The Builder Magazine 

May 1925 - Volume XI - Number 5 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Foreword - By R. W. BRO. SIR ALFRED ROBBINS, P. G. W. 

The United Grand Lodge of England: A Retrospect, 1717-1813- BY BRO. 
GILBERT W. DAYNES, Associate Editor, England 

The Constitutions of 1723 - By W. BRO. LIONEL VIBERT 

Royalty and Their Patronage of the Craft - By W. BRO. J. WALTER HOBBS, P.M., 

L. R., P. Z„ ETC. 

“Adhuc Stat" - A Sketch of the History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland - By BRO. 
JOHN HERON LEPPER, W.M., Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, England 

Masonic Benevolence Between 1717 and 1813 - By W.BRO. MAURICE 
BEACHCROFT, M.A., O.B.E., P.G.D. (England) 

AN OLD MASONIC APRON 

AN EARLY MASONIC PRAYER 

Prince Charles Edward Stuart, G. M. - BY W.BRO. J. E. SHUM TUCKETT, P.M. 
QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE 

The Grand Lodge of Scotland, and Its History to 1813 - By W. BRO. F.J.W. 
CROWE, F. R. Hist. Soc. 

The Evolution of English Lodge-Boards - By W.BRO. REV. W. W. COVEY- 
CRUMP, P.M., P.Z., 

Royal Arch Masonry Prior to the Union of 1813 - By BRO. JOHN STOKES, M.A., 

M. D. 

WAS NELSON A FREEMASON? 



THE GREAT AIM OF MASONRY 


EDITORIAL 

Concerning the Plan and Purpose of This Special Issue - By BRO. GILBERT W. 
DAYNES, Associate Editor for England 

MASONIC CLOTHING, 1717 TO 1731 

THE ENTERED APPRENTICE'S CHARGE IN 1735 

DR. J. T. DESAGULIERS AND THE DUKE OF MONTAGU, 1734 

A CORRECTION 

— o — 

Foreword 

By R. W. BRO. SIR ALFRED ROBBINS, P. G. W. 

PBESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL PURPOSES, UNITED GRAND 
LODGE OF ENGLAND 



IT is a keen pleasure to be asked to give an introductory word to a Masonic literary 
experiment, which should do much to promote among American and English 
Freemasons a more complete comprehension of each other's point of View. The 
pleasure is the keener when the effort to be thus foreworded— and thereby forwarded— 
is the product of some of the most skilled and alert of English living students of 
Masonry. In these times, among the ripest of our thinkers, Masonic study is no longer 
a matter of phantasm and fantasy, of vague imaginings with vain embroidery. It is a 
systematic endeavor to find what are the true origins of the wonderful system which 
today is world-wide in influence and enthusiasm, and to trace its development from 
small beginnings to the vast organization we now see. 


Masonry, we have been assured from our earliest moments within the Craft, is a 
progressive science; and this is a truth accustomed to be lost sight of by those who act 
as if, at some undefined moment in its history, its growth was suddenly arrested, its 
development sharply checked, and certain new Tables of the Law were enacted which 
it were heretical to doubt and iniquitous to disobey. Those who read the series of 
articles here brought together by Masonic authors of differing powers and points of 
view, but all at one in the simple design of seeking the true inwardness of things, will 
perceive why the best instructed English Mason of today does not accept a claim for 
infallibility coming from whatever quarter it may. They will see why that Mason 
declines to accept as infallible the statements of James Anderson, of William Preston, 
or of George Oliver, to take the three most prominent among early English Masonic 
authorities. They will realize how much more we know of what Freemasonry truly is 
if we allow our minds the same freedom of judgment, based upon constantly 
increasing knowledge, we claim in other relations of life. 


"Wisdom is before him that hath understanding." So says the sage in Holy Writ; and 
it enjoins that we shall seek not only to gather knowledge but to exercise our intellect 
towards its fullest comprehension. The descendants of Hiram should resemble that 
early Grand Master himself in being "filled with wisdom and understanding"— not 
alone possessed of facts but the facility to apply them. The cardinal weakness of some 
of the earliest popular Masonic writers was that, when unpossessed of facts, they 
were fullest of facility. At the time they were most precise, they were often most 
erroneous; and, if Masonry is to hold an unchallenged position among the learned and 
the thoughtful, it must resolutely set its face against continuing to accept fancies, 
however venerable, when it can rest on a sure basis of fact. Our Craft, so far from 



standing to lose by stripping itself of the accretions derived from an uncritical age, 
will be the stronger and the purer for depending on clearly revealed and attested truth. 


"Understanding !" This is the word to be given to every brother, wherever dispersed 
over the face of earth and water, as his guide in Masonic work. And it should be 
given in its varied meaning, as applied to intellectual and fraternal conditions alike. In 
the first variant, it enjoins an effort to derive lasting wisdom from acquired 
knowledge. In the second, it implies an endeavor to secure a closer comprehension of 
the point of view of brethren other than ourselves. The series of papers now presented 
will materially assist in both directions. They furnish in small compass and effective 
form a striking body of information concerning the development of the Craft, its 
ideals, and its ideas during the opening century of its organization as a great social 
power. In the very process lines of divergence were initiated acquaintance with which 
clears the path for comprehension of the others' viewpoint. 


The latter is the main phase on which I desire at the moment to dwell. It has been my 
great good fortune to be the bearer from the Masons of England to their brethren of 
the United States the expression not only of heartfelt wish for a continuance and 
growth of the friendly spirit that has always prevailed between them, but of keen 
desire for the promotion by more full, free, and frequent intercourse of a thorough 
understanding. This, I am convinced, will best be secured by a closer study of each 
other's problems, unfettered by prepossessions, and unshackled by humble 
submission to traditional observance. The American Mason, visiting an English lodge 
for the first time, is apt to criticize what to him appears a lack of the ornate and the 
oratorical. The English Mason, in his earliest experience of American working, is as 
prone to condemn the presence of drama in a developed degree. Neither realizes that 
both phases have sprung from the same stock, deriving their original nurture from the 
like root, and branching in somewhat divergent, but never entirely different, 
directions because, at the outset, of local and sometimes national conditions. It should 
be the object of the studious Mason to show what these were, and to insist on the 
great and lasting truth that what in Freemasonry, as in daily life, we must always 
insist on is, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, variety; in all things, charity." 
Given an open mind and a good heart, we shall all come with closeness together. Let 
American and English brethren alike, be like Hiram, "filled with wisdom and 
understanding," and they will carry with them the whole Masonic world. 



O 


The United Grand Lodge of England: A Retrospect, 1717-1813 


BY BRO. GILBERT W. DAYNES, Associate Editor, England 


FROM June 24, 1723, when William Cowper— Clerk of the Parliaments, and a 
member of the Horn Lodge, Westminster— was appointed Secretary, we have the 
records of the Grand Lodge of England in unbroken sequence to the present day. 
These records give no hint of any earlier minutes, now missing. Except for some 
contemporary newspaper notices we are entirely dependent upon Dr. James Anderson 
for an account of the first six years of the premier Grand Lodge of the World, an 
account published in the Second Edition of the Book of Constitutions in 1738. 
Unfortunately Dr. Anderson's capacity as an historian has been impugned frequently, 
and, where independent evidence has been forthcoming, many statements made by 
him have been proved to be inaccurate. However, it must also be remembered that 
some of the Grand Officers, who participated in these early events, must have perused 
and passed the account. 


Dr. Anderson tells us that the members of four lodges, then existing in London, "and 
some old Brothers," constituted themselves into a Grand Lodge, at an unknown date, 
prior to June 24, 1717, when, at an Assembly and Feast held at the Goose and 
Gridiron Alehouse, St. Paul's Churchyard, the brethren then present "by a Majority of 
Hands elected Mr. Anthony Sayer, Gentleman, Grand Master of Masons." 


The first Grand Master was succeeded by George Payne in 1718, who in turn was 
replaced by Dr. J.T. Desaguliers in 1719. The latter is said to have revived "the old 
regular and peculiar Toasts or Healths of the Free Masons." On June 24, 1720, 
George Payne, who was responsible for framing early Regulations for the Craft, was 
elected Grand Master for a second time. On June 24, 1721, John, Duke of Montagu, 
became Grand Master, and, for the first time, a Deputy Grand Master was appointed 
in addition to the two Grand Wardens. Ever since this election either nobility or 



royalty have reigned over the premier Grand Lodge, and, later, the United Grand 
Lodge of England. In 1723, James Anderson published the First Edition of the Book 
of Constitutions; but not a word appeared therein as to the formation, and the first six 
years' working, of the Grand Lodge. In June, 1722, Philip, Duke of Wharton, was 
elected Grand Master Anderson would have us believe that the election was whoily 
irregular, and that no Deputy Grand Master was appointed, until the Duke of 
Montagu called a special meeting of Grand Lodge, in January, 1723, to put matters 
right. Contemporary newspaper paragraphs, however, negative these assertions, and 
one paper states that Dr. Desaguliers was appointed D.G.M. at the June meeting. 


From the MS. list of "Regular Constituted Lodges," in the first Minute Book of Grand 
Lodge, commenced on Nov. 25, 1723, we know that there were, early in 1724, fifty- 
two lodges on the roll. The names of 73 1 brethren are given in respect of thirty-six of 
these lodges; so we may, perhaps, assume that there were then about one thousand 
members in the lodges owning allegiance to Grand Lodge. On Feb. 19, 1724, a 
Regulation was passed, "that no Brother belong to more than one Lodge at one time 
within the Bills of Mortality." This resolution., however, soon became a dead letter. 
The new Grand Lodge, at its inception, certainly never intended to exercise authority 
over lodges outside London, and, in the 1723 Book of Constitutions, there are also 
indications that its scope had not, at that date, been enlarged. However, in the list of 
lodges of 1723, we find that lodges had been constituted at Edgware, Acton, and 
Richmond. During 1724 the process of extension is in active operation, and nine 
lodges in different parts of England a constituted under the authority of Grand Lodge 
Bristol, Bath, and Norwich leading the way. By April, 1729, this extension is still 
further developed, and lodges at Madrid, Gibraltar, and Fort William, Calcutta have 
been constituted. During the next decade lodges are being planted in the New World, 
and in many parts of Europe not under the British Crown. 


LODGE LISTS ARE DESCRIBED 


To enable brethren to know where the regular, constituted lodges met, and when, 
Engraved Lists of the Lodges, giving the necessary details, were published from time 
to time. The earliest known list was issued in 1724. On Dec. 27, 1727, Grand Lodge 
ordered "that it be referr'd to the succeeding Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and 
Grand Wardens, to inquire into the Precedency of the several Lodges, and to make 



Report thereof at the next Quarterly Communication in order that the same may be 
finally settled and ent'red accordingly." In the Engraved List for 1729, the lodges, for 
the first time, appeared numbered, and in order of seniority. Re-numbering the lodges 
took place on five further occasions during the eighteenth century. For many years the 
Engraved Lists were published annually, and even oftener, but in 1775 they were 
replaced by The Freemasons' Calendar, which has been published yearly ever since, 
being now known as The Masonic Year Book. 


THE GENERAL CHARITY IS ORGANIZED 


The first act of charity mentioned in Grand Lodge minutes was a collection of 28-17- 
6 pounds on Feb. 19, 1724, on behalf of Henry Prichard, "that he should not be a 
sufferer." On Nov. 21, 1724, the Earl of Dalkeith recommended the creation of "a 
Generali Charity." In due course a treasurer was appointed, and also a committee to 
regulate such charity. It was not, however, until Nov. 25, 1729, that the first 
contributions-9-8-6 pounds in all— were received. To augment the "General Charity" it 
was resolved by Grand Lodge on Dec. 27, 1729, "that for the future every Lodge of 
Masons, that shall be Constituted by the Grand Master or by his Authority shall pay 
the Sum of two Guineas towards the Charity upon their being Constituted." 

Previously no fee had, apparently, been charged. This fee has been retained ever 
since, but the amount of it has been altered from time to time. 


The Committee of Charity— now known as the Board of Benevolence— was enlarged 
in 1730, and again in 1733, when it was agreed by Grand Lodge "that all such 
Business which cannot conveniently be despatched by the Quarterly Communication 
shall be referred to the Committee of Charity." It thus became in effect a Committee 
of General Purposes. 


THE ANNUAL FEAST WAS MAINTAINED 


The Annual Feast and Assembly seems to have been a recognized function, in 
connection with the Grand Lodge, from its formation. At first held in one of the 



taverns it was, in 1721, removed to the hall of one of the city companies. This change 
necessitated stewards, but we learn from Dr. Anderson that "the Grand Officers not 
finding a proper Number of Stewards, our Brother Mr. Josiah Villeneau, Upholder in 
the Burrough of Southwark, generously undertook the whole himself, attended by 
some Waiters." We next hear of stewards at the Feast on June 24, 1723, Anderson 
naming six brethren as having served in that capacity. In 1724 Anderson says that 
there were twelve stewards, but the Grand Lodge Minutes do not state the number. 

On Dec. 27, 1725, the arrangements were in the hands of John James Heidegger, and 
at the two following Feasts, Edward Lambert— a celebrated confectioner— acted in the 
same capacity. On Nov. 26, 1728, on the motion of Dr. J.T. Desaguliers, the office of 
steward was revived, and twelve brethren offered their services. By 1732 the twelve 
serving stewards had acquired the right to nominate their successors. They were also 
permitted to have their jewels pendant to red ribbons, and their Aprons lined with red 
silk. In 1735 Grand Lodge resolved that all the Grand Officers, except the G. M., 
should from thenceforth be selected from the stewards and the stewards also received 
further privileges in connection with attendance at Grand Lodge. The stewards were 
given permission to have a lodge, composed of those who were serving, or had 
served, the office of Grand Steward, and this lodge was constituted on June 25, 1735, 
at The Shakespeare's Head, Covent Garden, London. On April 18, 1792, the 
Steward's Lodge was placed at the head of the roll, by order of Grand Lodge, without 
a number. 


As the popularity of the Craft grew, so did the curiosity of the uninitiated. In 1724, to 
gratify this curiosity, the so-called "exposures" begin to appear, both in newspaper 
and in book form. In 1730, two exposures were published, which attracted the 
attention of Grand Lodge. On Aug. 28, Dr. Desaguliers, referring to the Mystery of 
Free Masonry, printed in the Daily Journal for Aug. 15, "recommended several things 
to the Consideration of the Grand Lodge ... for preventing any false Brethren being 
admitted into regular Lodges and such as call themselves Honorary Masons." 
Nathaniel Blackerby, D. G. M., also, "proposed several Rules to the Grand Lodge to 
be observed in their respective Lodges for their Security against all open and Secret 
Enemies of the Craft." On Dec. 15, the D. G. M. referred to Masonry Dissected, 
published by Samuel Prichard, the previous October, and characterized it as "a foolish 
thing not to be regarded." But the Grand Lodge minutes further state, that "in order to 
prevent the Lodges being imposed upon by false Brethren or Imposters: Proposed till 
otherwise ordered by the Grand Lodge, that no Person whatsoever should be admitted 
into Lodges unless some Member of the Lodge then present would vouch for such 
visiting Brother being a regular Mason." In the opinion of many Masons some of the 
recommendations, which were adopted this year, had relation to the Ritual, and being 



of an esoteric character, were not committed to writing. Four years later, William 
Smith published The Free-Mason's Pocket Companion, first in London, and, shortly 
afterwards, in Dublin. In his Preface he has this rather significant passage: 


"I need not say more in relation to the Book itself, but must here beg leave to exhort 
the Brotherhood, that avoiding all Innovations they adhere strictly to the antient 
Practices of the Order." 


Was this merely a warning, or did it refer to something, which was then happening, 
or, perhaps, had happened, within the Craft? William Smith was certainly not the 
spokesman of the Grand Lodge, because we are told by Grand Lodge minutes, that, 
on Feb. 24, 1735, Dr. Anderson having "represented that one William Smith said to 
be a Mason, had without his privity or Consent pyrated a considerable part of the 
Constitution of Masonry aforesaid to the prejudice of the said Br. Anderson it being 
his Sole Property," Grand Lodge resolved, "that every Master and Warden present 
shall do all in their Power to discountenance so unfair a Practice, and prevent the said 
Smith's Books being bought by any Members of their respective Lodges." It may be 
mentioned that Dr. Anderson brought out a Second Edition of the Book of 
Constitutions in 1738, and that further editions of the work were published in 1756, 
1767, and 1784. 


THE "ANTIENT" GRAND LODGE WAS FORMED 


Between 1730 and 1740 we perceive indications of the beginning of what turned out 
to be, perhaps, the most important event of the century, viz., the rise of the Grand 
Lodge of the Antients. From Anderson's Constitutions, and the records of Grand 
Lodge, we have evidence from which we may gather that, from the first days of the 
Grand Lodge there were in existence lodges quite independent of the new 
organization, and on that account considered irregular, because they never would 
accept a constitution from their hands. Many reasons would keep these lodges from 
joining the Grand Lodge, the influx of society into Freemasonry, and the extension of 
the ceremonies being probably not the least important. 



As time went on these old brethren, finding the breach widening, doubtless continued 
their own independent lodges, and made their friends and relations Masons in them. 
The references to irregular lodges, appearing in the Grand Lodge minutes, may relate 
to lodges such as these. It is also apparent that Irishmen —mostly of the artizan class- 
coming over to England during this period, would find the atmosphere of these 
independent lodges far more congenial than the more refined lodges, constituted by 
Grand Lodge, especially if they found altered ceremonies being practiced in these 
latter lodges. It only wanted some such circumstance as happened on Dec. 11, 1735, 
to consolidate this position. On this date we learn, from Grand Lodge minutes, that, 


"Notice being given to the Grand Lodge that the Master and Wardens of a Lodge 
from Ireland attended without, desiring to be admitted, by virtue of a Deputation from 
the Lord Kingston present G. Master of Ireland. But it appearing there was no 
particular Recommendation from his Lord'p in this affair their Request could not be 
comply'd with, unless they would accept of a new Constitution here." 


At this meeting, it is interesting to note, George Payne was acting as G. M. in the 
absence of Lord Weymouth, while Dr. Anderson and Jacob Lamball were Grand 
Wardens, pro tempore. There were also present the Masters and Wardens of fifty- 
seven lodges, of which all but one met in London. Anderson was no lover of Irish 
Masons; the Irish Grand Lodge had copied extensively from his Constitutions in 
1730, and William Smith— probably an Irish Mason— had also pirated portions. Jacob 
Lamball was one of the old Masons who had, in 1717, thrown in his lot with the 
Grand Lodge. Hence the Irishmen received little consideration. The offer of an 
English Constitution does, I think, show that the Irishmen were no mere visitors to 
London, but had come to stay. Given the cold shoulder by their English brethren, it is 
at least probable that this lodge became the center of union of Irish Masons coming to 
London. 


In course of time other independent lodges would naturally come into existence in 
London with a strong Irish membership. In 1745 Ireland actually warranted a lodge at 
Norwich but, beyond the names of the seven founders, nothing is known concerning 
it. Thanks to the researches of Bro. Henry Sadler, we can now state with confidence 
that it was from these independent lodges that the Grand Lodge of Antients emerged. 



The beginnings of this Grand Lodge were small indeed. From their records it would 
appear that in July, 1751, when the decision to form a Grand Lodge was reached, 
there were not more than six lodges, with a total membership not exceeding eighty to 
come under its authority. In February, 1752, Laurence Dermott was appointed Grand 
Secretary, and to his enthusiasm and great organizing capacity is mainly due the 
success of that body. 


This Grand Lodge gathered weight as the years rolled on. It was responsible for the 
warrants of the majority of the Military Lodges, and, consequently, sent Freemasonry 
into many different parts of the world. This Grand Lodge was in fraternal 
communication with the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland. By the skill and 
ability of its rulers it became, in course of time a power equal to that of the premier 
Grand Lodge, and was thus enabled, when the opportune time arose, to negotiate a 
union on equal, if not advantageous, terms. 


During the eighteenth century there were, in addition to the two Grand Lodges 
already dealt with, three other Grand Lodges in England, viz., The Grand Lodge of 
All England, with its headquarters at York; The Grand Lodge of All England South of 
the River Trent, the effort of William Preston; and The Supreme Grand Lodge of 
Scottish Masons in London, discovered by Bro. Sadler. None of these Grand Lodges 
gave any great uneasiness to the premier Grand Lodge, nor did they in any way affect 
the Masonic events of the period. They had all disappeared by the end of the 
eighteenth century, and we may therefore pass them by. 


ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO INCORPORATE GRAND LODGE 


We must now return to the doings of the premier Grand Lodge. It was fully alive to 
the growing power of the Grand Lodge of the Antients, and did its utmost to organize 
and increase the power of its own Body. In October, 1768, the Duke of Beaufort, G. 
M., formed a plan to have the Society incorporated. This appears to have been a blow 
aimed at the rival body, and was so regarded by them. As we shall see it miscarried as 
did most efforts in that direction. 



In 1769, the Grand Lodge agreed to the project of its G. M. and, the proposed Charter 
of Incorporation being drawn up, copies were circulated in favor of incorporation, 
only forty three being opposed to it, amongst which were to be numbered the 
Stewards, Royal, and Caledonian Lodges. The two former memorialized Grand 
Lodge to discontinue its project, but the Caledonian Lodge went further, and actually 
entered a caveat against it in the office of the Attorney General. Only a public 
apology prevented this lodge from being erased for this offense. Eventually, however, 
the minority won for in 1741, in consequence of the vigorous opposition in 
Parliament, in which "Antienf ' brethren participated, the consideration of the bill was 
postponed sine die upon the motion of the D. G. M., the Hon. Charles Dillon. 


GRAND LODGE ACQUIRES A HOME 


Contemporaneously with the attempted incorporation anotherand more successful 
effort was launched. The desire for a public hall resulted in Grand Lodge considering, 
in October 1768, "the most effectual means to raise a fund for defraying the expenses 
of building a Hall." By the end of 1774 premises in Great Queen Street were 
purchased, and the foundation stone of the new hall was laid on May 1, 1775. On 
May 23, 1776, the hall being completed, it was duly opened and dedicated in solemn 
form to Masonry, Virtue, Universal Charity, and Benevolence. In 1788, it was 
resolved to pull down and rebuild Freemason's Tavern, and as a consequence the 
Grand Lodge became heavily in debt. Many methods were adopted to raise funds, and 
inducements were offered to those who either gave to Grand Lodge, or forgave loans 
made to them. At the end of the century a special annual fee of 2/per member, 
throughout the Craft, was levied, and remained in force until 1810. 


At the December meeting in 1797 of the Grand Lodge of the Antients, a motion was 
proposed unsuccessfully "that a Committee be appointed by the R. W. Grand Lodge 
to meet one that may be appointed by the Grand Lodge of Modem Masons and with 
them to effect a Union." The beginning of the nineteenth century saw further, but 
unsuccessful, negotiations. 



In 1 804 an address to his Grace the Duke of Atholl, on the subject of a union between 
the two rival bodies, was printed, but nothing came of it at that time. Negotiations 
then languished, but were resumed in 1809. On April 12, of that year, the premier 
Grand Lodge resolved that the necessity no longer existing, the several lodges be 
enjoined "to revert to the ancient Land Marks of the Society." The next important step 
was the issue of a warrant, dated Oct. 26, 1809, by the Earl of Moira, Acting Grand 
Master, to the seven Grand Officers of the year, and eight other brethren forming 
them into a lodge-afterwards known as the Special Lodge of Promulgation— "for the 
purpose of Promulgating the Ancient Land Marks of the Society, and instructing the 
Craft in all such matters and forms as may be necessary to be known by them." The 
warrant was only to continue in force until Dec. 31, 1810, a date subsequently twice 
extended, and finally fixed at March 31, 1811. 


This lodge commenced its deliberations on Nov. 21, 1809. They held it to be their 
duty "first to ascertain what were the Ancient Land Marks and the Ancient practice, 
and then to communicate them to the Craft at large." All the forms and ceremonies of 
the Three Degrees, and the Installation Ceremony, were carefully gone through and 
approved; and it is clear that the outcome of their deliberations was largely in favor of 
the so-called Antient Masons. Amongst other things, the lodge resolved, on Oct. 18, 
1810, that, "the Ceremony of the Installation of Masters of Lodges is one of the two 
Landmarks of the Craft and ought to be preserved." Bro. W. B. Hextall has pointed 
out that the word "two" in the minutes must have been sheer blundering. Either the 
scribe added this word to the original resolution, or wrote that word for the word 
"true." The lodge also decided that, "Deacons (being proved on due investigation to 
be not only Ancient but useful and necessary Officers) be recommended." 


A UNION IS CONSUMMATED 


Concurrently with the deliberations of the Special Lodge of Promulgation, the Grand 
Lodge of the Antients appointed, in December, 1 809 a committee to consider and 
adopt measures for accomplishing a Masonic Union. This committee duly reported to 
its Grand Lodge and, in March, 1810, that Body resolved "that a Masonic Union on 
principles equal and honorable to both Grand Lodges and preserving inviolate the 
landmarks of the antient Craft would in the opinion of this Grand Lodge be expedient 
and advantageous to both." 



This was forwarded to the premier Grand Lodge and, on April 10, 1810, they passed a 
resolution, "that this Grand Lodge welcomes with unfeigned cordiality the desire 
expressed by the Grand Lodge under his Grace the Duke of Atholl for a Union." They 
also appointed the original members of the Special Lodge of Promulgation to be a 
"Committee to negotiate the desirable arrangement." A committee of the Grand 
Lodge of the Antients was also appointed to confer with that committee, and the 
Articles of Union signed at Kensington Palace on Nov. 25, 1813, and duly ratified on 
the first of December following, was the result. These articles provided (inter alia) for 
the union of the two Grand Lodges, for the re-numbering of the lodges; the degrees to 
be recognized; that Past Masters should become members of Grand Lodge; and that a 
Lodge of Reconciliation should be warranted to deal with the forms and ceremonies 
to be used. 


The Lodge of Reconciliation was to be formed by each Grand Master appointing 
"nine worthy and expert Master Masons, or Past Masters, of their respective 
Fraternities." The Grand Master of the premier Grand Lodge issued a warrant for the 
nine brethren to form a lodge under the name of the Lodge of Reconciliation. There 
was, apparently, no warrant issued by the Grand Lodge of the Antients to their nine 
brethren, who were brought into being by special dispensation. The first meeting, a 
joint one, took place on Dec. 10, 1813, and further meetings were held by each body 
prior to the 27th. Their work consisted in re-obligating brethren in preparation for the 
Union. The work of the Lodge of Reconciliation subsequent to the Union lies outside 
the scope of this article. The lodge continued in existence until 1816, and it well 
known that their labors contributed, very largely, to developing the ritual into the 
form we now use in our lodges in England today. 


On Dec. 27, 1813, both Grand Lodges met at Freemasons' Hall, Great Queen Street, 
London. In this solemn Act of Union the members of the two Grand Lodges were 
intermingled, so as to show the Union into one single society. The Grand Master of 
both Grand Lodges were present, and on the proposition of H. R. H. the Duke of 
Sussex was unanimously, and with great acclamation, elected Grand Master of the 


UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREEMASONS OF ENGLAND. 



o 


The Constitutions of 1723 


By W. BRO. LIONEL VIBERT 


P.M. QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE, NO. 2076; EDITOR "MISCELLANEA 
LATOMORUM, England 


It was evident very early in the career of the first Grand Lodge that there would have 
to be something in the nature of Regulations to deal with such matters as the election 
of the Grand Master and the conduct of the Annual Grand Feast; and it appears also to 
be the case that, as early as 1721, Grand Lodge proposed to retain in its own hands 
the privilege of conferring the degree known as the Master's Part, which was at that 
time the only degree practiced beyond that of Acceptance, or Admission. It being the 
recognized custom, at the time, that no one could be Master of a lodge who had not 
taken this degree, that conferred the rank of both Fellow and Master, it is obvious that 
this restriction operated to give Grand Lodge a large measure of control over the 
mastership of the lodges. Further, in 1721, it became apparent that another new 
departure was inevitable. The Four Old Lodges, that alone constituted Grand Lodge, 
were quite insufficient to cope with the numbers that now came into the Order, and 
some provision was clearly necessary to meet the requirements of the new brethren. 
What seems to have happened is that Grand Lodge formally took power to constitute 
new lodges, and ordered that all such lodges, to be regular, must have themselves 
constituted in accordance with the form prescribed by the central authority, the 
essential feature of which would seem to have been that they were enrolled in a list 
maintained in London, and their names were notified to all existing lodges. There is 
good reason to believe that the rules on this subject were first promulgated by Grand 
Master Payne, in 1721. 



THIS HISTORY OF MASONRY IS RE-WRITTEN 


It was in harmony with the spirit that animated the new body, that it now began to be 
felt that the old documents of the Craft were no longer suited to the of laws— the Old 
Charges— which had for a long time been in great measure obsolete, and had 
accordingly been ignored by the Masons, whenever they had occasion to frame 
regulations in their trade corporations. They had also preserved an elaborate 
legendary history, that could no longer be seriously maintained as a satisfactory 
account of the origin of the Craft. Accordingly when the suggestion was made that 
the new authority should have a new history written for it, it was readily adopted, and 
the offer of Mr. James Anderson-he became Dr. Anderson at a later date-to write this 
history appears to have been accepted by Grand Lodge in September, 1721. 


The period was unfortunate. The history of the Craft, as we now recognize, is bound 
up with the development of Gothic architecture, and with the trade gild system of 
mediaeval England. The first quarter of the eighteenth century was a time when it was 
fashionable to despise the indigenous Gothic as barbarous, and to exalt the 
Renascence art of Bramante and Palladio at its expense. Anderson was not of that 
robust order of intellects that maintains opinions running counter to those generally 
held, and accordingly his attitude was that England, under the stuarts and 
Hanoverians, had at last returned to the right way and the true Art of Masonry. 


The Traditional History traced Masonry, or Geometry, back to the children of 
Lamech, and brought it down from them to David and Solomon; curious craftsmen 
then disseminated the knowledge and brought it to France and England. In France, 
Charles Martel was the patron and protector of the Masons; in England, it was 
established by St. Alban first, and after by Athelstan and Edwin. No attempt had as 
yet been made to fill in the gaps in this narrative, which remained as it had been 
written some time early in the sixteenth century, that text itself being a revision of a 
much earlier account. Anderson adopted an entirely different scheme. He traced the 
art to Cain, who first built a city, having been instructed in Geometry by Adam. Then, 
after Grand Master Noah, we come to the Temple, which is described at great length, 
and from it all civilized architecture is derived. He traces the progress of the science, 
through Greece and Italy, to its culmination in Rome, in what he calls the Glorious 
Augustan Style. In Britain, after the Romans, all knowledge of the true art is lost, for 



Gothic is merely a barbarous substitute for it, and it is reserved for the House of Stuart 
to restore the knowledge of it, which was done when James I introduced Renascence 
architecture into this country. Subsequent monarchs have encouraged the art by their 
bright example, in building Hampton Court, and so on, until the days of his Majesty 
King George, who laid the foundation of the church of St. Martin's in the existing 
conditions. They had furnished it with a code Fields. 


In constructing this account of the Craft Anderson relied, almost exclusively, on his 
general knowledge, and made very little use even of such documents relating to the 
Masons themselves as were available at the time. Still less did he make any sort of 
independent inquiry. He was content to link up his Hanoverian Grand Lodge with 
Scotland and Rome, and to treat everything that was not due to one or the other of 
these influences as merely English barbarism. 


OTHER MATTER IS ADDED 


This history was completed during the mastership of Montagu, to whom the 
concluding paragraph refers; and the Dedication suggests that it was read by Montagu 
and approved by him. But it was not at once printed. The Craft had its traditional 
Rules, the Old Charges, and the new Grand Lodge had its own Regulations, 
introduced by Payne in 1721, and apparently it was decided that these should be 
embodied in the work as published, the task of preparing them for publication being 
also entrusted to Anderson, who possibly had for this part of his labors the assistance 
of brethren specially conversant with the facts. Current opinion, as we see from 
various allusions in contemporary literature, associated Desaguliers in particular, not 
only with this part of the work, but also with the History, it being suggested 
(somewhat uncharitably perhaps) that a note therein which indicates a knowledge of 
Hebrew could not have been written by Anderson without assistance. In any case, 
Anderson proceeded to embody in his work a set of Charges, thirty-nine Regulations, 
the Manner of Constituting a New Lodge, and a selection of poems and songs. 


The Charges were six in number, and were in fact a complete restatement of precepts 
to be found in the old texts, with some added material. They have been preserved to 



our own day with certain verbal modifications. The Regulations, as Anderson has 
himself stated in the heading to them, were a restatement of Payne's original rules, 
and it is not possible to disentangle the new from the old in them; but it is obvious 
that they contain a great deal that was never put forward by Payne. Indeed, they are 
not even a statement of the law as it stood at the time, but are rather a draft of what 
Anderson considered it should be; for instance, they provide for a Treasurer, but this 
officer was not appointed for many years. They make elaborate provisions as to the 
election of the Grand Master, which never were the law, and they enact provisions 
with regard to the Annual Feast, which were independently promulgated some years 
later, the fact that Anderson had included them in his Regulations being ignored. 


Such then was the First Book of Constitutions: a History, written in the taste of the 
time; a set of six so-called Ancient Charges, which were in fact a modern 
arrangement based on passages in the old texts; a code of Regulations corresponding 
to nothing that existed in practice; directions for the ceremony of constituting a new 
lodge, which were probably official and genuine; and a set of songs and poems of 
which one, the Enter'd Apprentice Song, has alone survived. The work was 
Anderson's private property, although it took rank as an official publication with the 
general public. From this book has come down the whole series of Constitutions, 
Ahiman Rezons, or whatever they may be styled, that have been issued by Grand 
Lodges all over the world, but the original model has of necessity been much varied 
in the course of time. The developments beyond the United Kingdom lie outside the 
scope of this article. 


ITS VALUE AS CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE 


As a contemporary document the Constitutions of 1723 afford us a certain amount of 
information as to the condition of affairs in the Craft at this period, but not so much as 
we would like; far from it. In this respect the most important contribution is a list of 
lodges, distinguished by numbers merely, which is appended to what is called the 
Approbation. The work was submitted for the approval of Grand Lodge, in 
manuscript, in December, or late in November, 1722, and was then ordered to be 
printed; and a formal and very long Approbation was drawn up, possibly by Anderson 
himself, which was signed by the Masters and Wardens of twenty lodges— in two 
cases the signature of the Master has not been obtained. This is a valuable list of 



names. A year later, in November, 1723, the Grand Secretary compiled a list of 
lodges with names of their members in many cases, which is still on record in the first 
Minute Book of Grand Lodge. 


From this and other sources, it appears that in December, 1722, there were at least 
twenty-three lodges in existence, so that three were not represented at the meeting of 
Grand Lodge at which the Approbation was signed. But no conclusion can be drawn 
from this circumstance. At the same time, from the actual minutes it is apparent that, 
when the brethren had had time to study Anderson's Charges and Regulations, many 
of them were very far from approving the way in which he had carried out the work 
entrusted to him. The publication being, however, a private venture, the most they 
could do was to prevent any resolution being recorded approving of his version of the 
Regulations, or confirming it; and this was what actually happened at the next 
meeting of Grand Lodge after the publication, when a resolution to that effect had to 
be withdrawn, and one was submitted that it was in the power of no person to make 
any innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent of the Annual Meeting of 
Grand Lodge. Anderson seems to have realized that he had not earned the esteem of 
the brethren, for he did not appear again in Grand Lodge for some seven years. 


The work also enables us to reconstruct the actual history of the events of 1722, as to 
which Anderson in his second edition in 1738 put forward a very inaccurate story. 

The Grand Master from June, 1722, to June, 1723, was Philip, Duke of Wharton, a 
nobleman of a most unstable and eccentric disposition, who quitted England in 1725, 
a discredited Jacobite, and after wandering about the continent died in a Spanish 
monastery in the utmost indigence and misery in May, 1731. In 1723 he had had a 
serious difference with the Grand Lodge, which refused to allow itself to be turned 
into a Jacobite political organization for his benefit, and he revenged himself by 
founding a rival society, styled the Gormogons, which professed to impart the secret 
wisdom of the Chinese, and assured all concerned that the Freemasons were a set of 
charlatans and humbugs. The Society collapsed as soon as his influence had been 
withdrawn. Accordingly, while in 1723 during his Grand-Mastership his name was 
given due prominence in the Constitutions, the position of affairs was very different 
in 1738. Anderson now alleged that Wharton, instead of succeeding to the office in 
the regular course in June, 1722, had got himself irregularly elected by a small clique, 
and was only allowed to hold office at all through the generosity of Montagu, who in 
January, 1723, recognized his authority, and permitted him to complete his year of 
office with his own Deputy and Wardens. That Wharton had been Grand Master 



could not well be denied, but it was now made to appear that he seized the office by 
fraud, and only held it by Montagu's good will. The whole story is a fabrication; the 
Constitutions of 1723 show conclusively that Wharton was Grand Master in his own 
right, with the approval of at least twenty lodges out of twenty-three in December, 
1722, and was then busy constituting new lodges, and the contemporary references in 
the newspapers show that he was not merely elected in June, 1722, but was chosen by 
a unanimous vote. 


MAKING MASTERS IN GRAND LODGE BECOMES OBSOLETE 


We learn, from the official Minutes, that the direction of Grand Lodge, which appears 
in the Regulations, that the superior Degree, the Master's Part, was only to be 
conferred in Grand Lodge, was abrogated in November, 1725. It is obvious that as 
soon as there were lodges all over England— and the Craft had begun to spread to the 
country in the previous year— this restriction was unworkable. It is most probable that 
the restriction was in fact never observed. It would almost appear as though Payne, at 
the same time that he regularized the formation of new lodges in 1721, thought it wise 
to institute this check on their activities; but that the old lodges were not willing to 
allow what had been their time immemorial privilege to be thus taken from them, and 
that the Regulation was in fact a dead letter. This may indeed be the explanation of 
the introduction of the intermediate degree of the Fellowcraft, which was arrived at, 
not by interfering with the Master's Part, but by splitting up the Acceptance. By this 
means a Brother became a Fellow, and so technically eligible to be the Master of a 
lodge; and Grand Lodge's position being thus turned as it were, the abrogation of the 
Regulation was bound to follow sooner or later. The custom which makes it necessary 
that the Master should have taken the Third Degree is a development of later date. 


There are very few hints of Ritual in the book. We have a prescribed form of words 
for the ceremony of constituting a new lodge; we have the definite statement that 
there were only two degrees, the Admission, and the Master's Part, which conferred 
the rank of Fellow and Master; and we have a long note in the History on the name 
Hiram Abif. This indicates that the name itself was not regarded as secret— although it 
does appear that it had been so considered in earlier times— and also shows, as we 
should expect, that it had a particular significance for the Craft. It was also a name 
which, outside the Craft, would at this time be unknown to the general public, as it 



had disappeared from our Bibles by 1550, or so. Accordingly, it was presumably 
because it had been preserved in the lodges themselves, without its exact meaning 
being understood, that a note was now deemed appropriate. It cannot be said that 
there is anywhere in the work a specific reference to any other degree, although there 
are several hints of mystery introduced, and at the end there occurs the phrase "the 
whole body resembles a well-built Arch." 


In the same way as the original restrictions as to conferring the higher degree had to 
go by the board, so the form of constituting a new lodge had to be modified when 
lodges had come into existence far away from the metropolis. Originally, the 
ceremony was to be conducted by the Grand Master or his Deputy in person; later the 
duty was delegated to a deputy appointed ad hoc, in the locality; and eventually the 
formalities were exchanged for the issue of a written certificate— the Warrant of 
today— the ceremony being carried out by the Provincial authorities. The Provincial 
system, which is peculiar to this country, is in its development closely connected with 
the constituting of new lodges. 


In 1738 Anderson brought out his second edition. In this he re-wrote the History in 
such a fashion that Gould was driven to suggest that he was either failing in his wits, 
or deliberately hoaxing the Grand Lodge. But it was an uncritical age, and this 
extraordinary account of our origin and early history, was solemnly reprinted for a 
century and more by Preston, Oliver and others, and is not without its admirers today. 
It ceased to appear as part of the Constitutions after the Union. In 1738 Anderson also 
re-issued his original Regulations, but he added to them a confused jumble of alleged 
amendments and explanations, which made the whole thing unintelligible. In the next 
edition, that of 1756, the Regulations were entirely recast. They were again revised in 
1815 and still again in 1882, when they took the form they have today, although since 
then various small amendments have been made. Throughout all these changes a 
certain amount of Anderson's wording has persisted, and can still be traced, in the 
earlier Regulations of our modern official Constitutions. The Six Charges stand today 
very nearly as he wrote them in 1723. 


The influence of this work on the Craft ever since its original publication, just over 
two hundred years ago, is difficult to estimate; but with all its faults it must always be 
one of the most important possessions of Freemasons. 



o 


Royalty and Their Patronage of the Craft 


By W. BRO. J. WALTER HOBBS, P.M., L.R., P. Z., ETC. 

LITERARY EDITOR "MASONIC RECORD," England 

Great Kings, Dukes and Lords, 

Have laid by their Swords, 

Our mysf ry to put a good grace on; 

And ne'er been ashamed 

To hear themselves nam'd 

With a Free and an Accepted Mason. 


THUS sang the late Bro. Matthew Birkhead in 1722 in a song which is still heard 
among the English Craft in many places, at the toast of the health of an initiate. Bro. 
Birkhead sang of a time when the association of Royalty with the English Craft was 
but a tradition, or perchance something less, for his knowledge of the past history of 
the old Craft could not have been great even if derived from some old brother or from 
a copy of the Old Charges. The magician's wand of fanciful history it is true was 
being waved around by that master of the imaginative art, Dr. Anderson, but whether 
Bro. Birkhead (who is named in the 1723 Constitutions as Master of a lodge, and in 
the heading to the song as "our deceas'd Brother") knew of Anderson's work and 
realized the extent to which that brother had unwarrantably called in the great ones of 



the earth as Grand Masters or not it would not much matter. It was still tradition as I 
have said, and in cases the facts do not justify the assertions even on the ground of 
probability. 


The Old Charges as we know them refer, it is true, to royal personages as supporters 
of the Craft, as having loved Masons well, given them a Charge, and called 
Assemblies. The historical value of these statements is mostly nil, the traditional 
value very little more. Some support can be obtained by inference for statements here 
and there but the Masonic historian who treats the subject as definitely proved, has a 
good deal to learn. 


Where then shall I begin? Excursions in the realm of imagination are barred and if 
they were not I should not travel that way. To lose oneself in a maze of Continental 
Masonic degrees and their royal patrons would be valueless because this article is 
written for the purposes of a British number in order to afford readers of THE 
BUILDER sufficiently interesting and conclusively proved material in regard to the 
members of the royal ruling houses in England subsequent to the origination of the 
Mother Grand Lodge of the World in 1717. The ideas of the founders of this 
organization may not be clearly understood now, for the period of the early growth 
and limited operations of the reorganized Craft is one still calling for much patient 
research and care. It can, however, be accepted that although there is nothing to show 
that Payne, Desaguliers and Anderson had anything to do with the origination of 
Grand Lodge— yet it was hoped by some one to get a nobleman to become Grand 
Master. This eventuated in 1721 with the installation of John, Duke of Montagu, since 
which time noblemen, or Princes of the Blood Royal, have continuously succeeded to 
that high office or have been members of the Craft. 


We shall then proceed to enumerate the Royal Patrons of the Craft, meaning thereby 
the Blue, or Symbolic, Masonry. 


1. H.R.H. FREDERICK PRINCE OF WALES, 1737 



The Grand Lodge of England had enjoyed the presence of noble Grand Masters for 
nearly twenty years before any scion of the reigning family became a member of the 
Craft. The first to do so was Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales, the eldest son of H. M. 
King George II. The record of his initiation and of his proceeding to the subsequent 
degrees is contained in Anderson's Constitutions of 1738. The initiation took place on 
Nov. 5, 1737, at an occasional lodge held in the Palace at Kew, near Richmond, 
Surrey. The Master of this lodge was the Rev. Dr. J. T. Desaguliers, a Past Grand 
Master, with other brethren present, including the Rt. Hon. Charles Calvert, Sixth 
Baron Baltimore. Anderson goes on to say, the lodge being formed and held, H. R. H. 
"was in the usual manner introduced and made an Enter'd Prentice and Fellow Craft." 
He continues that "our said Royal Brother was made a Master Mason by the same 
Lodge that assembled there for that purpose." Whether this was at the same time, so 
that our Royal Brother was Initiated, Passed and Raised on the same day may be open 
to doubt, but the practice of the two first degrees being conferred on the same 
occasion was not unusual, without regard to the rank of the candidate. That the "usual 
manner" is mentioned bears this out, and further indicates as incorrect what is 
sometimes assumed to be the case with royal brethren, that the usual formalities and 
procedure are not adopted but waived in their favor. That the Prince took more than a 
superficial interest in the Craft is clear for the 1738 Book of Constitutions was 
dedicated to him (and he is there described as a Master Mason and Master of a 
Lodge) and actually presented to him by Anderson in 1739 at a private audience on 
the introduction of the Marquis of Carnavon, the then Grand Master, who was in the 
minutes of Grand Lodge, April 6, 1738, described as a "Gentleman of the 
Bedchamber to our Brother His Royal Highness, Frederick, Prince of Wales." Our 
royal brother died in 1751 and his activity in the Craft is not further known, but that 
the Craft was not regarded with disfavor by his family is clear, for no less than three 
of his sons, viz., the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Cumberland became members of 
it, the latter becoming Grand Master in 1782, as will be seen later. The eldest son of 
this Prince became King George III, but he was not a member of the Craft. 


2. H.R.H. WIFLIAM AUGUSTUS DUKE OF CUMBERFAND, 1743 


He was brother of Frederick, Prince of Wales, being the second son of King George 
II. He is said in Multa Paucis to have been initiated in 1743 in Belgium, but although 
Gould refers to this there is but little to support the statement. The Duke was a 
notable soldier and commanded the English troops in the Low Countries at the battle 
of Fontenoy in 1745. Of his other military exploits nothing need be said here. 



3. H.R.H. EDWARD AUGUSTUS DUKE OF YORK, 1765 


This Prince was son of the above named Prince of Wales and brother to King George 
III. He was initiated at Berlin on July 27, 1765, in a French speaking lodge there, 
which, after the Duke's admission adopted the name of the "Royal York Lodge of 
Friendship," and obtained a warrant from the Grand Lodge of England under which it 
worked, and to which Constitution it remained subject, until its cessation many years 
afterwards. The Duke was patron of the lodge. The Duke of York was present in the 
following year when his brother the Duke of Gloucester was initiated in the New 
Lodge at the Horn, Westminster, No. 313, of which lodge he himself became an 
honorary member. He was appointed Past Grand Master, as became customary until 
the present generation. 


4. H.R.H. WILLIAM HENRY DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, 1766 


He was brother to the Duke of York (No. 3) and the Duke of Cumberland (No. 5) and 
to King George II. He was initiated on Feb. 16, 1766, at an occasional lodge held at 
the Horn Tavern, Westminster, being the New Lodge, No. 313 (as distinguished from 
the Old Lodge also held there). The then Grand Master, Lord Blayney, was in the 
chair as Master and the Duke proceeded to all three degrees on that occasion. Report 
being made (as in all cases of Royal Masons) of the admission of the Prince into the 
Craft to Grand Lodge, he was appointed a Past Grand Master in 1767. He became an 
honorary member of the New Lodge, which was afterwards called the Royal Lodge, 
and attended some of its meetings. 


5. H.R.H. HENRY FREDERICK DUKE OF CUMBERLAND, 1767; G.M., 1782-90 


This Prince was also brother to the last two named, and the third of the sons of the 
first royal Freemason (No. 1). The Duke was initiated on Feb. 9, 1767, at an 
occasional (or emergency) lodge at the Thatched House Tavern, St. James's, the home 



of the Royal Lodge, No. 313, already mentioned, and was passed and raised on the 
same occasion. Upon the usual report to Grand Lodge he was appointed Past Grand 
Master. The activities of the Duke of Cumberland were very considerable, for in 1782 
he was elected Grand Master of the Craft. It may be noted that this is the date given in 
the official Year Book issued by Grand Lodge, but Gould in his History gives 1783, 
the point is however not of importance as election and installation may explain the 
difference. He filled this office until his death in 1790. It was with his support and 
patronage that the great Institution for Girls, as it is today, was founded; and as 
indicating the Grand Master's interest it may be noted that it was then called the 
Royal Cumberland Freemasons' School, and the Duchess took a personal interest in 
the management and in the scholars. It is a provision of the English Constitution that 
where the Grand Master is a Prince of the Blood Royal there should be an Acting 
Grand Master— who must be a Peer of the Realm (now called Pro Grand Master), and 
in the present instance the Earl of Effingham so acted from 1782 to 1789, when he 
died. 


6. H.R.H. WILLIAM HENRY DUKE OF CLARENCE, 1786 (AFTERWARDS, 
KING WILLIAM IV) 


This Prince was third son of King George III and the first of six of them who became 
Freemasons. He was initiated on March 9, 1786, in the Prince George Lodge, No. 86, 
meeting at Plymouth. The Duke followed the naval profession and was ultimately 
Lord High Admiral so that his initiation in a naval port may be regarded as a 
professional act. His reception into the Craft was not announced to Grand Lodge until 
the following year and until after that of his eldest brother, George, Prince of Wales 
(No. 7). This Duke was, as customarily, appointed Past Grand Master. He was 
installed as Master of the Prince of Wales' Lodge on Feb. 22, 1822, and so remained 
until 1830. This lodge was formed in honor of the Prince of Wales as noted under 
(No. 7). In 1830 the Duke succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother, King 
George IV, and so became Patron of the Craft. The active interest in the Craft of 
necessity ceases in the case of monarchs. 


7. H.R.H. GEORGE PRINCE OF WALES, 1787; G.M., 1790-1813 
(AFTERWARDS KING GEORGE IV) 



He was the eldest son of King George III and was initiated at a Special Lodge held for 
the purpose on Feb. 6, 1787, at the Star and Garter, Pall Mall. The news was 
communicated to Grand Lodge the next day by the Grand Master, the Duke of 
Cumberland (No. 5), and a resolution of appreciation of the honor conferred on the 
Society by the Prince's initiation was passed and the Prince was appointed a place in 
Grand Lodge next to and on the right of the Grand Master. On the death of the Duke 
of Cumberland in 1790 he was elected Grand Master and was installed as such in 
1792. The Prince of Wales' Lodge was founded in his honor in 1787 (now No. 259), 
of which the Prince was Master from 1787 to 1820, the year in which he succeeded to 
the throne. Prior to this he was, owing to his father's ill-health, Prince Regent from 
1811 to 1820, and in the year 1813 resigned as Grand Master but remained as Patron 
of the Craft. He was also Grand Master and Grand Patron of the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland. 


8. H.R.H. FREDERICK DUKE OF YORK, 1787 


He was second son of George III and was the third of the sons who became a member 
of the Craft. He was initiated in the Britannic Lodge, No. 29, on Nov. 21, 1787, and 
appointed a Past Grand Master. The Duke is known to have attended various Masonic 
functions and Grand Lodge. He was Master of the Prince of Wales' Lodge, 1823 to 
1827. He died in the latter year. 


9. H.R.H. EDWARD DUKE OF KENT, 1790 


He was the fourth son of George III and the fourth of such sons to be received into 
the Craft. He was initiated in the Union Lodge of Geneva on some date not 
discovered, but the fact of the Duke's initiation was announced in Grand Lodge on 
Feb. 10, 1790. He was appointed a Past Grand Master of Grand Lodge and later was 
District Grand Master for "Gibraltar and the Province of Andalusia in Old Spain" 
from 1790 to 1801. It is here needful to specify that this was the Grand Lodge of 1717 
(Modems), for this Royal Brother was one to whom the Craft was indebted for 
facilitating the Union of the Grand Lodges. His influence no doubt largely 



predominated with the Ancients for on the resignation of their Grand Master, John, 
fourth Duke of Atholl, this Royal Prince was admitted an Ancient Mason and elected 
as such in his place for the purpose of giving effect to the Union, as appears in the 
records thereof and Hughan's Memorials of the Union. (It may be mentioned here that 
many descendants of this Prince, through his only child, Princess, afterwards Queen 
victoria of revered memory, became members of the Craft.) 


10. H.R.H. PRINCE WILLIAM DUKE OP GLOUCESTER, 1795 


This Prince was a son of H.R.H. Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester (No. 4 
above), and nephew of King George III, one of whose daughters he married. He was 
initiated in the Britannic Lodge, No. 29, on May 12, 1795, and being a Prince of the 
Blood Royal was accorded the privilege of a Past Grand Master. He took part in 
Masonic functions— attended the Grand Festival, and so on. In the case of several of 
these royal personages one must always remember that they were necessarily over- 
shadowed by the Prince of Wales, the virtual head of the family, being also at the 
head of the Craft, so that their activities were restricted or the record of them not so 
elaborate. 


11. H.R.H. ERNEST AUGUSTUS DUKE OF CUMBERLAND, 1796 
(AFTERWARDS KING OF HANOVER) 


This Prince was the fifth son of King George III and also the fifth of the family to 
become a Freemason. He was initiated on May 11, 1796, in the house of that great 
Freemason, the Earl of Moira (afterwards Marquis of Hastings) who was then Acting 
Grand Master having been appointed as such in the place of the Earl of Effingham 
who died in 1789. He, too, was appointed a Past Grand Master. He succeeded as King 
of Hanover owing to that title being relinquished by his elder brothers and not passing 
by reason of the Salic Law to Queen victoria. 


12. H.R.H. AUGUSTUS FREDERICK DUKE OF SUSSEX, 1798; DEP. G.M., 
1812; G.M., 1813-1843 



He was the sixth son of King George III and the last of the six brothers who were 
members of the Craft, and was no doubt the most active Grand Master the Craft had 
ever seen. 


He was initiated in the Royal York Lodge of Friendship in Berlin in the year 1798 (a 
reference to this lodge will be found under the name (No. 3) Edward Augustus Duke 
of York 1765). He was appointed a Past Grand Master in 1805. On Feb. 12, 1812, he 
was appointed as Deputy G. M., and in 1813 he was elected Grand Master in the 
place of the Prince of Wales, who had been Prince Regent from 1811 but now 
resigned. This office of Grand Master the Duke of Sussex held at the Union and was 
G. M. of the United Grand Lodge until 1843. He was Master of the Prince of Wales' 
Lodge from 1831 to 1843, the year of his death. 


It would be a long story to tell of all the Duke of Sussex did as Grand Master and the 
effect of his actions. Some may not bear the construction now put upon them; some 
may be too lightly regarded now; but at any rate he filled a difficult position, for after 
having had a share in the Union of the Grand Lodge he had to rule over the new 
organization and deal with a period of transition, the difficulties of which the Masonic 
historian has not yet fully dealt with. One can see in Freemasons' Hall, London, the 
statue of the Duke placed there by the Craft in 1 846 as a token of their esteem and in 
the Library can be seen the magnificent piece of plate presented to the Duke in 1838 
on completing his twenty- fifth year of office as Grand Master. He died on April 2 1 , 
1843, and there being then no Royal Prince a Freemason, the Earl of Zetland was 
elected G. M. 


Conclusion 


It is beyond the scope of this article to tell of the Masonic doings of those Royal 
Freemasons who have been initiated into the Craft since the Union of 1813. It may, 
however, be permissible to say that there are at present four members of the Royal 
Family within the ranks of Freemasonry. The manifold and great services of our 
revered Grand Master, H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught, are too well known to need 



repetition. The other Royal Freemasons, viz., H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, H.R.H. the 
Duke of York, and H.R.H. Prince Arthur of Connaught, have all recently been 
selected by the Grand Master to rule over Masonic Provinces in England, and, from 
personal knowledge, I should like to add that these royal appointments to Provincial 
Grand Masterships are no mere titular honors, honorific though they be, but they 
entail a good deal of actual work. The three last named royal brethren are deeply 
imbued with the dignity and high importance of the Craft, and are active in their 
duties, and in their practice of Masonry and its ceremonial, and, in words of old time 
commendation, they are "worthy Masons all." 


While in the English Constitution the association of females as members of the Craft 
has never been permitted or allowed, yet the patronage of exalted ladies, and indeed 
of ladies of every rank, to the great Masonic Charities has always been welcome. 
Notable examples of this may be found in the patronage to the Girls' School of the 
Duchess of Cumberland and of Queen Adelaide (wife of King William IV), besides 
Queen Victoria, Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary in more recent years. Also this 
reference to royal ladies would not be complete without mention of Princess Mary, 
daughter of King George III, who married a Freemason (see No. 10 above), as also 
did Princess Mary, daughter of King George V, within the last few years. 


Neither time nor space permit of a reference to the Capitular and other degrees to 
which our royal brethren have extended their patronage. 


And a final word, as an historian and student of the progress of the Craft, as well as a 
personal observer of persons, actions and doings in the Craft of today, I am persuaded 
that the advantage to the Craft Universal of the membership of the royal brethren to 
whom I have referred and of those who have joined the brotherhood since the Union 
of 1813, is great and permanent, and has always tended to enhance the dignity and 
prestige of the Craft, and the importance and value of its imperishable principles and 
tenets. 


— o — 



“Adhuc Stat" - A Sketch of the History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland 


By BRO. JOHN HERON LEPPER, W.M., Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, 
England 


THE eastern seaports of Ireland having been constantly affected by English influence 
from the year 1173, when Henry II granted the City of Dublin to the subjects of his 
City of Bristol to inhabit, it is not surprising to discover traces of phenomena identical 
with those that preceded the establishment Freemasonry as a social institution in 
England, also appearing in the smaller island. Thus we find the Gilds of Dublin as 
late as 1541 indulging in annual Corpus Christi plays (Note 1), the term "Freemason" 
occurring on monuments at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Masonic 
Ritual a subject for the mirth of the uninitiated by 1688 (Note 2), and, apparently, 
Speculative lodges established in country districts, remote from any town, prior to the 
accession of George I (Note 3). 


When, therefore, the Freemasons of London and Westminster decided, in 1717, to 
form a central body to regulate their general interests, much as the Independent States 
of America evolved their Federation in 1788, it might be expected that the idea would 
cross the sea and be copied by the Freemasons of Ireland: and so it happened. 


GENESIS OF THE IRISH GRAND LODGE 


It is impossible to say, in default of early official MS. records, the exact date at which 
a Grand Lodge was first established in Dublin. That such a body was in existence in 
1725 is certain, thanks to a long and curious account given in a Dublin newspaper 
(Note 4). From this we learn that about one hundred brethren belonging to the six 
lodges of "Gentlemen Freemasons who are under the Jurisdiction of the Grand 
Master" assembled at 1 1 a.m. on June 24, at the Yellow Lion in Werburgh Street, and 
proceeded in coaches to the King's Inns (Note 5), wearing "Aprons, White Gloves, 
and other parts of the Distinguishing Dress of that Worshipful Order." 



After a procession round the great hall of the Inns "with many important ceremonies," 
the Grand Lodge "retired to the Room prepared for them, where after performing the 
Mystical Ceremonies of the Grand Lodge which are held so sacred, that they must not 
be discovered to a Private Brother; they proceeded to the Election of a new Grand 
Master &c." The election resulted in the Earl of Rosse being declared G.M., Sir 
Thomas Prendergast and Mark Morgan, Esq., Grand Wardens, and the G. M. was 
pleased to appoint Humphrey Butler, Esq., his Deputy. The G.M. was then conducted 
to his place, and invested with the jewel of his office, a gold trowel hung on a black 
ribbon; after the brethren all dined together sumptuously, and later attended a play in 
full Masonic costume (Note 6). 


This is the earliest account we have of the meeting Grand Lodge in Dublin, and 
though apparently it had then been in existence for some time, it cannot have 
contemplated any authority over lodges remote from the metropolis, because, in the 
following year, a similar body was established in Cork City, and assumed the style of 
the Grand Lodge of Munster, having as its Grand Master, the Hon. James O'Brien, 
and as Deputy G. M., Springett Penn. Both these Masons were members of English 
lodges (Note 7). 


But a more famous Irish Freemason of the day, who also had received his degrees in 
an English lodge, was James, fourth Lord Kingston. In 1728 he had been elected and 
served as G. M. of England; and, in 1730 (Note 8), became G.M. of Ireland; and in 
August, 1731, G.M. of Munster. His tenure of the dual office in Ireland apparently led 
to the fusion of the two Grand Lodges into one that since that date has been truly 
national (Note 9). 


Lord Kingston's tenancy of these three chairs in Masonry is important, as showing 
that at this date the Ritual innovations, that afterwards led to estrangement between 
the Masonic jurisdictions of England and Ireland, cannot yet have come into being. 
His tenures of office should also serve to remind Irish Masons that while the existent 
Irish Rite is probably the most unaltered version extant of early eighteenth century 
Masonic Ritual, yet its well-head was no other than the primitive English Rite, as 



practiced before 1730, possibly with a few additions of Anglo-Irish phrases or 
ceremonies— distinctions without any real difference. 


THE FIRST WARRANTS 


At some time during 1731, the Grand Lodge of Ireland determined to bind closer to 
the central authority all the lodges in Ireland that would acknowledge its supremacy, 
by issuing to them a document that should be the warrant for their Masonic 
proceedings; and accordingly on Feb. 7, 1732 (N.S.), the first of these authorizations 
to hold a lodge and make Masons were issued. This was a purely Irish invention that 
was copied later by the Grand Lodge of the Antients in England, and later still by the 
Grand Lodge of the Modems, the title willingly assumed in the eighteenth century by 
the Mother of all Grand Lodges. It is by no means certain that every existing lodge in 
Ireland applied at once for one of these new warrants (Note 10). In fact, the evidence 
tends to show that a good many, particularly in remote parts of the country, were 
content to go on working in the "time immemorial" manner; but these recalcitrants 
were not treated as regular Masons by those who adhered to the Grand Lodge, and in 
time they died out (Note 11). 


The effect produced by the issue of these warrants was universal, not merely local. It 
was some time before the law crystallized that a warrant should be anchored to one 
place, and at first the idea prevailed that any band of Masons possessing one of these 
charters was legally entitled to make initiates wherever it took the warrant. This 
procedure was checked by a new law made June 24, 1741 (Note 12), but in the 
beginning the Grand Lodge seems tacitly to have assented to the practice, particularly 
as it had issued warrants as early as 1732 to military lodges, enabling them to hold 
regular meetings all over the inhabitable globe. The great spread of Masonry in the 
American Colonies is attributable in a great part, no doubt, to this practice. But the 
influence of the Grand Lodge of Ireland on America did not end with this: the fact 
that the native American lodges would naturally be impressed by the working they 
observed under the ambulatory Irish warrants, during a period when the only 
ambulatory warrants were Irish, led them to mistrust those alterations in the Ritual 
that the Grand Lodge of the Moderns saw fit to adopt for well nigh eighty years. The 
enormous emigration from Ireland to America during the eighteenth century also 
helped to cement the Masonic ties between the two countries; indeed, it is quite likely 



that some of the earliest Irish warrants whose original bailiwicks and ultimate resting 
places are unknown may have helped to lay the foundations of those great Masonic 
Constitutions whose extent and vitality seem so marvelous to us today. 


THE STRENGTH OF THE IRISH JURISDICTION 


If we are to measure the growth of the Grand Lodge of Ireland during the eighteenth 
century by the number of warrants it issued, we find that it increased from 36 lodges 
in 1734 to 195 in June, 1749; by 1758 the number had risen to 300; by the end of 
1782 it was 610; and in 1804, when Downes' famous list was published, the Grand 
Lodge of Ireland had well over 700 lodges on its roll. But at none of these periods 
could those numbers be taken au pied de la lettre, for there were always some lodges 
either moribund or dormant, as an analysis of the lists would show, did space permit. 
During the nineteenth century the number of lodges varied, the high water mark being 
reached in 1815 when 1020 subordinate lodges were in official existence. The number 
at present working approaches 600. 


The members of the Grand Lodge at its formation consisted of the Grand Master; his 
Deputy, whom he nominated; the Grand Wardens, elected by Grand Lodge; all Past 
Grand Officers; and all Masters and Wardens of subordinate lodges. In 1749 the 
Grand Master's Lodge was formed, and all Master Masons raised therein were given 
the privilege of sitting and voting in Grand Lodge. This privilege continued down to 
1837, when it was rescinded and extended instead to all properly certificated Past 
Masters. The number of the Grand Officers has been increased from time to time, and 
at present includes the representatives of all foreign Grand Lodges with whom 
fraternal communication exists, an excellent tribute paid to the universality of the 
Craft, and a constant reminder that our Masonic duties and interests are not bounded 
by the limits of any one particular Constitution. 


HISTORIC DATES 



Space does not permit the inclusion of much detail about such important matters as 
the development of the Irish Masonic charitable organizations and the evolution of 
Masonic jurisprudence. But both must be mentioned. In regard to the former, it will 
be enough to say that the first successful attempt to deal on an adequate scale by the 
children of deceased brethren dates from 1792. In that year the liberality and energy 
of some members of Royal Arch Lodge, No. 190, Dublin (1749-1815), launched the 
Masonic Female Orphan School, whose record since then has been one of increasing 
success and blessing. It has been followed by the Masonic Orphan Boys' School 
(1867), and by such splendidly administered pieces of provincial emulation as the 
Belfast Masonic Charity and Widows' Funds, and the Down Masonic Widows' Fund. 


In the matter of the evolution of Masonic jurisprudence, the most interesting 
development took place as early as 1768, when the Grand Lodge created an 
Inspection Committee to decide upon the eligibility of candidates for Freemasonry in 
the metropolitan district. Since that year no man has been initiated in a Dublin lodge 
till his name has been approved by the Grand Lodge Committee, and the same 
provision has since been adopted in other important Masonic provinces in Ireland. 
This is, of course, not an infallible method of securing the admission of none but 
worthy men, but it does tend to exclude undesirable members and is yet another way 
in which the Grand Lodge of Ireland has set a good example. 


Other minutiae of changes that have accumulated during almost, perhaps quite, two 
centuries of government, while they would loom largely in a complete history, must 
be discarded in a short sketch; but mention should be made that since 1 829 the Royal 
Arch Degree has had a central governing body of its own, known as the Grand Royal 
Arch Chapter of Ireland; since 1836 the Knights Templar have been ruled by a 
supreme body now known as the Grand Preceptory; and since 1826 the Supreme 
Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite has exercised jurisdiction over all 
degrees in its system superior to the Craft degrees. Prior to these respective dates 
those Orders, and many other Masonic degrees as well, were conferred in the Craft 
lodges at the convenience and free will of the members. 


THE ULSTER SCHISM 



During its long life the authority of the Grand Lodge of Ireland has only once been 
seriously threatened by internal schism (Note 13). This took place in the period 1806- 
1813, when a number of Ulster lodges, deceived by the misrepresentations of 
Alexander Seton, a former Deputy Grand Secretary, who had been dismissed from his 
office for misconduct, attempted to secede and form a Grand Lodge for the province 
of Ulster (Note 14). 


It was due entirely to the tact and disinterested efforts of the reigning Grand Master, 
Richard, second Earl of Donoughmore, that the better class Masons who supported 
the movement at the outset, because of certain undoubted grievances, returned to their 
natural allegiance within a very short time; while those who persisted in following 
Seton only involved themselves and their lodges in disrepute, not merely at home but 
also all over the Masonic world. The Grand Lodge of Ireland emerged from a severe 
inter-necine war, if not stronger in numbers, stronger in having vindicated its 
authority without compromising its dignity, and within a few years all the rebel 
lodges had either submitted, or become extinct, or if they continued to drag out an 
estranged existence were regarded with abhorrence as clandestine Masons. 


To the student of this unhappy event one thing stands out enshrined, the truly 
Masonic spirit of the Grand Master, a broad-minded, warm-hearted man, who 
thoroughly deserved the tribute addressed to him by his Irish brethren when in 1813 
he retired from office, at his own request: 


"Your lordship's services to this institution will long live in the grateful remembrance 
of a Society whose principles ensure its duration, and who will ever rank the name of 
Donoughmore among those that are dearest to Masonry and Ireland." 


That these words were no mere empty compliment was shown exactly one hundred 
years later, when 2,000 Irish Masons assembled in Grand Lodge to acclaim as their 
new Grand Master, another Earl of Donoughmore, who since then has amply proved 
that he has inherited not the honors and name only, but also the ability of his great 
ancestor to maintain the dignity of his office and be a trusted and beloved leader in 
time of stress. 



IRISH MASONIC INFLUENCES 


The influence of the Grand Lodge of Ireland on new, independent Masonic 
Constitutions has been large, out of all proportion to the home territory it governs, a 
fact that has never, in default of an official history, been adequately realized by the 
Craft generally. Allusion has already been made to its work in the U.S.A. In Canada, 
too, Irish lodges were early at work as well as in the British West Indies; Masons in 
Portugal, Peru, Brazil have worn our colors; the very first lodge held in Australia met 
under an Irish warrant No. 227 held in the old 46th Regiment; and in that 
Commonwealth as well as in New Zealand, Africa and India, some lodges still retain 
their allegiance to the old Irish Constitution. Let me add, that the Grand Lodge of 
Ireland never places any obstacle in the way of one of its lodges wishing to sever 
connection with the Mother Constitution to join a newly- formed Grand lodge in the 
country where it is situated; and provided the new Constitution conform to the ancient 
standards it is assured of immediate recognition and brotherly cooperation from the 
Grand Lodge of Ireland, which is swift to welcome the appearance of a new star in 
the banner of the Masonic Federation of the World. 


IRISH MASONIC CELEBRITIES AND SCHOLARS 


Throughout a history of two centuries it is but to be expected that the Grand Lodge of 
Ireland should be able to show with pride many distinguished names on her rolls, but 
of all on the list possibly none exerted more lasting effect upon the Freemasonry of 
his generation, aye, and of future generations, than that stickler for orthodoxy in 
matters of the Craft, the inspired journeyman-painter Laurence Dermott. His story has 
been well and fully told by divers scholars (Note 15) but no reference to the Irish 
Grand Lodge would be complete without mention of the brother who was initiated in 
Lodge No. 26 in 1740, became its Master in 1746, and departed to England to become 
the most notable figure in eighteenth century Masonry, as poet, controversialist, and 
restorer of the old landmarks —to say nothing of his being the inventor of a term, 
which I understand to be very bad Hebrew, Ahiman Rezon, which like a javelin of 
flame flew from him with such impetus as even to cross the Atlantic and to be 



adopted for long enough as a symbol by those who prided themselves upon 
preserving the old traditions of the Craft (Note 16). 


Laurence Dermott is the more noteworthy, because the Grand Lodge of Ireland has 
not produced a great number of historians or writers who have added to our 
knowledge. Vallancey and O'Brien (of the Round Towers), however, are still 
occasionally quoted by those who have never learned caution, and there have been 
several deservedly respected names in our own times. Some like Twiss, John 
Robinson, Tait, and Redfem Kelly are still with us; others, alas, are no longer here to 
teach us, such as F. C. Crossle, Westropp, and the Master Mason of them all, the late 
Dr. Chetwode Crawley, some time Grand Treasurer, a scholar so meticulous, whose 
work was so comprehensive that those who come after him seeking to pursue some 
line of research often find themselves only plowing a furrow that has already been 
broken by his industry. That there is still something to be added to the work he 
accomplished is merely another way of saying that the progress of knowledge never 
stands still, but his followers and emulators may well despair of ever hoping to 
surmount his total of achievement. It may have been some satisfaction to his last 
years to see the formation in Dublin of the Lodge of Research, No. 200, pledged to 
continue the labors wherein he took such an interest, and though it may seem too 
much to hope that this body will ever produce another scholar to compare with the 
one that is gone, still it has already proved a focussing point for those Masons who 
bend their energies towards finding more light for the present from the lessons of-the 
past. With no mean aim, this lodge contemplates, indeed the project is in process of 
realization, the compiling of a reliable history of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, a book 
that is badly needed, never having been attempted; and I hope that the present short 
and imperfect sketch has shown that the history of that Grand Lodge has not been 
without interest, as assuredly, it has not been without honor. 


NOTES 


Note 1. Vide Harris' Dublin, 1766, p. 142 et seq. 

Note 2. Vide Crawley's Introduction to Sadler's Masonic Reprints and Revelations. 
Note 3. Vide Articles on Mrs. Aldworth A.Q.C. VIII- 16, 63. 



Note 4. The Dublin Weekly Journal NO 13, Saturday, June 26, 1726. 

Note 5. The Irish equivalent of the London Inns of Court. 

Note 6. The short report of this event, inserted in the London Journal, July, 1725, is 
quoted by Gould History of Freemasonry, III, 34. 

Note 7. It was natural for Springett Penn to hold high office in the Craft in Ireland 
where he had large estates; but his appearance in this character is even more 
interesting on account of the close Masonic communication that afterwards existed 
between the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Pennsylvania, which state was largely 
colonized by emigrants from Ireland. 

Note 8. Ed. Spratt Constitutions, Dublin, 1751, page 121. 

Note 9. Lord Kingston, while still the Hon. Jas. King, was initiated on June 8, 1726, 
in a lodge held at the Swan & Rummer in Finch Lane, London, Dr. Desaguliers, D. G 
M. of England, attending to confer the ceremony. For Kingston's activities when G. 
M. of England, vide Minutes of the G.L. England, etc., by W. J. Songhurst, London. 
1913; p. 37 et seq. 

Note 10. In the course of the year 1732 the following advertisement appeared several 
times in the Dublin newspapers: "Whereas there are Several Lodges of Free-Masons 
congregated in several Towns in this Kingdom, without a Warrant under the Hand 
and Seal of the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Netterville, Grand Master of all 
Ireland. ... It is therefore Ordered that all such Lodges do apply to the Secretary Mr. 
John Pennell in St. Patrick St.. Dublin, and take out true and perfect Warrants and be 
enroll'd in the Grand Lodge Book, or they will not be deem'd true and perfect 
Lodges." (Faulkner's Dublin Journal: Sat. Dec. 30, 1732— Tues. Jan. 2, 1732/3.) 

Note 11. Right up to the beginning of the nineteenth century we come across the 
terms "Clandestine" and "Hedge Masons" applied to these bodies by the regular 
Masons: instances of the "re-making" a non-regular brother who conformed are not 
uncommon. 

Note 12. Vide Dassigny's Serious and Impartial Enquiry, 1744, page 48. 

Note 13. In 1740 an attempt seems to have been made to form a rival Grand Lodge 
which proved abortive in its very conception. 


Note 14. The authorities on this subject are F. C. Crossle, Henry Sadler, and, of 
course, Dr. Chetwode Crawley. Some fresh information collected from the records of 



disaffected lodges is also given in a paper by the present writer, read before Quatuor 
Coronati Lodge, No. 2076 (E.C.), on St. John's Day, 1922. 

Note 15. Notably Bywater and Sadler. 

Note 16. Attention must also be called, if only in a footnote, to services rendered by 
such Masons as John Fowler in the metropolisMichael Fumell in Munster; and 
Archdeacon Mant in Ulster. 


— o — 


Masonic Benevolence Between 1717 and 1813 


By W.BRO. MAURICE BEACHCROFT, M.A., O.B.E., P.G.D. (England), Patron 
and Secretary of the Royal Masonic Institute for Girls, England 


The beginnings of Masonic benevolence are, like most beginnings, involved in much 
obscurity. The early days of modern Speculative Freemasonry would appear to have 
been characterized rather by good fellowship and conviviality than by any exercise of 
charity, although the idea of some special bond of "brotherhood" between the 
members dates back as far as the words go. 


There is a fine phrase in the last section of the "Ancient Charges," as we know them 
today, enjoining a Mason to "cultivate Brotherly Love, the foundation and copestone, 
the cement and glory of this Ancient Fraternity." This is an obvious expression of 
some higher ideal than that of mere good fellowship; and it is interesting to find it 
appearing for the first time in Anderson's Constitutions of 1723. 


GENERAL FUND OF CHARITY RECOMMENDED TO GRAND LODGE 



Such a nobler spirit was abroad just then; if indeed we are not tracing the working of 
one individual influence, at work behind the scenes; for, in the year 1724, we find 
these higher ideals taking a form and practical expression of their own. 


On Nov. 21 in that year, Grand Lodge was petitioned for relief by the first Grand 
Master of the Order, Bro. Anthony Sayer, who had fallen upon evil times; and, at the 
same meeting, the Earl of Dalkeith, who was then "Immediate" Past Grand Master, 
recommended that a monthly collection, for the purpose of providing a relief fund, 
should be made in each lodge, "according to the quality and number of the said lodge, 
and put into a joynt stock." 


The fund was known thereafter as the "Generali Bank of Charity," and, on March 17, 
1725, a committee was appointed to consider the best means of regulating it. 


In November of that year this committee reported, and, among other suggestions, 
advised that contributions should be voluntary and should be paid quarterly. 


They recommended that no more than 3 pounds should be given to any brother 
without the consent of Grand Lodge; that such sums should be disbursed by a 
standing committee of seven, and that a treasurer, nominated by the Grand Master, 
and approved by Grand Lodge, should be appointed in due course. 


It was not until June 24, 1727, that the committee and treasurer were appointed, and 
there is a touch of sorry humor in a minute of March 27, 1729, to the effect that "the 
Deputy Grand Master rose up and acquainted the brethren that, although he had been 
appointed treasurer of the charity two years before, he was extremely concerned that, 
in so long a time, he had not received one shilling from the lodges or from any 
brother." 



However, in November, 1729, the first list of contributions appears on the minutes, 
and, in December of the same year, a motion was duly carried that every newly 
constituted lodge should contribute two guineas to the fund. 


At that meeting a very respectable list of contributions was received; and thenceforth 
the fund took on a more permanent and settled aspect. 


CHARITY IS DISPERSED BY KNOWLEDGE 


In April, 1730, the "Infirmary at Westminster" offered to take care of "any poor 
brother, who might happen to be disabled, by broken limbs, etc., from following his 
employment, which often happens amongst working Masons"; and it was thereupon 
decided that five guineas be paid annually to the Infirmary by the treasurer. 


At this Grand Lodge Bro. Anthony Sayer put forward a further petition for relief; and, 
after some discussion as to the amount, a sum of 15 pounds was voted to him. Later, 
the committee was strengthened by the addition of twelve "Masters of Lodges," and 
was authorized to give relief, without recourse to Grand Lodge, up to an amount of 5 
pounds; while, in 1732, the number of Masters on the committee was increased to 
twenty, in addition to all Past Grand Officers. 


I have lingered over these early days, because they saw the laying of those 
foundations, upon which, in after years, so noble a superstructure was to be raised; 
but it is necessary to pass rapidly over a long period, which saw no change, save the 
slow growth of the fund and slight alterations in the detail of its administration. It is, 
however, worth while recording the petition, on Dec. 12, 1739, of one "Thomas 
Crudeli, a prisoner in the Inquisition in Llorence on account of Masonry," which was 
warmly recommended by Lord Raymond, then Grand Master, and which resulted in a 
grant of 2 1 pounds being authorized for the relief of the petitioner. 



R.M.I. FOR GIRLS IS FOUNDED 


By slow degrees, through the passing years, it must have become evident to the more 
thoughtful brethren that even the "Generali Bank of Charity" was not fully realizing 
the high ideals of their profession. 


Their benevolence extended only to themselves; and it may well have seemed to 
some of them that Brotherly Love, which they had expressed to be the "Foundation 
and Copestone" of their Fraternity, should have led at least to some care and help for 
the fatherless children of a departed brother, if not to the relief of his widow or other 
dependents. 


It was to be many years before the widow's claims were recognized, but in the year 
1788 a determined effort began, with the object of providing maintenance and 
education for the orphaned daughters of a Mason. 


In the language of the earliest known list of subscribers (March, 1788), the object of 
the promoters of this scheme was "to preserve the female offspring of indigent 
Freemasons from the dangers and misfortunes to which their distressed situation may 
expose them," and, on March 25, 1788, there was founded the institution now known 
as the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls. 


It was at first called "The Royal Cumberland Freemasons' School," by permission of 
the original Patron, H.R.H., the Duke of Cumberland, K. G., who was at that time 
Grand Master of the "Modems"; H.R.H. the Duchess of Cumberland being the 
original Patroness. 


The Chevalier Bartholomew Ruspini, Grand Sword Bearer of England from 1792 
until his death in 1813, a famous surgeon dentist of his day, and a prominent figure in 



Masonic and philanthropic circles in London, was the originator of the scheme and 
the moving spirit in all the preliminary negotiations. 


In addition to possessing a large number of influential friends, he enjoyed the 
patronage of Royalty, and was thus able to achieve a task which, at that time, might 
well have seemed impossible of accomplishment. 


In the very year in which the scheme was inaugurated, the funds were collected, a 
printed list of subscribers was issued, premises were actually taken furnished, and, at 
a Quarterly Court held on Jan. 8, 1789— so far had the efficient organization of the 
school progressed— the treasurer announced that the fifteen children approved in the 
preceding November had been conducted to the school and delivered into the charge 
of the Matron. 


Many quite exceptional difficulties were met by the founder and his enthusiastic 
helpers— such as the objection of their Royal Patroness to the first premises taken for 
the purpose of housing the children— with which there is no need to concern ourselves 
in detail; but, had there been no such unusual episodes, the success of the effort made 
could hardly have been more remarkable. 


ITS EARLY DIFFICULTIES 


Our early brethren had set themselves to find subscribers towards an entirely new 
conception, to overcome the prejudice which undoubtedly existed at that time— 
however foolish it may seem to us now— against using Masonic funds for the 
advantage of the female sex; to raise what, for those days, was a very considerable 
sum of money; to appoint committees, treasurer, secretary, collector and matron, and 
to devise and promulgate an organization for the charity and a code of rules for the 
school itself. 



They had to accomplish all these things without any real precedent to guide them, and 
in the face of an opposition which was by no means to be despised. And yet, in the 
short space of eleven months, their success was not only complete in every particular, 
but, as time has abundantly proved, it was laid four-square upon a permanent 
foundation of careful forethought, that has lasted to our own time. 


Among the earliest benefactors of the Institution may be mentioned the Lodge of 
Antiquity, No. 2, the Shakespear Lodge, No. 99, and the Caledonian Lodge, No. 134; 
while, among the individual brethren of that time who supported Bro. Ruspini in the 
struggling days of the infant charity, are to be found names famous in the history of 
the Craft, foremost of whom are Brothers Dunckerley, James Heseltine, Galloway, 
and Forsteen. 


At the Quarterly Court on Jan. 12, 1792, a committee of five was appointed to prepare 
a memorial to the Grand Lodge "to solicit their interference on behalf of this 
Institution, and to request that they will pass a law that all candidates for Masonry, at 
the time of their initiation, shall pay five shillings, to be applied to the separate use of 
this charity." 


This proposal appears to have been favorably received by Grand Lodge, although it 
was not at first adopted as a general law, owing to doubts of the power of Grand 
Lodge to "impose a tax" for the benefit of an independent institution. In later years, 
however, we find it in full force; and the annual subscription of 150 pounds now paid 
to the Institution by Grand Lodge is a composition of this ancient levy. 


The first home of the Institution was in Somers Place East on the North Side of 
Euston Road, and close to the present site of St. Pancras Station. In 1795, having 
outgrown these premises, the Institution was moved to St. George's Fields, a lease 
being obtained from the corporation of the City of London, and premises erected on 
land described in the minute book as "on the north side of the High Road leading 
from the obelisk to Westminster Bridge Road." 



The number of children was increased to thirty, and in 1802 to sixty, at which figure 
it remained until the year 1816, which falls outside the scope of this article. 


On Dec. 14, 1813, Bro. Ruspini, the founder, passed away at the age of eighty-three, 
having enjoyed, to the end of his long life, the respect and affection of all around him. 
Some years after his death, two of his own grandchildren were educated in the school 
which he had founded. 


THE R.M.I. FOR BOYS FOUNDED 


Before this time, however, in 1798, ten years after the foundation of the Girls' School, 
a number of brethren belonging to the "Ancient" or "Atholl" Constitution had 
inaugurated a scheme for the education of the sons of Masons, which is now known 
as the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys. 


The minute books for the first fourteen years of this Institution's life have been lost, 
and only the simplest outline of its early history can now be traced, while little is 
known of the actual personality of the founders. 


The first foundation, in 1798, appears, however, to have been due to the efforts of 
brethren belonging to the United Mariners' Fodge, No. 23, under the "Ancient" 
Constitution. The actual originator of the idea being Bro. William Burwood, the 
treasurer of the lodge. 


Among the other members and supporters was Bro. Columbine Daniel, a well known 
Mason of the day, who, however, was shortly afterwards, in 1801, "excluded" by the 
Ancient Grand Fodge for alleged Masonic irregularities. We know nothing more of 
this dispute, and, indeed, are concerned only to note that Bro. Daniel's practical 
charity was not to be so easily quenched. He was, as it happened, also a member of 
the Royal Naval Fodge, No. 57, which held a warrant from the "Modern" Grand 



Lodge, and, having enlisted their support, founded in 1808 a "Boys' Charity," very 
much on the lines of Bro. Burwood's scheme of 1798. 


The Chevalier Ruspini, Institutor (as he preferred to be called) of the Girls' School, 
appears as one of the trustees of the funds. 


Meanwhile, in 1805, Bro. Burwood had become bankrupt, and, on the proposal of 
Bro. Robert Leslie, Grand Secretary, the "Ancient" Grand Lodge appears to have 
taken the charity founded in 1798 under its protection. At all events, the contributions 
of Grand Lodge thereto, up to the year 1813, amounted to over 1270 pounds, which, 
at that time, was regarded as a very large sum of money. 


In 1816 Bro. Daniel was restored to his Masonic rights and privileges; and in 1817 
the two Boys' Schemes were happily amalgamated. 


Both schemes had, from the first, been devised upon an "educational" basis, for there 
was no residential school, and the charity possessed none until 1865. 


Indeed, having regard to the disasters which befell the two courageous founders, it is 
remarkable only that they were able to persist in their beneficent efforts and to 
achieve so great a measure of success. 


The actual start had been made with six boys in 1798, which number was increased to 
thirty-six in 1810, the jubilee year of King George III. There were, in that year, thirty- 
four subscribing lodges; while in 1812 there were fifty boys receiving grants and 
twenty more on the waiting list. 



The "Ancient" Grand Lodge had, in the latter year, authorized a levy of 5/from every 
London lodge and 2/6 from every Provincial Lodge upon the registration of each 
newly-made Mason, as had already been done in the case of the Girls' School; and 
this levy was continued after the Union in 1813, until, as already mentioned, it was 
finally commuted by the fixed annual grant of 150 pounds, which is still paid by 
Grand Lodge to each of the senior Masonic Institutions. 


At this point we reach the end of the period under review; and, remarkable as were 
these beginnings, we may yet perhaps wonder at the far greater harvests that, from 
those early sowings, have been gathered in our own day. 


LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN "THE MASONIC CHARITIES" 


Nobody, in 1813, could have foreseen the successive removals and enlargements of 
the Girls' School, culminating, so far, in the building of their beautiful home at 
Clapham and the opening of the Junior School at Weybridge, which is today 
undergoing very extensive alteration and enlargement. 


More than a hundred years were to elapse before the opening of the magnificent Boys' 
Schools at Bushey, whose extension, by the addition of a great Junior School for 
smaller boys, is now commencing; and even the first of the great advances after the 
Union, the, foundation of the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution, with its brotherly 
care for old Masons or their widows, and its fine building at Croydon, did not take 
place for over thirty years. 


Most recently of all has come the Freemasons' Hospital and Nursing Home, the 
youngest of all Masonic charities, founded in 1919. 


Today the Fund of Benevolence, which has taken the place of the "Generali Bank of 
Charity," and is directly controlled by Grand Lodge, administers relief to the extent of 



over 30,000 pounds a year; while the three great Institutions are educating 
considerably more than 2000 girls and boys, nearly 10,000 children having passed 
through their hands since their foundation. Their schools are among the finest in the 
country. 


The Benevolent Institution, for its part, is assisting with its grants some 1 600 old 
Masons or widows in the evening of their days. 


The contributions of the English Craft to these three in recent years has amounted to 
an average of over 300,000 pounds a year. 


So firmly were the foundations laid; so truly have the builders labored; that we may 
look back very proudly to the early days of Masonic charity; and may look forward 
also, with a firm but humble confidence, to the days which are yet to come. 


— o — 


Our ancient brethren of the Mystic tie were builders— Masons in all ages have been 
builders— and we will not be worthy of our glorious traditions unless we are builders 
attempting to reconstruct out of the bewilderment of confusion of today a higher 
civilization of tomorrow, which shall be a structure of symmetry and strength 
characterized by stability, utility and beauty, whose fabric shall be fashioned through 
law, labor and love. —Frederick S. Selmood, P.G.M., Alberta. 


— o — 


AN OLD MASONIC APRON 



THE photograph shown herewith depicts an old Mason- Apron of considerable 
beauty. This Apron - partly engraved and partly hand-painted - is of velvet, backed 
with silk, and is approximately 24 inches by 30 inches. It is rounded at the two 
bottom corners. It has a semi-circular flap, two tassels (an uncommon feature in 
Aprons prior to 1813), and at either top corner are narrow ribbons to tie round the 
waist. Both the flap and the Apron itself are edged with embroidery, and the border of 
flowers not only gives a charm to the design, but adds interest on account of its rarity. 


On the flap, in the center, is a group, which, comprising a female with three children, 
denotes Charity. On the left hand side of this group, as you look at the Apron, there 
are depicted a half moon, with a human face looking towards the group, and below, 
three candlesticks, representing the three Lesser Lights. On the other side of the group 
are seven six-pointed stars, arranged hexagonally with one in the center, and below a 
beehive with three groups of bees close to it. 


On the Apron, on the left hand side, stands a female figure resting against an anchor, 
representing Hope; while balancing it on the other side is another female figure with a 
cross clasped in both hands, representing Laith. Between these figures, and nearly 
level with their heads, is "the All-seeing Eye," over which is inscribed in a curve the 
words "Sit Lux et Lux Luit." Beneath, and in the center of the Apron, is a large V. S. 
L. open at II Chronicles, Chaps. 2 and 3. On the V. S. L. are the Square and 
Compasses in the second position, the points of the compasses and the angle of the 
square being towards the top. Rising from behind the Book is the "Sun in Splendour," 
with a human face, visible only from the eyes upwards. Springing from behind the 
sun, and inclined to the left, is a ladder of which four rungs only are to be seen. 
Projecting from behind the left side of the V. S. L. are two columns, partly visible, the 
upper one fluted and the lower one plain. Similarly placed on the other side of the 
V.S.L. are a Plumb-rule, twenty-four inch Gauge and Level. Below the two columns 
is a perfect ashlar, and below the working tools is a very irregular lump of stone, 
presumably the rough ashlar. Below the V. S. L. is a double triangle in which is 
written "H. S. from M.A.S." 



The form of some of the symbols and the grouping of others, correspond very closely 
with those on Aprons known to have been engraved by Bro. William Hixon, of No. 

13 Bridges Street, Covent Garden, London, in 1794. It may therefore, perhaps, be 
inferred that the Apron now described emanated from the same engraver about the 
date mentioned or a little later. 


This Apron is now the property of W. Bro. W. G. Dickenson, Broomwood House, 
Bath, who has very kindly consented to its publication. 


— o — 


AN EARLY MASONIC PRAYER 


At the time of the formation of the Grand Lodge, in 1717, the Invocation of the 
Trinity, with which all the copies of the Old Charges commenced, was doubtless used 
as the opening prayer by lodges. In the editions of Ahiman Rezon, the Book of 
Constitutions published by the "Antients" Grand Lodge, this Invocation is printed 
under the heading "A Prayer that was used amongst the Primitive Christian Masons." 


As the Grand Lodge grew in strength, and the Old Charges were replaced by 
Anderson's Book of Constitutions, other forms of prayer seem to have come into use. 
Anderson gives no prayer, but then, as a Presbyterian minister, he could not have 
recommended any set form of words doing violence to his convictions. 


Ireland supplies the earliest form of Masonic prayer that can be dated. This prayer 
will be found in the Book of Constitutions, published by John Pennell, in Dublin, in 
1730. It comes after the Charges of a Freemason, and before the General Regulations. 
It is headed, "A Prayer to be said at the opening of a Lodge, or making of a Brother." 
It reads as follows: 



"Most Holy and Glorious LORD GOD, thou great Architect of Heaven and Earth, 
who art the Giver of all good Gifts and Graces; and hast promis'd that where two or 
three are gathered together in thy Name, thou wilt be in the Midst of them; in thy 
Name we assemble and meet together, most humbly beseeching thee to bless us in all 
our Undertakings, to give us thy Holy Spirit, to enlighten our Minds with Wisdom 
and Understanding, that we may know, and serve thee aright, that all our Doings may 
tend to thy Glory, and the Salvation of our Souls. 


"And we beseech thee, O LORD GOD, to bless this our present Undertaking, and 
grant that this, our new Brother, may dedicate his Life to thy Service, and be a true 
and faithful Brother among us, endue him with Divine Wisdom, that he may, with the 
Secrets of Masonry, be able to unfold the Mysteries of Godliness and Christianity. 
This we humbly beg in the Name and for the Sake of JESUS CHRIST our LORD and 
SAVIOUR. AMEN." 


There is a marginal note that the second paragraph was "To be added when any Man 
is made." 


— o — 


Masonry passes under two denominations— Operative and Speculative. By the former, 
we allude to a proper application of the useful rules of architecture, whence a 
structure derives figure, strength, and beauty; and whence results a due proportion 
and a just correspondence in all its parts. By the latter, we leam to govern the 
passions, act upon the square, keep a tongue of good report, maintain secrecy, and 
practise charity. 


Speculative Masonry is so far interwoven with religion, as to lay us under the 
strongest obligations to pay that rational homage to the Deity, which at once 
constitutes our duty and our happiness. It leads the contemplative to view with 



reverence and admiration the glorious works of creation, and inspires them with the 
most exalted ideas of the perfections of the divine Creator. Operative Masonry 
furnishes us with dwellings, and convenient shelter from the inclemencies of seasons, 
and while it displays the effects of human wisdom, as well in the choice as in the 
arrangement of the materials of which an edifice is composed, it demonstrates that a 
fund of science and industry is implanted for man, for the best, most salutary, and 
beneficent purposes. — Wm. Preston. 


— o — 


Prince Charles Edward Stuart, G. M. 


BY W.BRO. J. E. SHUM TUCKETT, 


P.M. QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE, NO. 2076, A.G. SWORD B. ENGLAND; 
P.G. STAND. B. (R. A.) England 


ONE-HALF of the twenty-two independent Masonic references to Prince Charles 
were made openly before his death (1788), nevertheless all are generally regarded as 
spurious, and it is constantly affirmed that Charles himself denied any membership of 
our Order. But it cannot be supposed that an organization which made public use of 
his name during his lifetime did so without his knowledge. As space is limited some 
only of the references can here be considered. 


I. THE ALLEGED REPUDIATION, 1776-7 


The following pronouncements have caused widespread belief in this fable: 



"In 1777 von Wachter sought him out in Italy, when the Prince, to his dismay, 
declared he not only was not G. M. and knew nothing about it, but that he was not 
even a Freemason." (Gould, Note 1.) 


. put no trust whatever in accounts connecting the Stuarts with Freemasonry. We 
have it in the Young Pretenders own written and verbal statements that they are 
absolutely baseless, pure inventions." (Speth, Note 2.) 


"Prince Charles Edward never had any connection with Freemasonry. This we know 
on his own authority. . ." (Chetwode Crawley, Note 3.) 


Gould's authority is Allgemeines Handbuch der Freimaurerei s. v. Stuart, Karl 
Edward, but neither Bro. Dring nor I can find it, and it is not in Wolfstieg's 
Bibliography. ( Note 4. ) 


There are three accounts of Wachter's visit to Italy in 1776-7, and it is instructive to 
compare them. In the first, written six years after the alleged visit (1782), by de 
Langes, an eminent Freemason acquainted with Wachter, the Pretender is not even 
mentioned. (Note 5.) The second by Robinson (1797), twenty-one years after, 
suggests that "great secrets" were obtainable from the Pretender's secretary, but does 
not refer to the Prince himself. (Note 6.) The third, Findel (1865), makes Wachter 
interview the Prince and asserts that: "the Pretender knew nothing of the Order of 
Knights Templar nor was he a Freemason." (Note 7.) The tradition of the denial 
apparently grew out of— nothing ! 


In 1 882 it is asserted that a Handbuch (which we cannot find) of unknown date, 
asserted that in 1777 Wachter (of indifferent character) asserted that Charles asserted 
that he was not a Freemason. There is no reason to believe either that Wachter ever 
interviewed the Prince, or that the latter ever made the statement imputed to him. 



As to "written" statements, the only document of the kind is a letter, Sept. 25, 1780, in 
reply to the G. M. of Sweden (Duke of Sudermannia) who desired to control the Strict 
Observance. Prince Charles wrote: "the complete obscurity in which I am relating to 
your mysteries, prevents me from replying more fully until I myself am further 
enlightened." (Note 8.) 


Swedish Freemasonry was peculiar, based upon a theory of Templar descent, and it 
was knowledge of this peculiar Swedish System which Charles denied Reumont 
states that in 1783 the Prince did consider himself hereditary G. M. of Scottish 
Masonry. 


II. THE CHARTRES MS. (NOTE 9), 1776 


This fortunate discovery pours a flood of light upon a vexed question, and affords 
proof that a strong Masonic organization was instituted and worked under the Prince's 
name. Bro. Dring kindly allowed me to make a transcript, and to certain features I 
now direct special attention. 


The MS. was compiled by the secretary, the formation in 1776 of a new lodge at 
Chartres, under Clermont's Grande Loge Anglaise de France, dite de la Constance, for 
his own private use and evidently not for publication. Its statements may therefore be 
accepted as the truth as known to the writer. Five of the seven degrees recognized by 
the Mother Lodge were to be worked, the Fifth Degree being L'Ecossois. The warrant 
was issued by Beauchaine "by virtue of the powers conferred upon us by the Jacobite 
Grand Lodge of St. John of London, styled of the-Chevalier," but the "Orient of 
London" is stated to be "en France." At an initiation the W.M. of the lodge is to say: 
"We, Grand Master of this Lodge, by virtue of the powers conferred upon us by the 
Very Venerable and Very Dear and Very Worshipful Grand Master CHARLES 
EDWARD STUART, King of Scotland and Ireland ..." (Note 10.) 



Beauchaine issued the Langeron Certificate (1758) in the name of "Prince Charles 
Stuard Edouard Legitime Roy . . and the Candy Certificate (1778) was "DE 
LOTORITE. CHARLE-EDOUARD. G. M. D. ANGLA." (Note 11.) 


The MS. concludes with an "Alphabetical List of (66) Lodges under the Jurisdiction 
of La Constance," with names of the Masters, and (in fifteen cases) dates of 
constitution, the earliest being 1746. La Constance was a "Mother-Lodge" before it 
became a Grand Lodge (1747). Arras is undated. 


In 1762-5 Pasqually showed to members of the Bordeaux Lodge Lrancaise a warrant 
granted to him by Prince Charles. (Note 12.) In 1764 Pasqually was arrested by the 
Bordeaux police for "molesting" the Loge L'Anglaise there. (Note 13.) The Chartres 
MS. list cites two Bordeaux lodges, one dated 1756. Also a Toulouse Lodge, dated 
1756. Prince Charles traditionally established the "faithful Scots" there, 1747 or 
1751, on account of Sir Samuel (?) Lockhardt (Note 14.) 


The Marquis De Gages, "G.I. of Red Lodges under the Prince of Clermont and Prince 
Charles Edward," founded (1767-70) a Chapter R.C. at Mons, and signed documents 
as "G.M. of Blue and Red Lodges under the Prince of Clermont and Edward." (Note 
15.) The Chartres Lodge was a Clermont-Charles Edward foundation. 


Pyron (1805c) notices a degree, "Ecossois de la Loge du Prince Edouard, G. M." 
(Note 16.) 


Of the names which occur in the Chartres MS. twelve or more are otherwise known in 
french Lreeasonry of the time. 


III. THE LONGNOR (OR LICHLIELD) WARRANT, 1745 



In 1869 in Notes and Queries, Fourth Series, it is stated that: 


. the original warrant of the Derbyshire Lodge of Ancient Freemasons whose 
headquarters are at Longnor, was signed by Charles Edward as Grand Master, while 
at Derby, in 1745. (Note 17.) 


". . . at the Union in 1813 it was exchanged for an English warrant . . . the Lodge of 
Reconciliation was held in London in 1813, of which my informant, Mr. Millward of 
Longnor, was a member." (Note 18.) 


The writer, John Sleigh of Thombridge, Bakewell, Derbyshire, author of a History of 
Leek, was a frequent contributor to Notes and Queries. John Millward (1790-1878, 
initiated about 1810) was prominent in Masonry and public affairs of the locality, a 
member of the Lodge of Unity at Longnor, and first Master of the Phoenix Lodge of 
St. Ann, its successor there. He attended the Lodge of Reconciliation five times. His 
father, born in 1767, was also a Freemason. ( Note 19. ) 


Prince Charles passed the night, Dec. 3, at Leek, eight miles southwest of Longnor, 
and reached Derby at dusk on Dec. 4, retiring at once to sleep at Exeter House. 
Commencing at 8 a.m. on Thursday, Dec. 5, the Council which decided to abandon 
the march on London was after some hours adjourned until evening. The retreat 
commenced early on Dec. 6, but Charles did not leave until 9 a.m. There was, 
therefore abundant opportunity to sign a document presented to him at Derby for the 
purpose. 


Buxton is six miles north and Derby twenty-four miles southeast of Longnor. 
Lichfield is thirty- five miles south of Longnor and about twenty-four miles southwest 
of Derby. 



Dr. Plot (Note 20) is witness that Freemasonry was very prevalent in the 
"moorelands" of Staffordshire in 1686, and this popularity can hardly have died out 
by the middle of the eighteenth century. If, however, there were any lodges in the 
Longnor-Lichfield district in 1745, they were independent of the Grand Lodge at 
London. (Note 21.) 


In 1784 a lodge at the Scales, Market Lane, Lichfield, received a warrant with number 
224 from the G.L. Antients, but there was a dispute about the number, 220 being 
claimed. The lodge had clearly existed before, and a previous page in the Antients 
Register had been headed, "220. The Sign of the Scales in Market Lane or elsewhere, 
Lichfield, Staffordshire," but no entries had been made, and subsequently a slip of 
paper was pasted over the heading and the page used for another (1786) lodge. Except 
that sixteen members were registered Dec. 29, 1786, No. 224 (the Scales) gave no 
sign of life. What really happened was that the lodge went over bodily to the 
opposition party ( Note 22), the Moderns. Accordingly we find that twelve of the 
sixteen Scales brethren were (June 24, 1787) warranted by the G. L. Moderns as No. 
502, the Lodge of Unity, Three Crowns Inn, Bread Market Street, Lichfield. In 1792 
its number was 411 and it lasted until 1 809 or 1 8 1 0. In 1 8 1 1 , Warrant number 411, 
and lodge property, passed by purchase to brethren at Longnor, where the Lodge of 
Unity (number changed to 492 in 1814) remained at work until its erasure on June 3, 
1829. (Note 23.) 


In 1810 the G. L. Antients warranted a lodge as No. 165 at the King's Head Inn, 
Market Place, Buxton, Derbyshire, but there was no connection with an earlier No. 
165 in London which returned its warrant to Grand Lodge in 1770. The Buxton lodge 
received a new warrant with the old number 165, and in 1 81 1 took the name 
"Derbyshire Lodge." Through the influence of Bro. Millward, it was removed in 1840 
(Note 24) (with permission) from Buxton to Longnor, and met at the Crewe and 
Harpur Arms in Market Square until its erasure March 7, 1 866. Its number was 
altered in 1814 to 201, and subsequently to 143 and 122. 


On reaching Longnor the Derbyshire Lodge became the possessor of the properties 
belonging to the Lodge of Unity, erased in 1829, and these properties passed on to the 
Phoenix Lodge of St. Ann, No. 1235, consecrated at Buxton in 1869 and still 
flourishing. ( Note 25. ) 



It is clear from these records that if Prince Charles did sign a warrant at Derby in 
1745 it could not have been the "original warrant" of the Derbyshire Lodge as stated 
by Mr. Sleigh. I suggest that it was an old warrant then (in 1 869, when Mr. Sleigh 
wrote) amongst the possessions of the Phoenix Lodge at Buxton, inherited in 1 868-9 
from the defunct Derbyshire Lodge at Longnor. 


That the warrant was not the warrant "of' but one belonging "to" the Derbyshire 
Lodge would appear from the history of these "properties," which is as follows 
(working backwards): 


1868-9 at Buxton, property of Phoenix Lodge. 1840 at Longnor, property of 
Derbyshire Lodge. 1811 at Longnor, property of Lodge of Unity. 1787 at Lichfield, 
property of Lodge of Unity. 


In May, 1811, Bro. Edwards of Lichfield wrote to Bro. Horobin (the purchaser) 
apologizing for having sent a "York" warrant by mistake and forwarding the real 
warrant under which the lodge worked. (Note 26.) Possibly this obsolete "York" 
warrant was the one now in question. 


The Unity brethren at Lichfield were of course the possessors of the properties of the 
abandoned Scales Lodge, and the Scales brethren were clearly a Masonic unit before 
they sought "regularization" from the Antients. (Note 27.) Amongst the "properties" 
noted in the inventory at the time when they were sold by Lichfield to Longnor is a 
"Transparency of the Sun and Prince Wales' Bohemia Plume of Feathers, white and 
gold; richly done." (Note 28.) A suggestive item which would have served nicely to 
decorate the Lodge in honor of Prince Charlie ! 


The Jacobites at Lichfield were strong, but they were vigilantly watched by the 
Bailiffs and Justices, also the Duke of Cumberland made his headquarters there for a 
time. (Note 29.) 



If there is any truth in the story--and it is quite likely— it was a Lichfield (not 
Longnor) document which Prince Charles signed at Derby on Thursday or Friday, 
Dec. 5 or 6, 1745. 


IV. THE ARRAS CHARTER, 1745-7 


According to Thory: (Note 30.) 


"Un chapitre ecossais jacobite y (i. e. at Arras) avait ete constitue en 1745, par une 
chartre signee de la main de Charles Edouard Stuard, roi d'Angleterre. Cette 
constitution qu' on nous a montree dans un voyage que nous fimes, a Arras en 1786, 
porte avec elle tous les caracteres de l'authenticite. Nous devons cette communication 
a M. Delecourt qui a eu la complaisance de nous en donner une copie certifiee." 


At p. 184 the text is given in full: 


"Bulle d'institution du Chapitre primordial de Rose-Croix Jacobite d' Arras. 


"Nous Charles Edouard Stuard, roi d'Angleterre, de France d'Ecosse et d'lrlande, et en 
cette qualite Subst. G. M. du Chapitre de H. connu sous le titre de chev. de l'Aigle du 
Pelican, et depuis nos malheurs et nos infortunes, sous celui de Rose-Croix; voulant 
temoigner aux Macons Artesiens combien nous sommes reconnaissans envers eux des 
preuves de bienfaisance qu'ils nous ont prodiguees, avec les officiers de la garnison 
de la ville d' Arras, et de leur attachement a notre personne, pendant le sejour de six 
mois que nous avons fait en cette ville. Nous avons en leur faveur, cree et erige, 
creons et erigeons, par la presente bulle, en ladite ville d' Arras un S. Chapitre 
primordial de Rose-Croix, sous le titre distinctif d'Ecosse Jacobite, que sera regi et 
gouveme par les chevaliers Langneau et de Robespierre . . . J. B. Lucet notre tapissier 



. . . signe de notre main . . . le jeudi 15e jour du 2 e mois, Fan de l'incamation 5747. 
"Signe, Charles Edouard Stuard De par le Roi, signe lorde de Berkeley, Secretaire." 


Bro. Dring's reasons for discarding Jouaust's (1865) versions (Note 31) of the text are 
sound. (Note 32.) Kloss (Note 33) refers to the Charter and supplies a date not given 
in the other accounts. Gould (Note 34) fuses the comments of Kloss, Thory and 
Jouaust, and adds: 


"It will be sufficient to point out that Charles Edward did not call himself 'King' 
during his father's lifetime, or pretender at any time. The use of the latter term indeed 
he very naturally left to others. Moreover no historian has yet shown that he ever was 
in Arras, where, according to this legend he remained for a period of six months." 
(Note 35.) 


The tradition is then that a R.C. Chapter of H.R.D.M. was constituted at Arras in 
1745, and possessed document with the autograph signature of the Young Pretender. 
In 1786 Thory, a reputable and scholarly man, saw this and judged document and 
signature authentic, and he printed it in 1812 from a certified copy supplied for the 
purpose. It is not claimed that the Prince was present when the Chapter was 
constituted or inaugurated in 1745, or that his signature was affixed in that year, or 
that he was in Arras when he signed. 


The "2e mois" must mean either February or April. The "15e jour" must mean either 
15th New Style or 15th Old Style. The 26th February N.S. (Monday) and the 15th 
April N.S. (Sunday) are ruled out, not being Thursdays. The 15th February N.S., 26th 
April N.S. were both Thursdays and are therefore possible. Prince Charles was in 
Paris in January, 1747, until the last week when he started for Madrid. He halted at 
Fyons and was at Avignon on Feb. 9; Madrid, March 2; Guadalaxara, March 6 to 14. 
Back in Paris March 26 to April 29. On April 26 N. S., 1747, he was in Paris, and I 
think that is the date (also place) of the signature— if genuine. 


The spelling "Stuard" is frequently met with in Jacobite papers of the period. 



I do not believe that in the original document "Roi" followed the Prince's name, but 
either "R" or more probably "P. R.," meaning Regent or Prince Regent. The 
transcribers, not understanding, supplied their own interpretations. Delecourt put 
"Roi" and Jouausf s man made it "pretendant roi," which supports my suggestion that 
the original had "P. R." In view of the attempt at a Stuart Restoration planned for 
1744 the Old Pretender (Dec. 23, 1743) issued a patent conferring full powers as 
Regent of the British Isles on his son, and the letters "P. R." generally follow the 
Prince's name in subsequent official Jacobite documents. 


The King of Scotland is hereditary and perpetual Grand Master of the Royal Order of 
Scotland and Grand Chapter of H.R.D.M. Consequently the expression in the text, 

"en cette qualite Subst. G.M. du Chapitre de H," which would be absolutely wrong if 
it followed "roi," is strikingly correct if it came after "R." or "P. R.," for the Regent 
would naturally the substitute Grand Master. 


It is not stated that the six months' sojourn in Arras were during either 1745 or 1747. 
Charles nominally lodged at Gravelines (about fifty miles from Arras) from February 
to "towards winter" of the year 1744. (Note 36.) During that time he made several 
visits to Paris, also "occasional" visits to Frankfort. (Note 37.) Arras is on the routes 
from Gravelines to Paris and Frankfort so that Charles must have passed through 
Arras many times. Much of the time while officially in seclusion in the dull little 
fishing town was probably spent in Arras, only fifty miles distant, the Capital of 
Artois, a very important civil and military center with a large garrison and plenty of 
society. 


The names Lucet and Robespierre are known to have been authentic Arras names at 
the time. The Chartres MS. of 1776 supplies independent evidence that a Bro. Lucet 
was Master of a lodge at Arras in 1776. The Revolution Robespierre was bom at 
Arras (1758), and his father (avocat au conseil d' Artois) and grandfather dwelt there. 


No "lorde de Berkley" is likely to have been the secretary, but there is a younger son 
who may have been so employed. Is "Berkley" a transcriber's error for "Balhaldy" or 



"Bohaldy" ? Drummond (MacGregor) of Balhaldy, Balhaldie, or Bohaldy, was the 
agent sent by the Old Pretender to arrange the visit of Prince Charles and to negotiate 
for the support ot the French King in the intended expedition to Britain. He was in 
constant attendance on Prince Charles during the sojourn at Gravelines and in close 
touch with him afterwards. He was a Freemason, a member of the Lodge Dunblane 
St. John, and (according to Murray Lyon) the Expedition of 1745 was the result of his 
"misleading representations." (Note 38.) Highland chieftains were commonly styled 
"Lords" on the Continent at this time. 


Although the demonstration of its authenticity is not complete, there is no valid 
reason for rejecting the Arras Charter. 


V. THE TEMPLAR GRAND-MASTERSHIP OF PRINCE CHARLES, 1745 


While the Prince was still a boy there was a form of "Templary" at work in 
Continental Masonry, largely or entirely in the hands of British (principally Scottish) 
Jacobite exiles. This "Order of the Temple" was not necessarily pledged to the Stuart 
Cause (as Greeven— Note 39— maintains) but it would naturally appeal to Prince 
Charles when he arrived in Paris in 1744. 


In 1764 von Hund claimed to have been received into the Order at Paris in 1743, in 
the presence of Lords Kilmarnock and Clifford, and that he received a Patent as a 
Prov. G. M. Also that "subsequently" he was presented to Prince Charles whom he 
took to be G. M. of the Order but was not certain (Note 40.) Dr. Begemann attempts 
(but fails) to prove the story an imposture. (Note 41.) The only questions which 
concern us are, first, was Hund admitted? Secondly, did Charles "subsequently" 
interview von Hund? And thirdly, was Charles Grand Master? Begemann's contention 
that Kilmarnock, being G. M. of Freemasons in Scotland 1742-3, could not have been 
in Paris in 1743 is nonsense— there was much secret crossing to and from France by 
Jacobites about 1741-5. Hund left Paris in September, 1743, and Charles arrived 
Janary, 1744, -therefore (says Begemann) the interview never happened. But Hund did 
not say that they met in Paris or when they met except that it was "subsequently" to 



his own reception as a Templar. That Charles was G. M. when Hund met him is not 
claimed. 


Dr. Begemann considers that he has proved that the traitional Templar Chapter at 
Holyrood in September, 1745, never lid have happened. I consider that I have shown 
that gemann is mistaken. (Note 42.) The tradition, however tirely lacks contemporary 
supporting evidence. If true rince Charles entered the Order and became G. M. at 
Edinurgh, Sept. 24, 1745. 


But the Templar Mastership does not wholly depend upon the Edinburgh tradition. In 
1780 the Duke of Sudermannia wishing to unite the conflicting Templar claims of 
Sweden and the Strict Observance, consulted Prince Charles. This certainly looks as 
if that Prince was a supreme authority. In the winter of 1783 Gustavus III visited 
Charles at Florence and (according to Reumont, the biographer of Charles' wife) was 
by him appointed his coadjutor and successor in the Grand Mastership of the Temple. 
(Note 43.) 


NOTES 


(1) Gould. History, III, 110 and Concise History; 1903, 323. 

(2) Hughan. Jacobite Lodge at Romel910, 27. 

(3) A.Q.C. XXVI, 70. 

(4) Dring in Treasury of Masonic Thought; 1924, 80. 

(5) A.Q.C. XXX, 166. 

(6) Robinson. Proofs of a Conspiracy; 1797, 77. 

(7) Findel. History; 1865. English Ed. 1868, 285. 



(8) A. von Reumont. Die Grafin von Albany; 1860, 1,239; so Findel. History; 1869, 

212. 

(9) E. H. Dring in Treasury of Masonic Thought; 1924, 71. 

(10) The omission of England is presumably an excusable error by the Secretary 
when transcribing the Warrant. 

(1 1) A. Q. C. XV, 95, 97; also XXXIII, 96. 

(12) ib. XIX, 148. 

(13) ib. XII, 7. 

(14) Kenning's Cyclopaedia; 1878, 76, 185; and Findel. History, 213. 

(15) Goblet D'Alviella. Consts. A. & A. S. R. pour la Begique; 1910, 10 and 11. 

(16) Kenning's Cyclopaedia. 183. 

(17) N. and Q. IV, Series III, 533. 

(18) ib. IV, 66. 

(19) A.Q.C. XXIII, 94, 267, 295, 305. S. Taylor. History of Freemasonry in. 

(20) Robert Plot, Natural History of Staffordshire; 1686, VIII, 16. "Here I found 
persons of the most eminent quality, that did not disdain to be of this Fellowship." 

(21) At Derby there was one lodge warranted 1732. 

(22) Bro. Wonnacott G. I,, kindly supplied me with the lists others from the Records 
(Antients and Modems). 

(23) John Lane, Masonic Records; 1895, 156, 158, 214. 

(24) Lane (p. 131) says the removal was in 1842, but 1840 is correct. See Taylor, p. 6. 

(25) Taylor, p. 35. 

(26) ib. p. 14. 

(27) Gould, The Atholl Lodges; 1879, 42. "220 (earliest Lodge. Not known)." 



(28) Taylor, 13. 

(29) Harwood, History of Cathedeal and City of Lichfield under dates 1743 and 1745. 

(30) C. A. Thory, Histoire de la Fondation du Grand Orient de France; 1812, pp. 63 
and 64. 

(31) Jouaust. History du Grand Orient de France; 1865, p. 84. 

(32) E. H. Dring in Treasury of Masonic Thought; 1924, 73. 

(33) T. G. Koss, Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Frankreich; 1852, 1, 257. 

(34) R. F. Gould, History of Freemasonry, III 158. 

(35) There are very similar comments by Hughan and Speth in Hughan's Jacobite 
Lodge at Rome, 27-8. The French word "pretendant" means simply "claimant" and 
was used by Jacobites in that sense. 

(36) C. L. Klose, Memoirs of Prince Charles Stuart; 1845, 

(37) J. F. Bell, Memoirs of John Murray of Broughton; 1898, pp. 385-8. 

(38) D. Murray Lyon, History of L. of Edinburgh; 1900, 442. 

(39) Greeven, Templar Movement in Masonry; 1899, 37. 

(40) Gould, History, III, 101. 

(41) A.Q.C. XXVI, 66. 

(42) ib. XXXIII, 40. 

(42) A. von Reumont, Die Grafin von Albany; 1860, 1, 239; Findel, 212. 

— o — 


The Grand Lodge of Scotland, and Its History to 1813 



By W. BRO. F.J.W. CROWE, F. R. Hist. Soc. 


P.A.G.D.C. ENGLAND; P.S.G.W. IOWA; P.M. QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE, 
No. 2076; HON. MEM. "MARY'S CHAPEL," No. 1, EDINBURGH; ST. 
ANDREW'S CHAPTER, No. 69, GLASGOW; ETC., ETC.; England 


SCOTLAND stands unrivalled in its possession of the oldest known records of our 
Craft, as well as in the antiquity of still-existing lodges. There may have been co- 
existent lodges in England and Ireland. There certainly were in the seventeenth 
century, but, with one or two exceptions, notably the Lodge of Antiquity in London, 
they ceased to exist before the premier Grand Lodge of the world was formed in 
London, in 1717. The oldest preserved lodge minute in the world is in the first minute 
book of the "Lodge of Edinburgh, No. 1 (Mary's Chapel) ," and runs thus: 


"Ultimo July 1599 


"The qlk day George Patoun maissoun grenttit & confessit that he had offendit agane 
the dekin & mrs for placeing of ane cowane to wirk at ane chymnay heid for tua dayis 
and ane half day, for the qlk offenss he submittit him self in the dekin & mrs guds 
willis for qt vnlaw they pless to lay to his charge, and thay having respect to the said 
Georges humill submissioun & of his estait they remittit him the said offenss 
Providing alwayis that gif ather he [or] ony vther brother comitt the lyke offenss 
heirefter that the law sail strvke vpoun thame indiscreta wtout exceptioun of personis. 
This wes done in pres of Pauli Maissoun dekin, Thoas Weir warden, Thoas Watt, 
Johne Broun, Henrie Tailzefeir, the said George Patoun, & Adam Walkar. 


"Ita est Adamus Gibsone norius. 



"Pauli Maissoun dekin." 


[The Warden's Mark is also appended.] 


In the same year 1599, and dated Dec. 28, a Code was written and placed in the 
charterchest of Eglington Castle, which throws further light on the antiquity of 
Scottish Masonry. The Code is concerned with the choice of wardens of lodges, and 
other matters of business routine, and is too long to quote in full here, but the third 
"Item" is of special interest: 


"Item, it is thocht neidfull and expedient be my lord warden generall, that Edinburgh 
salbe in all tyme cuming, as of befoir the first and principal lodge in Scotland; and 
that Kilwynning be the secund ludge, as of befoir is notourlie manifest in our awld 
antient writtis; and that Stirueling salbe the thrid ludge conforme to the auld 
privileges thairof." 


Here then we have three lodges, which were very old in 1599, Edinburgh having still 
its minutes from that year, and Mother Kilwinning from Dec. 20, 1642, whilst a 
fourth lodge, "St. John's, Melrose," has them from 1674. In some curious way a firm 
belief had got abroad, and indeed is still held locally, that Mother Kilwinning is the 
oldest Scottish lodge, but the foregoing extract clearly proves the seniority of 
Edinburgh; and had it been known in 1815 the No. 0 of Kilwinning and the No. 1 of 
Edinburgh would have been reversed. The MS. quoted from was, however, only 
discovered in 1861. 


The Grand Lodge of Scotland also possesses two other MSS. of 1600 and circa 1628 
respectively, known as the "St. Clair Charters." The first is signed by William Schaw, 
and the second was granted by the "Free Masons and Hammermen of Scotland" to Sir 
William St. Clair of Rosslyn, giving him jurisdiction over the Craftsmen. The first is 
also signed by the representatives of the lodges at Edinburgh, S. Andros, Hadingtoun, 
Achiesones Heavin and Dumfermling; and the latter by those of the lodges at 
Edinburgh, Dundie, Glasgow, Stirlinge and Dumfermlinge. Here then are eight lodges 



of the early seventeenth century named, in addition to Kilwinning and Melrose. Other 
lodges are Canongate Kilwinning, an offshoot of Mother Kilwinning, in 1677; 
Aberdeen, No. 1 tris, before 1670; Scoon and Perth, No. 3, before 1657; Glasgow St. 
John, No. 3 bis, before 1620; Canongate and Leith, 1688; Old Kilwinning St. John, 
Inverness, 1678; Hamilton Kilwinning, 1695; and Dunblane St. John, before 1695. 

No country in the world can show such a list of existing lodges. They were of course 
independent, and nobody seems to have assumed any general authority until Mother 
Kilwinning, which had been dormant from 1697, but resuscitated in 1704, began to 
issue warrants or charters; and between 1729 and 1803 it granted 26 in Scotland, two 
in America, one in Ireland and one in the West Indies. 


FORMATION OF GRAND LODGE 


Meanwhile England had formed the first Grand Lodge of the world in 1717, and 
Ireland had followed suit in 1729, so the Scottish brethren began to consider whether 
it would not be wise to follow their example. The earliest record of their procedure is 
found in the minutes of the Lodge of Canongate Kilwinning, dated Sept. 29, 1735, 
when a committee was appointed to "frame proposals to be laid before the several 
Lodges in order to the chusing of a Grand Master for Scotland." By a curious 
coincidence they followed the example of England, in that the four lodges in or about 
the capital city took the lead, namely, the "Lodge of Edinburgh," "Kilwinning Scots 
Arms," "Canongate Kilwinning," and "Little Kilwinning." The first minute of their 
meetings is not found until the following year, though doubtless they had not been 
idle all this time. It is as follows: 


"Att Maries Chapell the 25th day of November 1737. Thomas Mylne, Master; 
Samwell Neilson, warden.. The which day the brethren took to their serious 
consideration a printed circular letter with printed coppies of proposalls and 
regulations sent to them by the Masters and Wardens of this and the other three 
Lodges in and about Edr., viz., Kilwinning Scots Armes, Canongate Kilwinning, and 
Leith Kilwinning (with whom the present Master and Warden of this Lodge had been 
formerly appointed to concurr), signifieing their intention, for the promoting of 
Masonry in generall, to make choise of a Grand Master with two Grand Wardens over 
all the regular Mason Lodges in Scotland, and inviting the brethren of this Lodge to 
concurr with them in so good and great designe-which papers being publickly read 



and considered by the brethren of this Lodge then present they unanimously agreed 
thereto, and nominated and appointed Thomas Mylne, mason burges of Edr., their 
present Worshipfull Master, Samwell Neilson, mason, their present Senior Warden, 
and Charles Mack, mason their, to be their Junior Warden, to represent the Lodge of 
Maries Chapell att the said Grand Ellection upon Tewsday the thretty day of 
November instant. And appointed them to vote or ballot for the Right Honourable the 
Earle of Home, their honourable and worshipfull brother, to be Grand Master in 
Scotland for the ensuing year; and to vote or ballot for such other worshipfull 
brethren for Deputy Master, Grand Wardens, Treasurer, and other office bearers as 
they should judge most deserving of these honble. offices; and appointed the Clerk to 
make out their commission accordingly. THO. MYLNE. SAML. NEILSON. RO. 
ALISON.” 


The resolution as to the Grand Master was, however, not carried out for the following 
reason: From the time of the granting of the previously mentioned "St. Clair Charters" 
the head of that family had claimed to hold the hereditary office of Grand Master of 
the Masons of Scotland; that is to say, of the Operative Masons. On May 18, 1736, 
William St. Clair, of that ilk, was initiated in the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, 
passed on June 2, and raised on Nov. 22. On Nov. 24, of his own accord, he offered 
the brethren in writing his renunciation, for himself and his heirs forever, of his 
"right, claim and pretence" to the Hereditary Grand Mastership of the Masons of 
Scotland. 


The meeting to decide the Grand Mastership was held on Nov. 30, and the brethren 
were so pleased with his zeal and disinterestedness that they elected him first Grand 
Master in spite of the previous resolution. It must be confessed that his claim to rule 
Speculative Masonry was imaginary, but there is no reason to doubt his entire good 
faith, and he justified his appointment. Invitations were sent to over one hundred 
Scottish lodges to attend and take part in this first General Assembly, but only thirty- 
three attended; and to avoid jealousy they were placed on the roll in the order in 
which they happened to enter the hall. The lodges thus placed were: 


Marys Chappell, Kilwinning, Canongate Kilwinning, Kilwinning Scots Arms 
Kilwinning Leith Kilwinning Glasgow, Coupar of Fyfe, Linlithgow Dumfermling, 
Dundee Dalkeith, Aitcheson's Haven, Selkirg, Strathaven Hamilton, Dunse, 



Kirkcaldie, Journeymen Massones of Edinburgh Kirkintillock Biggar, Sanquhar, 
Peebles Glasgow St. Mungo's, Greenock Fallkirk, Aberdeen, Innverness, Mariaburgh 
Lessmahaggow, Canongate and Leith and Leith, Saint Brides at Douglas, and 
Canongate, Lanark, Monross. 


After the election of William St. Clair as Grand Master, Captain John Young of the 
Kilwinning Scots Arms was elected Depute Grand Master; Sir William Baillie of 
Lamington, Canongate Kilwinning, Senior Grand Warden; Sir Alexander Hope of 
Kerse, Scots Arms, Junior Grand Warden; Dr. John Moncrief, of Kilwinning Leith, 
Grand Treasurer; John Macdougall of the Exchequer, Scots Arms, Grand Secretary; 
and Robert Alison, Writer, of Mary's Chapel, Grand Clerk. 


SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS 


It would have seemed likely that once the Grand Lodge was so successfully 
inaugurated the remaining lodges would almost certainly have come into the fold with 
few exceptions, as had been the case in England. Such, however, was not the case 
with the sturdy Scottish brethren. Many lodges remained independent, and various 
disputes arose from time to time. Amongst other happenings, Mother Kilwinning 
Lodge seceded in 1774, because it was placed second to Edinburgh on the roll of 
lodges. It had never entirely given up its practice of granting charters for new lodges, 
though by what authority of inherent right did not appear, and on resuming 
independence it still more widely exercised the use, and Grand Lodge made no 
serious protest. 


Matters continued thus until 1807, when a concordat was arrived at. Kilwinning 
agreed to renounce all rights to grant charters, and to come into the Grand Lodge with 
all its daughter lodges, the latter receiving charters of confirmation, and being placed 
on the roll according to their respective dates of origin. Kilwinning was to be placed 
at the head of the roll as "Mother Kilwinning" without a number, and so the strife was 
healed. At this time the Schaw Statutes of 1599 had not, we must remember, yet been 
discovered. 



The lodge of "St. John's Melrose" also remained independent until as recently as 
1891, and granted at least three charters to daughter lodges. Its earliest minute is 
dated 1674, and it is now on the roll as No. 1 bis. 


A more serious difficulty arose in 1808, when, owing to political disputes having 
been introduced most improperly into Masonry, certain office bearers and members 
of Mary's Chapel, Canongate, St. Andrew's, and St. David's Lodges were expelled 
from Masonry by Grand Lodge. The seceders, numbering about 400, organized 
themselves into a body termed "The Associated Lodges seceding from the present 
Grand Lodge of Scotland," and they appointed the Master of Mary's Chapel as Grand 
Master. Masonic influence failed to heal the breach, and the matter was brought 
before the civil courts, which decided in favor of the "Associated Lodges." Having 
gained their victory, they did nol;, however, abuse it; and finally, in 1813, they 
expressed their regrets and requested to be received again by Grand Lodge. This was 
happily effected, and from that time to the present the history of the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland records nothing but peace, progress and prosperity, worthy of its unique 
history and traditions. 


PECULIARITIES AS TO CLOTHING, ETC. 


In conclusion, I may draw attention to two peculiarities of the usage of the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland. First, as to clothing. The color of Grand and Provincial Grand 
Lodge clothing is thistle green, doubtless from the color of the mantle and ribbon of 
the national great order of knighthood, "The Thistle," and sashes are worn as well as 
collars in those bodies, and in daughter lodges. Then each lodge has its own color for 
apron, collar and sashblue, red, green, yellow, tartan, or any combination of these at 
pleasure, a peculiarity shared only, as far as I know, with the Grand Orient of the 
Netherlands. This latter is the more curious as its Masonry originated from England, 
which has never varied from blue except for stewards. 


The other peculiarity I refer to is the appointment of "Proxy Masters and Wardens" to 
attend Grand and Provincial Grand Lodges, who attend for the actual officers, so that 
every lodge may be fully represented. This seems a very common-sense arrangement. 



The Evolution of English Lodge-Boards 


By W.BRO. REV. W. W. COVEY-CRUMP, P.M., P.Z., ETC. J.W. of the Quatuor 
Coronati Lodge, 2076, London, England 


ALTHOUGH the ordinary lodge appurtenances known nowadays to English 
Freemasons as "Tracing Boards" have not a corresponding status in American lodges, 
they are at all events sufficiently familiar to Masonic students to need but few 
remarks by way of introduction. Every English lodge room is furnished with three 
conventional pictures-each being peculiar to one of the degrees— and upon them are 
depicted certain objects and emblems so allocated and arranged as to exhibit the 
symbolical teaching inculcated in each particular degree. 


Moreover, certain formal "Explanations" of these Tracing Boards are comprised in 
the English Ritual, and are recited occasionally for the enlightenment of newly- 
admitted candidates. I say "occasionally" because truth compels an admission that 
opportunities of hearing these "Explanations" are now by no means as frequent as 
they were a few years ago— a neglect much-to-be-regretted, for it leaves many 
brethren very ill-informed as to the significance of degrees which they have received, 
because they have thus been deprived of what was formerly a valuable medium for 
imparting that information. 


This set of three designs, constituting the Tracing Boards exhibited in English lodges, 
is however not standardized. No uniform size or pattern has ever been specified or 
endorsed by the authority of the Grand Lodge, at all events since the Union in 1813. 
But the variations are, and have always been, merely in trivial details; in their 
essential features the designs follow certain recognized rules, and their little 
differences only serve to enhance their interest. But of far greater interest to the 



student is the problem of their past evolution. It is a problem by no means readily 
solved; for eighteenth century specimens are now very rare, and documentary 
allusions to them during that period seldom (if ever) define pictorial details upon 
them. 


"DRAWING THE LODGE" 


The Tracing Boards could not have developed from a tracing board such as would 
have been used by a Mediaeval architect, though they have assumed its name. Thanks 
to the researches of Bros. C. H. Breed, E. D. Dring and others, we can now safely 
assert that the designs originated in sundry crude geometrical diagrams, which, in the 
Freemasonry prevailing in England during the early part of the eighteenth century, 
were usually drawn (with chalk, charcoal or similar substances) upon the tavern floor 
when a candidate was to be initiated. The task of thus "drawing the lodge", as it was 
termed, being regarded as a rather menial operation, was frequently delegated to one 
of the inferior officers; but the duty of erasing the diagram when the ceremony ended 
usually devolved upon the newly entered Apprentice. Whether it was rigidly imposed 
if that novice chanced to be a person of high social position is highly problematical, 
for a deputy would frequently be securable by a gratuity, and certainly the mop and 
pail never obtained recognition among the working tools of a Freemason. But, even 
as early as 1733, the records of the King's Arms Lodge (now No. 28 E. C.) at London 
show an order for "a proper delineation on canvas" to be made for use at initiations in 
that lodge, and evidence of the same change being made soon afterwards in other 
lodges could easily be adduced. The adoption of a permanent delineation of certain 
outlines (like that shown in Three Distinct Knocks, 1760), together with such symbols 
as the sun, moon and Blazing Star, upon a sheet of linen or canvas— which could be 
displayed upon the floor when required, and at other times be folded or rolled up and 
stored away— formed a substitute so convenient and obviously preferable that the 
primitive method rapidly fell into general desuetude after that time. 


THE LODGE BOARD EMERGES 



So far as has yet been ascertained, the use of these "floor-cloths" was primarily 
intended merely for the First Degree; but emblems associated with superior degrees 
were soon added, and thus the diagram became a pictorial design desirable for use 
upon all occasions of Masonic business, because it naturally added dignity to the 
proceedings. Various appellations were given to the new appurtenance, especially 
when in many instances it developed into a framed canvas or a wooden panel, but 
gradually the terms "tresselboard" and "Lodge-Board" predominated, and the latter 
became familiarly abbreviated to "the Lodge". 


THE SYMBOLICAL MEANING 


Meanwhile another and more potent influence had also been at work. The idea that 
the design which had thus been formulated should, and in fact did, represent "the 
Lodge" became definite. Not in the sense that it represented any individual lodge (still 
less that it represented any individual lodge room), but that it represented the entire 
Masonic Fraternity whenever and wherever assembled to expatiate on the mysteries 
of the Craft. Very soon the two pillars whose prototypes were connected with 
Solomon's Temple became three columns respectively symbolizing Wisdom, Strength 
and Beauty; the mosaic pavement (subsequently conventionalized as a series of 
checkered squares), the tassels and broached-thumel were introduced; and all these 
details were symbolically interpreted in the catechetical "Lectures" which then 
formed an invariable adjunct to the convivial proceedings of our lodges. Furthermore, 
the growth of the directive power of the Grand Lodges naturally tended to foster a 
uniform system of such interpretation, and this led to certain emblems and symbols 
becoming exclusively connected with each particular degree, even as to some extent 
(though less definitely) they may have been all along. 


CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED 


But all this was a process of unnoticed evolution. The exact era when the diagrams 
first became a series, consisting of two or three, is as yet undetermined; but in a well- 
known contemporary cartoon of the "Scald Miserables" travesty, in 1742, the two 
huge standards which are there being borne in the procession seem intended to 



caricature two Lodge-Boards, separately used in consecutive degrees at that time; 
although it by no means follows that the emblems and general scheme as depicted on 
those standards were identical with those appertaining to the genuine degrees of 
Freemasonry. Further confirmation of the inference is also furnished by certain 
illustrations given in the Francs-Macons Trahi published at Paris in 1745; and 
therefore we may fairly say that two or three different designs, connected severally 
with different degrees, came into common use soon after 1740. Bro. Dring's view is (I 
believe) that whereas the lodges under the so-called "Modems" jurisdiction usually 
preferred to have separate cloths or boards, differing according to the degree which 
was being worked, those lodges which avowed allegiance to the "Antients" used only 
one and the same for all three degrees. Moreover he surmised that, whilst the 
"Modems" usually delineated the whole of their symbols on their various diagrams, 
the "Antients" clung to the simpler plan of having a diagram which could convey no 
coherent idea to uninitiated persons, because it would only become intelligible when 
certain additional tools, jewels and emblems (or miniatures of them) were suitably 
arranged upon it as occasion required. In fact, this latter method still survives as a 
custom in a few old lodges in the west of England. 


In the foregoing connection need I say that many of us would fain learn how and 
when the Middle Chamber and the sanctum sanctomm of Solomon's Temple at 
Jerusalem were adopted as central features in the diagrams of the superior degrees? 
But the available evidence is too scanty for that, and the subject too complicated to be 
summarized as an incidental detail of the present article. Nor would a digression be 
profitable here to review any profound aspects of Masonic symbolism— such as were 
illustrated on the Tracing-Boards— upon an intelligent apprehension of which every 
brother must have relied to derive that spiritual inspiration and moral power which are 
essential to every participant in our Mysteries. That Freemasons then were as fully 
conscious of all such important matters as we ourselves are today can scarcely be 
disputed, but we can only notice them en passant as side issues to our present subject. 


Our main point is that long before the nineteenth century certain symbols had 
gradually become restricted in England to certain degrees, and consequently they 
were displayed either on three separate diagrams or else on three separate 
compartments of the same cloth or board. A few symbols— such as Aaron's rod and 
Amalthea's horn, the bee-hive and the scythe— had meanwhile fallen into disfavor and 
become generally discarded; whilst one or two new ones were added or (as in the case 
of the broached-thumel) acquired new significance. 



THE DESIGNERS OF LODGE BOARDS 


For the grouping, or arrangement in which the various components are usually 
exhibited, the Craft is indebted chiefly to three London brethren; who, during many 
years, devoted much insight and artistic genius to the designing of many cloths and 
boards for individual lodges. Of these Masonic worthies the first was a Bro. Jacobs, 
concerning whom unfortunately nothing is now known beyond the fact that about the 
year 1 800 he was living near Hatton Gardens (London), and produced several good 
designs: in which, however, the anachronistic substitution of a coffin was a 
regrettable evidence of his originality. In this (as in sundry other peculiarities) he was 
copied by his contemporary Josiah Bowring, then residing in the district known as 
Moorfields (London). He was initiated in 1795, and for many years was a prominent 
member of the "Strong Man Lodge" (now No. 45, E. C.), of which he became Master 
in 1821. Numerous examples of Bowring's skill are still extant-distinguishable 
usually by having a key suspended from the ladder. He died, apparently in somewhat 
reduced circumstances, about the end of 1831. The third of the artistic trio was John 
Harris, who was initiated in the "Lodge of Good Intent" (now defunct) in 1818, and 
survived until 1873. In regard to these three brethren it is not too much to say that the 
fixation (and one might almost say standardization) of the diagrams has resulted from 
a unanimous acceptance and perpetuation of their ideas. Truly indeed they were 
masters, whose designs have better enabled their English brethren to carry on the 
structure with order and propriety. Possibly something superior may some day 
displace them from favor, but hitherto they have had no serious rivals and are now 
regarded under the English Constitution as adjuncts almost as venerable and 
unalterable as Landmarks of the Order. 


— o — 


Royal Arch Masonry Prior to the Union of 1813 


By BRO. JOHN STOKES, M.A., M.D., 



PAST ASSISTANT GRAND SOJOURNER, R.A., England; SENIOR WARDEN, 
QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE, NO. 2076, England 


In the whole history of the Craft there is nothing more puzzling than the mysterious 
origin of the Royal Arch Degree. Two circumstances have contributed to this 
somewhat nebulous condition of affairs. The first is, that those who did know 
something definite as to its inception have left no record of their knowledge; the 
other, that those who did write concerning this degree in the early years of the last 
century knew very little about it, but were tolerably certain that what they did not 
know about it— and incidentally about all other Masonic questions— was not worth 
knowing. The subject was approached very much after the manner of the learned 
gentleman, presumably of Teutonic descent, who had occasion to describe a camel. 
He had never seen a camel, and had not the remotest idea of what it resembled, so he 
proceeded to evolve a camel out of the depths of his imagination, with somewhat 
surprising results. 


In like manner, the evolution of Royal Arch Masonry was attributed to various 
sources, with which in reality it had nothing whatever to do, nor even the smallest 
kind of relation. The ipse dixit of these people was laid down in such an authoritative 
style and with such a wealth of quotation from numerous writers, that it would have 
taken a bold man to doubt their assertions, or attempt to refute their conclusions. 
When, however, the origin of the degree was looked into by examining the original 
minutes of the Grand and private lodges and chapters, it became obvious that the 
method of writing history by means of a travel into the realms of phantasy was not the 
best way to arrive at the truth of the matter. It was also evident that the assertions of 
these soi disant historians were founded, not on the sure ground of fact, but merely on 
more or less intelligent surmise. It was assumed that the degree ought to have arisen 
in a certain way, and therefore did arise in that way. This attitude of mind is fatal to 
research, but is very easy to pursue. A theory, more or less probable, is first brought 
forward, and then the facts, or such of them as may appear the most suitable, are so 
arranged that they fit in with theory. Such methods must have a chaotic effect on the 
mind of the genuine seeker after knowledge. 



Perhaps it will be best to deal first with the exploded notions of the older writers, and 
then to give a summary of what we really know, leaving the domain of conjecture, 
which is all very well in its proper place, to those who prefer that method of resolving 
a vexed question. 


THE “CHEVALIER RAMSAY THEORY" EXPLODED 


Our dear and most elusive friend, the Chevalier Ramsay— who may or may not have 
been a Freemason for there is no certainty one way or another- was given the credit at 
one time. He must have been a most remarkable man if he did even a tenth part of the 
things attributed to him. He was, at one period, tutor to the Stuart royal children and 
led a rather variegated career, devoting his life to the restoration of the Stuart family 
on the throne of England, in which enterprise he failed, as did all those who tried to 
help that unfortunate and decadent dynasty. He seems to have turned his attention to 
any and every quarter from which assistance, however vague and unlikely, might 
perchance come to help his designs. And what so likely as from the world- wide 
organization of the Masonic order, then the fashionable cult of the French aristocracy, 
and their imitators everywhere? With this end and aim in view he is credited with the 
invention of all sorts of Masonic and other degrees. There is no definite proof that he 
did anything of the kind. The whole story is of that delightfully indefinite type, that is 
so undeniably charming but so demonstrably unreal. At any rate his precise schemes 
came to nothing, the house of Hanover remained firm on the throne; also, so far as we 
know, Freemasonry went on as usual. On March 21, 1737, Ramsay wrote a Masonic 
oration, to be given before the Grand Lodge at Paris, or before some ordinary lodge, 
in which various Masonic degrees are mentioned. The speech was certainly not read 
at this or any other lodge. It is not certain that Ramsay wrote this or any other 
Masonic oration; all that we know is that he was said to have done so. From this 
feeble source comes all the theoretical implication of Ramsay as a sort of arch 
conspirator, bringing all sorts of innovations into the Masonic fold. 


DR. OLIVER IS UNRELIABLE 



Bro. Hughan in his Origin of the English Rite (1909 Ed pp. 81, sqq.), says: "Dr. 

Oliver (Origin of the English Royal Arch, p. 39) asserts that the Chevalier Ramsay 
'visited London at the very period in question, for the purpose of introducing his new 
degrees into English Masonry; and his schemes being rejected by the Constitutional 
Grand Lodge, nothing appears more likely than that he would throw himself into the 
hands of the schismatics.... It is therefore extremely probable that Ramsay was 
concerned in the fabrication of the English degree.' 1 demur entirely to such 
statements for many and sufficient reasons. There is not a tittle of proof that Ramsay's 
'inventions' were either entertained or rejected by the Grand Lodge of England, by its 
rival of the 'Athol Masons', or by any other Masonic body in Great Britain and 
Ireland; added to which he had 'joined the majority' some three years, at least prior to 
the period of Dermott's exaltation as a Royal Arch Mason, and the 'Atholl Grand 
Lodge' had no existence until some seven years or more after Ramsay's decease. I am 
entirely of the opinion that if the Chevalier 'did visit any part of England or Ireland 
about 1740, it was not for Masonic, but political purposes'but as to that, the necessary 
information being lacking, we need not speculate." 


The Rev. Dr. Oliver was a very estimable man and a most voluminous writer. As a 
pillar of the Church of England as by Law Established, he really ought to have been 
more careful about making statements without proof; and though, as Sydney Smith 
said of a preacher in the pulpit that he was "three feet above contradiction, "yet the 
learned Doctor so frequently contradicts himself, that we are saved the necessity of 
doing it for him. All the same we are left uncertain to what extent he expects us to 
believe in him, and to what extent he himself believed in his own statements. 


OTHER THEORIES ARE NOT PROVIDED 


Bro. R. F. Gould in his History of Freemasonry (Vol. II, p. 457) tries to prove that the 
degree of the Royal Arch had its inception in the "Scots" degrees, which sprang up in 
all parts of France about 1740. At this period, France was full of English and Scottish 
adherents to the Stuart cause, who, finding the climate of their own land somewhat 
unhealthy, crossed the Channel to plot and counterplot for the Stuarts. Many of these 
were, or became Roman Catholics, and it is doubtful if these men could 
conscientiously join the Masonic Order. Gould does his best with a rather poor case, 
but does not prove anything. 



In Findel's History of Freemasonry, p. 182, it is asserted that: "The Royal Arch 
Degree is in its essential elements decidedly French in its origin, but received a 
somewhat different form in England, with additions from the higher degrees then 
flourishing on the Continent." Here again we meet with a statement given ex cathedra 
but without the slightest attempt at proof. What we should like to have is chapter and 
verse for these assertions. If merely a guess, it would be better to say so and leave it at 
that. 


Kloss, however, goes one better than the others, for he gives a definite date. He says 
that Royal Arch Masonry was introduced into England in the year 1774, and then 
goes on to say that the English first became acquainted with the degree during the 
Austrian War of Succession between the years 1741 and 1742. Here, fortunately, we 
have something definite to deal with. We know the movements of the English troops 
during that inconclusive campaign, in which Frederick the Great got what he wanted, 
and the rest, including England, added to their national debt. Some 16,000 English 
troops were stationed in Holland, but none were actually engaged with the forces of 
Maria Theresa. We cannot say that no Englishmen were in Austria or in its 
neighborhood during this period, but the whole tale sounds improbable on the face of 
it. In any case, why did these people, who got the degree in 1741 or 1742, wait until 
1774 before bringing the degree into England? One other point may be mentioned, 
viz., we know the Royal Arch to have been here before that date. 


It will be noticed that all these authorities ascribe the "invention" of the degree to 
foreign sources, preferably to France. We have got so accustomed to things being 
attributed to any origin rather than an English one, that this is not a matter of surprise; 
but, if the degree was invented somewhere, is it not possible that this effete and 
downtrodden country might have been capable of giving birth to someone equal to 
the task? 


THE FACTS OF R.A. MASONRY 



Let us now leave these fascinating realms of conjecture, these wild and extravagant 
hypotheses without a scintilla of proof, and put down what we really can vouch for. 


Hughan, a writer whose statements are always supported by adequate documentary 
evidence, who never made an assertion without first thinking what it meant, and 
whose judgment was of the highest judicial order, says: 


"It is probable that Royal Arch Masonry was the first ceremony associated with the 
Craft Degree, though before minutes relating to the Royal Arch are met with, there 
are records of other extra degrees; but references to the former of 1743-4 place it in 
the position of being one of the earliest known of the additional Ceremonies." (Origin 
of the English Rite, p. 73.) 


The date of the appearance of the Royal Arch may therefore be taken as somewhere 
about the year 1740 It may have been worked before that date, but documentary 
evidence, referring to it as being well-know after that date, is becoming more and 
more established, as the old records are brought to light. 


The first mention of the degree in contemporary literature is in that interesting work 
entitled, A Serious and Impartial Enquiry to the Cause of the Present Decay of Free- 
Masonry in the Kingdom of Ireland, written by Fifield Dassigny, M. D., and 
published in Dublin in 1744. This book was lost sight of until Bro Hughan, in 1867, 
discovered a copy, now in the Library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, U. S. A. Another 
cop was found subsequently, which is in the Library of West Yorkshire. In this work 
Dassigny specifically alludes to the Royal Arch Degree as being worked in various 
cities. Dermott quotes from it on several occasions, e. g., Ahiman Rezon, first edition, 
1756. 


RECORDS FROM THE UNITED STATES 



From the point of view of continuity of working, our American brethren can justly 
congratulate themselves, for the Chapter of Jerusalem, No. 3, of the city of 
Philadelphia has gone on working the degree from 1758 up to the present time, truly a 
proud position to occupy! The earliest minute so far traced of the conferring of the 
Royal Arch Ceremony is also to be found in the U. S. A., where in an irregular lodge, 
held at Fredericksburg, in Virginia, on Dec. 22, 1753, several brethren were "Raised 
to the Degree of Royall Arch Mason ." 


"THE ANTIENTS ADVOCATE R.A. MASONRY 


The great protagonist of the Royal Arch was Laurence Dermott, who lost no 
opportunity, in season and out of season, of advocating the claims of the degree to be 
an essential and necessary part of Freemasonry. Dermott was initiated in Ireland in 
1740, and was Master of Lodge 26, Dublin, in 1746, the same year he became a 
Royal Arch Mason. In 1748 he came to London, and in 1752 he became Grand 
Secretary of the Grand Lodge of "Atholl" Masons generally known as the "Antients." 
His capacity for work must have been simply wonderful; he was, at the beginning of 
his career, a journeyman painter, working twelve hours a day at his trade. After his 
day's work at this, he did his work as Grand Secretary. He wrote innumerable letters, 
and was always in the wars with: somebody, either in his own or in the opposite 
section. If quarrelsomeness is a characteristic of the Irish race, as we are sometimes 
led to believe, then Dermott must have had a double allowance of this interesting 
trait. His correspondence is rather more forcible than polite, and in general, it may be 
said that he used the mailed fist, carefully and even ostentatiously discarding the 
velvet glove. To his powerful advocacy is undoubtedly due the rapid advance of what 
he firmly believed to be "the root, heart and marrow of Masonry." He died in 1791, 
and did not therefore live to see the fruition of his fondest hopes; but before his 
decease it was obvious that his ideas had gained the ascendancy, and that it was only 
a question of a few years for them to prevail. 


"THE MODERNS" AND R. A. MASONRY 



It was only with great difficulty that the regular Grand Lodge (Moderns) could be 
brought to take any notice of the Royal Arch Degree. On the other hand, the degree 
was worked extensively by the "Regular" Masons in spite of the frowns of those in 
authority. At the present day, the same condition exists in the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland, which refuses any form of recognition to the Royal Arch Degree, though 
this lack of recognition does not prevent the successful working of the degree in that 
country. 


In England, successive Grand Secretaries poured cold water on the degree, and from 
time to time issued such dicta as "Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, or 
Ancient." The inexorable course of events, however, compelled a decided change 
from this attitude of aloofness, culminating in the final acceptation of the degree in 
the Articles of Union between the two Grand Lodges of Freemasons of England 
proposed on Nov. 25, 1813, and ratified on Dec. 1, 1813: 


BY CLAUSE 2 OF THESE ARTICLES 


"It is declared and pronounced that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees 
and no more, viz., those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master 
Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. But this Article is not 
intended to prevent any Lodge or Chapter from holding a Meeting in any of the 
degrees of the Orders of Chivalry according to the Constitutions of the said Orders." 


Thus was given to the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch that alliance with the 
Craft, which Dermott had spent the greater part of his life to secure. 


— o — 


WAS NELSON A FREEMASON? 



THE question of whether Admiral Viscount Nelson was a Freemason is one that has 
puzzled many a Mason in recent years. There are various pieces of evidence in 
existence, none of them conclusive, but all pointing to the answer to the question 
being in the affirmative. 


At the Masonic Hall, Reading, Berkshire, there is a framed print with the 
representation of a banner carried at Lord Nel:;on's funeral. The banner bears the 
following inscription: 


'"England expects every man to do his duty.' 

In Memory of 

HORATIO VISCOUNT NELSON 
Who fell in the moment of 
Victory 
off 

Cape Trafalgar 
Octr. 21st, 1805. 

We rejoice with our Country but mourn our Brother." 


There is a description to the print, which is as follows: 


“Banner carried by the York Lodge, 256, at Lord Nelson’s Funeral, on the occasion of 
which the Rev. J. Parker, Chaplain, was commanded to preach a Sermon at St. 

Helen's Church, York, Dec. 11th, 1805." 



There is, also, belonging to the Lodge of Friendship, No. 100, at Great Yarmouth, 
Norfolk, an oblong polished block of white marble about the size of a large brick, 
originally intended for use as a perfect ashler. On one of the long sides of this block 
there is an inscription commemorating the constitution of the Lodge of United 
Friends, No. 564, on Friday, Aug. 11, 1797, and on the opposite side the following 
has been cut: 


"In Memory of Bror. Vt. NELSON 

of the Nile, and of Burnham Thorpe, in Norfolk 

who lost his life in the arms of Victory 

in an engagement with 

ye Combin'd Fleets of France and Spain 

of Cape Trafalgar, Oct. 21, 1805. 

Proposed by Bror. John Cutlove." 


The minute books of the Lodge of United Friends, of the required period, have 
unfortunately disappeared and no evidence has as yet been forthcoming to show 
whether Lord Nelson was initiated in, or became a member of, the Lodge of United 
Friends. Lord Nelson visited Great Yarmouth on several occasions. He landed at 
Great Yarmouth on Nov. 6, 1800, and again on March 2, 1801. On the latter occasion 
Nelson became a member of the Society of Gregorians, as in Perlustration of 
Yarmouth we are told that "Nelson also addressed a Letter from Yarmouth Roads to 
Mr. Pillans, Grand-Master of the Ancient Order of Gregorians' at Norwich, with 
thanks for his election into that Society." As Bro. Hamon LeStrange in his History of 
Freemasonry in Norfolk rightly points out, "it is at all events extremely unlikely that, 
in a place where Nelson was so well known as he was at Yarmouth, the Members of 
the Lodge would have dared to place on the stone commemorative of their own 
constitution an inscription claiming him as a Brother, which, if untrue, would have 
exposed them to ridicule and contradiction from many who knew the facts." 



There is also evidence, from a Norwich source, that Nelson had in his possession a 
round black papier-mache snuff-box, with gilt Masonic emblems on the lid, which he 
presented to one John Hareourt. 


On May 27, 1801, a lodge was constituted and consecrated at Batley, in Yorkshire, 
under the name of "I,ord Nelson of the Nile Lodge." The following year a lodge was 
warranted at Caldwell Manor, Montreal, Canada, under the name of "Nelson Lodge." 


It may also be noted that there is, in the Grand Lodge Museum, Great Queen Street, 
London, two specimens of a silver medal known as the "Nelsonic Crimson Oakes 
Medal." There is no evidence as to the meaning of "Nelsonic Crimson Oakes," and it 
is doubtful whether it was in any way Masonic, although bearing many Masonic 
emblems. 


In the Freemasons' Quarterly Review for 1839, a writer makes the assertion that Lord 
Nelson, and his servant, Tom Allen, were Freemasons, but unfortunately gives neither 
authority for his statement nor any reference to the source of his information. 


The registers at Grand Lodge have been searched without result, but it is well known 
that at that period there are many omissions from these registers which render them 
tantalizingly incomplete. 


Such is the sum total of our present stock of knowledge, but it is to be hoped that 
fresh items may one day be forthcoming, which will turn the strong presumption that 
Nelson was a Freemason into a positive historical fact. 


— o — 



THE GREAT AIM OF MASONRY 


Beings who partake of one common nature, ought to be actuated by the same motives 
and interests. Hence, to soothe the unhappy, by sympathizing with their misfortunes, 
and to restore peace and tranquility to agitated spirits, constitute the general and great 
ends of the Masonic system. This humane this generous disposition fires the breast 
with manly feelings and enlivens the spirit of compassion, which is the glory of the 
human frame, and which not only rivals, but outshines, every other pleasure the mind 
is capable of enjoying - Preston’s Illustrations of Masonry, 12 th Edition, 1812. 


— o — 


EDITORIAL 


Concerning the Plan and Purpose of This Special Issue 


By BRO. GILBERT W. DAYNES, Associate Editor for England 


TO sit in the seats of the mighty has its enjoyment for some, but for the majority the 
responsibilities of the position far outweigh its pleasures. I am no exception to the 
majority, and readers of THE BUILDER need, therefore, have no false conception as 
to my feelings during the brief period I have been occupying the chair of its Editor-in- 
Chief. Being only an Apprentice attempting the work of a Master of the Craft, I 
entered upon my task with considerable fear and trepidation. 



My first consideration was as to the composition of this special number, which was to 
deal with Freemasonry in England, Scotland and Ireland, to the exclusion of all other 
parts of the world. Even this limitation seemed too wide for adequate treatment, and 
therefore I further restricted the scope of the articles, to appear in this number, to one 
particular period of Craft history. The period selected opens with the formation of the 
Premier Grand Lodge of the world in 1717, and closes with the harmonious union of 
the two Grand Lodges existing in England in 1813. During those ninety-seven years 
much happened in Freemasonry in the British Isles. Episodes of intense interest, 
phases of great moment, and decisions of vital concern, pass as in a kaleidoscope 
before the eyes of the Masonic student. 


The beginnings of Grand Lodge were microscopical compared with its present state 
of organization and efficiency. These beginnings are shrouded in mystery, and there 
are no contemporary records of its doings until several years after its formation. Early 
in this period the ranks of Freemasonry were augmented by all conditions of society; 
and nobility, men of letters, clergy, soldiers and sailors, join the body. At a later 
period, Royalty are made Masons; and from 1737 to the present day the Fraternity has 
not been without one or more within its ranks. Also, throughout this period, the 
continued progress of the Institution may be clearly traced; and from the few 
independent lodges, meeting in different parts of England and Scotland, gradually 
grew up those Grand Bodies now governing Freemasonry in England, Scotland and 
Ireland. 


Each of these Grand Lodges had its troubles, trials and difficulties, in surmounting 
which consolidation and strength was gradually acquired and retained. In England, for 
over half a century, Freemasonry was split into different factions, and a considerable 
amount of bitterness existed between the several parties. In course of time, through 
the efforts of many true and far-sighted Freemasons, this rancour was assuaged and, 
in 1813, a Union was consummated, which will, I trust, never be broken. Foremost in 
these endeavors were those two royal brothers, whose names will ever be enshrined 
upon the tablets of the Brotherhood. The United Grand Lodge of England, which 
emerged from the furnace of controversy and suspicion, was well-tempered and 
strong; and the century, which has passed since the Union, has been one of constant 
progress. 



There has been no attempt to set forth a complete story of the Craft during the special 
period selected; to have done so would have required very many numbers. A few 
salient and interesting features have been selected for general treatment, aiming at a 
bird's-eye view of those far-off times. It has been impossible to give chapter and verse 
on every occasion, but nevertheless all statements and quotations have been carefully 
verified and checked. 


When I yielded tot he request of our Editor-in-Chief to prepare and edit this special 
number, I did so well knowing the kindly spirit which permeates Freemasonry 
throughout the Universe, and the consequent indulgence that would be extended to 
me for any shortcomings in my work. This knowledge has been of great help to me; 
but of even greater assistance has been the knowledge that the quality of the articles I 
have secured for this number must more than compensate for any leek of experience 
on my part. The truly fraternal spirit with which English brethren have complied with 
my request for material has lightened my task, and made my work as Editor 
unexpectedly pleasant. The table of contents will show, in no doubtful measure, how 
easy my task became when such eminent Masonic students, as those whose names 
appear on that page, came to my aid and contributed of their best. I know I shall but 
be voicing the opinions of every reader of THE BUILDERS when I say that our most 
cordial thanks are due to those English Masons who have so generously written in 
this number for the instruction and enjoyment of their overseas brethren. 


It would be quite invidious for me to mention the different articles separately. Each 
one deals with a subject, which the writer has made his own, and upon which he can 
speak and write authoritatively. One name, however, must be specially mentioned; I 
allude of course to R. W. Bro. Sir Alfred Robbins. To him I tender my sincere thanks 
for the Foreword he has contributed to this special number. No Mason has the 
wellbeing and prosperity of the Fraternity more at heart; and his recent Masonic tour 
throughout parts of the U. S. A. has been hailed with the warmest approbation by all 
thinking Masons on both sides of the Atlantic. Fresh evidence is daily forthcoming, 
demonstrating that the efforts of Sir Alfred Robbins during his tour are bearing fruit, 
and that the result of his mission must be a better and fuller understanding between 
English and American Freemasons. 



The more that is known on one side of the Atlantic about the peculiar factors 
governing Freemasonry upon the opposite side, the better for the Craft as a universal 
brotherhood. Hence the great value of English Masons contributing articles to 
American Masonic papers and vice versa. At present, I am afraid, much too little is 
known in England as to the problems confronting American Masons, and the 
viewpoints from which different aspects of Freemasonry are regarded. I have no 
doubt that time will soon alter this, especially when Masonic writers from the U. S. 

A. fully realize the fact, and contribute more freely to the English Masonic 
periodicals. An interchange of special numbers, or supplements, between English and 
American Masonic papers would, I am sure, be of considerable value, and materially 
help to consolidate what was so ably begun by Sir Alfred Robbins last year. May I 
therefore, in concluding this short editorial, express the hope that this special number 
is but the first of many fraternal interchanges of views, which will from time to time 
take place between Masonic writers both of England and America. 


— o — 


Charity is the chief of every social virtue, and the distinguishing characteristic of 
Masons. This virtue includes a supreme degree of love to the Great Creator and 
Governor of the Universe, and an unlimited affection to the beings of his creation, of 
all characters and of every denomination. This last duty is forcibly inculcated by the 
example of the Deity himslef, who liberally dispenses his beneficence to unnumbered 
worlds. 


— o — 


MASONIC CLOTHING, 1717 TO 1731 


THERE can be little doubt that, when the premier Grand Lodge was founded in 1717, 
Masonic clothing consisted only of the Apron and white gloves. In support of this 
statement we have the portrait of the first Grand Master - Anthony Sayer - drawn by 
Highmore, and engraved by Faber, both Freemasons, in which an Apron is shown but 



no collar or jewel. Also, in the frontispiece to the first edition of the Book of 
Constitutions, published in 1723, Aprons and gloves are depicted, but no other 
Masonic regalia. From various newspaper announcements, commencing from 1721, 
we learn that the Apron was a leather one and that white gloves were worn. For 
instance, one such announcement states that certain gentlemen who had been made 
Masons "have accordingly been invested with the Leathern Apron, one of the Ensigns 
of the Society." Another announcement, in March, 1724, states that certain gentlemen 
"were accepted Freemasons, and went home in their Leather Aprons and Gloves." 


Except for the record in Grand Lodge minutes, that on Feb. 27, 1727, the Deputy 
Grand Master and the Grand Wardens were "vested with the Several Badges 
belonging to their Office" - a phrase which is a little ambiguous - the first definite 
information in the minute book that collars and jewels had come into use, to 
distinguish the officers of the lodge, and presumably also of the Grand Lodge, occurs 
on June 24, 1727. At the Quarterly Communication of Grand Lodge, held that day, it 
was 


"RESOLVED NEM CON that in all private Lodges and Quarterly Communications 
and Generali Meetings the Mars and Wardens do wear the Jewells of Masonry 
hanging to a White Ribbon (Vizt.) That the Mar wear the square, the Senr. Warden 
the Levell and the Junr. Warden the Plumb rule." 


At some date prior to 1731 the Grand Officers must have commenced to line their 
Aprons with blue silk. It was clearly not a new idea when, on March 17, 1731, Grand 
Lodge passed certain resolutions as to the clothing to be worn by the Grand Officers, 
the Stewards, etc. In the minutes of this meeting we find recorded: 


"Dr. Desagulier taking Notice of some Irregularities in wearing the Marks of 
Distinction which have been allowed by Former Grand Lodges. Proposed: 



"That none but the Grand Master, his Deputy and Wardens shall wear their Jewels in 
Gold or Gilt pendant to blue Ribbons about their Necks and white Leather Aprons 
lined with blue Silk. 


"That all those who have served any of the three Grand Offices shall wear the like 
Aprons lined with blue Silk in all Lodges and assemblies of Masons when they 
appear clothed. 


"That those Brethren that are Stewards shall wear their aprons lined with red Silk and 
their proper Jewels pendant to red Ribbons. 


"That all those who have served the Office of Steward be at Liberty to wear Aprons 
lined with red Silk and not otherwise. 


"That all Masters and Wardens of Lodges may wear their Aprons lined with White 
Silk and their respective Jewels with plain White Ribbons but of no other Colour 
whatsoever. 


"The Deputy Grand Master accordingly put the Question whether the above 
Regulation should be agreed to. 


"And it was carried in the affirmative Nemine con." 


The words "lined with blue" evidently meant "lined and turned over blue," because, in 
the Rawlinson MSS., at the Bodleian Library, at Oxford, there is preserved an “order 
for Aprons at the Constitution of the Lodge at the Prince of Orange’s Head, in Mill 
Street Southwark, given by Thos. Batson, Esq., D. G. M." The document, which is of 
date 1734, reads as follows: 



"Two Grand Masters aprons lined with Garter Blue Silk and turn'd over two inches 
with white silk strings. Two Deputy Grand Masters Aprons turned over an inch & 1/2 
ditto. One apron lined with the deepest yellow silk for the Grand Master's 
Swordbearer." 


This interesting order thus adds to our knowledge concerning Grand Lodge clothing 
of the period under review, as well as telling us of the special apron then worn by the 
Grand Sword Bearer. At that date, it must be remembered, this officer was not an 
officer of the Grand Lodge. 


— o 


THE ENTERED APPRENTICE'S CHARGE IN 1735 


In the latter part of 1734, and the beginning of 1735, William Smith published The 
Free Mason's Pocket Companion both in London and Dublin. It was published in 
London without the authority of the Grand Lodge of England, and at the Quarterly 
Communication of the Grand Lodge held on Feb 24, 1735, it was "Resolved and 
Ordered that every Master and Warden present shall do all in their power to .... 
prevent the said Smith's books being bought by any members of their respective 
Lodges." In Ireland, on the contrary, the book had the approbation of the Grand 
Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland and his Grand Officers. 


In this Pocket Companion, and being the only absolutely novel section of that work, 
there is to be found "A short CHARGE to be given to new admitted Brethren." It is 
worded as follows: 



You are now admitted by the unanimous Consent of our Lodge, a Fellow of our most 
Antient and Honourable Society; Antient, as having subsisted from Times 
immemorial, and Honourable, as tending in every Particular to render a Man so that 
will be but conformable to its glorious Precepts. The greatest Monarchs in all Ages, 
as well of Asia and Africa as of Europe, have been encouragers of the Royal Art; and 
many of them have presided as Grand-Masters over the Masons in their respective 
Territories, not thinking it any lessening to their Imperial Dignities to level 
themselves with their Brethren in MASONRY, and to act as they did. 


The World's great Architect is our Supreme Master, and the unerring Rule he has 
given us, is that by which we Work. 


Religious Disputes are never suffered in the Lodge; for a Masons, we only pursue the 
universal Religion, or the Religion of Nature. This is the Cement which unites Men of 
the most different Principles in one sacred Band, and brings together those who were 
the most distant from one another. 


There are three general Heads of Duty, which MASONS ought always to inculcate, 
viz.: to God, our Neighbours, and Ourselves. 


To God, in never mentioning his Name but with that Reverential Awe which becomes 
a Creature to bear to his Creator and to look upon Him always as the Summum 
Bonum which we came into the World to enjoy; and according to that View to 
regulate all our Pursuits. 


To our Neighbours, in acting upon the Square, or doing as we would be done by. 


To Ourselves, in avoiding all Intemperances and Excesses, whereby we may be 
rendered incapable of following our Work; or led into Behaviour unbecoming our 



laudable Profession, and in always keeping within due Bounds, and free from all 
Pollution. 


In the State, a MASON is to behave as a peaceable and dutiful Subject, conforming 
chearfully to the Government under which he lives. 


He is to pay a due Deference to his Superiors, and from his Inferiors he is rather to 
receive Honour with some Reluctance, than to extort it. 


He is to be a Man of Benevolene and Charity, not sitting down contented while his 
Fellow Creatures, but much more his Brethren, are in want, when it is in his Power 
(without prejudicing himself or Family) to relieve them. 


In the Lodge he is to behave with all due Decorum, lest the Beauty and Harmony 
thereof should be disturbed or broke. 


He is to be obedient to the Master and presiding Officers, and to apply himself closely 
to the Business of MASONRY, that he may sooner become a Proficient therein, both 
for his own Credit, and for that of the Lodge. 


He is not to neglect his own necessary Avocations for the sake of MASONRY, nor to 
involve himself in Quarrels with those who through Ignorance may speak evil of, or 
ridicule it. 


He is to be a Lover of the Arts and Sciences, and to take all Opportunities of 
improving himself therein. 



If he recommends a Friend to be made a Mason, he must vouch him to be such as he 
really believes will conform to the aforesaid Duties, lest by his Misconduct at any 
Time the Lodge should pass under some evil Imputations. Nothing can prove more 
shocking to all faithful MASONS, than to see any of their Brethren profane or break 
through the sacred Rules of their Order, and such as can do it they wish had never 
been admitted. 


I am sure, as stated by Bro. Chetwode Crawley, "every brother will hail as old and 
firm friends the brief and pithy clauses on which the Grand Lodge of Ireland was the 
first to bestow official sanction." 


— o — 


If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth 
his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 


— o — 


DR. J. T. DESAGULIERS AND THE DUKE OF MONTAGU, 1734 


On Dec. 27, 1734, Mick Broughton, writing to the Duke of Richmond from Ditton. 
where he was staying with the Duke of Montagu, says that “some great Mason is 
wanting to initiate Bob Webber." The great Mason, here referred to, is Dr. j. T. 
Desaguliers, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England for 1719; and Bob Webber 
was a Minor Canon of Winchester Cathedral. On New Year's Day Mick Broughton 
writes a further letter to the Duke of Richmond, and tells him of the initiation and of 
another ceremony, which some have conjectured to have been the forerunner of the 
Holy Royal Arch Degree of later years. The letter is as follows: 



"DITTON, New Years Day, 1734-5. 


"MY DEAR LORD, 


"...Jam sorry the weather has not been kinder for your Sport; bad as it is, it has not 
hindered ours, without doors or within: Rowing every day to old Windsor or Dachett, 
and within, Hollis and Desaguliers (who came hither on his Crutches on Saturday, 
and able to go without them in 24 hours) have been super-excellent in their different 
ways, and often at one anothers. We have been entertaining sometimes with scenes 
out of Don Sebastian, Tamerlane, Love for Love, &c.; the Chief Actors Desaguliers, 
St. John, Bodens and Webber. Mick, having a bad memory, excus'd himself from 
Acting, and Seated, Solus, upon a large Sopha, Represented 


A Lull Audience. 


To give Caesar his Due, this Jest was Spoken by the Master of the House. On Sunday 
night at a Lodge in the Library, St. John, Albemarle, and Russell made chapters, and 
Bob Admitted Apprentice; the Dr. being very hardly persuaded to the Latter, by 
reason of Bob's tender years and want of Aprons. My being out of this Larce likewise, 
excludes me the Honour of styling myself Brother, must therefore be contented to 
subscribe myself 


"My Dear Lord Duke 
Your Grace's Most Devoted 
and Humble Servant, 


M. BROUGHTON." 



With regard to what is meant to be conveyed by the phrase "made chapters," Bro. W. 
J. Songhurst has said: 


"I readily admit that there is nothing in Broughton's letter which shows distinctly that 
any secrets such as are confined to the Royal Arch, were then conferred on the three 
Candidates, but the verbiage is very suggestive, and I consider that the facts as 
recorded should be kept prominently in mind, as they may form an important link if 
we should be so fortunate as to discover other evidence of a more precise character." ( 
See A. Q. C., Vol. XXX, pp. 176 to 211.) 


— o — 


A CORRECTION 


In our review of The Little Masonic Library published in THE BUILDER, March, 
1925, page 92, it was stated of the first volume in the list, Anderson's Constitutions, 
with introduction by Bro. Lionel Vibert, that it was "the same fac-simile reprint that 
in another edition sells for $7.50." This was an error, made inadvertently, and very 
much regretted. The two books are not the same. By way of correction, and to make 
amends for the unintentional misrepresentation of the facts, we are happy to 
reproduce here a letter recently received from Bro. Vibert: 


On page 92 of your March issue, in the Library you state that the first volume of The 
Little Library is the same fac-simile reprint that in another edition sells for $7.50. 


I must ask you to correct this assertion in your next number. The fac-simile you refer 
to, that put out by Pressers Quaritch, is a fac-simile, being the exact counterpart of the 
original. The Little Library publication is a quarter the size. The introduction to the 



true fac-simile is entirely different from the article that has been prefaced to the 
reproduction by The Little Library, being much fuller and containing the results of 
later researches. 

Faithfully and fraternally yours, 

LIONEL VIBERT. 

Marline, Lansdowne, Bath, England. 

March 12, 1925. 

— o — 

It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives - Dr. Johnson 

The great aim of life is not knowledge but action. - Hexley. 

Want of care does more harm than want of knowledge. - Victor Hugo. 

'Tis not the whole of life to live, nor all of death to die. - Montgomery. 


Through the pass of "By-and-by" you get to the valley of never. - Geo. Eliot. 



Let us fight evil thoughts with good actions. - Vachell. 


'Twere better to strive and fail than never to strive at all. - W. Raleigh.