So-Called " Compact " Of The Four Old Lodges.

* " That every privilege which they ( the four old Lodges ) collectively enjoyed , by virtue of their immemorial rights , they should still continue to enjoy , and that no law , rule , or regulation to be hereafter made , should deprive them of snch privileges , or encroach on any landmark which was at tho time established as tho standard Mason ' c orovornment . "

The above paragraph our author took for granted to be a verbatim copy of hi * claimed compact , lint with due respect to Bro . Gould , I doubt its being so . If our brother went to a lawyer to engage him to defend him in a suit , of breach of contract , the lawyer would want to see tho oriyitial contract . If BT > . Gonld had no original document lie would have to produce an authentic copy thereof , or evidence

that such a contract was once in existence . If ho was unprepared with either of theso evidences , no respectable lawyer would undertake to defend his claim . Bro . Gould did not produce either the original copy of the compact , nor an authentic copy of the original , nor any cotomporary evidence , that such compact was ever agreed to between the Grand Lodgo and tho four old Lodges . Tho above quotation was

copied from Preston ' s boolc . Bro . Preston was not born until twenty , one years after the alleged time of the compact ; ho was not mado a Mason until twenty-one years after ho was born , and his book was not published before 1772 ( that is , fifty-ono years after 1721 ) . The probability is , that in 1772 no ono was alive who took an active part in tho formation of tho Grand Lodge . Preston gives no authority

¦ whatever whence he got hold of the copy of the compact . Moreover , Preston was strongly tinctured with the fault peculiar to Masonio luminaries ; ho wns credulous , and was alsoa Masonic partizan ; his history of tho Grand Lodgo of York is certainly a tissue of perversions and misstatements . Even Dr . Mackey ( whom no one can accuse of iconoclasm ) placed Bro . Preston among tho unreliable

historians . Preston ' s evidence is , therefore , insufficient to prove the compact , and it would be rejected in any court of justice . But suppose the original compact of 1721 was produced , what then ? A law can bo perpetuated , providing it was based on immn . table justice , and consistent with common sense . Now , a legislative assembly which presumes to lay down irrevealable laws , must

necessarily bo void both of justice and common sense ; for no just man can presume to possess a right to impose irrepealablo laws upon posterity ; and no sensible man can believe that posterity will caro a button for his dictum ; aud whenever and wherever wiseacres attempted to bind posterity , tho effort invariably proved futile .

" Even gods must yield—religions take thoir turn . " This may easily be proved from biblical and profane history . Every Mason is enjoined to believe that " the Bible is the Word of God . " Now the Bible lays down both religious and civil laws ; for instance , it commands us to keep the seventh day holy , but I know a great many English and American brother Masons who do not care

a button for the seventh dav . True , thw observe tho , / irs 4 day in the Aveek , but even that day they do not observe in accordance with tho command in the Bible . Again , Moses ordained a law , permitting the husband to divorce his wife when ho sob tired of her ; but ho provided no law to empower the wife to divorce her husband . Jesus , following the

decisions laid down by Kabi Shammah , confined the right of divorcing a wife only in case of . adultery . But even Jesus did not go in for " woman ' s rights , " for she still continued debarred from the privilegeof divorcing her husband . Bnt now there is scarcely a country in Christendom wherein laws do not exist of tho right of claiming a divorce by either husband or wife , either on account of desertion ,

ill-usage , drunkenness , & c , without any necessity of proviug committal of adultery . And what is more , American Jews of tho liberal school have decided in a Convention , held at Philadelphia , that a divorce granted by tho State ( no matter for what reason ) is thenceforth to bo he'd as legal by the Synagogue , . and either of tho divorced couple m iy marry again according to Jewish rites . We

thus seo that even the Bible laws and somo of tho ten commandments are set aside with impunity . It seems , therefore , strange that Masons who kiss tho Bible with so much fervour , and who believe it to bo " the word of God , " should show snch indifference to the removal of so many of its laws and commandments , and at the same time should -work themselves np into a rage because the Grand

Lodgo had abolished a law made by Anderson in 1721 . Ancient , as well as Modern history is full of instances , illustrating the absurdity of irremovable laws . But I shall here refer only to American and English history . Every one knows that the North American States made a compact when they formed the Union not to interfere with the institution of slavery in the slave States . But

nevertheless , slavery was abolished by a proclamation of President Lincoln . I have nothing to do here with the why and wherefore , because everybody is acquainted with tho reason thereof , but I have only to remind the reader of the fact that a compact was made , and tbo same compact was disregarded and broken by the U . S . And second , and very analogous to the above case , is tho fact that

the Union of England and Scotland in 1707 would never have taken place if England had not agreed in the articles of the Union to abstain from interfering with the old established form of government in the Scotch Highlands . Tho Highlander was as much a slave to his chief as the American negro was in the Southern States , but there was this difference , the negro hated his condition , but the

Highlander was proud of his slavery ; if tho chief willed him to Gght for King James , he would fight for James , if for King George , he would fight for George . So , before tho Union could be formed , the following stipulation had to bo inserted into the articles of Union , viz . : —

"That heritable offices , superiorities , heritable jurisdiction , and offices for life , should be reserved to tho owners thereof , as rights of property , in the samo manner as they were then enjoyed . " After the rebellion of 1745 . 6 , Lord Chancellor Hardwick brought a bill into tho House of Lords to abolish the above clause . Of course , being a lawyer , Lord Hardwiok conld not avoid mixing

sophistry with logic . But any how , T shall give tho proceedings of that intoi'esting event in the words of Lord C'tmr . oellor Campbell . ( Lifes of the Lord Chancellors , Vol . V . ) "Lord Hardwiclc ' s chief difficulty was to combat the argument arising from the treaty of Union . After some sophistical criticisms upon the laugna ^ o of the different articles , ho assumed a manly tone ,

and boldly contended that tho Parliament of the United Kingdom had in it all tho powers which belonged to tho Parliament of Scot . land , and could now legislate upon tho subject , as that Parliament might have done—insisting that if tho measure was clearly required by existing circumstances , and must be for tho general stood of Scot . land , it ought to bo adopted wero it forbidden by the article ^ of tho

| Union in terms tho most express and peremptory . Ho showed that an attempt to fetter the supreme legislative power in auy state is a con . tradiction in terms . In all countries the legislative power must , to a general intent be absolute , and therefore , upon treaties of this nature , strict and rigid construction ought not to be mado , for they may prove dangerous . If thoy should too easily bo given way to , incor .

porating Unions would become impractical or mischievous . " Admitting , thou , that tho compact between tho Grand Lodge and the four Lodges was au undisputed fact , I ask , in the name of common sense , why Masons should bo more bound to adhere to an unjust compact than the English Parliament or the American Congress were in the cases above cited ? True , the slave system is more unjust than

the exemption of a Lodgo from taking out a Warrant from a Grand Lodgo , but it is really immaterial which is more or which is less un . just , as long as the principle is unjust . The " four Lodges " had no moral right to claim privileges denied to tho rest of the Lodges , or to sot up aristocratic pretensions . Tho assumption of aristocratic superiority by the Lodge of Antiquity , based on the supposed

compact , actually encouraged that Lodgo at one time to secede from tho Grand Lodgo of England under the leadership of tho very samo Bro . Preston . Suppose then the Grand Lodgo had thought proper ( after the attempted secession ) to abolish tho compact in 1721 , why might not the argument of Lord Hardwick ( above cited ) have beeu equally applicable to the power of the Grand Lodge , as it was to that

of tho Parliament of Great Britain ? Again , at the Union of the two Grand Lodges in 1 S 13 , it was agreed that the Lodge lists of tho two bodies should be fused into one list , aud in order to impress tho notion that tho Nos . 1 , 2 , 3 , & o ., of the Ancients wero as old as tho Nos . 1 , 2 , 3 , & c . of tho Moderns ; it was agreed to dove-tail them , that is , tho No . 1 of ono body should

bo placed after the No . 1 of the other , which should be mado No . 2 of the United Grand Lodge ; and in tossing up for precedency the Ancients woro lucky enough to have thoir No . 1 placed at the head of the list , Avhile the Lodgo of Antiquity Avas lowered to No . 2 . Tho question now is , Why could tho Grand Lodgo in 1813 break the compact Avith the Lodge of Antiquity with perfect impunity , and why

could it not have done tho same in 1723 , by lowering tho then No . 3 to No . 10 ? True , it might be argued that while the Grand Lodge of 1813 discai'ded the compact made in a former generation , the Grand Lodge of 1723 discarded its own compact . This comparison holds good , providing wo wero sure that a compact was made in 1721 . But such is not tho case ; there is really no evidence whatever in all

tho publications authorised by the Grand Lodge , from tho Constitntion of 1721 till tho Constitution of 1781 , that snch a compact was mado in 1721 . And tho very fact that tho Grand Lodge in 1723 compelled one of the four Lodges to submit to tho new order of things without exciting any disturbance is itself conclusive evidence that no such a compact as Bro . Preston furnished could then havo

been in existence . The said compact is either a pure invention of Preston or a gross exaggeration of some conditional concession . For to all intents and purposes the old Lodges were as much bound to obey tho new Constitution as the new Lodges wore , and the 3 Dth article of the said Constitution gavo ample power to tho Grand

Lodge to repeal or alter existing laws . Viewing , therefore , the qnestion from either point , I believe that it is high time for Masons to cease lamenting and bewailing the so-called " violation of landmarks , " and the sooner tho landmark nonsense is discarded from our nomenclature tho better it will be for Masonry .

We learn from the Echo that a sum of £ 400 or £ 500 is likely to come into the possession of a Greenock Lodge of Freemasons , under singular circumstances . More than a hundred years ago the Lodge contributed £ 40 towards the cost of erecting a new Town House ; and in return a clause

was inserted in the feu charter giving to the Lodge a perpetual right to hold meetings in the house for the transaction of their ordinary business . The Town House having been recently converted into tho Town Clerk ' s

OfEce , it is no longer practicable to use it for Masonic purposes , and the Lodge has asked £ 500 for the renunciation of its rights . The Greenock Town Council has offered £ 400 , which will probably bo accepted by the luck y Masons .

The Finsbury Park Lodge of Instruction and tho Finsbury Park Master Masons Lodge of Instruction No . 1288 , will in future hold their meetings at the Earl Russell Tavern , Isledon-road , Holloway , at eight p . m ., tho

first-named on Wednesday , and the latter on Friday every week throughout the year . Bro . P . M . Walker , of Egyptian Lodge No . 27 , will Avork the Ceremony of Installation on Friday oveningj ^ next at the Master Masons Lodge ,