raising Sheet”, which cost the Old Dundee Lodge £1 12 6.
The “Curtain”, for the making up of which five shillings and eight pence
was paid in 1789, may have been a form of canopy erected over the thrones of
the Three Principals irt the Royal Arch Lodge.
The piece of serge dyed and pressed in 1790 at a cost of five shillings
may have been a piece of cloth intended for a cape or cloak to be worn by the
Tyler as part of his uniform when engaged upon masonic business.
As the entry “Caps and 1. 11. 6.” follows immediately after
two items relating to robes, it is, I think, highly probable that the word “ Caps”
was intended to refer to head-pieces worn by the Three Principals, and that the
blank space was intended as an allusion to some other piece of Royal Arch
regalia.
As those who are gathered here to-day are all speculative masons I have
no doubt that various suggestions will be advanced by way of solution to these
fascinating problems. I aw’ait those speculations with as much interest as the
author of this paper, to whom I now propose a most cordial vote of thanks.
I second the vote of thanks to Bro. Rylands with pleasure and congratulate
him on his able treatment of an interesting subject. He has been fortunate in
having access to such valuable data on the formation and early days of the
Lodge of Unanimity, and his reconstruction of the proceedings of the Lodge
tallies very closely with that of the Royal Cumberland Lodge No. 41, Bath,
which some of us have been privileged to witness.
274 1 t'UNsiivfloii.s tij Ih 1- i^uutuoi' ('()rt)Utitt I.ixlye.
1 erhajjs tlie most valuable feature of the paper is the information regarding
the early days of the Eoyal Areh. One gathers that the Master and Wardens
of the Craft Lodge filled the prinicipal Chairs of the Chapter, which indicates
a diffeience of qualification, though the list of toasts indicates a ceremony on
hues not too far distant from those of to-day. The 1848 edition of Tin- UitunI
(uul l//ii.strati(iiix oj Frctmasuiiri/ describes an alleged Royal Arch ceremony,
evidently based on American information, in which the Can. is described as
being received under a “living Arch” through which he is depicted as being
dragged by a rope wound several times round his body. The Cord of Love
something like the Brotherchain of the Netherlands working, though
the presentation of a “Cord of Amity” indicates that a visible symbol of this
ritual joining of hands was adopted.
On the subject of headgear for the Princijials of the Chapter this was
fairly common in this part of the country at one time, and I was recently
informed that the Principals of a Chapter in Bradford are still invested with
caps as well as robes, though I have not verified this. A set used in the
Chapter of Melchisedech, Bolton, is illustrated in E. B. Beesley’s Musonie
.\ iitKjiiitii's of Kaxt T.am-aKhirt Lodges and Chapters, and a set of Principals’
hats and robes stands in a case in the Masonic Temple, Manchester, to-day.
The references to St. John’s Days recall that in the North-West one still
hears an Installation meeting colloquially referred to as a “Saint John” more
frequently than by its correct title.
The item of relief to two Turkish Brothers in 1784 has a parallel in the
Lodge of Friendship, Oldham, whose Cash Book contains the item :
Bro. Rylands also refers to the appeal for funds launched by the Lodge
of LTnanimity in aid of the Government in 1798. A public appeal was issued
in aid of “the exigencies of the State” in Oldham the same year, and all the
Masonic bodies in the town subscribed liberally.
This entry rciads to me as if Bro. John Stratford Saunders had been re-Exalted;
but the state of the Minute Book leaves a margin for doubt.
Turkish Masons in distress were a common feature in many Lodge. Rooms
in 1784. Ill March of tliat year, as we learn from Joy’s Hiatoncal colledujoa
fcldtivo to thi- /oil’ll of litlfa>it\
Captain Abraham Rahash, and his son Rahash, two Turks taken
prisoner by the Spaniards in attempting to bring relief to the garrison
of Gibraltar, and had after escaped and got to Leith, from whence
they came to this town, well recommended by the Grand Lodge of
Scotland—visited the TiOdge 257, where they w'ere treated with every
respect, civility and love by the Brethren of that numerous and
resiiectable body ; who gave them a recommendation to other Lodges,
and ? sum of money to enable them to return to Constantinople,
the place of their nativity.
And we find that on the 27th May, 1784, the same pair visited Lodge 620 in
Dublin, having previously on the 6th May been granted £5 each by the Grand
Lodge of Ireland “to carry them back to their country.”
Dunckerley, writing to Grand Secretary White on 16th November, 1786,
alludes to “several persons disguised like Turks, who pretend that they were
made jirisoners in attempting to relieve Gibraltar, have imposed on Lodges at
Bristol and Bath.” Let us, however, after this lapse of time give the visiting
Turkish Brethren the benefit of the doubt.
Let me conclude these random notes with sincere congratulations to Bro.
Rylaiids on an excellent paper, and add my thanks to those he will receive
from the Lodge collectively for a very attractive and sound piece of w'ork.
generalisations, not based upon the Wakefield records, which I cannot let pass
without comment, more especially as he refers to my views.
In the first place, I would touch upon Bro. Rylands’s suggestion that
lodges in general, in their development, passed through three stages, viz., (i)
operative, (ii) convivial, and (iii) moralising [ ? =speculative]. It seems to me
that he is confusing two methods of classification, one based on the temperateness
of the lodge, and the other on its functions. An operative lodge, for example,
might be either staid and sober, or convivial, or intemperate, and the same
might be true of a lodge of accepted masons, or of a lodge of speculative masons.
The evolution of the lodge would indeed appear to have passed through three
stages, but a somewhat difl'erent three from those set forth by Bro. Rylands.
(i) Operative lodges, permanent organisations discharging certain
trade functions. Amongst the members there might be non-operatives
as well as operatives, but, so far as one can tell, the non-operatives
exercised no influence on the working and po’icy of the lodges.
(ii) Lodges of accepted masons, either occasional or semi-permanent
in character. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries these
followed the practices in vogue in Scottish operative lodges, «.e., the
reading of a version of the Old Charges, together with the formalities
associated with the imparting of the Mason Word. Such “accepted ”
rites and ceremonies underwent a gradual process of modification,
and it is impossible to say exactly at what stage they ceased to' be
“accepted” and became “speculative”. The main interest of
accepted masons was probably antiquarian.
(iii) Lodges of speculative masons, in which the reading of the Old
Charges and the practice of the somewhat crude usages and phrases
associated with the giving of the Mason Word had been more or less
entirely replaced by the teaching of a peculiar system of morality,
veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. The underlying
characteristic of these lodges is “moralising”, to use the expression
of Bro. Rylands.
This passage shows that we are concerned with two distinct problems, the first
relating to the so-called fabrication of English symbolical masonry, and the
second to its introduction into Scotland.
(i) Probably the Itev. James Anderson was cast by Murray Lyon for
the other leading part as “fabricator”, but whether that is so or not, I have
no hesitation in affirming that English_ symbolical masonry was not fabricated
by Desaguliers and Anderson, or by any other two men : the ritual and cere¬
monies developed gradually, as the Brethren will best realise if they study the
masonic catechisms from 1696 to •1730, which they will find set out in chronological
order in our recently published volume of Earh/ Masonic Catechisms. Always
assuming that these catechisms give some indication of masonic ceremonies in
the first three decades of the eighteenth century, the Brethren will appreciate
that the rites of the Desaguliers period were at most but a nucleus of the
jiresent ceremonies, and that they were almost, if not entirely, devoid of any
symbolical element.
(ii) Even if, on the occasion of his visit to the Lodge of Edinburgh in
1721, Desaguliers, without his own team of officers, did, as Murray Lyon supposes,
conduct the ceremony of entering and passing, in accordance with the ritual he
was anxious to introduce (o/r cit., p. 162), we have to ask ourselves whether
one single display of a presumably new, or largely modified, ceremony at one
])articidar lodge would bring about the adoption and spread of that new system
of working throughout Scotland. Personally, I think it very unlikely (a) that
Desaguliers did conduct the ceremony on the occasion of his visit to the Lodge
of Edinburgh, or (b) that such ceremony, if so conducted, was “symbolical”
in character at such an early date as 1721, or (c) that such ceremony, if so
conducted, would have sufficient to secure its introduction throughout Scotland.
If we remember the many displays in the Lodge of Beconciliation of the new
working adopted at the Union, and the difficulty in securing its general adoption,
the balance of probabilities is very strong against a single display in Edinburgh
of a new working by Desaguliers, assuming that it ever did take place, exercising
any permanent effect on Scottish masonic ceremonies. Murray Lyon apparently
overlooks the fact that within thirty years or so of the publication of Prichard’s
Masonrv Disserted, eight Scottish editions of that pamphlet had been published.
If, as is often suggested. Masonry Dissected exercised a considerable influence
on the development of masonic working in England, then the chances are that
it exercised a similar influence on the development of masonic working in
Scotland. The Grand Lodge of Scotland was not established until 1736, and
it is doubtful whether much modification of the old operative working occurred
before that event.
Thirdly, I note that Bro. By lands shares Bro. Gould’s view that the Royal
Arch originated in France. Personally, I do not share that view, but having
devoted considerable space in my-paper on Pure Ancient Masonry {A.Q.C., liii)
to discussing.the whole problem, I content myself here with recording my dissent
from Bro. Rylands’s view.
Lastly, to revert to a problem affecting Wakefield masonry in particular,
it is not without interest to note that Richard Linnecar, and certain other
Wakefield masons mentioned by Bro. Rylands, were members of the Wakefield
Chapter of Gregorians, formed on 24th June, 1796, as we learn from a paper
by Bro. Rylands’s distinguished namesake in A.Q.C., xxi, pp. 118-29. A
Gregorian Hymn in the handwriting of Richard Linnecar, first Senior Warden
of the Wakefield Chapter, has survived, and will be found in A.Q.C., xxii,
pp. 134-5.
iiioic to the ordinary members of our Correspondene Circle than the more
aljstrnse papers. Keing more particularly interested in the K.A., I am prompted
to oiler a lew remarks rather to supplement than criticise some matters mentioned
in the paper. It is exceedingly diflicult to gather much information about the
nature of the ceremonies jiractised in the old Tjodges and Chapters, as the
records are so uninformative. When one reads that on one occasion there were
the Three blasters and two other undescribed brethren present, and the R.A.
was conferred upon five brethren; on another a IMaster and S.D. and J.D. to
inak'e three ICA. brethren; and again Three Masters only and three candidates,
one wonders how it could be possible to work anv ceremony at all corresponding
with the present one, which demands nine officers. We do know that in early
days, at least in the North of England, there were brethren skilled in the
ritual, who visited the neighbouring places, often far apart, and performed the
fieri'inonies, receiving jiayment of their expenses, but there does not appear to
be anv record of such visits or pavments in the Unanimity books. Neither is
then' anything about the election of Masters or Officers, and the Installation
ceremony was then unknown. The Minutes of the Chapter of Unity No. 72,
Leeds, commencing in 1796, show that the Principals were elected half-yearly,
and they forthwith took their Chairs. Again, there does not appear to have
I.K'en any special qualification for Mastership, as the Wakefield Minutes show
that only eight days after being made P.A. two brethren are recorded as
IMasters, and a few months later two others, made at the same time as these,
were pi'csent as blasters. Indeed, Bro. Rylands tells ns that often the Master
and Wardens of the Craft Lodge presided over the R.A. Lodge. He also infers
that there was no making of nominal P.Ms. to qualify for the degree, though
(here might be no need for this if the Craft Wardens took two of the Chairs.
If it was not dene in Wakefield, such a jiractice became fairly common a few
years later, and the Wm. Hodgson made R.A. in Unanimity in 1788 may have
known about it, as at the second meeting of Alfred Lodge, now 306, Leeds,
of which he was the first iMaster, four or five brethren " passed the Chair ” to •
qualify them for membership of Unity Chapter No. 72, warranted in 1790,
although there is no record of its meetings until 1796, when Hodgson was its
first Z., and occupied that office for three years. His name appears on the
warrant of 1790 as Z., a somewhat rapid rise, seeing that he was only made
R.A. in 1788. This Chapter of Unity became attached to Alfred Lodge, and
to conform to the edict of Grand Chapter altered its name to Alfred in 1819.
I doubt the conclusions in the paper about R.A. w’orking in 1769. Surely the
fourth step, or fourth degree, and the very close relationship between the Craft
and R.A. Lodges, and their officers, is good evidence of “Ancient” practice.
Cnfortunately my notes about the ceremonies compiled after visits, many of
them rejieated ones, to all the 68 Chapters in my Province, are not at present
accessible, and although having no distinct recollection of Wakefield Chapter
No. 495, which may have the same working, that of Sincerity No. 1,019, in
the same city, which I visited only a few months ago, rvas strikingly different,
in the opening, from that of the majority of Chapters. The questions to the
Sojrs. as to their situation and duties elicited the replies that they were at the
entrances to the three respective Veils, not to allow anyone to enter unless in
possession of the P.W., etc., etc. Then the colloquy between Z., H. and J.—
Whence come you? Prom B. Whither directing your steps? Towards J. For
what purpose? To rebuild, etc., etc., which is all reminiscent of the Irish and
Bristol rites, thus evidently descended from some “ Antient ” form. The item
of “Caps” in the entry of June 21st, 1798, seems likely to refer to the headgear
of the Three Principals—crowns for Z. and H., and mitre for J., a custom of
at least some old Chapters, now extinct or nearly so. I rather think they are
still placed upon the Chairs in Bristol, but in one of the Bradford Chapters,
at the Installation, they are placed upon the heads of the new' Principals, as
Discufision 283
invested, laid aside for a time (they do not appear to be comfortable wear),
resumed for the proclamation, then pnt away for another year, as is the Breast-
])late with which J. is invested, though in the Doncaster area this is worn
regularly by J., and is rather larger than the dimensions of the Wakefield one.
1 have recollections of “The Cord of Amity’’, or its equivalent, being used in
the closing of a Chapter, by the Comps, all standing round holding it by their
hands; in two or three others the staves are held horizontally so as to form a
similar connection; whilst the same idea of continuous “love and unity’ is
shown in several Chapters by all the Comps, standing round, hand-in-hand,
repeating, instead of the Principals’ “We Three’’, “We All do Meet’’, etc.
The Cord is not the same as the “strong” one placed about the P.S.
In ]iiy motlier Ijodge (Humber No. 57) the Principals of the Chapter
wore Jiietal crowns of brass—and most uncomfortable they were—until the
destiuiction of the Lodge by the enemy in 1941. Caps (or coronets) are still
\'orn in ninny Chajiters, but T do not know another case of metal crowns being
w oru.
The toast list given by Bro. Rylaiids was by no means unusual in the
olden days. In the records of the Rodney Lodge (extinct 1820) or the Phoenix
Lodge (extinct 1835)—I am unfortunately unable to definitely say which, owing
to absence from Hull—one of the minute bocks gives a list of about 22 different
toasts which were given at a masonic supper. It seems to me that these numerous
toasts recorded in old minute books must have been interposed in the meal just
as at the piesi'iit time the \V.1\1. takes wine with certain groups of guests during
the meal.
Is it possible that the “ Cord of Love ” mentioned in the L^nanimity
toast list was not actually a cord, but was emblematical as the “living circle’’
is in the A. and A. Rite?
I should like to thank Bro. Rylands for his kindly reference to the
Trustees of the Humber Lodge, in giving him the opportunity of studying the
A])ollo Lodge miuute.s in cciinection with the dispute between the Halifa.K
(Bacchus’) Lodge and Unanimity. The Apollo Lodge was nominally the
Provincial Grand Tiodge of Yorkshire at the time, hence the reference to them
It is fortunate that the Apollo minutes and cash books, along with the
records of the other extinct Ledges mentioned above, were saved from destruction
during the “ blitz ’’ on Hull, IMay 7th and 8th, 1941. The whole of the Lodge
]iremiscs and the contents were absolutely demolished. Everything except the
old Warrant of 175 and the minute books in the safe was utterly destroyed,
incliidiiig a valuable library and museum. Only one minute book—the current
one—was lost, and that had been used at the Lodge on May 7th and left out
of the safe so that the minutes could be written up the next day. Uiifortiinatelv
there was not a “ next day ’’. Fourteen other Warrants for various degrees
were desrtroy^ed, and these degrees are all working under dispensations. The
old Humber Lodge Warrant was saved by one of the members, who saw it
hanging and climbed over the debris and brought it to safety on the morning
of May 8th. The building was struck by a bomb on May 7th and struck again
by an incendiary on May 8th,
I much appreciate the reception given to the paper, and the encouraging
comments made by the Master and Brethren. Some of my generalisations may
appear to have been made on an insufficiency of evidence, but on the whole
I feel that I have been treated gently and with fraternal consideration.
Bro. Grantham is inclined to think that I exaggerate the convivial element
in eighteenth century masonry. I admit that, so far as concerns direct evidence,
my opinions are based on a quite small number of Yorkshire Lodges. It may
be that in other districts the convivial element was bv no means so prominent,
and that it would be wmong to assume that these characteristics were common
in eighteenth century Freemasonry.
There is, however, not a complete absence of evidence of a general
character. The followung quotation gives the view® of a foreign visitor in the
late eighteenth century, and to that extent cannot be adduced in support of
my main contention. Indeed, the suggestion seems to be that the tone of masonic
gatherings had deteriorated wuthin recent years. On the other hand, the visitor
may have been mistaken in assuming that Freemasonry in England had formerly
chiefly been devoted to “nobler and more essential purposes’’: —
Discussion 285
“ I have seen the large Freemasons’ Hall here, at the tavern of the
same name. This hall is of an astonishing height and breadth, and
to me it looked almost like a church. The orchestra is very much
raised, and from that you have a fine view of the whole hall, wdiich
makes a majestic appearance. The building is said to have cost an
immense sum. But to that the Lodges in Germany also contributed.
Freemasonry seems to be held in but little estimation in England,
perhaps because most of the lodges are now degenerated into mere
drinking clubs; though I hope there still ai'e some who assemble for
nobler and more essential purposes. The Duke of Cumberland is now
grand master.”
This is taken from Travels in England in 17H2, by Karl Philipp Moritz, at
that time a young Prussian clergyman, and one of the outstanding figures in
the Sturm nnd Drang period e of German literature.
I have examined the ‘' LTnanimitv ” records, as suggested by Bro.
Grantham, for references to the attempted ‘‘Incorporation”, but regret to
report that so far I have found nothing. The only minutes available covering
this period are those of the Royal Arch Transactions, and they have no mention
of the matter. There is nothing in the Cash Bocks, but there may be some
correspondence wdiich has not yet come to light, and T shall look out for references
to the proposals.
Bro. Grantham draws attention to the curious character of the Royal
Arch minutes in the 1771-1774 period, and suggests that the records of many
of the meetings are missing. I have carefully examined the records again, and
am compelled to form the opposite conclusion. It is true that one or two
members of the Lodge appear at the Royal Arch meetings as fully-fledged R. A.
Masons, and that there is no record in the Royal Arch Journal of their admission
to that degree. Every one of these brethren is, however, accounted for, either
in the Lodge minutes or in the Cash Book. Further, even on those occasions
w'hen there was no Candidate for the Royal Arch, the Cash Book always records
the expenses of a ‘‘Royal Arch Night”.
The Royal Arch minute of 22nd February, 1760, when reproduced in
print, does not disclose a relevant fact which is clear in the original manuscript.
The phrase at the end of the minute : —
"Lodge closed to 10th NovC 1771 ’’
is in two different hands; the w'ords "Lodge closed to . . .” being in the
same writing as the foregoing minutes, and the remainder “ . . . 10th Nov''
1771 ” being written by the hand wLich recorded the minutes of that date.
It does not seem to be a case of careless editing; it was in fact a custom
of long standing for the Secretary, w'hen completing his record, to end the
account of a meeting with the words: —
“Lodge closed to
When he or some other Brother came to write up the minutes of the next
meeting, the first task was always to complete the above phrase by adding the
date of the next meeting.
There was thus no question of the Brethren who met on the 22nd
February, 1769, arranging for their next meeting to be held on the 10th
November, 1771, nor of these latter deciding not to meet again till some date
unspecified in 1774. What the record does indicate, I think, is that no regular
meeting of the Royal Arch Lodge did in fact take place in the interim periods.
When, on one occasion, it W'as desired to confer the degree, the ceremony was
worked in the Craft Lodge and is recorded in the Craft minutes (4th July, 1770).
This instance is confirmed by an entry in the Cash Book, and since It is the
only case of its kind, and there are none of the Royal Arch members who are
'28(] I i((n-<(iclitiiiK oj tltr Qiiafuor Corontili L(i(](/c
not accounted for in one way or another, I think we must agree tlint there are
no missing Royal Arch records. 1 am soiry that my transcript did not make
this clear, and I am grateful to the W. iMaster for raising the point and
enabling me to amplify the explantion.
Bro. Grantham’s solutions to my "cryptic quotations” seem eminently
reasonable; f have since learnt that the expression "winding-cloth” is still
used in some Yorkshire lodges.
I thank Bro. F. L. Pick for his interesting comments. It is a matter
for regret that none of the "caps” and (possibly) "robes” has survived. No
one now alive in Wakefield has any recollection of headdresses being used, but
1 can confirm that the Chapter of Sincerity No. 600, in Bradford, which in
jiast years was in close fraternal touch with Royal Arch i\lasonry in Wakefield,
possesses a set used at Installation meetings.
Bro. Lepper's kindly remarks give me much pleasure. I note, however,
that he cannot agree with my suggestion regarding the systematic symbolising
of the whole range of inqilements used in a particular craft. Perhaps if I
emphasise the words "whole range” we may be nearer agreement. There is
little doubt that the symbolising of an occasional inqilement is a custom of
ancient date, but 1 still feel that the symbolising of a whole trade is another
matter.
Bro. Covey-Crump’s corrections are duly noted and have been incorporated;
I thank him for them.
I much appreciate the complimentary remarks made by Bro. Kiioop,
even though they are qualified by dissent in regard to some of my speculations.
Congratulations from a masonic student held in such high esteem as is universally
accorded to Bro. Knocp are indeed encouraging.
Bro. Knoop suggests that my remarks on the "convivial” stage in the
transitional period, on the " fabrication ” of symbolical masonry, and on the
origins of the Royal Arch, are generalisations not based on the Wakefield records.
I concede the point in part; these generalisations, for what they are worth,
are based on impressions formed by studying not only the Wakefield records,
but also those of the contemporary Lodges in York, Leeds and Halifax, together
with many of Bro. Knoop’s own recent papers. My "crime” is in having
included such general remarks in a paper presumably limited to the subject of
"Early Freemasonry in Wakefield”, and my temerity has resulted in my break¬
ing a friendly lance with a giant—a most unequal combat.
I think we need a clearer understanding of terms. I would give to the
word "convivial” less of the element of intemperateness and more of the
notion of social fellowship centred round a good meal. My point is that in
the early non-operative Lodges the common meal appears to have been an
important, if not an integral, part of the proceedings ut Ihe Lodfje room between
the formal opening and closing of the Lodge. It seems natural that in the
days when the "ceremonial” work consisted largely in the communication of
signs, tokens and words, with little, if any, moralising upon the equipment,
there could easily be an emphasis on the fellowship of the meal without neessarily
involving intemperateness.
The removal of the dining table from the Lodge room to the dining room
_or, what is in effect the same thing, the closing of the Lodge before com¬
mencing the meal—signalises a change in procedure, custom or fashion, which
change may well have been associated with an "elevating” process such as the
introduction of the practice of moralising the working tools. On the other
hand, we know that in some parts of the country until quite late in the eighteenth
and possibly until early in the nineteenth century the Brethren dined in the
Lodge room. Such a practice would not prevent an increase of emphasis on
the ceremonial work, and I agree with Bro. Knoop that contemporary Lodges
differ widely in this respect. Intemperateness, as distinct from conviviality,
Discussion 287
might, in nn age of changing ideologies, have the local effect of expediting the
change in custom as regards dining, and at the same time encourage the adoption
of the “new” moralising process.
There is little doubt that in the West Riding there was, in the early
years of the eighteenth century, a good deal of emphasis on the meal, and I
suggest that at the hoc meetings in Leeds and Pontefract (1721) and Bradford
(1713) there was little else. I agree that this was a reflection of customs general
at the time, and 1 think I made it clear that such conviviality was a feature
of social life in the early eighteenth century.
I was careful not to mention Desagnliers and Anderson, and I regret
having misled Pro. Knoop to think I necessarily had thes(^ Brethren in mind.
I agree that they were too early for my purpose. Yet 1 do not see any logical
objection to the “ fabrication ” theory itself, nor to the suggestion that such
fabrication was probably the work of one or more clergymen, or of others of
similar outlook.
As Bro. Knoop points out, referring to that excellent work The Enrh/
Masonic Catechisms by himself and his two colleagues, the assumption that
Prichard’s Mas'onr;/ J)issccte</ gives some indication of the nature of the
ceremonies of that period, suggests that before 1730 there was little of a moralis¬
ing nature associated with the masonic symbols. Yet in 1789, and by inference
in 1765, and possibly in 1743 (when Linnecar was initiated in Gibraltar), the
process of drawing moral lessons from the symbols and ecpni)ment in the Lodge
was already established. We have, unfortunately, no copy of the 1766 ritual
of Lhianimity, but if the moralising process was already in vogue at that time,
Bro. Knoop’s suggestion would apparently be that it evolved during the period
of 36 years between the tw’o dates. So short a period does not conform wnth
my notions of gradual evolution. Against the theory of gradual evolution must
also be set, I think, the circumstance that by 1766 the moralising parts of the
ceremonies had become fairly standardised, and it seems unlikely that similar
symbolical explanations could have developed gradually all over the country.
I think it is the differences in the workings wdiioh graduallv developed ; the
original, more or less complete, moralising plan, wars, I suggest, the work of
a small body of fabricators in the early eighteenth century.
In regard to the origins of the Royal Arch I have an open mind. Evidence
accumulates slowdy, and it may be a long time before we are in a postiion to
decide between competing view's. To my way of thinking, however, the Wake¬
field evidence of the Sojourners’ jew’els and of the Royal Arch Toasts seems to
support Gould’s suggestions rather than those of Bro. Knoop as expressed in
his Pitre Antient Masonr//. It may be, as Bro. Knoop says, that no Royal
Arch Legend had been adopted by 1751, but the “Toasts” indicate a definite
legend in the Wakefield w’orking of 1766, and, by inference, in the Halifax
w'orking of 1765.
If this be so, w-e liave here apparently another case of “introduction”
and not of gradual development, and we must look to some source whence a
more or less ready-made legend and possibly ceremonial w'ere derived. The
chain I suggest, namely “ France - Scots Degrees - French prisoners of war”, has
weak links, but it offers a definite field of search, and we may perhaps expect
further evidence.
I thank Bro. Knoop for his allusion to the Wakefield Chapter of
Giegorians, about which I fear I know' little. Further enquiries have so far
met w'ith little result, but I propose to follow up this line of enquiry.
Since the reading of the paper I have had the pleasure of studyiirg Bro.
Lepper’s very interesting exposition of his views on a “centre party”, the
Traditioners, and am able to appreciate the force of Bro. Radice’s remarks’. In
regard to my “operative—convivial—speculative” suggestions, Bro. Radice
appears to have an open mind, but Bro. Bullamore tactfully indicates his dissent
288 Tr/insac/loiiK of thr (^utiioor Curonati hodijt
Prod Lomax Pick. Pkt’.I.S., the .Master Elect, was presented for
Installation, and i-ennhirly installed in the Chair of the laidge.
The following Bri'thren win'e appointed OfTicers of the Lodne for the ensuing
“ That tv. Bro. irirn/ Conn/r. tV. Ivor Grantham, Z?..l.F., O.Tt.E., M.A.,
Past Provincial Grand tVarden, Sussex, having completed his year of
office as tVorshipfnl .tiaster of the Quatuor Coronati I.,odge No. 2076, the
thanks of the Brethren he and hereby are tendered to him for his courtesy
in the Chair and his efficient management of the affairs of the Lodge,
and that this Pesolution be suitably engrossed and presented to him.
INAUGURAL ADDRESS
For the general history of gilds one turns to authors other than our
Members. The foundation-work is the great volume on Enrjh.di Gilds issued by
the Early English Text Society, a posthumous memorial to its compiler, Mr.
Toulmin Smith, and a tribute to its editor, Miss Lucy Toulmin Smith, and the
author of the valuable preface. Professor L. Brentano. Another work, which
should be studied in conjunction with the former is Gdds Merchant, by Dr.
of the Qiifitnor f'oronah J.odfje..
Chiirlt's Gross, the English edition of which was published in 1890. Dr. Gross
eontioverts in some iinportant details certain of the conclusions of Professor
Breiitano.
As to gild develojnnent in the provinces, one cannot do better than to study
the Rev. G. Lambert’s Twu Thi,in<ii,d rcrt/.v of (;ild Life (1891) and we have
general accounts of the London Companies in the two volnnies of Herhcrt’f; llisfnn/
Of The Twelve Creat JLiverit ('onrpaiiie.^: of l.oiidoii (1837) and W. C. Hazlitt’s
1 he l.iveii/ C(tmpanlex of ihe City of l^ondon (1892) or a more comjiact and
modern work, George Unwin’s The. Oddx and ('oinpa/iies of Ijondon. (1938). The
list could be extended by hundreds of items, but further elaboration is unnecessary
here.
The jire-Conquest position is obscure and our memberss have done little
beyond summarising the conclusions of Breiitano and other authorities. Dr.
Gross goes so far as to deny the existence on any large scale of gilds prior to
that event. “ The history of the Gild Merchant begins with the Norman
Conquest. The latter widened the horizon of the English merchant even more
than that of the English annalist The close union between England and
Normandy led to an increase in foreign commerce which in turn must have greatly
stimulated internal trade and industry. Moreover, the greatly enhanced power
of the English crown temjiered feudal turbulence, affording a measure of security
to traders in England that was as yet iinkown on the continent.” ^
Our late Bro. Vibert summarised the pre-Conquest position in his Free-
inaxoiwy before the Era of Crand Lodyex, a work based mainly on .4 r.s Qiiatuor
('orouatorn m, and we have also the summary by K. F. Gould in his H.istorj/ of
Freeiiiasoiiry. We have several examples of the pre-Conquest gild, each of which
embraced among its principles fellowship, contribution to the common stock, and,
generally, some peculiar reason for the establishment of the fellowship, related to
the particular needs of the community, e.y.-.—
Shortly after the Norman Conquest the gild merchant began to make its
appearance all over the country. Gross gives a list of more than one hundred
towns in England known to have had gilds merchant, as well as thirty in Wales
and sixty-six in Scotland. The earliest references traced by him are tO' the
granting of a Charter by Robert Fitzllamon to the burgesses of Burford (1087-
1107) and a transfer of property between the Chapmair Gild of Canterbury and
the community of Christ Church (1093-1109).
Two of the three volumes of IMary Bateson’s Recordx of the Borouyh of
Leicester were reviewed by G. W. Speth and E. Conder, Jr.^ The Earl of
Leicester granted a merchant gild to the citizens of Leicester at an early date,
the benefit to the town being the privilege of regulating its own mercantile affairs.
In the early days the Mayor functioned merely as a collector on behalf of the
Earl. Social-religious gilds existed in the fourteenth century, but the gild
merchant was strictly secular. The number of masons admitted was not large
and Speth suggested that ‘ ‘ Foreign ’ ’ masons were largely employed for the many
building works erected in the towni, a conclusion with which Conder agreed.
On this question of the employment of masons, reference should be made to the
works of Douglas Knoop and G. P. Jones.
It was my ambition to place before the Lodge in 1942 an account of the
gild merchant of Preston, to coincide approximately with the celebration of the
1 Gross, vol. i, p. 2.
2 A.Q-C., xiii and xiv.
Inmujwral Address. 293
Gild. Tho break owing to the war is the first since 1542. Some notes on this
subject appeared in vol. xxv of the Trnnsnctions of the Manehe-Aer A.ssoc!ation
for Masonic Besearch.
Records of a gild of masons at Lincoln are preserved in the Record Office
and Bro. W. J. Williams has given us a transcript, translation and comments
thereon.' The Certificate of A.D. 1389 is the only surviving Certificate of a gild
of masons, which is stated to have been founded on the Feast of Pentecost,
A.D. 1313. Brothers and sisters were to be admitted and the candle of the gild
set up. Members in custody were to be helped save only those guilty of murder
and theft. Knoop and Jones urge that by 1389 this bad become merely a social
and religious fraternity and Lionel Vibert refers to it as a religious fraternity
among the masons.^
According to Gross, craft gilds are first mentioned during the reign of
Henry I, about half a century after the appearance of the gild merchant.' There
is great confusion of terms, the expression “ gild merchant ” sometimes being used
merely to signify an aggregation of craft gilds. The transfer of power from the
gild merchant to the craft gilds followed the usual lines of economic development,
being fiercely opposed in some places and proceeding more placidly in others.
There is also some confusion between the gilds, especially the gilds merchant, and
the municipalities and in some places, notably Preston, they are almost
indistinguishable, but Gross insists that the gild merchant of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries was not a body in which the general local governmment was
centred, “ that it was a very important, but only a subsidiary part of the municipal
administrative machinery.”-'’ Gould also refers to this connection, “At Bristol—
as in Worcester—the old ordinances show the amicable connection of the Craft
Guilds -with the municipal authorities; and the Mayor evidently possessed a
ministerial function in confirming the election of the masters of the Crafts.”*’
According to Gross, "the greater the commercial and industrial prosperity
of a town, the more rapidly did this process of sub-division into craft gilds
proceed, keeping pace with the increased division of labour. In the smaller
towns, in which agriculture continued a prominent element, few or no craft gilds
were formed; and hence the old Gild Merchant remained intact and undiminished
in power longest in this class of boroughs”.'
The increasing power of the gilds, whether merchant or craft, was w'atched
by various sovereigns, and from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries w’e have
evidence of the progress of the gilds and constant attempts to curb their growing
power. The. members w^ere, however, their o-wm worst enemies as, with the
continued division of labour, specialised or wealthy sections of companies split off
and formed craft gilds of their own and control passed into the hands of
oligarchies, the prospect of an ordinary journeyman succeeding to the mastership
of his gild becoming more and more remote. The position of the mason during
this long period has been examined by several of our members and from several
points of vie-w'.
The basic authority on the London Company of iMasons is our late Bro.
E. Conder, Jr., wffiose great work. The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons was
published in 1894. An abstract with certain corrections -w-as given by the author
in A.Q.C., ix, and he later published the Regulations of 1481 in A.Q.C., xxvii.
Reference should also be made to The Aledaeval Mason, by Knoop and Jones, and
their London Mason in the Seventeenth Century,'^ as well as their The London
3. Legislation.
The Rev. H. Poole suggests in The A nti(juity of the L'r/ift ' that the craft
takes essentially the form of a gild. An important contribution is The Sixteenth
('eniury Mdson'^ wherein Knoop and Jones say, “It is probable that the old
system of regional ‘assemblies’ administering the ‘customs’, in so far as it really
existed during the Middle Ages, slowly disintegrated. Here and there it may
have been replaced by the ordinances of the municipal companies, equipped with
charters and usually including other crafts as well as that of the masons, which
were set up in some towns in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.’’
The effect of legislation has already been briefly mentioned. The Act of
Richard II calling upon the Masters and Wardens of all brotherhoods to return
their foundations, statutes and properties was the first major attempt on the
part of the Crown to secure control over the gilds or endow them with the qualities
of the golden goose. Henry VI required each gild to register its letters patent
before the county justices, &c., and the ordinances were to bo subject to the
approval of the chief justice or chief officer. His act against confederations of
masons is well known. Henry VII also prohibited the unauthorised adoption of
ordinances and Henry VIII forbade the charging of extortionate entrance fees,
but the final blow fell in 1547 when, in the first year of Edward VI, the process
of legalised loot already applied to the monasteries was extended to that portion
of the assets of the gilds dedicated to religious usages.
A year later the Act of 2 Edw. vi, c. 15, authorised “ any Free Mason,
Rough Mason, Carpenter, Bricklayer, etc. borne in this realm or made Denizen
to work in any of the said Crafts in any city borough or town corporate with
any person or persons that will retain him or them, albeit the said person or
persons so retained . do not inhabit or dwell in the city borough or
town corporate . . . nor be free of the same city, etc.’’ This particular
section was repealed a year later.^
We have links with earlier times at Norwich and Ludlow. J. C. Tingey
gives us Some Notes I’pon the draft Guilds of Norwich ' in which he mentions
the Customal of the City, a transcript of the original which probably dated back
to the thirteenth century. Regulations dealing with the masons were drawn up in
1469. Other communications are Extracts from the Records of the Corporation
of Norwich, by Walter Rye'’ and .4 Mason’s Contract of A.D. UfiJ, by G. W.
DaynesA Once again, reference should be made to The Mediwal Aiason. We
are indebted to T. J. Sawley for Notes on some Trade Guilds at Ludlow.~ The
Palmers’ Gild is said to have been chartered by Edward the Confessor ; this was
a religious gild with provision also for mutual protection. Ludlow was the centre
of operations of the Lord Marchers of the Welsh Borders and under the protection
of the town walls and a strong castle a snug municipality grew up. The Church
was probably originally a gild chapel as the North 'Transept is still known as the
Fletcher’s Chancel and the Corporation appointed the churchwardens until 1835.
The borough was chartered by Edward IV in 1461 and the supervision of the
gilds -w'as then placed in the hands of the town council. The masons were
incorporated with the smiths and several other trades, and the company was
governed by Six Men and two Stewards or Wardens.
Canon Westlake gives us an interesting extract from the regulations of the
Palmers’ Gild :
“ If a brother of the gild desired to keep watch by the body of the
dead he should be permitted to do so, but he must not put on hideous
masks nor attempt any mockery of the dead man or his reputation,
1 A.Q.C., h.
2 .i.y.r.. 1.
■’ The Mediirtud Mason, np. ‘226-7.
' .I.y.C.. XV.
^ A.Q.C.. XV.
“ i.y.c., XXXV.
' .l.y.C-, xxxii
296 Traiimr.ixiiiH of tlit (fuatuor Coronati Lodfje..
nof })lay any other indecent games! The phrase which is here
translated “put on hideous masks” is in the original iiioiisfro
liirrunim iii(/iirrre, and is hardly capable of the translation “call
up thf^ sha])es of demons” as given by Mr. Toulmin Smith (E.G.,
p. 194). In any case the Rule hints at revelries of an improper
nature.' ’ ^
Although we have already found references to the Masons’ Companies of
Condon, Ihncoln and elsewhere, it is in the next period that we meet with really
wudesjiread organisations of masons and, about the same time, the existence of
bodies of s[)eculative Freemasons becomes apparent.
Bro. Knoo]) and his colleague say:
“In the sixteenth century when craft gilds w-ere decaying, if they
had not already died or been converted into livery companies, or in
some cases in the seventeenth century, trade companies or fellowships
were set up and incorporated in various places. They appear to
have rejjresented organisations forced upon the various trades from
above, schemes to facilitate municipal government at a time when
Tudor monarchs were encouraging oligarchies and w'hen by the Statute
of Apj)rentices an attempt was being made to provide a national
control of industry. These new organisations seem tO' have been
established for political rather than for industrial purposes.” -
Kramer says, “At this stage large unions seem to have become the rule among
the building crafts, the Exeter carpenters . . . etc. frankly confessing in
1586 that they wanted a gild ‘albeit fewe in number and slender in welth’.
They desired to be partakers of so many good benefits whereby they might
become and be the more profitable members of the community”,^
(Saiesheadr. W. H. Kylands gave us a transcript and translation of the
Charter incorporating the Trades of Gateshead in 1671. This was issued by
Bishop John Cosin. The Corporation was authorised to have a common seal
bearing a shield of four of the Trades quarterly, viz. : (1) Masons, (2) Pewterers,
(3) Bricklayers, (4) Glaziers.^
Ipswich -. Stella Kramer mentions that two of the four combines registered
in Ipswich show local groups of builders among the rest. Thus, in the Drapers’
Companv are found the joiners, carpenters, freemasons, bricklayers and tylers,
and in the Tailors’ Company are the plumbers, coopers, glaziers and turners.’'
Kendal-. We are indebted to the Rev. H. Poole for Some Notes on the
Companies of Kendal in the Kith a))d 17th Centuries.^ The Charter was
granted to the town by Elizabeth in 1575 and twelve companies were formed,
each entitled to appoint two or more Wardens, number twelve being the Car¬
penters Joyners Masons Wallers Sclaters Thatchers Glasiers Paynters Pleysterers
Dawbers Pavers Myllers and Cowpers. The Company was to choose two Wardens,
of whom one was to be a carpenter or joiner. Women were eligible for member¬
ship, and from time to time persons desirous of taking part in the administration
of the borough secured membership of one or other of the companies without
serving any apprenticeship, though the regulations contained full and complete
instructions on this subject. The Corpus Christi Plays were performed in Kendal
in 1581, 1586 and 1604, after which they were superseded by processions, which
were held at irregular intervals until 1759, after which they were discontinued
by reason of expense.
Newcastle-npon-TyneReferences to the Masons’ Company of Newcastle-
upon-Tyne are to be found in Strachan’s North umhrian Masoiiri/, The Mediirvtd
Mason, and F. R. Taylor’s account of the Summer Outing of 1912.-’ The
Ancient Guild of Masons was constituted on September 1st, 1581, as a body
corporate with perpetual succession, to meet yearly to elect two Wardens, and
with power to sue or be sued in the County of Newcastle. They took part in
the Corpus Christi Plays, being allotted The ISurial of our iMda/ Saint Mar;/ the.
Yirgui, absence from which entailed a fine of half a crown. The brethren were
to attend the marriages and burials of members. One half of fines went to the
Company, the other towards the maintenance of the great bridge. An interesting
light on the relations between England and Scotland is found in the regulation
that no Scotsman was to be taken apprentice under a penalty of forty shillings,
nor to be admitted to membership of the Company under any circumstances.
It may be mentioned that the ordinances of at least five of the eight companies
of Carlisle contained restrictions on trade with Scotsmen during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries.*’
Oxford -. Bro. Lionel Vibert gave us a transcript and translation of the
Incorporation of the Company of Freemasons, Carpenters, Joiners and Slaters
exercising their trade or calling in Oxford or its suburbs on 12th November,
1604, and in the same volume W. J. Williams gave us a List of Oxford Wills
and Administrations of deceased Freemasons.^
Local organisation and custom probably restricted the masons less than
most trades. The Act of 2 Edw. VI has already been mentioned. After the
Fire of Imndon an Act was passed encouraging all manner of building trade
workers to settle in the City of London, promising them their freedom on the
completion of seven years’ residence and work there.^ Charles II also exercised
his influence with the corporations of other towns for the rehabilitation of those
who had lost their homes and businesses in the fire. The corporation of Preston,
one of the most exclusive centres of gild organisation, allowed William Cadman,
Stationer, of the City' of London, to inhabit and trade in Preston for the term
of two years “providing his growing family be not burdensome’’.^
W. II. Hylands cited the interesting case of Thomas Poch, a cabinet¬
maker, who settled in Canterbury and purchased his freedom during the
eighteenth century. He was called upon by the builders, to which fraternity
he was considered as bound, to pay to the IMaster and Wardens dues amounting
to £4. This he declined to pay and the company sued him. The case eventually
went to Pochester Assizes, where, in 1758, the plaintiffs were non-suited.’
The disadvantages of this parochialism are illustrated by the case of
Jlerchant Baines, father of the Lancashire historian, who was prosecuted at
Preston in 1772 for trading in the town while not being free of the corporation.
Baines simply withdrew immediately outside the precincts of the borough, and
thereafter non-freemen were encouraged to jdy their trades within the town, to
the rapid extension of its prosperity.'
The jjassing of the Jfunicipal Corporations Act, 1835, finally' swept away
whatever vestiges of gild jmwer remained, with the exception of certain functions
of some of the fmndon Companies.
We have had a hint of connection between gild and craft in the London
Company of the sixteenth century and at Durham in the post-1717 jjeriod;
dnring the whole of the nineteenth century the Freemasons of Preston played
a prominent part in the celebrations of the gild festival in that town. Of
recent years Lodges have been formed in connection with a number of London
Companies.
Consideration of space alone has restricted the scope of this paper to
England, and much valuable material from Scotland and other countries has
been omitted. IMy aim has been to provide in a somewhat abbreviated form
an account of the rise, progress and decline of the English Gild, with especial
reference to the Mason Craft.
As the contributions of many students, especially members of the Lodge
and Correspondence Circle, have been merged to form this composite picture,
may I repeat my apj)eal to members of the Correspondence Circle not only to
do all in their power to enlarge their number, but where they have access to
local sources of information which may be of interest to send in their notes
for scrutiny and, if possible, publication.
Bro. Fred Lomax Pick knocked upon the door of Freemasonry in Rutland
in the year 1926 at the age of twenty-eight. Those knocks received a ready
response from the members of the Vale of Catmos Lodge No. 1265 at Oakham.
Bro. Pick’s enthusiasm for the craft soon proved too great for England s
smallest county. It is therefore by no means surprising to find that within a
very few years of his initiation into Freemasonry our Worshipful Master had
extended his masonic contacts by joining the Lodge of friendship No. 277 at
Oldham, whither business had taken him, by becoming a founding member of
the Manchester Lodge for Masonic Research No. 5502, and by enrolling himself
as a member of our Correspondence Circle.
Bro. Pick also extended his researches into other degrees in Freemasonry,
and has already passed the chair in the Mark Degree, in the Royal Arch, and
in the Rosicrucian Society. A Past President of the Manchester Association
for Masonic Research, Bro. Pick is now the indefatigable Secretary of that
Association.
Both ill the Province of Lancashire (Eastern Division) and in our own
midst here in London our Worshipful Master is known as a masonic student
whose views always command respect. Besides his paper on Frcetnaxonri/ in
Oldham, which will be found in volume li of our own Transactii/tin, Bro. Pick’s
principal contributions to masonic literature will be found printed in the
Transactions of the Manchester Association for Masonic Ecsiarrh ; these con¬
tributions comprise papers entitled The Lodge of Friendship No. .277, The Earhj
Victorian Freemason, ]‘reston Gild, Freemasonri/ and the Stage, and The Miracle
Flay. Another paper of value, entitled Mark ifasonry in Oldham and the
Travelling Mark Lodge, appeared in volume xvii of Miscellanea Tnitomorum.
Joining our Correspondence Circle in 1932, Bro. Pick was called to full
membership of the Quatuor Coroiiati Lodge in 1937.
Our Worshipful Master’s popularity is not confined to the Craft; he has
a host of friends in those other spheres of activity in which he has gained a
prominent place, particularly in the realm of insurance, which he entered at
an early age after completing his education at Preston Grammar School. A
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, Bro. Pick is now Clerk to the
Oldham Insurance Committee. In the last war our Brother served in the Royal
Field Artillery, saw active service on the western front and was gassed at Ypres;
in the present war he has filled since 1940 the important and exacting post of
Assistant First Aid Commandant in the Oldham Casualty Services.
In spite of these many activities, and in spite of the length of his cable-
tow% Bro. Pick has managed to maintain regular attendance at our meetings
in London. His sound advice in Committee is as welcome as his shrewd comments
in Lodge. In Bro. Pick we have a man of friendly disposition, a brother of
sound judgment, and a masonic student of discernment—a combination of
qualities which renders him eminently well suited for the mastership of this
Lodge.
In open Lodge to-day I had the satisfaction of proclaiming Bro. Fred
Lomax Pick as Master of this Lodge. I now call upon you all to acclaim him
in the accustomed fashion as our Worshipful Master.
<00 frnii.tarflo/is nf the Qiiafitoi' Cormiati Lodge.
NOTES.
Well, well, well, Paddy the Gander is not the first of the Irish Wild
Geese to have been a Brother Freemason, if there be any truth in tradition .
Bound up with the book are four sheets of paper slightly thicker than
that used for the printed pages. The first three contain the following manuscript
addenda, which I transcribe line for line: —
F.l. - A PRAYER. -
To be said before the Closing of a
LODGE.-O HOLY, Blessed and Glorious
TRINITY, Mysterious Three in One, Thou
Great and Wonderfull Architect of the
Universe, Father of Light, and God of
Unity and Concord, Grant, we beseech
thee, That, we thy Servants, who by thy
Grace and favour, have been led out of
Darkness to Light, and from Ignorance
to Knowledge, may enjoy the same with
all true Thaukfullness, in all Godliness
of Life, Brotherly Love, Unitv & Affection.
-WE confess, O I/Ord, that without
that Light, which lighteth us through this
Mortal State, We should have still remained
in gloomy Darkness, and profound Igno¬
rance, Grant, therefore, O Lord, That having
Escaped that Cloud of Darkness & received
Knowledge, We may be Cloathed w'ith the
Armour of Light, and may know Thee,
the only true God-
- UNITE us, O Lord, we beseech
thee, in one Body with the Invincible
Bands of thy Fatherly I,ove, That by
making Thee our only Pattern, we may
live
SONG
Tis Masonry unites mankind
To Generous Actions forms the Soul
In friendly converse All’s conjoy’d
One Spirit Annimates the whole
Then let
2
Where ere Aspiring Domes arrise
Where ever Sacred Alters stand
those Alters Blaze unto the Skies
These Domes Proclaim the Masons hand
Then let
jVotes. 303
F.3 3
As Passions Rough the Soul disguise
till Science cultivates the Mind
So the Rude Stone unsheapen lies
Till by the Masons Art refin’d
Then let
4
Let wreches at our Manhood Rail
But those that once our order Prove
will own that wee who Build so well
with equal energy can love
Then let
5 th
Tho still our Chief concern and Care
Be to Deserve A Brothers Name
yet ever mindfull of the Fair
thirc Chiefest Influence we claim
Then let
6th
Sing Brethren then the Craft Devine
Blest Band of Social Joy and mirth
with Choral voice & Cheerfull wine
Proclaim its virtues ore the Earth
Then liOt
V.3 Finis
Chorus to be Sung at the end of Every Verse
of the forgoing Song
1 need add few exegetical notes on the foregoing effusions. Lodge No. 19,
Youghal, to whom the book belonged, was warranted in 1733, and was cancelled
in 1830 as a result of neglecting to reply to repeated requests by the Grand
Lodge for dues many years in arrears. The number when cancelled was issued
;i()4 I nnisacf H}ns of tJn' (^u(iJu(>r doroiuiti Lodiji'.
shortly afterwards, according to the bad custom of the times, to an entirely new
Lodge, so that when the former members of No. 19 ptrtitioned for forgiveness
they were too late to obtain their original number, and were offered instead
the vacant number 20, which they did not accejit.
Lodge No. 38,1 was warranted for Cork City in 1762, and cancelled in
181.1. It had registered no names with Grand Lodge since 1783.
llichaid Croker of Youghal was appointed Dejnity Provincial Grand
iMaster of Munster in 1759 by Thomas iMatliew, the P.G.iM., who later was
Grand Master of the “ Antieiits " in Lngland. The “P.G.M.M.” should have
had a 1) piefixed to b(r strictly correct. A facsimile of the document by which
he was apjiointed Deputy P.G.M. will be found in the Hictntciku-i/ TIistovi/ of
the a Kind Lodijf of lichind.
btndents will be grateful to Bro. John O’Brien for having recorded the
names of the Master and Wardens of No. 19 in 1763, though I doubt if his
song is worthy of a place iu Bro. Knoop’s next Anthology of the Jlasonic Muse.
The prayer composed by Bro. Thomas Cooke, Alderman of Youghal, is
written in a better hand than the rest of the manuscrijit insertions, and may
have been done by himself. It will be noted that he was in no doubt that
King George II had been a Freemason. Yet another old tradition whose truth
remains to be demonstrated.
John Heron Leppeh.
have mentioned is entitled The Veil withdrawn-, or the Secret of the ]'rench
Revolution, e.rplanied bp the Help of Freeindsoiiri/. The second edition, which
1 make use of, was printed in Paris in 1792.
In the aforesaid work the author redicnles the several pretensions to a
high antiquity and to an honourable origin, to which many Freemasons lay
claim. It seems that some of these say they were founded by those fraternities
of masons who re-built several cities in Palestine duriiig the Crusades, and
who were the fabricators of our beautiful Gothic Churches : others ascribe their
institution to our King Athelstan, the grandson of the great Alfred; who,
having sent over to the Continent for the most able builders that could be
engaged, gave them a charter and a code of laws peculiar to themselves; whilst
many mote claim a descent from the builders of Solomon’s famous Temple. To
all these Mr. Le Franc replies that it is clear, from their own confession,
as well as from every other circumstance, that their building is of a mere
emblematical nature: their profession being to erect temjiles for the protection
of virtue, and prisons for the reception of vice. It appears that of late years
many members of this society, and amongst the rest the celebrated Count
Cagliostro, maintained that the strictest conformity is to be found between
the mysteries of Freemasonry and those practiced in the worship of Isis, and
that therefore the former were to be traced up to a very remote jjeriod of
antiquity', and to the country of Egypt. For, whatever learning there is in
this account, Le Franc says that Cagliostro is indebted to the publication on
this subject of Monsieur Guillement, a learned mason. He is ns far, however,
from admitting this as the other genealogies of the society in question. On
the contrary he says it cannot be traced higher than the famous irreligious
meeting of Trevisan, Ochin, Gentilis, Lelius, Darius Socinus, and others, at
Vicenza in 1546: but it is to Faustus Socinus, he asserts, that the proper
foundation of Freemasonry as a hidden and emblematical system of Equality
and Deism properly belongs. This artful and indefatigable sectary, having
seen Servetus burnt by Calvin at Geneva, for maintaining only a part of his
system, and finding that the Protestant and Catholic States were equally hostile
to its reception, is said to have concealed it under emblems and mysterious
ceremonies, together with certain dreadful oaths of secrecy, in order that, whilst
it was publicly preached among the people, in those provinces in which it
was tolerated, it might silently steal, especially by means of the learned and
opulent, into other countries, in which an open profession of it would there
have conducted to the stake. The propagation of this system is stated to have
been veiled under the enigmatical term of building a temple, “the length of
which,’’ in terms of Freemasonry “was to extend from East to West, and
the breath {sic) of it from the North to the South.’’ Hence the professors of
it are furnished with the several instruments of building; the trowel, the mallet,
the square, the level, the plummet &c. This accounts for the name of Masons
which they have adopted. As to the epithet of Free which they prefix to the
same, our author says it is derived from frey, which in Poland, whence this
Socinian confraternity passed about the middle of the last century into England,
denotes a brother.
With respect to the influence which this writer supposes Freemasonry
to have had on the French Revolution, he remarks that the Monster Egalite,
who was the main spring of the latter, was also the Grand Master in Franee ;
of the former, that Condorcet, Rochfoucault, and other chief officers of the
Masonic order, were the chief architects of the new constitution; that the new
division of France into department.^, districU, cantons, and ’ eirenmferances
(arrondisements) is confessedly the self-same, in all its parts, with that of
masonry throughout Europe; that the National Assembly, when they went in
a body to the Cathedral of Paris to celebrate the Revolution, soon after it had
taken place, were pleased to accept of the highest honour of Masonry, that of
Tniiixiictioiifs of the Qvdtunr ('.nriindti J.odt/e,
])tissing under an (uch of etecl (formed by a double row of brethren, who hold
the j)oints of their swords, so as to to^ich each other). In short, he says, that
the municipal scarf, which is the distinctive mark of the lowest order of French
Magistrates, is the self-same with that of ap])rentice masons; that the president
of the Assembly s hat resembles that of a veneruhle master in Masonry; and
that the obligation of laying aside of all marks of distinction, such as stars,
garters, ribbands, crosses, &c before a Brother is permitted to enter a 'Lodge,
was not only a prelude, but was also intended as a jjreparatioh for the
desttuction of all ranks in society, wdiich has taken place in the country w'e
have been speaking of. I must not forget the marked protection which our
author says the new Legislatur(! has afforded Freemasonry, at the same time
it has destroyed all other corporations and societies,
T must now detail some of this writer’s remarks on the effects which he
supposes Freemasonry has produced on moral sentiment and religion in France.
He contends, that the horrible and sanguinary oaths which are taken in the
several degrees of Freemasonry, and which he lays before his readers, the
daggers, cross-bones, death's heads, imaginary combats with the murders (.s/'c)
of Hiram, and other hoi-rid ceremonies they make use of, have a natural
tendency to steel the heart, and have, in fact, paved the way for those revolting
barbarities, which have been indeed transacted by the enthusiastic multitude,
but not until they have been cooly planned by their philosophic leaders. He
moreover, enters ujion an exjiosition of the Rahbinical tales concerning the
death and burial of Adoniram, and of the meaning of the Master’s watchword
MiicheiKie, together with an analysis of the catechism repeated by the Masonic
Knights of the fun at their initiation; all which he undertakes to show, are
calculated to undermine genuine Christianity and to establish a Socinian and
Deistical S3^stem of religion, and a code of morals very different from that of
the Gospel,
The Woodcock MS. of the Old Charges.—Tlie latest copy of the Old
Charges camc' to light in Wuixestei' recently. It has been tentatively named
the Woodcock ]\1S. from its present owner.
The MS. is in book form, measuring h.'in. by 4in., written the long
way of the ]iagc. Pagination—1, blank; 2-28. The Charges; 29. A Song:
30-36. Blank. To j)age 31 is now jjinned a ])aragraph omitted fi'OTii page 9,
referring to Euclid’s commission. This was at some time pinned to the page 9.
The watermark shows a motto “ Pro Patria ”, Britannia helmeted, holding
a trident. Also a lion and a curious low jjalisading. This is a Dutch mark,
on paper specially made for the English market in the reigns of William,
Anne and the early Georges. Both the watermark and the engraving on the
cover arc an adayhation of the Dutch watermai'k which showed the ifaid of
Holland surrounded by her foitified frontiers maintaining libertv by force of
arms.
The cover is of a stifl' grey blue paper; on the inside is printed half a
steel engraving, showing a woman seated, wearing a hat and holding a rod
in her right hand, around her a frame elaboratelv ornamented with leaves and
flowers. Outside th(‘ frame, at the toji, is the half of a Crown and a large
letter R; at the bottom of the frame, on a name ])late the letters NE. Within
the frame and near the head of the seated figure the letter A. The engraving
has been cut nearly through the centu', and the right hand portion is the part
printed. There is a portion of palisading shown, curiously like that in the
watermark of the jniper. The missing portion would probably show A R.
The small A in the middle possibly Anna or Pro Patria, and the HE on the
name plate, Queen Anne. 1702-1714 gives one limit for the date of the MS.
On the outside of the cover are two signatures in ink, but they are
unfortunately indecipherable. On jjage 1 there is .a blind die impression of
a shield showing a swan not quite adorsee but ruffled, and the initials D.P.K.,
evidently of some previous owner.
The handwriting is an exceptionally clear script, hardly a letter of which
is in doubt. It is written right to each edge of the book, and although there
is a double red line ruled round each folio, barely a 32ud of an inch from
the edge, the writing frequently encroaches on it. JMany words are in large,
heavy black letters, a few nicely ornamented.
It is at present the possession of Wor.Bro. G. P. Woodcock, P.A.G.D.C.,
who acquired it from his brother-in-law, a merchant captain, to whom it was
presented by a Brother in China.
In the classification of the Old Charges it belongs to the Thorp Branch
of the Sloane Family. Bro. Eev. H. Poole has given his opinion that it is a
close relative of the Straclian IMS., and consequently not of much interest
textually. He suggests the No. E.a. 23 should be allotted to it.
F. J. Underwood.
OBITUARY.
P..M, 11, l‘.Z. Il\ l\Iyer Peiicharz, of Bloemfontein, P.M. 47 (N.C.), I’.Z.
Pivaidint Pnind (S.C.) ; Arthur Edward Perkins, J.P., of Worthing, P.M.
7)237, iS’.)/; Sgd.-I.dr. Jack Allister Perkins, 7?..4 of Worthing, 2201, /J,9;
Elbert O. Plilegar, Jr., Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A., 2; Frank Henry Plummer,
of l.ondon, N.W., P.i\l. 271, I’./j. I9I0-, Claude Cyril Pollard, of Plymouth,
223; T.eoiiard William Stephen Porter, of Portsmouth, Pr.J.G.D., P.Z. 80f/\
Eionel Presman, of Edgware, Mdsx., 1349, lOHd-, John Robert Price, of
Durban, S. Africa, 1937, Rev. Frank Read, of Saltburn-by-the-Sea,
Yorks., 4,739; Oscar Charles Read, of West Mill, Herts., 4770, .7.7.17; John
English Hobson, of West Hartlepool, P.M. 4350, 7d.^; Thomas English Robson,
of West Hartlepool, W.iM. 4965, 76'.^ ; Emanuel Rosner, of Edgware, Mdsx.,
1349, ; Cecil Rutt, of Biggleswade, Beds., 803, ,7.^(7; Herbert Sampson,
of Leeds, 5612, dddfJ-, Thomas Richard Sandford, of Torrington, Devon, 1885,
267; Henry Schofield, of iMenston in Wharfedale, W. Yorks., P.Pr.G.Treas.,
P.Pr.(r .Se.y. \ R. H. Schuepp, A.I.E.R., of Bombay, 109; Herbert Edward
Scott, of SlietTield, W.M. 1462; Thomas Henry Shaw, of Sheffield, 4092;
Arnold Simon, of Har])enden, Herts., P.hf. 4314; Lieut. James Smith, of
Nairobi, 4070; Jay Barham Smith, of Biirton-on-Trent, Staffs., P.M. 353,
•1-7.1; Joseph Prentice Smith, of Burton-on-Trent, Staffs., P.Pr.G.Sup.W.
(Derbys.), P.Pr.C.8.B. ; Arthur Holt Spencer, of Portsmouth, W.M. 4071,
)(S'7; William Stacey, of Torrington, Devon, P.M. 1885, ^.S’.9; Michael Stein,
■l/./L, ('h.B., of Fcrryhill Village, Co. Durham, 2352, .1-767?; T)r. Henry Adam
Sturdevant, of Enid, Oklahoma, P.hf. 80, P.T1 .J‘. 27 \ Albert William Swan,
of Surbiton, Surrey, 3911, 2911 \ Hardwicke Slingsby Tasker, M.A., B.Sr.,
.1.of Watford, Herts., 4077; Robert Henry Grenville Tatton, D.L., of
Nantwich, Cheshire, P.M. 5166, 1/777), Philip Harry Taylor, of London, W.,
L.d.R., P.Z. /(SIS’; Cyril Leopold Stuart Thomas, of Shipston-on-Stour, Worcester¬
shire, P.Pr.G.R. (Devon), P.Z. .i2H ■, Alfred Charles Tidey, of Romsey, Hants.,
4124 ; John Frederick George Troughton, of Nairobi, 3227, S29 (^S.C.) ;
Christiaan Jozna Venter, of Frankfort, S. Africa, Jan Brand (N.C.), f/olden
Thixtie (.V.t’.); Thomas Verity, Pateley Bridge, Yorks,, P.M. 4984; James
Alexander Walker, J/./L, B.Sc., of Parkstone, Dorset, P.M. 2559, 2779; Hugh
Leslie Watkinson, J/.A., B.Se., of Mexborough, Yorks., 5238; William James
Weaver, of Middlesborough, P.M. 2391 ; Ernest Humphries Wharton, of
Sheffield, W.M. 4092, ■U97 ; Harold Duckett White, of Olkalou, Kenya, W.M.
3727, .17,27; Geoffrey Ronald Wilkins, of Barrow-in-Furness, Lancs., 1398;
Thomas Edward Wooldridge, of Bideford, Devon, P.M. 1885, .^/Sd; Percy
Edgar Worth, of N. Wembley, Mdsx., P.M. 1360.
Oluatuor ©oronatt ^0?6, gotibon
PUBLICATIONS.
COMPLETE SETS OE THE TBASSACTIUNS.—A. lew complete Sets of .4)1 CfitatMOr Coronatorum
\’ols. 1. to Ivi., have been iniiile up for sale. Prices may be obtained on application to the Secretary.. Each
volume will be accompanied so far as po.ssible, with the. St. John’s Card of the corresponding year.
ODD V'OLEMES.—Such copies of Volumes as remain over after completing sets, are on sale to
members. ’
MASONIC REPRINTS.
COMPLF.TE SETS OE MASONIC REFIilNTS.-A few complete Sets -jf Quatuor Coronatorum Anti-
graplia, V^ols. i. to x.. consisting mainly of exquisite fac.similes, can be supplied. Prices may be obtained
on application to the Secretary.
ODD VOLUIME.S.—Vols. vi., vii., ix , and x. are on sale to membeis. price two guineas per volniue.
EAt'SI-M I EES OE 'I'HE OT.D CHANGES.—Three Rolls, viz., Grand Lodge No 2 AIS., .Scarborough .M.S.,
and the llncbanan .\IS. Litliogra[jhed on vegetable vellnm, in the original .Roll foi-in. Price Two Guineas each.
RINDING.
Members returning their parts of the Tran.'-acf.ion.s to the Secretary, can have them bnnnd in dark
bine Camas, lettered gold. Gases can he supplied; date or minibei' of tolunie shonid be specified. '
AIEAIBEIISHIP AIED.AL.
_ Brethren of the Gnrres))ondencR Gircle are entitled to wear a membership Aledal, to he iirocured of
the .^ecretary only. Gilt, with bar, pin and ribbon, as a broatt jewel. ' ' -
(Siuatuor doronati 'Xobge,
No. 2076, LONDON.
SECRETARY:
Colonel F. M. RICKARD, P.G.Swd.B.