MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh4

From MasonicGenealogy
Jump to: navigation, search

CHAPTER 4: THE COMMISSIONS

The Commissions of the Provincial Grand Masters In the Colonial Period.

It will be worth while at this point to consider the extent of the powers conferred on Price and hie four successors in the Massachusetts Grand Mastership, The study will run a long way ahead of our story, but should be continuous.

Price's Commission of April 30, 1733 names him "Provincial Grand Master of New England aforesaid and Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging."

Pelham, after his entry for June 24, 1734, says "About this time our Worshipful Brother, Mr. Benjamin Franklin from Philadelphia became acquainted with our Rt. Wor. Grand Master Mr. Price, who further instructed him in the Royal Art, end said Franklin on his return to Philadelphia called the Brethren there together, who petitioned our Rt. Wor. Grand Master for Constitution to hold a Lodge, and our Rt. Wor. Grand Master having this year received Orders from the Grand Lodge in England to establish Masonry in all North America did send a Deputation to Philadelphia appointing the R. W. Mr. Benj. Franklin first Master; which is the beginning of Masonry there."

The phrase "about this time" should not be read in close connection with the preceding date, as the "orders" appear to have been issued in August. Franklin wrote to Price on November 28, 1734: "We have seen in the Boston prints an article of news from London importing that at a Grand Lodge held there in August last Mr. Price's deputation and power was extended over all North America." This was the beginning of negotiations which resulted in Price's appointment, on February 24, 1735, of Franklin as Provincial Grand Master for Pennsylvania. That there was some such extension is clear. It was recognized by Franklin and was frequently referred to in Price's subsequent correspondence with England. The orders were not issued by the Grand Lodge, but by the Grand Master. There was no meeting of Grand Lodge in August, 1734. If there had been, Grand Lodge would not have acted in such matters. The appointment of such officers as Price and the definition of their authority has always been in the hands of the Grand Master alone. The orders would have come from the Earl of Crawfurd, then Grand Master and, according to the prevailing custom, were not reported to Grand Lodge. It has not yet been possible to locate the newspaper article referred to by Franklin because there are no known complete files of the Boston papers at that time. One would give a great deal to know the exact terms of the "orders' sent by Lord Crawfurd to Price. Unfortunately the document has disappeared and there is no copy in the records.

Under date of April 20, 1737, Pelham says "Our Rt. Worship'l Bro. Rob't, Tomlinson rec'd the following Commission from the Earl of Loudoun Grand Master of England, appointing him Provincial Grand Waster of North America in the Room of Our Rt. Wor'l Grand Master Price who Resign'd."

The Commission which follows does nothing of the kind. It appoints Tomlinson "Provincial Master of the Province of Hew England with the Territories and Dominions thereto belonging." It appears that Pelham considered Tomlinson as succeeding to whatever authority Price possessed, that he regarded Crawfurd's order as making Price Provlncial Grand Master for North America, and assumed a like appointment for Tomlinson, entirely overlooking the actual terms of the Commission. That Price had authority to "establish Masonry in all North America" and that his authority was recognized is clear. That that authority made him Provincial Grand Master of Worth America does not follow. Between August, 1734, and December 5, 1736, the date of Tomlinson's Commission, Roger Hugh Lacey had been appointed Provincial Grand Master for Georgia and John Hammerton for South Carolina. Richard Higgs was appointed for New York in 1737. It is perfectly clear that whatever authority and jurisdiction the Provincial Grand Masters in Boston possessed was not considered by the English Grand Masters as precluding the appointment of Provincial Grand Masters wherever in the Colonies they considered such appointments desirable.

Tomlinson died in 1740 and Thomas Oxnard, whom he had appointed Deputy Grand Master the year before, took charge. On September 23, 1743, Lord Ward, Grand Master, appointed Oxnard Provincial Grand Master in the following terms:

"Whereas application hath been made unto us by several of Our Brethren Residing in North America praying that a would appoint a Provincial Grand Master for North America in the Room of our Bro. Rob't. Tomllnson Esq'r, deceas'd late Provincial Grand Master.

"Now know ye That we John Lord Ward have Nominated, Constituted and Appointed and by these Presents do Nominate, Constitute and Appoint Our Well beloved Bro'r Thomas Oxnard Esq'r To be Provincial Grand Master of North America."

It is entirely probable that the application for an appointment carried with it a request that Oxnard be appointed. We know that on the death of Oxnard the Massachusetts Brethren chose Gridley as his successor and nominated him to the Grand Master for appointment.

Apparently Lord Ward acted upon the application for a Provincial Grand Waster for North America rather hastily and issued the Commission without stopping to think that several other Provincial Grand Masters had been appointed in North America and serious questions of jurisdiction might be raised. Evidently such questions did arise, for on October 7, 1751, a "Humble Remonstrance," signed by the Masters and Wardens of the four Lodges in Boston was addressed to the Grand Master of England, Lord Byron. This is a rather astonishing document. It opens by saying "That from the accounts of the Transactions from the inchoation of Masonry in No America 5733 to the present Year We have had successively Three Grand Masters Deputed from the Grand Lodge who have each in their respective Commissions been Distinguished under the title of Provincial Grand Masters of North America, xxx." This statement is disingenuous, to say the least of it. As we have seen, only Oxnard was so distinguished. It goes on to say that "We have always looked upon our Grand Masters in the most General Obvious and uncircumscribed sense of the Word" and asks the Grand Master to

"Grant to Our Worshipful Brother Thomas Oxnard Esq'r our present Grand Master or his successors for ever for the time being, a Full and Plenary Commission to act as Grand Masters in and over all Lodges in the Provinces of Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolinas, Georgia, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia, all which Provinces are Generally Distinguished under the Name of North America: And that all future Deputations or Constitutions be from him or his Deputy only, and all the Lodges In the District as aforesaid, do Communicate and Correspond with the Grand Lodge in North America thus Constituted, that from thence an Account of their several Proceedings may be Transmitted Annually to the Grand Lodge in England, end as is now done by us, and to which we Refer you,"

ln view of the active and energetic character of Oxnard and the fact that he had a large vision of the possibilities of his office it is highly probable that his was the inspiring mind behind the Remonstrance. Remembering Price's deputation to Franklin and Phillips, and quite aware that the vast field covered by his commission could not be administered by one man, he saw the necessity for Provincial Grand Wasters, probably several of them, outside Massachusetts, but he desired that they be appointed from Boston, not from London. The term "Humble Remonstrance" though quite in accord with the conventions of the time, is not without irony. It was an ambitious, not to say grandiose plan.. It would have set up a huge Masonic monarchy with its capital in Boston. The Provincial Grand Master for North America would have been appointed from London, but he would have been nominated in Boston, as Tomlinson and Oxnard probably and their t«o pre-revolutionary successors, Gridley and Rowe, certainly were. There would have been Provincial Grand Masters in the several Colonies, but they would all have been appointed by Provincial Grand Masters in Boston. The tie binding American Masonry to English Masonry would have been a tenuous one, liable to snap at any moment.

We have no record of the answer to the Remonstrance. Probably there was none. London, however, took alarm. Oxnard died in 1754 and in 1755 Lord Caernavon, then Grand Master, appointed Jeremy Gridley "Provincial Grand Master of all such Provinces and Place in North America and the territories thereof of which no Provincial Grand Master is at present appointed." Gridley's successor, John Rowe, was commissioned by the Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master. In the commission Beaufort speaks of Price as "constituted Provincial Grand Master of North America by Viscount Montague." Rowe is "appointed Provincial Grand Master for all North America and the Territories thereunto belonging where no other Provincial Grand Master is in being." Again there is evidence of confusion in London. Whatever may be said of Crawfurd's "orders" or supplementary commissions, Montague certainly did not appoint Price Provincial Grand Master for North America.

Price accepted the situation with what grace he could. On December 13, 1767, while Price was again holding office in the interval between the death of Gridley and the appointment of Rowe, he issued a Commission to Thomas Cooper as Deputy Grand Master for North Carolina. In this document he calls himself "Grand Master x x x of all such places in North America where no other Grand Master is appointed." This is a clear echo of the Gridley commission. He then says that he issues the commission "by virtue of the power end authority committed to us by the night Honorable and Right Worshipful Anthony, Lord Viscount Montague," once more citing a non-existent authority.

On January 27, 1760, Price wrote to the Grand Lodge recommending the appointment of Rowe. In this letter he complains that neither the Montague commission nor the Crawfurd extension had ever been registered and asks that they be now registered so that his Grand Lodge may have rank according to its date. Answer was delayed by the illness of the Grand Secretary until November 29. in this letter the oversight complained of is admitted, with a gentle reminder that it was partly due to Price's failure to report regularly to London. The letter goes on:

"However as it appears by some loose papers in my Possession that you had resigned in favor of John Rowe, Esq'r. His Grace {Beaufort} desires you will forward a letter to me relating to this point, per first opportunity, that the Provincialship may be properly settled, with an account of the date of his warrant. No deputation which has been granted since your appointment for my part of America, can affect you, as their authority can only extend over those provinces where no other Provincial Grand Master is appointed."

This letter did not reach Price until April 27, 1769. On June 3 he replied that the matter of his resignation was a long story which he hoped to have opportunity to tell in person on occasion of an expected visit to London in the fall, a visit which was not made. He says, however, "I recommended our Right Worshipful Brother John Rowe, Esq'r to be Provincial Grand Master of New England, but you cannot find that I ever gave up my own Appointment over all North America."

Th« answer of the Grand Secretary tactfully waves aside the question of authority, expresses the hope that Price may soon appear in London, and goes on to discuss the question of the incorporation of the Grand Lodge of England which was then under consideration. We have no evidence that the question of authority was ever again raised, Rowe lasted through the Revolution and with the independence of the United states entirely new conditions arose.

This study makes clear the extent and limitation of the authority of the Boston Provincials. The ambitins and pretensions of the Bostonians obscure the details somewhat but from the point of view of London the situation is clear and consistent. the only exception is the rather unfortunate blunder of Lord Ward in the Oxnard commission. The Boston Provincials had larger authority than any others appointed in North America. 1'hey were authorized to "establish Masonry in nil North America" and this authorization was never revoked. They not only established Lodges over a wide extent of territory, but in at least two instances commissioned Provincial or Deputy Grand Masters for other Colonies.

The English Grand Masters, however, did not divest themselves of the authority to appoint other Provincial Grand Wasters in North America or to warrant Lodges there. They did appoint such Provincial Grand Masters and warrant Lodges, The Provincials thus appointed were not under the authority of the Boston men. They were, however, appointed for certain Colonies and generally limited their activities thereto. The Boston men had an unquestioned primacy, but the English Grand Masters never had the slightest intention of conferring upon them the tremendous powers asked for in the Humble Remonstrance of 1751.


Main Page