Newspaper recruiting notice for the United and Ancient Order of Druids Friendly Society in Newcastle, NSW.
One of the first Australian Eight Hour Day marches, this one in Melbourne.
History
INTRODUCTION to They Call Each Other Brother:
In Sydney, in 1829, John Stephen, Worshipful Master of the Masonic 'Lodge of Australia', welcomed seven of the colony's business and professional men to join with him in celebrating the brotherhood and to induct more candidates into its mysteries.
The same John Stephen, bigamous paramour of convicted shop-lifter Jane New, in that same year, lied, forged court documents and engaged petty criminals to smuggle her out of the colony to enable her to escape a death sentence.
In 2006, an Australian researcher, Carol Baxter, concluded that Stephen had been an inveterate liar and opportunist well before he met the woman who became his 'irresistible temptation.' Baxter showed that the Stephen family was deeply involved in undermining Governor Darling, in total contravention of the pledge demanded of all Freemasons that they support legal authority.
In 2008, North American scholar Jessica Harland-Jacobs introduced her book, Builders of Empire, with the letter Stephen wrote to England's Grand Lodge in 1827 requesting a Charter to establish what was to be the first English Masonic lodge in the colony. Harland-Jacobs used this letter to exemplify Freemasonry's place at the heart of British imperial achievement and the brotherhood's impulse to be ultra-respectable and free from political controversy.
The Stephen-family mix of vaunted respectability and human corruptibility is not uncommon and neither is the central place of social networks in such situations.
But for Australians, the Masons truly are a 'secret society.' Academics and professional historians appear totally ignorant of Masonic history and do not appear to have even registered our many other fraternal societies - the Fraternity of Mutual Imps, Daughters of Temperance, the Loyal Orange Institute, the Hibernians and the Holy Catholic Guild, the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Odd Fellows, Knights of Labor, the (Jewish) Righteous Path and the United Society of Boilermakers of NSW, to name a few.
How Australians have been kept from their history is a sorry tale of neglect, confusion and myth-making. Despite a massive, colourful and often outspoken public presence and, in the case of the trade unions and Freemasons, despite a lot of published material which argues otherwise, all of these fraternals have been significantly invisible.
Lost to sight are the many families - rich, poor, innocent and reprobate - that have lived fraternalism in its many guises. Even the fraternal stories of Australia's iconic heroes, such as Don Bradman, Les Darcy and Ned Kelly, Quong Tart, WC Wentworth and Alfred Deakin, have been rendered invisible through neglect.
The actual societies have not been hard to find, rather they have been hard to 'see'. Together they have formed a huge social phenomenon for which the vague, romanticised 'mateship' of Lawson and Paterson and the speculations of Dan Brown form only a pale and reflective shadow.
The sheer numbers involved - hundreds and hundreds of 'lodges' and their many thousands of initiated candidates - have meant huge amounts of regalia have been produced in this country or imported into it. The hand-sewn, embroidered aprons, sashes, collars and jewels were sometimes works of art, sometimes made by firelight from the cheapest of materials and sometimes produced en-masse by specialist departments of David Jones, Anthony Hordern, Pellegrini and other stores.
The question of how to deal with what has survived of lodges - from banners, regalia, coded ritual books and photos to lodge furniture and buildings - remains. There has been no publication providing its context and setting out the case for its preservation. This review attempts to do both and to argue a need for a reversal of the scholarly bias against non-paper evidence. Ironically, it is often the more visually significant items, banners, buildings, regalia, and their attendant symbols, which have been most difficult to see.
Secrecy, of course, implies an unwillingness to be seen but the change by fraternal societies from a culture of oral transmission and oaths against publicity to one of vivid colours and a great desire to be seen and recorded, is one curious but pivotal element of this story.
In Sydney, in 1829, John Stephen, Worshipful Master of the Masonic 'Lodge of Australia', welcomed seven of the colony's business and professional men to join with him in celebrating the brotherhood and to induct more candidates into its mysteries.
The same John Stephen, bigamous paramour of convicted shop-lifter Jane New, in that same year, lied, forged court documents and engaged petty criminals to smuggle her out of the colony to enable her to escape a death sentence.
In 2006, an Australian researcher, Carol Baxter, concluded that Stephen had been an inveterate liar and opportunist well before he met the woman who became his 'irresistible temptation.' Baxter showed that the Stephen family was deeply involved in undermining Governor Darling, in total contravention of the pledge demanded of all Freemasons that they support legal authority.
In 2008, North American scholar Jessica Harland-Jacobs introduced her book, Builders of Empire, with the letter Stephen wrote to England's Grand Lodge in 1827 requesting a Charter to establish what was to be the first English Masonic lodge in the colony. Harland-Jacobs used this letter to exemplify Freemasonry's place at the heart of British imperial achievement and the brotherhood's impulse to be ultra-respectable and free from political controversy.
The Stephen-family mix of vaunted respectability and human corruptibility is not uncommon and neither is the central place of social networks in such situations.
But for Australians, the Masons truly are a 'secret society.' Academics and professional historians appear totally ignorant of Masonic history and do not appear to have even registered our many other fraternal societies - the Fraternity of Mutual Imps, Daughters of Temperance, the Loyal Orange Institute, the Hibernians and the Holy Catholic Guild, the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Odd Fellows, Knights of Labor, the (Jewish) Righteous Path and the United Society of Boilermakers of NSW, to name a few.
How Australians have been kept from their history is a sorry tale of neglect, confusion and myth-making. Despite a massive, colourful and often outspoken public presence and, in the case of the trade unions and Freemasons, despite a lot of published material which argues otherwise, all of these fraternals have been significantly invisible.
Lost to sight are the many families - rich, poor, innocent and reprobate - that have lived fraternalism in its many guises. Even the fraternal stories of Australia's iconic heroes, such as Don Bradman, Les Darcy and Ned Kelly, Quong Tart, WC Wentworth and Alfred Deakin, have been rendered invisible through neglect.
The actual societies have not been hard to find, rather they have been hard to 'see'. Together they have formed a huge social phenomenon for which the vague, romanticised 'mateship' of Lawson and Paterson and the speculations of Dan Brown form only a pale and reflective shadow.
The sheer numbers involved - hundreds and hundreds of 'lodges' and their many thousands of initiated candidates - have meant huge amounts of regalia have been produced in this country or imported into it. The hand-sewn, embroidered aprons, sashes, collars and jewels were sometimes works of art, sometimes made by firelight from the cheapest of materials and sometimes produced en-masse by specialist departments of David Jones, Anthony Hordern, Pellegrini and other stores.
The question of how to deal with what has survived of lodges - from banners, regalia, coded ritual books and photos to lodge furniture and buildings - remains. There has been no publication providing its context and setting out the case for its preservation. This review attempts to do both and to argue a need for a reversal of the scholarly bias against non-paper evidence. Ironically, it is often the more visually significant items, banners, buildings, regalia, and their attendant symbols, which have been most difficult to see.
Secrecy, of course, implies an unwillingness to be seen but the change by fraternal societies from a culture of oral transmission and oaths against publicity to one of vivid colours and a great desire to be seen and recorded, is one curious but pivotal element of this story.
The Masonic Heritage - see below
The Masonic Heritage
Paper for ICHF*, Washington 2011.
In 1916, the South Australian Masonic Grand Master wrote a 'Foreword' for an insider's account of early Freemasonry in that State, from 1834. As his main message the GM wrote:
(It) is for us and our children to remember that South Australia stands today a free and untainted outpost of
the Empire because there were men brave enough, noble enough, and far-sighted enough…(to) commence and
carry on the great enterprise of Empire-building. Today there are over six thousand Freemasons in South
Australia; then there were only enough to hold, and perfect, a single lodge.
The recent thesis of a non-Mason, Jessica Harland-Jacobs, that Freemasonry was THE fraternal society of the Empire rests upon claims such as this - correlations of Freemasonry with Britain, with Empire-building, and both the Empire and Freemasonry with a veneer of nobility, etc.
To my mind, the GM was providing evidence for something else. By rhetorically equating 'free', 'untainted', 'brave', 'noble' and 'far-sighted' with actual Freemasons and with real-time Freemasonry, he was asserting that Masonic theory WAS Masonic practice, and thus, rendering the historical context, the real-time context in which those colonial Masons lived, worked and died, irrelevant to understanding. In this case, the GM concluded this 'Foreword' with what amounts to an 'on the other hand':
All was not harmony…Minutes tell their own tale…and…one is driven to the conclusion that in Freemasonry, as in life,
human nature was much the same (then) as it is today.
An historian, in my view, would have no hesitation in saying that 'Masonic History' resided in those minutes which show Masons as fallible humans, not in the rhetorical claims. Masons, on the other hand, invariably answer the question, 'What is Freemasonry?' with a rhetorical answer, since for organised Freemasonry, real-life human beings hold little or no interest.
Where then is the 'Masonic Heritage'? in the theory of Freemasonry or in its practice? More contentiously perhaps, why has Jessica's book, purporting to be 'Masonic History', taken up the rhetorical flourishes not the human realities.
I'm interested as much in the motivations of historians as I am in the information they collect. This of course includes people writing about themselves or their organisations. To cut to the chase in the brief time at my disposal today, I'm concerned that even our best Masonic scholars still place Freemasonry alone at the centre of their narrative. Quel horreur!! What else should they do, I hear you cry? Should Masonic scholars change their focus? Should these International Conferences focusing on the history of Freemasonry be re-named? Well yes, in both cases. Why? Because Freemasonry cannot be understood by scholars or readers who 'see' the Order in isolation.
One of the convict transportees from Ireland to NSW in the 1790's was rebel leader, Joseph Holt. Questioned in the penal settlement anytime he was there and there was a hint of conspiracy, Holt's involvement in an alleged plot in 1800 was not proven despite a number of the convicted participants speaking about his prior knowledge. Whereas others arrested with him received up to 500 lashes, he was allowed to go. Australian academic Atkinson has assumed Holt was a Freemason because he was released and because he wore his beard 'under his chin', a secret Masonic recognition sign according to Atkinson. When returning home in 1812, Holt was shipwrecked and rescued by a Nantucket whaling captain who allegedly recognised him because of his beard. Shaking his hand on first meeting him, the American supposedly asked 'How was the settlement of the world?' to which Holt says he replied, 'Very well'. In his memoirs, Holt says:
To explain to the reader the cause of his coming up to me, I must state, that I wore my beard under my chin, as a mark
of what I was and he wore his in the same manner. After speaking two or three words together, which made us know
more than I am going to relate, he asked me into his boat.
No-where does Holt refer to Freemasonry, so by what leap does Atkinson name him to be a Freemason, a claim now repeated by others? Holt has elsewhere declared his membership of the United Irish Brotherhood, but for Atkinson this amounts to the same thing since 'Masonry is the model for all secret societies.'
All of this goes to the heart of our purpose in being here today, in studying 'Masonic History.' You will perhaps know that what began as 'The Centre for Research into Freemasonry' at Sheffield University was shortly after re-named 'The Centre for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism', and that the research journal emanating from that source followed suit, and you perhaps know of a Conference held last year at Lexington which had the same bi-polar approach, ie, Freemasonry AND Fraternalism. You will perhaps know that in 2007 at the very first ICHF, a key note speaker, Prof Snoek argued that:
(We) have now entered a new phase in the historiography of Freemasonry, one in which much of its history needs to
be re-written.
Why was Snoek arguing for a complete overhaul of northern hemisphere 'Masonic History'? Because these International Conferences and other recent gatherings like them are a 21st century acknowledgement that problems exist with 'Masonic History'. But Snoek was also arguing that SF could no longer be considered in isolation:
(We) will have to cover the complete scope of all the fields which influenced or were influenced by Freemasonry...We
surely need more and better studies of guilds, confraternities, chivalric and knightly orders...but also of friendly
societies, Masonic 'spin-off' societies and Trade Unions, many of which we now know, incorporate part of the
Masonic heritage.
In my innocence I had long been structuring my account of Australian Masonry to include non-Masonic societies and it became hugely important for me to understand, not only why I had been doing it this way, but why other scholars were not. After much thought I've come to the conclusion that there is a deep-seated problem here which Snoek was attempting to address and which needs further ventilation.
The problem stems from the way in which 'Masonic History' has been written by insiders over 300 years, and the way that three centuries of positive 'spin' have moulded perceptions, both inside Masonry and outside. Even while he was referring to a broader range of studies, Snoek called the bundle of fraternal societies 'the Masonic heritage' thus reinforcing the idea that Freemasonry was 'the first', 'the best', 'the pre-eminent'. It is the projected image of Freemasonry which continues to cause some recent scholars to treat Freemasonry in isolation, which caused Snoek to refer to 'the Masonic heritage' and not, say 'the fraternal heritage', and which has caused the Masonic sponsors of these conferences to resist any move to change their focus. To provide a full context, even to give equal billing to other fraternities would, it seems, be to bring Freemasonry down off its pedestal, it might perhaps result in Masons being treated as other mortals are, and no longer with residual reverence.
Because Masons have always been flesh and blood humans, their organisations have always been subject to the same cycles of enthusiastic beginnings, stagnation and decline as any other. But in seeking influence over members and observers alike, Freemasonry's internal writings have denied these realities and projected an image of itself, not just that Freemasonry was wholly-positive but that it was already perfect and complete, and that 'real' Masons were beyond reproach.
To assess, and to deal with the continuing influence of the phenomenon of Freemasonry on what is being written about it one has to grasp the full extent of that influence. The 'Masonic heritage', as it has been formed over 300 years by Masonic insiders, includes the following claims:
that this one 'Order' is unique;
that it must be judged by standards it sets itself;
that it attracts only the most virtuous, the most loyal, the most 'progressive' of men; extended, it becomes the claim that these paragons of virtue are the only brethren who are 'real' or 'proper' Masons.
that it is the original source for all post-1717 'secret societies'; if not, the first, it is certainly the pre-eminent, because composed of the elite;
that the word 'freemasonry' can be used in the widest and most flexible ways and any apparent example of 'brotherliness' or 'benevolence' can be gathered up and included in 'the Masonic heritage';
that Masonry, the organisation, has always met its theoretical principles, ie, the organisation has always been benign, has never been internally conflicted and has always operated openly, and never in any partisan or underhand sense;
that it is monolithic, ie, that all Masons think and act alike;
that once a man is a Mason he is always a Mason.
These eight rhetorical claims were not in place from day one, they have all been 'created' over time, and repeated and repeated until they came to seem accurate descriptions of Masonic practice. A second 1916 quotation, from a scholar writing in AQC will serve as well as any other to illustrate:
..Even in this present time of war and sadness, Freemasonry in all its glorious splendour permeates the whole of the
planet, and local developments, casual divergences and lingual differences can never alter or detract from the
fundamental truths on which it is founded, which raise it above all political, racial or literary jealousies.
Freemasons made these claims about their Order to boost a self-image and that of their organisation. The claims, the image-projection, have always had political, economic and religious intent. Beyond mere self-interest, 'Freemasonry' has been a weapon, a defensive shield, a fluid device capable of being manipulated in political, economic and religious struggles.
The Masonic record, the history of the idea and of the organisation, has always been a prize worth struggling over, and worth 'those in charge' at any given time, keeping it under close control where possible. Struggles over the records are not always personal, they are often institutional and conducted over such a long period that the parameters of the struggle are not always 'seen'.
In the 19th and 20th centuries especially, Masonic scholars asserted their Order's pre-eminence, not on the basis of statistics but on the basis of it being the word of God. Harland-Jacobs rightly saw this as Protestantisation, but it was also a response to increased competition from other fraternal societies for hearts, minds and influence. At that time, the statistics were moving well and truly against Freemasonry.
In scholarly fields other than Masonic History, criteria have been developed whereby evidence is tested and interpreted, it is never simply accepted at face value. In what situation was 'the evidence' created? Who was it intended for? What was the motivation of the evidence provider? Such questions will already be known to many of you from the social sciences - eg, literature and cultural studies, law and philosophy.
For most outsiders, Masonic History long seemed too difficult to penetrate and, with the help of anti-Masonic material, appeared cloaked in psychic danger even physical danger. A sense of edgy mystery seemed the Masonic reality. Among potential scholars the cloak of mystery spread to blanket all fraternal societies and their artefacts. All secret societies were caricatured, they were assumed to be all the same. The 'secret theatre' of lodge was ridiculed as naive, 'Boys Own' heroics or it was seen as evil, as the last refuge of revolutionaries. In the 20th century, the spin became accepted 'truth' for many brethren. 'Insider' historians still see little reason to question the Order's asserted uniqueness nor its alleged pre-eminence among fraternities.
As for outsiders - in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Prime Minister Disraeli was among a crowd of well-known men thought to be 'socially and intellectually respectable, and (who) prided themselves' on their grasp of public affairs, (but who according to some) wrote and spoke arrant nonsense' on the subject of Freemasonry and 'secret societies.'
Scholarly attitudes have shifted and genuine curiosity has increased. One of the first things that has happened is that 'legitimate' fraternal activities, ie those that were considered respectable, rational, even 'modern', have been isolated and inserted willy-nilly into political science moulds. On the other hand, serious assessments of the roles of secrecy, ritual and symbolism within real-time fraternalism, have not been made.
The long-time influence of the mystique is still evident. I've already referred to one example. Two other cases to quickly make the point: One recent PhD thesis out of Newcastle (NSW) University was built on the claimed correlation of Masonic teachings with a New York art movement which appeared to emphasise child murder and abuse. Another recent PhD, from Canberra University, has argued that anywhere there were Masons in early Australia there just had to be conspiratorial networks, oath-bound and obligated to support fellow-brethren gain power and wealth.
James Larra, a Jew transported to Botany Bay in the Second Fleet but who was nevertheless said 'to be well regarded by the authorities', became principal of the nightwatch soon after his arrival in 1790. Within a few years he was pardoned and granted a licence to build and conduct the 'Masons Arms' tavern. An ex-army officer and non-Mason, John Macarthur owned the land under 'the Masons Arms' at some stage, from which few facts another very recent author has cobbled together this:
In 1797, following a meeting at the Freemasons Arms hotel involving some fellow-officers and selected free settlers,
the extraordinarily influential junior officer John Macarthur formed an exclusive freemason's society. This secretive
group had an all-pervading, if not sinister influence in colonial affairs from that time on.
Whereas some others may be the result of ignorance this is a total fabrication. The author provides no references and, despite his claim of its on-going importance, never mentions this alleged society or Freemasonry again.
The cloak or aura around Freemasonry may be an 'unforeseen consequence' rather than deliberate policy. Nevertheless, one can say that its creation and maintenance has been the most successful project of organised Freemasonry in 300 years. Both the pro and anti 'press' Freemasonry has attracted since 1717 have been directly related to the wish-projection of the Order and its denial of reality. Today, the lack of a practical educational program means the situation continues, at least, for 'insiders', and the price exacted by the organisation on itself is rising steeply.
Inside lodges, the price for the defensive mantle includes a long-term loss of idealism, a lack of direction, and an increase in slogans and clichés. Inside Freemasonry, Masonic Education gets only lip service, and research is taken seriously by very few. Today, the long-standing prohibition on discussion of religion and politics inside a lodge is used strategically to deflect attention away from study of just how deeply Masons have been involved, and are involved, in both these areas of civic life.
Externally, among non-Masons, a superficial understanding accompanies an unwillingness to fully 'locate' Freemasonry in relevant contexts. Some of the more courageous 'outsiders', rather than try and work through the material, often assume that just because Masonry itself is now claiming to be writing 'authentic history', it is OK to summarise what seems to be the general 'insider' view, stitch that into their account and go on from there. This has resulted in much of the Masonic image being recycled.
Noticeably missing from this and the previous Conferences are independent authors who have been looking at 'Masonic' material but without pre-conceptions: eg: Durr, a Freemason himself, wrote in 1987 about a labour history academic and colleague:
Eric Hobsbawm…has drawn our attention to ritual in secular movements. However, he understates the role of ritual in
the lives of some skilled trade unionists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Furthermore he gives no indication of
the central role of ritual in the proto-trade unions of the seventeenth century and the development of Masonic ritual, nor
of the impact of ritual on both the trade unions and unions of self-help. Finally, he gives a narrow interpretation of the
scale of ritual in contemporary organisations of common people. Yet we need to know more in view of the debate
surrounding the publishing of The Brotherhood with its political and social ramifications.
This audience perhaps knows the book, The Brotherhood, but probably not the name Eric Hobsbawm. Dan Weinbren, long-time co-ordinator of the Friendly Societies Research Group at the Open University and author of a number of relevant titles has developed a theory of what he calls 'networks of loyalty and reciprocity' within communities. In 2010 he wrote about one particular fraternal society in a way which would have surprised even the members of that fraternity:
Adapting ideas associated with magic, the theatre, trade unions, Freemasonry, guilds and insurance companies the
(Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows) focused on the construction of social relationships and the
institutionalisation of benevolence.
Malcolm Chase, in his Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skills and the politics of labour quotes a 14th century religious reformer who thought 'freemasons' were 'wicked people (who) conspire against truth and charity'. According to John Wycliffe, operative stonemasons:
conspire together that no man of their craft shall take less on a day than they set, though he should by good conscience
take much less; and that none of them shall make steady, true work which might hinder other men's earnings from the
craft; and that none of them shall do ought but hew stone, though he might profit his master twenty pounds by one day's
work laying a wall, without harm or paining himself.
Whether right or not in his opinions, Wycliffe's views add to the revised context in which 'freemasonry' needs to be considered, as Durr, Weinbren and Chase have been attempting, and as AQC scholars have not yet achieved, despite their committment.
I've come to Masonry from a labour and friendly society background so it has always seemed sensible to wrap Freemasonry into its broad fraternal context, and to give as much weight to other fraternities in my narrative as I give to Freemasonry. The Australian material gave me no reason to privilege Freemasonry, but more than that, it seemed obvious that Freemasonry could not be understood if studied in isolation. It seemed obvious that it could only be understood in context, as a man-made, social phenomenon evolving out of a particular place and time. A full contextual account was to me what 'authentic history' should be.
The first formally-established Australian Masonic lodge was not opened until 1820, three decades after the first European arrivals. This is a very slow-paced development of formal Masonry, compared with say the West Indies, another colonial outpost, compared too with Masonry's spread after 1717 to the European Continent. If 'Freemasonry' is the same no matter what the context then comparisons will not be made. I don't see how Freemasonry can be understood without comparisons.
There were Freemasons and Freemasonry in NSW before 1820, but the strongest thread running through the evidence is the repeated insistence on rank and status by certain military officers as they engaged in very dubious practices, including the sale of a fermented liquid, rum, which they knew was undermining the colony's administration and good order. Freemasonry to such men was not a repository of high moral practice, nor a means to civilise those they regarded as inferior. A number of them at least can be shown to have been using Freemasonry for their own purposes, and not on behalf of the Empire or 'the mystical brotherhood'.
Australian membership numbers for the four fraternal 'strands' - friendly societies, Freemasons, trade-oriented societies, and a 'miscellaneous' group which includes the Orange Lodges - rise and fall independently of one another and independently of major socio-economic events for a century and a half until the World Wars and the 1930's Depression impact.
The Australian material, in summary and among other things, shows that:
* membership of a Masonic lodge in Europe was used by many emigrants to help with jobs and acquaintances in the new country;
* most 19th century brothers left Masonry upon arrival or soon after, many joining friendly societies the numbers of which surged in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and/or trade-oriented societies which surged less spectacularly in the 20th century;
* non-English brethren were offended by Masonic leaders spouting Imperial rhetoric and alleging superiority of English-ness;
* it was only after a century of effort and when a significant degree of local autonomy was achieved, that Masonic membership numbers began a steady rise from a very low base;
* all fraternal societies have suffered major declines in the 20th century, but at different times and from different causes. One major, common cause has been the repudiation of their real-time past, in a scramble to be 'modern' or to claim special treatment. The failure to see 'the past' as a body of knowledge which could be learnt from has helped to cripple them all.
Other causes include:
* competitive pressures;
* low priority of heritage values throughout Australian society;
* pressing socio-cultural conflicts, eg, Catholic vs Protestant;
* interventions by 'the State' in the name of centralised administration and management efficiencies;
* dominance of the materialist, individualist model; and
I've looked closely at the story of Ned Kelly, a famous bushranger, 'outlaw' if you prefer, based geographically in a small area of Victoria/NSW, but whose story has achieved national resonance. I'm satisfied that his criminal activities, horse stealing and bank robbing in the main, and his eventual hanging by the State were at base a class, ethnic and religious struggle, ie, English Protestant land-owners and public officials, some of whom were Masons vs poor Irish Catholic labourers and stockmen, some of whom were members of the Hibernians or another Catholic fraternity, the Australasian Holy Catholic Guild. Beyond cliché and myth, these fraternities are an integral part of the Kelly story, and they are part of the Masonic story. In this merging, any claims to priority or pre-eminence must disappear.
Another real-time experience is that of a newspaperman at Charters Towers in northern Queensland, also in the 1870's:
The editor of the Northern Miner newspaper, when not reporting news from the gold diggings, municipal and other related meetings, gave 'the Oddfellows' extensive column space for their anniversary banquets and congratulated their celebrations of the Queens Birthday with an extensive community Sports Day.
The Odd Fellows Hall at Charters Towers, built by the IOOFMU, while not the only community space, was the major focal point if the year 1877 is any guide. From March to September, it was the venue for visiting theatricals, complimentary 'Benefit Shows', 'Illustrated Lectures on the American Civil War', Church of England 'Musical Soirees', and 'Dr Carr's Seances and Phreno-Mesmeric Entertainments.'
The paper also gave great coverage to the Anniversary Celebrations of the local Good Templars branch, the 'Ark of Hope'. This was normal for a local newspaper, this is how copies are sold and advertisers attracted. It's also normal for the newspaper to offer opinions on local events, especially in a late-19th century gold-mining boom town in central west Queensland. But the editor soon after taking up his position editorialised against the strongly prohibitionist stance of a bevy of reverends in the Independent Order of Good Templars:
…(We) hold the Good Templars have not made out their case for Government interference to prevent the sale of
intoxicating drink.
He then vented very strongly against the town's Orangemen who were hyping their up-coming celebrations of 12 July. He asserted that Australia was a new country which could leave 'old world' hatreds behind. He was soon made aware that the Orange and the Good Templar memberships largely overlapped and the leaders of both 'lodges' were the same people. He then accused the Orangemen of attempting to take over a Good Templars branch and of 'manipulating' a rival newspaper, the Towers Herald. The local Freemasons were initially exempted from his anger. But when he took aim at the 'hoodlums' running the local Jockey Club for perceived corruption and incompetence he found by the end of 1877 that not only had he antagonised too many of his potential customers, ie, members of the separate factions, the different local interests were run by the same people or at least, that they were inter-connected. As one key example, the 'Worthy Chief Templar' of the 'Ark of Hope Lodge' of the IOGT, H Wyndham Palmer, was also Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company, the Masonic Club, a Protestant and if 'not an Orangeman' he was close to them and sympathetic. He was also connected socially with influential horse owners on whom he relied for support at municipal elections. By 1880, with the paper's finances in ruins, and major forces in coalition against him, the editor left town.
I finish with a confrontation between gold miners and the authorities in 1854 known as the Eureka Stockade.
The melee at the Stockade, brought on by gold miners refusing to abide by local regulations and having their make-shift stockade attacked and over-run by militia, would seem to have been extensively analysed, but it seems to me that only the most basic facts have been established. Anti-Masonic activists have alleged Masonic involvement here as they have claimed to be able to 'see' it in other 19th century 'secret conspiracies' to undermine and overthrow authority. What's already known suggests a complex social history, in which Freemasons/ry played active parts. The full story, I predict, will assist neither the conspiracy nor the Masonic theorists.
Happily for me, this part can begin with speculation around an American presence. There was quite a mania for things 'American' at this time and a lot of talk of Australia becoming a republic. Shortly before the Stockade incident, the Governor, Sir Charles Hotham, had been feted with a grand procession and huge community welcome to Geelong (nr Melbourne). Immediately behind the banners and bands of the friendly societies and fire brigade, and immediately in front of the carriages of local dignitaries, was that of the American Consul.
Immediately after the Stockade incident, the Melbourne Argus newspaper asserted that one of 4 'Americans' arrested after an initial skirmish in November had been allowed to go free due to 'half American, half Masonic influence.' The writer named four suspected American Masons in all. The last of these, McGill, was supposedly the Stockade's 'chief in command' at the time of the trooper attack, as well as Commander of the 200-strong, variously-named 'Independent Californian Rangers Revolver Brigade'. But he and his corps had pulled camp just before midnight on the fateful night. Again, just after the event, two 'private' communications were sent from the Governor's office:
1) a message in cypher from Governor Hotham to his Gold Fields' Commissioner insisting that 'a certain person' was not to be arrested, even suspected, despite Colonel Rede, the Commissioner, being sure the man was implicated, indeed that he was 'very active in the affair';
2) a letter from Governor Hotham's Private Secretary the day after the shootout to the Melbourne-based US Consul, informing him that a participant eye witness who, interestingly had reported directly to Hotham and not to the local authorities, had asserted 'the leader of this movement is a young American…their most active leader.'
Years later, in a little-known memoir by a Catholic, self-styled 'lieutenant of Peter Lalor' the Irishman who was arrested as rebel leader, Joseph Lynch verified the doubts about McGill:
When I joined I was told off to the Californian Independent Rifle Brigade, commanded by James McGill, captain and
drill-instructor. He appeared to be a smart, intelligent young fellow...Whatever may have been his prestige before the
battle, his behaviour during the contest and afterwards did not add to his lustre. He was absent without leave and had a
large body of men away with him…when their presence was most needed. He tried to explain, but failed to convince,
and the shadow of suspicion hung over him through life.
So, not surprisingly for a murky and not-well explored conflict, it has been suggested that 'American Freemasons', mounted, armed and organised into a recognisable and substantial corps had first arrived intending to be heavily involved, but then were warned off by their consul and were nowhere to be seen when the Stockade was breached.
A local historian, Bell, refers to a fifth 'American', one Brother Kenworthy, who was living inside the Stockade boundary but who also absented himself on the fatal night. A merchant in Australia before the 1850's, Kenworthy was later a well-known Freemason and Surgeon-General in Florida.
Broadening out the fraternal context, in 1852 the British Consul at Philadelphia, had made known his fear that 'many Americans going to Australia, ostensibly to dig for gold' were actually revolutionaries and members of the fraternal 'Order of the Lone Star' intent on spreading 'freedom', ie American-style republicanism. According to the same author who speculated about Bro Kenworthy, by January, 1855, the Governor:
...had convinced himself of the existence of secret societies..plotting to overthrow the government. He wrote to the
Colonial Office [London] asking for additional funds to counteract French Red Republicans, the German Political
Metaphysicians, the American Lone Star members and the British Chartists.. Surprisingly, he made no mention of Irish
secret societies..
Further, it is necessary to point out that in the immediate Ballarat township area by 1865-66, that is within a decade or so of the first gold discoveries, there were over 40 lodges in a population of perhaps 5-10,000, only a handful of which were Masonic - 5 EC, 2 IC, and 1 SC. This township saw the birth of both the Protestant Alliance Friendly Society and 'the Hibernians'(full-name, the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society) in their southern form, and it was one of three primary centres of Orange Lodge membership in Victoria in the 19th century, the others being Melbourne and Geelong. All of these non-Masonic fraternities were nationally-significant bodies by the end of the century.
I've already referred to the use made of Masonic membership as a travelling aid, and that while miners were prominent in early SF lodges they rarely 'stuck' if only because moving on was essential, and because the Masonic leadership back 'home' felt it was being defrauded by travelling brothers and so discontinued benefits. Clearly, the elected or appointed leaders of Masonic jurisdictions in the cities were seeing the world quite differently from the men in bush settlements like Ballarat, where local 'leaders' were as likely to be ardent republicans from the US, or from Germany or Italy, Ireland or Scotland.
In conclusion: the rough and ready Australian colonies were undoubtedly different to other British colonies, but in a Masonic context, just how different were they? Freemasonry is not the first organisation to want to present itself positively, but for over a century now, inside Masonic circles, there has been talk of a need for an 'authentic' history. In the flush of enthusiasm aroused by the example of AQC, the first and supposedly the premier research lodge in the world, Secretary Speth exulted that others were following suit:
It is indeed a great gratification to us to record, in almost every number (of the AQC Transactions), some fresh
instance of a stir amongst the dead bones, an awakening of Masons to intellectual life, and to the absorbing interest of
Masonic Archeology.
This claimed revival helped the outside world to begin to understand that the mainstream historical record would be more complete and more accurate if it contained due reference to Freemasonry. As Snoek and others have testified, decades of internal conversation about Masonic 'truth' have not resulted in huge gains. The deeper problem, not yet addressed, arises because the flaws in the past record are not simply ones of 'facts'. There are issues of motivation and of decision making power. In the clash of theory and practice, numerous questions are relevant:
Who is to decide what is 'due reference'? Who is to decide which are the relevant 'facts'? On what basis will such decisions be made? Who is to decide the content of 'the Masonic heritage'? The continuing lack of a credible history of what I insist on calling 'Speculative Freemasonry' has become a critical issue. It's not just a matter of a few missing dates or a gap or three in the records, this is a questioning of just what it is that these Conferences, and others of like intention, are actually about.
Paper for ICHF*, Washington 2011.
(* The International Conferences on the History of Freemasonry have been held every 2 years since 2007. In 2013, it will be held 'somewhere in the north of England.')
My paper amounts to an argument which some may find contentious. It is supported by Australian material. I set the scene using an example of that material: In 1916, the South Australian Masonic Grand Master wrote a 'Foreword' for an insider's account of early Freemasonry in that State, from 1834. As his main message the GM wrote:
(It) is for us and our children to remember that South Australia stands today a free and untainted outpost of
the Empire because there were men brave enough, noble enough, and far-sighted enough…(to) commence and
carry on the great enterprise of Empire-building. Today there are over six thousand Freemasons in South
Australia; then there were only enough to hold, and perfect, a single lodge.
The recent thesis of a non-Mason, Jessica Harland-Jacobs, that Freemasonry was THE fraternal society of the Empire rests upon claims such as this - correlations of Freemasonry with Britain, with Empire-building, and both the Empire and Freemasonry with a veneer of nobility, etc.
To my mind, the GM was providing evidence for something else. By rhetorically equating 'free', 'untainted', 'brave', 'noble' and 'far-sighted' with actual Freemasons and with real-time Freemasonry, he was asserting that Masonic theory WAS Masonic practice, and thus, rendering the historical context, the real-time context in which those colonial Masons lived, worked and died, irrelevant to understanding. In this case, the GM concluded this 'Foreword' with what amounts to an 'on the other hand':
All was not harmony…Minutes tell their own tale…and…one is driven to the conclusion that in Freemasonry, as in life,
human nature was much the same (then) as it is today.
An historian, in my view, would have no hesitation in saying that 'Masonic History' resided in those minutes which show Masons as fallible humans, not in the rhetorical claims. Masons, on the other hand, invariably answer the question, 'What is Freemasonry?' with a rhetorical answer, since for organised Freemasonry, real-life human beings hold little or no interest.
Where then is the 'Masonic Heritage'? in the theory of Freemasonry or in its practice? More contentiously perhaps, why has Jessica's book, purporting to be 'Masonic History', taken up the rhetorical flourishes not the human realities.
I'm interested as much in the motivations of historians as I am in the information they collect. This of course includes people writing about themselves or their organisations. To cut to the chase in the brief time at my disposal today, I'm concerned that even our best Masonic scholars still place Freemasonry alone at the centre of their narrative. Quel horreur!! What else should they do, I hear you cry? Should Masonic scholars change their focus? Should these International Conferences focusing on the history of Freemasonry be re-named? Well yes, in both cases. Why? Because Freemasonry cannot be understood by scholars or readers who 'see' the Order in isolation.
One of the convict transportees from Ireland to NSW in the 1790's was rebel leader, Joseph Holt. Questioned in the penal settlement anytime he was there and there was a hint of conspiracy, Holt's involvement in an alleged plot in 1800 was not proven despite a number of the convicted participants speaking about his prior knowledge. Whereas others arrested with him received up to 500 lashes, he was allowed to go. Australian academic Atkinson has assumed Holt was a Freemason because he was released and because he wore his beard 'under his chin', a secret Masonic recognition sign according to Atkinson. When returning home in 1812, Holt was shipwrecked and rescued by a Nantucket whaling captain who allegedly recognised him because of his beard. Shaking his hand on first meeting him, the American supposedly asked 'How was the settlement of the world?' to which Holt says he replied, 'Very well'. In his memoirs, Holt says:
To explain to the reader the cause of his coming up to me, I must state, that I wore my beard under my chin, as a mark
of what I was and he wore his in the same manner. After speaking two or three words together, which made us know
more than I am going to relate, he asked me into his boat.
No-where does Holt refer to Freemasonry, so by what leap does Atkinson name him to be a Freemason, a claim now repeated by others? Holt has elsewhere declared his membership of the United Irish Brotherhood, but for Atkinson this amounts to the same thing since 'Masonry is the model for all secret societies.'
All of this goes to the heart of our purpose in being here today, in studying 'Masonic History.' You will perhaps know that what began as 'The Centre for Research into Freemasonry' at Sheffield University was shortly after re-named 'The Centre for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism', and that the research journal emanating from that source followed suit, and you perhaps know of a Conference held last year at Lexington which had the same bi-polar approach, ie, Freemasonry AND Fraternalism. You will perhaps know that in 2007 at the very first ICHF, a key note speaker, Prof Snoek argued that:
(We) have now entered a new phase in the historiography of Freemasonry, one in which much of its history needs to
be re-written.
Why was Snoek arguing for a complete overhaul of northern hemisphere 'Masonic History'? Because these International Conferences and other recent gatherings like them are a 21st century acknowledgement that problems exist with 'Masonic History'. But Snoek was also arguing that SF could no longer be considered in isolation:
(We) will have to cover the complete scope of all the fields which influenced or were influenced by Freemasonry...We
surely need more and better studies of guilds, confraternities, chivalric and knightly orders...but also of friendly
societies, Masonic 'spin-off' societies and Trade Unions, many of which we now know, incorporate part of the
Masonic heritage.
In my innocence I had long been structuring my account of Australian Masonry to include non-Masonic societies and it became hugely important for me to understand, not only why I had been doing it this way, but why other scholars were not. After much thought I've come to the conclusion that there is a deep-seated problem here which Snoek was attempting to address and which needs further ventilation.
The problem stems from the way in which 'Masonic History' has been written by insiders over 300 years, and the way that three centuries of positive 'spin' have moulded perceptions, both inside Masonry and outside. Even while he was referring to a broader range of studies, Snoek called the bundle of fraternal societies 'the Masonic heritage' thus reinforcing the idea that Freemasonry was 'the first', 'the best', 'the pre-eminent'. It is the projected image of Freemasonry which continues to cause some recent scholars to treat Freemasonry in isolation, which caused Snoek to refer to 'the Masonic heritage' and not, say 'the fraternal heritage', and which has caused the Masonic sponsors of these conferences to resist any move to change their focus. To provide a full context, even to give equal billing to other fraternities would, it seems, be to bring Freemasonry down off its pedestal, it might perhaps result in Masons being treated as other mortals are, and no longer with residual reverence.
Because Masons have always been flesh and blood humans, their organisations have always been subject to the same cycles of enthusiastic beginnings, stagnation and decline as any other. But in seeking influence over members and observers alike, Freemasonry's internal writings have denied these realities and projected an image of itself, not just that Freemasonry was wholly-positive but that it was already perfect and complete, and that 'real' Masons were beyond reproach.
To assess, and to deal with the continuing influence of the phenomenon of Freemasonry on what is being written about it one has to grasp the full extent of that influence. The 'Masonic heritage', as it has been formed over 300 years by Masonic insiders, includes the following claims:
that this one 'Order' is unique;
that it must be judged by standards it sets itself;
that it attracts only the most virtuous, the most loyal, the most 'progressive' of men; extended, it becomes the claim that these paragons of virtue are the only brethren who are 'real' or 'proper' Masons.
that it is the original source for all post-1717 'secret societies'; if not, the first, it is certainly the pre-eminent, because composed of the elite;
that the word 'freemasonry' can be used in the widest and most flexible ways and any apparent example of 'brotherliness' or 'benevolence' can be gathered up and included in 'the Masonic heritage';
that Masonry, the organisation, has always met its theoretical principles, ie, the organisation has always been benign, has never been internally conflicted and has always operated openly, and never in any partisan or underhand sense;
that it is monolithic, ie, that all Masons think and act alike;
that once a man is a Mason he is always a Mason.
These eight rhetorical claims were not in place from day one, they have all been 'created' over time, and repeated and repeated until they came to seem accurate descriptions of Masonic practice. A second 1916 quotation, from a scholar writing in AQC will serve as well as any other to illustrate:
..Even in this present time of war and sadness, Freemasonry in all its glorious splendour permeates the whole of the
planet, and local developments, casual divergences and lingual differences can never alter or detract from the
fundamental truths on which it is founded, which raise it above all political, racial or literary jealousies.
Freemasons made these claims about their Order to boost a self-image and that of their organisation. The claims, the image-projection, have always had political, economic and religious intent. Beyond mere self-interest, 'Freemasonry' has been a weapon, a defensive shield, a fluid device capable of being manipulated in political, economic and religious struggles.
The Masonic record, the history of the idea and of the organisation, has always been a prize worth struggling over, and worth 'those in charge' at any given time, keeping it under close control where possible. Struggles over the records are not always personal, they are often institutional and conducted over such a long period that the parameters of the struggle are not always 'seen'.
In the 19th and 20th centuries especially, Masonic scholars asserted their Order's pre-eminence, not on the basis of statistics but on the basis of it being the word of God. Harland-Jacobs rightly saw this as Protestantisation, but it was also a response to increased competition from other fraternal societies for hearts, minds and influence. At that time, the statistics were moving well and truly against Freemasonry.
In scholarly fields other than Masonic History, criteria have been developed whereby evidence is tested and interpreted, it is never simply accepted at face value. In what situation was 'the evidence' created? Who was it intended for? What was the motivation of the evidence provider? Such questions will already be known to many of you from the social sciences - eg, literature and cultural studies, law and philosophy.
For most outsiders, Masonic History long seemed too difficult to penetrate and, with the help of anti-Masonic material, appeared cloaked in psychic danger even physical danger. A sense of edgy mystery seemed the Masonic reality. Among potential scholars the cloak of mystery spread to blanket all fraternal societies and their artefacts. All secret societies were caricatured, they were assumed to be all the same. The 'secret theatre' of lodge was ridiculed as naive, 'Boys Own' heroics or it was seen as evil, as the last refuge of revolutionaries. In the 20th century, the spin became accepted 'truth' for many brethren. 'Insider' historians still see little reason to question the Order's asserted uniqueness nor its alleged pre-eminence among fraternities.
As for outsiders - in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Prime Minister Disraeli was among a crowd of well-known men thought to be 'socially and intellectually respectable, and (who) prided themselves' on their grasp of public affairs, (but who according to some) wrote and spoke arrant nonsense' on the subject of Freemasonry and 'secret societies.'
Scholarly attitudes have shifted and genuine curiosity has increased. One of the first things that has happened is that 'legitimate' fraternal activities, ie those that were considered respectable, rational, even 'modern', have been isolated and inserted willy-nilly into political science moulds. On the other hand, serious assessments of the roles of secrecy, ritual and symbolism within real-time fraternalism, have not been made.
The long-time influence of the mystique is still evident. I've already referred to one example. Two other cases to quickly make the point: One recent PhD thesis out of Newcastle (NSW) University was built on the claimed correlation of Masonic teachings with a New York art movement which appeared to emphasise child murder and abuse. Another recent PhD, from Canberra University, has argued that anywhere there were Masons in early Australia there just had to be conspiratorial networks, oath-bound and obligated to support fellow-brethren gain power and wealth.
James Larra, a Jew transported to Botany Bay in the Second Fleet but who was nevertheless said 'to be well regarded by the authorities', became principal of the nightwatch soon after his arrival in 1790. Within a few years he was pardoned and granted a licence to build and conduct the 'Masons Arms' tavern. An ex-army officer and non-Mason, John Macarthur owned the land under 'the Masons Arms' at some stage, from which few facts another very recent author has cobbled together this:
In 1797, following a meeting at the Freemasons Arms hotel involving some fellow-officers and selected free settlers,
the extraordinarily influential junior officer John Macarthur formed an exclusive freemason's society. This secretive
group had an all-pervading, if not sinister influence in colonial affairs from that time on.
Whereas some others may be the result of ignorance this is a total fabrication. The author provides no references and, despite his claim of its on-going importance, never mentions this alleged society or Freemasonry again.
The cloak or aura around Freemasonry may be an 'unforeseen consequence' rather than deliberate policy. Nevertheless, one can say that its creation and maintenance has been the most successful project of organised Freemasonry in 300 years. Both the pro and anti 'press' Freemasonry has attracted since 1717 have been directly related to the wish-projection of the Order and its denial of reality. Today, the lack of a practical educational program means the situation continues, at least, for 'insiders', and the price exacted by the organisation on itself is rising steeply.
Inside lodges, the price for the defensive mantle includes a long-term loss of idealism, a lack of direction, and an increase in slogans and clichés. Inside Freemasonry, Masonic Education gets only lip service, and research is taken seriously by very few. Today, the long-standing prohibition on discussion of religion and politics inside a lodge is used strategically to deflect attention away from study of just how deeply Masons have been involved, and are involved, in both these areas of civic life.
Externally, among non-Masons, a superficial understanding accompanies an unwillingness to fully 'locate' Freemasonry in relevant contexts. Some of the more courageous 'outsiders', rather than try and work through the material, often assume that just because Masonry itself is now claiming to be writing 'authentic history', it is OK to summarise what seems to be the general 'insider' view, stitch that into their account and go on from there. This has resulted in much of the Masonic image being recycled.
Noticeably missing from this and the previous Conferences are independent authors who have been looking at 'Masonic' material but without pre-conceptions: eg: Durr, a Freemason himself, wrote in 1987 about a labour history academic and colleague:
Eric Hobsbawm…has drawn our attention to ritual in secular movements. However, he understates the role of ritual in
the lives of some skilled trade unionists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Furthermore he gives no indication of
the central role of ritual in the proto-trade unions of the seventeenth century and the development of Masonic ritual, nor
of the impact of ritual on both the trade unions and unions of self-help. Finally, he gives a narrow interpretation of the
scale of ritual in contemporary organisations of common people. Yet we need to know more in view of the debate
surrounding the publishing of The Brotherhood with its political and social ramifications.
This audience perhaps knows the book, The Brotherhood, but probably not the name Eric Hobsbawm. Dan Weinbren, long-time co-ordinator of the Friendly Societies Research Group at the Open University and author of a number of relevant titles has developed a theory of what he calls 'networks of loyalty and reciprocity' within communities. In 2010 he wrote about one particular fraternal society in a way which would have surprised even the members of that fraternity:
Adapting ideas associated with magic, the theatre, trade unions, Freemasonry, guilds and insurance companies the
(Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows) focused on the construction of social relationships and the
institutionalisation of benevolence.
Malcolm Chase, in his Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skills and the politics of labour quotes a 14th century religious reformer who thought 'freemasons' were 'wicked people (who) conspire against truth and charity'. According to John Wycliffe, operative stonemasons:
conspire together that no man of their craft shall take less on a day than they set, though he should by good conscience
take much less; and that none of them shall make steady, true work which might hinder other men's earnings from the
craft; and that none of them shall do ought but hew stone, though he might profit his master twenty pounds by one day's
work laying a wall, without harm or paining himself.
Whether right or not in his opinions, Wycliffe's views add to the revised context in which 'freemasonry' needs to be considered, as Durr, Weinbren and Chase have been attempting, and as AQC scholars have not yet achieved, despite their committment.
I've come to Masonry from a labour and friendly society background so it has always seemed sensible to wrap Freemasonry into its broad fraternal context, and to give as much weight to other fraternities in my narrative as I give to Freemasonry. The Australian material gave me no reason to privilege Freemasonry, but more than that, it seemed obvious that Freemasonry could not be understood if studied in isolation. It seemed obvious that it could only be understood in context, as a man-made, social phenomenon evolving out of a particular place and time. A full contextual account was to me what 'authentic history' should be.
The first formally-established Australian Masonic lodge was not opened until 1820, three decades after the first European arrivals. This is a very slow-paced development of formal Masonry, compared with say the West Indies, another colonial outpost, compared too with Masonry's spread after 1717 to the European Continent. If 'Freemasonry' is the same no matter what the context then comparisons will not be made. I don't see how Freemasonry can be understood without comparisons.
There were Freemasons and Freemasonry in NSW before 1820, but the strongest thread running through the evidence is the repeated insistence on rank and status by certain military officers as they engaged in very dubious practices, including the sale of a fermented liquid, rum, which they knew was undermining the colony's administration and good order. Freemasonry to such men was not a repository of high moral practice, nor a means to civilise those they regarded as inferior. A number of them at least can be shown to have been using Freemasonry for their own purposes, and not on behalf of the Empire or 'the mystical brotherhood'.
Australian membership numbers for the four fraternal 'strands' - friendly societies, Freemasons, trade-oriented societies, and a 'miscellaneous' group which includes the Orange Lodges - rise and fall independently of one another and independently of major socio-economic events for a century and a half until the World Wars and the 1930's Depression impact.
The Australian material, in summary and among other things, shows that:
* membership of a Masonic lodge in Europe was used by many emigrants to help with jobs and acquaintances in the new country;
* most 19th century brothers left Masonry upon arrival or soon after, many joining friendly societies the numbers of which surged in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and/or trade-oriented societies which surged less spectacularly in the 20th century;
* non-English brethren were offended by Masonic leaders spouting Imperial rhetoric and alleging superiority of English-ness;
* it was only after a century of effort and when a significant degree of local autonomy was achieved, that Masonic membership numbers began a steady rise from a very low base;
* all fraternal societies have suffered major declines in the 20th century, but at different times and from different causes. One major, common cause has been the repudiation of their real-time past, in a scramble to be 'modern' or to claim special treatment. The failure to see 'the past' as a body of knowledge which could be learnt from has helped to cripple them all.
Other causes include:
* competitive pressures;
* low priority of heritage values throughout Australian society;
* pressing socio-cultural conflicts, eg, Catholic vs Protestant;
* interventions by 'the State' in the name of centralised administration and management efficiencies;
* dominance of the materialist, individualist model; and
I've looked closely at the story of Ned Kelly, a famous bushranger, 'outlaw' if you prefer, based geographically in a small area of Victoria/NSW, but whose story has achieved national resonance. I'm satisfied that his criminal activities, horse stealing and bank robbing in the main, and his eventual hanging by the State were at base a class, ethnic and religious struggle, ie, English Protestant land-owners and public officials, some of whom were Masons vs poor Irish Catholic labourers and stockmen, some of whom were members of the Hibernians or another Catholic fraternity, the Australasian Holy Catholic Guild. Beyond cliché and myth, these fraternities are an integral part of the Kelly story, and they are part of the Masonic story. In this merging, any claims to priority or pre-eminence must disappear.
Another real-time experience is that of a newspaperman at Charters Towers in northern Queensland, also in the 1870's:
The editor of the Northern Miner newspaper, when not reporting news from the gold diggings, municipal and other related meetings, gave 'the Oddfellows' extensive column space for their anniversary banquets and congratulated their celebrations of the Queens Birthday with an extensive community Sports Day.
The Odd Fellows Hall at Charters Towers, built by the IOOFMU, while not the only community space, was the major focal point if the year 1877 is any guide. From March to September, it was the venue for visiting theatricals, complimentary 'Benefit Shows', 'Illustrated Lectures on the American Civil War', Church of England 'Musical Soirees', and 'Dr Carr's Seances and Phreno-Mesmeric Entertainments.'
The paper also gave great coverage to the Anniversary Celebrations of the local Good Templars branch, the 'Ark of Hope'. This was normal for a local newspaper, this is how copies are sold and advertisers attracted. It's also normal for the newspaper to offer opinions on local events, especially in a late-19th century gold-mining boom town in central west Queensland. But the editor soon after taking up his position editorialised against the strongly prohibitionist stance of a bevy of reverends in the Independent Order of Good Templars:
…(We) hold the Good Templars have not made out their case for Government interference to prevent the sale of
intoxicating drink.
He then vented very strongly against the town's Orangemen who were hyping their up-coming celebrations of 12 July. He asserted that Australia was a new country which could leave 'old world' hatreds behind. He was soon made aware that the Orange and the Good Templar memberships largely overlapped and the leaders of both 'lodges' were the same people. He then accused the Orangemen of attempting to take over a Good Templars branch and of 'manipulating' a rival newspaper, the Towers Herald. The local Freemasons were initially exempted from his anger. But when he took aim at the 'hoodlums' running the local Jockey Club for perceived corruption and incompetence he found by the end of 1877 that not only had he antagonised too many of his potential customers, ie, members of the separate factions, the different local interests were run by the same people or at least, that they were inter-connected. As one key example, the 'Worthy Chief Templar' of the 'Ark of Hope Lodge' of the IOGT, H Wyndham Palmer, was also Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company, the Masonic Club, a Protestant and if 'not an Orangeman' he was close to them and sympathetic. He was also connected socially with influential horse owners on whom he relied for support at municipal elections. By 1880, with the paper's finances in ruins, and major forces in coalition against him, the editor left town.
I finish with a confrontation between gold miners and the authorities in 1854 known as the Eureka Stockade.
The melee at the Stockade, brought on by gold miners refusing to abide by local regulations and having their make-shift stockade attacked and over-run by militia, would seem to have been extensively analysed, but it seems to me that only the most basic facts have been established. Anti-Masonic activists have alleged Masonic involvement here as they have claimed to be able to 'see' it in other 19th century 'secret conspiracies' to undermine and overthrow authority. What's already known suggests a complex social history, in which Freemasons/ry played active parts. The full story, I predict, will assist neither the conspiracy nor the Masonic theorists.
Happily for me, this part can begin with speculation around an American presence. There was quite a mania for things 'American' at this time and a lot of talk of Australia becoming a republic. Shortly before the Stockade incident, the Governor, Sir Charles Hotham, had been feted with a grand procession and huge community welcome to Geelong (nr Melbourne). Immediately behind the banners and bands of the friendly societies and fire brigade, and immediately in front of the carriages of local dignitaries, was that of the American Consul.
Immediately after the Stockade incident, the Melbourne Argus newspaper asserted that one of 4 'Americans' arrested after an initial skirmish in November had been allowed to go free due to 'half American, half Masonic influence.' The writer named four suspected American Masons in all. The last of these, McGill, was supposedly the Stockade's 'chief in command' at the time of the trooper attack, as well as Commander of the 200-strong, variously-named 'Independent Californian Rangers Revolver Brigade'. But he and his corps had pulled camp just before midnight on the fateful night. Again, just after the event, two 'private' communications were sent from the Governor's office:
1) a message in cypher from Governor Hotham to his Gold Fields' Commissioner insisting that 'a certain person' was not to be arrested, even suspected, despite Colonel Rede, the Commissioner, being sure the man was implicated, indeed that he was 'very active in the affair';
2) a letter from Governor Hotham's Private Secretary the day after the shootout to the Melbourne-based US Consul, informing him that a participant eye witness who, interestingly had reported directly to Hotham and not to the local authorities, had asserted 'the leader of this movement is a young American…their most active leader.'
Years later, in a little-known memoir by a Catholic, self-styled 'lieutenant of Peter Lalor' the Irishman who was arrested as rebel leader, Joseph Lynch verified the doubts about McGill:
When I joined I was told off to the Californian Independent Rifle Brigade, commanded by James McGill, captain and
drill-instructor. He appeared to be a smart, intelligent young fellow...Whatever may have been his prestige before the
battle, his behaviour during the contest and afterwards did not add to his lustre. He was absent without leave and had a
large body of men away with him…when their presence was most needed. He tried to explain, but failed to convince,
and the shadow of suspicion hung over him through life.
So, not surprisingly for a murky and not-well explored conflict, it has been suggested that 'American Freemasons', mounted, armed and organised into a recognisable and substantial corps had first arrived intending to be heavily involved, but then were warned off by their consul and were nowhere to be seen when the Stockade was breached.
A local historian, Bell, refers to a fifth 'American', one Brother Kenworthy, who was living inside the Stockade boundary but who also absented himself on the fatal night. A merchant in Australia before the 1850's, Kenworthy was later a well-known Freemason and Surgeon-General in Florida.
Broadening out the fraternal context, in 1852 the British Consul at Philadelphia, had made known his fear that 'many Americans going to Australia, ostensibly to dig for gold' were actually revolutionaries and members of the fraternal 'Order of the Lone Star' intent on spreading 'freedom', ie American-style republicanism. According to the same author who speculated about Bro Kenworthy, by January, 1855, the Governor:
...had convinced himself of the existence of secret societies..plotting to overthrow the government. He wrote to the
Colonial Office [London] asking for additional funds to counteract French Red Republicans, the German Political
Metaphysicians, the American Lone Star members and the British Chartists.. Surprisingly, he made no mention of Irish
secret societies..
Further, it is necessary to point out that in the immediate Ballarat township area by 1865-66, that is within a decade or so of the first gold discoveries, there were over 40 lodges in a population of perhaps 5-10,000, only a handful of which were Masonic - 5 EC, 2 IC, and 1 SC. This township saw the birth of both the Protestant Alliance Friendly Society and 'the Hibernians'(full-name, the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society) in their southern form, and it was one of three primary centres of Orange Lodge membership in Victoria in the 19th century, the others being Melbourne and Geelong. All of these non-Masonic fraternities were nationally-significant bodies by the end of the century.
I've already referred to the use made of Masonic membership as a travelling aid, and that while miners were prominent in early SF lodges they rarely 'stuck' if only because moving on was essential, and because the Masonic leadership back 'home' felt it was being defrauded by travelling brothers and so discontinued benefits. Clearly, the elected or appointed leaders of Masonic jurisdictions in the cities were seeing the world quite differently from the men in bush settlements like Ballarat, where local 'leaders' were as likely to be ardent republicans from the US, or from Germany or Italy, Ireland or Scotland.
In conclusion: the rough and ready Australian colonies were undoubtedly different to other British colonies, but in a Masonic context, just how different were they? Freemasonry is not the first organisation to want to present itself positively, but for over a century now, inside Masonic circles, there has been talk of a need for an 'authentic' history. In the flush of enthusiasm aroused by the example of AQC, the first and supposedly the premier research lodge in the world, Secretary Speth exulted that others were following suit:
It is indeed a great gratification to us to record, in almost every number (of the AQC Transactions), some fresh
instance of a stir amongst the dead bones, an awakening of Masons to intellectual life, and to the absorbing interest of
Masonic Archeology.
This claimed revival helped the outside world to begin to understand that the mainstream historical record would be more complete and more accurate if it contained due reference to Freemasonry. As Snoek and others have testified, decades of internal conversation about Masonic 'truth' have not resulted in huge gains. The deeper problem, not yet addressed, arises because the flaws in the past record are not simply ones of 'facts'. There are issues of motivation and of decision making power. In the clash of theory and practice, numerous questions are relevant:
Who is to decide what is 'due reference'? Who is to decide which are the relevant 'facts'? On what basis will such decisions be made? Who is to decide the content of 'the Masonic heritage'? The continuing lack of a credible history of what I insist on calling 'Speculative Freemasonry' has become a critical issue. It's not just a matter of a few missing dates or a gap or three in the records, this is a questioning of just what it is that these Conferences, and others of like intention, are actually about.
Fraternal history has everything -
mystery and intrigue on a grand international scale, and
every-day personal dramas.
Yes, Secret Societies, hooded assassins!!!
Yes, heavily-adorned Grand Masters!!!
But on this site we sift facts from myth.
So, no fanciful conspiracy theories!!!
mystery and intrigue on a grand international scale, and
every-day personal dramas.
Yes, Secret Societies, hooded assassins!!!
Yes, heavily-adorned Grand Masters!!!
But on this site we sift facts from myth.
So, no fanciful conspiracy theories!!!
Read about trade-oriented fraternals in
THEY CALL EACH OTHER BROTHER.
Copies from 90 Henry St, Tighes Hill, NSW. 2297.
Australia.
THEY CALL EACH OTHER BROTHER.
Copies from 90 Henry St, Tighes Hill, NSW. 2297.
Australia.
This illustration is from Richard Carlile's newspaper, The Gauntlet, 30 March, 1834.
Controversy broke over the use of ritual and other secret methods by trade-oriented societies when the Tolpuddle Seven were transported 1834 for swearing an illegal oath.
Controversy broke over the use of ritual and other secret methods by trade-oriented societies when the Tolpuddle Seven were transported 1834 for swearing an illegal oath.
ANDY DURR, and others, have been attempting for some years to change the way Freemasonry conducts research and writes about itself. Narrow, self-serving and selective are not adjectives which apply just to Masonic history, of course. But in spite of more vitality than that manifest in other fraternals, and greater interest in their history, Freemasonry has not yet shown much interest in changing their ways.
Durr commented in 1983, (AQC, Vol 96, p.92) on a paper presented to QC Lodge:
The paper follows a well-worn path of noting (Dr) Plot's
often hostile observations on the Society of Freemasons..It is
generally felt in the historiography of the Craft that Plot was
observing a meeting or lodge of speculative masons in 17th
century England. (His) observations make more sense when
they are seen in the context of voluntary associations of
tradesmen...We may ask whether operative masons were any
different from other skilled artizans and of course the answer
is no...
In his article, 'The Origin of the Craft', in the same volume, he set out his arguement at greater length, urging in effect that 'the origins of the Craft (need to) be looked at anew.'
Durr commented in 1983, (AQC, Vol 96, p.92) on a paper presented to QC Lodge:
The paper follows a well-worn path of noting (Dr) Plot's
often hostile observations on the Society of Freemasons..It is
generally felt in the historiography of the Craft that Plot was
observing a meeting or lodge of speculative masons in 17th
century England. (His) observations make more sense when
they are seen in the context of voluntary associations of
tradesmen...We may ask whether operative masons were any
different from other skilled artizans and of course the answer
is no...
In his article, 'The Origin of the Craft', in the same volume, he set out his arguement at greater length, urging in effect that 'the origins of the Craft (need to) be looked at anew.'
A 16th-century apprentice.