tion proceeded seriously to consider the three degrees and such ceremonies as pertained to consecrations and funerals. But the innovations were such that Wadsworth dissented from them all, and refused to serve even on the revision committee. However, the lectures were adopted and as a result the once noted "Moore's Trestle Board" was published. But the Baltimore Convention did more than fix up the work. It passed a motion in favor of a General Grand Lodge and appointed the second Monday in May, 1846, as the date for a general meeting of representatives of Grand Lodges to be held in Winchester, Va. Then after passing votes of thanks to its officials and issuing an address to the "Masonic fraternity of the United States," it adjourned and never met again.

In writing of this convention afterward the late Dr. Robert Morris said:

Debates arose in Grand Lodges and elsewhere which exposed the character of the proposed work. A personal and bitter quarrel between the two organizations [Moore vs. Barton and Dove, of Virginia] and leaders of the Baltimore convention scandalized the Masonic world and gave occasion for denouncing the whole Baltimore system and especially the "Baltimore Convention Work," as it was generally and correctly termed by the craft. Some subordinate Lodges refused to receive it from the Grand Lecturers. (Instance one at Grenada, Miss.) A large proportion of the Grand Lodges never adopted it. New York, then incomparably the best Grand Lodge on the continent, went dead against the whole thing; so did Kentucky, the Mother Grand Lodge of the Mississippi valley. The edifice that had been put together with such poor cement, or rather without cement, began to crumble. The new cloth upon the old garment became too evident to the least practiced eye.

We do not believe that under any circumstances the "Baltimore Work" could have taken permanent foothold in this country. Its discrepancies, so glaring to the instructed mind, would only have led in a few years to another convention, and that to another. But what made the effort of 1843 more ephemeral is, that no two of the delegates upon their return home could remember their work alike! Strange as it may appear this is the fact and it can be substantiated by many and unimpeachable

witnesses. It is this that caused some to view the whole subject with ridicule and some with contempt. The writer of this has personally conferred with the following delegates in the Baltimore convention of 1843, and has heard them lecture, viz.: Dove, Wadsworth, Hayward, Herndon, Field, Foster and Delafield; likewise, Gilman, who was a visitor at the convention. He has also received, at second hand, but in direct line, the "reminiscences" of that convention-from Barney, Carnegy, Case and Moore, and he will take an affidavit, if need be, that they "all differ from all" in numerous vital points of "Work and Lecture" as they "remember to have agreed upon it" in 1843!

Will the reader consider for a moment this startling fact. Here is a body of men, of most respectable standing in Masonry and society, assembled in convention for nine days, representing fifteen Grand Lodges, adopting with apparent unanimity a series of "improvements" in rituals and Monitors, and then returning home to their constituents to discover that so far as esoteric Masonry is concerned, no two of them understood alike the very points they had settled! No wonder that the first meeting (1842) stipulated that the Baltimore Convention should be made up of "Lecturers!" The only wonder is that any Mason can command his risible muscles when the term "Baltimore Work" is named!

In its address to the fraternity the Baltimore convention said:

The system, involving the work, lectures and ceremonies as agreed upon, after mature deliberation by this convention, will be laid before you by your respective delegates. To that which may be emphatically termed a National System, believing it to be in accordance with the ancient landmarks and usages of the craft, we invite and urge a strict and unswerving adherence.

On his return to New York Wadsworth reported as fully as he could the ritualistic changes proposed and adopted and the Grand Lodge threw out the entire arrangement and endorsed the policy he had adopted when the full extent of the changes desired by the leaders of the convention became known. He also stated that the convention had touched upon other matters than that for which it had been instituted and altogether the labors of the convention found no favor in the Empire State. At the same time it should be stated

that New York was not then opposed to some sort of a general legislative body. In 1848 a committee was appointed to consider the subject and in the following year it reported in favor of a general convention to be held at Boston in 1850, but that convention did not materialize, and so the subject passes beyond the confines of this chapter. It was not until 1853 that it was again made an issue. Out of the evident need, however, of some sort of method of direct communication with. the different Grand Lodges grew the representative system, which may be said to have had its real beginning during this period. On June 2, 1841, Joseph P. Pirsson was received as the representative of the Grand Lodge of Georgia, and presented to the Grand Lodge with much ceremony, the Acting Grand Master, Willis, descanting on the importance of the office. It was then thought that the position of representative at a Grand Lodge would be somewhat in the nature of that of an ambassador, representing one power in the capital of another. It was considered that the presence of these directly commissioned agents would remove many little stumbling blocks, many sources of irritation at their very beginning, and before they had time to grow into stubborn and annoying walls or breaches. To a certain extent this was the case at first, but afterward, as the means of communication between the various parts of the country of the world were quickened and cheapened, it was found better and much more effective to open direct communication with the respective Grand bodies. In this way the system. of representatives, which is generally credited by sister Grand Lodges to be a pet scheme of that of New York, gradually fell from an active to simply an honorary one. The fundamental error, the error which lay at the very root of the system, if it was to be truly representative and diplomatic, was that the representatives chosen owed allegiance first, last and under all circumstances, not to the Grand Lodge they represented, but to the

Grand Lodge to which they were accredited. This was even the case when the distance between the Grand Lodges was comparatively trifling. Thus in 1842 Dr. James H. Rogers, of St. John's, No. 1, New York, was accredited as the representative of Connecticut here, while W. H. Jones, of New Haven, was commissioned as the representative of New York in Connecticut. Rogers owed first allegiance to New York and Jones to Connecticut, and if diplomatic influences were to be exerted in connection with the office it would have been more in keeping with the fitness of things for Dr. Rogers to have been appointed to represent New York in Connecticut and Jones to have been permitted to attend to the interests of his own Grand Lodge in New York.

An instance of this occurred in connection with the Atwood Grand Lodge trouble. In 1840, although the representative of New Jersey was present, all he had to do was to look pretty while the Grand Lodge listened to a communication from that which he represented. New Jersey seemed to take a peculiar interest in the quarrel of 1837 and one of its Past Grand Masters was present at the installation of the officers of the clandestine Grand Lodge. It appointed a committee to investigate all matters of difference between the two Grand Lodges of New York, virtually appointed itself an arbiter, and requested that the papers in the case be submitted. In reply-adopted in the presence of the representative of New Jersey-the Grand Lodge virtually told its sister across the Hudson to mind its own business. New York was a sovereign Grand Lodge and possessed exclusive jurisdiction in its own State. It regretted that Past Grand Master Darcy should have countenanced rebellion, and regretted also that "he should be dissatisfied, as an individual member, with the prosperity of this Grand Lodge." Surprise was expressed on "the insulting proposition that the Grand Lodge of the State of New York should submit their lawful acts to the revision of any committee," and con

cluded by saying that no further proceedings would be taken in connection with the subject of the Atwood Grand Lodge, until it made application for consideration. A year later the Grand Lodge forbade all Masonic communication of its Lodges with St. John's Lodge No. 2, Newark, because the members of that body, as we have seen, paid a visit, or fraternized at a celebration, with the Atwood Grand Lodge, and this inhibition continued in force until June, 1843, when the Newark brethren signified their intention of adhering to the ancient landmarks of the institutions and declared they had held no communication with the Atwood people for two years and had no intention of again recognizing them. Later, some official communications on the subject of Past Grand Master Darcy's coquetting with clandestine Masons in New York was stopped by a declaration on the part of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey that Darcy, at the time the acts complained of occurred, was not a member of any subordinate Lodge in that jurisdiction.

All this, be it remembered, took place without apparently any recognition of the authorized representative. In 1848 Frederick G. Tisdall, then Master of St. John's, No. 1, received the appointment of representative of New Jersey and at once proceeded to make his office one of real dignity and importance. On "presenting his credentials," to use a diplomatic phrase, at a meeting of the Grand Lodge on March 7, that year, he delivered a grandiloquent speech, from which we make a few extracts:

I am authorized to say to you that the Grand Lodge of New Jersey will, by every means in its reach, discountenance not only the vicious and immoral, but frown down every attempt which may be made here or elsewhere by rebellious spirits to produce discord and dissension in the ranks of our beloved order; and, in now again sending her representative among you, pledges herself, as she has heretofore done, to aid and assist this M. W. Grand Lodge in purging itself of that plague spot which a few expelled Masons and unworthy spirits,

false alike to their obligations, to their God and their fellow-men, have endeavored to raise in your midst, preying upon the unwary by representations, the most false and unprincipled, and equally claiming an authority for their vile deeds from the acts of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey which are equally as void of truth for their foundation. I am instructed to nail down, as base and counterfeit coin, all such disorganizers, their aiders and abettors.

I am fully impressed with the responsibilities which my appointment as Representative will impose on me. I am also perfectly aware of my own deficiencies, but I hope to make up for my lack of ability by a zealous and honest discharge of the duties incident to my office. I shall by every means in my power in my official intercourse with this Grand Lodge, endeavor to promote and perpetuate those fraternal feelings which I have been charged to convey to you. In doing otherwise I should be alike false to the duty I owe this Grand Lodge as a member and ungrateful and disobedient to the government whose commission I hola.

It is a curious commentary on this rodomontade to read in McClenachan's History (Vol. III, page 142) that in June, 1849, "Representative Tisdall obtained by false representations a Past Grand Master of New Jersey to install the claimant, Isaac Phillips, as Grand Master under the new schism. In due course Brother Tisdall was expelled by the Grand Lodge, and for more than one offense." High strung, however, as were Tisdall's words on assuming his office of Representative, they were not more so than those which had been used by others on whom a similar dignity had been conferred. On presenting his commission as Representative of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, in 1842, Brother Robert R. Boyd said: "I hold the duty of Representative is one requiring unceasing attention. To do this. duty faithfully and in accordance with the plan originally proposed, and which I hope to see carried out, he is not only to observe, preserve and communicate all he may see of interest to his Grand Lodge, but he is to act as minister and counsel to his Masonic Government." In reply, Deputy Grand Master Willis carried out the ambassadorial idea by

saying, "As a public minister from a sovereign power, which is supported by the most distinguished men of Ireland, it will be your province to pay attention to such as may visit our State with letters of introduction." Doubtless these men were strictly honest in their notions of Representatives being identical in point of duty with ministers and consuls, and such certainly was the idea with which the Representative system was inaugurated, and it is only because the experience of years has shown that it is sentiment rather than utility which underlies the system that we are inclined to be mirthful over its original claims. The minister and consul theory has for years been abandoned, and it is well that it should be, otherwise the system would long ere this have proved itself a source of peril and dissension throughout the whole Masonic family.

In telling the story of the Atwood Grand Lodge we mentioned that certain strength had. come to that body on account of outside, profane, acknowledgment of its claims to be a governing body of Masons. But the Grand Lodge was not without similar acknowledgment. In 1840 the Grand Lodge laid the cornerstone of a Methodist Episcopal Church at Brushville, Long Island, when Alexander Copeland, Master of Naval Lodge, acted as

Grand Master. In 1842 it took part, headed by Morgan Lewis, in the procession which hailed the introduction of the Croton water system into the. city and was the most noticed feature of that memorable parade. On May 16, 1848, an invitation was received from the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia to take part in the proceedings at the ceremony of laying the cornerstone of a national monument in memory of Washington. For some reason difficult now to be understood a similar invitation had been extended to the Atwood Grand Lodge-which had not been recognized by the body issuing the invitation. as otherwise than clandestine-and it was a grave question whether, under the circumstances, the Grand Lodge could becomingly accept. accept. Patriotism, and respect for the memory of the first President, however, overcame all other objections and it was agreed that as many of the Grand officers as conveniently could should attend, together with a committee of seven, as Representatives of the Grand Lodge. At a subsequent meeting a committee was appointed, on the suggestion of Hudson Lodge, No. 7, to procure a block of marble, with suitable inscriptions and devices to be placed in the walls of the monument along with similar stones prepared by sister Grand Lodges.

HE crowning glory of this period in the history of the Grand Lodge, however, lay not in its processions, in development of the system of regular correspondence with sister Lodges, or its making of Masonic ministers and consuls, or even in its legislation, useful and important as that was, but in the inception and practical commencement of the movement for a Masonic hall in New York, the income from which was to sustain an asylum for poor or aged brethren or the poor widows and orphans of brethren. The conception of this noble scheme is credited to Grand Secretary Herring. As we have seen, the fraternity had long been possessed of a desire to possess a Masonic hall in New York and had sometimes apparently succeeded in possessing one, but for one reason the successive property fell through or, when seemingly realized, had to be abandoned. This movement seems to have been started outside of the Grand Lodge, probably with the view of ascertaining in some measure the sentiments of the brethren before bringing the matter. before that body. It is singular, too, that the scheme then, at the very beginning, is practically that upon which the movement was inaugurated and afterward carried out, although much labor, loving labor, was expended in considering details as well as in procuring the necessary funds.

The first movement had for its basis a petition drawn up by Herring in 1842 for pres

entation to the Grand Lodge. To this petition, as an earnest of the sincerity of those who signed it, was affixed not only the name but the amount tendered to the project by the subscriber, and, curiously enough, the first name was that of Greenfield Pote, then Senior Grand Deacon, but afterward Grand Tyler. There is a legend current in the craft that he laid his contribution-a silver dollar-on the altar of Mount Moriah Lodge, which may be true or not, as it has never been verified, and it is more likely that the story is correct which says that he placed it on the Secretary's desk, but there is no doubt that his name heads the list. As a historical record we here reproduce Herring's original petition, with the names. of subscribers, which was printed in fac-simile in the Transactions of the Grand Lodge for 1891:

To the M. W. Grand Lodge of the Ancient and honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York:

Rt. W. & Worshipful Brethren:

The subscribers being deeply impressed with the desire of placing our Institution in a position of permanent Honor and Usefulness most respectfully present for your consideration the necessity of taking immediate and active means for raising a fund sufficient to accomplish the following objects:

Ist. The erection of a Hall in the City of New York for the Grand Lodge and other Masonic bodies, and

2dly. The founding an Asylum for worthy decayed Masons, their Widows and Orphans.

For the accomplishment of these noble purposes we invoke your honorable body to use your influ