Part 2 of the story described the Freemasons of Melbourne before they knew they had no place in the foundation stone ceremony for the University of Melbourne. This concluding part of the story looks at why Hiram might have imagined he’d been ‘uninvited’ and suggests what might have really been going on.
Barry’s response to Levick
Levick’s letter to
Barry has apparently not survived. We do have Barry’s immediate response, however. It is worth a close reading.
Melbourne April 29 1854
Gentlemen,
In reply to your letter of the 28th
inst, I have the honor to inform you that it was proposed to adopt, on the occasion of laying the foundation stone of the University, the arrangement
& order of procession observed on the 15th of November 1850,
when the separation of the Colony of Victoria from the Colony of New South
Wales was celebrated by a procession to open the Prince’s Bridge.
His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor would
have laid the stone. No form of prayer would have been read.
The members of the various Lodges of Free and
accepted Masons took their place on the 15th of November 1850 after
the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows and before the general body of
inhabitants who joined the procession.
If it be the wish of you, Gentlemen, & the
members of your Lodges to do honor to the procession by giving your attendance,
timely notice will be published of the day on which the Ceremony now proposed
will take place.
I have the honor to be Gentlemen your obedient
Servant
Redmond Barry
Chancellor
Robert Levick. W.M. of the Australia Felix
Lodge 697 [English Constitution]
J. W. Hall [sic
though the actual WM seems to have been ‘M. Hall’]. W.M. of Lodge of
Australasia No 773 [English Constitution]
Henry T. Shaw.
R.W.M. Lodge of Australasian Kilwinning 337 [Scottish Constitution]
J. Elliott. W.M. Lodge of Hiram. No 349 [Irish Constitution]
(Addressed to Robert Levick)
Barry is saying that
the Freemasons were not included in his plans for 1 May except to be part of
the procession. Invoking the Bridge Opening as a precedent was a convenient way
to avoid the question of Masonic ceremony and is perhaps a deliberate
obfuscation. The precedent should have been the foundation stone ceremony for
the Bridge, but that would not have suited Barry’s purpose.
What was his purpose?
‘No form of prayer would have been said.’ The Bridge event is not invoked for
this sentence and he is talking about what had been proposed for 1 May.
The next paragraph
invokes the Bridge opening again on the subject of where the Freemasons would
appear in the procession.
Freemasons could take
part in the procession and witness the event along with everyone else if they
wished but nothing more. There is no suggestion that they would officiate in
setting the foundation stone and no formal prayers of any sort were to be read.
The Masters understood
this clearly. There is also no suggestion of any face to face meeting
The event and letters to the editor
What occurred on 3
July 1854? Shortly after noon the governor's carriage led the procession
to an untidy paddock one mile north of the city. There was no formal
representation of either Freemasons or Oddfellows. Was there a boycott?
Raised seats
surrounded three sides of the place where the stone was to be laid. Barry,
wearing 'the very handsome robes' of the Chancellor's office, conducted Lady
Hotham to her seat under a canopy. She and her husband inspected the plans of
the building and expressed themselves satisfied. The Argus was less
satisfied with the attendance: the spectators were fewer than expected, and
ladies were not numerous.
The Melbourne
correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote
an entertaining account which included the following:
‘… a very noticeable
feature in the affair was, the military aspect it presented to an onlooker, not
only were the whole of the soldiers there under arms, but there was a strong
detachment of dragoons with drawn sabres present. … a friend … said it was “the
way they managed these things in Ireland." But however well it chimed in
with the military notions of the Irish Chancellor of the University, and acting
Chief Justice of Victoria, Englishmen generally felt it to be out of place, and
thought it smelt too much of continental despotism. I may remark that there is
a hankering after military display in some quarters here, for I saw it noticed
in the Argus, the other day, that on the opening of a new church by the
Bishop, on Sunday last, "a detachment of soldiers was present".
Probably we shall hear next of "strong detachments" being present at
missionary and prayer meetings.’
Barry gave a
protracted speech and the Argus reported that 'when the learned gentleman
desired to be most impressive, he became the least audible'. Full details of
the event have been preserved in a publication prepared by the University’s convocation.
The foundation stone
was actually two stones: one in the ground and the other suspended above it
from cross-trees. After Hotham had replied to Barry's speech, some coins and
the constitution of the University were placed in a cavity in the lower stone.
The cavity was covered with a brass plate carrying a Latin inscription composed
by Barry. The plate pronounced that the university had been 'instituted in
honour of God, for establishing young men in philosophy, literature and piety,
cultivating the talent of youth, fostering the arts, and extending the bounds
of science'. Hotham spread mortar with a silver trowel (inscribed with La
Trobe’s name), the upper stone was lowered, and, tapping it with a mallet 'in
Masonic fashion three several times', he declared it well laid.
Although the Argus
describes the tapping as being ‘in Masonic fashion’ it was not in any sense a
Masonic ceremony. Barry offered a prayer but the words are not recorded. In both cases these actions are more likely to
have been customary practice.
We are now ready to hear ‘Hiram’. His letter appeared in The Argus, on Thursday 6 July 1854.
To the Editor if the
Argus.
Sir - I regret that
the ceremony of laying the foundation stones of the two public buildings by His
Excellency Lieutenant-Governor Sir Charles Hotham yesterday, was not attended
by any of the various public bodies who at the similar ceremonies of laying the
foundation stones of the bridge and hospital by His Honor Mr La Trobe, on the
20th March, 1846, joined and contributed to enliven the procession; but more
particularly regret the non-attendance of the Freemasons.
I am myself a
freemason, and jealous of the privilege of our order, and among them I rank the
right which in England is almost invariably conceded of being present and
assisting in the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of all stately and
superb edifices.
I had understood
that the officers and members of the several Melbourne lodges had been invited
through their respective W. M.s to assist at the ceremony when it was arranged
to have taken place on the 1st of May, and should have been glad to have
availed myself of the invitation then, had not the domestic affliction of Mr.
La Trobe necessitated its postponement.
But why has not the Invitation been renewed?
For on inquiry of a brother Mason whom I casually met, he informed me that the
W. M of his lodge had not received any, nor did he believe that any other
master had: nay, he went so far as to intimate that he had hardly expected from
what he had heard that the invitation would be renewed; but he declined giving
any reasons, as he said that the matter had been left in the hands of the W. M
s, and that he placed confident reliance in their judgement.
Now, Sir. I don't in the least understand
this, nor why, in a colony like this, Freemasons should be deprived of a
privilege belonging to them - a privilege which they highly prize and one which
is moreover cheerfully granted them in England on all occasions - [w]ether
through the caprice of the officers by whom the arrangements are made, or from
any other cause.
I do not mean in the least degree to question
the authority of the masters of the lodges, or to impugn either their actions
or their motives; but it does seem to me that some explanation is due to the
large body of the fraternity who, like myself, may have expected to have been
honored with an invitation, and, like myself, are mortified and annoyed at
finding that they have been neglected,
Yours faithfully, HIRAM
Melbourne, July 4th.
We do not pretend to interfere with the
motives or decisions of the mysterious race of W. M.s, P. G.s, &c.; but we
confess that we think the foundation stones in question
are quite firmly enough laid as they are. Why the Freemasons did not
attend, or were not invited, we are not in the position to say. Possibly the
world Is getting old enough to think that It can begin to do without the pretty
babyisms of the blue apron. Ed. A
The story of Hiram is well-known to all
Masonic constitutions (Hiram was set upon by three ruffians who tried to steal secrets they were not entitled to) and may suggest the writer felt persecuted so it is only
a signal that the writer is a Freemason. The letter refers to supposed customs
‘in England’ suggesting the writer was English and thus a member of an English
Lodge.
The response came swiftly and was published on
7 July.
To the Editor of the Argus.
Sir, - Permit me to make a few observations in
reply to the letter of your correspondent Hiram, which appears in your paper of
this day, and to your own remarks on the subject upon which it treats.
I believe that the masters of the several
lodges have no wish to keep back the truth from any brother, however much they
may condemn the mode in which he has thought proper to make his inquiry, and
however little they may be disposed to recognise his right to receive a reply
to an anonymous communication, addressed to the editor of a daily paper.
I will therefore state at once, and without
further preface, that your correspondent has been rightly informed that the
several Melbourne lodges had the compliment paid them of being invited by His
Honor the Chancellor or the University of Melbourne, through their respective
masters, to assist at the ceremony of laying the foundation stone on the first
of May: as also, that it had not been renewed, and that the masters had not
expected that it would be.
It seems hardly necessary to vindicate the
acts of the masters, on whom, in the absence of a Provincial Grand Lodge,
devolved the duty of considering the invitation: as, however, their silence
may be misconstrued, I will proceed to say that they felt that, under the proposed
arrangement, they had no alternative but to decline it.
It would occupy too much space in your
valuable column to insert the correspondence which took place between them and
His Honor the Chancellor upon the occasion, and your correspondent, or of any
other proved brother, can, if he desired it, have access to the documents on
application to me in a regular manner in open lodge.
It may suffice to say that among other
objections, the following were Insurmountable: -
It was not contemplated that the stone should
be laid, or assisted to be laid, by a Freemason.
The customary masonic ceremonies were to be
neglected; and, above all, no form of prayer was to be observed.
I feel satisfied that the enunciation of this
last startling fact will deprive every true brother of the least trace of
mortification or annoyance at having been absent from the ceremony, and will
only have the effect of inducing a change of those feelings into pure
astonishment that such an omission should have been determined on by Christian
authorities, in a Christian community. And now will your correspondent allow me
to offer, on behalf of himself and the alleged large body of Mason to whom he
refers, a little advice?
Let me recommend him and them to lose no time
in joining, and thereafter regularly at attending, one of the lodges in this
city, when it will be their own fault if they have again occasion to seek for
the elucidation of any supposed masonic mystery in the columns of a public
journal.
Having disposed of Brother Hiram's letter, I
will now, with your permission, remark briefly on your own comment. ...
[The writer then addresses the editor’s
remarks about Freemasonry.]
Yours faithfully,
M. Hall. W.M. Lodge of Australasia, N 773. [A Lodge of the English Constitution]
The Editor could not
resist the opportunity to repeat his views in more detail concluding that ‘we
hope the day is fast coming when a body of worthy and intelligent men shall be
able to go about a grave undertaking sensibly and in plain clothing’ which was
criticism not only of Freemasons but all those who enjoyed dressing up to
elevate themselves above their peers - judges, mayors and a Chancellors.
So, what happened?
There was probably an
initial expectation that Freemasons would take part, though Hall thinks that
this was also planned for 1 May. The Freemasons were not uninvited. The WMs
declined the invitation. Did anyone ask Barry why the foundation stone laying
for the Prince’s Bridge was not a better precedent? Levick was probably aware
of the facts but seems not to have raised it.
After some months a formal report was printed in The Freemasons’ Monthly
Magazine in 1855 published in England which provides a considered
summary:
‘A correspondence,
involving an important Masonic principle, took place during the past year. The
Chancellor of the Melbourne University, the Acting Chief Justice, Judge Barry,
solicited the Masonic Lodges to attend a procession for the laying of the
foundation stone of the University. But as prayer was not to be offered up on
the occasion, or the Masons either to lay the foundation stone, or, after its
being laid by a civilian [ie Hotham who was not a Mason], to adjust it with the
usual Masonic observations, they declined to attend, to the general
satisfaction of the Craft.’
However, there is one further thread in the tapestry which may explain why the Masonic leadership didn’t
wish to press the case. The lodges were collectively becoming better educated
and were focussed on growth and development. Hall didn’t address Hiram’s
assertion of the Masonic ‘right’ to take part in such events in England, though perhaps he would have privately.
 |
| Thomas McCombie revived Masonry after the Goldrush. Courtesy State Library of Victoria. |
The Lodge of Hiram was just being brought out
of its Gold Rush slump by the efforts of Thomas
McCombie (1819-1869). McCombie was a journalist, merchant and politician and founding
master of the Lodge of Hiram. He had probably been elected master of the Lodge
in April replacing ‘J. Elliot’. The Lodge formed a committee on 4 July 1854 to
take ‘all steps necessary’ for the formation of a Provincial Grand Lodge and by
8 August John Thomas Smith had been recruited to lead the effort.
From support role to centre stage
The aforementioned
‘eminent member of the Craft’ provided this somewhat clumsily worded insight.
It suggests another issue for which the change of Lieutenant Governor provided
the opportunity to resolve quietly. It may also be the other unmentioned issue
which Hall referred to. Barry’s insistence on ‘no formal prayer’ and dismissal
by silence of the idea of a Masonic ‘right’ to conduct such ceremonies, may
have been a convenient way to change what seems to have been the Melbourne
custom of ‘assisting’ the Governor in foundation stone laying ceremonies. Barry
may well have been in silent agreement with the change and after La Trobe,
Governors were not ‘assisted by Freemasons’ in laying foundation stones.
Here is the relevant
section from Fairfax;
‘Contrary, however, to
prescriptive right, to take a secondary part in such ceremonies, the brethren
assisted Charles J. LaTrobe, Esq., Superintendent of Port Phillip, and in his
subsequent position as Lieutenant Governor of Victoria, to lay the foundation
stones of several public structures, namely, the Supreme Court in July, 1842 ;
Prince's Bridge and the Hospital in March, 1846; and the Benevolent Asylum in
June, 1850. The R.W. Master of the Australasian Kilwinning Lodge, with the
Masters of the other lodges, laid the foundation-stone of the Temperance Hall,
Russell-street, in December, 1846.’
In contrast, the Foundation
Stone of the Freemason's Alms-houses was laid on 17 July 1867. The ceremony was
conducted entirely by Freemasons. The Governor, Sir John Manners-Sutton, was
present as a witness and was not a Freemason. He spoke after the
ceremony.
The foundation stone
ceremony at the Gas Works in December 1854 was explicitly a Masonic ceremony. The
stone was laid by ‘Brother J T Smith’ who in his address said ‘Gentlemen - in
compliance with your request to the Freemasons to lay with masonic honors the
foundation stone of the Melbourne Gas Works.
…I have had the honor of performing this interesting ceremony.’ Smith
was a Freemason, a member of Parliament and the Mayor. The event was
well-attended with both military and musical entertainment, perhaps organised
in part by McCombie who was a shareholder.
Hotham was toasted – in his absence.
 |
| Brother John Thomas Smith, Mayor and Masonic leader. Courtesy State Library of Victoria. |
The third example is
the foundation stone ceremony for Collingwood Bridge on 7 November 1856. The
entire ceremony was a Masonic one, although they were supported by the
Oddfellows and a military band. The guest of honour was the Mayor of Melbourne
who made clear he was a Freemason. Although not named he was probably John
Thomas Smith.
The Fairfax reference
suggests that what occurred in La Trobe’s tenure was unusual. It may have been
one of the things corrected with the arrival of
Freemasons, such as Levick, who were ‘fully conversant’ with the various rituals. Barry may
well have had the same view.
Barry could not
entirely escape the Omnipotent. He did say a prayer. Though it was not formal
and, as far as the press was concerned, it was certainly silent.
Two Postscripts
Item 1
The Lodge of Australia
Felix No 697 met on Friday, July 7, 1854, with Brother Robert Levick Worshipful
Master in the Chair. After regular business Levick brought before the notice of
the Lodge the (unspecified) conduct of the Worshipful Master of the Australasia
Lodge Brother M. Hall.
Brother J W Hill
proposed, that ‘the members of this Lodge express in the strongest terms their
disapprobation of the Conduct of the W.M. of the Lodge of Australasia, and at
the same time they would wish to express the fullest confidence in the W.M. of
their own Lodge believing him to be quite capable of Carrying out the onerous
duties entrusted to him. Carried unanimously.’
The issue is not
stated but involved some kind of joint activity between the Lodges. There were
only two at the time; 1 – arrangements to meet the new Governor which Hall took
the lead in and seemed to go well, 2 – the non-participation at the University
where Hall responded to Hiram.
What is the principal
duty of the WM? Everything it seems. ‘If lodge functions go awry, it is the
Master who bears the blame’. If ‘Hiram’ was a member of Hall’s lodge, Hall could be held responsible for his
public outburst. Levick and the other WMs had successfully managed their
memberships in not making a fuss.
Item 2
The Argus thought
‘the foundation stones in question are quite firmly enough laid … without the help
of the Freemasons’. Why then did the Convocation of the University of Melbourne
create a replica of the covering plate in 2007? The building was finished within two years, but the foundation stones
and plate went missing. Perhaps they lie buried on the location of the wing of
the original building which did not go ahead. Or perhaps some miffed Masons
wanted to make a final point and it waits to be discovered.
In any case, the stones
were somehow not firmly enough laid to be found again.
This concludes the
series. The story will also appear in the 2020 edition of the ‘Transactions’ of the Victorian Lodge of Research with
full footnotes. A more academic version will be published in March 2020 and readers will be informed when this takes place.
 |
| The University of Melbourne, Victoria Illustrated 1857. Courtesy State Library of Victoria. |
No comments:
Post a Comment