The History of Freemasonry

by Albert Gallatin Mackey

Chapter 40 - Organization of the Grand Lodge of Scotland

It is much easier to write the history of the organization of the Grand Lodge of Scotland than that of England. The materials in the former case are far more abundant and more authentic, and the growth of the organization was more gradual, and each step more carefully recorded.

In England almost the only authority or guide that we have for the occurrences which led to the establishment of the Grand Lodge, in the year 1717, is the meager history supplied by Anderson in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions.

The four old Lodges suddenly sprung, as we have already seen, into being, with no notification of their previous existence, and no account of the mental process by which their members were led to so completely change their character and constitution from the Operative to a purely Speculative institution.

In Scotland, on the contrary, the processes which led to the change are well marked - the previous condition of the lodges is recorded, and we are enabled to trace the distinct steps which finally led to the establishment of the Grand Lodge in the year 1736.

It would appear from historical evidence that in the 17th century there were three methods by which a new lodge could be formed in Scotland. The first of these was by the authority of the King, the second by that of the General Warden, perhaps the most usual ways and the third was by members separating from an old and already established lodge, and with its concurrence forming a new one, the old lodge becoming, in technical terms, the mother, and the new one. the descendant.

All of these methods are referred to in a minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh in the year 1688. A certain number of the members of that lodge having left it, without its sanction formed a new lodge in the Cannongate and North Leith. Whereupon the Lodge of Edinburgh declared the Cannongate and Leith Lodge to have acted "contrary to all custom, law, and reason," inasmuch as it had been formed in contempt of the Edinburgh Lodge, and " without any Royal or General Warden's authority." This is said to be "Mason Law," and for its violation the lodge was pronounced illegal, all communication with its members, or with those who were entered or passed in it, was prohibited, and it was forbidden to employ them as journeymen under a heavy penalty. In a word, the lodge was placed in the position of what, in modern parlance, we should call "a clandestine lodge."

But the old law for the organization of new lodges seems by this time to have become obsolete, and the denunciation of the Edinburgh Lodge amounted to a mere brutum fulmen. The Cannongate and Leith Lodge continued to exist and to flourish, and almost a half century afterward was recognized, notwithstanding its illegal birth, as a regular body, and admitted into the constituency of the Grand Lodge.

We may therefore presume that at or about the close of the 17th century the Scottish lodges began to assume the privileges which Preston says at that time belonged to the English Masons, when any number could assemble and, with the consent of the civil authority, organize themselves into a lodge.

At the beginning of the 18th century there were many lodges of Operative Masons in Scotland, which had been formed in one of the three ways already indicated. The two moist important of these were the Lodge of Edinburgh and that of Kilwinning. The latter especially had chartered several lodges, and hence was by its adherents called the Mother Lodge of Scotland, a title which was, however, disputed by the Lodge of Edinburgh and never was legally recognized.

A preliminary step to the establishment of a Speculative Grand Lodge must have necessarily been the admission into the ranks of the Operative Craft of non-professional members. We have seen the effect of this in the organization of the Grand Lodge of England. In Scotland the evidences of the result of the admission of these non-professionals is well shown in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh. The contentions between the Operative and the non-operative elements for supremacy, and the final victory of the latter, are detailed at length. If such a spirit of contention existed in England, as an episode in the history of its Grand Lodge, no record of it has been preserved.

The earliest instance of the reception of a non-professional member is that of Lord Alexander, who was admitted as a Fellow Craft in the Lodge of Edinburgh on July 3, 1634. On the same day Sir Alexander Strachan was also admitted.

But the mere fact that these are the first recorded admissions of non- operatives among the Craft does not necessarily lead us to infer that before that date non-operatives were not received into lodge membership.

On the contrary, there is a minute of the date of the year 1600 which records the fact that the Laird of Auchinleck was present at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh, and as one of the members took part in its deliberations. William Schaw, who was recognized as the General Warden and Chief Mason of Scotland in 1590, was, most probably, not an Operative Mason. Indeed, all the inferential evidence lies the other way. Yet his official position required that he should be present at the meetings of the lodges, which would lead to the necessity of his being received into the Craft. The same thing is pertinent to his predecessors, so that it is very evident that the custom of admitting non-operatives among the Craft must have been practiced at a very early period, perhaps from the very introduction of Masonry into Scotland, or the 13th century.

It will be seen hereafter how this non-operative element, as it grew in numbers and in strength, led, finally, to the establishment of a non- operative or Speculative Grand Lodge.

But attention must now be directed to another episode in the history of Scottish Masonry, namely, the contests between the Masters and the Journeymen, which also had its influence in the final triumph of Speculative over Operative Masonry.

Taking the Lodge of Edinburgh as a fair example of the condition and character of the other lodges of the kingdom, we may say that during all of the 17th century there was observed a distinction between the Master Masons or employers and the Fellow Crafts or Journeymen who were employed.

The former claimed a predominant position, which the latter from necessity but with great reluctance conceded. It was only on rare occasions that the Masters admitted the Fellows to a participation in the counsels of the lodge.

This assumption of a superiority of position and power by the Masters was founded, it must be admitted, upon the letter and spirit of the Schaw Statutes of 1598 and 1599.

In these Statutes the utmost care appears to have been taken to deprive the Fellows of all power in the Craft and to bestow it entirely on the Wardens, Deacons, and Masters.

Thus the Warden was to be elected annually by the Masters of the lodge, all matters of importance were to be considered by the Wardens and Deacons of different lodges to be convened in an assembly called by the Warden and Deacon of Kilwinning; all trials of members, whether Masters or Fellows, were to be determined by the Warden and six Masters; all difficulties were to be settled in the same way. In a word, these Statutes seem to have passed over the Fellows in the distribution of power and concentrated it wholly upon the Masters.

But this evidently very unjust and unequal distribution of privileges appears toward the middle of the 17th century, if not before, to have excited a rebellious spirit in the Fellows.

This is very evident from the fact that from the year 1681 enactments began to be passed by the Lodge of Edinburgh against the encroachments of the Fellows or Journeymen, who must have at or before that time been advancing their claim to the possession of privileges which were denied to them. "Though there can be no doubt," says Lyon, "that all who belonged to the lodge were, when necessity required, participants in its benefits, the journeymen appear to have had the feeling that it was not right that they should be entirely dependent, even for fair treatment, on the good-will of the Masters."

It was in fact but a faint picture of that contest for supremacy between capital and labor, which we have since so often seen painted in much stronger colors. The struggle in the Masonry of Scotland began to culminate in the year 1708, when a petition was laid before the Lodge of Edinburgh from the Fellows, in which they complained that they were not permitted to inspect the Warden's accounts.

The lodge granted the petition, and agreed that thereafter "six of the soberest and discretest Fellow-Craftsmen" should be appointed by the Deacon to oversee the Warden's accounts. The lodge also granted further concessions and permitted the Fellow Crafts to have a part in the distribution of the charity fund to widows.

But these concessions do not appear to have satisfied the Fellows, who, as Lyon supposes, must have been guilty of decided demonstrations, which led the lodge in 1712 to revoke the privilege of inspecting the accounts that had been conferred by the statute of 1708.

This seems to have brought matters to a climax. At the same meeting the Fellow Crafts who were present, except two, left the room and immediately proceeded to organize a new lodge known afterward as the Journeymen's Lodge. Every attempt on the part of the Masters' Lodge to check this spirit of independence and to dissolve the schismatic lodge, though renewed from time to time for some years, proved abortive. The Journeymen's Lodge continued to exercise all the rights of a lodge of Operative Masons, and to enter Apprentices and admit Fellows just as was done by the Masters' Lodge from which it had so irregularly emanated.

Finally, in 1714, the most important and significant privilege of giving the "Mason Word" was adjudged to the Lodge of Journeymen by a decree of Arbitration.

The lodge, now perfected in its form and privileges, flourished, notwithstanding the occasional renewal of contests, until the organization of the Grand Lodge, when it became one of its constituents.

There can, I think, be no doubt that this independent action of the Journeymen Masons of Edinburgh led to an increase of lodges, when the prestige and power of the incorporated Masters had been once shaken. Twenty-four years after the establishment of the Journeymen's Lodge we find no less than thirty-two lodges uniting to organize the Grand Lodge of Scotland.

Another event of great importance in reference to the history of the Grand Lodge is now to be noticed. I allude to the process through which the Masons of Scotland attained to the adoption of a Grand Master as the title of the head of their Order.

There can be no doubt that the Grand Lodge of Scotland was organized upon the model of that of England, which had sprung into existence nineteen years previously. As the English Grand Lodge had bestowed upon its presiding officer the title of Grand Master, it was very natural that the Scotch body, which had derived from it its ritual and most of its forms, should also derive from it the same title for its chief.

But while we have no authentic records to show that previous to 1717 the English Masons had any General Superintendent, under any title whatever, it is known that the Scottish Masons had from an early period an officer who, without the name, exercised much of the powers and prerogatives of a Grand Master.

On December 28, 1598, William Schaw enacted, or to use the expression in the original document, "sett down" certain "statutes and ordinances to be observed by all Master Masons" in the realm of Scotland. In the heading of these Statutes he calls himself "Master of Work to his Majesty and General Warden of the said Craft." In a minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh, of the date of 1600, he is designated as "Principal Warden and Chief Master of Masons."

Now in the Statutes and Ordinances just referred to, as well as in a subsequent code of laws, ordained in the following year, there is ample evidence that this General Warden exercised prerogatives very similar to those of a Grand Master and indeed in excess of those exercised by modern Grand Masters, though Lyon is perfectly correct in saying that the name and title were unknown in Scotland until the organization of the Grand Lodge in 1736. (1)

The very fact that the Statutes were ordained by him and that the Craft willingly submitted to be governed by codes of laws emanating from his will - that he required the election of Wardens by the lodges to be submitted to and to be confirmed by him, "that he assigned their relative rank to the lodges of Edinburgh, of Kilwinning, and of Stirling," and that he delegated or "gave his power and commission" to the lodges to make other laws which should be in conformity with his Statutes - proves, I think, very conclusively that if he did not assume the title of Grand Master of Masons of Scotland, he, at all events, exercised many of the prerogatives of such an office.

It is true that it is said in the preamble to the Statutes of 1598 that they are "sett down" (a term equivalent to "prescribed") by the General Warden "with the consent of the Masters;" but the

(1) Except in 1731, when the Lodge of Edinburgh elected its presiding officer under the title of Grand Master. This was, however, entirely local, and was almost immediately abandoned.

acceptance of such consent was most likely a mere concession of courtesy, for the Statutes of 1599 are expressly declared in many instances to be "ordained by the General Warden," and in other instances it is said that the law or regulation is enacted because "it is thought needful and expedient by the General Warden." All of which shows that the Statutes were the result of the will of the General Warden and not of the Craft. That the Masters accepted them and consented to them afterward was very natural as a matter of necessity. There might have been a different record had they been uncompliant and refused assent to regulations imposed upon them by their superior.

Therefore, though the theory of the existence of Grand Masters in Scotland under that distinctive title at a period anterior to the organization of the Grand Lodge must be rejected as wholly untenable, it can hardly be denied that William Schaw, under the name of General Warden, did, at the close of the 16th century, exercise many of the prerogatives of the office of Grand Master.

Schaw died in 1602, and with him most probably died also the peculiar prerogatives of a General Warden, but the Scottish Craft appear not to have been in consequence without a head.

This leads us to the consideration of the St. Clair Charters, documents of undoubted authenticity but which have been used by Brewster in Laurie's History, under a false interpretation of the existence of the office of Grand Master of Masons in Scotland, from the time of James II., an hypothesis which has, however, been proved to be fallacious and untenable.

There are two ancient manuscripts in the repository of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, which are known by the title of the St. Clair Charters. The date of the first of these is supposed to be about the year 1601, and is signed by William Schaw as Master of Work, and by the office-bearers of five different lodges. The date of the other is placed by Lyon, with good reason, at 1628. It is signed by the office-bearers of five lodges also.

In the Advocates' Library of Edinburgh there is a small manuscript volume known as the "Hays MSS." which contains copies of these charters, not materially or substantially varying from the originals in the repository of the Grand Lodge.

The genuineness of these original manuscripts is undeniable. Whatever we can derive from them in relation to the position as signed by the Scottish Craft to the St. Clairs of Roslin in the beginning of the 17th century will be of historical value.

By them alone we may decide the long-contested question whether the St. Clairs of Roslin were or were not Hereditary Grand Masters of the Masons of Scotland. The Editor of Laurie's History of Freemasonry asserts that these charters supply the proof that the grant to William Sinclair as Hereditary Grand Master was made by James II. Mr. Lyon contends that the charters furnish a conclusive refutation of any such assertion. The first of these opinions has for a long time been the most popular. The last has, however, under more recent researches been now generally adopted by Masonic scholars. An examination of the precise words of the two charters will easily settle the question.

The first charter, the date of which is 1601, states (transmuting the Scottish dialect into English phrase) that "from age to age it has been observed among us that the Lords of Roslin have ever been patrons and protectors of us and our privileges, and also that our predecessors have obeyed and acknowledged them as patrons and protectors, which within these few years has through negligence and slothfulness passed out of use." It proceeds to state that in consequence the Lords of Roslin have been deprived of their just rights and the Craft subjected to much injury by being “destitute of a patron, protector, and overseer." Among the evils complained of is that various controversies had arisen among the Craftsmen for the settlement of which by the ordinary judges they were unable to wait in consequence of their poverty and the long delays of legal processes.

Wherefore the signers of the charter for themselves and in the name of all the Brethren and Craftsmen agree and consent that William Sinclair of Roslin shall for himself and his heirs purchase and obtain from the King liberty, freedom, and jurisdiction upon them and their successors in all time to come as patrons and judges of them and all the professors of their Craft within the realm (of Scotland) of whom they have power and commission.

The powers thus granted by the Craft to the Lord of Roslin were very ample. He and his heirs were to be acknowledged as patrons and judges, under the King, without appeal from their judgment, with the power to appoint one or more deputies. In conclusion the jurisdiction of the Lords of Roslin was to he as ample and large as the King might please to grant to him and his heirs.

The second charter was issued in 1628 by the Masons and Hammermen of Scotland. It repeats almost in the same words the story contained in the first that the Lords of Roslin had ever been patrons and protectors of the Scottish Craft, and adds the statement that there had been letters patent to that effect issued by the progenitors of the King, which had been burnt with other writings in a fire which occurred in a year not stated within the Castle of Roslin.

The William Sinclair to whom the previous charter had been granted having gone over to Ireland, the same evils complained of in the beginning of the century were renewed, and the Craft now in this second charter grants to Sir William Sinclair of Roslin the same powers and prerogatives that had been granted to his father, as their “only protector, patron, and overseer."

The contents of these two charters supply the following facts, which must be accepted as historical since there is no doubt of the genuineness of the documents.

In the first place there was a tradition in the beginning of the 17th century, and most probably at the close of the 16th, if not earlier, that the Sinclairs of Roslin had in times long passed exercised a superintending care and authority over the Craft of Scotland.

This superintendence they exercised as protectors, patrons, and overseers, and it consisted principally in settling disputes and deciding controversies between the brethren without appeal, which disputes and controversies would otherwise have to be submitted to the decision of a court of law.

The tradition implied that this office of protectorate of the Craft was hereditary in the house of Roslin, but had not been exercised continuously and uninterruptedly, but on the contrary had, in the beginning of the 17th century, been long disused.

It is true that there is no reference in the first charter to any crown grant, at least in explicit terms, but it speaks of the Lord of Roslin as lying out of his "just right" by the interruption in the exercise of the prerogative of patron, and if he had or was supposed to have such "just right," then the implication is strong that it was founded on a royal grant. The second charter is explicit on this subject and asserts that the record of the grant had been destroyed by a conflagration. This statement is very probably a myth, but it shows that a tradition to that effect must have existed among the Craft.

We may imply also from the language of the first charter that the Craft were in some doubt whether by this non-user the hereditary right had not been forfeited, since it is required by them that Sinclair should “purchase and obtain" from the King permission to exercise the jurisdiction of a patron and judge. In fact the sole object of the charter was to authorize William Sinclair to get the royal authority to resume the prerogatives that had formerly existed in his family. Whether the Craft were correct in this judgment, and whether by lying in abeyance the hereditary right had lapsed and required a renewal by the royal authority are not material questions. It is sufficient that such was the opinion of the Scottish Masons at the time.

Lastly, the two charters are of historical importance in proving that at the time of their being issued, the title of Grand Master was wholly unknown to the Craft.

The Editor of Laurie's History is, therefore, entirely unwarranted in his theory, which, however, he presents as an undoubted historical fact that the Sinclairs of Roslin were "Hereditary Grand Masters of Scotland."

Equally unwarranted is he in making Kilwinning, in Ayrshire, the seat of his mythical Grand Lodge, not, as has been urged by Bro. Lyon, because the Sinclairs (1) had no territorial connection with Ayrshire, but simply because there is not the least historical evidence that Kilwinning was the center of Scottish Masonry, though the lodge in that village had assumed the character of a Mother Lodge and issued charters to subordinates.

The true historical phase which these charters seem to present is this: In the 17th century, or during a part of it, the Operative Masons of Scotland adopted the family of Sinclair of Roslin as their patrons and protectors, and as the umpires to whom they agreed to refer their disputes, accepting their decisions without appeal, as a much more convenient and economical method of settling disputes than a reference to a court of law would be. Out of this very simple fact has grown the mythical theory, encouraged by fertile imaginations, that they were Grand Masters by royal grant and hereditary right.

The immediate superintendence of the Scottish Masons seems,

(1) The modern spelling of the name is St. Clair, but I have for the present retained the form of Sinclair to be in conformity with the orthography of the charter.

however, to have continued to be invested in a General Warden. In 1688, when there was a secession of members from the Lodge of Edinburgh, who established an independent lodge in the Canongate, one of the charges against them was that they had "erected a lodge among themselves to the great contempt of our society, without any Royal or General Warden's authority."

But the St. Clairs were the patrons and the General Wardens were the Masters of Work, while no reference was made to nor any word said of the title or the prerogatives of a Grand Master.

The point is, therefore, historically certain that there never was a Grand Master in Scotland until the establishment of the Grand Lodge, in 1736.

As early as the year 1600 we find the record of the admission of a non- professional into the Lodge of Edinburgh. The custom of admitting such persons as honorary members continued throughout the whole of the 17th century. Before the middle of the century, noblemen, baronets, physicians, and advocates are recorded in the minutes as having been admitted as Fellow-Crafts. The evidence that at that time the Speculative element had begun to invade the Operative is not confined to the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh. There are records proving that the same custom prevailed in other lodges.

Much importance has rightly been attached to the fact that there is an authentic record of the admission of two gentlemen into an English lodge of Operative Masons in the year 1646. There are numerous instances of such admissions before that time in Scottish lodges. Indeed it has been well proved by records that it was a constant habit, from about 1600, in the Scottish lodges, to admit non-masons into the Operative lodges.

There ought not to be a doubt that the same practice prevailed in England at the same time. That there is no proof of the fact is to be attributed to the absence of early English lodge minutes. The Scottish Masons have been more careful than the English in preserving their records.

The minutes of the Scottish lodges, and the one authentic record contained in Ashmole's Diary, furnish sufficient evidence that in the 17th century the Operative Masons were admitting into their society men of wealth and rank, scholars, and members of the learned professions. This was undoubtedly the first step in that train of events which finally led to the complete detachment of the theoretic from the practical element, and the organization of the present system of Speculative Freemasonry.

The change from an Operative to a Speculative system was very sudden in England. At least, if the change was gradual and foreseen, we can not now trace the progress of events because of the absolute want of records.

In Scotland the change was well marked and its history is upon record. It was much slower than that in England. It was not until nineteen years after the Grand Lodge of England was organized that a similar organization took place in Scotland. And whereas the English lodges all assumed the Speculative character at once, after the Grand Lodge was established, and abandoned Operative Masonry altogether, some of the Scottish lodges, for many years after their connection with the Grand Lodge of Speculative Masonry, retained an Operative character, mingled with the Speculative.

The closing years of the 17th century were marked in Scotland by contests between the Masters and the Journeymen Masons, the former having long secured the dominant power. These contests led in the Lodge of Edinburgh to a secession of the FellowCrafts, who having been denied certain privileges, formed an independent lodge, which after some years of conflict with the Mother Lodge received by a decree of arbitration the power of admitting Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts and what appears to have been deemed of vast importance, the privilege of communicating the “Mason Word."

This seems to have been at that time the sum of esoteric instruction received by candidates on their admission.

Another cause of contest in Scottish Masonry at that period was the growing custom of receiving non-professional members into the lodges of Operative Masons. This custom had originated at least a century before, and there are records in the 17th century from its very commencement of the presence in the lodges as members of persons who were not Operative Masons. But in the early part of the 18th century the practice grew to such an extent that at a meeting of the Lodge of Edinburgh in the year 1727, out of sixteen members present only three were operative Masons. And in the same year a lawyer was elected as Warden or presiding officer of the lodge.

In the year 1700 there were several lodges in various parts of Scotland. Although perhaps all of them contained among their members some persons of rank or wealth who were not Masons by profession, still the lodges were all Operative in their character.

Seventeen years afterward the English Operative Masons had merged their society into a Speculative Grand Lodge. The influence of this act was not slow to extend itself to Scotland, where the non-professionals began slowly but surely to dominate over the professional workmen.

In 1721 Dr. John Theophilus Desaguliers, who was the principal founder of the Grand Lodge of England, paid a visit to Edinburgh. He was received as a brother by the lodge, and at two meetings held for the purpose, several gentlemen of high rank were admitted into the fraternity.

As the records of these meetings are of historic importance, as showing the introduction of the new English system of Speculative Masonry into Scotland, I shall not hesitate to give them in the very words of the minute- book, as copied from the original by Bro. Lyon.

"Likeas (likewise) upon the 25th day of the sd moneth (August 1721) the Deacons, Warden, Masters, and several other members of the Societie, together with the sd Doctor Desaguliers having mett att Maries Chapell, there was a supplication presented to them by John Campbell Esqr. Lord Provost of Edinbr., George Preston and Hugh Hathorn, Bailies; James Nimo, Thesuarer, William Livingston Deacon convener of the Trades thereof; and Geroge Irving Clerk to the Dean of Guild Court, - and humbly craving to be admitted members of the sd Societie; which being considered by them, they granted the desire thereof, and the saids honourable persons were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts accordingly.

"And siclike upon the 28th day of the said moneth there was another petition given in by Sr. Duncan Campbell of Locknell, Barronet; Robert Wightman Esqr., present Dean of Gild of Edr.; George Drummond Esq., late Theasurer thereof; Archibald McAuley, late Bailly there; and Patrick Lindsay, merchant there, craveing the like benefit, which was also granted, and they receaved as members of the societie as the other persons above mentioned. The same day, James Key and Thomas Aikman servants to James Wattson, deacon of the Masons, were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and payed to James Mack, Warden the ordinary dues as such."

There can be no doubt that the object of Desaguliers in visiting Scotland at that time was to introduce into the Scottish lodges the esoteric ritual so far as it had been perfected by himself and his colleagues for the Masons of England. Bro. Lyon very properly suggests that the proceedings of the lodge on that occasion "render it probable that taking advantage of his social position, he had influenced the attendance of the Provost and Magistrates of Edinburg and the other city magnates who accompanied them as applicants for Masonic fellowship in order to give a practical illustration of the system with which his name was so closely associated with a view to its commending itself for adoption by the lodges of Scotland." (1)

Hence in these two meetings we see that the ceremonies of entering and passing were performed a or, in other words, that the two new degrees of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft, as practiced in the Grand Lodge of England, were introduced to the Scottish Masons. The degree of Master was not conferred, and for this omission Bro. Lyon assigns a reason which involves an historic error most strange to have been committed by so expert and skilled a Masonic scholar as the historian of the Lodge of Edinburgh and the translator of Finders work.

Bro. Lyon's words are as follows: "It was not until 1722-23 that the English regulation restricting the conferring of the Third Degree to Grand Lodge was repealed. This may account for the Doctor confining himself to the two lesser degrees." (2)

But the facts are that the regulation restricted the conferring of the Second as well as the Third degree to the Grand Lodge; that this regulation, instead of being repealed in 1722-23, was not promulgated until 1723, being first published in the Thirty-nine Articles contained in the Book of Constitutions of that date; and that it was not repealed until 1725.

Now if it be said that the restriction existed before it was promulgated, having been approved June 24, 1721, and was known to Desaguliers, it would have prevented him from conferring the Second as well as the Third degree.

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 152. (2) Ibid., p. 153.

If, however, the regulation was in force in England in 1721, which I have endeavored heretofore (1) to prove to be very doubtful, Desaguliers, in violating it so far as respected the Second degree, showed that he did not conceive that it was of any authority in Scotland, a country which was not under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England.

If so, the question arises, why did he not, at the same meeting, confer the Third degree?

The answer is that the Third degree had not yet been fabricated. In the task of formulating a ritual for the new system of Speculative Masonry, Desaguliers, Anderson, and the others, if there were any who were engaged with them in the task, had, in 1721, proceeded no further than the fabrication of the ritual of the First and Second degrees. These degrees only, therefore, he communicated to the Masons of Edinburgh (2) on his visit to the lodge there. Subsequently, when the Third degree had received its form, it was imparted to the Masons of Scotland. Of the precise time and manner of this communication we have no record, but we know that it took place before the Grand Lodge of Scotland was organized. Lyon says that the year 1735 is the date of "the earliest Scottish record extant of the admission of a Master Mason under the modern Masonic Constitution." (3)

The visit of Desaguliers and the events connected with it develop at least two important points in the history of Scottish Masonry.

In the first place, we notice the great increase of non-professional members over the working craftsmen, so that in six or seven years after that visit the Speculative element had gained the supremacy over the Operative which led, in the second place, to the adoption of various forms indicative of the growing influence of Speculative Masonry, such as the change of the title of the presiding officer from "Warden" to that of "Master," and the substitution, in the nomenclature of the Craft, of the word "Freemason" for the formerly common one of "Mason."

(1) When treating of the origin of the three degrees. (2) The connection of this visit of Desaguliers to Edinburgh with the history of the fabrication of the three degrees of Symbolic Masonry has already been discussed in a previous chapter devoted to that subject. (3) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 213.

From all this, and from certain proceedings in the years 1727, 1728, and 1729 connected with the contests between the Theoretic and the Operative members of the lodges, "it may be inferred," says Bro. Lyon, “that, departing from the simplicity of its primitive ritual and seizing upon the more elaborate one of its Southern contemporaries, and adapting it to its circumstances, the ancient lodge of the Operative Masons of Edinburgh had, in a transition that was neither rapid nor violent, yielded up its dominion to Symbolical Masonry and become a unit in the great Mystic Brotherhood that had started into existence in 1717." (1)

The next step that was naturally to be taken was the establishment of a Grand Lodge in close imitation in its form and Constitution of that of the similar body which had been previously instituted in the sister kingdom. The record of the occurrences which led to this event is much more ample than the meager details preserved by Anderson of the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, so that we meet with no difficulty in writing the history.

It had long been supposed, on the authority of the History attributed to Laurie, that the Scottish Masons had been prompted to first think of the institution of a Grand Lodge in consequence of a proposition made by William St. Clair of Roslin to resign his office of “Hereditary Grand Master." This is said to have been done in 1736. Lyon, however, denies the truth of this statement, and says that more than a year before the date at which St. Clair is alleged to have formally intimated his intention to resign the Masonic Protectorate, the creation of a Grand Mastership for Scotland had been mooted among the brethren. (2)

The authentic history is perhaps to be found only in the pages of Lyon's History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, and from it I therefore do not hesitate to draw the material for the ensuing narrative.

On September 29, 1735, at a meeting of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, a committee was appointed for the purpose of "framing proposals to be laid before the several lodges in order to the choosing of a Grand Master for Scotland." At another meeting, on October 15th, the same committee was instructed to "take under consideration proposals for a Grand Master."

On August 4, 1736, John Douglas, a surgeon and member of

(1) “History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 160. (2) Ibid., p. 167

the Lodge of Kirkcaldy, was affiliated with the Lodge of Canongate Kilwinning and appointed Secretary, that he might make out "a scheme for bringing about a Grand Master for Scotland."

On September 20th the lodge was visited by brethren from the Lodge Kilwinning Scots Arms, who made certain proposals on the subject.

The matter was now hastening to maturity, for on October 6th the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge met for the purpose, as its minutes declare, of "concerting proper measures for electing a Grand Master for Scotland." Proposals were heard and agreed to. The four lodges of Edinburgh were to hold a preliminary meeting, when proper measures were to be taken for accomplishing the desired object.

Accordingly delegates from the four Edinburgh lodges, namely, Mary's Chapel, Canongate Kilwinning, Kilwinning Scots Arms, and Leith Kilwinning, met at Edinburgh on October 15, 1736. It was then resolved that the four lodges in and about Edinburgh should meet in some convenient place to adopt proper regulations for the government of the Grand Lodge, which were to be sent with a circular letter to all the lodges of Scotland. A day was also to be determined for the election of a Grand Master, when all lodges which accepted the invitation were to be represented by their Masters and Wardens or their proxies.

The circular, which brought a sufficient number of lodges together at the appointed time to institute a Grand Lodge and elect a Grand Master, is in the following words:

“Brethren: The four lodges in and about Edinburgh, having taken into their serious consideration the great loss that Masonry has sustained through the want of a Grand Master, authorized us to signify to you, our good and worthy brethren, our hearty desire and firm intention to choose a Grand Master for Scotland; and in order that the same may be done with the greatest harmony, we hereby invite you (as we have done all the other regular lodges known by us) to concur in such a great and good work, whereby it is hoped Masonry may be restored to its ancient luster in this kingdom. And for effectuating this laudable design, we humbly desire that betwixt this and Martinmas day next, you will be pleased to give us a brotherly answer in relation to the election of a Grand Master, which we propose to be on St. Andrew's day, for the first time, and ever thereafter to be on St. John the Baptist's day, or as the Grand Lodge shall appoint by the majority of voices, which are to be collected from the Masters and Wardens of all the regular lodges then present or by proxy to any Master Mason or FellowCraft in any lodge in Scotland; and the election is to be in St. Mary's Chapel. All that is hereby proposed is for the advancement and prosperity of Masonry in its greatest and most charitable perfection. We hope and expect a suitable return; wherein if any lodges are defective, they have themselves only to blame. We heartily wish you all manner of success and prosperity, and ever are, with great respect, your affectionate and loving brethren."

This circular letter was accompanied by a printed copy of the regulations which had been proposed and agreed to at the meeting. By these regulations the Grand Master was to name the new Grand Wardens, Treasurer, and Secretary, but the nomination was to be unanimously approved by the Grand Lodge, and if it was not these officers were to be elected by ballot. The requirement of unanimity would be very certain to place the choice of most occasions in the Grand Lodge. The Grand Master was to appoint his own Deputy, provided he was not a member of the same lodge. There were to be quarterly communications, at which the particular lodges were to be represented by their Masters and Wardens with the Grand Master at their head. There was to be an annual visitation by the Grand Master with his Deputy and Wardens of all the lodges in town. There was to be an annual feast upon St. John's day, and several other regulations, all of which were evidently copied from the Articles adopted in 1721 by the Grand Lodge of England and published in 1723 in the first edition of its Book of Constitutions.

There were several meetings of the four Edinburgh lodges, and finally, on November 25, 1736, it was agreed that the election of Grand Master should take place in Mary's Chapel on Tuesday, November 30, 1736.

But while these preliminary meetings were being held a rivalry sprung up (as might have been anticipated from the nature of human passions) between two of the lodges, in the choice of the proposed Grand Master.

The Lodge of Edinburgh nominated for that office the Earl of Home, who was one of its members. But the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, which was really the prime instigator of the movement for the institution of a Grand Lodge, was unwilling to surrender to another lodge the honor of providing a ruler of the Craft.

William St. Clair, who, notwithstanding the high claims advanced for his family does not appear to have taken any interest in Masonry, had been received as an Apprentice and Fellow-Craft only six months before (May 18, 1736) by the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, and had been raised to the Third degree only eight days before the election, was placed before the fraternity by the lodge of which he was a recent member, as a proper candidate for the Grand Mastership It will be seen in the subsequent details of the election that the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge availed itself of a strategy which might have been resorted to by a modern politician.

What Lyon calls "the first General Assembly of Scotch Symbolical Masons" was, according to agreement, convened at Edinburgh on Tuesday, November 30, 1736. There were at that time in Scotland about one hundred particular lodges. All of them had been summoned to attend the convention, but of these only thirty-three were present, each represented by its Master and two Wardens.

While in this scanty representation, only one-third of the lodges having responded to the call, we see that the interest in the legal organization of the Speculative system and the complete abandonment of the Operative had not been universally felt by the Scottish Craft, we find in the method of conducting the meeting that the spirit and forms of the English Constitution had been freely adopted by those who were present.

The list of the lodges which united in the establishment of a Grand Lodge is given both by Laurie's Editor and by Lyon, and it is here presented as an important part of the historical narrative. The lodges present were as follows:

Mary's Chapel, Dumfermling, Kilwinning, Dundee, Canongate Kilwinning, Dalkeith, Kilwinning Scots Arms, Aitcheson's Haven, Kilwinning Leith, Selkirk, Kilwinning Glasgow, Inverness, Coupar of Fife, Lesmahagoe, Linlithgow, St. Brides at Douglas, Lanark, Peebles, Strathaven, Glasgow St. Mungo's, Hamilton, Greenock, Dunse, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, Aberdeen, Journey Masons of Edinburgh, Mariaburgh, Kirkintilloch, Canongate and Leith, Biggar, Leith and Canongate, Sanquhar, Montrose.

After the roll had been called, and the draft of the Constitution with the form of proceedings had been submitted and approved, St. Clair of Roslin tendered a document to the convention which was read as follows:

“I, William St. Clair of Roslin, Esquire, taking into my consideration that the Masons in Scotland, did, by several deeds, constitute and appoint William and Sir William St. Clairs of Roslin, my ancestors and their heirs to be their Patrons, Protectors, Judges or Masters; and that my holding or claiming any such jurisdiction, right or privilege might be prejudicial to the Craft and vocation of Masonry, whereof I am a member, and I being desirous to advance and promote the good and utility of the said Craft of Masonry, to the utmost of my power, do therefore hereby, for me and my heirs, renounce, quit claim, overgive and discharge all right, claim or pretence that I or my heirs, had, have or anyways may have, pretend to or claim, to be Protector, Patron, Judge or Master of the Masons in Scotland, in virtue of any deed or deeds made and granted by the said Masons, or of any grant or charter made by any of the Kings of Scotland, to and in favour of the said William and Sir William St. Clairs of Roslin, my predecessors; or any other manner or way whatsoever, for now and ever. And I bind and oblige me and my heirs to warrant this present renunciation and discharge at all hands. And I consent to the registration hereof in the books of Council and Session or any other judges' books competent, therein to remain for preservation, and thereto I constitute . . . my procurators, etc. In witness whereof I have subscribed these presents (written by David Maul, Writer to the Signet) at Edinburgh, the twenty- fourth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and thirty-six years, before these witnesses, George Frazer, deputy auditor of the excise in Scotland, Master of the Canongate Lodge, and William Montgomery, Merchant in Leith, Master of the Leith Lodge."

This document was signed by W. St. Clair and attested by the two witnesses above mentioned. The reading of it at the opportune moment, just before the election of Grand Master was entered upon, is the strategical point to which reference has already been made. It succeeded in securing, as had been expected by the promoters of the scheme, the immediate election of William St. Clair as the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.

As a legal instrument the renunciation of his ancestral rights by St. Clair is worthless. Whatever prerogatives he may have supposed that he possessed as a Masonic "Protector, Patron, Judge and Master," referred exclusively to the Guild of Operative Masonry, and could not by any stretch of law have been extended to a voluntary association of Speculative Masons, the institution of which was expressly intended to act as a deletion of the Operative organization whose design and character were entirely cancelled and obliterated by the change from a practical art to a theoretical science. The laws of Operative Masonry can be applied to Speculative Masonry only by a symbolic process. If the Lords of Roslin had even been the “Hereditary Grand Masters" of the stonecutters and builders who were congregated in a guild spirit in the Operative lodges of Scotland, it did not follow that they were by such hereditary right the Grand Masters of the scholars and men or rank, the clergymen, physicians, lawyers, and merchants who, having no connection or knowledge of the Craft of Masonry, had united to establish a society of an entirely different character.

But in a critical point of view in reference to the traditional claims of the St. Clairs to the Hereditary Grand Mastership, this instrument of renunciation is of great value.

It is but recently that the historians of Freemasonry have begun to doubt the statement that James II. of Scotland had conferred by patent the office of Grand Master on the Earl of Orkney, the ancestor of the St. Clairs and on his heirs. Brewster had boldly asserted it in the beginning of the present century, and although it has been more recently doubted whether such patent was issued, the statement continues to be repeated by careless writers and to be believed by credulous readers.

Now the language used by St. Clair its his renunciation before the Grand Lodge of Scotland must set this question at rest. He refers not to any patent granted to his original ancestors the Earls of Orkney, but to the two charters issued in 1601 and 1628 in which not the king but the Masons themselves had bestowed the office of patrons and protectors, first on William St. Clair and afterward on his son.

James Maidment, Advocate, the learned Editor of Father Hay's Genealogie of the Saint Claires of Roslyn, comes to this conclusion in the following words:

“Thus the granter of the deed, who it must be presumed was better acquainted with the nature of his rights than any one else could be, derives his title from the very persons to whom the two modern charters were granted by the Masons; and in the resignation of his claim as patron, etc., exclusively refers to these two deeds or any 'grant or charter made by the Crown,' not in favor of William Earl of Orkney, but of William and Sir William St. Clair, the identical individuals in whose persons the Masons had created the office of patron."

But in the excitement of the moment the representatives of the lodges were not prepared to enter into any such nice distinctions.

The apparent magnanimity of Mr. St. Clair in thus voluntarily resigning his hereditary claims had so fascinating an influence that though many of them had been instructed by their lodges to vote for another candidate, St. Clair was immediately elected Grand Master with great unanimity.

The remaining offices were filled by the election of Capt. John Young as Deputy Grand Master; Sir William Baillie as Senior Grand Warden; Sir Alexander Hope as Junior Grand Warden; Dr. John Moncrief as Grand Treasurer; John Macdougal, Esq., as Grand Secretary; and Mr. Robert Alison, Writer, as Grand Clerk.

Upon the institution of the Grand Lodge nearly all the lodges of the kingdom applied for Warrants of Constitution and renounced their former rights as Operative lodges, acknowledging thereby the supreme jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge as the Head of Speculative Masonry in Scotland.

In a review of the proceedings which finally led to the establishment of a Speculative Grand Lodge in Scotland, several circumstances are especially worthy of remark.

It has been seen that from a very early period, as far back as the close of the 16th century, theoretical Masons, or persons who were a part of the working Craft, had been admitted as members of the Operative lodges. The custom of receiving non-professionals among the brethren was gradually extended, so that in the early years of the 18th century the non- professional members in some of the lodges greatly exceeded the professional.

In this way the transition from Operative to Speculative Masonry was made of easy accomplishment, so that when the Grand Lodge was established, several of the leading lodges which were engaged in the act of organization were already Speculative lodges in everything but the name.

Another event, which exerted a great influence in hastening the change in Scotland, was the visit of Desaguliers in the year 1721 to Edinburgh. He brought with him the ritual of Speculative Masonry, so far as it had then been formulated in England, and introduced it and the newly adopted English lodges into Scotland. Lyon refers to the formation of the Lodge Kilwinning Scots Arms in February, 1729, as one of the results of the Masonic communication between the northern and the southern capitals, which had been opened by this visit of Desaguliers. It was from the beginning a purely Speculative lodge, all of its original members having been theoretical Masons, chiefly lawyers and merchants. It was one of the four Edinburgh lodges which were engaged in the preliminary steps for the organization of the Grand Lodge.

As an evidence of how extensively the theoretical principle had spread, so that the scheme of abandoning the Operative character of the institution must have been easily effected, it may be stated that of the twelve hundred brethren returned to the Grand Lodge as members of the several lodges represented at the first election of officers in that body, one half were persons not engaged in mechanical pursuits. (1)

The influence of English Masonry is also seen in the fact that in the middle of the 17th century the English Legend of the Craft was known to and used by the Aitcheson's Haven Lodge of Musselburg

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 176.

and the Lodge of Edinburgh as well as other Scottish lodges and was in all probability used in the initiation of candidates. As the two manuscripts which still remain in Scotland are known from their form and language to have been copies of some of the old English Records of the "Legend" and "Charges," no better evidence than the use of them by Scottish lodges could be needed to prove that the English Masonry had been constantly from the 17th century exerting a dominating influence upon the Craft in Scotland which finally culminated in the organization of the Grand Lodge.

Finally, the Grand Lodge of Scotland presents an important and marked peculiarity in the cause and manner of its institution.

The first Grand Lodge of Speculative Masons ever established was the Grand Lodge of England organized in the year 1717 at London. From this Grand Lodge every other Grand Lodge in the world, with one exception, has directly or indirectly proceeded. That is to say, the Grand Lodge of England established in foreign countries either lodges which afterward uniting, became Grand Lodges, or it constituted Provincial Grand Lodges which, in the course of time and through political changes, assumed independence and became national supreme bodies in Masonry.

But however instituted as Grand Lodges, they derived, remotely, the authority for their legal existence from the Grand Lodge of England, so that that venerable body has very properly been called the "Mother Grand Lodge of the World."

The single exception to this otherwise universal rule is found in the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Of all Grand Lodges it alone has derived no authority for its constitution from the English body. The Scottish lodges existed contemporaneously with the English; at a very early period they admitted non-professional members and they began at the beginning of the 18th century to take the preliminary steps for their conversion from an Operative to a Speculative character. In this they were undoubtedly influenced by the English Masons, who about the same time had begun to contemplate the expediency of a similar conversion.

But although while the Scottish lodges, in organizing their Grand Lodge, were undoubtedly led to take the necessary steps by the previous action of the English lodges, and while they borrowed much of the forms and imitated the example of their English brethren, they derived from them no authority or warrant of Constitution.

The Masonry of Scotland produced from its own Operative lodges its Speculative Grand Lodge, precisely as was the case with the Masonry of England. And in this respect it has differed from the Masonry of every other country where the Operative element never merged into the Speculative, but where the latter was a direct and independent importation from the Speculative Grand Lodge of England, wholly distinct from the Operative Masonry which existed at the same time.

Get More Information on Freemasonry

Masonic Secrets Revealed - The Secret Ceremonies And Oaths Of The Masons Exposed!
Masonic Secrets - The Secret Masonic Handshakes, Words, And Signs Of Craft Masonry.
Freemasonry and the Druids by W. Winwood Reade. Published 1861.
Secret Masonic Initiation Video - Secret video footage from Turkey.
Bristol Masonic Ritual - The Oldest and Most Unusual Craft Working in England
The Meaning of Masonry by W. L. Wilmhurst
Freemasonry - Its Hidden Meaning - by George H. Steinmetz
Masonic Books - Check out our selection of books on freemasonry.

Chapters in Part 2

Back to Masonic Secrets Revealed

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Sacred-Magick.Com: The Esoteric Library