Question:

[MasonicAdept]

Well, we know that Alfred Lodge in England (since erased) deputized officers to make Masons. Has a search been made of the lodge's records to see if such a deputation was granted?

@Glen Cook, can you explain, why it is so hard for you to accept that John Batt conferred the degree unauthorized? He degree peddled, it is just that simple.
I have researched and asked regarding ANY authority given to Batt to confer the degrees, NO ONE GAVE HIM AUTHORITY...Not Ireland, Not Sctoland, Not England, NOT ANYONE.

[QUOTE]We know that the haute grades were disseminated in the 18-19th C in a less formal manner than now used. I quite believe you accurately quote what you were told by the grand Lodge of Ireland; that doesn't mean I believe they were accurate. I would suggest a better statement is that there is no current evidence that he had authority to confer the degrees[/QUOTE]

LOL, now you're stretching, Glen, are you saying that the Grand Lodge of Ireland don't know who they gave authority to and the regulations they had in place? Come on, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to contradict what they have stated from their own records and registry...

[QUOTE]Control of lodge activities by GL was much more fluid in the 18th century ( though, to be fair, there are lots of things that Grand Lodge is don't know now!).[/QUOTE]

Which would certainly prove that he had no authority, if they didn't know....

 

[MRichard]

@MasonicAdept If memory serves me correct, Brother Glen Cook has served in several capacities as a member or committee member of the CGMNA. He has expertise in recognition matters.

 

[MasonicAdept]

@MasonicAdept If memory serves me correct, Brother Glen Cook has served in several capacities as a member or committee member of the CGMNA. He has expertise in recognition matters.

@MRichard the topic at hand is not a matter of RECOGNITION.

 

[MRichard]

@MRichard the topic at hand is not a matter of RECOGNITION.

It's above my pay grade regardless.

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Glen Cook an example of a healing by the Modern Grand Lodge of England is in the case of the Old Lodge of Antiquity in 1790.

 

[MasonicAdept]

It's above my pay grade regardless.

You're good Brother @MRichard...

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Glen Cook,

Laurence Dermott was a Mason who was initially raised under the Moderns, but changed allegiance to Antient.

Can you tell me of any documentation of his healing, since both Grand Lodges deemed each other clandestine?

I would like to know what method was used to have him received into the Antient Lodge?

If there was no formal ceremony they called "healing" then we cannot be dogmatic about seeing formal acts of the Lodge or Grand Lodge regarding healing.

I am not making a case for the GL of England Modern healing African Lodge, but just making a point, that GLs didn't make a habit of using elaborate ceremonies or processes to accept Brothers from Lodges they deemed clandestine or rechartering (rewarranting) Lodges under Grand Bodies they deemed clandestine.

In some case they simply just gave them a warrant under their jurisdiction and went on about their business.

 

[Bloke]

I don't think we can be "too technical" in this - indeed the whole question rests in the detail and technicalities..

I hate this word "healing".... its simply a question on if you are regular, irregular, or clandestine - the latter being two words which people used in different ways... "healing" seems a mainly American thing ? Would that be true to say ?

The answer would lie in the process of the late 18th Century. Here, I know in the 19th Century, if an irregular or clandestine group of masons wanted to become regular, they would be re initiated in the regular jurisdiction using a regular warrant OR they would be accepted in a regular lodge without too many questions being asked. Others I've read of in the 1700's, a group of masons got together without a warrant and made masons - sometimes legitimizing those degrees by later obtaining a warrant with support of local district Grand Master, or writing directly to a mother Grand Lodge in Europe. Such was the case with Victorian Naval and Military Lodge #49 which started meeting in 1865 but did not get its warrant until 1866 - but I don't know if they actually made masons in that year without a warrant.. Being founded in 1788, the Moderns and Ancients split does not figure much in Australian's Masonic History...

I'd say Bro Cooke is the most experienced Bro here on Jurisprudence - but that's in today's world.. but he's probably got a good idea about what used to happen in the 1700's. As a lawyer he has a legal approach, as a member of CGMNA he is in the thick of this sort of thing...

This topic is interesting - but let's remember its not about being right or wrong, but trying to get at the murky truth.. It will be interesting to see the status of "Landmarks of our Fathers" in 10-20 years... I'll look out for it as an e-book...

 

[Glen Cook]

"WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances."

Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed. No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc. Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts. Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise.

Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan. Not the subject. The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.

You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument. You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such. However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).

Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you) legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?

It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that this was so.

Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.

 

[Bloke]

"WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances."

Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed. No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc. Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts. Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise.

Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan. Not the subject. The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.

You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument. You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such. However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).

Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you) legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?

It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that this was so.

Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.

We don't have warrants this early, but in asking for one, would you just list out the WM, SW & JW or the whole membership of the lodge... if the whole membership, would that some way give defacto or dejure legitimacy to the names on such a list - even if those bros were made without a warrant - would the GL issuing the warrant care much if the request was from someone who was legitimate ?

 

[Glen Cook]

@Glen Cook, can you explain, why it is so hard for you to accept that John Batt conferred the degree unauthorized? He degree peddled, it is just that simple.
I have researched and asked regarding ANY authority given to Batt to confer the degrees, NO ONE GAVE HIM AUTHORITY...Not Ireland, Not Sctoland, Not England, NOT ANYONE.



LOL, now you're stretching, Glen, are you saying that the Grand Lodge of Ireland don't know who they gave authority to and the regulations they had in place? Come on, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to contradict what they have stated from their own records and registry...



Which would certainly prove that he had no authority, if they didn't know....

Because you have yet to prove your assertion. That is part of publishing: your work is reviewed.
You failed to answer my question: did you search the lodge records to determine if a deputation was granted to Batt? That's just a yes or no. No need to post an irrelevant document. If not, the best you can say is no evidence has been adduced that he had authority, but not all sources have been reviewed.

My point, which may not have been clear, is that GLs did not hold all the power at that time. We know that Lodge Alfred in England (not the GL) deputised officers to make members in 1776, our time period. Mendoza, Ars Quator Coronatarum 2076, 1980. This was because the member had Army duties. Id. We know that mother Kilwinning in Scotland warranted lodges.

As to record keeping by GLsit is useful to review Lanes's recapitulation of 1777-1894, now held at Cornell (strangely, to me). He notes lacks of warrants, various errors jn records, meeting places of lodges were inserted when they could be reliably obtained . Further, and importantly, there were Lodges which had no formal document of any kind but acted upon the personal "Constitution" of the lodge by the grandmaster --or his deputy for the time being--/. Of particular note was his complaint of Lodges warranted by provincial Grand Masters, notably in India in America, which were originally formed and worked for years without the slightest recognition by Grand Lodge because the Grand Lodge was entirely ignorant of their existence, provincial Grand Masters having failed to make any return of them year after year.

So, the records held by GL are of little comfort in concluding a point as to what exists.

So, I would suggest you have more work to do before you can exclusively establish that Batt had no authority and that the new warrant rectified past errors.. At this point, it seems you've left poor Prince Hall in perpetual clandestinism.

 

[Glen Cook]

We don't have warrants this early, but in asking for one, would you just list out the WM, SW & JW or the whole membership of the lodge... if the whole membership, would that some way give defacto or dejure legitimacy to the names on such a list - even if those bros were made without a warrant - would the GL issuing the warrant care much if the request was from someone who was legitimate ?

Excellent questions. I had wondered if founding members would be included on a warrant. It may be that granting The warrant would waive the magic wand of ratification., but we have no authoritative citation of such, and so it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact.

 

[Bloke]

Excellent questions. I had wondered if founding members would be included on a warrant. It may be that granting The warrant would waive the magic wand of ratification., but we have no authoritative citation of such, and so it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact.

"..it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact."

Indeed.

The lineage is all well and good... but practice and precedent is also important; the rub comes when Prince Hall Brothers were denied recognition by their local counterparts.. but in 2016, that's not the case.. However, I would think in 1780, if my Grand Master or District Grand Master had arranged for a warrant with my name on it, carrying that warrant, I cannot see how I could be denied entry into another lodge under the same jurisdiction on the basis of "irregularity" .. and by logic, I would argue any Freemasons made so under the same circumstances as I (regardless of any unusual circumstances) should likewise be regular... one thing which has been missed in all this is if they were in good standing (having paid their dues) - another question is, would that be as significant as it is today..

Bro Hairston's statements seem to raise more questions than they answer; but the central one is calling into question the Irish Initiation of Prince Hall.. at least these questions are being raised from within Prince Hall and not without; for if raised from without it would be seen as an attack on the whole PH system... (the logical thing to do is to read the book )

Bro Glen,,, should Prince Hall and his companions and immediate masonic descendants be proved to be irregular or clandestine, would it have any effect on today's general recognition of Prince Hall GLs ? I would hope not...

 

[Glen Cook]

"..it should be treated as a possibility, and not as a proven fact."

Indeed.

The lineage is all well and good... but practice and precedent is also important; the rub comes when Prince Hall Brothers were denied recognition by their local counterparts.. but in 2016, that's not the case.. However, I would think in 1780, if my Grand Master or District Grand Master had arranged for a warrant with my name on it, carrying that warrant, I cannot see how I could be denied entry into another lodge under the same jurisdiction on the basis of "irregularity" .. and by logic, I would argue any Freemasons made so under the same circumstances as I (regardless of any unusual circumstances) should likewise be regular... one thing which has been missed in all this is if they were in good standing (having paid their dues) - another question is, would that be as significant as it is today..

Bro Hairston's statements seem to raise more questions than they answer; but the central one is calling into question the Irish Initiation of Prince Hall.. at least these questions are being raised from within Prince Hall and not without; for if raised from without it would be seen as an attack on the whole PH system... (the logical thing to do is to read the book )

Bro Glen,,, should Prince Hall and his companions and immediate masonic descendants be proved to be irregular or clandestine, would it have any effect on today's general recognition of Prince Hall GLs ? I would hope not...

Wait. I have to read the book? I can't wait for the cliff notes?

No, I Really don't think it would have an impact on the present understanding of Prince Hall. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances At least from that point forward they were considered regular. That pretty much closes the book in my view
Absent of course, the purported recognition with Grand Lodge of France

 

[Bloke]

Wait. I have to read the book? I can't wait for the cliff notes?

No, I Really don't think it would have an impact on the present understanding of Prince Hall. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances At least from that point forward they were considered regular. That pretty much closes the book in my view
Absent of course, the purported recognition with Grand Lodge of France

Thanks

In the interest of thread drift, how did you become a member of a UGLE Lodge ?

 

[Glen Cook]

Thanks

In the interest of thread drift, how did you become a member of a UGLE Lodge ?

I'm a sailor. I know how to drift .

They wished to save a Cheshire warrant by making it an emergency services lodge. I am a former EMT and a (now retired) retired US naval officer. Meetings were only four times a year and that was something I could do. I was invited to go through the line when they saw I was serious about attending. I then joined the Royal Arch chapter and went through that line. After 13 years, I have dear friends there. I have a second home in Scotland, and so will often spend time up there around my English meetings , but also attending Scottish meetings. As part of my US duties, I attend international meetings and so can spend time in the UK for that purpose . Regrettably, both my Lodge and Chapter folded. A number of us went to two other lodges. I am joining a chapter where I have a number of acquaintances and have been asked to go through the line there, as one of the middle officers had to drop out due to very tragic family issues, and they do not wish to move the young men up too quickly

It's been one of the most rewarding aspects of my Masonic career. Coupled with the challenge of learning new rituals when I was, perhaos, a bit jaded by the ones I had used and taught as a grand lecturer, it was also a new Masonic culture. My lodge had an organisational sense of humor, as EMS folk will do. It was a great time. So, October I shall be over for lodge and chapter.

 

[MasonicAdept]

Yes, that is what we call ratification: the confirmation or adoption of an act that is already performed. No, you didn't use the word, but that's what it is called, However, ignoring that word, you've provided no citation to any authoritative source that the prior errors were "covered' ( I'm not sure where you got the term), healed, etc

@Glen Cook, now who is using modern application or usages to define past events?
Ratification may be what ius called now, but surely wasn't what it was called THEN.
Let me say this once more, then I will leave to interpret the statement however you may, and you can split all of the hairs you need.

The Grand Lodge of Modern did not have to ratify anything because they were unaware of any prior condition of African Lodge.
What they did do BY THEIR ACTION OF ISSUING A WARRANT, was CHANGE THE CONDITION OF THAT LODGE FROM CLANDESTINE/IRREGULAR TO A REGULAR AND DULY CONSTITUTED LODGE.

I got the word healed by definition of REMEDYING AN AFFLICTION.

Please tell me that you understand that the concept of healing was developmental just as the other matters of masonic jurisprudence. There was strict set of standards to weigh whether the issuing of a warrant/charter healed/fixed an irregularity.

It is an irrefutable fact that what we can now call being healed was practiced by both the Grand Lodges of England back before the Union in 1813.

I have provided TWO WELL DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES, for which you have failed to acknowledge or even address.

Now let me say this, the AUTHORITIVE CITATION for the covering of the illegal work by John Batt is the fact that they were clandestine/irregular and then the Grand Lodge of England provided them a charter and African Lodge was no longer clandestine but were now REGULAR. The very fact that African Lodge No. 459 was accepted and placed on the rolls of the Premier Grand Lodge of England is a fact that the condition that African Lodge once held (clandestine) was remedied or healed.

That is as simp!e as I can put it. Also understand that I am seasoned enough to know and understand that just because you may refuse to accept my usage of the tern healed, doesn't make you right. Neither does it bolster the credibility of your position. You would rather debate a minor technicality than engage in the vibrant discussion of the main point: the status quo narrative that has been in place for the past 200 years has been exposed as false.

Acceptance of a lodge for which you credibly indicate England was unaware was clandestine, does not mean acceptance of the -prior- acts.

No one said England accepted prior acts. What I said was that they were UNAWARE of the prior acts. Yet, whether they accepted them or didn't is of no consequence at this point, because they issued the charter/warrant that healed the condition of African Lodge prior to 1784.

Again, I would welcome citation to an authoritative source that it were otherwise.

Glen the authrotivie source you are asking for is moot, because you are building a meaningless strawman argument based on a flawed interpretation of what I stated.

Yes, members moved between the GLs cited, and with the GL at Wigan. Not the subject. The issues are (a) healing of a lodge being an accepted process at all, (b) healing being accomplished when there was no intent to do such because the clandestine nature was unknown; and (c) healing being a ratification of prior acts.

Glen, the concept of healing was a process. I have cited two examples, either refute the example with your own documentation or concede that you're being dogmatic for the purpose of having some type of argument. Masonic concepts such as healing and even the conferral of the degrees were not as codified and pristine processes as you attempt to imp!y. They were developed over time. I used the word heal because it defines what England did whether they intended to do it or not, their action healed the illegal work of John Batt and remedied the handicapped permit of John Rowe.

That is the point.

You see, you are arguing legal principles, but have provided (cited) no source to support your argument. You are trying to argue implied ratification, that the warrant placed the prior acts in the same position as if they had been authorized, even though the document fails to mention such.

Glen, YOU SIR, ARE ARGUING LEGAL PRINCIPLES. I am simply stating that England by their action of issuing a warrant to African Lodge, healed their condition of beiung clandestine prior to the issuing of the charter. If you want to remain stuck in the legal technicalities of how it doesn't fit your into your reasonings, feel free, but don't accuse me of doing it. You are building straw men arguments.

I want to make sure that I place this question here so you don't miss it, because you have failed to answer it already...what was the process of accepting a member or lodge into either of the Grand Lodges in England when those members or lodges came from the rival Grand Lodge?

Answering this question would clear up the confusion you are creating, trying to argue a point I am not even debating.

However, you cite to no source which indicates this, and as England was unaware of the error,ratification (by whatever word would not seem to apply).

I think you are debating your own interpretation at this point, and you have a hard enough job trying to refute my position with the book.

I stand on two things that are supported by documentation and historical as well as modern events.

1. England was unaware of the prior condition of African Lodge.
2. Even though they were unaware of their prior condition, England's decision to issue them a charter, healed that very condition.

Accept it or not, those are the facts. It isn't a matter of "legal principle', it is a simple matter of the prior condition of African Lodge (documented and irrefutable) and the action of England and the result of that action (documented and irrefutable).

Using the correct word for the document authorizing a lodge to work I guess could be considered "technical", but if you are discussing a foreign (to you) legal systen's processes, shouldn't we use the correct name for those processes?

Glen, their process obviously is foreign to you as well. Since you're so bent and religiously beholden to a strict conformity to your interpretation...please provide a documented regulation for the Grand Lodge of England (Modern) for healing or how they were to accept members or lodges from jurisdictions they deemed clandestine.

If you cannot, then dimish the credibility of your own argument. It is simple, itnwas an ancient practice that has a modern name. Whether England was aware isn't the major issue, the RESULT of the action is. The warrant CHANGED THE CONDITION OF AFRICAN LODGE. You can't refute that.

It may be that you are correct, that the new warrant made the prior acts hunky dory (now there's a legal word for you), but you've provided no competent evidence or even analysis that this was so.

It is you close your eyes and believe that you're invisible. I am correct in the fact that the warrant healed the prior condition, that is irrefutable. I have sat here and explained my position and you are just being difficult. I have already provided evidence that African Lodge was clandestine. I have provided evidence that the warrant issued by England healed it.

Your argument is merely that my use of the term "healed" doesn't conform to your definition and methodology of today's standard. You want the warrant to indicate such, but no masonic charter or warrant would ever do such.

Again, it is not the facts you've adduced with which I quarrel at this point, but the conclusions you are attempting to draw from those facts without citation to a credible source.

You just like to quarrel Glen.
I tell you what, publish your contentions. My position is in print, has been and being reviewed by as bright a mind as your own. They seem to understand what I have stated and are clear on my usage and position. Join the ranks of reviewer, and put you point to pen, and you will be told that you're splitting hairs and being way too technical...

 

[Ripcord22A]

So when PH sent that letter to England he purposely remitted facts about how he and other members were MADE Masons? He lied. He lied for the purpose of getting a Warrent. So the history of PHA was fabricated amd the truth was a lie? Hmmm.....I agree with you @Bloke at least these issues are being raised by PHA member amd not from.wothout

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

 

[MasonicAdept]

I would suggest you have more work to do before you can exclusively establish that Batt had no authority and that the new warrant rectified past errors.. At this point, it seems you've left poor Prince Hall in perpetual clandestinism.

I will only address this portion of your comment because the rest is meaningless when I did in fact answer the question of a search for any authority given to Batt by any Lodge or Grand Lodge to make masons.

I stated that I checked with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland sand England, and there is NO RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY DEPUTIZATION OR AUTHORITY GIVEN TO BATT BY ANYONE.

So, please stop being arrogant and actually read my comments. If those Grand Lodges state that Batt was not authorized under their Grand Lodge to make masons, my work is done on that point. If you sir, want to raise the issue that he was deputized by some authority, then do so at your own peril.

1. You will have to PROVE that John Batt was still active in a lodge.

2. You will have to prove which lodge.

3. You will have to prove then that that lodge gave him authority to make masons.

What you are merely doing is offeriung your BASELESS SPECULATION which has no merit because you cannot prove the first point.

So please by all means retrace my steps and get the answers I already have. I did the research, your job is to refute it with facts NOT SPECULATIONS.

 

[Glen Cook]

I will only address this portion of your comment because the rest is meaningless when I did in fact answer the question of a search for any authority given to Batt by any Lodge or Grand Lodge to make masons.

I stated that I checked with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland sand England, and there is NO RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY DEPUTIZATION OR AUTHORITY GIVEN TO BATT BY ANYONE.

So, please stop being arrogant and actually read my comments. If those Grand Lodges state that Batt was not authorized under their Grand Lodge to make masons, my work is done on that point. If you sir, want to raise the issue that he was deputized by some authority, then do so at your own peril.

1. You will have to PROVE that John Batt was still active in a lodge.

2. You will have to prove which lodge.

3. You will have to prove then that that lodge gave him authority to make masons.

What you are merely doing is offeriung your BASELESS SPECULATION which has no merit because you cannot prove the first point.

So please by all means retrace my steps and get the answers I already have. I did the research, your job is to refute it with facts NOT SPECULATIONS.

Sigh. Name calling, really? I did read your comments. That is why I responded.

You have the burden of proof backwards. You have asserted facts and do not have a factual basis. You have the obligation to persuade, not me. As best can be determined, you did not check with the Lodge to determine if there had been a deputation. Grand Lodges weren't the only ones who provided authorizations, and an example has been provided to you. You have not provided information as to the concept of being healed under England in the 18th C. You admit that the warrant itself had no such language.

My job isn't to prove anything, but to point out you have drawn unsupported conclusions. I have done so, and may well do so in other fora.