THE BUILDER JUNE 1919

AMERICAN GRAND LODGES AND FRENCH MASONRY
BY BRO. SAMUEL H. GOODWIN, P. G. M., UTAH

There's nothing constant in the universe,
All ebb and flow, and every shape
That's born bears in its womb the seed of change."

The action of Grand Lodges with reference to French Masonry, and
the change of front on the part of many Masons toward the same
subject, are in line with the assertion of Ovid, quoted above. If
there is one thing on this earth of ours intimately connected with
humanity that is above the reach of change, we for one, know not in
what quarter of the globe to search for it.

This is especially true of everything which exhibits life. The
fundamental law of growth implies and involves change.
Deterioration and death follow where this law ceases to operate.

That Poet saw clearly and truly who wrote:

"Weep not that the world changes - did it keep
A stable, changeless state, 'twere cause indeed to weep.

No thoughtful student of Masonic history can pursue his subject
very far, without fronting the fact  despite the insistent claims
of perfervid banqueters and some others to the contrary that
Masonry has responded, and still answers to the same law.

To one who holds that there must be no "variation, neither shadow
cast by turning" from the line laid down by our Masonic fathers, it
is only necessary to point to the Code of his own Jurisdiction, and
to customs and usages which prevail in his own lodge and which are
of quite recent origin to find both the prophesy and the warrant of
further changes. And when we are solemnly warned against making any
"innovations in the body of Masonry," we may well regard such
admonition as being relative, only, for what part of this "body" is
untouched by Change!

Because certain customs and jurisprudence were quite satisfactory
yesterday, or a generation, or a hundred years ago, affords no
reason for assuming that the ultimate was reached at that time, or
that yesterday's readjustments will meet all future requirements.

Masonry is a living thing. It has to do with living beings who pass
their lives in environments which change over-night. If it is to
rise to its opportunities under such conditions, it cannot remain
insensible to, or be untouched by, the currents which sweep men
ever onward in the line of their destiny. Masonry, we should not
forget, is a means to an end, not an end of itself. It is an
institution calculated to help man toward the goal: it is not
itself the goal. If these things be true; if Masonry is to be a
real help to man and not be as so much impedimentia to be added to
his other burdens, it must have flexibility and adaptability.
Otherwise, it may as well be laid away in a glass case, with other
mummies, where the dust of the ages may hide it from sight, for its
day and generation are of the past.

It may safely be said, we think, that no period in the world's
history has witnessed so many, or such radical changes as the
period between August 1st, 1914, and November 11th, 1918. Again and
again men declared that a world war was simply out of the question;
inconceivable; impossible. When it came, the same false prophets
predicted with no less confidence that it could not go beyond three
months six months, at the outside, because the nations would be
bankrupt and exhausted in that length of time. But the war ran into
the fifth year, thereby giving added emphasis to their assininity.
And the war upset about every standard, and rendered untenable
nearly every position hitherto accepted and occupied by men. With
such a general and radical upheaval and shifting of about
everything that man had considered established, it could hardly be
expected that Masonry should remain untouched by this world-
cataclysm. Nor did it by any means escape. One, and not the least
important, of the effects of the war upon Masonry, is seen in a
hitherto unknown willingness on the part of many Grand Lodges and
Masons to consider the status of French Masonry in the light of
facts revealed by the world's greatest holocaust.

In what follows an attempt is made to exhibit, under a rather crude
classification, the action and present position of the several
American Grand Lodges, so far as these are shown by the Proceedings
at hand. In some cases no record of action had since the reception
of the request for recognition from the Grand Lodge of France,
July, 1917 has been available. In such instances, the Grand Bodies
have been placed under the head of "No Action Taken." Information
concerning the action of two Grand Lodges Rhode Island and
Wyoming was derived from Masonic publications, other than the
Proceedings, as these have not yet reached us. Aside from these
matters, the scheme adopted is self-explanatory.

1. Grand Lodges which have recognized both the Grand Lodge and the
Grand Orient of France. These number five. In the order of date of
action, they are:

Louisiana, February 5th, 1918. 
New Jersey, April 17th, 1918. 
Iowa, June 11th, 1918. 
California, October 9th, 1918. 
Minnesota, January 21-22, 1919.

It should be noted here, that while formal recognition was extended
to the Grand Lodge of France, only  on the date named by the Grand
Lodge of New Jersey, the interdict against the Grand Orient was
rescinded, and this, if we understand correctly New Jersey's
position, places the Orient on practically the same footing as the
Grand Lodge of France.

2. Grand Lodges which recognized the Grand Lodge of France, only,
and either took no action at all with reference to the Grand
Orient, or refused recognition to that Grand Body. Our records show
that there were six of these, viz:

Texas, December 4th, 1917.
District of Columbia, December 17th, 1917.
South Dakota, June 11th, 1918.
Nevada, June 12th, 1918.
Oregon, June 14th, 1918.
Rhode Island .. ..

In connection with the last named Grand Lodge, we have only the
statement of a Masonic publication that "Rhode Island recognized
France." Oregon removed "the inhibition resulting in the prevention
of our brethren now in France from visiting French lodges. . ."
This would place that jurisdiction under the next head, as well.
And while Nevada did not formally recognize the Grand Orient, she
certainly did so inferentially, for the Grand Secretary reports
that the "Masonic Bureau for the Allied Armies" which is neither
more nor less than a committee appointed by the Grand Orient with
its headquarters in the Temple of the Grand Orient "has served us
by raising a Fellow Craft of our Ely Lodge No. 29, to the Degree of
a Master Mason in a duly recognized lodge in France." This would
place Nevada, practically, in Class No. 1, above.

3. Grand Lodges which did not formally recognize either of the
Grand Bodies of France, but which did give permission to their
members to visit French lodges. These number eleven and fall under
two heads:

(a) Those which restrict this privilege of visitation to lodges
under the obedience of the Grand Lodge of France. There are four of
these:

Florida, January 15th, 1918.
Philippine Islands, January 22nd, 1918.
Georgia, May 1st, 1918.
Indiana, May 28th, 1918.

(b) The other seven Grand Lodges permit their members to visit
lodges of both of the French Grand Bodies. these are:

New York, September 10th, 1917.
Kentucky, October 16th, 1917.
Alabama, December 5th, 1917.
*Utah, January 15th, 1918.
Colorado, May 1st, 1918.
North Dakota, June 18th, 1918.
Wyoming, September 11th, 1918.

It is barely possible that Indiana belongs under "b" rather than
under "a." The wording of the resolution granting such permission
is not clear to us, on this point. Were it is: "Resolved: That any
member in


*At the 48th Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Utah,
January 21-22 1919 the Grand Lodge of France was recognized, and
the interdict against the Grand Orient was rescinded. This places
Utah in Class "1," above, its action being similar to that of the
Grand Lodge of New Jersey.


good standing of a lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge
of Indiana is hereby permitted to visit and hold Masonic
intercourse with any lodge or member of a lodge operating under the
Grand Lodge of the country in which said lodge is located." The
matter would depend upon the measure of exactness with which the
words "Grand Lodge of the country," are used. If intended to be
exact, then visitation would be restricted to lodges of the Grand
Lodge of France. In as much as the Grand Orient of France was not
mentioned in the list of Grand Lodges and Orients presented at the
time for consideration, we think that Indiana is properly placed.

4. Grand Lodges which took a more or less decided stand against any
measure of recognition being accorded either of the two Bodies
under consideration. There are four of these, to date. They are:

Missouri, September 20th, 1917; Sept. 20th, 1918. 
Connecticut, February 6th, 1918.
Virginia, February 12th, 1918.
Wisconsin, June 11th, 1918.

5. Grand Lodges which considered the matter, but postponed action
without, apparently, being committed definitely to one view or the
other, on the merits of the question. There were eleven of these:

Massachusetts, June 13th, 1917.
Arkansas, November 20th, 1917.
North Carolina, January 15th, 1918.
Tennessee, January 30th, 1918.
Oklahoma, February 28th, 1918.
Maine, May 9th, 1918.
Nebraska, June 5th, 1918.
Washington, June 11th, 1918.
Vermont, June 12th, 1918.
Idaho, September 10th, 1918.
Illinois, October 8th, 1918.

It is rather difficult to word a heading which will do justice to
the position of all the Grand Lodges listed under this division. In
some cases, the discussions evoked were shot through and through
with dogmatism and bitterness. If definite action had been taken,
there can be little doubt where such Grand Lodges would stand. In
other instances, as for example, Massachusetts and Maine, and some
others, there was more of the kindly, and what we should
characterize as the Masonic spirit manifested, though perhaps on a
test vote, these would stand with the others. However, as already
intimated, our tabulation is approximate, only.

6. Grand Lodges in which the subject appears not to have been
mentioned, or only incidentally so, at the Communications indicated
by the dates. Here we have thirteen Bodies, as follows:

Delaware, October 4th, 1916 Not mentioned.
Mississippi, February 13th, 1917 Not mentioned.
Ohio, October 17th, 1917 Not mentioned.
West Virginia, November 14th, 1917 Not mentioned.
Maryland, November 20th, 1917 Not mentioned.
South Carolina, December 12th, 1917 Not mentioned.
Pennsylvania, December 27th, 1917 Not mentioned.
Arizona, February 12th, 1918 See statement following this list.
Kansas, February 20th, 1918 Not mentioned.
New Hampshire, May 15th, 1918 Not mentioned.
Michigan, May 28th, 1918 See statement following.
New Mexico, October 18th, 1917- See statement following.
Montana, 1916 Not mentioned.

Of this list, the Grand Lodge of Arizona "recognized" the "Masonic
Bureau for the Allied Armies," which, as noted above, is only a
committee, and a committee composed of members of the Grand Orient
of France, and appointed by that Grand Body. We are somewhat at a
loss to understand just how much our Arizona Brethren meant by this
action. It would seem to be a tacit recognition of the Grand Orient
of France, but perhaps our Brothers did not mean it to be such.

The Grand Lodge of Michigan appropriated $200.00 to be used by the
same Bureau in its fine work for the soldiers. This, of course,
does not commit the Grand Lodge of Michigan, or show a leaning
toward the Grand Orient, any more than a similar contribution to
the general fund that was recently gathered, a part of which was to
be administered by the K. C., would indicate Roman Catholic
predilections.

To summarize: The foregoing list shows that of the 50 Grand Lodges
named, 22 gave some measure of recognition to French Masonry. Of
the remaining 28, four were avowedly opposed to any form of
recognition  though two of the four have recognized that other Body
in France, a part of whose strange story is told below 11
considered the subject, but postponed action; in 12, the matter was
not mentioned, and two expressed themselves only so far as concerns
the "Masonic Bureau for the Allied Armies."

THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT AND REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE AND THE
FRENCH COLONIES

In preparing the following statement of facts, the writer has
assumed that others, like himself, have been not a little puzzled
by the dearth of definite information concerning the initial steps
leading to the organization of the National Grand Lodge of France,
the number and character of the lodges composing it, and the
reasons which led to the hasty action of the Grand Lodge of England
in recognizing it. To these matters we propose to devote a little
space.

1. The Formation of this Grand Lodge. 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.

The leader in this movement was one, Dr. Ribaucourt, who, for some
three or four years previously, had been endeavoring to "found"
something, of which he should be the head, while still retaining
his membership in the Grand Orient of France. But that is a
different though not an entirely separate story. 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. Of course this was not without precedent. 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."
As we shall presently show, at the moment of this announcement a
month after the organization of the new Grand Body there was, at
the very most, but one lodge under its obedience. Just here it may
be well to mark the dates, in the procession of events, for they
are most illuminating. On the 3rd of November, 1913, Dr. Ribaucourt
resigned his membership; November 5th he constituted the new Grand
Lodge, as indicated above; at once application was made to the
Grand Lodge of England for recognition; on November 20th, the Pro
Grand Master of England (in the absence of the Grand Master),
issued his edict recognizing the National Grand Lodge of France;
December 3rd, 1913, the Grand Master apparently made the action of
the Pro Grand Master his own, and, in a "message from the throne"
announced to Grand Lodge what had been done. (Recognition of Grand
Lodges under the English Constitution lies with the Grand Master,
and only incidentally is brought before Grand Lodges.)

The course pursued by these seceding members of the Grand Orient of
France is similar to that of those Brethren who, in 1910, withdrew
from what is now the York Grand Lodge of Mexico, and soon after,
erected a Grand Body of their own. In this connection it should be
borne in mind that a lodge, once created by a higher power, belongs
to that obedience, till, by constitutional action of the Body which
created it, it has been released, or erased from the roll. The
members of a constituent lodge may all withdraw, the lodge still
exists, legally, and is still under the jurisdiction of the body
which chartered it (unless Constitutional enactment provides
otherwise), and its effects are the property of the Grand Lodge
which gave it being. This is illustrated by the action of the Grand
Lodge of England  through its District Grand Lodge with reference
to those lodges whose membership all withdrew to form the present
Grand Lodge of Queensland. The name, number, property, lodge all
belonged to, and were taken possession of by the Grand Lodge of
England.

So, when Dr. Ribaucourt formed himself and his seceding colleagues
into what they were pleased to call a Grand Lodge, no 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 !

2. Some Facts Concerning the Lodges of this Grand Body. Under
ordinary circumstances in this country, great care is usually
exercised by our Grand Lodges in assuring themselves of the
"regularity" of the constituent bodies which unite to form any new
Grand Lodge. This is especially true of several American Grand
Lodges which have recognized the Grand Body under consideration.
It is not our purpose to comment on the origin or history of the
several constituent lodges under the obedience of the National
Grand Lodge of France. Information is not at hand to enable us
adequately to do this. our purpose is the simple one of noting a
few salient facts in connection with two or three of these lodges,
because this course will help us the better to appreciate the
character of the National Grand Lodge.

Enough has been said, perhaps, concerning number 1, of these
lodges. But the second lodge, generally named in connection with
the organization of this Grand Lodge the impression being given
that it was one of the "several lodges," which united to form the
Body we are considering was the "Loge Anglaise No. 204," of
Bordeaux.

This lodge has had a most interesting history, which does not
particularly concern us in this connection. It may be noted here,
however, that "Loge Anglaise No. 204" was organized at Bordeaux, on
Sunday, April 27th, 1732, by several English sea captains. In those
early days, charters were not necessary, and three Masons duly
assembled for the purpose, could constitute a lodge. Of this lodge
it is said that it ". . . was founded under the auspices of the
Grand Lodge of England." Its career was somewhat tempestous, and
its independent spirit not infrequently brought it into conflict
with superior authority. But, for 110 years it appears to have gone
along with a fair degree of unanimity and success under the
jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France. In view of the fact
that this lodge has been loosely claimed as one of the lodges which
united with others to form the National Grand Lodge of France, it
may be well to note certain circumstances which finally led Loge
Anglaise No. 204 into the fold of the new Grand Body.

A matter of Ritual, in use in the lodge "Le Centre des Amis," came
before the Council of the Grand Orient, and later, in June, 1913,
before the Annual Convention of the Grand Orient. The governing
body used its authority, to the extent even so the aggrieved
parties declare of cutting off debate, and not permitting the lodge
to be heard. In such discussion as was had, and in its general
attitude, the only support which came to Le Centre des Amis, was
that given by Loge Anglaise No. 204. From this time and incident
there developed something of an understanding between the two
lodges, and a desire and purpose to co-operate in securing certain
results. Later, came the events noted under "1" above, recognition
of the new organization, by the Grand Lodge of England, coming on
November 20th, of that year. six days later, November 26th, Loge
Anglaise "resolved that all correspondence with the Grand Orient
should be broken off." At its next meeting, December 3rd, 1913, ".
. . the lodge officially severed its connection with the Grand
Orient, and resolved to co-operate with the 'Loge Centre des Amis.'
" This, be it noted, was 13 days after the National Grand Lodge of
France had been recognized by edict, issued by the Pro Grand Master
of the Grand Lodge of England. Formal official notice of the action
of the lodge was not given, however, until January 1st, 1914, on
which date Loge Anglaise announced its decision to the Masons of
France in a "Manifesto."

From the foregoing brief statement it will be seen that not till
more than 40 days after the National Grand Lodge had been
recognized by the Grand Lodge of England, was there a second lodge
under its obedience, and this lodge was the one at Bordeaux Loge
Anglaise No. 204.

The Junior Grand Warden (Bro. Edmund Heisch) of the new Grand Lodge
tells us that, "Early in 1914, certain English Freemasons resident
in Paris, members of English lodges, made application for
permission to form a lodge under the obedience of the National
Lodge." This permission was granted, together with a charter, and
on June 20th, 1914, "St. George's Lodge" was duly consecrated, the
Junior Grand Warden becoming its first Master. Thus, the third
lodge under the obedience of the National Grand Lodge came into
existence, more than seven months after recognition had been
accorded by the Grand Lodge of England.


"Liberation Lodge No. 8" of this obedience, has an interesting
story, and one that is significant of the general character of the
body under consideration. Briefly, it appears that certain American
soldiers while on shipboard, on their way to France, discussed the
matter of forming some sort of a Masonic organization upon their
arrival in that country. In fact the question had been considered
while they were still at American Lake. Upon reaching France the
discussion was renewed, and a Washington Mason called a meeting at
which further consideration was given the subject. At the second
meeting of these brothers they learned that already "steps were
being taken to form a lodge for American soldiers." On October
20th, 1917, the Washington Brother and others attended a meeting
called to further this movement, which was presided over by one J.
Hennessy Cooke, one of Lloyd's agents, and a member of an English
lodge, who informed them that already a petition for a charter had
been sent to the National Grand Lodge. At a later meeting, the
charter was presented and read, and by a majority vote, it was
decided to go forward and establish the lodge. This accordingly was
done, and on December 8th, 1917, the Junior Grand Warden of the
National Grand Lodge consecrated "Liberation Lodge No. 8" with the
aforesaid J. Hennessy Cooke as Master.

In February, 1918, "Britannica-Lodge" was created by the National
Grand Lodge, this being number 9 of the lodges on its roster.

Of these nine lodges, seven are English-speaking, and use the
"Emulation Working." The other two, probably, use the "Rectified
Scottish Rite," as it was insistence upon the use of this Ritual
that led to the difficulty between Lodge Le Centre des Amis and the
Grand Orient. But the matter of Ritual, apparently, is of less
importance in France, than it is in America, for Brother Heisch
tells us that "The Constitutions of the new Grand Lodge have been
so framed as to permit the lodges under its obedience to practice
the rituals of any Grand Lodge with which the National Grand Lodge
is related an essential condition being that those Rituals are
practiced without alteration."

To us the very large predominance of the Anglo-Saxon element in
these lodges is most significant. It occurs to us this moment that
if that principle, of which we hear much through the press of the
self determination of the peoples, in matters of government and
boundaries, along lines of linguistic and racial cleavage should be
applied to the Masonry of France, the Grand Body under
consideration would cease to be the "National Independent and
Regular Grand Lodge of France and the French Colonies," and would
take its proper place as a District Grand Lodge, under the English
Constitution! And this suggestion receives some color of support
from the Pro Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England. In his
announcement Grand Lodge (Quarterly Com., Dec. 3rd, 1913) of the
recognition of the National Grand Lodge the Pro Grand Master
enumerated "The obligations which will be imposed on all lodges
under this new Constitution," under six heads. The sixth and last
reads: "Only those Brethren who are recognized as true Brethren by
the Grand Lodge of England will be received in lodge." We may be at
fault, but that statement seems not to consort well with the notion
of a "National," and an "Independent," and "Regular" Grand Lodge,
supreme and untrammeled in the exercise of its sovereign powers
within the limits of its own jurisdiction! 

3. The Recognition of the National Grand Lodge by the Grand Lodge
of England. The expedition with which negotiations were carried
forward to a satisfactory issue in this matter, has often been
remarked. In fact, we alluded to it under "1" above. But there are
some interesting incidents connected with those negotiations, which
we do not remember to have seen brought together.

As already noted, Dr. Ribaucourt organized himself and his seceding
colleagues into a Grand Lodge on November 5th, 1913. On November
20th the Pro Grand Master recognized this newly created Body, as a
just and legally constituted Grand Lodge. But how could the
necessary preliminaries be attended to in so short a time' of
course, the distance between London and Paris is not great, but
traveling and discussions take time. We do not propose a solution
to this problem, but simply note certain phases of it.

Following the "message from the throne" already referred to which
dealt with this subject, the Pro Grand Master, of the Grand Lodge
of England added "a few words of explanation." He told Grand Lodge
that "The agreement with this newly constituted body of French
Freemasons is the result of prolonged and difficult negotiations
(emphasis ours) in which two well-known brethren have been devoted
and skilful intermediaries." "Prolonged!" We have seen that but 15
days elapsed between the organization of this body and its
recognition. Is it to be understood that these brethren were
negotiating with the members of Le Centre des Amis, while they, and
the lodge of which they were members, were still under the
obedience of the Grand Orient, and that possibly, by suggesting the
certainty of securing immediate recognition, differences were
intensified till bonds were snapped asunder by secession? We do not
say that such was the case, but less than 15 days seems to us to be
a very short time in which to carry on "prolonged" negotiations.

And these two English Brethren: these successful "intermediaries,"
who held "no official positions," and who did this work, "not as a
matter of duty" (the Pro Grand Master is again our informant) "but
from disinterested devotion to the Craft" did they understand that
they were going forward with the tacit approval of Grand Lodge ?
The fruits of their "prolonged" efforts were accepted and
acknowledged, at all events. And could their labors have been
"prolonged," unless their beginning antedated the rupture between
some of its members and the Grand Orient of France?

In his "message from the throne," the Grand Master of England
referred to the brethren who had organized the National Grand Lodge
as being "resolved to uphold the true principles and tenets of the
Craft," and further, that they were "pledged to adhere to those
principles of Freemasonry which we regard as fundamental and
essential," and that in consequence of these facts, "I have
joyfully assented to the establishment of fraternal relations and
the exchange of representatives."

We know what is required by the Grand Lodge of England when a new
Grand Lodge is to be erected in one of the Colonies of the Empire,
where Masonry is already established, but we do not know what it
regards as essential principle of regularity when the applicant for
recognition is outside of the territory of the Empire. To be sure,
there is Article XII, of the "Old Regulations," of 1721, approved
by Grand Lodge, in that year, which states what is the composition
of Grand Lodge, and Article VIII of the same "Regulations" which
brands as "Rebels," any ". . . Set or number of brethren" who
"shall withdraw or separate themselves from the lodge in which they
were made Brethren .... without a Dispensation from the Grand
Master or his Deputy." Of course, the fact that recognition was
Immediately granted the brethren who seceded from the Grand Orient
of trance, is evidence enough that these regulations are not now
operative, or at all events, do not control action, where the
Bodies considered are outside of the Jurisdiction or the Grand
Lodge of England. And it would seem that it is not necessary that
there should be a fixed number of lodges uniting to form a new
Grand Lodge, or any lodges at all- as in the case of the National
Grand Lodge- as a prerequisite to recognition. American Grand
Lodges are usually very careful on these scores. It is generally
held by them that there must be at least three lodges, which have
been regularly constituted by a recognized authority, and that the
applicant for favors must be supreme within the Jurisdiction over
which it proposes to hold sway. We say, these are generally held to
be necessary. Of course, there are many departures from this
standard, even by some of our most conservative Grand Bodies. As
tor example, the Grand Lodge of Missouri, and the Grand Lodge of
Virginia, and some others which have recognized the National Grand
Lodge of France, which, as we have seen, was composed of members
who had their Masonic birth in the Grand Orient of France an
organization absolutely tabooed by these Grand Lodges and, as we
have also seen, had not so much as one lodge to bless itself with
at its inception, and only one, when it was recognized by the Grand
Lodge of England. It would appear from this, that the Grand Lodge
of England (and a few American Grand Lodges) does not take into
account any of these matters when weighing the claims of an
applicant for recognition.

Another statement by the Pro Grand Master  when feliciting Grand
Lodge on the auspicious advent of the National Grand Lodge is of
interest in view of later developments, the significance of which
we have tried to indicate under "2,' above. He said: You will
permit me, I am sure, to express my own deep satisfaction that the
privation of Masonic intercourse with Frenchmen in France, which
has for so long caused us so much sadness, is now at an end. Now
that there is a body of Frenchmen, a body which I do not doubt will
grow very largely," &c. Of course, the Pro Grand Master could not
foresee that the Body which came into existence in consequence of
the "prolonged' negotiations carried forward by the two
"intermediaries," already referred to, would become as we have seen
- an English Body, in practically everything but name, with most of
its lodges bearing English names, and at this time, seven of its
nine lodges, English-speaking, using English Work. Apparently, the
"body of Frenchmen" referred to by the Pro Grand Master, is still
confined, mainly, to Lodges 1 and 2, on the roster of the National
Grand Lodge, viz., Lodge "Le Centre des Amis," of Paris, and "Loge
Anglaise No. 204," of Bordeaux.

Such are some of the facts concerning the organization of the
National Grand Lodge of France, the constitution and character of
some of its constituent lodges, and the recognition of this Body by
the United Grand Lodge of England.

NOTE: For the benefit of any who may desire to "check up" the
foregoing statements, the following list of authorities is given,
as being the chief sources of information:

1. An article entitled, "National Independent and Regular Grand
Lodge of France and the French Colonies," by Edmund Heisch, J. G.
W. of that Grand Body. "Transactions, ' Authors' Lodge No. 3456,
volume I, (1915), pages 269-275.

This article has an added value, in that it embodies a quite full
statement by the Grand Secretary of the National Grand Lodge, G. L.
Jollois.

2. An interesting bit of the history of the Lodge of Bordeaux,
under the caption: "The loge Anglaise No. 204' of Bordeaux," by the
same author as the preceding article. "Transactions," Authors'
Lodge No. 3456, volume II, (1917), pages 203223.

3. An article, "Freemasonry in France," in pamphlet form, by Wm.
Preston Campbell-Everden (1918). This brochure, of some 26 pages,
is by a P. M. of "Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343," under the
Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of France. The author has written
works on several Masonic subjects, and he here gives us some
illuminating facts in concise form.

4. A letter from Brother D. H. Johnston, of the Grand Jurisdiction
of Washington, written from "Somewhere in France,' in December,
1917, and enclosing a letter from one, J. Hennessy Cooke.
Proceedings of Washington, 1918, pages 213-216.

A careful reading of Brother Johnston's letter will leave no doubt
on the score of that brother's zeal, and even less concerning the
restricted area of his Masonic knowledge. We have touched upon the
contents of both of these letters in our review of Washington, for
1918.

5. Proceedings of the United Grand Lodge of England, Quarterly
Communication, December 3, 1913.

