-
Articles/Ads
Article PRO. HOLMES'S ADDITIONAL NOTES OF THE 15th OF MARCH. ← Page 2 of 2 Article PRO. HOLMES'S ADDITIONAL NOTES OF THE 15th OF MARCH. Page 2 of 2 Article Masonic Notes and Queries. Page 1 of 2 Article Masonic Notes and Queries. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Pro. Holmes's Additional Notes Of The 15th Of March.
of Masonry , and remove those ancient landmarks which throughout so long a period have bound together , by common ties , a great and grand brotherhood extending from the rulers of
Empires down to the humble trader ? 6 . I have never said that the Stuarts had no connection with high-grade Masonry . I said " it is not well known that the dcthioned Stuarts
revived the Templar Order , " and I gave historic evidence ( on the ijth of February ) for my scepticism . Bro . Holmes is very ingenious , no doubt , in referring to imaginary statements , but
let me adjure him , in the words of the old play , " of your courtesy I pray you read the preface . "
7 . I cannot conceive what benefit can possibly result from Bro . Holmes , perpetually hammering at the election of the Emperor Paul , which has been in no way at issue . Col . Porter , has no doubt
said that the " great body" of the Knights went to Russia ; he has also said that a " large number" went there ; but he said also that the election was notoriously illegal ; Bro . Woof , in
his little book on the Masonic and other Orders , called them a " considerable number "; but he said that the election was utterly informal r Sutherland , a great authority , described them as
" a few refugee Knights , " and charctenses their ptoceeding as shattering the very basis of the Order . Surely then , I , yout humble contributor vary be permitted , with all diffidence , to adopt
the expressions of so great an authority as the last named ; but , be this as it may , the Knights unfortunately were refugees , and whether their number was great , large , considerable , or few
( and Bro . Holmes shall take his choice ) the fact remains the same , it was an illegal act . The Roman Council derives its only title through this source , and is compelled to accept the act of
a miscellaneous assemblage of Knights , not representing any one division of the Order , as a body , who assumed the , very grave power o f placing " a heretic " at the head of the institution
when its lawful Grand Master was yet living . All the historians of eminence agree that the act was illegal , and Bro . Holmes himself has advanced the same opinion on thc part of Sir Geo .
Bowyer . What , then , can be the use of forcing the question in a manner so very unnecessary and uninteresting to your readers , threatening them , moreover , with almost a reprint of Colonel
Porter s book , when a few lines , which I will reprint for Bro . Holmes ' s especial benefit , would explain that accomplished author ' s view . He tells how the Knights on proceeding to Russia
" were received in the most gracious manner by the wily monarch , whose ambition prompted him to desire thc post of Grand Master , in order that he might upon that title found a claim to the
' sland of Malta , should it be wrested from the grasp of the French republic . This desire on his part speedil y became known to the Knights , and on thc 27 th of October the farce was enacted of
nominating the Emperor Grand Master of the Order , notwithstanding the fact that Hompesch * who was still at Trieste , had not as yet resigned his office . Paul , however , did not consider his
appointment free from cavil so long as the election of Hompesch remained unannulled . He therefore , caused such a pressure to be brought to bear upon that unfortunate knight that on the
Pro. Holmes's Additional Notes Of The 15th Of March.
Gth of July , 1799 , a formal act of abdication was forwarded to St . Petersburg , and from that date Paul was left in undisturbed possession of his new dignity . "
I think after this , your readers will require no more reprints of Colonel Porter . I have already said that there were circumstances which excused the action taken by these knights , who ,
themselves proclaimed as their reason that any lawful action was then impossible ; and I have fully assented to Sir George Bowyer ' s statement that it is " recognised though irregular . "
I have not wished to raise these questions ; I think it a great misfortune that they should be rashly forced upon me , and I refer to the subject with reluctance and regret .
8 . Bro . Holmes tells us that Masonic Knights of Malta existed in 1780 , which , in itself is distinct proof that they had no relation to the genuine Order which did not leave Malta until
eight years after that date . I have examined minutes of Masonic bodies as early as the time of Malta ' s fall , but I find no traces which will in any way help Bro . Holmes ; no copies of
correspondence with the Grand Master Hompesch ; no allusions to observance of Statutes or qualifications of entrants ; indeed the Masonic Knights of that period appear to have been
received in very free-and-easy manner , and to have attained their honours for the very modest foundation of seven-shillings and sixpence .
9 . I have already explained , I trust to Bro . Holmes ' s satisfaction , how it came about that Prince Albert received the decoration of the Order from the Roman Council . He seems to
have been anxious on this point , and to have hoped his unscrupulous assertion would touch a weak place ; but now he knows the truth I think he would do himself no discredit in the
estimation of your readers if he expressed his regret that he had been tempted to make an experimental assertion for which he can offer no justification .
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Masonic Notes and Queries .
A POINT OK MASONIC HISTORV . Wc have a great many discussions , nowadays , in The Freemason , about questions of Masonic archrcological interest , ranging back sometimes through several centuries ; but I propose to call attention to-day to a much later
date , and to a fact in our annals , about which a . priori , we might have thought there could not be much great difficulty , and certainly not any discrepancy among our Masonic Historians . The date 1715 , is familiar to us all , as the era of what is often and commonly called the
" Masonic Revival , " and to which some Brethren would also apparently limit the real antiquity of our Order , though most unwisely in my opinion . Well , even about this memorable date , several discrepancies exist in our Masonic historians ,
and practically the proper date in all probability should be 1716 , or 1717 . Smith in his Freemasons' Pocket Companion , 1736 , gives us no account whatever of the Revival , though he adopts Anderson ' s
history of the Order , in the Constitutions of 1723 ; and says , that at the date of his publication , 1736 , " the number of Lodges " had " prodigiously increased within these few years in Great Britain ancl Ireland . "
Anderson in his 1723 edition , says nothing of the Revival , but in his edition of 1 73 8 , gives us for the first time a history of that transaction . According to him in 1716 , four lodges met at the
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Apple Tree , " constituted themselves a Grand Lodge , " " revived the Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges called the Grand Lodge , " and " resolved to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast , and then to choose a Grand Master from among themselves . "
And we are told , that , " accordingly on St . John the Baptist ' s day , in the third year of King George , A . D . 1717 , the Assembly and Feast of the Free and Accepted Masons were held at the Goose and Gridiron" and Mr . Anthony Sayer was elected by a majority of hands , Grand
Master of Masons . Such was in 173 8 Anderson ' s history of the Revival which is repeated in Entick ' s Edition of the Constitutions 1767 , and in Noorthouck ' s Edition of the Constitutions of 1784 . Preston ' s first edition of the " Illustrations of
Masonry , appeared in 1772 , m which however he does not give us any historical detail whatever ofthe Revival . His second edition appeared in 1775 , and in that edition , he thus records the Revival . I give his words in extenso partly on account of their somewhat peculiar vagueness ,
and partly for the purpose of comparison with Anderson ' s statement on which they are evidently based as he admits himself , in the ninth edition 179 6 , page 239 . " On the accession of George the First , " ( that was as we know in 1714 , as he entered London
September 20 th 1714 , ) " the lodges resolved to cement under a new Grand Master , to be annually elected as in former times , to revive the communications and festival of the Society , to regulate the ancient usages and customs of the Fraternity , and to establish such modes only as
might correspond with tlie practice of the Members of which the lodges were now principally composed . " This statement of Preston is in itself somewhat vague , and might be prima facie understood to refer to a meeting of the Order in 1714 , or 1715 , for anything which appears to the
contrary . Indeed the opening clause of the sentence seems to allude to the contemporary date of 1714- But then Preston goes on to say " Accordingly on the festival of St . John the Baptist , in 1717 , a General Assembly of the Fraternity was convened . Four lodges attended
in form and a Grand Lodge was constituted , the oldest Mason present being in the chair , the brethren proceeded to elect a Grand Master for the ensuing year , when the choice fell upon Anthony Sayer , Gent ., who was declared duly elected . "
So far the accounts of Anderson and Preston seem mainly to agree , but in his ninth edition which is the next I have , though probably also in one or more of the intermediate editions , Preston varies considerabl y his original account , and gives us that fuller record which is to be found in all the subsequent editions of his valuable work .
For he there talks of a preliminary meeting at the Apple Tree , in February 1717 , as precedent in the same year , to the election of Anthony Sayer as G . M ., St . John ' s Day , 1717 . Thus he apparently gives up Anderson ' s statement of the meeting in 1716 , and limits the Revival to 1717 .
1 he author of " Multa Paucis" whose work alike anonymous and undated , from internal evidence , was published not later than 1764 , tells us a completely different story . Let us hear his words * . "The Masters and Wardens of six lodges
assembled at the Apple Tree on St . John ' s Day , 1716 ( and after the oldest Master Mason , who was also the Master of a Lodge , had taken the chair ) , they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge " pro tempore" and revived their Quarterly Communication , and their Annual Feast . "
The author of " Multa Paucis " then goes on to record in almost " ipsissimis verbis" with Anderson and Preston , the meeting in 1717 at the Goose and Gridiron , and the election of Anthony Sayer as Grand Master . Thus we see , that while he agrees with Anderson as to 1716 ,
being the date of the preliminary meeting , and concurs with both Anderson and Preston as to the election of Anthony Sayer in 1717 , he entirely disagrees with them both as to the number of lodges represented , which he asserts to be six instead of four . Now the question is , which of these accounts is the correct one ?
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Pro. Holmes's Additional Notes Of The 15th Of March.
of Masonry , and remove those ancient landmarks which throughout so long a period have bound together , by common ties , a great and grand brotherhood extending from the rulers of
Empires down to the humble trader ? 6 . I have never said that the Stuarts had no connection with high-grade Masonry . I said " it is not well known that the dcthioned Stuarts
revived the Templar Order , " and I gave historic evidence ( on the ijth of February ) for my scepticism . Bro . Holmes is very ingenious , no doubt , in referring to imaginary statements , but
let me adjure him , in the words of the old play , " of your courtesy I pray you read the preface . "
7 . I cannot conceive what benefit can possibly result from Bro . Holmes , perpetually hammering at the election of the Emperor Paul , which has been in no way at issue . Col . Porter , has no doubt
said that the " great body" of the Knights went to Russia ; he has also said that a " large number" went there ; but he said also that the election was notoriously illegal ; Bro . Woof , in
his little book on the Masonic and other Orders , called them a " considerable number "; but he said that the election was utterly informal r Sutherland , a great authority , described them as
" a few refugee Knights , " and charctenses their ptoceeding as shattering the very basis of the Order . Surely then , I , yout humble contributor vary be permitted , with all diffidence , to adopt
the expressions of so great an authority as the last named ; but , be this as it may , the Knights unfortunately were refugees , and whether their number was great , large , considerable , or few
( and Bro . Holmes shall take his choice ) the fact remains the same , it was an illegal act . The Roman Council derives its only title through this source , and is compelled to accept the act of
a miscellaneous assemblage of Knights , not representing any one division of the Order , as a body , who assumed the , very grave power o f placing " a heretic " at the head of the institution
when its lawful Grand Master was yet living . All the historians of eminence agree that the act was illegal , and Bro . Holmes himself has advanced the same opinion on thc part of Sir Geo .
Bowyer . What , then , can be the use of forcing the question in a manner so very unnecessary and uninteresting to your readers , threatening them , moreover , with almost a reprint of Colonel
Porter s book , when a few lines , which I will reprint for Bro . Holmes ' s especial benefit , would explain that accomplished author ' s view . He tells how the Knights on proceeding to Russia
" were received in the most gracious manner by the wily monarch , whose ambition prompted him to desire thc post of Grand Master , in order that he might upon that title found a claim to the
' sland of Malta , should it be wrested from the grasp of the French republic . This desire on his part speedil y became known to the Knights , and on thc 27 th of October the farce was enacted of
nominating the Emperor Grand Master of the Order , notwithstanding the fact that Hompesch * who was still at Trieste , had not as yet resigned his office . Paul , however , did not consider his
appointment free from cavil so long as the election of Hompesch remained unannulled . He therefore , caused such a pressure to be brought to bear upon that unfortunate knight that on the
Pro. Holmes's Additional Notes Of The 15th Of March.
Gth of July , 1799 , a formal act of abdication was forwarded to St . Petersburg , and from that date Paul was left in undisturbed possession of his new dignity . "
I think after this , your readers will require no more reprints of Colonel Porter . I have already said that there were circumstances which excused the action taken by these knights , who ,
themselves proclaimed as their reason that any lawful action was then impossible ; and I have fully assented to Sir George Bowyer ' s statement that it is " recognised though irregular . "
I have not wished to raise these questions ; I think it a great misfortune that they should be rashly forced upon me , and I refer to the subject with reluctance and regret .
8 . Bro . Holmes tells us that Masonic Knights of Malta existed in 1780 , which , in itself is distinct proof that they had no relation to the genuine Order which did not leave Malta until
eight years after that date . I have examined minutes of Masonic bodies as early as the time of Malta ' s fall , but I find no traces which will in any way help Bro . Holmes ; no copies of
correspondence with the Grand Master Hompesch ; no allusions to observance of Statutes or qualifications of entrants ; indeed the Masonic Knights of that period appear to have been
received in very free-and-easy manner , and to have attained their honours for the very modest foundation of seven-shillings and sixpence .
9 . I have already explained , I trust to Bro . Holmes ' s satisfaction , how it came about that Prince Albert received the decoration of the Order from the Roman Council . He seems to
have been anxious on this point , and to have hoped his unscrupulous assertion would touch a weak place ; but now he knows the truth I think he would do himself no discredit in the
estimation of your readers if he expressed his regret that he had been tempted to make an experimental assertion for which he can offer no justification .
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Masonic Notes and Queries .
A POINT OK MASONIC HISTORV . Wc have a great many discussions , nowadays , in The Freemason , about questions of Masonic archrcological interest , ranging back sometimes through several centuries ; but I propose to call attention to-day to a much later
date , and to a fact in our annals , about which a . priori , we might have thought there could not be much great difficulty , and certainly not any discrepancy among our Masonic Historians . The date 1715 , is familiar to us all , as the era of what is often and commonly called the
" Masonic Revival , " and to which some Brethren would also apparently limit the real antiquity of our Order , though most unwisely in my opinion . Well , even about this memorable date , several discrepancies exist in our Masonic historians ,
and practically the proper date in all probability should be 1716 , or 1717 . Smith in his Freemasons' Pocket Companion , 1736 , gives us no account whatever of the Revival , though he adopts Anderson ' s
history of the Order , in the Constitutions of 1723 ; and says , that at the date of his publication , 1736 , " the number of Lodges " had " prodigiously increased within these few years in Great Britain ancl Ireland . "
Anderson in his 1723 edition , says nothing of the Revival , but in his edition of 1 73 8 , gives us for the first time a history of that transaction . According to him in 1716 , four lodges met at the
Masonic Notes And Queries.
Apple Tree , " constituted themselves a Grand Lodge , " " revived the Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges called the Grand Lodge , " and " resolved to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast , and then to choose a Grand Master from among themselves . "
And we are told , that , " accordingly on St . John the Baptist ' s day , in the third year of King George , A . D . 1717 , the Assembly and Feast of the Free and Accepted Masons were held at the Goose and Gridiron" and Mr . Anthony Sayer was elected by a majority of hands , Grand
Master of Masons . Such was in 173 8 Anderson ' s history of the Revival which is repeated in Entick ' s Edition of the Constitutions 1767 , and in Noorthouck ' s Edition of the Constitutions of 1784 . Preston ' s first edition of the " Illustrations of
Masonry , appeared in 1772 , m which however he does not give us any historical detail whatever ofthe Revival . His second edition appeared in 1775 , and in that edition , he thus records the Revival . I give his words in extenso partly on account of their somewhat peculiar vagueness ,
and partly for the purpose of comparison with Anderson ' s statement on which they are evidently based as he admits himself , in the ninth edition 179 6 , page 239 . " On the accession of George the First , " ( that was as we know in 1714 , as he entered London
September 20 th 1714 , ) " the lodges resolved to cement under a new Grand Master , to be annually elected as in former times , to revive the communications and festival of the Society , to regulate the ancient usages and customs of the Fraternity , and to establish such modes only as
might correspond with tlie practice of the Members of which the lodges were now principally composed . " This statement of Preston is in itself somewhat vague , and might be prima facie understood to refer to a meeting of the Order in 1714 , or 1715 , for anything which appears to the
contrary . Indeed the opening clause of the sentence seems to allude to the contemporary date of 1714- But then Preston goes on to say " Accordingly on the festival of St . John the Baptist , in 1717 , a General Assembly of the Fraternity was convened . Four lodges attended
in form and a Grand Lodge was constituted , the oldest Mason present being in the chair , the brethren proceeded to elect a Grand Master for the ensuing year , when the choice fell upon Anthony Sayer , Gent ., who was declared duly elected . "
So far the accounts of Anderson and Preston seem mainly to agree , but in his ninth edition which is the next I have , though probably also in one or more of the intermediate editions , Preston varies considerabl y his original account , and gives us that fuller record which is to be found in all the subsequent editions of his valuable work .
For he there talks of a preliminary meeting at the Apple Tree , in February 1717 , as precedent in the same year , to the election of Anthony Sayer as G . M ., St . John ' s Day , 1717 . Thus he apparently gives up Anderson ' s statement of the meeting in 1716 , and limits the Revival to 1717 .
1 he author of " Multa Paucis" whose work alike anonymous and undated , from internal evidence , was published not later than 1764 , tells us a completely different story . Let us hear his words * . "The Masters and Wardens of six lodges
assembled at the Apple Tree on St . John ' s Day , 1716 ( and after the oldest Master Mason , who was also the Master of a Lodge , had taken the chair ) , they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge " pro tempore" and revived their Quarterly Communication , and their Annual Feast . "
The author of " Multa Paucis " then goes on to record in almost " ipsissimis verbis" with Anderson and Preston , the meeting in 1717 at the Goose and Gridiron , and the election of Anthony Sayer as Grand Master . Thus we see , that while he agrees with Anderson as to 1716 ,
being the date of the preliminary meeting , and concurs with both Anderson and Preston as to the election of Anthony Sayer in 1717 , he entirely disagrees with them both as to the number of lodges represented , which he asserts to be six instead of four . Now the question is , which of these accounts is the correct one ?