The Moderns & The
Antients
BY BRO. ARTHUR HEIRON
Bro. Heiron is the author of
Ancient Freemasonry and
the Old Dundee Lodge, No. 18 [1722-1920], a most interesting account of
lodge
life two hundred years ago.
The
present paper was read before the Manchester Association for
Masonic Research in May, 1924.
IT is common knowledge that prior to 1813 the Craft had for many years
been
divided into two great sections, the Moderns and the Antients, and for
the
benefit of those brethren who have had no opportunity to study the
matter on
their own account, the following rough epitome by way of general
information is
given.
There is a legend that in 1716 “Four Old Lodges” in
London, the author of Multa
Paucis an anonymous work of about 1764 gives the number as six
“finding
themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren”, with the
assistance “of some old
Brothers” met together at the Apple-Tree Tavern in Charles
Street, Covent
Garden, and “constituted themselves a Grand Lodge pro Tempore
in Due Form”; and
on “St. John Baptist’s Day, A.D. 1717, the Assembly
and Feast of the Free and
Accepted Masons was held at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house in St.
Paul’s
Church-Yard.”
In this humble fashion, without show or pretense, in a room at a Tavern
about
22 feet long by 16 feet wide, the first Grand Lodge in London was,
according to
the account given by Dr. Anderson in his “New Book of
Constitutions” [1738]
thus formally “Constituted.” Whilst it is now
recognized that Dr.
Anderson’s “Story of the Craft”, based on
mythical tales and legendary
traditions, is quite untrustworthy, yet his version of
the actual
origin of the Grand Assembly or Grand Lodge at London may or may not
deserves
some credence, for, after all it is the only one available for our
consideration as there are no records prior to 1723, so what ever may
or may
not have happened in 1717 is left only to imagination.
Anderson was a Doctor of Divinity, a Presbyterian minister, a
“dissenting
teacher,” a man of good standing and character. In 1738 he
assures us that
having-in 1721--been ordered [by Grand Lodge] to digest the old Gothic
Constitutions in a new and better method, . . . “Montagu,
Grand Master, at the
desire of the Lodge, appointed fourteen learned Brothers to examine
Brother
Anderson’s Manuscript and to make report,” . . .
which “said Committee of 14” .
. . reported [in 1722] that they had perused same “and after
some Amendments
had approv’d of it: Upon which the Lodge desir’d
the Grand Master to order it
to be printed.” The above refers to his First Book of
Constitutions of 1723.
-The following extracts from the actual minutes of Grand Lodge relate
to his
1738 edition.
1735, Feb. 24. Dr. Anderson reported to Grand Lodge “that he
had spent some
Thoughts upon some Alterations and Additions” to his First
Edition of 1723
-then “all sold off” - and G. L.
“appointed a Committee to revise and compare
the same &c.”
1738, Jan. 25. “Bro. Anderson informed the [Grand] Lodge that
he had sometime
since Prepared a New Edition of the Book of Constitutions with several
Additions and Amendmts which having been perused & (after some
alterations
made therein) Approved off by several Grand Officers was now ready for
the
Press and he therefore desired the Grand Master’s Commands
& the
approbation of this Lodge for printing the same, which request was
granted
him.”
His work having been thus checked and revised by his colleagues and
contemporaries and approved by Grand Lodge, each student must now
therefore
form his own conclusions as to the credibility or otherwise that should
be
given to Dr. Anderson’s statements relating to the above
mentioned meetings of
“the four old Lodges” in 1716 and 1717.
The members of this Grand Lodge of 1717 before long—for
reasons hereinafter
mentioned—became known as the ‘Moderns,’
whilst their subsequent rivals—who
described themselves as the ‘Antients’ did not
constitute their Grand Lodge
before 1753 (although they first assembled as a Grand Committee in
1751); thus
in point of time the ‘Moderns’ were as a body,
thirty-four years older than the
‘Antients,’ it is therefore quite clear that both
these titles are-colloquially
speaking—misnomers. It is not very easy to explain in detail
the exact reasons
for the founding of this opposition Grand Lodge but some of the
contributory
causes appear to be as follows:
‘OPERATIVE
MASONS’
Prior to the
formation of Grand Lodge in 1717, most of the Lodges were of humble
rank,
having as members many men of the working classes -including of course
real
‘Operative’ Masons, although there were also some
‘Speculatives’ in their midst
-for in those early days a Lodge almost invariably met at a Tavern or
Inn, and
was very much like a benefit society, members who were ill or in
distress
coming ‘On the Box’ for small payments in
cash—pecuniary ‘Relief’ to brethren
in need being then a constant feature. It was also quite usual for
members not
only to attend at the funeral of a deceased brother, but also to pay
for the
cost of interment when need required. This presence of the
‘Operatives’ in
Lodges is made manifest from the fact that Grand Lodge in 1722 selected
as
their Grand Wardens, two working men, viz.: -‘Mr. Joshua
Timson,’ a Blacksmith,
and ‘Mr. William Hawkins,’ a
‘Mason,’ whilst the following mechanics were also
appointed Grand Wardens, viz.:-‘Jacob Lamball,’ a
‘Carpenter’ in 1717; ‘John
Cordwell,’ a ‘City Carpenter’ and
‘Thomas Morrice,” a ‘Stone
Cutter’ in 1718;
and ‘Thomas Hobby,’ also a ‘Stone
Cutter’ in 1720.
The first Grand Master who was installed in 1717-one Anthony Sayer -was
also
apparently a man of limited means, for later in life he became Tyler to
at
least four lodges, and on two occasions applied to Grand Lodge for
relief, in
1730 when 15 pounds were voted to him also 2.2.0 in 1741 from the
‘General
Charity,’ whilst he also received assistance from various
private Lodges. Bro.
J. Walter Hobbs, L.R., in an exhaustive and valued paper read in 1924
before
the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (entitled “Mr. Anthony
Sayer”) attempts to prove
that Sayer was not only a “Gentleman” but also a
person of some social
standing—who might later on have lost his fortune in the
“South Sea Bubble”; he
however frankly admits that the evidence is not conclusive.
”NOBLEMEN AND GENTLEMEN” [1723]
Before long
however
a higher status was ruling amongst the so-called
‘Moderns,’ for Dr. Anderson in
his Constitutions of the Freemasons [1723] tells us that
“several Noblemen and
Gentlemen of the best Rank with Clergymen and learned Scholars of most
Professions and Denominations . . . frankly joined and submitted to
take the
Charges, and to wear the Badges of a Free and Accepted Mason, under our
present
worthy Grand Master, the most noble Prince, John, Duke of
Montagu.”
In 1738 Anderson expatiates further by stating “Now Masonry
flourished in
Harmony, Reputation, and Numbers, many Noblemen and Gentlemen of the
first Rank
desir’d to be admitted to the Fraternity, besides other
Learned Men, Merchants,
Clergymen and Tradesmen who found a Lodge to be a safe and pleasant
Relaxation
from Intense Study or the Hurry of Business, without Politicks or
Party.”
“UNATTACHED
LODGES”
Human nature in
1724 was very like what we find it today and it is not only possible
but quite
probable that many of the “Operatives” and humbler
members of a Lodge felt
rather jealous of these richer men and their influence and desire for
new
methods of working. So glowing out of harmony with this changed
condition of
affairs they gradually left their Mother Lodges to form others more
congenial
to themselves. Some would also join Unattached or Independent Lodges
which went
by the name of St. John’s Masons - St. John being the Patron
Saint of the Craft
- for we find that many visitors to the old Lodges often signed the
attendance
book or were entered by the Secretary as St. John’s Men -
they paying generally
an extra visiting fee.
“IRISH MASONS”
Now from (a) these
groups of poor Masons—discontented with the advent into the
Craft of these so
called “Noblemen and Gentlemen,” also (b) from
those brethren who objected to
any alteration being made in their ancient Ritual, but more especially
(c) from
a band of Irish Freemasons who had settled in London -mostly in poor
circumstances—came into being a new organization that in 1751
first worked by
means of a Grand Committee, and in 1753 blossomed out into a new Grand
Lodge
whose members soon described themselves as Antient Masons holding out
that they
alone deserved that title because they practiced Masonry according to
the ‘Old
Constitutions.’ The late Bro. Henry Sadler, Librarian to
Grand Lodge in his
Masonic Facts and Fictions [1887] confirms the statement that the early
members
of the Lodges of the ‘Antients’ consisted mostly of
Irish Masons, who were
chiefly of the working class type. It is therefore obvious that
speaking
generally—the personnel of the Modern Lodges, was on a higher
grade than that of
the Antients. Quite apart, however, from the different social status of
these
brethren there were other important reasons which helped to cause a
division of
the Craft into two bodies.
ANDERSON’S FIRST CHARGE
[1723]
The Old Charges
make it clear that prior to 1717 the Craft had definitely accepted the
Christian Faith as its first and abiding Land Mark; the constant and
repeated
‘Invocations to the Trinity’ prove this to a
certainty.—Perhaps in order to
make ‘Masonry Universal,’ thereby allowing Jews to
enter the Order-Anderson’s
‘First Charge’ in his Constitutions of 1723 stated
that a Mason, was “now” only
required to be of that religion “in which all men agree,
leaving their
particular opinions to themselves; that is to be good Men and true,
etc.” [This
subject has been most ably elucidated and explained by Bro. J. E. Shum
Tuckett
in a paper read before this Society in 1922.] This serious alteration
in our
creed [as Bro. Vibert tells us in his excellent Story of the Craft]
virtually
de Christianized the tenets of Freemasonry, thereby making the Craft
eligible
to a professor of any faith-provided always that the candidate
recognized the
existence of a Supreme Being. It is clear that this startling
innovation became
a serious stumbling block to many of the old fashioned Operatives who
had been
accustomed to hear read in open Lodge the ‘Old
Charges,’ constantly reminding
them that the first and chief duty of a Mason was to be a True Man to
God and
the Holy Church. These men had also lived in the days when a regular
and
punctual attendance at their parish church was not only a duty, but an
absentee—without valid excuse-became liable to fines or other
penalties. In
1552 it was enacted by 5 & 6 Edward 6, c. 1., that if anyone
without lawful
or reasonable excuse absented himself from public worship ( i.e., at
the Parish
Church) he became liable “on pain of punishment by the
censures of the Church.”
This Act -though now obsolete -is still on the Statute Book, but was
repealed -
about 1846 - as regards ‘Dissenters.’
PRICHARD’S
‘MASONRY
DISSECTED’ [1730]
It is also obvious
that the authority of the Grand Lodge of 1717 was not recognized
universally.
Certain old Lodges retained a position of independence and refused to
accept
what they considered was a new Constitution - keeping to certain
ancient
customs peculiar to themselves - and certain societies also arose
professing to
be Masons, but often merely using the name of the Craft as a cloak for
political or even less worthy purposes. Enemies were also at work,
various exposures
of the Ritual being printed, purporting to tell the outside world the
real
secrets of the Craft—the most important being Masonry
Dissected, written by one
Samuel Prichard, described as “late member of a Constituted
Lodge,” which first
appeared in 1730.
At length in the same year [viz., 1730], in order to meet these various
difficulties and with a laudable desire to prevent
‘cowans’ and ‘impostors’
being ‘Made Masons,’ the Grand Lodge of 1717
allowed - or perhaps even advised
- the Lodges under its jurisdiction to make certain variations in the
Ritual.
The following extracts from the Grand Lodge minutes of 1730 and 1739
refer to
this matter: -
1730, Aug. 28. Dr. Desaguliers “recommended several things to
the consideration
of the Grand Lodge” . . . “for preventing any false
Brethren being admitted
into regular Lodges and such as call themselves Honorary
Masons.” “The D.G.M.
Nathaniel Blakerby proposed several Rules to the Grand Lodge to be
observed in
their respective Lodges for their Security against all open and Secret
Enemies
to the Craft.”
1730, Dec. 15. In order “to prevent the Lodges being imposed
upon by false
Brethren or Impostors,” a member had to vouch for a visiting
Brother “and the
Member’s name had to be entered against the
Visitor’s name in the Lodge Book.”
1739, June 30. “The Complaint referred to by the last
Committee of Charity
concerning the irregular making of Masons was taken into
Consideration.”
1739, Dec. 12. “Ordered that the Laws be strictly put in
Execution against all
such Brethren as shall for the future countenance, connive or assist at
any
such irregular Makings.”
It is generally believed that the principal changes effected by the
Moderns
were that they: -
1 Transposed the Word s in the first and second Degrees.
2 Gave up the use of Deacons, or at any rate did not appoint them.
3 Omitted the Ceremony of Installation; (and later on)
4 Did not officially perform or even recognise the rite of Holy Royal
Arch—said
to be the completion or perfection of the third Degree.
5 Possibly also changed the steps, and generally curtailed the
Ceremonies,
relying chiefly on teaching the tenets of the Craft by means of Masonic
Lectures, at least in certain old Modern Lodges the latter were always
the
chief and most essential feature of the work.
Unfortunately hostility soon arose between the Moderns and the Antients
and
increased as time went on, and for about seventy years they opposed
each other
bitterly. The dissenting and dissatisfied Lodges - which according to
Sadler
gradually became known as Irish. Lodges - insisted on retaining the
established
Ritual in all its details and soon began openly to state that those who
had
thus varied the ancient forms and ceremonies were scarcely worthy to be
regarded as Masons. and so they dubbed them Modern Masons and claimed
for
themselves the title of Antient Masons, meaning thereby that they - and
they
alone - practiced Masonry according to the proper rites.
MODERNS AND ANTIENTS RE-MADE
To such an extent
did this spirit prevail that if a Modern desired to visit an Antient
Lodge, he
had first to be Re-Made so as to become an Antient; similarly the
Moderns were
quite as strict on their part and would not allow an Antient to visit
their
Lodge unless he were first Re-Made so as to become a Modern.
Now, although the motive of the Moderns in thus varying the Ritual was
perfectly honest and sincere-their desire merely being to prevent
irregular
Masons being made - yet in time they saw the error of their ways and
practically admitted that their rivals - the Antients - had acted more
wisely
in retaining the Ritual in its fuller and original form.
REVERSION TO THE ANCIENT
LAND MARKS [1809]
This is made clear
from the fact that in 1809 the Grand Lodge of the Moderns officially
passed the
following resolution, viz.: -
”That the Grand Lodge do agree in opinion with the Committee
of Charity that it
is not necessary any longer to continue in force those Measures which
were
resorted to in or about the year 1739 respecting Irregular Masons, and
therefore enjoin the Several Lodges to Revert to the Ancient Land Marks
of the
Society.” (1)
This clear and important admission on the part of the Moderns that they
had
omitted to practice certain of the ‘Land Marks’ was
the first serious step
taken towards reconciliation. The next naturally was to try and
discover what
the true ‘Land Marks’ were and for this purpose a
Lodge was formed for the
express purpose of “Ascertaining and Promulgating the Ancient
Land Marks of the
Society,” which became known a “The Lodge of
Promulgation” [1809-11]. The
result of their labours proving quite satisfactory, the Lodge of
Reconciliation
was then formed in 1813 which definitely agreed in 1816 upon a Ritual
satisfactory to both sides.
THE “UNITED GRAND
LODGE”
[1813]
All difficulties
being now removed, after much discussion and certain mutual
concessions—of
which it is only fair to state that the most important were mad by the
Moderns—a “Glorious Union” of these two
sections of the Craft was effected, and
on the 27th December, 1813, both Moderns and
Antients ceased to exit
and there arose instead The United Grand Lodge of Antient Freemasons of
England, the Duke of Sussex being elected and enthroned as the first
Grand
Master. (2)
After this somewhat rambling—and admitted quite
incomplete-version of the
origin of the Modern and Antients, let us turn our attention to the
real
purpose of this paper, viz.:--to discuss and inquire into the reasons
why the
Antients so persistently and continuously—from 1764 to say
1809-vilified an
ridiculed the ceremonies and ritual of the Craft a practised by their
opponents.
THE MODERNS
Laurence Dermott’s Satire 1764
In the 2nd
Edition (published in 1764) of Ahiman Rezon - which was the official
text book
of the Antient for half a century,- Bro. Laurence Dermott, the Grand
Secretary
of that section of the Craft, indulged in some rather severe criticisms
when
discussing certain items of the Ritual as practiced by the Moderns, and
by way
of an awful example (to prove some of his stories) actually singled out
and
especially referred to—though not by name—my own
Mother Lodge, the Dunde Lodge,
No. 9, at Wapping, London, E., now known as the Old Dundee Lodge, No.
18. It
perhaps, therefore is not very unreasonable that the present writer -
who has
for over thirty years been a member of that Lodge, and is now its
second oldest
Past Master - should endeavour in a very humble way to investigate such
allegations and put in some sort of defence to Dermott’s
charges, although as
these were made 160 years ago, he fully realizes that the case is quite
statute
barred and the matter now but ancient history. This article is,
however,
written in the hope that other members of the Craft may derive some
useful
information on these interesting subjects that were evidently often
discussed
in the Society of the Antients. We shall commence by first making a few
enquiries as to the author of these stories.
LAURENCE DERMOTT
[1720--1791]
Dermott was an
Irishman, born in 1720; he was made a Mason in Ireland in 1740 and
working his
way through the various offices was installed as W. M. of Lodge No. 26,
in
Dublin on 24th June, 1746. Leaving Ireland he
came to London about
1747 and for some time was a comparatively poor man, for he told his
own Grand
Lodge on the 13th July, 1753, that “he
was obliged to work 12 hours
in the day for the Master Painter who employed him,” and that
therefore he
would have no leisure time for the future in which to deliver the
Summonses
which up to that date had been his practice. His occupation of a
Journeyman
Painter betokens a very moderate income, but later on we learn that he
improved
in social status and carried on the business of a Wine Merchant at King
Street,
Tower Hill, London, E. He was a man of fairly good education, and his
firm and
distinctive signature reveals to some extent the bold and determined
character
which he undoubtedly possessed. He informs us that originally he joined
a
Modern Lodge in London [in 1748 -unfortunately up to now its identity
is
unknown,-but he soon threw in his lot (heart and soul) with the
Antients and
became their chief protagonist and sponsor for over thirty years. In
1752 he
was appointed Grand Secretary of that body and retained that exalted
position
until his resignation in 1770,--in the next year [1771] he was elevated
to the
rank of Deputy Grand Master, acting in that capacity until 1787 when
increasing
ill health caused his retirement; a few years later, viz., in June,
1791, he
passed to the Grand Lodge above, having devoted forty-seven years of a
very
active life to the services of the Craft for which he always had a
great
affection and regard.
His life in London was almost entirely spent in the Eastern portion of
the
great metropolis, for he reside for some years in King Street, Tower
Hill, E.,
and his will dated 5th June, 1770, commences
thus “In the name of
God, Amen. I, Laurence Dermott of the Parish of Saint Botolph, Aldgate
in the
County of Middlesex, Wine Merchant, etc., etc.”; he later on
removed to Mile
End with his wife where he remained until his death in 1791. (3)
HIS ACQUAINTANCE WITH
WAPPING
Dermott’s
residence
in the East End of London would make him very familiar with the
locality of
Wapping—then the busy and active Port of
London—where the Dundee Lodge had met
from 1739.
This Lodge—one of the oldest Modern Lodges in the world,
having been
Constituted 1722-23--was allotted in 1753, the Number 9 on the Register
of the
Grand Lodge of England, which number it held right up to the Union in
1813,
when in compliance with the compromise then arrived at with the
Antients it had
to surrender its old number and from 1814 became No. 18 which
distinction it
still holds in 1924.
NOTES
(1) The Committee of Charity fulfilled in those days the duties of the
present
Board of General Purposes of the United Grand Lodge of England.
(2) This present article is written from the point of view of the
Moderns, but
it is only right to at once make the fullest admission as to the great
debt the
Moderns owe to the Antients for preserving intact—against
great opposition—much
of the old (and perhaps original) working of the Masonic degree which
otherwise
might have been entirely lost.
(3) This information has been chiefly derived from an excellent
pamphlet
entitled Notes on Laurence Dermott, G.S., and His Work, written in 1884
by the
late Bro. W. M. Bywater, who with Bro. Henry Sadler are the chief
exponents of
Bro. Dermott’s Masonic career.
THE members of
Dundee Lodge, No. 18, or No. 9, as it stood on the Register of the
“Moderns,”
purchased in 1763 the freehold of a Warehouse in Red Lyon Street,
Wapping, and
letting out the ground floor and basement—at first for a
school and later on as
a general store—utilized two rooms on the first floor for the
purpose of Lodge
meetings, the smaller one being used as a Making Room and the larger
one being
used as the formal Lodge Room, which rooms when not required for
Masonic work
were often let for the purpose of public dances—to such an
extent was this the
practice that they became known locally as the Wapping Assembly Rooms.
The
Lodge Room was spacious and well adapted for a ball, being 44 feet long
by 25
feet wide and 15 feet high. The author of Multa Paucis describes the
building
as Dundee Masons’ Hall, Wapping, thus the Dundee Lodge, No.
9, must have had
quite a vogue in those days and been well known in that neighbourhood.
The
Lodge Room was always well furnished, for in 1754 the paraphernalia was
insured
from loss by fire in the Union Fire Office for 200 pounds -which was
increased
to 300 pounds in 1777--whilst the Freehold building in Red Lyon Street
was
insured for 800 pounds in 1763 in “Hand-in-Hand”
Fire Office, and in 1810 the
building and contents belonging to the ‘Dundee’
Lodge, No. 9 at Wapping were
insured for no less than 2,000 pounds in the Sun Fire Office. By way of
contrast the late Henry Sadler informs us that the only paraphernalia
possessed
by the Grand Lodge of the Moderns in 1766 was a sword, possibly a
Bible, a
jewel or two and two books of records; but that it had neither regular
furniture, jewels nor habitation; thus it was scarcely worth while
insuring
these from fire! In 1763 two oil-lamps were purchased to illuminate the
entrance to the Lodge Room and on dark winter
nights—especially when a public
ball was in progress—the building must have been very
conspicuous, and it is
obvious from his own statements that Bro. Laurence Dermott was well
acquainted
not only with the exterior of the building in which the Dundee Lodge
met from
1763, but also was well informed as to certain private features of the
Ritual
gained either from personal experience or else from stories received
from
visitors to the Lodge.
“HEARTY COCKS”
AND “GOOD
FELLOWS”
These were the
jovial expressions by which Dermott described his opponents the Moderns
when
writing about their Masonic doings in 1764. In his capacity of Grand
Secretary
of the ‘Antients,’ he apparently felt that he was
quite entitled to try and
enhance the prestige and fortunes of that society by deriding and
attempting to
depreciate his rivals. It would almost appear, however, that he felt
some
little compunction in the matter and was rather uneasy as to whether
his
statements were too severe and might be considered unfraternal and not
evincing
a truly brotherly spirit—at any rate he adopted a very
apologetic tone when he
first opened fire upon those who were (after all) only conducting their
Masonic
life under the express authority and sanction of the Mother Grand Lodge
of the
world. The following is how he commences what he considered was his
exposure:
“AHIMAN REZON [1764]
In the 2nd
Edition of this book on p. xxiv, Dermott in his “Address to
the Reader” states:
”Gentlemen and Brethren: -
”Several eminent Craftsmen residing in Scotland, Ireland,
America, and other
parts both abroad and at home, have greatly importuned me to give them
some
account of what is called modern masonry in London,” and then
says
”I cannot be displeased with such importunities because I had
the like
curiosity myself about 16 or 17 years ago [the 1800 Edition says
“in 1748”]
when I was first introduced into that Society.”
[Note.- Dermott here tells us that—though Made a Mason in
Ireland-he himself
joined a Modern Lodge on his arrival in London, consequently he was
well able
to discuss the differences in their Ritual as compared with that of the
Antients.] To show, however, that he had no real ill feeling in the
matter, he
then proceeded to say: -
”However, before I proceed any farther concerning the
difference between
antient and modern, I think it my duty to declare solemnly before God
and man
that I have not the least antipathy against the gentlemen members of
the modern
society, but on the contrary, love and respect them, because I have
found the
generality of them to be hearty cocks and good fellows (as the
bacchanalian
phrase is) and many of them I believe to be worthy of receiving every
blessing
that good men can ask or heaven bestow, I hope that this declaration
will
acquit me of any desire of giving offence, especially if the following
queries
and answers be rightly considered.”
After which followed certain “Questions” and
“Answers” seeking to prove that
Masonry as practised by the Antients was more correct and genuine than
that
favoured by the ‘Moderns.’
GENTLEMEN OF AMERICA [1764]
It is very
interesting to note that Dermott states that he gives his information
“to
satisfy the importunities of my good Brethren (particularly the Right
Worshipful and very worthy Gentlemen of America) who for their
charitable
disposition, prudent choice of members and good conduct in general
deserve the
unanimous thanks of the masonical world.” The Grand Secretary
of the ‘Antients’
appears therefore to have had some excellent friends amongst the
brethren who
were then practising Freemasonry in the Lodges working in the American
colonies. Please note that in any quotations in this article taken from
‘Ahiman
Rezon’ the italics have been inserted by the present writer.
Dermott then proceeds to explain to his readers a matter that only
those who
were in the habit of attending the Dundee Lodge could possibly be
familiar
with, for he actually refers to a very prominent feature of their
ceremonies.
On page xxxii of the same Ahiman Rezon, Dermott states:
”I have the greatest veneration for such implements as are
truly emblematical
or useful in refining our moral notions, and I am well convinced that
the
custom and use of them in lodges are both antient and instructive, but
at the
same time I abhor and detest the unconstitutional fopperies of cunning
avaricious tradesmen, invented and introduced amongst the Moderns with
no other
design but to extract large sums of money, which ought to be applied to
more
noble and charitable uses.”
He then proceeds to tell his audience that the item that offended his
Masonic
taste—and which he consequently “abhors and
detests”-is none other than the
symbol of the “Master’s authority to Rule his
Lodge”, for he says, referring to
the “Sword of State”:
”There is now in my neighbourhood” [that means,
near Tower Hill, London, E.,-
where he carried on the business of a Wine Merchant -, but in his 3rd
Edition of 1778 he is more explicit for he there says “There
is now in
Wapping,” [meaning thereby “There is now in the
Dundee Lodge, No. 9, at
Wapping”] “a large piece of iron scrole work,
ornamented with foliage, &c.
painted and gilt (the whole at an incredible expense) and placed before
the
Master’s chair, with a gigantic sword fixed therein, during
the communication
of the members, a thing contrary to all the private and public rules of
Masonry; all implements of war and bloodshed being confined to the
lodge door,
from the day that the flaming sword was placed in the East of the
garden of
Eden, to the day that the sagacious modern placed his grand sword of
State in
the midst of his Lodge.”
The following extracts furnish ample proof that this
“Gigantic Sword” that so
offended the Masonic principles of Laurence Dermott in 1778 [and also
as far
back as 1764] belonged to the Dundee Lodge, No. 9.
EXTRACTS FROM TREASURER’S
CASH BOOK
1761, June 26. “By Cash
pd. Bro. Gretton -
for Repairing Ye Sword, etc.” - 10. 19. 0 Aug. 13.
“Paid Bro. Stevens his
Bill-for Ye Iron for Ye Sword” - 15. 15. 0 do “Paid
Bro. Noy’s Bill Painting
do” 3. 10. 0 30. 4. 0
Now, Bro. Henry Gretton, a jeweller was our R. W. M. in 1760 (he was
referred
to in the Minutes of G. L. of 28th Jan., 1767,
see later on), whilst
Bro. Thomas Noy, a painter, was Master in 1765.
The suggestion of Bro. Laurence Dermott is that these two
“cunning avaricious
tradesmen” had compelled their Mother Lodge to purchase this
sword and iron
stand and have it gaily painted merely to extract monies from their
brethren
that should have been devoted to charity; but as we had 59 members and
the
total income of the Lodge in 1761 was 114 pounds the brethren were well
able to
bear the expense - although it must be admitted that 30 pounds was a
large sum
in those days. However, in order to rebut Dermott’s
suggestion that this money
was wasted and could have been better applied in charity, it may be
here stated
that the annals of the Dundee Lodge give ample proof that
“Relief” was
constantly voted at “Lodge Nights” in sums varying
from 1 1s. Od. to 5 5s. Od.
in many cases to applicants who were not even members of the Lodge. The
brethren also granted donations towards the funerals of their poorer
members,
whilst certain brethren—who became incarcerated in prison for
debt-were also
relieved; a few items by way of illustration are here mentioned.
EXTRACTS FROM THE RECORDS OF
LODGE, NO. 9
1759, Dec. 27. “Paid into the hands of Sir Joseph Hankey
& Co. [Bankers]
for the Widows and Orphans of those slain at Minden and
Quebec,” “Paid towards
Clothing the French Prisoners,” “Pd. Advertising
the 2 last Donations,”
[The above incident refers - inter alia - to the capture of Quebec from
the
French by Major-Genera James Wolfe on the 13th
Sept., 1759, when -
in the moment of victory - he fell mortally wounded on the heights of
Abraham.
The surrender of Montreal soon followed and with it all the Province of
Canada.
There must have been some special need here for assistance for Dr.
Samuel
Johnson in 1760--to help the cause -wrote an “Introduction to
the Proceedings
of the Committee for Clothing the French Prisoners.”]
1762. “Pd. Br. Harrison for his Trouble to get Br. Bride into
Greenwich
Hospital”; 2. 2. 0 1762, Mar. 11. “Recd. Cash of
Bro. Halley Borwick, his
Donation for the Benefit of Poor Brothers of this Lodge,” 2.
2. 0 1766, Feb.
10. “Pd. as a gift to Jos. Hankey & Co. for the
sufferers at the Great Fire
in Barbadoes,” 30
[A subscription list was opened in the Lodge, 30 members subscribing
this 30
pounds; we do not read of similar generous gifts on the part of the
Antients !]
1767. “Br. Croke having been previously helped, was Relieved
with 1. 1. 0 on
his promise of never troubling this Lodge again.”
do. Mch. 26. “2. 2. 0 to be sent to the Quarterly Comm. the
Master to have the
Use of the Jewels.” 1774, Nov. 24. “Bro. Peter
Batson now a Prisoner in the
Marshalsea relieved with 2 guineas.” 1783, Feb. 27.
“Br. Sandwell being now a
Prisoner in the King’s Bench was relieved from this Lodge
with 2. 2. 0.” 1807,
Feb. 12. “A Petition was read from Br. Cathro, confined in
H.M. Goal of Newgate
for Debt from Misfortunes in trade to be Relieved with 2
guineas.”
A MASONIC SYMBOL
But the real
answer
to Bro. Dermott’s accusation, however, is that our Sword of
State thus exhibited
in open Lodge - fixed by its hilt in a massive wrought Iron Stand which
was
suitably painted and decorated with foliage in gilt - was merely used
by our
Brethren as a symbol of the absolute authority of the R.W.M. to Rule
over his
Lodge. This Sword - still extant - is a handsome weapon, double-handed
with
blade 38in. long, the hilt 10in., while the guard is 9 ½ in.
wide. The identity
is absolute - No. 9 was then the premier, practically the only Modern
Lodge at
Wapping—an on one side of the blade, near the hilt, are the
words “Dundee Arms
Lodge, Wapping, No. 9.” [Note.- In 1761 when this sword was
bought and
renovated, the Lodge met at the Dundee Arms Tavern.] The symbols marked
on the
blade are chiefly of a martial character, consisting of swords and
flags: - in
several places the initials “G.R.” appear on the
flags, and as the sword was
damascened in 1761 these clearly refer to King George III. [It was
thanks
chiefly to assistance kindly rendered by Bro. W. J. Songhurst, P.G.D.
(the
erudite Secretary of the ‘Quatuor Coronati’ Lodge)
that the writer was enabled
in 1918 to identify this interesting relic of our Masonic past; Bro.
Songhurst
was also the first student to draw my attention to some of the weird
statements
in Ahiman Rezon which thereby led to the preparation of this paper.]
This sword
- which was used as a tyler’s sword from 1835 to 1918 - is
now kept for better
preservation in a mahogany box, presented on 4th
Nov., 1919, jointly
by the writer of these notes and by another P.M. of the Lodge. This
rare
Masonic curio is therefore a direct connecting link with the inner life
of an
old Modern Lodge, thus severely criticized by Bro. Laurence Dermott in
1764 and
1778.
OTHER SWORDS OF STATE
Various other old
Lodges also owned swords and stands which were used in a similar
manner. An old
Yorkshire Lodge [Const. 1793] still possesses and makes use of a
‘Flaming
Sword’ - fixed in a wooden stand placed on the right side of
the W.M.’s
Pedestal,-which remains with its naked blade uplifted during the whole
time the
Lodge is at Masonic labor. Bro. Welsford, P.A.G.St.B. informs me that
in 1923,
two ‘Flaming Swords’ [also with naked blades fixed
upright side-by-side on a
stand] were placed near to the Master’s chair during the
working of the
ceremonies in two old Lodges in the North of England; clearly relics
from the
days of old.- It is really difficult to understand the merit of
Dermott’s
objection to the use of a sword in Lodge in 1761. It was the
continuance of a
well known custom, for we are told that at the Grand Lodge Feast held
at
Merchant Taylor’s Hall on 24th June,
1724:- “In the Procession round
the Table, there preceded the Grand Master The Sword carried by the
Master of
the Lodge, to which the Sword belonged.”
In 1731, the Grand Master [the Duke of Norfolk] presented Grand Lodge
“with the
old Trusty Sword of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, which was
ordered to be
the Grand Master’s Sword of State for the Future”;
and this sword is still
borne by the Grand Sword-bearer before the Grand Master, or his
representative
at all meetings of Grand Lodge, and during the entire proceedings it is
laid -
in its scabbard - on the altar before the Grand Master.
The Lord Mayor when attending the city churches in his official
capacity, used
also to be attended by his Sword-bearer, carrying the civic Sword of
State,
which was fixed by the side of his pew (in special sword rests) during
divine
service. This old custom is still observed provided the sword-rests are
extant;
the blade, however, is now safely ensconced in its scabbard.
Bro. Dermott’s criticism on this point seems therefore to be
idle and captious
for it can be safely asserted that the brethren of the Dundee Lodge
committed
no breach of Masonic law or custom when they thus symbolically used
their
‘Sword of State’ in 1764.
“DRAWING THE LODGE ON THE
FLOOR” [1764]
Immediately
following his reference to our ‘Sword of State’
Dermott proceeds to cast
ridicule on another old custom [viz., that of ‘Drawing the
Lodge on the Floor,
in chalk and charcoal’] which had been practiced by the
Moderns certainly since
1726 - doubtless earlier still - and was a regular feature of the
Ritual in the
Dundee Lodge from 1748 to 1812. In 1764 - when Dermott wrote his
remarks - the
tyler, on the Lodge nights when a candidate was made a Mason (previous
to the
ceremony) invariably drew the Lodge on the floor in chalk and charcoal,
receiving for such work a special fee of 2s. 2d. for each making, so
Dermott’s
statement that the tyler sometimes received “ten or twelve
shillings” for thus “Drawing
the Lodge” when four or more candidates were made at a time
is substantially
correct. To the writer, however, the sarcastic way in which this
portion of the
ceremony was referred to by Dermott seems rather like
“playing to the gallery,”
his object clearly being to bring the Moderns and their Ritual into
ridicule;
his remark as to the “two sign posts” thus
‘Drawn upon the floor’ of course
alludes to the emblems of the two Masonic columns, marked and described
as “J”
and “B” in accordance with instructions received
from the Grand Lodge of the
Moderns.
“JAMAICA RUM AND
“BARBADOES
RUM
The following are
Dermott’s own words in his Ahiman Rezon [2nd
Edition, 1764] p.
xxxii:-
”Nor is it uncommon for a tyler to receive ten or twelve
shillings for drawing
two sign posts with chalk &c and writing Jamaica (rum) upon
one, and
Barbadoes (rum) upon the other, and all this (I suppose) for no other
use than
to distinguish where these Liquors are to be placed in the
Lodge.”
Such an ironical statement - especially proceeding from a wine merchant
- seems
not only in bad taste but rather overdrawn, and it makes one wonder as
to
whether at this period the Antients in their Assemblies - when they
made a
Mason - used themselves to draw the Lodge in chalk and charcoal or did
they
instead instruct their candidates as to the symbols of the Craft by
means of
the actual working tools of the Craft or by emblems depicted on a floor
cloth,
or did they leave them still in ignorance on such vital and important
matters ?
A few extracts from the Cash Books of No. 9
1749. “Pd Tyler and Drawer”... ... ...............
2. 0 1764. “Pd Cash to the
Tyler” ... ............... . 2. 2 1795, Apl. 9. “Pd
Tyler’s Fees for 4 Makings”
....10. 0 1799, Aug. 8. “Pd. Br. Mills ,’[Tyler]
for Form ing 6 Lodges” 15. 0
A LITTLE LEWIS AND CAPSTAN
Dermott in the
same
Ahiman Rezon [p. xxxii] again seems to try and invent an excuse to poke
fun at
his opponents, for he dilates as follows:
”And it is pleasant enough to see sixty or seventy able men
about a little Lewis
and Capstan etc, erected upon a mahogany platform (purchased at an
extravagant
price) all employed in raising a little square piece of marble, which
the
weakest man in the company could take between his finger and thumb and
throw it
over the house.”
Here Dermott is ridiculing the practice the Moderns had of exhibiting
the
Perpend or Perfect Ashlar on a tripod placed on the S.W.’s
pedestal. It is
interesting to note that the following extracts taken from the records
of
Lodge, No. 9, show that in 1746 our Brethren possessed one of these
items that
so aroused the satire of the Grand Secretary of the Antients. This
appears from
a list of paraphernalia;
1746. “1 Triangle with Blocks, Lewis, Crabb, etc, 2 Stones,
and 1 Marble
Block.”
The ‘Old Dundee’ Lodge, No. 18, still possesses and
uses regularly at its Lodge
Meetings a very old and similar tripod (made of brass) erected on a
mahogany
platform, perhaps the original that was purchased in 1746. It may even
possibly
be the actual article that so offended Dermott in 1764 ! Bro. Songhurst
in
‘A.Q.C.,’ Vol. xxxv, p. 82, also calls attention to
the fact that Dermott
ridicules the ‘Moderns’ for using such apparatus.
1754, Apl. 11. Resolved that “A New Pel pend Ashler Inlaid
with Devices of
Masonry valued at 2. 12. 6 be purchased.”
It is perfectly clear that the Lodge “at Wapping”
referred to in 1764 by
Laurence Dermott was the ‘Dundee’ Lodge, No. 9, for
it met there from 1739 to
1820 (a period of 80 years) and was practically the only Lodge in that
neighborhood at that date.
”APRONS ‘ [CIRCA 1717?]
Dermott in the same book, p. xxxi, has now a far more serious charge to
make
against the Moderns for he there says (speaking of the period soon
after the
Grand Lodge of 1717 was Constituted):
”It was proposed” [i.e., by the Moderns]
“that no brother (for the future)
should wear an apron. This proposal was rejected by the oldest members,
who
declared, that the aprons were all the signs of masonry then remaining
amongst
them and for that reason they would keep and wear them.”
[Dermott here suggests
that the motive of the Moderns was that they objected to appearing as
Mechanics
or as Operative Masons; he adds, however, the following statement]
“It was then
proposed, that (as they were resolved to wear aprons) they should be
turned
upside down in order to avoid appearing mechanical. This proposal took
place
and answered the design, for that which was formerly the lower part was
now
fastened round the Abdomen, and the bib and strings hung downwards,
dangling in
such a manner as might convince the spectators, that there was not a
working
Mason amongst them. Agreeable as this alteration might seem to the
gentlemen,
nevertheless it was attended with an ugly circumstance; for in
traversing the
lodge, the brethren were subject to tread upon the strings, which often
caused
them to fall with great violence, so that it was thought necessary, to
invent
several methods of walking, in order to avoid treading upon the
strings.”
The third edition of Ahiman Rezon [1778] contains the following foot
note:
”After many years observations on those ingenious methods of
walking up to a
brother &c, I conclude, that the first was invented by a Man
grievously
afflicted with the Sciatica. The second by a Sailor, much accustomed to
the
rolling of a Ship. And the third by a man, who for recreation or
through excess
of strong liquors, was wont to dance the drunken Peasant.”
Are we to take Dermott seriously? If so, it may well have been that a
few
Lodges - or perhaps only a few members of such Lodges-consisting of men
of
exalted rank or dignified professors in art and literature, might have
- at
first - declined to wear a garment that (even although only intended as
a
symbol) might affect their pride, in that they should even be asked
temporarily
to wear an apron -often soiled by stains of
‘porter’ or ‘punch’ - in such a
way
that in daily life would only be used by an Operative Mason; they may
have
fairly argued that being merely Speculatives they ought to be absolved
from
what to them may have appeared an indignity. However, we have no
certain
knowledge on this point but such a custom certainly was not prevalent
and it is
clear that the Dundee Lodge, - consisting of many tradesmen engaged in
nearly
every description of business life - was not one of the offenders, if
so, we
should expect that Dermott would again have singled it out by way of
example as
he certainly did concerning two or three of his other objections. The
records
of the Dundee Lodge contain many items proving that aprons were
constantly bought
for the use of its members and also that the Lodge itself - when
required - was
often “New Cloathed” with fresh aprons at the cost
of the Lodge funds. This is
evidence that our ancient brethren wore their aprons seriously and in
accordance’ with the custom of the old Operatives; a few
illustrations are here
given.
Extracts from the Minutes of No. 9
1750, Sept. 13. Bro. Lane proposed “That the Box in which we
formerly put our
Aprons in should be given to the Maid Servant of this House [i.e. The
Dundee Arms
Tavern, Wapping], 2nd by Bro. Banson, 3rd,
4th
and 5th.” 1752, Dec. 14. Bro.
Lane’s proposal for “New Cloathing the
Lodge carried in the Affirmative.”
Dec. 28. “That Ye Past Masters’ and Ye
Secretary’s Aprons be lined.”
1755, Apl. 10. “That a convenient Nest of Boxes be provided
to hold the Aprons
in an Alphabetical Order and that the Master and Wardens procure the
same.”
1764, Nov. 22. Resolved “That this Lodge be new Cloathed with
Aprons”; “That
the Past Master of this Lodge have Aprons bound with the same Ribbon as
they
wore their Meddals.” Extracts from the Cash Books
1755. “Paid for 2 Doz . Aprons” [1s. 4d. each] ...
1. 12. 0
1764. “Pd. for Gold Fringe for the Steward’s
Apron” . ... ... ........ .......
........ 2. 6
AND now the most
important criticism that Dermott ever made against the Moderns has been
left to
the last, and it is indeed a serious accusation that deserves and
requires
careful thought and consideration.
It is from the same medium of communication. In Ahiman Rezon, 2nd
Edition, page xxx, he tells the Antients and his readers generally,
that soon
after 1717 the leading authorities of the Grand Lodge of the
Moderns—which
would include such eminent Masons as George Payne, G. M. in 1718 and
1720; Dr.
Desaguliers and Dr. Anderson-came to rather a startling conclusion as
to the
best method to be adopted when a Candidate was made a Mason in a Modern
Lodge;
the following are Dermott’s own words:
”Hence it was ordered [i. e., by the Moderns]. that every
person (during the
time of his initiation) should wear boots, spurs a sword, and
spectacles.”
Dermott further adds “we are told that from this improvement
proceeded the
laudable custom of charging to a public health at every third sentence
that is
spoken in the Lodge.”
Dermott adds a foot-note in his 3rd Edition of
1778, to this
effect:--“This may seem a very ludicrous description of
making freemasons. But
Mr. Thomas Broughton, master of the lodge No. 11, London, declared that
he was
present in a modern Lodge not one mile from the Borough of Southwark,
when two
or three persons dress’d in liveries with shoulder tags,
booted and spurr’d,
&c., &c., were initiated into modern masonry; and upon
enquiring who
they were, he was told they were servants to Lord Carysfoot, then Grand
Master
of modern Masons.”
The question immediately arises, was Dermott talking of an actual fact
within
his own knowledge, or was he merely in veiled language and skilled
metaphor
trying to inform the Antients that when a Candidate was Made a Mason
according
to the Ritual of the Moderns he was not properly prepared? None knew
better
than the Grand Secretary of the Antients that he must only speak of
esoteric
matters in vague and mysterious words, not understandable by the
outside
world—for had he not titled his own book Ahiman Rezon, or a
Help to a Brother,
and as Shewing the Excellency of Secrecy, etc., etc. Perhaps in this
instance
Dermott may have been partly narrating the truth—so far as
regards
Spectacles,--for from an incident that is recorded in the minutes of
the Dundee
Lodge it seems reasonable to believe that up to 1766 our Brethren when
they
Made a Mason allowed the Candidate to see much more than is lawful in
these
days. The story is as follows: It was at that period an established
custom for
the Grand Master of the Moderns occasionally to make visits of
inspection to
Lodges under his jurisdiction and in 1766 the Dundee Lodge was thus
honored
with a State Visit.
The following extracts from the Minutes of No. 9 speak for themselves,
and show
our ancient method of Making a Mason: 1766, Feb. 13. “Lodge
Night. Bro. Clarke
[R.W.M.] signified that Lord Blayney and the Officers of Grand Lodge
intended
paying us a visit very soon, on which account he proposed that No
Visitors
should be admitted on that Night, Carried Nem. Con. Likewise Bro.
Elliott
proposed that every Member have Notice in his Letter, the Night that
the Grand
Officers come down, 2nd and carried Nem. Con.
Apl. 24. “Lodge Night. Br. Williams informed the Lodge that
he had received a
letter from Bro. Ripley, Secretary to the Grand Lodge intimating that
for
certain reasons the Grand Master thought proper to postpone his
Intended Visit
till after the Grand Feast.”
May 22. “Lodge Night. On this Night the following Visited the
Lodge and their
names we duly entered in the Minute Book, viz: “Lord Blayney,
R. W. Grand
Master; Col. John Salter, Deputy Grand Master; Thomas Dyne, S. Warden
in the
room of Br. Edwards; Rowland Berkeley G. Tr.; Samuel Spencer, Gd. Sec.;
Francis
Johnston, G.S.B., and a Steward.”
There were 67 Members present, also 13 Brethren “Useing the
Sea”: a total of 80
Members of the Dundee Lodge. [No visitors were allowed this night.]
The work done on this memorable occasion was as follows:
1766, May 22. “This Night agreeable to a proposal of last
Lodge Night, Mr.
Henry Bird was Balloted for, Accepted and Made a Mason for which Honour
he paid
2. 2s. Likewise Mr. Holman, proposed by Captain George Dear to be Made
a Mason,
he Useing the Sea, was Balloted for, Accepted and Made a Mason, for
which Honour
he paid 2. 2s.”
REFRESHMENTS FOR THE GRAND
OFFICERS
Hospitality was
shown to the visitors in those days as in these; food, wine, punch and
Music
[French Horns] were evidently provided.
1766, June 12. Paid “By Cash to Musick”. . 3. 3. 0
July 3. “Pd. Bro. Cordell his Bill”.. 9. 6. 0
do. 10. “Pd. Mr. Bothell, the Cook”. . 7. 0 6 [for
pastries, &c.]
July 10. “The Bye-Laws were omitted, as was Read the Night
the Grand Officers
was present.”
Now, in 1766 the 1st and 2nd
Degrees were given on the
same evening—this practice was continued up to 1809--but it
is quite clear from
what follows that the method of ‘Preparing the
Candidate,’ was not in
accordance with the usual custom; Lord Blayney therefore felt it
incumbent upon
him to write on the subject.
REQUEST OF LORD BLAYNEY TO
‘DUNDEE’ LODGE, NO. 9
1766, Aug. 28.
Verbatim extracts from the minutes: “Likewise the Grand
Master ordered Bro.
Edwards, the Grand Senior Warden, to desire That upon Making a Mason,
he may be
[sic] agreeable to the Method practiced in most other Lodges.”
The Brethren discussed this matter in open Lodge and the following was
their
reply:
1766, Sept. 11. “The Minute of the last Lodge relative to
[sic]
[Sic] the Persons when they were Made Masons was put up this Night and
carried
by a Majority at it should continue according to our Antient
Custom.”
This was an important meeting and there were present 25 Members, 4
visitors,
and one Member “Useing the Sea.” The sheet
containing entries for the Lodge
Night of 23rd October, 1766, and also of a Bye
Lodge of 27th
October, 1766, has been cut or torn out of the Minute Book, apparently
by the
Secretary; doubtless it referred to the dispute over the ceremonial
work, which
had been called in question by Lord Blayney, the Grand Master; at any
rate, it
is the only sheet that has been cut out or deliberately removed from
the
numerous records.
1766, Nov. 27. Resolved “That we should have a Feast as usual
on St. John’s
Day, and that the Grand Officers be Invited. Tickets for Members, 5s.,
Visitors, 7s. 6d.” Dec. 27. Feast Day. Present 47 Members; 4
“Useing the Sea,”
and 4 Visitors, including Bro. Alleyne [a Grand Officer].
“R.W.M. [Nath. Allen]
proposed that there be a Committee appointed consisting of the Master,
Wardens,
Past Masters, Treasurer, Secretary and Stewards to consider of an
Answer to the
Dep. Grand Master’s Letter and other business relating to
this Lodge.”
Serious matters needed discussion or they would not have appointed all
the
officers to serve on this Committee. Evidently the Secretary had
written a
reply to Grand Lodge that our Brethren declined either to abandon their
Antient
Custom or to change their Ritual even although expressly requested to
do so by
the Grand Master. It is clear that on receipt of this the Lodge had
been requested
to send representatives to the Committee of Charity [the predecessors
of the
Board of General Purposes] to discuss the matter and deputed two Past
Masters
to attend and uphold our contention. As a result they apparently lost
their
temper and insulted the Committee who then resolved on stern measures
and
threatened to erase the Lodge.
CONFLICT WITH GRAND LODGE
[1767]
Our Brethren saw
the gravity of the position, and on Dec. 27, 1766, authorised this
special
committee to deal with the matter and they quickly decided not only
that the
Lodge should express regret but also to comply with the reasonable
requirement
of Grand Lodge; and the controversy ended amicably as shown by the
following
verbatim extract from the minutes of Grand Lodge, dated 28th
January, 1767:
”A Memorial from the Dundee Lodge was Read, Praying that for
the Reasons
therein alledged, their Constitution might not be forfeited pursuant to
a
Resolution of the last Committee of Charity, but that they might be
permitted
to retain the same and promising all due obedience for the Future. The
Question
being put, whether they should keep their Constitution or not? It was
carried
Unanimously in their Favour. Ordered That a Letter be wrote to the
Master of
the Dundee Lodge, directing him to acquaint Brs. Gretton and Maddox
(who
attended on behalf of the said Lodge at the last Committee of Charity)
that it
is expected they attend at the next C.C. and make a proper submission
for their
Misbehaviour at the last, otherwise that they will be
expell’d the above named
Lodge; and not be permitted to visit any other Regular Lodge.”
The writer’s thanks are further due to Bro. W. J. Songhurst,
P.G.D., for kindly
supplying the above extract from the original minutes of Grand Lodge.
At this
meeting of Grand Lodge on 28th January, 1767,
Col. John Salter,
D.G.M., was in the chair supported by seven other Grand Officers and
doubtless
the Master and Wardens of the Dundee Lodge were in attendance to
support and
explain their Petition. Bro. Wonnacott, the Grand Lodge Librarian, also
furnished the writer with the following verbatim extract from the
Minutes of
the Committee of Charity, thus completing the story and showing that
the terms
laid down by Grand Lodge were duly fulfilled.
1767, Ap. 8. “This Night Bros. Gretton [and] Maddox attended
and made proper
Submission and were restored to favour.”
As regards the two Brethren who were thus rebuked by Grand Lodge, Bro.
Henry
Gretton was W.M. in 1760 [he was a jeweler and repaired our Sword of
state in
1761], while Bro. William Maddax [or Maddock] was W.M. in 1764;
presumably they
had defied the Committee, as a result they had to apologise and the
Lodge had
“to promise all due obedience for the Future.”
What then was the special item in the Ceremony of Initiation, that so
offended
Lord Blayney, who stated that it was not “agreeable to the
Method practiced in
most other Lodges”; the Grand Master here admits that the
Modern Lodge did not
all agree on this point, showing there was no uniformity of working;
but
whatever the distinctive feature was, the Brethren of the Dundee Lodge
had
evidently practised it for so many years that they described it as our
Antient
Custom, and rather than abandon it ran the serious risk of a collision
with
Grand Lodge. The writer now ventures to make the following suggestion:
In those
far off days it was often the custom to Initiate the Candidate robed in
a White
Gown, for the records of several old Lodges refer to their Gowns and
Drawers.
In 1837 the Old Dundee Lodge had 3 Candidates for Initiation and the
Lodge
ordered the Tyler to furnish Three Flannel Dressing Gowns which were
purchased
at a cost of 3 6s. Od. These gowns were made of white serge or flannel
(and had
a deep hood at the back), fastened at the neck with tapes—no
buttons—and had
wide sleeves. They rather resembled the white gown of a Carthusian monk
and
were preserved as Masonic curios by the Lodge for many years and were
often
handled by the present writer, but in 1904, having become old and
decayed they
were—by order—destroyed by the Tyler. Is it not
therefore possible that the
deep hood of the White Gown used to be drawn over the head of the
Candidate
during the ceremony of Initiation ? If so, this perhaps would fully
explain the
interesting and important controversy that the Dundee Lodge had with
the Grand
Master, Lord Blayney in 1766.
Extracts from the Records of Lodge, No. 9
1837, Feb. 7. “Paid Tyler for 3 Flannel Gowns”
...3. 6. 0
Dermott in 1764 closed his “Address to the Reader’
by stating:
”There are many other unconstitutional [and perhaps
unprecedented] proceedings
which (to avoid giving more offense) I pass over in silence [and shall
content
myself with shewing the apparent state of ancient and modern masonry in
England
at the time of this present writing, i.e., July 1778], and hope, that I
shall
live to see a general conformity and universal unity between the worthy
masons
of all denominations. This is the most earnest wishes and ardent
prayers of
Gentlemen and Brethren,
Your most sincere friend, obedient servant and faithful brother,
Laurence Dermott, Secretary.”
The words italicised by the present writer were added by Dermott in his
1778
Edition. Dermott died in 1791; twenty-two years later his wishes were
fulfilled
for in 1813, the happy and complete union of these two great sections
of the
Craft took place.
SUMMARY
One must not judge
Dermott’s satire from the standpoint of 1924-when all
ill-feelings between the
Moderns and Antients have long been forgotten—but his
book—Ahiman Rezon had a
large audience (in America as well as in England) for nearly 50 years
and
his-shall we say exaggerated—statements must have tended to
inflame the
feelings and warp the judgment of the Antients, causing many of them to
consider the Masonic life and Ritual of the Moderns as being quite
irregular
and unworthy of the Craft. It is evident that Dermott never regretted
his
unkind references to the inner life of the Dundee Lodge for his stories
as to
(1) our Sword of state and (2) payment to our Tyler of excessive fees
for
Drawing the Lodge on the floor were repeated in the various Editions of
Ahiman
Rezon of 1778, 1787, and also after his death (in 1791), Bro. Thomas
Harper,
D.G.M. of the ‘Antients’ repeated these offensive
remarks in the further
Editions of 1800, 1801, 1807 and 1813.
It is therefore quite clear that the high officials of the G. Lodge of
the
Antients were equally culpable, as they evidently fully approved of
Dermott’s
accusations and by their tacit acquiescence ratified and confirmed
them; one
therefore feels justified in stating that the 3rd
Duke of Atholl,
who was G.M. of the Antients from 1771 to 1774,--and who was also G.M.
of
Scotland in 1773-approved and endorsed Dermott’s calculated
and continued
hostile criticism of the Moderns and their Ritual; the same comment
applies to
the 4th Duke of Atholl [G.M. of the Antients
1775-81], and also to
the Earl of Antrim, their G.M. from 1783 to 1791 (especially the
latter, who
had occupied the important post of G.M. of Ireland in 1773 and 1779).
Bro. J.
Heron Lepper in his “Fraternal Communica tions,” an
excellent paper read at
Manchester in 192 informs us that in 1776 “Antrim,
G.M.” . . . “attended a
Modern Lodge in London and subscribed the sum of twenty guineas towards
the
building fund of the hall in Great Queen Street, being quite unaware at
the
time that there was any difference between Antient and Modern
Masonry”; and yet
he was supposed as G.M. to know his Ahiman Rezon by heart!
The Grand Lodge Library possesses an excellent example of the Ahiman
Rezon
[1807 Edition] hand somely bound in crimson morocco, and Bro.
Wonnacott, the
Grand Lodge Librarian informs me that this copy was for some years used
by the
Grand Lodge of the Antients, right up to the very last meeting of that
Society,
and is also the identical copy that was used when the Duke of Essex was
re-obligated in 1813. These facts are stated on the first page in a
note in the
handwriting of Dr. Thos. Crucefix which also says that the book was
presented
to Bro. Crucefix in 1833 by Bro. Edwards Harper, a former Grand
Secretary of
the Antients.
NO REPLY BY THE MODERNS
And yet in spite
of
these severe and repeated tacks on their Ritual, the Modern Grand Lodge
- as
far as we know - never deigned to make a reply, whilst the Dundee Lodge
(who
must have been aware of these hostile criticisms, specially directed
against
their Masonic working) treated the matter with contemptuous silence.
Instead of
wasting time by a word warfare, our Brethren busied themselves in
working up
one of the most prosperous Lodges on the side of the Moderns, for a
list
printed in 1810 (the zenith of their prosperity) shows that in that
year the
Dundee Lodge - which was a great maritime Lodge - possessed 109
ordinary
members and no less than 261: “Sea-members” whilst
its property was insured for
2000 pounds.
The writer does not venture to assert that all Dermott’s
statements are
inaccurate; on the contrary his stories about (a) the user of the
‘Sword of
State’ (b) the special payments made to the Tyler and (c) the
use of the
“little Lewis and Capstan” are quite correct. No,
no, it is rather the venomous
and exaggerated way in which these matters are made to appear that
naturally -
in 1924 - arouses the anger (real or assumed) of a very humble
representative
of the successors of the Dundee Lodge.
People “who live in Glass Houses” should not throw
stones; the following
episode proves that Dermott’s own section of the Craft had
also imperfections
for some of the so-called Antients were perfectly willing to Make a
Mason for
the very trifling and unworthy consideration of a leg of mutton for
supper,
whereas the lowest fee charged by the Dundee Lodge for Initiation into
the 1st
and 2nd Degrees was 2. 2. 0, and 5s. 0d. extra
if - and when - the
Candidate took the 3d of a Master Mason.
LEG OF MUTTON MASONS [1752]
Bro. Bywater tells us on p. 11 of
his Notes on Lau. Dermott and his
work that the following extract-taken from the proceedings of the Grand
Committee the Antients—appears in Dermott’s own
handwriting, dated 4th
March, 1752: “Complaints made against Thomas Phealon and John
Mackey, better
known by the name of ‘leg of mutton Masons.’ In
course of examination it
appeared that Phealon and Mackey had initiated many persons for the
consideration of a leg of Mutton for dinner or supper to the disgrace
of the
Ancient Craft. That Mackey was an Empiric in Physic and both impostors
in
Masonry.”
If Dermott had only let the world a little more into the secrets of
some of the
inner workings of the early Lodges of the Antients, it might have very
much
discounted his own satirical observations as to the methods and Masonic
life of
the Moderns. It is pretty obvious that jealousy prompted Dermott in
many of his
criticisms against the Moderns; speaking generally about 1763 the
Lodges of the
Antients were not financially strong and the prosperous condition of
the Dundee
Lodge evidently raised his spleen. To illustrate this, Lodge No. 9 had
59
members in 1761 and 88 in 1764. The ordinary Lodge income in 1761 was
114
pounds and there was a balance in hand on 1st
January, 1762, of 37
pounds. In 1764 the ordinary Lodge Income was 360 pounds [of which 103
pounds
was for making fees received from new members] and the balance in the
Treasurer’s hands on 1st January,
1765, was 96 pounds. The receipts
from the “Master’s Lodge” held weekly (as
a favour or indulgence) during the
six winter months [October to April] in 1764 amounted to over 27
pounds, in
weekly sums varying from 18s. 6d. to 2. 1. 0; at which Lodge meetings
there is
good reason to believe that the ceremony of Holy Royal Arch was
performed. In
addition the members of the Dundee Lodge raised in 1763 about 800
pounds by
voluntary subscriptions to pay for their new Freehold premises at
‘Red Lyon
Street,’ Wapping, with the necessary improvements and
furniture. This unusual
condition of prosperity of an old Modern Lodge “in my
neighbourhood” [to use
his own words] may account for some of his vitriolic attacks on their
working !
However, in spite of his severe criticisms Dermott was a jovial, good
fellow
and it can be safely asserted that he had many excellent friends
amongst the
Moderns who perhaps did not take him seriously and felt that they could
afford
to pass over his attacks with good humoured contempt—whilst
the Regular Lodges
improved in strength and importance.
Dermott was evidently not a total abstainer, he carried on business as
a wine
merchant at Tower Hill, E., and doubtless—in accordance with
the custom of
those days supplied certain Lodges of the Antients with rum (required
for
punch) and also ‘Red Port,’ then a favorite
beverage. That Dermott could
appreciate a glass of good wine seems apparent from the fact that he
was a
martyr to gout, for he himself asserted in 1770 that Br. Dickey, the
Deputy
Grand Secretary, resigned his post “when he (Dermott) was so
ill in the gout, that
he was obliged to be carried out of his bed (when incapable to wear
shoes,
stockings, or even britches) to do his duty at Grand
Steward’s Lodge.” This
story, however, he did not include in his Ahiman Rezon!
DERMOTT’S MUSICAL TALENT
Dermott was musically inclined, and very fond of singing at the
meetings of his
Grand Lodge but that he was not always popular among the Antients is
proved by
the fact that in 1752 four of their members accused him of having
“actually
sung and lectured the Brethren out of their senses,” but in
1753 the W.M. in
the chair at an Emergency held at the ‘King &
Queen,’ Cable street,
Rosemary Lane, thanked him for his last new song and “hoped
that the applause
of his Brethren would induce Br. Dermott, G.S., to compose another
against the
next st. John’s Day.”
GRAND MASTERS OF SCOTLAND
The following point seems to deserve some consideration, viz., that
from 1721
to 1753 the Moderns had as their Grand Masters members of high degree,
including four Dukes, nine Earls, eight Lords and two Viscounts; four
of these
exalted officials had also been Grand Masters of Scotland, how
therefore could
Dermott say—with any sincerity—that the Ritual of
the ‘Moderns’ was not in
harmony with the best traditions of the Craft; surely some of these
Grand Masters
would have personally objected if there had been just cause for
complaint.
Whatever may be the final verdict of Masonic students on the value to
be placed
on Dermott’s statements, it is quite clear that the Craft is
much indebted to
him for thus letting in a flood of light upon the Masonic customs and
ceremonies as practised by the Moderns—or some of
them—prior to the Union in
1813.
In conclusion it is only fair to say that—in spite of his
aggressive hostility
to the Moderns and their Ritual, persisted in right up to his death in
1791-Dermott was a very sincere Mason and gave nearly 50 years of a
busy life
to advance the interests of the Antients, that section of the Craft to
which he
devoted all his energies and undoubted talents. On page 16 of his 1st
Edition of Ahiman Rezon [1756] Dermott to his infinite credit
(considering the
rough age in which he lived) expresses this lofty sentiment, viz., that
a Mason
should “not only perform his Duty to his great Creator, but
also to his
Neighbour and himself: For to walk humbly in the sight of God, to do
Justice
and love mercy are the certain Characteristics of a Real, Free and
Accepted
Ancient Mason.” The writer therefore desires to end these
remarks with the
kindliest thoughts to this worthy and great Mason—the chief
protagonist and
champion of the Antients—and in accordance with the
time-honored maxim:
”De mortuis nil nisi bonum”
to close this rather discursive - but he trusts not entirely irrelevant
-essay.