C. "W.," which, despite the authority of Elmes, I unhesitatingly pronounce to be in the same

handwriting as the body of the MS. The entry, or entries, with which we are concerned are
the following : —

1675. NoviB BasilicEe Dvi Paulse Lon. Primum posuit lapidem :— 1710. Supremum in
Epitholio et exegit.

This memorandum, however, is somewhat oddly wedged in between entries of 1700 and
1718 respectively, and it is curious, to say the least, that all the other jottings, of which there
are fifteen, are arranged in strict chronological order. This manuscript at most merely
supplements the evidence of Christopher Wren, and tends to show that, in 1720— to use his
own words in another place — " he was of opinion " that the first stone of St Paul's had been
laid by his father. It is perhaps of more value in this inquiry from what it does not rather
than from what it does contain, as the omission of any entry whatever under the year 1691
wiU justify the conclusion that Christopher Wren was aware of no remarkable event in his
father's life having occurred at that date.

Passing over intermediate writers, by whom the same errors have been copied and
re-copied with wearisome iteration, I shall next give an extract from a work of high authority
and recent publication, and then proceed to summarize the leading points upon which our
attention should be fixed whilst considering the alternative hypothesis with regard to Wren's
"adoption" by the Freemasons in 1691, first launched by Mr Halliwell in 1844.

The Dean of St Paul's, in his interesting history of that cathedral, wherein he frequently
gives Elmes and the " Parentalia " as his authorities, informs us that " the architect himself
had the honour of laying the first stone (June 21, 1675). There was no solemn ceremonial;
neither the King nor any of the Court, nor the Primate, nor the Bishop, nor even, it should seem,
was Dean Bancroft or the Lord Mayor present. In the year 1710 Sir Clu-istopher Wren, by

1 The later of these is styled " Sir Christopher Wren and his Times," by James Elmes, 1853. It is "a new work
in a more general and less technical style than the former " (Author's Preface).

= Elmes, Memoirs of the Life and Works of Sir Christopher Wren, 1823, pr- 3^3, 493 ; Sir Christopher Wren and
his Times, 1852, pp. 281, 428.

^ Chronologica Series, Vita et Actorum D"' Christopheri Wren, Eij. Aur., etc., etc. (British Museum, Lansdowne
MSS., No. 698, fol. 136).

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 43

the hands of his son, attended by Mr Strong, the master mason, who had executed the tvJiole
work, and the body of Freemasons, of which Sir Christopher was an active member, laid the
last and highest stone of the lantern of the cupola." ^

A retrospect of the evidence from 1738 to 1823, or in other words from Anderson's
"Constitutions" of the former year down to the publication of Elmes's first biography of
Wren, shows that whilst Masonic writers,^ without exception, have successively copied and
enlarged the story of Wren's connection with the Society, their views acquire no corroboration,
but on the contrary are inconsistent with all that has come down to us respecting the great
architect in the writings of his contemporaries ^ and in the pages of the " Biographia Britannica."

The fable of Wren's Grand Mastership I shall not further discuss, except incidentally and
in connection with the testimony of Preston, it being sufficiently apparent — as tradition
can never be alleged for an absolute impossibility — that he could not have enjoyed in the
seventeenth century a title which was only created in the second decade of the eighteenth
(1717). It is also immaterial to the elucidation of the real point we are considering, whether
Charles II., Thomas Strong, or the architect himself laid the first stone, or whether Edward
Strong or the younger Wren laid the last stone of the cathedral.

Preston's statements, however, demand a careful examination. These are professedly
based on records of the Lodge of Antiquity, and there is no middle course between yielding
them full credence or rejecting them as palpable frauds. The maxim "Dolus latet in
generalibus " occurs to the mind when perusing the earlier editions of the " Illustrations
of Masonry." In 1775 Preston informs us "that Wren presided over the old Lodge of St
Paul's during the building of the cathedral," and not until 1792, a period of seventeen years —
during which Jive editions of his book were published — does he express himself in sufficiently
clear terms to enable us to critically examine the value of his testimony. At last, however,
he does so, and we read, " It appears from the records of the Lodge of Antiquity that Mr Wren
at this time [1G66] attended the meetings regularly,"* also that he patronized this lodge
upwards of eighteen years. Now this statement is either a true or a false one. If the former,
the Aubrey hypothesis of 1691 receives its quietus; if the latter, no further confidence can be
reposed in Preston as the witness of truth. Next there is the evidence respecting the mallet
and the candlesticks, which is very suggestive of the story of the " Three Black Crows," and
of the progressive development of the author's imagination, as successive editions of his work
saw the light. Finally there is the assertion that Gabriel Cibber and Edward Strong were
members of the lodge.

These statements I shall deal with seriatim. In the first place, the regular attendance of
Sir Christopher at the meetings of his lodge, is contradicted by the silence of all contemporary
history, notably by the diary of Elias Ashmole, F.E.S., who, in his register of occurrences for
1682, would in all probabihty, along with the entry relating to the Feast at the Mason's Hall,
have brought in the name of the then President of the Eoyal Society,^ had he been (as

' Dr II. H. Jlilman, Annals of St Paul's Cathedral, 1869, pp. 404, 432. Strong is also described as the " master
mason " who " assisted in laying the first stone and in fixing the last in the lantern " (Ibid., p. 410).

^ Constitutions, ITSS ; Multa Faucis ; Ahiman Rczon ; and the Illustrations of Masonry.

' Ashmole, Plot, Aubrey, Christopher Wren, and Edward Strong.

* Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 219.

° " Nov. 30, 1681. Sir Christopher Wren chosen President [of the Royal Society], Mr Austine, Secretary, with Dr
Plot, the ingenious author of the ' History of Oxfordshire' " (livelyn, Diary, 1802, vol. ii., p. 161).

44

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

contended) an active member of the fraternity. Indeed, it is almost certain that Sir
Christopher would himself have been present, or, at least, his absence accounted iox} whilst
we may go farther, and assume from Dr Plot's known intimacy with Wren — who is said to
have written Chapter IX. of his " Natural History of Oxfordshire " 2— that had the latter's
interest in Freemasonry been of the extensive character deposed to by Preston, Plot would have
known of it, whereas the language he permits himself to use in regard to the Freemasons in
1686 3 is quite inconsistent with the supposition that he believed either Wren or Ashmole * to
be members of a Society which he stigmatised in such terms of severity.

The next reflection that suggests itself, is the inference to be drawn, if we believe Preston,
that during the years over which Wren's membership of the lodge extended, the same records
from which he quotes must have justified his constantly using the expression " Grand Master,"
as it is hardly conceivable that a member of the lodge holding the high position of President
of the Society would invariably have his superior rank in the crajt ignored in the minutes and
proceedings of the loclcje,. As a matter of fact, however, we know that Wren could not have
held, in the seventeenth century, a title which did not then exist, and the conclusion is forced
upon us either that the " records " spoken of were as imaginary as the " Grand Mastership," or
that their authority was made to cover whatever in the shape of tradition or conjecture filled
Preston's mind when writing the history of his lodge.

The latter hypothesis is the more probable of the two. It is irrational to suppose that
Preston, to strengthen his case, would have cited the authority of writings which did not exist.
Some members, at least, of the Lodge of Antiquity, might have been in a position to contradict
him, and an appeal to imaginary or lost documents would have been as senseless an insult to
their understandings as it would to those of readers of these pages, were I to appeal to the
"Book of Merlin" or the manuscripts sacrificed by "scrupulous brethren" (1720) as a proof
of the Masonic Union of 1813.

In his use, however, of the word "records," the author of the "Illustrations" sets an
example which has been closely followed by Dr Oliver,^ and whenever either of these writers
presents a statement requiring for its acceptance the exercise of more than ordinary credulity,
it will invariably be found to rest upon the authority in the one case of an old record, and in
the other of a manuscript of the Society.^

A learned writer has observed, " such is the power of reputation justly acquired that its

' The absence of Edward Strong, senior, from whose epitaph "Citizen and Mason of London" I assume to have
teen a member of the "Mason's Company," a view strengthened by the circumstance that Edward Strong, junior,
certainly was one in 1724, is hard to reconcile with the positive assertion of Preston, that he was also a Freemason I The
younger Strong was not a member of any lodge in 1723.

2 Elmes 1852, p. 409. ' Natural History of Staffordshire, pp. 316-318.

* Dr Plot was first introduced to Ashmole in 1677 (through John Evelyn), and the latter appointed him the first
curator of his museum in 1683. Ashmole's diary records : "Nov. 19, 1634. Dr Plot presented me with his book, De
OniGiNE FONTIUM, which he had dedicated to me. May 23, 1686. Dr Plot presented me with his Natural History of
Stafford-shire " (Memoirs of Elias Ashmole, published by Charles Burman, 1717).

6 Styled by Mackey, in his " Enoyclopajdia of Freemasonry," " the most learned mason and the most indefatigable
and copious masonic author of his age."

8 " Records of the Society " are cited by Preston in proof of the initiations of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and
Henry VI. ; and the latter, on tlic same authority, is said to have perused the ancient Cliarges, revised the Constitutions,
and, with the consent of his council, honoured them with his sanction ! (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 189, 200.
See also pp. 174, 184, 185).

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

45

blaze drives away the eye from nice examination." The success of the famous " Illustrations "
was so marked, and its sale so great, as to raise the authority of the author beyond the rant^e
of criticism or detraction.^ Some remarks, however, of Dr Armstrong, Bishop of Graharastown,
on the kindred aberrations of the late Dr Oliver, are so much in point that I shall here intro-
duce them. After contending in a strain of severe satire that the Freemasons were not in the
least joking, in what many men considered as a joke, the Bishop continues : " Look for instance
at the Eev. G. Oliver, D.D. He is quite in earnest. There is really something wonderfully
refreshing in such a dry and hard-featured an age as this to find so much imagination at work.
After having pored through crabbed chronicles and mouldy MSS., with malicious and perverse
contractions, ragged and mildewed letters, illegible and faded diaries, etc., it is quite refreshing
to glide along the smooth and glassy road of imaginative history. Of course, where there is any
dealing with the more hackneyed facts of history, we must expect a little eccentricity and
some looseness of statement — we cannot travel quickly and cautiously too. Thus the doctor
of divinity, before mentioned, somewhat startles us by an assertion respecting the destruction
of Solomon's temple : ' Its destruction by the Eomans, as predicted, was fulfilled in the most
minute particulars ; and on the same authority we are quite certain it will never be rebuilt.'
He is simply mistaking the second temple for the first " ! ^

Preston, like Oliver, may be justly charged with having written Masonic history negligently
and inaccurately, and from unverified rumours. Indeed, their works almost warrant the
conclusion that, by both these writers, the rules of historical evidence were deemed of so
pliable a nature as to accommodate themselves to circumstances. Yet although it is affirmed by
a great authority that " unless some boldness of divination be allowable, aU researches into
early history .-. must be abandoned ; " ^ when there is a want of solid evidence, a writer does
not render his history true by treating the incidents as if they were real.

It will illustrate this last position if I pass to the story of the mallet and the candlesticks,
as in Preston's time "still preserved, and highly prized as mementos of the esteem of the
honourable donor." The statements that Charles II. levelled the foundation stone of the
cathedral with the mallet, and that the fact of the candlesticks having been presented by
Wren is attested by the records of the lodge, I shall pass over without further comment, and
apply the few remarks I have to add in examining into the inherent probability of either
mallet or candlesticks having been presented to the lodge by Sir Christopher. Tlie question
involves more than would appear at first sight, as its determination must either render the
Aubrey prediction of no value, by proving that Wren was a Freemason before 1691, or by a
contrary result, leaving us free to essay the solution of the alternative problem, unhampered
by the confusion which at present surrounds the subject as a whole.

It appears from the " Illustrations of Masonry " that about fifty years after the formation
of the Grand Lodge of England, a tradition was current in the Lodge of Antiquity that Wren

' Woodford says of Preston : "He may te fairly called the father of masonic history, and his work will always be
a standard work for Masons. Ho was a painstaking and acatrate writer ; and though we have access to MSS. which he
never saw, yet, on the whole, his original view of masonic history remains correct" (Kenning's Cycloiwdia, p. 566).
Although dissenting from tlus|estimate of the enduring value of Preston's writings, I readily admit that, at the period
of original publication, the " Hlustrations of Masonry " was, by a long way, t!ic Icsl book of its kitul.

' The Christian Remembrancer, No. Ivii., July 1847.

« B. G. Niebuhr, History of Rome, 3d English ed., 1S37, vol. i., p. 152.

46 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

had been at one time a member, and that certain articles still in its possession were presented
by him. The importance of this — the first lodge on the roll — is much dwelt upon, and more
suo, Preston silences all possible cavillers in the following words : — " By an old record of the
Lodge of Antiquity it appears that the new Grand Master was always proposed and presented
for approbation in that Lodge before his election in the Grand Lodge." ^

Let us examine how these traditions are borne out by the existing records of the Grand
Lodge of England.

The earliest minutes of this body, now preserved, commence in 1723, and in the first
volume of these proceedings, are given lists of lodges and their members for the years 1725
and 1730, after which last date no register of members was again kept by the central
authority until Preston's time, whose name appears in the earliest return of members from
the Lodge of Antiquity,^ to be found in the archives of the Grand Lodge. The first entry in
the volume referred to runs as follows : —

"This Manuscript was begun the 25th November 1723," and it gives "a List of the
Eegular Constituted Lodges, together with the Names of the Masters, Wardens, and members
of Each Lodge." The four lodges, who in 1717 founded the Grand Lodge, met in 1723 : —

1. At the Goose and Gridiron,^ in St Paul's Churchyard.

2. At the Queen's Head, Turnstile : formerly the Crown, in Parker's Lane.

3. At the Queen's Head, in Knave's Acre: formerly the Apple Tree, in Charles St.,

Covent Garden.

4. At the HoRNE, at Westminster: formerly the PiUMMER and Grapes, in Channel Piow.
With the exception of Anthony Sayer * — the premier Grand Master — Thomas Morris and

Josias Villenau, the first named of whom is cited in the roll of No. 3, and the others in
that of No. 1,^ all the eminent persons who took any leading part in the early history of
Freemasonry, immediately after, what by a -perversion of language has been termed " the
Revival," were members of No. 4. In 1723 No. 1 had twenty-two members ; No. 2, twenty-
one ; No. 3, fourteen ; and No. 4, seventy-one. The three senior lodges possessed among them
no member of sufficient rank to be described as " Esquire," whilst in No. 4 there were ten
noblemen, three honourables, four baronets or knights, seven colonels, tioo clerg}Tnen, and
twenty-four esquires. Payne, Anderson, and Desaguliers were members of this lodge.

It ajipears to me that if Wren had been at any time a member of No. 1, some at least of
the distinguished personages who were Freemasons at the period of his death (1723) would
have belonged to the same lodge. But what do we find ? Not only are Nos. 1, 2, and 3
composed of members below the social rank of those in No. 4, but it is expressly stated in
a publication of the year 1730, that " the first and oldest constituted lodge, according to

' Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 257.

° This name was taken by the lodge in 1770. See "The Four OM Lodges," 1S79, passim.

' Original No. 1 removed from the Goose and Gridiron between 1723 and 1729, from which latter year (except
for a short time whilst at the Paul's Head, Ludgate Street) its description on the list was the King's (or Queen's)
Akms, St Paul's Churchyard, with the additional title, from 1760, of the West India and Amekican Lodge. In
1770 it became the Lodge op Antiquity. At the union in 1813, the two first lodges drew lots for priority, with the
result of the older lodge — original No. 1 — becoming No. 2, which number it still retains.

* Sayer was Grand Master in 1717, and S.G.W. in 1719.

» Thomas Mon-i« was .J.G.W. in 1718, 1719, and 1721. JosiaA Villeneau was S.G.W. in 1721. Both were members
of No. 1, according to the lists of 1723 and 1725.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 47

the Lodge Book in London," made a " visitation " to another lodge, on whicli occasion the
deputation consisted of " operative Masons." *

To the objection that this fact rests on the authority of Samuel Prichard, I reply, that
statements which are incidentally mentioned by writers, without any view to establish a
favourite position, are usually those the most entitled to credit.

If, as Preston asserts, the Grand Master was always presented for the approbation of No. 1
hefore his election in Grand Lodge — an arrangement, by the way, which would have rendered
nugatory tlie general regulations of the craft ^ — how came it to pass (not to speak of the
singularity of the first Grand Master having been selected from the ranks of No. 3) that no
member of the senior lodge was placed on the Masonic throne before the Society had " the
honour of a noble brother at its head ? " Are we to suppose that from an excess of humility
or diffidence the brethren of this lodge passed a self-denying ordinance, or otherwise
disqualified themselves, for the supreme dignity which (in Preston's view of the facts), we
must conclude, would be pressed upon their acceptance ?

The difficulty of reconciling Preston's statements with the early elections to the office of
Grand Master, seems, indeed, to have been felt by Dr Oliver, who, unable to build an
hypothesis on matter of fact, and make it out by sensible demonstration, forthwith proceeds
to find a fact that will square with a suitable hypothesis. This is accomplished by making
DesaguHers a member of No. 1, a supposition wholly untenable, unless we disbelieve the
actual entries in the register of Grand Lodge, but which shows, nevertheless, that the
secondary position actually filled by the lodge during the period of transition (1717-1723)
between the lerjendary and the historical eras of the craft, must have appeared to Dr Oliver
inconsistent with the pretensions to a supremacy over its fellows advanced by William
Preston.

The early minutes of Grand Lodge furnish no evidence of any special privilege having been
claimed by the masonic body, over which in later years it was Preston's fortune to preside.
They record, indeed, that on May 29, 1733, the Master of the Lodge at the Paul's Head in
Ludgate Street, asserted his right to carry the Grand Sword before the Grand ^Master; upon
which occasion the Deputy Grand Master observed " that he (the D. G. M.) could not entertain
the memorial without giving up the undoubted right of the Grand Master in appointing his
own officers." ^ But the senior English Lodge met at the King's Arjis, St Paul's Churchyard,
in 1733, and did not remove to the Paul's Head until 1735.

The tradition of the mallet * and candlesticks was first made known to the world, as we

^ Masonry Dissected, by Samuel Pricliard, late mernter of a constituted lodge, 1730. This pamphlet will be again
referred to.

^ When an election was necessary, it was ordered by the General Regulations of 1721, that " the new Grand Master
shall be chosen immediately by ballot, every master and warden writing his man's name, and the last Grand Master
writing his man's name too ; and the man whose name the last Grand Master shall first take out, casually or by chance,
shall be Grand Master for the year ensuing ; and, if present, he shall be proclaimed, saluted, and congratulated, as
above hinted, anA forthwith installed by the last Grand Master, according to us.ige" (Article XXXIV.).

' Grand Lodge minutes.

* An inscription on a silver plate, let into the head of the mallet by order of the Duke of Sussex in 1827, records
that with it " King Charles II. levelled the foundation-stone of St Paul's Cathedral a.d. 1673 ; " also its presentation
to the "Old Lodge of St Paul's, by Bro. Sir Christopher 'Wrcu, R.W.D.G.M., Worshipful Master of the Lodge"
(Freemasons' Magazine, May 26, 1866, p. 407). It is to be regretted that in this inscription — behind which few will
care to go — there are no less than six misstatements !

48 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

have seen, after Prestoii became Master of the Lodge. Its authenticity, or in other words, the
probability of its having been so jealously concealed from the public ear for upwards of a
century, has now to be considered. At the outset of this history,^ I quoted the dictum of a
high authority, that "a tradition should be proved by authentic evidence, to be not of
subsequent growth, but to be founded on a contemporary recollection of the fact recorded." ^
In this case the requisite proof that the tradition was derived from contemporary witnesses
is forthcoming, if the numerous records whereupon Preston bases his statements are held
to satisfactorily attest the facts they are called in aid of, without troubling ourselves
to weigh the pros and cons which may be urged for and against their admission as
evidence. Putting these aside, however, as the finger-posts of an imaginative history, we
find the tradition rests upon the unsupported statement of a credulous and inaccurate
•writer — unable to distinguish between history and fable — and whose accounts of Locke's
initiation, the Batt^ Parliament, the admission of Henry VI., and of Henry VII. having
presided in person over a lodge of Masters,* are alone sufficient to discredit his testimony.
All historical evidence must indeed be tested by the canon of probability. If witnesses depose
to improbable facts before a court of justice, their veracity is open to suspicion. The more
improbable the event which they attest, the stronger is the testimony required. The same rules
of credibility apply to historical as to judicial evidence.^ In the present case a tradition is first
launched — to our actual knowledge — nearly a century later than the events it inshrines, and a
story improbable in itself, becomes even less credible, through the suspicious circumstances
which surround its publication. The means of information open to the historian, his veracity,
accuracy, and impartiality, here constitute a medium through which the evidence has come
down to us, and upon which we must more or less implicitly rely. The immediate proof
is beyond our reach, and instead of being able to examine it for ourselves, we can only
stand at a distance, and by the best means in our power, estimate its probable value. This
secondary evidence may sometimes rise almost to absolute certainty, or it may possess scarcely
an atom of real weight.

As it is of little importance by what authority an opinion is sanctioned, if it will not itself
stand the test of sound criticism, the veracity and accuracy of Preston, even if he is accorded
a larger share of those qualities than I am willing to admit, will count for very little, in the
judf'ment of all by whom the chief qualification of an historian is deemed to be " an earnest
craving after truth, and an utter impatience, not of falsehood merely, but of error."*^

The statement that in the reign of George I. masonry languished, owing to the age and
infirmities of Sir Christopher Wren, " drawing off his attention from the duties of his office,"
is obviously an afterthought, arising out of the necessity of finding some plausible explanation
of the embarrassing /aci that such an earnest Freemason as, after his death, the great architect
is made out to have been, should have so jealously guarded the secret of his early membership,

' Ante Chap. I., p. 4. ° Lewis, On the Influence of Autliority in Matters of Opinion, p. 90.

'Ante Chap. VII., p. 366, note 2. * Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 162, 191, 199, 202.

» Cf. Lewis, On the Methods of Observation and Eeasoning in Politics, 1852, vol. i., p. 291 ; and Taylor, Process
of Historical Proof, 1828, pp. 57, 85.

» Dr Arnold, Lectures on Modern History, 1842 (viii. ), p. 377. As all later writers follow Preston in his account
of the early history of the Grand Lodge of England, it will be seen, as we proceed, that the value of his evidence cannot
be too closely e-xaniincd.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 49

that it remained unsuspected even by his own family, and was quite unknown to the compilers
of the first book of "Constitutions," including the many "learned brothers" called in to assist,
some of whom no doubt were members of the lodge possessing the mallet and candlesticks on
which so much has been founded. If this story had not been generally accepted by the
historians of masonry,^ I should pass it over without further comment. Together with other
mythical history, we may safely anticipate that it wiU soon fall back into oblivion, but mean-
while, out of respect to the names of those writers by whom the belief has been kept alive, I
shall briefly state why, in my judgment, the general opinion is altogether an erroneous one.

In the first place, assuming Wren to have been a Freemason at all — and in my opinion
the evidence points in quite another direction — he would have had much difficulty in neglect-
ing an offi.cc, which at the time named did not exist ! Next, if we concede a good deal more,
and grant the possibility of his being the leading spirit, by whatever name styled, of the
Society ; all that has come down to us in the several biographies of Wren, by writers other
than those whose fanciful theories are merely supported by extravagant assertions, testifies to
his complete immunity at the period referred to— 1708-1717— from the ordinary infirmities of
advanced age. He remained a member of Parliament until 1712. In 1713 he published his
reply to the anonymous attacks made upon him in the pamphlet called " Frauds and Abuses
at St Paid's." The same year he also surveyed Westminster Abbey for his friend, Bishop
Atterbury, the Dean ; and wrote an excellent historical and scientific report on its structure
and defects, communicating his opinions on the best mode of repairing it, together with other
observations.^ An instance of his activity of mind in 1717 — the year in which the Grand
Lodge of England was established — is afforded by his reply to the commissioners for rebuild-
ing St Paul's, who were bent on having a balustrade erected on the top of the church in
opposition to the wishes of the great architect.* "The following year " (1718), says Elmes,
" witnessed the disgracefid fall of Sir Christopher Wren in the 86th year of his age, and the 49th
of his ofiice as surveyor-general of the royal buildings;* his mental faculties unimpaired, and his
lodily health equal to the finishing, as the head of his office,^ the works he had so ably began." «
Wren lived five years longer, and employed this leisure of his age in philosophical studies.
Among these, he overlooked part of his thoughts for the discovery of the longitude at sea, a
review of some of his former tracts in astronomy and mathematics, and other meditations and
researches.''

Having examined the question of Wren's alleged membership of the society, apart from
the entry in the " Natural History of Wiltshire," the alternative supposition of his admission
in 1691 wiU now be considered, and I shall proceed to analyse the statement of John Aubrey,
which has been given in full at an earlier page.

' Anderson ; the autlior of " Multa Paucis ;" Dermott ; Preston ; Findel ; etc., etc.

» Elmcs, Memoirs of Sir Christoplier Wren, 1823, pp. 605, 506. This report is given in the " Pnreutalia."

s/tirf., p. 510.

* "1718 [April 26]. Exauctoratus est : Anno at odogesimo sexto, et praefectura; qua operum rcgiorum qiiadragcsbno
nono" (British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., No. 698, foh 136).

= Tlie " office " Sir Christopher is said to have neglected certainly could not have heen that of Surveyor-general.

« Elmes, Memoirs of Sir Christopher Wren, 1823, p. 510. Dean Milmau says : " Wren, being still in fiiU
possession of his wonderful facuUics, was ignoniiniously dismissed from bis ollicc of Surveyor of Public Works" (Annals
of St Paul's Cathedral, 1869, p. 443).

' Elmes, Memoirs of Sir Christopher Wren, 1823, p. 513.

VOL. u. a

50 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

In my opinion, it is the sole shred of evidence upon which a belief in Wren's admission is,
for a moment, entertainable, though its importance has been overrated, for reasons that are
not far to seek.

The Aubrey Memorandum, as we have seen/ was not printed until 1844 Up to that
period the statements in the " Constitutions " of 1738, that Sir Christopher was a Freemason,
at least as early as 1663, had remained unchallenged. The new evidence ajjpeared not to
dislodge the fact itself, but merely to indicate that its date had been set too far backwards.
The old tradition was, therefore, modified, but not overthrown ; and, though tlie change of
front involved in reality what might be termed a new departure in masonic history, writers of
the craft saw only a confirmation of the old story, and the idea, that under the influence of a
pre-existing belief in Wren's connection with Treemasonry, they were adopting a rival theory,
utterly destructive of the grounds on which that belief was based, does not seem to have
occurred to them.

The position of affairs may be illustrated in this way. Let us imagine a trial, where, after
protracted and convincing evidence had been given in favour of the plaintiff, it had all to be
struck out of the judge's notes, and yet the trial went on before the same jury ? The Aubrey
theory requires, indeed, to be discussed on its own merits, since it derives no confirmation
from, and is in direct opposition to, the belief it displaced. Suppose, therefore, by the
publication of Aubrey's Memorandum in 1844, the first intimation had been conveyed that
Wren was a Freemason, would it have been credited ? Yet, if the statement and inference are
entitled to credence, all authorities placing the initiation at a date prior to 1691 are, to use
tlie words of Hallam, equally mendacious. Down goes at one swoop the Andersonian myth,
and with it all the improvements and additions which the ingenuity of later liistorians have
supplied. The case would then stand on the unsupported testimony of John Aubrey — a
position which renders it desirable to take a nearer view of his personal character and
history."

Aubrey was born at Caston Piers, in Wiltshire, March 12, 1626 ; educated at Trinity
College, Oxford; admitted a stixdent of the Middle Temple, April, 16, 1646;^ and elected a
Fellow of the Eoyal Society in 1662. He may be regarded as essentially an archa:ologist, and
the first person in this country who fairly deserved the name. Historians, chroniclers, and
topographers there had been before his time ; but he was the first who devoted his studies
and abilities to archaeology, in its various ramifications of architecture, genealogy, palteography,
numismatics, heraldry, etc. With a naturally curious and inquiring mind, he lost no oppor-
tunity of obtaining traditionary and personal information. So early as the days of Hearne,
this peculiarity had procured for him the character of a " foolish gossip ; " indeed, Eay, the
distinguished naturalist, in one of his letters to Aul)rey, cautions him against a too easy
credulity. " I think," says Eay — " if you give me leave to be free with you — that you are a
little inclinable to credit strange relations." Hearne speaks of him, " that by his intimate

' Ante, p. 5.

' Except when other references are given, the sketch which follows in the text is derived from Britton's " Memoir
of Aubrey," 1845 ; the " Natural History of Wiltshire," 1847 (Preface) ; and the editorial notices prefixed to Aubrey's
various works.

^ In the same year Ashmole was initiated, and Sir Christopher Wren was entered as a fellow commoner at Wadham
College, Oxford. " 1646, Oct. 16. I was made a Freemason at AVarrington in Lancashire" (Ashmole's Diary). " 1646.
Admissus in Collegio de Wadham Oxonite, commensalis generosus" (0. Wren in Lansdowne MS., No. 698).

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 51

acquaintance with Mr Ashmole, in his latter years, he too much indulged his fancy, and
wholly addicted himself to the whimseys and conceits of astrologers, soothsayers, and suchlike
ignorant and superstitious writers, which have no foundation in nature, philosophy, or reason."
Malone observes : " However fantastical Aubrey may have been on the subjects of chemistry
and ghosts, his character for veracity has never been impeached."

It may be doubted whether the contemptuous language applied towards Aubrey in the
diary of Anthony ^ Wood, expresses the real sentiments of the latter whilst the two anti-
quaries were on friendly terms, and the article containing it seems to have been written so
late as 1693 or 1694. Of Aubrey, Wood says : " He was a shiftless person, roving and
magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than crazed ; and, being exceedingly credulous,
would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and misinformations, M-hich sometimes
would guid him into the paths of errour." ^ Anthony a Wood ako used to say of him when
he was at the same time in company : " Look, yonder goes such a one, who can tell such
and such stories, and I'le warrant Mr Aubrey will break his neck down stairs rather tlian
miss him." ^

Toland, who was well acquainted with Aubrey, and certainly a better judge than Wood,
gives this character of him : " Though he was extremely superstitious, or seemed to be so, yet
he was a very honest man, and most accurate in his account of matters of fact. But the facts
he knew, not the reflections he made, were what I wanted." ^

The Aubrey evidence consists of two items, which must be separately considered. The
first, commencing " Sir William Dugdale told me many years ago," I accept as the statement of
that antiquary, on the authority of an ear- witness, and its genuineness derives confirmation from
a variety of collateral facts which have been suf&ciently glanced at. The second is not so easily
dealt with. If in both cases, instead of in one only. Sir William Dugdale had been Aubrey's
informant, and the stories thus communicated were, each of them, corroborated by independent
testimony, there would be no difficulty. The announcement, however, of Wren's approaching
admission stands on quite another footing from that of the entry explaining the derivation of
the Freemasons. Upon the estimate of Aubrey's character, as given above, we may safely follow
him in matters of fact, though his guidance is to be distrusted when he wanders into the region
of speculation. His anecdotes of eminent men exhibit great credulity, and are characterised
by much looseness of statement.* Thus, he describes Dr Corbet, Bishop of Oxford, at a confir-

1 Athena; Oxonienses (Dr P. Bliss, 1813-20), vol. i., p. Ix. Malone remarks : "This example of bad English and
worse taste was written after twenty-fire years' acquaintance " (Historical Account of the English Stage). As a contrast
may be cited a very friendly letter from Aubrey to Wood, dated Sept. 2, 1694, preserved in the Bodleian Library, wherein
he reproaches him for having ' ' cut out a matter of forty pages out of one of his volumes, as also the index. " He concludes :
" I thought you so dear a friend, that I might have entrusted my life in your hands ; and now your unkindness doth
ilmost break my heart. So God bless you. ' Tuissimus.'— A."
Athena; Oxonienses, vol. i., p. cxv.

' J. Toland, History of the Druids (R. Huddlestone), 1814, p. 159. Toland, one of the founders of modern deism,
and the author of " Christianity not Mysterious" (1696), was born Nov. 30, 1669, and died March 11, 1722. ]iy
Chalmers he is styled " a man of uncommon abilities, and perhaps the most learned of all the infidel writers " (General
Biographical Dictionary, vol. iv., p. 434).

* " It must be confessed that the authenticity, or at least the accuracy, of Aubrey's anecdotes of eminent men h.ns
been much suspected " (Saturday Review, Sept. 27, 1879, p. 383). Aubrey's "highly credulous nature " is referred to
in the " Encyclopoedia Britannica,"and by Rces he is styled "a good classical scholar, a tolerable naturalist, and a most
laborious antiquarian ; but credulous and addicted to superstition " (New Cyclnpaidia, 1802-20).

52 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

mation, being about to lay his band on the bead of a man very babl, as turning to bis cbaplaiii
and saying, " Some dust, Lusbington — to kcepc his hand from slippinri ! " ^ Two dreams of Sir
Cbristopber Wren are related. In tbe year 1651, at bis father's bouse in Wiltshire, be sees the
battle of Worcester. In 1671, when lying ill at Paris, be dreamt that be was in a place where
palm-trees grew, and that a woman in a romantic habit reached him dates. Tbe next day be
sent for dates, wbicb cured bim.^ Dr Kicbard Nepier, Aubrey informs us, was a person of great
abstinence, innocence, and piety. " When a patient, or querent, came to him, he presently went
to bis closet to pray, and told to admiration tbe recovery or death of tbe patient. It appears
by bis papers that be did converse with tbe angel Eaphael, who gave him tbe responses." *

Tbe Memorandum of 1691, it will be seen, comes to us on tbe sole authority of a very
credulous writer, and, if we believe it, entails some curious consequences. To Aubrey's mere
prediction of an approaching event, we shall yield more credence than bis contemporaries did
to tbe authenticity of his anecdotes. Thus affording an instance of our believing as a prophet
one whom we might reasonably distrust as an historian.

Bayle says that a hearsay report should be recorded only in one of two cases— if it is
very probable, or if it is mentioned in order to be refuted.* By another authority it is laid
down that " a historical narrative must be well attested. If it is merely probable, without
being well attested, it cannot be received as historical." ^ Judged liy either of tliese standards,
tbe belief that Wren was adopted a Freemason in 1691 being at once improbable and ill-
attested, must fall to tbe ground.

Tbe wording of tbe Memorandum is peculiar. On a certain day. Sir Christopher Wren
" is to he " — not was — " adopted a brother." Two comments suggest themselves. Tbe first,
that even bad one copy only of tbe manuscript been in existence, the iwecUction that a particular
event was about to happen can hardly be regarded as equivalent to its fulfilment. The second,
that in transferring bis additional notes from tbe original manuscript to the fair copy, wbicb
may have happened at any time between 1691 and the year of bis death (1697), Aubrey,- who
was on good terms with Wren, would have supplemented his meagre allusion to the latter's
initiation by some authentic details of the occurrence, derived from tbe great architect himself,
had there been any to relate.

Candour, however, demands the acknowledgment, that the transcription by Aubrey of his
original entry may be read in another light, for although Wren's actual admission is not made
any plainer, tbe repetition of tbe first statement— unless tbe fair copy was of almost even date
with the later entries in tbe earlier MS., which is, I think, the true explanation — will at least
warrant the conclusion, that nothing had occvirred in tbe interval between the periods in which

' Aubrey, Lives of Eminent Men, 1813, vol. ii., p. 293.

" Ibid., pp. 84, 85.

'Aubrey, Miscellanies upon Various Subjects, 178i, p. 223. According to tbe same autbority, "Elias Asbmole
had all these papers, which he carefully bound up. Before tbe responses stands this mark, viz., E. Eis., which Mr
Asbmole said was Ecsimnsum Eajyliaclis."

■•General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, English Edition, 1734-38, art. " Baldus, " note c. The same writer
also points out the danger of trusting to hearsay reports in historical questions [art. " Chigi," note g.). Sir G. Lewis
says : "All hearsay evidence, all evidence derived from the repetition of a story told orally by the original witness, and
perhaps passed on orally through two or three more persons, is of inferior value, and to be placed on a lower degree ot
credibility" (On the Methods of Observation and Eeasoning in Politics, 1852, p. 185).

' IjBwis, On the Methods of Observation and Eeasoning in Politics, p. 292.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 53

the entries were respectively made, to sliake the writer's faitli in the credibility of his original
announcement.

It has been said, that we must give up all history if we refuse to admit facts recorded by
only one historian,^ but in the problem before us, whilst there is the evidence of a single
witness, he deposes to no facts. What, moreover, rests on the unsupported testimony of a
solitary witness, must stand or fall by it, whether good, bad, or indifferent. Here we have
what is at best a prognostication, respecting an eminent man, and it comes to us through the
medium of a credulous writer whose anecdotes of celebrities are, by all authorities alike,
regarded as the least trustworthy of his writings. Yet by historians of the craft it has been
held to transform tradition into fact, and to remove what had formerly rested on jMasonic
legend to the surer basis of actual demonstration. " Wlio ever," says Locke, " by the most
cogent arguments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself at once of all his old opinions,
and turn himself out stark naked in quest afresh of new notions ? " ^ The Aubrey memor-
andum, may, indeed, record a popular rumour, and its authority can be carried no higher; but
even on this supposition, and passing over the weakness of its attestation, the event referred
to as impending can only be rendered remotely probable, by clearing the mind of all that has
been laid down by other writers on the subject of "Wren's connection with the Society.

A commentator observes — " the very words which Aubrey uses, the terms he employs, the
place of admission, the names of the co-initiates, all combine to .show that we have here the
only account on which we can safely rely. However it may interfere with other statements,
however antagonise received dates, I feel convinced that Aubrey gives us the true chronology
of Sir Christopher Wren's admission to the secrets and mysteries of Freemasonry." ^ With
slight variation of language similar conclusions have been expressed by later masonic writers.*

Many of the arguments already adduced in refutation of the earlier hypothesis bear with
equal force against the pretensions of its successor. For example, if Wren was a Freemason
at all, the curious fact that his membership of the Society was unknown to the craft, or at
least had passed out of recollection in 1723 ; ^ and the strictly operative character of the " Old
Lodge of St Paul," in 172.3, 1725, and 1730, are alike inexplicable under either hypothesis.

If Wren, Sir Henry Goodric, and other persons of mark, were really " adopted " at a " great
Convention of the Masons " in 1691, the circumstance seems to have pressed with little weight
upon the public mind, and is nowhere attested in the public journals. Such an event, it
might be imagined, as the initiation of the king's architect, at a great convention, held in the
metropolitan cathedral— the Basilica of St Paul — could not readily be forgotten. Neverthe-
less, this formal reception of a distinguished official (if it ever occurred) escapes all notice at
the hands of his contemporaries, relatives, or biographers.

Sir Henry GoodricZ;c — associated with Wren in Aubrey's memorandum — a knight and
baronet, was born October 24, 1642, married Mary, the daughter of Colonel W. Legg, and

1 Dr Watson, An Apology for the Bible, 1796, p. 239.

' Locke, Essay on the Human Understanding, 1828, book iv., chap, xx., § 11.

^ Freemasons' Magazine, Marcli 7, 1863, p. 190.

* Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 129 ; Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 139 ;
Steiiibrenner, Origin and Early History of Freemasonry, pp. 126, 133 ; Tlie Four Old Lodges, p. 46. See, however, tho
title "Wren" in Kenning's " Cyclopaidia. "

^ I.e., in 1723, the date of publication of the first book of " Constitutions." The humble part (ilayed by the senioc
lodge in 1717 is also worthy of attention.

54 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

sister to George, Lord Dartmouth, but died M'itliout issue after a long illness at Brentford
in Middlesex, March 5, 1705. He was Envoy Extraordinary from Charles II., King of
England, to Charles II., Elng of Spain, Privy Councillor to WiUiam III., and a Lieutenaut-
General of the Ordnance. Newspapers of the time, and the ordinary works of reference,
throw no further light upon his general career, nor— except in the "Natural History of
Wiltshire " is he mentioned in connection with the Freemasons or with Sir Christopher Wren.

In the preceding remarks, it has been my endeavour, to ascertain the general character
of the sources, from which the belief in Wren's adoption has been derived, and to indicate
how it came to assume the form in which it now exists. Originating with Anderson, it
has nevertheless received so much embellishment at the hands of Preston, as to have
virtually descended to us on his authority, with its vitality practically unimpaired by
the discrepant testimony of John Aubrey. In both instances the story depends upon the
authority of the narrator, and the word of the antiquary is, in my judgment, quite as
trustworthy as that of the author of the famous " Illustrations of Masonry." Both wit-
nesses appear to me to have been misled, the one by partiality for his lodge and pride in
its history, the other by innate credulity.

When Preston began to coUect materials for his noted work, which embraced an account
of masonry in the century preceding his own, all memory of events dating so far backwards had
perished, and no authentic oral traditions could have been in existence. The events he
describes, are antecedent to the period of regular masonic history and contemporaneous registra-
tion ; and it may I think be assumed with certainty, that the stories which he relates of Wren
prove at most, that in the second half of the eighteenth century, they were then beUeved by the
Lodge or Antiquity. " Unless," says Sir G. Lewis, " an historical account can be traced, by
probable proof, to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility

fails." 1

The first link in the chain of tradition— if tradition there was— had long ago disappeared,
and despite Preston's asseverations to the contrary, there was no channel by which a con-
temporary record of any such events could have reached him.

Aubrey's memorandum has been sufficiently examined, but in parting with it I may
remark, that his story of Wren's forthcoming adoption, appears to me quite as incredible as the
other tales relating to the great architect, extracted from his anecdotes of eminent men.

It is quite certain, that what in one age was affirmed upon slight grounds, can never after
come to be more valid in future ages by being often repeated. " All that is to be found in
books is not built upon sure foundations, and a man shaU never want crooked paths to walk
in, wherever he has the footsteps of others to foUow." ^ " Perhaps," says Locke, " we should
make greater progress in the discovery of rational and contemplative knowledge, if we sought
it in the fountain, in the consideration of things themselves, and made use rather of our own
thoughts than other men's to find it; for we may as rationally hope to see with other men's
eyes, as to know by other men's understandings." ^

1 An Inquiry into tlie Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol. i., p. 16.

» Locke, On the Conduct of the Understanding, § 20. " We take our principles at haphazard, upon trust, and
without ever having examined them, and then believe a whole system, upon a presumption that they are true and solid ;
and what is all this" but chUdish, shameful, senseless credulity" (Tbid., § 12).

s Essay on the Human Understanding, book i., chap, iv., § 2-3.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

55

The popular belief that Wren was a Freemason, though hitherto unchallenged, and
supported by a great weight of authority, is, in my judgment, unsustained by any basis of well-
attested fact. The admission of the great architect — at any period of his life — into the
masonic fraternity, seems to me a mere figment of the imagination, but it may at least be
confidently asserted, that it cannot be proved to be a reality.

General Assemblies.

As the question of legendary Grand Masters is closely connected with that of the " Annual
Assemblies," over which they are said to have presided, the few observations I have to add
upon the former of these subjects will be introductory of the latter, to the further consideration
of which I am already pledged.^

According to the " Constitutions " of 1723, [Queen] "Elizabeth being jealous of any Assem-
blies of her Subjects, whose Business she was not duly appriz'd of, attempted to break up the
annual Communication of Masons, as dangerous to her Government : But, as old Masons have
transmitted it by Tradition, when the noble Persons her Majesty had commissioned, and
brought a sufficient Posse with them at YorJc on St John's Day, were once admitted into the
Lodge, they made no use of Arms, and return'd the Queen a most honourable Account of the
ancient Fraternity, whereby her political Fears and Doubts were dispell'd, and she let them
alone as a People much respected by the Noble and the Wise of all the polite Xations." -

In the second edition of the same work, wherein, as we have already seen. Wren is first
pronounced to have been a Mason and a Grand Master, Dr Anderson relates the anecdote
somewhat differently. The Queen, we are now told, " hearing the Masons had certain Secrets
that could not be reveal'd to her (for that she could not be G-rand Master), and being jealous
of all Secret Assemblies, sent an armed Force to break up their annual Grand Lodge at York
on St John's Day, 27 Dec. 1561." The Doctor next assures us that — "This Tradition was
firmly believ'd by all the old English Masons " — and proceeds : " But Sir Thomas Sackville,
Grand Master, took Care to make some of the Chief Men sent. Free-masons, who, then joining
in that Communication, made a very honourable Eeport to the Queen ; and she never more
attempted to dislodge or disturb them as a peculiar sort of Men that cultivated Peace and
Friendship, Arts and Sciences, without meddling in the Affairs of Church or State." ^

Finally, we read that " when Grand Master Sackville demitted, a.d. 1567, Francis Paissell,
Earl of Bedford, was chosen in the North, and in the South Sir Thomas Gresham."

Identical accounts appear in the later " Constitutions" for 1756, 1767, and 1784.

The story again expands under the manipulation of WUliam Preston, wlio narrates it as an
historical fact, without any qualification whatever, and it is conveniently cited in confirmation
of there having been in still earlier times a Grand Lodge in York — a theory otherwise unsup-
ported, save by " a record of the Society, written in the reign of Edward IV., said to have been
in tlie possession of Elias Ashmole, and unfortunately destroyed " ! Preston follows the
"Constitutions " in making the Earl of Bedford and Sir Thomas Gresham succeed Sackville, but
adds: " Notwithstanding this new appointment of a Grand Master for the South, the General

' Ante, Chan. IL, p. 106. " Dr J-imes Anderson, The Constitutions of the Freemasons, 1723, p. 38.

'Anderson, The New Book of Constitutions, 1738, p. 80. Throughout this extract, the italics are those of Dr
AnJurson.

56 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

Assembly continued to meet in the city of York as heretofore, where all the records were kept;
and to this Assembly appeals were made on every important occasion." ^

The more historical version, and that preferred by Kloss, who rationalises this masonic
incident, though he leaves its authenticity an open question, is, that if Elizabeth's design of
breaking up a meeting of the Freemasous at York was frustrated by the action of " Lord "
Sackville, " it does not necessarily follow that his lordship was present as an Accepted Mason,"
since " he may have been at the winter quarterly meeting of the St John's Festival as an
enthusiastic amateur of the art of architecture, which history j^ronounces him actually to have
been." ^ Although the legend is mentioned by numerous writers both in the last and present
centuries, room was found for a crowning touch in 1843, which it accordingly received at the
hand of Clavel, who, in his " Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Ma^onnerie," * not only gives
full details of this meeting at York, but also an elegant copper-plate engraving representing
the whole affair ! ! " Surely," as a hostile critic has remarked, " the ' three Black Crows ' were
nothing to this story of masonic tradition." *

Among the facts which Preston conceives to have become well authenticated by his own
version of the Sackville tradition are the following : That a General or Grand Lodge was
established at the city of York in the tenth century, and that no similar meeting was held else-
where untn after the resignation by Sir Thomas Sackville of the office of Grand Master in 1567;
that a General Assembly and a Grand Lodge are one and the same thing; and that the Constitu-
tions of the English Lodges are derived from the General Assembly (or Grand Lodge) at York.

These pretensions, though re-asserted again and again in times less remote from our own,
are devoid of any historical basis, and derive no support whatever from undoubted legends of
the craft.

The " Old Charges " or " Constitutions," now — and 2^'^'^^ Preston, probably for several
centuries — the only surviving records of the early Society, indeed inform us that one meeting
was held at York, but the clauses in several of these documents which allude to moveable
yearly assemblies, of themselves forbid the supposition that the annual convention took place
only in that city.

The earliest of these old scrolls — the Halliwell and the Cooke MSS. — do not mention York
at all. The next in order of seniority — the Lansdowne, No. 3 on the general list^ — however,
recites that Edwin obtained from his father, King Athelstane, " a Charter and Commission
once every yeare to have Assembley within the Eealme, where they wotdd within E-ngland,
. • . . • , and he held them an Assembly at Yorke, and there he made Masons and gave them
Charges, and taught them the manners, and Comands the same to be kept ever afterwards."

MS. 11," the Harleian, 1942, a remarkable text, has, in its 22d clause, " You shall come to
the yearely Assembly, if you knoiv tvhere it is, being within tenne miles of youre abode." As a
similar clause is to be found in MS. 31, the injunction in either case is meaningless, if the
Annual Assemblies were invariably held at York. On this point the testimony of the " Old
Charges" must be regarded as conclusive. I admit that the dilhcultj' of extracting historical

' Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, pp. 174 {note), 205, 207.

' Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ilirer Wahren Bedeutung, p. 299 ; Findel, History of Freemasonry, pp. SO, 110.

' Paris, 1843, p. 92, pi. 7. * Mr W. Pinkerton in Notes and Queries, 4tli Series, vol. iv., p. 455.

» AnU, Chap. II., p. 61. Printed in full by Hughan in his " Old Charges," p. 33.

8 See the corresponding numbers in Cliap. II. ; and Hughan 's " Old Charges of British Freemasons," j'assim.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 57

fact out of legendary materials is great, if not insuperable, yet where statements confessedly
rest upon the insecure foundation of legend or tradition, the quality of the legendary or
traditionary materials with which that foundation has been erected, becomes a fair subject for
inquiry. We here find, according to the written legends in circulation many years before
there was a Grand Lodge, that the masons of those times cherished a tradition of Prince Edwin
having obtained permission for them to hold Annual Assemblies in any part of England ; also
that their patron presided at one of these meetings, which took place at York. This the
Harris MS. rightly styles the second Assembly of Masons in England,^ — St Alban, if we
believe the Lansdowne and other MSS., having set on foot the first General Assembly of
Eritish Masons, though the Animal commemoration of this event, together with its celebration
as a yearly festival, was the work of Prince Edwin.

As we have already seen,^ the " Old Charges" require all to attend at the Assembly who
are within a certain radius — fifty miles or less — of the place where it is holden ; yet York
escapes notice in these mandatory clauses, which, to say the least, is inconsistent with the fact
of its being the one city where such meetings were always held.

The legends of Freemasonry have been divided into three classes, viz.. Mythical, Philoso-
phical, and Historical, and are thus defined :