search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
As we continue to explore the masonic archive, we will find a great deal of information bearing on old kinds of history, on royalty, politicians and governments, and this cannot be ignored. Many of the English Grand Masters since 1782 have been members of the royal family, but the significance of this for the British monarchy as an institution has never been fully investigated.18 Freemasonry is one of the British institutions in which the aristocracy still holds sway, and the role of the aristocracy in British freemasonry provides a fruitful area of study for scholars interested in the decline and fall of the British aristocracy. Occasionally, freemasonry has been caught up in wider political events. For example, in 1929, shortly before the election of the second Labour government, a new masonic lodge, the New Welcome Lodge No. 5139, was formed at the behest of the then Prince of Wales.19 This lodge was intended exclusively for Labour members of parliament and party officials, and reflected a concern that Labour Party activists had frequently been blackballed by masonic lodges. The New Welcome Lodge was intended to ensure that the new socialist government was not alienated from freemasonry. It was also hoped that the lodge would draw more working men into freemasonry, and that masonic values would reduce «unsettling influences» on the shop floor.20 Although the New Welcome Lodge was initially very successful in recruiting Labour M.P.s (including Sir Robert Young, the Deputy Speaker, Arthur Greenwood, Foreign Secretary and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and Scott Lindsay, the Labour Party Secretary),21 the formation of the National Government changed the political situation, and from 1934 New Welcome Lodge was opened up to MPs of all parties and to staff working at the Palace of Westminster, becoming essentially a house facility of the Palace of Westminster.22 Undoubtedly the most fascinating information in the masonic archive are the


details of well-known people who were freemasons. The legal and social reformer, Lord Brougham, was initiated as a freemason on an impulse while he was on holiday in the Hebrides. 23 Was this a passing episode in Brougham’s life, or did the values of


18 cf Roberts, op. cit., p. 324: “There must surely be something of sociological interest in an institution whose


English Grand Masters have since 1721 always been noblemen and have included seven princes of the blood...”. 19 New Welcome Lodge No. 5139, 50th Anniversary Meeting: “The Grand Secretary informed Bro. Rockliff that the then Prince of Wales (afterwards King Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor) was somewhat concerned at the number of occasions on which ballots taken in lodges appeared to be used to exclude from masonry Labour MPs seeking membership therein. HRH had therefore suggested to the Grand Secretary that a lodge might be formed specially


for the purpose of enabling Labour MPs and officials to become masons if they so desired”. 20 The petition and accompanying memoranda for formation of the lodge in the Library and Museum of Freemasonry, Freemasons” Hall, London, do not refer directly to the Labour party connection of the lodge, but


stressed these broader connections: see Appendix, Document No. 2, below. 21 Library and Museum of Freemasonry, London, returns of New Welcome Lodge No. 5139; cf. Ben Pimlott (ed.), The Political Diary of Hugh Dalton, London: Jonathan Cape and London School of Economics 1986, pp. 224, 265,


268-9. 22 New Welcome Lodge No. 5139, 50th Anniversary Meeting states that in 1934 no Member of Parliament appeared for initiation. An emergency meeting of the Lodge was held and “there was agreement that all future


initiates and joining members should have some connection with Parliament”. 23 See Appendix, Document No. 1, below.


103


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130