history 13

HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY

CHAPTER XIII

THE FIRST GRAND LODGE

THE movement which culminated in the formation of a Grand

Lodge in London in the year 1717 was part of a revival of

drooping spirits which at that time was bringing a new sense of

security to all England. It was an era of conviviality and gayety,

long overdue. For the first time in a generation the specter of civil

war appeared to have been completely exorcised, and although

Jacobite plotters against the security of the Hanoverian dynasty

were still busy at their conspiracies in Paris, even making use of

Freemasonry to further their ends, the utter futility of their last

military venture was so fresh in the popular mind that none except

the blindest partisans of the House of Stuart believed they would

ever again be able to summon formidable force to the field of

battle.

Many stirring events had taken place since that day when worthy

Elias Ashmole and his trusty brethren had sat at the making of

Masons in London. King James II had been chased from his

throne; sturdy and dour, William of Orange had come, had fought,

had worn the crown and passed to his eternal reward; Queen Anne

had succeeded to him and in turn had passed away in the political

turmoil which assured a Hanoverian succession; the first of the

Georges had become king; union had been brought about between

England and Scotland and, finally, the Jacobite rising of 1715 had

subsided at Preston and Sheriffmuir, an waggish bards were still

singing with gusto of the fight where -

There's some say that we wan,

And some say that they wan,

And some say that none wan at a', man!

But ae thing I'm sure,

That at Sheriffmuir

A battle there was that I saw, man!

And we ran and they ran

And they ran and we ran,

And we ran and they ran awa', man!

Finally, and as a culminating reason for the English sense of

security, old Louis XIV, ablest, subtlest an most ambitious

monarch of his century, had just passe away in France. Continental

Europe was so busy with trouble of its own that France was ready

to form alliance with England for the naval protection of the both

against the ambitions of Spain, an alliance which by the way, was

to mark that ultimate maritime advance by which Britannia was

truly and fully to rule the waves.

Busy days they were, too, as well as stirring, for London was a

cauldron of politics, Whig and Tory striving with every resource

which ingenious and not too scrupulous politicians could devise to

gain or retain supremacy. Pamphleteers, satirists, ballad makers,

literary geniuses and literary hacks waged incessant strife with the

written or printed word. Gossip, scandal and intrigue filled the air.

To pen an effective lampoon, however scurrilous or inaccurate,

was to achieve for an author acclaim as a wit; reputations were

made and unmade by the wagging of a head.

There were no newspapers worthy of the name in its modern sense,

and for a man to be conversant with what was going on it. was

necessary for him to frequent places where the gossip of the hour

would be served to suit his taste. It might be the salon of some lady

of fashion; it might be around the gaming table or at an athletic

field; it most commonly would be at some tavern where birds of a

feather observed their immemorial privilege of flocking together.

Thus it was always possible to combine business and pleasure and

not infrequently the pleasure proved more important than the

business.

A phenomenon of the times was the growth of social clubs. An

astonishing number of them sprang up in London. Almost any

pretext would serve for the organization of a new one. A person

with a long nose would observe others of like facial peculiarities

and they would hunt kindred physiognomies and create a club.

Musicians, actors, scribblers, literary folk, mountebanks, clerks,

individuals of every rank and degree, congregated according to

their respective interests. Some of these organizations were serious

and devoted to the improvement of the members, but a

considerable number appear to have been mere cloaks for the

indulgence of appetite. It was a time of hearty eating and heavy

drinking and many a man's consequence among his fellows was

marked by the number of bottles of wine he could consume before

failing insensible beneath the table.

That the Masonic societies of London were not of this ephemeral

and purely convivial type the evidence conclusively shows.

Possibly it was due to a specific intention to preserve the brethren

from the extravagances of the hour that strict care was taken to see

that steady heads supervised them in their hours of relaxation and

to see that means of refreshment were not perverted to excess and

intemperance. Moreover, the Masonic societies had been in

existence before this new clubdom came into being. It is altogether

likely, however, that they were greatly influenced by the habits of

the period and that they in turn influenced other societies. It is at

least certain that their esoteric character subjected them to the

liveliest curiosity; there was much speculation as to the nature of

their "secrets"; and at least one club was formed for the purpose of

ridiculing and caricaturing them.

How many lodges there were in the metropolis at that time is not

certain; there were certainly four and there may have been others.

These were undoubtedly remnants of old operative lodges, but

apparently much. reduced in circumstances. As was the case with

all such bodies in England and Scotland, they were autonomous,

each existing as from time immemorial, with exclusive right to

determine the qualifications of its members, acknowledging no

superior Masonic authority, yet holding allegiance to the ancient

customs and venerating the Old Charges.

Whatever had been the nature of the assemblies held in earlier

times, they had by then ceased entirely. An individual lodge might

meet for its own purposes, but it was under no compulsion to

assemble at the behest of anybody outside its membership, or that

of a sister lodge. Strictly speaking, there was no such thing even

then as a general fraternity of Freemasons; there were lodges of

Freemasons and they may have interchanged courtesies and

observed relatively identical practices, but each was sovereign and

independent in its own right; some of those which boasted of

immemorial existence exercised the privilege of constituting new

lodges when occasion demanded and opportunity served.

That there were more societies in London than the now famous

"Four Old Lodges" and that they had some kind of connection with

one another is indicated by William Preston in his Illustrations of

Masonry. But Preston's accuracy has been impeached on so many

grounds it is unsafe to accept without further proof his statements

in this regard; it is therefore necessary to record that they have not

as yet been substantiated by dependable corroborative testimony.

According to him several lodges were organized in the city after

the great London fire and Sir Christopher Wren acted as a Grand

Master for them all.

At all events, the brethren of at least the Four Old Lodges decided

in the year 1716 that they needed better co-operation with one

another than they had enjoyed in the past. As was the custom of the

times, these societies were in the habit of meeting at certain taverns

- one at the Goose and Gridiron Alehouse in St. Paul's Churchyard,

one at the Crown Alehouse in Parker's Lane near Drury Lane, one

at the Apple Tree Tavern in Charles Street, Covent Garden, and

one at the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Channel Row,

Westminster.

Just how the matter started is not known; Dr. Anderson, who gives

the earliest account of it, unfortunately was not gifted with a true

journalistic sense. Otherwise he would have tried to ascertain who

first broached the suggestion, how it was received, how it was

discussed and how the enterprise was set in motion. It appears,

however, that on a day in the year 1716, representatives of the Four

met at the Apple Tree Tavern. Then, having called to the Chair the

oldest Master Mason present who was Master of a lodge they

resolved to constitute themselves into "a Grand Lodge pro

tempore." Anderson says this was done in due form, although what

that due form could have been the worthy doctor does not indicate.

Among other things the assembly voted to hold four quarterly

communications (Anderson says to "revive" them) of the officers

of the lodges, to be known as the Grand Lodge. They also decided

to hold an annual assembly (Anderson says "the" annual assembly)

and feast, thereat to choose a Grand Master from among their own

number, and to continue this practice until they should "have the

honour of a Noble Brother at their head."

This was done, apparently with considerable pomp and ceremony

on the feast day of St. John the Baptist in the following year - June

24, 1717. This epoch-making event in the history of Freemasonry

took place at the Goose and Gridiron Alehouse. As before, the

oldest Master of a Lodge then present was called to the chair. A list

of available candidates was present and from the number the

assemblage, by a show o hands, chose Anthony Sayer, gentleman,

to be the first Grand Master of Masons. Jacob Lamball, a

carpenter, and Captain Joseph Elliot were chosen Grand Wardens.

The Grand Master was then invested with a badge of office,

presented to him with ceremony by the presiding oldest Master,

and was declared duly installed, receiving thereupon the homage

due his exalted station. After that the assemblage went to dinner.

Although various ancient dignitaries are said in the legends to have

been Grand Masters, authentic history must accord to Anthony

Sayer the honor of being the first man to whom that title could be

properly applied, its modern sense at least. Even to him, the

distinction was at the moment a somewhat doubtful one. He was

Grand Master of Masons by suffrage of representatives of four

London lodges. Other lodges in other parts of England and

Scotland had nothing whatever to do with his selection. To most of

them his titles and pretensions must have seemed the fruits of

usurpation and innovation. Such authority as he had was that

which the constituent lodges could confer upon him. Other lodges

and other brethren might, if they chose, hold aloof. Many of them

did so; some of them in fact set up rival institutions and nominated

rival Grand Masters. Nevertheless, the Grand Mastership then

created continued to exist as by prescriptive right against all

deniers and contenders and finally, after years of struggle, hardship

and compromise, became established as the fount and origin from

which all regular Freemasonry has since derived sustenance.

Unless they were endued with prescience of an unaccountably high

order, it is scarcely probable that the brethren who went so gayly to

dinner in the Goose and Gridiron Tavern on that day in 1717 had

more than the vaguest notion of what they had done. It is evident

from subsequent events that the worthy Mr. Sayer had not the

faintest conception of what it meant. A few good-natured and well-

intentioned individuals had simply adopted an expedient which

seemed advisable for their immediate purposes. That expedient

was like a dam thrown across the brook of Operative Masonry - a

tiny stream for all that it trickled through a chasm of centuries -

destined to raise it into a mighty reservoir which should afterwards

send its waters to the remotest corners of the earth. As yet,

however, no man could have foreseen all the consequences which

were to flow from that particular act.

>From the imperfect glimpses which history has permitted, it

appears likely that the first Grand Master was chosen because he

was a rather amiable old gentleman of considerable influence

among the operatives of the Four Old Lodges. Apparently he was

not a man of considerable intellectual ability. Either he did not

comprehend to the full what his elevation meant or, if he did, he

was too old-fashioned and conservative in his ways to keep pace

with the energetic men who were rapidly rising to power in the

new institution. In 1718 he was succeeded by George Payne, a

non-operative of marked vigor. In 1719 he was appointed Grand

Warden by T.J. Desagullers, who was chosen Grand Master in that

year. A few years later his personal fortunes had sunk to an ebb so

low that he called upon the Grand Lodge for pecuniary assistance.

At some time in those days of decline he appears to have become

estranged from the new association and to have gone back to the

old operative practice of instituting new lodges without proper

warrant from the Grand Lodge. He was summoned to explain his

conduct before that body in the year 1730. He was acquitted of a

charge of practicing clandestinism, but was told that his course had

been irregular and was solemnly admonished not to offend further

in that regard. Three years later he was tyler of Old King's Arms

Lodge No. 28 and received a charitable donation from it. He died

in 1742 and was buried with Masonic honors, many distinguished

members of the Fraternity attending funeral services.

The second Grand Master was of far different character. George

Payne was a well-to-do man, somewhat interested in antiquities,

and was of a forceful, energetic temperament. Secretary of the Tax

Office and possessed of a wide acquaintance among men in public

life, he had personal connections which were invaluable both to

him and to the budding Fraternity. He had been Master of the

lodge which met at the Rummer and Grapes and no doubt was

identified with the new movement from the beginning. He appears

to have been among the first to realize the possibilities of

speculative development in the old operative system. These he

advanced with both tact and vigor.

He and his associates appear to have understood all along that the

operatives were to be placated as much as possible and to be led to

accept the changes, which by now were inevitable, with a

minimum of dissatisfaction and discontent. The time was soon to

come when the new institution could break completely with the

old, but the correct way had to be found. Accordingly, when Payne

was made Grand Master in 1718, Thomas Morrice, a stone cutter,

and John Cordwell, a carpenter, were made Grand Wardens. One

of the first acts of the new executive was to invite the brethren to

bring in any old writings and records they possessed concerning

Masons and Masonry, "in order to show the usages of ancient

times."

But a figure of even greater Masonic stature than that of Payne had

already arisen. Some four or five years before the institution of the

Grand Lodge, the Rev. John Theophilus Desaguliers had been

made a Mason. Preston says that interesting event took place in the

lodge which met at the Goose and Gridiron. He was a man of

commanding personality, sanguine and romantic disposition, a

naturalist of note and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Historians are

not wholly agreed as to whether he or Payne was the leading spirit

in the happenings of those early years, but there can be little doubt

that the remarkable abilities of Desaguliers have left a more lasting

impression on Masonic thought.

Nor is it necessary to make invidious comparisons between the

two. They seem to have worked together in a manner which was

productive of excellent results. Payne has come to be considered as

the father of Masonic Jurisprudence; Desaguliers as the father of

Masonic ritual. Payne interested influential men of affairs in the

great undertaking; Desaguliers attracted those with a bent for

learning and scholarship. Between them they engineered within the

course of two or three years a complete transformation of English

Freemasonry. When Payne retired from the Grand East at the end

of 1718, Desaguliers succeeded to that station; when Desaguliers

finished his term of office, Payne succeeded to it for a second time.

Between them they filled the highest chair for three of the only

four years in the history of the English Grand Lodge when it was

not occupied by a nobleman. The Duke of Montagu ascended the

Masonic throne in 1721. The Duke of Wharton succeeded him in

1722 and appointed Desaguliers his Deputy. The Duke of Dalkeith

became Grand Master in 1723 and again appointed Desaguliers

Deputy. By that time the craft of Speculative Freemasonry had

been fairly launched, but fifteen years later George Payne and Dr.

Desaguliers were still active and influential, for they took part in

the action approving Anderson's New Book of Constitutions.

it was clearly apparent to Payne, when he assumed authority in

1718, that the operative system was too loose and disjointed to

serve the practical needs of a compact society of the kind he and

his associates had in mind. One of the first things the new Grand

Lodge had done was to seize control of the machinery for creating

new lodges. It had decreed that no Masons might assemble as a

lodge without warrant from the Grand Lodge, although exception

was made in case of the original Four Old Lodges, which were

conceded to exist as of immemorial right. Straightway there arose,

however, a necessity for prescribing the manner in which Masons

should be made and lodges constituted. The Grand Lodge

proclaimed itself a supreme tribunal, but it had no definite body of

laws through which to exercise jurisprudence. Immediate

codification of lawful customs and practices became imperative.

To this task Grand Master Payne set himself with great

earnestness. His appeal for the brethren to bring in "The Old

Gothic Constitutions," was the first step in that direction. This was

followed by a general request for records and minutes of operative

lodges - a request which, by the way, alarmed some of the

conservatives to such extent that in many cases those possessing

these documents burned them rather than see them fall into the

hands of the "innovators."

Payne and his associates were too wise to proceed with

unnecessary precipitation. They extracted from the Old

Constitutions such material as was usable and this was compiled

into a set of regulations which Payne put into effect in his second

term of office. These reiterated the Old Charges to a considerable

extent, but with this significant difference - the language which

once had been used for the guidance of a working craft in the

practice of its mechanical business had taken on a symbolical

meaning for the guidance of a speculative society which had no

concern with a mechanical business.

Meanwhile another change of even greater importance was being

made. However admirable the ritualistic observances of operative

lodges may have been for the peculiar purposes of those guilds,

they were far too crude and simple for the purposes of speculative

lodges into which non-operatives of culture and broad

understanding were being admitted. So far as anything on the

subject is known, it is reasonably certain that the operative system

of initiation was not graduated into a series of three degrees; or at

least not into a series the successive steps of which were so sharply

differentiated as they are in the modern speculative system. There

are reasons for believing that there were at least a "Master's Part"

and an "Apprentice Part" in the early days of Grand Lodge, but

there is no authentic record a third part at that time. Robert Freke

Gould was convinced after exhaustive investigation that it was not

until about 1740 that the Third Degree met with general

acceptance. The oldest record of a lodge working all three was

made in the year 1732.

Mackey's History of Freemasonry inclines to the belief that the

system of three degrees was perfected by Dr. Desaguliers,

probably in the years 1720 and 1721, but that it was not practiced

generally by the lodges before 1730, because those bodies

preferred to cling to the old operative ritual with which they were

more familiar. It is supposed that about this time the Legend of the

Temple began to assume the importance it has since held, for it

was not long afterwards that inquisitive brethren began inquiring

into a probable sequel of that tale. Certainly there is strong ground

for believing that only one initiatory ceremony was in use in the

Middle Ages, since the Schaw Statutes provided that "na maister

or fellow of craft be ressavit or admittit without the number of sex

maisters and twa enterit prenteissis the wardene of that lodge being

one of the said sex."

Regardless of how the initiatory rite may have been divided before

Dr. Desaguliers gave his personal attention to the matter, there can

be no doubt that his labors were followed by a revision and

remodeling of the work which completely changed it to a

speculative character. It is of record that the learned doctor paid a

visit on August 24, 1721, to the Lodge of Edinburgh, for a

conference with the "Deacon, Warden and Master Masons, " who

received him after he had given satisfactory proof of his Masonic

qualifications. Inasmuch as this was at a time when diligent search

was being prosecuted for every scrap of Masonic information, it is

a fair inference that he was seeking what light he could get on the

ancient practices.

The Lodge at Edinburgh was an old one. Moreover, less than ten

years before the Desaguliers, visit had been torn by a controversy

over the question whether the Masters alone were entitled to give

"the Mason Word" and the secrets connected with it and to receive

the fees arising therefrom. The Fellows had disputed this right and

this led to schism and the creation of a new lodge. The issue was

submitted to arbitration and the arbiters decided that the Fellows

might meet by themselves, give "the Mason Word" and receive the

fees. A problem of such importance could not but concern those

who were working out the destinies of Freemasonry in London.

Precisely what Dr. Desaguliers did to the ritual and with it there is

no way of knowing. The likeliest hypothesis is that he took a

somewhat rambling and uncertain operative system, rearranged it,

reduced it to order, supplied certain deficiencies, rephrased parts of

it in sonorous eighteenth-century English and preserved everything

in it which was hallowed by time and associations. Probably his

most important contribution lay in the field of re-interpretation,

thereby investing with moral and ethical meaning many things

which before had held only the practical implications of operative

craftsmanship. That his function was not that of an inventor there

is every reason to believe, especially when the modern ritual is

compared with such survivals of the old one as have come down

through the Old Manuscripts.

Meanwhile the new Grand Lodge was developing with amazing

rapidity. In 1717 there had been but four old lodges to lend their

support; by December of 1721 twenty lodges acknowledged

allegiance. Then it had been necessary to elevate a person of little

importance to its highest office. Now a duke was at the head of it.

Gentlemen of learning and fashion were knocking at lodge doors

for admittance. For its first three years the Grand Lodge had held

its assemblies at a tavern and to these all Master Masons were

invited. Now it was necessary to hold them in Stationers' Hall; they

were no longer mass meetings but were conventions which each

lodge was represented by its Master and Wardens.

At a Communication on September 29, 1721, the Grand Master

ordered Dr. James Anderson to prepare a new digest of the charges

and laws or, as a record expresses it, "His Grace's Worship and the

Lodge finding Fault with all the Copies of the old Gothic

Constitutions, order'd Brother James Anderson, A.M., to digest the

same in a new and better method." The task was prosecuted with

such vigor that on December 27 the Grand Master appointed a

committee of fourteen to examine Anderson's manuscript and

make report. On March 25, 1722, the committee reported it had

read the manuscript, "the History, Charges, Regulations and

Master's Song," and had approved it with certain alterations. This

work, which was revised in 1738 and which is commonly known

as Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, was in every real sense an

official pronouncement of the Grand Lodge, and it remained for a

long time the cornerstone of Masonic literature. Both Desaguliers

and Payne had their hands in it; Desaguliers wrote an introduction

and Payne's Regulations were incorporated in the text.

Following the introduction, the first part of the book is devoted to

the "history" of the Craft, an account of which has been given

heretofore in the present discussion. The second part is given over

to "The Charges of a Free-Mason, extracted from the ancient

records of Lodges beyond the Sea, and of those of England,

Scotland and Ireland, for the use of the Lodges in London: to be

read at the making of New Brethren, or when the Master shall

order it."

The "Charges" are followed by Payne's Regulations, which

composed the constitution and by-laws of the Grand Lodge. There

are thirty-nine articles in all and a postscript prescribing the

manner of constituting a new lodge. To this was attached a decree

of approval, signed by the Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master,

Grand Wardens and the Masters and Wardens of particular lodges.

By way of appendix there was a Master's song, composed by

Anderson - a long, desultory, rhyming narrative of the "history" of

Freemasonry, divided into five parts and twenty-eight stanzas and

a chorus. A Warden's song and an Enter'd 'Prentices' song were

added later.

By approving this work the Grand Lodge burned all its bridges

behind it. As it was doubtless intended to be, Anderson's

Constitutions was the Magna Carta, the Declaration of

Independence and the Riot Act of Speculative Freemasonry. It

served notice on the world that this Grand Lodge was the sole legal

heir of Operative Masonry, and, since an heir rarely comes into his

inheritance before the decease of the person from whom he

inherits, that Operative Masonry had definitely passed from the

scene.

So far as that demise was concerned, the announcement was a trifle

premature. Operative Masonry still had enough life to voice

indignant protest. The book provoked an uproar in Grand Lodge

itself, conservatives strongly opposing it. Some who were not so

conservative objected to the manner in which the author had used

Payne's Regulations. Outside the Craft Anderson's flamboyant

account of Masonic history brought ridicule upon the author, as it

has continued to bring ridicule upon him to this present day. It is

said that he was so deeply pained by its reception that he did not

appear again in Grand Lodge for eight years.

Notwithstanding all this, the Grand Lodge continued to thrive and

to gain accessions. Of the original Four Old Lodges, the one which

met at the Goose and Gridiron moved its headquarters several

times and once or twice changed its name. In 1768 it began calling

itself Antiquity Lodge No. 1. After the reunion of "Moderns" and

"Antients" it was listed as Antiquity Lodge No. 2. The one which

met at the Crown Tavern became extinct in 1736 and was struck

off the Grand Lodge list in 1740. The one which met at the Apple

Tree Tavern received a new charter in 1723. After having shifted

up and down on the list, it changed its name in 1768 to Lodge of

Fortitude. In 1818 it united with Cumberland Lodge, which had

been organized in 1753, under the title Fortitude and Old

Cumberland Lodge No. 12. The fourth Old Lodge had many

vicissitudes of fortune. In the early days it had many distinguished

members, including dukes, earls, counts, barons and knights and

such notable Craftsmen as Payne, Desaguliers and Anderson. Its

membership began to fall off in 1735, and in 1747 it was ordered

erased from the lists. Four years later it was restored, but it

continued to Ianguish until, in 1774, it was merged with Somerset

House Lodge, a healthy and prosperous body which was able to

preserve the old organization's continuity and kept its number.