'objections which have been unceasingly urged against us,' and we hear of the torrent which is opposed to us.' From the same records we learn the nature of some of these accusations. For instance, the infidel Society of the Illuminati in Germany is said to have coalesced with the Freemasons' abroad, and 'Baron de Knigge, who, in 1782, first suggested the idea of illuminating the society of Freemasons,' is confessed to have 'succeeded in that object from Hanover to Copenhagen on one hand, and to Naples on the other." And yet the Freemasons profess to have an object. It is certainly vague, so vague as to involve no trouble, so ingeniously vague that even an increase of dinners might be regarded as one means of attaining it. 'Universal

6

benevolence' is their aim; they would have lodges' from pole to pole; the true mason,' says one of their greatest writers, ' is a citizen of the world; his philanthropy extends to all the 'human race. . . The distant Chinese, the wild Arab, and the American savage will embrace a brother Briton." Over and over again we hear of Universal Benevolence;' it meets us at every turn. Now we know nothing easier than the profession of benevolence, especially of universal benevolence; the wider it is, the easier it is; for as one does not meet wild Arabs every day on Hampstead-heath, nor Chinese in Piccadilly, those who dwell in such regions may easily offer to embrace' them without much risk; and after all, if such benevolence leads to nothing more tangible and definite than embracing,' there would be no great difficulty, though a little unpleasantness, in clasping an American savage' in one's arms. Universal bene

6

volence must end in profession; it cannot be carried out; we cannot ask all the world to dinner; where our sympathy' extends to all the human race,' we know not, as a matter of practice, where to begin. The moment we fix our minds upon some particular people, or upon some particular course of action, the universal has sunk into the particular. So wide a circle as the world, so vast a waist, is difficult practically, though very easy theoretically, to span; our feelings may circumnavigate the world; but when we come to practical charity, we find ourselves tethered to some particular post, and moving in a narrow round. The sympathy of your universal philanthropists is gloriously obscure, indefinite, impracticable, and cheap; it may be indulged after dinner in a nice easy chair, on a winter's night, by a blazing fire, the curtains drawn, consisting of a few rather comfortable sighs for the poor folks out of doors;' they cannot house all the world, nor mount all the Arabs, nor give oil to all the Esquimaux, nor feather all the Indians. Such

Illustrations of Masonry, p. 295.

2 Ib. p. 5, 6.

gigantic feelings end commonly in liliputian actions. It is so with the Freemasons. A dinner or two ends the matter where all the nations of the world may come-if they can.

Thus, after we have tried to grasp this idea of Universal Benevolence, to place before our minds all the world in aprons, or to conceive some countless 'deputations' from all nations marching to some monster hall on some monster festival, in coats or skins, hats or turbans, Hottentots and Turks arm in arm, the natives of Paddington and Japan, of Pimlico and Peru,-when we come down after these conceptions to a few matter-of-fact details as to the means of carrying out so magnificent a design, we find very little machinery provided for the purpose beyond flags and orations, compasses and waiters, dishcovers and white wands. It all ends in being social,' as it is called. This Universal Benevolence is no more than one of the bubbles of sentiment, a mere hollow phrase, an unmeaning motto, painted on banners, and mouthed by after-dinner orators.

It is true that the Freemasons plume themselves on their charities, but their charity is of that peculiar kind which begins at home and there ends. The body helps itself; the members pay and the members receive. And when we consider the habits which such a body is almost sure to form among the middling classes, of whom it is chiefly composed, the support of a school and an almshouse is but a small atonement for the mischief which it most probably works. We are convinced much private ruin and derangement of affairs will be always found to follow the course of a society, which, whatever its high-sounding professions may be, is neither more nor less than a convivial club. Such bodies are especial snares to the tradesmen of large towns. Mr. Preston confesses that many have enrolled their names for the mere purposes of conviviality 'please as jolly companions.... Hence the true knowledge of the art decreases with the increase of its members . . . while the dissipations of luxury and intemperance bury in oblivion principles which might have dignified the most exalted charac'ters." To be sure, the same writer tries to fringe and flounce these convivialities' with some show of good. It cannot be said,' he observes, that Masons indulge in convivial mirth 'while the poor and needy pine for relief;' that is, a few pence are generously dispersed to expiate the self-indulgence. Modern charity is given to merry-making. It wears sometimes a Bacchanalian, sometimes a Terpsichorean form; some dance, some dine, for charity; the Freemasons choose the latter form of benevolence, giving, we infer from Mr. Preston's words,

6

1 Illustrations of Masonry, p. 15.

or to

the scraps and sweepings of the feast to the poor and needy' who 'pine for relief.

And yet this Society claims to be the lineal heir of the Freemasons of old, the continuation of the old body, and then proceeds to claim for that olden body an antiquity which may well startle the most imaginative of historians. Mr. Halliwell dismisses these assertions by simply remarking that the modern system must be posterior to the 3d of Edward VI., ' and the earliest existing manuscript of the later constitutions 'belongs to the commencement of the seventeenth century.".

Now to unravel the history of the Freemasons of old is no easy task; it is singular what little light recent antiquarian researches have thrown upon a subject not wanting in interest. We have advanced little beyond the theories of the preceding age, and we have been unable to prop up those theories by any increase of facts. Indeed, all the views formed of the body stand, like Chinese women, on small feet, on the slender foundation of a few facts. We may, however, range the opinions of the principal writers on the subject into two classes, the one maintaining that the fraternity was originally a corporation of architects and masons, employed solely on ecclesiastical works, composed of persons of all ranks and countries, and moving from place to place during the great church-building periods;—the other asserting that it was a secret society connected with the Templars, and merely using the terms and implements of the mason's craft as a medium of secret symbolical communication. We are inclined to soothe these opposing writers by the assurance that there may be truth in both opinions. At any rate it is not necessary positively to condemn the one by way of giving support to the other.

Now, the first and more popular view of the Freemasons is thus briefly stated in the well-known Glossary of Architec

ture':2

'Their early history is involved in obscurity; but in the tenth century we find them established as a free guild or corporation in Lombardy: towards the close of the same century they obtained bulls from the Pope, confirming and enlarging their privileges, giving them in addition the exclusive right to build Churches throughout Christendom, making them wholly independent of the sovereigns of the different countries in which their works were carried on, and responsible to the Pope alone. Natives of all countries were admitted into their ranks; and wherever any great work was to be executed, there they assembled in sufficient numbers for the purpose; and as soon as that was completed, removed to some other, perhaps distant, work, where their services were again called for. In this manner, the spread of any improvements or discoveries was so rapid, as to appear almost simultaneous. In the words of Mr. Hope, in his "History of Architecture"

1 History of Freemasonry, p. 47.

2 Glossary, vol. i. p. 96.

"The architects of all the sacred edifices of the Latin Church, wherever such arose-north, south, east, or west-thus derived their science from the same central school; obeyed in their designs the same hierarchy; were directed in their constructions by the same principles of propriety and taste; kept up with each other, in the most distant parts to which they might be sent, the most constant correspondence; and rendered every minute improvement the property of the whole body, and a new conquest of art."

The same view is taken by Aubrey in his Natural History of Wiltshire,' a manuscript in the library of the Royal Society, from which Mr. Halliwell gives the following extract :—

'Sir William Dugdale told me many yeares since, that about Henry the Third's time, the Pope gave a bull or patents to a company of Italian Freemasons, to travell up and down Europe to build churches. From those are derived the fraternity of adopted Masons. They are known to one another by certain signes and watchwords; it continues to this day. They have several lodges in severall counties for their reception, and when any of them fall into decay, the brotherhood is to relieve them, &c. The manner of their adoption is very formall, and with an oath of secrecy.'

וי

Sir Christopher Wren, in asserting his belief that they were originally moveable societies of architects and workmen,' describes the government of the body:

'The whole,' he says, 'was distributed into classes; every tenth man being called a Warden, while a Master in chief superintended the whole. They dwelt in huts near the building, and conversed by private signs. As money lessened in value, they found it necessary to demand an increase of wages; but Henry the Sixth made it a capital offence to belong to these trade combinations.'

He is here alluding to a certain act passed against the body during the minority of Henry, which runs as follows:

'First. Whereas, by the yearly congregations and confederacies made by the Masons in their general chapiters assembled, the good course and effect of the statute of labourers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the commons: our said lord the King, willing in this case to provide remedy, by the advice and assent aforesaid, and at the special request of the said commons, hath ordained and established, That such chapiters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden; and if any such be made, they that cause such chapiters and congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged felons; and that all the other masons that come to such chapiters and congregations, be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the will of the King.'2

'Now this act,' says Mr. Halliwell, instead of dissolving this corporation, "the generalx chapitres assemblez," which would in fact have acknowledged it as legal prior to such dissolution, forbids all the chapiters and other congregations to be held, and declares all persons assembling or holding such to be felons. It appears from this that, very probably, many especial privileges were conferred by the papal see upon the trading fraternity of Freemasons, which is said to have existed in Europe during the middle ages. Further than this, that, upon the strength of these privileges,

1 History of Freemasonry, p. 46.

2 Ib. p. 43, 44.

the Freemasons had presumed to invade the established law of the land, and to arrogate to themselves an exclusive nomination of workmen. On this supposition we can account for the violation of the statute of labourers alluded to in this act.'

In Ashmole's MS. Cardinal Beaufort is said to have spoken of 'the seditious assemblies of masons, carpenters, tylers, and plaisterers, who being distasted by the late act of parliament against the excessive wages of those trades, had given out many seditious speeches and menaces against certain great men, which tended much to rebellion."

The Act itself is of considerable importance, as it expressly asserts the existence of some vast body with a vast general 'Chapiter,' altogether distinct from the local guilds or corporations of masons; and we can perfectly understand such a body in its palmy days, 'giving itself airs,' to use a homely phrase, having its strikes,' and affording some little trouble and anxiety to the state, especially when by the increased knowledge of ordinary masons its chief utility, as a working body, had passed away. Another Act, passed in 1548, corroborates this view of the difference between Freemasons and freemen masons, for it allows the former to practise their craft in any town in England, although not free of that town. Indeed, it is asserted, that, in former times, no man was made free of the London company of freemen masons, unless he was initiated in some lodge of "free and accepted masons."

....

Governor Pownall, in a brief account of the Freemasons, which was read before the Antiquarian Society in the year 1788, confirms many of the facts and opinions which we have just stated. About the end of the twelfth century, he says:'The Pope created several corporations of Roman or Italian architects and artists, with corporate powers and exclusive privileges; particularly with the power of settling by themselves the prices of their own work and labour, independent of the municipal laws of the country wherein they worked, according as Hiram had done by the corporations of architects and mechanics which he sent to Solomon. This body had a power of taking apprentices, and of admitting or accepting into their corporation approved masons. It will be found, that claiming to hold primarily and exclusively under the Pope, they assumed a right, as Freemasons, of being exempt from the regulation of statutes of labourers. refused to conform to the statutes, which regulated the price of other labourers' work, although they were specifically mentioned therein.' The statute passed in Henry VI., put an end to their assemblies, but the societies of masons met in mere clubs, wherein continuing to observe and practise some of their ceremonies which once had a reference to their institutions, and to the foundation of powers which no longer existed, they sunk into mere mummery. In this very mummery, however, we may trace the tenor of the preamble of their charter, reciting the precedent of Hiram's forming a body of architects and artists, with corporate and exclu

1 Illustrations of Masonry, p. 146.

They