An extensive look at external relations of Grand Lodges and their politics. Covers the 1814 International Compact, 1875 Lausanne Congress and other events including the "Minnesota Affair", 2001-2002.

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.  

The Masonic Proclamation of Faith

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]

Why then would Pike reverse himself after the 1875 Lausanne Congress?

Events leading up to the 1875 Lausanne Congress

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 °.

The Lausanne Congress of 1875 and how the Scots used God to destroy it.

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 1879, the Zulus defeated the British the Battle of Isandlwana on January 22.

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

The Fashoda Incident

             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

The 1905 Concordat

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.

 World War I and the birth of the Grand Lodge Nationale France

             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