Table Of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ancient ^ ork and London Grand Lodges . By Bro . L . Hyncman ••••• ? 47 The Electro-Chymical Substance 748 Bevievvs 749 Masonic Meetings in Town Halls 750

provincial Grand Lodge of Leicestershire and Rutland 750 Mark Masonry in Lancashire 751 The Humours of the Election 752 Agenda of Business in Grand Lodge , Dec . 4 752 CRAFT MASONRY : — Provincial ... 753

C ORRESPONDENCE : — Ancient Grand Lodges of York and London 75 5 Masonic Meetings for next week 755 Advertisements 745 , 74 f > > 75 ^ , 757 , 7 5 S , 759 7 60 SUPPLEMENT ( Eight Pages ) : — Royal Masonic Institution for £ Girls—Election of Secretary 7 **

C ORRESPONDENCE : — Royal Masonic Institution for Girls 761 Bro . Lane and thc MusoiiicBenevolcnt Fund 761 Surrey Masonic Hall 761 Bro Findel ' s Article 761 Obituary 7 <> i Masonic Notes and Queries 7 G 2 The Surrey Masonic Hall Company 7 62

MARK M ASONRY : Provincial Grand Mark Lodge of Northumberland 7 G ; , Provincial 76 , 5 KNIGHTS T EMPLAR : — Provincial 763 Fine Arts in Liverpool 7 6 3 Masonic Female Orphan School , Dublin 7 64 . Grand Orient of France 7 66 Provincial Grand Lodge of Northumberland 768

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

ANCIENT YORK AND LONDON GRAND LODGES .

BY BRO . LEON HYNEMAN . A REVIEW BY BRO . W . . HUGHAN . ( Continued from page 732 . ) At page 6 9 we read : " Preston , in his quali

lied statement , ' they instituted a new Grand Lodge in London , professedly on tlie ancient system , ' subsequently remarks in same paragraph' The irregular Masons in London having thus

acquired a nominal establishment , noblemen of both kingdoms unacquainted with the origin of separation honoured them with their patronage , & c . That fully agrees with our views , that no

third Grand Lodge was formed in London . " How can this be , when Preston distinctl y affirms "they instituted a new Grand Lodger " Surely this cannot harmonise with Bro .

Hyncman ' s views , as he believes there was no third lodge . The Grand Lodges of 1717 at London and the York Grand Lodge of course existed long before the period mentioned by Bro .

Preston , consequently tite new Grand Lodge is the third in England , and is simply the fresh organisation of the "Ancients , " established just when the Rev . John Entick issued the 17 56 edition

of the Constitutions , antl hence he could not be expected to refer at length to its formation . We fail , therefore , to see the " ingenuity and deceit" in Preston ' s remarks , which our brother

professes to discern . Another instance of this wonderful discernment is to be found at page 73 , because Dr . Anderson states No . 94 . was held at the " Gun

Tavern" in A . D . 17 , 38 and in 1756 . Tlie Rev John Entick says it was held at the " Ben Johnson ' s Head . " Bro . Hyncman remarks , " One or the other or both must bc false . " How

strange it never occurred to our brother , who is so quick to "jump to conclusions , " that No . 94 removed from the one inn to the other . This is really the explanation of an occurrence quite

common in the experience of lodges then , as now , who are so unwise as to meet in " public 'houses , " and yet the author of the work we are eyiewing sees in it proof of falsehood ;

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

Bro . Hyneman is in error in declaring therejs no authority " in any authorized Grand Lodge publication , " that there was a third Grand Lodge . The report of the " Union of A . D . 1813 " refers

at length to thc union of the Freemasons under H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , Grand Master of the older Grand Lodge , and H . R . H . the Duke

of Kent , of the younger Grand Lodge in London , known respectively as the " Moderns" and the "Ancients . " The latter was the third Grand

Lodge of all England ( the and Grand Lodge in point of age was extinct , ) and the fourth was finally closed about A . D . 1790 , by tlie members asrain beinsr received as members of the iirst

Grand Lodge . Bro . Hyneman is quite correct in stating that whenever Preston mentioned the York Grand Lodge , it was never " in connection with

irregular lodges or Masons . " Hence , to our minds , it is clear , that inasmuch as Preston mentions one Grand Lodge in London as a regular body , a Grand Lodge at York , and an irregular Grand

Lodge , the author of the Illustrations evidently believed in the exi stencc of a third Grand Lodge . We are quite content to leave this point to any competent Mason or non-Mason to decide .

Notwithstanding these plain facts , Bro . Hyneman will still persist in declaring that the socalled " irregular meetings were Lodges of York Masons ! " and in spite of the acknowledgment that Preston never connects the York Masons

with the irregularities in London , ( who is by fiir tlie best writer we have ever had in the past to defend the York Grand Lodge , to which Bro . Hyneman is so devotedly attached ) . Bro .

Hyneman is so completely in " wandering mazes lost ' ' over the study of the numeration ofthe lodges by Anderson and others , that wc despair of ever seeing him clear of the labyrinth , unless indeed

he admits his ignorance of the road , and submits to be guided ! His plan of accounting for the fancied discrepancies is again the old plea of " falsity , " so we

must again answer—shame ! A change of language , but the same false estimate , is visible at page 8 9 of Bro . Hyneman ' s work . " Their secession was from a body

guilty of the grossest moral and Masonic wrong and uniting with those in whom the pure princip les of Masonry were conserved , the Masons holding under the York Grand Lodge . " We are

prepared at any time to disprove the foregoing , and will submit to the award of the Grand Masters of the United States , or indeed of any one . of them !

It has occurred to us that as Bro . Hyneman objects to the account of the progress of Freemasonry during the whole of the last century by Anderson , Entick , Preston , and others , and says

the records of the Grand Lodge of England are unreliable , it would be interesting to know from whence he derives his information , seeing these are the only known channels on the subject !

Bro-Hyneman actually acknowledges that the Duke of Atholl was Grand Master of the Ancients , socalled b y the London Masons . " Every Mason knows , ( or should know , ) that his Grace never

presided over the Grand Lod ge of all England held at York , and moreover the letters of recognition sent by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland were not addressed to the Grand Lodge

Ancient York And London Grand Lodges.

of York , but at London , under the so-called "Anj cients . " Bro . Hyneman ' s remarks at pages 104-5 are sound and clear , but in the next page the old fault

is visible again , and Preston is soundly rated for not doing the very thing which he did ! The paragraph in 13 th edition of Preston ' s "Illustrations" beinsr omitted in Dr . Oliver ' s

reprint , that brother ' s conduct is said by Bro . Hyneman '' to be unjustifiable under any circumstances , especiall y by a minister ofthe Gospel /' and yet in the 13 th edition of the same work ,

published v \ . D . 1821 , and from which no doubt the reprint by Dr . Oliver was taken , the same paragraph was also omitted ! ! ! The culmination of Bro . Hyneman ' s glaring

and unfounded attacks on Masonic worthies is his statement that the Earl of Moira " did not tell the truth , " saying that thc " Grand Lodge of Scotland expressed the desire that thc strictest union and most intimate communication should

subsist between this Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Scotland , " than whom a brighter Ma son never existed , and whose every statements are abundantly conlirmed by numerous

independent testimonials . We are glad to lind that Bro , Hyneman admits that the so-called Ancient Masons " never published any of their transactions j in accordance , no doubt , with positive rules

governing the Grand Lodge , save the Ahiman Rezons , published by Lawrence Dermott , " ( page 129 , ) and for the following reasons : ( 1 ) The "Ahiman Rezons , " from A . D . 1756 to A . D .

1813 , never once state that the Grand Lodge of which Dermott was once the Grand Secretary was thc Grand Lodge held at York 5 ( 2 ) Dermott often declares his Grand Lodge was held in

London j ( 3 ) And it was his Grand Lodge which united with the other Grand Lodge , both of which existed in London from A . D . 1753 to A . D . 1813 , and happily united in December in the

latter year , but neither had any connection with York Masonry . Bro . Hyneman informs his readers that " The London Grand Lodge was not a legitimate body

of Masons ; it had no regular Masonic existence , nor were the persons made Masons underwits constitutions perfect and regular Masons , " & c . It is idle to discuss this point , as we suspect [ no

brother anywhere , except the writer ofthe foregoing , could be found to indorse such an absurd statement ! All the old Grand Lodges , directl y or indirectly , emanated from this Grand Lodge

Those which were not constituted as Provincial Grand Lodges by its authority , were formed b y virtue of warrants issued by the " Ancients , " which Grand Lodge was an offshot , or secession

from the former , and so clearly all the old Grand Lodges are virtually the offspring of this bod y styled illegitimate by Bro . Hyneman , not onl y in the United States , but in all the world . The

" Grand Lodge of all England , " held at York , and the " Grand Lodge South of the Trent" held at London , as we remarked before , never issued warrants to hold lodges out of England . Bro .

Hyneman wishes it to be understood that his " preceding remarks , in regard to the London Masons and London Grand Lodges , cannot in

any sense apply to the Masons of England since the Union , nor to the United Grand Lodge of England ; " and we are anxious to let this fact be