‘1930: Plural Membership and Research Lodges’

    

Getting back to that January 1930 issue of The Builder magazine (see yesterday’s post below), I also noted the following brief that appears on Page 31. I share it here because when this magazine was published, there were no research lodges in the United States. England had Quatuor Coronati 2076 in London and The Lodge of Research 2429 in Leicester (and maybe others?), but the first lodge of research in America was still in the future.

The Grand Lodge of North Carolina constituted North Carolina Lodge of Research 666 in Monroe in 1931. The Grand Lodge of New York launched The American Lodge of Research weeks later in May. The former went dark in 1954 when the latter was firing on all twelve cylinders—and we’re still at labor, and just installed our officers two weeks ago.

Anyway, the following editor’s comment (Haydon was Librarian of the Grand Lodge of Canada in Ontario and the Secretary of the Toronto Society for Masonic Research) and the resulting two paragraphs in reply constitute a snapshot of the thinking from that pre-research lodge era. Enjoy.

Plural Membership

and Research Lodges

You have stated your opinion more than once that “dual” or “plural” membership would permit the formation of real “Research Lodges.” But these lodges would not be concerned with initiating men into Masonry, their work not touching anyone who is not a Master Mason.

  

N.W.J. Haydon

Canada

There have been several instances within the last ten years in which an attempt was made to found a Research Lodge in America. Those cases known to us have been in widely separated states, but the outcome in each was the same. There was apparently no adequate provision for financial obligations and there was no by-law or general understanding among the members to prohibit, or even limit, initiations into the lodge. The result of these two causes in conjunction was that the lodge accepted applications in the usual way in order to obtain the initiation fees, which it needed to meet its expenses. This had two obvious consequences. Owing to the pressure of ritualistic work there was no time left for reading and discussing papers; and owing to the difficulty of divining beforehand whether a profane is going to be interested in Masonic research or not (and the strong probability is that he will not be interested), the original founders of the lodge were soon swamped by “average” Masons—“good fellows,” but bored stiff by anything “highbrow.”

In order to meet this necessity for a carefully selected membership of those who have proved their interest in the intellectual side of Masonry, all successful Research Lodges (wherever they exist) either have by-laws against receiving applications for initiation, or a general understanding, rigidly lived up to, that none will be received. But this implies that unless a Mason can belong to more than one lodge, he must sacrifice the ordinary lodge life and interests, which very few zealous Masons are willing to do. Thus dual or plural membership does open up the possibility of founding a Research Lodge in any jurisdiction permitting it. And we may say once more, to remove a persistent misapprehension, that there is no need for any special charter to start one; and in reality, no need for any special by-laws to maintain one. The warrant of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, for example, is in precisely the same form as that of any other English lodge. It is empowered to initiate, pass, and raise candidates like any other lodge, even though it never does. Naturally those proposing to start such a lodge would explain their object to the Masonic authorities, and would have to receive their passive approbation at least. But considering the general interest in Masonic education now aroused in the United States, this should not be difficult. We rather wonder which of the Grand Lodges that have adopted the principle of plural membership, or are thinking of doing so, will have the honor of being the pioneer in such a development.