Speculative Freemasonry having been firmly established in London and its environs (for it did not immediately extend into the other parts of England), it will now be proper to direct our attention to its progress in other countries, and in the first place into the neighboring kingdom of
France.

The unauthentic and unconfirmed statements of Masonic scholars, until a very recent period, had thrown a cloud of uncertainty over the early history of Freemasonry in France, which entirely obscured the true era of its introduction into that country.

Moreover, the accounts of the origin of Freemasonry in France made by different writers are of so conflicting a nature that it is utterly impossible to reconcile them with historical accuracy. The web of confusion thus constructed has only been recently disentangled by the investigations of some English writers, conspicuous among who is Bro. William James Hughan.

Before proceeding to avail ourselves of the result of these inquiries into the time of the constitution of the first lodge in France, it will be interesting to present the views of the various authors who had previously written on the subject.

In the year 1745 a pamphlet, purporting to be an exposition of Freemasonry, was published in Paris, entitled Le Sceau Rompu, ou la Loge ouverte aux profanes. In this work it is stated that the earliest introduction of Freemasonry into France is to be traced to the year 1718. This work is, however, of no authority, and it is only quoted to show the recklessness with which statements of Masonic history are too frequently made.

The Abbe Robin, who in 1776 published his Researches on the Ancient and Modern Initiations, * says that at the time of his writing no memorial of the origin of Freemasonry in France remained, and that all that has been found does not go farther back than the year 1720, when it seems to have come from England. But of the date thus ascribed he gives no authentic evidence. It is with him but a surmise.

(* "Recherches sur les initiations anciennes et modernes," par l'Abbe Rxxx. The work, though printed anonymously, was openly attributed to Robin, by the publisher.

Thory, in 1815, in his Acta Latomorum, gives the story as follows, * having borrowed it from Lalande, the great astronomer, who had previously published it in 1786, in his article on Freemasonry in that immense work, the Encyclopedie Methodique.

(* "Acta Latomorum, ou chronologie de l'Histoire de la Franc-Masonnerie Francaise et Etrangire," p. 21.)

"The year 1725 is indicated as the epoch of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris. Lord Derwentwater, the Chevalier Maskelyne, M. d'Henquelty, and some other Englishmen, established a lodge at the house of Hure, the keeper of an ordinary in the Rue des Boucheries. This lodge acquired a great reputation, and attracted five or six hundred brethren to Masonry in the space of ten years. It worked under the auspices and according to the usages of the Grand Lodge at London.

"It has left no historical monument of its existence, a fact which throws much confusion over the first labors of Freemasonry in Paris."

In his record of the year 1736, he says that "four lodges then existed at Paris, which united and elected the Earl of Harnouester, who thus succeeded Lord Derwentwater, whom the brethren had chosen at the epoch of the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris. At this meeting the Chevalier Ramsay acted as Orator." *

(* Ibid., p 51)

T. B. Clavel, in his Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Maconnerie, * says that according to certain English and German historians, among others Robison and the aulic counsellor Bode, Freemasonry was introduced into France by the Irish followers of King James II, after the English revolution in 1688, and the first lodge was established at the Chateau de Saint Germain, the residence of the dethroned monarch, whence the Masonic association was propagated in the rest of the kingdom, in Germany and Italy.

(* Chapter III., p. 107.)

Clavel acknowledges that he does not know on what documentary evidence these writers support this opinion; he does not, however, think it altogether destitute of probability.

Robison, to whom Clavel has referred, says that when King James, with many of his most zealous adherents, had fled into France, "they took Freemasonry with them to the continent, where it was immediately received by the French, and was cultivated with great zeal, and in a manner suited to the tastes and habits of that highly polished people." *

Leaving this wholly apocryphal statement without discussion, I proceed to give Clavel's account, which he claims to be historical, of the introduction of Freemasonry from England into France.

The first lodge, he says, whose establishment in France is historically proved, is the one which the Grand Lodge of England instituted at Dunkirk in the year 1721, under the title of Amitie et Fraternite. The second, the name of which has not been preserved, was founded at Paris in 1725 by Lord Derwentwater, the Chevalier Maskelyne, Brother d'Heguerty, and some other followers of the Pretender. It met at the house of Hure, an English tavern-keeper or restaurateur in the Rue des Boucheries in the Faubourg Saint Germain. A brother Gaustand, an English lapidary, about the same time created a third lodge at Paris. A fourth one was established in 1726, under the name of St. Thomas. The Grand Lodge of England constituted two others in 1729; the name of the first was Au Louis d'Argent, and a brother Lebreton was its Master; the other was called A Sainte Marguerite; of this lodge we know nothing but its name, which was reported in the Registry of the year 1765. Finally there was a fourth lodge formed in Paris in the year 1732, at the house of Laudelle, a tavern-keeper in the Rue de Bussy. At first it took its name from that of the street in which it was situated, afterward it was called the Lodge d'Aumont, because the Duke of Aumont had been initiated in it. **

(* "Proofs of a Conspiracy," p. 27.)

(** A review of the Report made in 1838 and 1839 to the Grand Orient of France by a Committee, which is contained in the French journal La Globe (tome I., p. 324), states that "cette loge fut regulierment constituee par la Grande Loge d'Angleterre, le 7 Mas, 1729, sous le titre distinctif de Saint-Thomas au Louis d'Argent.")

Ragon, in his Orthodoxie Maconnique, asserts that Freemasonry made its first appearance in France in 1721, when on October 13th the Lodge l'Amidie et Fraternite was instituted at Dunkirk. It appeared in Paris in 1725; in Bordeaux in 1732, by the establishment of the Lodge l'Anolaise No. 204; and on January 1, 1732, the Lodge of la Parfaits Union was instituted at Valenciennes. *

(* "Orthodoxie Maconnique," p. 35.)

Two other French authorities, not, however, Masonic, have given similar but briefer statements.

In the Dictionnaire de la conversation et de Za Lecture it is said that Freemasonry was introduced into France in 1720 by Lord Derwentwater and the English. The Grand Masters who succeeded him were Lord d'Arnold-Esler and the Duc d'Autin, the Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre and the Duc d'Orleans. In 1736 there were still only four lodges in Paris; in 1742 there were twenty-two, and two hundred in the provinces. *

(* "Dictionnaire de la Conversation," art. Franc-Maconnerie, vol. xxviii., p. 136.)

Larousse, in his Grand Universal Dictionary of the Nineteenth Century, (3) simply repeats this statement as to dates, simply stating that the first lodge in France was founded at Dunkirk in 1721, and the second at Paris in 1725, by Lord Derwentwater.

(* "Grand Dictionnaire Universal du XlXme Siecle," par M. Pierre Larousse. Paris, 1872.)

Rebold has written, in his Histoire des Trois Grandes Loges, a more detailed statement of the events connected with the introduction of Freemasonry into France. His narrative is as follows:

"It was not until 1725 that a lodge was for the first time founded at Paris by Lord Derwentwater and two other Englishmen, under the title of St. Thomas. It was constituted by them in the name of the Grand Lodge of London, on the 12th of June, 1720. Its members, to the number of five or six hundred, met at the house of Hure, a tavern-keeper in the Rue des Boucheries-Saint Germain. Through the exertions of the same English gentlemen a second lodge was established on the 7th of June, 1729, under the name of Louis d'Argent. Its members met at the tavern of the same name, kept by one Lebreton. On the 11th of December of the same year a third lodge was instituted, under the title of Arts Sainte Marguerite. Its meetings were held at the house of an Englishman named Gaustand. Finally, on the 29th of November, 1732, a fourth lodge was founded, which was called Buci, * from the name of the tavern in which it held its meetings, which was situated in the Rue de Buci, and was kept by one Laudelle. This lodge, after having initiated the Duke d'Aumont, took the name of the Lodge d'Aumont.

(* This is evidently a mistake of Rebold for Bussy.)

"Lord Deroventwater, who, in 1725, had received from the Grand Lodge of London plenary powers to constitute lodges in France, was, in 1735, invested by the same Grand Lodge with the functions of Provincial Grand Master. When he left France (in 1745) to return to England, where he soon after perished on the scaffold, a victim to his attachment for the House of Stuart, he transferred the full powers which he possessed to his friend Lord Harnouester, who was empowered to represent him as Provincial Grand Master during his absence.

"The four lodges then existing at Paris resolved to found a Provisional Grand Lodge of England, to which the lodges to be thereafter constituted in France might directly address themselves as the representative of the Grand Lodge at London. This resolution was put into effect after the departure of Lord Derwentwater. This Grand Lodge was regularly and legally constituted in 1736 under the Grand Mastership of Lord Harnouester." *

(* "Histoire des Trois Grandes Loges," par Em. Rebold, p. 44.)

Such is the story of the introduction of Speculative Freemasonry into France, which, first published by the astronomer Lalande, has been since repeated and believed by all French Masonic historians. That a portion of this story is true is without doubt; but it is equally doubtless that a portion of it is false. It will be a task of some difficulty, but an absolutely necessary one, to unravel the web and to distinguish and separate what is true from what is false.

The names of three of the four founders of the first lodge in Paris present a hitherto insurmountable obstacle in the way of any identification of them with historical personages of that period. The unfortunate propensity of French writers and printers to distort English names in spelling them, makes it impossible to trace the names of Lord Harnouester and M. Hugety to any probable source. I have made the most diligent researches on the subject, and have been unable to find either of them in any works relating to the events of the beginning of the 18th century, which have been within my reach.

Lord Derwent-Waters, as the title is printed, was undoubtedly Charles Radcliffe, the brother of James, the third Earl of Derwentwater who had been beheaded in 1715 for his connection with the rebellion in that year, excited by the Old Pretender, or, as he styled himself, James III Charles Radcliffe had also been convicted of complicity in the rebellion and sentenced to be beheaded. He, however, made his escape and fled to the continent. At first he repaired to Rome, where the Pretender then held his court, but afterward removed to France, where he married the widow of Lord Newburghe and remained in that city until the year 1733. He then went for a short time to England, where he appeared openly, but afterward returned to Paris and continued there until 1745. In that year the Young Pretender landed in Scotland and invaded England in the attempt, as Regent, to recover the throne of his ancestors and to place his father upon it.

Charles Radcliffe, who had assumed the title of the Earl of Derwentwater on the demise of his nephew, who died in 1731, sailed on November 21, 1745, for Montrose in Scotland, in the French privateer Soleil, for the purpose of joining the Pretender. He was accompanied by a large number of Irish, Scotch, and French offiers and men. On the passage the privateer was captured by the English ship-of-war Sheerness, and carried, with its crew and passengers, to England.

On December 8th in the following year Radcliffe was beheaded, in pursuance of his former sentence, which had been suspended for thirty years.

Of Lord Harnouester, who is said by the French writers to have succeeded the titular Earl of Derwentwater as the second Grand Master, I have been unable to find a trace in any of the genealogical, heraldic, or historical works which I have consulted. The name is undoubtedly spelled wrongly, and might have been Arnester, Harnester, or Harnevester. The change made by the Dictionnaire de la Conversation, which converts it into "d'Arnold-Esler," only adds more confusion to that which was already abundantly confounded.

Maskelyne is an English name. It was that of a family in Wiltshire, from which Nevil Maskelyne, the distinguished Astronomer Royal, born in 1734, was descended. But I am unable to identify the Chevalier Maskelyne, of the French writers, with any person of distinction or of notoriety at that period.

I am equally at a loss as to M. Hugetty, a name which has been variously spelt as Heguetty and Heguelly. The name does not, in either of these forms, indicate the nationality of the owner, and the probable transformation from the original forbids the hope of a successful investigation.

One fact alone appears to be certain, and fortunately that is of some importance in determining the genuineness of the history.

The titular Earl of Derwentwater was a Jacobite, devoted to the interests of the fallen family of Stuart, and the English, Irish, and Scotch residents of Paris, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, must have been Jacobites or adherents of the Stuarts also. The political jealousy of the British Government at that time made it unpleasantly suspicious for any loyal subject to maintain intimate relations with the Jacobites who were living in exile at Paris and elsewhere.

This fact will be an important element in determining the genuineness of the authority claimed to have been given to Lord Derwentwater by the Grand Lodge at London.

The German historians have generally borrowed their authority from the French writers, and on this occasion have not shown their usual thoroughness of investigation.

Lenning simply states that the first lodge of France was founded at Paris in 1725, and that it was soon followed by others. *

(* "Encyclopadie der Freimaurerei.")

Gadicke had previously said that Freemasonry was introduced into France from England and Scotland in the year 1660, but while it flourished in England it soon almost entirely disappeared in France. Afterwards in the year 1725, England again planted it in France, for in that year three Englishmen founded a lodge in Paris which was called the English Grand Lodge of France. *

(* "Freimaurer-Lexicon.")

Findel is a little more particular in his details, but affords us nothing new. He says that "it is impossible to determine with any certainty the period of the introduction of Freemasonry into France, as the accounts handed down to us are very contradictory, varying from the years 1721, 1725, 1727, to 1732. In an historical notice of the Grand Lodge of France, addressed to her subordinate lodges, there is a statement specifying that Lord Derwentwater, Squire Maskelyne, a lord of Heguerty and some other English noblemen, established a lodge in Paris in 1725, at Hure's Tavern. Lord Derwentwater is supposed to have been the first who received a Warrant from the Grand Lodge of England. It is recorded that other lodges were established by these same authorities, and amongst others the Lodge d'Aumont (au Louis d'Argent) in 1729, in la Rue Bussy at Laudelle's tavern, the documents bearing the date of 1732 as that of their foundation."*

(* "Geschichte der Freimaurerei," Lyon's Translation, p. 200.)

Kloss, who has written a special work on the history of Freemasonry in France, supported as he says by reliable documents, * adopts the statements made originally by Lalande in the Encyclopedie Methodique, and which were repeated by successive French writers.

(* "Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Frankreich, aus achten Urkunden dargestellt," von Georg Kloss. Darmstadt, 1852.)

So, on the whole, we get nothing more from the German historians than what we already had from the French.

We come next to the English writers, whose information must have been better than that of either the French or German, as they possessed a written history of the contemporary events of that period. Therefore it is that on them we are compelled to lean in any attempt to solve the riddle involved in the introduction of the Speculative institution into the neighboring kingdom. Still we are not to receive as incontestable all that has been said on this subject by the earlier English writers on Freemasonry. Their wonted remissness here, as well as elsewhere in respect to dates and authorities, leaves us, at last, to depend for a great part on rational conjecture and logical inferences.

Dr. Oliver, the most recent author to whom I shall refer, accepts the French narrative of the institution of a lodge at Paris in 1725, and adds that it existed "under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England by virtue of a charter granted to Lord Derwentwater, Maskelyne, Higuetty and some other Englishmen." *

(* "Historical Landmarks," vol. ii., p. 32.)

Elsewhere he asserts that the Freemasonry which was practiced in France between 1700 and 1725 was only by some English residents, without a charter or any formal warrant. * In this opinion he is sustained by the Committee of the Grand Orient already alluded to, in whose report it is stated that "most impartial historians assert that from 1720 to 1725 Freemasonry was clandestinely introduced into France by some English Masons."

(* "Origin of the Royal Arch," p. 27.)

The author of an article in the London Freemasons' Quarterly Review, * under the title of "Freemasonry in Europe During the Past Century," says that "the settlement in France of the abdicated king of England, James II, in the Jesuitical Convent of Clermont, seems to have been the introduction of Freemasonry into Paris, and here it was (as far as we can trace) the first lodge in France was formed, anno 1725." The writer evidently connects in his mind the establishment of Freemasonry in France with the Jacobites or party of the Pretender who were then in exile in that kingdom, a supposed connection which will, hereafter, be worth our consideration.

(* New Series, anno 1844, p. 156.)

Laurie (or rather Sir David Brewster, who wrote the book for him) has, in his History of Freemasonry, when referring to this subject, indulged in that spirit of romantic speculation which distinct guishes the earlier portion of the work and makes it an extravagant admixture of history and fable.

He makes no allusion to the events of the year 1725, or to the lodge said to have been created by the titular Earl of Derwentwater, but thinks "it is almost certain that the French borrowed from the Scots the idea of their Masonic tribunal, as well as Freemasonry itself." * And he places the time of its introduction at "about the middle of the 16th century, during the minority of Queen Mary." **

(* "History of Freemasonry " p. x 10.)

(** Ibid., p. 109.)

After all that has hitherto been said about the origin of Speculative Freemasonry, it will not be necessary to waste time in the refutation of this untenable theory or of the fallacious argument by which it is sought to support it. It is enough to say that the author entirely confounds Operative and Speculative Freemasonry, and that he supposes that the French soldiers who were sent to the assistance of Scotland were initiated into the Scotch lodges of Operative Masons, and then brought the system back with them to France.

Preston passes the subject with but few words. He says that in 1732 Lord Montagu, who was then Grand Master, granted a deputation for constituting a lodge at Valenciennes in French Flanders, and another for opening a new lodge at the Hotel de Bussy, in Paris." *

(* "Illustrations," Jones's edition, p. 212.)

The word "new" might be supposed to intimate that there was already an older lodge in Paris. But Preston nowhere makes any reference to the Derwentwater lodge of 1725, or to any other, except this of 1732. We learn nothing more of the origin of Freemasonry in France from this generally reliable author.

We now approach an earlier class of authorities, which, however, consists only of Dr. Anderson and the contemporary records of the Grand Lodge at London.

In 1738 Dr. Anderson published the second edition of the Book of Constitutions. In the body of the work, which contains a record, frequently very brief, of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge from 1717 to June, 1738, there is no mention of the constitution of a lodge at Paris, or in any other part of France.

In a "List of the lodges in and about London and Westminster," appended to the work, * he records that there was a "French lodge," which met at the "Swan Tavern" in Long Acre, and which received its warrant June 12, 1723. In the list its number is 18.

(* "Constitutions," 2d edition, p. 186.)

This fact is only important as showing that Frenchmen were at that early period taking an interest in the new society and it may or may not be connected with the appearance, not long afterward, of a lodge at Paris.

In the list of "Deputations sent beyond Sea" * it is recorded that in 1732 Viscount Montagu, Grand Master, granted a Deputation for constituting a lodge at Valenciennes, in France, and another for constituting a lodge at the Hotel de Bussy, in Paris.

(* Ibid., p. 194.)

According to the same authority, Lord Weymouth, Grand Master in 1735, granted a Deputation to the Duke of Richmond "to hold a lodge at his castle d'Aubigny, in France." * He adds, referring to these and to other lodges instituted in different countries that "all these foreign lodges are under the patronage of our Grand Master of England." **

(* Ibid., p. 195)

(** Ibid., p. 196.)

This is all that Anderson says about the introduction of Freemasonry into France. It will be remarked that he makes no mention of a lodge constituted at Dunkirk in 1721, nor of the lodge in Paris instituted in 1725. His silence is significant.

Entick, who succeeded Anderson as editor of the Book of Constitutions, the third edition of which he published in 1756, says no more than his predecessor, of Freemasonry in France. In fact, he says less, for in his lists of "Deputations for Provincial Grand Masters,'' * he omits those granted by Lords Montagu and Weymouth. But in a "List of Regular Lodges, according to their Seniority and Constitution, by order of the Grand Master," (2) he inserts a lodge held at La Ville de Tonnerre, Rue des Boucheries, at Paris, constituted April 3, 1732, another at Valenciennes, in French Flanders, constituted in 1733, and a third at the Castle of Aubigny in France, constituted August 12, 1735. He thus confirms what Anderson had previously stated, but, like him, Entick is altogether silent in respect to the Dunkirk lodge of 1721, or that of Paris in 1725.

(* "Constitutions," by Entick, p. 333.)

(2 Ibid., p. 335. This list bears some resemblance to Cole's engraved list for 1756, but the two are not identical.)

Northouck, who edited the fourth edition of the Book of Constitutions, appears to have been as ignorant as his predecessors of the existence of any lodge in France before the year 1732. From him, however, we gather two facts. The first of these is that in the year 1768 letters were received from the Grand Lodge of France expressing a desire to open a correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England. The overture was accepted, and a Book of Constitutions, a list of lodges, and a form of deputation were presented to the Grand Lodge of France.

The second fact is somewhat singular. Notwithstanding the recognized existence of a Grand Lodge of France it seems that in that very year there were lodges in that country which the Grand Lodge of England claimed as constituents, owing it their allegiance; for Northouck tells us that in 1768 two lodges in France, "having ceased to meet or neglected to conform to the laws of this society, were erased out of the list."

It may be that these were among the lodges which, in former times, had been created in France by the Grand Lodge of England, and that they had transferred their allegiance to the Grand Lodge of their own country, but had omitted to give due notice of the act to the Grand Lodge which had originally created them.

Our next source of information must be the engraved lists of lodges published, from 1723 to 1778, by authority of the Grand Lodge of England. Their history will be hereafter given. It is enough now to say, that being official documents, and taken for the most part from the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, they are invested with historical authority.

The earliest of the engraved lists, that for 1723, contains the designations * of fifty-one lodges. All of them were situated in London and Westminster. There is no reference to any lodge in France.

(* At that time lodges were not distinguished by names, but by the signs of the taverns at which they met, as the "King's Arms," the "Bull and Gate," etc.)

The list for 1725 contains the titles of sixty-four lodges. The Society was extending in the kingdom, and the cities of Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Chichester, and Chester are recorded as places where lodges had been constituted. But no lodge is recorded as having been created in France.

In the list of lodges returned in 1730 (in number one hundred and two), which is contained in the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, * a lodge is recorded as being at Madrid in Spain, the number 50 being attached, and the place of meeting the "French Arms," which would seem almost to imply, but not certainly, that most of its members were Frenchmen. ** Lodge No. 90 is said to be held at the "King's Head, Paris." This is the first mention in any of the lists of a lodge in Paris. The name of the tavern at which it was held is singular for a French city. But as it is said by Bro. Gould to be copied from "the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge," it must be considered as authoritative.

(* The list is given in Bro. Gould's "Four Old Lodges," p. 50.)

(** This lodge met on Sunday, a custom still practiced by many French lodges, though never, as far as I know, by English or American lodges. Le Candeur, an old lodge of French members, in Charleston, S. C., which had its warrant originally from the brand Orient of France, always met on Sunday, nor did it change the custom after uniting with the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.)

We next find an historical record of the institution of lodges in France by the Grand Lodge of England in Pine's engraved list for 1734. * Bro. Hughan has said that the first historical constitution of a lodge at Paris is that referred to in Pine's list of 1734; but the lodge No.
90 at the "King's Head," recorded as has just been shown in the Grand Lodge list of 1730, seems to have escaped his attention.

(* A transcript of Pine's list for 1734, copied by Bro. Newton of Bolton from the original owned by Bro Tunnen, Provincial Grand Secretary of East Lancashire. This transcript was presented by Bro. Newton to Bro. W.J. Hughan, who published it in the "Masonic Magazine for November, 1876. He also republished it in pamphlet form, and to his kindness I am indebted for a copy. This list had been long missing from the archives of the Grand Lodge.)

Pine's list for 1734 contains the names of two lodges in France: No. 90 at the Louis d'Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries, at Paris, which was constituted on April 3, 1732, and No. 127 at Valenciennes in French Flanders, the date of whose Warrant of Constitution is not given.

In Pine's list for 1736 these lodges are again inserted, with a change as to the first, which still numbers as 90, is said to meet at the "Hotel de Bussy, Rue de Bussy." The sameness of the number and of the date of Constitution identify this lodge with the one named in the list for 1734, which met at the Louis d'Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries.

The list for 1736 contains a third lodge in France, recorded as No. 133, which met at "Castle Aubigny," and was constituted August 22, 1735.

In Pine's list for 1740 the three lodges in France are again recorded as before, one in Paris, one at Valenciennes, and one at Castle d'Aubigny, * but the first of them, formerly No. 90, is now said to meet as No. 78, at the Ville de Tonnerre, in the same Rue des Boucheries. This was apparently a change of name and number and not of locality. It was the same lodge that had been first described as meeting as No. 90 at the Louis d'Argent.

(* The date of the Constitution of this lodge in the list for 1736 is August 22d. In the present and in subsequent lists the date is August 12th. The former date is undoubtedly a typographical error.)

In Benjamin Cole's list for 1756 the lodge's number is changed from 78 to 49, but under the same old warrant of April 3, 1732, it continues to meet at "la Ville de Tonnerre," in the Rue des Boucheries.

It is unnecessary to extend this investigation to subsequent lists or to those to be found in various works which have been mainly copied from the engraved lists of Pine and Cole. Enough has been cited to exhibit incontestable evidence of certain facts respecting the origin of Speculative Freemasonry in France. This evidence is incontestable, because it is derived from and based on the official records of the Grand Lodge of England.

It was the custom of the Grand Lodge to issue annually an engraved list of the lodges under its jurisdiction. The first was printed by Eman Bowen in 1723; afterward the engraver was John Pine, who printed them from 1725 to 1741, and perhaps to 1743, as the lists for that and the preceding year are missing. The list for 1744 was printed by Eman Bowen; from 1745 to 1766 Benjamin Cole was the printer, who was followed by William Cole, until 1788, which is the date of the latest engraved list.

"The engraved lists," says Gould, "were renewed annually, certainly from 1738, and probably from the commencement of the series. Latterly, indeed, frequent editions were issued in a single year, which are not always found to harmonize with one another." *

(* "Four Old Lodges," p. 16.)

The want of harmony consisted principally in the change of numbers and in the omission of lodges. This arose from the erasures made in consequence of the discontinuance of lodges, or their failure to make returns. It is not to be supposed that in an official document, published by authority and for the information of the Craft, the name of any lodge would be inserted which did not exist at the time, or which had not existed at some previous time.

We can not, therefore, unless we might reject the authority of these official lists as authoritative documents, and thus cast a slur on the honesty of the Grand Lodge which issued them, refuse to accept them as giving a truthful statement of what lodges there were, at the time of their publication, in France, acting under warrants from the Grand Lodge at London.

Bro. Hughan asserts that the first historical record of the Constitution of a lodge at Paris is to be referred to the one mentioned in Pine's list for 1734, as having been held au Louis d'Argent in the Rue des Boucheries, and the date of whose Constitution is April 3, 1732.

It is true that Anderson's first mention of a deputation to constitute a lodge in Paris is that granted in 1732 by Viscount Montagu as Grand Master, and I presume that there is no earlier record in the Minutes of the Grand Lodge, for if there were, I am very sure that Bro. Hughan would have stated it.

But how are we to reconcile this view with the fact that in the list of lodges for 1730 a lodge is said to be in existence in that year in Paris? This list, as printed by Bro. Gould in his interesting work on the Four Old Lodges, * is now lying before me. It is taken from the earliest Minute Book of the Grand Lodge, and is thus headed, "List of the names of the Members of all the lodges as they were returned in the year 1730."

(* Page 50.)

Now if this heading were absolutely correct, one could not avoid the inference that there was a "regular lodge" in Paris in the year 1730, two years before the Constitution of the lodge recorded in Pine's list for 1734, for among the lodges named in this 1730 list is "90 King's Head at Paris."

For a Parisian hotel, the name is unusual and therefore suspicious. But the list is authentic and authoritative, and the number agrees with that of the lodge referred to in the 1734 list as meeting at the Louis d'Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries.

Indeed, there can be no doubt that the lodge recorded in the list for 1730 is the same as that recorded in the list for 1734. The number is sufficient for identification.

Bro. Gould relieves us from the tangled maze into which this difference of dates had led us. He says of the list, which in his book is No. 11, and which he calls "List of lodges, 1730 - 32," that this List seems to have been continued from 1730 to 1732."

The list comprises 102 lodges; the lodge No. 90, at the "King's Head, Paris," is the fifteenth from the end, and was, as we may fairly conclude, inserted in and upon the original list in 1732, after the lodge at the Rue des Boucheries had been constituted.

So that, notwithstanding the apparent statement that there was a regular lodge, that is, a lodge duly warranted by the London Grand Lodge in 1730, it is evident that Bro. Hughan is right in the conclusion at which he has arrived that the first lodge constituted by the Grand Lodge of England in Paris, was that known as No. 90, and which at the time of its constitution, on April 3, 1732, met at the Tavern called Louis d'Argent, in the Rue des Boucheries. Its number was subsequently changed to 78, and then to 49. It and the lodge at Valenciennes are both omitted in the list for 1770, and these were probably the two lodges in France recorded by Northouck as having been erased from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England in 1768. With their erasure passed away all jurisdiction of the English Grand Lodge over any of the lodges in France. In the same year it entered into fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of France. The lodge at Castle d'Aubigny is also omitted from the list of 1770, and if not erased, had probably voluntarily surrendered its warrant.

Thus we date the legal introduction of lodges into France at the year 1732. But it does not necessarily follow that Speculative Freemasonry on the English plan had not made its appearance there at an earlier period.

The history of the origin of Freemasonry in France, according to all French historians, from the astronomer Lalande to the most recent writers, is very different from that which it has been contended is the genuine one, according to the English records.

It has been shown, in a preceding part of this chapter that the Abbe Robin said that Freemasonry had been traced in France as far back as 1720, and that it appeared to have been brought from England.

Rebold has been more definite in his account. His statement in substance is as follows, and although it has been already quoted I repeat it here, for the purpose of comment.

Speaking of the transformation of Freemasonry from a corporation of Operatives to a purely philosophic institution, which took place in London in 1717, he proceeds to say, that the first cities on the Continent where this changed system had been carried from London were Dunkirk and Mons, both in Flanders, but then forming a part of the kingdom of France. The lodge at Mons does not seem to have attracted the attention of subsequent writers, but Rebold says of it that a it was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England on June 4, 1721, under the name of Parfaite Union. It was, at a later period, erected into the English Grand Lodge of the Austrian Netherlands, and from 1730 constituted lodges of its own." *

(* See "Histoire des Trois Grandes Loges," p. 43.)

This narrative must be rejected as being unsupported by the English records. There may have been, as I shall presently show, an irregular lodge at Mons, organized in 1721, but there is no proof that it had any legal connection with the Grand Lodge of England.

Of the lodge at Dunkirk, Rebold says that it assumed the name of Amitie et Fraternite, and that in 1756 it was reconstituted by the Grand Lodge of France. Of the constitution of this lodge by the Grand Lodge at London, in 1721, we have no more proof than we have of the Constitution of that at Mons, and yet it has been accepted as a fact by Dr. Oliver and some other English authors. Rebold, however, is the only French historian who positively recognizes its existence.

He then tells us the story as it has been quoted on a preceding page of the foundation of the lodge of St. Thomas in 1725 at Paris by Lord Derwentwater and two other Englishmen and of its constitution by the Grand Lodge at London on June 12, 1726.

Now the fact is, that while we are compelled to reject the statement that the Grand Lodge at London had constituted this lodge in the Rue des Boucheries in 1726, because we have distinct testimony in the records of the Grand Lodge that it was not constituted until 1732, yet we find it equally difficult to repudiate the concurrent authority of all the French historians that there was in 1725 a lodge in the city of Paris, established by Englishmen, who were all apparently Jacobites or adherents of the exiled family of Stuart.

Paris at that time was the favorite resort of English subjects who were disloyal to the Hanoverian dynasty, which was then reigning, as they believed, by usurpation in their native country.

Clavel tells us that one Hurre or Hure was an English tavern-keeper, and that his tavern was situated in the Rue des Boucheries. It is natural to suppose that his house was the resort of his exiled countrymen. That Charles Radcliffe and his friends were among his guests would be a strong indication that he was also a Jacobite.

Radcliffe, himself, could not have been initiated into the new system of Speculative Freemasonry in London, because he had made his escape from England two years before the organization of the Grand Lodge. But there might have been, among the frequenters of Hure's tavern, certain Freemasons who had been Theoretic members of some of the old Operative lodges, or even taken a share in the organization of the new Speculative system.

There was nothing to prevent these Theoretic Freemasons from opening a lodge according to the old system, which did not require a Warrant of Constitution. The Grand Lodge which had been organized in 1717 did not claim any jurisdiction beyond London and its precincts, and there were at that time and long afterward many lodges in England which paid no allegiance to the Grand Lodge and continued to work under the old Operative regulations.

It can not be denied that the Grand Lodge which was established in 1717 did not expect to extend its jurisdiction or to enforce its regulations beyond the city of London and its suburbs. This is evident from a statute enacted November 25, 1723, when it was "agreed that no new lodge in or near London, without it be regularly constituted, be countenanced by the Grand Lodge nor the Master or Wardens admitted to Grand Lodge." *

(* From the Grand Lodge Minutes.)

Gould, who quotes this passage, says: "It admits of little doubt, that in its inception, the Grand Lodge of England was intended merely as a governing body for the Masons of the Metropolis." * Even as late as 1735 complaint was made of the existence of irregular lodges not working by the authority or dispensation of the Grand Master. **

(* "The Four Old Lodges," p. 19.)

(** See New Regulations in Anderson, 2d edition, p. 156.)

What was there then to prevent the creation of such a lodge in Paris by English Freemasons who had left their country? A lodge would not only be, as Anderson has called it, "a safe and pleasant relaxation from intense study or the hurry of business," but it would be to these exiles for a common cause a center of union. Politics and party, which were forbidden topics in an English lodge at home, would here constitute important factors in the first selection of members.

It was in fact a lodge of Jacobites. These men paid no respect to acts of attainder, and to them Charles Radcliffe, as the heir presumptive to the title of Earl of Derwentwater, was a prominent personage, and he was, therefore, chosen as the head of the new lodge. *

(* The French writers and the English who have followed them are all wrong in saying that Lord Derwentwater was Master of the lodge in 1725. At that time Lord Derwentwater, the only son of the decapitated Earl, was a youth. On his death in 1731, without issue, his uncle, Charles Radcliffe, as next heir assumed the title, though, of course, it was not recognized by the English law.)

The tavern in which they met was kept by Hure or Hurre, or some name like it, who, according to the statement of Clavel and others, was an Englishman. His house very naturally became the resort of his countrymen in Paris. As it was also the Locate of the Jacobite lodge, it may be safely presumed that Hure was himself a Jacobite. Thus it came to pass that to signify that his hostelry was an English one, he adopted an English sign, and to show that he was friendly to the cause of the Stuarts he made that sign the "King's Head," meaning, of course, not the head of George I., who in 1725 was the lawful King of England, but of James III, whom the Jacobites claimed to be the rightful king, and who had been recognized as such by the French monarch and the French people.

Thus it happens that we find, in the engraved list for 1730, the record that Lodge No. 90 was held at the "King's Head, in Paris."

It may be said that all this is mere inference. But it must be remembered that the carelessness or reticence of our early Masonic historians compels us, in a large number of instances, to infer certain facts which they have not recorded from others which they have. And if we pursue the true logical method, and show the absolutely necessary and consequent connection of the one with the other, our deduction will fall very little short of a demonstration.

Thus, we know, from documentary evidence, that in a list of "regular lodges" begun in 1730, and apparently continued until 1732, there was a lodge held in Paris at a tavern whose sign was the "King's Head," and whose number was 90. We know from the same kind of evidence that in 1732 there was a lodge bearing the same number and held in the Rue des Boucheries.

All the French historians tell us that a lodge was instituted in that street in 1725, at a tavern kept by an Englishman, the founders of which were Englishmen. The leader we know was a Jacobite, and we may fairly conclude that his companions were of the same political complexion.

Now we need not accept as true all the incidents connected with this lodge which are stated by the French writers, such as the statement of Rebold that it was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1726. But unless we are ready to charge all of these historians, from Lalande in 1786 onward to the present day, with historical falsehood, we are compelled to admit the naked fact, that there was an English lodge in Paris in 1725. There is no evidence that this lodge was at that date or very soon afterward constituted by the Grand Lodge at London, and, therefore, I conclude, as a just inference, that it was established as all lodges previous to the year 1717 had been established in London, and for many years afterward in other places by the spontaneous action of its founders. It derived its authority to meet and "make Masons," as did the four primitive Lodges which united in forming the Grand Lodge at London in 1717, from the "immemorial usage" of the Craft.

As to the two lodges which are said to have been established in 1721 at Dunkirk and at Mons, the French generally concur in the assertion of their existence. Ragon alone, by his silence, seems to refuse or to withhold his assent.

There is, however, nothing of impossibility in the fact, if we suppose that these two lodges had been formed, like that of Paris, by Freemasons coming from England, who had availed themselves of the ancient privilege, and formed their lodges without a warrant and according to "immemorial usage."

What has been said of the original institution of the Paris lodge is equally applicable to these two.

It would appear that a Masonic spirit had arisen in French Flanders, where both these lodges were situated, which was not readily extinguished, but which led in 1733 to the Constitution by the English Grand Lodge of a lodge at Valenciennes, a middle point between the two, in the same part of France, and distant not more than thirty miles from Mons and about double that distance from Dunkirk.

Rebold says that the lodge at Dunkirk was re-constituted by the Grand Lodge of France in 1756, and he speaks as if he were leaning upon documentary authority. He also asserts that the lodge at Mons was, in 1730, erected into a Grand Lodge of the Australian Netherlands. He does not support this statement by any evidence, beyond his own assertion, and in the absence of proofs, we need not, when treating of the origin of Freemasonry in France, discuss the question of the organization of a Grand Lodge in another country.

Before closing this discussion, a few words may be necessary respecting the connection of the titular Earl of Derwentwater with the English lodge. A writer in the London Freemason of February 17, 1877, has said, when referring to the statement that the lodge at Hure's Tavern had received in the year 1726 a warrant from the Grand Lodge at London, "of this statement no evidence exists, and owing to the political questions of the day much doubt is thrown upon it, especially as to whether the English Grand Lodge would have given a Warrant to no Jacobites and to a person who was not Lord Derwentwater, according to English law."

But there was no political reason in 1726, certainly not in 1732, why a Warrant should not have been granted by the English Grand Lodge for a Lodge in Paris of which a leading Jacobite should be a member or even the head.

Toward Charles Radcliffe, who, when he was quite young, had been led into complicity with the rebellion of 1715 by the influence of his elder brother, the Earl of Derwentwater, and who had been sentenced to be beheaded therefor, the government was not vindictive.

It is even said by contemporary writers that if he had not prematurely made his escape from prison, he would have been pardoned After his retirement to France, he remained at least inactive, married the widow of a loyal English nobleman, and in 1833, two years after he had assumed, when his nephew died without issue, the title of Earl of Derwentwater, he visited London and remained there for some time unmolested by the government. It was not until 1745 that he became obnoxious by taking a part in the ill-advised and unsuccessful invasion of England by the Young Pretender, and for this Radcliffe paid the penalty of his life.

The Grand Lodge at London had abjured all questions of partisan politics or of sectarian religion; some of its own members are supposed to have secretly entertained proclivities toward the exiled family of Stuarts, and there does not seem to be really any serious reason why a Warrant should not have been granted to a lodge in Paris, though many of its members may have been Jacobites.

I do not, however, believe that a warrant of constitution was granted by the Grand Lodge of England to the lodge at Paris in 1726. The French historians have only mistaken the date, and confounded the year 1726 with the year 1732. Both Thory and Ragon tell us that the lodge has left no historical monument of its existence, and that thus much obscurity has been cast over the earliest labors of Freemasonry in Paris. *

(* Thory, in the "Histoire de la Fondation de Grand Orient of France" p. 20, and Rayon in the "Acta Latomorum," p. 22.)

One more point in this history requires a notice and an explanation.

Rebold says that in the year 1732 there were four lodges at Paris: 1. The lodge of St. Thomas, founded in 1725 by Lord Derwentwater and held at Hure's Tavern. 2, A lodge established in May, 1729, by the same Englishmen who had founded the first, and which met at the Louis d'Argent, a tavern kept by one Lebreton. 3. A lodge constituted in December of the same year under the name of Arts-Sainte Marguerite. * Its meetings were held at the house of one Gaustand, an Englishman. 4. A lodge established in November, 1732, called de Buci, from the name of the tavern kept by one Laudelle in the Rue de Buci. This lodge afterward took the name of the Lodge d 'Aumont, when the Duke of Aumont had been initiated in it.

(* Clavel ("Histoire Pittoresque," p. 108) calls it A Sainte Marguerite, which is probably the correct name. The Arts in Rebold may be viewed as a typographical error.)

It will not be difficult to reduce these four lodges to two by the assistance of the English lists. The first lodge, which was founded by Radcliffe, improperly called Lord Derwentwater, is undoubtedly the same as that mentioned in the 1730 list under the designation of No. 90 at the "King's Head." Rebold, Clavel, and the other French authorities tell us that it was held in the Rue des Boucheries.

Now the list for 1734 gives us the same No. 90, as designating a lodge which met in the same street but at the sign of the Louis d'Argent. This was undoubtedly the same lodge which had formerly met at the "King's Head." The tavern may have been changed, but I think it more likely that the change was only in the sign, made by the new proprietor, for Hure, it seems, had given way to Lebreton, who might have been less of a Jacobite than his predecessor, or no Jacobite at all, and might have therefore discarded the head of the putative king, James. The first and second in this list of Rebold's were evidently to be applied to the same lodge.

The fourth lodge was held at the Hotel de Buci. Here, again, Rebold is wrong in his orthography. He should have spelt it Bussy. There was then a lodge held in the year 1732 at the Hotel de Bussy. Now Anderson tells us, in his second edition, that Viscount Montagu granted a deputation "for constituting a lodge at the Hotel de Bussy in Paris." But the lists for 1732, 1734, 1740, and 1756 give only one Parisian lodge which was constituted on April 3, 1732, and they always assign the same locality in the Rue des Boucheries, but change the number, making, however, the change from 90 to 78, and then to 49, and change also the sign, from the "King's Head" in 1732 to the Louis d 'Argent in 1734, and to the Ville de Tonnerre in 1740 and 1746.

But it is important to remark that while the Engraved List for 1734 says that No. 90 met at the Louis d'Argent in the Rue de Boucheries, the list for 1736 says that No. 90 met at the Hotel de Bussy, in the Rue de Bussy, and each of these lists gives the same date of constitution, namely, April 3, 1732.

I am constrained, therefore, to believe that the lodge at the Hotel de Bussy was the same as the one held first at Hure's Tavern in 1725 as an independent lodge and which, in 1732, was legally constituted by the Grand Lodge of England, and which afterward met either at the same tavern with a change of sign or at three different taverns.

The first, second, and fourth lodges mentioned by Rebold, therefore, are resolved into one lodge, the only one which the English records say was legally constituted by the deputation granted in 1732 by Lord Montagu.

As to the third lodge on Rebold's list, which he calls Arts-Sainte Marguerite, but which Clavel more correctly styles A Sainte Marguerite, there is no reference to it, either in the English engraved lists or in the Book of Constitutions. It is said to have been founded at the close of the year 1729 and to have held its meetings at the house or tavern of an Englishman named Gaustand.

I can not deny its existence in the face of the positive assertions of the French historians. I prefer to believe that it was an offshoot of the lodge instituted in 1725 at Hure's that that lodge had so increased in numbers as to well afford to send off a colony, and that, like its predecessor, the lodge A Saints Marguerite had been formed independently and under the sanction of "immemorial usage."

Hence, I think it is demonstrated that between the years 1725 and 1732 there were but two lodges in Paris and not four, as some of the French writers have asserted. Bro. Hughan is inclined to hold the same opinion, and the writer in the London Freemason, who has previously been referred to, says that he thinks it "just possible." The possibility is, I imagine, now resolved into something more than a probability.

Having thus reconciled, as I trust I have, the doubts and contradictions which have hitherto given so fabulous a character to the history of the introduction of Speculative Freemasonry into France, I venture to present the following narrative as a consistent and truthful account of the introduction of the English system of Speculative Freemasonry into France. It is divested of every feature of romance and is rendered authentic, partly by official documents of unquestionable character and partly by strictly logical conclusions, which can not fairly be refuted.

It was not very long after the foundation of purely Speculative Freemasonry in London by the disseverance of the Theoretic Masons from their Operative associates and the establishment of a Grand Lodge, that a similar system was attempted to be introduced into the neighboring kingdom of France.

Freemasons coming from England, either members of some of the old Operative lodges or who had taken a part in the organization of the London Grand Lodge, having passed over into France. founded in the year 1721 two independent lodges which adopted the characteristics of the new Speculative system, so far as it had then been completed, but claimed the right, according to the ancient usage of Operative Freemasons, to form lodges spontaneously without the authority of a Warrant of Constitution.

These lodges were situated respectively at Dunkirk and at Mons, two cities in French Flanders, and which were at that time within the territory of the French Empire.

Four years after, namely, in 1725, a similar lodge was founded in Paris, at the sign of the "King's Head," a tavern which was kept in the Rue des Boucheries by an Englishman named Hure or Turret or some other name approximating nearly to it. French historians inform us that the name of the lodge was St. Thomas, but this name is not recognized in any of the English engraved lists. Then and for some time afterward English lodges were known only by the name or sign of the tavern where their meetings were held. But there is no reason for disbelieving the assertion of the French writers. The number and the place of meeting were the only necessary designations to be inserted in the Warrant when it was granted. Of the one hundred and twenty-eight lodges recorded in Pine's list for 1734, not one is otherwise designated than by its number and the sign of the tavern. So that the fact that the lodge is not marked in the English lists as "the Lodge of St. Thomas," is no proof whatever that its founders did not bestow upon it that title.

The founders of this lodge were Charles Radcliffe, the younger brother of the former Earl of Derwentwater, Whose title he six years afterward assumed, and three other Englishmen, of whose previous or subsequent history we know nothing, but who are said by the French writers to have been Lord Harnouester, the Chevalier Maskelyne, and Mr. Heguetty.

These men were, it is supposed, Jacobites or adherents, passively at least, of the exiled family of Stuarts, represented at that time by the son of the late James II., and who was known in France and by his followers as James III. From this fact, and from the character of the tavern where they met, which was indicated by its sign, it is presumed that the lodge was originally formed as a resort for persons of those peculiar political sentiments.

If so, it did not long retain that feature in its composition. The institution of Speculative Freemasonry became in Paris, as it had previously become in London, extremely popular. In a short time the lodge received from French and English residents of Paris an accession of members which amounted to several hundreds.

In December, 1729, another independent lodge was formed under the name of A Sainte Marguerite, which was held at the tavern of an Englishman named Gaustand. It was probably formed by members of the other lodge whose number had, from the popularity of the institution, become unwieldy. Of the subsequent career of this lodge we have no information. The records do not show that it was ever legally constituted by the Grand Lodge of England.

In 1732 Lord Montagu, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge at London, granted a deputation for the Constitution of the original lodge in Paris, which was then holding its meetings at the Hotel de Bussy, in the Rue de Bussy. It was accordingly constituted on April 3, 1732. But at the time of the Constitution it appears to have returned to its old locality, as it is recorded in the first part of the lists in which it is mentioned as meeting in the Rue des Boucheries at the " King's Head Tavern," and in the second list at the Louis d'Argent, which, as I have already said, I take to be the same house with a change of sign.

Thus the fact is established that the new system of Speculative Freemasonry was introduced into France from England, but not by authority of the English Grand Lodge, in the year 1721 by the founding of two independent lodges in French Flanders, and into Paris by the founding of a similar lodge in 1725.

In 1732 the Grand Lodge of London extended its jurisdiction over the French territory and issued two deputations, one for the constitution of the lodge in Paris, and the other for the constitution of a lodge in French Flanders at the city of Valenciennes.

The former was constituted in 1732, in the month of April, and the latter in the following year.

The further action of the English Grand Lodge in the constitution of other lodges, and the future history of the institution which resulted in the formation of a Grand Lodge in France, must be reserved for consideration in a future chapter.

Back to The History of Freemasonry [ Next ] [ Previous ]