Showing posts with label United Grand Lodge of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Grand Lodge of England. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

UGLE gives atta-girl's to female Masons

In June, 1908 Annie Besant and Lady Lutyens, wife of the architect Sir Edwin, set up the first co-ed Masonic lodge. Though it was short-lived, it changed the face (and body) of Freemasonry forever. Soon, all-female lodges sprang up, first in England, then elsewhere.

While many American Masons still think (or refuse to acknowledge) there are no female Masons, the United Grand Lodge of England is going to whoop it up for the 100th anniversary of female Masonry, The Times of London is reporting.

On June 4, an exhibition opens at UGLE headquarters in Coventry Grove celebrating the centenary of female Freemasonry.

Currently, there are about 20,000 women Masons in England, and more across the globe.

Dr. Iris Monica Oktabsova, past deputy grand master of one of the oldest branches, Lodge Equity 16, trotted out the same ol' same ol standard line when asked by The Times what Freemasonry is: "Although we are not a secret society, we are a society with secrets."

A hundred years to prepare for the interview, and that's the best the PGM could come up with.

In the 1870s, The Times reported that Annie Besant had written "an indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy and obscene book," referring to her book about birth control, The Law of Population. Now they're writing about how she helped form the first mixed-sex Masonic lodge.

The Times they are a-changing.

Image: Annie Besant as Grand Master

| | | | | |

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Guest editorial: Regularity and Recognition

The following statement by Grand-Master Mason John Graves of the Grand Lodge of All England at York was released by Grand Secretary Peter Clatworthy on Saturday, December 29, 2007 in response to a speech made by the Pro Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England on November 5, 2007.

Regularity and Recognition: The Myth and the Reality

If reports are correct, there is much to commend in the speech recently given by the Pro-Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England to the so-called ‘European Grand Masters’ Meeting’. However, leaving aside the infelicitous claim to speak for ‘England’, there are certain presumptions and confusions in the address that demand the most urgent and serious scrutiny.

Regularity is of course an essential doctrine in Freemasonry but has in recent years been subject to ill-considered assault from within the Craft itself. It is therefore appropriate to analyse those comments of the Pro-Grand Master that seem designed to undermine and devalue a concept that all Freemasons ought to hold dear.

There is, for example, the explicit declaration that ‘to be regular a Grand Lodge must conform to each of our basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition or it cannot be considered as regular’. Given a moment’s consideration a truly outrageous claim! Freemasonry is not, and never has been, subject to or contained within the United Grand Lodge of England. To suggest as much is to diminish the history, role and actuality of Freemasonry. The cart is clearly and contrivedly put before the horse, making regularity the reward for recognition. And conveniently in so doing the two quite separate and distinct concepts of ‘Regularity’ and ‘Recognition’ are conflated.

‘Regularity’ requires a strict acceptance and observance of the Ancient Landmarks of the Order. Such Landmarks are visible and ascertainable and are found within any regular Grand Lodge. Regularity is represented by adherence: nothing more, nothing less. It is not, and cannot ever be, bestowed. Indeed, Regularity is necessarily beyond the capacity of anybody or any organisation whatsoever to bestow, be they Grand Master or Grand Lodge. The very best any such Master or Lodge can hope to do is to bequeath Regularity to his or its successor. And here I can of course confirm that the Grand Lodge of All England is such a regular Grand Lodge and adheres strictly to those Ancient Landmarks that alone can make it so.

‘Recognition’ is a very different concept. There are, for example, devices the use of which may enable a regularly made Freemason to be ‘recognised’ by others. Such may be said to amount to individual recognition and on this level the term is quite uncontroversial. However, the question should be asked as to what purpose Grand Lodge ‘recognition’ actually serves, and who in fact really benefits from such a device. It should here be noted that Grand Lodge ‘recognition’ has its genesis in late eighteenth century legislation, such as the Unlawful Societies Act, designed to stifle debate and discussion within the context of an authoritarian and politically repressive state. We recoil from the memory of such devices and reject this latter day attempt to rejuvenate so tainted and un-Masonic a concept.

Far from having had thrust upon them ‘the mantle of being guardians of regularity’, UGLE in fact seized upon the opportunity presented by repressive legislation to attempt nothing less than the appropriation of Freemasonry. In contradistinction, the Grand Lodge of All England does not accept the validity of any such spurious doctrine as ‘recognition’ nor does it ‘recognise’ any other Grand Lodges nor seek such ‘recognition’ from others. Rather, it stands as the bearer of traditional Masonic principles and disowns all attempts to subjugate and subvert genuine Freemasonry.

The Grand Lodge of All England has frequently and consistently published its position with regard to these two quite separate and distinct concepts of ‘Regularity’ and ‘Recognition’. Together with a detailed historical exposition this is explained at length on our website and is authoritatively represented on a number of general Masonic websites. It is stated in our official submission to the Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Master Masons of North America, in articles in the hands of various Masonic publishers and in correspondence with various interested parties.

A Grand Lodge is, indeed, ‘either regular or it is not’. But whether ‘recognition’ is extended or denied to one Grand Lodge by another is irrelevant. There is in Masonic terms no historical or constitutional basis for this spurious and wholly political doctrine of ‘recognition’. To continue to employ such a device as a means of dividing Mason from Mason is the residue of one of the least attractive, most repressive and disgraceful periods of modern Masonic history.

From inception, the United Grand Lodge of England has sought, unsuccessfully, to exert a monopoly over Freemasonry. What cannot be countenanced is that this aspiration should be allowed to corrupt the wholly genuine concept, vital to genuine Freemasonry, of Regularity, and to render it nothing more than a self-serving ideological notion. This concern is made all the immediate by the compromises already entered into by United Grand Lodge of England and the dilution of Masonic principles and practices that these compromises have brought about.

Much of the difficulty the Pro-Grand Master sought to address in his speech was to do with the role of the United Grand Lodge of England within the Masonic world. Such difficulty, however, is due to his own Grand Lodge in seeking to redefine Freemasonry in its own image and as in its own gift. The Masonic doctrine of Regularity exists outside and is wholly independent of any Grand Lodge. It is most emphatically not to be confused and conflated with the practice of Grand Lodge ‘recognition’ devised and instituted by the United Grand Lodge of England for its own hegemonic purposes. And Freemasonry, even English Freemasonry, is most emphatically not to be confused and conflated with the United Grand Lodge of England.

— W. Bro. John Graves, Grand-Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of All England at York

| | | | | |

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

British Masons donate heart monitor to health center, give cash to church building fund

It seems our British brethren are a charitable lot, and that's a good thing.

Six lodges in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, put their funds together to buy a $5,000 electro-cardiograph heart monitor for the Corby Diagnostic Centre after they learned that the town of Corby has a 48% higher rate of heart disease than the British national average.

Corby Diagnostic Centre outpatients' manager Julie Hodgkins said, "We want to thank the masons very much indeed for thinking of us. We see a lot of people with heart-related problems in Corby and the ECG machine is a very valuable tool for us.

"An ECG machine records the electrical activity of the heart and is used to monitor and diagnose heart disorders. We can also use the equipment for pre-assessment before operations to ensure that people are fit for surgery.

"The new machine will be a major benefit for the department and will replace our old one which was reaching the end of its useful life."

Meanwhile the United Grand Lodge of England gave a bundle of cash away, too, but personally, I can't see how their gesture helps mankind in general. I'd certainly not want my dues or donations being given away to a church building fund.

The Anglican Church site even states their "concerns" about the activities of Freemasons, which I assume means they don't hold the fraternity in very high esteem. But the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity was only too glad to accept a check for over $10,000 from the English Freemasons of Gibraltar for its "Rock of Ages Campaign." Alfred Ryan, Deputy District Grand Master in Charge of Gibraltar's English Masons, presented a check to Dean Alan Woods, on behalf of the Freemasons' Grand Charity of the United Grand Lodge of England.

I don't know the details, but giving that much money to a church's building fund, to "a worthy and most needed cause [to] help in the repairs and restoration of the Cathedral Holy Trinity" seems to me to be some sort of "hey, we're not such bad guys after all" public relations move.

Unless, of course, English Freemasons built the Gibraltar cathedral back in 1832, and feel some resposibility to help in the renovation.

Image: The Anglican Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Gilbraltar

| | | | | |

Monday, August 13, 2007

Unmasonic Conduct: How is it handled in your jurisdiction?

Referring to a specific case where a brother stole £48,000 (about $99,000 US) from his grand lodge and Mark Masters lodge in Northumberland, England, Bro. Chris Connop, a representative of the United Grand Lodge of England said, "We expect high standards of our members and if they fall by our standards, then they are no longer a Freemason."

In this case, a well-paid ($150,000 per year) financial manager, 55-year-old David Glass, who had been a Mason for over 15 years, lost his job, and after exhausting his lines of credit and selling his home, embezzled funds from his brethren.

This story, and Bro. Connop's statement, raised a number of questions in my mind. Some of the questions are specific to United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) Masons. Other questions are more general in nature. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
  • At what point, if any, could this have been avoided? Could, would, or should his local brethren have offered financial assistance and/or financial advice to their brother in distress, had they been aware of his situation before the crime was committed?

  • Funds stolen between November 2004 and November 2005 apparently weren't even noticed missing until November 2006. Should a system have been in place that provided more immediate oversight? Should just one man have the ability to write checks and withdraw from lodge bank accounts?

  • Bro. Connop's comment that when members fail to meet Masonic standards they are no longer Masons leads me to wonder how, in England, the removal of a Mason is carried out. Is there a "trial," or does a conviction in a government court automatically cause a brother to be expelled from the fraternity?

  • Have you (American, British or otherwise) ever seen or participated in a Masonic trial? What did you think of it? Was it fair and impartial, even if the accused had already been convicted of a crime by the government courts, or was it mere formality with the outcome already pre-determined? Was the accused found guilty by his Masonic judges? If found guilty, was the accused expelled, suspended, or did he just receive a slap on the wrist? Were the charges even justified in the first place?

  • What particular actions by a Mason, whether the actions are legally considered crimes or not, do you think should warrant a trial and/or expulsion for a Mason? Are specific crimes and actions that are considered unmasonic spelled out in your codes, or is the interpretation of "unmasonic conduct" left to the conscience (or whim) of the accuser?

  • Does your lodge or grand lodge bring charges against a brother only after he is convicted of a crime, or do they take action before conviction, based only on accusation? Do they ever take action against a brother for unmasonic conduct that is not an actual crime?
Image: David Glass, former Freemason

| | | | | |

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Similarities and differences between U.S. and U.K. Freemasonry

Last week in response to Bro. Ben's article asking his readers what he should write about, I asked several general questions about what Freemasonry is like in Britain.

In response, he has begun a series dedicated to answering those questions on his blog Middlesex-Fire.

His first article talks about how often our British brothers meet. The second one delves into what they wear during lodge meetings.

You might want to keep your eye on his series, to learn a little about the similarities and differences of British Masonry in London compared with the version your lodge or jurisdiction practices.

Image: Freemason's Hall, home of the United Grand Lodge of England

| | | | | |

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Synopsis of Prof. Andrew Prescott's 'History of British Freemasonry: 1425-2000'

Recently a good brother from Alabama sent me a copy of a very interesting document titled "A History of British Freemasonry: 1425-2000."

The document is the text of Prof. Andrew Prescott's farewell speech to the Centre for Research into Freemasonry, given on February 20, 2006.

What makes Bro. Prescott's history interesting is that he didn't rely on the Internet for his research. No conspiracy theories or Templar fantasies colored his studies. He is a library hound. He searched through old dusty books and documents in England's old dusty libraries.

What he found is truly enlightening.

Unwilling to create a typical history, arbitrarily dividing it into decades or centuries as many historians would do, or merely pointing out Masonic highlights that occurred, say, in 1717, 1751, and 1813, Bro. Prescott has, by referring to particular dates of particular documents, pinpointed Masonic history in a whole new way.

He has divided Masonic history into 10 periods: 1425-1583; 1583-1717; 1717-1736/7; 1737-1763; 1763-1797-8; 1798-1834; 1834-1855-6; 1856-1874; 1874-1967; and 1967 to the present day.

We see in Bro. Prescott's history that there is indeed nothing new under the sun. Early Masonry was rife with corruption, conflict between educated thinking men and lower-class working men, and religious fervor butting its head against atheistic or naturalist philosophies. Grand Lodges came into being, fought amongst themselves and with each other, split away. In some cases, they made peace with each other. In other cases, they still to this day refuse to recognize each other.

The first known use of the word freemason occurred as a man's name, Nicholas le Freemason, and he was a mason. In 1325 he was accused of helping prisoners escape from Newgate jail in London.

Religious fraternities existed in the 1300's. Their primary function was to pay the Church for prayers for their members. Various craftsmen would favor and join particular groups. After the Black Plague of 1349 that killed between 1/3 and 2/3 of Europe's population, and over 75 million worldwide, skilled artisans and craftsmen were in high demand, and the fraternal groups became active in trade negotiations and regulation. Elite people became involved, and class tensions increased. The term freemason came to be used by more prosperous stonemasons and builders who became contractors, while the less-skilled workers used the term mason.

1425-1583

The government, which was basically the Church, struggled to keep wages low. In 1425 a law was passed forbidding masons from holding assemblies to demand higher wages. From this event, two myths of Masonry sprung. The craftsmen began making up legends that they had been given ancient charters allowing them to hold their assemblies. They also reacted against the increasing stratification of their trade by developing legends which sought to demonstrate that all masons were brethren of equal status. These legends were written into the Regius and the Cooke manuscripts. It is probably from this event that the well-known phrase about "working for and receiving a Master's wage" comes from.

The Regius and Cooke manuscripts tell of a charter given to masons by a non-existent Prince Edwin, Bro. Prescott says. The legends were created just after the 1425 law, in an attempt to protect stonemasons from the effects of recent labor legislation.

The legend was amplified in 1552, placing Prince Edwin in York, just as a strike of building workers was taking place in York. The leaders of the strikers were imprisoned.

1583-1717

In 1583, William Schaw was appointed Master of Works to King James VI of Scotland. Two days later, a new manuscript had been written, containing copies of the legends first recorded in the Regius and Cooke manuscripts. This document became known as Grand Lodge Manuscript 1, or the Old Charges.

Schaw reorganized Scottish stonemasons, and by 1599 had produced two sets of statutes that ordered the establishment of separate lodges based on locale, which would answer only to the General Warden. Regular meetings were scheduled, and minutes were required to be kept. There are hints that Schaw also sought to interest members of these lodges in the new esoteric and philosophical developments, such as the "art of memory."

Soon, men who were not working stonemasons were attracted to these lodges, including Sir Robert Moray, who became interested in the legends and symbolism of the stonemasons.

In England, too, non-stonemasons became interested in the meetings of stonemasons, including the scientists Elias Ashmole and Randle Holme. There is some speculation that the working stonemasons purposefully recruited men of weath, knowledge and stature, as these were the people paying their salaries. By this time, there were legends dating back to Biblical times giving the impression that it was a God-given right to be paid a fair wage.

As these early Masonic lodges became more elite, inner groups sprang up, including one called the Acception, a part of the London Company of Freemasons, of which Ashmole was a member. Eventually, the London Company of Freemasons became impoverished as they focused less on stonemasonry, and a backlash occurred. In an attempt to create more business, the elite fell out of favor, and the junior members gained more authority. The name of the group was changed to the London Company of Masons.

1717-1736/7

The creation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 was a direct result of the crisis within the London Company of Masons. Though it was later claimed that the Grand Lodge was a revival, it was most likely the members of the Acception, now out of favor, who set it up.

The next 20 years in England were contentious at best. The new Grand Lodge demanded that other lodges be subordinate to it, that they must obey the Grand Lodge's rules, and that new lodges must obtain warrants to come into existence.

Chaos ensued. Even members of the new Grand Lodge didn't necessarily obey the new rules. William Stuckley authorized a new lodge in Grantham without official approval of the Grand Lodge.

The new Grand Lodge, being made up of thinkers, not craftsmen, focused on social, cultural, political, scientific and aesthetic matters. Even the Gothic architecture long commonplace in England was disregarded. Vitruvian architecture was favored.

These were the "Moderns."

Grand Lodge Freemasonry was a metropolitan, elitist yet inclusive Freemasonry. Jews and Huguenots were members. William Hogarth, the painter famous for his Masonic works of art, was a member in 1730, but had quit in disillusionment by 1736. Other towns, especially York, which considered itself the birthplace of Freemasonry, grew tired of the London Grand Lodge's prideful attitude. Scotland and Ireland, fed up with the London Grand Lodge, formed their own Grand Lodges.

1737-1763

Tension between the London Grand Lodge and other Masons came to a head when the Moderns initiated Frederick Lewis, the Prince of Wales, in 1737. This was the same year that Lewis moved politically against his father, King George II. The Prince's supporters were ostracized by the royal court. The Masonic initiation of Lewis was a politically charged act. Immediately thereafter, a new edition of the Book of Constitutions appeared, describing the initiation of the Prince, further inflaming the king's loyal subjects.

Prof. Prescott says that "Freemasonry cannot be explained by Freemasonry"; it must be viewed in its historical context.

A group known as the Scald Miserable Masons began to stage mock parades timed to interfere with the pompous and solemn parades of the members of the London Grand Lodge. In 1741, they clashed, with some amount of violence. By 1747, the London Grand Lodge was no longer able to safely form a parade or procession.

During this time, Freemasonry had spread to America and other parts of the growing British empire, as well as to France. Benjamin Franklin had published an American edition of the Book of Constitutions in 1734, and in 1749 the London Grand Lodge warranted him as the Grand Master of Philadelphia. French and English Masonry experienced culture clash. The Pope began issuing bulls against Freemasonry in 1738. British Freemasonry became very anti-Catholic, in part because of the popularity of a book telling of a Mason who had suffered at the hands of the Portuguese Inquisition.

It was from this politically and culturally charged era that the Antients sprang. The Antients (Ancients) Grand Lodge was established in 1751 as an upstart competitor to the London Grand Lodge, driven by the Scald Miserable Masons and other lower-class loyalists to the king.

1763-1797/8

1763 marked an increased attempt by the London Grand Lodge, now calling itself the Premier Grand Lodge, to remake itself into the leading power behind Freemasonry worldwide. It also marked the end of the Seven Years War, which had greatly increased Britain's role on the world stage.

The Premier Grand Lodge sought to "enhance the respectability and prestige of their form of Freemasonry," according to Prof. Prescott. William Preston, Master of one of the four lodges that had originally formed the London Grand Lodge, worked to diminish the social aspects of the Grand Lodge and stress the spiritual and philosophical benefits of Freemasonry, making it into a "highly respectable and elevated form of social activity." Thomas Dunkerley, another member of the Premier Grand Lodge, actively campaigned in the provinces to increase the spiritual and philosophical content of Freemasonry, and was responsible for the creation of additional Masonic orders including the Royal Arch and Mark Masonry.

Their efforts didn't always bear fruit. The Lodge of Nine Muses was composed of luminary and fashionable artists, architects and musicians, while nearby lodges also subordinate to the Premier Grand Lodge were made up of gardeners and tradesmen.

1797-1834

The Premier Grand Lodge continued to push to keep their social prestige high, but were dealt a serious blow by the popularity of books purporting that Freemasonry had been covertly involved in the French revolution, supporting Jacobian interference. Lodges began to split over political issues. Spies were reporting to the British government what was discussed in Masonic lodges. One lodge was accused of an assassination plot against the king. The lodges protested, and proclaimed their loyalty to the Crown; some even changed their names to emphasize their loyalty.

Irish lodges used their meetings to plot the Irish rebellion of 1797. The government contemplated a law forbidding the meeting of all secret societies, and after a long debate in Parliament, the law passed. The Masons, though, had negotiated an exemption for themselves, fueling squabbles with other fraternal groups, such as the Odd Fellows, who were forbidden to meet in secret by the new law.

The government tried to ban meals after meetings of Antient lodges, wanting to keep men from "too much loose talk."

Both the Antients and the Moderns were under scrutiny not only by the British government, but by foreign Grand Lodges as well. The Grand Lodge of Sweden complained, for example, that English lodges too readily accepted low-class sailors, who then returned to their home countries, asking for lodge membership where they were not wanted.

With dual purposes in mind, the Duke of Sussex began negotiations to bring the Antients and the Moderns together into one grand lodge. He wanted to control the groups' loyalty and minimize sedition, and he wanted Freemasonry to become an organization "fit for the empire" by unifying Masonic practice and ritual.

He hoped that after unifying the Antients and Moderns, he could bring the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland into the union as well.

The Antients and Moderns merged into the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813.

The Duke's motivations were lofty. He believed he was performing a "greater service for mankind as a whole." He was fascinated by the remnants of solar worship embodied in Freemasonry, and he "dreamed of using Freemasonry to give a new religion to the world which he felt would be a boon to civilization."

Sussex was against freed slaves becoming Masons. He also was unsympathetic to industrial concerns. These attitudes led to chaos in Masonic lodges in the Caribbean, and, in the new industrial towns in northwest England, many lodges seceded from the Grand Lodge.

1834-1855/6

Relations between the Grand Lodge and other fraternal organizations continued to deteriorate. In 1834, the group called the Tolpuddle Martyrs were arrested and tried under the Unlawful Societies Act. The Grand Lodge gloated over this, noting that Freemasonry was exempt. Members of the Grand Lodge had different ideas on the direction Freemasonry should take in society. Sussex wanted to create his new religion that superseded Christianity. Dr. Robert Crucefix, a devout Christian, wanted Freemasonry to take more direct social action, and promoted a plan to create a home for elderly, poor Freemasons.

Along with clergyman George Oliver and Richard Carlisle, Crucefix wrote numerous articles for the Freemason's Quarterly Review, developing a Christian theology of Freemasonry. Their campaign was successful, and this Christianized Freemasonry was influential until the end of the 19th century. The idea of Masonic charity had entered the picture.

Crucefix wanted to create a Masonry for the respectable middle class. While he promoted the charitable aspects of Masonry, he also purposely created among the brethren a fear that low-lifes were using their Masonic membership to live off the goodheartedness of their brothers.

While Crucefix was successful in infusing Christianity into Freemasonry, he wasn't very successful at attracting the respectable middle classes, and Masonry remained divided between the elite and the lower-class.

1856-1874

Crucefix and Sussex clashed many times, and their differences are still apparent today in Freemasonry.

The skirmishes between those of differing opinions were fought mostly with words printed in magazines. Canadian Masons rebelled against the Grand Lodge of England and formed their own grand lodge.

As the newer industrial cities grew, the local elite demanded greater access to social and political power. The Lodge of Progress was formed in Birmingham. They built their own Masonic hall (many lodges still met in taverns at this time), forbade alcohol at Masonic meals, and stressed virtues of charity, temperance and respectability. Other lodges in industrial towns followed suit.

This is the time when, finally, Crucefix's hope for a membership of the respectable middle class came into being.

Opulent lodge halls began to be built, usually near the centers of government, standing next to public buildings.

In India, British Masons and native Indian Masons began to build separate lodges, based on their religious differences. Christianity and "decency" were stressed in the new lodges being formed.

1874-1967

By the 1870s, the Victorian era was in full swing. It wasn't just Freemasons who became more reserved and "proper"; it was British society as a whole. Lodges became respectable, and again Masons began to parade through the streets. An industry of providing expensive Masonic jewels and regalia sprang up. Magazines circulated promoting the pompous side of Freemasonry, writing about Masonic personalities and events, much as our magazines do today. The awards-mentality of Freemasonry had come into being.

Society had become prosperous and stable.

Fewer and fewer lodges met in taverns. Having your own lodge building was dignified and impressive. Lodges became even more class-divided, with men of different professions joining separate lodges. Lodges became a place for men to meet after their day's work; many lodges became "gentlemen's clubs." The London School Board petitioned for its own lodge simply so they could have a nice place to relax after work.

Religion in lodges became even more important as the buildings themselves became more church-like. The chaplain's role in lodge meetings increased, and attending lodge became almost like attending church.

This increased religiosity wasn't universal, and in France lodges became increasingly less religious and more secular and even atheistic. Tensions between the Grand Lodges of England and France came to a head when the Grand Orient of France rescinded the requirement of belief in a supreme being as a requirement for Masonic initiation.

In America, the religious overtones in Freemasonry were not as pronounced until much later, in the mid-20th century, about the time that in England the religious aspects of Freemasonry, left over from the Victorian period, began to fade.

With the societal changes, beginning after World War II and speeding up exponentially in the 1960s, the British became more secular and less religious, and so did British Freemasonry. Americans in general became more secular, too, but American lodges went the opposite way. Lodge membership in America had increased dramatically during those changing 20 years, and then plummeted quickly as the new generation of the 1960s refused to embrace tradition. This left American Freemasonry populated with older, more conservative and more religious men, and the changing tide of society did not wash over the Masonic lodge as it did in England. The 1960s generation of free-thinkers didn't enter the Masonic world, and thus their influence, so pervasive in the rest of American culture, didn't modify Freemasonry to any great degree.

— W.S.

Image: A page from the Cooke Manuscript

| | | | | |

United Grand Lodge of England actively recruits on college campuses

The United Grand Lodge of England has officially lowered the minimum age to become a Freemason from 21 to 18, and has begun an active campaign to recruit members from the student body and staff of Great Britain's universities, the Sunday Telegraph said today.

Seven lodges across the country have each targeted a university in their respective cities to "promote and encourage freemasonry among undergraduates and other university members." If successful, the project will be expanded.

"Young members pay half dues and the dining fee is also reduced," one Mason told a reporter. "A few members of staff have been initiated already."

"It's good for undergraduates to join because we have members from all walks of life — doctors, policemen, magistrates, clerks," said a Mason from the Lodge of St. Peter in Exeter.

Image: Freemason's Hall in London, home of the United Grand Lodge of England

| | | | |