THE BUILDER March, 1927

The Effects of Anti-Masonry on the Masonic Fraternity, 1826 - 1856

By BRO. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSSON, Iowa

(Continued

IN no state did the anti-Masons make a more determined effort to
destroy Masonry than in Massachusetts. Though they seriously
crippled the Institution they failed to accomplish their purpose,
in spite of the fact that they numbered as one of their chief
leaders John Quincy Adams, ex - President of the United States.

Prior to, and even for a short time after, the Morgan affair,
numerous accessions to the Masonic ranks were reported. At the
Grand Lodge meeting of Dec. 27, 1825, it was reported that there
were 3727 members in the lodges in the jurisdiction. During the
year ending Sept. 1, 1825, there had been initiated a total of 874
persons. Seven charters for new lodges had been granted during the
year. The fact that, on June 17, 1825, the Grand Lodge, assisted by
General Lafayette, who was then touring America, had laid the
cornerstone of the Bunker Hill monument, had greatly enhanced the
prestige of the Fraternity. In 1826 a net gain of 583 members was
reported and five more lodges were chartered.

In 1827 the reports were not so flattering. Only one charter was
granted, while eight lodges had made no returns, as compared with
two lodges which had been reported in arrears in 1825 and seven so
reported in 1826. Though political anti-Masonry had not yet touched
the state, the excitement stirred up in New York was evidently
already producing effect in Massachusetts. At each succeeding
regular communication, held in Boston, the attendance declined
until in 1835 the lowest point was reached, with only seven lodges
represented.

MASONRY ACTIVE IN BOSTON

Despite the increasing fury of the anti-Masonic storm during the
period, the Grand Lodge proceeded with plans for the erection of a
Masonic Temple at Boston. On Oct. 14, 1830, a Masonic procession
was formed at Faneuil Hall and moved to the site of the new
building where the cornerstone was laid, after which an address was
delivered by Grand Master Joseph Jenkins. It was estimated that
between 2000 and 2500 Masons were present, including twenty-two
clergymen and seven Revolutionary officers. The building was
completed and was formally dedicated by the Grand Lodge on May 30,
1832. The address on the occasion was delivered by Rev. Bernard
Whitman. It was described by "The Masonic Mirror," of Boston, "as
one of the most ingenious and powerful arguments in defence of
Masonry, ever pronounced."

One of the most interesting events produced by the anti-Masonic
attacks was the publication of the famous "Declaration to the
Public," issued in December, 1831, by the Masons of Boston and
vicinity. At the time of its first publication it contained about
1200 signatures. Later this number was increased to over 1400. The
"Declaration" was a brief document devoted to a denial of the
charges against the Fraternity and to a statement of Masonic
principles. The following passage is especially worthy of
quotation:

The obligations of the Institution require of its members a strict
obedience to the laws of God and of man. So far from being bound by
any engagements inconsistent with the happiness and prosperity of
the Nation, every citizen, who becomes a Mason, is doubly bound to
be true to his God, to his country and to his Fellow-Men.

The authorship of the "Declaration" has been attributed to Charles
W. Moore, who rendered yeoman service to the Fraternity during the
excitement as editor of what was probably the most influential
Masonic periodical in the United States, "The Masonic Mirror," and
as Grand Secretary beginning in 1834.

Another matter of importance illustrating the effects of
anti-Masonry in Massachusetts was the surrender by the Grand Lodge
in 1833 of its civil charter, or "Act of Incorporation," which had
been granted by the legislature June 16, 1817. This action was
taken because of the persistence of the anti-Masons in the state
legislature in endeavoring to secure the passage of laws
interfering in the internal affairs of the Fraternity. A committee
to consider the matter was appointed by the Grand Lodge on Dec. 12,
1833. On Dec. 27 it reported a "Memorial to the Honorable Senate
and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled," which
report was unanimously adopted by the Grand Lodge. The memorial
reviewed the history of the Grand Lodge and ascribed as the reason
for surrendering the charter the continued hostility of the
legislature. The memorial made it very clear that the Grand Lodge
was merely giving up its "corporate powers," such as the power to
hold real estate, but that it "relinquished none of its Masonic
attributes or prerogatives."

That there might be no misunderstanding of this action the Grand
Lodge passed a supplementary resolution declaring that

the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts exists only as a voluntary
association having and possessing all and the same rights, powers,
privileges and immunities, under its ancient charter, in relation
to Freemasonry, which said Grand Lodge had and possessed before the
aforesaid act of incorporation was granted.

The chief result of the surrender of the civil charter was to force
the Grand Lodge to relinquish possession of the new Masonic Temple.
For a time it was in the possession of a private individual, but in
1835 a plan was devised whereby the building was repurchased and
placed in the hands of a Board of Trustees, who were to hold and
improve it for the benefit of the Grand Lodge.

From that time on the condition of Masonry in Massachusetts began
to improve. This is well illustrated by the fact that on Jan. 16,
1837, a public installation of the Grand officers was held, with
the members of the Grand Encampment of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island and of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of
Massachusetts as invited guests. A procession was held and a gala
occasion was made of the installation. Between 1200 and 1500 ladies
and gentlemen attended the affair. It was not until 1845 that the
first restorations of defunct lodges took place, but thereafter
Masonry's recovery in Massachusetts proceeded more rapidly.

THE STATE OF THE CRAFT IN RHODE ISLAND

It is interesting to note that, in 1825, there were about
three-fourths as many Masons in Rhode Island as in the State of
Massachusetts. The 3000 (approximately) Masons of Rhode Island,
however, were included in only seventeen lodges, while the 3727
members in the neighboring state were divided among 101 lodges. In
1826 two additional lodges were chartered in Rhode Island, raising
the total to nineteen. It is apparent that one lodge (No. 14) had
become defunct, so the number of active lodges at the time the
Morgan affair occurred was only eighteen. Anti-Masonry made its
appearance in the state in 1829, and soon gave tangible evidence of
its presence. In 1831 the anti-Masons secured a legislative
investigation of Masonry which resulted in nothing. But in 1832
they succeeded in securing the passage of a law forbidding
extra-judicial oaths. Meanwhile, on June 13, 1831, the Grand Lodge
issued an address to the people of the state. The address admitted
the right of their opponents to memorialize the legislature and it
granted the right of that body to investigate. Yet it claimed the
privilege for the Masons to appeal to the people in self-defense.
It also denied the various charges made against the Fraternity.

Later, on Aug. 7, 1832, replying to a recommendation of the General
Assembly, that the Masonic organization should be discontinued, the
Grand Lodge declared that the duty of Masons was plain, and that
was to adhere to the Institution. On March 11, 1833, at a quarterly
communication, the Grand Lodge unanimously adopted, in substance,
the Massachusetts "Declaration" of 1831. This they circulated in
pamphlet form under the title, Declaration of the Free-Masons of
Rhode Island. The names of 634 Rhode Island Masons were signed to
it.

CIVIL CHARTERS OF LODGES REVOKED

The anti-Masons in the state legislature were evidently determined
to do all in their power to secure laws unfavorable to Masonry. In
January, 1834, the legislature repealed the civil charters of six
of the lodges. At the same time all incorporated Masonic bodies in
the state were required to make annual returns to the General
Assembly of their proceedings with a list of all their members.
Rather than submit, the Grand Lodge, when it met on March 17, 1834,
voted to surrender its civil charter and recommended that the
remaining lodges do likewise. At the session on June 24, 1834, this
action was explained and it was made clear that the Masonic charter
had not been given up, and that there was no intention of so doing.
It was also pointed out that no local lodge had surrendered its
Masonic charter since the excitement had begun.

During the whole period of the excitement the Grand Lodge met
regularly and preserved its organization in spite of the strong
attacks against it. At the close of the period of the anti-Masonic
excitement it still had the same lodges on the list as when the
trouble began, but the membership had decreased to about 950 in
1840. It is evident that some of the lodges were dead by that time
and were kept on the list only because no action had been taken to
eliminate them. But on Dec. 28, 1840, a movement was begun which
culminated on Sept. 25, 1843, in the forfeiture of the charters of
eight lodges. Two of these were restored on March 25, 1844, and one
more on June 24, 1844. The process of recovery, thus begun,
proceeded so slowly that, by 1856, the Fraternity had not yet
attained the strength that it had had in 1826.

THE FRATERNITY RESISTS IN CONNECTICUT

In no state where the political anti-Masons exhibited strength, did
the Masons afford a stronger resistance to their enemies than in
Connecticut. As in other states, Masonry was developing rapidly in
this state before the anti-Masons developed strength. In 1825 there
were sixty-five lodges in Connecticut, while by the time of the
annual communication at New Haven, on May 14 and 15, 1828, there
were 75 lodges listed. In 1828 the same number of lodges were
represented as in 1825 though there were ten more on the list,
which is evidence that anti-Masonry was making itself felt. Further
evidence of this is afforded by the fact that only one new lodge
was chartered in 1828.

By the time the Grand Lodge met at Hartford for its annual session,
May 13, 1829, Freemasonry in the jurisdiction was bending under the
full fury of the anti-Masonic storm. Though sixty-two lodges were
represented, the Grand Secretary reported "a large and increasing
delinquency in the returns from subordinate lodges, on account of
the prevailing excitement and panic which was now existing on the
subject of Masonry." On his suggestion it was ordered that the
"meagre returns" should not be published until further notice.

The next year saw fourteen fewer lodges represented at the Grand
Lodge meeting than in 1829. A report on delinquent lodges was
presented by the Grand Secretary, but the matter of inflicting
penalties was postponed, pending correspondence with these lodges
by the Grand Secretary. The "appeal" of the Vermont Masons was
presented and a resolution was adopted tendering sympathy to the
Masons in the state bordering on the north. Before adjourning, the
Connecticut Masons resolved to hold firm, "confiding in God and the
rectitude of our intentions, for consolation under the trials to
which we may be exposed."

THE MASSACHUSETTS DECLARATION ADOPTED

The year 1831 marked the lowest point of Masonic decline in
Connecticut during the excitement. The Early Records containing the
proceedings of the annual communication at Hartford, May 11, 1831,
do not list the number of lodges represented, but merely state that
a quorum was present. The Grand officers refused to be candidates
for re-election so a new set had to be elected, which was the only
business transacted. By 1832 the situation was much improved, for
forty-four lodges were represented. At the annual communication,
May 9, 1832, at New Haven, there was adopted, in substance, the
Massachusetts "Declaration." This was signed by about 1400
Connecticut Masons, after which it was published in the various
newspapers and in the proceedings.

In 1833 it was voted to remit "all fines and penalties now due for
delinquencies," and the publication of returns was resumed. That
Masonry in the state was well on the road to prosperity is
indicated by the fact that, out of the thirty-five lodges which
made returns, there had been initiations in eight. In the returns
of each subsequent year "work" was reported by various lodges.
During the period of the excitement a few lodges surrendered their
charters. It was not until 1838 that the Grand Lodge took severe
measures against those which had been delinquent for a long time.
Fourteen such lodges were declared to have forfeited their
charters. By 1839 there had been a net loss of twenty lodges since
1828, for only fifty-five remained on the list. The elimination of
the dead timber had not yet been completed, for in 1840 the
charters of seven more lodges were revoked. However, four other
lodges had removed the causes of their delinquency and so saved
their charters. In 1841 the charters of three lodges were restored,
but at the same time four other charters were revoked. Thereafter
enough lodges were restored or newly chartered to make the
institution stronger in Connecticut in 1856 than it had been three
decades before.

NEW JERSEY LITTLE AFFECTED

There is little to be said concerning the effects of anti-Masonry
in New Jersey. Political anti-Masonry did not develop enough
strength in the state to cause any serious difficulties, but the
general excitement had the effect of greatly decreasing the
attendance at the Grand Lodge sessions. Between 1825 and 1828,
inclusive, eight new lodges were created. As early as 1827 two
charters were surrendered, but it is difficult to see how this
could be attributed at that date to anti-Masonry. The surrender of
one charter in 1829 and one in 1830 were all the additional losses
reported during the anti-Masonic period.

The low mark in Grand Lodge attendance was in 1832 and in 1834, in
each of which years only four lodges were represented. It is
interesting to note that in 1832 a new lodge was chartered. In 1839
there were still forty-one lodges on the list, but most of them
were inactive. No action in regard to these was definitely taken,
however, until 1842. At the annual communication, Nov. 9, 1841, the
Grand Secretary submitted a report showing that out of fifty-eight
lodges which had been chartered during the history of the Grand
Lodge, only eight were actively at work. Seven had been stricken
off the list, nine had surrendered their warrants, while
thirty-three had ceased to work but still retained their warrants.
With the consent of the Grand Lodge two lodges had united to form
one. (1)

It was recommended that the dead lodges be eliminated and those
remaining be renumbered. This recommendation was acted on at the
meeting of the Grand Lodge at Trenton on Nov. 8, 1842. The
thirtythree non-functioning lodges were stricken from the list, but
two were immediately restored. These, with the eight previously
active, were renumbered from 1 to 10. Thereafter, the Grand Lodge
of New Jersey may be said to have been on the up-grade. By 1856 it
had attained a strength greater than it had had thirty years
before.

THE RESULT IN DELAWARE

Little information is available regarding the effects of
anti-Masonry on the Masonic Fraternity in Delaware. Up to and
including 1825 only fifteen lodges had been chartered in the state,
and of these three were already extinct. In 1826 and 1827 there
were three additional charters granted, but to partially offset
this gain, one charter was forfeited in 1827. In the years 1825,
1826 and 1827, all the existent lodges were represented at the
annual communications held at Wilmington--a unique record not
equalled by any other jurisdiction except the District of Columbia.
But in 1829 the attendance fell to nine lodges, indicating that the
anti-Masonic excitement was having effect. The best commentary on
the effects of the excitement thereafter is afforded by the fact
that no Grand Lodge proceedings were published from 1830 to 1844,
inclusive. By 1856 it is apparent that Masonry in Delaware was
stronger than it had been before the Morgan affair, at least
insofar as the number of lodges on the list was concerned.

BITTER ATTACK IN PENNSYLVANIA

In view of the bitterness with which the anti-Masons in
Pennsylvania, led by Thaddeus Stevens and Joseph Ritner, assailed
the Masonic Fraternity, it is surprising that the Institution did
not suffer a greater decline than it actually did. As was true of
New York, so in the case of Pennsylvania it is edifying to take
stock of Masonry in the state before the anti-Masonic excitement
began in order to form a correct estimate of what happened during
the excitement.

It is interesting to note that, in 1825, the warrants of three
lodges were "vacated for delinquency," ten other lodges were
suspended, while twenty-six were declared "not at this time
entitled to a representation in the Grand Lodge." A total of
$17,240.08 was reported as owed by the subordinate lodges to the
Grand Lodge on Dec. 27, 1824. The unhealthy condition then existing
in Pennsylvania Masonry is further shown by the fact that, in 1825,
there were reported sixty eight expulsions, ninety-eight
suspensions, thirty-five rejections and eighteen reinstatements.
Meanwhile six new warrants were reported as issued during the year.
Though there were 103 lodges on the list, the highest number
represented during the year was thirty seven, at the Quarterly
Communication, Dec. 5, 1825. Similar figures might be given for
1826.

PUBLIC ACTIVITY OF THE GRAND LODGE

By the latter part of 1827 and early 1828, anti-Masonry had spread
from New York and had made itself felt in the northern part of the
state and in a few other places where prejudice against Masonry had
been manifested earlier. That the state as a whole had not yet been
affected is shown by the fact on May 3, 1828, the Grand Lodge laid
the foundation stone of Washington Lock, No. 1, of the Pennsylvania
Canal at Pittsburgh. It is noteworthy that the Grand Lodge
attendance was not seriously affected by anti-Masonry until 1836.
The political control of the state, for three years beginning in
1835, by the anti-Masonic-Whig coalition, featured by Stevens'
fruitless legislative persecution of the Masons, was bound to have
some effect. Yet, as the chart shows, the Grand Lodge
representation did not decline greatly.

It was during this most critical period of Masonry's existence in
Pennsylvania that the first drastic action was taken towards
delinquent lodges. Previously, attempts had been made, but with
little success, to improve the internal conditions in the
jurisdiction. To ease the burden of debt with which the Grand Lodge
was weighted down, action was taken in 1835 to sell the Masonic
Hall in Philadelphia to "Franklin Institute" and buy a smaller
hall. Instead of improving matters, the Grand Lodge affairs were
merely further complicated by this move, for, in 1841, it was
necessary to take back the original hall from "Franklin Institute"
which had failed to pay for it. In 1836 the Grand Secretary was
instructed to cancel the debts of subordinate lodges to the Grand
Lodge to the end of 1834 on condition that they make returns and
pay dues for  1835. This evidently failed to secure the desired
results for, on Feb. 6, 1837, the Grand Lodge declared the warrants
of fifty-five delinquent lodges "vacated." Nine other lodges were
given additional time to remove their delinquency.

GAINS TO OFFSET LOSSES

While, apparently, Masonry in Pennsylvania was at a low ebb from
1836 to 1839, inclusive, the proceedings for those years reveal
some surprising facts. For example, in the 24 lodges in the city
and county of Philadelphia there were reported seventy-one
initiations and thirty admissions. These gains, however, were
offset by 102 who "ceased" their Masonic membership. The total
number of members in these lodges was 705. In the lodges outside of
Philadelphia County, numbering twenty-one "legal" lodges (including
two restored in 1837), there were fifty-eight initiations and
thirty-one admissions during 1837, which together exceeded by
twenty-two the number who ceased their membership. The total number
of Masons in these lodges was given as 346, making the total lodge
membership in the state 1051 at the time. In 1838 there were
reported 151 initiations in the lodges of the city and county of
Philadelphia and eighty-seven initiations in the other lodges. On
Sept. 2, 1839, the Grand Secretary reported that three lodges had
resumed their labors. Although the highest representation at any
Grand Lodge meeting in 1839 was lower than in any previous year,
there can be no question but that the Masonic Fraternity in
Pennsylvania was on the up-grade. By 1856 it was far stronger than
it had ever been and was expanding rapidly.

THE LOSSES IN OHIO NOT DUE TO ANTI-MASONRY

In considering the condition of Freemasonry in Ohio it becomes
increasingly difficult to determine just what effects anti-Masonry
had on the Fraternity. The decline in attendance, as shown by the
chart, cannot all be attributed to anti-Masonry, for the
proceedings give some indication that, at least in the early
thirties, cholera was a factor in making some lodges dormant.

Up to 1831, anti-Masonry evidently had had but little effect on the
Fraternity in the state as a whole. Each year from 1826 to 1829 new
lodges had been chartered, including eight in 1826, four in 1827,
six in 1828, and two in 1829. In 1830 it is recorded in the
proceedings that one dispensation was granted, but a list
accompanying the proceedings for the year names seven lodges as
being under dispensation. In 1831 two additional charters were
granted.

Then followed a few years of varying fortunes--a few lodges being
reported as surrendering their charters, others being reported as
resuming labor. In 1837 the Grand Lodge met at Lancaster instead of
at Coumbus, and this change marked the beginning of a return to
prosperity. At this annual communication, held in June instead of
in January, as formerly, two new charters and one dispensation were
granted. The next year two more charters and one dispensation were
granted, while four lodges resumed work. One lodge was reported as
surrendering its charter. At this 1838 communication it was decided
to forfeit, at the next annual communication, the charters of those
lodges which had not been represented for three years. In 1839,
this action does not seem to have taken place, for eighty-four
lodges remained on the list. It was reported that only thirty-eight
lodges were working and that forty-six had "ceased." At the 1839
communication three additional charters were granted and plans were
made for the construction of a Grand Lodge building at Lancaster.
Thereafter new charters and revivals of dormant lodges were
reported in large numbers, with the result that, by 1856, the Grand
Lodge of Ohio was numerically four times as strong as it had been
in 1825.

GAIN AND LOSS IN INDIANA

During the period of the anti-Masonic excitement, the number of
lodges in Indiana decreased considerably. Yet, an examination of
the proceedings shows that the whole decline cannot be attributed
to antiMasonry. In 1829, the charters of four lodges were
"arrested" because of long standing delinquency, antedating the
"excitement." From 1825 to 1831 the number of lodges was increased
by the granting of thirteen new charters. By the latter date the
anti-Masonic excitement was making itself felt. The Grand
Secretary, in 1831, reported that there were only ten lodges which
were not delinquent either because of non-payment of dues or on
account of non-representation at the 1830 communication.

In 1832 there was a marked decrease in the Grand Lodge
representation. As a result it was decided to divide the Grand
Jurisdiction into five districts with a district agent in each to
visit the lodges in order to stimulate them to greater interest and
activity. The next year the plan was modified and seven "Visiting
Districts" were created. At this 1833 communication one dormant
lodge was revived. In 1833, as previously in 1830, it was
necessary, because of insufficient representation, to adjourn the
Grand Lodge from October to December. The adoption of a new
constitution in 1833 changed the quorum requirement so that future
adjournments would not be necessary because of small representation
of lodges.

PROPOSAL TO KILL THE GRAND LODGE NEGATIVED

The 1834 communication witnessed the disposal of a proposition to
surrender the charter of the Grand Lodge. At this meeting one
dispensation and one charter were granted. All delinquent lodges
were cited to appear at the next annual communication to show cause
why they should not be stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge.
This had the effect of doubling the attendance in 1835. At this
meeting one lodge was revived and one new lodge was chartered. Four
delinquent lodges were ordered stricken from the list.

No more lodges were revived or chartered until 1838. In that year
one was chartered, and likewise one in 1839. By 1842 Freemasonry in
Indiana may be safely said to have been on the up-grade. That year
two lodges were chartered and there were five under dispensation.
Nine reported that they had initiated members during the year. An
era of prosperity was under way that was to result in the Grand
Lodge of Indiana becoming almost seven times as large in 1856 as it
was in 1825.

MASONRY WEAK IN ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN

Of the other two Grand Lodges which existed in the North before the
Morgan affair, little needs to be said. It was not so much the
strength of anti-Masonry as the weakness of the Grand Lodges
themselves that caused the Grand Lodges of Illinois and Michigan to
become defunct. The Grand Lodge of Illinois, organized by a
convention at Vandalia in December, 1822, held its first annual
communication at the same place a year later. The meagre records
available concerning it show that it was never very firmly
established. The fact that no communication was held in 1825 is
evidence of this. Meetings in 1826 and 1827 were attended by only
a few lodges, though there were fifteen "in the obedience of the
Grand Lodge." A meeting was held in 1828 but no record of its
proceedings is extant. Thereafter organized Freemasonry disappeared
in the state, but just why is not clear. It is not reasonable to
think that anti-Masonry was to blame entirely for this--in fact,
there is little evidence ta show that the anti-Masons had any
strength in the state. The instability of the Masonic organization
coupled perhaps with fear aroused by exaggerated reports of
happenings in New York, seem to offer a better explanation of why
the Masons in Illinois gave up their organized existence so
quickly. Had the anti-Masonry been strong in the state, it is not
probable that nine lodges would have been chartered within its
bound between 1835 and 1839 by the Grand Lodges of Kentucky and
Missouri, thus making it possible to organize the second Grand
Lodge of Illinois in 1840 which by 1856, was to have 185 lodges on
the list.

MICHIGAN GRAND LODGE SUSPENDED

The situation in Michigan is equally inexplicable In 1826, less
than two months before Morgan's disappearance, there was organized
the Grand Lodge of the Territory of Michigan, with Lewis Cass as
Grand Master. In 1827 it received the approval of the other Grand
Lodges and appeared to be on the road to prosperity. In that year
the sixth lodge in the jurisdiction was installed at Ann Arbor and
a dispensation was granted for a lodge at Stony Creek. Little else
can be said of this Grand Lodge except that it voted, in 1829 to
suspend Masonic work. It is true that in that year the political
anti-Masons were strong enough to control the election of the
territorial delegate to Congress but that should not have meant
that Masonry could not continue to exist. Of course the Grand Lodge
was newly established, but it should not have been destroyed by the
first gust of anti-Masonry. The fact that Stony Creek Lodge
continued to meet regularly during the whole period following to
1840, proves that it was possible for Masonry to exist in the
region. Probably no better explanation can be offered than the
suggestion made by Jefferson S. Conover, the historian of Michigan
Masonry, that Cass, putting politics above Masonry, used his
influence to bring about the suspension of the Grand Lodge, though
such a suspension could have been avoided.

During the whole decade of the thirties Masonry was kept alive in
Michigan by Stony Creek Lodge. In 1841 an attempt was made to
revive the Grand Lodge of Michigan. Because of irregularities in
the procedure, the other Grand Lodges refused to recognize it so it
was necessary to form a new Grand Lodge in 1844. This organization
embarked on a prosperous career and by 1856 numbered eighty-four
lodges within its jurisdiction.

NOTE

(1) It should be noted that in 1825 there were already fourteen
dead lodges, whose demise could not be blamed on anti-Masonry. If
it be accepted that the two lodges which surrendered in 1827 did so
for reasons other than this, it becomes evident that one third of
the dead lodges became so from other causes than antiMasonry.

(To Be Concluded)

