The first western Congress took place in la Rochelle in 1845. The principal topic on its agenda was a discussion on policies for fighting against poverty. It also discussed the issue of internal reforms in the GO. It was, however, Antoine Pierre Feodora Gaudin, a lawyer and a venerable of the Montyon Lodge of Sante, who enunciated most clearly the link between the congresses and the principle of sociabilite and association. In his address to the delegates of the Second Western Congress which took place in Rochfort in 1846, he declared the existence of a philosophical law by means of which the past would be understood and from which the future could be inferred. Whoever attempted to view history as merely a series of facts and ignored their "leading principle", failed to understand the nature of historical causation. According to this principle, man consisted of "senses, feelings and consciousness". Through these senses man came to know nature and through his feelings and his consciousness, he could transform himself, fulfill his desires and make contact with other individuals. A comprehensive and complete philosophy had to unify these three elements, because man existed not only for himself but also for others and for humanity at large. Since he is ambitious, man attempts to gradually improve himself and society.

But during the 1840's society was based on a mistaken and dangerous philosophy, which failed to encourage its members to realize the idea of progress, namely, the idea of human unity and solidarity. Society was still characterized by poverty, extreme individualism, ruthless competition among capitalists and a growing discontent among the proletariat. This state of affairs was not the result of scientific backwardness; rather, it was the outcome of a lack of "unity, solidarity and identification with others ...". But such an unsatisfactory state of affairs need not last for ever. The period was one of reassessment. Everything was changing and one had to orient oneself towards the future more then ever before. Social disorder was only a temporary phase. "Man is essentially a social being", but his happiness as an individual was the basis of the public happiness. Consequently the common purpose should be "the fulfillment of the idea of social unity by means of association".

The true social philosophy was the Masonic philosophy, the speaker underlined, and the French Nation was the genuine social nation. Both had therefor to undertake the task of disseminating their initiative all over the universe, becoming thereby the precursors of the future:

As one poet has stated, universalization is to a certain degree the specialization of the French. The French language was the tongue of sociabilite due to its clarity and flexibility. Its culture was that of sociabilite because it was imbued with a spirit of altruism which, in turn, enabled the French to maintain good relationships with other nations. France incarnate the demand for spreading the culture and its ultimate goal is to convince everybody of the value of such a culture ...1

In order to prove that Masonic philosophy was the only genuine social philosophy, Gaudin proposed to find out whether it included the three areas of human activity; that is to say, whether it contained a desire for the social and moral improvement of man and society. Indeed, he found out that the morality of Masonic symbolism encouraged everyone to look for the truth, and supported the social principles of Christianity and strove to realize them. As for freemasonry, the lodge was the prototype of a future universal society, because it consisted of more than philosophy and religion. "It had a principle which was missing in modern society: It was organized and it applied the principle of universal fraternity." Gaudin regarded the rail reads and the free press as important means of spreading the Masonic ideas among the European nations, but treated the congresses as the main tool for promoting social and economic progress. Gaudin was born on 1816 in Marennes and was 29 at the time he took part in the congress of la Rochelle. He had a position as a lawyer in Sante and edited a local newspaper, for which he was highly esteemed by the participants in the congress. After the congresses were banned on the eve of the 1848 Revolution, he joined the "Banquet Movement". He was elected to the National Assembly and supported the expulsion of Louis-Philippe, the abolishment of the death penalty and the introduction of a progressive income tax. Gaudin died in 18732.

The Western congresses dedicated most of their time to exploring ways of making the activities of the lodges more efficient. This was the essence of the opening words of the founder of the movement of the Western Masonic Congresses, Émile Beltremieux, member of the L'union Parfaite lodge of la Rochelle. The mid nineteenth century, he argued, was characterized by the activities of many gifted people who regretfully were hardly co-ordinated. At such a time, it was the role of freemasonry to fill the vacuum by means of congresses which would deal with the basic problems threatening to undermine the social order. The aim of freemasonry was, accordingly, to create an open forum in which solutions to these basic problems would be discussed, thus, preventing the premature implementation of solutions which were not yet thoroughly analyzed. Introducing a Masonic considerations into the public debate, would ensure the establishment of a new social order by peaceful means. Indeed, this was precisely the purpose of the founding of the Western Congresses.

The mission of freemasonry lay not only in charity; it had to become again what it used to be in the mid eighteenth century, that is, "a secret melting pot of various ideas which would result, in the final analysis, in an explosion". The idea of founding the congresses movement did not contradict the GO's prohibition of discussing political and religious issues, explained Beltremieux, for it was not the intention of the freemasonry to deal with sectarian politics. Freemasonry was capable "of directing world events without having recourse to inflammatory speeches, extremism and short-range activities". It had to learn to follow the developments of ideas through all their stages. During the first stage, there always arises a vague feeling concerning the existence of some hidden problem; later on, one has the feeling that something must be done in order to solve this problem. Finally, the essence of the problem is clarified. Endless discussions follow this phase and many people lose their patience, despair, or waste their energies in attempts to devise premature solutions. And yet, something has nevertheless been achieved. Nobody has actually solved the problem and yet everybody believes that it has been solved.

Freemasonry, maintained the speaker, should adopt its actions to the rhythm of the series of changes, and according to the degree to which the public understands it. Its role is to prepare for the future, but far from the inflamed masses. Analyzing the situation of his time, he stated that its central problem was, in fact, that of poverty, a problem which was the outcome of the accelerated development of the textile industry, and the free competition which accompanied it. Beltremieux drew attention to the fact that in 1844 the percentage of those in need of welfare services in Western France rose by 17% and in Northern France - by 33%. The solution to this problem demanded of freemasonry to unify in their fight against poverty3. Beltremieux was born in la Rochelle in 1819. He came to Paris to study medicine and attended the classes of Michelet and Quinet at the Collège de France. In 1842, he abandoned his medical studies and returned to his home town, where he became an important Freemason. There he inaugurated the Western Congresses movement around 1844, when he was twenty five. After taking part in the first congress of la Rochel, he returned and was summoned by Armand Marrast to become an editor in his newspaper, la National. He died in January 1848, just one month before the revolution in which he probably could have fulfilled a prominent role4.

After Beltremieux had defined the function and the objective of the congress, Solbieu of the l'Union Parfaite lodge opened the discussion over the poverty problem which was first on the congress' agenda. According to him, the problem has first arisen in England at the beginning of the 19th century and had subsequently turned into a structural problem in France as well. He believed that the roots of the problem lay in the so called "science of economics", and in particular in the theories of Adam Smith, Say and Maltus. He argued that no social theory had ever successfully refuted the economic theories, including those theories which have proposed the right solution but prematurely. He therefore argued that poverty should be analyzed as such, and that one should disregard the positions of various schools. Basically, poverty was "a general, constant and accelerated impoverishment of several strata of society", an impoverishment which tore the social fabric apart. This was true both of "Rousseau's School" which attributed to man a utilitarian nature, and considered this nature to be the sole motive for organizing human society, and of the "school of sociabilite"which was based on the belief that man was, essentially, a social entity, and could always be improved.

Poverty was caused by a constant reduction of the wages of the proletariat, whose members, according to Say, should have been satisfied as long as they managed to survive and should not strive for anything more, since it was impossible to provide them with more. This situation was a result of unlimited free competition and could lead to class and civil wars. The liberal English economists whose theories had been widely applied, gave much thought to an analysis of the processes of production and to the various characteristics of consumption. But they ignored the problem of excessive supply, which undermined the delicate balance between supply and demand. Having ignored this problem, they were unable to suggest methods for avoiding cyclical crises caused by an excess of supply and resulting in a reduction in the level of production.

English liberals like Malthus, claimed Solbieu, reduced everything to the utilitarian interest of the human being, without offering him any compensation. Instead of helping the proletariat to solve its problems, Solbieu preferred to analyze the society in which such poverty is accepted as a matter of course. A society that neglects its duties towards the worker. The institutions established by modern society to combat poverty, such as nursery schools, elementary schools and mutual fund societies, did not function according to a general concept of solidarity. The solutions to the problem of poverty which France required, should not be affected by the English poor laws, but by new ideas which would at first improve present conditions and then become the basis of a new regime. Solbieu suggested that the short-term solution would take into consideration France's agricultural nature. He had in mind agricultural model farms dedicated to agricultural education, whose status would be equal to that of urban high schools. He recommended also establishing agricultural communities for the unemployed in order to supply them with temporary work until they find a permanent job. Such projects would be realized with the aid of freemasonry whose major role would be to disseminate an awareness of the importance of forming mutual association fund and other kinds of welfare societies. Solbieu knew of course that projects such as those suggested by him would not entirely solve the problem of poverty. However, they could at least pave the way "for a future based on the as yet vague formulae of association and workers unions"5.

Roche (l'Accord Parfaite - Rochfort) believed that lack of equal opportunities rather than British liberalism, was at the root of poverty. Whatever increased inequality was bound to limit human rights, to help the spreading of poverty and to deepen the gap between poverty and excessive wealth. This gap was reflected in modern economists' view of poverty as some kind of "damage in the machine" that could be repaired with the help of charity organizations. The economists' mistake was their failure to realize that poverty was not simply "a natural phenomenon". In fact, it was caused by institutions which strengthened the strong and impoverished the weak. Reality in general proved, Roche argued, that the poverty of some was caused by the excessive wealth of others. Basing himself on Lamartine, Roche presented the solution to the problem of poverty offered by "two schools". The English Materialistic school which quantified people and regarded industrial society as a mechanical system, was guided exclusively by laws of profit and loss. It completely ignored the fact that at the center of the economic system there was a man, possessing his own feelings and thoughts. He argued that the Materialistic School had dominated France by means of the science of economics. The other school arose in France in response to the suffering of the workers, the capitalists' egoism, the permanent fermentation characteristic of the period and premature dreams of ideal times. This was a school "which enlisted the masses to the religion of association..." and saw in association the most important principle. Roche preferred the second school, but since he believed that it was still too utopian, he did not recommend freemasonry to join it without prior critical examination. he proposed that freemasonry should seek its organizational framework for the purpose of disseminating its own ideas regardless of workers' associations. This was meant to prepare human society to a new regime characterized by internal harmony between the right of work, and of culture and capital6.

Gaudin believed that poverty was caused primarily by extreme individualism and free economic competition. He agreed that freedom was a right which was, nevertheless, limited by individual and social duties. This involved a compromise between social duties and social rights. An instance of such a compromise was the government's right to interfere in worker-employee relations, thus being able to limit freedom of economic competition during a period of crisis. This implied that solutions which were financially supported by the state, such as a workers' bank and agricultural colonies, were perfectly legitimate. But all these activities lacked a generalizing principle, which could achieve a wide-ranging unification of interests. The strength of Freemasonry was based on precisely such an idea of unification. Hence, it was its role to disseminate this idea in modern society. The radical elimination of poverty could be achieved only on the basis of the worker's association. Freemasonry, which was an association for research and study, should devote itself to a study of this principle and the manners of its application7.

Beltremieux summed up the deliberation by stating that among Solbieu, Roche and Gaudin there was a certain agreement concerning the workers' association which they considered as the preferred solution to the problem of poverty, because it could form a new basis from which the relationships between workers and employers could develop. According to the spirit of the congress, Beltremieux finished his speech by criticizing the economic theories of English liberalism. He argued that Malthus' theory didn't have any prediction capacity. This was proved by the industrial revolution which unexpectedly increased the food production capability of society. Further more, if Malthus' theory was right, human society would have been changed long ago and achieved the right balance as a result of the growth of the well-to-do popu. It was necessary, claimeBel, to abandon for good the system of forced arguments and adopt an analysis based on common sense. It was clear that the number of the poor was in inverse ratio to their resources, and that their wages depended on the demand for work. It was possible to change the state of affairs of an extremely unequal distribution of resources by forming workers' associations which would prevent a constant decrease in wages. Only workers' associations and solidarity between workers and their employers, could bring about a just division of resources and eliminate the problem of poverty8.

The speakers at the la Rochelle Congress disagreed with the liberal position according to which the problems it created were a natural phenomenon, which could neither be controlled nor changed by rational reforms. They considered economic science as an ideology, the purpose of which was to defend the grim reality by convincing the victims that it was unchangeable. They opposed the extreme capitalism of the industrial revolution and the unrestricted economic competition which, according to their analysis, led to class tensions, the impoverishment of the workers and the creation of great social gaps which threatened the unity of society. They considered the principle of association, based on the idea of sociabilite, as a central means of counterbalancing these dangers and avoiding revolutions. The speakers at the congress presented Freemasonry as the central organization whose mission it was to re-organize society, since its organizational framework was already based on a new order. The challenge of the participants in the la Rochelle Congress was then to oppose an ideology posing as exact science, by means of common-sense, supported by historical facts which rejected such an ideology. That is why Freemasonry was attracted to Guizot's definition of culture which supported their view of human history as man-made and capable of being changed, rather then a deterministic development based on uncontrollable social and economic laws.

The rejection of economic liberalism and the attempt to replace it by Gizot's and Michelet's concept of sociabilite held by Carbonnet, emphasized the importance of the freemasons' discussion of the cultural history of the organization of Freemasonry and of their attitude towards history in general. This topic was on the agenda of the second western congress, which had taken place in Rochefort. The first item on the agenda was the question of "what is the effect of freemasonry on human culture". Solbieu who opened the discussion and used as a starting point Guizot's first lesson in his course on modern history. Supporting himself with quotations and footnotes, he argued that the doctrines of freemasonry were based on the idea of human culture as a result of the development of both the individual and society, and as a preserver of universal morality and its transmission to future generations. He said that despite their cultural achievements, the people of the ancient civilizations have disappeared. The reason for that was that the contents of their culture was divided into both overt and covert doctrine, the latter known only to the initiated. In the final analysis, the content of the culture was deformed by a theocratic regime which was the immediate cause of cultural decline. This was, for instance, the fate of the Jewish people, which was initially based upon the principle of unity and altruism. "It follows", declared Solbieu, "that only by freeing ourselves from religious fanaticism and oppression, would we be able to put into practice reforms turning among other things, against religion itself". Freedom from the church was considered to be the main task of the freemasonry. Within the framework of this mission, freemasonry became deeply involved in the preparations for the French revolution. The history of freemasonry consisted in fact of victories over barbarism and of freeing society from the oppression of the freedom of conscience. Thus it paved the way for modern culture. However, in the 19th century its mission was to transform the as yet abstract values of the French Revolution into concrete realities which would affect everybody9.

Monut of "l'Union Parfaite" (la Rochelle) emphasized in his speech the great stability enjoyed by Freemasonry throughout the various radical changes human society had undergone. He argued that such stability depended primarily on the fact that freemasonry was an institution based on the law of nature that directs society to organize itself according to human rights and duties. The purpose of the western congress was to help the lodges grasp the principle of association, since in isolation man would not be able to achieve effective results. The unification of the vital forces of freemasonry could facilitate the understanding of the eternal moral law, and undertake the dissemination of this law in society at large. Such activities were meant to be based on man's freedom, restricted only by his rights and duties. Referring to the present, Monut added that the discussions of basic moral and social issues helps develop the freemasons' reason and create a more positive and cultured atmosphere within Freemasonry10. Following Menut, Gaudin presented his interpretation of human history in the spirit of sociabilite and of the role played in it by freemasonry. An interpretation which has turned into a manifesto of the Western congresses and in general, the movement of the Masonic congresses which had arisen in its wake.

In order to justify the statement that freemasonry was a senior association based on sociabilite, the participants in the Western congresses had to change the inner structure of the GO, in order to fit it for its new mission; They had also to present a policy for the solution of the problem of poverty in their cities. In the discussion of these topics, Basset (l'Union Parfaite-la Rochelle) argued in the Rochfort congress, that in order to strengthen mutual aid among the freemasons, a large association possessing a great deal of capital was required. Its aim could be to defend freemasonry from dangers which could arise in the course of its fulfillment of its cultural vocation. Basset in fact presented to the representatives of the congress a proposal for a "General Association for Mutual Aid", which could be established by the lodges around the country. Regnier (Montyon-Santes) added a concrete policy of financing it by each individual lodge and of supervising the allocation of the grants by a central committee of the GO. The presentations of Basset's and Regnier's project led to a long debate that could not be resolved. Therefore, it was decided to continue it in the next congress that was supposed to take place in Sante11.

The regulations of the "Employment Project" (Status du patronage) of the lodges of "l'Union Parfaite", were added as an appendix to the protocol of la Rochelle's congress. At the time, this project was already being executed. Its purpose was to enable poor boys 12 to 15 years old to work without pay as apprentices in factories and workshops, and to provide them with moral instruction. The Employment Project was directed by an elected mixed committee consisting of the representatives of the lodge and the employers. The success of the project depended on its financing and l'Union Parfaite decided that its members would carry this load, that would cover the annual expenses of ten apprentices. As a special bonus l'Union Parfaite declared its wish that all the French lodges would support its apprentices during their "Tour-de-France" time and also let them be initiated if they so wanted, free of any payment12.

The congress of la Rochelle did not devote much time to the discussion concerning organizational reforms in the GO itself. It elected a special committee for working out these reforms. The report of the committee recommended theGO to adopt la Rochelle's Employment Proje. It to stop the speculation in the granting of titles and the issuing of member cards. It also recommended that the number of new lodges be restricted by setting up a minimum of 10 thousand inhabitants per lodge. According to the report it was necessary to change part of the initiation rite. It also recommended to restrict the lodge's numbers that each member of the GO could represent to one. Finally, the GO was asked to abolish the prohibition to attend congresses. The organizational reform proposal of la Rochelle reflected its participants' desire to broaden the scope of the lodges' activities, to strengthen their autonomy and to reinforce their influence on the GO's policies. Their aim was to be achieved by strengthening the position of their elected representatives and by the organizational basis of the lodges. The congress actually insisted on becoming an institution which intermediates between the GO and the single lodge. This desire for de-centralization was in perfect accord with the characteristic of sociabilite, underlying the discussions in the western congresses. It also implied the pressure of Republican tendencies, which could not be expressed openly, and were destined to turn into the central issue on the agenda of the Toulouse congress13.

The Freemasons of western France wished to establish regional democratic organizations for the purpose of finding Republican legal ways of action. The instigator of this initiative was the lodge of lUnion Parfaite, headed by Beltremieux. This can be learned from the protocol of its negotiations with the GO at the time in which the preparations for convening the congress were under way. In October, 1844, the lodge sent a letter to 11 lodges in 8 cities of various western departements. The letter, written by Beltremieux, stated that the members of the lodge considered the project of annual congresses as a means to encourage the activity of the lodges, to establish closer relationships among them and effectively support the GOs attempts to increase its influence. The purpose of the congresses was to discuss social problems which came under the jurisdiction of Freemasonry, as well as any issue regarding its direct interests. The lodge decided to hold itself the first congress and it was suggested that the problem of poverty and its solutions would be on the agenda.

The letter included a proposal for the congress's regulations and suggested that the congress would be held each year in a different city and would last for three days. The proposal emphasized the requirement to base the political deliberations on "white papers" prepared beforehand. The congresses were to proceed according to the accepted regulations of the GO. Every lodge was allowed to send three representatives only. Members of the hosting lodge were eligible to attend the congress meetings, as well as visitors from the represented lodges, but without voting rights. The printed protocol of the congress was to be sent to the GO and distributed among all the lodges. The same letter was sent to the GO in order to obtain a formal authorization for the congress. As a result of negotiations that lasted almost an entire year, the GO finally agreed in June 1845 to let the congress take place. But it declared that the congress's decisions would apply only to its own members.

It was clear that the GO made a great effort to minimize as far as possible the congresses' deviation from the strict rule that controlled the political arena and that put a ban on any assembly comprehending more then 20 people. The congress's regulations were amended accordingly. As such they were presented to the delegates who confirmed them almost unanimously. The congress was opened in the presence of 8 regular delegations and 3 delegations of observers. All in all, then, the first congress that was to become the founder of a vast and very effective national regional Masonic congresses movement, comprised about 30 delegates. With the 60 members at least, of the two lodges of la Rochelle the number of participants reached almost 100 people14. The strict regulations that governed the deliberations as well as the organizational form and the agenda, turned the congress into a political club, which under the guise of the formal prohibition of discussing matters pertaining to religion and political issues and under the semblance of the traditional Masonic protocol, did in fact engage in discussing primarily issues of political, economic and social nature. The proceedings were published in 300 copies, according to the number of lodges and delivered to them. They were edited on the basis of the written reports and improvised speeches were summed up briefly15. The reason for that was that they tended to be quite radical and the editors wished to protect the new Masonic organizational entity against Louis-Philippe's regime. In any case, there was no doubt that, in effect, the congress did discuss national political issues.

1. "Compte-Rendu des Travaux du Congres de Rochefort (Rochefort, 1846)", dans, Le Congres de Toulouse... pp. 38-43.
2. D. Ligou (ed.), Dictionnaire universel de la Franc-Maconnerie (Navar, 1974) .pp. 539-540; Bulletin du G.O de France, no. du 16 mai 1848.
3. "Compte Rendu des Travaux de la L\ de l'Union-Parfaite, reuni a l'O\ de La Rochelle..." (La Rochelle, 1845), dans, Le Congres de Toulous (s.d.s.l.), p. 11-13. B.N: [FM IMPR 2696.
4. G. Weill, Histoire du Partie Republicain en France de 1814 a 1870 (Paris,1900), pp. 180-275; M. Prevost et R. d'Amat, Dictionnaire de Biographie Francaise (Paris, 1951), T. 5, pp. 1390-1391.
5. "Compte Rendu des Travaux de la L\ de l'Union Parfaite, reuni a l'O\de La Rochelle...", pp. 16-27.
6. Ibid., pp. 27-33
7. Ibid., pp. 35-37
8. Ibid., pp. 40-44
9. "Compte Rendu des Travaux du congres des... 6 et 7 juin 1846 (Rochefort, 1846)", dans, Le congres de Toulouse..., pp. 1-19.
10. "Compte Rendu des Travaux du congres des... 6 et 7 juin 1846 (Rochefort,1846)", dans, Le Congres de Toulouse..., pp. 29-36.
11. Ibid., pp. 54-61.
12. "Compte Rendu, des Travaux de la L\de L'Union-Parfaite, tenue, a l'O\ de La Rochelle...", pp. 50-52.
13. Ibid., pp. 47-49.
14. Ibid., pp. 14-15.
15. Ibid., p. 9.