Names of Lodges

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by drapetomaniac, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. drapetomaniac

    drapetomaniac Premium Member Premium Member

    471
    3
    38
    The precedency of Lodges does not depend on their names, but on their numbers The rule declaring that “the precedency of Lodges is grounded on the seniority of their Constitution†was adopted on the 27th of December, 1727 (Constitutions, 1738, page 154). The number of the Lodge, therefore, by which its precedency is established, is always to be given by the Grand Lodge.

    In England, Lodges do not appear to have received distinctive names before the latter part of the eighteenth century. Up to that period the Lodges were distinguished simply by their numbers. Thus, in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, published in 1723, we find a list of twenty Lodges, registered by their numbers, from No. 1 to No. 20, inclusive. Subsequently, they were further designated by the name of the tavern at which they held their meetings. Thus, in the second edition of the same work, published in 1738, we meet with a list of one hundred and six Lodges, designated sometimes, singularly enough, as Lodge No. 6, at the Rummer Tavern, in Queen Street; No. 84, at the Black Dog, in Castle Street; or No. 98. at the Bacchus Tavern, in Little Bush Lane.

    more:
    http://www.dailymason.com/2010/03/30/names-of-lodges/
     
  2. cambridgemason

    cambridgemason Premium Member Premium Member

    119
    0
    16
    except in Massachusetts, where there are no numbers given to the Blue Lodges, Chapters and Councils, all go by date of institution and name.
     
  3. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    What drapetomason says is true in most jurisdictions, but not everywhere.

    Under the GL of Scotland, for example, numbers weren't always issued in sequence, but instead a Lodge at its formation could apply for a number of its own choice (if that number had not yet been issued, of course). For example, Lodge Robert Burns Initiated #1781 under the GL of Scotland was not the 1,781st Lodge of Scotland, but instead asked for the number 1781 because that was the year when Burns was initiated.

    In England, both of the GLs (Premier and Antients) used the sequential system, although there was a certain amount of "cheating" by Lodges which effectively took over the numbers of lower-numbered Lodges which were going dark. Then at the Union in 1813, there were a lot of duplicate numbers because both GLs had a #1, a #2 and so on. They solved this by re-numbering on an alternating basis - the Antients won the toss of the coin, so #1 of the Antients became #1 of UGLE, #1 of the Premier GL became #2 of UGLE, #2 of the Antients became #3 of UGLE, and so on. This was done in spite of all of the older Lodges under the Premier GL being older than any of the Lodges under the Antients GL. Thus for about the first 400 Lodges now on the UGLE books, the numbers are not in chronological sequence.

    Since 1813, however, UGLE has consistently stuck to issuing numbers in sequence, so it is a reliable guide to age for the vast majority of UGLE Lodges.

    T & F,

    Huw
     
  4. James Self

    James Self Registered User

    2
    0
    0

Share My Freemasonry