albeit when Preston wrote, such facts as he added may have been
learned from men still living. Who were present, beyond the three
officers named, has so far eluded all research, and the only variation
in the accounts is found in a rare old book called _Multa Paucis_,
which asserts that six Lodges, not four, were represented. Looking at
this record in the light of what we know of the Masonry of that
period, a number of things are suggested:

First, so far from being a revolution, the organization of the Grand
Lodge was a revival of the old quarterly and annual Assembly, born,
doubtless, of a felt need of community of action for the welfare of
the Craft. There was no idea of innovation, but, as Anderson states in
a note, "it should meet Quarterly _according to ancient Usage_,"
tradition having by this time become authoritative in such matters.
Hints of what the old usages were are given in the observance of St.
John's Day[117] as a feast, in the democracy of the order and its
manner of voting by a show of hands, in its deference to the oldest
Master Mason, its use of badges of office,[118] its ceremony of
installation, all in a lodge duly tyled.

Second, it is clear that, instead of being a deliberately planned
effort to organize Masonry in general, the Grand Lodge was intended at
first to affect only London and Westminster;[119] the desire being to
weld a link of closer fellowship and cooeperation between the Lodges.
While we do not know the names of the moving spirits--unless we may
infer that the men elected to office were such--nothing is clearer
than that the initiative came from the heart of the order itself, and
was in no sense imposed upon it from without; and so great was the
necessity for it that, when once started, link after link was added
until it "put a girdle around the earth."

Third, of the four Lodges[120] known to have taken part, only
one--that meeting at the Rummer and Grape Tavern--had a majority of
Accepted Masons in its membership; the other three being Operative
Lodges, or largely so. Obviously, then, the movement was predominantly
a movement of Operative Masons--or of men who had been Operative
Masons--and not, as has been so often implied, the design of men who
simply made use of the remnants of operative Masonry the better to
exploit some hidden philosophy. Yet it is worthy of note that the
leading men of the craft in those early years were, nearly all of
them, Accepted Masons and members o