By Allen E. Roberts
                    We are indebted to Wor. Brother Roberts, a noted   Masonic scholar and author, for accepting the challenge of preparing this   Short Talk Bulletin.  It is another example of his concern for the work   of the Masonic service Association.
     For more than one hundred forty years many Freemasons   have been misinformed. They have not been told the full story of one of   Free-masonry’s most important events.
     This story starts in December, 1839. It began with a   resolution adopted by the Grand Lodge of Alabama, which requested all Grand   Lodges to send a delegate to the City of Washington on the first Monday in   March, 1842, “for the purpose of determining upon a uniform mode of work   throughout all the Lodges of the United States and to make other lawful   regulations for the interest and security of the Craft.” (The emphasis is   mine, for this indicates what I mean when I say we have been misinformed.)
     The Convention was held on March 7, 1842, “in the   Central Masonic Hall at four and a half and D Streets N.W.” Ten Grand Lodges   were represented. And these representatives refused to seat a delegate from   the Grand Lodge of Michigan, declaring that it had not been established   under constitutional principles. The report was made by Charles W. Moore,   Chair-man of Credentials Committee and Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of   Massachusetts.  The Convention upheld his report.
     After due deliberation, it was concluded that not   enough Grand Lodges were represented, and there was not enough time to   formulate a uniform ritual that would be acceptable to all Grand Lodges.   Differences of opinion among the committee selected to develop a uniform   mode of work were too many and not reconcilable. The Convention voted to   request each Grand Lodge to appoint some well-versed Mason and style him as   a Grand Lecturer to report to a Convention to be held the following year.
     The report of another Committee was to have   important, immediate, and far reaching effects on the Grand Lodges of the   country. The “Committee on General Regulations Involving The Interests and   Security of The Craft” reported in several areas. It recommended that the   Representative System “already adopted by some of the Grand Lodges” be   extended to all Grand Lodges. To protect the Fraternity from unworthy men   claiming to be Masons, the Committee recommended that “certificates of good   standing of visiting Brethren who are strangers” be made available by the   Grand Lodge to which they belong. “These certificates will not only shield   the Institution,” said the committee, “from the undeserving, but will   furnish the widow and orphans of the deceased Brethren the best evidence of   their claim upon the Fraternity.”
     This Committee also considered as “reprehensible” the   practice “of receiving promissory notes for the fees for conferring Degrees,   instead of demanding the payment thereof before the Degrees are conferred.”
     The Committee considered it an “impropriety” to   transact “business in Lodges below the Degree of Master Mason, except as   such that appertains to the conferring of the inferior Degrees and the   instruction therein.” It credited the Grand Lodge of Missouri for bringing   this to the attention of Freemasons everywhere. The Committee went on to say   “Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts are not members of Lodges, nor are   they entitled to the franchises of members.”
     The suspension of a Mason for non-payment of dues was   also considered by the Committee. It believed that uniform legislation   should be adopted by the Grand Lodges to protect the Fraternity.
     It wasn’t long before several Grand Lodges changed   their laws to conform to the recommendations of this Committee. Certificates   or cards were issued by Grand Secretaries to members of Lodges. And Grand   Lodges ordered lodges to set cash fees for conferring degrees.   Representatives were appointed by some Grand Lodges that had never done so   before. And many Grand Lodges changed from conferring all business in the   Entered Apprentice Degree to that of the Master Mason Degree.
     Maryland was one Grand Lodge that acted almost   immediately on these suggestions. on May 16, 1842, it voted to elect one   Grand Lecturer to attend the conference in I843. It ordered the Grand   Secretary to procure certificates to issue to Master Masons in good   standing. It ordered all Lodges to conduct their business in the Master   Mason Degree. It said “that when a Mason is suspended for any cause   whatever, he is for the time of such suspension debarred from all rights and   privileges of the order.”
     In 1842, some Lodges in Virginia started conducting   their business in the Master Mason Degree. So it went over the next several   years, but it was as late as 1851 before the Grand Lodge of Maine changed   from working or conducting its business in the First to that of the Master   Mason Degree.
     It might be well to consider why some of the leaders   of Freemasonry were concerned about the looseness of the ritual, as well as   many other facts of the Fraternity.
     Looking back to the year 1826, and the two decades   that followed, it is found that in 1826, one William Morgan, who had   purported to be a Freemason, disappeared. Freemasons were ac-cused of   murdering him, although there has never been any evidence that he was harmed   in any way. He merely disappeared. This set off a hue and cry against   Freemasonry. In many in-stances, Grand Lodges could not find a quorum to   meet. Lodges turned in their charters by the hundreds. Freemasons quit by   the thousands.  Freemasonry was in deplorable condition.
     During this period many of the ritualists and the men   who had been dedicated to the principles of Freemasonry were lost to the   Craft.  Many died. Others quit because of the persecution handed down   to their families because they would not renounce their membership in the   Order. For these and various other reasons, Masonic Lodges were not   operating anywhere near their capacity.
     This was the state of affairs in the late 1830s, when   Alabama called for a Convention to rectify many of the things that had gone   awry. These were some of the things causing the Convention meeting in   Washington to make the recommendations it did. These were some of the things   carried into the Baltimore Convention of 1843, the Convention which we have   heard so much about.
     The ritual in its various forms did take much of the   time of those attending the Baltimore Convention from May 8 to 17, 1843,   meeting in the Masonic Hall on Saint Paul Street with six-teen of the   twenty-three Grand Lodges in the United States represented. But many hours   were taken to discuss the several points brought out during the convention   held in Washington. And it approved everything that had been accomplished in   the District.
     The evening session was opened with the ad-dress of   the President of the Convention, John Dove of Virginia. His opening remarks   stated the purpose for the Convention: “For the first time in the Masonic   history of the United States of North America, the Craft have found it   necessary and expedient to assemble by their representatives, to take into   consideration the propriety of devising some uniform mode of action by which   the ancient landmarks of our beloved Order may be preserved and perpetuated,   and by which posterity in all times to come may be enabled to decide with   certainty upon the pretensions of a Brother, no matter in which section of   our blessed and happy land he may reside; and, finally, and we hope no   distant date, to transfer those inestimable privileges to our Brothers   throughout the Masonic World.” Dove’s statement shows that much more than   the ritual was involved.
     The following day, May 9, the “Committee on the   General Object of the Convention” submitted its report. It said: “The   objects of the Convention are two-fold, viz.: 1. To produce uniformity of   Masonic Work; 11. To recommend such measures as shall tend to the elevation   of the Order to its due degree of respect throughout the world at large.”
     Four standing committees were appointed:
     1.   On the work and lectures in conferring   Degrees.
     2.   On the Funeral Service.
     3.   On the ceremonies of Consecration and   Installation.
     4.   On Masonic Jurisprudence.
     It is interesting to note the prominent Masons who   were appointed to the Committee on Work. John Dove, at the insistence of the   Convention, became the Chairman. John Barney of Ohio, S.W.B. Carnegy of   Missouri, Charles W. Moore of Massachusetts, and Ebenezer Wadsworth of New   York were the other members.
     On the morning of May 10, this Committee recited the   lecture of the First Degree. The Convention adopted the work of the   Committee by a vote of fourteen to one. Ebenezer Wadsworth of New York, cast   the dissenting vote. The following day, the Committee reported “on the   opening and closing of ceremonies of the First Degree” and their work was   accepted by the Convention. Then the Chairman of the Commit-tee, John Dove,   assisted by Charles Moore, reported the lecture of the Second Degree. This   work was also accepted by the Convention. But evidently Ebenezer Wadsworth   was not happy with the work that had been accepted by the Convention. He   “requested to be excused from serving longer on the Committee on Work.” He   was excused and Brother Edward Herndon, of Alabama, substituted.
     At the Friday morning session, “the opening work of   the Third Degree was accepted by the Convention with a vote of twelve to one   “with New York dissenting.”
     On Monday morning, May 15, the following was   reported: “The undersigned Committee on the Dedication, Consecration and   Installation of Lodges, etc., having had the several subjects submitted to   them under consideration, beg leave respectfully to report that they have   examined and carefully compared all the various authors and systems which   they have been able to obtain, and present the following, viz.:
     “That the forms in the ‘Monitor,’ under the   authorship of M.W. Thomas S. Webb, republished in 1812, possesses the least   faults of any which have been before them, and has a high claim to   antiquity, and having been in general use as a standard work for nearly half   a century, possess no errors of material as to re-quire alteration, except   as follows.” There followed six minor changes that it recommended be made,   three of them in the Installation Ceremony.
     Concerning the “Certificates of Good Stan-ding,” the   Convention said that the Washington Convention of 1842 earnestly recommended   to the consideration of the Fraternity “such Certificate, and where it has   escaped attention in the deliberations of any Grand Lodge, this Convention   call it to their view, as being a check admirably calculated to preserve the   Fraternity from unworthy Brethren from a distance, and an additional means   of protection to the good and the deserving.”
     The Convention adopted a resolution that was to have   far-reaching and controversial effects:
     That a Committee be designated to prepare and publish   at an early day, a text hook, to he called “The Masonic Trestle-Board,” to   embrace three distinct, full and complete “Masonic Carpets,” illustrative of   the three Degrees of ancient Craft Masonry; together with the ceremonies of   consecrations, dedications and installation; laying of corner-stones of   public edifices; the Funeral service, and order of processions. To which   shall be added the Charges, Prayers and Exhortations, and the selection from   scripture, appropriate and proper for Lodge service.  The Committee   further report, that they deem it expedient that a work be published to   contain archaeological research into the history of the Fraternity in the   various nations of the world.
     The Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence reported it   had considered whether or not “the evils which this Convention has met to   rectify and remove, have arisen from any defect or fault in the present   system of organizations as adopted by the Fraternity of the United States.”   It concluded the evils existed, mainly because of the individual action of   the numerous Grand Lodges in the United States. Inter-communication between   Grand Lodges did not exist. The “purity and unity” of work prevalent in   Europe was therefore missing.
     “UNITY throughout the whole Masonic family is   essential,” claimed the Committee.  “Any system of polity tending to   throw obstacles in its way must be wrong. The simple truth that we are all   Brethren of one family, and look up to one common Father, the Lord our God,   is the basis of all the ancient constitutions . “
     To correct the “evils” that prevailed, the Committee   said it had considered two plans:
     “1st. A General Grand Lodge of the United States. 2nd.   A triennial convention of representatives of the several Grand Lodges of the   United States.”
     It went on to state: “Your Committee, without   encumbering their report with long arguments, beg to recommend the latter   course as being that, which in their opinion, will best attain the end   proposed.” So, contrary to what many Freemasons have been led to believe,   the Baltimore Convention of 1843 did not recommend the establishment of   General Grand Lodge. It did recommend “the several Grand Lodges of the   United States to enter into and form a National Masonic Convention.”
     The Jurisprudence Committee had also considered a   question about whether or not a Lodge could try its Master. It concluded:   “The Master is an integral part of its government, unable to sit in judgment   on himself, and yet without whom the Lodge could not act, without, as it   were, committing felon de se (suicide). The Committee offered the following,   with which the Convention concurred.... “a subordinate Lodge has not the   right to try its Master, but that he is amenable to the Grand Lodge alone.”
     The Committee considered sojourning Masons as   “freeloaders.” It believed all Masons living in the vicinity of a Lodge and   not a member of it should be required to contribute “a sum equal in value to   the annual dues per capita of the subordinate Lodge in whose jurisdiction   they reside.” The Convention voted to recommend that all Grand Lodges take   this recommendation under advisement.
     In an attempt to bring unity “Throughout the world in   all things pertaining to Masonry,” the Convention approved a recommendation   to send “a Delegate from the Masonic Fraternity of the United States to   their Brethren in Europe.”
     On the evening of May 15 the Committee on Work   exemplified the opening and closing of the Lodge in “the Third Degree.” The   ceremonies for opening and closing a Lodge were exemplified on the morning   of the 16th. Then the Convention adopted a resolution thanking   the Grand Lodge of Maryland for its hospitality. It was especially   appreciative of Maryland assuming all expenses. This was followed by the   presentation of the  “Lecture of the First Degree.”
     It was “Resolved, that the interest of the Masonic   Fraternity, and the good of mankind may be greatly promoted by the   publication of a periodical devoted to Free-Masonry. This Convention,   therefore, cheerfully recommend the Free-Mason’s Monthly Magazine, edited   and published by 13rother Charles W. Moore, of Boston, Massachusetts as   eminently useful and well-deserving the generous patronage, support and   study of the whole Fraternity.” The Convention concurred.
     Each delegate contributed $5.00 to defray the   expenses of printing. It was resolved to hold the next Convention in   Winchester, Virginia, “on the second Monday in May, in the year I846.” This   was never held.
     The evening session of May 16th was   devoted to the degree work. “The President repeated the first section of the   F.C. and M.M. Degrees; and Brother Moore, the second sections of the same   Degrees. The Committee then exemplified the work in the Third Degree.”
     On the morning of the last day of the Convention, the   Master Mason Degree was exemplified. Then, while the President was absent   from the hall, “Brother Carnegy took the chair,” and a resolution praising   John Dove of Virginia was unanimously adopted. Albert Case of South Carolina   was also thanked for his work as secretary. The concluding session was held   in the afternoon of May 17th. The Convention approved a letter,   read by the Secretary, Albert Case, to be sent to “the Masonic Fraternity of   the United States.” Each paragraph contained the flowery language of the day   pleading with the Freemasons of the country to unite in love, friendship and   brotherhood.
     This letter, written immediately following the   anti-Masonic craze that began in 1826, called upon all Lodges “to exercise   their powers and cleanse the sanctuary” of unfaithful Masons. It concluded   by asking all Freemasons to “Be true to your principles, and the great moral   edifice will stand beautiful and complete. Together, Brethren, be true and   faithful.”
     The President thanked the delegates for the   compliments paid him, and for their diligent work. He called upon the   Chaplain to dismiss them with prayer. The Convention was then adjourned sine   die.
     The Convention was ended, but its accomplishments   would change the face of Freemasonry throughout the United States.