Table Of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ancient " lork and London Grand Lodges , By Bro . I .. Hyneman 73 ' Consecration ota Lodge at Harrington 732 Consecration ot a K . T . Encampment at Stockton ... 733 Consecration ofthe Vane Chapter 7 , 13 Masonic Notes and Queries 7 , 34 fTlllllF . Sl'ONllENCl * - : —

Secretaryship of the Girls' School 734 An Old Masonic Print 735 A Mistake 735 Provincial Grand Oflicers 735 The Coming Struggle , 73 6 CRAFT M ASONRY : — Metropolitan 7 . 17 Provincial ... ., 7 . 37

ROYAI . AIU . II : — Masonic Tidings 730 . Provincial 73 < 1 "MARK MASONRY -. Provincial 739 Masonic Meetings for next week 740 Advertisements 729 , 730 , 740 , 741 , 742 , 743 List of Bro . Little ' s Committee 744

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

ANCIENT YORK AND LONDON GRAND LODGES .

BY BRO . LRON HYM . MAX . A REVIEW RY URO . W . J . IIUOIIAN * . ( Continued from pi / ire 728 . ) We are really sorry that the author of so many

useful works has thought ( it to speak of Dr . Anderson in such terms , especially when we know he cannot be in possession of any evidence to warrant such a strong description of the character

of the work in question . If there is any meanness , it must be in Bro . Hyneman ' s own inferences . The London Masons never assumed that the light of Masonry only shone in their

metropolis ; that its rays radiated from that centre , and that the privilege to exercise the rights and franchises of Masonry was solely vested in the London Craft , in the Grand Lodsre

they had instituted . We think , also , that before any one is authorised to state so , he slum Id be read ji lo / midlife satisfactvri / eeitlei / ce of ils truth The pretty story about York and Queen

Elizabeth , A . D . 1507 , mtti ) re iteeejited tis authentic b y those who are ready at all times to swallow anything apocryphal , but for our part , and in common with Masonic students generally , we desire

some prool at least of the truth of the . " 1567 story '' before receiving it as a true description of the Craft at that period . Preston quotes it , and we note liis authority is sufiicient for Bro .

Hyneman then , il not at other times . I here has , however , been no confirmation offered of the statement , and in the records of the extinct Grand Ludge such an occurrence is not once

mentionedneither is it noticed in the celebrated speech !>) the Junior Grand Warden , A . D . 1726 , which wt had reprinted in our " Miisu / tii : Sketches tiiiil Re prints" ( page 1 06 ) .

At page 31 Ilro . 1 fyneman characterizes an action , the import uf which lie misunderstands ' , as " a most wicked and malicious deception , a vile dishonourable , and contemptibly mean resort to

further their selfish , ambitious designs . " Such a grave accusation from some men would be serious indeed ; but in this case , as the writer perpetrates several more i / uile as grime ami , iii \ l ,

its 1111 J 011 tided , we simply notice the fact , and express regret that the author of the calumnies had not examined the matter a little more before committing . himself to libel good ancl useful

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

men who , with all their faults , endeavoured each in his own way to advance the interests of the Fraternity ; and who , though in their misguided

and misdirected zeal did often go astray , yet on the whole are entitled to our regard and esteem for their honorary and arduous labours . The

six . regulations quoted by Bro . Hyneman ( page ¦ 33 ) have no force , as the term Grand , Master is not in the original MSS ., and no reference whatever is made to any part of England ; but

evidently the . laws were for the whole body . I he MSS . is quoted in full in our last work ( "Old Charges of British Freemasons" ) . Alf inference , supposed to be fairly drawn from Dr . Anderson ' s

work , is styled " most malicious" ( page , 39 ) . The purity of Sir Christopher Wren ' s life , Bro . Hyneman tells us , " was never tarnished , and ,

with the exception of Anderson , no reflection was ever cast upon his fair fame . " The fault we find with Dr . Anderson in this case is not

according to Bro . Hyneman ' s view at all . As to Sir Christopher Wren ' s neglect of the oflice of Grand Master , he neuer held such an office ; nor , indeed , did any one , until Bro . Sayer , A . D . i 7 7 ; and so it is inaccurate to declare he did . We

get Bro . Hyneman ' s special view of the subject at page 44 , wherein he states most emphatically diat the " real cause of the difficulties , the reference to illegal assemblies of Masons in

subsequent years , of lodges not meeting , * \ : c ., was that there were lodges and Masons in London holding their allegiance to the York Grand Lodge that would not countenance the new

London Grand Lodge . There was no actual schism in 1738 , as Anderson , Preston , and recent writers assume . " These absurd statements convince us that Bro . Hyneman does not understand

the true state ofthe case , and is quite ignorant of a few facts respecting this period , which aie known to all Masons in this country and the United States who study the history of the

Craft . Until A . D . 1779 there were no Masons working in London under the authority of the Grand Lodge of all England held at York , nnd the schism of 1738 was an acturl occurrence ,

recorded in the minutes , and palpably to be traced from that time to the " Union of 1813 . " The "York Grand Lodge , " or thc successors thereof

did not form the Union in 1 S 13 , for such a body was not in existence but the successors of the " seceders" of 1738 did unite with the Grand Lodge of England instituted A . D , 1717 .

Bro . Hyneham next declares ( in italics , to render it more emphatic ) that " the story of a third Grand Lodge is lelui / li / mt / thical . " What can we say to this assertion ? If Bro . Hyneman will

(• all at the Freemasons' llall , Great Queen-street , London , Bro . Hervey , the able Grand Secretary , will show him the minutes of this nit / tliical Grand Lodge from A . D . 1752 , and he will lind

that m 1753 its first Grand Master tens installed If more evidence is required , we have printed Constitutions of this Grand Lodge from A . D . 17 * 56 to A . D . 1813 ; and in the United States he

can lind several warrants issued underjits sanction , such as at Philadel phia , ( for Pennsylvania ) , during the same decade of that century . In

neither of the Constitutions ( or " Ahiman Rezons" ) is there any mention of a amitectiuit wilh tin : Grand Ludge tifall England , held til York In fact , it never hacl any dealings with . the . York

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

Masons , although such has often been claimed . The York Grand Lodge never granted or issued any warrants to work lodges oui of England . ; never constituted a Provincial Grand Lodge , either

in England or elsewhere ; and never published any edition of the Constitutions whatever , all its laws being in MS ., copies of which maybe found in our " Masonic Sketches and Reprints ; " * so

that neither Pennsylvania , nor any other Grand Lodge , can claim to be descendants of the "York Alasons , " but only of the seceding Masons of 173 S , ( and their successors , ) who found a rival

Grand Lodge in London A . D . 1753 , ( not in York , for a Grand Lodge was already actively engaged there , ) or of tlie Grand Lodge of 1717 . // will thus be seen that , there are now no lineal

descendants nf the Grand Lodge of all England held , at York . The " York Lodge , " No . 236 , now existing , was warranted by the regular Grand Lodge of England , ( London , ) A . D . 1777 ,

and was formerly called the " Union Lodge , " but lately altered to " York , " by permission of the Grand Master . This lodge has possession of the records of the extinct " Grand Lodge of

all England , " and never had any connection with the " Ancients . " The fact is , that when the Lodge of Antiquity was constituted into a Grand Lodge for a few years , it made the fourth Grand

Lodge in England at that time ; hence , so far from a third Grand Lodge being mythical , there were actually four Grand Lodges . That such is a fact we pledge our Masonic reputation , and can

produce evidence to satisfy the most exacting and most incredulous in proof of all the foregoing statements advanced by us . A great deal has been written on this subject that is wholly

erroneous , ancl so we have devoted much of our spare time to unravel the mystery , in which attempt we have been most ably supported by tlie Rev . A . F . A . Woodford , in this country ; J . G . Findel ,

in Saxony ; and other well-known authors in Europe ancl America . We will not stop to prove that tliere was an actual schism in 1738 , as we presume the

foregoing is quite sufficient to render that fact certain . And the " Ancients" were in reality the schismatics , hence their secession . As Bro . Hyneman construes all the peculiarities of the

period of the revival into so many proofs of collusion or deceit on the part of the promoters thereof , we cannot answer half of his apparent objection , e . g ., the . election of Anthony Saver

as Grand Master , by " show of hands , " is twisted to mean it was not unanimous ? The summons of thc lirst Grand Master being a command , it is considered " not to speak well for the fidelit y

ofthe Craft who inagurated the ' revolution j" and , in consequence of these and similar usages , Bro . Hyneman " smiles at the observations of Laurence Dermott on the subject ofthe kind of

Masonry worked by these early revolutionists . " If Bro . Hyneman had only smiled , we would not have cared ; but to put his thoughts into print is

quite a dillerent matter , ancl hence this article , The next passage which is wholly wrong in Bro . Hyneman ' s work , is the following : " Preston