CHAPTER XIV.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY.
E N G L A N D.— 1 1 1.
ASHMOLE— MASONS' COMPANY— PLOT— EANDLE HOLME—
THE "OLD CHAEGES."
''LTHOUGH the admission of Elias Ashniole into the ranks of the Freemasons may have been, and probably was, unproductive of the momentous consequences which have been so lavishly ascribed to it, the circumstances connected with his -s)jj7 ^^ membership of what in South Britain was then a very obscure fraternity — so ^/i^S^/ little known, indeed, that not before the date of Ashmole's reception or adoption ■sW does it come within the light of history — are, nevertheless, of the greatest importance
in our general inquiry, since, on a close view, they will be found to supply a quantity of information derivable from no other source, and which, together with the additional evidence I shall adduce from contemporary writings, will give us a tolerably faithful picture of English Freemasonry in the seventeenth century.
The entries in Ashmole's " Diary " which relate to his membership of the craft are three in number, the first in priority being the following : —
" 1C46. Oct. 16, 4.30. p.m. — I was made a Free Mason at Warrington in Lancashire, with Coll : Henry Mainwaring of Karincham in Cheshire. The names of those that were then of the Lodge, [were] M; Pdcli Penket Warden, M; James Collier, M[ Ptich. Sankey, Henry Littler, John Ellam Pdch : Ellam & Hugh Brewer." ^ The " Diary " then continues : —
" Oct. 25. — I left Cheshire, and came to London about the end of this month, viz., the 30th day, 4 Hor. post mericl. About a fortnight or three weeks before \after^ I came to London, Mr Jonas Moore brought and acquainted me with Mr William Lilly : it was on a Friday night, and I think on the 20th of Nov."
" Dec. 3. — This day, at noon, I first became acquainted with Mr John Booker." It will be seen that Ashmole's initiation or admission into Freemasonry, preceded by upwards of a month, his acquaintance with his astrological friends, Lilly and Booker.
In ascending the stream of English Masonic history, we are deserted by all known contemporary testimony, save that of the " Old Charges " or " Constitutions," directly we have passed the year 1G46. This of itself would render the proceedings at Warrington in that year ' Cupicd from a facsimile plate, publishea by Mr W. H. Gee, 28 Hish Street, O-^ford.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 141
of surpassing interest to the student of ^Masonic antiquities. That Ashmole and Mainwaring,^ adherents respectively of the Court and tlie Parliament, should be admitted into Freemasonry at the same time and place, is also a very notewortliy circumstance. But it is with the internal character, or, in other words, the composition, of the lodge into which they were received that we are chiefly concerned. Down to the year 1881 the prevalent belief was, that although a lodge was in existence at Warrington in 1646,- all were of the " craft of Masonry " except Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring. A flood of light, however, was suddenly shed on the subject by the research of Mr W. H. Eylands, who, in perhaps the very best of the many valuable articles contributed to the now defunct Masonic Magazine, has so far proved the essentially speculative character of the lodge, as to render it difiicult to believe that there could have been a single operative Mason present on the afternoon of October 16, 1646. Thus Mr Eicliard Penket[h], the Warden, is shown to have been a scion of the Penkeths of Penketh, and the last of his race who held the family property.^
The two names which next follow were probably identical with those of James CoUyer or Colliar, of Newton-le-Willows, Lancashire, and Pdchard Sankie, of the family of Sonkey, or Sankey of Sankey, as they were called, landowners in "Warrington from a very early period ; they were buried respectively at Winwick and Warrington — the former on January 17, 1673-4, and the latter on September 28, 1667.* Of the four remaining Freemasons named in the "Diary," though without the prefix of "Mr," it is shown by Piy lands that a gentle family of Littler or Lytlor existed in Cheshire in 1646 ; while he prints the wiUs of Eichard EUom, Freemason of Lyme [Lymme], and of John Ellams, husbandman, of Burton, both in the county of Cheshire— that of the former bearing date September 7, 1667, and of the latter June 7, 1689. That these were the Ellams named by Ashmole cannot be positively affirmed, but they were doubtless members of the same yeoman family, a branch of which had apparently settled at Lymm, a village in Cheshire, about five miles from Warrington. Of the family of Hugh Brewer, nothing has come to light beyond the fact that a person bearing this patronymic served in some military capacity under the Earl of Derby in 1643.
The proceedings at Warrington in 1646 establish some very important facts in relation to the antiquity of Freemasonry, and to its character as a speculative science. The words Ashmole uses, " the names of those who were then of the lodge," implying as they do either
' Aslimole's first wife was the daughter of Colonel Mainwaring's uncle.
» See "Masonic History and Historians," by Masonic Student [the Rev. A. F. A. 'Wooilfora], Freemason, Aug. 6, 1881.
* "From the Herald's visitation of Lancashire, made by St George in 1613, it appears that Richard Tenketh of Penketh, who died circa 1570, married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Sonkey of Sonkey [gent.], and had a son, Thomas Penketh of Penketh, county Lancaster, who married Cecilye, daughter of Roger Charnock of Wellenborough, county Northampton, Esq., whose son Eichard (dead in 1652), married Jane, daughter of Thomas Patrick of Bispham, in the county of Lancaster. This, no doubt, was the Richard Penketh who was a Freemason at Warrington in 1646 " (W. Hurry Rylands, F.S.A., "Freemasonry in the Seventeenth Century," Warrington, 16i6— Masonic Magazine, London, Dec. 1881).
« Rylands prints the will of James Colliar, which was executed April 18, 1668, and proved March 21, 1674. It bears the following endorsement :—"C«p excellent fragment of Masonic history to which I have already alluded : — " The hamlet of Sankey, with that of Penketh, lies close to Warrington, and, coupled with the fact that at no very distant date a Penketh married a Sankey of Sankey, as mentioned above, it is not extraordinary to find two such near neiglibours and blood relations associated together as Freemasons."
142 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
that some of the existinr/ members were absent, or that at a previous period the lodge-roll comprised other and additional names beyond those recorded in the " Diary," amply justify the conclusion that the lodge, when Ashmole joined it, was not a new creation. The term " Warden," moreover, which follows the name of Mr Eich. Penket, will of itself remove any lingering doubt whether the Warrington Lodge could boast a higher antiquity than the year 1646, since it points with the utmost clearness to the fact, that an actual official of a subsisting branch of the Society of Freemasons was present at the meeting.
The history or pedigi-ee of the lodge is therefore to be carried back beyond October 16, 1646, but how far, is indeterminable, and in a certain sense immaterial. The testimony of Ashmole establishes beyond cavil that in a certain year (1646), at the town of Warrington, there was in existence a lodge of Freemasons, presided over by a Warden, and largely (if not entirely) composed of speculative or non-operative members. Concurrently with this, we have the evidence of the Sloane MS., 3848 (13),^ which document bears the following attestation : —
" Finis p me Eduardu* : Saiikey decimo sexto die Octobris Anno Domini 1646."
Commenting upon the proceedings at the Warrington meeting, Fort remarks, " it is a subject of curious speculation as to the identity of Eichard Sankey, a member of the above lodge. Sloane's MS., No. 3848, was transcribed and finished by one Edward Sankey, on the 16th day of October 1646, the day Elias Ashmole was initiated into the secrets of the craft." ^ The research of Eylands has afforded a probable, if not altogether an absolute, solution of the problem referred to, and from the same fount I shall again draw, in order to show that an Edward Sankey, "son to Eichard Sankey, gent.," was baptized at Warrington, February 3, 1621-2.3
It therefore appears that on October 16, 1646, a Eichard Sankey was present in lodge, and that an Edward Sankey copied and attested one of the old manuscript Constitutions ; and that a Eichard Sankey of Sankey flourished at this time, whose son Edward, if alive, we must suppose would liave then been a young man of four or five and twenty.* Now, as it seems to me, the identification of the Sankeys of Sankey, father and son, with the Freemason and the copyist of the " Old Charges " respectively, is rendered as clear as anything lying within the doctrine of probabiKties can be made to appear.
I assume, then, that a version of the old manuscript Constitutions, which has fortunately come down to us, was in circulation at Warrington in 1646. Thus we should have, in the year named, speculative, and, it may be, also operative masonry, co-existing with the actual use, by lodges and brethren, of the Scrolls or Constitutions of which the Sloane MS., 3848 (13), affords an illustration in point. Upon this basis I shall presently contend, that, having
• As the "Old Charges," or "Constitutions," will be frequently referred to in the present chapter, I take the opportunity of stating that in every case where figures within parentheses follow the title of a manuscript, as above, these denote the corresponding number in Chapter II.
' Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 137.
' Kylanda, Freemasonry in the Seventeenth Century, citing the Warrington Parish Registers.
* As Eylands gives no further entry from the Parish Registers respecting Edward, though he cites the burial of "C!ia»., son to Richard Sankey, Ap. 30, 1635," the inference that the former was living in 1616 is strengthened.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 143
traced a system of Freemasoury, combining the speculative with the operative element, together with a use or employment of the MS. legend of the craft, as prevailing in the first half of the seventeenth century — when contemporary testimony fails us, as we continue to direct our course up the stream of Masonic history, the evidence of manuscript Constitutions, successively dating further and further back, until the transcripts are exhausted, without apparently bringing us any nearer to their common original, may well leave us in doubt at what point of our research between the era of the Lodge, at Warrington, 1646, and that of the Loge at York, 1355, a monopoly of these ancient documents by the working masons can be viewed as even remotely probable.
The remaining entries in the " Diary " of a Masonic character are the following : —
"March, 1682.
" 10. — About 5 P.M. I rec"* : a Sumons to app'' at a Lodge to be held the ne.^t day, at Masons Hall London.
" 11. — Accordingly I went, & about Noone were admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons,
" Sr William Wilson 1 Knight, Capt. Pdch : Borthwick, W. Will : Woodman, Air W" Grey, M; Samuell Taylour & M"" William Wise.
" I was the Senior Fellow among them (it being 35 yeares since I was admitted) There were p''sent beside my selfe the FeUow^es after named.
" Mr Tho : Wise M; of the Masons Company this p'sent yeare. Mr Thomas Shorthose, Mr Thomas Shadbolt, Waindsford Esq"" Mf Nicli : Young ]M| John Shorthose,
Mr William Hamon, Mr John Thompson, & M[ Will : Stanton.^
" Wee all dyned at the halfe Moone Taverne in Cheapeside, at a Noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the New = accepted Masons."
From the circumstance, that Ashmole records his attendance at a meeting of the Freemasons, held in the hall of the Company of Masons, a good deal of confusion has been engendered, which some casual remarks of Dr Anderson, in the Constitutions of 1723, have done much to confirm. By way of filling up a page, as he expresses it, he quotes from an old Piecord of Masons, to the effect that, " the said Eecord describing a Coat of Arms, much the same with that of the London CoirPASY of Freemen Masons, it is generally believ'd that the said Company is descended of the ancient Fraternity; and that in former Times no Man was Free of that Company until he was install'd in some Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, as a necessary Qualification." " But," he adds, " that laudable Practice seems to have been long in Dissuetude." ^
Preston, in this instance not unnaturally, copied from Anderson, and others of course have followed suit; but as I believe myself to be the only person who has been allowed access
• Born at Leicester, a builder and architect; married the widow of Henry Pudsey, and through her influence obtained knighthood in 16S1. Built Four Oaks Hall (for Lord ffolliott) ; also Nottingham Castle. Was the sculptor of the image of Charles II. at tlie west front of Lichfield Cathedral. Died in 1710 in his seventieth year (The Forest and Chase of Sutton, Coldfield, 1860, p. 101).
" All the persons named in this paragraph— also Mr Will. Woodman and Mr William Wise, who are mentioned in
the earlier one, were members of the Masons' Company. Thomas Wise was elected Master, January 1, 1682. By
IVainds/ord, Esq., is probably meant Rowland Rainsford, who is described in tlie records of the Company as "late apprentice to Robert Beadles, was admitted a freeman, Jan. 15, 166J ; " and William Hamon is doubtless identical with William llamond, who was present at a meeting of the Company on April 11, 1082. John Shorthose and Will. Stanton were Wardens.
' Anderson. The Constitutions of the Freemasons, 1723, p. 82.
144 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
to the books and records of the Masons' Company for purposes of historical research, the design of this work will be better fulfilled by a concise summary of the results of my examination, together with such collateral information as I have been able to acquire, than by attempting to fully describe the superstructure of error which has been erected on so treacherous a foundation.
This I shall proceed to do, after which it will be the more easy to rationally scrutinise the later entries in the " Diary."
The Masons' Company, London.
The original grant of arms to the "Hole Crafte and felawship of Masons," dated the twelfth year of Edward IV. [1472-1473], from William Hawkeslowe, Clarenceux King of Arms, is now in the British Museum.^ No crest is mentioned in the grant, although one is figured on the margin,^ with the arms, as follows : — Sable on a chevron engrailed between three square castles triple-towered argent, masoned of the first, a pair of compasses extended silver. Crest, on a wreath of the colours a castle as in the arms, but as was often the case slightly more ornamental in form.
This grant was confirmed by Thomas Benolt, Clarenceux, twelfth Henry VIII. or 1.520-21, and entered in the visitation of London made by Henry St George, Eichmond Herald in 1634.
At some later time the engrailed chevron was changed for a j)lain one, and the old ornamental towered castles became single towers, both in the arms and crest. The arms thus changed are given by Stow in his "Survey of London," 1633, and have been repeated by other writers since his time. A change in the form of the towers is noticed by Eandle Holme in his "Academic of Armory," 1688.* "Of olde," he says, "the towers were triple towered;" and to him we are indebted for the knowledge that the arms had columns for supporters. These arms he attributes to the " Eight Honored and Eight Worshipfull company of ffree- Masons."
Seymour in his " Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster," 1735,* gives the date of the incorporation of the company "'about 1410, having been called Free-Masons, a Fraternity of great Account, who having been honour'd by several Kings, and very many of the Nobility and Gentry being of their Society," etc. He describes the colour of the field of the arms, azure or blue.
Maitland in his "History and Survey of London," 1756,^ describes the arms properly, and adds that the motto is " In the Lord is all our Trust." Although of considerable antiquity, he says that the Company was " only incorporated by Letters Patent on the 29th of Charles II., 17th September, anno 1677, by the name of the Master, Wardens, Assistants, and Commonalty of the Company of Masons of the City of London," etc.®
Berry in his "Encyclopedia Heraldica"^ states that it was incorporated 2d of Henry II., 1411, which maybe a misprint fur 12th of Henry IV., 1410-11, following- Stow (1G33), or
" Adai. MS. 19, 135.
^ A facsimile in colours will be found in the Masonic Magazine, vol. ii., p. 87, and the text of the document is there given at length.
* Page 204, vtrao ; and Mas. Mag., Jan. 1382. * Vol. ii., book iv., p. 381. ' P. 1248.
" Rec. Roll, Pat. 29, Car. ii., p. 10, n. 3. ' Vol. i., Masons (London).
ARMS OF MAS O^' S , C ARPE ^"TERS,ETC,
MARBLERS tOMOOt/
sum lets
H'ff Jfylaniii Dei
Thomas c. Jack. London GbEdinburgb.
MASONS COMPANY
BDINBUPGH
Burke ^ itescripti.m
jr^HSmitf, Srutp
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 145
for the date at which the arms were granted — 12th Edw. IV. He adds that the Company was re-incorporated September 17, 12th Charles II., 1677. Here is again an error. By no calculation could the 12th Charles II. be the year 1677; it was the 29th regnal year of that king as stated by Maitland from the Patent EoU.
On the annexed plate will be found the arms of the companies as given by Stow in 1633; and with them a number of arms of the French and German companies of Masons, Carpenters, and Joiners taken from the magnificent work of Lacroix and Sere, "Le Moyen Age et la Eenaissance." ^ The latter show the use of various building implements, the square, compasses, rule, trowel, in the armorial bearings of the Masons, etc. of other countries. To these are added in the plate, for comparison, the arms as painted upon two rolls of the "Old Charges," both dated in the same year, viz., 1686, — one belonging to the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2 ; and the other preserved in the museum at 33 Golden Square. Only the former of these bears any names, which will be considered in another place when dealing with the early English records of Freemasonry. It is, however, interesting to note that the arms are precisely similar to those figured by Stow in 1633, and that in each case they are associated with the arms of the City of London, proving beyond doubt that both these rolls, which are handsomely illuminated at the top, were originally prepared for London Lodges of Masons or Freemasons.
lu a future plate I shall give a coloured representation of the arms, showing the original coat as granted in the reign of Edward IV. and other forms subsequently borne.
As it is with the later, rather than the earlier history of the Masons' Company, that we are concerned, I shall dweU very briefly on the latter period. One important misstatement, however, which has acquired general currency, through its original appearance in a work of deservedly high reputation,^ stands in need of correction. Mr Eeginald E. Sharpe,^ who in 1879 was kind enough to search the archives of the City of London, for early references to the terms Mason and Freemason, obliged me with the following memorandum : —
" Herbert in his book on the ' Companies of London,' refers to ' lib. Ix., fo. 46 ' among the Corporation Eecords for a list of the Companies who sent representatives to the Court of Common Council for the year 50 Edw. III. [1376-1377]. He probably means Letter Book H., fo. 46 b., where a list of that kind and of that date is to be found. In it are mentioned the 'Fre masons' and 'Masons,' but the representatives of the former are struck out and added to those of the latter.
" The term ' Fre[e]masons ' never varies ; ' Masons ' becomes ' Masouns ' in Norman French ; and ' Cementarii ' in Latin."
The preceding remarks are of value, as they dispel the idea that in early civic days the Masons and Freemasons were separate companies.* The former body, indeed, appears to have absorbed the ]\Iarblers,''' of whom Seymour (following Stow) says — " The Company called by
' 1848-51. ° Herbert, Comimnios of London, vol. i., j). 34.
' I take the opportunity of statinf;, that for the information thus obtained, as well as for iiurmission to examine the Records of the Masons' and Carpenters' Companies, I am primarily indebted to Sir John llonckton, Town-Clerk of London, and President of the Board of General Purposes (Grand Lodge of England), who, in these and numerous other instances, favoured me with letters of iutroductiou to the custodians of ancient documents.
* See ante, Chap. VL, p. 304.
' "Merblcrs — Workers in Marble. In his will, made in 1494, Sir Brian Rocliffe says, 'volo quod Jacopus Remus, marbeler, in Poules Churcheyerde in London, facial nieum cpitaphium in Tcniplo ' " (The Fabric Rolls of York Minster, Surtecs Soc, vol. xxxv., Glossnry, p. 347).
VOL. II. T
146 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
the Name of Marblers, for their excellent knowledge and skill in the art of insculping Figures on Gravestones, Monuments, and the like, were an antient Fellowship, but no incorporated Company of themselves, tho' now joined with the Company of Masons.
" Anns ■.—Salle, a chevron lehucen two Chissels in Chief, and a Mallet in Base, Argent." ^ Down to the period of the Great Fire of London, the Company of Carpenters would appear to have stood at least on a footing of equality with that of the Masons. If, on the one hand, we find in the early records, mention of the King's Freemason,^ on the other hand there is as frequent allusion to the King's Carpeuter,^ and promotion to the superior office of Surveyor of the King's Works was as probable in the one case as in the other.* The city records show that at least as early as the beginning of the reign of Edward I. (1272), two master Carpenters, and the same number of master Masons, were sworn as officers to perform certain duties with reference to buildings, and walls, and the boundaries of land in the city, evidently of much the same nature as those confided to a similar number of members of these two companies, under the title of City Viewers, until within little more than a century ago.^ In the matter of precedency the Carpenters stood the 25th and the Masons the 31st on the list of companies." Nor was the freedom of their craft alone asserted by members of the junior body. If the Masons styled themselves Free Masons, so likewise did the Carpenters assume the appellation of Free Carpenters,' though I must admit that no instance of the latter adopting the common prefix, otherwise than in a collective capacity, has come under my notice.^
According to a schedule of wages for aU classes of artificers, determined by the justices of
• Robert Seymour, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, 1735, bk. iv., p. 392. Handle Holme describes the Marblers as ston-cuUers (Harl. MS. 2035, fol. 207, verso).
= This title is applied by Anderson, apparently following Stow, in the Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, to Henry V'evele, of whom Mr Papworth says, "he was director of the king's works at the palace of Westminster, and Master Mason at Westminster Abbey, 1388-95." See Chap. VII., p. 342.
3 Cf. E. B. Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, 1848, p. 165. During the erection of Christ Church College, Oxford, 1512-17, John Adams was the Freemason, and Thomas Watlington the "V\''arden of the Carjienters (Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62, pp. 37-60).
* In the reign of Henry VIII. the office of Surveyor of the King's AVorks was successively held by two members of the Carpenters' Company (Jupp, op. cit., p. 174).
^ Ibid., pp. 8, 188, 193. The form of oath taken by the Viewers on their appointment is preserved iu the City Records, and commences —
" The Othe of the Viewers,
Maister Wardens of Masons
and Carpenters. "
° According to a list made in the 8th year of Henry VIII. (1516-17), the only one which had for its precise object the settling of the precedency of the companies. In 1501-2 tlie Carpenters stood the 20th, and the Masons the 40th, on the general list, the members of the former company being thirty in number, whilst those of the latter only mounted up to eleven (Jupp, Historical Account of tho Company of Carpenters, Api^endix A.).
' An address of the Carpenters' Company to the Lord Mayor on Nov. 5, 1666, complains of the "ill conveniences to the said Citty and freemen thereof, especially to the Free Carpenters vpon the entertaiuem' of forriuers for the rebuilding of London " (Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, p. 278).
8 It is probable, however, that if the ordinances of more craft guilds had come down to us, the prefix "free," as applied to the trade or calling of individuals, would be found to have been a common practice. Thus the rules of the Tailors' Guild, Exeter, enact, " that euery seruant that ys of the forsayd crafte, that takyt wagys to the waylor {value) of xxs. and a-boffe [ahovcl schall pay xxd. to bo a gre Sawere {Slitcker) to us and profyth [of the] aforsayd fraternyte" (Smith, English Gilds, p. 314).
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 147
the peace in 1610,^ we find that the superior or Master Freemason was hardly on a footing of equality with the Master Carpenter, e.g. :
With Meat. Without llcat.
s. D. 8. D.
A Freemason which can draw his plot, work, and set accord- ingly, having charge over others — Before Michaelmas, 8 0 12 0 After Michaelmas, 6 0 10 0 A master carpenter, being able to draw his plot, and to be
master of work over others — Before Michaelmas, 8 0 14 0
After Michaelmas, 6 0 10 0
I am far from contending that the details just given possess anything more than an operative significance ; but the classification into " rough masons capable of talcing charge over others," Freemasons simpliciter, and Freemasons who can draw plots — by justices of the peace, in a sparsely populated county — affords a good illustration of the difficulties which are encountered, when an attempt is made to trace the actual meaning of the operative term, by which the members of our speculative society are now described.
After the Great Fire of London, the demand for labour being necessarily great, "foreigners " as well as freemen readily obtained employment, much to the prejudice of the masons and carpenters, as well as to other members of the building trades. By a Statute of 1666, entitled "An act for Eebuildiug the Citty of London," '^ it was ordained " That all Carpenters, Brickelayers, Masons, Plaisterers, Joyners, and other Artificers, Workemen, and Labourers, to be employed on the said Buildings [in the City of London], who are not Freemen of the said Citty, shall for the space of seaven yeares next ensueing, and for soe long time after as uutill the said buildings shall be fully finished, have and enjoy such and the same liberty of worke- ing and being sett to worke in the said building as the Freemen of the Citty of the same Trades and Professions have and ought to enjoy. Any Usage or Custome of the Citty to the contrary notwithstanding : And that such Artificers as aforesaid, which for the space of seaven yeares shall have wrought in the rebuilding of the Citty in their respective Arts, shall from and after the said seaven yeares have and enjoy the same Liberty to worke as Freemen of the said Citty for and dureing their naturall lives. Provided alwayes, that said Artificers claiming such priviledges shall be lyeable to undergoe all such offices, and to pay and performe such Dutyes in reference to the Service and Government of the Citty, as Freemen of the Citty of tlieir respective Arts and Trades are lyeable to undergoe, pay, and performe."
This statute materially affected the interests, and diminished the influence, of the two leading companies connected with the building trades. In 1675, Thomas Seagood, a tiler and bricklayer, was chosen by tlie Court of Aldermen as one of the four City Viewers, an innova- tion upon the invariable usage of selecting these officials from the IMasons' and Carpenters' Companies. As three years later there occurred a similar departure from the ordinary custom, it has been suggested that as the fire of London had occasioned the erection of wooden houses to be prohibited, the Court of Aldermen considered that a bricldayer would be a better judge of the new buildings than a carp nter, and as good a judge as a mason ; though it may well
' " With meat," a Frcpmason aud master bricklayer were each to receive Os. ; "a rough mason, which can take charge over others," 53. ; and a bricklayer, 43. (The Rates of Wages of Servants, Labourers, and Artificers, set down and assessed at Oakham, within the County of Rutland, by the Justices of the Peace there, the '2Sth day of April, Anno Domini, 1610 — Archjeologia, vol. xi., pp. 200, 203).
' 18 aud 19, Car. II., c. viii., § xvi. Compare with " Fitzalwyne's Assize" {Liber Albus, liolls Series, p. x.\jx).
148 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
excite surprise that a Glazier, a Weaver, and a Glover were successively chosen Viewers in the years 1G79, 1685, and 1695.i
The masons, carpenters, bricklayers, joiners, and plasterers of London, feeling themselves much aggrieved at the encroachments of " forreigners " who had not served an apprenticeship, made common cause, and jointly petitioned the Court of Aldermen for their aid and assistance, but though the matter was referred by the civic authorities to a committee of their own body, there is no evidence that the associated companies obtained any effectual redress.^
These details are of importance, for, however immaterial, upon a cursory view, they may seem to the inquiry we are upon, it will be seen as we proceed, that the statutory enactments passed for the rebuilding of Loudon and of St Paul's Cathedral, by restricting the powers of the companies, may not have been without their iuHuence in paving the way for the ultimate development of English Freemasonry into the form under which it has happily come down to us.
It was the subject of complaint by the free carpenters, and their grievance must have been common to all members of the building trades, that by pretext of the Stat. 18 and 19, Car. II., c. viii.,3 a great number of artificers using the trade of carpenters, procured themselves to be made free of London, of other companies ; whilst many others were freemen of other companies, not by the force of the said Act, and yet used the trade of carpenters. Such artificers, it was stated, refused to submit themselves to the by-laws of the Carpenters' Company, whereby the public were deceived by insufficient and ill workmanship. Even members of the petitioners' own company, it was alleged, had " for many years past privately obtained carpenters free of other companies to bind apprentices for them, and cause them to be turned over unto them," there being no penalty in the by-laws for such offences. " By means whereof," the petition goes on to say, " the carpenters free of other companies are already grown to a very great number; your Petitioners defrauded of their Quarterage and just Dues, which should maintain and support their increasing Poor; and their Corporation reduced to a Name without a Substance." *
The charter granted to the Masons' Company in the 29th year of Charles II. (1(J77) confirming, in all probability, the earlier instrument which was (in the opinion of the pre- sent Master ^) burnt in the Great Fire— provides that the privileges of the Masons' Company are not to interfere with the rebuilding of the Cathedral Church of St Paul.
1 Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, p. 192.
2 iiM., p. 283. ' See § x\'i. of this Act, ante, p. 147.
* The Humble Petition of the Master, Warden, and Assistants of the Company of Carpenters to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, circa 1690 (Jupp, op. cit., Appendix I.). See, however, " The Ancient Trades Decayed, Repaired Again. Written by a Country Tradesman," London, 1678, p. 61, where the hardship endured by a person's trade being different from that of the company of which he is free, is pointed out ; and it is con- tended that " it would be no prejudice to any of the Companies, for every one to have his liberty to come into that Company that his trade is of, without paying anything more for it."
5 Mr John Hunter, for many years clerk of the company, to whom I am very greatly indebted for the patience and courtesy which he exhibited on the several occasions of my having access to the records, of which his firm are the custodians. Richard Newton was appointed clerk of the Masons' Company on June 14, 1741, to -whom succeeded Joseph Newton, since which period the clerkship has continued in the same firm of solicitors, viz., John Aldridge, Frederick Gwatkin, John Hunter, and A. J. C. Gwatkin.
Richard Newton succeeded Mr Grose, an eminent attorney in Threadneedle Street, wlio in June 1738 w:is unanimously chosen clerk of the Company, in the room of Miles Man, Esq. , resigned— and retired on being appointed Clerk to the Lieutenancy of the City of London, the present clerk of the latter body, Henry Grose Smith, being liis lineal descendant.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 149
At that time, except by virtue of the operation of the statute before alluded to.^ no one could exercise the trade of a mason without belonging to, or by permission of, the Masons' Company.
Incidental to the jurisdiction of the company were certain powers of search, which we find exercised so late as 1678. In the early part of that year the minutes record that " a search was made after unlawful workers," and various churches appear to have been thus visited, amongst others, St Paid's. On April 25 in the same year a second search was made, which is thus recorded : " Went to Paul's with Mr Story, and found 14 foreigners." Afterwards, and apparently in consequence of the proceedings last mentioned, several " foreigners " were admitted members, and others licensed by the Masons' Company.
The "Freedom" and "Court" books of the company alike commence in 1677, which has rendered the identification of some of its members exceedingly difficult, inasmuch as, unless actually present at the subsequent meetings, their connection with the company is only established by casual entries, such as the binding of apprentices and the like — wherein, indeed, a large number of members, whose admissions date before 1677, are incidentally referred to. Still, it is much to be regTetted that an accurate roll of the freemen of this guild extends no higher than 1677. One old book, however, has escaped the general conflagration, and though it only fills up an occasional hiatics in the list of members preceding the Great Fire, it contributes, nevertheless, two material items of information, which in the one case explains a passage in Stow ^ of great interest to Freemasons, and in the other by settling one of the most interesting points in Masonic history, afi'ords a surer footing for backward research than has hitherto been attained.
The record, or volume in question, commences with the following entry : —
[1620].—" The ACCOMPTE of James Gilder, William Ward, and John Abraham, Wardens of the company of ffremasons."
The title, " Company of Freemasons," appears to have been used down to the year 1653, after which date it gives place to " Worshipful Company," and " Company of Masons."
The point in Masonic history which this book determines, is " that Eobert Padgett, Clearke to the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," in 1686, whose name — together with that of William Bray,^ Freeman of London and Free-mason — is appended to the MS. " Constitutions" (23) in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity,* was not the clerk of the Masons' Company. The records reveal, that in 1678 "Henry Paggett, Citizen and Mason," had an apprentice bound to him. Also, that in 1709, James Paget was the Eenter's Warden. But the clerk not being a member of the company, his name was vainly searched for by Mr Hunter in the records post-dating the Great Fire. The minutes of 1686 and 1687 frequently mention " the clerk " and the payments made to him, but give no name. The old " Accompte Book," however, already mentioned, has an entry under the year 1687, viz., " Mr Stampe, Cleark," which, being in the same handwriting as a similar one in 1686, also referring to the clerk, but without specifying him by name, establishes the fact, that " the Worshippfull Society of the Free Masons of the City of London," whose clerk transcribed the " Constitutions " in the possession of our oldest English Lodge, and the " Company of Masons " in the same city, were distinct and separate bodies.
' 18 and 19 Car. IF., c. riii., § xvi.
» Ed. 1633, p. 630. Given in full at p. 176, note 4, pod.
' This name does not appear in any record of the Masons' Company. * AiUc, Cliap. II., p. 68.
ISO EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
Whether Valentine Strong, whose epitaph I have given in an earlier chapter/ was a member of the Company, I have failed to positively determine, but as Mr Hunter entertains no doubt of it, it may be taken that he was. At all events, five of his sons, out of six,- undoubtedly were, viz., Edward and John, admitted April 6, 1680, the latter " made free by service to Thomas Strong," the eldest brother, whose own admission preceding, it must be supposed, the year 1677, is only disclosed by one of the casual entries to which I have previously referred; Valentine on July 5, 1687; and Timothy on October 16, 1690. Also Edward Strong, junior, made free by service to his father in 1698.
In terminating ray extracts from these records, it is only necessary to observe, that no meeting of the Masons' Company appears to have taken place on March 11, 1682. Neither Ashmole, Wren, nor Anthony Sayer were members of the company. The books record nothing whatever under the years 1691 or 1716-17, which would lend colour to a great convention having been held at St Taul's, or tend to shed the faintest ray of light upon the causes of the so-called " Eevival." The words " Lodge " or " Accepted " do not occur in any of the docu- ments, and in all cases members were "admitted" to the freedom. Thomas Morrice (or Morris) and William Hawkins, Grand Wardens in 1718-19, and 1722 respectively, were members of the company, the former having been "admitted" in 1701, and the latter in 1712.
The significance which attaches to the absence of any mention whatever, of either William Eray or Robert Padgett, in the records of the Masons' Company, will be duly considered when the testimony of Ashmole and his biographers has been supplemented by that of Plot, Aubrey, and Eandle Holme, which, together with the evidence supplied by our old manuscript " Constitutions," will enable us to survey seventeenth century masonry as a whole, to comljine the material facts, and to judge of their mutual relations.
Before, however, passing from the exclusive domain of operative masonry, it may be incidentally observed that by all writers alike, no adequate distinction between the Free- masons of the Lodge, and those of the guUd or company, has been maintained. Hence, a good deal of the mystery which overhangs the early meaning of the term. This, to some slight extent, I hope to dispel, and by extracts from accredited records, such as parish registers and municipal charters, to indicate the actual positions in life of those men who, in epitaphs and monumental inscriptions extending from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, are described as Freemasons.
To begin with, the "Accompte Book" of the Masons' Company informs us that from 1620 to 1653 the members were styled " fftemasons." ^ If there were earlier records, they would doubtless attest a continuity of the usage from more remote times. StUl, as it seems to me, the extract given by Mr Sharpe from the City Archives * carries it back, inferentially, to the reign of Edward III.
In "The Calendar of State Papers"^ will be found the following entry: " 160-1, Oct. 31. — Grant of an incorporation of the Company of Freemasons, Carpenters, Joiners, and Slaters of the City of Oxford." Pdchard Maude, Hugh Daives, and Piobert Smith, " of the Citty of
1 XII., p. 40. - Ihid., note 3.
' It is highly prohable that Valentine Strong was a momber of the London company ; but if not, he must, 1 thinlc, have belonged to a similar one in some provincial town. Cf. ante, p. 40.
* Ante, p. 145. " Domestic Series, 1603-1610, p. 163.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 151
Oxon, Freemasons," so described in a receipt given by tliem, December 20, 1633, the contractors for the erection of " new buildings at St John's College," ^ were probably members of this guild.
A charter of like character was granted by the Bishop of Durham, April 24, 1G71, to " Miles Stapylton, Esquire, Henry FrisoU, gentleman, Eobert Troll«p, Henry TroUap," and others, " exerciseing the severall trades of ffree Masons, Carvers, Stone-cutters, Sculptures [Marblers], Brickmakers, Glaysers, Penterstainers, Founders, Neilers, Pewderers, Plumbers, Mill-wrights, Saddlers and Bridlers, Trunk-makers, and Distillers of all sorts of strong waters." '^
This ancient document has some characteristic features, to which I shall briefly allude. In the first place, the Freemasons occupy the post of honour, and the two Trollops are known by evidence aliunde to have been members of that craft. On the north side of a mausoleum at Gateshead stood, according to tradition, the image or statue of Eobert Trollop, with his arm raised, pointing towards the town hall of Newcastle, of which he had been the architect, and underneath were the following quaint lines : ^
" Here lies Robert Trojcljtp "Who made yon stones roll up When death took his soul up His body filled this hole up."
The bishop's charter constitutes the several crafts into a " comunitie, ffellowshipp, and company ; " names the first wardens, who were to be four in number, Itobert Trollap heading the list, and subject to the proviso, that one of the said wardens " must allwaies bee a ffree mason ; " directs that the incorporated body " shall, upon the fower and twentieth day of June, comonly caUed the feast of St John Baptist, yearely, for ever, assenible themselves together before nine of the clock in the fore noone of the same day, and there shall, by the greatest number of theire voices, elect and chuse fouer of the said feUowshippe to be theire wardens, and one other fitt person to be the clarke ; . • . . * . and shall vpon the same day make freemen and Jyrethren ; and shall, vpon the said fover and twentieth day of June, and att three other feasts or times in the yeare — that is to sale, the feast of St Michael the Archangel, St John Day in Cliristeninas, and the five and twentieth day of March, . • . for ever assemble themselves together, . • . . • . and shall alsoe consult, agree vpon, and set downe such orders, acts, and constitucons . • . . ■ . as shall be thought necessarie." Absence from " the said assemblies " without " any reasonable excuse " was rendered punishable by fine, a regulation which forcibly recalls the quaint phraseology of the Masonic poem :*
' This rests on the authority of some extracts from documents in the State Paper OiEce, sent to the Duke of Sus.se.x by Mr (afterwards Sir Robert) Peel, April 26, 1830, and now preserved in the Archives of the Grand Lodge. Hughan, to whom I am indebted for this reference, published the extracts in the Voice of Musoiiry, October 1872.
- From a transcript of the original, made by Mr AV. H. Eylands. On the dexter margin of the actual charter with others are the anns of the [Free] Masons, and on the sinister margin those of tlie Sculptures [marblers]. These arms will be given in their proper colours on a future plate.
' R. Surtces, History and Antiquities of the County of Durham, vol. ii., 1820, p. 120. According to the Gateshead Register, " Henry Trollop, free-mason," was buried November 23, 1677, and " Mr Robert Trollop, masson," December 11, 1686 (74irf. See further, T. Pennant, Tour in Scotland, edit. 1790, vol. iii., p. 310).
■• The HalUwell MS. (1), line 111.
152 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
" And to that seinbl6 he must nede gon, But he have a resenabul skwsacyon, That ys a skwsacyon, good and abulle, To that sembl6 withoute fubulle."
The charter and funds of the corporation were to be kept in a " chist," of which each warden was to have a key.^ Lastly, the period of apprenticeship, in all cases, was fixed at seven years.
The value of this charter is much enhanced by our being able to trace two, at least, of the persons to whom it was originally granted. Freemason and mason would almost seem, from the Gateshead Eegister, to have been words of indifferent application, though, perhaps, the explanation of the varied form in which the burials of the two Trollops are recorded may simply be, that the entries were made by different scribes, of whom one blundered — a supposi- tion which the trade designation employed to describe Robert Trollop does much to confirm.
The annual assembly on the day of St John the Baptist is noteworthy, and not less so the meeting on that of St John the Evangelist, in lieu of Christmas Day — the latter gathering forming as it does the only exception to the four yearly meetings being held on the usual quarter-days.
In holding four meetings in the course of the year, of which one was the general assembly or head meeting day, the Gateshead Company or fellowship followed the ordinary guild custom.* The " making of freemen and brethren " is a somewhat curious expression, though it was by no means an unusual regulation that the freedom of a guild was to be conferred openly. Thus No. XXXVI. of the " Ordinances of Worcester " directs " that no Burges be made in secrete wise, but openly, bifore sufficiaunt recorde." ^
AVhether the words " freemen " and brethren " are to be read disjunctively or as convertible terms, it is not easy to decide. In the opinion of Mr Toulmin Smith, the Craft Guild of Tailors, Exeter, "reckoned three classes," namely — (1.) the Master and Wardens, and all who had passed these offices, forming the livery men ; (2.) the shop-holders or master tailors, not yet advanced to the high places of the Guild ; and (3.) the " free-sewers " or journe}'men sewing masters, who had not yet become shop-holders.*
' " The very soul of the Craft-Gild was its meetings, which were always hekl with certain ceremonies, for the sake of greater solemnity. The box, having several locks, like that of the trade-unions, and containing the charters of the Gild, the statutes, the money, and other valuable articles, was opened on such occasions, and all jucsent had to uncover their heads " (Brentano, on the History and Development of Gilds, p. 61). It may be useful to state that all my refer- ences to Brentano's work are taken from the reprint in a separate form, and not from the historical Essay prefixed to Smith's "English Gilds."
' Mr Toulmin Smith gives at least twenty-three examiiles of quarterly meetings. " Every Gild had its appointed day or days of meeting — once a year, twice, three times, or four times, as the case might be. At these meetings, called 'morn-speeches,' in the various forms of the word, or 'dayes of spekyngges tokedere for here comune profyte,' much business was done, such as the choice of officers, admittance of new brethren, making up accounts, reading over the ordinances, etc.— one diy, where several were held in the year, being fixed as the ' general day ' " (English Gilds, intro- duction, by Lucy Touhuiu Smith, p. xxxii). Cf. ante, Chap. XII., p. 55 ; Fabric Rolls of York Minster, Surtecs Soc, vol. XXXV. {iiUglidai), p. 11 ; Harl. MS. 6971, fol. 126 ; and Smith, English GUds, pp. 8,-31, 76, and 27-1.
8 Smith, English Gilds, p. 390. The rules of the "Gild of St George the Martyr," Bishops Lynn, only permitted the admission of new-comers at the yearly general assembly, and by assent of all, save good men from the country (Ibid., p. 76).

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 153
It is consistent with this analogy, that the " brethren " made at Gateshead, on each 24th of June, were the passed apprentices or journeymen out of their time, who had not yet set up in business on their own account ; and the parallelism between the guild usages of Exeter and Gateshead is strengthened by the circumstance that the free-sewers,'' — i.e., stitcliers — or journeymen sewing masters, are also styled " ffree Brotherys " in the Exeter Ordinances.
These regulations ordain that " alle the ffeleshyppe of the Bachelerys " shall hold their feast "at Synte John-ys day in harwaste," — the principal meeting thus taking place as at Gates- head, on the day of St John the Baptist — every shopholder was to pay ?>d. towards it, every seiTant at wages &d., and " euery yowte {out) Broder " 4.d.~
There were four regular days of meeting in the year, and on these occasions, the Oath, the Ordinances, and the Constitutions were to be read.^
It is improbable that aU apprentices in the Incorporated Trades of Gateshead, attained the privileges of " full craftsmen " on the completion of the periods of servitude named in their indentures, and their position, I am inclined to think, mutatis mutmidis, must have approximated somewhat closely to that of the Tailors of Exeter ; * on the other hand, and in a similarly incorporated body, i.e., not composed exclusively of Masons, we find by a document of 1475, that each man "worthy to be a master" was to be made "freman and fallow."*
It may be mentioned, moreover, that in the Eecords of the Alnwick Lodge (1701-1748), no distinction whatever appears to be drawn between "freemen" and "brethren." A friend, to whom I am indebted for many valuable references,^ has suggested, that as there is sufficient evidence to support the derivation of " Freemason " from " Free Stone Mason," Free-man mason, and Free-mason — i.e., free of a Guild or Company — it is possible that my deductions may afford satisfaction to every class of theorist. Before, however, expressing the few words with which I shall take my leave of this pliilological crux,'' some additional examples of the use of the word " Freemason " will not be out of place, and taken with those which have been given in earlier chapters,^ will materially assist in making clear the conclusions at which I have arrived.
The earliest use of the expression in connection with actual building operations — so far, at least, as research has yet extended^occurs in 1396, as we have already seen, and I
fifteenth century, enact, "That all Past Masters shall be on the Council of the Guild, and have the same authority as the Wardens ; also, that the Master, and not less than five Past Masters, together with two of the Wardens, must assent to every admittance to the Guild" (Ibid., p. 329).
' Besides Free Masons, Free Carpenters, Free Sewers, and the "Free Vintners" of London, there were the "Free Dredgers" of Faversham, chartered by Henry II., and still subsisting as the corporation of "free fishermen and free dredgermen" of the same hundred and manor in 1798. Each member had to serve a seven years' apprenticeship to a freeman, and to be a married man, as indispensable qualifications for admission (E. Hasted, Historical and Topo- graphical Survey of Kent, 1797-1801, vol. vi,, p. 352); also the " ffreo Sawiers,"who iu 1651, "indited a fforreine Sawier at the Old IJayly " (Jupp, oj). ciL, p. 160) ; " Free Linen Weavers " (Minutes, St Mungo Lodge, Glasgow, Sept. 25, 1784) ; and lastly, the " Free Gardeners," who formed a Grand Lodge in 1849, but of whose jirior existence I find tlie earliest trace, in the " St Michael Pine-Apple Lodge of Free Gardeners in Newcastle," established in 1812 by warrant from the " St George Lodge " of North Shields, which was itself derived from a Lodge "composed of Soldiers belonging to the Forfar Kegiment of Militia" (E. Mackenzie, A Descriptive and Historical Account of Newcastle- upon-Tyne, 1827, vol. ii., p.' 597).
2 Smith, English Gilds, p. 313. 3 Ibid., p. 315. * See Chap. VII., p. 3S0.
» Chap. VIII., p. 401. See, however, p. 414, note 2. « Mr Wyatt Papworth.
It is somewhat singular that tho word Freemason is not given in Johnson's Dictionary, 1st edit., 1755.
«II., p. 66 ; VI., pp. 302-308 ; VIL, passim; VIIL, p. 407 and XI , p. 488, note 1. VOL. II. U
IS4 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
shall pass on to the year 1427, and from thence proceed downwards, until my list overlaps the formation of the Grand Lodge of England. It may, however, be premised, that the examples given are, as far as possible, representative of their class, and that to the best of my belief, a large proportion of them appear for the first time in a collected form. For con- venience sake, each quotation will be prefaced by the date to which it refers. Arranged in this manner, we accordingly find under the years named : —
1427. — John Wolston and John Harry, Freemasons, were sent from Exeter to Beere to purchase stone.^
1490, Oct. 23.—" Admissio Willi Atwodde Lathami."
The Dean and Chapter of Wells granted to William Atwodde, " ffremason," the office previously held in the church by William Smythe, with a yearly salary. The letter of appoint- ment makes known, that the salary in question has been granted to Atwodde for his good and faithful service in his art of " ffremasonry." ^
1513, Aug. 4. — By an indenture of this date, it was stipulated that John Wastell, to whom allusion has been already made,^ should "kepe continually 60 fre-masons workyng." *
1535. — "Eec. of the goodman Stefford, ffre mason for the holle stepyll wt Tymbr, Iron, and Glas, xxxviijZ." ^
1536. — Jolm Multon, Freemason, had granted to him by the prior and convent of Bath "the of&ce of Master of all their works commonly called freemasonry, when it should be vacant." "
1550. — "The free mason hewyth the harde stones, and hewyth of, here one pece, & there God a another, tyll the stones be fytte and apte for the place where he wyll laye them.
free ma- Euen SO God the heavenly free mason, buildeth a christen churche, and he s""- frameth and polysheth us, whiche are the costlye and precyous stones, wyth the
crosse and affliccyon, that all abhomynacyon & wickednes which do not agree unto thys gloryous buyldynge, myghte be remoued & taken out of the waye . i. Petr . ii." '
1590-1, ]\Iarch 19.— "John Kidd, of Leeds, Freemason, gives bond to produce the original will of William Taylor, junr., of Leeds." *
1594_On a tomb in the church of St Helen, Bishopsgate Street, are the following inscriptions ^ : — South side —
*• HERE I LYETH THE BODIE OF WILLIAM KEEWIN OF THIS CITTIE OF ' LON I DON FREE I MASON WHOE DEPARTED THIS LYFE THE 26 " DATE OF DECEMBER ANO | 1594."
1 From the Exeter Fabric Rolls ; published in Britten's Hist, and Antiq. of the Cath. Ch. of Exeter, 1836, p. 97 ; also by the late E. "W. Shaw in the Freanasons' Mag., Ap. 18, 1868 ; and in the BiUlder, vol. xxvii., p. 73. John Wolston, I am informed by Mr James Jerman of Exeter, was Clerk of the Works there in 1426.
' " Nos dedisse et concisse Willielmo Atwodde ffremason, pro suo bono et diligenti servicio in arte sua de ffre- masonry," etc. (Rev. H. E. Reynolds, Statutes of Wells Cathedral, p. ISO).
3 Chap. VI., p. 306. * Maiden, Account of King's College, Cambridge, p. 80.
5 Records of the Parish of St Alphage, London AVall (City Press, Aug. 26, 1882).
0 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62, pp. 37-60.
7 Werdmuller, A Spyrytuall and Moost Precyouse Pearle, tr. by Bisliop Coverdale, 1550, fol. x.-ci.
« From the Wills Court at York, cited in the Freemasons' Chronicle, April 2, 1881.
9 W. H. Rylands, An Old Mason's Tomb (Masonic Magazine, September 1881). A briel notice of Kerwiu's epitaph will also be found in the European Magazine, vol. Ixiv., 1813, p. 200.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
155
North side —
"^dibvs Attalicis Londinvm qui decoravi : Me dvce svrgebant alijs regalia tocta : Exigvam tribvvnt banc mihi fata domv : Me dvce coniicitvr ossibvs vnja meis : " ■
Although the arms of the Kerwyu family appear on the monument, "the west end
were originally granted, with the chevron engrailed, and with the old square four-towered castles, and not the plain chev- ron and single round tower, as now so often depicted."
In the opinion of JlrRy lands, this is the earliest instance of the title " Freemason " being associated with these arms.^
1598.— The Will of Eichard Turner of Eivington . co. Lane . dated July 1, proved Sept. 19. An inventory of Horses, Cows, Sheep, tools etc. total £57 . 16 . 4*
presents, from a Masonic point of view, the most interesting portion of the tomb. In a panel, supported on each side by ornamental pilasters,- is represented the arms of the Masons as granted by William Hawkcslowe in the twelfth year of Edward IV. (1472-3) : — On a chevron engrailed, be- tween three square castles, a pair of compasses extended — the crest, a square castle, with the motto, God is our Guide. It is interesting to find the arms here rendered as they
1604, Feb. 12. — "Humfrey son of Edward Holland ffiemason bapt[ized]." * 1610-13. — Wadham College, Oxford, was commenced in 1610 and iinished in 1613. In the accounts " the masons who worked the stone for building are called Free masons, or Freestone Masons, while the rest are merely called labourers. It is curious that the three statues over the entrance to the hall and chapel were cut by one of the free masons (William Blackshaw)." ^ 1627-8. — Louth steeple repaired by Thomas Egglefield, Freemason, and steeple mender.^ 1638. — The will of Eichard Smayley of Nether Darwen. co. Lane, ffree Mayson (apparently a Catholic), dated the 8th, proved the 30th of May. In the inventory of his goods — £65 .9.0 — with horses, cattle, sheep, and ploughs, there occur, " one gavelocke [sp««?'], homars, Chesels, ■ axes, and other Irne \iron\ implem'^ belonging to a Mayson." ■*
1689. — On a tombstone at Wensley, Yorkshire, appear the words, " George Bowes, Free Mason." The Masons' Arms, a chevron charged with a pair of open compasses between three castles, is evidently the device on the head of the stone.''
' "The Pates have afforded this narrow house to me, vrho hath adorned London with noble buildings. By me royal palaces were built for others. By me this tomb is erected for my bones."
^ " At the base of the left hand pilaster is a curious ornament, having in the upper division a rose with five petals, and in the lower what may also bo intended to represent a rose."
2 From Stow we learn more of the tomb and the family of William Kcrwiu ; he writes : — "In tlic Soulh lie nf this Church, is a very faire IVindow with this inscription : ' This window was glazed at the charges of Joyce Eeatly, Daughter to William Kerwyn Esquire, and Wife to Daniel Eeatly, CD. Anno Domini 1632'" ("Eemaines," a sup- plement to the "Survey," 1633, p. 837).
* W. H. Rylauds, MS. collection. In the Manchester Registers an Edward Holland is styled "gentleman."
' Orlando Jewitt, The late or debased Gothic buUdings of Oxford, 1850.
*■ Archajologia, vol. x., p. 70.
' T. B. Whytehead, in the ft-ccmasore, Aug. 27, 1S81. . . . " buried Decern, ye 26, ICSO " (Par. Reg.).
156 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
1701.— The orders (or rules) of the Alnwicke Lodge are thus headed: — "Orders to be observed by the Company and Fellowship of Free Masons ^ att a lodge held at Alnwick Septr. 29, 1701, being the genU. head meeting day." ^
1708, Dec. 27. — Amongst the epitaphs in Holy Trinity Churchyard, Hull, is the following, under the above date : — " Sarah Eoebuck, late wife of John Eoebuck, Freemason." ^ 1711, April 29. — "Jemima, daughter of John Gatley, freemasson, Bapt[ized]." * 1722, N"ov. 25. — In the churchyard of the parish of All Saints at York, there is the tomb of Leonard Smith, Free Mason.^
1737, Feb. — In Eochdale Churchyard, under the date given, is the following epitaph: — " Here lyeth Benj. Brearly Free Mason." ^
The derivation of the term "Freemason" lies within the category of Masonic problems, respecting which, writers know not how much previous information to assume in their readers, and are prone in consequence to begin on every occasion ab ovo, a mode of treatment which is apt to weary and disgust all those to whom the subject is not entirely new.
In this instance, however, I have endeavoured to lead up to the final stage of an inquiry presenting more than ordinary features of interest, by considering it from various points of view in earlier chapters.' The records of the building-trades, the Statutes of the Eealm, and the Archives of Scottish Masonry, have each in turn contributed to our stock of information, which, supplemented by the evidence last adduced, I shall now proceed to critically examine as a whole.
In the first place, I must demur to the conclusion whicli has been expressed by Mr Wyatt Papworth, "That the earliest use of the English term Freemason was in 1396." Though in thus dissenting at the outset from the opinion of one of the highest authorities upon the subject, the difference between our respective views being, however, rather one of form than of substance, I am desirous of placing on record my grateful acknowledgments of nmch valuable assistance rendered throughout the progress of this work, by the friend to whose dictum in this single instance, I cannot yield my assent, especially in regard to the true solution of the problem with which I am now attempting to deal.
' This singuliir combination of titles will be hereafter cousidered, ia connection with the equally suggestive endorsements on the Antiquity (i-S) and Scarborough (28) MSS.
2 From the account of this lodge, published by Hughau in the Masonic Magazine, vol. i., p. 214 ; and from the MS. notes taken by Mr F. Hockley from the Alnwicke records. The 12th of the "Orders," referred to in the text, is as follows :—" Item, thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblys to make any mason or masons free : nott acquainting the Master or Wardens therewith, For every time so offending shall pay £3 .6.8."
' T. B. Whytehead, in the Freemason, citing Gent's History of Hull, p. 54.
* W. H. Rylands, in the Freemason, Aug. 7, 1883, citing the registers of the parish church of Lymm, Cheshire. It will be remembered that Richard Ellam was styled of "Lyme (Lymm), Chesliire, freemason."
" G. M. Tweddell, in the Freemason, July 22, 1882, citing Thomas Gent's History of York, 1730.
• James Lawton, in the Freemasons' Chronicle, Feb. 3, 1883.
' To use the words of Father Innes : — " I have been obliged to follow a method very different from that of those who have hitherto treated it, and to beat out to myself, if I may say so, paths that had not been trodden before, having thought it more secure to direct my course by such glimpses of light as the more certain monuments of antiquity furnished me, then to follow, as so many others have done, with so little advantage to the credit of our antiquities, the beaten road of our modern writers" (A Critical Essay on the Ancient Inhabitants of Scotland, 1729, preface, p. x).
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— EXGL AND. 157
Tliat the word Freemason appears for the first time in 1396, in any records that are extant relating directly to building operations, is indeed clear and indisputable.^ But the same descriptive term occurs in other and earlier records, as I have already had occasion to remark.^ In 1376-77 — 50 Edw. III. — the number of persons chosen by the several mysteries to be the Common Council of the City of London was 148, which divided by 48— at which figure Herbert then places the companies — would give them an average of about 3 representatives each. Of these the principal ones sent 6, the secondary 4, and the small companies 2? The names of all the companies are given by Herbert, together with the number of members which they severally elected to represent them. The Fab^'m. chose 6, the Masons 4, and the Freemasons 2. The Carpenters are not named, but a note explains Falfm to signify Smiths, which if a contraction of Fabrorum, as I take it to be, would doubtless include them. The earliest direct mention of the Carpenters' Company occurs in 1421, though as the very nature of the trade induces the conviction that an association for its protection must have had a far earlier origin, Mr Jupp argues from this circumstance and from the fact of two Master Masons, and a similar number of Master Carpenters having been sworn, in 1272, as ofBcers to perform certain duties* with regard to buildings, that there is just ground for the conjecture that these Masons and Carpenters were members of existing guilds.^ This may have been the case, but unques- tionably the members of both the callings — known by whatever name — must have been included in the Guilds of Craft, enumerated in the list of 1376-77.
Verstegan, in his Glossary of " Ancient English Words," s.v. Smiths, gives us : — " To smite, hereof commeth our name of a Smith, because he Smitheth or smiteth with a Hammer. Before we had the Carpenter from the French, a Carpenter was in our Language also called a Smith, for that he smiteth both with his Hammer, and his Axe ; and for distinction the one was a Wood-smith, and the other an Iron-smith, which is nothing improper. And the like is seen in Lati7i, where the name of Faber serveth both for the Smith and for the Carpenter, the one being Fahcr fcrrarms, and the other Faber lignarius." ®
1 As the authority on which this statement rests, has been insufficiently referred to in Chap. VI., p. 303, I subjoin it in full, from a transcript made by Rylands, which I have collated with the actual document in the Library of the British Museum.
In the Sloane Collection, No. 4595, page 50, is the following copy of the original document, dated 14th June, 19th Richard II., or a.d. 1396.
14 June. Pro Archiepiscopo Cantuar. (Pat. 19 E. 2. p 2. m. 4.) Eex omnibus ad quos &o. Salutem Sciatis quod concessimus Venerabili in Christo Patri C.irissimo Consanguineo nostro Archiepiscopo Cantuar. quod ipse pro quibusdam operationibus cujusdam CoUegii per ipsum apud Villam Maidenston faciend. riginti et quatuor lathomos rocatos ffre Maceons et viginti et quatuor lathomos vocatos ligiers per deputatos suos in hac parte capere et lathomos illos pro denariis suis eis pro operationibus hujusmodi rationabiliter solvend. quousque dicti operationes plenarie facte et complete existant habere et tenere possit. Ita quod lathomi predicti durante tempore preJicto ad opus vel operatioues nostras per olliciarios vel ministros nostros quoscumque minime capiaiitur.
In cujus &c
Teste Rege apud Westm xiiij die Junii Per breve de Private Sigillo.
= Chap. VI., p. 304 ; and Chap. XIV., p. 145.
' Herbert, Companies of London, vol i., pp. 33, 34.
* Almost identical with those afterwards confided to a similar bo.ly under the title of city viewers, see ante, p. 146.
' Hbt. of the Carpenters' Company, p. 8.
« Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities concerning the English Nation, 1634, p. 231. Cf. ante.
Chap, I., lip. 38, 44.
158 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
As it is almost certain that the Company of Fab''m. comprised several varieties of the trade, which are now distinguished by finer shades of expression, I think we may safely infer that the craftsmen who in those and earlier times were elsewhere referred to as Fabri licjnarii or tignarii, must have been included under the somewhat uncouth title behind which I have striven to penetrate.^
In this view of the case, the class of workmen, whose handicraft derived its raison d'etre from the various uses to which wood could be profitably turned, were in 1376-7 associated in one of the principal companies, returning six members to the common council. It could hardly be expected that we should find the workers in stone, the infinite varieties of whose trade are stamped upon the imperishable monuments which even yet bear witness to their skill, were banded together in a fraternity of the second class. Nor do we ; for the ISIasons and the Freemasons, the city records inform us, pace Herbert, were in fact one company, and elected six representatives. How the mistake originated, which led to a separate classification in the first instance, it is now immaterial, as it would be useless to inquire. It is sufficiently clear, that in the fiftieth year of Edward III. there was a use of the term Free- mason, and that the persons to whom it was applied were a section or an offshoot of the Masons' Company, though in either case probably reabsorbed within the parent body. Inasmuch, however, as no corporate recognition of either the Masons or the Freemasons of London can be traced any further back than 1376-7, it would be futile to carry our speculations any higher. It must content us to know, tliat in the above year the trade or handicraft of a Freemason was exercised in the metropolis. In my judgment, the Freemasons and JMasous of this period— t'.c, those referred to as above in the city records — were parts of a single fraternity, and if not then absolutely identical, the one with the other, I think that from tliis period they became so. In support of this position there are the oft-quoted words of Stow,^ " the masons, otJierwise termed 'free-masons,' were a society of ancient standing and good reckoning ; " the monument of William Kerwin ; ^ and the records of the Masons' Company ; not to speak of much indirect evidence, which will be considered in its proper place.
Whilst, however, contending that the earliest use of "Freemason" will be found associated with the freedom of a company and a city, I readily admit the existence of other channels through which the term may have derived its origin. The point, indeed, for determination, is not so much the relative antiquity of the varied meanings under which the word has been passed on through successive centuries, but rather the particular use or /orw, which has merged into the appellation by which the present Society of Freemasons is distinguished.
The absence of any mention of Freemasons in the York Fabric Eolls ■» is rather singular,
' Tlie only otlier brancli of caiTciitry represented in the list of companies (1375), appears under the title of Wodmogx, which Herbert e.xplains as meaning " Woodsawyers (mongers)." This is very confusing, but I incline to the latter interpretation, viz., woodmongers, or vendors of wood, which leaves all varieties of the smith's trade under the title Fab'm. This Company of Wodmog^ had 2 representatives.
= Survey of London, 1633, p. 630. I'ost, p. 176, note 4.
= 7/ Valentine Strong was a member of the Loudon Company of Masons, the title Freemason on his monument (1662) would be consistent with the name used in the company's records down to 1653 ; but even if the connection oi the Strong family with the London Guild commenced with Thomas Strong, the sou, it is abundantly clear that Valen- tiue, the father, must have been a member of some provincial company of Masons (see Chap. XII., p. 40).
* The references to masons, on the contrary, are veiy numerous ; tlie following, taken from the testamentary
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 159
and by some has been held to uphold what I venture to term the guild theory, — that is to say, that the prefix fne, was inseparably connected with the freedom of a guild or company. However, if the records of one cathedral at all sustain this view, those of others ^ effectually demolish the visionary fabric which has been erected on such slight foundation. The old operative regulations were of a very simple character; indeed Mr Papworth observes — "The 'Orders' supplied to the masons at work at York Cathedral in 1355 give but a poor notion of there being then existing in that city anything like a guild claiming in virtue of a charter given by Athelstan in 926, not only over that city, but over all England."
That Freemason was in use as a purely operative term from 1396 down to the seventeenth, and possibly the eighteenth, century, admits of no doubt whatever ; and discarding the mass of evidence about which there can be any diversity of opinion, this conclusion may be safely allowed to rest on the three allusions to " Freemasonry " ^ as an operative art, and the metaphor employed by Bishop Coverdale in his translation from WerdmuUer. In the former instance the greater may well be held to comprehend the less, and the " art " or " work " of " Free- masonry " plainly indicates its close connection with the Freemasons of even date. In the latter we have the simile of a learned prelate,^ who, it may be assumed, was fully conversant with the craft usage, out of which he constructed his metaphor. This, it is true, only brings us down to the middle of the sixteenth century, but there are especial reasons for making this period a halting-place in the progress of our inquiry.
The statute 5 Eliz., c. IV., passed in 1562, though enumerating, as I have already observed, every other known class of handicraftsmen, omits the Freemasons, and upon this circumstance I hazarded some conjectures which will be found at the close of Chapter VII.
It is somewhat singular, that approaching the subject from a different point of view, I find in the seventh decade of the sixteenth century, a period of transition in the use of Freemason, which is somewhat confirmatory of my previous speculations.
Thus in either case, whether we trace the guild theory ?y7, or the strictl}^ operative theory down — and for the time being, even exclude from our consideration the separate evidence respecting the Masons' Company of London — we are brought to a stand still before we quite reach the era I have named. For example, assuming as I do, that John Gatley and Richard Ellam of Ljonm, John Eoebuck, George Bowes, Valentine Strong, Richard Smayley, Edward Holland, Richard Turner, William Kerwin, and John Kidd, derived in each case their title of Freemason from the freedom of a guild or company — still, with the last named worthy, in 1591, the roll comes to an end.* Also, descending from the year 1550, the records of the building trades afford very meagre notices of operative Freemasons.^ I am far
registers of the Dean and Chapter, being one of the most curioxis : — "Feb. 12, 1522-3. Christofer Horner, mason, myghtie of mynd and of a hooU myndfulness. To Sanct Petur wark all my tuyllis [tools] within the mason luglie [lodge]."
' Exeter, Wells, and Durham. See under the years 1427 and 1490 ; also Chap. VI., p. 308.
^ See above under the years 1490 and 1536, and Chap. VI., p. 408, note 4.
* Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter, who published a translation of the Bible in 1535.
* Culling from all sources, it can only be carried back to 1581 (see ue-\t page, note 10).
" Further e.vamples of.the use of the word Freonason, under the years 1597, 1606, 1607, and 1624, will be found in Notes and Queries, Aug. 31, ISCl, and Mar. 4, 1882; and the Freemasons' Chronicle, Mar. 26, 1881. The former
journal July 27, 1861 — cites a will dated 1G41, wherein the testator and a legatee are each styled "Freemason;"
and Sept. 1, 1866— mentions the baptism of the son of a "Freemason " in 1685, also his burial under the same title
in 1697.
i6o EARLY BRITISH FREEiMASONRY— ENGLAND.
from saying that tliey do not occur,^ but having for a long time carefully noted all references to the word Freemason from authentic sources, and without any idea of establishing a foregone conclusion, I find, when tabulating my collection, such entries relating to the last half of the sixteenth century are conspicuous by theii- absence.
In 1610, there is the Order of the Justices of the Peace, indicating a class of rough masons able to take charge over others, as well as apparently two distinct classes of Freemasons.^ A year or two later occurs the employment of Freemasons at Wadham College, Oxford. In 1628, Thomas Egglefield, Freemason and Steeple-mender, is mentioned, and five years after there is the reference to Maude and others, Freemasons and Contractors.
Such a contention, as that the use of Freemason as an operative term, came to an abrupt termination about the middle of the seventeenth century, is foreign to the design of these remarks, and though I am in possession of no references which may further elucidate this phase of Masonic history during the latter half of the century, the records of the Alnwick Lodge,' extending from 1701 to 1748, may be held by some to carry on the use of Freemason as a purely operative phrase until the middle of the eighteenth century.
My contention is, that the class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington,* Staffordshire,* Chester," York^, London,^ and their congeners in the seventeenth century, derived the descriptive title which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men,^ and Masons of Guilds or Companies.
Turning to the early history of Scottish IMasonry, the view advanced with regard to the origin of the title, which has now become the common property of all speculative Masons throughout the universe, is strikingly confirmed.
Having in an earlier chapter i" discussed, at some length, the use of the title Freemason from a Scottish stand-point, I shall not weary my readers with a recapitulation of the arguments there adduced, though I cite the leading references below, in order to facilitate what I have always at heart, viz., the most searching criticism of disputed points, whereon I venture to dissent from the majority of writers who have preceded me in similar fields of inquiry."
As cumulative proofs that the Society of Freemasons has derived its name from the Freemen Masons of more early times, the examples in the Scottish records have an especial value.
' It is fair to state, that the fount upon which I have chiefly drawn for my observations on the early Masons, viz., Mr Papworth's " Essay on the Superintendents of English Buildings in the Middle Ages," becomes dried up, at this point of our research, in accordance with the limitations which the author has prescribed to himself.
s According to the Stat. 11 Hen. VII., c. xxii. (1495), a i^jwmason was to take less wages than a Master Mason.
' These will be duly examined at a later stage. * Ashmole, Diary, Oct. 16, 1C46.
6 Plot, Natural History of Staffordshire, 1686, p. 316-313. " Harl. MS. 2054 (12).
' Hughan, History of Freemasonry in York, 1S71. ' Gould, The Four Old Lodges, 1879, p. 46.
9 "Wherever the Craft Gilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft, and sell their manufactures, dcjiended upon ihc freedom of their city " (Brentauo, History and Development of Gilds, p. 65).
'» Chap. VIII., p. 410, q.v. See further, Master frie mason (1581), p. 409 ; frei men Maissones (1601), p. 383 ; frie mesoncs of Ednr. (1636), p. 407 ; frie mason (Melrose, 1674), p. 450 ; and/rie Lodge (1658), p. 41.
" The references in Smith's " English Gilds," to the exercise of a trade being contingent on the possession of its freedom, are so numerous, that I have only space for a few examples. Thus in the City of Exeter no cordwainer was allowed to keep a shop, "butte he be a ffraunchised man" (p. 333) ; "The Old Usages" of Winchester required that "non ne shal make burelle work, but if he be of ye ffraunchyse of ye toun " (p. 351) ; and the " Othe " of the Mayor contained a special proviso, that he wculd " meyntene the ftaunchises and /j'ce CMS«u»ncs whiche beth gode in the saide touue " (p. 416).
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. i6i
Examined separately, the histories of both English and Scottish Masonry yield a like residt to the research of the philologist, but unitedly, they present a body of evidence, all bearing in one direction, which brushes away the etymological difficulties, arising from the imperfect consideration of the subject as a wliole.
Having now pursued, at some length, an inquiry into collateral events, hitherto very barely investigated, and expressed with some freedom my own conjectures respecting a portion of our subject lying somewhat in the dark, it becomes necessary to return to Ashmole, and to resume our examination of the evidence which has clustered round his name.
It is important, however, to carefully discriminate between the undoubted testimony of Ashmole, and the opinions which have been ascribed to him. So far as the former is con- cerned— and the reader will need no reminder that direct allusions to the Masonic fraternity are alone referred to — it comes to an end with the last entry given from the " Diary " (1GS2) ; but the latter have exercised so much influence upon the writings of all our most trustworthy historians, that their careful analysis will form one of the most important parts of our general inquiry.
In order to present this evidence in a clear form, it becomes necessary to dwell upon the fact, that the entries in the " Diary " record the attendance of Ashmole at two Masonic meetings only — viz., in 1646 and 1682 respectively.
This " Diary " was not printed until 1717. Eawlinson's preface to the " History of Berk- shire " saw the light two years later ; ^ and the article Ashmole in the " Biographia Britannica " was published in 1747. During the period, however, intervening between the last entry referred to in the " Diary " (1682) and its publication (1717), there ajDpeared Dr Plot's " Natural History of Staffordshire " (1686),^ in which is contained the earliest critico-historical account of the Freemasons. Plot's remarks form the ground-work of an interesting note to the memoir of Ashmole in the " Biographia Britannica ; " and the latter, which has been very much relied upon by the compilers of Masonic history, is scarcely intelligible without a knowledge of the former. There were also occasional references to Plot's work in the interval between 1717 and 1747, from which it becomes the more essential that, in critically appraising the value of state- ments given to the world on the authority of Ashmole, we should have before us all the evidence which can assist in guiding us to a sound and rational conclusion.
This involves the necessity of going, to a certain extent, over ground with which, from pre- vious research, we have become familiar ; but I shall tread very lightly in paths already traversed, and do my best to avoid any needless repetition of either facts or inferences that have been already placed before my readers.
I shall first of all recall attention to the statement of Sir William Dugdale, recorded by Aubrey in his " Natural History of Wiltshire." No addition to the text of this work was made after 1686 — Aubrey being then sixty years of age — and giving the entry in question no earlier date (though in my opinion this might be safely done), we should put to ourselves the inquiry, what distance back can the expression, " many years ago," from the mouth of a man of sixty, safely carry us ? Every reader must answer this question for himself, and I shall merely postulate, that under any method of computation, Dugdale's verbal statement must be presumed to date from a period somewhere intermediate between October 16, 1G4G, and j\Iarch 11, 1682.
Chap. XII., p 17. = Cf. ante, Clmps. II., p. 73 ; VII., p. 351 ; and .\II., pp. 1, 16, 44.
VOL. II. X
i62 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
It is quite certain that it was made hc.fore the meeting occurred in the latter year at the Masons' Hall.
Ashmole informs us :
" 1G56 . September . 13 . About 9 lior . ante merid. . I came first to Mr Dugdale's at Blyth- Hall."
" December 19 . I went . towards Blyth-Hall." A similar entry occurs under the date of March 27 in the following year ; after which we find :
" 1657 . May . 19 . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his journey towards the Fens 4 . Ror . 30 niinites a^ite merid."
Elyth-Hall seems to have possessed great attractions for Ashmole, since he repeatedly went there between the years 1657 and 1660. In the latter year he was appointed Windsor Herald, and in 1661 was given precedency over the other heralds. He next records :
" 1662 August . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Derby and Nottingham shires."
" 1G63 . March . I accompanied Mr Dugdale in his visitation of Staffordshire and Derby- shire."
" August 3. 9 Ror. ante merid. . I began my journey to accompany Mr Dugdale in his visitations of Shropshire and Cheshire."
Further entries in the " Diary " relate constant visits to Blyth-Hall in 1665 and the three following years ; and seven months after the death of his second wife, the Lady Mainwaring, Ashmole thus descrilies his third marriage :
" 1668 . November .3.1 married Mrs Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to William Dugdale, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, at Lincoln's Inn Chapel."
As the ideas of the two antiquaries necessarily became very interchangeable from the year 1656, and in 1663 they were together in Staffordshire, Ashmole's native county, we shall not, I think, go far astray if, without assigning the occurrence any exact date, we at least assume that the earliest colloquy of the two Heralds,^ with regard to the Society of Freemasons, cannot with any approach to accuracy be fixed at any later period than 1663. I arrive at this con- clusion, not only from the intimacy between the men, and their both being officials of the College of Arms, but also because they went together to make the Staffordshire " Visitation," which, taken with Plot's subsequent account of the " Society," appears to me to justify the belief, that the prevalence of Masonic lodges in his native county, was a circumstance of which Ashmole could hardly have been unaware — indeed the speculation may be hazarded, that the " customs " of Staffordshire were not wholly without their influence, when he cast in his lot with the Freemasons at Warrington in 1646 ; and in this view of the case, the probability of Dugdale having derived a portion of the information which he afterwards passed on to Aubrey, from his brother Herald in 1663, may, I think, be safely admitted.
It will not be out of place, if I here call attention to the extreme affection which Ashmole appears to have always entertained for the city of his birth. His visits to Lichfield were very frequent, and he was a great benefactor to the Cathedral Church, in which he commenced his
' Sir William Dugdale was born September 12, 1605, and died Febraary 10, 1686. His autobiograjihy is to found in the 2d edition of his "History of St Paul's Cathedral," and was reprinted by W. Hamper, with his " Diary " and Correspondence, in 1827. He was appointed Chester Herald in 1644, and became Garter-King-at-Arms — his son-in-law declining the appointment — in 1677.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 163
early life as a chorister.^ In 1671, he was, together with his wife, "entertained by the Bailiffs at a dinner and a great banquet." Twice the leading citizens invited him to become one of their Burgesses in Parliament. It is within the limits of probability, that the close and intimate connection between Ashmole and his native city, which only ceased with the life of the antiquary, may have led to his being present at the Masons' Hall, London, on March 11, 1682. Sir William Wilson, one of the " new accepted " Masons on that occasion, and originally a Stone- mason, was the sculptor of the statue of Charles II., erected in the Cathedral of Lichfield at the expense of, and during the episcopate of, Bishop Hacket,- and it seems to me that we have in this circumstance an explanation of Ashmole's presence at the Masons' Hall, which, not to put it any higher, is in harmony with the known attachment of the antiquary for the city and Cathedral of Lichfield — an attachment not unlikely to result, in his becoming personally acquainted with any artists of note, employed in the restoration of an edifice endeared to him by so many recollections.
Sir William Wilson's approaching " admission " or " acceptance " may therefore have been the disposing cause of the Summons received by Ashmole, but leaving this conjecture for what it is worth, I pass on to Dr Plot's " Natural History of Staffordshire," the publication of which occurred in the same year (1686) as the transcription of the Antiquity MS. (23) by Eobert Padgett, a synchronism of no little singularity, from the point of view from which it will hereafter be regarded.
Although Plot's description of Freemasonry, as practised by its votaries in the second half of the seventeenth century, has been reprinted times without number, it is quite impossible to exclude it from this history. I shall therefore quote from the " Natural History of Stafford- shire,"^ premising, however, that if I am unable to cast any new light upon the passages relating to the Freemasons, it arises from no lack of diligence on my part, as I have carefully read every word in the volume from title-page to index.
Dr Plot's Account of the Fkeemasons, a.d. 1686. § 85. " To these add the Customs relating to the County, whereof they have one, of admitting Men into the Society of Frcc-Masons, that in the moorelancls * of this County seems to be of greater request, than any where else, though I find the Custom spread more or less all over the Nation ; for here I found persons of the most eminent quality, that did not disdain to be of this Fellowship. Nor indeed need they, were it of that Antiquity and lionor, that is pretended
' Dr T. Harwood, History of Lichfield, 1806, pp. 61, 69, 441.
^ Ibid., p. 72. Dr Jolin Hacket was made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry at the Restoration, and in that situation exhibited a degree of munificence worthy of his station, by expending £20,000 in repaiiing his Cathedral, and by being a liberal benefactor to Trinity College, Cambridge, of which he had been a member. He died in 1670.
' Dr Plot's copy (Brit. Mus. Lib., containing MS. notes for a second edition), chap, viii., §§ 85-88, pp. 316-318. Throughout tliis extract, the original notes of the Author in the only printed edition (16S6), are followed by his name.
* This word is explained by the Author at chap, ii., § 1, p. 107, where he thus quotes from Sampson Erdeswick's "Suivey of Staffordshire:" — "The moorlands is the more northerly mountainous part of the county, laying betwixt Dove and Trent, from the three Shire-heads ; southerly, to Draycote in the Moors, and yeildeth lead, copper, ranee, marble, and mill-stones."
Erdeswick's book was not published during his life-time. His MSS. fell into the hands of Walter Chetwynd of Ingestrie, styled by Bishop Nicolson, " venerande antiquitatis cultor maxiraus." Plot was introduced into the county by Chetwynd, and liberally assisted by his patronage and advice (Erdeswick, A Survey of Staffordsliir*, edited by Dr T. Harwood, 1841, preface, p. xxxvii).
i64 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
in a large parchment vohim i they have amongst them, containing the History and Riihs of the craft of masonry. Wliich is there deduced not only from sacred ivrit, but profaiie story, particularly that it was brought into England by Si Amphibal,^ and first communicated to S. Alban, who set down the Charyes of masonry, and was made paymaster and Governor of the Kings works, and gave them charges and manners as S! Amphibal had taught him. Which were after confirmed by King Athelstan, whose youngest son Edwyn loved well masonry, took upon him the charges, and learned the manners, and obtained for them of his Father a free- Cliarter. 'Whereupon he caused them to assemble at York, and to bring aU the old Boohs of their craft, and out of them ordained such charges and manners, as they then thought fit : which charges in the s:.id BchroU or Parchment volum, are in part declared ; and thus was the craft of masonry grounded and confirmed in England.^ It is also there declared that these charges and manners were after perused and approved by King Hen. 6. and his council,* both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft." ^
§ 86. " Into which Society when any are admitted, they call a mcetiiig (or Lodg as they term it in some places), which must consist at lest of 5 or 6 of the Ancients of the Order, whom the candidats present with gloves, and so likewise to their wives, and entertain with a collation according to the Custom of the place: This ended, they proceed to the admission of them, which cheifly consists in the communication of certain secret signes, whereby they are known to one another all over the Nation, by which means they have maintenance whither ever they travel : for if any man appear though altogether unknown that can shew any of these signes to a Fellow of the Society, whom they otherwise call an accepted mason, he is obliged presently to come to him, from what company or place soever he be in, nay, tho' from the top of a Steeple^ (what hazard or inconvenience soever he run), to know his
» See ante, Chap. II., MS. 40, p. 73.
"- All that is recorded of this Saint is, that he was a Roman Missionary, martyred almost immediately after his arrival in England. Cf. ante. Chap. II., p. 85.
= These assertions belong to the period which began towards the close of the Middle Ages, and continued until the end of the seventeenth century, if not later, when aU the wild stories of King Lud, Belin, Bladud, Trinovant or Troy Novant (evidently a corruption of Trinobantes), Brutus and his Trojans, sprang up with the soil, and, like other such plants, for a time flourislied exceedingly. For references to these wholly imaginary worthies-of whose actual existence there is not the faintest trace— as well as for a bibliographical list of their works drawn up with a precision worthy of Allibone, the reader may consult Leland, Tits, and Bale, but especially the last named. King Cole is also another of these heroes, though some writers have made him a publican of later date in Chancery Lane ! The subject, however, is not one of importance.
* This evidently refers, though in a confused manner, like so many other similar notices, to the Statutes of Labourers {ante, Ch.ip. VII., p. 351, Stat. 3, Hen. VI., c. I., q.v.). Cf. the statements at p. 75 of the Constitutions (1738), copied by Preston in his " Illustrations of Masonry," edit. 1792, p. 200. There can hardly be a doubt as to the "old record," under whose authority Anderson and Preston shield themselves, being the " Schrolc or Parchment Volum " referred to by Plot.
» Ex Rotulo membranaceo penes Ccementariorum Societatem.— Plot.
« The London Journal of July 10, 1725, gives a parody of the Entered Apprentice Song, of which the tilth verse
runs — , ,, „ , , • 1
" If on House ne er so uign,
A Brother they spy.
As his Trowel He dcxtrously lays on.
He must leave off his Work,
And come down with a Jerk,
At the Sign of an Accepted Mason."
See also the Ecv. A. F. A. Woodford's reiirint of the Sloane MSS. 3329, p. xvi.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 165
pleasure, and assist him; viz., if he want work he is bound to find him some; or if he cannot doe that, to give him many, or otherwise support him till work can be had ; which is one of their Articles; and it is another, that they advise the Masters they work for, according to the best of their skill, acquainting them with the goodness or badness of their materials ; and if they be any way out in the contrivance of their buildings, modestly to rectify them in it ; that masonry be not dishonored : and many such like that are commonly known : but some others they have (to which they are sworn after their fashion), that none know but themselves, which I have reason to suspect are much worse than these, perhaps as bad as this History of the craft it self ; than which there is nothing I ever met with, more false or incoherent."
§ 87. " For not to mention that S- Ampliibalus by judicious persons is, thought rather to be the cloak, than master of S' Allan ; or how unlikely it is that S' Allan himself in such a barbarous Age, and in times of persecution, should be supervisor of any works ; it is plain that King Athelstan was never marryed, or ever had so much as any natural issue ; (unless we give ■way to the fabulous History of G-uy Earl of Warwick, whose eldest son Reynlum is said indeed to have been marryed to Leoneat, the supposed daughter of Athelstan^ which will not serve the turn neither) much less ever had he a lawfull son Edwyn, of whom I find not the least umbrage in History. He had indeed a Brother of that name, of whom he was so jealouse, though very younrj when he came to the crown, that he sent him to Sea in a pinnace without tackle or oar, only in company with a page, that his death might be imputed to the waves and not /; im ; whence the Young Prince (not able to master his passions) cast himself headlong into the Sea and there dyed. Who how unlikely to learn their manners ; to get them a Charter ; or call them together at York; let the Reader judg."
§ 88. "Yet more improbable is it still, that Hen. the 6 and his Council, should ever peruse or approve their charges and manners, and so confirm these right Worshipfull Masters and Fellows, as they are call'd in the Serole : for in the tliird of his reigne (when he could not be 4 years old) I find an act of Parliament quite abolishing this Society. It being therein ordained, that no Congregations and Confederacies should be made by masons, in their general Chapters and Assemllies^ whereby the good course and effect of the Statutes of Lalourers, were violated and broken in subversion of Law: and that those who caused such Chapters or Congregations to be holden, should be adjudged Felons; and that those masons that came to them should be punish't by imprisonment, and make fine and ransom at the King's will.^ So very much out was the Compiler of this History of the craft of masonry,* and so little skill had he in our Chronicles and Laws. Which Statute though repealed by a subsequent act in the 5 of Eliz.,^ whereby Servants and Lalourers are compellable to serve, and their ivages limited ; and all masters made punisliable for giving more wages than what is taxed by the Justices, and the servants if they take it, &c.^ Yet this act too being but little observed, 'tis still to be feared these Chapters oi Free-masons do as much mischeif as before, which, if one may
' Job Rowsc's Hist, of Guy, E. of Warw.— Plot. It may be here remarked that the famous Dun Cow was, in all probability, an Auroclis, the slaying of which single-handed would suffice to ennoble a half savage chieftain.
2 See ante, Chap. VII., p. 354.
' Ferd Pulton's Collect, of Statutes, 3 Hen. 6, cliap. i.— Plot. The Acts of Parliament quoted by the Doctor have been amply considered in Chap. VII., ante.
* Sec imt, pp. 1"5, 176. ' Lord Cook's [Coke's] Institutes of the Laws of Engl., part 3, chap. 35.— Plot.
' Ferd. Pulton's Collect, of Statutes, 5 Eliz., chap. 4.— Plot.
i66 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
estimate by the penalty, was anciently so great, that prehaps it might be usefull to examin them now."
In the extracts just given, we have the fullest picture of the Freemasonry which preceded the era of Grand Lodges, that has come down to us in contemporary writings, and the early Masonic " customs " so graphically portrayed by Dr Flot will be again referred to before I take final leave of my present subject.
Among the subscribers to the " Natural History of Staffordshire " were Ashmole, Eobert Boyle, Sir William Dugdale, John Evelyn, Eobert Hook, and Sir Christopher Wren.
It now only remains at this stage to consider the character and general reputation of the writer, to whom we are so much indebted for this glimpse of light in a particularly dark portion of our annals.
Evelyn, who was a good judge of men, says of Plot: "Pity it is that more of this industrious man's genius were not employed so as to describe every county of England." ^ It must be confessed, however, that extreme credulity appears to have been a noticeable feature of his character. Thus a friendly critic observes of him : " The Doctor was certainly a profound scholar; but, being of a convivial and facetious turn of mind, was easily imposed on, which, added to the credulous age in which he wrote, has introduced into his works more of the marvellous than is adapted to the present more enlightened period." ^
In Spence's " Anecdotes " we meet with the following : " Dr Plot was very credulous, and took up with any stories for his ' History of Oxfordshire.' A gentleman of Worcestershire was likely to be put into the margin as having one leg rough and the other smooth, had he not discovered the cheat to him out of compassion ; one of his legs had been shaved." *
Edward Lhuyd,* who succeeded Plot as keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, in a letter still preserved, gives a very indifferent character of him to Dr Martin Lister. " I think," says Lhuyd, " he is a man of as bad morals as ever took a doctor's degree. I wish his wife a good bargain of him, and to myself, that I may never meet with the like again." ^
Plot's " morals " were evidently at a low ebb in the estimation of his brother antiquaries, for Hearne, writing on November 6, 1705, thus expresses himself: "There was once a very remarkable stone in Magd. Hall library, which was afterwards lent to Dr Plott, who never returned it, replying, when he was asked for it, that 'twas a rule amotuj antiquaries to receive, and never restore .' " **
But as it is with our author's veracity, rather than with his infractions of the decalogue, that we are concerned, one of the marvellous stories related by him in all good faith may here be fittingly introduced.
A " foole " is mentioned, " who could not only tell you the changes of the Moon, the times of Eclipses, and at what time Easter and Whitsuntide fell, or any moveable feast
1 Diary, July 11, 1675.
» Eev. Stebbing Shaw, History and Antiquities of StafTordsliire, vol. i., 1798, preface, p. vi. Some further remarks on the subject by the same and other commentators will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. Ixii., p. 694 ; vol. Ixv., p. 897 ; and vol. Ixxiv., p. 519.
3 Rev. J. Spence, Anecdotes of Books and Men, ed. 1820 (Singer), p. 333.
* Or Llwyd, of Jesus College, Oxford, an eminent antiquary and naturalist, born aliout 1670, died in 1709. He was the author of a learned work entitled, " Arclifeologia Britannica." Cf. Leland's Itinerary, vol. ii., 1711 (Ilearne), preface, p. iii; and Gentleman's Magazine, vol. Ixxvii., 1807, pt. i., p. 419.
» Athenae Oxouienses (Bliss), vol. iv., col. 777. ' Keliquite Heamianiie (P. Bliss), 1857, vol. i., p. 47.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 167
whatever, but at what time any of them had, or should fall, at any distance of years, past or to come." ^
Upon the whole, in arriving at a final estimate of the value of Plot's writings, and especially of the work from which an extract has been given, we shall at least be jxistified in concluding, with Chalmers, that " In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, upon mature considera- tion, he must have rejected." ^
Between 1686 and 1700 there are, at least, so far as I am aware, only two allusions to English Freemasonry by contemporary wi'iters — one in 1688, the other in 1691. The former is by the third Eandle Holme,^ which I shaU presently examine in connection with Harleian MS., No. 2054, and the old Lodge at Chester; the latter by John Aubrey, in the curious memorandum to which it will be unnecessary to do more than refer.*
One further reference, indeed, to the Freemasons, or rather, to the insignia of the Society, is associated by a later writer with the reign of William and Mary — February 1688-9 to December 1694 — and although unconnected with the progressive development or evolution of Ashmolean ideas, which I am endeavouring to chronicle, may perhaps be more conveniently cited at this than at any later period.
Describing the two armouries in the Tower of London as " a noble building to the north- ward of the White Tower," Entick goes on to say — " It was begun by King James II., and by that prince built to the first floor; but finished by King William, who erected that magnificent room called the New or Small Armoury, in which he, with Queen Mary his consort, dined in great form, having all the warrant workmen ^ and labourers to attend them, dressed in white gloves and aprons, the usual badges of the Order of Freemasonry." ^
As a revised issue of the " Book of Constitutions " was published in 1756 — the year in which the above remarks first appeared — also under the editorial supervision of the Eev. John Entick, it would appear to me, either that his materials for the two undertakings became a little mixed up, or that a portion of a sentence intended for one work has been accidentally
'Plot, Natural History of Staffordshire, chap, viii., §67. He also gravely states, that "one John Best, of the parish of Horton, a man 104 years of age, married a woman of 56, who presented him with a son so much like himself, that according to his informant, the god-father of the child, ' nobody doubted but that he was the true f.ither of it ' " (Ibid., chap, viii., § 3, p. 209).
' Biographical Dictionary, vol. xvi., 1S16, p. 65.
^ The Acadumie of Armory ; or, a Store-hoiise of Armory and Blazon, etc. By Randle Holme, of the City of Chester, Gentleman Sewer in E.xtraordinary to his late Majesty King Charles 2. And sometime Deputy for the Kings of Anns. Printed for the author, Chester, 16S8, fol.
* See Chap. XII., passim.
° This would include aU the master tradesmen, e.g., the Master Mason and the Master Carpenter. Robert Vertue (who built, in 1501, a chamber in the Tower of London), Robert Jenyns, and John Lobins are called "ye Kings iii Mr Masons," about 1509, when estimating for a tomb for Henry VII. (Wyatt Papworth). In the reign of Henry VII., or in that of his successor, two distinct oflices were created : those of Carpenter of the King's Works in England, and of Chief Carpenter in the Tower (Jupp, Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, p. 166). In the thirty-second year of Henry VIII., the yearly salaries of Thomas Hermiden and John Multon, Masons; John Russell and Wm. Clement, Carpenters; John Ripley, Cliief Joiner ; and William Cunne, Plumber, respectively, "to the King," were in each case £18, Ss., i.e., Is. a d^ay — whilst those of Richard Ambros and Cornelius Johnson, severally, "Master Carpenter" and "Master Builder" in the Tower, were only £12, 3s. 4d. (Ibid., p. 169).
" W. Maitland, History of London, continued by Entick, 1756, p. 163; and sec London and its Environs Described, 1761, vi. 171.
i68 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY^ENGLAND.
dovetailed with a similar fragment appertaining to the other. However this may be, the readers of this history have the passage before them, and I shall not make any attempt to forecast the judgment which they may be disposed to pass upon it.
A short notice of Ashmole from the pen of Edward Lhwyd was given in Collier's " Historical Dictionary " in 1707/ but his connection with the Masonic fraternity was first announced by the publication of his own "Diary " in 1717,'' from a copy of the original MS. in the Ashmolean Museum, made by Dr Plot, and afterwards collated by David Tarry, M.A., both in their time official custodians of the actual " Diary." *
In 1719 two posthumous works were published by E. Curll, and edited by Dr Eawlinson, viz., Aubrey's " Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey," and Ashmole's " History and Antiquities of Berkshii-e." The former, containing the dedication and preface of Aubrey's " Natural History of Wiltshire," and the latter, the account of the Freemasons, which I have already given.* Subsequent editions of Ashmole's " Berkshire " appeared in 1723^ and 1736, to both of which the original preface, or memoir of Ashmole, written by Eawlinson, was prefixed.
By those who, at the present time, have before them the identical materials from which Eawlinson composed his description of our Society — and the most cursory glance at his memoir of Ashmole, will satisfy the mind, that it is wholly based on the antiquary's " Diary," and the notes of John Aubrey — the general accuracy of his statements will not be disputed. Upon his contemporaries, however, they appear to have made no impression whatever, which may, indeed, be altogether due to their having been published anonymously, though even in this case, there will be room for doubt whether the name of Eawlinson would have much recom- mended them to credit.
Dr Eichard Eawlinson, the fourth son of Sir Thomas Eawlinson, Lord Mayor of London in 1706, was born in 1690, educated at St John's College, Oxford, and admitted to the degree of D.C.L. by diploma in 1719.* It has been stated on apparently good authority, that he was not only admitted to holy orders, but was also a member of the non-juring episcopate, having been regularly consecrated in 1728.'^
He evinced an early predilection for literary pursuits, and was employed in an editorial capacity before he had completed his twenty-fifth year. The circumstances, however, as related in the " Athenae Oxonienses," are far from redounding to his credit.
^ 2il ed.. Supplement, 2d Alphabet, s.v.
' Memoirs of the Life of Elias Ashmole, Esq., published by Charles Burman, Esq., 1717.
' To the preface, which is dated February 1716-7, is appended the signature of Charles Burman, said to have been Plot's stepson. As the doctor married a Mrs Barman, whose son John, at the decease of his stepfather, became possessed of his MSS. (Athense Oxonienses, vol. iv., col. 776), this is likely to have been the case.
*Anle., Chap. XII., pp. 5, 17.
■i London, printed for W. Mears and J. Hooke, 1723 ; Reading, printed by William Cardan, 1736. Another edition was begun in 1814 by the Rev. Charles Coates, author of "A History of Reading," but not completed. There are two copies of the first edition in the Bodleian Library, with MS. notes — one with those of Dr Rawliuson, the other by E. Rowe Mores (Atheiiaj Oxonienses, vol. iv., col. 360).
8 Chalmers, Biog. Diet. Thomas Rawlinson, the eldest son, like his younger brother, was a great collector of books. Addison is said to have intended his character of Tom Folio in the " Tatler," No.' 158, for him. While he lived in Gray's Inn, he had four chambers so completely filled with books, that it was neees.sary to remove his bed into the passage. After his death, in 1725, the sale of his manuscripts alone occupied sixteen days {Hid.).
' Reliquia; Hearniania; (P. Bliss), 1857, vol. ii., p. 847 (editorial note).
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGL AAW. 169
"In 1714, a work called 'Miscellanies on Several Curious Subjects,' was publislied by E. Curll, and at p. 43 appeared a copy of a letter from Robert Plott, LL.D., design'd to be sent to the Eoyal Society in London. He has, however, no claim to the authorship. The original letter is now among Dr Eawlinson's collections in the Bodleian,^ and the fabrication of Plot's name must be ascribed to the Doctor, who was editor, or rather the collector, of Curll's 'Miscellanies.' The latter part of the letter Dr Eawlinson has omitted, and altering the word son to servant, has compleatly erased the name and substituted the initials E. P." " Why he should have been guilty of so unnecessary a forgery," says Dr Bliss, " is not easy to determine; unless he fancied Plott's name of greater celebrity than the real author, and adoi^ted it accordingly to give credit to his book." ^
After the preceding example of the manner in which the functions of an editor were discharged by Eawlinson in 1714, the unfavourable verdict passed upon his subsequent com- pilation of 1719 will excite no sui-prise.
The following is recorded in the " Diary " of Thomas Hearne : —
"Ap. 18. [1719]. a present hath been made me of a book called the 'Antiquities ot Barkshire,' by EUas Ashmole, Esq., London, printed for E. Curll, in Fleet Street, 1719, 8vo, in three volumes. It was given me by my good friend Thomas Eawlinson, Esq. As soon as I opened it, and looked into it, I was amazed at the abominable impudence, ignorance, and carelessness of the publisher,^ and I can hardly ascribe all this to any one else, than to that villain, Curll. Mr Ashmole is made to have written abundance of things since his death. .•. .". I call it a rhapsody, because there is no method nor judgment observed in it, nor one dram of true learning." *
Eawlinson was a zealous Freemason, a grand steward in 1734, and a member about the same time of no less than four lodges,^ but could not, I think, have joined the Society much before 1730, as none of the memoranda or newspaper cuttings of any importance preserved in his masonic collection at the Bodleian Library bear any earlier date, — that is to say, if I have not overlooked any such entries.^ His active interest in Freemasonry, if the collection made by him is any criterion, appears to have ceased about 1738. It is hardly possible that he could have been a Freemason before 1726, as in that year Hearne mentions his return from abroad, after " travelling for several years," also that " he was four years together at Eome." '
Eawlinson was elected a Fellow of the Eoyal Society, July 29, 1714, Martin Folkes and
1 Miscell. 390. ^ Atlienje Oxon!™ses, vol. iv. , col. 775.
' In an editorial note, Dr Bliss says, "Hearne was little aware that this was his very good, and notoriously honest friend, Richard Rawlinson." See further, F. Ouvry, Letters to T. Hearne, 1874, No. 39.
* Reliquiae Hearnianije, vol. ii. , p. 422. For a coiToboration of Hearne's opinion, see Athens Oxonienses, vol. iv., col. 360.
« Viz., Nos. 37, The Sash and Cocoa Tree, Upper Moore Fields ; 40, The St Paul'."! Head, Ludg.ate Street; 71, The Rose, Cheapside ; and 94, The Oxford Arms, Ludgate Street.
« This collection was described by the Rev. J. S. Sidebottom of New College, Oxford, in tho Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, 1855, p. 81, as "a kind of masonic album or common-place book, in which Rawlinson in.serted anything that struck him either as useful or particularly amusing. It is partly in manuscript, partly in print; and comprises some ancient masonic charges, constitutions, forms of summons, a list of all the lodges of his time under tho Grand Lodge of England, together with some extracts from the Orub Street Journal, the Gctieral Evening Post, and other Journals of the day. The date ranges from 1724 to 1740." As stated above, I found, myself, nothing worth recording either before 1730, or after 1738.
' Reliquifle Hearnianise, vol. ii., p. 594.
VUL. H. Y
170 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
Dr Desaguliers being chosen Members on the same clay. He became a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, May 10, 1727.
His death occurred at Islington, April 5, 1755. By his will, dated June 2, 1752, he desired that at his burial in the chapel, commonly called Dr Bayly's Chapel, in St John's College, Oxford, his pall might be supported by six of the senior fellows of the said college, "to each of whom I give," so the words run, "one guinea, which will be of more use to them than the usual dismal accoutrements at present in use."
A large number of valuable MSS. he ordered to be safely locked up, and not to be opened until seven years after his decease, — a precaution, in the opinion of Dr Taylor, taken by the testator, " to prevent the right owners recovering their own," but this insinuation is without foundation, as the papers, the publication of which the Doctor wished delayed, were his collections for a continuation of the " Athente Oxonieuses," with Hearne's "Diaries," and two other MSS.i
There are several codicils to the -will, and the second, dated June 25, 1754, was attested, amongst others, by J. Ames,^ presumably Joseph Ames, author of " Typographical Antiquities," 1749, and one of the editors of the " Parentalia."
Eawlinson's Library of printed books and books of prints was sold by auction in 1756; the sale lasted 50 days, and produced £1164. There was a second sale of upwards of 20,000 pamphlets, which lasted 10 days, and this was followed by a sale of the single prints, books of prints, and drawings, which lasted 8 days.^
Ashmole's connection with the Society is not alluded to in the "Constitutions" of 1723, but in the subsequent edition of 1738, Dr Anderson, drawing his own inferences from the actual entries in the " Diary," transmutes them into facts, by amending the expressions of the diarist, and making them read— prefaced by the words, " Thus Elias Ashmole in his ' Diary,' page 15, says" — " I was made a Free Mason at "Warrington, Lancashire, with Colonel Henry Manwaring, hy Mr Kichard Penket the Warden, and the Fellow Crafts (there mention'd) on 16 Oct. 1646." *
The later entry of 1682 was both garbled and certified in a similar manner, though, except in the statement that Sir Thomas Wise and the seven other Fellows, present, besides Ashmole at the reception of the New-Accepted Masons were " old Free Masons," ^ there is nothing that absolutely conflicts with the actual words in the " Diary."
We next come to the memoir of Ashmole in the " Biographia Britannica," published in 1747, upon which I have already drawn at some length in the preceding chapter.
According to his biographer, Dr Campbell, " on the sixteenth of October 1646, he [Ashmole] was elected a brother of the ancient and lionourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a very distinguishing character, and has therefore given us a very particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire ; and in some of his manuscripts there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the Free Masons."
The subject is then continued in a cojiious footnote, which is itself still further elucidated, after the manner of those times, by a number of subsidiary references, and to these I shall in
1 Chalmers, Biog. Diet., vol. xxvi., 1816, s.v. Rawlinson.
» The Deed of Trust and Will ol Richard Rawlinson, 1755, pp. 1, 22.
» Chalmers, loc. cit. " Constitutions, 1738, p. 100. " Ibul.. p. 102.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 171
every case append the letter C, in order that my own observations and those of Dr Campbell may be distinguishable. The note thus takes up the thread : —
" He [Ashmole] made very large collections on almost all points relating to English history, of which some large volumes are remaining at Oxford, but much more was consumed in the fire at the Temple,^ which will be hereafter mentioned. What is hinted above, is taken from a book of letters, communicated to the author of this life by Dr Knipe,^ of Christ-church, in one of which is the following passage relating to this subject. ' As to the Ancient society of Free-Masons, concerning whom you are desirous of knowing what may be known with certainty, I shall only tell you, that if our worthy brother, E. Ashmole, Esq ; had executed his intended design, our fraternity had been as much obliged to him as the brethren of the most noble Order of the Garter.^ I would not have you surprized at this expression, or think it at all too assuming. The Soveraigns of that order have not disdained our fellowship, and there have been times when Emperors * were also Free-Masons. What from Mr E. Ashmole's collection I could gather, was, that the report of our society's taking rise from a BuU granted by the Pope, in the reign of Henry III., to some Italian Architects, to travel over all Europe, to erect chapels, was ill-founded.^ Such a Bull there was, and those Architects were Masons ; but tliis Bull in the opinion of the learned Mr Ashmole, was confirmative only, and did not by any means create our fraternity, or even establish them in this kingdom.® But as to the time and manner of that establishment, somethiag I shall relate from the same collections. St Alban, the Proto-Martyr of England, established Masonry here, and from his time it flourished more or less, according as the world went, down to the days of King Athelstane, who, for the sake of his brother Edwin, granted the Masons a charter, tho' afterwards growing jealous of his brother, it is said he caused him together with his Page, to be put into a boat and committed to the sea, where they perished.' It is likely that Masons were affected by his fall, and
' Athena Oxonienses, vol. ii., col. 8S8. — C. " 1679. Jan. 26. — The fire in the Temple burned my library" (Diary).
' It has not yet been satisfactorily determined who this Dr Kaipe was ; and perhaps the present note, if it passes under the eye of any Oxford reader interested in Masonic research, may lead to the realisation of how much good work may yet be done in the way of fully examining the Ashmole MSS. C;'. Freemasons' Magazine, January to June 186-3, pp. 146, 209, 227.
^ The design, here attributed to Ashmole, of writiug a History of Freemasonry, rests entirely upon the authority of Dr Knipe. It is difficult to believe that such a positive statement could have been a pure invention on his part ; and yet, on the other hand, it is lacking in all the elements of credibility.
* This statement takes us outside the British Isles, and may either point to an embodiment of the popular belie/, such as I have ventured to indicate in Chap. XII., pp. 29, 33, respecting the origin of the Society ; or — in the opinion of those who cherish a theory the more ardently because it involves an absolute surrender of all private judgment — it may tend, not only to establish, but to crown the view of Masonic history associated with the .Steinmetzeu, by implying that the imperial confirmations of their ordinances must be taken as proof of the admissiou of the German emperors into the Stonemasons' Fraternity !
^ Histor)' of Masonry, p. 3. — C. See ante, Chap. XII., pp. 16-18. It should be borne in mind that in 1747, when Dr Knipe wrote the letters from which an extract is professedly given, Kawlinson was only in his fifty-eighth year. The " Republic of Letters " was then a very small one. It is unlikely that the memoir of Ashmole giveu in the " Biographia Britannica " was prepared without assistance from members of the Koyal Society ; and in that portion of it dealing with his admission into Freemasonry, it seems especially probable that we should find tho traces of information supplied by some of tho Fellows of that learned body who were also Freemasons, liawlinson, then, we may usefully bear in mind, was at once an F.R.S., a prominent Freemason, and a distinguished man of letters.
« Vidi Chap. XII., p. 31.
' Ex Rotulo mcmbranaceo penes Ccementariorum Socictatcm. — C. This is evideutiy copied from a similar note by Dr Plot (aiUc, p. 164).
172 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
suffered for some time, but afterwards their credit revived, and we find under our Normau Princes, that they frequently received extraordinary marks of royal favour. There is no doubt to be made, that the skill of Masons, which was always transcendent, even in the most barbarous times, their wonderful kindness and attachment to each other, how different soever in condition, and their inviolable fidelity in keeping religiously their secret, must expose them in ignorant, troublesome, and suspicious times, to a vast variety of adventures, according to the different fate of parties, and other alterations in government. By the way, I shall note, that the Masons were always loyal, which exposed them to great severities when power wore the trappings of justice, and those who committed treason, punished true men as traitors. Thus in the third year of the reign of Henry VI, an Act of Parliament passed to abolish the society of masons,^ and to hinder, under grievous penalties, the holding chapters, lodges, or other regular assemblies. Yet this act was afterwards repealed, and even before that King Henry VI, and several of the principal Lords of his court became fellows of the craft.^ Under the succeeding troublesome times, the Free-Masons thro' this Idngdom became generally Yorkists, which, as it procured them eminent favour from Edward IV, so the wise Henry VII, thought it better by shewing himself a great lover of Masons to obtrude numbers of his friends on that worthy fraternity, so as never to want spies enough in their lodges, than to create himself enemies, as some of his predecessors had done by an ill-timed persecution.^ As this society has been so very ancient, as to rise almost beyond the reach of records, there is no wonder that a mixture of fable is found in it's history, and methinks it had been better, if a late insidious writer* had spent his time in clearing up the story of St Alban, or the death of Prince Edwin, either of which would have found him sufficient employment, than as he has done in degrading a society with whose foundation and transactions, he is visibly so very little acquainted,^ and with whose history and conduct Mr Ashmole, who understood them so much better, was perfectly satisfied, &c." ^
" I shall add to this letter " (writes Campbell), " as a proof, of it's author's being exactly right as to Mr Ashmole, a small note from his diary, which shews his attention to this society, long after his admission, when he had time to weigh, examine, and know the Masons secret." '
Dr Campbell then proceeds to give the entries, dated the 10th and 11th of March 1682, relating the meeting at Masons' Hall, only through interpolating the word " by " before the name of Sir William Wilson — an error into which subsequent copyists have been beguiled — he rather leaves an impression upon the mind, that the " new-accepted masons " were parties to their own reception, in a sense never contemplated by Elias Ashmole.
The Eev. S. E. Maitland says, " I do not know whether there ever was a time when readers looked out the passages referred to, or attended to the writer's request that they would ' see,' ' compare,' etc. such-and-such things, which, for brevity's sake, he would not transcribe : but if readers ever did this, I am morally certain that they have long since ceased to do it." ^ Concurring in this view, I have quoted the passage above, and also those from Dr Plot's work, at length ; as, believing their right comprehension by my readers to be essential, I dare
' Fred. Pultou's Collect, of Statutes, 3 Hen. VI, chap. i. — C. " History of Masonry, p. 29. — C.
' Ibid., p. 19. — C. The three allusions by Dr Campbell to a " History of Masonry " will be presently examined. * Dr Plot. ° riot's Nat. History of Stalfordshire, pp. 316, 317, 318.— C.
e Dr W. to Sir D. N., .lune 9, IBS?.— C. ' Diary, p. 66.— C.
« The Dark A^es, 1814, p. 30.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 173
not content myself with referring even to such well-known books — to he met with in the generality of pulilic libraries — as the " Biographia Britannica " and the " Natural History of Staffordshire."
It is not my intention to dwell at any length upon the discrepancies which exist between the several versions of Ashmole's connection with the Society. Still, when extracts professedly made from the actual " Diary " are given to the world in a garbled or inaccurate form, through the medium of such works of authority as the " Book of Constitutions " and the " Biographia Britannica," a few words of caution may not be out of place against the reception as evidence of colourable exccrpta from the Ashmolean MSS., whether published by Dr Anderson — under the sanction of the Grand Lodge— in 1738, or by Findel and Fort, in 1862 and 1876 respec- tively. It has been well observed, that " if such licence be indulged to critics, that they may expunge or alter the words of an historian, because he is the sole relater of a particular event, ■we shall leave few materials for authentic history." ^ The contemporary writers to whom I last referred have severally reproduced, and still further popularised, the misleading transcripts of Doctors Anderson and Campbell. The former by copying from the " Constitutions " of 1738 — though the authority he quotes is that of Ashmole himself ^ — and the latter* by relying apparently on the second edition of the " Diary," published in 1774, which adopts the inter- polation of Dr Campbell, changes " vjerc " into " was," and makes Ashmole, after reciting his summons to the Lodge at Masons' Hall on March 10, 1682, go on to state: —
"[March] 11. Accordingly I went, and about noon tvas admitted into the fellowship of Free-Masons, hj Sir William Wilson, Knight, Captain Eichard Borthwick, Mr William Wodman, ]\Ir William Grey, Mr Samuel Taylour, and Mr William Wise." *
The preceding extract presents such a distorted view of the real facts— as related by Ashmole — that I give it without curtailment. Compared with the actual entry as shown at p. 143, and overlooking minor discrepancies,* it wiU be seen, that the oldest Freemason present at the meeting is made to declare, that he was " admitted into the fellowship " by the candidates for reception. Yet this monstrous inversion of the ordinary method of procedure at the admission of guild-brethren — which, as a travesty of Masonic usage and
' " Quod si liseo licentia daretur arti criticse, ut si qune in aliquo scriptore facta legiraus commcmorata, qute ab aliis silentio involvantur, ilia statim exjjungenda, aut jier contortam emendatiouem in contrarium plane sensum forent cou- vertenda, nihil fere certum aut constan.s in Mstoricoruni scriptorum commentariis reperiretur " (Trofessor Breitinger, Zurich, to Edward Gibbon, Lausanne: Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, edited by Lord Sheffield, 1814, vol. i., p. 479).
"•' "In Ashmole's 'Diary' we find the following," etc. (Findel, History of Freemasonry, 2d English edit., 1869, p. 113n).
2 From Fort's description, it might be inferred that Ashmole was "admitted into the fellowship by Sir William Wilson, Knt," solus, as he cites no other names (History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 137).
■• The edition of Ashmole's "Diary," from which the above is extracted, was published, together with the life of William Lilly, the astrologer, in 1774. Lilly's autobiography (of which the latter was a reprint) first appeared in 1715, a memorandum on the fly-leaf stating — " The Notes at the Bottom of the Page, and the continuation to the time of liis dL-ath, were the Performance of his good Friend Mr Ashmole." At p. 43, a footnote, explanatory of the te.tt, is followed by the letters D. N., which is, so far, the only clue I have obtained towards the identification of the "Sir