This file has been enclosed with the permission of The Philalethes
Society. We cannot grant any redistribution rights for these copyrighted
materials unless specifically authorized to so by The Philalethes Society.
CompuServe, or this Forum, does not own this material or the copyright.
These rights must be obtained directly from the Society.


               IN DEFENCE of a MASONIC LODGE

                  by Joseph E. Trate, MPS

Editor' Note: "An Infamous `Brother'" is printed verbatim as a side-bar to
Brother Trate's comments.

                  "An Infamous `Brother'"

When the British occupied Philadelphia in 1777, there were three active
lodges, Nos. 2, 3, and 4. No meeting was held by Lodge No.2 while
Philadelphia was in the hands of the enemy because their lodge room had
been looted, their jewels and warrants stolen. A number of Tories were
members of Lodge No.3 and, presumably, because of the confusion caused by
the British occupation, came into possession of the warrant of the
Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. The Grand Master and his Deputy
had left the City, yet Lodge No.3 resolved themselves into a Grand Lodge
with the two Grand Wardens present.

"[2] In reading the minutes of Lodge No. 3 during the British occupation
of Philadelphia, a startling fact was uncovered. The minutes of Lodge No.
3 shows [sic] that a Lodge of Emergency was called for October 10, 1777.
The purpose was to decide what should be done with the jewels, books, and
papers of Lodge No. 2. The minutes record that these items 'fortunately
fell into the hand of our Worthy Captain William Cunningham, after being
stolen out of Lodge No. 2.'

"[3] This William Cunningham was none other than the infamous Provost
Marshal of General Howe' s Army of Occupation. The words 'Worthy Brother'
are indeed strange when applied to this character, for he was a fiend
incarnate. This burly, red-haired, red-faced, illnatured Irishman used the
prison at Sixth and Walnut Streets as his headquarters. Here were confined
the American prisoners taken at Brandywine and Germantown, many of whom
died of starvation after having been lashed by Cunningham. It makes the
blood curdle to read of the sufferings of those who fell under the sway of
this devilish monster. The miseries of others seemed to give him great
delight. Often, in the sight of starving prisoners, he would kick over a
pail of soup or scatter a basket of fruit which some benevolent hand had
placed upon the door-step of the prison with the hope that it might
nourish the famished soldiers. It is recorded that while he was Provost
Marshal, over 250 Americans were hanged by his orders without a trial or
known cause and that over 2,000 prisoners died from starvation, maltreat-
ment and poisoning.

" [3] Brother Captain Nathan Hale, after his capture at Brooklyn, was
delivered to Cunningham for execution as a spy. He was treated with great
inhumanity by this vile wretch who denied him even the form of a regular
trial, the services of a chaplain and of all things the solice [sic] of a
Bible. The letters Hale had written by permission of General Howe to his
mother and fiancee were handed to Cunningham to read. With curses and vile
abuse they were torn to shreds before the condemned man' s eyes. Brother
Hale was hanged the day following his capture. As he stood beneath the
gallows, with a rope around his neck, Hale uttered those brief words which
have endeared his noble spirit to the whole world, 'I only regret that I
have but one life to give to my country. ' In a rage, Cunningham shouted,
'Swing the rebel off. '

"At this Lodge of Emergency Meeting on October 10, 1777, Cunningham' s
name is listed among those present. Nothing is known of his Masonic life,
not even the name of the lodge in which he was made a Mason. "

An article entitled "An Infamous `Brother'" fell into our hands recently.
It was published in The Ohio Mason, date unknown, and read into the
Delaware Grand Lodge Proceedings, date unknown. The author is anonymous.
Only five paragraphs long, it is quickly read. It is not quickly
forgotten. It contains unwarranted negative comments about a venerable
lodge of which we are a member. The author links Lodge No. 3 in
Philadelphia with Captain William Cunningham, Provost Marshal of General
Howe's British Army of Occupation in 1777, in a most provoking manner.

We have stated the facts applying to each paragraph and given our conclu-
sions. Not knowing how widely it was distributed, we felt it necessary to
present the true picture of a lodge, born in 1764 and still alive and
vibrant today, that has been denigrated by this article. For this
presentation we have, at hand, the Minute Book of Lodge No. 3, which
records the business of the lodge from October 22, 1767, through December
16, 1788; Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia; William Denslow's 10,000 Famous
Freemasons, volumes 1 and 2; and Barratt and Sachse's Freemasonry in
Pennsylvania, 1727-1907.

     First paragraph of "An Infamous `Brother'"--Facts

On Page 291 of Freemasonry in Pennsylvania by Barratt and Sachse, the
following Lodge No. 2: "The only thing of value that did not fall into the
hands of the British was the warrant of the Lodge, which, as appears from
a previous minute, was secured by Col. Thomas Proctor and placed in safety
to prevent it from falling into the hands of the British. "

Excerpt from the Minutes of Lodge No. 3, dated February 21, 1778: "Br.
Alex Bartram of Lodge No. 2 informed that our Right Worshipful Grand
Master has desired to deliver the Grand Warrant he had from England into
Lodge No. 3, the Master and some Brethren of No. 4 being present, agreed
to appoint a Committee to wait on the Grand Master to receive the same.
Brothers Alexander Bartram, Hugh Stewart, Thomas Banks, and Br Thomas
Dewees were appointed to wait upon the Grand Master for that purpose
tomorrow morning. "

Almost five months after the British occupied Philadelphia (on September
26, 1777), the Right Worshipful Grand Master was still in the city. He
initiated the transfer of the Grand Warrant into Lodge No. 3. It did not
just come into the possession of a "number of Tories" in the lodge.
Lodge No. 3 held meetings on fourteen separate occasions between September
4, 1777, three weeks before the British entered Philadelphia, and July 2,
1778, several days after the last British soldier left the city. The
Minutes of Lodge No. 3 for those fourteen meetings show no evidence that
the lodge acted as a Grand Lodge, especially after Sunday, February 22,
1778, when the Grand Warrant was received from the Grand Master. Further,
the Grand Wardens, Brother William Shute, Senior Grand Warden, and Brother
John Howard, Junior Grand Warden, attended Lodge No. 3 together, one time,
on St. John's Day, December 2 7, 1777 . Brother Shute attended the lodge
on February 5, 1778, alone. There are no other recorded visitations by ei-
ther Grand Warden during the British occupation of Philadelphia. We
reiterate the fact that the Grand Warrant was not given to Lodge No. 3
until February 22, 1778.

                First Paragraph--Conclusion

The author of "An Infamous `Brother'," whoever he is, uses poor research,
generalized statements and half truths in producing his article, all of
which tend to denigrate Lodge No. 3 . He ignores the fact that the warrant
of Lodge No. 2 was secured by one of its Past Masters. He completely
overlooks the fact that Lodge No. 3 received the Grand Warrant from the
Grand Master at his request, and kept it safe. As for his charge that
Lodge No. 3 "resolved themselves into a Grand Lodge with the two Grand
Wardens present," the Minutes of the lodge speak for themselves.

We do not argue with the contention of the author that there were a
"number of Tories" in the Lodge No. 3 at the time. How many there were is
not known exactly. What is known, however is that there were at least 85
members who were members of the American armed forces. Further, the
Minutes of the meeting of Lodge No. 3 held on St. John' s Day, June 24,
1776, state in part: "Dined at 1/2 past two and after Dinner drank 13 Ma-
sonic Toasts. " Also the Minutes of the meeting held July 14, 1776, show
that the expenses for the June 24 meeting were paid by vote of the
members. It hardly seems likely that the Tories in Lodge No. 3 were
dominant. It is not impossible to think of all the members of the lodge as
being brethren on the level and square in the lodgeroom, no matter what
they were, American or British, outside.

                  Second Paragraph--Facts

William Cunningham did visit Lodge No. 3--thirteen days after the British
occupied the City of Philadelphia. That was hardly time enough for the
lodge members to recognize his true character. We assume that he was
examined to determine his membership, or that he was vouched for by a
member or another visitor In addition, he had the items belonging to Lodge
No. 2 in his possession and was returning them voluntarily. On the only
visit he made to a lodge in Philadelphia, he w as doing something decent
in the eyes of the lodge members. There is no other record of his visiting
Lodge No. 3. or any other lodge in Philadelphia, during the British
occupation.

              Second Paragraph -- Conclusion

The author is correct in what he states concerning William Cunningham's
visit o Lodge No. 3 and purpose of the meeting held on October 10, 1777.
However, we hardly think there was anything startling about it. It is
apparent that the author did not read all of the minutes of Lodge No. 3
which applied to his subject matter. In this paragraph he seems to imply
that the members of Lodge No. 3 have done something wrong, even unmasonic,
and it is startling. That it involves William Cunningham is obvious, but
we cannot escape the fact that this British officer returned stolen
Masonic property to its rightful owners. He could have just as easily,
thrown it away or kept it for his own advantage.

                 Third Paragraph -- Facts

William Cunningham by all accounts, was a miserable, mean-spirited
individual. We feel no brotherhood for him. From what we read, he was
unworthy of the title `Freemason'. We may never know how he became a
member or where and when. We also have no knowledge of his birth. We do
know that he returned to London after the War and that he was convicted of
forging a draft and executed on August 10, 1791.

               Third Paragraph -- Conclusion

We do not know the sources for the author's description of William Cun-
ningham. One may be Denslow's 10, 000 Famous Freemasons, a somewhat ironic
reference. The author's description is almost like first-hand knowledge
until he states that, "It makes the blood curdle to read, " and later, "It
is recorded .... "

While we hold no sympathy for or empathy with William Cunningham, we do
believe that this parroted description incites the reader to a high level
of anger about an event which is almost 222 years old. That in itself is
not condemned. What we take exception to is the use of the phrase "worthy
brother," because it causes the reader to tie Lodge No. 3, which still
lives, to the description which follows and, thus, to the " infamous
brother. " It is our personal opinion that the author could have served
Freemasonry better by making a thorough search for records of William
Cunningham. How this "burly red-haired, redfaced, ill-natured Irishman"
grew up, was educated sufficiently to have become an officer in the
British army, and a member of greatest fraternity in the world, would be
interesting to most Masonic history buffs.

           Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs -- Facts

Captain Nathan Hale, according to Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia and
Denslow's 10, 000 Famous Freemasons, was not a Freemason. Both sources
claim that he was mistaken by Masonic writers for Colonel Nathan Hale, a
member of St. John's Lodge of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Captain Hale
volunteered for hazardous spy duty in 1776 behind the British lines on
Long Island. On September 21, 1776, he was caught and ordered executed by
General William Howe, who refused his request for a Bible or chaplain.
According to Denslow, Captain Hale was hanged on Sunday, September 22,
1776, in an orchard at the present junction of Market street and East
Broadway in New York City.

                        Conclusion

If the author knows that Captain Hale was a Freemason, he should provide
the facts. General Howe, not William Cunningham, refused Captain Hale's
request for a chaplain and a Bible. General Howe, not William Cunningham,
ordered Captain Hale executed without a trial (the usual end for a spy).
During war time, executions of spies are expected. So it was for Captain
Hale, and too, as it was for Major Andre, the pawn of the American
Freemason, General Benedict Arnold.

In the fourth paragraph, as in the third, the author incites the reader to
anger with words like "vile wretch," "curses and abuse," "sneeringly," and
"in a rage. " One would think that the author had been present and had
observed these things. Again, we do not condemn these descriptive words.
William Cunningham may very well deserve such an abusive memorial.
However, we do take exception to the fifth paragraph. Here the author
draws attention, once again, to Lodge No. 3 and seems to tie it to
Cunningham. He also implies that William Cunningham may not have been a
Mason. More than 200 years after the event about which he writes, the
author seems to imply that the members of Lodge No. 3 allowed a profane,
in the Masonic sense (no pun intended) to sit in the body of their open
lodge without examination or avouchment. We doubt not that the officers of
Lodge No. 3 on October 10, 1777, satisfied themselves about William
Cunningham's Masonic membership before he entered the open lodge, just as
the present-day officers of the lodge satisfy themselves when a visitor
knocks at its portals.

Freemasonry, today, has enough aggravation from external sources. It does
not need internal fomentation. We suggest that authors not spray words
around like buckshot. They might hit a nerve--like ours.