Ar00100

CONTENTS . LEADERS— PAGR The Origin of Freemasonry ... ... ... ... ... 4 W Dorset Masonic Charity ... ... ... ... ... 5 00 Provincial Grand Chapter of Durham ... ... ... 5 °° Provincial Grand Lodsre of Cheshire—Presentation to Bro the Earl of Egerton TO

Provincial Grand Lodge of Worcestershire ... ... ... ... 501 Consecration of the Past and Present Lodge ... ... ... ... 501 Provincial Grand Chapter of Northumberland ... ... ... ... 5 ° 2 Opening of a Masonic Hall at Sutton ... ... ... ... 502 Royal Masonic Institution for Boys ... ... ... ... 5 ° 3 Craft Masonry ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 <>; l MASONIC

NOTESOuarterly Court and Election of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls ... 505 Quarterly . Court and Election of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys ... 505 Convocation of the Supreme Council 33 ... ... ... ... 505 Provincial Grand Lodge of Cheshire ... ... ... 505 Consecration of the Royal Connaught Lodge , No . 2 G 76 ... ... 505 Death of Bro . C F . Hogard , P . G . Std . Br . ... ... ... 505 Royal Masonic Institution for Girls—Ouarterly C ourt and Election ... ... 506

Reviews ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 506 Craft Masonry ... ... ... ... ... ... 506 Mark Masonry ... ... ... ... ... ... 509 Our Portrait Gallery ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 cy Lodges and Chapter of Instruction ... ... ... ... ... 509 Obituary ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 519 Masonic and General Tidings ... ... ... ... ... 510

The Origin Of Freemasonry.

THE ORIGIN OF FREEMASONRY .

We referred last week in our " Notes" to Bro . WILLIAM H . UPTON'S Report on Correspondence appended to the published Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Washington at its 40 th annual communication in June last , and to the new departure which

he had apparently taken in the compilation of that Report . We quoted one or two comments of his in evidence of this new departure and we purpose in the present article to deal with certain of the conclusions at which he has considered himself

justified in arriving " on the evidence before him , as to the " Origin of Masonry , " and the character which pertained to it so faras the British Isles , and particularly England , are concerned in the 18 th century . These conclusions are 12 in number , but as

regards sundry of them we shall content ourselves with quoting or referring to them briefly . Thus it is lire . UPTON ' S belief , based , of course , upon the evidence before him , " that before and after the dawn of history there existed throughout the

world—in China as in Central America—a cult or institution , or descendants of a cult or institution , so similar to Freemasonry that its is most probable that it and Freemasonry were identical or closely related . But absolute proof is wanting . " It is also his

belief "that from that cult , or from its source , have sprung institutions , some of which still exist , which were not and were never claimed to be Freemasonry . In respect of these conclusions , all we have to say is that we do not profess to follow Bro . Ul'TON

into pre-historic times . The idea of going so far back in search of an origin for Freemasonry , or institutions identical or closely related to it , is too appalling to be thought of seriously . We concede—and seeing that we know little or nothing of what happened

in the days anterior to the pre-historic ages wc feel that we are not venturing upon too great a concession—that those conclusions , which he has permitted himself to arrive at after a careful consideration of the evidence he has been able to collect , may or

may not be looked upon as reasonable conjecture , but further than this we do not , in the present state of our knowledge , consider we are justified in going . As regards the four next conclusions we do not propose to discuss them . They are ( 1 ) that

Freemasonry in its present form existed on the Continent of Europe in the Middle Ages ; ( 2 ) that in 1717 there existed on the Continent of Europe sundry " Organisations bearing

a very close outward resemblance to Freemasonry , to wit " the Steinmetsen in Germany and the Corps d'Etat and Companionate in France ; " ( 3 ) that those bodies continued to exist long after

The Origin Of Freemasonry.

Freemasonry was carried from the British Isles to the Continent , that they and Freemasonry never affiliated , and that no Masonic lodge ever claimed to be descended from them " except by asserting that British Masonry was descended from ( hose bodies ,

and they—the lodges—I mm British Masonry ; " and ( 4 ) ( hat the theory of descent of British Masonry from those bodies , or any of them , is entirely exploded . We abstain from discusssing these several propositions , firstly because we believe that Bro .

GOULD in his "History of Freemasonry" has probably said all that can be said upon the subject ; and secondly , because before entering upon such a discussion it is desirable that we should be in possession of "the evidence before him" upon which Bro . Ul'TON has based his conclusions .

When we approach the remaining conclusions at which Bro UPTON has arrived we feel that with or without the evidence he has collated , we are justified in expressing an opinion thereon . Thus , we take no serious exception whatever to his

proposition " that lodges have existed continuously in England , Scotland , and probably in Ireland from the Middle Ages to the present day . " Nor do we see any reason to question his conclusion " that there is not the slightest evidence that a single

lodge existed anywhere outside the British Isles in 1717 , or had existed for a long time prior thereto . " We also are prepared to allow that , so far as our knowledge goes , " Every Body in the world claiming - to be Masonic is descended from some Masonic

Body which existed in the British Isles in 1717 . " We repeat that , as regards these three propositions , they do not appear to us to be in any way unreasonable . But we confess that we are at a loss as to where Bro . UPTON can have discovered evidence

which justifies him in affirming ( l ) "that prior to I 752 the majority of English lodges were outside of the Grand Lodge system , and had neither charters , warrants , nor Grand Masters ; " ( 2 ) "that long subsequent to 1752 a respectable number of

lodges , independent of Grand Lodges and Grand Masters , existed in the British Isles and were recognised as non-clandestine ;" and ( 3 ) " that down to about the close of the last century it was generally recognised , both in Europe and America , among

Masons of the English Rite" that it was possible , though undesirable , to form non-clandestine lodges without authority from a Grand Master or Grand Lodge ; that hundreds of such lodges were so formed ; and that " during the same

period permission from a well-established particular lodge was frequently accepted as sufficient—though not the most desirable , —authority to form a new lodge . " There i ; every reason to believe that besides the lodge at York and the four lodges which in 1717

founded the Grand Lodge of England , there were other lodges working in other parts of England . We know also that when the Grand Lodge of Scotland was established in 173 ft , there were upwards of 30 " particular" lodges which took part in its

establishment , and it is possible that , as Bro . Dr . CRAWLEY carries his researches into early Irish Masonry further , he may light on evidence as to the existence of similar lodges in Ireland . But , as far as our knowledge goes , wc are not aware of

anything that justifies Bro . L ^ PTON ' s conclusion that prior to 1752 the majority of English lodges were outside the Grand Lodge system , or that subsequent to that date , there were in the British Isles , quite a " respectable number" of lodges , independent of Grand

Lodges , which were recognised as " non-clandestine ; " while it seems to be a great exaggeration to say that " about the close of the last century " hundreds of non-clandestine lodges were formed without authority from a Grand Master or Grand Lodge ,