[1] Digby's _History of the Law of Real Property_.
FREELAND, a borough of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., about 20 m.
S. of Wilkes-Barre, in the E. part of the state. Pop. (1890) 1730;
(1900) 5254 (1339 foreign-born, many being Slavs); (1910) 6197. Freeland
is served by the Lehigh Valley railway and by electric railway to Upper
Lehigh (1 m. distant, served by the Central Railroad of New Jersey) and
to other neighbouring places. The borough is built on Broad Mountain,
nearly 2000 ft. above sea-level, and the chief industry is the mining of
coal at the numerous surrounding collieries. Freeland is the seat of the
Mining and Mechanical Institute of the Anthracite Region, chartered in
1894, modelled after the German _Steigerschulen_, with elementary and
secondary departments and a night school for workmen. The borough has
foundries and machine shops of considerable importance, and manufactures
silk, overalls, beer and hames. Freeland was first settled about 1842,
was laid out in 1870, and was incorporated in 1876.
FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS (1823-1892), English historian, was born at
Harborne, Staffordshire, on the 2nd of August 1823. He lost both his
parents in infancy, was brought up by a grandmother, and was educated at
private schools and by a private tutor. He was a studious and precocious
boy, more interested in religious matters, history and foreign politics
than in boyish things. He obtained a scholarship at Trinity College,
Oxford, and a second class in the degree examination, and was elected
fellow of his college (1845). While at Oxford he was much influenced by
the High Church movement, and thought seriously of taking orders, but
abandoned the idea. He married a daughter of his former tutor, the Rev.
R. Gutch, in 1847, and entered on a life of study. Ecclesiastical
architecture attracted him strongly. He visited many churches and began
a practice, which he pursued throughout his life, of making drawings of
buildings on the spot and afterwards tracing them over in ink. His first
book, save for his share in a volume of English verse, was a _History of
Architecture_ (1849). Though he had not then seen any buildings outside
England, it contains a good sketch of the development of the art. It is
full of youthful enthusiasm and is written in florid language. After
some changes of residence he bought a house called Somerleaze, near
Wells, Somerset, and settled there in 1860.
Freeman's life was one of strenuous literary work. He wrote many books,
and countless articles for reviews, newspapers and other publications,
and was a constant contributor to the _Saturday Review_ until 1878, when
he ceased to write for it for political reasons. His _Saturday Review_
articles corrected many errors and raised the level of historical
knowledge among the educated classes, but as a reviewer he was apt to
forget that a book may have blemishes and yet be praiseworthy. For some
years he was an active county magistrate. He was deeply interested in
politics, was a follower of Mr Gladstone, and approved the Home Rule
Bill of 1886, but objected to the later proposal to retain the Irish
members at Westminster. To be returned to Parliament was one of his few
ambitions, and in 1868 he unsuccessfully contested Mid-Somerset. Foreign
rather than domestic politics had the first place with him. Historical
and religious sentiment combined with his detestation of all that was
tyrannical to inspire him with hatred of the Turk and sympathy with the
smaller and subject nationalities of eastern Europe. He took a prominent
part in the agitation which followed "the Bulgarian atrocities"; his
speeches were intemperate, and he was accused of uttering the words
"Perish India!" at a public meeting in 1876. This, however, was a
misrepresentation of his words. He was made a knight commander of the
order of the Saviour by the king of Greece, and also received an order
from the prince of Montenegro.
Freeman advanced the study of history in England in two special
directions, by insistence on the unity of history, and by teaching the
importance and right use of original authorities. History is not, he
urges, to be divided "by a middle wall of partition" into ancient and
modern, nor broken into fragments as though the history of each nation
stood apart. It is more than a collection of narratives; it is a
science, "the science of man in his political character." The historical
student, then, cannot afford to be indifferent to any part of the record
of man's political being; but as his abilities for study are limited, he
will, while reckoning all history to be within his range, have his own
special range within which he will master every detail (_Rede Lecture_).
Freeman's range included Greek, Roman and the earlier part of English
history, together with some portions of foreign medieval history, and he
had a scholarly though general knowledge of the rest of the history of
the European world. He regarded the abiding life of Rome as "the central
truth of European history," the bond of its unity, and he undertook his
_History of Sicily_ (1891-1894) partly because it illustrated this
unity. Further, he urges that all historical study is valueless which
does not take in a knowledge of original authorities, and he teaches
both by example and precept what authorities should be thus described,
and how they are to be weighed and used. He did not use manuscript
authorities, and for most of his work he had no need to do so. The
authorities which he needed were already in print, and his books would
not have been better if he had disinterred a few more facts from
unprinted sources.
His reputation as a historian will chiefly rest on his _History of the
Norman Conquest_ (1867-1876), his longest completed book. In common with
his works generally, it is distinguished by exhaustiveness of treatment
and research, critical ability, a remarkable degree of accuracy, and a
certain insight into the past which he gained from his practical
experience of men and institutions. He is almost exclusively a political
historian. His saying that "history is past politics and politics are
present history" is significant of this limitation of his work, which
left on one side subjects of the deepest interest in a nation's life. In
dealing with constitutional matters he sometimes attaches too much
weight to words and formal aspects. This gives certain of his arguments
an air of pedantry, and seems to lead him to find evidences of
continuity in institutions which in reality and spirit were different
from what they once had been. As a rule his estimates of character are
remarkably able. It is true that he is sometimes swayed by prejudice,
but this is the common lot of great historians; they cannot altogether
avoid sharing in the feelings of the past, for they live in it, and
Freeman did so to an extraordinary degree. Yet if he judges too
favourably the leaders of the national party in England on the eve of
the Norman Conquest, that is a small matter to set against the insight
which he exhibits in writing of Aratus, Sulla, Nicias, William the
Conqueror, Thomas of Canterbury, Frederick the Second and many more. In
width of view, thoroughness of investigation and honesty of purpose he
is unsurpassed by any historian. He never conceals nor wilfully
misrepresents anything, and he reckoned no labour too great which might
help him to draw a truthful picture of the past. When a place had any
important connexion with his work he invariably visited it. He travelled
much, always to gain knowledge, and generally to complete his historical
equipment. His collected articles and essays on places of historical
interest are perhaps the most pleasing of his writings, but they deal
exclusively with historical associations and architectural features. The
quantity of work which he turned out is enormous, for the fifteen large
volumes which contain his _Norman Conquest_, his unfinished _History of
Sicily_, his _William Rufus_ (1882), and his _Essays_ (1872-1879), and
the crowd of his smaller books, are matched in amount by his uncollected
contributions to periodicals. In respect of matter his historical work
is uniformly excellent. In respect of form and style the case is
different. Though his sentences themselves are not wordy, he is
extremely diffuse in treatment, habitually repeating an idea in
successive sentences of much the same import. While this habit was
doubtless aggravated by the amount of his journalistic work, it seems
originally to have sprung from what may be called a professorial spirit,
which occasionally appears in the tone of his remarks. He was anxious to
make sure that his readers would understand his exact meaning, and to
guard them against all possible misconceptions. His lengthy explanations
are the more grievous because he insists on the same points in several
of his books. His prolixity was increased by his unwillingness, when
writing without prescribed limits, to leave out any detail, however
unimportant. His passion for details not only swelled his volumes to a
portentous size, but was fatal to artistic construction. The length of
his books has hindered their usefulness. They were written for the
public at large, but few save professed students, who can admire and
value his exhaustiveness, will read the many hundreds of pages which he
devotes to a short period of history. In some of his smaller books,
however, he shows great powers of condensation and arrangement, and
writes tersely enough. His style is correct, lucid and virile, but
generally nothing more, and his endeavour to use as far as possible only
words of Teutonic origin limited his vocabulary and makes his sentences
somewhat monotonous. While Froude often strayed away from his
authorities, Freeman kept his authorities always before his eyes, and
his narrative is here and there little more than a translation of their
words. Accordingly, while it has nothing of Froude's carelessness and
inaccuracy, it has nothing of his charm of style. Yet now and again he
rises to the level of some heroic event, and parts of his chapter on the
"Campaign of Hastings" and of his record of the wars of Syracuse and
Athens, his reflections on the visit of Basil the Second to the church
of the Virgin on the Acropolis, and some other passages in his books,
are fine pieces of eloquent writing.
The high quality of Freeman's work was acknowledged by all competent
judges. He was made D.C.L. of Oxford and LL.D. of Cambridge _honoris
causa_, and when he visited the United States on a lecturing tour was
warmly received at various places of learning. He served on the royal
commission on ecclesiastical courts appointed in 1881. In 1884 he was
appointed regius professor of modern history at Oxford. His lectures
were thinly attended, for he did not care to adapt them to the
requirements of the university examinations, and he was not perhaps well
fitted to teach young men. But he exercised a wholesome influence over
the more earnest students of history among the resident graduates. From
1886 he was forced by ill-health to spend much of his time abroad, and
he died of smallpox at Alicante on the 16th of March 1892, while on a
tour in Spain. Freeman had a strongly marked personality. Though
impatient in temper and occasionally rude, he was tender-hearted and
generous. His rudeness to strangers was partly caused by shyness and
partly by a childlike inability to conceal his feelings. Eminently
truthful, he could not understand that some verbal insincerities are
necessary to social life. He had a peculiar faculty for friendship, and
his friends always found him sympathetic and affectionate. In their
society he would talk well and showed a keen sense of humour. He
considered it his duty to expose careless and ignorant writers, and
certainly enjoyed doing so. He worked hard and methodically, often had
several pieces of work in hand, and kept a daily record of the time
which he devoted to each of them. His tastes were curiously limited. No
art interested him except architecture, which he studied throughout his
life; and he cared little for literature which was not either historical
or political. In later life he ceased to hold the theological opinions
of his youth, but remained a devout churchman.
See W. R. W. Stephens, _Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman_ (London,
1895); Frederic Harrison, _Tennyson, Ruskin, Mill and other Literary
Estimates_ (London, 1899); James Bryce, "E. A. Freeman," _Eng. Hist.
Rev._, July 1892. (W. Hu.)
FREEMAN, primarily one who is free, as opposed to a slave or serf (see
FEUDALISM; SLAVERY). The term is more specifically applied to one who
possesses the freedom of a city, borough or company. Before the passing
of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, each English borough admitted
freemen according to its own peculiar custom and by-laws. The rights and
privileges of a freeman, though varying in different boroughs, generally
included the right to vote at a parliamentary election of the borough,
and exemption from all tolls and dues. The act of 1835 respected
existing usages, and every person who was then an admitted freeman
remained one, retaining at the same time all his former rights and
privileges. The admission of freemen is now regulated by the Municipal
Corporations Act 1882. By section 201 of that act the term "freeman"
includes any person of the class whose rights and interests were
reserved by the act of 1835 under the name either of freemen or of
burgesses. By section 202 no person can be admitted a freeman by gift or
by purchase; that is, only birth, servitude or marriage are
qualifications. The Honorary Freedom of Boroughs Act 1885, however,
makes an exception, as by that act the council of every borough may from
time to time admit persons of distinction to be honorary freemen of the
borough. The town clerk of every borough keeps a list, which is called
"the freeman's roll," and when any person claims to be admitted a
freeman in respect of birth, servitude or marriage, the mayor examines
the claim, and if it is established the claimant's name is enrolled by
the town clerk.
A person may become a freeman or freewoman of one of the London livery
companies by (1) apprenticeship or servitude; (2) patrimony; (3)
redemption; (4) gift. This last is purely honorary. The most usual form
of acquiring freedom was by serving apprenticeship to a freeman, free
both of a company and of the city of London. By an act of common council
of 1836 apprenticeship was permitted to freemen of the city who had not
taken up the freedom of a company. By an act of common council of 1889
the term of service was reduced from seven years to four years. Freedom
by patrimony is always granted to children of a person who has been duly
admitted to the freedom. Freedom by redemption or purchase requires the
payment of certain entrance fees, which vary with the standing of the
company. In the Grocers' Company freedom by redemption does not exist,
and in such companies as still have a trade, e.g. the Apothecaries and
Stationers, it is limited to members of the trade.
See W. C. Hazlitt, _The Livery Companies of the City of London_
(1892).
FREEMASONRY. According to an old "Charge" delivered to initiates,
Freemasonry is declared to be an "ancient and honourable institution:
ancient no doubt it is, as having subsisted from time immemorial; and
honourable it must be acknowledged to be, as by a natural tendency it
conduces to make those so who are obedient to its precepts ... to so
high an eminence has its credit been advanced that in every age Monarchs
themselves have been promoters of the art, have not thought it
derogatory from their dignity to exchange the sceptre for the trowel,
have patronised our mysteries and joined in our Assemblies." For many
years the craft has been conducted without respect to clime, colour,
caste or creed.
_History._--The precise origin of the society has yet to be ascertained,
but is not likely to be, as the early records are lost; there is,
however, ample evidence remaining to justify the claim for its antiquity
and its honourable character. Much has been written as to its eventful
past, based upon actual records, but still more which has served only to
amuse or repel inquirers, and led not a few to believe that the
fraternity has no trustworthy history. An unfavourable opinion of the
historians of the craft generally may fairly have been held during the
18th and early in the 19th centuries, but happily since the middle of
the latter century quite a different principle has animated those
brethren who have sought to make the facts of masonic history known to
the brotherhood, as well as worth the study of students in general. The
idea that it would require an investigator to be a member of the "mystic
tie" in order to qualify as a reader of masonic history has been
exploded. The evidences collected concerning the institution during the
last five hundred years, or more, may now be examined and tested in the
most severe manner by literary and critical experts (whether opposed or
favourable to the body), who cannot fail to accept the claims made as
to its great antiquity and continuity, as the lineal descendant of those
craftsmen who raised the cathedrals and other great English buildings
during the middle ages.
It is only needful to refer to the old works on freemasonry, and to
compare them with the accepted histories of the present time, to be
assured that such strictures as above are more than justified. The
premier work on the subject was published in London in 1723, the Rev.
James Anderson being the author of the historical portion,
introductory to the first "Book of Constitutions" of the original
Grand Lodge of England. Dr Anderson gravely states that "Grand Master
Moses often marshalled the Israelites into a regular and general
lodge, whilst in the wilderness.... King Solomon was Grand Master of
the lodge at Jerusalem.[1]... Nebuchadnezzar became the Grand Master
Mason," &c., devoting many more pages to similar absurdities, but
dismisses the important modern innovation (1716-1717) of a Grand Lodge
with a few lines noteworthy for their brief and indefinite character.
In 1738 a second edition was issued, dedicated to the prince of Wales
("a Master Mason and master of a lodge"), and was the work of the same
brother (as respects the historical part), the additions being mainly
on the same lines as the former volume, only, if possible, still more
ridiculous and extravagant; e.g. Cyrus constituted Jerubbabel
"provincial grand master in Judah"; Charles Martel was "the Right
Worshipful Grand Master of France, and Edward I. being deeply engaged
in wars left the craft to the care of several successive grand
masters" (duly enumerated). Such loose statements may now pass
unheeded, but unfortunately they do not exhaust the objections to Dr
Anderson's method of writing history. The excerpt concerning St Alban
(apparently made from Coles's _Ancient Constitutions_, 1728-1729) has
the unwarranted additional title of Grand Master conferred on that
saint, and the extract concerning King AEthelstan and Prince Edwin from
the "Old MS. Charges" (given in the first edition) contains still more
unauthorized modern terms, with the year added of 926; thus misleading
most seriously those who accept the volume as trustworthy, because
written by the accredited historian of the Grand Lodge, Junior Grand
Warden in 1723. These examples hardly increase our confidence in the
author's accuracy when Dr Anderson comes to treat of the origin of the
premier Grand Lodge; but he is our only informant as to that important
event, and if his version of the occurrence is declined, we are
absolutely without any information.
In considering the early history of Freemasonry, from a purely
matter-of-fact standpoint, it will be well to settle as a necessary
preliminary what the term did and does now include or mean, and how far
back the inquiry should be conducted, as well as on what lines. If the
view of the subject herein taken be correct, it will be useless to load
the investigation by devoting considerable space to a consideration of
the laws and customs of still older societies which may have been
utilized and imitated by the fraternity, but which in no sense can be
accepted as the actual forbears of the present society of Free and
Accepted Masons. They were predecessors, or possibly prototypes, but not
near relatives or progenitors of the Freemasons.[2]
The Mother Grand Lodge of the world is that of England, which was
inaugurated in the metropolis on St John Baptist's day 1717 by four or
more old lodges, three of which still flourish. There were other lodges
also in London and the country at the time, but whether they were
invited to the meeting is not now known. Probably not, as existing
records of the period preserve a sphinx-like silence thereon. Likewise
there were many scores of lodges at work in Scotland, and undoubtedly in
Ireland the craft was widely patronized. Whatever the ceremonies may
have been which were then known as Freemasonry in Great Britain and
Ireland, they were practically alike, and the venerable _Old Charges_ or
MS. constitutions, dating back several centuries, were rightly held by
them as the title-deeds of their masonic inheritance.
It was a bold thing to do, thus to start a governing body for the
fraternity quite different in many respects to all preceding
organizations, and to brand as irregular all lodges which declined to
accept such authority; but the very originality and audacity of its
promoters appears to have led to its success, and it was not long before
most of the lodges of the pre-Grand-Lodge era joined and accepted
"constitution" by warrant of the Grand Master. Not only so, but Ireland
quickly followed the lead, so early as 1725 there being a Grand Lodge
for that country which must have been formed even still earlier, and
probably by lodges started before any were authorized in the English
counties. In Scotland the change was not made until 1736, many lodges
even then holding aloof from such an organization. Indeed, out of some
hundred lodges known to have been active then, only thirty-three
responded and agreed to fall into line, though several joined later;
some, however, kept separate down to the end of the 19th century, while
others never united. Many of these lodges have records of the 17th
century though not then newly formed; one in particular, the oldest (the
Lodge of Edinburgh, No. 1), possesses minutes so far back as the year
1599.
It is important to bear in mind that all the regular lodges throughout
the world, and likewise all the Grand Lodges, directly or indirectly,
have sprung from one or other of the three governing bodies named;
Ireland and Scotland following the example set by their masonic mother
of England in having Grand Lodges of their own. It is not proved how the
latter two became acquainted with Freemasonry as a secret society,
guided more or less by the operative MS. _Constitutions_ or _Charges_
common to the three bodies, not met with elsewhere; but the credit of a
Grand Lodge being established to control the lodges belongs to England.
It may be a startling declaration, but it is well authenticated, that
there is no other Freemasonry, as the term is now understood, than what
which has been so derived. In other words, the lodges and Grand Lodges
in both hemispheres trace their origin and authority back to England for
working what are known as the Three Degrees, controlled by regular Grand
Lodges. That being so, a history of modern Freemasonry, the direct
offspring of the British parents aforesaid, should first of all
establish the descent of the three Grand Lodges from the Freemasonry of
earlier days; such continuity, of five centuries or more, being a _sine
qua non_ of antiquity and regularity.
It will be found that from the early part of the 18th century back to
the 16th century existing records testify to the assemblies of lodges,
mainly operative, but partly speculative, in Great Britain, whose
guiding stars and common heritage were the _Old Charges_, and that when
their actual minutes and transactions cease to be traced by reason of
their loss, these same MS. _Constitutions_ furnish testimony of the
still older working of such combinations of freemasons or masons,
without the assistance, countenance or authority of any other masonic
body; consequently such documents still preserved, of the 14th and later
centuries (numbering about seventy, mostly in form of rolls), with the
existing lodge minutes referred to of the 16th century, down to the
establishment of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717, prove the continuity
of the society. Indeed so universally has this claim been admitted, that
in popular usage the term Freemason is only now applied to those who
belong to this particular fraternity, that of _mason_ being applicable
to one who follows that trade, or honourable calling, as a builder.
There is no evidence that during this long period any other organization
of any kind, religious, philosophical, mystical or otherwise, materially
or even slightly influenced the customs of the fraternity, though they
may have done so; but so far as is known the lodges were of much the
same character throughout, and consisted really of operatives (who
enjoyed practically a monopoly for some time of the trade as masons or
freemasons), and, in part, of "speculatives," i.e. noblemen, gentlemen
and men of other trades, who were admitted as honorary members.
Assuming then that the freemasons of the present day are the sole
inheritors of the system arranged at the so-called "Revival of 1717,"
which was a development from an operative body to one partly
speculative, and that, so far back as the MS. Records extend and furnish
any light, they must have worked in Lodges in secret throughout the
period noted, a history of Freemasonry should be mainly devoted to
giving particulars, as far as possible, of the lodges, their traditions,
customs and laws, based upon actual documents which can be tested and
verified by members and non-members alike.
It has been the rule to treat, more or less fully, of the influence
exerted on the fraternity by the Ancient Mysteries, the Essenes, Roman
Colleges, Culdees, Hermeticism, Fehm-Gerichte _et hoc genus omne_,
especially the _Steinmetzen_, the Craft Gilds and the Companionage of
France, &c.; but in view of the separate and independent character of
the freemasons, it appears to be quite unnecessary, and the time so
employed would be better devoted to a more thorough search after
additional evidences of the activity of the craft, especially during the
crucial period overlapping the second decade of the 18th century, so as
to discover information as to the transmitted secrets of the medieval
masons, which, after all, may simply have been what Gaspard Monge
felicitously entitles "Descriptive Geometry, or the Art and Science of
Masonic Symbolism."
The rules and regulations of the masons were embodied in what are known
as the _Old Charges_; the senior known copy being the _Regius MS._
(British Museum Bibl. Reg. 17 A, i.), which, however, is not so
exclusively devoted to masonry as the later copies. David Casley, in his
catalogue of the MSS. in the King's Library (1734), unfortunately styled
the little gem _A Poem of Moral Duties_; and owing to this
misdescription its true character was not recognized until the year
1839, and then by a non-mason (Mr Halliwell-Phillipps), who had it
reproduced in 1840 and brought out an improved edition in 1844. Its date
has been approximately fixed at 1390 by Casley and other authorities.
The curious legend of the craft, therein made known, deals first of all
with the number of unemployed in early days and the necessity of finding
work, "that they myght gete here lyvynge therby." Euclid was consulted,
and recommended the "onest craft of good masonry," and the genesis of
the society is found "yn Egypte lande." By a rapid transition, but "mony
erys afterwarde," we are told that the "Craft com ynto England yn tyme
of good kynge Adelstonus (AEthelstan) day," who called an assembly of the
masons, when fifteen articles and as many more points were agreed to for
the government of the craft, each being duly described. Each brother was
instructed that--
"He must love wel God, and holy Churche algate
And hys mayster also, that he ys wythe."
"The thrydde poynt must be severle.
With the prentes knowe hyt wele,
Hys mayster cownsel he kepe and close,
And hys felows by hys goode purpose;
The prevetyse of the chamber telle he no mon,
Ny yn the logge whatsever they done,
Whatsever thou heryst, or syste hem do,
Telle hyt no mon, whersever thou go."
The rules generally, besides referring to trade regulations, are as a
whole suggestive of the Ten Commandments in an extended form, winding up
with the legend of the _Ars quatuor coronatorum_, as an incentive to a
faithful discharge of the numerous obligations. A second part introduces
a more lengthy account of the origin of masonry, in which Noah's flood
and the Tower of Babylon are mentioned as well as the great skill of
Euclid, who--
"Through hye grace of Crist yn heven,
He commensed yn the syens seven";
The "seven sciences" are duly named and explained. The compiler
apparently was a priest, line 629 reading "And, when ye gospel _me rede
schal_," thus also accounting for the many religious injunctions in the
MS.; the last hundred lines are evidently based upon _Urbanitatis_
(Cott. MS. Caligula A 11, fol. 88) and _Instructions for a Parish
Priest_ (Cott. MS. Claudius A 11, fol. 27), instructions such as lads
and even men would need who were ignorant of the customs of polite
society, correct deportment at church and in the presence of their
social superiors.
The recital of the legend of the _Quatuor Coronati_ has been held by
Herr Findel in his _History of Freemasonry_ (_Allgemeine Geschichte der
Freimaurerei_, 1862; English editions, 1866-1869) to prove that British
Freemasonry was derived from Germany, but without any justification,
the legend being met with in England centuries prior to the date of the
_Regius MS._, and long prior to its incorporation in masonic legends on
the Continent.
The next MS., in order, is known as the "Cooke" (Ad. MS. 23,198, British
Museum), because Matthew Cooke published a fair reproduction of the
document in 1861; and it is deemed by competent paleographers to date
from the first part of the 15th century. There are two versions of the
_Old Charges_ in this little book, purchased for the British Museum in
1859. The compiler was probably a mason and familiar with several copies
of these MS. _Constitutions_, two of which he utilizes and comments
upon; he quotes from a MS. copy of the _Policronicon_ the manner in
which a written account of the sciences was preserved in the two
historic stones at the time of the Flood, and generally makes known the
traditions of the society as well as the laws which were to govern the
members.
Its introduction into England through Egypt is noted (where the Children
of Israel "lernyd ye craft of Masonry"), also the "lande of behest"
(Jerusalem) and the Temple of Solomon (who "confirmed ye chargys yt
David his Fadir" had made). Then masonry in France is interestingly
described; and St Alban and "AEthelstane with his yongest sone" (the
Edwin of the later MSS.) became the chosen mediums subsequently, as with
the other _Charges_, portions of the Old Testament are often cited in
order to convey a correct idea to the neophyte, who is to hear the
document read, as to these sciences which are declared to be free in
themselves (_fre in hem selfe_). Of all crafts followed by man in this
world "Masonry hathe the moste notabilite," as confirmed by "Elders that
were bi for us of masons [who] had these chargys wryten," and "as is
write and taught in ye boke of our charges."
Until quite recently no representative or survival of this particular
version had been traced, but in 1890 one was discovered of 1687 (since
known as the _William Watson MS._). Of some seventy copies of these old
scrolls which have been unearthed, by far the greater proportion have
been made public since 1860. They have all much in common, though often
curious differences are to be detected; are of English origin, no matter
where used; and when complete, as they mostly are, whether of the 16th
or subsequent centuries, are noteworthy for an invocation or prayer
which begins the recital:--
"The mighte of the ffather of heaven
And the wysedome of the glorious Sonne
through the grace and the goodnes of the holly
ghoste yt been three p'sons and one God
be with us at or beginning and give us grace
so to gou'ne us here in or lyving that wee maye
come to his blisse that nevr shall have ending.--Amen."
(_Grand Lodge MS. No. 1_, A.D. 1583.)
They are chiefly of the 17th century and nearly all located in England;
particulars may be found in Hughan's _Old Charges of the British
Freemasons_ (1872, 1895 and supplement 1906).[3] The chief scrolls, with
some others, have been reproduced in facsimile in six volumes of the
_Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha_; and the collection in Yorkshire has
been published separately, either in the _West Yorkshire Reprints_ or
the _Ancient York Masonic Rolls_. Several have been transcribed and
issued in other works.
These scrolls give considerable information as to the traditions and
customs of the craft, together with the regulations for its government,
and were required to be read to apprentices long after the peculiar
rules ceased to be acted upon, each lodge apparently having one or more
copies kept for the purpose. The old Lodge of Aberdeen ordered in 1670
that the Charge was to be "read at ye entering of everie entered
prenteise"; another at Alnwick in 1701 provided--
"Noe Mason shall take any apprentice [but he must]
Enter him and give him his Charge, within one whole year after";
and still another at Swallwell (now No. 48 Gateshead) demanded that
"the Apprentices shall have their Charge given at the time of
Registering, or within thirty days after"; the minutes inserting such
entries accordingly even so late as 1754, nearly twenty years after the
lodge had cast in its lot with the Grand Lodge of England.
Their Christian character is further emphasized by the "First Charge
that you shall be true men to God and the holy Church"; the _York MS.
No. 6_ beseeches the brethren "at every meeting and assembly they pray
heartily for all Christians"; the _Melrose MS. No. 2_ (1674) mentions
"Merchants and all other Christian men," and the _Aberdeen MS._ (1670)
terms the invocation "A Prayer before the Meeting." Until the Grand
Lodge era, Freemasonry was thus wholly Christian. The _York MS. No. 4_
of 1693 contains a singular error in the admonitory lines:--
"The [n] one of the elders takeing the Booke and that
hee or shee that is to be made mason, shall lay their
hands thereon and the charge shall be given."
This particular reading was cited by Hughan in 1871, but was considered
doubtful; Findel,[4] however, confirmed it, on his visit to York under
the guidance of the celebrated masonic student the late Rev. A. F. A.
Woodford. The mistake was due possibly to the transcriber, who had an
older roll before him, confusing "they," sometimes written "the," with
"she," or reading that portion, which is often in Latin, as _ille vel
illa_, instead of _ille vel illi_.
In some of the _Codices_, about the middle of the 17th century and
later, New Articles are inserted, such as would be suitable for an
organization similar to the Masons' Company of London, which had one, at
least, of the _Old Charges_ in its possession according to inventories
of 1665 and 1676; and likewise in 1722, termed _The Book of the
Constitutions of the Accepted Masons_. Save its mention ("Book wrote on
parchment") by Sir Francis Palgrave in the _Edinburgh Review_ (April
1839) as being in existence "not long since," this valuable document has
been lost sight of for many years.
That there were signs and other secrets preserved and used by the
brethren throughout this mainly operative period may be gathered from
discreet references in these old MSS. The _Institutions in parchment_
(22nd of November 1696) of the Dumfries Kilwinning Lodge (No. 53,
Scotland) contain a copy of the oath taken "when any man should be
made":--
"These Charges which we now reherse to you and all others ye secrets
and misterys belonging to free masons you shall faithfully and truly
keep, together with ye Counsell of ye assembly or lodge, or any other
lodge, or brother, or fellow."
"Then after ye oath taken and the book kissed" (i.e. the Bible) the
"precepts" are read, the first being:--
"You shall be true men to God and his holy Church, and that you do not
countenance or maintaine any eror, faction, schism or herisey, in ye
church to ye best of your understanding." (_History of No. 53_, by
James Smith.)
The _Grand Lodge MS. No. 2_ provides that "You shall keepe secret ye
obscure and intricate pts. of ye science, not disclosinge them to any
but such as study and use ye same."
The _Harleian MS. No. 2054_ (Brit. Mus.) is still more explicit, termed
_The ffree Masons Orders and Constitutions_, and is in the handwriting
of Randle Holme (author of the _Academie of Armory_, 1688), who was a
member of a lodge in Cheshire. Following the MS. _Constitutions_, in the
same handwriting, about 1650, is a scrap of paper with the obligation:--
"There is sevrall words and signes of a free Mason to be revailed to
yu wch as yu will answr. before God at the Great and terrible day of
judgmt. yu keep secret and not to revaile the same to any in the
heares of any p'son, but to the Mrs and fellows of the Society of Free
Masons, so helpe me God, &c." (W. H. Rylands, _Mas. Mag._, 1882.)
It is not yet settled who were the actual designers or architects of the
grand old English cathedrals. Credit has been claimed for church
dignitaries, to the exclusion more or less of the master masons, to whom
presumably of right the distinction belonged. In early days the title
"architect" is not met with, unless the term "Ingenator" had that
meaning, which is doubtful. As to this interesting question, and as to
the subject of building generally, an historical account of Master and
Free Masons (_Discourses upon Architecture in England_, by the Rev.
James Dallaway, 1833), and _Notes on the Superintendents of English
Buildings in the Middle Ages_ (by Wyatt Papworth, 1887), should be
consulted. Both writers were non-masons. The former observes: "The
honour due to the original founders of these edifices is almost
invariably transferred to the ecclesiastics under whose patronage they
rose, rather than to the skill and design of the master mason, or
professional architect, because the only historians were monks.... They
were probably not so well versed in geometrical science as the master
masons, for mathematics formed a part of monastic learning in a very
limited degree." In the _Journal of Proceedings R.I.B.A._ vol. iv.
(1887), a skilful critic (W. H. White) declares that Papworth, in that
valuable collection of facts, has contrived to annihilate all the
professional idols of the century, setting up in their place nothing
except the master mason. The brotherhood of Bridge-builders,[5] that
travelled far and wide to build bridges, and the travelling bodies of
Freemasons,[6] he believes never existed; nor was William of Wykeham the
designer of the colleges attributed to him. It seems well-nigh
impossible to disprove the statements made by Papworth, because they are
all so well grounded on attested facts; and the attempt to connect the
Abbey of Cluny, or men trained at Cluny, with the original or
preliminary designs of the great buildings erected during the middle
ages, at least during the 12th and 13th centuries, is also a failure.
The whole question is ably and fully treated in the _History of
Freemasonry_ by Robert Freke Gould (1886-1887), particularly in chapter
vi. on "Medieval Operative Masonry," and in his _Concise History_
(1903).
The lodge is often met with, either as the _tabulatum domicialem_ (1200,
at St Alban's Abbey) or actually so named in the _Fabric Rolls_ of York
Minster (1370), _ye loge_ being situated close to the fane in course of
erection; it was used as a place in which the stones were prepared in
private for the structure, as well as occupied at meal-time, &c. Each
mason was required to "swere upon ye boke yt he sall trewly ande bysyli
at his power hold and kepe holy all ye poyntes of yis forsayde
ordinance" (_Ordinacio Cementanorum_).
As to the term _free_-mason, from the 14th century, it is held by some
authorities that it described simply those men who worked "freestone,"
but there is abundant evidence to prove that, whatever may have been
intended at first, _free_-mason soon had a much wider signification, the
prefix _free_ being also employed by carpenters (1666), sewers (15th
century, tailors at Exeter) and others, presumably to indicate they were
free to follow their trades in certain localities. On this point Mr
Gould well observes: "The class of persons from whom the Freemasons of
Warrington (1646), Staffordshire (1686), Chester, York, London and their
congeners in the 17th century derived the descriptive title, which
became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were _free men_,
and masons of Gilds or Companies" (_History_, vol. ii. p. 160). Dr
Brentano may also be cited: "Wherever the Craft Guilds were legally
acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft,
and sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city"
(_Development of Guilds_, &c., p. 65). In like manner, the privilege of
working as a mason was not conferred before candidates had been "made
free." The regular free-masons would not work with men, even if they had
a knowledge of their trade, "if _un_free," but styled them "Cowans," a
course justified by the king's "Maister of Work," William Schaw, whose
_Statutis and Ordinanceis_ (28th December 1598) required that "Na
maister or fellow of craft ressaue any _cowanis_ to wirk in his societie
or companye, nor send nane of his servants to wirk wt. cowanis, under
the pane of twentie pounds." Gradually, however, the rule was relaxed,
in time such monopoly practically ceased, and the word "cowan" is only
known in connexion with speculative Freemasonry. Sir Walter Scott, as a
member of Lodge St David (No. 36), was familiar with the word and used
it in _Rob Roy_. In 1707 a cowan was described in the minutes of Mother
Lodge Kilwinning, as a mason "without the word," thus one who was not a
_free_ mason (_History of the Lodge of Edinburgh No. 1_, by D. Murray
Lyon, 1900).
In the _New English Dictionary_ (Oxford, vol. iv., 1897) under
"Freemason" it is noted that three views have been propounded:--(1) "The
suggestion that _free-mason_ stands for free-stone-mason would appear
unworthy of attention, but for the curious fact that the earliest known
instances of any similar appellation are _mestre mason de franche peer_
(Act 25 Edw. III., 1350), and _sculptores lapidum liberorum_, alleged to
occur in a document of 1217; the coincidence, however, seems to be
merely accidental. (2) The view most generally held is that freemasons
were those who were free of the masons' guild. Against this explanation
many forcible objections have been brought by Mr G. W. Speth, who
suggests (3) that the itinerant masons were called free because they
claimed exemption from the control of the local guilds of the towns in
which they temporarily settled. (4) Perhaps the best hypothesis is that
the term refers to the medieval practice of emancipating skilled
artisans, in order that they might be able to travel and render their
services wherever any great building was in process of construction."
The late secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (No. 2076, London) has
thus had his view sanctioned by "the highest tribunal in the Republic of
Letters so far as Philology is concerned" (Dr W. J. Chetwode Crawley in
_Ars Quatuor Coronatorum_, 1898). Still it cannot be denied that members
of lodges in the 16th and following centuries exercised the privilege of
making _free_ masons and denied the freedom of working to cowans (also
called _un_-freemen) who had not been so made free; "the Masownys of the
luge" being the only ones recognized as _free_masons. As to the prefix
being derived from the word _frere_, a sufficient answer is the fact
that frequent reference is made to "Brother _free_masons," so that no
ground for that supposition exists (cf. articles by Mr Gould in the
_Freemason_ for September 1898 on "Free and Freemasonry").
There are numerous indications of masonic activity in the British lodges
of the 17th century, especially in Scotland; the existing records,
however, of the southern part of the United Kingdom, though few, are of
importance, some only having been made known in recent years. These
concern the Masons' Company of London, whose valuable minutes and other
documents are ably described and commented upon by Edward Conder, jr.,
in his _Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons_ (1894), the author then
being the Master of that ancient company. It was incorporated in 1677 by
Charles II., who graciously met the wishes of the members, but as a
company the information "that is to be found in the Corporation Records
at Guildhall proves very clearly that in 1376 the Masons' Company
existed and was represented in the court of common council." The title
then favoured was "Masons," the entry of the term "Freemasons" being
crossed out. Herbert erroneously overlooked the correction, and stated
in his _History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies_ (vol. i.) that the
Freemasons returned two, and the Masons four members, but subsequently
amalgamated; whereas the revised entry was for the "Masons" only. The
Company obtained a grant of arms in 1472 (12th year Hen. VIII.), one of
the first of the kind, being thus described:--"A feld of Sablys A
Cheveron silver grailed thre Castellis of the same garnysshed wt. dores
and wyndows of the feld in the Cheveron or Cumpas of Black of Blak"; it
is the authority (if any) for all later armorial bearings having a
chevron and castles, assumed by other masonic organizations. This
precious document was only discovered in 1871, having been missing for a
long time, thus doubtless accounting for the erroneous representations
met with, not having the correct blazon to follow. The oldest masonic
motto known is "God is our Guide" on Kerwin's tomb in St Helen's church,
Bishopgate, of 1594; that of "In the Lord is all our trust" not being
traced until the next century. Supporters consisting of two doric
columns are mentioned in 1688 by Randle Holme, but the Grand Lodge of
England in the following century used Beavers as operative builders. Its
first motto was "In the beginning was the Word" (in Greek), exchanged a
few years onward for "Relief and Truth," the rival Grand Lodge (Atholl
Masons) selecting "Holiness to the Lord" (in Hebrew), and the final
selection at the "Union of December 1813" being _Audi Vide Tace_.
Mr Conder's discovery of a lodge of "Accepted Masons" being held under
the wing of the Company was a great surprise, dating as the records do
from 1620 to 1621 (the earliest of the kind yet traced in England), when
seven were made masons, all of whom were free of the Company _before_,
three being of the Livery; the entry commencing "Att the making masons."
The meetings were entitled the "Acception," and the members of the lodge
were called _Accepted_ Masons, being those so _accepted_ and initiated,
the term never otherwise being met with in the Records. An additional
fee had to be paid by a member of the Company to join the "Acception,"
and any not belonging thereto were mulct in twice the sum; though even
then such "acceptance" did not qualify for membership of the superior
body; the fees for the "Acception" being L1 and L2 respectively. In
1638-1639, when Nicholas Stone entered the lodge (he was Master of the
Company 1632-1633) the banquet cost a considerable sum, showing that the
number of brethren present must have been large.
Elias Ashmole (who according to his diary was "made a Free Mason of
Warrington with Colonel Henry Mainwaring," seven brethern being named as
in attendance at the lodge, 16th of October 1646) states that he
"received a summons to appear at a Lodge to be held next day at Masons'
Hall, London." Accordingly on the 11th of March 1682 he attended and saw
six gentlemen "admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons," of whom
three only belonged to the Company; the Master, however, Mr Thomas Wise,
the two wardens and six others being present on the occasion as members
in their _dual_ capacity. Ashmole adds: "We all dyned at the Halfe Moone
Tavern in Cheapside at a noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the
new-accepted Masons."
It is almost certain that there was not an operative mason present at
the Lodge held in 1646, and at the one which met in 1682 there was a
strong representation of the speculative branch. Before the year 1654
the Company was known as that of the Freemasons for some time, but after
then the old title of Masons was reverted to, the terms "Acception" and
"Accepted" belonging to the speculative Lodge, which, however, in all
probability either became independent or ceased to work soon after 1682.
It is very interesting to note that subsequently (but never before) the
longer designation is met with of "Free and Accepted Masons," and is
thus a combination of operative and speculative usage.
Mr Conder is of opinion that in the Records "there is no evidence of any
particular ceremony attending the position of Master Mason, possibly it
consisted of administering a different oath from the one taken by the
apprentices on being entered." There is much to favour this supposition,
and it may provide the key to the _vexata quaestio_ as to the plurality
of degrees prior to the Grand Lodge era. The fellow-crafts were
recruited from those apprentices who had served their time and had their
essay (or sufficient trial of their skill) duly passed; they and the
Masters, by the _Schaw Statutes_ of 1598, being only admitted in the
presence of "sex Maisteris and _twa enterit prenteissis_." As a rule a
master mason meant one who was master of his trade, i.e. duly qualified;
but it sometimes described employers as distinct from journeymen
Freemasons; being also a compliment conferred on honorary members
during the 17th century in particular.
In Dr Plot's _History of Staffordshire_ (1686) is a remarkable account
of the "Society of Freemasons," which, being by an unfriendly critic, is
all the more valuable. He states that the custom had spread "more or
less all over the nation"; persons of the most eminent quality did not
disdain to enter the Fellowship; they had "a large _parchment volum_
containing the History and Rules of the Craft of Masonry"; St Amphibal,
St Alban, King Athelstan and Edwin are mentioned, and these "charges and
manners" were "after perusal approved by King Hen. 6 and his council,
both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft." It is
but fair to add that notwithstanding the service he rendered the Society
by his lengthy description, that credulous historian remarks of its
history that there is nothing he ever "met with more false or
incoherent."
The author of the _Academie of Armory_, previously noted, knew better
what he was writing about in that work of 1688 in which he declares: "I
cannot but Honor the Fellowship of the Masons because of its Antiquity;
and the more, _as being a member of that Society, called Free Masons_"
Mr Rylands states that in _Harl. MS. 5955_ is a collection of the
engraved plates for a second volume of this important work, one being
devoted to the Arms of the Society, the columns, as supporters, having
globes thereon, from which possibly are derived the two pillars, with
such ornaments or additions seen in lodge rooms at a later period.
In the same year "A Tripos or Speech delivered at a commencement in the
University of Dublin held there July 11, 1688, by John Jones, then A.B.,
afterwards D.D.," contained "notable evidence concerning Freemasonry in
Dublin." The Tripos was included in Sir Walter Scott's edition of Dean
Swift's works (1814), but as Dr Chetwode Crawley points out, though
noticed by the Rev. Dr George Oliver (the voluminous Masonic author), he
failed to realize its historical importance. The satirical and withal
amusing speech was partly translated from the Latin by Dr Crawley for
his scholarly introduction to the _Masonic Reprints_, &c., by Henry
Sadler. "The point seems to be that Ridley (reputed to have been an
informer against priests under the barbarous penal laws) was, or ought
to have been, hanged; that his carcase, anatomized and stuffed, stood in
the library; and that _frath scoundrellus_ discovered on his remains the
Freemasons' Mark." The importance of the references to the craft in
Ireland is simply owing to the year in which they were made, as
illustrative of the influence of the Society at that time, of which
records are lacking.
It is primarily to Scotland, however, that we have to look for such
numerous particulars of the activity of the fraternity from 1599 to the
establishment of its Grand Lodge in 1736, for an excellent account of
which we are indebted to Lyon, the Scottish masonic historian. As early
as 1600 (8th of June) the attendance of John Boswell, Esq., the laird of
Auchinleck, is entered in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh; he
attested the record and added his mark, as did the other members; so it
was not his first appearance. Many noblemen and other gentlemen joined
this ancient _atelier_, notably Lord Alexander, Sir Anthony Alexander
and Sir Alexander Strachan in 1634, the king's Master of Work (Herrie
Alexander) in 1638, General Alexander Hamilton in 1640, Dr Hamilton in
1647, and many other prominent and distinguished men later; "James
Neilsone, Master Sklaitter to His Majestie," who was "entered and past
in the Lodge of Linlithgow, being elected a joining member," 2nd March
1654. Quarter-Master General Robert Moray (or Murray) was initiated by
members of the Lodge of Edinburgh, at Newcastle on the 20th of May 1641,
while the Scottish army was in occupation. On due report to their Alma
Mater such reception was allowed, the occurrence having been considered
the first of its kind in England until the ancient Records of the
Masons' Company were published.
The minute-books of a number of Scottish Lodges, which are still on the
register, go back to the 17th century, and abundantly confirm the
frequent admission of speculatives as members and officers, especially
those of the venerable "Mother Lodge Kilwinning," of which the earl of
Cassillis was the deacon in 1672, who was succeeded by Sir Alexander
Cunningham, and the earl of Eglinton, who like the first of the trio was
but an apprentice. There were three Head Lodges according to the
Scottish Code of 1599, Edinburgh being "the first and principall,"
Kilwinning "the secund," and Stirling "the third ludge."
The Aberdeen Lodge (No. 1 _tris_) has records preserved from 1670, in
which year what is known as the _Mark Book_ begins, containing the
oldest existing roll of members, numbering 49, all of whom have their
marks registered, save two, though only ten were operatives. The names
of the earls of Finlater, Erroll and Dunfermline, Lord Forbes, several
ministers and professional men are on the list, which was written by a
glazier, all of whom had been enlightened as to the "benefit of the
measson word," and inserted in order as they "were made fellow craft."
The Charter (_Old Charges_) had to be read at the "entering of everie
prenteise," and the officers included a master and two wardens.
The lodge at Melrose (No. 1 _bis_) with records back to 1674 did not
join the Grand Lodge until 1891, and was the last of those working
(possibly centuries before that body was formed) to accept the modern
system of government. Of the many noteworthy lodges mention should be
made of that of "Canongate Kilwinning No. 2," Edinburgh, the first of
the numerous pendicles of "Mother Lodge Kilwinning, No. 0," Ayrshire,
started in 1677; and of the Journeymen No 8, formed in 1707, which was a
secession from the Lodge of Edinburgh; the Fellow Crafts or Journeymen
not being satisfied with their treatment by the Freemen Masters of the
Incorporation of Masons, &c. This action led to a trial before the Lords
of Council and Session, when finally a "Decreet Arbitral" was subscribed
to by both parties, and the junior organization was permitted "to give
the mason word as it is called" in a separate lodge. The presbytery of
Kelso[7] in 1652 sustained the action of the Rev. James Ainslie in
becoming a Freemason, declaring that "there is neither sinne nor
scandale in that word" (i.e. the "Mason Word"), which is often alluded
to but never revealed in the old records already referred to.[8] One
Scottish family may be cited in illustration of the continuous working
of Freemasonry, whose membership is enshrined in the records of the
ancient Lodge of "Scoon and Perth No. 3" and others. A venerable
document, lovingly cared for by No. 3, bears date 1658, and recites how
John Mylne came to Perth from the "North Countrie," and was the king's
Master Mason and W.M. of the Lodge, his successor being his son, who
entered "King James the sixt as ffreman measone and fellow craft"; his
third son John was a member of Lodge No. 1 and Master Mason to Charles
I., 1631-1636, and his eldest son was a deacon of No. 1 eleven times
during thirty years. To him was apprenticed his nephew, who was warden
in 1663-1664 and deacon several times. William Mylne was a warden in
1695, Thomas (eldest son) was Master in 1735, and took part in the
formation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Others of the family continued
to join the Lodge No. 1, until Robert, the last of the Mylnes as
Freemasons, was initiated in 1754, died in 1811, and "was buried in St
Paul's cathedral, having been Surveyor to that Edifice for fifty years,"
and the last of the masonic Mylnes for five generations. The "St John's
Lodge," Glasgow (No. 3 _bis_), has some valuable old records and a
"Charter Chest" with the words carved thereon "God save the King and
Masons Craft, 1684." _Loyalty and Charity_ are the watchwords of the
Society.
The Craft Gilds (_Corps d'Etat_) of France, and their progeny the
_Companionage_, have been fully described by Mr Gould, and the
_Steinmetzen_ of Germany would require too detailed notice if we were to
particularize its rules, customs and general character, from about the
12th century onward. Much as there was in common between the Stonemasons
of Germany and the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland, it must be
conceded that the two societies never united and were all through this
long period wholly separate and independent; a knowledge of Freemasonry
and authority to hold lodges in Germany being derived from the Grand
Lodge of England during the first half of the 18th century. The theory
of the derivation of the Freemasons from the _Steinmetzen_ was first
propounded in 1779 by the abbe Grandidier, and has been maintained by
more modern writers, such as Fallou, Heideloff and Schneider, but a
thorough examination of their statements has resulted in such an origin
being generally discredited. Whether the _Steinmetzen_ had secret signs
of recognition or not, is not quite clear, but that the Freemasons had,
for centuries, cannot be doubted, though precisely what they were may be
open to question, and also what portions of the existing ceremonies are
reminiscent of the craft anterior to the Revival of 1717. Messrs Speth
and Gould favour the notion that there were two distinct and separate
degrees prior to the third decade of the 18th century (_Ars_ Q.C., 1898
and 1903), while other authorities have either supported the _One
degree_ theory, or consider there is not sufficient evidence to warrant
a decision. Recent discoveries, however, tend in favour of the first
view noted, such as the _Trinity College MS._, Dublin ("Free Masonry,
Feb. 1711"), and the invaluable[9] _Chetwode Crawley MS._ (Grand Lodge
Library, Dublin); the second being read in connexion with the Haughfoot
Lodge Records, beginning 1702 (_Hist, of Freemasonry_, by W. F. Vernon,
1893).
Two of the most remarkable lodges at work during the period of
transition (1717-1723), out of the many then existing in England,
assembled at Alnwick and at York. The origin of the first noted is not
known, but there are minutes of the meetings from 1703, the Rules are of
1701, signed by quite a number of members, and a transcript of the _Old
Charges_ begins the volume. In 1708-1709 a minute provided for a masonic
procession, at which the brethren were to walk "with their aprons on and
Comon Square." The Lodge consisted mainly of operative "free Brothers,"
and continued for many years, a code of by-laws being published in 1763,
but it never united with the Grand Lodge, giving up the struggle for
existence a few years further on.
The other lodge, the most noteworthy of all the English predecessors of
the Grand Lodge of England, was long held at York, the Mecca of English
Freemasons.[10] Its origin is unknown, but there are traces of its
existence at an early date, and possibly it was a survival of the
Minster Lodge of the 14th century. Assuming that the _York MS. No. 4_ of
1693 was the property of the lodge in that year (which Roll was
presented by George Walker of Wetherby in 1777), the entry which
concludes that Scroll is most suggestive, as it gives "The names of the
Lodge" (members) and the "Lodge Ward(en)." Its influence most probably
may be also noted at Scarborough, where "A private Lodge" was held on
the 10th of July 1705, at which the president "William Thompson, Esq.,
and severall others brethren ffree Masons" were present, and six
gentlemen (named) "were then admitted into the said ffraternity." These
particulars are endorsed on the _Scarborough MS._ of the Old Charges,
now owned by the Grand Lodge of Canada at Toronto. "A narrow folio
manuscript Book beginning 7th March 1705-1706," which was quoted from in
1778, has long been missing, which is much to be regretted, as possibly
it gave particulars of the lodge which assembled at Bradford, Yorkshire,
"when 18 Gentlemen of the first families in that neighbourhood were made
Masons." There is, however, another roll of records from 1712 to 1730
happily preserved of this "Ancient Honble. Society and Fraternity of
Free Masons," sometimes styled "Company" or "Society of Free and
Accepted Masons."
Not to be behind the London fratres, the York brethren formed a Grand
Lodge on the 27th of December 1725 (the "Grand Lodge of _all_ England"
was its modest title), and was flourishing for years, receiving into
their company many county men of great influence. Some twenty years
later there was a brief period of somnolence, but in 1761 a revival took
place, with Francis Drake, the historian, as Grand Master, ten lodges
being chartered in Yorkshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, 1762-1790, and a
Grand Lodge of England, south of the Trent, in 1779, at London, which
warranted two lodges. Before the century ended all these collapsed or
joined the Grand Lodge of England, so there was not a single
representative of "York Masonry" left on the advent of the next century.
The premier Grand Lodge of England soon began to constitute new Lodges
in the metropolis, and to reconstitute old ones that applied for
recognition, one of the earliest of 1720-1721 being still on the Roll as
No. 6, thus having kept company ever since with the three "time
immemorial Lodges," Nos. 2, 4 and 12. Applications for constitution kept
coming in, the provinces being represented from 1723 to 1724, before
which time it is likely the Grand Lodge of Ireland[11] had been started,
about which the most valuable _Caementaria Hibernica_ by Dr Chetwode
Crawley may be consulted with absolute confidence. Provincial Grand
Lodges were formed to ease the authorities at headquarters, and, as the
society spread, also for the Continent, and gradually throughout the
civilized globe. Owing to the custom prevailing before the 18th century,
a few brethren were competent to form lodges on their own initiative
anywhere, and hence the registers of the British Grand Lodges are not
always indicative of the first appearance of the craft abroad. In North
America[12] lodges were held before what is known as the first "regular"
lodge was formed at Boston, Mass., in 1733, and probably in Canada[13]
likewise. The same remark applies to Denmark, France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and other countries. Of the many
scores of military lodges, the first warrant was granted by Ireland in
1732. To no other body of Freemasons has the craft been so indebted for
its prosperity in early days as to their military brethren. There were
rivals to the Grand Lodge of England during the 18th century, one of
considerable magnitude being known as the Ancients or Atholl Masons,
formed in 1751, but in December 1813 a junction was effected, and from
that time the prosperity of the United Grand Lodge of England, with few
exceptions, has been extraordinary.
Nothing but a volume to itself could possibly describe the main features
of the English Craft from 1717, when Anthony Sayer was elected the first
Grand Master of a brilliant galaxy of rulers. The first nobleman to
undertake that office was the duke of Montagu in 1721, the natural
philosopher J. T. Desaguliers being his immediate predecessor, who has
been credited (and also the Rev. James Anderson) with the honour of
starting the premier Grand Lodge; but like the fable of Sir Christopher
Wren having been Grand Master, evidence is entirely lacking. Irish and
Scottish peers share with those of England the distinction of presiding
over the Grand Lodge, and from 1782 to 1813 their Royal Highnesses the
duke of Cumberland, the prince of Wales, or the duke of Sussex occupied
the masonic throne. From 1753 to 1813 the rival Grand Lodge had been
busy, but ultimately a desire for a _united_ body prevailed, and under
the "ancient" Grand Master, H.R.H. the duke of Kent, it was decided to
amalgamate with the original ruling organization, H.R.H. the duke of
Sussex becoming the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge. On the
decease of the prince in 1843 the earl of Zetland succeeded, followed by
the marquess of Ripon in 1874, on whose resignation H.R.H. the prince of
Wales became the Grand Master. Soon after succeeding to the throne,
King Edward VII. ceased to govern the English craft, and was succeeded
by H.R.H. the duke of Connaught. From 1737 to 1907 some sixteen English
princes of the royal blood joined the brotherhood.
From 1723 to 1813 the number of lodges enrolled in England amounted to
1626, and from 1814 to the end of December 1909 as many as 3352 were
warranted, making a grand total of 4978, of which the last then granted
was numbered 3185. There were in 1909 still 2876 on the register,
notwithstanding the many vacancies created by the foundation of new
Grand Lodges in the colonies and elsewhere.[14]
_Distribution and Organization._--The advantage of the cosmopolitan
basis of the fraternity generally (though some Grand Lodges still
preserve the original Christian foundation) has been conspicuously
manifested and appreciated in India and other countries where the
votaries of numerous religious systems congregate; but the unalterable
basis of a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe remains, for
without such a recognition there can be no Freemasonry, and it is now,
as it always has been, entirely free from party politics. The charities
of the Society in England, Ireland and Scotland are extensive and well
organized, their united cost per day not being less than L500, and with
those of other Grand Lodges throughout the world must amount to a very
large sum, there being over two millions of Freemasons. The vast
increase of late years, both of lodges and members, however, calls for
renewed vigilance and extra care in selecting candidates, that numbers
may not be a source of weakness instead of strength.
In its internal organization, the working of Freemasonry involves an
elaborate system of symbolic ritual,[15] as carried out at meetings of
the various lodges, uniformity as to essentials being the rule. The
members are classified in numerous degrees, of which the first three are
"Entered Apprentice," "Fellow Craft" and "Master Mason," each class of
which, after initiation, can only be attained after passing a prescribed
ordeal or examination, as a test of proficiency, corresponding to the
"essays" of the operative period.
The lodges have their own by-laws for guidance, subject to the _Book of
Constitutions_ of their Grand Lodge, and the regulations of the
provincial or district Grand Lodge if located in counties or held
abroad.
It is to be regretted that on the continent of Europe Freemasonry has
sometimes developed on different lines from that of the "Mother Grand
Lodge" and Anglo-Saxon Grand Lodges generally, and through its political
and anti-religious tendencies has come into contact or conflict with the
state authorities[16] or the Roman Catholic church. The "Grand Orient of
France" (but not the Supreme Council 33^o, and its Grand Lodge) is an
example of this retrograde movement, by its elimination of the paragraph
referring to a belief in the "Great Architect of the Universe" from its
_Statuts et reglements generaux_. This deplorable action has led to the
withdrawal of all regular Grand Lodges from association with that body,
and such separation must continue until a return is made to the ancient
and inviolable landmark of the society, which makes it impossible for an
atheist either to join or continue a member of the fraternity.
The Grand Lodge of England constituted its first lodge in Paris in the
year 1732, but one was formed still earlier on the continent at
Gibraltar 1728-1729. Others were also opened in Germany 1733, Portugal
1735, Holland 1735, Switzerland 1740, Denmark 1745, Italy 1763, Belgium
1765, Russia 1771, and Sweden 1773. In most of these countries Grand
Lodges were subsequently created and continue to this date, save that in
Austria (not Hungary) and Russia no masonic lodges have for some time
been permitted to assemble. There is a union of Grand Lodges of Germany,
and an annual Diet is held for the transaction of business affecting the
several masonic organizations in that country, which works well. H.R.H.
Prince Frederick Leopold was in 1909 Protector, or the "Wisest Master"
(Vicarius Salomonis). King Gustav V. was the Grand Master [cross] of the
freemasons in Sweden, and the sovereign of the "Order of Charles XIII.,"
the only one of the kind confined to members of the fraternity.
Lodges were constituted in India from 1730 (Calcutta), 1752 (Madras),
and 1758 (Bombay); in Jamaica 1742, Antigua 1738, and St Christopher
1739; soon after which period the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and
Scotland had representatives at work throughout the civilized world.
In no part, however, outside Great Britain has the craft flourished so
much as in the United States of America, where the first "regular" lodge
(i.e. according to the _new_ regime) was opened in 1733 at Boston, Mass.
Undoubtedly lodges had been meeting still earlier, one of which was held
at Philadelphia, Penna., with records from 1731, which blossomed into a
Grand Lodge, but no authority has yet been traced for its proceedings,
save that which may be termed "time immemorial right," which was enjoyed
by all lodges and brethren who were at work prior to the Grand Lodge era
(1716-1717) or who declined to recognize the autocratic proceedings of
the premier Grand Lodge of England, just as the brethren did in the city
of York. A "deputation" was granted to Daniel Coxe, Esq. of New Jersey,
by the duke of Norfolk, Grand Master, 5th of June 1730, as Prov. Grand
Master of the "Provinces of New York, New Jersey and Pensilvania," but
there is no evidence that he ever constituted any lodges or exercised
any masonic authority in virtue thereof. Henry Price as Prov. Grand
Master of New England, and his lodge, which was opened on the 31st of
August 1733, in the city of Boston, so far as is known, began "regular"
Freemasonry in the United States, and the older and independent
organization was soon afterwards "regularized." Benjamin Franklin (an
Initiate of the lodge of Philadelphia) printed and published the _Book
of Constitutions_, 1723 (of London, England), in the "City of Brotherly
Love" in 1734, being the oldest masonic work in America. English and
Scottish Grand Lodges were soon after petitioned to grant warrants to
hold lodges, and by the end of the 18th century several Grand Lodges
were formed, the Craft becoming very popular, partly no doubt by reason
of so many prominent men joining the fraternity, of whom the chief was
George Washington, initiated in a Scottish lodge at Fredericksburg,
Virginia, in 1752-1753. In 1907 there were fifty Grand Lodges assembling
in the United States, with considerably over a million members.
In Canada in 1909 there were eight Grand Lodges, having about 64,000
members. Freemasonry in the Dominion is believed to date from 1740. The
Grand Lodges are all of comparatively recent organization, the oldest
and largest, with 40,000 members, being for Ontario; those of Manitoba,
Nova Scotia and Quebec numbering about 5000 each. There are some seven
Grand Lodges in Australia; South Australia coming first as a "sovereign
body," followed closely by New South Wales and Victoria (of 1884-1889
constitution), the whole of the lodges in the Commonwealth probably
having fully 50,000 members on the registers.
There are many additional degrees which may be taken or not (being quite
optional), and dependent on a favourable ballot; the difficulty,
however, of obtaining admission increases as progress is made, the
numbers accepted decreasing rapidly with each advancement. The chief of
these are arranged in separate classes and are governed either by the
"Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch," the "Mark Grand Lodge," the "Great
Priory of Knights Templars" or the "Ancient and Accepted Rite," these
being mutually complementary and intimately connected as respects
England, and more or less so in Ireland, Scotland, North America and
wherever worked on a similar basis; the countries of the continent of
Europe have also their own _Hautes Grades_. (W. J. H.*).