The Politics of Grand Lodge Foreign Relations

Today for a couple of hundred dollars you can swab your mouth, send it to a lab and in two weeks you can trace your genealogy back 5,000 years. It’s too bad we can’t swab our brains or intellect to see what our ancestors were thinking back then but, for that we need the written word. Fortunately, for Masonic researchers we have more than enough documentation over a couple of centuries to enable us to gain some understanding of the philosophies and beliefs of our early Brethren, both of which are heavily intertwined with religion.

Although Freemasonry denies all allegations that it is a religion there can be no question that it has serious religious connotations and although the discussion of religion is prohibited in the lodges, it permeates every facet of Freemasonry. It has from the very beginning. We see the strong religious theme throughout all the early Masonic manuscripts. Some claim that the earliest extant manuscript, the late 14^th century Regius poem was copied from John Myrk’s ‘Instructions to a Parish Priest’. While the jury is still out on that it is clear the poem belongs to the class of Middle English, Trinitarian, didactic literature written to teach moral and ethical lessons. These same religious proclamations are repeated in the Cooke, Lansdowne, and Sloan (3848) manuscripts. In fact, of the approximately 20 recognized manuscripts written before the grand lodge era almost all of them begin with an invocation to the Holy Trinity. For more than 100 years Europe had been torn apart by bloody wars as kings and church alike used God, or rather their own definition of God to denounce their enemies. Religion became the banner under which war could be declared to size power and property. During the early 1600’s men who were not stonemasons by trade began to seek the sanctuary of the Lodge room were they could speak openly without fear of betrayal [i] By the time the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster was founded in 1717 England was finally emerging from the aftermath of the Reformation. New denominations had taken root and if Freemasonry was to spread outside the confines of England the fraternity would open their doors to believers who were not Trinitarian Christians.

In 1722, James Anderson, a Presbyterian Minister and Freemason, was hired by the new grand lodge to rewrite its’ constitution. He made a dramatic and bold move in order to pursue the idea of a universal Brotherhood. The first two charges in his new constitution were groundbreaking radical departures from previously held concepts which would enable the Fraternity to reach out to men of all faiths. His first Charge, dealing with God and religion would cause more comment and misinterpretation than any other in the past 285 years, it reads:

“A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.” [ii]

Anderson begins by reaffirming a Mason’s obligation to abide by the moral law. To every religion of that day this embodies the concept of not doing unto others that which one would not to do unto himself. A Mason who understands the art of Masonry could never doubt the existence of Deity or be a morally unrestrained libertine casting aside morals, ethics and the existence of a higher power at work in the universe. Having opened wide the door he rejects the argument that in a Christian country a Mason had to be a Christian and he states once affirming the existence of a Supreme Being and agreeing to abide by the moral law, his religious beliefs are his own.

It is not in the nature of men to accept even the best laws without attempting to change them to their own advantage. A little over 30 years would pass until a new Grand Lodge, would write another Constitution this time by a Catholic author, Laurence Dermott who attempted to return Freemasonry to the realm of Christianity.

“A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to observe the moral Law as a true NOACHIDA; and if he rightly understands the Craft, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine, nor act against Conscience.
In ancient Times, the Christian Masons were charged to comply with the Christian Usages of each Country where they travveled or worked; being found in all Nations, even of divers Religions.
They are generally charged to adhere to that Religion in which all Men agree (leaving each Brother to his own particular Opinion); that is, to be good men and true, Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Names, Religions, or Persuasions they may be distinguished; for they all agree in the three great Articles of Noah, enough to preserve the Cement of the Lodge. Thus Masonry is the Centre of their Union, and the happy Means of conciliating Persons that otherwise must have remained at a perpetual Distance.” [iii]

This Constitution demands that Masons must believe firmly in not only the true worship of the eternal God of the Catholic Church but also in the sacred records which the dignitaries and fathers of the Church have complied and published for the use of all good men. So far as the Atheists were concerned non-Christians need not apply.

66 years later the pendulum would swing back. The Masonic Constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England formed in 1813 by the merger of both the Moderns and the Antients, opened the door to men of all faiths and introduced the concept of God as the Great Architect of the universe.

“A Mason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the art he will never be a stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine. He, of all men, should best understand that God seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh at the outward appearance, but God looketh to the heart. A mason is, therefore, particularly bound never to act against the dictates of his conscience. Let a man’s religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the order, provided he believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth, and practice the sacred duties of morality. Masons unite with the virtuous of every persuasion in the firm and pleasing bond of fraternal love; they are taught to view the errors of mankind with compassion, and to strive, by the purity of their own conduct, to demonstrate the superior excellence of the faith they may profess. Thus masonry is in the center of union between good men and true, and the happy means of conciliating friendship amongst those who must otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance.”[iv]

The concept of God in relation to Masonic philosophy would continue for the next two hundred years as illustrated in the following exchange between Albert Pike and Henry Leeson.

In 1861 Henry B. Leeson of the Supreme Council of England writes, “It has been my privilege to collect and preserve the disjecta membra of the Ancient Rite scattered in this and other countries, all of which attest the ancient Christian basis of the Order.” [v]However, the Scottish Rite’s 33-degree system of degrees traces its’ roots only as far back as Grand Constitution of 1785 supposedly under the authority of Frederick II. Therefore, any reference to an ancient Christian basis would need to refer to Masonry in general and not the Scottish Rite in particular.

Responding to this letter, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the A&ASR SJ, Albert Pike, writes, “I do not agree with Ill. Bro Leeson, that the ancient basis of the Order was a Christian one. If that were so, Prussian Masonry would have been right in excluding Jews from admission to its Lodges. If it were so, it would be a fraud to claim that Masonry is universal. In that case how could there be Lodges of Hebrews and Mohammedans? And in regard to the Ancient and Accepted Rite, if it had a Christian basis, how did it chance that most of those who had possession of it in this country from 1763 to 1800 were Hebrews?” [vi]

Ten years later Brother Lindsay Mackersy 33°, the Scottish Delegate to the 1875 Lausanne Congress would pull off the greatest misdirection play in Masonic History by using the concept of Masonic belief in a Supreme Being to render the carefully orchestrated planes of the English and French Supreme Councils null and void, while at the same time ignited a firefight that still rages today.

John Mandelburg writes: “While Pike wished to see the A.& A. Rite as “Universal” as Craft Masonry, he always rigidly upheld what has been proclaimed by all regular Masonic bodies from Time Immemorial-a profession of belief by every Candidate in the Great Architect Of The Universe as a personal Being whose Revealed Will is contained in whatever Volume of the Sacred Law is revered by the Initiate. That the English Supreme Council went further in demanding from brethren under its jurisdiction an explicit belief in the Trinitarian Christian Faith reinforced rather than detracted from this position. Neither Pike, nor, indeed any member of the three British Supreme Councils, could conceive a regular Freemasonry, which was not based on a belief in a personal Deity.”[vii] However, the Parsees believe in the existence of one invisible God. They believe that there is a continuous war between the good forces (forces of light) and the evil forces (forces of darkness). The good forces will win if people will do good deeds, think good thoughts and speak well. God is represented in their temples through fire. Pike must have held a similar belief because he quotes from their catechism in his lecture on the 28^th degree: "We believe in only one God, and do not believe in any beside Him; Who created the Heavens, the Earth, the Angels, . . . Our God has neither face, nor form, color, nor shape, nor fixed place. There is no other like Him, nor can our mind comprehend Him” [viii]

On Monday the 27^th of June and continuing until Saturday the 2^nd of July 1814 a conference was held in Freemasons Hall, London. In attendance were the Grand Master of Masons in England (from the newly constituted United Grand Lodge of England ‘U.G.L. of England’), his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, the Grand Master of Masons in Ireland, his Grace the Duke of Leinster and the Grand Master of Masons in Scotland, the Right Honorable Lord Kinnaird. During this week a unique agreement was reached between the Grand Lodges. For the first time a formal agreement was signed governing external relations between sister jurisdictions. It has become known to us as the International Compact of 1814.

The agreement consisted of eight resolutions the last of which being that the agreement to ‘be reported to records thereof and printed and circulated to all the three Grand Lodges, entered on the records thereof and printed and circulated to all the lodges holding of them’.

These articles are doubly important. On one hand they commemorate the reconciliation of the two English Grand Lodges which had quarreled for more than fifty years. On the other they set the foundation for every succeeding agreement in Masonic jurisdictional relations from that point on. I have provided a complete copy of this document in Appendix A.

The preamble stated ‘Upon strict Masonic examination on matters that can neither be written nor described, it was ascertained that the Three Grand Lodges were perfectly in union in all the great and essential points of the Mystery & Craft according to the immemorial traditions and uninterrupted usage of ancient Masons and they recognized this unity in a fraternal manner.’, uniting the Home Grand Lodges, as they were to be called, in one unanimously agreed upon philosophy and ritual of Freemasonry.

The first two resolutions deal with an agreement on what constitutes pure Ancient Masonry and the need for constant fraternal intercourse, correspondence and communion between the three Grand Lodges. The third calls for a strict and sacred adherence to the simplicity, purity and order of the Ancient Traditions and principles, or the ’Eternal Truths’ upon which Masonry was originally founded. The fourth resolution I will treat separately. The fifth resolution treats with the necessity of establishing that any Brother applying for Masonic relief, be able to establish without doubt that he is a true Brother and not an imposter. The sixth resolution shows that even in 1814 the Grand Lodges were concerned ‘not only as to the moral character of the individuals to be admitted, but as to their knowledge in their gradual advancement’. The seventh resolution deals with the character of Masons. ‘the importance of which must be evident to the Fraternity in general who from motives of attachment to the welfare of the craft at large as well as to the value necessarily entertained by each individual Brother in regard to his own private character are interested that it should be known all over the surface of the inhabited Globe, that their principles absolutely discountenancing in all their Meetings every question that could have the remotest tendency to excite controversy in matters of Religion or any political discussion whatever have no other object in view by the encouragement and furthering of every moral and virtuous sentiment, as also of nurturing most particularly the warmest calls of Universal Benevolence and mutual Charity one towards another’.

I have chosen to separate the fourth resolution because of its importance to the manner in which external relations with sister jurisdictions should proceed. In consequence of that I will provide this resolution in full.

“4^th That each Grand Lodge shall preserve its own limits, and no Warrant shall be granted or Revised by any one of these parties for the holding of a Lodge within the Jurisdiction of either of the others – That in case any one of their respective Military Lodges, being in the course of service resident for a time, within the limits of either of the others it shall continue to make its returns to its own Grand Lodge, but shall be recognized, visited and have the right of visitation and intercourse with the regular Lodges where it may happen to be. It being understood and positively stipulated and enacted that no such Military Lodge shall initiate, pass or raise any person or Brother who does not actually belong to the Battalion or Regiment to which the said Lodge is confined; and further that the present practice with respect to Lodges established in distant parts under either of the Three Grand Lodges shall continue on the present footing.”

The first sentence of this resolution calls for the respecting of a principle of exclusive territorial jurisdiction 138 years before the Committee on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters In North America promulgated a similar guideline in 1952. It is interesting to note that according to Brother R. E. Parkinson in his History of The Grand Lodge of Ireland that the ink was not dry on this compact before English Provincial Grand Lodges abroad began to claim authority over Irish Lodges inside their bailiwick. This resulted in the necessity in 1821 of each of the Home Grand Lodges having a representative of the other two sister jurisdiction installed as a Grand Officer. [ix]It also shed a little more light on the possibility that it was more than just the wording in the 1875 Lausanne Congress on a Masonic Profession of belief in the Great Architect Of The Universe that lead to Brother Mackersy’s sudden departure from Lausanne.

In 1859 the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, William Gray Clarke, sent out a letter to every Master of the U.G.L. of England Lodges telling them not to meet with irregular Masonic bodies. It was the basis for an uproar that developed over the ‘The Rite of Memphis’.

The Grand Secretary’s letter began: “I am directed to inform you ... that there are at present existing in London and elsewhere in this country, spurious Lodges claiming to be Freemasons.” He warned Masters to be careful not to admit any irregular ‘Memphis’ Masons to their own lodges and emphasized that “the Brethren of your Lodge ... can hold no communication with irregular lodges without incurring the penalty of expulsion from the Order, and the liability to be proceeded against under Act 39, George III, for taking part in the Meetings of illegal secret Societies.” [x]This letter came up again in 1871 during a clash involving Robert Wentworth Little and Bro. John Montagu, Grand Secretary General of the Supreme Council 33 °.

In 1854, Britain and France had gone to war against Russia in the Crimea; though it halted the Russian advance, the campaign had been otherwise a disaster, symbolized by the charge of the Light Brigade down the wrong valley. The victory ignited a new spirit of nationalism and colonial expansion in France. On July 19^th 1870 France officially declared war on the Prussian Empire, which ended in a humiliating defeat in 1871. To make matters worse, acts by Napoleon III and his government had isolated France from the other European powers. England under Gladstone sat out the conflict with her recent ally as did the other great European power Russia, which was unwilling to aid France after French participation in Russia's humiliation during the Crimean War.

In 1875, fourteen years after Pike had begun his campaign to convene a world conference of the Supreme Councils, the conference finally took place at Lausanne, Switzerland. Unfortunately, by now not only were the national politics of the countries represented by the Supreme Councils in conflict so were the politics of the Supreme Councils themselves. The Supreme Council of France had recently recognized the spurious Supreme Council of Louisiana despite it being within the territorial jurisdiction claimed by the Supreme Council S.J. This action exasperated an already hostile situation resulting from the 1850 warranting of the Le Progres de l'Oceanie (Progress of Oceania) in Hawaii, by the Supreme Council of France.[xi]These actions infuriated Albert Pike to the point that neither he nor any other official from either of the U.S. Supreme Councils attended the conference. It was an omen of what was to come.

This then was the atmosphere in which the Lausanne Congress was convened on September 6^th. A description of the events on that first day is provided by Brother C. John Mandelberg.

“Montagu, on behalf of the English Delegation evidently did not wish so much time to be spent on what he apparently saw as hair-splitting that none was left to secure agreement on the English proposals. So on the first day of the meetings he assented to the formula, of which he may even have been one of the authors, that ‘Freemasonry proclaims, as it has proclaimed from its origin, the existence of a creative principle (principe createur) under the name of the Great Architect of the Universe’.” [xii]However, it must be remembered that the English Scottish Rite (commonly called the Rose Croix) was, and to a great extent still is, strongly Trinitarian in nature. In essence only those from the established Church of England could join ; Methodists, Unitarians etc need not apply to enter. Thus any attempt by England to relax the definition of God as a quid pro quo for what I will point out as a clear violation of the resolutions of the 1814 International compact, illustrates just how far principles can be massaged in favor of power.

With what was thought of as the preliminaries out of the way the council was ready to get down to the real business of the Congress. The first of these was the “Treaty of Alliance.” This set out in its second and subsequent Articles almost everything that Albert Pike had proposed in the draft agenda, which he had circulated before the Congress. There was not, however, to be explicitly a supra-national body, but the same objective was to be achieved by having what was in effect a permanent committee of members of the Supreme Councils which adhered to the Treaty, together with an international tribunal of S.G.I.G.s a ‘Supreme Court’, as it were, to resolve differences while respecting the authority of Supreme Councils within their own national jurisdictions.[xiii]

The only thing, which might have been advanced against the procedure, was that it was probably too cumbersome to have operated satisfactorily if its adjudication had ever been sought.

The First Article of the Treaty was a different matter. It was intended to resolve the question of disputed jurisdiction. Perhaps it was by declining to oppose ‘principe createur’ that the English delegation had secured acceptance of their second principal objective. While some of the definitions of jurisdiction, for example that of the Supreme Council of Italy, were perhaps questionable, the first two were to prove something of a bombshell.

“For France, with her three Departments of Algeria, Oran and Constantine, and all her dependencies. For England, Wales and the dependencies of the British Crown.”[xiv] Confronted by the second of these definitions, it was inconceivable that the Supreme council of Scotland would meekly ratify the Treaty. But the first clause, innocuous as it seemed at first sight, would add further fuel to the dispute between the Supreme Council, S. J., U.S.A. and that of the Grand Orient of France caused by the latter’s recognition of the spurious Supreme Council in Louisiana; the Supreme Council of the S. J. had a1ready “occupied” the “Sandwich Islands” (Hawaii), which the French had persuaded the Conference was under their protection, and to adopt this clause would be to make its presence there illegal.[xv]

It was obvious to Mackersy the Scottish Representative that he could not accept the definitions of jurisdiction as proposed. It would eliminate Scottish and Irish Scottish Rite from existing within the colonies. It was a clear violation of resolution 4 of the 1814 International Compact. He had to find a way to prevent it from ever becoming effective but he did not have the votes to overturn the Anglo-Franco resolution. If he could not stop the resolution then he had to stop the Congress. To do that Mackersy chose the newly defined proclamation of faith as a way of defeating both England and France without risking a major confrontation. In his Article, “Le Convent des Suprêmes Conseils du Rite Écossais Ancien et Accepté - Lausanne, 6-22 Septembre 1875”, Alain Bernheim 33° includes a copy of Mackersy’s letter to his host dated September 8 which I include as Appendix B.

In a move worthy of Disraeli, Mackersy wrapped himself in his own proclamation of faith placing himself and his Supreme Council in an unassailable position, which would allow him to disavow the Congress and all of its findings, including the odious definition of Jurisdiction. Having played his trump card he immediately withdrew from the Congress before either England or France could react.

One can only surmise how Mackersy’s letter stung the members of the English Supreme Council representatives. The Swiss Supreme Council had circulated the agenda including the proposed idea of expanding the definition of a non-secular belief in a Supreme Being that could be accepted by members of any faith.[xvi] The issue had come up not as a major issue but under housekeeping, something to be dealt with before the real business of the Congress could begin. Now they would be seen as agents of atheistic doctrine. Although the Congress continued, and the remaining participants all signed the amendments, their efforts were doomed to failure.

The next month, England attempted to push forward with the accords by sending letters out to the colonies forbidding contact with the existing Scottish Chapters. However, the ticking bomb Scotland had left on the table was about to go off causing enormous collateral damage. Ireland immediately understood the danger the new definition of Jurisdiction would bring to them if allowed to be accepted by all the Supreme Councils and joined Scotland on the issue. The words “Creative Principle” now became synonymous with “Atheism”. England responded to Scotland’s charges in February of 1876 stating that it would be difficult to conceive how the name Great Architect of the Universe can be attributed to any but a personal God, but by now the battle over religious dogma had reached a fever pitch. Scotland had sent copies of its objections to the one other Supreme Council, which would be damaged by the new definition of Jurisdiction.

Not only had Mackersy single-handedly undone the ambitions of the English and French Supreme Councils to expand their domains without a serious brawl but did so by the simple device of playing semantics with a declaration of faith. Not even he could have envisioned that he would with one letter, re-establish the manifestation of a Personal God in regular Masonic Grand Lodges for the next 125 years.

Albert Pike spent several months writing indignant letters objecting to the new definition of jurisdiction to both England and France. He came to the realization that Mackersy had devised the only way to handle the issue. In April 1876 he reversed his earlier positions relative to the concept of God and joined with Scotland and Ireland. Pike wrote to the Supreme Council of Scotland, stating, “notions in regard to the Principe Createur will produce fermentation and effervescence.” and that “if we were to adopt the phrase, our sanctuaries would be abandoned and our rituals would be annihilated.” [xvii]

The Grand Orient of France, seeing the battle over the Proclamation of Masonic Faith develop, attempted to circumvent the entire issue by making an interpretation of Anderson’s first charge to mean that a belief in God was not necessary. At its General Assembly held on September 13, 1877, it proclaimed that it was unnecessary for a Candidate for Freemasonry within its jurisdiction to declare any belief in the Great Architect Of The Universe or in a True and Living God. In taking this action the Grand Orient of France crossed the Rubicon. 120 years later the Grand Orient of France remains in her self-imposed exile.[xviii]

The 1877 move by the Grand Orient of France, and the apparent closeness of that body to the Supreme Council of France, led to the growth of animosity between them and the Grand Lodge of England. Just how acrimonious these feeling were would become evident very quickly.

It would take another year, while the political situation in Europe began to deteriorate. Finally, the English Supreme Council would use the fete held by the Supreme Council of France in 1878 to reverse course and begin to slow reconciliation with its U.S. Scottish and Irish counterparts. It wrote to the Swiss Supreme Council claiming it had been mislead by some of the participants of the Congress and it had been unaware the proclamation of Masonic faith was being used to allow Atheists into the Order. The Supreme Council of England felt it had no choice but to withdraw from the confederation. No mention was made of the part they had played in authoring the proclamation.[xix] The war over jurisdiction had been fought and lost on the battlefield of faith.

The Lausanne Congress offers some insight into the politics of regularity and recognition as they existed in the late 19^th century. At the same time it raises questions as to the reasons behind the changes that will occur in the 20^th century. It is reasonable to assume that in 1875 when Montagu and Dr. Robert Hamilton attended the Lausanne Congress they did so because the U.G.L. of England recognized all the participants to that Congress as regular Masonic bodies. In fact, According to John Mandleberg’s article on the Lausanne Congress ( Vol. 6 of Heredom), Past Provincial Grand Master Hamilton, had also been Grand Secretary General of the Supreme Council 33 ° in 1873 Mandleberg states that Hamilton had assisted to draft the submissions for the Congress Agenda. Montagu, Mandleberg states, wrote later that the English Delegation evidently did not wish so much time to be spent on what he apparently saw as hair-splitting that none was left to secure agreement on the main English proposals. So on the first day of the meetings he assented to the formula, of which he may even have been one of the authors that “Freemasonry proclaims, as it has proclaimed from its origin, the existence of a creative principle (Principe Createur) under the name of the Great Architect of the Universe.

Who were these regular and recognized Masonic bodies that sat down together in the tyled sessions of the Lausanne Congress? The participants in this congress included the Supreme Councils of England, Scotland, Belgium, France, Peru, Portugal, Italy (Turin), Colon for Cuba, Hungary, and that of Switzerland. Greece was also represented at the congress by Brother Mackersy.[xx] While they were separate bodies from their Grand Lodges, no Masonic body may recognize another Masonic Body from a foreign jurisdiction, which is not recognized by their own Grand Lodge. It then follows that the Supreme Councils of France, Italy and Portugal were deemed regular and recognized by the U.G.L. of England in 1875. This is contrary to later positions taken with regard to these bodies by the U.G.L. of England. It then follows that the Supreme Councils of France, Italy and Portugal were deemed regular and recognized by the U.G.L. of England in 1875, which is contrary to later positions taken with regard to these bodies by the U.G.L. of England.

The New Grand Lodge of France and its rejection by the United Grand Lodge of England

In 1879 several Craft Lodges chartered by the Supreme Council A.S.R. for France and Possessions, broke away to form the Grand Symbolic Scots Lodge (3 degrees only).[xxi] By 1893 there arose a movement in the Symbolic Grand Lodge of France to allow the admittance of women into Freemasonry and 5 lodges broke off from the Symbolic Grand Lodge of France to form the Droit Humain.[xxii]

In 1894 the remaining 25 craft lodges formed a new Grand Lodge, which took the name of the original Grand Lodge de France. In 1899 this 5-year old Grand Lodge petitioned the United Grand Lodge of England for recognition. The response came back in just 3 days. The U.G.L. of England Grand Secretary Letchworth’s October 9, 1899 reply to the GLdF refused the petition on the basis that the Supreme Council of France, and not a Grand Lodge, chartered the original lodges, which formed the GLdF. It also made allegations that GLdF did not require a Bible on the altar. The impact on the young Grand Lodge was devastating; GLdF did not report it until the Grand Communications of 1903.[xxiii]

Relations between the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF)

Why did the U.G.L. of England respond to quickly and so negatively to the GLdF’s petition? In 1899 the U.G.L. of England was in amity with the Supreme Council of France and there is plenty of precedent for the regularity of craft lodges chartered by Supreme Councils of A.A.S. R. In the U.S.A., for example, ten Scottish Rite Lodges comprise the 16th District of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and still practice that historic Rite. Even more puzzling are the published position statements by prominent U.G.L. of England members. Sir James Stubbs, KCVO, TD, Grand Secretary, United Grand Lodge of England, 1958-80 stated,

“Negotiations for the establishment of Friendly relations with other Grand Lodges had in the past been conducted on the basis that the application for recognition by a junior body was investigated by the Board at the request of the Grand Master. This was done by means of an exchange of correspondence to establish the nature of their principals and practices, but without, so far as can be seen, any hard-and-fast rules on the subject.”[xxiv]

His statement not only contradicts the reason given by the U.G.L. of England in rejecting GLdF in 1899, it will become the justification in the U.G.L. of England’s recognition of another Grand Lodge which will become known as the Grand Lodge Nationale de France in 1913.

Robert Freke Gould states that he was one of the eleven members of the committee appointed by the Grand Lodge of England in December 1877, to consider the proper course of action in regards to the Grand Orient of France removing from its Book of Constitutions the paragraphs affirming the existence of a Great Architect of the Universe. Two months later the Committee, in their report, declared the “alteration” to be, in their judgment, “opposed to the traditions, practice, and feelings of all true and genuine Masons from the earliest to the present time.” The Grand Lodge, acting on this report, withdrew recognition from the Grand Orient of France. However, what Gould states next is puzzling when compared to subsequent statements by the U.G.L. of England. “The atheistically doctrine of the Grand Orient is said not to be shared by the Supreme Council of France. On the roll of the Grand Loge de France are 128 Lodges, of which 55 are in Paris and its outskirts, it has 7,600 members.” [xxv]

If we take a look at this situation in light of the existing relations between Great Britain and France then the U.G.L. of England’s actions become more understandable.

In 1875 Disraeli, the British Prime Minister, arranged the secret purchase of Egyptian Khedive Ismail's shares in the Suez Canal. On April 24 1877 Russia declared war against the Ottomans and in desperation the Sultan sought a loose armistice, signed at Adrianople on January 31, 1878. Disraeli dispatched a fleet of six ironclads to Constantinople, which arrived on February 15 and the threat of England entering the conflict saved Constantinople. Disraeli negotiated with the Ottoman Empire in secret, offering the Sultan a defensive alliance with Britain; in return, the Sultan ceded Cyprus to England. With Cyprus in his pocket he was able to grant concessions to Russia and stabilized the situation and a great world war was averted.

In 1881, the British suffered a stunning defeat in the first Boer War at the hands of the Afrikaners under Kruger.

In 1884, The Ansar attacked Khartoum slaughtering the garrison, killing Gordon, and delivering his head to the Mahdi's tent. Gordon had been sent to help evacuate Egyptian forces trapped in Khartoum by the Mahdi's revolt. The British Empire looked vulnerable, Europe was a powder keg and every country seemed to be carrying matches

England badly needed a victory and a national hero. In Brother and General Kitchener it got both. He was appointed Governor of the British Red Sea territories in 1886 and launched an offensive against the Mahdi forces. By 1892 he had become Commander in Chief of the Egyptian army. In 1898 he crushed the separatist Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi in the Battle of Omdurman and then occupied the nearby city of Khartoum, where his success saw him ennobled in 1898.

In France, the government saw the British occupation of Egypt as threatening to their own plans for that area. Hoping to cut off the British Cape to Cairo route, they issued orders on February 24, 1896 instructing Captain Jean-Batiste Marchand to lead an expedition to the Upper Nile and occupy Fashoda.

There is some confusion as to the actual size of Marchand’s force and if he was a captain at the time or a Major but it is generally believed he had only seven other French officers and a force of less than 100 Senegalese sharpshooters. They landed at Fashoda on July 10, 1898 and raised the French flag.

The 35 year-old Marchand rose from humble beginnings. He was born in the town of Thoissey, a few kilometers north of Lyon, closer to Marseilles than sophisticated Paris. A natural leader, he rose from private to become an officer within a system designed to keep the classes separate.

On September 19, 1898 Marchand would step onto the world stage by refusing to back down in a military confrontation with the British General, Lord Kitchener at the head of 25,000 men including 100 Cameron Highlanders, two battalions of Sudanese, and a battery of artillery. To the French, Marchand’s actions were heroic; so much so that a memorial was erected in Paris commemorating them. The British however, saw things quite the opposite.

Just over two weeks earlier, Kitchener opened the Sudan by defeating the Mahdists at the battle of Omderman. Having learned of the occupation of Fashoda from a captured band of Mahdists, Kitchener set out with five steamers carrying British and Sudanese soldiers. On September 19, Kitchener and his troops landed at Fashoda, where he came face to face with Marchand.

“A Month before the battle of Omdurman Lord Salisbury presciently laid down the line of action to be taken when the Expedition should reach Khartoum, and his instructions would be--and were--observed to the letter. Both British and Egyptian flags were to be hoisted. Though it was not necessary at present to define the political status of the Sudan, Her Majesty's Government considered that, in view of the financial help accorded by her to Egypt, England could claim a predominant voice in all matters connected with the Sudan. The Sirdar (General Kitchener) was authorized to send flotillas up the Blue and White Niles, and was to proceed in person to Fashoda, taking a small body of British troops with him; but the flotilla on the Blue Nile should not go beyond Roseires. No title of France or Abyssinia to any portion of the Nile Valley was to be acknowledged, and all collision with the Abyssinians was to be avoided. The Sirdar should convince any French Commander that his presence in the Nile Valley was an infringement of British and Egyptian rights. He might send a small force up the White Nile beyond the junction of the Sobat. The King of the Belgians had no right to any portion of the Nile Valley except under the Lado lease.

Scraps of information drifted in to the Intelligence Department, and on September 7^th, definite news was to hand that 8 white officers and 80 foreign black soldiers were at Fashoda, and that they had driven off the steamers sent by the Khalifa to attack them. Accordingly the Sirdar, with 100 Cameron Highlanders, two battalions of Sudanese, and a battery of artillery, proceeded up-stream on the 10^th. Brushing aside a foolhardy and rather feeble attack on his flotilla at Renkh, he was within a few miles of Fashoda on the 18th. He wrote at once to the ‘Chief of the European Expedition’, informing him of his victory at Omdurman, his action at Renkh, and his approaching arrival at Fashoda. The answer was brought next morning by a Senegalese sergeant in a steel rowing-boat: Major Marchand, Commandant of the Infanterie de Marine, congratulated the General on his victory, and announced that by order of his Government he had occupied the Bahr el Ghazal up to Fashoda, where he had arrived on July 10.

The flotilla at once moved up to Fashoda and moored opposite the old Government buildings of the town; and shortly afterwards, Major Marchand and Captain Germain were received on board the Dal by the Sirdar and his Staff. After introductions, Kitchener heartily complimented Marchand and his companions on their long and arduous journey, but informed them civilly that the presence of the French at Fashoda and in the valley of the Nile was regarded as a direct violation of the rights of Egypt and Great Britain, and that he must protest in most emphatic terms against their occupation of Fashoda and their hoisting of the French flag in the Khedive's dominions.

To this Marchand replied that he was there by order of his Government, without whose instructions, he could not retire. Kitchener then quietly intimated that he intended to hoist the Egyptian flag; he trusted that no opposition would be offered, as his force was overwhelmingly superior, and he suggested that he should place a gunboat at the disposal of the French to assist their retirement. Marchand responded that he and his troops must of course bow to the inevitable and, if required, would die at their posts; but he must ask that the question of his retiring should be referred to his Government, as without orders he could not haul down his flag and accept the Sirdar's kind invitation. Throughout the interview Marchand behaved with quiet dignity and soldierly bearing, although he knew that he was short of stores and ammunition, and that if he were left in sole possession the Dervishes would make but short work of him and his little band.” [xxvi]

Nationalism in both countries began to inflame the situation and England and France began to move towards open hostilities. For more than 90 days Marchand defended an untenable position while the uproar raged and calls for war rang out in both countries. For his part, Brother Kitchener, instead of taking advantage of the situation, replenished Marchand’s stores.

War was only averted when France agreed to remove her troops and on December 4, 1898, ordered the evacuation of Fashoda. On March 21, 1899 a convention was signed with France renouncing all claims to Fashoda.

With both England and France at each other’s throat it is doubtful any French Grand Lodge could have obtained recognition from the U.G.L. of England. In fact, the U.G.L. of England still had problems with its sister jurisdictions in the United Kingdom which would require yet another agreement between all three to solve. This came about in 1905

On Thursday, 29th June, 1905 a conference was held in Committee Room No. 14, House of Commons, between Delegates from the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland. Present were MW Bro. Earl Amherst, Pro Grand Master of England, in the Chair, VW Bro. J Chetwode Crawley LL.D., Grand Secretary of Grand Lodge of Ireland and MW Bro. The Hon. C M Ramsay, Grand Master Mason of Scotland. During this conference the following resolutions were agreed to:

1. The three Grand Lodges agree that any member of the Order who may be suspended or expelled in one jurisdiction shall not, while so disqualified, be permitted to remain a member of or to visit or join any Lodge under the jurisdiction of the others: and each Grand Lodge shall cause notice of all decrees of suspension or expulsion to be sent to the other Grand Lodges. And in case of such decrees being made abroad, the District or Provincial Authorities acting, shall also notify the neighboring District or Provincial Authorities of all three jurisdictions.

2. In each of the three jurisdictions, a duly installed Master under either of the other Constitutions shall, if not otherwise disqualified, be entitled to be present at a Board of Installed Masters, and to form one of the quorum; but not to preside therein or to install a Master, unless requested to do so by the Board. Nor can a Visiting Master or Past Master of another Constitution preside in the Lodge he is visiting. In case there is not present a Master or a Past Master duly qualified under the home jurisdiction, then and then only the officer in charge of the Lodge may request a Master or Past Master under one of the other two Constitutions to perform any ceremony which the Warden is not competent to perform. This agreement is not to interfere with the right of the Worshipful Master of a Lodge to invite a member of the Lodge or a visiting Master or Past Master of any of the three Constitutions to perform any ceremony without assuming the Chair.

3. The question of recognizing a new Grand Lodge in any Colony or other territory in which the three Grand Lodges have equal jurisdiction and have Warranted Lodges working therein, shall not be taken into consideration unless at least two-thirds of the Lodges under each jurisdiction or such other proportion as the three Grand Lodges shall agree in the light of local circumstances have signified their adhesion to such new body; and such recognition shall only be granted by agreement of the three Grand Lodges. After the recognition of such new Grand Lodge as a sovereign body, the respective authorities of the three Grand Lodges will surrender their rights to warrant new Lodges within the Jurisdiction of the new body, provided always that the rights of Lodges not adhering to the new body, shall be fully safeguarded.

These resolutions have become known at the 1905 Concordant which sought to heal the discord growing out of the 1875 Lausanne Congress. This is particularly the case in the wording of resolution 3.
In his inaugural Address to AQC on 13 November 2003, Bro. James W. Daniel, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, speaks on the subject of the U.G.L. of England’s External Relations 1950-2000: policy and practice chooses his words carefully. “While I have yet to find any official public statement of the U.G.L. of England’s territorial claims in the period immediately leading up to 1950, the U.G.L. of England’s actions lead one to believe that Bro Stubbs’s description of its policy in this respect in 1967 was equally valid between 1919 and 1950: ‘In the view of the U.G.L. of England it possesses sole and exclusive territorial sovereignty over England, Wales, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. It shares with Ireland and Scotland exclusive rights over such parts of the British Commonwealth as have not established local sovereign Grand Lodges... Elsewhere territory is either open, there being no sovereign Grand Lodge in existence and therefore free for any Grand Lodge to establish Lodges, or closed by reason of the existence of a sovereign Grand Lodge.’

Moreover, as Bro Stubbs added, ‘in recent generations at least’ the U.G.L. of England had accepted that this ‘closure’ of a territory applied even if the ‘sovereign Grand Lodge in existence ’was not recognized by the U.G.L. of England.”

Brother Daniel used as his reference the material in Grand Lodge 1717-1968 a book that was produced to celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the founding of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster. However, It appears that ‘in recent generations at least’ do not extend as far back as 1913. In this year the U.G.L. of England founded a Grand Lodge in a territory where there were already two sovereign Grand Lodges in existence the particulars of which warrant a close look.

For more than a decade the specter of war hung over Europe as the major powers began to form allegiances for the coming conflict. Knowing that they would need each other to combat Germany and her allies an agreement resolving various colonial disputes was concluded between Britain and France in 1904.

By 1913 the newspapers were preparing their readers for the worst. “All Europe, uncertain and troubled, prepares for an inevitable war, the immediate cause of which is uncertain to us,” opined the Echo de Paris.

Certainly, the United Grand Lodge of England which included several top government officials on its staff, were aware that soon British Masons would be fighting on the continent, probably in France where no recognized Grand Lodge existed. Masons had fought in every major conflict in the past 200 years and Masons tended to reach out to each other even across battle lines. In which case, the lines between regular and irregular might become blurred. Why the U.G.L. of England did not reconsider the recognition of the existing Grand Lodge of France, which according to Gould had over 7,600 members, is unclear. Instead, they established and immediately recognized yet another Grand Lodge in France in a manner which would cause consternation in the U.S. A.

This new entity which would eventually become the GLNF, was created in 1913. Unfortunately for everybody but the U.G.L. of England, world events would quickly overshadow the affairs of Freemasonry in 1913 France. It would not be considered by any Masonic scholar until after the cessation of hostilities in 1918.

The following is from an article which appeared in The Builder Magazine June 1919, volume V - Number 6, written by the editor Brother Joseph Fort Newton, entitled “The National Independent And Regular Grand Lodge Of France And The French Colonies.” In the article the Brother Newton expresses his disapproval of the entire affair.

“It appears that this Grand Lodge originated in the action, not of three lodges, or of two, or, really, of even one lodge, but of a small company of Masons who had but lately (viz., two days previous to the organization) seceded from the Grand Orient of France.

“On the 3rd day of November, 1913, Dr. Ribaucourt resigned his membership in the lodge, ‘Les Amis du Progres’, and two days later November 5th, . . . he constituted himself and other seceding members of a Grand Orient lodge ‘Le Centre des Amis’ into a Grand Lodge, of which he became Grand Master. It should be noted here, that this action was taken by these Brethren, not as members of lodges for they had withdrawn from the lodges in which they formerly held membership but as a body of Masons.

“This fact, apparently, had not been brought to the attention of the Pro Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England, for in his announcement of his recognition of this new Grand Lodge to the Grand Lodge of England December 3rd, 1913 he said: ‘A body of Freemasons in France . . . have united several lodges as the Independent and Regular National Grand Lodge of France and of the French Colonies.’

“So, when Dr. Ribaucourt formed himself and his seceding colleagues into what they were pleased to call a Grand Lodge, not one of them represented any lodge, for there was no lodge in existence, nor were they members of any lodge. It appears that as soon as this inchoate assemblage of Masons had declared themselves duly constituted into a Grand Lodge, they proceeded at once to issue their first charter creating a constituent lodge, and named it, we believe, ‘Le Centre des Amis’ thus using the name of the lodge of which the larger part were formerly members. In this action we have an interesting and rather unusual situation. These seceding Masons from the Grand Orient first constituted themselves into a Grand Lodge, and then a charter was granted by themselves, to themselves, thus creating their first constituent lodge! And it was this lodge of Topsy-like antecedents that the Pro Grand Master of England, as noted above, characterized as ‘several lodges’. We can hardly wonder that the kaleidoscopic changes indicated above should have a distressing and disturbing effect upon the vision, or that one should appear to be three or more!”

By 1918, some two-dozen US Grand Lodges recognized both the GLDF and the GLNIRFC (Which would evolve into the GLNF in 1948) and would do so for the next 50 years. By the time Brother Joseph Fort Newton published his article in 1919, no one wanted to go to war again. Despite its totally irregular beginnings, the Grande Lodge Nationale de France was now recognized. This issue was closed.

The following table shows the dates of recognition of French Grand Lodges by U.S. Grand Lodges during the early 1900’s

In the United States of America each state has one Grand Lodge for what is termed ‘mainstream’ Freemasonry. There is another regular but, until recently, unrecognized Branch of Freemasonry, which also has at least one Grand Lodge in each state, the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Freemasons. In each jurisdiction a record of the annual Grand Lodge Communications is published and referred to as the Grand Lodge Communications Proceedings. Jurisdictions outside the United States publish a similar book but refer to it as their Year Book.

In the United States, within the pages of each Grand Lodge Communications Proceedings, you can trace the discussion and results of any vote taken during the business session of the Grand Lodge going back to the founding of the Grand Lodge. Each recognition and the ensuing vote is duly recorded in the minutes. This allows anyone to verify exactly when and how Masonic relations with any foreign Grand Lodge began or were suspended. It would be natural to assume that European Grand Lodges would follow that same practice, but such has not been the case, as can be seen by the writings of Sir James Stubbs referenced earlier.

John Hamill (Director of Communications for the U.G.L. of England, and former Curator & GL Librarian) wrote the following in regards to an inquiry I made through Brother Yoshio Washizu who contacted Hamill on my behalf.

“Up to 1908 The Freemasons' Calendar (as the Year Book was then called) was a commercial project run by George Kenning and not under the control of Grand Lodge. In the section on ‘Foreign Grand Lodges’ Kenning simply listed any Grand Lodge whether they had been formally recognized by the U.G.L. of England or not!

“In 1908 the Board of General Purposes took over publication of the Calendar and renamed it the Grand Lodge Year Book. They tried to clean up the various sections and make them more accurate but the Foreign Grand Lodges was [sic] still not entirely accurate. The late Sir James Stubbs said to me on one occasion that the Foreign section of the Year Book was not entirely reliable until the edition of the Year Book for 1952 (I later discovered that that was the year in which he as Assistant Grand Secretary took responsibility for editing the Year Book!).

“In the run up to our 275th Anniversary Celebrations in 1992 I tried to establish a list of recognized Grand Lodges giving the dates when they were formed (to establish their seniority in the procession into the meeting at Earl's Court) and the date on which we granted them recognition. I discovered in many cases that we had not formally recognized Grand Lodges, simply accepted their existence and allowed intervisitation. This was particularly true of the USA Grand Lodges. In the original thirteen colonies the Grand Lodges were formed from a mix of English, Irish and Scottish Lodges. When the USA was formed they gradually combined into GLs on a state basis and we simply accepted them without any formal exchanges. The first USA GL to be formally recognized was the GL of the Republic of Texas in 1836, before it joined the USA!”

This might also explain how the irregular 13 breakaway colonies in the U.S. became regular and recognized. The U.G.L. of England simply accepted them without any formal exchanges. If the U.G.L. of England had agreed with Robert F. Gould that the GLdF, was not irregular and simply accepted them as they did with many USA Grand Lodges, or followed the policy espoused by Brother Daniels[xxviii] and acknowledged that France was a closed territory having a sovereign Grand Lodge which was not recognized by the U.G.L. of England, there would have been no reason to form the GLNF in 1913. Without the formation of the GLNF there would have been no attack on the GLdF in 1961 and no attack on the Grand Lodge of Minnesota lead by the GLNF.

According to information provided in Brother Paul Bessel’s website 18 (possibly 19, the date of withdrawal of recognition is not shown for Nevada) US Grand Lodges were in amity with the GLdF in the beginning of 1960. This does not include 6 Grand Lodges, which had authorized inter-visitation but stopped short of recognition.

In the first quarter of 1961, according to the Colorado Grand Secretary Harry Bundy, the Grand Lodge National de France began to wage a campaign attacking the regularity of its sister Grand Lodge. In Bundy’s letter he relates that GLNF was alleging acts of unMasonic practices by the GLdF. He writes, “There has been a very voluminous letter from the Grande Loge Nationale de Francaise calling attention to the fact one of the lodges under your aegis is defiant of the order of the Grand Lodge order to sever connections with the Grand Orient and to restore the Volume of Sacred Law to the altar.”[xxix] To better understand these allegations one needs to look back at the previous seven years of events in French Freemasonry.

In September 1953, the Annual Assembly of the Grand Lodge of France moved for the first time in its history that the Obligation was to be taken upon the Three Great Lights of Freemasonry and the VSL to remain open when its lodges were at work. The decision was voted upon and accepted at its next Annual Assembly.

In the meantime, on May 15, 1954, five European Grand Lodges (Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Austria & Germany) signed the Convention of Luxemburg. One condition to become a member thereof required a Grand Lodge to break with irregular or non-recognized Grand Lodges within a period of five years, ending May 15, 1959. [xxx]

Bilateral secret talks began May 26 1955 between the Grand Lodge of France and the National Grand Lodge of France. A joint committee met six times until September and agreed upon a draft specifying under which conditions both bodies would unite together. The executive body (Conseil Fédéral) of the Grand Lodge of France took cognizance of the draft on November 26, 1955 but found it unacceptable and decided not to submit it to its Extraordinary Assembly called for the purpose of ratification the following January. [xxxi]

The Grand Lodge of France was accepted as a member of the Convention of Luxembourg in September 1956, a step ratified at its Annual Assembly a couple of weeks later.

In November 1958, the Grand Orient and the Grand Lodge of France prepared the draft of a ‘Charter of Union of the Grand Lodges of France’ with the intent of uniting together with the Grande Loge Nationale Française. Between 6 February and 16 June 1959, representatives of the three bodies met five times but failed to reach an agreement.[xxxii]

In 1959, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention of Luxembourg, the Grand Lodge of France suspended its relations with the Grand Orient for one year. This decision was to become final if the Grand Orient did not return to Masonic regularity within that period.[xxxiii] As shown below in the excerpt from the 1959 minutes of COGMINA the U.S. Grand Lodges were informed and supportive of the Grand Lodge de France’s efforts and it is not until the circulation of the GLNF letter mentioned by The Colorado Grand Secretary Harry Bundy that things began to change.

In order to track the chain of events leading up to many U.S. Grand Lodges suspending relations with the Grand Lodge de France I have relied on the minutes of the Conference of Grand Masters in North America at their annual meeting held each year during the month of February. I have used italics when quoting the minutes. Any significant portion of the minutes I feel significant I have put in bold print. The inclusion of the three other documents, The Bundy letter of 1961, the translated copy of the 1964 Treaty between the Grand Lodge de France and the Grand Orient along with the 1965 Sovereign Grand Commander’s of the A.A.S.R. S.J. address on fraternal relations have been inserted for clarity.

A strong force toward regularity and uniformity on the continent of Europe has been the Luxemburg Conference. Members of this conference are Germany, 17,000 members; Grand Orient of Italy, 12,000 members; Grand Lodge of France, 8,000 members; Netherlands, 4,000 members; Swiss Alpina, 3,000 members; Austria, and Luxemburg, 1,000 members. (These figures are approximate rather than actual, to give you a picture of comparative strengths.)

In France, Most Worshipful Richard Dupuy, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France, has proposed a union of the Grand Lodge of France, Grand Lodge of France Nationale and Grand Orient of France, similar to the union achieved in Germany where each Grand Lodge would retain to some degree its own individuality. This is predicated, of course, on a full return to regularity by the Grand Orient. We wish this movement every success.[xxxiv]

It is important that all of those interested in the Grand Lodge Nationale of France should know the following. Last year a number of the brethren of the Grand Lodge Nationale and, unfortunately, some of them senior officers of the Grand Lodge, behaved in what is described as an unseemly, ungentlemanly and un-Masonic manner towards the then Grand Master, Most Worshipful Pierre Cheret. As a consequence of their conduct they were suspended from their rights and privileges as Grand Lodge officers, pending decision by the Grand Lodge.[xxxv]

The Grand Lodge of France has suspended relations with the Grand Orient of France by action taken at the last Annual Communication of The Grand Lodge of France. However, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France advises that some inter-visititation continues despite the action of his Grand Lodge. The most hopeful fact in the French situation is that seven brethren from the National Grand Lodge and seven brethren from the Grand Lodge of France continue to meet in an atmosphere of cordiality and fraternal fellowship to explore all problems frankly and objectively. They are discussing the further steps that must be taken to achieve the unity of French Freemasonry so ardently desired by all.

All but one of the Grand Lodges of this Conference now recognise the Grand Lodge Nationale of France. When these Grand Lodges consider the matter of recognizing the Grand Lodge of France, they are faced with the question of amity, which will be more fully discussed later in this report.[xxxvi]

The Commission would be interested to learn more about the attitude of the Members of this Conference on the matter of amity within a particular country or political subdivision. The question is:

Has a Grand Lodge now in amity with a Grand Lodge within a national sovereignty the right to recognize another Grand Lodge within that same country with which the Grand Lodge already recognized is not in amity. This is not a question of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, but of the proprieties to be observed between Grand Lodges.^[xxxvii]

The Commission can add little to its report of last year relative to France. Our hopes for a single Grand Lodge entitled to recognition by all regular Grand Lodges have not as yet been realized. Our information indicates that the Grand Lodge of France has tried to straighten out its affairs, and has attached definite penalties to the denial of the right of its members to have fraternal relations with the Grand Orient of France. In the meantime The Grand Lodge Nationale continues to have general recognition throughout the Masonic world. [xxxviii]

FRANCE: We can report no improvement in relations between the Grand Lodge Nationale and the Grand Lodge of France. The officers of the Grand Lodge Nationale insist that intervisitation continues between the Lodges of the Grand Lodge of France and the Grand Orient. They present indisputable proof of this as something that goes on in the Paris area as well as in the Provinces. The Grand Lodge of France has little hope of being considered regular as long as fraternal relations are continued with the Grand Orient of France, which is outside the pale [bold is mine and not in original document].[xxxix]

This information appears to be coming solely from the officers of the Grand Loge Nationale de Francaise. If, as stated in Grand Secretary Harry Bundy’s April 10, 1961, GLNF had widely circulated allegations against the GLdF then it would be reasonable to expect the committee to obtain input from GLdF. However, there is no mention of any such activity from 1961-1963. There is an allegation of indisputable proof of intervisitation between the GOF and the GLdF but none appears in this report. There is a conflict in the 1963 attitude of COGMINA from the reports in 1959 –1961 about attempts to build unity among the French Grand Lodges and their support of committees from each Grand Lodge working together. A new phrase is coined to define any relations with the Grand Orient as being outside the pale.

FRANCE: We regret to report that no progress is being made towards Masonic unity in France. It seems to be difficult for the Grand Lodge of France to sever relations completely with the Grand Orient of France. All of our information indicates that intervisitation continues. While we realize that there are difficulties involved, we cannot accept this as a reason for failure to effect a complete break with a body that for us is Masonically outside the pale [Bold is mine and is not in the original document]. [xl]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some of the officers of the Grand Lodge of France as to the position of the Grand Lodges of this Conference with respect to recognition. The Grand Lodges of this Conference would seem to be divided into three distinct groups with respect to the recognition of the Grand Lodge of France. Nine of our Grand Lodges recognize both the Grand Lodge of France and the National Grand Lodge of France, and therefore indicate that the matter of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not a factor in the matter. Another group of Grand Lodges take the position that they cannot recognize as regular a Grand Lodge that has any Masonic relations, general or individual, with the Grand Orient of France. In the third group are those Grand Lodges, which, while they may or may not acknowledge the regularity of the Grand Lodge of France, nevertheless would consider it a gross incongruity to recognize in a given country a Grand Lodge that is not in amity with the Grand Lodge they already recognize in that country [bold is mine and not in original document].

ADDENDUM. It should be of interest to our Grand Lodges to know that word has come to us that three European Grand Lodges - Alpina of Switzerland, The Grand Orient of Italy, and The Grand Lodge of Belgium have withdrawn recognition from The Grand Lodge of France. [xli]

The 1964 treaty between the Grand Lodge of France and the Grand Orient of France does not constitute recognition. GLdF apparently indicated their confusion to COGMINA. There is no record of any attempt by COGMINA to explain how they reached their conclusion or to offer a healing process instead there is now a definite move to force the GLdF to completely sever all communications with the GOF.

THE GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE: The Masonic situation in France has worsened during the year. Any hope we may have had of a union of The Grand Lodge of France with the National Grand Lodge of France has been shattered by the action of The Grand Lodge of France at its last Annual Communication. A letter from Most Worshipful Richard Dupuy, who was reelected Grand Master of The Grand Lodge of France reads in part as follows:

“It appeared to us to be necessary to organize administrative relations between the French Masonic bodies in such a way as to allow the Grand Secretaries, and them only, to communicate to each other the following:

(3) the names of candidates for initiation and of brethren seeking to become joining members.

(4) the names of candidates or brethren whose applications have been adjourned or rejected.

(5) the names of Lodges or brethren on whom Masonic penalties have been inflicted.”

The above compact was made with the Grand Orient of France by a vote of 140 to 82. This is an acknowledgment of the validity and regularity of the Grand Orient as a Masonic body, and such an acknowledgement is not acceptable to regular Grand Lodges... Some years ago The Grand Lodge of France voted to make mandatory a belief in God, and the display of the Volume of The Sacred Law. At that time there were those who questioned the sincerity of this action, and insisted that it was not done because it was the fundamentally right thing to do, but merely to secure wider recognition. This judgment has been vindicated. By its compact with the Grand Orient of France, a body outside the pale of regular Masonry, The Grand Lodge of France has forfeited all claim to be considered a regular Grand Lodge, and therefore all right to recognition [Bold is mine and is not in original document].[xlii]

THE NATIONAL GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE: In reply to the questions of those who ask about the strength of The National Grand Lodge of France we would present the following facts: 68 Lodges are now working under this obedience--57 in France, 7 in Iran, 3 in Spain and one in Morocco. 36 of these Lodges work principally in English, although a portion of their members are of French nationality. 25 Lodges work exclusively in French, and are spread over France. 7 work alternately in French and English, or in French and Persian, for those situated either in France or in Iran, As of October 31, 1964, the total number of members of The National Grand Lodge of France was approximately 4300. Some members defected from the National Grand Lodge a few years ago, and formed what must be considered a clandestine Grand Lodge under the same name. This group has about 100 members.

In the past ten years the National Grand Lodge has constituted 40 new Lodges, of which 16 are working in French, 18 in English, and 6 in Persian. During this same period the National Grand Lodge has initiated into Freemasonry at least 3000 military brethren, on rotation, of American or Canadian nationality, and who have returned to their own countries after serving their time in France.

It would therefore seem that the National Grand Lodge of France continues to be the only duly constituted, regular Freemasonry now working in France. [xliii]

Despite the obvious flaws in attempting to make this treaty recognition of the GOF by the GLdF the COGMINA issues the statement, “This is an acknowledgment of the validity and regularity of the Grand Orient as a Masonic body, and such an acknowledgement is not acceptable to regular Grand Lodges” It goes on to say, “By its compact with the Grand Orient of France, a body outside the pale of regular Masonry, The Grand Lodge of France has forfeited all claim to be considered a regular Grand Lodge, and therefore all right to recognition.”[xliv] Despite this untrue and misleading statement, U.S. Grand Lodges almost universally accepted the findings of COGMINA. Finally, the campaign reached critical mass when the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Right Southern Jurisdiction took up the anti-GLdF cause in July 1965 saying,

“The Grand Lodge of France at one time in recent years had received recognition from nine Grand Lodge jurisdictions in the United States and was recognized by a number of regular Grand Lodges in Europe and elsewhere. Members of the Grand Lodge of France who wished to proceed further in Masonry sought membership in the Supreme Council for France. Until the recent disturbances, the Grand Lodge of France took the official position that its members should profess a belief in a Supreme Being or the Grand Architect of the Universe and that the V.S.L should appear on its altars. In practice, however, some subordinate lodges did not use the V.S.L., and there were also intermittent reports that individual members of the Grand Lodge of France were having intervisitation with members of the Grand Orient of France. [The bold is mine and is not in the original document]

On September 12, 1964, the Grand Orient of France voted unanimously for the proposed “Treaty of Alliance” with the Grand Lodge of France.

On September 17, 1964, the Grand Lodge of France voted (140 to 82) for the proposed “Treaty of Alliance” with the Grand Orient of France. Briefly, the provisions of this “Treaty of Alliance” are:

1. Both bodies and their lodges will correspond only through the Grand Secretaries.

2. Communication between bodies will include the biannual secret word or passwords, names of members wanting dual membership or affiliation, names of applicants refused and names of lodges and brethren under sanctions.

3. There will be a Permanent Joint Commission composed of four officers of the Grand Orient and four officers of the Grand Lodge.

It is our understanding that this “Treaty of Alliance” will permit dual membership and intervisitation for members of the Grand Orient and Grand Lodge. [xlv]

The Sovereign Grand Commander’s statement has now introduced several new distortions of fact. The one lodge, which defied the GLdF in 1960 has now become several. The simple treaty to exchange information through the Grand Secretaries has now been expanded to permit dual membership and intervisitation between the Grand Orient and the GLdF. In order to eliminate any remaining confusion on the language and interpretation of this treaty I have included both the executed original and a professional third party translation as Appendix D & E respectively.

With COGMINA and the Sovereign Grand Commander denouncing the hapless GLdF it was only time before all US Grand Lodges having relations with the GLdF began a stampede towards the exit.

Notice the precise wording of The Grand Lodge of Washington, D.C.’s Commission on Information for Recognition, it was copied directly from the 1965 COGMINA Proceedings,

“This is an acknowledgment of the validity and regularity of the Grand Orient as a Masonic body, and such an acknowledgment is not acceptable to regular Grand Lodges....

"By its compact with the Grand Orient of France, a body outside the pale of regular masonry, The Grand Lodge of France has forfeited all claim to be considered a regular Grand Lodge, and therefore all right to recognition.” [xlvi]

Washington, D.C. was not the only Grand Lodge to use such language, though some did soften the rhetoric somewhat in their official replies the GLdF.

A more polite version is described in a letter written 21 June 1965 by a member of the Committee on Fraternal Relations of the Grand Lodge of Vermont to the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of France,

“I regret to inform you that our Committee on Fraternal Relations recommended to our Grand Lodge, which convened June 9-10 last, that the Grand Lodge of Vermont, F. & A. M., withdraw its recognition from and cease its exchange of Grand Representatives with the Grand Lodge of France, effective immediately.

It is my thought that one of the main reasons for this action is the reputed close connection between the Grand Lodge of France and the Grand Orient of France, and with the added thought about the attitude of the Grand Lodge of France and the Grand Orient de France relative to the required display of the Holy Bible during Masonic work.” [xlvii]

Although the language used is Politically Correct it is clear that by now almost all the U.S. Grand lodges are subscribing to the COGMINA version of what the 1964 treaty accomplishes.

To see just how complete the “Big Lie” concept has worked we need go no further than to quote the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. It proves once again that the first casualty of war is truth.

“We your Committee on Foreign Correspondence submit the following report for your consideration.

Your committee having been made aware of certain irregularities occurring within the Grand Lodge of France proceeded to make an exhaustive study of the situation in this Grand Lodge and find the following:

The Volume of Sacred Law is no longer an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge

This Grand Lodge has resumed relations with the Grand Orient of France a group considered clandestine since 1877 when they removed the Holy Bible from their lodges and rescinded a belief in God as a requirement for membership.

We wish to here thank our Grand Master M.W. Peter L. Bernard Jr. who assisted us in authenticating the above while on his recent trip to France” [xlviii]

The casual notation of G.M. Bernard’s trip to France is somewhat interesting and brings to mind another G.M. who had made that same trip for the same reasons in 2001. P.G.M. Jerry Lankin discussed his trip to Paris during the 2002 Arizona Grand Lodge Communications in which I found the following statement he made to the Grand Lodge,

“. . . I was invited last year about this time to come to the Grand Lodge Nationale of France Annual Communication, the same communication that we have here, as their guest. They paid for the trip and it was a very nice trip and, in fact, my $300 a night hotel for three nights and about $ 1,000 for food and transportation, I must tell you they were very nice gifts given to me. And, when I got to this meeting, guess who was there? almost the entire Committee on Recognition of the conference of Grand Masters of North America. They received the free trip along with the Grand Lodge of Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and a lot of people that were mentioned here today.” [xlix]

I have been unable to find any evidence to support the allegation that a belief in God was no longer required for membership in the Grand Lodge of France in the 1960’s, just as there is no evidence that the VSL was ever removed from the Lodge altar. The treaty which is supposed to prove a recognition of the Grand Orient does not come close to violating the U.G.L. of England’s guidelines of 1929. Yet in spite of this, U.S. Grand Lodges denounced the Grand Lodge of France just as quickly as they would denounce an American Grand Lodge almost forty years later.

Prince Hall Grand Lodges have struggled for the past 230 year to be recognized by predominantly white Freemasonry in the U.S. However, here no one pulled out a volume of Sacred Law and invoked any profession of Masonic faith. The attacks against Prince Hall Masonry, was rooted in racism. It is a classic case of how a small, perhaps as little as just 1 percent of powerful men, many of them leaders in our Fraternity created a wound in the nation’s psyche that has never fully healed.

A classic example of the strategies used by predominantly white Grand Lodges against Prince Hall Masonry can be seen in the 1990 address by P.G.M Allen G. Tidwell’s to the Slidell Lodge No. 311 in Alexandria, Louisiana, warning of the effects of recognizing the “clandestine” Prince Hall Masons.

The address was not actually written by Brother Tidwell but put together by a committee to be presented to the annual meeting of Grand Masters. It reminds all of them of the fate that awaits any Grand Lodge foolish enough to recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge. He begins with the fate of the Grand Lodge of Washington after its members had voted to recognize a Black Grand Lodge in 1898.

“Seventeen American Grand Lodges severed relations with the Grand Lodge of the State of Washington. The next year, in 1899, the Grand Lodge of the State of Washington reversed its action.

“In 1947, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts recognized Prince Hall Masonry. At least eleven American Grand Lodges reproached them and the Grand Lodges of Florida and Texas severed relations with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. Two years later, in 1949, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts retracted its action.”

The implications were clear, recognize Prince Hall and your Grand Lodge would lose its own status as a regular and recognized Grand Lodge. The argument had proven its worth in 1898, 1947 and had been used in the mid-1960’s to bring U.S. Grand Lodges back in line and suspend relations with the Grand Lodge of France. The tactic was simple and effective. All he had to do was to insinuate without offering any proof that the initiation of Prince Hall was a sham. That it was a confidence trick played by an unscrupulous and treacherous Army Officer and goes on to state “Any group of men, regardless of color, attempting to claim any legitimacy or regularities since 1813 by virtue of possessing the physical 1784 English warrant of African Lodge of Boston is simply practicing self-deception.”

This is actually just a modified version of the argument made in a hundred years ago: “This Lodge. (African,) has, unquestionably, a Charter of some kind. Twenty years ago I saw it; and my impression is, that it is an ordinary Lodge Charter; but whether genuine or not, I am unable to say. I have understood that it was surreptitiously obtained, (through the agency of a Sea Captain,) from one of the two Grand Lodges then in England, but I can find no such record in the proceedings of either of those bodies.”

“ The United Grand Lodge of England, as the lawful successor to the Grand Lodge of England (Moderns), did in 1813, EASE African Lodge of Boston from its register of Lodges. This caused the forfeiting of the 1784 English warrant which became null and void. As proof of its intent and purpose, the Grand Lodge of England assigned the Lodge Numbers "370" and "459" to other Lodges. Thus since 1813 the 1784 English warrant of African Lodge of Boston has been a worthless scrap of paper devoid of any Masonic authority, validity, force, or effect.”[l]

The U.G.L. of England would finally clarify and prove this argument false in their 1994 statement recognizing Prince Hall Masonry. “At the amalgamation of the two Registers after the Union of the two Grand Lodges in England in 1813, African Lodge (and many others at home and abroad) was omitted from the register, there having been no contact for many years. African Lodge was, however, not formally erased.”

In 1859 The Supreme Council/Grand Orient of Italy was founded in Turin. In 1860 Guiseppe Garibaldi in accepting the title of Grand Master of the Sicilian authority wrote, “I willingly take on the supreme office of head of the Italian Masonry constituted according to the Reformed and Accepted Scottish Rite. I take it on because it was conferred on me by the free votes of free men, to whom I owe my gratitude not only for the trust shown me in elevating me to such a high position but also for the help they gave me from Marsala to Volturno, in the great task of freeing the southern provinces. My nomination as Grand Master is the most solemn interpretation of the tendencies of my very soul, of my votes, of the aims towards which I have worked all my life. I assure you that with your mercy and with the cooperation of all our brothers, the Italian flag, which is that of humanity, will be the beacon from which the light of true progress will be shed all over the world.”[li]

In the second half of 1862 the expedition for the liberation of Rome was being prepared. But it was to be interrupted on the twenty-ninth of August, when he was wounded in the thigh in a shooting exchange in Aspromonte. Garibaldi, accepting the role offered to him by the Sicilian Scottish obedience, demonstrated that, in that phase, he identified Freemasonry with the national program and intended to use it as a means of organization and meeting point of the various democratic movements. It was not by chance that once arrived in Sicily, he attended the initiation of his son Menotti (the first of July) and he, in person signed (the third of July) the proposal of affiliation of the whole of his general staff (Pietro Ripari, Giacinto Bruzzesi, Francesco Nullo, Giuseppe Guerzoni, Enrico Guastalla and others). In the long term, once the fight for national independence was completed, the political plan of Freemasonry was to identify itself with a wider and more ambitious aim, that of liberation and the emancipation of the whole of humanity.

“It was the failure of the venture of August 1862,” observed Aldo Alessandro Mola, “that led Garibaldi to take up an intransigent anticlerical stand.” From that moment the General was more and more convinced of his identification with the position of Freemasonry, which was the main supporter in the peninsula of an inflexible secularism opposing the Vatican as the Catholic Church fought to retain control over Rome and the Vatican States.

Freemasons under the leadership of Garibaldi had spearheaded the fight for unification. It was in May 1867, on the eve of the Masonic Constituent Assembly in Naples, that he made a famous appeal to all the brothers of the peninsula, “As we do not yet have a country because we do not have Rome, so we do not have a masonry because it is divided .... I am of the opinion that Masonic unity will lead to the political unity of Italy. Let, in Freemasonry, that Roman fasces be made that notwithstanding great effort has not yet been be obtained in politics. I believe the freemasons to be an elect part of the Italian people. Let them put aside their profane passions and with the awareness of the high mission that the noble Masonic institution has entrusted to them create the moral unity of the country. We still do not have moral unity; let Freemasonry achieve this and the other (unity of the nation) will immediately be achieved.... Abstention is inertness, it is death. I urge understanding, and in the unity of understanding we will have unity of action.” [lii]

In the course of the movement for Italian unification, the existence of the Papal States proved an obstacle to national union both because they divided Italy in two and because foreign powers intervened to protect papal independence. It survived because they were protected by French troops. At the outbreak of the Franco- Prussian war in 1870 the French withdrew and Italian forces occupied Rome. The Papal States had finally come to an end. Pope Leo XIII would strike back at Freemasons by issuing his Humanum Genus, on April 20, 1884, extolling Catholics everywhere to reject Freemasonry.

Any lingering doubt about the anti-Masonic attitude of the Vatican was removed in 1929, after the creation of a much smaller Vatican State in the middle of Rome. The Catholic Church in concert with the Italian Fascists removed from the calendar of national holidays the 20^th of September, a holiday that had become the symbol of a country finally built in the name of democracy and secularism, to which both Garibaldi and Freemasonry had given a determining contribution. It was also in that year the U.G.L. of England adopted its revised standards of regularity.

Brother Kent Henderson gives us a thumbnail recap on the events which resulted in the U.G.L. of England withdrawing recognition from the Grand Orient of Italy on November 9, 1993, “In 1993, the incumbent Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, MWBro. Giuliano Di Bernardo, citing alleged irregularities in the operations of the Grand Orient, seceded and formed the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy. The Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, Scotland, and a few other Grand Lodges, withdrew recognition from the Grand Orient of Italy, and instead recognized the new Regular Grand Lodge of Italy. However, virtually without exception, the Grand Lodges of America, Canada, Australia, and most others elsewhere, declined to emulate England, and have since maintained fraternal relations with the Grand Orient. This unfortunate situation remained unaltered in 2001.

In December 1997, fifteen lodges under the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy withdrew and formed the Grand Lodge of the Union (Gran Loggia Dell Unione). It has since consecrated an additional six lodges. In 1998, a further group of lodges withdrew from the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy to create the United Grand Lodge of Italy (Gran Loggia Unita d’Italia).

In June 1999, the Grand Lodge of the Union sponsored the creation of a body known as The Federation of Grand Lodges of Italy (Gran Loggia Federale Italiana), and became its foundation member. The United Grand Lodge of Italy subsequently affiliated with it. The statutes of the Federation allow reciprocal membership for Grand Lodges in Italy that, in its opinion, can prove their regularity of origin. Each Grand Lodge maintains its autonomy, and would seem to have been exampled by the United Grand Lodges of Germany structure. The aim of the Federation is to unite all regular Grand Lodges working in Italy.

In summary, there are presently two ‘regular’ and ‘recognized’ Grand Lodges in Italy (the Grand Orient of Italy and the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy), depending on the perspective and fraternal recognition of any non-Italian Mason’s own Grand Lodge.

The Regular Grand Lodge of Italy was founded in Rome on April 17th 1993 with Prof. Giuliano Di Bernardo as its first Grand Master, and 107 founding members. For the previous three years he had been Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, from which body he had resigned shortly after the Grand Orient of Italy annual meeting at the end of March 1993. The United Grand Lodge of England, Grand Lodge of Scotland and Grand Lodge of Ireland currently recognize it. Many other Grand Lodges continue to recognize the Grand Orient of Italy.”

In order to provide a more in depth look at some of the events leading up to the U.G.L. of England’s actions taken against the Grand Orient of Italy in 1993, I culled the following details from Brother Pete Normand’s article The Italian Dilemma, printed in the Spring 1994 edition of the American Masonic Review.

In March 1993, shortly after he was given an overwhelming vote of confidence in the office of Grand Master, Professor Giuliano DiBernardo stunned the Masonic world by resigning his position, leaving the Grand Orient and, with a small following of Italian Masons, erecting his new Grand Lodge Regolare, then merging it with the Italian Grand Lodge Generalle. Critics of the new Grand Lodge Regolure believe that Grand Master DiBernardo would not have made such a drastic move without first obtaining at least the tacit approval of the leadership of the U.G.L. of England. At its next meeting, held in June, the U.G.L. of England temporarily suspended its recognition of the 15,000 member Grand Orient of Italy, thereby clearing the way for its recognition of the new grand lodge in December.

At its quarterly grand communication held 9 December 1993, the U.G.L. of England, moving with uncharacteristic speed, granted recognition to the newly formed Gran Loggia Regolare d ’Italia. This action comes only nine months after the formation of the new grand lodge, and only three months after the withdrawal of recognition from the old Grand Orient of Italy, leading many to speculate that the English may have had more than a passive role in the creation of the new Grand Lodge Regolare.

The U.G.L. of England withdrew recognition leveling four charges against the Grand Orient of Italy. These charges, summarized in its “paper of business” and published prior to its September 1993 quarterly communication, stated that “sufficient evidence” existed of the following listed irregularities: 1) failing to register all its lodges and members with the Italian government, 2) ties to unrecognized and irregular grand lodges, 3)irregular practices, and 4) interference by appendant orders. However, subsequent correspondence made available to grand secretaries around the world discussing these charges in greater detail reveal many of the charges to be either unproven or less serious than they first appear.

. Some observers have voiced their difficulty in understanding how the U.G.L. of England can condemn the Grand Orient of Italy for failing to scrupulously follow government regulations of this kind, especially when the U.G.L. of England, which does not even maintain membership records for its lodges, has itself repeatedly rebuffed demands by vocal anti-Masons to make public its membership.

This first charge serves to illustrate the age-old difference between English and Continental Freemasonry. Where, on the one hand, the historically liberal nature of English society and British government, combined with the fraternity’s good relationship with the Royal family, has permitted the Craft in England to remain very apolitical, on the other hand, the often oppressive nature of governments in predominately Roman Catholic countries has created a much more secretive brand of Freemasonry on the continent.

If ties to unrecognized bodies considered irregular by the U.G.L. of England warrants withdrawal of recognition, then England should be prepared to withdraw recognition from many other grand lodges in the world. Most American grand lodges maintain fraternal relations with other grand lodges and appendant bodies considered irregular by the U.G.L. of England.

The third accusation deals with “irregular practices” by the Grand Orient of Italy which for many years has permitted certain special purpose functions where non-Masons and women have been admitted. Specifically mentioned are Masonic funeral services, an Agape ritual (or table lodge ceremony), and a Masonic “wedding service.” Whereas the Masonic wedding service certainly bears investigation, these charges must be seen in light of the fact that the U.G.L. of England, which has no Masonic funeral service, has traditionally objected to the presence of women and non-Masons at any Masonic Functions other than cornerstone levelings.

This fourth accusation against the Grand Orient deals with allegations of improper interference or influence by the Scottish and York Rites. Allegations leveled against the Scottish Rite seem to deal primarily with England’s opinion that it is improper for officers of the Grand Orient to serve as members of the Supreme Council. However, critics of this opinion point out that it is not uncommon for American grand lodge officers to also serve as Scottish Rite officers. Again, England’s opinion about this impropriety may stem from its own prejudices regarding continental Scottish Rite Masonry as opposed to England’s peculiar treatment of the rite.

In a letter dated 29 November 1993, and addressed to Grand Secretary Alfredo Diomede of the Grand Orient, England’s Grand Secretary Michael Higham referenced an address delivered in May 1992 by Alberto Banti, head of Italy’s Grand Royal Arch Chapter, critical of the invasion of its jurisdiction by the English Royal Arch. In that address, Banti accuses the two English-ritual lodges of recruiting Royal Arch candidates from outside their own lodges. Members of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Italy, like all York Rite (American Rite) Masons worldwide, do not subscribe to England’s notion that the Royal Arch Degree is a workshop for the completion of the third degree, but rather consider the Master Masons Degree to be complete, or sublime, in and of itself. Banti correctly points out that the English Royal Arch Degree was “inserted in the Constitutions of the new United Grand Lodge (of England) only as a compromise” at the merging of the Ancients and Moderns grand lodges in 1813. He further recalled that it was Grand Master Salvini who permitted the English to work their Royal Arch Degree in Italy in direct violation of a prior agreement according exclusive jurisdiction over the degree to the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Italy and the General Grand Chapter.

This address to Italy’s Grand Royal Arch Chapter, produced by Grand Secretary Higham as evidence of interference by appendant orders, serves more as a measure of the extent to which the U.G.L. of England is willing to go to protect its Royal Arch Degree even in a Masonic jurisdiction where prior agreements exist with the appendant orders.

In 1864 the Grand Orient of Greece obtained a charter from the Grand Orient of Italy establishing the first Greek Grand Lodge. [liii]

Although not mentioned among the participants of the 1875 Lausanne Congress, the Supreme Council of Greece did have a representative there, at least for the first few days. Their representative was none other than Illustrious Brother Lindsay Mackersy.[liv]The uproar which followed Mackersy’s denunciation of the Congress, ostensibly based on the wording in the principe createur, caused a schism in Greek Masonry. Several members of the Greek Supreme Council and of the Grand Orient, under the leadership of Prof. N. Damaskinos, Deputy Grand Master and Deputy Grand Commander, elected to side with the French and formed the ‘Supreme Council-Grand Orient of Greece’.

The schism ended in January 1907 after a two-month negotiation in which it was agreed that the Grand Orient/Supreme Council would confer the craft degrees and would recognize the original Supreme Council as the only legitimate Scottish Rite Body in Greece. In return, the Supreme Council agreed to recognize all degrees and offices conferred during the almost 30 years of the schism. With this solved, Greek Freemasonry seemed to have proceeded very smoothly until the mid-seventies. There was just one fly in the ointment.

Although most Cypriots would think of themselves as Greek, they had been under British rule since 1893 and Masonically speaking were under the U.G.L. of England. When the Greek-speaking Cypriots were turned down for a lodge in their own language they turned to the Grand Orient of Greece. The Grand Orient, which viewed the island as Greek, chartered a Greek-speaking lodge in Limassol. In October 1918 the Greek Supreme Council wrote to the English Supreme Council asking if it would have any objections to the Greeks forming a Consistory in Limassol. When the English Supreme Council demurred the Greek Consistory was chartered.

For the next 15 years a series of agreements between the two Greek Masonic bodies created some confusion as to which body may do what.

In 1927, by presidential decree, the Grand Orient of Greece was recognized as a philosophic and philanthropic foundation. Given the paranoia that exists in most governments about the Fraternity, this decree illustrates the high regard in which the Greeks held Freemasonry. [lv]

Brother Souvaliotis recalls the fall of Greece to the Germans and the attempted destruction of the craft in that country. “As the 30s decade was drawing towards its end, the clouds of war were gathering over Europe and when the war came for Greece, many Greek Masons participated actively in the epic struggle on the Northern Epirus mountains, while the Lodges in the cities were helping in any way they could, mainly by sending parcels of woolen clothing to help the troops face the hard wintry conditions. At the Nation's helm at the time, were two Masons: The King and the Prime Minister.[lvi]

Greece was then fighting for its independence and its freedom. It gave the Free World its first victory since the rest of Europe had fallen to the Nazi divisions and England stood alone awaiting a possible invasion of the British Isles. The triumphant six-month struggle against the Italian invaders had to come to an end, when German divisions invaded Greece from Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The few and gallant troops who faced the second invader, fought so bravely that when they finally capitulated, the invaders presented arms to them, a fact that - as far as we know - has never happened before or since.

The Germans reached Athens within 21 days of their invasion, and one of their first actions was to go to the Masonic Hall, confiscate whatever records were left there and inflict serious damage to the property. This was the fate of the other Masonic properties throughout the Country as well. Then they proceeded to the residence of the then Grand Master, M.W. Brother Philotas Papageorgiou and placed him under arrest. He was taken to prison where he was kept under very harsh conditions, which caused irrevocable damage to his health and although he was released some seven months later, he never recovered and died in 1947.” [lvii]

From 1933 to 1993 these issues were solved but not before the U.G.L. of England used them to substantiate its withdrawal of recognition of the Grand Orient, which had been renamed after WWII to the Grand Lodge of Greece. The Grand Lodge immediately removed the basis for this accusation by declaring the remaining agreements void. As with all political decisions, the declared reasons for taking any action rarely have any relation to the underlying concerns.

Then in 1976, several Greek Freemasons decided to import the degrees of the American York Rite. A few years later the leaders of this American York Rite requested recognition from the Grand Lodge of Greece. Their petition was rejected and its members threatened with expulsion from the Grand Lodge. This attitude and several other events eventually led to the establishment of the National Grand Lodge of Greece in 1986.

Then something unexpected happened, the leaders of the National Grand Lodge decided to abandon the American York Rite and adopt the British Holy Royal Arch and the other degrees beyond the Craft (Mark, Royal Mariner, Cryptic Degrees, and so on). Next the National embarked also on a concerted effort to obtain recognition, initially from the U.G.L. of England and then from other foreign Grand Lodges.[lviii]Since the U.G.L. of England could not appear to violate the vaunted principle of exclusive jurisdiction, it had a problem which it attempted to solve in 1993 by threatening the Grand Lodge of Greece with withdrawal of recognition based on the following charges:

First, that the Grand Lodge was involved in politics, by allowing the discussion of the issue of re-establishing a Greek republic of Macedonia in Masonic meetings (This has been a hotly discussed topic in Greece since 1905 when the area broke free of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek Republic of Macedonia finally became a reality in 1991).

One can only assume that the similarity of these charges to those leveled against the Grand Lodge of France is purely coincidental.

The Grand Lodge of Greece, in order to nullify the accusations concerning the Supreme Council did the following:

It amended its Constitution by removing all mention of the Scottish Rite and the Constitutions of 1762 and 1786 and changed its name one more time to ‘The Grand Lodge of Greece, A.F.& A.M.’.

It introduced the Holy Royal Arch into Greek Craft Freemasonry using the terminology of the U.G.L. of England, that is, “Craft Freemasonry in Greece consists of the degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason including the order of Royal Arch.” [lx]

Regardless of the actions taken to placate them, the U.G.L. of England had already committed to a course of action and did withdraw their recognition from the Grand Lodge of Greece and gave it to the English-styled National Grand Lodge of Greece in 1994.

By 1999, it was apparent that other Jurisdictions, were no longer willing to accept the obviously biased arbitrary decisions of the U.G.L. of England as to which Jurisdiction was or was not regular. In that year the U.G.L. of England reversed its earlier decision and withdrew recognition from the National Grand Lodge of Greece. In 2000 the U.G.L. of England restored recognition to the Grand Lodge of Greece. The storm over regularity was far from over.

According to the minutes of the 1990 Conference of Grand Masters in North America (COGMINA) the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF) Chartered two Lodges in Portugal in 1989 and a third in 1990. By 1991 GLNF has a total of 6 lodges and on June 30 constitutes the Grand Lodge of Portugal.

Nothing further is mentioned in COGMINA minutes until February 1997 when the committee feels the need to announce that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal continues its regularity with Brother Luis Nandin de Cavalho as Grand Master. The reason for this statement becomes a little clearer the following year when the minutes after restating this same status report goes on to announce that to conform with civil law the grand Lodge changed its name in 1997 to the Grand Lodge Legal De Portugal/G.L.R.P. followed by the Grand Lodge Regular De Portugal. This is followed by a rather unusual announcement that there is an irregular Grand Lodge with an identical name that is not entitled to recognition.

Reading the minutes for the years 1997 and 1998 one might wonder why the committee even bothered to include anything on Portugal at all. Except for the unexplained reason for a name change, how did a second Grand Lodge with the same name come into the picture? However, the committee was about to give a little more information in 1999. In the interest of clarity the following is the complete COGMINA committee report on Portugal from its proceedings in 1999.

Let me preface this by saying this is not part of the report but you are going to hear some names that are confusing because they are very similar and as I recite some of the history of this perhaps it will be understandable why that similarity and confusion exists. I will warn you that when I have given you the full name I will refer to one of them as the Regular Grand Lodge and I do that because it is part of the name. I will refer to the other as the Legal Grand Lodge and I will do that because it was subsequently incorporated into their name. As you hear this report I think it will become clear why it is necessary for you to make that distinction and the action that this Commission suggests the Grand Lodge may wish to take. Some of this is written in Portuguese. For ease I am going to read it as if it were in English.

The Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal was consecrated on June 29th, 1991 by the Grand Lodge National France, G.L.N.F. It was formed from constituent Lodges of the District Grand Lodge of the G.L.N.F. in Portugal. The Commission reported in 1992 that at that time ‘the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal is regular and entitled to recognition as such.’ Many members of this Conference subsequently granted recognition to the Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal.

In 1996 certain events occurred which created a schism in Portugal. There are differing interpretations of these events. One group characterized the events as an illegal seizure of the authority and property of the Grand Lodge. In response to these events and to conform to civil law as well as to provide continuity, this group modified its name on December 23rd, 1996 to the Grand Lodge Legal De Portugal/G.L.R.P. followed by the Grand Lodge Regular De Portugal-that is all one name. In English it would read as the Grand Lodge Legal of Portugal/G.L.R.P. Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal. The G.L.N.F., the Mother Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge Nationale France subsequently issued a replacement charter to this group.

The other group characterized the events as an impeachment of the Grand Master. This group has physical possession of the original charter issued by the G.L.N.F. and is using the name Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal. The Commission has heard from both groups and other interested parties. We have listened reviewed and understood the material presented in both written and oral communications. The Commission considers that this dispute hinges on the standard of legitimacy or origin. We conclude that the Grand Lodge Legal of Portugal G.L.R.P. Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal meets the standards of the Commission, is regular, and is entitled to recognition.

The Commission further concludes that the Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal is irregular and is not entitled to recognition. The reports of this Commission and previous Commissions have reached identical conclusions; in view of the name confusion we suggest that each Grand jurisdiction in North America clarify its recognition of Portugal. The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Legal or Portuga1/G.L.R.P. Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal is Luis Nandin Cavalho, his address is Rua Tomas, Ribeiro 45-7, 1050 Lisbon, Portugal. The telephone number of the office, the fax, his residence and E-Mail address and a World Wide Web Location are all included as part of this report. If anybody would like them read now I will do so, they will be included as part of the report.” [lxi]

The underlining is mine and was not included in the original report. I also broke the original third paragraph in two to improve readability.

It appears that for some reason the Grand Master Luis Nandin de Cavalho was impeached and thrown out of the Grand Lodge. He then seems to have claimed that this was an illegal seizure of the authority and property of the Grand Lodge. However, the report does not shed any light in regard to the name change and what civil laws required such a change. It appears that the impeached Grand Master actually formed a new Grand Lodge. However, this fact seems to be obfuscated by the action of the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF) reissuing the original Charter for the Regular Grand lodge of Portugal to the new Grand Lodge Legal De Portugal/Grand Lodge Regular De Portugal. To a layman like me this appears to be totally contrary to the 1929 guidelines set out by the U.G.L. of England and in violation of the much touted principle of exclusive jurisdiction. The GLNF simply does an end run around both the standards they have employed for almost 40 years to keep the Grand Lodge of France from gaining recognition and COGMINA has rubber stamped their action.

In the next to last paragraph the committee for information on recognition claims to have heard from both groups and other interested parties but does not include any relevant facts on which they base their decision that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal is suddenly irregular. That disclosure would come from a Grand Master who actually visited Portugal not once but twice during this situation.

In June of 1999, in accordance with the COGMINA suggestion that each Grand jurisdiction in North America clarify its recognition, the foreign Relations Committee for the Grand Lodge of Arizona brought the issue to the floor. Once more I will provide the discussion on this motion in full.

The following concerning Masonry in Portugal is presented for the information and consideration of this Grand Lodge. The 1992 Annual Report of the Commission on Recognition noted that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal (Grande Loja Regular do Portugal) was consecrated on June 29, 1991, by the National Grand Lodge of France (Grande Loge Nationale Francaise). The Commission was of the opinion that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal was regular and entitled to recognition. The Grand Lodge of Arizona subsequently extended recognition. The 1998 Annual Report (this is of the Commission on Recognition) noted that this Grand Lodge had modified its name in 1997 to Grand Lodge Legal of Portugal/ Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal (Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP, Grande Loja Regular de Portugal). The National Grand Lodge of France issued this Grand Lodge a replacement charter under this new name. This was done in response to events which may be interpreted as (1) an illegal seizure of authority and property including the original charter of the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal, or (2) an impeachment of the Grand Master Luis Nandin de Carvalho. The report of the Commission on Recognition for 1999 reaches the same conclusion as last year, that the Grand Lodge Legal Portugal/Grande Lodge Regular Portugal remains regular and entitled to recognition, also that the Grand Lodge Regular of Portugal (Grande Loja Regular de Portugal) is irregular and is not entitled to recognition. The commission on Recognition recommends that in view of the name confusion each Grand Lodge should clarify its recognition of Masonry in Portugal.

Brethren: I come before you today to refute and vote against the Committee on Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters that withdrew recognition of the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal and which replaced it with the Legal Grand Lodge of Portugal.

The Committee's decision is one based on European politics, sheer ignorance of the facts and the refusal of the Committee to ascertain the facts themselves regarding the situation in Portugal. In February of this year, I submitted a comprehensive report and made a presentation to the Conference Committee while at the Grand Master's Conference in Hawaii, excerpts of which I will read you shortly. Arrayed against me was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Spain; the Assistant Grand Master of Grande Lodge Nationale of France; the Grand Secretary of England; and the Grand Secretaries of Pennsylvania and New York, both of whom are Past Grand Masters.

In 1991, after the death of the Fascist dictator who ruled Portugal since the 1930's the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal was formed with a charter issued by the Grand Lodge Nationale of France. Several years earlier, after the death of Francisco Franco, the Fascist Dictator of Spain, many Englishmen living in Spain formed lodges and subsequently the Grand Lodge of Spain, which was immediately recognized by the Grand Lodge of England. Several years later, two men ran for the office of Grand Master of Spain, one representing the English-speaking lodges in Spain and the other the Spanish-speaking lodges. The English candidate won the election and the Spanish candidate immediately withdrew and formed his own Grand Lodge which is now called the Federal Grand Lodge of Spain, which was recognized by the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal and the Grand Orient of Italy, which is the Grand Lodge that we recognize. Needless to say, this incensed both the Grand Lodge of England and France. When a break-away Grand Lodge was formed in Italy, France, Spain and England immediately gave them recognition. And, here the stage is set for a similar occurrence in Portugal and, when it happened, they repeated their vindictive actions against Portugal just as they had done in Italy. The only difference being that the break-away Grand Lodge of Portugal came to the United States and at the Conference in Tulsa, with the help of France and Spain, requested and received the recommendation for recognition from our Conference.

I attended the World Conference of Grand Masters Symposium in Rome, Italy, on November 14-17, 1997. Several months after my return from Rome I received a call that informed me that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal was seeking Masonic leaders throughout the world who might have an interest in learning more about them and to clarify the situation regarding their recent schism. They were especially interested to receive American leaders who might be able to assist them in regaining recognition in the Conference of Grand Masters of North America. They felt that a grievous error had been made by that body in withdrawing recognition of the Grand Lodge of Portugal and giving it to the break-away body known as the Legal Grand Lodge of Portugal.

Since the Grand Lodge of Arizona had fraternal relations with the Regular Grand Lodge, I saw this invitation as an opportunity to investigate an interesting situation, meet some new people and possibly right a perceived wrong and aim to broaden my participation in world Freemasonry.

In April, 1998, my wife and I traveled to Lisbon as guests of the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal. I attended an annual event where I met about 100 members of their Grand Lodge, official representatives of the Grand Lodge of Italy, one of the Grand Lodges of Germany and others. I held several interviews of the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal. I also spoke at length with each of the foreign representatives. I examined their charter issued by their Grand Lodge Nationale of France, the charters of the Grand Lodges that met in the building and discussed their ritualistic system. They made me aware of their Masonic history and the politics of Freemasonry in a Catholic country and relatively new democracy.

After my meetings with all of these individuals, I concluded that the members of the Committee on Recognition should see for themselves the reality of the situation regarding the Masons of Portugal. I felt that they should more closely examine the supporting documents regarding the events that caused the dismissal of the Grand Master, the schism that followed and the ultimate formation of the Legal Grand Lodge of Portugal.

The Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal has continued to concur with this concept of full disclosure and most generously offered to bring any and all of the members of the Committee to Portugal on a fact finding mission. They authorized me to contact the Committee on their behalf, which I did in April of 1998.

Initially, I received positive indications from most of the members of the Committee but later, each and every member of the Committee gave some reason why he was either unwilling or unable to go, To date, no member of the Committee has been to Portugal to visit either Grand Lodge.

In May, 1998, I attended the World Grand Masters' conference in New York. I held several meetings with the Grand Master of the break-away Grand Lodge of Portugal, the Legal Grand Lodge, Luis Nandin de Carvalho, and the Grand Secretary. They informed me with much zeal of their position regarding the events that led up to the schism and in no uncertain terms told me that they would not entertain any conversation regarding reunification or even negotiations with the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal or its officers.

In late June 1998, I again went to Portugal to attend a Grand session of the GLRP as their guest. I was accompanied by Kent Gould, Deputy Grand Master of Colorado, who was also doing an onsite investigation to determine the facts on this issue for himself. I met and interviewed Bernardo Teixeira, son of the late Fernando Teixeira, the first Grand Master of Portugal. I also met with the legal counsel of the GLRP, who reviewed their constitution with me, and its relevance to the events in question. In addition, I again held several meetings with all of the senior officers of the GLRP and questioned them in depth regarding the causes of the events that culminated in the dismissal of the Grand Master. I later traveled to Porto in the north of Portugal, attended a Lodge meeting and had dinner with the officers and members of three Lodges in that city. They individually gave me their recollections of the facts, which completely confirmed the information that I had received from the Masons I had spoken to previously in New York and Lisbon.

Freemasonry in Portugal is quite different an institution than in the United States. Membership in the Craft takes on a totally altered meaning due to the political situation in that country. It is much more secretive because of the public's bias against the institution. Portugal had been a Fascist Communist dictatorship from 1930 until 1991, and any association with the Craft outlawed.

Masons in Portugal are always very concerned that their membership not be public information. Being known as a Freemason has caused members to loose their employment. The Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal has made a concerted effort over the past several years to recruit as its members, individuals from the professions and government. This was done in order to create an institution beyond reproach, and one that has the financial wherewithal to be organizationally successful and have a positive impact on their society through their charitable endeavors. The confidentiality of their membership and a low public posture has been a prerequisite to their continued participation in the Lodges.

Actions by this Grand Master (Carvalho) in making public the names of the members of the Craft caused severe damage to the institution and many of its members. Subsequently a meeting was held by the College of Grand Officers, 40 out of 43 voted to remove him from office, which they had the right to do according to their constitution, and which was subsequently ratified by the full Grand Lodge at a later date.

The report that I submitted to the Conference committee contains the facts, citings from their constitution and other relevant information. Unfortunately, it was not sufficient to convince the Committee that they had erred earlier, and in any case, they were not about to oppose the collective will of the combined Grand Lodges of England, Spain, and France, who were present at the meeting.

My judgment is that the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal, based on its Constitution, had every legal right to dismiss its Grand Master. It was a necessary act, conducted by the elected Grand Masonic officers in open sessions, with the Grand Master given ample opportunity to defend himself and his actions. They acted in good faith to protect the institution of Freemasonry in Portugal, its assets, and the confidentiality of its constituent members.

The Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal is the true and lawful representation of Freemasonry in that country, meeting all of the requirements for reinstated and continuing recognition by the Conference of Grand Masters of N.A. It has retained the preponderance of the Lodges (23), its buildings and members, the Grand Lodge residence, original charter, and most importantly, the continuing recognition from the vast majority of Grand Lodges internationally (4), and the US/Canada (15), that have fraternal relations with Freemasonry in Portugal.

I ask that you vote to retain the recognition of the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal and that by so doing you assert the continuing independence of the Grand Lodge of Arizona from the political machinations of European politics, that have no place in the world of Freemasonry.

After allowing ample time for the brethren to discuss the issue, the Grand Master called for the vote on the motion ‘All in favor of recognizing the Grand Lodge of Portugal Legal/Grand Lodge Regular Portugal (which would be the recommendation of our Committee on Foreign Relations, that is M:.W:.Bro. Earl's Committee)’.

After the vote was taken, the Grand Master declared that the motion FAILED”[lxii]

I would like to be able to state that Arizona stood by their guns over the years and that we still recognize the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal. However, recently I contacted M.W.Brother Jerry Lankin at his home in Mexico and he sent me this conclusion to the affair via email.

After one year of non recognition on our part of the Legal Grand Lodge, I met with its new Grand Master (Carvahlo had moved on). I found him (the new GM) to be a sincere guy whose major goal was reunification and a healing of the rift between the Grand Lodges. Because the recognition from most countries had been withdrawn from the Regular Grand Lodge, and a subsequent major defection of the Regular Lodges to the Legal Grand Lodge, it became obvious to me and others that it was no longer in our best interest to continue to withhold recognition. It was my decision therefore to recommend that the Grand Lodge of Arizona switch our recognition to the Legal Grand Lodge who, for all practical purposes, was the only functioning Grand Lodge in Portugal. Our Grand Lodge concurred. I did not like what happened, but politics should not stand in the way of fraternal relations among brethren.

I have already published an article on the events surrounding the suspension of relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota by 11 U.S. and 4 non-U.S. jurisdictions.[lxiii]Therefore, I will restrict my remarks to a quick summary here. The following is an excerpt from the keynote speech delivered By PGM Terry Tilton of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota at the 2006 Philalethes Research Society’s Annual Feast in February 2006 at the Washington Hotel. I was in the audience.

^“The story begins rather innocently enough. On March 31st, 2001 at our Grand Lodge session, Past Grand Master and Chairman of our Committee on External Relations, David S. Bouschor presented his committee’s report. Explaining each of the jurisdictions that the committee was recommending for recognition he noted these words under the heading FRANCE. ‘We have once again received a request from the Grand Lodge of France for recognition. Your committee has received their constitution, degree rituals, and considerable other information. They meet the requirements for recognition and are considered a regular grand lodge..............Your committee met and discussed the matter fully and recommends that we grant full recognition to the Grand Lodge of France and that we exchange representatives with them.’

The Proceedings book goes to say, ‘It was moved and seconded that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognize the Grand Lodge of France, and it passed. (It was pointed out that we currently recognize the Grand Loge Nationale Français, but that over the years we have previously recognized the Grand Lodge of France and they were founded in 1728)’. One year later, at the Annual Communication on April 13th, 2002 the Chairman of the External Relations Committee reported again, ‘As you know we extended the fraternal hand of friendship to our French Brethren by recognizing the Grand Lodge of France last year. After this move we began to receive a series of letters from the United Grand Lodge of England and the National Grand Lodge of France. They were bullying and sarcastic. England even threatened to consider withdrawing recognition of Minnesota. Finally our Grand Master Roger Taylor wrote them telling them to cease and desist in that they were not helping their cause. This seemed to do the trick............’

I cite these references for you so that you might understand we had no grand design behind our recognition of the Grand Lodge of France. Beyond the fact that the United Grand Lodge of England had expressed their concerns and even threatened to withdraw recognition with us, chiefly over the issue of lack of amity between the Grand Lodge Nationale and the Grand Lodge of France, we had no undue concerns. We patiently believed that progress was being made toward mutual amity.

In my conversations with M.W. Brother David Bouschor, Chairman of the External Relations Committee, he held a firm conviction, after reviewing all the evidence cited by the Grand Lodge of France as being regular, that indeed the only thing that kept them from being recognized was the constant prodding of the United Grand Lodge of England to not allow them recognition and the feud which had developed between representatives of the these jurisdictions before the Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. It would be on May 1, 2002 barely two weeks after my election as Grand Master that the Grand Lodge of Michigan would inform us and the world that they were going to withdraw recognition from us. Citing the correspondence under the signature of their Grand Master Paul N. Cross, we read, ‘An unfortunate situation has presented itself, which threatens to undermine the very foundations of Freemasonry both in North America and Worldwide. The Standards of Recognition require that when a Grand Lodge occupies the same jurisdictional territory as a previously established Regular Grand Lodge, they must first establish a treaty of mutual consent with the Regular Grand Lodge. Only in this way can the proper relationship between Grand Lodge be preserved, and the Craft strengthened. When one Grand Lodge begins to recognize Grand Lodges that are not recognized by the Regular Grand Lodge with which they share Jurisdiction, then the entire fabric of Freemasonry is threatened. Nothing then would prevent such a Grand Lodge from recognizing irregular Grand Lodges within our own Jurisdiction, without our prior approval.’ ”

What is missing from this except is the fact that Michigan was not the first Jurisdiction to take action against Minnesota, that fell to the GLNF in April 2002. First they sent a telegram on the 16^th to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, which includes the following accusation, upon which the GLNF decided to suspend relations with the GLMN “The ‘Grande Loge de France’ maintains relations and dual membership with the atheist Grand Orient de France, Mixed lodges such as the Droit Humain and feminine grand lodges. It appears the members of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota have forgotten the obligations they took when kneeling at the altar during their three degrees. . .”[lxiv] There is a remarkable similarity in the wording of this telegram, which I have included as Appendix E, to the allegations GLNF made in the 1960’s. However I feel compelled to point out that on April 24, 2002 just one week later it is the GLNF which signed a treaty with the GOF and not the GLdF. This ‘Administrative and Disciplinary Protocol’ which, while declaring that it did not constitute formal recognition in the terms specified by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1929, recognised the quality of the initiation provided by the other (reconnaissent la qualité de l’initiation délivrée par chacune) and agreed on action to exclude the possibility of unsuitable brethren finding refuge by changing from one Obedience to the other.

There are two other unique facets of French Freemasonry as they relate to relations between the ‘big three’ French Grand Lodges, GOF, GLNF and the GLdF. All three recognize the quality of the degrees of each other and for the past 15 years a Master Mason can leave one jurisdiction and affiliate with any of the other two without retaking the degrees. In the case of the GLNF he does have to sign a petition in which he states he believes in a Supreme Being but takes no oath and there is no healing process. Is it any wonder that upon an announcement in their own newsletter concerning the ‘Administrative and Disciplinary Protocol’ the GLNF Grand Secretary, Nate Granstein took the extreme action of actually denouncing any recognition between the GLNF and GOF. However, if an atheist who is raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason in the GOF can, and probably has, left that jurisdiction joined the recognized GLNF and after this is welcome in every regular and recognized Grand Lodge throughout the world, then exactly what does constitute recognition?

Another aspect of the Minnesota affair makes me uncomfortable and that is the speed in which everything happened in a Masonic community known for its ability to change at a glacial pace. Just two weeks after receiving the GLNF telegram, and one week after the signing of the accords between the GOF and the GLNF, the Grand Lodge of Michigan became the first American Grand Lodge to suspend relations with Minnesota. Almost immediately three other Grand Lodges, Maine, Kentucky, and New York, joined with Michigan to bully Minnesota back in line and set perhaps the most dangerous precedent in U.S. Masonic history.

Past Grand Master Terry Tilton recently told me in an email “We finally suspended recognition of the GLdF after 11 sister jurisdictions in North America and four international jurisdictions suspended relations with us......but only because of two reasons: 1) we simply found it difficult to have suspended relations with some jurisdictions where there were brothers or fathers who were going to be installed in lodges there but could not have their Minnesota son or father in attendance and, 2) our hope that we would take to the NACOGMIA the entire issues and have a meaningful discussion.” Left unsaid was the obvious fact that hosting the conference in February 2003 would have been very difficult with 11 jurisdictions refusing to have Masonic relations with Minnesota.

In researching the Minnesota situation I came across a speech given by the Past Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Brother Thomas W. Jackson at the Conference of Grand Secretaries in 2002. I would like to quote a small part of that speech, which I admit is somewhat out of context but I think is relevant to this subject.

“Personally, I would like nothing more than to see all Freemasonry in the world united as a like-minded brotherhood of men, with a common goal. Such unity would not only contribute to the strengthening of our noble institution, but would increase our potential to be an influence in the ongoing evolution of civil society and search for world peace.

This cannot and will not happen, however, so long as our leadership remains ignorant of or ignores the protocols of fraternal relations. Nor can it, nor will it happen, so long as conformity to these protocols which has sustained us for almost 300 years are not complied with by those seeking recognition. We as Masonic leaders today cannot permit ourselves to be seduced into accepting anything less. We cannot offer ourselves for sale to the highest bidders.

So where does that leave us in dealing with this issue of Foreign and Fraternal relations? First of all, we must recognize and acknowledge as leaders that we cannot and do not know everything. . .”

By the time the first international compact of 1814 was signed, Freemasonry had already survived bitter quarrels between the Antients and Moderns and the breaking away of American Lodges. If one were to take an objective look at each jurisdiction I have mentioned in this paper I venture to say that each has far more in common than they have differences. Unfortunately it has been a custom among the fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons from time immemorial to dwell on our differences. Our Masonic constitutions have large sections devoted to the punishment of those we feel have not toed the Masonic line but little to nothing on how to take proactive steps to resolve our differences.

Shortly after I began this project I was advised by a Past Grand Master who had many battle scars to show for the years he spent in this constant battle for universal Brotherhood. He gave me the following advice. “Be careful not to get stepped on by the two 800 pound gorillas in the room. We may all meet on the level but Grand Lodges are not created equal—size does matter. In our own little pond, we are supreme to some extent but things change dramatically when in a meeting with other Grand Masters. The dominating force in COGMINA rests with the Grand Masters of Pennsylvania, New York and Michigan who are very closely aligned. These Grand Lodges are also very closely aligned with the dominant Grand Lodges in Europe; England, Spain and the National Grand Lodge of France. These big Grand Lodges, along with their Grand Secretaries and Past Grand Secretaries, represent the proverbial unmovable object that can repel any frontal attack.”

Another PGM, Terry Tilton, is an ordained minister and one of the most gracious Brothers I have met. He had this to say in the same speech I quoted from earlier. “Why was Michigan the first Grand Lodge to withdraw fraternal relations? The reason was whispered in my ear by officers of their own Grand Lodge after a new Grand Master, David R. Bedwell, was elected a few weeks later. It seems their then Grand Secretary, MWB Don Baugher, through close associations with Nat Granstein of the Grand Lodge National Français pressured a gullible Grand Master to initiate this break and even wrote the edict that he signed.

I cite this story not to disparage our brothers from Michigan but to emphasize what I have come to believe is a simple fact. Freemasonry is founded upon friendships. By definition it is a “system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated with symbols,” but more than that - it is “the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God.” Friendship and brotherly love is the foundation stone of Freemasonry. Without them you have erected a moral edifice with beautiful teachings, rules, and structure but have not given it life or transcendence. The danger lies in that sometimes these friendships when forged into political alliances stymie any attempt to promote the very concept of universal brotherhood that Freemasonry created.

It has been said that if God did not exist then man would invent the Supreme Being. Over the past few hundred years some Grand Lodges have remade the Deity in its own image. In 1722 Dr. Anderson threw open the gates to Freemasonry since then, they have been trying to shut it again. There is ample documentation to illustrate the use of the same ideological techniques used by the Spanish inquisition to punish any Grand Lodge which refuses to go along with the party line. It is now OK to initiate Wiccans in U.S. Grand Lodges but not OK to recognize a regular ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ Prince Hall Grand Lodge solely on the basis of its location in a former slave state where a predominately white Grand Lodge refuses to acknowledge their right to exist.

In Europe it is Ok for the United Grand Lodge of England to withhold or withdraw recognition of some of oldest “regular’ Grand Lodges in France, Italy, Greece, Portugal and other countries while creating, recognizing and promoting start-up Grand Lodges which fail to meet its own standards for recognition. They have done so in almost every single case by challenging the right of an existing Grand Lodge to believe in their own concept of the Supreme Being. Perhaps we deserve to have come to the point where in France for at least the last 15 years an Atheist, who by his own stated beliefs disavows the very existence of God can obtain his Degrees in the Grand Orient of France and by the simple expediency of checking a box on a petition can become a member in good standing in the only recognized Grand Lodge in France.

Whether or not a Grand Lodge is regular can be determined by investigation but recognition is a political issue that can change overnight. I have pointed out several situations where Masons who had enjoyed the recognition of other jurisdictions for decades woke up one morning to find themselves Masonic pariahs. Nothing really changed except that someone in their Grand Lodge had upset the 800-pound Masonic gorilla. Obviously we need to improve the political situation. There is reason to hope this might actually happen as indicated by a comment made by the new Grand Chancellor of the U.G.L. of England, R.W. Brother Alan Englefield:

“As the oldest Grand Lodge, we in England have had thrust on us the role of being the guardians of regularity and in many ways are expected to police what is regular and what is not – in quiet moments I have wondered if that is why an old Oxfordshire ‘bobby’ has been chosen to be the first Grand Chancellor! Those are not roles that we have sought and we cannot be an international policeman solving problems within and between Grand Lodges. What we can do is to listen and to offer advice from our long experience of external relations, but it is a very fine line between offering advice and interfering in the internal workings of a sovereign body.

We live in challenging times brethren, and Masonic external relations are crucial to the future harmony and stability of Freemasonry on a global level. As many of you will know we are hosting a major meeting in London in November to which we have invited the Grand Masters of all the regular Grand Lodges in Europe. Our intention is to reaffirm those basic principles, which have defined our relations with the rest of regular Freemasonry, and to discuss how we can cooperate to ensure the continuance of warm relations throughout. I feel immensely proud and honoured that through the new office of Grand Chancellor I have been invited to be a part of that great task.”

[i] The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons-Edward Conder Jr.-Swann Sonnenschein & Company- London 1894 page 7

[ii] Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723 – Masonic Service Association-1924 Page 80

[iii] Ahiman Rezon London 1756 - Laurence Dermott-The Old Charges page 25

[iv] The United Grand Lodge of England Book of Constitutions as published on their website in 2007

[v] Le Convent des Suprêmes Conseils du Rite Écossais Ancien et Accepté - Lausanne, 6-22 septembre 1875 –Alain Bernheim

[vi] Ibid

[vii] The Lausanne Congress of 1875- C. John Mandleberg, 32° (Heredom Vol. 6.)

[viii] Morals and Dogma - Albert Pike, 1856, P620

[ix] Vol. II History of The Grand Lodge of Ireland - R.E.Parkinson 1957- published by The Irish Lodge of Research, Page 24

[x] Fringe Masonry in England- Ellic Howe, AQC Vol. 85.

[xi] The Lausanne Congress of 1875- C. John Mandleberg, 32° (Heredom Vol. 6.). See also History of the Relationship of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia with Masonic Grand Bodies in France by Paul M. Bessel, January 23, 2000

[xii] The Lausanne Congress of 1875- C. John Mandleberg, 32° (Heredom Vol. 6.)

[xiii] Ibid

[xiv] Ibid

[xv] Ibid

[xvi] Ibid

[xvii] Ibid

[xviii] Ibid

[xix] Ibid

[xx] The Scottish Rite in Greece- Andreas C. Rizopoulos (Heredom Vol. 1.)

[xxi] A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry-A.E. Waite (1996 edition) Wing Books Page 116

[xxii] A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry-A.E. Waite (1996 edition) Wing Books Page 117

[xxiii] Email response from John Hamill, Director of Communications for the U.G.L. of England posted on Philalethes Mailing List 9/2/2007 by Yoshio Washizu

[xxiv] U.G.L. of England’s External Relations-JamesW. Daniel AQC Vol. 17 2004 Page 3

[xxv] The Concise History of Freemasonry-Robert Freke Gould Pages 281-282

[xxvi] The Life Of Lord Kitchener - George Arthur - Macmillan Company, 1920 Pages 250-253

[xxvii] GLdF-US GL Recognition – Paul Bessel posted on his website

[xxviii] U.G.L. of England’s External Relations-JamesW. Daniel AQC Vol. 17 Page3

[xxix] Letter sent to GLdF from Harry Bundy (see Appendix B)

[xxx] Brief History of French Freemasonry- Alain Bernheim-Plumbline,Vol.6, No 1,1997

[xxxi] Ibid

[xxxii] Ibid

[xxxiii] Ibid

[xxxiv] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1959 Page 63

[xxxv] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1959 Page 67

[xxxvi] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1960 Page 55

[xxxvii] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1960 Pages 55-56

[xxxviii] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1961 Page 32

[xxxix] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1963 Pages 43-44

[xl] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1964 Page 48

[xli] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1964 Page 48

[xlii] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1965 Pages 39-40

[xliii] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1965 Page 41

[xliv] Ibid

[xlv] Proceedings of the Supreme Council 33°S. J. 1965 Ohio Pages 96-100

[xlvi] U.S. Grand Lodges' Withdrawal of recognition of the GLF in the 1950s and 1960s- Paul Bessel posted on his website

[xlvii] The History of the Present Grand Lodge of France revisited - Alain Bernheim (obtained from the author directly)

[xlviii] U.S. Grand Lodges' Withdrawal of recognition of the GLF in the 1950s and 1960s- Paul Bessel posted on his website

[xlix] Proceedings of GL of Arizona 2002- Fraternal Relations Committee Report No. 3

[l] July 26, 1845 letter by Charles Moore Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts- The History Of Freemasonry, Vol. 6 By Albert G. Mackey

[li] Giuseppe Garibaldi Massone - Gran Maestro Gustavo Raffi translated by the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, posted on their website

[lii] Ibid

[liii] A Concise History of the Grand Lodge of Greece, Loannis A. Souvaliotis, Philalethes Society 2002

[liv] The Scottish Rite in Greece-Andreas C. Rizopoulos, Heredom Vol. 11, 2003

[lv] A Concise History of the Grand Lodge of Greece, Loannis A. Souvaliotis, Philalethes Society 2002

[lvi] Ibid

[lvii] Freemasonry in Greece (1782-2003) And the Greek War of Independence (1821-1828)- Andreas C. Rizopoulos

[lviii] Scottish Rite in Greece-Andreas C. Rizopoulos, Heredom Vol. 11, 2003 )

[lix] Ibid

[lx] Ibid

[lxi] Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America 1999 Page 171

[lxii] Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of F. & A.M. of Arizona 1999, Report of Foreign Relations Committee Page 244 Item 5.

[lxiii] To Recognize or Not to recognize-Jack Buta - Philalethes Magazine October 2007

[lxiv] Speech by PGM Terry Tilton of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota at the 2006 Philalethes Research Society’s Annual Feast in February 2006 at the Washington Hotel.

Appendix A

(Extract from the minutes of The Grand Lodge of Ireland minutes, as recorded in Vol. II History of The Grand Lodge of Ireland by R.E.Parkinson 1957 Pages 20-24 and published by The Irish Lodge of Research. This particular copy was photographed by Brother Robert Bashford, forwarded by Brother John Belton and transcribed by my patient and loving wife Karen. Any typographical errors are mine. Pjb)

As this Masonic gathering is one of the most important that ever took place, and begot what has since been known as the “International Compact”, we give the official document describing its proceedings in full, from the copy written in the Minutes of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, 1^st December, 1814.

At a conference held in Freemasons Hall, London, on Monday the 27^th June and continued by adjournment to Saturday the 2^nd of July 1814 And of Masonry 5814. Present,

The M.W. His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex Grand Master of Masons in England.

The M.W. His Grace the Duke of Leinster Grand Master of Masons in Ireland.

The M.W. The Right Honourable Earl of Donoughmore Past Grand Master of Same.

The M.W. The Right Honourable Lord Kinnaird Grand Master of Masons in Scotland.

The R.W. The Right Honourable the Earl of Rosslyn Past Deputy Grand Master of the same.

The R.W. The Right Honourable Lord Dundas Deputy Grand Master of Masons n England.

The R.W. James Perry – Depy. Grd. Mr. Of same.

The R.W. James Agar – Depy Grd. Mr. Of same.

The R.W. Thomas Harper – ditto.

The R.W. Arthur Tegart Past Grd. Warden of same.

The R.W. James Deans – Past Grand Warden of same.

The V.W. Wil. H. White )

The V.W. Edwards Harper ) Grand Secretaries of same.

His Grace the Duke of Leinster – Lord Kinnaird - The Earl of Donoughmore and the Earl of Rosslyn having been appointed a deputation from the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland to the Grand Lodge of England to settle the points of communion, intercourse and fraternization among the three Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom, to ascertain the identity of obligation, description and practice and to form such regulations for the maintenance, security, and promotion of the Craft as should appear to them advisable. His Royal Highness desired the attendance at this Assembly of His Deputy Grand Master and the Commissioners of the Union recently effected between the two fraternities of Masons in England (now happily incorporated in one) together with the Grand Secretary of the same.

The assembly was opened by reading the Minutes of the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland appointing the deputations and the correspondence of the Three Grand Lodges on the same together with the Articles of the Union in which it is earnestly desired that this correspondence, uniformity and communion should take place.

Upon strict Masonic examination on matters that can neither be written nor described, it was ascertained that the Three Grand Lodges were perfectly in union in all the great and essential points of the Mystery & Craft according to the immemorial traditions and uninterrupted usage of ancient Masons and they recognized this unity in a fraternal manner.

After which they came to the following Resolutions unanimously:

1^st. It is declared and pronounced that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three Degrees and no more. Vizt. Those of the Entered Apprentice; the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason, including the supreme chapter of the Holy Royal Arch.

This latter part relative to the supreme Chapter the undersigned promise to state to their respective Grand Lodges, when they will communicate to the M.W. His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex the result of their proceedings for the information of this Grand Lodge.

2^nd. That a constant fraternal intercourse, correspondence and communion be for ever maintained on the principles which were recognized in 1772 between the three Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland – That the proceedings of each Grand Lodge be regularly transmitted to one another (where the same can be communicated by writing, or otherwise, be made known by special mission) so that they may all examine discuss and concur in such resolutions as may be judged essential to the security and welfare of the Craft.

3^rd That as the Eternal Truths upon which Masonry was originally founded (and which have given it a duration beyond all written record) can neither be changed or (sic) improved, it is the solemn determination of the Three Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland by a strict and sacred adherence to the simplicity, purity and order of the Ancient Traditions and Principles to entitle the fraternity in the United Kingdom to the continued protection of every wise and Enlightened Government, and particularly to the favor and patronage of the Illustrious House of Brunswick, under the Royal Branches of which they have risen to their present flourishing condition.

4^th That each Grand Lodge shall preserve its own limits, and no Warrant shall be granted or Revised by any one of these parties for the holding of a Lodge within the Jurisdiction of either of the others – That in case any one of their respective Military Lodges, being in the course of service resident for a time, within the limits of either of the others it shall continue to make its returns to its own Grand Lodge, but shall be recognized, visited and have the right of visitation and intercourse with the regular Lodges where it may happen to be. It being understood and positively stipulated and enacted that no such Military Lodge shall initiate, pass or raise any person or Brother who does not actually belong to the Battalion or Regiment to which the said Lodge is confined; and further that the present practice with respect to Lodges established in distant parts under either of the Three Grand Lodges shall continue on the present footing.

5^th That for the security of the intercourse which so happily subsists among the Brethren of the Three Grand Lodges and also to guard the Funds of Benevolence from irregular and improper applications for relief it is judged necessary that each of the Three Grand Lodges shall fix a sum, under which no Grand Lodge Certificates shall be granted – and no certificate nor diploma shall be granted to any Brother applying for the same without his producing a Certificate signed in open Lodge by the Master – Wardens and Secretary specifying the respective days on which he received the various degrees, after due examination as to his qualifications. And it is expressly agreed and Resolved that no Member of any one of the Three Grand Lodges or of the Lodges holding of them respectively, shall be entitled as a matter of Right to admission into the Lodges of either of the other two, or to relief from their Funds of Benevolence without being furnished with a Grand Lodge Certificate or diploma from the Grand Lodge to which his particular Lodge belongs. And the Grand Secretaries having laid before this Assembly a letter from a person of the name of “A. Seton” describing himself as “The Deputy Grand Secretary” of a Society calling themselves “The Ulster Grand Lodge” wand which has been set up without the sanction or authority of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, it was unanimously Resolved and agreed that Members from Ireland holding and possessing Certificates from the Grand Lodge of which His Grace the Duke of Leinster is the present Grand Master can alone be admitted to any Lodge or fraternity of Masons holding of the Three Grand Lodges or be entitled to relief from the Funds of any of them –it being the practice and invariable Law that there can be but one Grand or Mother Lodge holden in each of the Three countries and that no Assembly, Convocation, Meeting or Lodge called or held in any place within the Jurisdiction of either of the Three established Grand Lodges without their several Warrants, can be recognized or suffered to exist, the same being contrary to the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of the Fraternity.

6^th That is being of vital importance to the well-being of the craft that the ancient rules for the Initiation of Members be most strictly and peremptorily observed, not only as to the moral character of the Individuals to be admitted, but as to their knowledge in their gradual advancement it is Resolved that the Three Grand Lodges shall in their circular communications with their respective Lodges enjoin the necessity of conforming to these Rules and that upon no occasion and under no pretext of emergency shall they be departed from except by special dispensation from the Grand Masters respectively.

7^th. In consequence of a communication under date of the 8^th of April last made at this conference by the M.W. the Duke of Leinster, Grand Master of Ireland, and M.W. Past Grand Master the Earl of Donoughmore, the undersigned call upon the Bretheren to attend most particularly to these Resolutions, the importance of which must be evident to the Fraternity in general who from motives of attachment to the welfare of the craft at large as well as to the value necessarily entertained by each individual Brother in regard to his own private character are interested that it should be known all over the surface of the inhabited Globe, that their principles absolutely discountenancing in all their Meetings every question that could have the remotest tendency to excite controversy in matters of Religion or any political discussion whatever have no other object in view by the encouragement and furthering of every moral and virtuous sentiment, as also of nurturing most particularly the warmest calls of Universal Benevolence and mutual Charity one towards another – It is the conviction which has procured them for ages the protection and esteem of Mighty Monarchs & Princes; who have in consequence of their enquiries frequently found themselves called upon to unite in fraternal affection with them according to the Rules of the Society, thus adding splendor and dignity under their sanction to the Order – In no instance can the veracity of the assertion be more clearly proved than by the great condescension evinced by his Royal Highness the Prince Regent on two late occasions when his Royal Highness not only most graciously accepted of their Dutiful, Loyal and Fraternal Addresses, but in granting them his Royal favor and protection, also allowed himself to the styled and looked up to as the Patron of the Free and Accepted Masons after having for twenty-two years previously presided over the Craft as Grand Master.

8^th That these Resolutions be reported to the Three Grand Lodges, entered on the Records thereof and printed and circulated to all the Lodges holding of them respectively.”

These articles are extremely important. At one and the same time they are a memorial to the reconciliation that ended the Masonic quarrel that had been causing much confusion and bitterness for two generations, and also a code of International Masonic Laws. Many of these laws had a traditional force before; they were now promulgated as landmarks. What our predecessors bound themselves to observe at this momentous conference is still bound on us today and regulates the rights and duties of a brother of any of the Three Grand Lodges when a “sojourner” – to use the old Masonic word to express a Mason away from home – in the land of the stranger, where yet there is a home awaiting him in every regular Lodge.

The Grand Lodge of Ireland was to discover the benefit of the compact almost at once. The Union in England had hardly been completed before English Provincial Grand Lodges abroad began to claim authority over Irish Lodges inside their bailiwick, a matter that for the next few years occasioned not a few letters of protest to be addressed from Ireland to England. The Grand Lodge of England, naturally, did not support the pretensions of its Provincial Grand Lodges abroad and seems to have done all in its power to avoid such squabbles arising. With a view to cementing a closer fraternal understanding between the two Grand Lodges a new method was instituted in 1821:

“Special committee report that they recommend the adoption of a measure recommended by His R.H. The Duke of Sussex G.M. of Engd. The appointment of a representative in the G.L. of Engd., there to attend to the concerns of this G. Lodge & the admission into this Gr. Lodge of a similar representative from the Gr. Lodge of England, each to bear the rank of a Grand Officer – Approved.” (Minutes, Grand Lodge Ireland, 2^nd August, 1821.)

Appendix E

PAGE 1

[handwritten:] 1964

AGREEMENT

BETWEEN:

THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE

Represented by the Very Illustrious Brothers:

Jacque Mitterand, GRAND MASTER

Edmond Pascal, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

Paul Anxionnaz, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

Roger Verrier, GRAND ORATOR

George Dupont, GRAND SECRETARY FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRES

ON THE ONE HAND

AND:

THE GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE

Represented by the Very Respectable Brothers:

Richard Dupuy, GRAND MASTER

Emmanuel Drapanaski, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

Raymond Lemaire, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

Jacques DePariente, GRAND ORATOR

Charles Henry Chevalier, GRAND SECRETAIRE

ON THE OTHER HAND

It is manifest:

Manifestation of Motives

The Masonic and uninitiated situation in France, in Europe and in the world requires a close connection between the greatest French Masonic Powers in regards to their sovereignty, to their principles, to their rites and to their respective symbols.

It is therefore agreed upon to establish a Fraternal Alliance Agreement which is as follows:

ARTICLE 1: AGREEMENT

The two aforementioned Masonic Powers and the Lodges placed under their Jurisdiction shall agree with them only by means of the Grand Secretaries.

PAGE 2

ARTICLE 2 – Inter-obediential Communications

The Secretaries from the two Obediences shall inter-communicate:

1 – The Notes for the Semester which are taken by them with the unique knowledge of the appropriate Masonic authorities.

2 – The names and qualities of the Brothers, who are found in their rolls, [handwritten:] under the same restriction mentioned above.

3- The names of the uninitiated who have submitted a request for initiation and those BROTHERS who have presented their request for affiliation, in order to allow everyone of the Obediences to present their legitimate observances.

4 – THE NAME OF THE UNINITIATED and THE BROTHERS accepted and rejected.

5 – THE DISTINCTIVE TITLES OF THE LODGES and the names of the BROTHERS given the Masonic endorsement for whatever reason that there may be.

ARTICLE 3 – PERMANENT Inter-obediential Commission

Any difficulty that may arise between the two contractual Obediences shall be submitted to a permanent commission composed of the following eight members:

FOR THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE: -

The two Deputy Grand Masters,

The Grand Orator,

The Grand Secretary for External Affaires.

FOR THE GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE

The two Deputy Grand Masters,

The Grand Orator,

The Grand Secretary.

ARTICLE 4 - RATIFICATION

This agreement shall be submitted for ratification at the next General Assembly for each of the [page break in source document]

contractual Masonic Obediences in the proper constitutional form.

Paris, September 4, 1964

PAGE 3

THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE

Jacque Mitterand, GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Edmond Pascal, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Paul Anxionnaz, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Roger Verrier, GRAND ORATOR

[signature]

George Dupont, GRAND SECRETARY FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRES

[signature]

BY THE GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE

Richard Dupuy, GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Emmanuel Drapanaski, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Raymond Lemaire, DEPUTY GRAND MASTER

[signature]

Jacques DePariente, GRAND ORATOR

[signature]

Charles Henry Chevalier, GRAND SECRETAIRE

[signature]

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E