Of the four old Lodges of London which united in the formation of a Grand Lodge in the year 1717, the one which at that time met at the "Goose and Gridiron Ale-house" in St. Paul's Churchyard, assumed the precedency as No. 1, and under all its changes of name and locality retained that precedency until the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, when, in casting lots, it lost its primitive rank and became No. 2, a number which it has ever since retained. Anderson calls it "the Senior Lodge whose Constitution is immemorial." *

(* In the List of lodges in the 1738 "Book of Constitutions," p. 184.)

About the year 1729 it removed from the "Goose and Gridiron," to the "King's Arms Tavern," also in St. Paul's Churchyard. Here it remained, except for a brief interval in 1735 until 1768, having taken in 1760 the name of the "West India and American Lodge." In 1768 it removed to the "Mitre," in Fleet Street, and in 1770 adopted the title of the "Lodge of Antiquity," which it has ever since continued to use. *

(* Gould's "Four Old Lodges," note 9, p. 6.)

These four Lodges had been established previous to the formation of the Grand Lodge, under the old system which permitted a sufficient number of Masons to meet together and form a lodge, the only authority required being the consent of the chief magistrate of the place. *

(* Preston, "Illustrations," Oliver's edition, p. 182.)

This privilege, which they called immemorial usage, they claimed and received from the new Grand Lodge, which required all other lodges which should be constituted to previously obtain a Warrant from the Grand Master, but permitted the four original Lodges to act as they always had done without such authority. The history of these four Lodges may be thus briefly told: Lodge No. 2, which originally met at the "Crown" in Parker's Lane, became extinct in 1730. Lodge No. 3, which met at the "Apple Tree Tavern," memory able as the place where the preliminary meeting for the organization of a Grand Lodge was held, in 1723, on account of some difference among its members, renounced its immemorial privileges and accepted a Warrant of Constitution from the Grand Lodge as No. 10. Lodge No. 4, afterward No. 2, first held at the "Rummer and Grapes," afterward removed to the "Horn Tavern." In 1747 it was, for non- attendance of its representative at the Quarterly Communications, erased from the roll of lodges, * but reinstated in 1751.

(* Entick, "Book of Constitutions," p. 248.)

In 1774 it united with the Somerset Lodge, which had been warranted in 1762 as No. 269. Preston, in a passage of his 1781 edition, asserted that by this act "the members of the lodge tacitly agreed to a renunciation of their rights as one of the four original Lodges, put themselves entirely under the authority of the Grand Lodge and claimed no distinct privilege by virtue of an immemorial Constitution." This is not an accurate statement, and Preston did well to erase it from the subsequent editions of his book. The act of incorporation with the Somerset Lodge was really an absorption of that lodge into the Horn Lodge, whose number remained unchanged, and at the union of 1813 it was admitted on the Register without a Warrant of Constitution and as acting from "Time Immemorial."

There is not the least doubt cast upon the record of Lodge No. 1, which met at the "Goose and Gridiron," and which has for more than a century been known as the "Lodge of Antiquity." It never at any time abandoned its claim to all the privileges of a lodge dating from time immemorial and vigorously though perhaps erroneously asserted them when an attempt was made to violate them, and the "Lodge of Antiquity" has remained to the present day without a Warrant. In Pine's List of lodges for 1729 it is stated that the lodge was established in 1691, but Hughan believes it to have been much older. It is said that the celebrated architect, Sir Christopher Wren, was made a Freemason in this lodge. Aubrey, the antiquary, in his Natural History of Wiltshire, says that on May 19, 1691, there was "a great convention at St. Paul's Church of the fraternity of Adopted Masons where Sir Christopher Wren is to be adopted a brother, and Sir Henry Goodrie of the Tower and divers others." It is probable that this passage suggested to the maker of Pine's List the notion of giving to the lodge the date of 1691 as the time of its establishment. Supposing that the lodge, which in 1717 met at the "Goose and Gridiron," was the one that in 1691 admitted Wren to the Fraternity, the roll of distinguished members will be confined to the architect of St. Paul's and to William Preston, the celebrated Masonic historian.

The statement that Dr. Desaguliers was initiated in it has been proved to be incorrect. The fourth lodge, the one that met at the "Rummer and Grapes," and afterward at the "Horn Tavern," can boast a much larger list of Masonic worthies. Among them at the earliest stage of its existence are the names of Desaguliers, Payne, and Anderson, all of whom were probably made in it, either just before or immediately after the organization of the Grand Lodge. Desaguliers is said to have been made in 1712, and I am disposed to believe that both Payne and Anderson, as well as he, were Freemasons in 1717 and were personally engaged in the formation of the Grand Lodge.

Between 1723 and 1738 a great many noblemen, both English and foreign, were admitted to its membership, while the roll of Nos. 1 and 2 contain no brethren of Masonic or social rank, and that of No. 3 claims only the name of Anthony Sayer, the first Grand Master. *

(* Gould, "Four Old Lodges," p. 9.)

Bro. Gould thinks that in the earliest years of the Grand Lodge, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 represented the Operative and No. 4 the Speculative elements of the Society. *

(* Gould, ibid.)

This is probably true. We know that the first three lodges were not distinguished in their membership by the name of a single personage of rank or learning, and that in 1723 the Master of No. 1 was a stonecutter. On the other hand, Desaguliers, Payne, and Anderson, the prime instigators of the change from purely Operative to purely Speculative Freemasonry, were all members of No. 4.

In after times, Lodges Nos. 2 and 3 became extinct, and No. 4 continued to exist in placid obscurity, while No. 1, having become the "Lodge of Antiquity," played a prominent part in the history of the Grand Lodge of England, and under the leadership of William Preston was the cause of a schism, which at one time threatened to be very disastrous to the cause of Freemasonry, though happily it proved to be temporary in its duration. It is because of the part taken by the ALodge of Antiquity" in this schismatic proceeding, in which it sought to defend itself on the ground that it, as one of the four old Lodges, was entitled to certain privileges and exemptions from the authority of the Grand Lodge, which did not appertain to the younger lodges, that I have deemed it necessary to take a glance at the condition of these four primary lodges, as preliminary to the history of the contest in which one of them was engaged. In this contest No. 1, or the "Lodge of Antiquity," alone was prominent. Nos. 2 and 3 had become extinct, and No. 4 took no other part in the dispute than that of remaining loyal to the Grand Lodge. The history of the dissensions between the "Lodge of Antiquity" and the Grand Lodge of England, which terminated in the establishment of a fourth Grand Lodge within the jurisdiction of England, may be briefly related as follows:

In the year 1777, during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Manchester, the Master, Wardens, and a part of the members of the "Lodge of Antiquity," under a resolution of the lodge, celebrated the festival of St. John the Evangelist by attending divine service at St. Dunstan's Church, in Fleet Street, walking there and returning to the "Mitre Tavern" in the clothing of the Order, and this without having obtained a Dispensation for the procession from the Grand Master or his Deputy. This was a flagrant violation of the law of the Grand Lodge which prescribed that no Mason should attend any public procession clothed with the badges and ensigns of the Order, unless a dispensation for that purpose was obtained from the Grand Master or his Deputy; and the penalty for a violation of this law was a forfeiture of all the rights and privileges of the Society and a deprivation of the benefits of the general fund of charity. This law, which had been enacted in 1754, must have been well known to the Master and the members of the lodge, and its open violation by them in the face of that knowledge would lead us to assent to the statement of Findel that they wished to come to an open rupture with the authority to whom they owed allegiance. *

(* "History of Freemasonry," Lyon's Translation. p. 181.)

This act was very properly condemned by the Grand Lodge. "Various opinions," says Preston, "were formed on the subject, and several brethren were highly disgusted." It is surprising that there should be more than one opinion of the unlawfulness of an act which palpably violates a written statute; but it is very natural that the perpetrators of an offense, if they are not penitent, should be "disgusted" with the punishment which has followed. Another circumstance soon followed which, according to Preston, tended still further to widen the breach. For some alleged misconduct the lodge had expelled three of its members.

The Grand Lodge, deeming, as we may fairly suppose, that some injustice had been done, ordered them to be reinstated. Preston says that the Grand Lodge interfered without proper investigation. But it can not be presumed upon the authority of a partisan that the Grand Lodge would have exercised this high prerogative of reinstatement without a fair investigation of all the circumstances connected with the original expulsion. The good old principle must here prevail that in respect to all acts of an official nature, the presumption is that they have been fairly executed, and that all has been rightly and duly performed until the contrary is shown. *

(* "Omnia presumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrium.")

Unfortunately, it is almost wholly upon Preston, in his edition of 1781, that we must depend for our authority in the recital of this history. But this statement must be taken with all the allowance due to an active partisan. Preston was a prominent actor and indeed a leader in this contest, and in telling his story might have repeated the words of Pater Eneas to the Queen of Carthage: A..... quoque ipse miserrima vide, Et quorum pars magna fui." The lodge vainly resisted this act of the Grand Lodge and to re-admit the expelled members "Matters," says Preston," were agitated to the extreme on both sides; resolutions were precipitately entered into, and edicts inadvertently issued; memorials and remonstrances were presented." Finally an open rupture ensued.

The lodge withdrew the attendance of its Master and Wardens as representatives from the Quarterly communications, but continued to exercise its functions as a lodge, independently of the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. It issued a Manifesto in which it detailed its grievances and asserted its rights and appealed for sympathy and support to the Grand Lodges of Scotland, Ireland, and York. The Grand Lodge of England, on its part, was not less resolute. It expelled the rebellious members of the lodge, extended its protection to the three members whose expulsion had been ostensibly the original cause of all the difficulties, and recognizing them as the only legitimate representatives of the "Lodge of Antiquity," ordered, but of course in vain, a surrender to them of the property of the lodge.

The position which was now assumed by the "Lodge of Antiquity" was precisely that which it had occupied before its union in 1717 with the three other lodges in the establishment of a Grand Lodge, namely, that of a lodge, instituted without a Warrant, and by the mere consent of its founders, as all the Operative lodges had been instituted prior to the formation of a Grand Lodge. As the Manifesto of the "Lodge of Antiquity" which was issued on December 16, 1778, is a full exposition of the grounds on which the lodge based its right to assume independency and eventually to accept from the Grand Lodge at York the rank and title of "The Grand Lodge of England south of the Trent," it is very necessary, to a correct understanding of these important transactions, that the reader should be placed in possession of a copy of the document. It is accordingly here printed, as follows: *

(* The copy here printed is from Bro. Hughan's "History of Freemasonry in York" (American edition, p. 117), and is one of the most interesting documents in that valuable work.)

TO ALL REGULAR, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS. WHEREAS, the Society of Free Masons is universally acknowledged to be of ancient standing and great repute in this kingdom, as by our Records and Printed Constitutions, it appears that the first Grand Lodge in England was held at York, in the year 926, by virtue of a Royal Charter granted by King Athelstan, and under the patronage and government of this Grand Lodge, the Society considerably increased; and the ancient charges and regulations of the Order so far obtained the sanction of Kings and Princes, and other eminent persons, that they always paid due allegiance to the said Grand Assembly.

AND WHEREAS, it appears, by our Records, that in the year 1567, the increase of lodges in the South of England, being so great as to require some Nominal Patron to superintend their government, it was resolved that a person under the title of Grand Master for the South should be appointed for that purpose, with the approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to whom the whole Fraternity at large were bound to pay tribute and acknowledge subjection. And after the appointment of such Patron, Masonry flourished under the guardianship of him and his successors in the South, until the Civil Wars and other intestine commotions interrupted the assemblies of the Brethren.

AND WHEREAS, it also appears that in the year 1693, the Meetings of the Fraternity in their regular lodges in the South became less frequent and chiefly occasional, except in or near places where great works were carried on. At which time the "Lodge of Antiquity" or (as it was then called) the Old Lodge of St. Paul, with a few others of small note, continued to meet under the patronage of Sir Christopher Wren, and assisting him in rearing that Superb Structure from which this respectable lodge derived its Title. But on completing this Edifice, in 1710, and Sir Christopher Wren's retiring into the country, the few remaining lodges in London and its suburbs, continued without any nominal Patron, in a declining state for about the space of seven years.

AND WHEREAS, in the year 1717, the Fraternity in London agreed to cement under a new Grand Master, and with that view the Old Lodge of St. Paul, jointly with three other lodges, assembled in form, constituted themselves a nominal Grand Lodge pro tempore and elected a Grand Master to preside over their future general meetings, whom they afterwards invested with a power to constitute subordinate lodges, and to convene the Fraternity at stated periods in Grand Lodge, in order to make Laws, with their consent and approbation, for the good government of the Society at large.

BUT SUBJECT to certain conditions and restrictions then expressly stipulated, and which are more fully set forth in the 39th article of the General Regulations in the first Book of Constitutions, this article with thirty-eight others, was afterwards at a meeting of the Brethren in and about the cities of London and Westminster, in the year 1721, solemnly approved of, ratified and confirmed by them, and signed in their presence by the Master and Wardens of the Four old Lodges on the one part, and Philip, Duke of Wharton, then Grand Master, Dr. Desaguliers, D.G.M., Joshua Timson and William Hawkins, Grand Wardens, and the Masters and Wardens of sixteen lodges which had been constituted by the Fraternity, betwixt 1717 and 1721, on the other part. And these articles the Grand Master engaged for himself and his successors, in all time coming, to observe and keep sacred and inviolable. By these prudent precautions the ancient Land-marks (as they are properly styled) of the four old Lodges were intended to be secured against any encroachments on their Masonic Rights and Privileges.

AND WHEREAS, of late years, notwithstanding the said solemn engagement in the year 1721, sundry innovations and encroachments have been made, and are still making on the original plan and government of Masonry, by the present nominal Grand Lodge in London, highly injurious to the institution itself, and tending to subvert and destroy the ancient rights and privileges of the Society, more particularly of those members of it under whose sanction, and by whose authority, the said Grand Lodge was first established and now exists.

AND WHEREAS, at the present time there only remains one of the said four original ancient Lodges - The Old Lodge of St. Paul, or as it is now emphatically styled, The "Lodge of Antiquity." Two of the said four ancient lodges having been extinct many years, and the Master of the other of them having on the part of his lodge, in open Grand Lodge, relinquished all such inherent rights and privileges which, as a private lodge, acting by an immemorial Constitution it enjoyed. But the "Lodge of Antiquity," conscious of its own dignity, which the Members thereof are resolutely determined to support, and justly incensed at the violent measures and proceedings which have been lately adopted and pursued by the said nominal Grand Lodge, wherein they have assumed an unlawful prerogative over the "Lodge of Antiquity," in manifest breach of the aforesaid 39th article, by which means the peaceful government of that respectable lodge has been repeatedly interrupted, and even the original independent power thereof, in respect to its own Internal Government, disputed.

THEREFORE, and on account of the Arbitrary Edicts and Laws which the said nominal Grand Lodge has, from time to time, presumed to issue and attempted to enforce, repugnant to the ancient Laws and principles of Free Masonry, and highly injurious to the "Lodge of Antiquity," WE, the Master, Wardens and Members of the "Lodge of Antiquity," considering ourselves bound in duty, as well as honour, to preserve inviolable the ancient rights and privileges of the Order, and as far as in our power, to hand them down to posterity in their native purity and excellence, do hereby, for ourselves and our successors, solemnly disavow and discountenance such unlawful measures and proceedings of the said nominal Grand Lodge; and do hereby declare and announce to all our Masonic Brethren throughout the Globe. That the said Grand Lodge, has by such arbitrary conduct, evidently violated the conditions expressed in the aforesaid 39th article of the General Regulations, in the observance of which article the permanency of their authority solely depended. And in consequence thereof, WE, do by these presents retract from and recall all such rights and powers as We or our predecessors, did conditionally give to the said nominal Grand Lodge in London; and do hereby disannul and make void all future Edicts and Laws, which the said Grand Lodge may presume to issue and enforce, by virtue of such sanction, as representatives of the ancient and honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons.

AND WHEREAS we have, on full enquiry and due examination, happily discovered, that the aforesaid truly ancient Grand Lodge at York does still exist, and have authentic Records to produce of their antiquity, long before the establishment of the nominal Grand Lodge in London in the year 1717; We do, therefore, hereby solemnly avow, acknowledge and admit the Authority of the said Most Worshipful Grand Lodge at York, as the truly ancient and only regular governing Grand Lodge of Masons in England, to whom the Fraternity all owe and are rightfully bound to pay allegiance.

AND WHEREAS, the present members of the said Grand Lodge at York have acknowledged the ancient power and authority of the "Lodge of Antiquity" in London as a private lodge and have proposed to form an alliance with the said lodge, on the most generous and disinterested principles, - We do hereby acknowledge this generous mark of their friendship towards us, and gratefully accept their liberal, candid and ingenuous offers of alliance: - And do hereby, from a firm persuasion of the justice of our cause, announce a general union with all Regular Masons throughout the world, who shall join us in supporting the original principles of Free Masonry, in promoting and extending the authority of the said truely ancient Grand Lodge at York, and under such respectable auspices in propagating Masonry on its pure, genuine and original plan.

AND LASTLY, we do earnestly solicit the hearty concurrence of all regular lodges of the Fraternity in all places where Free Masonry is legally established to enable us to carry into execution the aforesaid plan, which is so apparently beneficial to our most excellent institution, and at the present critical juncture, so essentially necessary to curb the arbitrary power which has been already exerted, or which, hereafter, may be illegally assumed, by the nominal Grand Lodge in London, and so timely prevent such unmasonic proceedings from becoming a disgrace to the Society at large. By Order of the Right Worshipful Lodge of Antiquity, in open Lodge assembled, this with day of December A.D., 1778, A.L. 5782. J. SEALY, Secretary.

Before proceeding to the arguments adduced in this manifesto by the "Lodge of Antiquity," to defend its action in withdrawing from the Grand Lodge, it will be proper to say, that as an historical document it is utterly worthless. The statement that the first Grand Lodge was held at York under a Charter granted by King Athelstan in the 10th century, is founded on the mere tradition contained in the Legend of the Craft; - it was denied by the Masons of York, who attributed the origin of their society to a much earlier period; it has been doubted or disbelieved by some of the most eminent Masonic scholars of the present day; and finally there is not the slightest historical proof that there was ever a Grand Lodge or Grand Master in England prior to the second decade of the 18th century. Again:

The assertion that in 1567 the Grand Lodge at York appointed a Grand Master for the south of England, and that he and the Fraternity under him "were bound to pay tribute and acknowledge subjection" to the Grand Lodge of York, is wholly unsupported by historical evidence. Anderson, who was ever ready to frame history out of legends, does indeed record the existence of a Grand Lodge, holding annual communications at York, * and tells us the apocryphal story of Queen Elizabeth and Grand Master Sackville. He also states that it was a tradition of the old Masons that in 1567, on the demission of Sir Thomas Sackville, two Grand Masters were chosen, one for the north and one for the south, but he makes no allusion to the position of the latter as subordinate to the former.

(* When Bro. Woodford in his Essay on the "Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in England," asserted that the statement in the Manifesto was Athe only existing evidence that in 1567 there was a Grand Lodge at York," this passage in Anderson must have escaped his attention.)

He makes no further mention of the Grand Lodge at York in the subsequent pages of the Book of Constitutions, but always speaks of the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge at London as the sole Masonic authority in England. Thus, unhistorical and merely traditionary as is the authority of Anderson on this subject, it completely fails to give any support to the assertion of the writer of the Manifesto, that in the 16th century the Grand Lodge at York was the supreme Masonic power of all England, and that it delegated a subordinate rank and position to a "nominal Grand Master" for the south of the kingdom. From this Manifesto it will be seen that the "Lodge of Antiquity" withdrew its allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England, in consequence of the wrong it supposed that body had inflicted upon it, by the reinstatement of certain members whom it had expelled. It then asserted its independence and attempted to resume the position which it had occupied before the organization of the Grand Lodge, as a lodge working without a Warrant. In defense of its action, the lodge refers in the Manifesto to the 39th General Regulation, which it says had been violated by the Grand Lodge in its treatment of the "Lodge of Antiquity."

But the most liberal construction of that Regulation will fail to support any such theory. The 39th Regulation simply recognizes the inherent power of the Grand Lodge to make new regulations or to alter the old ones, provided that the landmarks be preserved, and that the new regulation be adopted at a stated communication by a majority of the brethren present. Now there is no distinct charge of the violation of a landmark by the Grand Lodge, and if there was there is no provision in the Regulations for its redress by the secession of a lodge. The whole tenor of the Thirty-nine Regulations adopted in 1721, is to make the Grand Lodge a supreme Masonic power. It is, moreover, provided in the 8th Regulation that no number of Brethren shall withdraw from the lodge in which they were made and form a new lodge without the consent of the Grand Master. The facts are briefly these. The Grand Lodge having reinstated three members who we are bound to presume had been wrongly expelled, the lodge refused to recognize the act of reinstatement, and withdrew from its allegiance to the Grand Lodge, and assuming independence, proceeded to work out a Warrant, under its old Operative Constitution and without the consent or approval of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge refused to admit the legality of this act.

It continued to recognize the three members and any others who adhered to them as the true "Lodge of Antiquity," and viewed the recusant members as Masons who had violated the 8th Regulation, by withdrawing from their lodge and joining a new lodge without the Grand Master's Warrant. Bro. Robert Freke Gould, in his History of the Four Old Lodges, * has advanced the doctrine that the "Lodge of Antiquity" had a legal right to secede from the Grand Lodge, and he supports his opinion by the very extraordinary argument that if the Grand Lodge had a right to expel a lodge from the Union, that is, to erase it from the roll of lodges, this would imply a correlative right in a subordinate lodge to withdraw or secede from the Union of lodges or the Grand Lodge. The adoption of such a doctrine would make every Grand Lodge a merely temporary organization, subject at any moment to be impaired by the arbitrary withdrawal of as many lodges as thought proper to exercise this privilege of secession.

(* "Four Old Lodges," p. 28.)

This would inevitably be a termination to all power of discipline and of coercive government. He has unfortunately sought to illustrate his views by a reference to the American Constitution which he supposes to have conceded to any one or more of the States the right of secession. He does not seem to be aware that this doctrine, generally called a "political heresy," though at one time maintained by most Southern Statesmen, was always disavowed by the people of the North, and finally forever obliterated by the severe arbitrament of a four years' intestine war. The fact is that the four old Lodges entered voluntarily into the compact which resulted in the establishment of a Grand Lodge in London in the year 1717.

The Regulations adopted by the Grand Lodge four years afterward, for its government and that of its subordinates, was approved and accepted by all the lodges then existing, among which were the four Lodges, and the names of the Master and Wardens of the "Lodge of Antiquity" head the list of the signers of the Act of Approbation. The "Lodge of Antiquity" was, therefore, forever bound by the compact, and by regulations enacted under its authority. By the compact made prior to the enactment of the Thirty-nine Regulations, and which was entered into by the four old Lodges, it was agreed that in future every lodge should owe its existence to the consent of the Grand Master expressed by his Warrant of Constitution, and such has been the invariable practice, not only in England but in every country into which Freemasonry had penetrated. As an act of courtesy, the four Lodges were exempted from the duty of applying for Warrants, and were permitted to continue their labors under the old system of Operative Freemasonry by authority of a self-constitution through which they had been established under the old system of Operative Freemasonry which had existed prior to the organization of the Grand Lodge. But this was the only distinct privilege which they possessed.

In all other matters, every lodge was alike subjected to the control of the Grand Lodge, and to the constant supervision of the Grand Master. This system of government, so different from that of the Operative Freemasonry which had previously prevailed, had been accepted by the four original Lodges. They themselves had inaugurated it; they had accepted all the consequences of the great change, and it was no longer in the power of any one of them, at any future period, to annul the contract into which they had entered. All the regulations adopted after their compact refer in general terms to the collective body of lodges without making any exception; in favor of the four original Lodges. Especially was this the fact with respect to the Thirty-nine Regulations adopted in 1721.

The laws therein enacted were just as applicable to Lodge No. 1 as to Lodge No. 20, for the former lodge had, as well as the latter, and all the intermediate ones, formerly accepted them and declared that they and the Charges, as published by Anderson, should be received in every lodge "as the only Constitutions of Free and Accepted Masons." *

(* See the act of Approbation in Anderson's 1723 edition of the "Constitutions," p. 74.)

Hence it follows, that in withdrawing from the Grand Lodge and establishing a lodge, independent of its authority, the contumacious members of the "Lodge of Antiquity" acted illegally, and violated the Constitutions which the Freemasons of England had accepted for half a century as the fundamental law of the Order. On second sober thought, Preston himself, who had undoubtedly been the ringleader in this schism, when he was restored to the privileges of Masonry, in 1789, expressed his regret for what he had done in the past, and his wish to conform in future to the laws of the Grand Lodge. *

(* The official record of the Grand Lodge for November 25, 1789, says that Preston and seven other members of the "Lodge of Antiquity," who had been expelled in 1779, had "signified their concern that through misrepresentation, as they conceived, they should have incurred the displeasure of that Assembly, and their wish to be restored to the privileges of the Society, to the laws of which they were ready to conform.")

As the Grand Lodge had made no concessions, Preston thus admitted the constitutionality of the law, against which as being unconstitutional, he and his colleagues had been contending for eleven years. The recusant members of the "Lodge of Antiquity" having declared their independence of the Grand Lodge, and continued after their expulsion from the Society to hold their lodge and to perform the work of Masonry, the Grand Lodge permitted those members who had maintained their obedience to assemble as the real ALodge of Antiquity," still without a Warrant, and to appear by their Master and Wardens at the Grand Communications as the representatives of the lodge.

There were thus two lodges of Antiquity in the field - the lodge recognized by the Grand Lodge, consisting of the members who had refused to take part in the schismatic proceedings; and the lodge consisting of the members who had withdrawn from their allegiance, and had established themselves as an independent body, working under the old Operative system. Of the former lodge, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to the present history to take any further notice. It probably pursued "the even tenor of its way" quietly and unobtrusively. In the lists of lodges made during the period of the schism, its name and number are retained without alteration as the "Lodge of Antiquity No. 1, Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen Street, formerly the 'Goose and Gridiron,' St. Paul's Church Yard." *

(* List of Lodges, in 1781, taken from the Calendar for 1788. See Gould, p. 68.)

The latter lodge, the one whose existence I have sought to prove was illegal, very soon proceeded to adopt measures still more offensive in their character. It has been commonly stated that it applied to the Grand Lodge at York for a sanction of its acts, and for authority to continue its existence as a lodge. This is not correct. The true statement of the relative positions of the Grand Lodge at York and the independent Grand Lodge of Antiquity is fully set forth in a correspondence between certain members of the two bodies which is still extant. *

(* See this correspondence in Bro. Hughan's "History of Freemasonry in York," pp. 74-76)

From this correspondence it appears that Bro. Jacob Bussey, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of York, while in London had an interview with some of the members of the "Lodge of Antiquity." Under a misapprehension of the views of these Brethren, on his return home he stated that it was their desire to obtain a Warrant of Constitution as a lodge from the York Grand Lodge. Having learned the fact of this misapprehension from a communication, made on August 29th, by Bussey, after his return to York, to Bro. Bradley, the Junior Warden of the "Lodge of Antiquity," the officers of that lodge addressed a letter on September 16, 1778, to the Grand Master and Brethren of the Grand Lodge at York. In this letter is the following explicit statement of their views:

"Though we should be happy to promote Masonry under the Banners of the Grand Lodge at York, an application by petition for a Warrant for a Constitution to act as a private lodge here was never our intention, as we considered ourselves sufficiently empowered by the Immemorial Constitution of our lodge, to execute every duty we can wish as a private lodge of Masons." They were, however, ready, they go on to say, if satisfied by proofs of the existence of the Grand Lodge at York before the year 1717, to accept from it a Constitutional authority to act in London as a Grand Lodge for that part of England which is south of the river Trent. The Grand Secretary, however, in his August letter, appears to have furnished the required proofs, and consequently Bradley, the Junior Warden of the "Lodge of Antiquity," wrote to him on September 22, 1778.*

(* Benjamin Bradley's Letter of September 22d. See Hughan's "History," p. 76.)

In this letter he again disclaimed any desire on the part of the "Lodge of Antiquity" to receive a Warrant as a private lodge, but expressed its willingness to accept "a Warrant or Deputation to a few members of the 'Lodge of Antiquity' to act as a Grand Lodge for that part of England, south of the Trent, with a power to constitute lodges in that division when properly applied for, and a regular correspondence to be kept up and some token of allegiance to be annually given on the part of the brethren thus authorized to act." The same letter contained a list of the names of the brethren of the "Lodge of Antiquity" as the persons suggested to be placed in the Warrant or Deputation, should it be granted. These were as follows, and though at this distant time and place I am unable to verify the fact, it may be fairly presumed that the suggestion was accepted, and that when the Deputation was accepted, the following Brethren constituted the first officers of the new Grand Lodge:

JOHN WILSON, Esq., Master of the Lodge of Antiquity, as Grand Master.
WILLIAM PRESTON, Past Master of the same Lodge, as Deputy Grand Master.
BENJAMIN BRADLEY, Junior Warden of the same, as Senior Grand Warden.
GILBERT BUCHANAN, Secretary of the same, as Junior Grand Warden.
JOHN SEABY, Senior Steward of the same, as Grand Secretary.

Further correspondence, protracted for more than a year, followed, but finally the "Warrant of Confirmation" was sent, and on April 19th the "Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent" was inaugurated, the Grand Master installed, and the other officers appointed. There are two things which are here worthy of notice as historical facts. In the first place, the body thus erected was in no proper sense a sovereign and independent Grand Lodge, as Grand Lodges are known to be at this day and as was at the time the Grand Lodge at London. It was rather, though not so called by name, a sort of Provincial Grand Lodge, erected by a Grand Lodge, to which it acknowledged that it owed allegiance and to which it paid an annual contribution in money and a fee of two guineas for every Warrant of Constitution that it granted. In the second place, it was not to the "Lodge of Antiquity" that the Deputation was granted, as it never changed its condition or its title as a private lodge.

The Deputation was given, it is true, to certain of its officers, and its Master was most probably the first Grand Master, as there was no other source whence the officers could be drawn. As soon as the new Grand Lodge was inaugurated, the "Lodge of Antiquity" became subordinate to it, and a return made in March, 1789, the lodges then under the Grand Lodge South of the Trent, are said to be, exclusive of the "Lodge of Antiquity," No. 1, or the Lodge of Perfect Observance, and No. 2, or the Lodge of Perseverance and Triumph. These lodges were respectively Warranted on August 9th, and November 15, 1779. The "Lodge of Antiquity," like the Grand Steward's Lodge in the Grand Lodge of England, seems to have assumed precedency without a number. It was a right which it claimed from its "immemorial Constitution." Preston says, in his 1781 * edition, that "a Grand Lodge, under the banner of the Grand Lodge in York, is established in London, and several lodges are already constituted under that banner, while the 'Lodge of Antiquity' acts independent by virtue of its own authority."

(* AIllustrations of Masonry," edition of 1781, p. 295. In the subsequent editions, published after the reconciliation, these statements are omitted.)

If the word Aseveral" is here properly applied, other Warrants must have been issued between July 1, 1780, when the two lodges mentioned above were said to be "the only lodges" which had been constituted, and the time when Preston made his statement. But of this we have no other evidence. The "Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent" does not appear to have made any especial mark in Masonic history. It originated in a mistaken view, assumed by its founders, of their rights and privileges. These views were strenuously opposed by all the other lodges which composed the Mother Grand Lodge and were finally abandoned by themselves. At the Grand Feast of the Grand Lodge of England held in 1790, a reconciliation was effected principally through the mediation of Bro. William Birch, a Past Master of the " Lodge of Antiquity." Unanimity was happily restored; the Manifesto of the ALodge of Antiquity," in which it had asserted its claims and defended its conduct, was revoked; the Master and Wardens of the lodge resumed, as heretofore, their seats in the Grand Lodge whence they had seceded in 1778; the Brethren of the lodge who had retained their loyalty were reunited with the original members; and the " Grand Lodge of England, South of the Trent," after an ephemeral career of little more than ten years, ceased to exist. *

(* See Preston, Oliver's edition, p. 249.)

But this episode in the history of English Freemasonry, bitter as were the feelings which the separation engendered, has not been without compensating advantages in its results. It has permanently settled the important principle of Masonic jurisprudence, that the old Operative law or usage which recognized the right of a competent number of Freemasons to establish a lodge without the authority of a Warrant, has been forever abrogated by the transformation of the Operative Art into a Speculative Science, and that henceforth, in all time to come, the supreme authority to grant Warrants and to constitute lodges is vested solely in Grand Lodges. This principle, so essential to the harmony and the perpetuity of Speculative Freemasonry, was almost worth a ten years' struggle to secure its permanent maintenance. It has thus been seen that in the year 1780 there were in England four bodies claiming to be Grand Lodges.

1. The Grand Lodge of England, established in London in the year 1717.
2. The Grand Lodge of all England, established at York in the year 1725.
3. The Grand Lodge of England, according to the Old Institutions, established at London in the year 1753, and
4. The Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent, established also at London in the year 1780.

It has been heretofore shown that the second of these self-styled Grand Lodges was really a Mother Lodge, and that its pretended organization as a Grand Lodge was in violation of the law and precedent established eight years before by the Grand Lodge at London. It has also been shown that the third and fourth of these pretended Grand Lodges were illegal secessions from the primitive Grand Lodge, and that their assumption of authority was in violation of the compact of 1721, and was unsupported by any principle of Masonic law which then prevailed and was recognized by the Craft. It follows then, as has hitherto been said, that the first of these bodies, the one established at London in 1717, is the only really legal and regular Grand Lodge that ever existed in England, and that it is, as it has always claimed to be, the Premier and Mother Grand Lodge of the World. Of the three irregular bodies, the Grand Lodge at York and the Grand Lodge South of the Trent were both, in the course of time, quietly absorbed into the Grand Lodge of England, and thus obscurely ceased to exist.

The Grand Lodge according to the Old Institutions, more commonly known as the Atholl Grand Lodge, or the Grand Lodge of Ancients, had a higher vitality, lived for a longer period, became prominent as a successful rival of the regular and older body, and with it was eventually merged in 1813 to the United Grand Lodge of England. But a future chapter must be devoted to the history of this important and interesting event.

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