MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh6

From MasonicGenealogy
Jump to: navigation, search

CHAPTER 6: GRIDLEY AND THE ANCIENTS

Oxnard died June 26, 1754. A quarterly communication of Grand Lodge was held on July 12, with Benjamin Hallowell, the Deputy Grand Master, in the chair. The Deputy Grand Master appointed two members "to wait upon our R't. Worsh'l. Bro. Henry Price to resume his office of G.M. in the room of our R't. Worsh'l Bro. Oxnard deceased which now of course reverts to him." The Brethren appear to have decided, or to have received a ruling that the formerly discussed Article XXl of the Regulations, which provided that a Past Grand Master should be called to the chair only in lack of a Deputy Grand Master or a Grand Warden applied only to the Grand Lodge, not to a Provincial Grand Lodge. Price resumed the Provincial Grand Mastership as he was to do again in 1767 when another vacancy occurred and neither his authority nor the regularity of his acts were questioned either in New England nor in Old. He continued the Grand Officer "until further orders."

On October 11, the Grand Lodge met again and voted to petition for the appointment of a Grand Master. They nominated Jeremy Gridley by a vote of eleven to two, and appointed a committee of seven to draw such a petition us had been indicated in outlines.

The petition as drawn is an echo of the Humble Remonstrance, but in a slightly lower tone. The petition asks for the appointment of Gridley; that he and all further Grand Masters be commissioned for three years only, with the proviso that if the Provincial Grand Lodge should desire to keep him, his commission should continue in force from the time of his first appointment to the installation of his successor: and that in his commission he be styled Grand Master of all North America.

In due time Grand Master Lord Carnarvon sent the desired commission. It by no means met the wishes of the petitioners. It did indeed appoint Gridley, but expressly limited his authority to "all such Provinces and Places in North America and the Territories thereof of which no Provincial Grand Master is at present appointed," and it did not limit the duration of his appointment.

Gridley was one of the leading citizens of the Colony. His family came to Boston about 1630. He was born March 1, 1701/2. Of his earliest years we know nothing. He was graduated from Harvard in 1725 decidedly older than was common at that time. For the next nine years he taught school, but, found time to study theology and general literature, preach occasionally, start and run for two years a weekly paper, which he sold out as a growing concern, and finally to study law.

Here he was immediately successful in winning reputation, though not wealth, for lawyer's fees at that time were pitiably low. In 1742 he was Attorney General of Massachusetts. In that capacity he appeared for the Crown against Oxenbridge Thatcher and James Otis in the celebrated case of the Writs of Assistance. These writs were practically search warrants without designation of the place to be searched. Armed with them customs officers could enter any premises they chose to look for smuggled goods. Gridley won his case because, whatever may be said of the justice of such proceedings, the law was clearly on his side. They were lawful in England and there was ample precedent there for their use, though Thatcher and Otis apparently did not know it.

Gridley was Interested in the local affairs of Brookline where he lived, and in military and maritime affairs. At the time of his death he was Attorney General for the Province, a member of the Provincial Legislature, a Justice of the Peace throughout the Province, Colonel of the First Regiment of Militia, President of the Marine Society, Selectman and Assessor of Brookline, and the unquestioned leader of the Boston bar. So eminent was his legal accomplishments in comparison with the slight learning and lack of legal training of the bench and bar of his time that he has been called the Father of the Boston Bar.

lie joined the First Lodge in 1748 and shortly afterward joined the Masters' Lodge. He left the chair in that Lodge to become Master of the First Lodge December 26, 1753 and was called from that post to become Grand Master. It is perhaps worth noting that he was the only man since Henry Price founded the Grand Lodge who ever became Grand Master without having previously held office in Grand Lodge, Gridley's standing in the community is eloquently attested by the entry regarding his funeral in the diary of John Howe, who was his Deputy Grand Master at the time. After describing the Masonic part of the funeral procession he says: "Then followed the Relatives - after them the Lawyers in their robes - then the Gentlemen of the Town and then a great many Coaches, Chariots and chaises. Such a multitude of Spectators I never Saw at any time before since I have been in New England."

Gridley was installed with much ceremony October 1, 1755. The Brethren assembled in Concert Hall and marched in procession to Trinity Church to hear a sermon. After the service was over they marched back to the hall where they dined and "the afternoon was Spent in Harmony and Mirth." Apparently they were spared the speeches now almost inseparable from Masonic dinners.

The outbreak of the Seven Years' War, 1756 to 1763, almost ooncided with the beginning of Gridley's administration. The ohief protagonists t in this war were Prussia, seconded by England,and Austria seconded by France, other Powers joining in from time to time. On the continent of Europe the war ended in a stalemate, but elsewhere the French suffered badly. In America there was much fighting, resulting in the permanent loss of Canada to England.

The St. John's Grand Lodge was very active during this war, partly because many Massachusetts troops took part in the expeditions against Canada, and partly, perhaps more particularly, because Gridley's younger brother, Richard, took an important part in it. Richard Gridley was a trained and competent artillerist and engineer. He was a colonel In 1754 and had made the plans for several forts. Initiated in the First Lodge in 1745, he was Master of the Masters' Lodge in 1750 and of the First Lodge in 1757, and was appointed Junior Grand Warden in 1758, and Senior Grand Warden in 1761. Upon the death of Jeremy Gridley in 1767 Henry Price, who took over the chair until a new appointment might be made, appointed Richard Gridley Deputy Grand Master. John Rowe was installed as Grand Master November 25, 1768, and at the annual meeting following, December 87, 1768, Howe appointed Richard Gridley Deputy Grand Master and he served in that capacity throughout Rowe's administration.

With the opening of hostilities Richard Gridley took the field and on May 13, 1750, Jeremy Gridley issued a Warrant authorizing him "to congregate all Free and Accepted Masons in the present expedition against Crown Point, and form them into one or more Lodges as he shall think fit."

Again on April 13, 1759, Gridley issued a Warrant to Abraham Savage "to congregate all Free and Accepted Masons in the present expedition against Canada at Lake George or elsewhere in our district into one or more Lodges as he shall think fit."

Abraham Savage was initiated in the First Lodge in 1757. At the time when the Warrant was issued to him he does not appear to have held any official position. Later he was Master of the First Lodge, and of the Masters Lodge, Grand Secretary from 1707 to 1770, Junior Grand Warden in 1771 and 1772, and Senior Grand Warden in 1773.

Both Gridley and Savage warranted Lodges. Just how many, we do not know - a half dozen or more. They were disbanded when the Units to which they were attached were demobilized and few of their records were preserved.

Army Lodges had been in existence since 1732 in the British army, and become very numerous. Jeremy Gridley's Army Lodges were the first to be warranted in America. In Massachusetts Army Lodges were warranted, as we shall see, in the Revolutionary War and in the Civil War, but not later.

Late in 1768 Lord Loudoun, Past Grand Master of England (1738) and Commander-in-Chief of the English forces in America, came to Boston on business connected with recruiting and supply. Gridley was very friendly to Loudoun and kept him informed as to the inner currents of New England politics. On January 31, 1757, he called a special meeting of the Grand Lodge at which four members of Loudoun's staff and one John Melville, of Marblehead, were made Masons at sight. Loudoun in his diary, which is in the Henry Huntington Library in California, recounts the making of the officers, but adds, somewhat disgustedly, that they would not make good servants. This is an interesting and rather amusing reflection of the superior attitude adopted by English officers toward the Colonials. The Earl was aggrieved because the Bostonians would not make the servants, but he knew perfectly well that no Lodge in England would have made them. However, he stifled his resentment and, with the Masonic members of his suit, among whom was Charles Lawrence, the Governor of Halifax, joined the Boston Brethren in a slightly delayed celebration of the Feast of St. John.

Loudoun was one of the many misfits sent to high command in America
for family or political reasons. He was at this time about fifty-five
years old. He had been in the army since 1727 and had done well in a
subordinate capacity in the suppression of the Jacobite rising n 1745. In that campaign he had shown personal courage and considerable initiative. The American command, however, was much too big for him. He took over in March, 1756, but accomplished nothing and was recalled in 1758 to make place for the capable and energetic Amherst.

Evidently the conditions created by the war bore hard on the Fraternity, and the Grand Lodge was troubled about its resources for charity which were heavily drawn upon. April 13, 1758 it was voted that the Grand Wardens and the Masters of the Boston Lodges be a committee to consider what can be done to retrench the expenses of the Lodges and report. What came of this action we do not know, The custom of the period was for the Lodges to use their initiates' fees for local relief and to take collections at their meetings for the Grand Lodge charity fund, bringing the money thus raised to the quarterly meetings of Grand Lodge. Obviously this was not very satisfactory and on July 13, 1759, Grand Lodge appointed a committee of three "to wait on the Brothers who do not frequent Lodges to subscribe to the constitution of charity." During the next few years we find several votes passed calculated to sustain and stimulate in various ways the raising of funds for the Grand Lodge charities, as well as votes authorizing the payment of considerable sums for relief.

In 1759 the Grand Treasurer was directed to buy ten tickets In a lottery for the building of a Masonic hall in Newport, R. I. Whether or not the purchase drew a prize does not appear.

At the October quarterly in 1765 letters were read from the Master and Wardens of the Lodge at Middletown, Ct. to the Grand Master and the Grand Secretary stating that owing to the distant location of the Lodge the officers could not attend Grand Lodge and asking that the Grand Secretary, Edward Quincy, Jr., be authorized to represent them at all communications of Grand Lodge. It was voted that the letters be recorded and Bro. Quincy was entered as representing the Lodge at Middletown. This is the first case In which the Grand Lodge received a commission of proxy and recognize the holder as the representative of the Lodge issuing the commission. This action also fixed the principle thereafter followed in Massachusetts that the proxy represented the Lodge and was not the personal representative of any officer.

It will be remembered that when Gridley was initiated the Brethren met in Concert Hall and returned there for dinner after the church services. Concert Hall was a tavern provided with a large assembly room, probably the largest in town. In 1754 Stephen Deblois bought it of Gilbert and Lewis Deblois for 2000 pounds, lawful money. It is not called Concert Hall in the deed. Probably Stephen Deblois gave it the name when he took possession. Lewis and Stephen Deblois were members of the First Lodge.

In 1763 Stephen Deblois offered to sell the property to the Grand Lodge for 1200 pounds sterling. On October 28 a special Grand Lodge Night to which all Boston Masons voted to buy it and to raise the price by subscription. The record goes on to say, rather disgustedly that "in spite of the foregoing votes and a consequent agreement with him" Deblois sold the place the next day to another purchaser.

An interesting side light on the customs of the time is contained in the expense account of this meeting which appears in the Grand Lodge records. There is a charge for sixty "Spirma Ceti" candles, for "firing" and for the use of the hall. Forty-nine Brethren are reported present. They consumed as an aid to their deliberations thirty-eight bottles of wine, three gallons of Jamaica rum, with loaf sugar and lemons, cheese, biscuits, tobacco, and six dozen pipes. The pipes were probably "churchwardens" and did not survive the meeting.

Apparently the property was not profitable for in 1767 Deblois again had it on his hands and once more offered it to the Grand Lodge, this time for a thousand pounds sterling, to be paid for in three, four or five years, lawful interest to be paid on the debt In the meantime. A special meeting of Grand Lodge was called and it was voted that if the several Lodges would give in their respective stocks of cash and enough 
could be added by subscription to make up six hundred pounds and if
 Deblois would take a mortgage for the remaining four hundred Grand Lodge 
would treat with him. The Lodges were asked:

  1. Did they think it best to buy if six hundred pounds could be raised?
  2. Would they put in their stock?
  3. Would they approve calling a "General Lodge" to see what subscriptions could be raised.

They all answered "yea" to 1 and 3 and "no" to 2. This ended the matter. Grand Lodge was to wait nearly three quarters of a century before it had a home of its own. Deblois finally got rid of his white elephant in 1769, selling for a thousand pounds, half cash and half on eight year mortgage.

Gridley was a very active Grand Master and warranted twenty or more Lodges during his administration. Among them was one in Prince Town (now Princeton) N.J., of which Richard Stockton, later one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was the first Master. The Lodge appears to have existed but a short time. The papers relating to it in Grand Lodge archives were destroyed by fire and nothing has survived in New Jersey. It was not in existence when the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was organized in 1786.

When Gridley became Grand Master a movement was under way in Boston which was destined to have most important consequences. This was the entrance into the Masonic field of the Ancients, so called, the birth of the Lodge of St. Andrew, its development into a Provincial Grand Lodge under the authority of Scotland and, ultimately, the union of the two Provincial Grand Lodges to form the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. In order to understand this it is necessary to go back a little. In 1750 Prichard published his Masonry Dissected, the first of the innumerable exposés to have any importance and the only one to have serious consequences. The brethren of the Grand Lodge of England, not being case-hardened to these annoyances, took quite unnecessary alarm and made some slight changes in their ritual intended to guard against impostors who might seek to make use of information obtained from Prichard's book. This gave an excuse for certain Masons who were not reconciled to the rule of Grand Lodge of England to start a rival body of their own. They claimed that they themselves possessed the ancient Masonic secrets and that the other bodies were innovators whom they contemptuously called Moderns. They shortly set up a Grand Lodge and until 1813 English Masonry was divided between the two Grand Lodges mutually excommunicating each other. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland held aloof from the quarrel and recognized both the Modern and Ancient Grand Lodges.

About 1751 there came to Boston, probably on business as he did not settle there, one Isaac Decster or LeCosta as his name is sometimes and probably more correctly spelled. About DeCosta we know very little. His name would indicate that he was Portuguese Jew. He was a member of Lodge No. 2 (Ancients), of Halifax. On coming to Boston he presented himself as a visitor to the First Lodge, but was refused admission by vote of the Lodge, which would not recognize Ancients. He apparently took this rebuff greatly to heart and gathered a small group of Ancients who undertook to organize in 1752 a Lodge "according to the ancient usage," that is to say without a Charter. They soon found that they could accomplish nothing in this way as no Masons would recognize either their Lodge or their initiates. They then cast about for a means of getting a Charter.

Application to Gridley was impracticable and would doubtless have been useless. They had made friends with James Logan, a Past Master of the Lodge at Falkirk, Scotland, who undertook to present their application to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. They were perhaps the more ready to do this because the standing and regularity of the Grand Lodge of Scotland was beyond question while both the English Grand Lodges were under fire.

In 1756 Logan presented their petition to the Grand Lodge of Scotland with the endorsement of the Falkirk Lodge. A Charter was granted under date of November 30, 1756, to St. Andrew's Lodge in Boston. There were many delays and the Charter was not actually delivered to the Lodge until September 4, 1760. In the meantime Oxnard had died and Gridley had been installed Grand Master in 1755. Late in 1757 or very early in 1758 DeCosta and his associates, knowing that a Charter had been voted, though not delivered, petitioned the St. John's Lodge for recognition. On January 14, 1758, it was voted "that seven be a committee to take DeCoster's petition under consideration."

On February 24, 1758, a committee of the Grand Lodge met. The petition was read and debated and it was voted, on recommendation of the committee; That the said DeCoster and those of his company who had a clear and good character should be admitted to be made Masons by Dispensation of the Grand Master they paying the charge of the entertainment." On April 13, at a regular meeting of Grand Lodge the foregoing vote and report were referred to the Grand Master, and there the matter rested for a time.

The position of the Committee was entirely consistent, hut impossible of acceptanc by the petitioners. It refused to recognize St. Andrew's as a Lodge or its members as Masons. It would not recognize the original petitioners for the Charter as Masons because they were Ancients. The Committee was perfectly aware that a Charter had been voted, but as it had not been delivered it held that there was no Lodge and that everything so far done was entirely irregular and clandestine. If they would admit all this the Grand Master might make them Masons by Dispensation (heal them) if they would pay the expenses of the meeting at which it was done, the "entertainment," of course, being the usual punch, wines, etc. This report does not appear to have been formally communicated to DeCosta and his party, as it was referred to the Grand Master and not again heard of directly.

On the arrival of the Charter in 1760 it was immediately shown to Grand Master Gridley. Gridley grudgingly admitted the Charter as being an authentic act of the Grand Lodge Of Scotland but still refused recognition, claiming that the Charter was an invasion of his jurisdiction, that the Grand Lodge of Scotland had been deceived by the petitioners, and that the members of St. Andrew's Lodge were clandestine Masons.

At the April quarterly Communication he returned his answer to the Committee report which had been referred to him and on his recommendation the Grand Lodge voted "that no member of a regular constituted Lodge in Boston do appear at the meeting (or Lodge so called) of Scotch Masons in Boston not being regularly constituted in the opinion of this Lodge, The Masters and Wardens of the several Lodge are desired to take notice of this order at their next meeting." There the matter rested for a time.

St. Andrew's Lodge kept the Grand Lodge of Scotland fully informed of all these proceedings and under date of June 4, 1752, Lord Elgin, then Grand Master, made a dignified reply to the claim of invasion of Jurisdiction. He fully acknowledge Gridley's authority over all Lodges holding from England, but calls attention to the fact that Col. John Young has a like Warrant as Provincial Grand Master over all Lodges in North America holding from the Grand Lodge of Scotland and "these Commissions when rightly understood can never clash or interfere with each other." The underlying assumption is that as the North American colonies were dependencies of the British crown they were Masonically open to all British Grand Lodges and no one of those Grand Lodges could claim jurisdiction as against the others. Scotland had as much right to charter Lodges in Massachusetts and hold them under her jurisdiction as England had. Gridley seems to have recognized the force of this claim and, as we shall see later, though the St. John's Grand Lodge persisted in its attitude of non-recognition, the claim of invasion of jurisdiction was not pressed.

The opposition of St. John's Grand Lodge does not appear to have interfered with the growth of St. Andrew's Lodge. A list of the members on January 14, 1762 shows that the Lodge then had fifty-three members, of whom eighteen were sea captains. In the membership we find Joseph Warren, Joseph Webb, Paul Revere, Richard Pulling, and representatives of such names as Deshon, Palfrey, Crafts, Gould and others. It is interesting to note that of the nine charter members of 1756 only three remained, George Bray, Josiah Flagg, and William Burbeck. Isaac DeCosta was chosen as the first Master on the strong recommendation of Logan, but he was in Boston very little if at all during the next few years and probably never really functioned at all. On July 10, 1760, the Lodge, without waiting for the actual receipt of its Charter, elected William Burbeck Master. The attitude of the majority of the Charter, members was a somewhat curious one. They were very anxious to have a Lodge of Ancients started, perhaps more for the purpose of annoying the Moderns than for any other reason, but were quick to abandon it when once started. Events seem to prove that they were small loss.

William Burbeck, later a Colonel in the Revolutionary Army, played so important a part in the Masonic affairs of his time that he deserves special notice. The early records of St. Andrew's in listing his name say that he was made in the First Lodge. This is unquestionably true, although the published membership Lists of the First Lodge do not show it. He was present at the Feast of St. John June 26, 1754, and sat in Grand Lodge January 12 and April 13, 1756, as Junior Warden of the First Lodge. Before the next meeting of Grand Lodge, July 13, there was an election in the First Lodge. The Senior Warden, Adino Paddock, was advanced to the Mastership and two new Wardens appear. Burbeck's nome, however, does not appear in the list of Past Junior Wardens of the First Lodge. On July 10, 1760, Burbeck was elected Master of St. Andrew's, serving from 1760 to 1765. He was Master again in 1766 and in 1782 and 1783.

In 1760 the feeling of the First Lodge against St. Andrew's was very acute. The active part taken by Burbeck in the affairs of St. Andrew's must have been a severe blow to the First Lodge and excited keen resentment. It was doubtless this resentment which led to the expunging of the record of his degrees and of his Wardenship. Samuel Barrett, another early member of St. Andrew's, who was made in the First Lodge was treated in the same way. However, when Gridley called together all the Masons in Boston in 1763 to consider the purchase of Concert Hall Burbeck and Barrett are recorded as present and there is no evidence that their right to be there was questioned by anybody. They were the only members of St. Andrew's who did appear.

From this and later events it is quite clear that Burbeck did not join St. Andrew's and take a leading part in its affairs out of any desire to harm the First Lodge, but rather from a desire to promote harmony and cooperation between the two rival bodies. As soon as the asperity of 1760 began to soften Burbeck affiliated with the First Lodge in 1767, and there for the first time appears in the First Lodge list as a joining member. When Joseph Warren received his commission as Provincial Grand Master, Burbeck was his Deputy Grand Master for the great part of 1771. He was again appointed Deputy Grand Master in 1782. In the meanwhile he signed the Warrant of American Union Lodge on February 15, 1776 as Senior Grand Warden of the St, John's Grand Lodge.

Two further incidents in Burbeck's Masonic life are well worth noting. In 1764 St. Andrew's bought the Green Dragon Tavern, paying 466 pounds, 13 shillings, four pence. The purchase appears to have involved the Lodge In some financial difficulty, as in 1768 Burbeck took over the property, paying the Lodge 400 pounds. He carried it until the end of 1777, and then the Lodge redeemed it for the purchase price of 400 pounds.

Burbeck seems to have felt doubts about the security of the Charter anticipating perhaps the difficulty which arose later when the party led by Paul Revere attempted to break the connection with Scotland. Accordingly when he retired from his second Mastership in 1768 he kept the Charter in his possession. The Lodge made various efforts to recover it, passing votes suspending Burbeck and on one occasion voting to ask the Grand Lodge of Scotland for a duplicate (a vote apparently never carried into execution) but all in vain. The stout old soldier kept possession of the Charter until his death in 1785. On his death bed he sent for James Carter, the Master of the Lodge, and Elisha Sigourney and entrusted the Charter to their keeping. The Lodge voted to have it in possession of Sigourney. Four years later it was voted that it ! be produced at each meeting. The Lodge still works under its original Charter, endorsed by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts when it came under its jurisdiction in 1809, as will hereafter be related.

The unyielding attitude of the St. John's Grand Lodge was undoubtedly the reflection of Gridley's temperament. He was so far superior in ability and in knowledge of the law to the lawyers and even the judges with whom he came into contact that he developed a somewhat arrogant and overbearing manner. It is said of him that "Even in court his manner is said to have been magisterial when expressing any opinion to the judges." In spite of his unquestionably great ability it must be admitted that his handling of the relations of his Grand Lodge with the Lodge of St. Andrew reflects little credit upon him either as a Mason or as a lawyer. The position taken by him was quite untenable in Masonic law. He had no right to claim invasion of his jurisdiction. He had no right to set up the claim that the Grand Lodge of Scotland had been imposed upon by unqualified petitioners. That question was not for him to pass upon, but for the Grand Lodge of Scotland to decide and they had decided it on evidence satisfactory to themselves. He certainly had no right to stigmatize as clandestine a group of Masons holding a Charter from the Grand Lodge of Scotland, a body whose legitimacy was beyond question. His position was made further embarrassing by the fact that the Grand Master of Scotland in 1755 and 1756, Lord Aberdour, who signed the Charter was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns), his own Grand Lodge, in 1757.

The members of the Lodge of St. Andrew, on the other hand, behaved with commendable self restraint. Beyond keeping the Grand Lodge of Scotland informed of the progress of events, they accepted the situation quietly. It was not until November 3, 1765 that they passed a vote in retaliation for the outlawry which had been pronounced in 1761 by voting that members of the Boston Lodges should not be admitted as visitors. It would appear from this that the 1761 vote of the St. John's Grand Lodge forbidding such visitors had not been entirely effective. If visitors had not continued to present themselves, there would have been no occasion to forbid their admission. That this should have been the case is not surprising. Boston was not a large town. The members of the rival organization were business and social associates and friends. As individuals they doubtless did not take their Masonic differences very seriously. It was rather difficult to carry these formal differences into their personal relations. They were associating constantly elsewhere, why not in the Lodge-room? They could not meet in the St, John's Lodge, but they could and very evidently did meet in the Lodge-room of St. Andrew's, where they were admitted and made welcome.

The vote of November 3 was not an expression of bad temper nor a mere act of retaliation. It was an assertion, perhaps too long delayed, of proper self respect. A quiet and persistent attitude of friendliness had failed to produce any effect and now an attempt was made to bring matters to a head. This is shown by the fact that the vote of November 3 was followed on January 22 by a vote which reads as follows:

"As harmony and sincere friendship are ornaments which add the greatest luster to Masonry, the Lodge of St. Andrew being assembled for the purpose of promoting brotherly love and unity have unanimously voted that the compliments of the Lodge should be presented to the Right Worshipful Grand Master of North America, the Right Worshipful Deputy Grand Master, Grand Wardens and all the Brethren holding under them desiring their company at the Lodge of St. Andrew whenever it may be agreeable to them and that there may be a happy coalition."

This was presented by a committee of five, Samuel Barrett, Ezra Collins, William Palfrey, Samuel Danforth, Jr., and Joseph Warren, who - were admitted into St. John's Grand Lodge for that purpose. The St. John's records call it a "petition," but it was hardly that. The committee members were all men of mark in the town. Warren, later to become a historical figure, was not at that time more eminent than the rest. Barrett and Warren were within a few years to be Masters of Lodges. Grand Lodge received the communication on January 24th and adjourned until January 27th to consider it. On that date a series of votes were passed to the effect that the petitioners for St. Andrew's Lodge were not Free and Accepted Masons either when they petitioned or when the Lodge was constituted: that the petition was an imposition on the Grand Lodge of Scotland; that the Charter members and all who have since been added to them are irregular Masons; that several of the St. Andrew's men have applied to visit Lodges under this Grand Lodge and been refused and that members of the Grand Lodge have been forbidden to visit St, Andrews: that the requested visit cannot be made: that a copy of these votes be given to the St. Andrew's committee "when demanded:" that a copy be sent to the Grand Master of England; and that the "petition" of St. Andrew's Lodge be entered upon the records.

On February 13 the committee reported back to St, Andrews and the votes of St. John's Grand Lodge were read and consideration deferred. On April 10 the Lodge took the matter up and voted a firm and dignified reply. After defending themselves against the charge of irregularity, they further voted:

"That it appears from the fourth and fifth votes of the Grand Lodge that the members of St. Andrew's Lodge have voted consistent with their character as Masons in their application to the Grand Lodge for liberty to visit the Lodges under their Jurisdiction, and that the conduct of said Grand Lodge in refusing them and prohibiting their members from visiting the Lodge of St, Andrew was directly subversive of the principles of Masonry:

"Voted, that the Lodge of St, Andrew have in time past shown all due respect and regard to the members of the Grand Lodge in Boston and to the Brethren under their jurisdiction, and that their future behavior shall ever demonstrate their affection for them and their determined resolution to embrace every method consistent with the good of Masonry and their own honor to promote a social intercourse with persons whom they so highly esteem as Brethren and friends."

A committee consisting of William Burbeck, Moses Deshon, and the five members of the former Committee was appointed to communicate these votes to St. John's Grand Lodge, St. John's Grand Lodge voted not to receive them beacuse of the standing vote of exclusion, but appointed a committee of conference. The committee of conference reported under date of May 2, 1766 that there had been a meeting and a long discussion. The St. Andrew's mejj* were willing to soften some expressions which might be considered offensive, but maintained their ground in refusing to admit themselves to be clandestine. The St, John's men maintained their position that St, Andrew's was clandestine and, as the report goes on to say."At last this question was put to them, what had they to propose to the Grand Lodge to bring about the accommodation they so much desired? for the language of the Constitutions for irregularity was SUBMISSION! (sic)

The conference, of course, was futile, for neither party could withdraw from the position taken, and here, officially, the matter rested, A curious light is thrown on the personal aspect of the dispute by circumstances which w^pe followed. The conference committee reported on May 2, 1766, and on August 14 St, Andrew's Lodge voted to show its charity regulations to John Rowe, the Deputy Grand Master of the St, John's Grand Lodge, apparently at his request. On December 1, thanks were voted to John Rowe for a generous subscription to the oharity fund and he was admitted a member of the Lodge, Shortly afterward William Burbeck was admitted a member of the First (St. John's) Lodge.

On September 10, 1767 Gridley died. The next day Grand Lodge met to make arrangements for the funeral. They were waited upon by a committee from St. Andrew's Lodge consisting of Joseph Webb, Samuel Barrett and Joseph Warren, who sent up word that they wished to present a message from their Lodge. This time it was unanimously voted to admit them. Being admitted they informed Rowe, the Deputy Grand Master, who was in the Chair that they desired permission to attend the Grand Master's funeral "in form as Masons." It was voted "that they be permitted to march in the procession in such manner and form as this Lodge shall direct."

The order of the procession as given in the records of the St. John's Grand Lodge is interesting:

  1. The Tyler of St. Andrew's Lodge with the sword.
  2. The two Stewards of said Lodge with their wands,
  3. The members of said Lodge, two and two all properly clothed.
  4. The three Grand Stewards, with their jewels and wands.
  5. The members of the Second, First, and Masters Lodges, two and two.
  6. The Masters, Wardens, and other officers of St, Andrew's Lodge, two and two.
  7. The Treasurers of the First and Second Lodges, with their badges, and so on in regular Masonic precedence.

There were 161 Brethren in line, of whom 64 were in the St. Andrew's delegation.

One could hardly help seeing in all this the conciliatory influence of Rowe and Burbeck, who, as we have seen, were now in both Camps. In spite of these amenities and perhaps to prevent misconstruction St, Andrew's voted on November 30, 1767, "that whereas the Grand Lodge had forbidden the visits of the members of St. Andrew's, this Lodge will not admit the members of any of the Lodges in this town, or persons made therein, until said Grand Lodge make this vote void."

Here the matter officially rested until January 29, 1773. In the mean time the Massachusetts Grand Lodge (Provincial) had been formed and had chartered Lodges. At the date just mentioned the following action appears in the St. John's Grand Lodge:

"The following question was motioned and seconded, viz. 'Whether the members of St. Andrews and the Massachusetts Lodges if found to be good Masons after a proper examination shall be admitted as visiting Brothers in the respective Lodges under this jurisdiction?'

After consideration thereof, and debate thereon, the question was put and passed in the affirmative. nemine contradicente."

So ended the long controversy.


Main Page