-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
Thus then the lawful and exalted character of Past Masters is conceded , an immense extension of their privileges guaranteed , but the independence and " esprit du corps " of private lodges safeguarded . I regret more than I can say the hasty , and as I contend unconstitutional , change recently made in respect of the Past Masters and the grand principles on which English | Freemasonry has hitherto
progressed and prospered . 2 . But I am told another question is involved , namely " . Precedence in lodge . " Up to date lodges with Past Masters "in" but not of tbe lodge have always given them every lawful honour . They place them to the right of the Worshipful . Master , keeping the Past Masters of the lodge to the left , and the only thing they have done is
not to allow them to call themselves Past Masters of the lodge , or members of Committees ( unless elected by those brethren according to such bye-laws ) which were to be composed of "de jure" Past Masters " of the lodge . " Practically being Past Masters , all honour is evinced towards them , but as to the lodge qua the lodge they take their order of seniority . Now all this is to be changed if Grand
Lodge confirms the proposed alteration in the Book of Constitutions . On joining other lodges they are either to be the Junior Past Master always ( though one does not see how this law can exist if their are two joining Past Masters ) , or the Past Master next to the Worshipful Master for the year , and they are to take precedence of all the officers of lodge , and all those brethren of whom some exist in every
lodge more or less , who have been faithful members of the lodge for many years , but who through shyness , or heavy work elsewhere , or distrust of their own powers , have remained by choice simply Past Senior Wardens , and have never consented to take the chair . A more fruitful cause ol party and clique , of want of harmony , of disintegration of lodges , I cannot conceive , and I am induced to hope and to
think , that many who so vehemently propound the absolute necessity and . imperative justice of this change , have not yet realized to what logically and assuredly their grave innovation must lead lodges . 1 know something of lodges , and I ask this in the Freemason as before those who can ) judge and reply to what I ask— "Do you believe conscientiously that any independent and
flourishing Hodge , with a long list of actual Past Masters , with a numerous roll of brethren , some who have subscribed for many years , will ever consent to admit these quasi Past Masters ofthe lodge among them ? " I feel sure they will not . 2 . And then a little bird whispers in my ear , "Tell it not in Gath , " that a very serious and impelling cause of these animated discussions , & c , is " Precedence in
the socialcircle . " Can it be possible that we are going to allow the ideas and proclivities of the " knife and fork degree " to change our laws and rule our Constitution ? Forbid the thought ! Having conceded all that can be fairly expected to our Past Masters , having also a duty to perform in upholding the independence , the harmony , the " espirit du
corps " of our lodges , I , for one , have a firm belief that when Grand Lodge is formally appealed to it will constitutionall y and firmly " retrace its steps , " with the support of provincial and metropolitan brethren alike , thereby manfully upholding , despite any passing clamour , the ancient customs and well-formed usages of English Freemasonry . — I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally ,
A PROVINCIAL MASON OF 40 YEARS
To the Editor of the "Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — 1 quite agree with Bro . Budden ' s remark in yours ofithe 22 nd inst ., that this question is becoming obscured by the addition of " so many trimmings . " The question of status of joining Past Masters so far as I can trace was started in July , 1 SS 2 , in your correspondence
columns , and in a foot-note was admitted by you to bc a very hazy point . There is therefore nothing to be gained b y displays of ill-temper or attributing of wrong motives to cither provincial or London brethren . I think it was a mistake on the part of the Board of General Purposes to interfere with Article 1 , p . iS . So far as I can see the words struck out did not clash with
anything else in the laws ; on the contrary , it would have been better to have remodeled every rule where Past Masters of a or the lodge arc referred to and simply call them Past Masters , being subscribing members of a or the , lodge ; they might then have jiven lodges power , by motion or bye-law , tp fix the rank in the lodge of joining Past Masters , for the point concerns no one but the individual lodges and
the joining Past Masters , and it only concerns them as to fixing the order of precedence within the lodge when the question of seniority arises , in the case of the absence of the Worshipful Master and the Immediate Past Master , as to who has a right to assume the chair . The rank of Past Master is not "[ conferred upon any brother bv anv lodrre : he simolv becomes a Past Master
by having served twelve months as Master , and I contend he is a Past Master in the Craft all over the world , whether m Timbuctoo or England , and should not be spoken of as as a Past Master of any particular lodge . I recently had the honour of " assisting " at the consecration and dedication of a Masonic Temple in Ireland . A procession was formed of Craft , Mark , Arch , Knights
templar , and Prince Masons , followed by the Grand Master ' s authorised representatives . Being a Rose Croix Mason I was requested to take my place in the ranks of the Prince Masons , although a visitor . A Past Master of Mother Kilwinning Lodge was present , and being a Past Master of the oldest lodge present he was honoured by being asked to assume the nnsition of Grand Bible Bearer :
and a Past District Grand Officer of New Zealand was present and he was also assigned a post of honour in the procession amongst thc Grand Officers . 1 here was no attempt to relegate visiting * brethren of whatever grade or Constitution to any inferior position to \ ' assigned to . their own subscribing members . Judging j ro ™ 'he tone of some of your correspondents I am led to OOUht if thev would hi * disnnsprl tn rplnrn * - * hr > rniTrtpsv .
the onl y point , however , to be discussed is the preccnf li . " ^ ' Masters in lodge being subscribing members ° the lodge . Will our brethren follow the law laid down j » to the rank of lodges?—see Article 4 , page 73 , No . 124 revise . A lodge has a local as well as a general rank ; im re . move s to another province its local rank is placea Mas ? ely after the Ia £ t Iod S - "e-Tistered therein ; if Past inirl r , emove to another lodge , why cannot they accord-M S'y rank immediately after either the then junior Past Mast " " ' j ° ' ' ' - ' ** ' * P referred » . after the - then Worshipful
Original Correspondence.
No lodge can legally have a bye-law conferring power on Past Masters to transact the affairs of the lodge . The humblest member of the lodge has as much voting power as a Past Master on all matters concerning thc lodge ; consequently a joining Past Master being a subscribing member of the lodge has as much power as a member as he could
possibly have as a Past Master , with the one exception , that he ought to have the right to assume the chair in a prescribed order of seniority , and if this is not fixed by the Constitutions , powers ought to be given to lodges to doit for themselves . The matter is so plain I cannot see any necessity for further discussion . —Yours very fraternally , VV . NICHOLL , P . M . and / ,. 3 ' 7-
BRO . W . J . HUGHAN . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The members of the Craft in Cornwall have worthily recognised the very great services rendered to their province by our Bro . Hughan , in their presentation to him of a handsome testimonial on his departure from Truro
to Torquay , and his retirement from the active life he has hitherto led . I think the services of Bro . Hughan to the Craft generally have been so valuable that the opportunity should be taken by the Craft at large of testifying to their appreciation of his labours , especially as a Masonic Historian . Bro . Hughan ' s works will always be standard books of reference
in every Masonic Library , and for years he has been a diligent contributor to the Masonic press in all parts of the world . I would suggest that a subscription be raised throughout the Masonic world for the purpose of presenting Bro . Hughan with some fitting token of regard , and that the
subscription both for lodges and individual brethren be limited to a guinea . If Bro . Kenning will undertake to act as Treasurer for such a fund , I shall be happy to forvvard my contribution at once , and many other brethren in this part of the world will do the same . —I am , yours fraternally , T . B . WHYTEHEAD , P . M . York , September iSth .
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY IN WILTSHIRE . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am much indebted to ' the author , Bro . Frederick Hastings Goldney , Prov . Grand Treas ., P . P . G . S . W ., P . G . Stwd ., & c , M . P ., for a copy of the above work , which may certainly rank as a model for all future provincial histories ,
not only in paper and type , but , above all , in matter and arrangement . As this work is not for sale to the public , it is not likely to be very generally read ; nevertheless , there are some very important statements and extracts which deserve to be brought prominently forward , and I am inclined to believe that no more suitable medium can be found than your columns . I have obtained Bro . Goldney's
permission to make this use of his book . ^ The first extract to which I wish to call attention bears very strongly upon the question now agitating the Craft , viz ., the Status of Past Masters . As already pointed out many times to your readers , a Past Master remains a member of Grand Lodge as long as he continues a subscribing member to any private lodge , in virtue of his rank in the
Craft as Past Master . His rank m the lodgeof which he is at present a member is of no importance , because as a Past Master he represents no one but himself ; he is not the representative of a lodge . Grand Lodge is a representative body , as proved by Articles X . and XII . of the earliest ( 1723 ) Book of Constitutions . Article XII . provides that
Grand Lodge shall consist of "the Masters and Wardens of all the particular lodges upon record . " Article X . provides that the " majority of a lodge may give instruction to their Master and Wardens before the assembling of Grand Lodge , because their Master and Wardens are their representatives , and are supposed to speak their mind . " I am unaware when Past Masters were first admitted to
Grand i-odge , but nowhere in our present Constitutions can I find that they represent any particular lodge therein . A Past Master ( but only one from each lodge ) may attend thc Lodge of Benevolence if the actual Master bc unable to attend ( sec . 2 , p . 98 , ) and also the Board of Masters on the special appointment in writing of the W . M . if he be unahle to attend . VVe thus see that on special occasions a
Past Master may act as proxy of the VV . M ., but nowhere is he ex-officio a representative of a lodge . What , therefore , can it matter to him whether he be Past Master of a lodge or in a lodge ? In either case he only represents himself . Now in the minutes of the Salisbury Lodge , 7 th January , 1735 , we Snd this representative character of Grand Lodge very plainly indicated . ( " History of Freemasonry in
Wiltshire , " pp . 99-100 . ) TheSahsburyLodgehad represented to Grand Lodge that distance prevented the attendance of their Master and Wardens , and Grand Lodge thereupon permitted them to appoint a Bio . Gilbert Douglas , apparently resident in London , to be their perpetual proxy in Grand Lodge , in consequence of which Bro . Douglas was subsequently admitted a member of the Salisbury
Lodge , his quarterage being excused in return for his services , and he undertook to represent them in Grand Lodge , "the Master or Wardens of this lodge not being then in London . " This strikes me as being a very peculiar case , it is certainly the only one of its kind that so far has come under my notice . The Salisbury minutes also furnish some food for thought
as regards our ceremonial . In 1737 thc term was still to " pass a Master ; " in 177 ( 5 , " raised to the degree of M . M . " In 174 6 wc meet with the first" installation of a Master in the chair" j previously the Master has been simply " chosen , "no mention was made of installation . Do these differences in expression imply any difference in ritual ? And if so , are they due to the influence of the Ancients ? I hope Bro .
Gould ' s approaching third volume will throw some light on these matters . As showing the remarkable way in which old minutes disappear and occasionally reappear elsewhere the facts in the case of the lodge at the Turk ' s Head , Soho , are noteworthy . The minutes of the Salisbury Lodge , commencing 27 th December , 17 66 , are written in a book the first few
pages of which contain the minutes of the Turk ' s Head Lodge from 173 S to 1739 . The Turk ' s Head Lodge was warranted 12 th December , 1732 , and in the lodge lists of 1736-39 is No . 107 ; in that of 1740 it is No . 95 . It surrendered its warrant on the 24 th June , 1742 , and joined No . 3 8 . Your reviewer on the 31 st March of this year makes it continue until 17 S 0 as No . 41 . This is wrong . In the 1 740 list there was a lodge at the Arms , Newgate-
Original Correspondence.
street , warranted 25 th May , 1732 , which [ in 1756 had become No . 50 , and moved to the Turk ' s Head , Soho , and was erased 24 th April , 1776 . lt became No . 41 in the 1 770 list , but is not the same lod ge as the one above , although constituted in the same year . Now our Turk ' s Head Lodge existed from 1732 to 1742 , and its minutes from 173 * 5 to 1739 are dovetailed into the minutes of the
SalisrJ L ? - *? Be" so . mewhere between April and December , 1766 . These minutes ought naturall y to have come into the possession of the lodge with which it amalgamated , No . 38 m 1740 , No . 25 in r 756 , No . 24 in 1770 , No . 22 in 17 S 1 , No . 21 in 1702 , and now No . 2 S , and yet instead of in London we find them in Salisbury .
But , as might be supposed from thcir'date , even these few minutes are curious . On 27 th February , i 73 S , we find that "the lodge was regularly closed with the songs of the Craft . This points to a possibility that our " musical services" are not the innovation they are usually believed to be .
On April 20 th , 173 S , "An examination was passed in Masonry by the Master and Wardens . " What docs this mean ? Perhaps Martin Clare ' s lectures . Again , what is , or was , thc " Masons' seal ? " October 19 th ; ' 73 S , " It was agreed that a pipe of good wine should
be fixed upon by some of the brethren . ... the whole should be bottled off , and the Masons' seal placed on each bottle and kept for the use of the lodge only . " Can Bro . Hughan explain this , or any other brother learned in numismatics ?
1739 , February 15 th , " Ordered that this lodge be clothed with aprons only , good , large , and glazed , at I 4 d . per piece . , This reminds us of Hogarth ' s picture of the Mason being conducted home by the waiter—no mention of blue ribbon here ' . When was the alteration made ? And now we come to our old " crux , " the Lewis . Bro Woodford tells us ( " Kenning ' s Cydon . cdia " 1 that th ' ~
word was first used Masonically in the 173 S Constitutions . I venture to think it was not then , however , unfamiliar to thc Craft , or we should have had some explanation of it . To judge from the quotation given , its meaning was already well understood . Any way , as early as August 16 th , 1710 it was in use at the Turk ' s Head— "Bro . Mills having been lately blessed with a Lewis , was pleased to present this
lodge with a crown bowl of punch , " & c ., and , on September 20 th , 1739 , "Our Bro . Delarant presented the lodge with a bowl of punch on his having a Lewisa born , and her health was drunk in form . " Is not this use of Lewisa unique ? In the minutes of the old Atholl Lodge , at Devizes are two very curious entries : 1793 , March nth , "The looVe not account of the third
was opened on key being missing •" 1795 , August 10 th , " Regular lodge night ; but the Senior Warden being from home with ye key were obliged to adjourn . " In . the old Craft guilds the papers , & c ., of the guild were usually preserved in a box provided with three keys , held by different officials , so that as no meeting for business could be held except " with open chest , " the preof all th officials
sence ree was indispensable . Do we see here a survival of this old custom in the Atholl working ' and did it formerly exist in all lodges ? It is a question which appears to me worth bearing in mind ; something else may turn up some day to elucidate it . In 1 S 16 we find a brother " raised to the Third Degree according to the new system laid down by thc Lodge of Reconciliation . " It is therefore evident that the new
system was not identical with the Atholl working ; from which it would appear that thc " Ancients " did not have it all their own way at the Union . The last extract I shall refer to is fro .-n the Lodge of l'nendship and Unity , at Bradford-on-Avon . " 1 S 72 , Sept . ¦ Sth , reference was made to the old lodge of a century ago of which Bro . W . Stone was a member . " This old lodge warranted in 194 and extinct
was S , was before 1 S 13 . If we give its last moments of existence in 1 S 13 , and say that Bro . Stone was initiated in that year at the age of 21 it follows that in 1 S 72 he must have been So years old . These are thc most favourable circumstances , but he may have been much older , and in any case must have been at least 59 years a Mason . Now with the exception of the last extractwhich I merel
, y give as curious , but of no archaeological interest , all these minutes are contained in the records of three lodges only the old lodge at Salisbury , the old lodge at Devizes and the lodge at the Turk ' s Head , Soho . It is quite possible that Bro . Goldney has by no means reproduced every single item of interest , he may have feared to make his book too voluminous ; but even if we admit that he has produced
every single item of thc least interest to us I think I have shown that there is very much to set us enquiring within the covers of his book ; much to learn , much to _ stimulate our curiosity . How many hundreds of old minute books are still lying unused , unthought of in old lodge chests ! Every lodge dating from before the union could surely produce one brother competent to edit its annals
, and with sufficient time on his hands . Nay , it is quite possible that if these old chests were examined the minutes of many extinct lodges might be discovered and perhaps even here and there some pre-1717 minutes of operative lodges . Can nothing be done to awaken a deeper interest in our old records ? One thing is certain , we shall never be confident of having got to the truth of the history nf rtiir ( rr ^ ind nIA . . III .... I . i ll ...... * «_— :.. _ . , mV 6 VVK ^ urniijcsc ancient records
. ~ . , o .. u u . n .,. ., are brought to light in larger quantities than at present . G . WM . SPETH . [ We welcome Bro . Speth ' s letter . A review of this same work appeared in the Freemason some time back , and the points he fully alludes to were then dwelt upon by our reviewer . We cannot however have too much of a "( rood thing . " -ED . F . MA *"
-THE "ANTIENT AND PRIMITIVE RITE OF MASONRY—MEMPHIS AND MIZRAIM . " To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The following amazing advertisement appears in the Irish Times of VVednesday last : "Ancient and Primitive Rite of Masonry—Memphis and Mizraim . —The Grand Mystic Temple of Eri , assembled in Convocation at
Limerick , Wednesday , September the 12 th , 1 SS 3 , hereby solemnly declare—That the action of the Craft Grand Lodge of Ireland in suspending some of the Members of the Antient and Primitive Rite of Masonry is illegal , unconstitutional , and in express violation of the universal laws of Craft Masonry . This Grand Mystic Temple further solemnly declares that the Vote of Suspension by the Grand Lodge was carried through means of the supptes-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
Thus then the lawful and exalted character of Past Masters is conceded , an immense extension of their privileges guaranteed , but the independence and " esprit du corps " of private lodges safeguarded . I regret more than I can say the hasty , and as I contend unconstitutional , change recently made in respect of the Past Masters and the grand principles on which English | Freemasonry has hitherto
progressed and prospered . 2 . But I am told another question is involved , namely " . Precedence in lodge . " Up to date lodges with Past Masters "in" but not of tbe lodge have always given them every lawful honour . They place them to the right of the Worshipful . Master , keeping the Past Masters of the lodge to the left , and the only thing they have done is
not to allow them to call themselves Past Masters of the lodge , or members of Committees ( unless elected by those brethren according to such bye-laws ) which were to be composed of "de jure" Past Masters " of the lodge . " Practically being Past Masters , all honour is evinced towards them , but as to the lodge qua the lodge they take their order of seniority . Now all this is to be changed if Grand
Lodge confirms the proposed alteration in the Book of Constitutions . On joining other lodges they are either to be the Junior Past Master always ( though one does not see how this law can exist if their are two joining Past Masters ) , or the Past Master next to the Worshipful Master for the year , and they are to take precedence of all the officers of lodge , and all those brethren of whom some exist in every
lodge more or less , who have been faithful members of the lodge for many years , but who through shyness , or heavy work elsewhere , or distrust of their own powers , have remained by choice simply Past Senior Wardens , and have never consented to take the chair . A more fruitful cause ol party and clique , of want of harmony , of disintegration of lodges , I cannot conceive , and I am induced to hope and to
think , that many who so vehemently propound the absolute necessity and . imperative justice of this change , have not yet realized to what logically and assuredly their grave innovation must lead lodges . 1 know something of lodges , and I ask this in the Freemason as before those who can ) judge and reply to what I ask— "Do you believe conscientiously that any independent and
flourishing Hodge , with a long list of actual Past Masters , with a numerous roll of brethren , some who have subscribed for many years , will ever consent to admit these quasi Past Masters ofthe lodge among them ? " I feel sure they will not . 2 . And then a little bird whispers in my ear , "Tell it not in Gath , " that a very serious and impelling cause of these animated discussions , & c , is " Precedence in
the socialcircle . " Can it be possible that we are going to allow the ideas and proclivities of the " knife and fork degree " to change our laws and rule our Constitution ? Forbid the thought ! Having conceded all that can be fairly expected to our Past Masters , having also a duty to perform in upholding the independence , the harmony , the " espirit du
corps " of our lodges , I , for one , have a firm belief that when Grand Lodge is formally appealed to it will constitutionall y and firmly " retrace its steps , " with the support of provincial and metropolitan brethren alike , thereby manfully upholding , despite any passing clamour , the ancient customs and well-formed usages of English Freemasonry . — I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally ,
A PROVINCIAL MASON OF 40 YEARS
To the Editor of the "Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — 1 quite agree with Bro . Budden ' s remark in yours ofithe 22 nd inst ., that this question is becoming obscured by the addition of " so many trimmings . " The question of status of joining Past Masters so far as I can trace was started in July , 1 SS 2 , in your correspondence
columns , and in a foot-note was admitted by you to bc a very hazy point . There is therefore nothing to be gained b y displays of ill-temper or attributing of wrong motives to cither provincial or London brethren . I think it was a mistake on the part of the Board of General Purposes to interfere with Article 1 , p . iS . So far as I can see the words struck out did not clash with
anything else in the laws ; on the contrary , it would have been better to have remodeled every rule where Past Masters of a or the lodge arc referred to and simply call them Past Masters , being subscribing members of a or the , lodge ; they might then have jiven lodges power , by motion or bye-law , tp fix the rank in the lodge of joining Past Masters , for the point concerns no one but the individual lodges and
the joining Past Masters , and it only concerns them as to fixing the order of precedence within the lodge when the question of seniority arises , in the case of the absence of the Worshipful Master and the Immediate Past Master , as to who has a right to assume the chair . The rank of Past Master is not "[ conferred upon any brother bv anv lodrre : he simolv becomes a Past Master
by having served twelve months as Master , and I contend he is a Past Master in the Craft all over the world , whether m Timbuctoo or England , and should not be spoken of as as a Past Master of any particular lodge . I recently had the honour of " assisting " at the consecration and dedication of a Masonic Temple in Ireland . A procession was formed of Craft , Mark , Arch , Knights
templar , and Prince Masons , followed by the Grand Master ' s authorised representatives . Being a Rose Croix Mason I was requested to take my place in the ranks of the Prince Masons , although a visitor . A Past Master of Mother Kilwinning Lodge was present , and being a Past Master of the oldest lodge present he was honoured by being asked to assume the nnsition of Grand Bible Bearer :
and a Past District Grand Officer of New Zealand was present and he was also assigned a post of honour in the procession amongst thc Grand Officers . 1 here was no attempt to relegate visiting * brethren of whatever grade or Constitution to any inferior position to \ ' assigned to . their own subscribing members . Judging j ro ™ 'he tone of some of your correspondents I am led to OOUht if thev would hi * disnnsprl tn rplnrn * - * hr > rniTrtpsv .
the onl y point , however , to be discussed is the preccnf li . " ^ ' Masters in lodge being subscribing members ° the lodge . Will our brethren follow the law laid down j » to the rank of lodges?—see Article 4 , page 73 , No . 124 revise . A lodge has a local as well as a general rank ; im re . move s to another province its local rank is placea Mas ? ely after the Ia £ t Iod S - "e-Tistered therein ; if Past inirl r , emove to another lodge , why cannot they accord-M S'y rank immediately after either the then junior Past Mast " " ' j ° ' ' ' - ' ** ' * P referred » . after the - then Worshipful
Original Correspondence.
No lodge can legally have a bye-law conferring power on Past Masters to transact the affairs of the lodge . The humblest member of the lodge has as much voting power as a Past Master on all matters concerning thc lodge ; consequently a joining Past Master being a subscribing member of the lodge has as much power as a member as he could
possibly have as a Past Master , with the one exception , that he ought to have the right to assume the chair in a prescribed order of seniority , and if this is not fixed by the Constitutions , powers ought to be given to lodges to doit for themselves . The matter is so plain I cannot see any necessity for further discussion . —Yours very fraternally , VV . NICHOLL , P . M . and / ,. 3 ' 7-
BRO . W . J . HUGHAN . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The members of the Craft in Cornwall have worthily recognised the very great services rendered to their province by our Bro . Hughan , in their presentation to him of a handsome testimonial on his departure from Truro
to Torquay , and his retirement from the active life he has hitherto led . I think the services of Bro . Hughan to the Craft generally have been so valuable that the opportunity should be taken by the Craft at large of testifying to their appreciation of his labours , especially as a Masonic Historian . Bro . Hughan ' s works will always be standard books of reference
in every Masonic Library , and for years he has been a diligent contributor to the Masonic press in all parts of the world . I would suggest that a subscription be raised throughout the Masonic world for the purpose of presenting Bro . Hughan with some fitting token of regard , and that the
subscription both for lodges and individual brethren be limited to a guinea . If Bro . Kenning will undertake to act as Treasurer for such a fund , I shall be happy to forvvard my contribution at once , and many other brethren in this part of the world will do the same . —I am , yours fraternally , T . B . WHYTEHEAD , P . M . York , September iSth .
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY IN WILTSHIRE . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am much indebted to ' the author , Bro . Frederick Hastings Goldney , Prov . Grand Treas ., P . P . G . S . W ., P . G . Stwd ., & c , M . P ., for a copy of the above work , which may certainly rank as a model for all future provincial histories ,
not only in paper and type , but , above all , in matter and arrangement . As this work is not for sale to the public , it is not likely to be very generally read ; nevertheless , there are some very important statements and extracts which deserve to be brought prominently forward , and I am inclined to believe that no more suitable medium can be found than your columns . I have obtained Bro . Goldney's
permission to make this use of his book . ^ The first extract to which I wish to call attention bears very strongly upon the question now agitating the Craft , viz ., the Status of Past Masters . As already pointed out many times to your readers , a Past Master remains a member of Grand Lodge as long as he continues a subscribing member to any private lodge , in virtue of his rank in the
Craft as Past Master . His rank m the lodgeof which he is at present a member is of no importance , because as a Past Master he represents no one but himself ; he is not the representative of a lodge . Grand Lodge is a representative body , as proved by Articles X . and XII . of the earliest ( 1723 ) Book of Constitutions . Article XII . provides that
Grand Lodge shall consist of "the Masters and Wardens of all the particular lodges upon record . " Article X . provides that the " majority of a lodge may give instruction to their Master and Wardens before the assembling of Grand Lodge , because their Master and Wardens are their representatives , and are supposed to speak their mind . " I am unaware when Past Masters were first admitted to
Grand i-odge , but nowhere in our present Constitutions can I find that they represent any particular lodge therein . A Past Master ( but only one from each lodge ) may attend thc Lodge of Benevolence if the actual Master bc unable to attend ( sec . 2 , p . 98 , ) and also the Board of Masters on the special appointment in writing of the W . M . if he be unahle to attend . VVe thus see that on special occasions a
Past Master may act as proxy of the VV . M ., but nowhere is he ex-officio a representative of a lodge . What , therefore , can it matter to him whether he be Past Master of a lodge or in a lodge ? In either case he only represents himself . Now in the minutes of the Salisbury Lodge , 7 th January , 1735 , we Snd this representative character of Grand Lodge very plainly indicated . ( " History of Freemasonry in
Wiltshire , " pp . 99-100 . ) TheSahsburyLodgehad represented to Grand Lodge that distance prevented the attendance of their Master and Wardens , and Grand Lodge thereupon permitted them to appoint a Bio . Gilbert Douglas , apparently resident in London , to be their perpetual proxy in Grand Lodge , in consequence of which Bro . Douglas was subsequently admitted a member of the Salisbury
Lodge , his quarterage being excused in return for his services , and he undertook to represent them in Grand Lodge , "the Master or Wardens of this lodge not being then in London . " This strikes me as being a very peculiar case , it is certainly the only one of its kind that so far has come under my notice . The Salisbury minutes also furnish some food for thought
as regards our ceremonial . In 1737 thc term was still to " pass a Master ; " in 177 ( 5 , " raised to the degree of M . M . " In 174 6 wc meet with the first" installation of a Master in the chair" j previously the Master has been simply " chosen , "no mention was made of installation . Do these differences in expression imply any difference in ritual ? And if so , are they due to the influence of the Ancients ? I hope Bro .
Gould ' s approaching third volume will throw some light on these matters . As showing the remarkable way in which old minutes disappear and occasionally reappear elsewhere the facts in the case of the lodge at the Turk ' s Head , Soho , are noteworthy . The minutes of the Salisbury Lodge , commencing 27 th December , 17 66 , are written in a book the first few
pages of which contain the minutes of the Turk ' s Head Lodge from 173 S to 1739 . The Turk ' s Head Lodge was warranted 12 th December , 1732 , and in the lodge lists of 1736-39 is No . 107 ; in that of 1740 it is No . 95 . It surrendered its warrant on the 24 th June , 1742 , and joined No . 3 8 . Your reviewer on the 31 st March of this year makes it continue until 17 S 0 as No . 41 . This is wrong . In the 1 740 list there was a lodge at the Arms , Newgate-
Original Correspondence.
street , warranted 25 th May , 1732 , which [ in 1756 had become No . 50 , and moved to the Turk ' s Head , Soho , and was erased 24 th April , 1776 . lt became No . 41 in the 1 770 list , but is not the same lod ge as the one above , although constituted in the same year . Now our Turk ' s Head Lodge existed from 1732 to 1742 , and its minutes from 173 * 5 to 1739 are dovetailed into the minutes of the
SalisrJ L ? - *? Be" so . mewhere between April and December , 1766 . These minutes ought naturall y to have come into the possession of the lodge with which it amalgamated , No . 38 m 1740 , No . 25 in r 756 , No . 24 in 1770 , No . 22 in 17 S 1 , No . 21 in 1702 , and now No . 2 S , and yet instead of in London we find them in Salisbury .
But , as might be supposed from thcir'date , even these few minutes are curious . On 27 th February , i 73 S , we find that "the lodge was regularly closed with the songs of the Craft . This points to a possibility that our " musical services" are not the innovation they are usually believed to be .
On April 20 th , 173 S , "An examination was passed in Masonry by the Master and Wardens . " What docs this mean ? Perhaps Martin Clare ' s lectures . Again , what is , or was , thc " Masons' seal ? " October 19 th ; ' 73 S , " It was agreed that a pipe of good wine should
be fixed upon by some of the brethren . ... the whole should be bottled off , and the Masons' seal placed on each bottle and kept for the use of the lodge only . " Can Bro . Hughan explain this , or any other brother learned in numismatics ?
1739 , February 15 th , " Ordered that this lodge be clothed with aprons only , good , large , and glazed , at I 4 d . per piece . , This reminds us of Hogarth ' s picture of the Mason being conducted home by the waiter—no mention of blue ribbon here ' . When was the alteration made ? And now we come to our old " crux , " the Lewis . Bro Woodford tells us ( " Kenning ' s Cydon . cdia " 1 that th ' ~
word was first used Masonically in the 173 S Constitutions . I venture to think it was not then , however , unfamiliar to thc Craft , or we should have had some explanation of it . To judge from the quotation given , its meaning was already well understood . Any way , as early as August 16 th , 1710 it was in use at the Turk ' s Head— "Bro . Mills having been lately blessed with a Lewis , was pleased to present this
lodge with a crown bowl of punch , " & c ., and , on September 20 th , 1739 , "Our Bro . Delarant presented the lodge with a bowl of punch on his having a Lewisa born , and her health was drunk in form . " Is not this use of Lewisa unique ? In the minutes of the old Atholl Lodge , at Devizes are two very curious entries : 1793 , March nth , "The looVe not account of the third
was opened on key being missing •" 1795 , August 10 th , " Regular lodge night ; but the Senior Warden being from home with ye key were obliged to adjourn . " In . the old Craft guilds the papers , & c ., of the guild were usually preserved in a box provided with three keys , held by different officials , so that as no meeting for business could be held except " with open chest , " the preof all th officials
sence ree was indispensable . Do we see here a survival of this old custom in the Atholl working ' and did it formerly exist in all lodges ? It is a question which appears to me worth bearing in mind ; something else may turn up some day to elucidate it . In 1 S 16 we find a brother " raised to the Third Degree according to the new system laid down by thc Lodge of Reconciliation . " It is therefore evident that the new
system was not identical with the Atholl working ; from which it would appear that thc " Ancients " did not have it all their own way at the Union . The last extract I shall refer to is fro .-n the Lodge of l'nendship and Unity , at Bradford-on-Avon . " 1 S 72 , Sept . ¦ Sth , reference was made to the old lodge of a century ago of which Bro . W . Stone was a member . " This old lodge warranted in 194 and extinct
was S , was before 1 S 13 . If we give its last moments of existence in 1 S 13 , and say that Bro . Stone was initiated in that year at the age of 21 it follows that in 1 S 72 he must have been So years old . These are thc most favourable circumstances , but he may have been much older , and in any case must have been at least 59 years a Mason . Now with the exception of the last extractwhich I merel
, y give as curious , but of no archaeological interest , all these minutes are contained in the records of three lodges only the old lodge at Salisbury , the old lodge at Devizes and the lodge at the Turk ' s Head , Soho . It is quite possible that Bro . Goldney has by no means reproduced every single item of interest , he may have feared to make his book too voluminous ; but even if we admit that he has produced
every single item of thc least interest to us I think I have shown that there is very much to set us enquiring within the covers of his book ; much to learn , much to _ stimulate our curiosity . How many hundreds of old minute books are still lying unused , unthought of in old lodge chests ! Every lodge dating from before the union could surely produce one brother competent to edit its annals
, and with sufficient time on his hands . Nay , it is quite possible that if these old chests were examined the minutes of many extinct lodges might be discovered and perhaps even here and there some pre-1717 minutes of operative lodges . Can nothing be done to awaken a deeper interest in our old records ? One thing is certain , we shall never be confident of having got to the truth of the history nf rtiir ( rr ^ ind nIA . . III .... I . i ll ...... * «_— :.. _ . , mV 6 VVK ^ urniijcsc ancient records
. ~ . , o .. u u . n .,. ., are brought to light in larger quantities than at present . G . WM . SPETH . [ We welcome Bro . Speth ' s letter . A review of this same work appeared in the Freemason some time back , and the points he fully alludes to were then dwelt upon by our reviewer . We cannot however have too much of a "( rood thing . " -ED . F . MA *"
-THE "ANTIENT AND PRIMITIVE RITE OF MASONRY—MEMPHIS AND MIZRAIM . " To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The following amazing advertisement appears in the Irish Times of VVednesday last : "Ancient and Primitive Rite of Masonry—Memphis and Mizraim . —The Grand Mystic Temple of Eri , assembled in Convocation at
Limerick , Wednesday , September the 12 th , 1 SS 3 , hereby solemnly declare—That the action of the Craft Grand Lodge of Ireland in suspending some of the Members of the Antient and Primitive Rite of Masonry is illegal , unconstitutional , and in express violation of the universal laws of Craft Masonry . This Grand Mystic Temple further solemnly declares that the Vote of Suspension by the Grand Lodge was carried through means of the supptes-