The answers to the questions "When Freemasonry?" or "Where Freemasonry?" began remain inconclusive and unsatisfactory due to the lack of reliable and available evidence, much of which has been either lost, destroyed or simply invented for parochial political reasons. No matter how firmly the alleged events at the Goose and Gridiron are presented by the "historians" of Freemasonry, what actually took place, and most crucially the circumstances surrounding them, are highly dubious. Can we really be expected to believe that organised Freemasonry only began in the tiny back room of a
The Librarian and Curator of the United Grand Lodge of England, John Hamill, identifies the nature of at least part of the problem when he states that, "We don’t know enough about how Freemasonry evolved, and we don’t know enough about the early development of rituals; the earliest ritual fragments we have date from the mid-1690s onwards. We don’t know what went on before then." 1
What went on before is at least partly known, but the truly vital question about English Freemasonry is "Why?". The answer to this question contains all that is necessary to put English Freemasonry back to its rightful place at the heart of English society.
If one ponders why the membership, vitality and consequence of English Freemasonry continues to plummet and why it has become necessary to repone the Grand Lodge of All England, one must conclude that as Rudyard Kipling indicated in an earlier time of national concern, it stands in need of “re-setting".
The overt and unwarranted conscription of English Freemasonry to the Hanoverian cause undertaken by the Duke of Sussex, and the resultant emasculating effect this subsequently and persistently produced, stands in contrast to the useful and dynamic possibilities Kipling hinted at in his Masonic references set out at a time of crisis, in his Sussex period.
For members of the Grand Lodge of All England at
Those who focus upon the events, real or legendary occurring in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and who because of the difficulties inherent in researching the distant past regard those centuries as a more convenient starting point for the study of Freemasonry, sacrifice the necessary appreciation of the role of myth and legend within Freemasonry.
The alleged meeting of the "Four Old Lodges" at the Goose and Gridiron in 1717, and the nature of the arrangements which led on 27 December 1813 to the inception of the United Grand Lodge of England are not rendered incontrovertible because of the relative nearness of those times to the present.
Evidence, fact and truth relative to English Freemasonry in those years is generally confused, and the terms used imprecise and misleading.
What is often presented as fact in connection with those more recent events is as much disputed as King Athelstan’s charter of A.D. 926, and with at least as much reason.
In the search for truth, including that relative to the facts concerning the origin of Freemasonry, Freemasons are right to seek for that degree of elucidation which myth and legend are able to impart.
Proper appreciation of the value of myth and legend, combined with an understanding of the relationship between fact and belief, aid inquiry into the nature of Freemasonry. The reasons why the years 926 and 1717 are important relates to more than just belief or disbelief about particular events. The legends themselves are informative, and speculation is more than idle consideration.
Myth, Legend and Fact
Myth, legend and the proper interpretation of fact form essential conceptual tools for understanding the fundamental and characteristic role of Freemasonry within
Myth represents the use of a real or fictional story in which a recurring theme embodies in a consistent manner cultural ideals or emotions. Consistency is essential, and realised as the situation then, and now. The reality or fictional status of the material is not considered crucial, or even material.
We subscribe to the view expressed by Childs that at one level "The reality of the mythical, timeless event enters into the present moment of time." 2
Legend differs from myth in that here one is concerned with an unverified or unverifiable story or event handed down from an earlier time.
The story or event may well be vital in a particular context. It may be desired, it may be consistent with some known fact or facts, or even acted upon, but it cannot in its entirety be established. Indeed a legend does not need to be verified for it to have relevance or potency, because it is to some extent connected with a reality.
Both King Alfred and Robert the Bruce were in their own time, and particular situations, preoccupied with war and matters of state.
The elements of the cakes and the spider, central to each of the well-known legendary stories, need not be verified for the instructional value or context of the supposed events to be recognised.
A legendary event may be connected with the recurring theme found in a myth, or be considered along with and in the context of a factual assertion. The possible nexus in which these conceptual devices operate is itself worthy of study.
In terms of Myth, the answer was present in the story itself. Freemasons in common with everyone else are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality.
Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, "We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason. Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions." 4
Given the nature and extent of the surviving evidential material available to us with regard to the origins of Freemasonry, the contribution of philosophers such as William James can assist us in our search for truth.
James counsels us that, "We cannot reject any hypothesis if consequences useful to life flow from it." 5
Although recognizing inadequacies in James’s view, one can see the relevance of that view in the context of English Freemasonry. Why should a Masonic tradition uniquely founded upon Anglo-Saxon principles not be the tradition best placed to serve the needs of the people of
Constitutional Perspectives and the Articles of
Any attempt at assessing the events leading up to and including the ratification of the Articles of Union and the advent of the United Grand Lodge of England on 27 December 1813, must take account of the constitutional situation prevailing in
The Hanoverian dynasty and English Freemasonry alike, due to the alliance formed between them, rendered themselves subject to constitutional examination and evaluation through the focus of English conceptions of constitutional probity.
Due to the nature of its inception, the Grand Lodge of London and its successor organisation The United Grand Lodge of England, remains subject to scrutiny through English forms of critical analysis.
The British constitution was seen as not only something of practical benefit, but of having its genesis in traditional Anglo-Saxon theories still vibrant and central within English constitutional conceptions. 6
There was also a strong and pervasive belief in the existence of a social contract existing between the People and the Sovereign.
Sir Ernest Barker, in considering Social Contract theory puts it this way, "The theory of the Social Contract might be mechanical, juristic, and a priori. But it was none the less a way of expressing two fundamental ideas or values to which the human mind will always cling – the value of Liberty, or the idea that will, not force, is the basis of government, and the value of Justice, or the idea that right, not might, is the basis of all political society and of every system of political order." 7
In short, the English system was thought to recognise the existence of natural rights, firmly set within the constitution, and a constitutional tradition involving the will of the People, however defined, and going back to Anglo-Saxon times.
James II, by violating those rights, had produced a situation in which the People had removed him and replaced him with a Sovereign bound more explicitly by way of the Bill of Rights.
The constitutional situation then, as now, bears directly upon the notion of English Freemasonry. It is quite possible to agree with Gardner’s contention that the revolution of 1688 has “everything” to do with Freemasonry, although his failure to recognize that the British constitution includes statutes dealing with constitutional law, and is therefore not wholly unwritten, undermines his argument, that British monarchs are not constitutional monarchs, although his position as Jacobite Historiographer Royal perhaps explains this blind spot. 8
Walpole, Scott, Blackstone, Burke, and Locke all recognized the advantages which accrued to the constitution. Acknowledgement of the will of the people, however expressed, and that form of expression inevitably changes over time, was ever a hallmark of Anglo-Saxon society.
Athelstan, Anglo-Saxon Freedoms and the People
The Grand Lodge of All England at
This monarch’s achievements extended beyond
Bede translates Bretwalda into the Latin Imperium, and cognizance of the status of the Christian emperors may have been part of the reason for the singular importance granted to
Certainly Offa of Mercia both in architecture and in the matter of royal succession attempted to emulate the Christian emperors. In A.D. 306, the first Christian Emperor, Constantine the Great, commenced his reign at
York would retain its importance throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, and it is likely that Canute, who was the first king to call himself King of England, rather than King of the English, and who was also King of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and therefore aware of the vital strategic location of the city, refrained from making York his capital because of his recognition that his kingdom was that of Wessex or the West Saxons, as indeed was Athelstan’s.
The persistent claim of the West Saxons to rule the English and the fundamentally non-racist tradition of the Anglo-Saxon people can be seen from the record contained in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for A.D. 920, "In this year before midsummer, King Edward went with his troops to Nottingham … he was chosen as father and lord by the king of the Scots and all the Scottish people; by Raegnald, and Eadulf’s sons, and all who dwell in Northumbria, English, Danes, Norse and others, and the King of the Strathclyde Welsh and the Strathclyde Welsh themselves." 9
The Anglo-Saxons were, and remain a people whose national consciousness is rightly based more upon geography and shared institutions and traditions than upon race. Freemasonry can flourish in such a climate.
In A.D. 926, Athelstan entered
William Preston stated in 1738 that, "... the first Grand Lodge of
Similarly, Dr James Anderson’s famous declaration well supported in fact over the years by many, including Robert Graves, in respect of the Masonic Assembly convened by Prince Edwin in A.D. 926, distinguished English from Scottish Freemasonry, and promoted the Anglo-Saxon or English dimension. 11
A point often overlooked by those who demand production of this particular charter, is that in Anglo-Saxon times the actual issue of a charter could be handled by the Witan, (the Civil Service) and it often was, even though the right concerned was given by the King. The claim that a Royal Charter was such a unique item that it could not possibly go missing is overstated.
The Tradition of the Will of the People in the Anglo-Saxon Period
Despite the existence of a number of foreign kingdoms upon English soil, the English of the period turned increasingly to the kings of
The supremacy of
The Anglo-Saxon Witan appears to have at least some connection, in theory if not in practice, with the Folkmoot (a meeting of the folk, the earliest known democratic structure), before which all freemen (including free Masons) had the right to appear.
The references in the Chronicles to the loud expressions of approval or disapproval made by the crowd in respect of the decisions of the Witan indicate some degree of involvement by the people in at least some of the decision making procedures of the Anglo-Saxons.
The notion of the will of the people needs to start somewhere. It is suggested that it is in the Witan and its functions that the inception of this notion can be first identified with certainty. The powers of the Witan in respect of electing or deposing a king were subject to custom, another vital constitutional element, but they certainly existed.
That the will of the English people could be effective in Anglo-Saxon times can be seen in the method by which the virtual civil war between King Edward and Earl Godwine was ended. The violent quarrel between the King and Earl during 1051 and 1052 was ended despite the two armies facing each other across the
Additionally, and crucially, Anglo Saxon theories and traditions about kingship had always contained an elective element. No matter how they were defined, the People, as a concept had real meaning.
The crowning of Harold on 6 January 1066, the day his predecessor Edward was buried, makes this clear. Earl Harold had been offered the crown by the Witan despite there being other contenders with more obvious claims, and even though he had no royal blood. After William defeated Harold, and because he had succeeded to the throne by battle rather than inheritance, the people at his coronation on Christmas Day were asked in English and French whether they accepted William as their King. The elective element, no matter how discharged was recognized throughout the entire period.
During the Anglo-Saxon period a conception of nationhood, a sense of the value of custom and tradition, recognition of the need for a voice of the people, and an awareness of the value of constitutional constraints upon the powers of monarchy were developed. These traditional constitutional forms would serve as a bench mark which the philosophers and parliamentarians would use in future disputes regarding patronage, royal power, and the will of the people.
Whilst agreeing with Gardner’s contention that the revolution of 1688 has “everything” to do with Freemasonry, one should not overlook the subsequent effects upon both constitutional matters and English Freemasonry, brought about by the successors to the revolution, the Hanoverians, who came to the throne following the death of Queen Anne, the last of the Stuarts, in 1714.
The Hanoverians
Cinematic portrayals of the Hanoverians as being mad, bad, or comedic, fail to credit the dynasty with the genius for rationalisation, organisation, and enquiry it manifested during the period 1714 to 1837. 12
It is beyond dispute that in the area of Freemasonry at least, the involvement of Augustus Frederick, Duke of
During the long and eventful reign of the House of Hanover, due to its German connections, the Germanic gained in popularity in
Anglo-Saxon heritage provided a basis for excluding overtly Stuart sentiment generally, and Jacobite sympathy in particular, whilst strengthening the links, perhaps somewhat fancifully, between
The long period between the reign of the last Anglo-Saxon King, and the revolution of 1688 which brought the reign of James II to an end, was not considered a bar to the ideological connection between the Hanoverians and the House of Wessex.
The terms “Anglo-Saxon” and “English” became increasingly coterminous. How much of this was purely ideological it is hard to determine, but the Stuart period, with its many problematic and continental connections, and quite persistent theories of Divine Right came to be seen as an unfortunate and overtly foreign interlude. The attempt to graft the House of Hanover into
The attraction of Anglo-Saxon theories and constitutional traditions provided scope for expanding notions about the will of the people. No matter how they were defined, the people, as a concept had real meaning, and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries philosophers had spoken increasingly of the inherent sovereignty of the English People.
John Locke had conceived of the people retaining still, “… a supreme power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative act contrary to the Trust reposed in them.” 15
The Hanoverian period provides substantial evidence on the part of the Hanoverians to appropriate
Queen
It was during this period that the notion of English and British freedom being in some way derived from ancient Germanic customs gained both academic and popular support.
However, the Hanoverians were pragmatically Teutonic rather than mythically Anglo- Saxon, and in practice the Hanoverians leaned towards an altogether more authoritarian style. This can be seen particularly in the area of the military, a land of delight for George II, and in the response of William IV to the widespread agitation in the late period of Hanoverian rule, when measures which even in those times were seen as overly repressive were introduced. The Hanoverians themselves were often, as children, subjected to a frighteningly strict form of upbringing. One of George IV’s brothers was actually flogged for contracting asthma.
However theoretical the will of the people was in terms of constitutional practice and political philosophy, the mob or more specifically the London Mob, was available as a political device. The mob could still be raised and manipulated to serve a political purpose. No matter how ancient a pedigree could be claimed for the mob, the Hanoverians were decidedly against it. Control, order, and discipline were, in respect of the populace, considered virtues.
Wide ranging influence on the part of the Hanoverians, and their use of extensive powers of patronage, provided them with real power, even at a time when party politics were undermining the extent of prerogative power. For Edmund Burke, the M.P. for Wendover, "The power of the Crown, almost dead and rotten as prerogative, has grown up anew, with much more strength and far less odium, under the name of influence." 16
Influence and patronage wrought by the Hanoverians was not limited to Parliament. It was used to full effect within Freemasonry, rendering the fraternity subject to the rationalising and controlling tendencies so marked in the House of Hanover.
Control of English Freemasonry and the Articles of
William Preston makes clear that following the events of 1717, the newly formed London Grand Lodge, however it came into existence, had from its inception the intention to radically alter the nature of English Freemasonry. The process of conflating the vital notion of Regularity with the novel doctrine of Recognition had begun. Indeed, the intention seems to have been to completely monopolise Freemasonry in
In direct reference, William Preston asserted that, " … the privilege of assembling as Masons which had hitherto been unlimited should be vested in certain Lodges or assemblies of Masons convened in certain places; and that every Lodge hereafter convened, except the four old Lodges at this time existing, should be legally authorised to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and that without such warrant no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or constitutional." 17
By 1813 the degree of control had been extended. The Duke of Sussex’s determination, post ratification of the Articles of Union between the Moderns London Grand Lodge and the Antients Grand Lodge, represents a typically Hanoverian approach to Freemasonry.
John Hamill and his United Grand Lodge of England colleague, Bob Gilbert, note that it appears that the Duke of Sussex had in fact four main and very clearly expressed intentions " … to assert Grand Lodge’s authority over all the lodges of the two former obediences; to standardise; to complete the de-Christianisation of the Craft and Royal Arch; and to maintain the Craft’s superiority over any other Masonic order." 18
Such ambitions are very much in the Hanoverian tradition, and represent one aspect of the power of influence. However, another lasting effect of the use of patronage and influence, one which still needlessly divides Freemason from Freemason, is the doctrine of Recognition. This bogus doctrine has its genesis in the exemption granted to “approved” lodges from the draconian effects of The Unlawful Societies Act, 1799.
The Doctrine of Recognition
The doctrine of Recognition as practiced by the United Grand Lodge of England is not only un-Masonic in nature, but it represents the residue of that grand lodge’s previous collusion in one of the most overtly and unnecessarily repressive items of legislation ever introduced into
Much of the repressive legislation of the period, including The Treasonable Practices Act, 1795, The Newspaper Publication Act, 1797 and the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800, seem not to have been fully utilised, and there is doubt as to their need or efficacy. 19 What is clear is that they were seen as an affront to the Constitution. Fox in 1795 challenged the government to say at once, " … that a free constitution is no longer suitable to us, but do not mock the understandings and the feelings of mankind by telling the world that you are free." 20
Essentially, it is the issue of freedom under the constitution that is the point for Freemasonry. However, the collusion of the three grand lodges concerned who for the sake of their own self-regulation and aggrandisement, set themselves apart from their fellow Masons, represents a continuing grievance and is even today the cause of disparity in
The Unlawful Societies Act provided for the effective self-regulation of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England, meeting at Freemasons Hall in Great Queen Street, London, The Grand Lodge of Masons of England, according to the Old Institution, and The Grand Lodge of Free Masons of Scotland, and the meetings of subordinate lodges or societies sanctioned or approved by those grand lodges.
One intention of the legislation was to provide a means by which a certificate would be furnished each year by the participating Grand Secretaries to Clerks of the Peace providing details of approved lodges. That intention would later be turned by the United Grand Lodge of England into an opportunistic attempt to monopolise the governance of Freemasonry in England and is a matter to be profoundly regretted, as is the action of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America’s Commission on Information for Regularity, both of which organizations improperly conflate Recognition with Regularity and by so doing damage the vital doctrine of Regularity by the introduction of the bogus doctrine of Regularity of origin, i.e. that for the purposes of Recognition each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully by a duly recognised Grand Lodge. 21
The English Masonic Tradition
Preston’s assertion in 1783 that the first Grand Lodge was formed at
This notion of independence, of freedom, and of liberty, is characteristically English. Hamill and Gilbert, whilst considering colonial Freemasonry, acknowledge the existence of lodges of Freemasons independent of the London Grand Lodges, "There is no doubt that in some areas time immemorial lodges emerged – that is, lodges started at some unknown date by groups of men who had become Freemasons in the British Isles and who met without any authority from a Grand Lodge or a Provincial Grand Master." 22
The point here is that time immemorial lodges, unwarranted by London Grand Lodges, of any description, are and were known within Freemasonry, no matter how inconvenient their existence to the United Grand Lodge of England. Freemasonry has never been confined to the sole ambit of the United Grand Lodge of England.
Hamill and Gilbert make plain the difficulty experienced by the London Grand Lodges in the 1700s which was due to the continued vibrancy of the Grand Lodge of All England at
"The situation in
It is no wonder that the situation was “exacerbated” and “complicated” by the “revival” of the Grand Lodge of All England. Then, as now, the desire to regain what was in danger of being lost, has produced a revival of traditional English Freemasonry, determined to participate fully as a competent and confident Masonic body, and focused upon the real issues confronting English Freemasonry.
Kipling’s
The Boer Wars of 1880-1881 and 1899-1902 produced a feeling of national crisis, due in large part to the lack of consensus in
Rudyard Kipling, well known for his support for and understanding of soldiers and the Empire, was one who, when challenged by the effect the Boer Wars had upon the national consciousness, sought for a way forward. Kipling indicated a way forward based upon a re-setting of Freemasonry, and the re-discovery of Englishness.
Kipling, shocked by what had occurred during the war in
From this point in time, the
It should be remarked upon, to give due credit to Kipling, that his concern for fallen soldiers was shown in his founding of two lodges connected with the War Graves Commission, one in England, “Silent Cities” the other in France.
Interests of the Brethren (1917) 25 is set in a fictional and possibly irregular lodge, during war-time, in which military men on leave from the front draw succour from the rituals and practical creed residing there. Kipling promotes a notion of the good that Freemasonry can provide. He suggests that membership ought to be greatly increased, and speculates upon how an unwarranted lodge, due to the exigencies of the time, can assist in a great work. In raising and setting out the possibility of breaking Masonic rules, Kipling leaves the final decisions involved to his fellow-Masons.
In The Palace (1902), 26 Kipling introduces a “King and a Mason” who, intending to build a palace, finds the wreck of an earlier building, which at first appears lacking in plan or design, but which is revealed as being a necessary foundation for the building of a subsequent structure.
The King tells us:
There was no worth in the fashion-there was no wit in the plan-
Hither and thither, aimless, the ruined footings ran-
Masonry, brute, mishandled; but carven on every stone;
“After me cometh a Builder. Tell him I, too, have known.”
Swift to my use in my trenches, where my well-planned ground-works grew,
I tumbled his quoins and ashlars, and cut and reset them anew.
Lime I milled of his marbles; burned it, slacked it and spread;
Taking and leaving at pleasure the gifts of the humble dead.
For Kipling, men, nations, and Freemasonry could be reset, by building upon earlier foundations, providing those foundations were based upon truth.
In Norman and Saxon (1911) 27 Kipling attempts to provide an insight into the Saxon legacy which has given form to English character. Originally published in A School History of England, by Kipling and C.R.L. Fletcher, the poem represents the distinctive and, for Kipling, positive personal qualities of the Saxon, which will be resilient to change and the ultimate merging of the Saxon and Norman stock. The qualities are those that will stand
The Norman Baron, speaking to his son says:
"My son, I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in
When he conquered the Saxon at
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.”
Kipling’s work offers something to Freemasons to-day, recognition of the value of character, the importance of justice, right action and fair dealing. In the context of Freemasonry, Kipling identifies the need to renew, relieve and reset. For Kipling, Freemasonry is an active force which requires thoughtful consideration, and the ability to deal with difficult issues.
English Freemasonry Today
The problems and challenges facing English Freemasonry to-day can be overcome, and Freemasonry can regain its central and useful role in our society. However, The Grand Lodge of All England does not believe this can be accomplished by sacrificing essential Masonic elements on the altars of political correctness or fashion. The Grand Lodge of All England at
The democratic ideals of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry are represented in a fraternity well equipped for the challenges of twenty-first century
The Grand Lodge of All England does not have Grand Lodge promotions. Active Grand Officers are elected by the representatives of the lodges, with no appointments by the Grand-Master Mason except those of Grand Secretary and Grand Tyler. The Grand-Master Mason is elected to his position and does not appoint either his deputy or his successor. Although elected annually he may only serve the lodges as Grand-Master Mason for a maximum of five years.
The Grand Lodge of All England confers the ten degrees of Craft Masonry upon candidates. From Apprentice Freemason to The Holy Order of Grand High Priest, all Masonic degrees and orders are available to all members in return for a single affordable annual subscription. There are no “invitation only” degrees, lodges, or orders.
The Grand Lodge of All England has reclaimed the ancient penalties and words, in operating a coherent ten degree Craft system and in restoring discarded rites to their proper place.
Fuller details as to the structures and systems of the Grand Lodge of All England can be obtained from the web site at http://www.grandlodgeofallengland.org/, along with contact details and other items of information and explanation.
The Grand Lodge of All England has an active and energetic membership, which, whilst looking forward, draws upon the resources and benefits of ancient, traditional and regular English Freemasonry.
The case for English Freemasonry, Sussex –v- Sussex, turns on whether the future is best served by a conception of Freemasonry dominated by the need to control and originated as a dynastic prop, or one democratic in nature, Anglo-Saxon in character, and conversant with and sympathetic to the current needs of English society.
NOTES ON THE AUTHORS:
Richard Young is Grand Chancellor of The Grand Lodge of All England, a Historian and Retired Law Lecturer. Peter Clatworthy is Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of All England, a Masonic Administrator, Writer and Lecturer.
REFERENCES:
1. Barrett, (p.92), [Barrett, David V. (1999). Secret Societies, London: Cassell]
2. Childs, (p.19), [Childs, Brevard S. (1960). Myth and Reality In the Old Testament. London: SCM]
3. Francis Bacon, The Essays, (1601)
4. Russell, (p.645), [Russell, Bertrand (1975). History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Unwin University Books]
5. Russell, op. cit., (p.771)
6. Horace Walpole, Sir Walter Scott and Sir William Blackstone, all praised the constitution, as did Montesquieu and Voltaire.
7. Barker, (p.viii), [Barker, Sir Ernest. (1947). Social Contract. London: OUP]
8. Gardner, (p.11), [Gardner, Laurence. (2006). The Shadow of Solomon. London: HarperElement]
9. Savage, (p.119), [Savage, A. (1995). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Godalming: CLB]
10. See Grand Lodge of All England at York webpage at www.grandlodgeofallengland.org
11. Dr James Anderson's revised Book of Constitutions, Grand Lodge of London (1738)
12. This is not to suggest that the eccentricities displayed are not worthy of note, but to recognize the contributions made by this royal household.
13. George I in respect of party government; George II in respect of the military and music; George III in farming; William IV in constitutional reform.
14. Concern about preventing English Freemasonry from providing a channel for latent Jacobite or revolutionary sentiment would render royal interest understandably pragmatic, and wholly Hanoverian.
15. John Locke. Of Civil Government, 1690
16. Quoted in Cowie, (p.345), [Cowie, L.W. (1967). Hanoverian England 1714-1837. London: Bell]
17. Preston: Illustrations of Freemasonry
18. Hamill and Gilbert, (p.9), [Hamill J. and Gilbert R.A. (1991). World Freemasonry. London: Aquarian Press
19. Prescott provides instances where, in the case of the Act of 1799, other legislation could have been used. See Prescott, (p.8), [Prescott, Andrew (2000). The Unlawful Societies Act of 1779, Canonbury Masonic Research Centre, November 2000]
20. Debate on legislation during 1975
21. See Basic principles for Grand Lodge recognition, dated 4th September 1929
22. Hamill, J and Gilbert R.A. op.cit (p.86)
23. Ibid. (p.86)
24. Quoted in Carrington, (p.433), [Carrington, C. (1970). Rudyard Kipling, Harmondsworth: Pelican]
25. Kipling, R., "Interests of the Brethren", in Debits and Credits, (London, 1926)
26. Kipling, R., "The Palace", in The Five Nations, (London, 1902)
27. Kipling, R., "Norman and Saxon", in A School History of England, (London, 1911)
No comments:
Post a Comment