In my inaugural address to this lodge (A.Q.C. 99) I gently took to task certain masonic writers of the non-authentic school of masonic research for interpretations they had imposed on Freemasonry which were not borne out by the facts we know to exist and which have stood the test of historical analysis. To some that might have appeared as a member of the authentic school attacking followers of other persuasions who were, by virtue of death, unable to defend themselves. Having been involved for the last four years in Grand Lodge's dealing with the many attacks on the Craft I know only too well how harmful, or at the least unhelpful, the writings of the non-authentic school have been and how they have provided 'ammunition' for unthinking critics of the Craft. Similarly, some of the actions of those who have ruled the Craft in the past have contributed to the general public's confusion as to, what Freemasonry is and this has resulted in the current climate of ignorance which has enabled our critics and the media to make all manner of allegations and suppositions against which the general public had no solid background of information to judge the accuracy, or not, of what was presented to them.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how much the Craft itself has contributed to the current problems - how far the 'sins' of our masonic forebears are being visited upon their 'children' todqy.

It may seern that in dealing with current problems this paper is departing from the usual, practices in this lodge. For that 1 make no apology. I was asked by my fellow full members to write this paper for this specific meeting and to try and build controversy into it. I hope that it serves their purpose and that I will not have future cause to regret some of the tongue-in-cheek statements that I may make !

 SECRECY

The critics of Freemasonry call it a secret society, a regrettable confusion of secrecy with an instinctive desire for privacy in certain matters. An organization which publishes its aims and relationships and basic principles ; its rules and regulations (Book of Constitutions) ; has known meeting places ; and whose members are open about their membership ; is a curious secret society. That it chooses to bc private about its ritual and ceremonial is taken as a sign that there is indeed something to hide, that there is a wide network of secrecy ; this of an organization whose ceremonials have been regularly exposed since the 1720s ! An unjustified comment, we would say - or is it in the light of official reaction to public curiosity over the last forty years or so ?

The roots of masonic privacy are to bc found in the Old Charges which Dr. James Anderson included in the first Constitutions of 1723. In the Charges headed Behaviour it has :

" 4. Behaviour in Presence of Strangers not Masons.

You shall bc Cautious in your Words and Carriage, that the most penetrating Stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not Proper to be intimated ; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently, for the Honour of the Worshipful Fraternity. "

The italics are the present writer's. This statement in itself does not constitute a rule of secrecy but, regrettably, was used as such in 1841 when Grand Lodge began to worry about reports of meetings appearing in the Freemason's Quarterly Review, published by Dr. Crucefix, and the public press. The Deputy Grand Master, 2nd Marquess of Salisbury, stated in Grand Lodge :

" 'That it is the prime duty of Grand Lodge to view with the greatest jealousy any breach of the privileges secured to the Masonic body by the legislature. That one of the most valuable of those privileges, and that which constitutes the very essence and spirit of the Order, is the secrecy with respect to the proceedings and concerns of Masonry which is enjoined in the Ancient Charges, inculcated by the strongest obligations in every stage of Masonic degree, and rigidly laid down by the Laws and Constitutions.

That the publication by masons of the proceedings and concerns of masonry, or furnishing materials for such publications, are traitorous violations of this most important privilege, and deserving of the highest punishment denounced against such offences by the law and constitutions, as such publications, if not discouraged and suppressed, must ultimately destroy the respectability and may even hazard the existence of the Craft. "

The italics are, again, the present writer's and appear to show a conflict and a misuse of the Old Charges. The latter only cover 'what is not proper to be intimated' but his Lordship is using that vague phrase to prevent publication of any details of masonic meetings. It begs the questions : do the Old Charges enjoin total secrecy and how could publication of a summary of masonic proceedings " destroy the respectability " or even " hazard the existence " of the Craft ? It rather appears a sledgehammer to crack a nutshell and seems to give the 'proof' te, out critics that they are looking for.

That the statement was considered important is shown by its being reissued by the Board of General Purposes under the signature of the Grand Secretary, in a circular to all lodges in 1905 when there was concern that The Freemason and The Freemason's Chronicle, two weekly masonic newspapers on public sale, were going too far in their reportage of events. The 1841 statement, however, went a grec deal further than the Rule in the various editions of the Book of Constitutions which simply warned against the unauthorized publication of accounts of masonic meetings, a rule which is still in force. Ir also went against what wa5 actually happening throughout the last century and the early part of this. Both of the masonic newspapers and the public press continued to report meetings at all levels.

For reasons which have, so far, eluded explanation, at some time in the 1930s Grand Lodge began to turn in on itself and to operate the rule about unauthorized publication of proceedings. Previously, in addition to press reports the populace could actually see the freemasons. Public processions of brethren " 'cloathed in the badges of the Order ", whether for purely masonic reasons or as part of larger national or local celebrations, church services in regalia and the public laying of foundation stones with masonic ceremonial, were very much a part of English life. A combination of these factors meant that Freemasonry and individual freemasons were known to the general populace, whether consciously or not, and Freernasonry was regarded as a fact of contemporary society, not something standing apart from it or hidden from popular view.

The new policy, if it was a definite policy, in the 1930s of taking Freemasonry out of the public view was greatly assisted by the outbreak of the Second World War. Restrictions on what could be printed because of the shortage of newsprint led to the dropping of reports of masonic meetings in the national and local press. The constant exhortations to be circumspect in conversation with strangers, born out of a fear of spies and fifth columnists, led to brethren being reticent about discussing Freemasonry with non-masons. When peace returned and the world attempted to return to normalcy English Freemasonry continued along the path of introversion and intense privacy, distancing itself from ordinary life and compartmentalizing its members. As a result generations grew up for whom Freemasonry was not a fact of ordinary social life but was something secretive and set apart, talked about only by its members with other members. As a result these generations lacked any basic information against which they could test the, to us, absurdities and calumnies put forth. by our critics and certain sections of the media.

That Freemasonry has a religious basis cannot bc denied, nor would any freemason attempt to do so. Candidates are required to have a belief in a Supreme Being ; the VSL must be present and open at every meeting ; the three great principles upon which Freemasonry is founded are to bc found in the world's major religions. To proceed from these facts to claim that Freemasonry is a religion, and a religion incompatible with other religions, or is a substitute for religion, is to make a quantum leap for which there is no justification in fact. Grand Lodge has firmly, and properly, promulgated statements defining the relationship between Freemasonry and religion in which it wholly rejects the suggestion that Freemasonry is a religion or a substitute for it and has categorically stated that Freemasonry contains no theology or dogma.

It is something of a paradox that this great strength of Freemasonry, the lack of theology or dogma, can also be a great weakness. The governing bodies of the various masonic degrees and Orders in England have all studiously avoided issuing handbooks giving official interpretations of the meaning and symbolism of their respective degrees. This, I would argue, bas been done in the firm. belief that the rituals themselves explain the basic symbolism and that it is up to the individual to make up his own mind as to what the various ceremonies mean to him. This freedom carries with it the danger that over-enthusiastic brethren will impose upon Freemasonry highly idiosyncratic interpretations not intended by the originators and achieved by taking similarities between masonic symbolism and symbolism in other fields to be actual correlations and evidence of actual links, interpretations that are alien to most members and at times distasteful to them.

Masonic writers from Dr. Anderson onwards have variously tried to prove an antiquity for Freernasonry as : a continuation of Christianity ; a branch of Christian mysticism ; a lineal descendant of the Egyptian and classical mysteries ; a continuation of rebirth of the cults of the Essenes, the Dionysian Artificers, the Druids or the non-existent Comacine Masters ; or a transformation of the persecuted Templars or the " public " manifestation of the Rosicrucian5., all of which theories have, happily, been debunked, Others, equally erroneously, have claimed Freemasonry as the supreme initiatory rite, following on old traditions and conferring secret knowledge, enabling its members to achieve salvation by means of knowledge unknown to non-masons.

As Freemasonry is not a religion, what are we ? More important, what is the uninstructed, popular world to make of comments such as :

" If religion be "the living of a life under the direction of Supreme Power" then Freemasonry is a religion. And in its basal level it aims to provide a modern equivalent to the ancient wisdom religion of mankind' (article, Freemasonry and Religion by Rev. J. G. Gibson, The Freemason 31 Oct 1908)

" There is a great difference of opinion amongst our brothers on this question [Is Freemasonry a religion ?]. We all agree that it is religious - there is no différence on that point. My contention is that Freemasonry is the oldest and truest religion in the world' (article, 'Is Freemasonry a religion ?' by Dr. A. Churchward, The Freemason, 10 April 1915).

" Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Thus wrote the Apostle St. James. If remembered it would have answered the eternal question : is Freemasonry a religion~ Judged by this standard Freemasonry is a religion, but the controversialists have become confused between the terms theology and religion, and Freemasonry is not the former' (unsigned article, The Religion of Freemasonry,' The Freemason 18 Dec 1926.)

" In the new age which is passing through the long-drawn travail to its birth, Freemasonry will bc there, as of old, to lay the broad foundations on which the new religion will be built. Errors and false dogmas will pass away, and among them perhaps some which appear to our poor blinded eyes the most essential, but the Real Truth will always remain - for truth is eternal - and the bases of truth are in our Order ... This then was, is and shall be the task of Freemasonry, to keep alive the hidden wisdom, the hoarded wealth from old the Ancient Gods, London 1921, pp. 348-9.)

What we make of these extracts is that their authors had a complete misconception as to the nature and purpose of Freemasonry. What our critics do is to use these misguided interpretations to bolster their case against the Craft.

Placed in the context of their times, pre-Darwinian fundamentalism, we can perhaps forgive the Christian interpretation put upon the Craft by writers like William Hutchinson (The Spirit of Masonry, London 1775) or the Rev. Dr. George Oliver. But what are we to make of the voluminous, indigestible and at times incomprehensible writings of A. E. Waite who saw Freemasonry as a manifestation of a profound and highly idiosyncratic Christian mysticism causing him to reject the universalist Craft in favour of his own curious interpretation of what he termed 'high grades' of the Christian Orders ? Or the thesis put forward by W. L. Wilmshurst in his The Masonic Initiation (London 1922), in which he emphatically denies that Freemasonry is a religion but then goes on to interpret the Craft ritual as a curious combination of the ancient mysteries and a very peculiar form of Christology ? It is very difficult not to reach the conclusion that writers of the nature of Churchward, Ward, Waite and Wilmshurst, for a great deal of the time, had their feet planted firmly in the clouds.

On a more reasoned, factual and academic level, what are we to make of the various papers which have appeared in the Transactions of this lodge arguing as to whether or not cighteenth-century Freemabonry wab a manifestation of Deism or Theisrn ? Surely their writers were wasting their time and that of their readers. If Freemasonry is not a religion and has no theology, how can it be a manifestation of any religious " ism " ?

CONSPIRACY THEORY

If one accepts the thesis of Bro. Alec Mellor (Our Separated Brethren - the Freemasons, London 1964) Freemasonry first entered the realins of conspiracy theory with the publication of the first Papal Bull in 1738. Brother Mellor believes that the Bull was issued not only because of religious objections to Freemasonry by the Papacy but also because of fears of the supposed political aspirations of continental Freernasonry. Certainly it carne to the forefront of conspiracy theory with the works of two non-masons, the Abbé Barruel (Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du Jacobinisme, London 1797-8) and John Robison (Proofs of a conspiracy against all the Religions and governments of Europe carried on in the secret meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati and Reading Societies, Edinburgh 1797) both of which clairned that the French Revolution had its origins and much of its support in lodges under the then regular Grand Orient de France.

So far no problem, but one arose when over-enthusiastic masonic writers failed to, distinguish between the masonic precepts of equality and fraternalisni and the political revolutionary ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality, another example of confusing similarities with actual links. That sorne of those who were involved in the French Revolution, the American War of Independence and the South Arnerican liberation movements of the early nineteenth century were freemasons is undeniable. To move from that position to state that because freemasons were involved, the events were masonic actions or masonically inspired actions is nonsense and is also to ignore the equally well established fact that in all those events there were freernasons on both sides.

The actions of those writers only gave fuel to those paranoid critics of Freemasonry who revel in the conspiracy theory that Freemasonry is a plot for world domination, perhaps the nastiest manifestation of which is the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which claims to be an exposure of masonic documents showing that Freemasonry is a Judaeo-masonic conspiracy for world domination, the reverberations froin which are still echoing today (see Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper : the final solution).

THE PUBLIC FACE

In dealing with the public face of Freemasonry we must remember that we are not dealing with realities but with received impressions. There is a wide spectrurn of attitudes to Freemasonry. At one end are the members who know what Freemasonry is and what its purposes are. At the other end are Freemasonry's intractable critics whose minds are closed and who will never be persuaded that there is another opinion than their own, let alone that their views might be wrong. Between these two ends of the spectrum is the great mass of the non-masonic public, some of whom, through family connections or friendships, will be favourably disposed ; others of whom, froin reading anti-masonic works, will be ill-disposed ; and the great majority for whoin Freemasonry has no meaning or interest until the media force the subject before their eyes.

As the majority of the British public do not read books the media have had a great deal of power in forming public attitudes towards Freemasonry. Until 1984, when Grand Lodge altered its traditional policy of no comment to one of limited comment and the correction of factual errors, the power of the media in forming public attitudes was immense. Regrettably, the less scrupulous in the profession of journalism over the last twenty or so years realized the power that they possessed, in particular that, provided they observed the laws of libel and defamation, they could say whatever they liked about Freemasonry without any fear of a challenge from masonic authority.

It can be argued that in the climate of the 1940s to 1960s the policy of " no comment " on specific issues (e.g. the attempt to debate Freemasonry in the Church of England in 1951) and the refusal to cooperate in programmes concerned with Freemasonry (e.g. the 1960s BBC Television exposure of Freemasonry) was effective in that it turned those events into à " en day wonder " soon forgotten by the public. Indeed, there are those who would argue that unofficial answers did potentially more harm than the lack of official comment (e.g. the anonymous answer to Hannah's Darkness Visible, London 1951, Vindex's Light Invisible, London 1952). As has already been stated, however, the official policy, combined with a clamp-down on general masonic information and the lack of a public masonic presence were not helpful in that they deprived the general public of sound, authoritative general information against which to measure what they learnt from the media.

In the last two decades the world has radically changed. Old virtues have been challenged, with the media leading the challenge. A polite 'no comment' and a failure to correct or comment upon factual errors combined with a desire for privacy are now taken as evidence that allegations are true and that there is something to hide - the 'no smoke without fire' reaction. It was partly a realization that this change had taken place and partly a growing awareness that public ignorance was beginning to affect brethren in their employment that caused Grand Lodge to reconsider its traditional policies. Despite the need for change, and the effects that change is already beginning to have, there are still those in the Craft who would prefer to return to the pre- 1984 position. I would argue that there is no going back and that if the policy was reversed it would be a certain way of diminishing the Craft and beginning its gradual decline to extinction. In the modern world any organization, no matter how noble or impartial it be, must take notice of public attitudes towards it if it wishes to survive in any strength.

THE CURRENT PROBLEMS

The current problems can be broken down into three main areas : accusations of secrecy ; a misunderstanding of the relationship between Freemasonry and religion ; insinuations of corruption, malpractice, etc. through misuse of membership by freemasons. As 1 hope this paper has shown, the principal reason for those problems having taken root is ignorance of the principles and practices of Freemasonry on the part of the general public. In the area of religion there have always been individuals within the various denominations of the Christian Church who have chosen to misinterpret the rituals of Freemasonry and read into them a theology which is not and never has been prescrit and to confuse reverence for God and the offéring of prayers with liturgical worship. Accusations of secrecy are not new in the sense that, from the earliest days, there has been a healthy public curiosity concerning masonic ritual. What is relatively new is the concept of Freemasonry as a secret society which, to the best of my knowledge, in England is very much a post-1800 idea, despite the deliberate exclusion of Freemasonry from the ternis of the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799. Indeed, the suggestion that freemasons are plotting in secret cabals in England is very much a twentieth century idea, and in any forceful way a post-World War II concept. Similarly the suggestion of Freemasonry being a set of men totally bound to aiding each other regardless of the laws of God and man is very much of the prescrit day and, to my mind, has only come about because of public ignorance of the facts. It seems significant that when Freemasonry was a highly visible part of English life such suggestions did not take root.

That said, we are left with the question of why, in the 1980s, Freemasonry has come under what appear to many to bc concerted attacks from a number of sources ? To suggest that it is all part of a plot of either the political left or right is to play the conspiracy theory game. I would suggest that it is a result of an unhappy coincidence of general dissatisfaction within society ; of anti-establishment views - Freemasonry being considered as a bulwark of the establishment ; of a search for a whipping boy for the ills of modern society fostered by the pre-1984 policy of not answering criticism ; and the public's lack of knowledge of Freemasonry.

CONCLUSION

Have the sins of our masonic fathers been visited upon us ? I think that the answer must bc yes. By following a policy of intense privacy and therefore separating and obscuring the Craft from the socicty in which it exists Grand Lodge, acting in what was then thought to be the best interests of the Craff, cleared the ground but did not tend it and allowed the rank weeds of anti-masonic writers to gain a firm hold in the public consciousness. In not countering criticism it allowed the falsehoods to become rooted as uncontested facts in the minds of the general public. Grand Lodge was not alone in this, however, and much can be laid at the door of those masonic writers who gave free rein to their imaginations and, in some cases, produced work diametrically opposed te, the general understanding of what Freemasonry is. Nor is the Craft in general free from blame. Individual members, by being secretive about their membership and by refusing to discuss Freemasonry in even the most general ternis with their families and friends, greatly helped to create the climate in which the critics and enemies of Freemasonry were able to persuade an ill-equipped public that Freemasonry was something to bc feared and not to bc trusted.

It is to be hoped that by reversing its traditional policy in 1984 Grand Lodge will be able to stem the process and gradually return us to those days when Freemasonry was an acknowledged part of everyday life and was seen as an institution for the good of society. "