|
The First Australian Stationary
|
PLEASE NOTE:
The following is the abridged text of a
lecture delivered by W Bro R. Linford, PJGD, at the Victorian Lodge of Research
on 25 March 1994 and published in the VLOR's transactions for 1994 entitled
'Examining Freemasonry'.
The full text may be obtained by email from the Correspondence Circle Secretary, W Bro Graeme Love. Please be sure include your snail-mail address and sufficient information to identify your masonic standing.
Norfolk Is. and New South Wales (Australia)
delivered in the Lodge by WBro.R.Linford, PJGD
on March 25 1994
Traditional wisdom has it that the first stationary Masonic lodge in Australia was The Australian Social Lodge, No. 260 I.C., which met in Sydney under the authority of a warrant issued by the Grand Lodge of Ireland on 4th January 1820. This widespread understanding is reinforced by Cramp and Mackaness in their "A History of the United Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of New South Wales", a work which is generally accepted as the definite history of the Craft in the first years of white settlement in Australia. Chapter V of the first volume of the History is given the title "Formation and Dedication of the First Stationary Lodge" and deals with the beginnings of The Australian Social Lodge and declares unequivocally that that lodge, "when properly warranted, became the first regular and permanent Lodge in Australia".
The formation of the Australian Social Lodge was by no means the first Australian event involving freemasons. Chester Smith, one time Editor of 'The N.S.W. Freemason', avers that 'Masonry took its place in Australia in 1788 when Governor Phillip founded the first settlement on the shores of Sydney Cove, for among the "First Fleeters" were craftsmen, both operative and speculative'. However, Smith is not always a source to inspire full confidence in his statements. Frequently there is no indication given of the references upon which they are based.
Nevertheless, there is a deal of evidence to confirm that freemasons were
active in the Colony of New South Wales before the Australian Social Lodge
was established. Cramp and Mackaness provide a number of examples, thus:
| * In 1797 the possibility of forming a masonic lodge in New South Wales was seriously considered. In an old minute book of the Grand Lodge of Ireland is to be found a note to the effect that at a meeting of the Grand Lodge on 6 July 1797, a petition was received from George Kerr, Peter Farrell and George Black praying for the issue of a warrant to be held in the New South Wales Corps, then serving at Port Jackson, in New South Wales. Action by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, was however, deferred. | |
| * A certificate dated 17 September 1802 records the admission of Anthony Fenn Kemp, Captain of the New South Wales Corps stationed at port Jackson, into a degree of freemasonry by a lodge, 'not regularly constituted but properly assembled'. Cramp and Mackaness argued that the certificate provides evidence of admission to the Rose Croix degree but recently - 1991 - Bro.Allan Sharpe has convincingly demonstrated that it attests to Bro. Kemp's being a Master Mason and that the ceremonies through which he had passed were not conducted in a warranted lodge but in the presence of a 'triangle'. | |
| * On the 6th May 1803, the convict Sir Henry Browne Hayes attempted to hold a masonic meeting with men from visiting naval vessels and some local inhabitants, despite the absence of official permission. This led to intervention by the authorities and the temporary jailing of some of those involved. | |
| * A letter dated 18 December 1807 from three Norfolk Island residents, signing themselves as Jas. Mitchell, Master; Thos. Lucas, P.M.; and W. Atkins, S.W., in their collective capacity as free and accepted masons, and addressed to Captain John Piper, provides evidence of masonic activity on the Island. | |
| * It is known that military lodges were attached to regiments serving in New South Wales over the period 1814 to 1823. These included such warranted lodges as Lodge No.227 attached to the 46th (arrived 1814); Lodge No.218 attached to the 48th (1817); and Lodge No.284 attached to the 40th (1823). It is also known that some of the members of these lodges remained in the Colony after their regiments had departed and continued to engage in masonic activities. | |
| * On the 2nd November 1816, a masonic ceremony was held at Elizabeth Point, Port Jackson, New South Wales, to commemorate the laying of the foundation stone of the home of brother Captain John Piper. Brethren taking part in the ceremony included personnel of the 46th and 39th Regiments, and a number of local brethren listed as members of Lodge No.227. |
These examples lend credence to an appreciation of the amount of masonic activity occurring in the infant Colony before 1820. It would be surprising, therefore, if the matter of forming a lodge was not being actively pursued prior to that date. The failed endeavour of 1797 is, of course, an example of an attempt to form a lodge - in this instance, under the Irish Constitution - and the 1807 letter from Norfolk Islaand suggests another. The latter is the subject of this paper.
Reference has already been made to the statement by Cramp and Mackaness in Chapter V of their History that the Australian Social Lodge was the first regular and permanent stationary lodge in Australia. Elsewhere they are rather less dogmatic. In Chapter III they examine in some detail the letter of 1807 to Captain John Piper which, they say, proves 'conclusively that a Lodge, regular or irregular, had existed on Norfolk Island as early as 1807, and probably some years earlier'. However, they do not resile in any way from their later assertion that the Australian Social Lodge was the first regular and permanent lodge in Australia. (Note: There is some internal evidence in their History to suggest that details of the 1807 letter came to the attention of Cramp and Mackaness only after the early chapters of their work had been completed and that they failed to follow up the implications of the new discovery before the History was published.)
The Lodge of St. John, No. 1
In the years following the publication of the Cramp and Mackaness History, the then Editor of The New South Wales Freemason, Chester Smith, undertook further research into the background of the Norfolk Island lodge. He published his findings in the course of a series of articles in The New South Wales Freemason in which he argued that the fragmentary records of masonic activity in the Colony of New South Wales before the year 1800 point to the existence of a lodge, the masonic Lodge of St. John No.1, on Norfolk Island. The evidence for this, he said, was an entry in the land registers held by the Department of Lands, Sydney, which confirms that the lodge was in operation before the year 1800. He cited additional evidence in the form of a headstone to the grave of a George Hales, Captain of the ship "General Boyd", who died on 16 August 1801, at the age of 47 years. It bears various masonic emblems and 'indicates that he was a member of the masonic Lodge of St. John, No. 1, then working on the Island. (Note: This statement must be treated with great caution. Hales was a member of the Old Dundee Lodge No.18, EC, but there is nothing on the headstone to indicate that he was a member of the masonic Lodge of St.John No.1.) He contended that when the Norfolk Island settlers were compulsorily transferred from Norfolk Island, mostly to Van Diemens Land, Lodge St. John, No.1, was reformed and was working there in 1817, but he cited no evidence for this. Similarly, he stated, without citing it, that there was evidence of an inferential nature which strongly pointed to a masonic lodge having been formed on Norfolk Island about the year 1792.
A comparatively recent work, published in 1986, by Reg Wright, "The Forgotten Generation of Norfolk Island and Van Diemens Land", is also of interest in this connection. Wright believes that, although Freemasons met with much opposition in Port Jackson, and in support of this he says that Governor Phillip had refused his officers permission to set up a masonic lodge at Port Jackson in 1792 and that that official opposition was reinforced when in 1803 convict Sir Henry Browne Hayes was refused permission by Governor King to institute such an association, a different climate prevailed at Norfolk Island. He refers to the letter written by masonic brethren to Captain John Piper on 18 December 1807 and provides the additional information that the shipping list for the "Estramina", which shows people who boarded that vessel at Norfolk Island on 15 May 1808 bound for the Derwent, Van Diemen's Land, notes that one-half an acre of land shown against the name of Michael Lee "belonged to the society of freemasons of which he is a member".
This reference to Michael Lee is confirmed in papers of the Colonial Secretary for the Colony of New South Wales recently made public. A list of land holdings on Norfolk Island shows that one-half of an acre of land at the east end of the town of Sydney originally leased to a William Sherwen on 15 October 1795 for a period of 14 years at an annual rental of sixpence had been made over by power of attorney by the lessee to Aaron Davis and sold by him for £55.12.0 to the masonic Lodge of St. John, No.1, on 27 April 1800. Obviously by April 1800 the lessee was Lee acting on behalf of the Lodge.
There is no doubt, therefore, that between 1800 and 1808, and probably for a short time before that, the Lodge of St. John, No. 1, was established and working on Norfolk Island. However, little is known of its members. The letter of 18 December 1807 to Captain John Piper was signed by three brethren, namely, Jas. Mitchell, Master; Thomas Lucas, Past Master; and W. Atkins, Senior Warden, and, as has been noted, there was also Michael Lee who held the lease of land on behalf of the Lodge. Despite Chester Smith's belief that Captain George Hales, the Commander of the ship "General Boyd", who died on 16 August 1801, was a member of the Lodge, the evidence on the point is not without doubt. It is possible that, his being known to be a freemason, the brethren of the Norfolk Island lodge could have given him the courtesy of a masonic funeral. As will be mentioned later, there is a possibility, even the probability, that John Cox of the New South Corps, who is known to have been in Norfolk Island in 1805 and left it in 1813 for Port Dalrymple, Van Diemen's Land, was a freemason. It may be that Aaron Davis, who sold the land to the Lodge, was a member, despite his background as a convict, but that cannot be confirmed. Similarly, it is not known whether Captain John Piper, whose membership of the Craft has been established, ever became a member, although obviously he was sympathetically disposed towards it.
However, the information that can be gleaned from the records concerning the men known to have been members of the Lodge provides a useful indication of the types of men who made up its membership.
James Mitchell, the Master of the Lodge in 1807, figures prominently in the records of the period and a detailed account of his career by G. Lindsay Lockley appears in the Papers and Proceedings of the Tasmania Historical Research Association. He was an Irishman, born circa 1754, who had migrated to Manchester and was there recruited into the London Missionary Society. He was despatched to the South Seas to reinforce missionary effort in the Pacific area on the vessel "Royal Admiral" which sailed for Port Jackson on 5 May 1800 and arrived at the Settlement on 20 November 1800. On arrival in New South Wales he decided to abandon his career as a missionary and entered into employment with Simeon Lord, an ex-convict who was in process of building up a mercantile empire, and was sent by him to Norfolk Island in late July or early August 1801 to act as his agent. By 1802 he had married and, according to Reg Wright, seems to have been a tavern keeper there. Six years later he was Collector of Customs for the Settlement and had acquired a position of standing in the community. With the evacuation of Norfolk Island, Mitchell returned to Port Jackson and subsequently moved to Hobart Town in 1813. There he became Postmaster, a position he was to hold until 1822. He died in Hobart Town in 1849.
The second of the members of the Lodge of St. John, No.1, who signed the letter of 18 December 1807 to Captain John Piper, Thomas Lucas, a Past Master of the Lodge, was an original "First Fleeter". He arrived in Port Jackson as a marine in the vessel "Scarborough" and in the Historical Records of Australia is recorded as a private in the 102nd. Regiment in Captain Shea's Company in the New South Wales Corps between 1 July and 30 September 1788. By 1797 he had left the Corps and was, in August of that year, given a grant of 60 acres of land on Norfolk Island by Governor Hunter. A February 1805 list of "People On and Off Stores" in Norfolk Island states that he was then a painter and glazier. He left Norfolk Island on 3 September 1808 as part of the evacuation exercise on board the ship "City of Edinburgh" and with his family, comprising his wife Ann (nee Howard) and four sons, resettled on the Derwent in Van Diemen's Land. Subsequently he received a holding in Queen Borough/Sandy Bay in that settlement. He died in late August 1815 and was buried in the cemetery which has now been converted into St. David's Park (opposite the present Tasmanian masonic headquarters in Sandy Bay Road, Hobart) with masonic honours. Lucas is said to have been a member of Lodge of Temperance, a London lodge.
The then Senior Warden of the Lodge of St. John, No. 1, William Atkins who also signed the December 1807 letter to Captain John Piper, had been a convict. He was convicted at Peterboro in 1790 and sentenced to transportation for 14 years, and arrived in New South Wales on the vessel "Neptune" on 11 November 1791 as a convict. He is listed in the Norfolk Island records variously as having been a free settler, as a settler from convicts on the stores (both in 1805) and as a marine or ex-marine settler, with the occupation of constable. Cramp and Mackaness have it that he was a free settler, one of a number of "men with large families and deserving characters" who had settled in Norfolk Island and who in 1805 each received a cow from the Government herd. Evidently Atkins served his sentence, probably entered the Marines and later moved to Norfolk Island where he became a constable. As part of the evacuation of Norfolk Island he boarded the "Estramina" on 15 May 1808 bound for Van Diemen's Land. In Van Diemen's Land he obtained a grant of land at Clarence Plains.
The remaining Norfolk Islander known to have been a member of the Lodge of St. John, No. 1, was Michael Lee. Since the land under lease purchased by the Lodge was in his name it is probable that he was either its secretary or its treasurer. A general muster of free men, women and children at Hobart Town taken over the period from 7 September to 2 October 1818 states that he arrived in New South Wales by the vessel "Gorgon" as a convict, having been sentenced to transportation for a period of 7 years in London in 1790. The "Gorgon" had arrived at Port Jackson on 11 November 1791. The February 1805 Norfolk Island records list him as a labourer whose sentence had expired. Like Atkins, he was a passenger on board the "Estramina" when in took evacuees to Van Diemen's Land, departing from Norfolk Island on 15 May 1808. The Hobart Town Gazette of 16 October 1819 records that Lee had been granted a licence for the tavern, the Freemason's Arms, in Hobart. The tavern had had one earlier licensee, at least, and the question might be asked whether the name was chosen to attract an existing clientele.
As suggested previously, it is possible that John Cox, who settled at Norfolk Plains, near Port Dalrymple in the northern part of Van Diemen's Land, was a member of the Lodge of St.John, No.1. Isabella Mead, in her 1964-65 article on the Settlement of the Norfolk Islanders at Norfolk, published in the Papers and Proceedings of the Tasmania Historical Research Association, says that Cox arrived in New South Wales with a detachment of the New South Wales Corps in 1792. He had been transferred to Norfolk Island and was residing there in 1805 when he was listed as a private. On 1 March 1813, accompanied by his wife and seven children, he arrived at Port Dalrymple from Norfolk Island on the ship "Lady Nelson". He then established himself on a farm at Norfolk Plains and was appointed a constable for the township of Launceston. The possibility of a masonic connection arises from Mead's comment that she had seen an old powder horn on which were inscribed the names and dates of birth of eight of Cox's children, sketches of ships and various masonic symbols and the words 'Union, Loyalty and Liberty - Remember me when this you see'. While the powder horn cannot be said to prove conclusively that Cox was a member of the Lodge of St.John, No.1, it does appear that this was highly probable.
There is another resident of Norfolk Island who may have been a member of the lodge, namely George Kerr. It will be recalled that a George Kerr, apparently a member of the New South Wales Corps, was a signatory to the 1797 petition to the Grand Lodge of Ireland praying for the issue of a warrant for the formation of a lodge in the Corps. Reg Wright states that there was a George Kerr, whom he identifies by no more than name, was a member of a night watch on the Island. However, it has not been possible to ascertain whether there was one man or two involved in these events, although the possibility remains that there was only one and that he was concerned in the work of the Lodge of St. John, No.1.
The numbers of known members of the Lodge are, of course, too small to permit any significant conclusions to be drawn concerning its composition. It is possible, however, to say something about it. Clearly there were members who came to the Island as free settlers. There were marines who had served their time. There were former convicts whose sentences had expired. It may be, too, there were members from amongst the marines who were responsible for discipline in the settlement as, for example, Kerr, and perhaps Cox. Whether all or most members had been initiated into the Lodge cannot be determined; certainly the initial impetus for the Lodge must have come from men who were members of other Lodges, of whom it can be said, without much doubt, Thomas Lucas was one. It would be of interest to discover whether Lucas, a "First Fleeter" and a Past Master of the Lodge, had occupied the Chair in Norfolk Island or was already a Past Master prior to his arrival there. What can be said is that a past record as a convict did not automatically involve exclusion from entry into the Lodge, a situation consistent with a ruling given twenty or so years later by the Grand Lodge of Ireland to the Australian Social Lodge to the effect that 'an individual becoming free by pardon or expiration of sentence, possessing a good character, may and would be eligible to become a member of a masonic lodge'.
It might, perhaps, be speculated as to why the authorities of the day allowed a lodge to be formed on Norfolk Island whilst adopting a hard line against the formation of lodges on the Australian mainland. Cramp and Mackaness suggest that when, in 1803, Governor Philip Gidley King, having refused permission to the convict, Sir Henry Browne Hayes 'to hold a freemason's lodge, preside thereat and initiate new members' but finding nevertheless that a meeting of masons was being held, immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a treasonable act by the masons concerned. if true, this would, of course have been a not unreasonable basis for intervention and, in the circumstances of the time, King would have been fully justified in being on the alert for any treasonable activities. After all, it was the period of the Napoleonic Wars and the authorities would have been bound to take precautions to ensure that anything of this kind was not allowed to eventuate. Moreover, the Unlawful Societies Act 1799, intended for the suppression of seditious societies, while it had given Freemasons immunity from its provisions - the immunity had been made conditional upon lodge secretaries making Annual Returns of member's names and addresses to the local Clerk of the Peace - there could well have been an aura of suspicion surrounding the Craft, especially as the Act was specifically directed against societies whose members were required to take an oath not authorised by law and masonic obligation could have been regarded by some as falling within that category, and such caution can be understood.
But the 'treasonable activities' explanation seems to be one of doubtful substance for, in reporting the affair to his London superior, Under Secretary Sullivan, in 1804, King stated: 'He (Hayes) would very soon have made every soldier and other person Freemasons, had not the most decided means been adopted', suggesting an anti-Masonic bias rather than concern against treason. It is interesting to note that when Macquarie - himself a Freemason - became Governor at Port Jackson, freemasonry prospered. Fairly clearly the personal leanings of the Governor in charge at the time was an important factor in determining official attitudes. A similar situation doubtless applied on Norfolk Island. When the Lodge of St. John No.1 was formed Major Joseph Foveaux was probably the Commandant-in-Charge. Foveaux's period in charge of the Island was notable for his oppression and torture of the convict population but there is no reason to believe that he had an anti-masonic bias. In consequence, a request for permission to establish a masonic lodge would have been unlikely to have been met by refusal. A further factor could have been that King may have been immediately disposed to refuse a request of this kind from a convict, Sir Henry Browne Hayes in this instance, while Foveaux, on being approached by a group of respectable citizens of Norfolk Island, would have been more inclined to be sympathetic.
As noted earlier, Chester Smith says that the Lodge relocated to Van Diemen's Land following the evacuation of settlers from Norfolk Island. However, he does not give the evidence of this and, in its absence, there are grounds for holding some doubts concerning it. The Norfolk Islands residents resettling in Van Diemen's Land were widely spread, some going to Port Dalrymple in the North and others to the South. An analysis by Wright of the destinations of those settling in and around the Derwent basin in the South suggests that about 30 per cent went to New Norfolk, while 24 per cent were located at Sandy Bay and 19 per cent at New Town and Glenorchy; the remaining 27 per cent went to the Eastern Shore of the Derwent between Bridgewater and Pittwater, but with the great majority in the Clarence Plains area. The Lodge must have been a small one and presumably its members went to destinations as widely spread as the general run of the residents. Given the transportation problems of the day, it might be questioned whether sufficient members would sufficient members would have been able to come together to reform the Lodge. Certainly there is sufficient doubt about the matter to conclude that Smith's claim is deserving of closer scrutiny.
However, examination of the relevant Tasmanian material has all but dispelled
these doubts. Reference the following:
| * A diary entry by the Reverend Robert Knopwood for Wednesday, 19 August 1814 says (in part): 'The Governor laid the first stone for the officers barrack on the hill; the masons attended him.' | |
| * A further Knopwood diary entry for 1 September 1815 records that 'At 3.00pm I buried Mr. Lucas from Browns River. He has been a marine that came out when the settlement at Port Jackson was formed, then became a settler and went to Norfolk Island. There he remained till the island was evacuated; most of the settlers came to this colony. He was a Mason, and buried by the Brothers in masonic form.' | |
| * There is a record of the consecration, of a piece of ground on which St. David's Church was to be erected, that appeared in the Hobart Town Gazette, issue of 22 February 1817. It proceeds: 'After a performance by the Chaplain, the Rev. Robt. Knopwood, a neat and appropriate Masonic oration was delivered by a member of the Society', after which 'they partook of a very handsome cold collation, all anticipating prosperity and happiness of Van Diemen's Land'. This is confirmed in a diary entry by The Reverend Robert Knopwood dated 19 February 1817. | |
| * The Hobart Town gazette of June 12, 1819, records a list of subscribers to the Auxiliary Branch Bible Society of Van Diemen's Land at the Derwent which includes twelve (named) members of 'the free and accepted Masons belonging to the Lodge of St. John, Hobart T.' (John West in his "A History of Tasmania" says that the Bible Society concerned had been formed in Sydney under the patronage of Governor Macquarie.) | |
| * The Hobart Town Gazette of 1 January 1820 reports that 'On Monday last, the Freemasons resident in this Settlement assembled and went in procession to lay the foundation stone of a new lodge intended to be erected in Melville Street on the plot of ground which they have occupied in exchange for that originally held by the lodge at Norfolk Island.' | |
|
|
* Cramp and Mackaness state that, soon after its constitution in August 1820 in Sydney, the Australian Social lodge No.260, IC, sent a Memorial dated 12 November 1821 to the Grand Lodge of Ireland praying for a Charter whereby it could grant dispensations to form a lodges in the Colonies, and under which the brethren of such lodges could work until a regular warrant should be issued. In this Memorial they stated that the inhabitants of New South Wales were considerable, there being four towns - Sydney, Parramatta, Windsor and Liverpool - and that in Van Diemen's Land there were two chief settlements - Port Dalrymple and Hobart Town. They mentioned that an application had been made to them 'by Some very respectable Brethren at Van Diemen's Land (as well as those we have reported to you who are an unlawful assembly) for a Dispensation' but that they could not accord their request without authority. The Memorial went on to say that by granting them such a Charter it will unite 'in one strong chain the poor man and the rich man; as well keep all party distinctions from the masonic walls in this infant Colony'. It will prevent irregularities and disputes, and rights of precedency, and 'will at once combine the new Masonic World into one Focus'. |
The first three of these references might be regarded as demonstrating nothing more than that there was masonic activity in Van Diemen's Land over the period from 1814 to 1817. They cannot be claimed as showing that the Lodge of St. John No.1, had been reformed and was working in Hobart Town at that time. Part of the 46th Regiment was stationed in the settlement from 1814 to 1818. This regiment had attached to it the Lodge of Social and Military Virtues, No. 227, IC. There is no record of masonic operations by that lodge during these years but the possibility cannot be ruled out that, since there were masons among the officers of the regiment, dispensation to assemble in public as masons would readily be granted on special occasions such as the laying of the first stone for an Army Barracks or the burial of a well regarded settler.
However, the next two references are much more specific. Analysis of the list of members of the Lodge of St.John contributing to the funds of the Bible Society shows that it includes; two who are known to have been members of the Lodge of St. John No.1, in Norfolk Island, namely, William Atkins and Michael Lee; seven former residents of Norfolk Island who may have been members of that Lodge; one former resident who was too young to have been a lodge member; and two members who had not been residents of Norfolk Island. The naming of Atkins and Lee amongst the members of the Hobart Town lodge leaves little doubt that this was the former Lodge of St. John No.1, of Norfolk Island, re-established in its new location. Whatever doubt remains seems to be effectively removed by the report in the Hobart Town Gazette of January 1, 1820, concerning the laying of the foundation stone of the new Lodge - obviously referring to the lodge building - to be erected in Melville Street, Hobart, on land given to the freemasons in exchange for that originally held by the lodge at Norfolk Island.
Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Cramp and Mackaness are cautious about attaching too much significance to the West reference. They point out that in early masonic history to be a St. John's mason did not imply being a member of a lodge of that name. It merely indicated that the brother had been advanced to the Mark degree. They put forward the suggestion that, as at this date some detachments of the 48th Regiment were stationed at Hobart, and as this regiment had Lodge No. 218, IC, attached to it, it was possible that the twelve men who made donations to the funds of the Sydney Bible Society were members of it, and, though their headquarters were in Sydney, they practised their craft there. But Cramp and Mackaness were not aware of the 1820 Hobart Gazette report and may have been more positive had they known of it. Quite properly, they were emphasizing the difficulties of interpretation of the facts before them and the need to avoid any assumption that Norfolk Islanders were involved in the events of which they had knowledge.
The Cramp and Mackaness reference to the 1821 Memorial sent by the Australian Social Lodge to the Grand Lodge of Ireland has particular interest, especially in the context in which it was written. The lodge was working with the authority of a warrant from the Grand Lodge of Ireland and it was seeking approval for the issue of dispensation to form other lodges pending the arrival of regular warrants. Until approval for the issue of dispensations was given and those dispensations actually issued, or warrants received, no assembly of masons meeting in the form of a lodge could be regarded as regular. It was aware that masons were meeting as a lodge in Van Diemen's Land, but to it this was an 'unlawful assembly'. Whether the 'unlawful assembly' comprised the brethren of the former Lodge of St. John No.1, of Norfolk Island or these brethren were 'the very respectable Brethren' cannot be gauged from the information presently available. Undoubtedly, one or other of the descriptions referred to the brethren of the lodge.
Here, then, what was being raised was the question of 'regularity' in the circumstances attending the development of Freemasonry in a new colony. To the Australian Social Lodge regularity required a warrant or the expectation of a warrant. To the brethren of the Lodge of St. John, No.1, regularity could follow subsequent to the formation of a lodge, as the section in parenthesis in the Cramp and Mackaness reference quoted above implies. This was an issue which was by no means new in a colonial setting.
Some Matters of Principle, including Legitimacy, concerning the Lodge
The matter of regularity is, of course, central to the question of the status of the Lodge of St. John No.1. But if the suggestion that it was the first permanent stationary lodge, regular or non-regular, in Australia is to have any validity, there are two prior concerns to be dealt with. Should the Norfolk Island of the day be regarded as part of Australia? Should the Lodge be considered to have been a permanent initiative?
As to whether Norfolk Island should be regarded as having been part of Australia during the latter 1700's and early 1800's, this is a question that may be disposed of summarily. The answer is emphatically "Yes". The settlement of Norfolk Island was part of the immediate plan to establish a British presence in Eastern Australia. The First Fleet shifted from Botany Bay to Port Jackson on 26 January 1788. Preparations were made for the transfer of a party to Norfolk Island by the vessel "Supply" on 15 February 1788. The ship stood off the Island on 28 February and ultimately landed its complement of people on 6 March. Thereafter, Norfolk Island became a dependency subject to the Port Jackson administration. Occupation of the Island was thus an element of the settlement of the New South Wales and, therefore, of the continent of Australia in general. Reference to the establishment of Freemasonry in Australia would include reference to the Craft in Norfolk Island.
Was the Lodge expected to be a permanent body? Here the name of the Lodge, the Lodge of St. John, No. 1, appears to have relevance. It is known that, due to Governor Phillip's ruling in 1792 proscribing the practice of Freemasonry in the Colony of New South Wales, - here reliance is being had on the statement by Reg Wright, though it is a fact that has yet to be confirmed - there was no stationary Lodge operating in the settlement prior to the establishment of the Lodge of St. John. The allocation of "No. 1" to the designation confirms this and suggests that there was an expectation amongst its founders that it would be the first of a number of lodges to be consecrated in the Colony when permission to establish further lodges was forthcoming. There would have been no thought that the settlement on Norfolk Island would be abandoned a mere thirteen or so years after the Lodge came into being. To the founders the expectation would have been that the Lodge would continue to function indefinitely and that its formation would be followed in due course by the foundation of other lodges.
The question of whether the Lodge was "regular" is more complex. Chester Smith raises no doubts concerning the matter. He says that 'It was a Time Immemorial Lodge, which means that at its founding it had not possessed a regular Warrant' and that it was working by 'inherent right'. On these grounds he treats it as a regular lodge, or at least does not query its regularity.
It is to be noted that in the year 1800 the Colony of New South Wales was masonically unoccupied. That is, it was not the territorial responsibility of any Grand Lodge. In England, there were two Grand Lodges, the Premier Grand Lodge of England (the "Moderns" Grand Lodge), formed in 1717, and the rival Grand Lodge, formed in 1751 "Under the Old Institutions" (the "Antients" Grand Lodge), and neither had any interest in forming Masonic lodges in the newly settled Australian Continent. The Grand Lodge of Ireland was warranting regimental lodges with ambulatory warrants, and Cramp and Mackaness have speculated that the New South Wales Corps, then responsible for security in the infant colony, may have had a lodge attached to it, although having regard to the attitude of Governor Phillip. This appears to have been unlikely. However, the Grand Lodge of Ireland did not warrant a stationary lodge in Australia before 1820; and it was not until 1828 that Freemasonry under the English Constitution was established in Australia; and sixteen years later, in 1844, that the first Scottish Constitution Lodge was formed, and then in Port Phillip. The situation in Australia in 1800 was, therefore, that there was no Grand Lodge in the British isles to which the settlers might reasonably turn which was sufficiently concerned to foster the establishment of a lodge or lodges in the new settlement.
The position in which the Masons of Norfolk Island found themselves was by no means unique. Their brethren in North America experienced somewhat similar circumstances almost a century earlier. Prior to the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 there had been no controlling body. Brethren simply gathered together in various localities, whether at home or in colonies, before that date and formed themselves into lodges accordance to the then English custom. It was only after the Grand Lodge of England had been constituted, initially for the existing lodges in the cities of London and Westminster alone, that the idea of a central ruling body was evolved.
One United States of America writer, discussing the extent to which the decision of the Premier Grand Lodge of England to centralise control over private lodges in the City of London had wider application, argued that that decision applied almost immediately throughout the British Empire. However, it was not thoroughly known and enforced in all parts of the Empire and it was as late as 1738 before it can be said that it was firmly effective elsewhere, though it had been known to and enforced in those centres of population in North America where masonry was practised and which were in touch with the Mother Country through merchants and mariners.
This argument has been summarily disposed of by a later United States of America writer, Henry Wilson Coil, who has pointed out that the decision to centralise control never extended to Ireland or Scotland, though Grand Lodges erected there in 1730 and 1736, respectively, may have adopted similar powers of their own. Hence, the myth of an almost immediate extension of control of private lodges throughout the British Empire having been exploded, the question may be asked: What reason is there to conclude that North America was covered? Coil goes on to say that there is not a single case on record to indicate that the Grand Lodge of England ever moved into new territory anywhere, even in England itself, on the theory that the decision to become a central controlling body conferred wide-sweeping powers in all territories forming part of the British Empire. The Grand Lodge did discipline its own lodges and members, but it never laid charges of heresy against outsiders, and never attempted by force or even aggression to extend its powers or jurisdiction. It is quite significant that when it did take notice of North America, it did so on the petitions of Colonial masons and not by sending over an English representative to take possession. The Grand Lodge system prevailed and spread, not by the sanction of any regulation or self conferred power, but by the advantages it offered of better organisation, greater efficiency, stricter supervision and finer stability. Lodges became fixed and identifiable bodies intended to persist. They were organised and regulated and encouraged in a way that made them more likely to persist. The old St.John's Lodges working by immemorial right, lived from day to day or from meeting to meeting. Their demise was due to no direct action by Grand Lodge or its decrees but merely to the principle known as survival of the fittest.
If the Coil thesis is correct, in the present context the question may be asked: If the situation in North America in the early part of the eighteenth century was as described, why should it not have applied also in Australia at the end of the century when the newly established Colony was masonically unoccupied?
It has been argued that the Lodge of St.John No.1, of Norfolk Island could
not have been a regular lodge because it lacked a warrant. This is a matter
which is deserving of some consideration. It is to be remembered that in
the years immediately following the formation of the Premier Grand lodge
of England and for many years afterwards, when approval was given for the
consecration of a new lodge, no warrant, in the form we know it, was issued.
Gould summarises the transition from the self-constituted lodge to the present
warranted lodge in these terms:
| "In those early days, a piece of paper or parchment, containing a written or printed authority for certain Brethren and their successors to meet as a Lodge, was not held in the superstitious reverence with which it afterwards became regarded. Later in the century, both in England and America (and the practice was not unknown in France), the existence as well as the regularity of a lodge was deemed to be bound up with its charter. Thus the succession of members might come to an end but, after any interval, no matter of what duration, the issue of the old Warrant to an entirely new set of Brethren, was viewed as a reinstatement or revival of the original lodge. The absurdity of this custom is self evident. The old customs were gradually being supplemented by the new, but the former evinced great tenacity of existence in some instances, especially in the British Colonies, where they appear to have remained for the longest period of time unmodified." |
Specifically on the subject of the masonic experience in North American colonial history, Lepper adds that "it seems undoubted that our Craft took its course westward long before definite adherence to one of the main constitutions in the British Isles (i.e. the warrant) had become the shibboleth of regularity. What can be more certain than that where a few Freemasons were gathered together in New England, they should form themselves into a lodge according to English custom?" He asks the question: Who are we to dub these non-regular or even clandestine meetings? and comments that: It is essential that we should cast off our present-day conceptions of Masonic Jurisprudence, if we are going to look upon Colonial Freemasonry of two centuries ago with any clearness of vision or judgement. Coil presents a similar view. Anachronistic thinking, he says, by which conditions or institutions of a later date are assumed as of an earlier period, is a natural mental tendency which has been the bane of masonic writers from early times, but which must be overcome by the student who would comprehend history. That is, particularly, true of the early account of freemasonry in the Colonies.
The opinions of authorities such as Lepper and Coil are noteworthy, especially as they come from opposite sides of the Atlantic. Their application in the case of the masonic Lodge of St. John No.1, of Norfolk Island is highly relevant. When the brethren of Norfolk Island established the Lodge of St. John about the year 1800, they were in a slightly different situation from their North American predecessors. The warrant had, by then, become well-established as an authority for a lodge to carry out masonic ceremonies. If the Norfolk Islanders had wished to pursue their masonic interests they had, in the absence of any encouragement from the Grand Lodges in the British isles, only two 'regular' alternatives were available to them. One was to take action under their 'inherent right' and act as their North American cousins had done earlier and form a self-constitutional lodge. The other was to seek authority from some other Grand Lodge or other authorised body for the formation of a lodge. Chester Smith believes they chose the former.
If, in fact, this is what they did, they had precedents not only in North America but in Europe as well. Haffner mentions, for example, the Loge L'Anglaise of Bordeaux. This lodge was formed by masons of English and Irish origin and held its initial meeting without a warrant on 27 April 1732. It gave birth to great masonic activity in the south of France. It assumed the right to found other lodges and, without being so called, to all intents and purposes acted as an autocratic Grand Lodge, creating lodges and regulating their affairs without any right of representation or appeal. In a letter to the Grand Lodge of England dated 2 April 1785, Loge L'Anglaise claimed to have constituted forty-two lodges, in another, 'more than fifty'. It is certain that the lodge did create a score or more of lodges in southern France, most of which were never reported to the Grand Lodge of England. It eventually petitioned for and received a warrant from England, being numbered 204.
If the experience in North America and Europe may be taken as a guide, the absence of a warrant was not necessarily a barrier to progress. Often any deficiency in this matter was remedied later when the non-regular or unattached lodge joined with the Grand Lodge exercising jurisdiction over the area in which it was located and was then issued with a warrant.
The possibility that the Lodge of St.John No.1 of Norfolk Island may have had a warrant cannot be ruled out entirely. When the convict, Sir Henry Hayes, approached Governor King for approval for the formation of a lodge at Port Jackson in 1803, he claimed to be in possession of a regular warrant entitling him to take the necessary steps for the establishment of the lodge. However, he did not state from what authority the warrant had come. Cramp and Mackaness, in discussing the incident, noted that Hayes was a frequent visitor to the ships of the French Fleet, commanded by Baudin, whilst they were in Port Jackson and suggested that the presence of masons on board may have contributed to the idea of holding a masonic meeting in Sydney. They concluded that Hayes may have obtained a certificate, or warrant, or some other variety of authorisation from the officers of the French ships, and on this authority proposed to hold or establish a masonic lodge in New South Wales. If this was, in fact, the situation with Hayes, a similar situation may have existed with the founders of the masonic Lodge of St. John No.1, on Norfolk Island.
There is one other possibility that might be mentioned. In the early nineteenth century the issue of warrants and charters was not controlled in the same strict manner as in the present day. Some of these documents are known to have been transferred by the persons or lodge to whom they were issued to other persons without any seeming reference to the Grand Lodge that had issued them. An example of this occurred with the Charter given by the Grand Lodge of Ireland to the 2nd Battalion of the 28th Gloucestershire Regiment in 1809. On that Battalion's return from overseas duty in North America, the Charter was sold at Plymouth, England, in 1815. Later that year, the Irish Grand Lodge became aware of the situation and cancelled the Charter No.260. This number then lay dormant until 6 January 1820, when it was reissued to the Australian Social Lodge, the lodge generally accepted as being the first stationary lodge in Australia. There is a possibility, therefore, that the Norfolk Island lodge was working with a charter originally issued to another lodge.
Whatever the facts of the matter, it seems that, given the conditions of the time, the Lodge of St. John did have a proper status during the main period of its existence. If the 1821 Memorial from the Australian Social Lodge to the Grand lodge of Ireland may be taken at its face value, it would appear that, as soon as a warranted lodge was established at Port Jackson, the Norfolk Island masons, by then resident in Van Diemen's Land, agreed to join with their 'very respectable Brethren' in applying for a dispensation to form a lodge which would conform to the recognised conditions of regularity. This was an action consistent with what had happened in North America.
No further details of the lodge have been found. The fact that some, at least, of its members were interested in joining with others in the formation of a fully warranted lodge as early as 1821 suggests that when the first warranted lodge was formed later in Van Diemen's Land - the early records of freemasonry in the colony have been destroyed and the exact date cannot be substantiated - they may have become members of that lodge. This is a matter which would require further investigation.
Conclusion
The information on the Lodge of St.John No.1, of Norfolk Island and, later, Van Diemen's Land is, of course, very fragmentary. There can be little doubt that the lodge was a genuine masonic body - the close relationship of its members with Captain John Piper, himself well known for his masonic affiliations, and the public activities of the members in Van Diemen's Land are sufficient evidence for this. Similarly, there can be no doubt that it was established at least twenty years before the Australian Social Lodge No. 260, IC, generally accepted as being the first regular stationary lodge in Australia, and that its founders intended it to be permanent. The only matter at issue is the regularity of its origin. In the absence of any information to support a contrary view, application of the modern requirements for regularity of origin would almost certainly lead to the conclusion that the Lodge was not regular. But the conditions existing on Norfolk Island circa 1800 were markedly different from those now current, sufficiently different to justify application of considerations similar to those in North America a century or so earlier. On this basis, the Lodge would be regarded as regular, at least until a Grand Lodge covering the Island was formed, or an existing Grand Lodge assumed responsibility for supervision of its masonic affairs, when a decision would have been required on its future. The conclusion is, therefore, that the Lodge of St. John No.1, may be regarded as having been the first permanent stationary lodge in Australia; perhaps more accurately, the first permanent non-regular stationary lodge in Australia.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In the course of the development of this paper, sources referred to included:-
ASTIN, A., 'Military Masons and Military Lodges'. Transactions of the Research Lodge of New South Wales, Sydney, Vol.8, No.10, October 1989
author, n.k., 'Norfolk Island Masonic Association'. The NSW Freemason, Sydney. UGL NSW, Vol.19, No.6, April 1987
author, n.k., 'Norfolk Island Settlers' memorial unveiled at St.Davids Park ceremony. The Tasmanian Mason, Hobart, Vol.5, No.1, 5 April 1993.
BORNEMAN, HENRY S., 'Early Freemasonry in Pennsylvania', Philadelphia. The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania, 1981.
COIL, Henry W., 'Freemasonry Through Six Centuries'. Fulton, Board of Publication, Missouri Lodge of Research, 1967.
COOK, Lewis (Ed), 'Colonial Freemasonry'. Missouri Lodge of Research, 1973-74.
CRAMP, Karl., and MACKANESS, George, 'A History of the United Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of New South Wales'. Volume I, Sydney, Angus and Robertson, 1938.
DALKIN, R.Nixon, 'Colonial Era Cementary of Norfolk Island'. Sydney, Pacific Publications (Australia) Pty.Ltd., 1974.
DAVIS, M.W., Discussion on Paper, 'Scottish Craft Masonry - is it different' by Alex Young. Transaction of The Hobart Lodge of Research, Hobart, Vol.40, No.4, October 1987.
DONOHOE, James Hugh, 'Norfolk Island 1788-1813. The People and the Families'. Sydney, 1986.
FIDLON, P.G., and COWELL, J., 'First Fleeters'. Sydney, Australian Documents Library, 1981.
HAFFNER, C., 'Regularity of Origin'. Hong Kong, The Paul Chater Lodge of Installed Masters, and lodge Cosmopolitan, 1986.
HAMILL, J., 'English Grand Lodge Warrants'. Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No.2076, London, Vol.90 (1977).
and the following records:
'Hobart Town Gazette', Vols. I-V.
'Historical Records of Australia', Series I, Volume V.
'Historical Records of New South Wales', Vols. II and IV.
Also, Papers of the Colonial Secretary for New South Wales. Land registrations. Public Record Office.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer is indebted to a number of people who provided assistance in the preparation of this paper by directing attention to various sources and in other ways. These include - the Chief Archivist, Archives Office of New South Wales; the Assistant Manager (Tasmania Services), State Library of Tasmania; VWBro. M.W.Davis, The Hobart Lodge of Tasmania; Mrs. Irene Schaffer; Mr.Reg Wright; RWBro. G.H.Cumming, NSW Masonic Historical Society; WBro. G.C. Love, and Bro. N.W.Morse.
Inquiries and requests should be directed
to the Correspondence Circle Secretary:
W Bro Graeme Love, PJGD
by e-mail, or in writing to:
P O Box 2380
RINGWOOD NORTH, VIC, 3134
AUSTRALIA
Return to:
Go to:
VLOR Home Page | VLOR Correspondence Circle | Best of Research Links | Diploma of Masonic History and ideas
Do not forget to visit the
Kring Nieuw Holland
and Holden Research
Circle websites!
Updated: 15 September 2004
