In the Freemasons’ Calendar of 1776, some disturbances, which we are told had their origin in 1739 (therefore traced back to the time of Lord Loudoun, whose appointment of Grand Officers in 1736, gave offence to a few individuals, who withdrew from the Society during the presidency of the Earl of Darnley (1737), but in that of Lord Raymond (1739) “assembled in the character of Masons and without any power or authority from the Grand Master, initiated several persons into the Order for small and unworthy considerations”.
Whilst under the leadership of James Brydges (Lord Carnarvon) Grand Master in 1738, some discontented Brethren, taking advantage of the breach between the Grand Lodges of London and York, assumed, without authority; the character of York Masons, that the measures adopted to check them seemed to authorise an omission of and a variation in, the ancient ceremonies, that the seceders immediately announced independency and assumed the appellation of Antient Masons, also they propagated an opinion that the ancient tenets and practices of Masonry were preserved by them and that the Regular Lodges, being composed of Modern Masons, had adopted new plans and were not to be considered as acting under the old establishment.
The proceedings of the Grand Lodge of 1738 are certainly confused with those of a much later date. But the chief interest of the story lies in the statement that changes were made in the established forms, ” which even the urgency of the case could not warrant.” Although, indeed, the passages last quoted were continued in the editions of his work published after 1789, they were written in 1781 by William Preston, a very doubtful authority at the time during the suspension of his Masonic privileges, when he must have been quite unable to criticise dispassionately the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, against whose authority he had been so lately in rebellion.
It is possible that the summary erasure of Lodges for non‑attendance at the Quarterly Communications and for not ” paying in their charity,” may have been one of the causes of the Secession, which must have taken place during the presidency of Lord Byron (1747‑52).
In the ten years, speaking roundly, commencing June 24, 1742, ending November 30, 1752, no fewer than forty‑five Lodges, or about a third of the total of those meeting in the metropolis, were struck out of the list. Three, indeed, were restored to their former places, but only after intervals of two, four and six years respectively. The case of the Horn Lodge has been already referred to ; but with regard to those of its fellow‑sufferers, No. 9 was restored, ” it appearing that their Non‑Attendance was occasioned by Mistake ” ; also No. 54, ” it appearing that their not meeting regularly had been occasioned by unavoidable Accidents.”
On the principle that history repeats itself, the Minutes of Sarum Lodge, later in the century, may hold up a mirror, in which is reflected the course of action adopted by the erased Lodges of 1742‑52. This Lodge, which became No. 37 at the change of numbers in 1780, was erased February 6, 1777, for non‑compliance with the order of Grand Lodge, requiring an account of registering fees and subscriptions since October 1768.
” Our refusal,” says their letter in reply, dated March 19, 1777, “has arisen from a strict obedience to the laws, principles and constitutions, which expressly say, that though the Grand Lodge have an inherent power and authority to make new regulations, the real benefit of the ancient Fraternity shall in all cases be consulted and the old landmarks carefully preserved.”
By the late attempt of the Grand Lodge to impose a tax on the Brethren at large, under penalty of erasing them from that list wherein they have a right to stand enrolled, as long as they shall preserve the principles of that Constitution, the bounds prescribed by these landmarks seem to have been exceeded; the Grand Lodge has taken upon itself the exercise of a power hitherto unknown; the ancient rules of the Fraternity (which gave freedom to every Mason) have been broke in upon ; and that decency of submission, which is produced by an equitable government, has been changed to an extensive and, we apprehend, a justifiable resistance to the endeavours of the Grand Lodge.
The Lodge was restored May 1, 1777, but on a further requisition from the Grand Lodge of two shillings per annum from each Brother towards the Liquidation Fund, the members met, November I9, 1800 and unanimously agreed not to contribute to this requisition. After which, a proposal for forming a Grand Lodge in Salisbury, independent of the Grand Lodge of England, was moved and carried.
The arbitrary proceedings of 1742‑52 were doubtless as much resented in London, as those of 1777‑99 were in the country. Though the last Lodge warranted in 1755 bore the number 271, only 200 Lodges were carried forward at the closing up and alteration of numbers in 1756.
