See W. C. Hazlitt, The Livery Companies of the City of London (1892).
FREEMASONRY. According to an old “Charge” delivered to initiates, Freemasonry is declared to be an “ancient and honourable institution: ancient no doubt it is, as having subsisted from time immemorial; and honourable it must be acknowledged to be, as by a natural tendency it conduces to make those so who are obedient to its precepts ... to so high an eminence has its credit been advanced that in every age Monarchs themselves have been promoters of the art, have not thought it derogatory from their dignity to exchange the sceptre for the trowel, have patronised our mysteries and joined in our Assemblies.” For many years the craft has been conducted without respect to clime, colour, caste or creed.
History.—The precise origin of the society has yet to be ascertained, but is not likely to be, as the early records are lost; there is, however, ample evidence remaining to justify the claim for its antiquity and its honourable character. Much has been written as to its eventful past, based upon actual records, but still more which has served only to amuse or repel inquirers, and led not a few to believe that the fraternity has no trustworthy history. An unfavourable opinion of the historians of the craft generally may fairly have been held during the 18th and early in the 19th centuries, but happily since the middle of the latter century quite a different principle has animated those brethren who have sought to make the facts of masonic history known to the brotherhood, as well as worth the study of students in general. The idea that it would require an investigator to be a member of the “mystic tie” in order to qualify as a reader of masonic history has been exploded. The evidences collected concerning the institution during the last five hundred years, or more, may now be examined and tested in the most severe manner by literary and critical experts (whether opposed or favourable to the body), who cannot fail to accept the claims made as to its great antiquity and continuity, as the lineal descendant of those craftsmen who raised the cathedrals and other great English buildings during the middle ages.
It is only needful to refer to the old works on freemasonry, and to compare them with the accepted histories of the present time, to be assured that such strictures as above are more than justified. The premier work on the subject was published in London in 1723, the Rev. James Anderson being the author of the historical portion, introductory to the first “Book of Constitutions” of the original Grand Lodge of England. Dr Anderson gravely states that “Grand Master Moses often marshalled the Israelites into a regular and general lodge, whilst in the wilderness.... King Solomon was Grand Master of the lodge at Jerusalem.[1]... Nebuchadnezzar became the Grand Master Mason,” &c., devoting many more pages to similar absurdities, but dismisses the important modern innovation (1716-1717) of a Grand Lodge with a few lines noteworthy for their brief and indefinite character.
In 1738 a second edition was issued, dedicated to the prince of Wales (“a Master Mason and master of a lodge”), and was the work of the same brother (as respects the historical part), the additions being mainly on the same lines as the former volume, only, if possible, still more ridiculous and extravagant; e.g. Cyrus constituted Jerubbabel “provincial grand master in Judah”; Charles Martel was “the Right Worshipful Grand Master of France, and Edward I. being deeply engaged in wars left the craft to the care of several successive grand masters” (duly enumerated). Such loose statements may now pass unheeded, but unfortunately they do not exhaust the objections to Dr Anderson’s method of writing history. The excerpt concerning St Alban (apparently made from Coles’s Ancient Constitutions, 1728-1729) has the unwarranted additional title of Grand Master conferred on that saint, and the extract concerning King Æthelstan and Prince Edwin from the “Old MS. Charges” (given in the first edition) contains still more unauthorized modern terms, with the year added of 926; thus misleading most seriously those who accept the volume as trustworthy, because written by the accredited historian of the Grand Lodge, Junior Grand Warden in 1723. These examples hardly increase our confidence in the author’s accuracy when Dr Anderson comes to treat of the origin of the premier Grand Lodge; but he is our only informant as to that important event, and if his version of the occurrence is declined, we are absolutely without any information.
In considering the early history of Freemasonry, from a purely matter-of-fact standpoint, it will be well to settle as a necessary preliminary what the term did and does now include or mean, and how far back the inquiry should be conducted, as well as on what lines. If the view of the subject herein taken be correct, it will be useless to load the investigation by devoting considerable space to a consideration of the laws and customs of still older societies which may have been utilized and imitated by the fraternity, but which in no sense can be accepted as the actual forbears of the present society of Free and Accepted Masons. They were predecessors, or possibly prototypes, but not near relatives or progenitors of the Freemasons.[2]
The Mother Grand Lodge of the world is that of England, which was inaugurated in the metropolis on St John Baptist’s day 1717 by four or more old lodges, three of which still flourish. There were other lodges also in London and the country at the time, but whether they were invited to the meeting is not now known. Probably not, as existing records of the period preserve a sphinx-like silence thereon. Likewise there were many scores of lodges at work in Scotland, and undoubtedly in Ireland the craft was widely patronized. Whatever the ceremonies may have been which were then known as Freemasonry in Great Britain and Ireland, they were practically alike, and the venerable Old Charges or MS. constitutions, dating back several centuries, were rightly held by them as the title-deeds of their masonic inheritance.
It was a bold thing to do, thus to start a governing body for the fraternity quite different in many respects to all preceding organizations, and to brand as irregular all lodges which declined to accept such authority; but the very originality and audacity of its promoters appears to have led to its success, and it was not long before most of the lodges of the pre-Grand-Lodge era joined and accepted “constitution” by warrant of the Grand Master. Not only so, but Ireland quickly followed the lead, so early as 1725 there being a Grand Lodge for that country which must have been formed even still earlier, and probably by lodges started before any were authorized in the English counties. In Scotland the change was not made until 1736, many lodges even then holding aloof from such an organization. Indeed, out of some hundred lodges known to have been active then, only thirty-three responded and agreed to fall into line, though several joined later; some, however, kept separate down to the end of the 19th century, while others never united. Many of these lodges have records of the 17th century though not then newly formed; one in particular, the oldest (the Lodge of Edinburgh, No. 1), possesses minutes so far back as the year 1599.
It is important to bear in mind that all the regular lodges throughout the world, and likewise all the Grand Lodges, directly or indirectly, have sprung from one or other of the three governing bodies named; Ireland and Scotland following the example set by their masonic mother of England in having Grand Lodges of their own. It is not proved how the latter two became acquainted with Freemasonry as a secret society, guided more or less by the operative MS. Constitutions or Charges common to the three bodies, not met with elsewhere; but the credit of a Grand Lodge being established to control the lodges belongs to England.