Richmond Hill Masonic Temple

The Inauguration of Robert Burns as Post Laureate of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge 1787.

 

www.lck2.co.uk/Robert_Burns_Poet_Laureat.html

 

www.atlasobscura.com/places/robert-burns-masonic-apron

 

Much has been said on the subject in recent years regarding Burn’s Laureateship but very little has been said of the extensive work on the subject by Hugh C Peacock Past Depute Master and Secretary of the Lodge 1872-73 and many years subsequently. The Book entitled “Robert Burns Poet-Laureate of Lodge Canongate Kilwinning Facts substantiating his Election and Inauguration on 1st March 1787”. The book was published in 1894 and, following the death of Peacock en route to a committee meeting, was completed by Allan Mackenzie who had been assisting in its compilation. The picture shown above was extracted from the book and its significance is fully explained by Peacock. All the details of correspondence between D Murray Lyon and Peacock/Mackenzie are detailed in the book and the evidences produced by Peacock in this publication are overwhelming. The Preface to Peacocks book written by R W Macleod Fullarton QC gives a concise view of the facts for - and the lack of facts against - the Inauguration of Canongate Kilwinning’s first Poet Laureate. The full text of Fullarton’s Preface, written in 1894, verbatim is as follows:-

 

“I have been asked by some of the principal Office-bearers, past and present, of Lodge Canongate Kilwinning, No. 2, to write a few words by way of Preface to the statement of the evidence, compiled mainly by Brother Allan Mackenzie, as to the formerly undoubted, but recently controverted fact that Robert Burns held the Honorary Office of Poet Laureate of that Lodge. I have accordingly gone carefully through that evidence, which is so well arranged, so exhaustive, and I may add so conclusive, that it might well be left to speak for itself. I propose, therefore, to confine my remarks to the most salient points in the evidence, and to the nature of the case sought to be made against the hitherto received tradition. And first, as to the positive evidence of the fact. Not, certainly, the oldest, but certainly the principal document in its support, is the Resolution passed on the 8th June 1815, and duly recorded in the Minutes of the Lodge, authorising a subscription for a Mausoleum to Robert Burns, who is therein described as one " who had been Poet Laureate of the Lodge" This resolution was seconded by Charles More, who was a prominent official of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who had been Depute Master of the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, No. 2, both before and in the year 1787, (in which year Robert Burns joined the Lodge as an Honorary affiliated member, and is traditionally alleged to have been also appointed Poet Laureate of the Lodge), and who had continued in unbroken connection with the Lodge from that time to the signing of the Minute of 8th June 1815. Surely, if any man must have known whether this statement of the resolution was accurate or not, that man must have been the seconder, Brother Charles More. But it does not stop there. At the time when this resolution was passed, the Lodge included amongst its members about one hundred persons, who had been members before and during the events of 1787, many of whom had continued members down to 1815. A number of those must in the nature of things have been present at the Meeting at which the resolution was passed.

 

Moreover, this resolution was sent round with a subscription list to all the members, so that it must have come to the knowledge of those members who were not present. amongst the one hundred members referred to were many who knew Robert

Burns intimately, including Louis Cauvin, Burns's French Teacher ; Alexander Nasmyth, who painted his portrait ; Lord Balcarres, Dugald Stewart, Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster ; Sir Hay Campbell, President of the Court of Session ; Dr. Andrew Duncan; Sir Henry Jardine, R. W. Master, 1790; Sir Charles Hope of Granton, President of the Court of Session, who survived till 1851 ;

and many others. A Committee was appointed to carry out the object of this resolution, and on the 2nd January 1817, George Simson, Esq., Past Master of the Lodge, who appears to have acted as the Secretary, wrote to George Burnet, Esq., Advocate, R. W. Master of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge, as follows :-

 

I beg leave to report to you that having been furnished by your

Secretary with the sum of Twenty Guineas voted by the Lodge as a contribution towards the erection of a Mausoleum to the memory of our late Poet Laureate, Burns, I, in obedience to the instructions of the Committee, remitted that sum to the Rev. Dr. Duncan, Dumfries." From this it is evident that after eighteen months' publicity amongst all those most likely, nay certain to

know whether the statement which constituted the express ground and plea on which their subscriptions were solicited was true or false, not only had none denied it, but the Lodge itself had formally ratified and adopted it on a second occasion by voting twenty guineas to the fund on this very ground

and title. A goodly number of these hundred members must have been still alive in 1835, when Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was elected to succeed Robert Burns as Poet Laureate, and when at his initiation or on the occasion of his being made a Mason, he expressly acknowledged the compliment of being

asked to succeed Robert Bums, and the Lodge toasted the memory of Burns as "the last Poet Laureate of the Lodge" Nay, some of them, e.g.

 

Sir Charles Hope were alive in 1845, when the Lodge resolved to commemorate the event by a Picture. All this is on record, nor is it contested that the tradition has been handed down continuously to the present time.

 

There is, however, one piece of documentary evidence older than any of the above entries, though not, of course, as old as the memory and knowledge of the persons above-mentioned, who were all members and contemporaries of Burns in 1787. This is the engraved portrait of Burns still hanging in the Lodge, and which appears to have been placed there in the beginning

of this century, within a few years of his death. That portrait bears a contemporary Inscription, describing him as Poet Laureate of the Lodge.

 

This carries the documentary evidence of the tradition back to the very beginning of the century; but the evidence does not stop there. It appears that Brother William Petrie, who was connected with several Lodges, and down to a date shortly before his death in 1845, was one of the Tylers of the Lodge, bore testimony to the fact of having been present at the

inauguration of Burns as Poet Laureate of Lodge No. 2. It is true

that Brother William Officer rejects this direct and specific evidence, on the ground that as Petrie is not recorded in Grand Lodge Books as a member of No. 2, he cannot have been a member of No. 2. But in another place (see his letter of I2th January 1889) he himself demolishes his own argument by frankly admitting that " The registration of the members of the Lodge (No. 2) in the Register of Grand Lodge in the

beginning of the present century was irregular." The same applies to the Minutes of No. 2 in the year 1787, and all the neighbouring years as Brother Mackenzie has conclusively shewn.

 

Neither Brother Officer nor any other person has adduced a single fact to lead one to suppose that Brother Petrie was not a truthful person or that he had any motive to give false evidence. His evidence is in entire accordance with all the current of tradition and of authority above referred to ; and in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary is worthy of confidence and respect.

 

One remark falls to be made with regard to the whole of the above evidence. It is of a positive character, and is such as reasonable men are in the habit of accepting as sufficient in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary. Is there any positive evidence to the contrary? None whatever. Those who, in recent times, have attacked the long received tradition, and in particular, Brothers Officer and Murray Lyon, rely wholly,

not on the presence of any, even the smallest contrary evidence, but only on the absence of certain records, which, if they existed, would give contemporary corroboration to the positive evidence adduced. That this is no exaggeration will be seen at a glance, if we consider the principal arguments put forward by them by way of "disproof" of the received tradition.

 

These are:-

1. No contemporary entry of the appointment in the Minutes of No. 2.

2. Before such appointment the office must have been created ; and this could not be done without the consent of Grand Lodge.

There is no entry of the creation, or of such consent.

3. If created, it must be annual, and re-election must be annual :

whereas there is no entry of any further election till 1835, when

(as they allege) the office was created.

4. Burns himself does not mention it.

5. The testimony adduced to prove it is not contemporaneous.

It is obvious that all this amounts to no more than pointing out what additional evidence would in their judgment place the tradition beyond all possible doubt. Not one of the five points, nor all of them together, is logically inconsistent with the truth of the positive evidence adduced.

But let us look more closely at the five points seriatim.

 

1. "No contemporary Minute of the appointment."

This is plainly their principal, one may say their only material point.

 

If such a Minute existed, where would be their case ? And yet, so far is such an entry from being necessary to satisfactory evidence of the transaction it professes to record, that in English Common Law such an entry is not admissible as any evidence at all of the transaction. The only use that could be made of it would be to refresh the memory of the person

who had made the entry, as to his own recollection of the transaction which he recorded, and then only if he had been present at the transaction.

 

Brother Petrie's evidence, on the contrary, though given many years after, would have been admissible primary evidence of an eye-witness. No doubt, however, apart from legal rules of evidence, the absence of any entry is a suspicious circumstance, provided it appears that the books have been regularly and carefully kept. If it appears they have been irregularly and carelessly kept, such omission would carry no weight. Which, then, is the case here ? Brother Mackenzie has conclusively shewn by many instances that the Books of No. 2 were at this time most carelessly and irregularly kept. I refer for brevity to his statement, and will quote only one instance.

The Hon. Henry Erskine is entered as elected to the chair on 24th June 1780, but no previous Minute exists to show that he ever joined the Lodge. This is the exact converse of Burns' case, where his admission as Honorary member is recorded, but not his appointment as Poet-Laureate.

 

It is worthy of note that the omission to record the act of making a man a Mason, or of admitting him member of a Lodge, is a much more serious omission than the omission to record a merely honorary appointment within the Lodge, which is in no way essential to the practical working of the Lodge, and might fall into desuetude without affecting that working. In point of fact, not only after Burns's death was this office left unfilled,

but twice or thrice after 1835, when Brothers Officer and Murray Lyon admit it was in existence, the Lodge omitted to fill it up, though careful to fill up those offices which are essential to the practical working and constitutional completeness of the Lodge. These omissions are duly shewn in a table of appointments inserted in Brother Mackenzie's statement. May I here be permitted to suggest that the admirable and scrupulously exact

manner in which Brother Murray Lyon keeps the Books of Grand Lodge, tends perhaps to make him too exacting in his demands upon the past.

 

2." Before Burns could have been appointed, the office must have been created, and this required the consent of Grand Lodge, which has no record of such consent."

This is merely an erroneous and very pedantic objection. Where is the rule of Grand Lodge forbidding any Lodge to appoint an Honorary Poet Laureate without previous solemn creation of the office with the consent of Grand Lodge? Moreover, it proves a great deal too much, and is in fact contradicted by Brothers Officer and Murray Lyon themselves. They both assert that

the office was created in 1835, and has existed since then to the present time. They deny that it existed before the appointment of Hogg. Was the appointment of Hogg preceded by any " creation of the office ? Is there any record in Grand Lodge of any previous application to Grand Lodge

for its consent to "create the office?" Or do our incredulous Brethren suggest that such application and consent was doubtless made and given, though the officials of Grand Lodge omitted to record it ? If they don't, they give up this objection as untenable. If they do, why are they so ready to believe an unrecorded transaction which has no tradition and no vestige of

evidence to support it, whilst they find it so impossible to believe an unrecorded transaction which has both evidence and tradition in its favour? If they answer " no such consent was asked or granted, because both Canongate Kilwinning, No. 2, and Grand Lodge supposed it had been obtained in 1787,"

this would still be fatal to the actual existence of the office ; moreover, they must admit that Grand Lodge assented to the truth of the tradition, and either thought its consent unnecessary, or that it had been given in 1787, though unrecorded, thus regarding the record as not essential nor conclusive.

 

Moreover, Grand Lodge must have considered that such office did not cease to exist, though unfilled for more than 35 years, in other words, that it need not be filled up annually.

 

3." If created, it must be annually vacated and filled, whereas no further election till 1835." This is sufficiently answered by the remarks just made. No one took that view in 1835, nor since. The office had then been vacant at least since Burns's death. The refilling of it then by Hogg was public and notorious, and the power of the Lodge to refill it was unquestioned, and, I may add unquestionable. The Lodge has, since then, several times omitted to fill it, when vacant, and have afterwards filled it, as of right, and without question.

 

The truth is, this objection also is both erroneous arid pedantic. It loses sight of the distinction between a mere honorary and non-essential office, and those which are essential to the proper constitution and working of a Lodge.

 

4." Burns himself does not mention it."

This objection is so trivial that it seems hardly worth answering, but as it is much insisted on, I may point out that they have not the least right to say Burns never mentioned it. All they can say is that in the very limited number of letters of his which have been preserved and published, such mention does not happen to occur. What sort of argument is that ?

 

They suggest that Canongate Kilwinning, No. 2, was so distinguished a Lodge, it was impossible he should not have mentioned it at the time. Well, perhaps he did. How can they prove he did not ? But let me ask them this: In February 1787, they themselves admit that this distinguished Lodge did Burns the distinguished honour of electing him an honorary member.

Where does Burns mention this fact ? And if Burns does not mention this honour, why should he mention the other? Perhaps, on second thoughts, they may suggest that the entry of February 1st 1787 cannot be true, because, if true, Burns must have mentioned it ! That would at least make their argument consistent.

 

5. "The testimony adduced is not contemporaneous"

That depends upon what "contemporaneous" evidence means. If it means what it means in ordinary usage, in Courts of Law, or in historical evidence, then it is contemporaneous i.e. it is evidence derived from the assertions, or the acts of contemporaries who were, in a position to know, or who claim to have such knowledge. Brother Charles More and Brother Petrie are both of this class, and so are all those who were continuously members of the Lodge during 1787, and thence to 1815, nay, some of them to 1835, when Hogg was elected expressly as his successor, and even to 1845, when the picture commemorative of it was sanctioned. The meaning which our objecting brethren put on the word is singular.

 

They say that Brother Petrie's testimony that he was present and saw the fact is not contemporary, because it (the testimony) was not given at the time of the occurrence itself! That the witness was there at the time is nothing ! The question is, did he give his evidence on the spot where and when the occurrence took place ! This sense of "contemporaneous testimony," is unique, and the laws of time and space and common sense are likely to keep it so.

To sum up, there is a large body of evidence, direct and indirect, including the assertions, acts and conduct of those most likely to know and most entitled to speak and to be believed. There is a continuous, and, till recent times, unchallenged tradition resting on that evidence.

 

On the other side there is no evidence to the contrary, but only an eager insistence upon the absence of certain additional evidence, mainly inadmissible in Law, even if it existed, and all of it such as not to present any logical contradiction of any part of the positive evidence in favour of the fact. It is not too much to say that nothing could ever be proved, if the absence of additional proof were admitted to countervail positive evidence of the fact.~”

 

R. W. MACLEOD FULLARTON, Q.C.

M.M., No. 2, P.J. W., No. 770,

and Grand Bard, Grand Lodge of Scotland.

Done