-
Articles/Ads
Article EARLY CHESTER MASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2 Article THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK AND THE QUEBEC DIFFICULTY. Page 1 of 1 Article THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK AND THE QUEBEC DIFFICULTY. Page 1 of 1 Article THE ANGLO-QUEBEC DISPUTE. Page 1 of 1
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Early Chester Masonry.
Unfortunately the Grand Master ' s letter mentioned above is not entered in the book ; in all probability it was written by himself , and never came before the Grand Lodge . It is much to be regretted that the healthy and promising youth of these early Chester lodges was not , as might reasonably have been anticipated , followed by a vigorous old age . Of the three that were undoubtedly in
active working in 1725 , one disappears from the list before 1729 , another is struck off at the closing up of the numbers in 1740 , and the third meets with a like fate on a similar occasion in 1755 . Having carefully examined the records of Grand Lodge from 1723 , when the oldest minute book begins , down to Deer ., 1756 , I can safely say that no other reference to the Chester lodges is to be found during that period than
those now given and in the before mentioned letter , with the exception of the following item , which , however , has no connection with the three old lodges , but refers to the granting of a constitution for a new one : " 13 th April , 1739 , Horse and Groom , Chester , Constn . £ 2 2 s . " Notwithstanding the fine promises contained in the letter of 1727 , I cannot find that the members of the old lodges in Chester ever attended Grand Lodge or paid anything to the Charity .
Several curious points in connection with this subject remain unsolved , and are worlhy of further consideration . It would be interesting to know who appointed Coll . Columbine Provincial Grand Masler , when he vvas appointed , and how far his jurisdiction extended . Was he a local resident , or merely on military duty in the neighbourhood ? If the latter , it will account for another Provincial Grand Master
having been appointed in 1726 or 27 . His office must have been recognised and acknowledged by the Masonic powers of the day , or his name and rank would not have been so carefully recorded in the Grand Lodge book . And yet Anderson in his Constitutions , 1738 , completely ignores him . In giving a list of the deputations granted by different Grand Masters , he says : — "Thus on 10 May , 1727 , Inchiquin , Grand Master , granted a Deputation
to Hugh Warburton , Esq ., to be Provincial Grand Master of North Wales at Chester . " And this heads the list of deputations . He next mentions Sir Edward Mansell ' s appointment for South Wales , 24 th June following . The date of the letter from Chester ( 15 th April ) , which was read in Grand Lodge on the 10 th May , and was an answer to a letter from the Grand Master , leads me to infer that Anderson is in error as to the date of the granting of
the Deputation , and that the letter from the Grand Master there referred to was really the Deputation appointing Hugh Warburton P . G . M ., and was written either by Lord Inchiquin very soon after his installation 27 th February , 1727 , or by his predecessor , Lord Paisley . Entick in the revised Constitutions , 1756 , says that both Mansell's and Warburton's Deputations were granted by Lord Paisley in 1726 .
Thinking it just possible I might find some of the names of the early Chester Masons amongst the members of the London lodges in 1723 and 1725 , I have examined them carefully , but met with no success in that direction .
The Grand Lodge Of New York And The Quebec Difficulty.
THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK AND THE QUEBEC DIFFICULTY .
We have received from R . W . Bro . Albert E . Goodall , Grand Representative in the Grand Lodge of New York , an extract from the address of M . W . Frank R . Lawrence , Grand Master , relative to the pending question between the Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Lodge of Quebec at the annual session of the Grand Lodge of New York , held June 1 st , 1886 .
FOREIGN RELATIONS . " The relations of this Grand Lodge with other Grand Bodies have remained of the most fraternal and harmonious character . Elsewhere , throughout the Masonic world , such appears also to be the general condition of affairs . A single exception exists to this happy state , arising out of the pending matter of difference between the Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Lodge of Quebec , which was brought to my notice in
August last , by the transmission of papers from the last named Grand Body , including an edict proclaiming certain lodges located at Quebec , and working under the authority ofthe Grand Lodge of England , irregular and illegal . The dispute thus communicated to the Masonic world is one of long standing , and presents little that is new to those conversant with Masonic affairs . The Grand Lodge of Quebec was formed in 1869 , in
territory which at that time was under the jurisdiction of the Ancient Grand Lodge of Canada , organised some 10 years before . The lodges now declared to be irregular were in existence before the establishment of the last named Grand Lodge , and have always retained their allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England , declining to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges either of Canada or Quebec . The latter Grand
Lodge claims that , as a consequence of its establishment and general recognition , it acquired such exclusive jurisdiction within the territory accorded to it as to render it the duty of all the lodges previously erected therein to sever their existing allegiance and place themselves under its control . The Grand Lodge of England , besides disputing the soundness of the principle here asserted , declares that its recognition of the Grand Lodge of Canada
was made and accepted with the express condition that the English lodges within the territory of that Grand Body were to continue undisturbed in their allegiance and privileges , and , in view of this arrangement , it is contended that when , in 1869 , the Grand Lodge of Quebec became the successor to the Grand Lodge of Canada , It acquired no greater rights within the territory to which it
succeeded than had previously been possessed by the latter Grand Body . As to the compact claimed to have been made between the Grand Lodges of England and Canada , the English contention is fully supported by the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence made to this Grand Lodge in 1871 , which Committee , belore recommending the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Quebec , appears to have given exhaustive attention to
this general subject as it then existed . While fully believing in the American doctrine of the supreme and exclusive jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge within the territory which it controls , I do not consider that that doctrine should extend to thc length of rendering Mascnic Bodies previously enjoying a lawful existence within such territory clandestine or illegal , because of their refusal
to abandon lheir previous allegiance , and place themselves under the authority of the newly-created Grand Lodge . The Grand Master of Masons in this State in 1879 , in addressing this Grand Lodge upon the subject of lhe somewhat similar issue then raised by Quebec , as against the Grand Lodge of Scotland , expressed the opinion that the general current of authority is
The Grand Lodge Of New York And The Quebec Difficulty.
opposed to such construction of the ri ghts of a newly-created Grand Lodge ; and in that view of the subject your present Grand Master entirely concurs . If this is the correct view of the question involved in this controversy , we cannot endorse the action of Quebec ; but must deplore the fact that that Grand Body should have thought it necessary to proceed to the severance of fraternal relations , rather than wait the time when the lodges in question should find it for their interest to place themselves within the folds of its fraternal protection . "
The Anglo-Quebec Dispute.
THE ANGLO-QUEBEC DISPUTE .
The American doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction , within well-defined natural or political limits , is modern , and is not based upon any symbolism . It has come about as a convenient mods of precaution against vexaiious collisions , and for this reason has been widely adopted , and should be recognised by all ; but it cannot be ri ghtfully exacted as an obligation , except from those whose assent thereto has been expressly given .
But it is clearly noticeable throughout all the phases of the history of this dispute , that the Grand Lodge of England has ever studiously avoided distinctly committing herself upon this question . This is particularly obvious in every detail of her late retaliatory proceedings , and especially by her con ' spicUous silence upon this point in her official documents communicating her deliberations and decision to the authorities of Illinois , although the
provocation and respective edicts and proclamation were wholl y based thereon . Indeed , so far as the writer has been able to discover , in every instance theretofore , and especially in her recognition and dealings with Grand Lodges on this continent , organised expressly on this principle , she has been passive on this doctrine , and has observed the same only as a matter of mere policy and toleration , and for the sake of harmony . It is true she justified
her refusal to withdraw her charters from thc lodges of Montreal , by the authority of covenants entered into between the Grand Lodges of Canada and herself at the former ' s organisation in 1855 authorising their continuence ; but it is equally true that she now bases her protection also upon the fact that the said lodges have " existed and were working long before thc formation of the Grand Lodge of Ouebec . " ( Italics mine . )
Upon considerable research and mature reflection , I have come to the conclusion that this doctrine of coercion , on formation of Grand Lodges as well as afterward on lodges not assenting or on their affiliations , is fundamentally and radically wrong , and is a fungus of modern growth . If it- is correct that sovereignty of a Grand Lodge resides within itself , it is impotent to exercise sovereign power without or beyond its own constituent
lodges , which constitute the limit of its jurisdiction ; and that it is not false is amply proved by the very inability of the Grand Lodge of Ouebec to enforce its constitution , laws and edicts in the foreign lodges , except by the attempt of revolutionary acts of isolation and oppression . That the assertion thtat the Grand Lodge of Ouebec is the only source
of Masonic power within the province of that name , is only true to its own constituent lodges , is proven by the inverse fact that the constituents are the only fountain , not only of its own authority , but of its very life . Furthermore , the truth of the assertion that there can rightfully be no such thing as coercion of lodges to affiliation , or lo change the same against their will , is also traceable inversely to its indisputable source .
No Grand Lodge can exist without lodges , which in turn depend for life upon membership , but no man can be made a Mason accept at his own free will and accord , and no Grand Lodge nor Grand Master in lhe world can compel him when so made to change his affiliation against his will , and it would be a contradiction to assume that a lodge—being itself but the aggregation of its membership—can be forced to do that into which none of its individual members can be coerced .
I am well aware that I am advocatingprinci ples here at war with practices which have been prevalent in the Grand Lodge of Illinois for many years , and hence unpopular ; and that many of my brethren , older in experience , superior in intellect , and high in official station , and being deservedly powerful in its councils and decisions have been , and probably will continue , sincerely attached to opposite opinions ; and being entirely cognizant of the
latent force of kindred minds , and withal of my own insignificance , I cannot and do not hope to revolutionize its policy . However , circumstances are more powerful than men ; hence it may be possible that some of my experienced brethren have been enchained thereby , but now free , may on reflection see things in a different light and change their minds . For myself
I have , for obvious reasons , given the subject treated anxious thought and mature deliberation ; hence my conviction has not been arrived at by jump * ing to conclusions . I feel that I stand upon a rock which I can defend , and that " truth is mighty and must prevail . " — " Lux e Tenebra " in the Voice of Masonry .
ARCHAKOLOGV . —The science properly of antiquity , familiarly , the discussion and treatment of things out of date , such as the old habits , manners , customs , genealogies of nations and individuals , local memorabilia—the general antiquarian history of the past . Of late years the archeology of Freemasonry , long neglected , has been carefully attended to , and much progress has been made , though much naturally remains to
be achieved . In the last generation , and we may since 1717 until our time , the study of Masonic archaeology was alike uncritical and unscientific ; and though we can boast ol many honoured names , such as Anderson , Preston , Hutchinson , Dunkerley , Cailcott , and Oliver , yet , owing to the want any system of accurate treatment of Masonic history , on the safe and normal conditions of simple verity per se , many
mistakes have been made , and are still persisted in , alike in our chronology and our annals , which carelul study and sounder views have led us perforce to abandon . The Masonic arch ; eological student has a wide range of ground to travel over , but he requires as his constant guides , lo preserve him from technical dangers of various kinds , caution , correctness , and a love of truth . With too many the idea of the hour has been the "father of the thought , " so that in some rei-pecl the study of Masonic archieology may
be said to have begun de novo during the last quarter of a century . There are , however , signs on every side of us that the good work is going on , and when that little band of students has passed away , by which the need of Masonic archaeology has been so successfully demonstrated , we may rest assured lhat other and younger Masonic archaeologists will be found 10 take up their work , to complete their researches , and to bring out more clearly , year by year , the real value of their often unappreciated labours . — Kenning ' s Cyclopcedia cf Freemasonry ,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Early Chester Masonry.
Unfortunately the Grand Master ' s letter mentioned above is not entered in the book ; in all probability it was written by himself , and never came before the Grand Lodge . It is much to be regretted that the healthy and promising youth of these early Chester lodges was not , as might reasonably have been anticipated , followed by a vigorous old age . Of the three that were undoubtedly in
active working in 1725 , one disappears from the list before 1729 , another is struck off at the closing up of the numbers in 1740 , and the third meets with a like fate on a similar occasion in 1755 . Having carefully examined the records of Grand Lodge from 1723 , when the oldest minute book begins , down to Deer ., 1756 , I can safely say that no other reference to the Chester lodges is to be found during that period than
those now given and in the before mentioned letter , with the exception of the following item , which , however , has no connection with the three old lodges , but refers to the granting of a constitution for a new one : " 13 th April , 1739 , Horse and Groom , Chester , Constn . £ 2 2 s . " Notwithstanding the fine promises contained in the letter of 1727 , I cannot find that the members of the old lodges in Chester ever attended Grand Lodge or paid anything to the Charity .
Several curious points in connection with this subject remain unsolved , and are worlhy of further consideration . It would be interesting to know who appointed Coll . Columbine Provincial Grand Masler , when he vvas appointed , and how far his jurisdiction extended . Was he a local resident , or merely on military duty in the neighbourhood ? If the latter , it will account for another Provincial Grand Master
having been appointed in 1726 or 27 . His office must have been recognised and acknowledged by the Masonic powers of the day , or his name and rank would not have been so carefully recorded in the Grand Lodge book . And yet Anderson in his Constitutions , 1738 , completely ignores him . In giving a list of the deputations granted by different Grand Masters , he says : — "Thus on 10 May , 1727 , Inchiquin , Grand Master , granted a Deputation
to Hugh Warburton , Esq ., to be Provincial Grand Master of North Wales at Chester . " And this heads the list of deputations . He next mentions Sir Edward Mansell ' s appointment for South Wales , 24 th June following . The date of the letter from Chester ( 15 th April ) , which was read in Grand Lodge on the 10 th May , and was an answer to a letter from the Grand Master , leads me to infer that Anderson is in error as to the date of the granting of
the Deputation , and that the letter from the Grand Master there referred to was really the Deputation appointing Hugh Warburton P . G . M ., and was written either by Lord Inchiquin very soon after his installation 27 th February , 1727 , or by his predecessor , Lord Paisley . Entick in the revised Constitutions , 1756 , says that both Mansell's and Warburton's Deputations were granted by Lord Paisley in 1726 .
Thinking it just possible I might find some of the names of the early Chester Masons amongst the members of the London lodges in 1723 and 1725 , I have examined them carefully , but met with no success in that direction .
The Grand Lodge Of New York And The Quebec Difficulty.
THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK AND THE QUEBEC DIFFICULTY .
We have received from R . W . Bro . Albert E . Goodall , Grand Representative in the Grand Lodge of New York , an extract from the address of M . W . Frank R . Lawrence , Grand Master , relative to the pending question between the Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Lodge of Quebec at the annual session of the Grand Lodge of New York , held June 1 st , 1886 .
FOREIGN RELATIONS . " The relations of this Grand Lodge with other Grand Bodies have remained of the most fraternal and harmonious character . Elsewhere , throughout the Masonic world , such appears also to be the general condition of affairs . A single exception exists to this happy state , arising out of the pending matter of difference between the Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Lodge of Quebec , which was brought to my notice in
August last , by the transmission of papers from the last named Grand Body , including an edict proclaiming certain lodges located at Quebec , and working under the authority ofthe Grand Lodge of England , irregular and illegal . The dispute thus communicated to the Masonic world is one of long standing , and presents little that is new to those conversant with Masonic affairs . The Grand Lodge of Quebec was formed in 1869 , in
territory which at that time was under the jurisdiction of the Ancient Grand Lodge of Canada , organised some 10 years before . The lodges now declared to be irregular were in existence before the establishment of the last named Grand Lodge , and have always retained their allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England , declining to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges either of Canada or Quebec . The latter Grand
Lodge claims that , as a consequence of its establishment and general recognition , it acquired such exclusive jurisdiction within the territory accorded to it as to render it the duty of all the lodges previously erected therein to sever their existing allegiance and place themselves under its control . The Grand Lodge of England , besides disputing the soundness of the principle here asserted , declares that its recognition of the Grand Lodge of Canada
was made and accepted with the express condition that the English lodges within the territory of that Grand Body were to continue undisturbed in their allegiance and privileges , and , in view of this arrangement , it is contended that when , in 1869 , the Grand Lodge of Quebec became the successor to the Grand Lodge of Canada , It acquired no greater rights within the territory to which it
succeeded than had previously been possessed by the latter Grand Body . As to the compact claimed to have been made between the Grand Lodges of England and Canada , the English contention is fully supported by the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence made to this Grand Lodge in 1871 , which Committee , belore recommending the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Quebec , appears to have given exhaustive attention to
this general subject as it then existed . While fully believing in the American doctrine of the supreme and exclusive jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge within the territory which it controls , I do not consider that that doctrine should extend to thc length of rendering Mascnic Bodies previously enjoying a lawful existence within such territory clandestine or illegal , because of their refusal
to abandon lheir previous allegiance , and place themselves under the authority of the newly-created Grand Lodge . The Grand Master of Masons in this State in 1879 , in addressing this Grand Lodge upon the subject of lhe somewhat similar issue then raised by Quebec , as against the Grand Lodge of Scotland , expressed the opinion that the general current of authority is
The Grand Lodge Of New York And The Quebec Difficulty.
opposed to such construction of the ri ghts of a newly-created Grand Lodge ; and in that view of the subject your present Grand Master entirely concurs . If this is the correct view of the question involved in this controversy , we cannot endorse the action of Quebec ; but must deplore the fact that that Grand Body should have thought it necessary to proceed to the severance of fraternal relations , rather than wait the time when the lodges in question should find it for their interest to place themselves within the folds of its fraternal protection . "
The Anglo-Quebec Dispute.
THE ANGLO-QUEBEC DISPUTE .
The American doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction , within well-defined natural or political limits , is modern , and is not based upon any symbolism . It has come about as a convenient mods of precaution against vexaiious collisions , and for this reason has been widely adopted , and should be recognised by all ; but it cannot be ri ghtfully exacted as an obligation , except from those whose assent thereto has been expressly given .
But it is clearly noticeable throughout all the phases of the history of this dispute , that the Grand Lodge of England has ever studiously avoided distinctly committing herself upon this question . This is particularly obvious in every detail of her late retaliatory proceedings , and especially by her con ' spicUous silence upon this point in her official documents communicating her deliberations and decision to the authorities of Illinois , although the
provocation and respective edicts and proclamation were wholl y based thereon . Indeed , so far as the writer has been able to discover , in every instance theretofore , and especially in her recognition and dealings with Grand Lodges on this continent , organised expressly on this principle , she has been passive on this doctrine , and has observed the same only as a matter of mere policy and toleration , and for the sake of harmony . It is true she justified
her refusal to withdraw her charters from thc lodges of Montreal , by the authority of covenants entered into between the Grand Lodges of Canada and herself at the former ' s organisation in 1855 authorising their continuence ; but it is equally true that she now bases her protection also upon the fact that the said lodges have " existed and were working long before thc formation of the Grand Lodge of Ouebec . " ( Italics mine . )
Upon considerable research and mature reflection , I have come to the conclusion that this doctrine of coercion , on formation of Grand Lodges as well as afterward on lodges not assenting or on their affiliations , is fundamentally and radically wrong , and is a fungus of modern growth . If it- is correct that sovereignty of a Grand Lodge resides within itself , it is impotent to exercise sovereign power without or beyond its own constituent
lodges , which constitute the limit of its jurisdiction ; and that it is not false is amply proved by the very inability of the Grand Lodge of Ouebec to enforce its constitution , laws and edicts in the foreign lodges , except by the attempt of revolutionary acts of isolation and oppression . That the assertion thtat the Grand Lodge of Ouebec is the only source
of Masonic power within the province of that name , is only true to its own constituent lodges , is proven by the inverse fact that the constituents are the only fountain , not only of its own authority , but of its very life . Furthermore , the truth of the assertion that there can rightfully be no such thing as coercion of lodges to affiliation , or lo change the same against their will , is also traceable inversely to its indisputable source .
No Grand Lodge can exist without lodges , which in turn depend for life upon membership , but no man can be made a Mason accept at his own free will and accord , and no Grand Lodge nor Grand Master in lhe world can compel him when so made to change his affiliation against his will , and it would be a contradiction to assume that a lodge—being itself but the aggregation of its membership—can be forced to do that into which none of its individual members can be coerced .
I am well aware that I am advocatingprinci ples here at war with practices which have been prevalent in the Grand Lodge of Illinois for many years , and hence unpopular ; and that many of my brethren , older in experience , superior in intellect , and high in official station , and being deservedly powerful in its councils and decisions have been , and probably will continue , sincerely attached to opposite opinions ; and being entirely cognizant of the
latent force of kindred minds , and withal of my own insignificance , I cannot and do not hope to revolutionize its policy . However , circumstances are more powerful than men ; hence it may be possible that some of my experienced brethren have been enchained thereby , but now free , may on reflection see things in a different light and change their minds . For myself
I have , for obvious reasons , given the subject treated anxious thought and mature deliberation ; hence my conviction has not been arrived at by jump * ing to conclusions . I feel that I stand upon a rock which I can defend , and that " truth is mighty and must prevail . " — " Lux e Tenebra " in the Voice of Masonry .
ARCHAKOLOGV . —The science properly of antiquity , familiarly , the discussion and treatment of things out of date , such as the old habits , manners , customs , genealogies of nations and individuals , local memorabilia—the general antiquarian history of the past . Of late years the archeology of Freemasonry , long neglected , has been carefully attended to , and much progress has been made , though much naturally remains to
be achieved . In the last generation , and we may since 1717 until our time , the study of Masonic archaeology was alike uncritical and unscientific ; and though we can boast ol many honoured names , such as Anderson , Preston , Hutchinson , Dunkerley , Cailcott , and Oliver , yet , owing to the want any system of accurate treatment of Masonic history , on the safe and normal conditions of simple verity per se , many
mistakes have been made , and are still persisted in , alike in our chronology and our annals , which carelul study and sounder views have led us perforce to abandon . The Masonic arch ; eological student has a wide range of ground to travel over , but he requires as his constant guides , lo preserve him from technical dangers of various kinds , caution , correctness , and a love of truth . With too many the idea of the hour has been the "father of the thought , " so that in some rei-pecl the study of Masonic archieology may
be said to have begun de novo during the last quarter of a century . There are , however , signs on every side of us that the good work is going on , and when that little band of students has passed away , by which the need of Masonic archaeology has been so successfully demonstrated , we may rest assured lhat other and younger Masonic archaeologists will be found 10 take up their work , to complete their researches , and to bring out more clearly , year by year , the real value of their often unappreciated labours . — Kenning ' s Cyclopcedia cf Freemasonry ,