[1]
If history be no ancient Fable
Free Masons came from Tower of Babel.
("The Freemasons; an Hudibrastic poem," London, 1723.)
[2] _The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry and Medieval
Builders_, by Mr G. F. Fort (U.S.A.), and the _Cathedral Builders:
The Magestri Comacini_, by "Leader Scott" (the late Mrs Baxter), take
rather a different view on this point and ably present their
arguments. The Rev. C. Kingsley in _Roman and Teuton_ writes of the
_Comacini_, "Perhaps the original germ of the great society of
Freemasons."
[3] The service rendered by Dr W. Begemann (Germany) in his "Attempt
to Classify the Old Charges of the British Masons" (vol. 1 Trans. of
the _Quatuor Coronati_ Lodge, London) has been very great, and the
researches of the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford and G. W. Speth have also
been of the utmost consequence.
[4] Findel claims that his _Treatise_ on the society was the cause
which "first impelled England to the study of masonic history and
ushered in the intellectual movement which resulted in the writings
of Bros. Hughan, Lyon, Gould and others." Great credit was due to the
late German author for his important work, but before its advent the
Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, D. Murray Lyon and others in Great Britain
were diligent masonic students on similar lines.
[5] It is not considered necessary to refer at length to the _Fratres
Pontis_, or other imaginary bodies of freemasons, as such questions
may well be left to the curious and interested student.
[6] "No distinct trace of the general employment of large migratory
bands of masons, going from place to place as a guild, or company, or
brotherhood" (Prof. T. Hayter-Lewis, Brit. Arch. Assoc., 1889).
[7] The Associate Synod which met at Edinburgh, March 1755, just a
century later, took quite an opposite view, deciding to depose from
office any of their brethren who would not give up their masonic
membership (_Scots Mag._, 1755, p. 158). Papal Bulls have also been
issued against the craft, the first being in 1738; but neither
interdicts nor anathemata have any influence with the fraternity, and
fall quite harmless.
[8]
"We have the _Mason Word_ and second sight,
Things for to come we can fortell aright."
(_The Muses Threnodie_, by H. Adamson, Edin., 1638.)
[9] The _Chetwode Crawley MS._, by W. J. Hughan (_Ars._ Q.C., 1904).
[10] The _York Grand Lodge_, by Messrs. Hughan and Whytehead (Ars
Q.C., 1900), and _Masonic Sketches and Reprints_ (1871), by the
former.
[11] The celebrated "Lady Freemason," the Hon. Mrs Aldworth (_nee_
Miss St Leger, daughter of Lord Doneraile), was initiated in Ireland,
but at a much earlier date than popularly supposed; certainly not
later than 1713, when the venturesome lady was twenty. All early
accounts of the occurrence must be received with caution, as there
are no contemporary records of the event.
[12] _History of Freemasonry_, by Dr A. G. Mackey (New York, 1898),
and the _History_ of the Fraternity Publishing Company, Boston,
Mass., give very full particulars as to the United States.
[13] See _History of Freemasonry in Canada_ (Toronto, 1899), by J.
Ross Robertson.
[14] _The Masonic Records 1717-1894_, by John Lane, and the excellent
_Masonic Yearbook_, published annually by the Grand Lodge of England,
are the two standard works on Lodge enumeration, localization and
nomenclature. For particulars of the Grand Lodges, and especially
that of England, Gould's History is most useful and trustworthy; and
for an original contribution to the history of the rival Grand Lodge
or Atholl Masons, Sadler's _Masonic Facts and Fictions_.
[15] "A peculiar system of Morality, veiled in Allegory and
illustrated by Symbols" (old definition of Freemasonry).
[16] The British House of Commons in 1799 and 1817, in acts of
parliament, specifically recognized the laudable character of the
society and provided for its continuance on definite lines.
FREEPORT, a city and the county-seat of Stephenson county, Illinois, in
the N.W. part of the state, on the Pecatonica river, 30 m. from its
mouth and about 100 m. N.W. of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 10,189; (1900)
13,258, of whom 2264 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 17,567. The city
is served by the Chicago & North-Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St
Paul, and the Illinois Central railways, and by the Rockford &
Interurban electric railway. The Illinois Central connects at South
Freeport, about 3 m. S. of Freeport, with the Chicago Great Western
railway. Among Freeport's manufactures are foundry and machine shop
products, carriages, hardware specialties, patent medicines, windmills,
engines, incubators, organs, beer and shoes. The Illinois Central has
large railway repair shops here. The total value of the city's factory
product in 1905 was $3,109,302, an increase of 14.8% since 1900. In the
surrounding country cereals are grown, and swine and poultry are raised.
Dairying is an important industry also. The city has a Carnegie library
(1901). In the Court House Square is a monument, 80 ft. high, in memory
of the soldiers who died in the Civil War. At the corner of Douglas
Avenue and Mechanic Street a granite boulder commemorates the famous
debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, held in Freeport
on the 27th of August 1858. In that debate Lincoln emphasized the
differences between himself and the radical anti-slavery men, and in
answer to one of Lincoln's questions Douglas declared that the people of
a territory, through "unfriendly" laws or denial of legislative
protection, could exclude slavery, and that "it matters not what way the
Supreme Court may hereafter decide on the abstract question whether
slavery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution."
This, the so-called "Freeport doctrine," greatly weakened Douglas in the
presidential election of 1860. Freeport was settled in 1835, was laid
out and named Winneshiek in 1836, and in 1837 under its present name was
made the county-seat of Stephenson county. It was incorporated as a town
in 1850 and chartered as a city in 1855.
FREE PORTS, a term, strictly speaking, given to localities where no
customs duties are levied, and where no customs supervision exists. In
these ports (subject to payment for specific services rendered,
wharfage, storage, &c., and to the observance of local police and
sanitary regulations) ships load and unload, cargoes are deposited and
handled, industries are exercised, manufactures are carried on, goods
are bought and sold, without any action on the part of fiscal
authorities. Ports are likewise designated "free" where a space or zone
exists within which commercial operations are conducted without payment
of import or export duty, and without active interference on the part of
customs authorities. The French and German designations for these two
descriptions of ports are--for the former _La Ville franche, Freihafen_;
for the latter _Le Port franc, Freibezirk_ or _Freilager_. The English
phrase free port applies to both.[1] The leading conditions under which
free ports in Europe derived their origin were as follows:--(1) When
public order became re-established during the middle ages, trading
centres were gradually formed. Marts for the exchange and purchase of
goods arose in different localities. Many Italian settlements,
constituting free zones, were established in the Levant. The Hanseatic
towns arose in the 12th century. Great fairs became recognized--the
Leipzig charter was granted in 1268. These localities were free as
regards customs duties, although dues of the nature of octroi charges
were often levied. (2) Until the 19th century European states were
numerous, and often of small size. Accordingly uniform customs tariffs
of wide application did not exist. Uniform rates of duty were fixed In
England by the Subsidy Act of 1660. In France, before the Revolution
(besides the free ports), Alsace and the Lorraine Bishoprics were in
trade matters treated as foreign countries. The unification of the
German customs tariff began in 1834 with the Steuerverein and the
Zollverein. The Spanish fiscal system did not include the Basque
provinces until about 1850. The uniform Italian tariff dates from 1861.
Thus until very recent times on the Continent free ports were compatible
with the fiscal policy and practice of different countries. (3) Along
the Mediterranean coast, up to the 19th century, convenient shelter was
needed from corsairs. In other continental countries the prevalent
colonial and mercantile policy sought to create trans-oceanic trade.
Free ports were advantageous from all these points of view.
In following the history of these harbours in Europe, it is to be
observed that in Great Britain free ports have never existed. In 1552
it was contemplated to place Hull and Southampton on this footing, but
the design was abandoned. Subsequently the bonding and not the free
port system was adopted in the United Kingdom.
_Austria-Hungary._--Fiume and Trieste were respectively free ports
during the periods 1722-1893 and 1719-1893.
_Belgium._--The emperor Joseph II. during his visit to the Austrian
Netherlands in June 1781 endeavoured to create a direct trade between
that country and India. Ostend was made a free port, and large bonding
facilities were afforded at Bruges, Brussels, Ghent and Louvain. In
1796, however, the revolutionary government abolished the Ostend
privileges.
_Denmark._--In November 1894 an area of about 150 acres at Copenhagen
was opened as a free port, and great facilities are afforded for
shipping and commercial operations in order that the Baltic trade may
centre there.
_France._--Marseilles was a free port in the middle ages, and so was
Dunkirk when it formed part of Flanders. In 1669 these privileges were
confirmed, and extended to Bayonne. In 1784 there was a fresh
confirmation, and Lorient and St Jean de Luz were included in the
_ordonnance_. The National Assembly in 1790 maintained this policy,
and created free ports in the French West Indies. In 1795, however,
all such privileges were abolished, but large bonding facilities were
allowed at Marseilles to favour the Levant trade. The government of
Louis XVIII. in 1814 restored, and in 1871 again revoked, the free
port privileges of Marseilles. There are now no free ports in France
or in French possessions; the bonding system is in force.
_Germany._--Bremen, Hamburg and Luebeck were reconstituted free towns
and ports under the treaties of 1814-1815. Certain minor ports, and
several landing-stages on the Rhine and the Neckar, were also
designated free. As the Zollverein policy became accepted throughout
Germany, previous privileges were gradually lessened, and since 1888
only Hamburg remains a free port. There an area of about 2500 acres is
exempt from customs duties and control, and is largely used for
shipping and commercial purposes. Bremerhaven has a similar area of
nearly 700 acres. Brake, Bremen, Cuxhaven, Emden, Geestemuende,
Neufahrwasser and Stettin possess Freibezirke areas, portions of the
larger port. Heligoland is outside the Zollverein--practically a
foreign country.
In _Italy_ free ports were numerous and important, and possessed
privileges which varied at different dates. They were--Ancona, during
the period 1696-1868; Brindisi, 1845-1862; Leghorn (in the 17th and
18th centuries a very important Mediterranean harbour), 1675-1867;
Messina, 1695-1879; Senigallia, 1821-1868, during the month of the
local fair. Venice possessed warehouses, equivalent to bonded stores,
for German and Turkish trade during the Republic, and was a free port
1851-1873. Genoa was a free port in the time of the Republic and under
the French Empire, and was continued as such by the treaties of
1814-1815. The free port was, however, changed into a "deposito
franco" by a law passed in 1865, and only storing privileges now
remain.
_Rumania._--Braila, Galatz and Kustenji were free ports (for a period
of about forty years) up to 1883, when bonded warehouses were
established by the Rumanian government. Sulina remains free.
_Russia._--Archangel was a free port, at least for English goods, from
1553 to 1648. During this period English products were admitted into
Russia via Archangel without any customs payment for internal
consumption, and also in transit to Persia. The tsar Alexis revoked
this grant on the execution of Charles I. Free ports were opened in
1895 at Kola, in Russian Lapland. Dalny, adjoining Port Arthur, was a
free port during the Russian occupation; and Japan after the war
decided to renew this privilege as soon as practicable.
The number of free ports outside Europe has also lessened. The
administrative policy of European countries has been gradually adopted
in other parts of the world, and customs duties have become almost
universal, conjoined with bonding and transhipment facilities. In
British colonies and possessions, under an act of parliament passed in
1766, and repealed in 1867, two ports in Dominica and four in Jamaica
were free, Malacca, Penang and Singapore have been free ports since
1824, Hong-Kong since 1842, and Weihaiwei since it was leased to Great
Britain in 1898. Zanzibar was a free port during 1892-1899. Aden,
Gibraltar, St Helena and St Thomas (West Indies) are sometimes
designated free ports. A few duties are, however, levied, which are
really octroi rather than customs charges. These places are mainly
stations for coaling and awaiting orders.
Some harbours in the Netherlands East Indies were free ports between
1829 and 1899; but these privileges were withdrawn by laws passed in
1898-1899, in order to establish uniformity of customs administration.
Harbours where custom houses are not maintained will be practically
closed to foreign trade, though the governor-general may in special
circumstances vary the application of the new regulations.
Macao has been a free port since 1845. Portugal has no other harbour
of this character.
The American Republics have adopted the bonding system. In 1896 a free
wharf was opened at New Orleans in imitation of the recent European
plan. Livingstone (Guatemala) was a free port during the period
1882-1888.
The privileges enjoyed under the old free port system benefited the
towns and districts where they existed; and their abolition has been,
locally, injurious. These places were, however, "foreign" to their own
country, and their inland intercourse was restricted by the duties
levied on their products, and by the precautions adopted to prevent
evasion of these charges. With fiscal usages involving preferential and
deferential treatment of goods and places, the drawbacks thus arising
did not attract serious attention. Under the limited means of
communication within and beyond the country, in former times, these
conveniences were not much felt. But when finance departments became
more completely organized, the free port system fell out of favour with
fiscal authorities: it afforded opportunities for smuggling, and impeded
uniformity of action and practice. It became, in fact, out of harmony
with the administrative and financial policy of later times. Bonding and
entrepot facilities, on a scale commensurate with local needs, now
satisfy trade requirements. In countries where high customs duties are
levied, and where fiscal regulations are minute and rigid, if an
extension of foreign trade is desired, and the competition which it
involves is a national aim, special facilities must be granted for this
purpose. In these circumstances a free zone sufficiently large to admit
of commercial operations and transhipments on a scale which will fulfil
these conditions (watched but not interfered with by the customs)
becomes indispensable. The German government have, as we have seen,
maintained a free zone of this nature at Hamburg. And when the free port
at Copenhagen was opened, counter measures were adopted at Danzig and
Stettin. An agitation has arisen in France to provide at certain ports
free zones similar to those at Copenhagen and Hamburg, and to open free
ports in French possessions. A bill to this effect was submitted to the
chamber of deputies on the 12th of April 1905. Colonial free ports, such
as Hong-Kong and Singapore, do not interfere with the uniformity of the
home customs and excise policy. These two harbours in particular have
become great shipping resorts and distributing centres. The policy which
led to their establishment as free ports has certainly promoted British
commercial interests.
See the Parliamentary Paper on "Continental Free Ports," 1904.
(C. M. K.)