Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

WHY WAS THE CRAFT DE-CHRISTIANIZED?

1 post in this topic

Posted

WHY WAS THE CRAFT DE-CHRISTIANIZED?

BYBRO. MICHEL L. BRODSKY

AducH has bee\ writtkn on the evolution of Freemasonry, from its earliest recorded debut to the middle of the last century, asserting a slow but definite evolution from what is now called *a Christian organization1 to the present universal Freemasonry which admits men from all faiths provided that they profess a belief in a Supreme Being.

This is a rather odd situation, for all human organizations change and it is not surprising that Freemasonry also changed despite the protest that its rituals and aims remain ever faithful to the spirit, if not to the letter, of its founders.

Bro. N. B. Oyer has drawn our attention1 to the evolution of the Graft ritual by giving a large number of examples demonstrating the ample references to the New Testament, and the assimilation of the biblical legend to the forerunners of Christianity and how those references were expunged within the relatively short period between the end of the 18th century and the middle of the 1830s. Not only were official texts of the ritual combed for references to the New Testament but the whole attitude toward candidates of other faiths was modified. The discussion in the English masonic press in 1878, after the decision of the Grand Orient of France to drop the reference to God, shows amply that the main fear of the English masons at that period was the 'atheist'. This word, covering all possible evil-doers, would unfavourably compare in our days with the adjective 'communist' as to the extent of the necessity of keeping them outside all decent society, of which English Freemasonry was one of the pillars. The Duke of Sussex2 has been credited with being the main mover of those changes and his motivation shown to be his love of tolerance, his friendships with and within the Jewish community, and his own personal, simple and direct Christian faith.

This may be so, but it still does not answer the question: Why? Why did the Duke of Sussex push for those changes, some of them, as has been shown', hurting the feelings of very good English masons, and the faith of what was the majority in the land? Why could he push them without breaking the Craft into feuding factions leading to even worse divisions of the Craft than those of a century before? And why was it accepted by the Craft is a whole, that is, the part of the nation which provided at that time the rank and file of English Freemasonry.

It is not easy to try to answer such a question, but it is of vital importance, because under another guise the same question may be at present before us, and if we do not understand the mechanism which permitted that transformation of Freemasonry between 1800 and 1830, we may not be able to provide the answers to the problems facing us now.

First I must ask the reader to accept a fact not often recognized among masons: Freemasonry as an organization is a sociological institution adapting itself to the changes of the society where it is permitted to be active. In any country where we find Free Masons, they are citizens who normally lead or have led an active professional life and have been able and willing to consecrate either a few evenings a year or many evenings a week to the pursuit of a benevolent activity embedded in their daily life. These men, drawn from all classes oi society, bring into Freemasonry their beliefs, their education, their personal styles and culture, their views on any subject of concern, but also their prejudices and their hatreds. They are voters, they are of various political or religious denominations, but they are men of their age and generation reacting to the events of the outside world with the spirit of their social group. Thus Freemasonry as a constituent body will adapt itself to its members and the evolution of society provokes evolution within Freemasonry.

Secondly, we owe a great debt to the founders of Quatuor Coronati Lodge for creating a line of 'authentic historians', but one must today realize that many masonic historians have considered the history of Freemasonry as a kind of autonomous body living outside the world of reality and protected from the impact of the outside world.

Perusing the volumes of AQC from 1914 to 1918 the historian of the future will not understand now, while such a conflict was being fought which affected the daily life of every person in the land, practically nothing in those volumes refers to the conflict. One must add that the contemporary Masonic press give a more vivid picture of the miseries of the time.

Thirdly, Freemasonry has changed and changes still in our time, adapting itself to the facts of life in any country where it is practised. A few examples will suffice. The Shriners are a comparatively modern innovation very popular among American masons, but one would

151

1527 rarisaciiims of Qualuor Coronali Lodge

hardly imagine a procession of English or German masons pacing down the streets wearing a funny-looking fez and clowning for a charitable purpose. The white tie still in favour in Germany and Scandinavia has disappeared in England, and the short English black coat is unknown elsewhere. This shows only the outer social aspect, but the attitude towards alcohol (prohibited in most American Constitutions, even down to being the owner of premises where alcohol is legally served), divorce, marriage etc., has changed and the social and personal relations of candidates do not enter into consideration now as they did fifty years

Similarly it is obvious that rituals were modified to remain in accordance with society and its evolution. Since Claret's4 day printed rituals have been freely available, and thus changes in rituals are more difficult to introduce, but the modifications recently (June 1986) introduced by the U.G.L. as regards the Obligations of the three Craft Degrees, show that changes still occur and are motivated by social changes and changes of attitude by society in general rather than by the deliberate will of the Freemasons themselves.

Fourthly, if and when changes do not occur for any reason, Freemasonry decays, membership falls, or when rituals ill-adapted to the time and society are used conflicts occur among masons themselves.

The de-Christianization of the English Craft has been thoroughly analyzed, and probably all elements laid before the readers. Yet this cannot be the whole story. Whilst this paper will not discuss any elements already shown, it will endeavour to demonstrate that this change was only part of the modification undergone by the English, and in fact by European society, from a Church- or religion-dominated society to a lay society where religion gave way to a scientific attitude as regards the government of the nation and of society as a whole.

Our society is analytical in its perception of nature and the world, rationalistic in its solution of the questions related to nature as a whole and men in particular, and agnostic in applying rules to govern the private and public life of men.

It is analytical because a scientific approach is considered the norm, and enables us to explain most phenomena of nature, distinguish where our ignorance lies, and guide us on the path of discovery.

It is rationalistic, because we accept only solutions which have a proved basis in our daily life or even in most of the relations between men or groups of men.

And it is agnostic because the tenets of Scripture, whether decreed by the authority of the Pope, in the case of the Roman Catholic church, or through the sacred writings as laid down in the Holy Scriptures, do not any more in civilized countries form the exclusive basis of the relations between men and women, in private life as in marriage or divorce, or in public life as in the exercise of justice or the punishment of offenders.

Society in the first half of the 18th Century was analogic, superstitious and religious.

Analogic, because practically all natural phenomena were interpreted as being related to causes which were at best occasional, but more often accidental. 1'he great base of the universe was 'What is above is like what is below* and the Macrocosm was shown to be equal or similar to Microcosm. Scientific thinking was just appearing (Newton died in 1727) and the sciences which formed the cultural background of the founders of speculative Masonry were:

Alchemy, the typical analogical science in which the similarity of the phenomena replaced the examination of the results of the experiences.

Astrology, which endeavoured to explain any occurrence by supposed planetarian influences5. White or (but very secretly) black magic enabled man to modify nature by ceremonial appeal and the control of angels, demons or any other spirits, acting as intermediaries between the petitioner and the unknown powers of heaven or hell.

Hermeticism, a science supposed to have been born in Egypt and having for its founder Hermes Trismegistus and providing many solutions for those who delved into it.

And, last but not least, there was the Kabbah under its modified guise, inherited through a long line of writers from Pico de la Mirandola via Knorr von Rosenrath to Newton himself.

Superstition was far more common then than we are today able to imagine. Sickness was due to the evil eye, as were bad crops, and amulets helped in many ways of life from childbirth to safe travel. This was part of the analogical frame of mind, but was prevalent in all walks of life.

Religion governed daily life and social relationships, not only because the Church acted as an administrator in social life, from birth and baptism to the last sacraments and death, but because the rules governing the relations between men were most of the time drawn from

Why was the Craft de-Christianised? i > 3

PART II

The French revolution started on 5 May 1789 with the opening of the 'Etats Généraux* and was definitely closed 10 November 1799 (19 Brumaire An VIII according to the revolutionary calendar) with the 'Coup' by Napoleon Bonaparte. In fact within an even shorter period of six years (prrctically until 22 August 1795) the whole society of France was transformed. A semi-mediaeval feudal state became a modern one. The administration, Army, Justice, relations between employees and employers, the keeping of registers of birth and death and the detailed organization of the Catholic Church were all affected. Every single aspect of the daily life of the citizens was modified, including the introduction of the metric system of measure.

It is evident that French Freemasonry also underwent profound changes and this will be explained in another paper. But what is not so evident is that England also underwent a revolution, though it took a much longer period and did not involve a basic change in the Constitutional form of sovereignty. In fact the English Revolution lasted from 1760 until the Reform Bill of 1832, encompassing nearly all the elements found in the French revolution, barring the violent bloodshed but going in some fields much further. The net final result was the same: transforming a rural mediaeval country into an industrial 19th century state. It is outside the scope of this paper to examine the causes of those changes, for it is only their relations with Freemasonry that lie within our sphere of interest.

A enormous number of histories of lodges, chapters, even of Provinces, have been published, starting from Gould's monumental History of Freemasonry. Many detailed studies of English Masonry have seen the printer's ink, but curiously enough the subject of the social history of English Freemasonry has barely been touched. The reaction of Freemasonry to the events of the world and the influence of social changes in the composition of membership of the lodges throughout this period has not yet been the subject of any published paper.

So far the immense amount of information available has not been collected, collated and published. No overall picture of those 70 fateful years has so far been attempted. And this is unfortunate as it would greatly assist us in understanding some of the most important events of the period.

To understand the internal modifications of English Freemasonry between 1760 and 1832 (referred to later as 'the period'), the main changes which occurred both inside and outside the masonic bodies must be listed. Then we could endeavour to discover the elements Unking Freemasonry as a body with the main political and social events of the period and there could eventually emerge a clearer picture of the causes of the transformations of Freemasonry and how individuals were really instrumental in activating the evolution or were mere actors steering as well as they could a raft in a mountainous stream full of hidden perils.

Within Freemasonry the period saw first the consolidation of the Grand Lodge of the Moderns with a delegation of power to the Provincial Grand Lodges,6 the foundation of the Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch by the Charter of Compact of 1766, the separate growth, mostly under the leadership of Thomas Dunckerley, of a very limited number of higher degrees (but coincidental with the growth of craft masonry in»the Provinces under his leadership), and then the long and protracted negotiations leading to the 1813 Union. This was followed by a very difficult period of integration, a regression in membership, a long and fruitful dictatorship of the Duke of Sussex largely limiting the masonic activities to the Craft and Royal Arch. The Duke outlived by a few years the 'period' covered by this paper, but his influence was felt for a long time thereafter. Among the other events one must mention the influence of Hutchinson and Preston7 who gave English Masonry a 'philosophical* spine, the appearance of the authorized or tolerated printed ritual by Claret," and the growth of an

Holy Writ. The moral power of the Church varied greatly of course, and political power even more so, but as the rites of the Christian Church accompanied practically all public and many private activities, one can say that society as a whole was Christian in its motivation. A major difference appeared with the Reformation, in the Roman Catholic part of Europe, the Church maintaining very often a large portion of political power, whilst on the Protestant side the various Reformed churches accepted the preeminence of the Sovereign or the State.

154 Transactions ofQuatuor Coronati Lodge

independent Masonic press. With the death of Laurence Dermott the Grand Lodge of the Antients lost a most capable leader, but had already acquired its principal characteristic - a self-supporting ritualistic structure capable of transmitting its vital message by the strength of its own nature; needing thus no further comments and explanations and so able to rid itself of many scripture references without altering its own nature.

In other words the Antients had built a masonic system in four degrees which was a whole, a complete symbolic message not requiring the further assistance of so-called higher degrees and so powerful that the spiritual implications built into it could support the deletion of the Christian references.

This period saw great political changes. England moved from being a rural society to an industrial one, from a country dominated in its Government by landowners, whose privileges were tied to the historical division of the land into boroughs, many of which at the time were already 'rotten' and thence to a representative parliamentary democracy. If outwardly the structure of political power remained the same, with a constitutional monarch depending on the Parliament to enact the legislation voted by this Parliament, in practice George III was the last authoritarian king to dispute the power of government with the parliamentary oligarchy and it ended with the disastrous results of the American war of Independence. At the end of the period the seat of power was firmly established in the House of Commons, the House of Lords knowing full well that its majority could be changed by the will of the Cabinet if need arose. But the potential influence of the men in the street also shifted from the voters of 1720, when one man in four was vested with voting power, to the mobs of London with their riots, or the impoverished farmers and tenants burning the ricks. England remained for many years on the brink of a violent revolution and as the country had little central administration, the only agents of the Government being the Justices of Peace and the Customs and Excise, governing the land was also a process of equilibrium.

But the social changes were even more important. During this period society changed from cottagers being the majority of the producers of food and industry to the grim factories of the Midlands and Lancashire with their near slavery of the workers. Artisans slid down the social ladder to become day labourers and cottagers who had run their little farms became part of a large city gin-drinking proleteriat.

And at the same time a new class emerged of entrepreneurs, men of the lower middle class who, adding to their technical capacity a business flair, became industrial giants like Wedgwood or Robert Stephenson. During this period England raised the largest armies and the largest navy which she ever had, and thousands of men died on the battlefields from Vittoria to Waterloo, from Aboukir to Trafalgar. But also they were drawn from their familiar life and whenever they came back they were different. Thousands of men having become Officers and NCOs tasted some kind of authority and could not and would not return to a petty job on a farm or in a factory. They had been told that the country thanked them; they expected the thanks to be in more than words.

Cities expanded greatly and the small boroughs of the 1750s, like Birmingham or Manchester, ended in the 1820s by becoming large modern cities. Communications improved, roads in 'macadam9 had been built and canals replaced beasts of burden. England, after the treaty of Vienna ut 18IS, was a very different country from the England of Dr. Johnson half a century before.

One big question remains. Why did England escape a revolution like France?

The answer is probably simple, because the country had built in the 18th century a financial basis, providing Banks, Insurance Companies and above all a tax system based on the revenue of the land and on the duties levied by Customs. Europe on the contrary, and especially France, had only a very primitive financial organization, with the state income bong provided mostly by indirect taxes or through the income of the lowest earners -farmers or city workers. Bankruptcy became permanent and this led to revolution.

Religion in England also changed; the Established Church went through a period where its reputation, intellectual level and prestige dropped to its lowest ebb, with most clergy members being more interested in benefits and good social life than in the spiritual life of thetrparisniooers.

Tne fact that a fairly large number of former Officers of the Army chose a clerical career after the Napoleonic wars probably saved the Church of England. The poorer classes, feeling this lack of interest, responded to the evangelisation of the disciples of Wesley or of other sects.

In such circumstances bow could Freemasonry remain the same and how could this body

Why was the Craft de-Christianised? 1 $ 5

adapt itself to the changing society, and to its modified membership?

The factors in our possession enabling us to picture this evolution are few and tar between. The relations between the various masonic bodies and various social bodies never having been the subject of any monography or study we are limited in our inquiry by whatever is known, and it is probably a small part of the existing material.

However, some important events show the relations between Freemasonry and the social body in general and they are:

1. The attempted incorporation of the Moderns, when a group of young masons in fact tried to lay their hands on and govern the Grand Lodge for whatever may have been their real purpose.

2. The secret society scare at the end of the century in face of the perils of the French Revolution.

3. The Union of the two Grand Lodges and its aftermath.

4. The influence of the teaching of Hutchinson and Preston.

5. The introduction of printed rituals and lodges of instructions with the aim of arriving at some ritual uniformity combined with the efforts in favour of the liberty of thought and of the press, exemplified by CarlileV lifelong fight.

Until the end of the Seven Years War in 1763, Freemasonry all over Europe was a very small affair. The return of peace and a new period of economic growth gave room for the expansion of Masonry. In November 1765 Thomas Dunckerley, finally ashore after his naval career, embarked on his second one in Freemasonry. He certainly contributed to a great extent to the changes which occurred within the next twenty years even if at the beginning the method used was not very orthodox.

He needed what would today be called a power base, and with the assistance of some influential friends literally bought the Warrant of Lodge of Friendship No. 3, moved the lodge to The Thatched House', then one of the most fashionable inns in London and started to give the lodge a membership of high social rank and quality.

Until that time most lodges met in small ale houses and would probably appear very similar to Hogarth's famous engravings, not caring much for high society. The membership of most lodges was drawn from the lower middle class, tradesmen, artisans etc. Although they were acknowledged to be part of the same fraternity the class difference was such that the masons in fact did not cross the social barriers. Among the masons the prestige of a low numbered lodge was great and this is the reason why Thomas Dunckerley and his associates bought a warrant illegally, and founded what is the present prosperity of the Lodge of Friendship. This story has been very ably told10 and the facts in this present section are drawn from that source.

Thomas Dunckerley's masonic career between 1766 and his death in 1795 contributed to two important modifications in the Grand Lodge of England. First he 'managed' the provinces under his authority and contributed to the change in 'management' of the premier Grand Lodge, whilst also actively promoting the growth of the 'Higher degrees', Royal Arch, Knight Templar, Mark, Ark Mariners etc ... within those very same lodges which he ruled over as Provincial Grand Master. This put them on an equal footing with the lodges under the 'Antients' Grand Lodge who could, under their Charters, work those degrees without referring to any outside authority.

The consequences of this policy enabled a whole generation of'Modern' masons who, at the Union of 1813, would then be on the same level in degrees outside the Craft as their brethren hailing from the Atholl Grand Lodge. They knew and understood the Craft as practiced by the Atholl Lodges (which was in the end not very far from most of the Modern's practice), and thus were able to proceed with the Lodge of Promulgation, and deal in the Lodge of Reconciliation as equals.

The take-over of the Lodge of Friendship corresponds to a change of generation. Of the men who assisted Dunckerley, or the men whom he assisted, we have no way of knowing who pushed who and where their real ambitions lay. They were young and eager to get something more than the social position which was theirs in any case as belonging to their rank in society, their wealth and relations.

The older generation at that time is probably best illustrated by Colonel John Salter who was raised from the ranks and, despite the friendship shown to him by the Duke of Cumberland,11 was probably never accepted in society, even though he attained the position of Deputy Grand Master in Grand Lodge.

15 6 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

After the disastrous Grand Mastership of Lord Byron and the stewardship of John Revis as Grand Secretary (1734-57), the leadership of Grand Lodge fell on the shoulders of Colonel Salter as D.G.M. and Samuel Spencer became G. Secretary until 1768. We know very little about the latter but he managed affairs until the end of the Grand Mastership of Cadwallader, Lord Blayney (1764-66), a key figure in the changes about to occur. Not that he was an exceptional Grand Master for the time, but at least he attended some lodges and took exception at failure to execute the rituals correctly. He signed the Charter of Compact (1766) creating the Grand Chapter and giving an official shape to the Royal Arch practiced by the "Moderns', and by presiding over it for four years he gave the new Grand and Royal Chapter a prestige which the Hon. Thomas Mathew, Grand Master of the Antients, could not achieve during his reign, although they were both Irish.

Things were then about to change, and with Dunckerley a new group took over. It all started officially at least on 8 January 1766, when Dunckerley visited the Royal Arch Chapter at The Turk's Head Tavern' in Gerrard Street. He had been exalted in Portsmouth in 1754, and was not only elected a joining member but also installed as' J* the same evening.

His friend James Galloway was elected 'Z\ The Chapter in the following month exalted a number of masons of high rank, among them the Grand Master, Lord Blayney, the Grand Secretary, James Heseltine, and at the year-end the Hon. Charles Dillon. And those were among the signatories of the Charter of Compact.

To us, looking back, it appears that although Dunckerley was certainly the masonic leader of the new 'set' the driving force was the Hon. Charles Dillon, who was young at the time (22), wealthy, with good connections and about to enter politics in Parliament when elected in 1770 as the member for Westbury. He was an active mason, was present at many meetings of his lodge and of Grand Lodge and brought into it his friend, the Duke of Beaufort who succeeded Lord Blayney as Grand Master in 1767. A year older, educated at Oriel College and a Doctor of Law in 1763, he was wealthy and later, when married, had fourteen children, among them Lord Raglan of Crimean War fame.

Dunckerley and his friends then settled with the members of an old lodge The Sun and Punch Bowl Lodge No. 3', to exchange their Warrant. A sum of 30 guineas covered the cost of the regalia and on 4 March 1767 the lodge, filled with its joining members, elected the Hon. Charles Dillon as Master.

At the same time they decided to move the lodge to the 'Thatched House', St. James's Street. The Committee of Charity, who had more or less the power and duties of the Board of General Purposes today took exception to what had happened, but 'in consideration of their being very Young masons' only Bro. French, the Secretary of the lodge, was censured. As from March 1767 the Lodge of Friendship, as it was called, became an 'aristocratic lodge' or at least a lodge of men of means, witness the order of one hundred guineas for the jewels of the lodge. Beaufort, Grand Master, appointed Dillon his Deputy and they embarked on a scheme which should have made them complete masters of English Freemasonry.

This was the famous attempted incorporation of the Moderns. Bro. Ivor Grantham has13 provided the details of this long affair (with the expertise of a lawyer). It can be summed up in a few words:

In 1768, the Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master, initiated a scheme to obtain the incorporation of the Society. It first met with approval but later with fierce opposition from (among others) Colonel Salter who had been summarily dismissed, (in other words, not reappointed Deputy Grand Master), and whose position had been taken by the Hon. Charles Dillon. The first project was to have only the Grand Lodge incorporated by Royal Charter, and not the individual masons, but this was dropped. Later, in February 1770, the same Charles Dillon now a Member of Parliament, introduced a Bill which after a first and second reading, failed to reach the third on 1 April. Five weeks later the Duke of Beaufort resigned as Grand Master and Lord Petre was elected in his stead.

It is difficult for a layman reading through the legal arguments so very clearly put together by Bro. Grantham to realize what was the real purpose of this scheme. What is obvious is that the use of the term 'Society of Freemasons' would have become the property of the Premier Grand Lodge, much to the damage of the Antients body; but it appears that the opposition inside Grand Lodge was due to two elements. Only Grand Lodge would be incorporated, leavina full power to the 'management', and secondly money could be raised as planned to build a Hall, one of the Duke of Beaufort's ambitions, and there was a fear that the money owned by Grand Lodge for the charitable fund would be diverted from its true purpose and used for building the Hall. The second scheme in Parliament failed for obscure

Why was the Craft de-Christianised?

157

reasons but if one can read between the lines it seems that it would have involved Freemasonry in politics.

And clearly that was the whole purpose. England was locked into a feud between the traditional parties and here, for those young lions, Beaufort, Dillon and their friends, was an occasion to use a more or less dormant society as a political instrument to satisfy their ambitions.

It failed, probably because some wiser men saw through it and because Dunckerley, obviously their mentor in the first part of the take-over of the Lodge of Friendship, was not interested in politics, but much more in provincial Freemasonry where he could exercise the full measure of his abilities. However, it had an important result which was to appear twenty years later when Parliament drew up the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799. It enabled the following generation, led by the Earl of Moira, to avoid the inclusion of Freemasonry among such bodies.13

These events show that both societies of freemasons had left the realm of folklore and entered the real life of the century. In 1770 the Grand Lodge of England had in security for the fund of Charity more than £1500, a considerable amount of money for the time, and was also building a Hall. It was opened and dedicated on 23 May 1776 and its total cost was estimated at about £8,500. The period of the small ale-house for at least the better* lodges was over. Freemasonry was now part of civic and social life. It was an integrated element of English society and would have to adapt itself to this social life to survive.

Meanwhile inside Freemasonry something was also changing as could be seen by initiates. One of the most remarkable English masons, William Preston, gave it its 'spine', in the form of its lectures, in which he explained the rituals so as to make them sensible and understandable by the majority of those attending lodges. At the end of the century English Freemasonry had reached adulthood, the Premier Grand Lodge had considerable social standing and the Antients had perhaps less social distinction but maybe more faith and drive. Both were in possession of a spiritual basis and were now ready to see the future with the union of both Grand Lodges as the first step in the 19th century.

PART III

The chain of events leading from the respective status of both Grand Lodges at the beginning of the 'period' (1760) to the end of the rule of the Duke of Sussex, must not be imagined as a rational 'history' but more like a series of discontinuous events, with the links between these events appearing without any 'formal' ties and yet so related as to form a history with hindsight, or even maybe only in our imagination.

The Unlawful Societies Act of 1799 was to establish for more than 150 years the official and formal relations between English Freemasonry and the State. The lawful right of masons to assemble peacefully, implying that they were not conspiring against the State under the guise of secrecy, was recognized, and that only three years after the publication of two widely circulated and popular books which had falsely but squarely put the responsibility for the French Revolution on Freemasonry: Barruel 'Memoire pour servir a I'histoire du jacobinisme' and Robison 'Proofs of a conspiracy against all the religions and governments of Europe'.14 Both had an enormous influence, and were published in London in 1797 and 1798.

Then came the peace with Napoleon and war again until 1815. The influence of this state of war is clearly shown by the small number of Warrants granted by the Premier Grand Lodge after 1799, and most of them abroad. One in 1800, six in 1801, three in 1802, one each in 1804 and 1805, four in 1806, twelve in 1809, all witness to the pressure of the war. Of course this Grand Lodge did not reissue erased Warrants as the rival Atholl Grand Lodge did, but most of those issued by the latter were for military lodges.19

The story of the Union of the two Grand Lodges has been ably told elsewhere, and the role of the main actors described in many articles in A.Q.C. As recounted by J. Hami 1116 many consultations and meetings took place but without any written record being made, and it is extremely difficult to disentangle the responsibility of those who participated.

What is certain is that in the end the Union became a matter of political expediency. The nomination of the Royal Dukes at the head of both Grand Lodges was equivalent to an order to merge.

But why did the merger of the two Grand Lodges become politically necessary?

158 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

My theory, and it is a theory, rests on the fact that the imbalance in the social composition of the two Grand Lodges had grown during the previous fifteen years, the influence of the Antients having increased among the military, as witness the large number of regimental lodges under their Constitution, and as in the Colonies, where the American example could not be repeated. The Premier Grand Lodge was more firmly established among the gentry, the landowners, and generally speaking among those who had cause to fear all types of unrest from the soldiers returning after the war.

A united masonic authority was the only way to avoid the politicisation of Freemasonry, and it proved to be the case that the presence at the head of the Craft of a Prince of Royal Blood, who did not have any other constitutional responsibility, and had barred himself from the succession to the Throne17, was a guarantee that the control of the Grand Lodge was in safe hands. Having only one Grand Lodge became a political necessity. J. Hamill16 deals with the long negotiations leading to the Union. That personal feelings, especially in the case of Thomas Harper, may have delayed the outcome is a possibility, although the whole strategy was twofold.

On the one hand the differences between the 'workings' of the two bodies was such that some form of modification was necessary, and this was done by the Lodge of Promulgation. It is interesting to note that one of the contentious elements was the 'Installation of the Master of a Lodge', as it was a necessary qualification to accede to the fourth degree, the Royal Arch, in die Antients lodges. Yet the Royal Arch itself is never mentioned in the proceedings of this lodge11 as the Moderns had their own Grand and Royal Chapter.

On the other hand it was necessary to integrate the two systems into one, not only in matters of ritual, but also in matters of administration. The later nomination of the joint secretaries aimed at solving these problems after the Union.

A legend is widely propagated in Europe, even of late in an article by the former Grand Master of one of the Grand Lodges in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England, namely, that at the Union the Moderns capitulated completely and accepted all the requirements of the Antients, thus abandoning their Freemasonry with its heritage of the 'liberal' tradition of Dr. J. Anderson, to accept the bigoted religious masonry of L. Dermott.

A French masonic writer J. Corneloup, Grand Commandeur d'Honneur du Grand College des Rites of the Grand Orient de France (irregular), published in 1973 a very good translation in French of'Masonic Facts and Fictions' by H. Sadler.19 In his introduction he writes

':Absorptk>n bien entendu des "Modernes" par les "Ancients" d'où il évidemment que si les deux precedentes Grandes Loses ont apparement cessé d'exister en même temps, La Grande Loge de 1753 revivait intégralement dans la Grande Loge Unie alors que rien ne subsistait de celle de 1717, et surtout après 1815, rien de la pensée philosphique des fondateurs de la Maçonnerie Spéculative'

Which can be translated as:

Absorption of course of the 'Modems' by the 'Antients', which meant that if the two former Grand Lodges had apparently ceased to exist at the same moment, the Grand Lodge of 1753 lived again in its totality, nothing remaining of that Grand Lodge of 1717; and above all that after 1815 nothing remained of the philosophical thinking of the founders of speculative freemasonry (my italics).

This 'argument?' enables J. Corneloup and his followers to prove that the Grand Orient de France is a regular body as being the only one directly issuing from the original Grand Lodge of England]

Nothing could be further from the truth, for although the United Grand Lodge adopted many practices of the 'Antients' many other points left the Atholl Grand Lodge with a feeling of frustration. The Royal Arch was abandoned as a fourth degree, and lodges could no longer work the other degrees, such as Knight Templar, under their Craft Warrants, even if it was eventually provided for by the Articles of Union31.

The truth is that, during the last twenty years preceding the Union, the differences between the ritualistic practices had narrowed, intervisitation was admitted, at least in the provinces, and dual membership was common and known by everyone in both Grand Lodges, as well as the transfer of allegiance from one Obedience to the other. But probably the moat important element is that the direction, the management of the United Grand Lodge, was kept firmly in the hands of the Moderns, despite the joint secretaryship.

Why was the Craft de-Christianised? 159

PART IV

In our eyes the Union of both Grand Lodges was the logical conclusion of a situation seen as an unhealthy competition in a body which should above all be united and fraternal. Since the publication of 'Masonic Facts and Fictions' by H. Sadler in 1887 the separate origin of both Grand Lodges has been accepted by all serious students. The social and economic background of the 'Antients' has been demonstrated, as well as their problems23 leading to the conclusion that as long as its moving spirit, L. Dermott lived, no compromise and thus no Union was possible. Neither was a Union useful, except when clashes occurred, for it appears that both bodies at the local level were leading separate but not hostile lives.

The 'Antients' Grand Lodge was a very volatile body. Examination of the fists of its lodges shows that very few of them were achieving any long term stability but were active for a few years and then disappeared.

The delivery of Warrants was indiscriminate, witness the grant of three Warrants to lodges in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the same day, 27 December 1775. One doubts that enough able-bodied men were capable of manning more than one lodge at the time in

The masonic body as a whole remained under the control of those who had initiated the momentum with Thomas Dunckerley and his friends of the Lodge of Friendship fifty years before. In fact one can assume that the ritual matters were of secondary importance to the Duke of Sussex and his able assistants. They had nearly twenty years of war to rebuild a masonic body able to withstand the social changes looming on the horizon and above all to remain out of politics. And the last point was not fictitious as the French example was there for everyone to see. English masons, like Sir Sidney Smith and others, flocked back to France as soon as peace returned, and the state of French Freemasonry was obvious to all. Under Napoleon's benevolent protection it had become an instrument of the imperial régime. It turned around with the subtlety of an adroit politician after his fall but the political worm was already in the fruit.

And the political situation in England was far from favourable. Many problems were to dominate the next three years, politically the Catholic emancipation, and the Reform Bill, and emotionally the Jewish emancipation. Meanwhile the social changes had brought other problems to the Government which would directly influence some masonic events. The modifications introduced in the rituals after the Union, when most 'Christian references' were abolished, were not caused by the spirit of tolerance of the Duke of Sussex.

They were absolutely necessary to maintain English Freemasonry as a neutral body and keep the newly-established United Grand Lodge out of religious or political controversy. But also they did not innovate as many of the practices as can be traced through the existing documents, but used religious or Christian references to exemplify a moral argument, and as far as I am aware never to support a dogmatic position. The Christian references were (and still are) unacceptable to the strict Roman Catholic, as is the numerous use of Old Testament writings. One could with difficulty imagine a sincere practising Roman Catholic of 1816 accepting the exclamation 'Glory to the Great Jehovah'21, and this at a time of reconciliation with the Anglo^atholics. They had to be erased and Freemasonry become what it is: open to all those who believe in a Supreme Being.

A thread exists from 1768 until 1813 if one accepts that the aim of all those in a position of responsibility from Dunckerley to the Earl of Moira was to arrive at one unique masonic authority in England. This was finalized in the United Grand Lodge of England which was maybe conceived, but certainly used, to fulfil two different purposes:

one to govern firmly a united masonic body,

the other to exclude or control the 'fringe' or unorthodox masonic or pseudo-masonic bodies and degrees.

The Grand Master, the Duke of Sussex, accepted all masonic honours and charters, even from the Memphis- Misraim Rite, and kept them under lock and key. The events which followed the Union, such as the 'Liverpool Rebellion' or the 'Grand Lodge of Wigan',22 could if a firm hand had not been at the helm have resulted in a situation not far from what was seen in France.

The moment has come to examine the evidence of this thread, both external and internal to see if all this theory is valid or simply a figment of the imagination.

160 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

Halifax, and this repeats itself very often. The geographical implantation of the 'Antients' was also very much more a regional phenomenon for some parts of the country never saw any sign of lodge foundation. Existing lodges with a low number and claiming 'Antients' ancestry with a foundation going back before 1780 are normally the result of the transfer or sale of Warrants (an absolutely legitimate practice amongst the * Antients'). The oldest lodge which has apparently worked under one original Warrant from its constitution until today appears to be Newstead Lodge No. 47 in Nottingham whose Warrant was granted on 17 December 1755 and has never stopped working nor ever sold its Charter.

After 1760 the grant of Warrants to military lodges with which the correspondence was, to say the least, sporadic raised the number on the register but probably did not reflect the true strength of the 'Antients' Grand Lodge.

Why then should the Premier Grand Lodge even bother to consider a Union with a body mostly composed of lodges grouping men from the lower social classes and who even protested that they were the only real masonic body? What advantages could result at that time from such a consolidation of Freemasonry?

Further: at this time Freemasonry was far from being the only 'fraternal' association. Many others have been described, catering for the social need of conviviality.24 Before the development of the spiritual content of Freemasonry with Hutchison and Preston the differences between masons and members of the various other orders would have seemed very slight for the outside observer, and an union of all 'fraternal' organisations was obviously never even dreamed of by anyone.

As explained above the first attempt to unify under a single leadership the rival masonic organizations was the attempted incorporation during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Beaufort. This was an abortive 'Coup d'Etat' and it did not take into account the then profound differences between the two Grand Lodges. In fact as first proposed the Royal Charter would have limited the access to membership of the Grand Lodge to the Grand Officers, the Master, and Wardens etc ... but not to the ordinary masons. The time therefore was not ripe and one has to wait for another twenty years to see the second attempt to unify the two Grand Lodges.

This occurred when the Earl of Moira had taken over the leadership of the Premier Grand Lodge, as Acting Grand Master (presently denominated Pro-Grand Master). However, on the Antient side the key man was Thomas Harper35 who, being SGW of the 'Antients', joined the 'Modern' Globe Lodge (now No. 23) in 1787. This was still during the lifetime of L. Dermott who resigned that very year as Deputy Grand Master and ceased to attend Grand Lodge eighteen months later. We have no proof that this retreat represented a fundamental difference of opinion by the government of the Antients Grand Lodge.

Dermott, at the time, although not very old by our standards, was a sick man (he had very painful gout) and this sickness probably accounted for his withdrawal from the scene, though that is not certain. He may have been quietly ousted by the younger generation longing for the 'Union'.

Those who took over - Robert Leslie, Grand Secretary, James Perry, James Agar and T. Harper - would provide the team bringing the Union to its fruitful completion in 1813. Protracted negotiations started in 1797 and then T. Harper, a member of Preston's Lodge of Antiquity No. 1 (now No. 2), was elected Treasurer of the Lodge from 27 December 1797 to 25 February 1802. He was at the same time Treasurer (after being Master of) the Grand Master's Lodge No. 1 of the 'Antients9 (!!)-, a position he held until 1829. He thus had a firm foot in both camps.

Why and how the negotiations failed is unknown, but Thomas Harper was expelled from the Premier Grand Lodge in February 1803: a sure sign that negotiations had broken down.

The attempt to unify restarted in 1809, and the Lodge of Promulgation paved the way to the Union of 1813.27 This part of history is well known and has been fully described many times, yet there is still a feeling that some aspects remain (and probably will ever remain) in the dark.

Apparently the ritual modifications which up to then had prevented the Union from taking place were now agreed and no obstacles remained which could not later be solved by the new United Grand Lodge.

Why then was the Swedish envoy Count de la Gardie asked to prove that the masonic practice at the Union was correct, as he himself admits not being an expert in English ritual? And above all what was the situation which had been foreseen and prepared for by the Earl of Moira? Obviously his part in achieving the Union was immense, but would he have

Why was the Craft de-Christianised?

161

worked hand in hand with the Duke of Sussex? Would he even have kept his position, or was the Duke of Sussex so powerful as to be able to get rid of his rival? In other words was not the Earl of Moira, who was a favourite of the Regent, eventually exiled as the Governor General of Bengal to make way for the Duke of Sussex?

For a man of his age, considering the climate and health risks at the time> such an appointment in India was extremely like a delayed death sentence. Or was the financial position and indebtedness of Moira such that he had to leave England?

The answer lies somewhere in the State papers. The Union, however, did not achieve much more in 1813 than an administrative sanction, as lodges of both sides were intending to keep their status, (a concern solved by the renumbering of 1814) and probably their existing rituals.

PART V THE UNION AND AFTER

We have a tendency to imagine that a precise date, or a single year, represented an abrupt change in events, but such is rarely the case. Christianity did not start in AD 33, but took a few hundred years to become what it is today. If the French Revolution is said to have started on 14 July 1789, it really started nearly twenty years before and took a good half century to stabilize itself. The same is true for the Union of the two Grand Lodges of England. As we have seen the process started around 1770 and was brought to a close sixty years later around 1830. So understanding what happened after the Union is particularly important if we are to grasp some answer to our basic question: Why was the Craft De-christianized?

Life in England was not easy in the years which followed Waterloo. Social disturbances were common, and the masonic problems which arose during the next few years coincided curiously with social unrest. Witness the 'Liverpool Rebellion'26 and the 'Grand Lodge at Wigan' seeking to secede from the United Grand Lodge for minor reasons originating in the ignorance and administrative incompetence of the Grand Lodge in London in failing to take into account local conditions, and its inability at that time to deal with all problems following the fusion of two administrations.

One cannot but compare the origin of the famous Teterloo Massacre' with the masonic troubles in the same area. The rule from London was ineffective and local authorities were inefficient in a changing world.

After the troubles and until 1830 many lodges disappeared. The accompanying tables show that the survival of Antients lodges founded before 1800 was very doubtful after 1830.

In these circumstances it seemed that the duty of those who had to adapt the ritual was to attempt to arrive at a unified form27.

Masonry had to answer the needs of everyone, Christian or not, of any denomination, (and the more so as Catholic emancipation was a fact of life) and the Jews were occupying a place in social and business lite not yet recognized by the law, not to mention the men of the faraway colonies, Hindus, Muslims, etc...

The Earl of Moira had been Grand Master of Bengal and Malta and circumstances in those places showed well that to survive or even to exist Freemasonry had to become neutral and devoid of any one religious leaning.

Society had also changed and had became more 'agnostic' even if the British Cabinet would repeatedly put Richard Carlile in prison for attempted 'free speech1 or use low police methods such as in the 'Cato Street Conspiracy' to deal with public order. Industrialisation had made the middle class more pragmatic, since they dealt in real things, coal, steel, textiles, potteries, insurance or finance. Their level of culture and knowledge was higher, and so rituals needed to be adapted to their time; reliance upon purely oral transmission was too uncertain and printed rituals had to be tolerated.2*

The change indeed was remarkable, but the men who engineered it were neither irreligious nor even anti-religious. The Lodge of Reconciliation was presided over by the Rev. Mr. Hemming, and the Chapter which revised the Royal Arch was led by the Rev. Mr. Browne, both clergy of the Church of England.

Christian references in Freemasonry had been references only, and except in specific cases, as in the Royal Arch Sheffield Ritual of 1780, those references never reached an involvement in personal faith as seen, for instance, in the French 'Rite Ecossais Rcctifie'.

162 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

Nevertheless, was not this abandonment the cause of the decay of some 'Antient' lodges? Lack of records prevents the establishing of a case providing support for this theory.

The Union of 1813 was a 'political' act in the sense that it was engineered and executed by the 'Managers' of both Grand Lodges, with little if any reference to the wishes and opinions of the rank and file, who, we are told, were longing for this 'Glorious Union'. The 'Union' was inevitable as from the day in 1753, when the Antients' Grand Lodge was founded, not as in some countries where some Obediences manage to live comfortably side-by-side sharing the masonic field because their masonic modes of operation are different. ! Sometimes they even enjoy some friendly relationship. This was not possible between the two ( English Obediences as the Antients, and especially their leader Laurence Dermott, emphasized their claim to be the only keeper of the real masonic tradition and usage. No proper relationship between the Moderns and the Antients could ever be reached except through a fusion of both.

Claims to supremacy never affected the relations, if any, between the Grand Lodge of all England at York (whenever it showed any life) and the 'Moderns' Grand Lodge, and the example of many European countries showed that such cohabitation of two different masonic approaches, as long as they share a common basic set of principles, is possible, the territorial exclusive right being only a 'legal' and 'political' claim, without any 'masonic' base.

The Union once achieved, there remained the huge task of fusing into one body two very different sets of lodges with their respective masons, each profoundly conscious of their own traditions and the need to practice Masonry as they truly believed was the proper way of doing so. The main obstacle may have been the good faith of all concerned. Concerning the \ rituals, the fact that we do not possess any redly meaningful Minutes of the proceedings of j the Lodge of Reconciliation prevents any judgment on whatever the real aim of this body was.

However, as some innovations, like the inner Guard, were introduced one may assume ¦ that the underlying motive was more to arrive at a sort of consensus, representing not an amalgam of the former rituals of the rival Grand Lodges, but more probably something newly-adapted to the century which could be used by anyone, and any lodges, without forfeiting their ancient traditions or adopting dangerous innovations.

No real contemporary evidence is available on the spirit which presided at the meetings of the Lodge of Reconciliation, but, in circumstantial ways, the claim to represent the true working and spirit of the agreed ritual, made by the rival lodges of instruction and by such j experienced masons as Peter Gilkes, tempts one to assume that the basic function of the Lodge of Reconciliation was to establish something which might be called the 'English rite' acceptable to all whilst being distinctive and based on both traditions.

The innovation which came as an outcome of the establishment of an accepted working, (in itself a remarkable innovation for both Grand Lodges), was to modify the working of the lodges. Up to the Union the work of the lodges consisted mostly of practising the catechism by rote. The new system gave a preeminence to ritual working which until that time was probably limited in time and practice. Gradually the 'lectures' and catechism lost ground in favour of a perfectly executed ritual and the common exercise of the catechism around a table whilst drinking healths gave way to the formal method of working which we know today. The sense of fellowship was lost in the process, and this may partly explain the decline and disappearance of many 'Antients' Lodges up to 1830. As the older men died or t resigned the new generation lost contact and the formal method of working was probably j more adapted to the socially fashionable lodges of 'Moderns' origin. I

The de-Christianization was outward in appearance, originating less in a will of those who adapted the ceremonies to mitigate religious forms than in their determination to provide the new United Grand Lodge with a ritual which would be acceptable to all.

Any obvious Christian allusion had necessarily to be eliminated, not because it was Christian and not because those who adopted the changes were not Christians, but because religion was a contentious matter and in the end a political one as passionate debates in the House of Commons on the 'Common Prayer Book' later in the century would prove.

The United Kingdom enjoyed the unique privilege in Europe of having a king who was the Head of the national church, but also where Parliament was competent in religious matters, and Bishops by right attended part of the Parliamentary Assembly, namely the House of Lords. Religion was thus 'polities' and avoidance of politics was the certain, if not so formulated, centre of the Landmarks of the Craft.

This brings us to the unique role of the Duke of Sussex. Its importance will only be

Why was the Craft de-Christianised? 163

NOTE ON THE TABLE OF 'ANTIENTS' LODGES

This table lists the 'Amients' lodges from 1770 until 1800 as mentioned in4LANE'S Masonic Records 1717-1894 (1895). It is the period of the greatest expansion of Freemasonry in the 18th century, and later Warrants are meaningless as most of them were reissued from lapsed lodges, because of the provision of the 'Unlawful Societies Act1 1799, and the war conditions. The columns give:

— A The number of the first Warrant issued.

— B, C, or D. The number of subsequent reissues of the same number.

— The dates if available.

— The location of the lodges divided between London and the Provinces in England and Wales.

— Any overseas location.

— The warrant granted to any military lodge, whether stationed at home or abroad.

— The year, if known, when lapsed.

— The year of erasing, which may be much later than the truth.

— Whether the lodge changed obedience.

— And the numeration in the 1814 list. Which does not mean that the lodges listed then were really in existence at that time.

# * *

Out of 207 warranted Lodges, 72 were listed in 1814. Among those warranted during the period 1770-1800, 19% were in London, 39% in the Provinces, and 19% and 20% respectively overseas and military.

A remarkable feature is the fact that of the 32 provincial warranted lodges between 1790 and 1800 not less than 14 (44%) were located in or near Manchester.

revealed when an analysis is made when the Minutes, if any, of the Board of General Purposes of the period are eventually published. Only then will we be able to see how he steered the Craft during the difficult years after the Union.

On the basis of the available evidence one may compare his leadership of the United Grand Lodge to that of man steering a raft in a flooded river. He knows that he will eventually reached a tranquil lake, but meanwhile he has to avoid the rocks and obstacles by a careful pull on his oars. The obstacles, as many other Grand Lodge histories would show, were the involvement of Masonry with politics, the claim of the so-called 'Higher Degrees' to rule the Craft, and partiality in religion lest one became part of a political or religious faction.

It is probably the greatest merit of the Duke of Sussex as Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England that without even knowing where the tranquil lake lay he steered the raft of his Grand Lodge in a mountainous torrent with its apparent and hidden rocks, such as political and religious feudinc, to this haven of a neutral fraternal harbour.

He truly saved Masonry not only for England, but probably for the world, but in the process he had to eliminate anything which in an age of religious passion could give offence to any mason in the world.

This is why the Craft was de-Christianized, and he may well wear the laurel of the true believer in Freemasonry.

164 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

WARRANTS IN LANE LIST OF LODGES FROM 1770

No. Antimi

AIM

A-165

B-165

A-166 A 167 A-168

B-168

A-169 A-170

B-170

A-171

A-172 A-173 A-174 A-175 A »76 A-177 A-171 A-179 A-180

B

A-181 A-112 A-1*3

B

AIM A-115

Dale

07.03.70 18.04.70 18.11.10 10 08.70 00.00 70 09.04.71 13.03.07 13.07.71 09.11.71 31.03.01 00.00.04 06.11.13 11.11.71 11.11.03 05.06.71 17.04.72 22.04.72 06.07.72 14.10.72 22.10.72 10.11.72 16.11.72 25.02.73 02.04.92 14.07.73 26.08.73 04.11.73 19.02.03 07.12.73 05.03.74

201 203

208 209

212 213

luindon Province Frodsham

tendon

Buxton

Norwich

Norwich

Hath

Hythe

Wifton

Bury

Chipping Norton

Southampton

Kidderminster Berwick on Trent Oxford Oxford

Stockholm Dominic*

Military

3rd Rgt. Ft. 52nd Rgt. 96th Rgt.

67th Rgl. 1st Rgt York

Koya) Art. 9ih Rgt Ft.

Lapsed traced

1793 1776

•1866 M84J

1805 1773

1782 1793

1777 1773 1792

1776 1802

1790 1777 1711

1773 1774

A-186 24.03.74 226 StjohaNOd •1159

A-187 28.04.74 \ R.Art. Ut Bat. 1777

B-187 23.05.12 228 R. An. 9th •1122

A-1SS 07.06.74 Settle 1776

A-189 07.06.74 Macdesftdd

B-189 13.12.02 231 Whookr »1866

A-190 30.09.74 Charleston U.S. 1782

A-191 03.10.74 66th Rgt. Ft. 1777

B-191 13.02.08 233 79th Rft. Ft. •1131

A-191 08.11.74 235 U radon

A-193 11.05.73 237 U radon

A-194 10.10.75 239 b Midon

A-195 14.12.75 Li radon 1805

B-195 00.00.06 241 U radon

A-196 24.06.76 242 Leigb/Bolton

A-197 24.06.76 1« Lane. Mil. 1778

B-197 02.02.05 1« Lnac.Mil. 1806

C-197 00.00.06 3rd Dragoon* 1806

D-197 29.08.08 244 Falmouth MS38

A-198 20.01.77 L Mkdon 1771

B-198 01.01.01 248 L. radon

A-199 01.04.77 Baratky 1778

B-199 28.03.04 Dcwabury MII5

A-200 09.07.77 Sabkmry 1784

B-200 08.05.01 249 Newport L of W.

A-301 27.07.77 Suvtfbrd 1782

B-201 30.12.96 250 Htirfwftf*

A-202 08.11.77 251 Gtbrmlur

A-203 12.12.77 253 Dover M837

A-204 03.01.78 St AogusuncUS 1780

B-204 19.10.03 255 Preston

A-205 06.04.78 ü Mdon 1778

B-205 27.12.04 256 Ptynottth

A-206 20.06.78 lUail worth 1782

A-207 25.09.78 Sotante» 1795

B-J07 04.12.97 259 Soaaraasj

A-208 16.02.79 Wortuagtoa 1782

B-20S 12.01.02 260 Deroapon

A-209 16.02.79 4th Bat. HA. 1779

B-209 NN.10X3 262 Staff. Rft •1827

A-210 20.02.79 New York U.S.

Tot* 1770-79

48 24 29 10 35 11 10 36 13

Nt, AatfcM Date UGLE Li Nates' Province Covenant Military L npeed Eraacd

No. Aaticr* Date UGLE L aodon Pío» mee Outruns Military L apead Erased

A-211 13.06.80 205 Haüfnx N.Scot. •1869

A-212 01.11.80 New York 1782

A-213 03X7.81 17 RA. New York •1869

0-213 30.06.13 268 E. Stonrhonic

A-214 10.10.81 Oxford 1783

A-215 10.10.81 2nd Rgt. New York 1782

R-215 09.10X7 270 KftCaaja.Mil. •1838

A-21* 24.10.81 272 1« Rgt. Davon •1835

A-217 05X9X1 SkcflMd 1781

kV217 06X1.13 273 Wnitcaavcn •1822

A-218 05.09.81 Madras 1781

A-219 05X9.81 P.GJL New York 1783

A-220 10.03.84 UcUWd #1784/224

B-220 25X1.86 276 P.G.L. Gibraltar 1815

A-231 01.03.04 277 Lj radon •1830

A-222 10X3.84 279 Guernsey

A-223 10X3.84 Ostaodc 1788

A-224 01X4.04 UcMWd #1784/220

Why was the Craft de-Christianised?

A-225 04 05 84 281 Ijondon

A-226 29.06.84 Ixtndon

B 226 26.12.89 282 Ixmdon

A 227 01 11 K4 284 Ijondon

A-228 02.03.95 Bahamas 1>>

B-22H 31 10.12 286 Nrth Hanls Mil ¦ 1 N J I

A-22V 16.05.85 Dominica

A-230 25.06.85 288 1st Hat R.A ¦lv>

A-231 26.09.85 289 London

A-232 — .86 Hannov, Hng

B-232 08.09.13 291 Rydel.ofW.

A-233 07.02.86 Kingston 1 "jilt

A-234 07.02 86 293 London

A-235 26.05.86 294

A-236 26.05 86 Charleston U.S.

A-237 25.01 87 17th Rgi,

B-237 28.03.11 297 Berwick Mil ¦ is:u

A-238 17.02.87 298 Chorley ¦ is;*

A-239 07.03.87 299 l^ondon

A-240 10 10.87 301 Ijondon ' 1 ^ mi

A-241 22.10.87 302 R A, Quebec

A-242 29.11.87 304 Nassau 1»!4

A-243 13.12.87 306 Chatham

A-244 20.12 87 308 London

A-245 15.01.88 309 London

A-246 26.02.88 310 Dudley

A-247 —.03.88 312 St. John Nfld.

A 2*8 25.03.88 313 76th Kgl. ' I*

A-249 31.03.88 St John Nfld. |X(H

B-249 21.05.04 315 Woodbndge 1VÌX

A-250 02.05.88 317 Placcmia Nfld.

A-25! 12.06.88 Ixndon l.ane p. 16 IH> ¦

A-252 29.08.88 318 33rd Kgt

A-25) 21.04.89 319 London

A-254 24.04.89 Cockennouth

A-25 5 15.06 89 321 Ijondon

A-256 18.12.89 Chatham Marine? 1 792

B-256 06.02 09 323 Weymouth IXJX

A-257 22.1289 324 Kingston 1H16

A-25Ì 24.12.89 325

10 58 38 15 15 13 21

No. Attieni Date UGI.E London Province Overseas Military NR lapsed

A-259 15.02.90 327 London

A-260 06.04.90 Nottingham

B-260 15.12.12 328 Chatham tt-4' lh*

A-261 31.08.90 329 London

A 262 28.08.90 R.A. Jamaica lXtl*

B-262 22.04.07 331 7th Dragoons

A-263 06.12.90 333 Barbados

A-264 05.01.91 335 Ijondon

A-265 — 12 90 77 Quebec

A 266 22.01.91 Maidstone IK'JU

B-266 14.10.01 336 Dover

A-267 05.03.91 337 Scarborough

A 261 09.11.91 Stock port 1X06

B-268 25.04.10 338 London

A-269 09.11.91 340 Windaor ' JJiJX

A-270 25.02.92 341 Devizes ¦U2h

A-271 07.03.92 Grenada W.I. 17*4

A-272 04.03.92 45th Rgt. Grenada 1792

B-272 11.10.09 342 Guildford ' Ih**

A-273 07.03.92 343 Qacbec •1M4

A-274 07.03.92 345 Niagara/Can •1X14

A-275 12.04.92 347 Manchester 'IKJJ

A-276 10.08.92 348 Liverpool

A-277 11.10.92 349 London '1H2'

A-271 17.04.93 Manchester 179V

B-278 20.10.02 351 Manchester

ga-279 17.04.93 Stockport 180?

A-280 2305.93 353 London

A-211 1208.93 355 Kingston •1X17

A-282 10.05.94 356 Wilts. Mil. • IN vl

1*213 10.05.94 3S7 Kingston

A-2S4 27.05.94 Vth Dragoons 18<)9

B-284 13.07.13 359 Eton

A 21J —.09.94 361 17th L. Dragoons » jf,.>v

A 21* 03.10.94 362 Barbados ' Is'*

A-287 03.10.94 363 Jersey '1832

A-218 04.02.95 364 Kingston • IX3U

A-209 21.03.95 366 Manchester

A-290 11.09.95 367 London

A 291 2i.09.95 Chatham "1X2K

A 292 20.11.95 Stockport 1807

B-292 18.10.12 370 London

A-293 24.12.95 Div. of Artif. 1X01

»•293 21.05.03 372 " 1*2»*

A 294 21.12.95 374 Norwich

A-295 03.11.95 373 London

A-296 26.01.96 377 Manchester *183h

A-297 26.01.96 371 Manchester

A 291 09.02.9« W. Middlsx. Mil. 17V6

B-291 01.01.01 379 85th Rgt. •1X40

A-299 22.04.9« 300 Liverpool

A-3O0 01.03.97 381 London

A-301 Ol.M.ttt Kingston U13

A-302 27.12.9« 385 Liverpool

A-30J 17.03.97 386 Bohon

A-304 02.05.97 317 London •\h2K

166 Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge

A-J05 17.08.97 388 Iondon

A 306 07.09.97 Dcvonpon 1799

B-306 27.12.99 38V Devonport

A-30? 09.08.97 390 Bermuda

A-308 27.09.97 391 Barbados M 829

A-309 27.09.97 52nd Rgt 1802

B-30V 20.10.03 1-ancs Mil. 1804

C-309 20.10.04 393 Colchester

A-310 31.10.97 394 Blackburn

A-311 18.12.97 396 6th Dragoons •1837

A-312 12.02.98 P.ofWakscvlry 1798

b^312 25.04.10 397

A-313 19.02.98 11th Rgt. F. 1812

A-314 19.03.98 399 l^ondon

A-315 11.04.98 Lisbon 1799

B 315 28.02.98 Calcutta

A-316 18.01.99 401 Gloucester M838

A-3Î7 11.04.98 402 Calcutta

A-318 28.02.99 403 Old B rompt on

A-319? —.—.99

A-320 02.05.99 London 1809

B-3» 10.08.10 420 Kingtand

lotah 1770-99

So. Ancient Dstr. l'OLE Ijondon Province Overseas Military NR Lapi ed Erased

157 50 72 207 41 82 41 43 77 59

m 39** in 20%

Notes

1 N. B. Crycr, AQC 97 (1984), The De<:hristiaiiizing of the Craft.

2 J. Hamiil, AQC 86 (1973), The Duke of Sussex and the Union. J J. Hamiil, op. cit.

4 R. A. Wells, AQC 87 (1974), George Claret, Ritual Printer. 9 E. Howe, AQC85 (1972), Fringe Masonry in England 1870-85.

* W. R. S. Bathurst, AQC 79 (1966), The Evolution of the English Provincial Grand Lodge. 7 Colin Dyer, William Preston, Lewis (Masonic) Ltd. 1987.

•R. A. Wells, 0/>. cit.

9 S. J. Fenton,* AQC 49 (1936), Richard Carlile: His Life and Masonic Writings. 19 C. D. Rotch, AQC 56 (1953), Thomas Dunckeriey and the Lodge of Friendship. 11 CD. Rotch, op. at.

" W. I. Grantham, AQC 46 (1933), The Attempted Incorporation of the Moderns. "Grand Lodge 1717-1967.

14 W. K. Ferminger, AQC 50 ( 1937), The Romances of Robison and Barmel.

15 J. Lane, Masonic Records, 1717-1894 (1895). " J. Hamiil, The Craft, Aquarian Press 1986.

17 J. B. Priestley, The Prince of Pleasure and His Regency 1811-1820,1969, p. 18. " W. B. HextaQ, AQC 23 (1910), The Special Lodge of Promulgation 1809-1811.

,f J. Corneloup, Editions Vitian 1970, Le mythe de la Grande Loge-Mère, Faits et Fables Maçonniques: traduction, préface et commentaires.

* H. Mendoza, AQC 96 (1983), The Masonic Qualifications for the Royal Arch. AQC 88 (1975), George Adam Browne: The 1834/5 Revision of the Royal Arch Ritual.

21 C. Dyer, op. cit.

" Roger Norman, AQC 61 (1948), The Grand Lodge in Wigan.

13 W. J. Chctwoode, Crawley AQC 18 (1905), Mock Masonry in the Eighteenth Century.

* E. J. Recce, AQC 84 (1971),TiJoinas Harper: 15 Recce, op. cit.

* M. J. Spurr, AQC 85 (1972), The Liverpool Rebellion.

11C Dyer, AQCU (1973), In Search of Ritual Uiiiformity. "R. A. Wells, op. cit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0