Conspiratorial Networks in the North?

A Review of Jacobite and Hanoverian Freemasons in Scandinavia and Russia, 1688-1746

Professor Steve Murdoch

This is a translation of the original French article published as:

‘Des réseaux de conspiration dans le Nord? Une étude de la franc-maçonnerie jacobite et hanovrienne en Scandinavie et en Russie, 1688-1746’ in Politica Hermetica, 24 (Sorbonne, 2010), pp.29-56.

Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation for which concrete documentary evidence dates back to the sixteenth century in Scotland, the seventeenth century in England and the eighteenth century throughout the rest of Europe. The origins of the movement are hotly disputed and often discoursed by Masonic and non-Masonic scholars alike. [1] Suffice it to say that the founding documents for Scottish Freemasonry, the Schaw Statutes, were drawn up in 1598-99 by the renowned Roman Catholic and operative mason, William Schaw, who served as ‘Master of Works’ to James VI of Scotland (the future James I of England). [2] The esoteric aspects of Scottish Freemasonry emerged throughout the seventeenth century as various lodges began to accept persons who were not practicing stone-masons (operatives) but who were more interested in the allegorical teachings that Masonry could offer. These non- operative (speculative) initiates who joined the fraternity tended to be people with an interest in science, mathematics or engineering — men such as Sir Robert Moray who did much to introduce English brethren to the Scottish Craft. From the seventeenth century onwards it has been alleged that many of these speculative Masons engaged in politicking, plotting and espionage. By the eighteenth century these kinds of activities were said to have been undertaken on behalf of the contesting factions for the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland — William & Mary, Queen Anne and George I, on the one hand, and the various claimants of the exiled House of Stuart on the other. The question arises as to whether this plotting occurred as a result of Masonic networking (as is often claimed), or was it rather a coincidence that some of the schemers happened to be Freemasons? And since many of these plotters were in exile, did this lend a particularly Scandinavian or northern European dimension to their actions?

In 1998, and specifically discoursing on a Swedish angle to Masonic conspiracies, Marsha Keith Schuchard commented that: ‘The disparate international supporters of the Stuarts now utilized Masonic networks for secret communication, trans-religious co-operation, and mystical morale-building’. [3] Directly inspired by this particular quote, or others much like it, something of a debate on the subject has developed. In 2000 the Masonic scholar John Hamill produced an article entitled ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’ which set out to ‘lay a tiresome ghost’ to rest — the ghost of a Jacobite-Masonic conspiracy in support of the Stuart cause. [4] This article was addressed in turn by the Finnish scholar Atina Nihtinen who, in 2003, commented that:

This present article does not set out to wake that ghost, but it cannot help but challenge some of Hamill’s twee assertions that the exiled Jacobite community ‘were simply practising a pastime that they had adopted before their exile and which may well have reminded them of happier times’. [5]

Nihtinen goes on to show that Field Marshal James Keith was both a celebrated Jacobite and a keen Mason, but there are lingering doubts as to the connection between the two groups. Just because many Jacobites were Masons does not mean that Freemasonry was a Jacobite institution. Both Hamill and Nihtinen missed the point that numerous Masons were not practicing a pastime that they enjoyed before they left their respective countries and many, if not most, Jacobite Masons became initiates of the society only once they had moved into exile — in other words, after the plotting was over.

Irish Jacobite officers certainly did engage in Freemasonry on the continent as evidenced by the documents left to us by the largely Irish lodge constituted in Bordeaux in the 1690s called, ironically perhaps, Lodge L’Anglaise. [6] Elsewhere another Irishman, Daniel d’Heguerty, spread ‘masonic lodges of a Jacobite kind all over France’. [7] More important was the establishment of the Jacobite lodge at Rome, for which minutes survive for 1735-1737. [8] Even despite the Papal Bull ‘In Eminenti’ issued in 1738, it has been argued that ‘a fair number of broad-minded Catholics were Freemasons, and remained so in defiance of the papal bull’ including Andrew ‘Chevalier Ramsay’, Grand Chancellor of French Masons (1734-1743). [9] Both Jérome Rousse-Lacordaire and Edward Corp have recently vociferously argued that the Papal Bull only forbad Catholics from becoming members of Hanoverian lodges. [10] Whatever the truth of that argument, the global increase in Masonic activity by 1738 saw lodges operating beyond Europe in Bengal, South & North America, Africa and the Caribbean. [11] In northern Europe new lodges opened in Berlin (1741), Hamburg (1743 and 1744), Brunswick (1744), and Copenhagen (1745), some of which were founded under warrant of the Grand Lodge of England (constituted 1717), while others were warranted by the Grand Lodge of Scotland (constituted 1736). Many others belonged to the new ‘Scottish Rite’ system which had developed in France through the influence of Chevalier Ramsay and other Masons who did not recognise the authority of the British Grand Lodges. [12] Some Masonic historians emphatically deny that the new Scottish Rite introduced by Ramsay had anything to do with his overt support for the Stuart cause. Others argue that the establishment of the ‘higher degrees’ was perhaps a way of making ‘selection from the ranks of the brotherhood in the interests of the Stuarts and to collect funds for the Pretender’. [13] Another innovation was the establishment of a new thirty-three degree Ancient and Accepted Rite which evolved in the eighteenth century and whose members formed into lodges variously known as Green and Red lodges as distinct from the Blue lodges of the older Craft system. [14] Freemasonry was fragmenting and reforming into contesting structures, many so opposed that contemporary observers could barely understand the variety of innovations. It is not the purpose of this paper to retrace the well-worn debates over the origin of Scottish or English Freemasonry, only to test the veracity of claims that the fraternity provided a networking vehicle for either the Jacobite or Hanoverian factions in Scandinavia and northern Europe.

A History of Scottish Masonic Plotting

There is strong evidence which equates the fraternity of Freemasons in Scotland with conspiratorial and revolutionary activity as early as the first half of the seventeenth century:

For what we do presage is not in grosse,
For we be brethren of the Rosie Crosse;
We have the Mason word, and second sight,
Things for to come we can foretell aright [15]

The Scot, Henry Adamson, published this poem, The Muses Threnodie, in 1638 and in so doing apparently identified himself as a Rosicrucian and Freemason. Ever since, conspiracy theorists have had a field-day using this as a basis for their arguments. The publication date places the poet within an oath-bound society (Freemasonry) on the cusp of the Presbyterian-led ‘Covenanting Revolution’. This Calvinist movement humbled Charles I and eventually forced regime change in Scotland and England during the British Civil Wars (1639-1660), albeit that was far from the original Covenanters’ goal. Adamson was one of several supporters of the National Covenant of Scotland who were either Freemasons or suspected of being so. Another was John Stewart, Earl of Traquair, whose adversaries ‘said he had the Masone word among the nobilitie’. [16] The insinuation is clearly that other members of the Covenanter leadership were suspected of being Masons. In reference to this Allan Macinnes has pointedly observed that there was no actual proof that Masons headed the Covenanting regime:

There is no hint among contemporary participants in the disaffected cause about the currency of shibboleths to control access to the planning caucus or, subsequently, to the fifth Table. [17]

Yet despite such clarity of judgement, allowing for historical figures to be Freemasons while not being diverted into wild speculation as to how this affected their politics, there remains a culture of ‘nod and wink’ that encourages people to see Masonic plots in numerous historical situations. Whatever the implications may be of Traquair being a Mason, Mary’s Chapel Lodge (Edinburgh) included several notable Presbyterian soldiers who fought for the Army of the Covenant. Alexander Strachan, Baronet of Thornton, had served in the Danish-Norwegian army in 1628 as part of the British contingent sent to Christian IV for use in his fight against the Habsburg Empire. [18] Soon after his return to Scotland, Strachan was initiated into Mary’s Chapel (July 1634) along with William Alexander, Viscount Canada. [19] After hostilities broke out between the Scottish Covenanters and Charles I, Strachan resumed military service in the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant. [20] Another Scandinavian veteran, General Sir Alexander Hamilton, was initiated into the same lodge on his return from Swedish service, an occurrence frequently celebrated, though often misrepresented, by conspiracy theorists. The minutes of the lodge record that:

The 20 day off May 1640
The quhilk day, James Hamiltone bing deken off the Craft and
Johne Meyenes warden, and the rest off M’rs off meson off edenbr. conuened,
doeth admit in amoght them the right honerabell Alexander
Hamiltone, generall off the artelerie of thes kindom, to be fellow
and Mr off the forsed Craft and therto wie heaue set to our handes
or markes.
John Mylln A. Hamilton Δ
James Hamilton. [21]

One year later, on 20 May 1641, Hamilton was one of the Freemasons in Newcastle who took part in the induction of Sir Robert Moray, newly returned from France, along with other Scottish officers of the Army of the Covenant. [22] Moray’s initiation record notes that:

At Neucastell the 20 day off May 1641
The qwilk day ane serten nomber off Mester and others being lafule conveined, doeth admit Mr the Right Honerabell Mr Robert
Moray, General quarter Mr to the Armie off Scotlan, and
the same bing aproven be the hell Mester off the Mesone
off the Log off Edenbroth, quherto they heaue set to ther
handes or merkes
Johne Mylln, A. Hamilton,
James Hamilton, R. Moray ☆. [23]

It should be pointed out here that the initiation and service of these two Masons in the Army of the Covenant and later military formations of the 1640s had nothing to do with any Masonic conspiracy. These men had already been contacted by their Scottish-based colleagues and asked to return home to participate in the rebellion while they were in active service overseas. Becoming Freemasons on their return was simply an accolade: indeed in their cases it was recognition of their already elevated status and interests in matters geometrical and esoteric. The ‘secret communication’ and plotting had already take place before they even returned to Scotland, and had not required a Masonic network of any sort to bear fruit.

That does not mean that no evidence exists of the use of Freemasonry as a cover for covert activity. In the second half of the seventeenth century, Scottish Presbyterians — particularly those who still believed in the National Covenant — struggled under the Restoration government of Charles II. Episcopal church government had been reintroduced after 1660, overturning the Presbyterianism favoured by the Covenanters. The new regime vigorously enforced its anti-Calvinist agenda in what culminated with a period called the Killing Times (1679-1685). Scots who resisted the new regime initially met for Presbyterian services in open fields and in services called Conventicles and a handful of participants can be identified as Masons. For example, John Kennedy, 7th Earl of Cassellis, was elected deacon of Kilwinning Lodge in 1672. [24] A Covenanter himself, Cassellis was denounced as a rebel in 1678 for refusing to censure the Conventicles and sent to London to defend himself (though proceedings were eventually halted). [25] This was the same Lodge that elected William Cochrane, Lord Dundonald, and Alexander Montgomerie, 8th Earl of Eglington, as Warden and Deacon in 1678. [26] Lord Dundonald was not only a Privy Councillor, but also a Covenanter sympathiser who worked tirelessly throughout the latter part of his life to find an accommodation between the Scottish Presbyterians and the Stuart regime. [27] Eglington was more of a private man, though he did take part in the military campaigns against Viscount Dundee after the Williamite Revolution in 1689. [28] While these men remained circumspect, others of their Masonic fraternity were more active in the pursuit of their Presbyterianism. Sir Patrick Hume (1641- 1724), 2nd Baronet of Polwarth, was made a Freemason in Mary’s Chapel Lodge in Edinburgh on St John’s Day 1667. [29] He later fled to the Dutch Republic as a refugee in 1683 after being implicated in the Ryehouse Plot. A participant in Argyll’s failed uprising in 1685, Hume returned to Britain with William of Orange in 1688 and took up his duties within the Williamite government of Scotland after 1689. That many among the Edinburgh Freemasons saw themselves connected with the cause of the Covenanters is evidenced by the vote passed in Mary Chapel Lodge on 23 March 1684 which wished to revive the custom of freemen bringing arms to the lodge which had been replaced by a cash donation of £3 10s the year before. They argued that:

And also considering that armes are no less usefull defensively than offensively, and that they have now fortified their house (which was formerly exposed to open hazard) by bestowing a vast and great expense upon stanchelling the windows thereof both high and laigh with great iron barrs, for the preservation of the armes already therein or hereafter to be put therein; and that the samen are hereby secured, and are allenarly keeped and reserved for the defence of the true Protestant Religion, King and Country, and for the defence of the ancient Cittie, and their own privileges therein; and that they will not only use and appropriate these armes for these uses, of the highest importance, bot that they will likewise adventure their lives and fortunes in defence of one and all of them. [30]

Murray-Lyon argued that this, in addition to the earlier initiation of Covenanting officers in the 1640s, was proof positive of the alignment of the Mary’s Chapel Freemasons with the ‘true’ Protestant confession of Presbyterianism. [31] Substance might be given to this by pointing out that in 1687 Mary’s Chapel was offered as a place of worship for Presbyterians, the brethren having even constructed an extra loft in the east gable for the purpose. The alignment between Presbyterianism and Freemasonry appears very convincing, yet the numbers of Freemasons we can actually name who participated in the Presbyterian plotting remains in single figures out of a movement numbering thousands.

That said, there were other Christian denominations apart from Presbyterians suffering persecution in Scotland under the Episcopal government, not least those Quakers who ended up in East and West Jersey in the Americas. Some of these men were also Freemasons and many others were suspected of being so. [32] Nor should we forget that the founding-father of the fraternity of Freemasons in Scotland was the Roman Catholic, William Schaw. Furthermore, the Jacobite movement largely drew its support from the Episcopal population of Scotland — the very people who oppressed these Presbyterian and Quaker Freemasons and are implicated in the Jacobite conspiracies in Northern Europe (including Episcopalian Freemasons). The complexity of the religious issue in Scottish Freemasonry is apparent.

Jacobite Freemasonry and the First Northern Conspiracy

There is no doubt that historians who venture to seek links between Britain, Scandinavia and the Baltic nations in the eighteenth century are drawn to the growing Jacobite presence in each area after the 1715 uprising. Further to the empirical evidence concerning diplomacy there are more uncertain claims and spurious assumptions. These are attached to particular individuals of whom something must be said to show the strength and weaknesses of the conspiratorial argument. Emanuel Swedenborg lived in London between 1704-1713 apparently studying, among other things, the literature of Kabbalism, Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. Swedenborg moved to Paris in 1713 and from there to the Netherlands and Germany the following year. [33] After the accession of George I to the throne of Great Britain in 1714, Swedenborg is said to have ‘secretly joined the Jacobite-Masonic backers of the Stuart Pretender, the Catholic James VIII & III’ and launched a crusade against the House of Hanover thereafter. [34] However, when firm evidence is sought only mundane politicking is found rather than any Masonic plot and, indeed, even evidence of Swedenborg as a Freemason awaits substantiation. Nonetheless, there is proof of a Swedish dimension to Jacobite plotting, albeit the Masonic element in this is thin.

During the Great Northern War between Sweden and her neighbours, George Elector of Hanover gained possession of the former Swedish bishoprics of Bremen and Verden. [35] His Danish allies had earlier seized these locations from Sweden in 1712 during the Swedish king’s stint as a ‘guest’ of the Turks after his catastrophic defeat by the Russians at Poltava. [36] When Karl XII returned to Sweden in 1714 he sought to regain his bishoprics from Hanover (now George I of Great Britain). Jacobite sympathisers approached Karl XII to support James VIII & III (the Chevalier de St-George) against George I, who remained hostile towards Swedish ambitions in northern Germany. [37] Specifically, Count Carl Gyllenborg, the Swedish envoy in London, received an approach from Jacobites broaching the subject of a Swedish-led invasion. Though this was rejected, a Swedish-sponsored invasion of Scotland remained on the Jacobite agenda thereafter, even if it was not seriously a priority of the Stockholm government. In 1715 James VIII’s half-brother, James Fitzjames (Jacobite Duke of Berwick), held negotiations with the Swedish ambassador in Paris, Erik Sparre. [38] He proposed that Hugh Hamilton, a high-ranking Scot in Swedish service, should lead a pro-Jacobite Swedish invasion force against Scotland from Gothenburg, where Hamilton was vice-governor. A French ambassador informed his government that Karl XII liked the plan, and that Hamilton should be sent to Scotland with 4,000 men as soon as possible with as many of them being drawn from the Scottish and English soldiers then in Swedish service as viable. [39] However, any intended follow-up Swedish attack never occurred; Karl XII required all his forces himself, and the Jacobite rising ended before the Swedes could be persuaded to reconsider. Importantly, a Swedish-Jacobite plot had been conceived without the input of any known Freemasons.

The end of the uprising saw a new mass departure of Jacobite exiles toward the continent. The Swedish minister in France agreed to employ some of these men in Sweden at the same rank and station they had enjoyed under James VIII & III in Britain. [40] When a French ship carrying Jacobite officers arrived in Gothenburg in February 1716 an ex-Royal Navy captain, Kenneth Sutherland Lord Duffus, was among them. [41] His arrival in particular greatly annoyed the Hanoverian authorities and they specifically asked that he should not receive employment or shelter in Sweden. [42] Yet Duffus had every right to feel safe in Gothenburg regardless of Hanoverian protests, as he arrived there on the strength of his kin network. He had married, in 1711, the Swedish noblewoman Charlotta Christina Siöblad, daughter of Admiral Erik Siöblad who was the governor of the Gothenburg and Båhus region. Through his father-in-law’s patronage Duffus was able to bring a number of Jacobite gentlemen into Sweden in his retinue. [43] Thus family connections rather than the presence of any Swedish Masonic luminaries are shown to provide the draw to Sweden. Other Jacobites looked for refuge to Russia, where they also employed similar networks, sponsored by the likes of Russian veterans like Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul who had himself fought with the Jacobite army in 1715 but retained many contacts in St Petersburg. [44] The Earl of Mar also wrote to his cousin, Tsar Peter’s physician, Dr Robert Erskine, recommending that ‘if your master thought fit to employ some of them [Jacobites], I am sure he could not be better served’. [45] The tsar responded positively, and while in Holland he recruited many into his service. Among these were the naval officers Thomas Gordon, William Hay, Robert Little and Adam Urquhart. Some of these men were certainly Masons (or later became so), but this fact hardly spurred them to Russia where the fraternity was in its infancy. The arrival of these men did, however, give Jacobitism an important boost in the country even if the existence of a recognisable Masonic community was still some way off.

Thomas Gordon had been forced to resign his commission in the Royal Navy in 1716 for his alleged Jacobite sympathies. [46] Immediately recruited by the Russians as a captain, Gordon was made a rear-admiral in the Russian navy only two years later. [47] His position gave the Jacobites a senior military contact, as it was Russian naval power that proved so devastating against the Swedish coast during this period. [48] Now divided by new-found loyalty to their respective host countries, Thomas Gordon in Russia and Lord Duffus in Sweden (and their respective families) remained friends and provided a likely line of communication between the two northern powers during the negotiations of 1716-1719. [49] A potential problem (or perhaps a covert asset) for the new Jacobite refugees in Russia was the fact that a countrymen of theirs, George Mackenzie, served as resident British Ambassador in Russia between 1713-1717. [50] Sometimes identified as a covert Jacobite, Mackenzie was certainly in communication with the Jacobite faction in Russia and definitely gave indications of his personal knowledge of Masonic codes and implicated Scots and Russians as members of the fraternity. [51] While serving as the official Hanoverian resident in Russia, he is known to have maintained his direct communication with fellow Scots, including Jacobites, of whom some were known Masons. Furthermore, if we accept his Masonic credentials, Mackenzie was certainly not the only Hanoverian Freemason in Russia; the Provincial Grand Master of Russia and Germany in 1731 (or 1738) was one Captain John Philips who acted under a warrant from the Grand Lodge of England, though the location and membership of his lodge is still uncertain. [52]

With the opening up of opportunities for military and naval advancement for the exiles in both Sweden and Russia, the Jacobites saw an advantage in ending the hostilities between the two northern powers and their various allies, albeit their allies often sought to use Jacobite support as a threat against the Hanoverians. [53] In 1716 the Jacobites bemoaned the Swedish king’s commitment of so many men to the defence of Wismar which one Jacobite declared ‘is not of the tenth part, nor, may I say the thousandth part of the importance of Stonehaven’. [54] That about sums up the Jacobites’ delusion of their own self-importance: Sweden was under huge pressure from a vast coalition comprising Russia, Prussia, Denmark-Norway and, after 1717, Great Britain, but the Jacobites felt that Karl XII should concentrate on the restoration of the Stuarts rather than those more pressing concerns for Sweden. Nonetheless they sought to resolve the crisis to their advantage by acting as mediators in the negotiations to end the Swedish-Russian war. Mar wrote to Thomas Gordon in 1716 expressing the hope that since the Jacobites, Sweden and Russia all had the same enemy in George I, it would be unfortunate if they could not compromise and join in alliance against him. [55] At that moment, the tsar was so frustrated with the Hanoverians that Jacobite agents reported ‘that he could never be reconciled to King George [and] that he mortally hates him’. [56] Of course the tsar denied this to George I himself and diplomatically wrote to him directly refuting the presence of Jacobite influences at his Court, particularly that of Dr Erskine. This was a position he emphatically continued to maintain despite its obvious inaccuracy. [57]

A Jacobite emissary arrived in Sweden in 1716 to broach this subject of a possible round-table discussion between all parties, and was advised to get in touch with Hugh Hamilton and to complete his mission only if Hamilton supported it. [58] Reports filtered back to Britain that Karl XII was contemplating ‘pouring a body of forces into Scotland or the north of England from Gothenburg’ in order to draw George I’s army away from the Baltic. [59] With the air thick with rumour, negotiators were actually selected to consider the Jacobite proposal. Field-Marshal James Daniel Bruce received an appointment as one of the Russian plenipotentiaries to the treaty negotiations in Paris. [60] The Swedes sent two ambassadors, Georg Heinrich von Görtz and Carl Gyllenborg, to negotiate, although Gyllenborg was arrested in London while Görtz also found himself detained in Holland at the insistence of the Hanoverian government. [61] Further, the Swedish embassy in London was completely ransacked by British agents. Despite this setback, the Swedes had held some meetings with Mar who thereafter proposed a confederacy between Russia, Sweden, Prussia and the Jacobites. An estimated 10,000 troops were earmarked as the Swedish contribution to an invasion of England backed, if possible, by another 3–4000 under Hamilton, landing in Scotland. The cost to the Jacobites for this was 1 million livres which would be paid back with interest if the invasion did not take place. [62] The Prussians were to attack Hanover to further distract George, which Mar hoped would prove such a decisive action that the regent of France could not fail to join the scheme. [63] Jacobite prospects continued to improve when the tsar arrived in France where Mar had several meetings with his cousin Dr Erskine, now a Russian Councillor of State, who served Stanhope as the interface between the tsar and the Jacobites. [64] The tsar allegedly voiced support for James Stuart, indicating that if the French guaranteed their assistance, Russia would contribute 20,000 troops to a campaign against Rostock which would force King George onto the continent and prevent the Dutch from interfering with any Jacobite action in Britain. [65]

James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde, corresponded with the tsar directly and throughout 1718 rumours spread of final agreement between Sweden and Russia with James Bruce and Andrej Osterman meeting Görtz and Gyllenborg in Åland in May 1718. [66] A new phase in Russo-Jacobite relations was opened when the tsar reputedly proposed a marriage between his daughter, the Grand Duchess Anne, and James Stuart. [67] The Chevalier declared to Ormonde ‘For God’s sake, get me out of this desert and well engaged with the Czar marriage’. [68] Ormonde, however, was not the best man to negotiate with the tsar, as he fell out with the main Jacobite contact, Dr Erskine. Further, the negotiations with Sweden proved difficult, and in March 1718 the tsar withdrew the offer of marriage to his daughter. Ormonde told James that the tsar ‘cannot think anymore of it till he sees what appearances there are like to be of [Jacobite] success of at least the event of the [Swedish] treaty’. [69] The delays in obtaining an agreement between Sweden and Russia seem to have superficially strained Russo-Jacobite relations. One Jacobite wrote from St Petersburg that ‘Dr Erskine has met with so much malice on our account that he declines mentioning our interests at the proper place anymore’. [70] This could equally be indicative of deliberate deception as only weeks later Erskine was being praised by the tsar for his part in the negotiations with Görtz and Gyllenborg. [71]

A successful confederacy was heavily dependent on Swedish support. The Spanish sent their envoy, Peter Lawless, to Karl XII to try to prompt the invasion of Scotland, while another envoy arrived in Sweden from Rome. [72] Throughout 1718 rumours spread of a final agreement between Sweden and Russia, yet Jacobite hopes were premature. [73] Karl XII was killed during his Norwegian campaign and Russia’s new treaty included Prussia but not Sweden. [74] Moreover, the new regime in Sweden was opposed to the Jacobite scheme and withdrew from further negotiations. This blow was exacerbated by the loss of the main Jacobite in the Russian government when Dr Erskine died in December 1718. The Hanoverian-British resident in St Petersburg gave him a respectful and fitting epitaph, noting that the news was broken ‘gently to the Czar, who is greatly distressed thereby. The result of this will be that the doctor’s followers will be placed in great difficulty. They have lost their protector, the Czar an able physician, and our court a dangerous enemy; for that he had sworn to be all his life’. [75] Without an agreement over the Russo-Swedish War, Tsar Peter also declined to support the confederacy and instead vigorously renewed hostilities against Sweden. Despite having only limited Spanish support the Jacobites pressed on with their plans, resulting in the ill-conceived rising of 1719. [76]

But how serious were these plans anyway and what, if anything, was their Masonic dimension? That this was anything other than pragmatic opportunism from all sides side must surely be a more serious possibility than any Masonic plotting. Doubt can also be cast on the sympathies of some of the Scots usually associated with the Jacobite intrigues in Sweden, particularly Hugh Hamilton in Gothenburg. He had been disappointed not to be part of the Swedish auxiliary troops sent by Karl XI to William of Orange for his British and Irish campaigns after 1689. He therefore sought and received leave to privately ‘go abroad and study the art of war’. [77] He took the opportunity to return to Ireland where he joined his cousin Gustavus Hamilton at Enniskillen. [78] It is not unreasonable to assume that a Williamite soldier the like of Hugh Hamilton could go over to the Jacobite cause after the Hanoverian Succession. [79] After all, the 2nd Duke of Ormonde, a leading Williamite, had done just that. However the assumption that Hamilton acted out of Jacobite sympathies does not allow for the fact that he had other concentric loyalties. True, the reason for his appointment as commander of the proposed British invasion was due to his ‘Scottish background’ (and Irish birth). [80] However, Hamilton had family in Ireland who had no wish to see a Jacobite restoration, so why would he support one? The answer as to whether he entertained any negotiations at all possibly lies elsewhere. Yes, he was of ‘Scottish background’ and Irish birth, but he was also a Swedish nobleman in his own right. Perhaps he was selected as the contact point for the Jacobites not because he had Jacobite sympathies, but because he was the best equipped Swedish subject, in terms of language and knowledge of the geography of the British Isles, to lead an invasion force simply as a loyal soldier of Karl XII. That does not necessarily exclude him from the Swedish-Jacobite network, it simply gives us another lens through which we can view his participation in the negotiations.

The Northern War between Sweden and Russia finally ended with the Peace of Nystad in 1721. [81] The Russians evacuated Finland in return for Swedish recognition of their other conquests in the Baltic. Ever sanguine, Jacobite negotiators now hoped to use part of Tsar Peter’s redundant army against George I. [82] The tsar understood the basic Jacobite argument very well: that by being favourable to any restored Jacobite monarchy he would gain the friendship of both (Stuart) Britain and France simultaneously. This would remove the pressure of a frequently hostile Royal Navy from the Baltic and gain him France’s support for his designs on Poland, Germany and Turkey. [83] By not overtly supporting the Jacobites, however, he could avoid conflict with Britain and particularly the Royal Navy and that was the path he chose. Thereafter Jacobite intrigues in Europe lost pace, and even in Scotland they were said to have ‘lain dormant’. [84] Rather than orchestrate any concerted endeavours, individual Jacobites moved across Europe finding careers for themselves in various armies and strengthening their personal and political network as they could.

Marsha Schuchard insists that “[The Earl of] Mar made use of the Masonic networks which existed between his Jacobite colleagues in Scotland, Russia and Sweden”. [85] This can be seen as a very particular reading of his correspondence. For sure, in each location Mar knew and wrote to Masons. In each location he also wrote to more people who were not in the fraternity. These other letters contain as much plotting for a Jacobite restoration as those to correspondents who were Masons. The important point to note in this phase of Russian-Swedish-Jacobite plotting is that it had precious little to do with Freemasonry. No matter how many times scholars reiterate that Görtz is assumed ‘to have used the order for his political purposes’ or hints are dropped suggesting that some of these men used Masonic networks, there is simply no proof beyond innuendo. [86] Further, it is too often assumed that there must be an association between Scottish or Irish families abroad and the Jacobite cause, particularly in that sort of literature imbued with a romantic notion of Scottish history that does not allow for many Scots’ acquiescence to the Hanoverian government, or indeed the genuine loyalty felt by still more towards it. [87] The issue is further clouded by historians who erroneously call George I the ‘king of England’ rather than the king of Great Britain and Ireland as this facilitates an overly simplified association between Scotland and the Jacobites. [88] In Sweden and Russia there is no doubt that Scottish Jacobites had done well to establish themselves in close proximity to the governments of their host country. Yet what of those who were a-political, who were more interested in preventing a disruption to their trade, or those actively employed by the British government as their representatives? [89] Among the Irish in Sweden we find few conspirators but rather entrepreneurs such as Denis O’ Brien who simply sought privileges from the Swedes to open a salt processing plant, while his Catholic countryman (and former Hanoverian officer), John O’Kelly, wished to move to Sweden to build a Newcomen steam engine — hardly the stuff of intrigues. [90]

George Mackenzie was replaced as Hanoverian representative in Russia by James Bavington Jeffereys, the Swedish-born son of a Scottish ‘Williamite’ officer of the same name. [91] Jeffereys served as a volunteer in the army of Karl XII in Russia between 1707-1709 placing him in the same orbit as Hugh Hamilton. [92] However, while in Swedish service, Jeffereys also served as a British agent reporting back to Dr John Robinson (1650-1723), the long-term British resident in Stockholm. [93] After capture by the Russians at Poltava in 1709 he travelled to Britain to await further instructions. [94] Jeffereys then returned to the court of Karl XII where he remained between 1711 and 1716. [95] He thereafter moved from his Swedish base to serve as British Minister in St. Petersburg. Both these Scots were thus acting in direct opposition to the aforementioned Jacobites at the Russian Court such as Admiral Thomas Gordon, Dr Robert Erskine and Sir Henry Stirling, albeit the jury is still out on Mackenzie’s true allegiance. [96]

The Second Swedish Jacobite-Masonic Conspiracy

There was certainly an upsurge in Masonic activity in Jacobite circles in the north in the 1730s, due in no small part to the continued presence of Scottish Jacobites. General James Keith apparently acted as master of a Freemasons’ lodge in St Petersburg from 1732-34. [97] While recuperating from an injury in London in 1740 he was appointed Provincial Grand Master of Russia (replacing John Philips) by the Grand Master of England who was his cousin, John Keith Earl of Kintore. [98] Kintore, a Hanoverian, was ex-Grand Master of Scotland only by a matter of months when he became Grand Master of England. This is a crucial point in the Jacobite and Hanoverian Masonic debate. Keith’s authority to open a Russian Provincial Grand Lodge was authorised by the (Hanoverian) Grand Lodge of England. That did not mean Keith was not a Jacobite — although Anthony Cross insists he swore allegiance to the Hanoverians in 1740 — but it does a lot to damage the Jacobite-Masonic conspiracy theory. [99] It also affects potential plots in Sweden because another Hanoverian Scot, James Douglas, Earl of Morton, took over as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England from Kintore, and was seconded by yet another Scot, William Graeme. Under Morton’s tenure the Swedish Ambassador to Great Britain, Carl Magnus Wassenberg, was initiated into Hanoverian Masonry in London (c.1741), putting this Swede in the same Hanoverian-Masonic orbit as the Scottish Masons Morton and Kintore in London and James Keith in Russia (and later Sweden). [100] So the automatic assumptions made about Scottish, Swedish and Russian Masonry in the context of Jacobite plotting suddenly looks increasingly fragile. In fact, the possibility of a Hanoverian network in the same area becomes equally plausible.

When James Keith led a Russian force into Sweden in 1743 in support of the newly elected Swedish king, Adolphus Frederick (Duke of Holstein), this is said to have heralded a new round of intriguing in support of the Jacobites between the two northern powers. [101] The main vehicle cited is usually the Masonic connection between James Keith and the leaders of the ‘Hat Party’ then in power in Sweden. At least six of the party (four of them actually in the government) were Freemasons. [102] There is no doubt about this or that the first recorded Masonic lodge in Sweden was founded by Count Axel Wrede Sparre in 1735. Another Swede, Carl Frederik Scheffer, lived in France in the 1730s and became an initiate into Freemasonry in 1737 in Paris. That year the English Jacobite Charles Radcliffe, 5th Earl of Derwentwater (1693-1746) authorised Scheffer to establish lodges in Sweden. [103] From 1743 he also served as a Swedish minister. The deputy chancellor, Carl Gustav Tessin, had become a member of a Masonic lodge in 1735. Furthermore, the year after his arrival in Stockholm in 1743, James Keith founded a new Masonic lodge which the chancellor (and one time Jacobite plotter), Count Carl Gyllenborg, is said to have attended in some capacity — perhaps simply a curious visitor — albeit there is no trace of him as a member of any Swedish lodge. [104] However, as Keith operated under a warrant from the Hanoverian Grand Lodge of England, and that at least one Swedish government representative was a member of the same Hanoverian system, the previous assumptions attributing Keith’s presence to a Jacobite-Masonic conspiracy should be reconsidered. After all, if he was hewn from the same rough stone as the supposed Jacobite Masons in Sweden, why did he have to establish a new lodge rather than simply join theirs? It can be established that Keith and several Swedish government officials can be seen to have shared something in common in their membership of the wider Masonic fraternity, albeit variously of English Hanoverian, French and Swedish derivation. But they were also all motivated by other concentric loyalties: they all went to Christian church, for instance, and they were all working to a political brief for the monarchs who employed them. Yet it is their known association with Freemasonry which continues to excite and fascinate despite the contesting branches to which they belonged. In fact that there is little evidence to show that most of the 13 known Swedish Freemasons initiated between 1735 and 1746 had any communication or interest at all in Jacobite plots anyway. [105]

Conspiracy theorists continue to try to find Masonic links where there are none. For example, in 1740, the Swedish East India Company (SOIC) was reported to be dismissing Scots from service because of George II’s fears that Jacobite sympathies were being fomented within Sweden. [106] This company is said to have had a large membership of Freemasons among its ships captains and shipbrokers; although this is true, crucially it was not so in the Jacobite period when no known Masons can be found in the SOIC reminding us of the importance of being rigorous in asserting the chronology of events. [107] What we do know is that between 1741 and 1743 (when Keith arrived in Stockholm) there were schemes in place to support the Jacobites orchestrated from France. [108] By October 1745, three months into the Jacobite uprising in Scotland, plans for Swedish support were being mooted, and the dispatch of some 1000 officers and men was organised under the deceptive title of le Royal Suedois and raised as if going into French service. [109] William Stuart, Lord Blantyre (aka Leslie) was in command, though tensions within the Swedish government led to the name of the force being changed to ‘The French Corps’. Göran Behre has argued that this force was raised with help from Scots expatriates such as Colin Campbell, who provided one of his SOIC ships for transportation. In the end the plan fell through as foul weather left the transport ships ice-bound. [110] Sufficient proof that this was a Masonic plan still awaits publication, though several historians insist on this link despite the previous observation that no SOIC member can be shown to have been a Mason until long after the uprising was over. [111] Keith certainly corresponded with counts Gyllenborg, Tessin and Scheffer concerning political affairs, but he had left Sweden in 1744. [112] Whether Freemasonry played any part in motivating the correspondents to write to each other in October 1745, or lay behind plans for the French Corps, remains unproven. After all, given Keith’s status within the Russian military and diplomatic corps, who else was he supposed to correspond with in Sweden if not the ruling cabal? Indeed the only firm evidence we have in a Russian-Swedish-Jacobite-Masonic context comes through the actions of Thomas Plomgren, the ‘trade-mayor’ (Handels Borgmästare) of Stockholm. He provided ships for escaping Jacobites and some of these refugees were escorted to Paris by Swedish officers. One of these, J. W. Sprengtporten, recorded in his diary that he was made a Freemason en route, initiated into what looks to be the Kilwinning Lodge (or a breakaway group from it) as the Swedes and their Jacobite guests moved south from Sweden to France. [113] But it was not until 1753 that Plomgren himself joined the Brotherhood, long after Jacobitism had ceased to be a threat to the Hanoverian-British regime.


It might be possible to find the smoking gun that would establish once and for all if there ever was a Masonic-Jacobite conspiracy, particularly among the exiles in Northern Europe and the Freemasons among their hosts. Perhaps such a document is (or several are) in existence somewhere, but there are features of Freemasonry that are simply left out of the equation when dealing with this subject. Too often the ‘Jacobite Conspiracy’ detracts from that other aspect of Freemasonry as it existed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the attraction to ‘speculative Masonry’ of many with an interest in mathematics, physics and engineering rather than those with political motivation. There are also other problems, not least the absence of discussion of those numerous Freemasons who were not Jacobites, including Swedes like Wassenberg and apparently defectors from ‘active’ Jacobitism like Keith. [114] The fraternity was a fractured organisation indeed. Throughout the eighteenth century there were new degrees being added and rejected in Freemasonry by many who viewed the existing two and three degree structures (lodge dependent) as already complete and not in need of innovation. Freemasonry, as Schuchard put it, ‘polarized into mystical illuminisme and rationalist Aufklärung, the divisions between Leibnizians and Newtonians endured throughout the eighteenth century’. [115] The more common definition of the split in British terms is into Whig and Jacobite Masonry occasioned by the fact that senior Hanoverians and Stuart supporters were Freemasons, including some of the princes. Frederick Lewis, ‘Prince Royal of Great Britain, Prince and Stewart of Scotland and Prince of Wales’ was initiated into the (Hanoverian) fraternity in London in 1737. He had the Masonic New Book of Constitutions dedicated to him the following year by the Aberdonian, Rev Dr James Anderson, minister of the Scottish Presbyterian church in Swallow Street, London. Anderson acknowledged the Prince of Wales as ‘patron’ of the fraternity which included members like Wassenberg, Keith, Kintore and Morton. But more importantly, by writing his Constitutions Anderson reminds us of the association of Freemasonry with the sort of Protestantism favoured in Scotland (Presbyterianism) rather than that favoured by the Jacobites (Episcopalianism). [116] That said he was able to dedicate his work to an Anglican prince reminding us that Freemasons could and did rise above religious, and even political division. The same year that the Constitutions were published, 1738, a French observer noted the ambiguity of Masonic ceremony and gestures that allowed for both Hanoverians and Jacobites to participate as members of the society:

When it is affirmed that there is nothing in it [Freemasonry] against the King, the Jacobites meaning the Chevalier St. George of the Stuart Family, living in Rome, while those of the opposing party only mean the King of the Electoral House of Hanover, so both factions should be happy... [117]

Anderson made clear in his Constitutions that ‘we meddle not with Affairs of State’. [118] Murray-Lyon concurs and concluded of the Jacobite conspiracy theory that ‘the fact that their membership embraced zealous partisans on both sides, would prevent lodges being made the arena of plotting and intrigue’. [119] Even one apparent deserter from Masonry in 1751 observed that:

Some persons have conjectured that Masonry was established for the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon, or for restoring the House of Stuart on the Throne of England; vain conjecture, & one that has no reasonable foundation. The Masons do not concern themselves either with Religion, or with Politics. [120]

Facing Prince Charles Edward Stuart’s army on Drumossie Moor (Culloden) on 16 April 1746 were an unidentified number of Freemasons, including William Duke of Cumberland, initiated in Flanders in 1743. [121] The duke was admitted to the freedom of all of Aberdeen’s corporations on 25 March 1746, though no ‘essay’ (aka apprentice piece) that all freemen were expected to produce to enter a corporation survives that can be attributed to him. One historian has therefore stated that his ‘victory at Culloden must be considered his essay’! [122] Many Jacobites were Freemasons, but most Freemasons were probably not Jacobites. While Freemasonry can be shown to have been an association in which many Jacobites had an interest, Cumberland’s ‘essay’ and the strong Hanoverian membership of the fraternity rules it out as a definitively or exclusively Jacobite network.

This paper has shown, beyond contention, that Scottish Freemasons can be proven to have been members of seditious, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movements both before and during the Jacobite period. However it has also demonstrated that participation in those movements did not arise because of their membership of Masonic lodges, but rather through their adherence to their particular political beliefs. Initiation into the fraternity can actually be shown to have been a consequence of participation in political intrigue rather than the inspiration for it, particularly for those who found themselves in exile. Furthermore, given the presence of Masons on both sides of the Hanoverian-Jacobite divide in Britain, those looking to support fantastical ideas of a general Masonic conspiracy will have to be careful to demonstrate rather than insinuate where Freemasonry proved the premier networking agency. Establishing that two, or even several, individuals were in geographic proximity or involved in a correspondence network is simply not good enough, particularly when they belonged to lodges of contesting heritage. And since that is the case in general, proving any Jacobite-Masonic conspiracy in Scandinavia and Northern Europe through empirical endeavour remains unlikely and therefore belongs for the time-being in the realm of speculation rather than historical study.


  1. For more on the origin myths see D. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1873), 1-5, 96; A.J. Haddow, ‘Sir Robert Moray’s Mark’ in Grand Lodge of Scotland Year Book (Edinburgh, 1970), 76-80; A.C.F. Jackson, ‘Rosecrucianism and its effect on Craft Masonry’ in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. 97 (1984), 124; D. Stevenson, ‘Masonry, symbolism and ethics in the life of Sir Robert Moray, FRS’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, no.114 (1984), 405-431; R.F. Gould, History of Freemasonry (5 vols., London, 1931 edition), III, 157. For a modern academic survey see D. Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century, 1590-1710 (Cambridge, 1988), 1-12; D. Stevenson, The First Freemasons; Scotland’s Early Lodges and their Members (Aberdeen, 1988), 28.
  2. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry, 54-59 and passim.
  3. M.K. Schuchard, ‘Leibniz, Benzelius and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism’ in A.P. Coudert, R.H. Popkin and G.M. Weiner, eds., Leibniz, Mysticism and Religion (Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1998), 99.
  4. J. Hamill, ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’ in Ars Quartuor Coronatorum: Transactions of the Quartuor Lodge No. 2076, vol. 113 (2000), 97.
  5. A.L.K. Nihtinen, ‘Field-Marshal James Keith: Governor of the Ukraine and Finland, 1740-1743’ in A. Mackillop and S. Murdoch, eds., Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers c.1600-1800: A Study of Scotland and Empires (Leiden, 2003), 111. Nihtinen is quoting Hamill, ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’, 103.
  6. Many of the Irish exiles entered French service, others became merchants, while John O’Byrne became proprietor of numerous Bordeaux vineyards. A. Bernheim, ‘Notes on Early Freemasonry in Bordeaux (1732-1769)’ in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. 101 (1989), 42-54. This lodge was eventually recognised by the Grand Lodge of England under the authority of Lord Blayney, Baron Blayney of Monaghan in a warrant dated 8 March 1766. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 87-88.
  7. G. Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy 1649-1760’ in G.G. Simpson, ed., Scotland and Scandinavia 800-1800 (Edinburgh, 1990).113.
  8. Hamill, ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’, 99.
  9. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 2-19; P.F. Anson, Underground Catholicism in Scotland, 1622-1878 (Montrose, 1970), 143-144; M. Baigent, ‘The painting of the “Judgement of Solomon” at Culross “Palace”, Fife’, in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum: Transactions of the Quatuor Lodge No. 2076, vol. 106 (1994), 160-161; Hamill, ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’, 99-100. Hamill disputes that Ramsay remained a Mason after the Papal Bull of 1738.
  10. Jérome Rousse-Lacordaire, ‘Maçons Hanovriens, Maçons Jacobites et condamnations Romaines’ in La Règle d’Abraham, no.18 (Dec. 2004), 3-8. See in the same volume, Edward Corp, La Franc- Maçonnerie Jacobite et la Bulle Papale in Eminenti d’avril, 1738, 13.
  11. J. Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions of the Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons (London, 1738), 194-195, ‘Deputations sent beyond Sea’; Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 90 and V, 261.
  12. Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions, 194; Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 90 and V, 261. 3
  13. This and numerous other similar statements are recorded in Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 3 and V, 259-267.
  14. Murray-Lyon, History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 292-296; Gould, History of Freemasonry, V, 240-251.
  15. Henry Adamson, The Muses Threnodie (Edinburgh, 1638) reproduced in D. Knoop, G. P. Jones and D. Hamer, eds., Early Masonic Pamphlets (London, 1978), 30.
  16. John Leslie, Earl of Rothes, A Relation of Proceedings Concerning the Affairs of the Kirk of Scotland, from August 1637 to July 1638, ed., J. Nairne (Edinburgh, 1830), 168. It has even been said that the sentence quoted became a common saying rendered as ‘he had the mason’s word among the Presbyterians’, although this is probably an example of historical ‘Chinese whispers’. See Gould, History of Freemasonry, III, 220; David Stevenson believes that being said to have the Word also carried a ‘sinister’ connotation, although that is speculative. Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry, 126-127.
  17. A. Macinnes, Charles 1 and the making of the Covenanting movement 1625-1641, (Edinburgh, 1991), 168.
  18. This military support is described in detail in S. Murdoch, Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart: A Diplomatic and Political Analysis (East Linton, 2000), 65-72, 202-225. For Strachan’s service see T. Riis, Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot (2 vols., Odense, 1988), II, 133.
  19. The fact that he was admitted with this man and his brother Sir Anthony Alexander is interesting given the fact that they were all baronets of Nova Scotia first, titles issued under the guidance of Viscount Canada’s father, Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, the proprietor of the Nova Scotia plantation. See Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 86-87; D. Laing, ed., The Letters, Charters and Tracts Relating to the Colonisation of New Scotland, 1621-1638 (Edinburgh, 1867); C. Rogers, ed., The Earl of Stirling’s Register of Royal Letters relative to the affairs of Scotland and Nova Scotia from 1615-1632 (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1885).
  20. He served as lieutenant-colonel in the Earl of Balcarres Horse in the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant in 1644-45 and commanded his own troop of horse in the New Model Army in 1647, and back in the Army of the Covenant in 1650. See E. Furgol, A Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies, 1639-1651 (Edinburgh, 1990), 114, 265, 351-352.
  21. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 80, (transcription with facing page facsimile), 89-90.
  22. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland 96; A. J. Haddow, ‘Sir Robert Moray’s Mark’ in Grand Lodge of Scotland Year Book (Edinburgh, 1970), 76-80; A. C .F. Jackson, ‘Rosecrucianism and its effect on Craft Masonry’ in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. 97 (1984), 124; Stevenson, ‘Masonry, symbolism and ethics in the life of Sir Robert Moray, FRS’, 405-431; Stevenson, The First Freemasons; Scotland’s Early Lodges and their Members (Aberdeen, 1988); M. Baigent, ‘Freemasonry, Hermetic Thought and the Royal Society of London’ in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. 109 (1996), 159-160.
  23. Moray’s initiation details are transcribed with facing page facsimile in Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 96. It is often erroneously cited that Hamilton was initiated on the same day as Moray. David Stevenson argues unconvincingly that there was a clerical error resulting in Hamilton’s document being misdated. Pick and Norman Knight naughtily merge the two documents into one single item. However, the transcripts of Hamilton’s and of Moray’s initiations make it clear that there are two separate documents and both throw up questions about the other. For instance, upon being made Masons, both men added their new ‘Mason Mark’ to their signature. Hamilton chose a delta and Moray a pentagram. It is highly improbable that a new member could serve as sponsor to another new member, so Hamilton’s signature on the 1641 document as a witness to the admission of Moray shows he was already a Mason. If he was not, why did none of the other Masons said to be present at the initiations sign the documents instead of Hamilton, a ‘new boy’, witnessing Moray’s initiation? Why too does Hamilton not employ his new ‘mark’ on the Moray document if he had just earned it that day? If a new Mason could serve in such a capacity (which is not likely), why does Moray’s signature not appear on Hamilton’s initiation document? Further, it was clearly important to note on Moray’s document that the event took place at Newcastle. Why therefore was it not equally important to note this fact on Hamilton’s document? The wording of the two documents themselves also cast doubt on an initiation on the same day. The Hamilton document notes that ‘James Hamiltone bing deken off the Craft and Johne Meyenes warden, and the rest off M’rs off meson off edenbr. conuened’, while Moray’s document is explicit that only a certain number of the Edinburgh lodge were present. Finally, coincidence of dates do happen. That two Scottish armies were defeated by Cromwell a year apart on 3 September (1650 and 1651) serves as an adequate example. See Stevenson, ‘Masonry, symbolism and ethics in the life of Sir Robert Moray, FRS’, 407-408; Stevenson, The First Freemasons, 28; F. L. Pick and G. Norman Knight, The Pocket History of Freemasonry (London, 1992 edition), 44.
  24. John Kennedy, 7th Earl of Cassillis is said to have fought on the King’s side at Marston Moor in 1644. However Cassellis was in fact in the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant, commanding a regiment under Sir James Lumsden, and it was not this man, but his father. See Gould, History of Freemasonry, III, 165. P. Young, Marston Moor, 1644: The Campaign and The Battle (Kineton, 1970), 144 & map; E. Furgol, A Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies, 1639-1651 (Edinburgh, 1990), 19-20, 109.
  25. Sir James Balfour Paul and R. Douglas, The Scots Peerage (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1904-1914), II, 483.
  26. Gould, History of Freemasonry, III, 165.
  27. Balfour-Paul, The Scots Peerage, III, 350.
  28. Balfour-Paul, The Scots Peerage, III, 451-452.
  29. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 90-91.
  30. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 48-49.
  31. Murray-Lyon, The History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 49.
  32. These included John Skene, a Freemason and burgess of Aberdeen who moved to West Jersey in 1682 and is often hailed as the first known Freemason in the Americas. Joining him were other Freemasons including Captain John Forbes of Aberdeen and John Cockburn of Melrose. Stevenson, The First Freemasons, 128, 116, 145; Pick and Knight, History of Freemasonry, 279; N. Landsman, ‘The Middle Colonies: New Opportunities for Settlement, 1660-1700’ in N. Canny, ed., The Oxford History of the British Empire, (Oxford, 1998), 351-374.
  33. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 228-229 and V, 286-288; Schuchard, ‘Leibniz, Benzelius and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism’, 84.
  34. Schuchard, ‘Leibniz, Benzelius and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism’, 98-100.
  35. Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy, 1649-1760’, 111; D. Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’ in T.C. Smout, ed., Scotland and the Sea (Edinburgh, 1992), 86; R. Frost, The Northern Wars,1558-1721 (Harlow, 2000), 295.
  36. P. Englund, The Battle of Poltava: The Birth of the Russian Empire (London, 1992); Frost, The Northern Wars, 290-294; Andreas Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support to a part of the State Apparatus — Swedish Freemasonry Between Reform and Revolution’ in Limières. Numéro 7: Franc-maçonnerie et politique au siècle des Lumières: Europe-Amériques (Bordeaux, 2006), 205. I thank Dr Önnerfors for sending me copies of his articles and books used in this chapter.
  37. J. Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721 (Stockholm, 1952), 152 and passim; Frost, The Northern Wars, 295; E. Ó Ciardha, Ireland and the Jacobite Cause, 1685-1766: A Fatal Attachment (Dublin, 2002), 136.
  38. B. Lenman, The Jacobite Cause (Edinburgh, 1986), 62-63; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 110; Ó Ciardha, Ireland and the Jacobite Cause, 136.
  39. J.F. Chance, ed., British Diplomatic Instructions 1689-1789, vol I, Sweden, 1689-1727 (London, 1922), xxiv-xxv; Svenska Män och Kvinnor, vol. III (Stockholm, 1946), 269; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 109-111; G. Behre, ‘Från Högländerna till Älvdalen: Göteborg och Skottland 1621-1814’, in Personhistorisk tidskrift (1993), 1718-19; Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 86.
  40. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 86-87. Townsend to Sir John Norris, 3 July 1716.
  41. Gothenburg Landsarkiv, Förteckning över landshövdingens i Göteborg och Bohus län skrivelser till Kungl. Maj;t, 1657-1840. Letter to Karl XII, 28 February 1716.
  42. The National Archives of Sweden [hereafter SRA], Kanslikollegiets skrivelser till Kungl. Maj:t 1656-1718. Robert Jackson’s memorials on Scottish Jacobite refugees in Gothenburg, 10 March 1716 and 21 March 1716. Kanslikollegiets notes on Jackson’s memorial, 11 April 1716; Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 83. Instructions to Sir John Norris, 10 May 1716; Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 86. Before her death, Queen Anne had specifically asked Karl XII not to allow Jacobites, especially the ‘Pretender’, shelter in Swedish dominions. See SRA, Anglica, 523. Didymotica (via James Jeffereys), 2 January 1713/14.
  43. G. Elgenstierna, Den Introducerade Svenska Adelns Ättartavlor, med tillägg och rättelser (9 vols., Stockholm, 1925-36), VII, 284.
  44. A. and H. Tayler, Jacobites of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire in the Rising of 1715 (London, 1936); Lenman and Gibson, The Jacobite Threat, 125. Patrick Gordon (the grandson of the famous general) was certainly ‘out’ in the 1715 uprising and mention is made of him on the continent as a refugee after the Rising. It is likely that the thought of following in his grandfather’s footsteps in Russia crossed his mind at some point.
  45. HMC, Calendar of the Stuart Papers belonging to His majesty the King, preserved at Windsor Castle (7 vols., London, 1902-1923), II, 323. Earl of Mar to Robert Erskine, 3 August 1716. Dr Erskine had been in Russian service since 1704. He used his influence to sponsor the arrival of other Scottish doctors, notably Thomas Garvine and John Bell. Both served Russia on embassies to China. See J.H. Appleby, ‘Through the Looking Glass, Scottish Doctors in Russia (1704-1854)’, in National Library of Scotland Publications, The Caledonian Phalanx (Edinburgh, 1987).
  46. HMC, Reports on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Eglington, Appendix, 159. Letter dated 1716. These were apparently confirmed when, on hearing that Gordon’s position had been compromised, James VIII wrote ‘I can say with great truth, that your misfortunes weigh more upon me than my own’.
  47. J. Deane, The History of the Russian Fleet during the reign of Peter the Great by a Contemporary Englishman (1724) edited by Vice Admiral Cyprian A.G. Bridge, Navy Records Society 15 (London, 1899), 85-86.
  48. Frost, The Northern Wars, 320, 317
  49. For their later service in Russia see R.C., Anderson, ‘British and American Officers in the Russian Navy’ in Mariners Mirror, no.33 (1947), 21-22. An examination of the Duffus Papers in SRA could perhaps yield further information. However, they were removed from their box in December 1981 for restoration, and have not been seen since. Some papers belonging to their son, Eric Duffus, are still there. See SRA, Ericsbergsarkivet, autografsamlingen, Storbritannien; Duffus-Murray, vol. 269.
  50. S. Dixon, et al., eds., Britain and Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (London, 1998), nos. 142, 147, 149-150, 153 and 165; Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 66.
  51. Tsar Peter is reputed to have acquired an interest in Freemasonry during his visit to England in 1698 and to have founded a lodge in Russia in which he was the Junior Warden whilst Patrick Gordon was Senior Warden. See R. Paul, ed., Letters and Documents relating to Robert Erskine, Physician to Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, 1677-1720 (Edinburgh, 1904), 408; A.G. Cross, ‘British Freemasons in Russia during the Reign of Catherine the Great’, in Oxford Slavonic Papers (1971), 43; Robert Collis, ‘Hewing the Rough Stone: Masonic Influence in Peter the Great’s Russia, 1689-1725’ in Andreas Önnerfors and Robert Collis, eds., Freemasonry and Fraternalism in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Sheffield, 2009), 53-58.
  52. Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions, 194; A.G. Cross, ‘Anglo-Russian Masonic Contacts in the Reign of Catherine the Great’ in Önnerfors and Collis, Freemasonry and Fraternalism, 88.
  53. HMC, Reports on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Eglington, 169. Letter dated 13 November 1716; Paul, Letters and Documents relating to Robert Erskine, 420. Contained in a letter from Mr Gustavus Gyllenborg to Count Carl Gyllenborg based on information received from the Earl of Mar via Dr Erskine, 17 November 1716; A.I. Macinnes, ‘Jacobitism’ in J. Wormald, ed., Scotland Revisited (London, 1991), 129.
  54. Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 86. Stonehaven is a small town in the Mearns, the region to the south of Aberdeen.
  55. HMC, Reports on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Eglington, 169. Earl of Mar to Thomas Gordon, 13 November 1716.
  56. Paul, Letters and Documents relating to Robert Erskine, 420. Contained in a letter from Mr Gustavus Gyllenberg to Count Gyllenborg based on information received from the Earl of Mar via Dr Erskine, 17 November 1716.
  57. Paul, Letters and Documents relating to Robert Erskine, 422-423; HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of the Right Honourable Lord Polwarth, (5. vols., London, 1911-1961), I, 642. Letter from Tsar Peter to the British Court dated September 1718 and delivered by M. De Vezeloffsky to Secretary of State Stanhope.
  58. P. Sörensson, Generalfälttygmästaren Hugo Hamilton en karolinsk krigare och landshöfding (Stockholm, 1915), 54; Svenska Män och Kvinnor, III, 269.
  59. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 92-93. Extract of a letter from the Secretary of State in England, 15 September 1716.
  60. D. Fedosov, ‘The First Russian Bruces’ in G.G. Simpson, ed., The Scottish Soldier Abroad (Edinburgh, 1992), 63.
  61. Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 147-151; J. Berg and B. Lagercrantz, Scots in Sweden (Stockholm, 1962), 57; Lenman, The Jacobite Cause, 63; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 111; Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 206.
  62. HMC, Stuart Papers, III, 115-117. Earl of Mar to Sir Harry Sterling, 21 October 1716; Ibid, 132-133, Charles Erskine to Earl of Mar, 24 October 1716; Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, xxiv-xxv; HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 560-2. Earl of Mar to Baron Sparre 25 July 1717; Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 148; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 111.
  63. HMC, Stuart Papers, III, 115-117. Earl of Mar to Sir Harry Sterling, 21 October 1716; Ibid, 132- 133, Charles Erskine to Earl of Mar, 24 October 1716; Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, xxiv- xxv; HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 560-2. Earl of Mar to Baron Sparre, 25 July 1717.
  64. HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 550. Mr Weddle to Sir R. Everard, 8 August 1717; Paul, Letters and Documents relating to Robert Erskine, 413.
  65. HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 154. Enclosure copy of Dr Erskine to Duke of Ormonde, contained in a letter from Ormonde to Lt.-General Dillon, 25 October 1717; Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 87.
  66. HMC, Stuart Papers, VI, 183. Duke of Ormonde to James VIII, 24 March 1718; HMC, Stuart Papers, VII, 81. F. Panton to Earl of Mar, 23 July 1718; Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 150; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 112.
  67. HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 560-562. Earl of Mar to Baron Sparre, 25 July 1717.
  68. HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 432. Enclosure of James Stuart to Duke of Ormonde, contained in Earl of Mar to Duke of Ormonde, 3 February 1718.
  69. HMC, Stuart Papers, VI, 183. Duke of Ormonde to James Stuart, 24 March 1718.
  70. HMC, Stuart Papers, VI, 523. George Jerningham to Daniel O’Brien, 24 March 1718.
  71. HMC, Stuart Papers, VII, 109-110. from Sir Harry Stirling to Sir Hugh Paterson, 23 July 1718.
  72. Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 156-157; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 112; Ó Ciardha, Ireland and the Jacobite cause, 182.
  73. HMC, Stuart Papers, VII, 81. F. Panton to Earl of Mar, 23 July 1718.
  74. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, xxii and xxv; Berg and Lagercrantz, Scots in Sweden, 58; Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 79; Lenman, The Jacobite Cause, 63; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 112; Frost, The Northern Wars, 295-296.
  75. HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of the Right Honourable Lord Polwarth, I, 657. Mr Webber to Lord Polwarth, 11 December 1718
  76. Interesting documentation on this attempt has been collected and published in Lenman and Gibson, The Jacobite Threat, 155-168; Aldridge, ‘Jacobitism and Scottish Seas’, 88-90; A.I. Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (Edinburgh, 1996), 163; Lenman, The Jacobite Cause, 63-72; 183-193.
  77. SRA, Reduktionskommission till Kung. Maj., vol. 14, 27 April 1689; Sörensson, Hugo Hamilton, 4; Svenska Män och Kvinnor, III, 269; S. Murdoch, ’The Scots and Ulster in the seventeenth century: A Scandinavian perspective’ in W. Kelly and J.R. Young, eds., Ulster and Scotland, 1600-2000: History, Language and Identity (Dublin, 2004), 95-103.
  78. Hugo Hamilton also used the 1690 visit to Ireland to try to settle some family business regarding his uncle, Lord Glenawley’s estate. See SRA, Biographica 5, E01463, 5/8. Hugh Hamilton’s relation of Lord Glenawley’s Estate, Dublin, 3 November 1690.
  79. Hamilton was certainly in Ireland in November 1690 see SRA, Biographica 5, E01463 5/8 — Hugo Hamilton's Relation of Lord Glenawly's Estate in Ireland, Dublin, 3 November 1690.
  80. Sörensson, Hugo Hamilton, 54; Svenska Män och Kvinnor, III, 269.
  81. Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 161-186; Frost, The Northern Wars, 294-296.
  82. F. Dashwood, ‘Sir Francis Dashwood’s Diary of his visit to St Petersburg in 1733’ introduction and notes by B. Kemp, Slavonic and East European Review, no. 38 (1959-1960), 200.
  83. Bruce, ‘Jacobite relations with Peter the Great’, 352.
  84. Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 161.
  85. M. Schuchard, ‘Les rivalités maçonniques et la Bulle in Eminenti’ in La Règle d’Abraham, No.25 (Juin 2008), PAGE NO REQUIRED and quote in original French from the Schuchard article. I have no access to it here.
  86. Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 205.
  87. For interesting comment of Scottish loyalty to the House of Hanover, see John Scot who warmly acknowledged ’Our Prince of Hanover’ and is indicative of the attitude of many Scottish Presbyterians. See J. Ferguson, ed., Papers Illustrating the History of the Scots Brigade in the service of the United Netherlands, 1572-1782 (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1899-1901), III, 412. Scot is discussed at length in D. Horsbroch, ’Tae see oursels as ithers see us: Scottish Military Identity from the Covenant to Victoria, 1637-1837’ in S. Murdoch and A. Mackillop, eds., Fighting for Identity: Scottish Military Experience c.1550-1900 (Leiden, 2002), 107-116.
  88. For instance Andreas Önnerfors describes George I as king of England in Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 206. Furthermore several scholars have previously made mention of Scottish Jacobites striving to overthrow ‘England-Hanover’ rather than the more correct Britain-Hanover. The implication of such statements is to link all Scotland with Jacobitism. See for example Rosén, Den svenska utrikes politikens historia II:I, 1697-1721, 137, 182; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 112.
  89. For an interesting perspective here see S. Talbott, 'Jacobites, Anti-Jacobites and the Ambivalent: Scottish Identities in France, 1680-1720' in B. Sellin, A. Thiec and P. Carboni (eds.), Écosse: i’identité nationale en question (Nantes, 2009), 73-88.
  90. Steve Murdoch, ‘Irish Entrepreneurs and Sweden in the first half of the eighteenth century’ in T. O’Connor and M.A. Lyons (eds.), Irish Communities in Early-Modern Europe (Dublin, 2006), 348- 366; Alexia Grosjean and S. Murdoch, ‘Royal Supplications to the Swedish Boards of Trades and Mines on behalf of Denis O’Brien (1723-16) and John O’Kelly (1725-28)’ in Archivium Hibernicum, LX (2006-2007), 436-459.
  91. Trying to establish his national identity is a complicated business. His name marks out his Scottish ancestry and this has credence added to it by several historians. For example, Björn Helmfrid calls the father Major James Jeffereys, a Scottish gentleman (Skotska herrar), a fact he bases on scrutiny of his correspondence with his countrymen in Norrköping. However, Peter Englund clouds the issue by calling the son, James Bavington Jeffereys, an Englishman and the son of an Irish officer. This is probably because Jefferey’s senior was rewarded by William & Mary with the governorship of Cork thus associating him with Ireland. See B. Helmfrid, Norrköpings Historia, III, tiden 1655-1719 (Stockholm, 1971), 215; P. Englund, The Battle of Poltava: The Birth of the Russian Empire (London, 1992), 82 and 269.
  92. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 39; R. Hatton, ed., ‘Captain James Jeffereys letters to the Secretary of State, Whitehall from the Swedish Army 1707-1709’ in Historiska Handlingar, 35:1 (Stockholm, 1954), 8.
  93. SRA, ‘Svenske Sändebuds till Utländske Hof och Deras Sändebud till Sverige’, unpublished manuscript, 1841, 85; Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, xii-xiv, xvi and 14-38; Dixon, Britain and Russia in the age of Peter the Great, nos. 48 and 75.
  94. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 39.
  95. SRA Anglica, 523. ‘Memorial Jefferyes 1711-1715’; E. Carlsson, ed., ‘Kapten Jefferys bref till Engelska regeringen från Bender och Adrianopel 1711-1714, från Stralsund 1714-15’ in Historiska Handlingar, 16:2 (Stockholm, 1897), 50-101; Hatton, ‘Captain James Jeffereys’, passim.
  96. Chance, British Diplomatic Instructions, I, 40; HMC, Stuart Papers, V, 550. Mr Weddle to Sir R. Everard, 8 August 1717; Hatton, ‘Captain James Jeffereys’, 26-27; Murdoch, ‘Soldiers, Sailors, Jacobite Spy’, 10-12. Like his father before him, Jeffereys’ Swedish service ended with his promotion to the governorship of Cork and adjacent forts in 1719.
  97. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 173; C.N. Batham, ‘Russian Freemasonry 1731-1979’ in The Year Book of the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1985), 73.
  98. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 173; A.G. Cross, ‘British Freemasons in Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great’ in The Year Book of the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1973), 115-116.
  99. Cross, ‘Anglo-Russian Masonic Contacts’, 88.
  100. Andrew Prescott, ‘Relations between the Grand Lodges of England and Sweden during the Long Eighteenth Century’ in Andreas Önnerfors and Henrik Bogdan, eds., Between Mysticism and Power Politics: Swedish Freemasonry and the European Enlightenment (forthcoming, Sheffield, 2010). I thank Dr Prescott for sending me an advance copy of this paper.
  101. Nihtinen, ‘Field-Marshal James Keith’, 110-113.
  102. Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 113-114; Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 208-210.
  103. Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 208.
  104. Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 114; Hamill, ‘The Jacobite Conspiracy’, 101. The lodge is mentioned in Andreas Önnerfors, ed., Mystiskt bröderskap — mäktigt nätverk: Studier i det svenska 1700-talsfrimureriet (Lund, 2006), 33. However, perusal of the appendix listing all known Swedish Freemasons does not list Carl Gyllenborg in any Swedish lodge. See the same volume 161- 285.
  105. Apart from Carl Magnus Wassenburg initiated in London in 1741, the details of the other 12 Swedish Masons can be found in Önnerfors, Mystiskt bröderskap, 161-285. They are Andreas Geddas (1739); Frederik Jacobsen Gyllenborg (1744); Jacob Gyllenborg (1743), Hans Gustaf Gyllengranat (1745); Frederick Horn (1743); Nils Palmstjerna (1735); Knut Carlsson Posse (1746); Carl Frederik Scheffer (1737); Axel Wrede Sparre (1735), J. Wilhelm Sprengtport (1746); Carl Gustav Tessin (1735); Fabian Wrede (1745).
  106. A. Mackillop, More Fruitful than the Soil: Army Empire and the Scottish Highlands, 1715-1815 (East Linton, 2000), 21.
  107. The Masonic component of the company is mentioned in Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 209. Önnerfors gives no reference for his assertion in this article although his tabulations of Freemasons elsewhere reveal that no SOIC members were initiated until the second half of the eighteenth century. See Önnerfors, Mystiskt bröderskap, 161-285.
  108. Macinnes, ‘Jacobitism’, 130.
  109. Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 113-114. Andreas Önnerfors points out the Royal Suedois had an older pedigree than that accredited by Behre, but agrees on a specific recruiting drive of the sort discussed. See Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 207, 209.
  110. Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 199.
  111. For the claimed link see Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 114; Nihtinen, ‘Field-Marshal James Keith’, 112. For the absence of evidence of SOIC initiates see Önnerfors, Mystiskt bröderskap, 161-285.
  112. See HMC, Ninth Report (London, 1883), 226. Letters between James Keith and Count Gyllenborg, Swedish minister, and Memoranda of a Conference between Count Gyllenborg with other Swedish noblemen, and General Keith; Behre, ‘Gothenburg in Stuart War Strategy’, 113-114.
  113. Önnerfors, ‘From Jacobite Support’, 209. Footnote 12 reads “Bliwfwit gjord Franc Macon uti Ystad uti den Kilwinnanaska Logen och dagen efter Compagnon”
  114. I have argued elsewhere that the notion Keith became a Hanoverian is not correct. Rather he became something more akin to a non-practising Jacobite, keen to prevent others from risking their family, friends and estates through backing an exiled Stuart court which had lost popular support in the British Isles. See Steve Murdoch, ‘Tilting at Windmills: The Order del Toboso as a Jacobite Social Network’ in Paul K. Monod, Murray Pittock and Daniel Szechi, eds., Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad (Basingstoke, 2010), 243-264.
  115. Schuchard, ‘Leibniz, Benzelius and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism’, 100.
  116. Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions, iii-vi. The dedication also addresses ‘Your Royal Father, and our Sovereign Lord King George II’; Murray-Lyon, History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 386.
  117. Anon., (erroneously published under the name Samuel Prichard), La Reception Mysterieuse (London, 1738) reproduced in H. Carr, ed., The Early French Exposures (London, 1971), 39.
  118. Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions, v.
  119. Murray-Lyon, History of Freemasonry in Scotland, 193.
  120. T.M., Le Maçon Démasqué (London, 1751) reproduced in Carr, The Early French Exposures, 425.
  121. Gould, History of Freemasonry, IV, 256.
  122. W.C. Little of Libberton, Archæologia Scotica — Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol.1 (Edinburgh, 1792), 170-175 and quoted in Gould, History of Freemasonry, III, 215.