In proposing a vote of thanks to the speaker the Master Colin F. W. Dyer said:

I have found this a difficult paper on which to comment if one limits one's consideration to the evidence presented by Bro. Draffen. On the face of all that he gives us, there is more than a very good case for saying that the behaviour of Prince Hall and the African Lodge over the question of warranting new lodges was completely consistent with that of a Provincial Grand Master acting under the patent that Grimshaw mentions. Although Bro. Draffen states that `the exact date at which African Lodge assumed the powers of a Grand Lodge is impossible to pinpoint', the first sentence of his paragraph `Conclusion' refers to a declaration to this effect that it was `free and independent of any lodge from this day' published in the Boston Advertiser of 26 June 1827, the declaration itself being dated 18 June 1827. If the African Lodge was behaving up to this date as a Provincial Lodge under the Grand Lodge of England, then here is the date on which they assumed the powers of a Grand Lodge. Bro. Draffen is at pains to say that, especially from the African Lodge point of view, the lodge remained under the Grand Lodge of England (and later under the United Grand Lodge) and were probably quite unaware of their erasure.

All of this depends on the dependability of Grimshaw and the actual existence of the patent as Provincial Grand Master to which he refers. Brother Draffen makes no serious effort to show that Grimshaw was in any sense unreliable as an historian. In particular he has made no reference at all to the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England where there is ample evidence that Grimshaw was endeavouring to concoct just such a story as Bro. Draffen has put before us. I must say I find this omission on the part of such an experienced researcher as Bro. Draffen surprising in putting forward a paper for this lodge, and I have wondered, in these circumstances, why the paper has been presented at this particular time. Bro. Haunch has collected the evidence contained in the archives of Grand Lodge, so I shall leave it to him to present.

Bro. Will Read, S.W. said:

I heartily support you, Worshipful Master, in your vote of thanks to Bro. Draffen, the reader of the paper this evening.

Bro. Draffen is to be congratulated on his succinct presentation of the history of this independent jurisdiction which is not currently in our thoughts and which has not been before this lodge for three-quarters of a century. As he says, he has limited his paper to the facts relating to the origins of Prince Hall Masonry and has deliberately refrained from passing any opinions on the reasons for certain happenings.

There is one question, however, which arises naturally from the fact which Bro. Draffen and other writers have accepted, that Prince Hall and his fourteen associates became freemasons in Lodge No. 441 on the Roll of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The question is why, having been initiated under the Irish Constitution, did they apply to the Grand Lodge of England for a warrant?

Were they unaware of the separate jurisdictions here and regarded English Freemasonry as being the Freemasonry of Great Britain? Had they applied to the Grand Lodge of Ireland and been unsuccessful? Had they applied to the Grand Lodge then extant in Massachusetts and been unsuccessful? Or was it due simply to the fact that as coloured people they wanted independence and yet wished to keep within the Brotherhood of which they thought so highly, and considered that they were more likely to secure that independence from England than from elsewhere?

Is it not probable that by 784 they sought a warrant of their own so that they could be as `free' as their white brethren?

While Prince Hall had friends, influential friends, amongst the American brethren, the negro lodges were not, apparently, recognized by them; hence they were 'irregular' and their members would not be allowed to visit the `regular' American lodges.

It should also be remembered, in this connection, that the first Book of Constitutions says: 'The persons admitted members of a Lodge must be good and true men, Freeborn, and of mature and discreet age, no Bond men.' 'Free' meant much more than physical freedom. It meant, amongst other things, freedom from serfdom, freedom to hold property, freedom to buy and sell goods, freedom to hold opinions and to express them, all without the leave of others; to be equal with all men whatever their colour or creed.

I am sorry that Bro. Draffen has not brought into his paper the creed of Prince Hall Freemasonry which, I suggest, is worthy of inclusion in any paper on the subject. It is short; it is simple; it reads: `I believe in God, Grand Architect of the Universe, the Alpha of the unreckoned yesterdays, the Omega of the impenetrable tomorrows, the beginning and the ending. I believe in man, potentially God's other self, often faltering in his way upwards but irrepressible in the urge to scale the spiritual Annapurnas. I believe in Freemasonry - that corporate adventure in universal brotherhood, despising kinship with no child of the ALL-Father. I believe in Prince Hall Freemasonry, a door of benevolence securely tiled against the unworthy, but opened wide to men of good report, whether Aryan or Hottentot. I believe in Masonic vows - the truths of true men plighted to their better selves.'

Bro. Roy A. Wells said:

In his study of the origin and early history of Prince Hall Freemasonry Bro. Draffen has recorded much useful reference material which can be added to that provided by W. H. Upton in his Paper, 'Prince Hall's Letter Book', in AQC 1:3. Bro. Draffen has exploded a few myths concerning Prince Hall and has wisely drawn attention to the fact that not all negro Freemasonry is under the Prince Hall jurisdiction. Independent or `irregular' lodges with negro membership are plentiful and usually they thrive upon the susceptibilities of the gullible. Such lodges have been a masonic counterpart from the early 18th century when some taverns provided easy access to Freemasonry and since then it has been a successful enterprise for men of whatever colour, race, creed or nationality.

African Lodge 'No. 1' came into existence on 3 July 1776 as a self-erected body with Prince Hall as Master. The 'Permet', provided by Lodge No. 441, which was acting as some form of parent, allowed it to be an organized association but did not, or could not, give authority to `make, pass and raise' masons.

The Warrant from England, dated 29 September 1784, was not received until 29 April 1787 but without further loss of time African Lodge commenced work the following month as African Lodge No. 459 on the Register of the Grand Lodge of England. This was in a period when Freemasonry in America was already following a system of seven degrees, viz: (1) Entered Apprentice; (2) Fellow Craft; (3) Master Mason; (4) Mark Master; (5) Past Master; (6) Most Excellent Master; (7) Royal Arch, all of which were worked under the authority of a Craft Warrant supplied by the Grand Lodge of the Antients. Those degrees formed part of the so called York Rite and were followed by the Order of the Red Cross and the Knights of Malta and the Knights Templar degrees.

According to The Phylaxis (the magazine of 'A Society for Prince Hall Freemasons'), two systems are now in use: (a) the York Rite, which has just been mentioned, and (b) the Scottish Rite. After the three Craft degrees the Scottish Rite (or Ancient and Accepted Rite) has: 4^F-14^F, Lodges of Perfection; 15^F-16^F, Councils of Princes of Jerusalem; 17^F-18^F, Chapters of Rose Croix; 19^F-32^F, Consistories of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret; 33E. Other degrees and orders include the Eastern Star, Heroines of Jericho, Daughters of Isis and the Shrine.

Bro. A. R. Hewitt said

I have listened to Bro. Draffen's paper with much interest and have pleasure in supporting the vote of thanks to him. I must, however, join issue with him on one of his conclusions. After pointing out that African Lodge, whilst still a private lodge under the jurisdiction of the premier Grand Lodge of England, had warranted two lodges he states: ’If Fredericksburg Lodge possessed, and had exercised, the right to issue charters then same right cannot be denied to African Lodge'. I suggest that the right of African Lodge to issue charters must be denied. No private lodge under the jurisdiction of the premier Grand Lodge or the United Grand Lodge has ever had power to issue charters or warrants; neither has authority ever been given to a private lodge to issue dispensations or permits of any kind. In support of his view Bro. Draffen quotes the case of the Fredericksburg Lodge, but that lodge was ultimately warranted by the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Whilst I am not prepared to question the activities of a lodge under the jurisdiction of Scotland I cannot help but feel that Fredericksburg also acted unconstitutionally and the fact that it constituted other lodges ought not to be quoted as a precedent for unconstitutional acts by a private lodge under the jurisdiction of England.

The lodges which formed themselves into the Prince Hall Grand Lodge were the African Lodge, which had been struck off the Register of England, and the two lodges which it had unlawfully constituted. How can such a body expect to be recognized as a lawfully constituted Grand Lodge?

Bro C. Haffner writes

In the first paragraph of the section headed 'Prince Hall's Masonic Career' the author states that the sheet of paper recording Prince Hall's admission 'is dated 6 March 1775 - the final digit is only just legible.' This date has been contested in American research with the statement that the ’5' is a recent defacement of an original '8'. An early microfilm shows a figure too faint to read and the '8' is assumed to have been correct from other pages accompanying the first sheet of paper.

Another claim against the Prince Hall fraternity is that African Lodge exceeded the limitations of its 'Permet' by initiating forty-six masons before it received its warrant, thus acting irregularly. This it is claimed is substantiated by the same `other pages'. Many of the brethren, for example 'C Underwood, Secretary' who petitioned for the warrant, were thus not qualified to petition.

Bro. J. R. Clarke writes

Bro. Draffen raises the question of 'infringement of jurisdiction'. As he himself points out later, the question at issue is not the date of the Peace Treaty with the rebels, nor of the Declaration of Independence, but of the dates on which the premier Grand Lodge recognized the Grand Lodges of the States and whether the doctrine of `exclusive jurisdiction' was implicitly or explicitly referred to in that recognition. B. E. Jones in Freemasons Guide & Compendium seems to suggest that the date of this was 1880. If the lodges in the States were not recognized there could not be any question of infringement.

Moreover, reverting to the 18th century, the Antient Lodge No. 85, established in Sheffield in 1761, obtained a warrant for No. 340 from the premier Grand Lodge in 1765. For some years thereafter it referred to itself as 'our Lodge 85 & 340' paying dues to both Grand Lodges. It was what Heron Lepper (AQC 56) called a 'Traditioner Lodge'; but one which ensured that its members were regularly made masons, whichever Grand Lodge survived. The two Grand Lodges did not recognize each other so the question of 'infringement of jurisdiction' did not arise in the 18th century.

Bro. E. McEwen writes

Bro. Draffen has lifted the curtain on a part of Freemasonry about which most of us are ignorant but, although he always speaks with authority, I would like to take issue with his comment 'Grimshaw states . . . that Prince Hall was freeborn. The fact is that he was not'. With respect, the fact that Prince Hall was manumitted in 1770 proves that he was then a slave; it tells us nothing about him being born a slave.

I have always believed that the emphasis that he himself placed on being an 'African' - not then a fashionable word amongst North American negroes - was because he was born in Africa. Bro. Draffen, in fact, inclines to this view himself and that 'he was seized in some part of West Africa as a lad of between eleven and fourteen and brought to New England by a slave-trader and sold as a slave'.

Bro. T. O. Haunch said:

Prince Hall Freemasonry is a subject that this lodge appears to have been rather shy of discussing in the past, perhaps because it is so fraught with the delicate and controversial issue of recognition. The author of the paper has very properly avoided this aspect altogether and dealt only with historical developments. The difficulty, however, with Prince Hall Freemasonry is to get at the facts for it is a subject on which one has almost of necessity to rely to some extent on secondary sources because nothing better is available. Bro. Draffen has made it clear in what light he regards Grimshaw's Official History but, after examining the question of the authenticity of the alleged Patent appointing Prince Hall Provincial Grand Master for North America, he decides that it must be taken to be 'another of Grimshaw's inventions'. In point of fact he need have no doubts as to whether this `Patent' was a fabrication for there is evidence in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England which overwhelmingly points to this being the case and, what is more, shows that our own Henry Sadler unwittingly helped to make the fabrication plausible in this matter of the signature.

In 1902 the Grand Secretary here, Brother (later Sir) Edward Letchworth, received a letter from the Librarian's Office of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. It was typewritten on official paper and, although unsigned, the sub-heading 'All correspondence should be addressed/ The Librarian of Congress (etc.]' has had the first six words deleted and 'W. H. Grimshaw' inserted in ink. The writer states:

I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a patent granted Prince Hall, by H.R.H. Francis, Earl of Moira, Pro. Grand Master, dated January 27, 1790. Will you kindly have the records of H.R.H., The Prince of Wales, who was G.M. at that time, [sic] and see if there can be found any trace of the same. It is very evident that such a document was issued by the Pro. Grand Master for I find mention of it in an old manuscript of one of the old Lodges of 1797. Also Dr. Belnap the historin [sic] says, 'That Prince Hall, is a Grand Master of Masons.' This is dated 1792.

The (typed) transcript of the alleged Patent shows that this was no more than a clumsy forgery. Apart from phraseology not true to type, the document contains a number of woefully blatant anachronisms and mistakes in styles and titles, both civil and masonic. If this comment appears in print I will add as an appendix the text of this copy of the’Patent' together with the draft, written on the back of it, of Henry Sadler's reply to Grimshaw pointing out to him the mistakes and anachronisms which proved the document could not be genuine. These comments were evidently not lost on Grimshaw for in his book published the following year (1905) although he mentioned (p. 87) Sadler's reply to the effect that there was no record of Prince Hall's appointment in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England, he not unnaturally made no acknowledgement of the criticisms made by Sadler that had enabled him (Grimshaw) to produce the revised and much more plausible version of the Prince Hall `Patent' as Provincial Grand Master reproduced on pp. 85-6 of his book - the document whose authenticity Bro. Draffen, like other writers before him, has questioned.

The text of this second ('1791') and more widely known version of the 'Patent' is entirely different from that of ’790', Grimshaw not only adopting Sadler's corrections but turning to extant models for the format. His probable source for this was suggested by Bro. Edward R. Cusick, Research Historian of the Metropolitan Masonic Study Club of New York, in correspondence some 20 years ago with the then Grand Lodge Librarian, Bro. Ivor Grantham. He pointed out that the History of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons and Concordant Orders (Boston, Mass., 1892; H. L. Stillson, Editor-in-Chief) reproduced in parallel columns (pp. 219-21) the texts of the 'Deputations' [i.e. Patents] to Daniel Coxe and Henry Price as Provincial Grand Masters for New York [etc.] (1730) and New England (1733) respectively, and that comparison of these texts with the 'Patent' of Prince Hall shows that Grimshaw combined sections from these two prototypes to produce the latter.

I have dwelt on the subject of the 'Patent' at some length for it does seem that the time has come finally to lay this particular legend to rest, quoted as it is as the authority for Prince Hall's having chartered other lodges. In doing so I acknowledge my indebtedness to the researches of those distinguished predecessors of mine, Librarians to Grand Lodge separated by half a century, Bro. Henry Sadler and Bro. Ivor Grantham; also to Bro. Edward R. Cusick for the information he gave to the latter.

One other matter that I should like to touch upon before describing the items from the Grand Lodge Library and Museum on display this evening, concerns the criticisms levelled at the administration of Grand Lodge at the turn of the 18th century. William H. Upton in his paper ’Prince Hall's Letter Book' in AQC 13 wrote (p. 63) of a melancholy picture of the way the Grand Secretary's office was conducted at that time' and Bro. Draffen comments that the then Grand Secretary, William White, 'seems either to have neglected to answer Prince Hall's letters - or possibly never to have received them'. Taking the last point first, this is not so for a number of the letters sent by Prince Hall to the Grand Secretary did indeed reach their destination and are still preserved in the archives of Grand Lodge. These are the originals of the items listed in Upton's paper as Nos. 5, 13, 14, 21, 26 and 36, and, in addition, Hall's letter of 30 June to William Moody (quoted by Bro. Draffen), a letter of 23 May 1788 (not noted in Prince Hall's letter Book) to Rowland Holt, Deputy Grand Master, giving 'an account of our precdings [sic] of the year past', and the petition of 5 January 1824 for authority to confer `the other four degrees'. Some of these items are exhibited on the table in the lodge room and may be identified by their individual captions.

As to the question of the Grand Secretary's not replying to Prince Hall's letters, a careful examination and comparison of the entries in Prince Hall's Letter Book shows that few (and there were not many in total in the first place) were not answered eventually in one way or another. It is unfortunate that the Grand Lodge Letter Book covering the period September 1790-January 1818 is missing; it would no doubt have told us much, and not only on this but on many later and even more important matters. What evidence there is shows that the Grand Secretary, William White, did make efforts to keep in touch and to obtain information from America. His letter of 2o August 1792 (Upton's item No. 3o) asked Prince Hall if he could give him any news of certain lodges in America, whilst among the last entries in G.L. Letter Book No. 3 (the last before the break in the series) are copies of letters to the Provincial Grand Master for Canada and to his Provincial Grand Secretary in which he similarly asks for news 'respecting the Lodges upon our List within the Territories of the American States, as we have not heard from any of them for many years (except Charles Town South Carolina) yet the G.L. would not wish to strike off any L. that is existing and likely to return to its Duty' [Letters, 30 July 1789, L.B.3 pp. 261-3]. Other unrelated correspondence in this Letter Book and in the Grand Lodge Library files of Historical Correspondence does not suggest that William White was indifferent to the lodges overseas or inefficient in his administration. It was a time when communication between England and America was difficult and irregular. England was at war with France and there was republican agitation in America for that country to enter in on the side of France. In his final letter to William White, is June 1802 (Upton's item No. 37; the original does not appear to be extant in G.L. archives) Prince Hall observes '. . . I have not received one letter from the Grand Lodge for this five years, which I thought somewhat strange at first; but when I heard so many were taken by the French I thought otherwise, and prudent not to send'.

Brother Draffen writes in reply:

I must confess to being more than a little puzzled at Bro. Dyer's remark that I have made `no serious effort to show that Grimshaw was in any sense unreliable as an historian'. Any 'historian' who gives unsupported data about the circumstances of a birth, who quotes a nonexistent document as factual, who makes incorrect statements about the Church connections of the principal character in his biography (all of which I pointed out in detail), must be regarded as unreliable. What more can Brother Dyer want? Since the 'Grimshaw Patent', as Bro. Haunch proves from the archives of Grand Lodge, was non-existent it follows that Prince Hall was never a Provincial Grand Master and, therefore, had no authority to grant Charters for lodges within his jurisdiction. I fear Bro. Dyer's good case for Prince Hall's action falls to the ground, on that score.

Bro. Read raises the interesting question as to why Prince Hall and his fellow masons petitioned the Grand Lodge of England for a Warrant and not the Grand Lodge of Ireland. I think the answer must be that they were probably quite unaware of the existence of three Constitutions, each granting warrants. The matter would be made the more odd by the fact that the Irish lodge was held in an English regiment. It would be natural to assume that an English regiment held an English Warrant. There is no record in Dublin that they ever applied for an Irish Warrant. Nor is there any record in the early archives of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts that either of the two Grand Lodges of that name were ever approached for a Warrant. My own view is that had they applied to either of the Massachusetts Grand Lodges they would have been refused - but that is guess-work. The fact remains that when the present Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was formed in 1792 African Lodge, now holding a regular Charter from the Grand Lodge of England, was not invited to take part.

The 'Creed' of Prince Hall Freemasonry is a new one on me and I am grateful to Bro. Read for drawing my attention to it.

Bro. Wells's comments provide the answer to the question why did Prince Hall's lodge apply for a Warrant for the additional degrees - clearly because they thought that the so-called York Rite was part and parcel of the English masonic system.

Bro. Hewitt takes issue with me over the question of whether or no Prince Hall's African Lodge had the right to issue Charters. The late Hugo Tatsch, whom I quoted, made the comment - not I. Tatsch said: 'The right of Fredericksburg Lodge to issue these charters was recognized by the Craft during that period'. I do not question Bro. Hewitt's statement that private lodges under the premier Grand Lodge never had power to issue Warrants but it is interesting to recall the words in John Lane's Records (p. 465) where he says 'nor yet those [lodges] whose members acted upon the doctrine of "inherent right" and formed or constituted themselves . . .'. The position under Scotland was, and is, no different in this context than England - no lodges under the Grand Lodge of Scotland (or Mother Kilwinning when acting as a Grand Lodge) had the authority to issue Charters to form new lodges. Bro. Hewitt says that Lodge Fredericksburg was acting unconstitutionally but that is surely doubtful for when it issued the first Dispensation to Lodge Botetourt it had not yet obtained a Charter of its own!

I took great care to avoid the whole question of 'Regularity of Origin' in the text of my paper and I would be sorry to think that any misreading might lead some to think that the United Grand Lodge of England has in any way changed its views on this point. On the other hand we must not apply to 1770-90 statements of policy which only came into existence in the 1920s.

The actual date, 1775, would appear to be impossible to verify if Bro. Haffner's statement is correct. An early microfilm is one thing but I wonder if modern microscope photography would reveal just what the final digit was. Let us hope that steps will one day be taken by competent persons to have the page critically examined by the latest methods for detecting faded writing. I accept Bro. Haffner's comment that it is very probable that the American Royal Arch system would be known to Prince Hall and his associates, thus accounting for the eventual request for a Royal Arch Warrant.

Bro. McEwen's comment on the question of being 'freeborn' is intriguing. 'Born free in Africa.' Quite possibly. But there were slaves in Africa too and it is impossible to say whether or no he was actually freeborn. On reflection I am inclined to the view that he was. But I think Grimshaw made this statement, coupling it with the story of the French mother and English father in Barbados, to avoid saying that Prince Hall had been at one time a slave. Of course we don't know that he was brought from Africa as a slave. He might well have been born in Massachusetts as the son of a slave woman. I do not know the laws with regard to the children of slaves but one might suppose a pregnant girl was brought to U.S.A. and gave birth after her arrival. Still, Brother McEwen's point is indeed a valid one.

I am deeply grateful to Bro. Haunch for giving the coup de grâce to Grimshaw's invented Patent of a Provincial Grand Master granted to Prince Hall. Had I realized that the veridical proof lay in Great Queen Street I should have bothered him to give me the data which he has supplied in his comments. Writing a paper so far from easily consulted sources is no easy task - as those who have supplied the lodge with papers know so well.

As Brother Haunch puts it the 'time has finally come finally to lay this particular legend to rest'. And if any brother quotes Grimshaw in the future as a reliable and trustworthy recorder of the early history of Prince Hall Freemasonry one can quote with all confidence: 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'.

Bro. Cerza subsequently wrote

There was recently published in the United States a book by Dr Charles H. Wesley (a Prince Hall mason), entitled Prince Hall, Life and Legacy. I thought I ought to call this to your attention as the next issue of the Transactions will have an article on the subject of Prince Hall by Brother Draffen.

The book has been published jointly by The United Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, 1733, 16th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, Prince Hall Affiliation and the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum, at $8.50 (U.S.), postpaid.