-
Articles/Ads
Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 3 Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
Lodges affords an illustration of the working of this rulethese are the heads or chiefs in their jurisdictions , as empowered by their common head , precedence being given according to their respective ages—and over all presides the Grand Master , in some measure corresponding with the
General Warden . " In the clauses which follow , ancl are the most interesting , the Kilwinning Lodge is continually referred to as the second Lodge , the MS . concluding with a certificate from Schaw , " which , " says the author , " proves that the document of 1599 was intended exclusively for the
masons under the jurisdiction of the Kilwinning Lodge , for it is addressed to the warden , deacon , and masters of that lodge , and testifies to the honest and careful manner in which Archibald Barclay , tho Commissioner from the Lodge , had discharged tho duties entrusted to him . "
From a consideration of the 1599 Statutes , Bro . Gould tarns to the minutes of Mother Kilwinning , whose earliest records are contained in a small quarto volume , and extend , "but not regularly or continuously , " from 1642 to 1758 , the earliest minute being dated 20 th December of the former
year , and having attached to it over forty signatures , three of the members being recognised as a deacon , and two freemen of the " Ayr Squaremen Incorporation . " He then goes on to notice matters of interest referred to in these minutes . Thns , on 20 th December 1643 , was passed a law
" that the deacon and warden shall pay to the box , on their first election to office , the snm of £ 3 each , which was to be paid before the next choice , the officers named having agreed thereto . This is a very early instance of ' Fees of honour' being exigible , just as are now levied in modern
lodges and other masonic organizations . " The practice of levying such fees however , is not , we are told uniform , the Lodge of Edinburgh requiring no such payments , while others followed the example of Kilwinning . On the 19 th December 1646 "three masons were ' received and
accepted ' as 'fellow brethren to ye said tred' ( trade ) , having sworn to the ' standart of the said lodge ad vitam , ' and five apprentices were received . " On 20 th January 1656 " another member was obliged to promise , on his oath , not to work with any cowans for the future , under pain of
being fined according to the ancient rules . " Later on , in connection with the speculative element we read , " the Earl of Cassillis was elected a deacon of the Lodge in 1672 , but , singular to state , his lordship was not entered as fellowcraft until a year later , when Cunninghame , of Corsehill ,
was his companion , and in the following year occupied the same office . The latter was created a baronet of Nova Scotia by Charles II . in 1672 . Alexander , eighth Earl of Eglinton , appears in the sederunt of the annual meeting in 1674 as a 'felloe-of-Craft , ' being elected as the chief
deacon in 1677 . These appointments necessitated the selection of operative brethren to act as deputies , so that the office of ' Deputy Master ( which is an arrangement of modern times , consequent npon a 'Prince of the Blood Royal' accepting the mastership of a lodge ) may be said
to have its archetype in the election of deputies for Lords Cassillis and Eglinton . " Later on we have a case in which Mother Kilwinning usurped a power she really did not possess . We read : "The members of Kilwinning . . . . in 1677 exercised what they
deemed to be their rights by chartering a lodge in the city of Edinburgh , which was a direct invasion of jurisdiction , and contrary to the ' Schaw Statutes , ' No . 2 . It was , to all intents and purposes , a new lodge , that was thus authorised to assemble , subject to its parent at Kilwinning ,
and is the firsfc instance of its kind in Great Britain , being practically the premier lodge warranted by a body taking upon itself the position , and exercising somewhat of the functions , of a Grand Lodge for Scotland , though neither so designated nor , do I think , was such au institution
thought of at the time . " We may remark in reference to this that it is as well , perhaps , there were then no such bodies as Grand Lodges scattered throughout the world , and especially throughout America . Such an invasion of the territorial rights of such bodies would have
been followed by the delivery of scores upon scores of addresses on the wrongs thereby inflicted by the venerable Mother , and such outrages would have been resented by the most heartrending appeals on interjurisdictional Masonic relations to the rest of the Grand Lodges , while
the anathemas which the Grand Master Grahams would have hurled back at the devoted head of Kilwinning would have deprived it of all sense and understanding . _ But to return to our subject . The Lodge thus estabished " Canongate Kilwinni ng ( No . 2 ) " was only one of
The History Of Freemasonry.
many so chartered . "A lodge warranted for Paisley , by its authority , bore the number 77 , " and there being Nos . 78 and 79 " for Eaglesham and East Kilbride , " ifc is clear that though Bros . Lyon and Wylie have accounted for some thirty-three such Charters , " there are still more than
forty lodges to be accounted for " as owing their origin to the Mother , and " these are more likely to have been constituted " by her " before 1736 than afterwards , and probably several were established—or , in Scottish phrase , erected—during the latter part of the seventeenth century . "
With a few remarks to the effect that , dnring all these vicissitudes and rivalries , "the different parties never fell out upon the point of a correct knowledge of the ' secrets of freemasonry , ' " and on the subject of masonic degrees , the consideration of Mother Kilwinning is completed , and we enter ou that of the " Lodge of Edinburgh , No . 1 . "
It has already been shown from the second of the Schaw Statutes that , whatever its present place on tbe roll of the Grand Lodge of Scotland maybe , this Lodge was originally the "first and principal Lodge of Scotland . " Its minutes extend back in an almost unbroken series to the last day of
July 1599 , when there is recorded " a breach of the statute against the employment of cowans . " From this we learn that one George Patoun had presumed to employ a cowan to work at" ane chymnay heid , " but as he humbly submitted himself and expressed penitence , "the penalty was nofc
imposed , though he and others were duly warned of what awaited them , should they ever violate the law , after this exhibition of leniency . " The subject is not again noticed till 1693 , when the same penalty as enacted by Schaw in 1598 was imposed . Two ofcher items , " of uncertain date ,
but in the same handwriting as the minute of 1599 , " are noted , one to the effect that Wardens are to be chosen yearly upon St . John ' s Day ( the Evangelist ) ; and the other , " thafc Commissioners be elected at the same meeting , who are to act as conveners , by command of the . General Warden
( Schaw . ) " It is next explained how the Lodge came to bear its name of " The Lodge of Edinburgh ( Mary ' s Chapel ) , " and reference is made to the " Incorporation of Wrights and Masons , " known usually as the " United Incorporation of Mary ' s Chapel , constituted in 1475 , and
their Statutes , and it is explained how the Incorporation b y doing its utmost to weaken the foundations of the Lodge ultimately brought an end to both " as trade monopolies . " The action of the Lodge against " unfremen , " and its abhorrence of enterprise among apprentices are also made the
subject of remark , the case of Alexander Stheill being cited in the case of the former , when thafc personage in 1599 " was placed outside the pale of the freemasters , who were not allowed to employ him but afc their peril , because he set fche lodge at defiance by working as a master , " while
" even those who had lawfully served their apprenticeships were prohibited from obtaining work , or from utilising the services of other apprentices and servants until they had secured the consent of the lodge by taking up their freedom , and of the municipal
authorities by the purchase of their tickets as burgesses . " As showing the dislike of enterprise among apprentices , Bro . Gould mentions a case cited by Lyon , of the year 1607 , " in which an apprentice passed as a fellow craft and received his freedom , but the latter was conditional on its
non-exercise for two and a half years from the date of its nominal bestowal by ' Mary ' s Chapel ! ' The bond also arranged for the conditional freeman not working outside Edinburgh during the period named . " And again , " the
' brethreine fremen of the masones of Edr . ' in 1652 , on finding that a ' maisone journeyman ' had wronged them in ' several relations , ' unanimously agreed not to give the offender work within their liberties for seven years , and nofc even then until due submission had been made . " We
are further told that " the same parties viewed with great disfavour the importation of craftsmen , aud resolutely set their faces against employing any who were nofc approved of by fche lodge . In 1672 , such an event occurred ; the strangers , hailing from a town about three miles distant
from the city , for seven years were subjected to all possible annoyances in order to obtain their removal or prevent their securing work ; eventually the small minority left—i . e ., gave np the struggle—in 1680 . " Other matters of interest are also noted , such as " the wages received by
fche Masons generally in Edinburgh and elsewhere , " the hours of labour , the " exact position of the journeyman Masons connected with the lodge , " <___ ., & c , Brother Gould remarking with reference to " the initiation of the clerk ( or notary ) " that , though no record
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
Lodges affords an illustration of the working of this rulethese are the heads or chiefs in their jurisdictions , as empowered by their common head , precedence being given according to their respective ages—and over all presides the Grand Master , in some measure corresponding with the
General Warden . " In the clauses which follow , ancl are the most interesting , the Kilwinning Lodge is continually referred to as the second Lodge , the MS . concluding with a certificate from Schaw , " which , " says the author , " proves that the document of 1599 was intended exclusively for the
masons under the jurisdiction of the Kilwinning Lodge , for it is addressed to the warden , deacon , and masters of that lodge , and testifies to the honest and careful manner in which Archibald Barclay , tho Commissioner from the Lodge , had discharged tho duties entrusted to him . "
From a consideration of the 1599 Statutes , Bro . Gould tarns to the minutes of Mother Kilwinning , whose earliest records are contained in a small quarto volume , and extend , "but not regularly or continuously , " from 1642 to 1758 , the earliest minute being dated 20 th December of the former
year , and having attached to it over forty signatures , three of the members being recognised as a deacon , and two freemen of the " Ayr Squaremen Incorporation . " He then goes on to notice matters of interest referred to in these minutes . Thns , on 20 th December 1643 , was passed a law
" that the deacon and warden shall pay to the box , on their first election to office , the snm of £ 3 each , which was to be paid before the next choice , the officers named having agreed thereto . This is a very early instance of ' Fees of honour' being exigible , just as are now levied in modern
lodges and other masonic organizations . " The practice of levying such fees however , is not , we are told uniform , the Lodge of Edinburgh requiring no such payments , while others followed the example of Kilwinning . On the 19 th December 1646 "three masons were ' received and
accepted ' as 'fellow brethren to ye said tred' ( trade ) , having sworn to the ' standart of the said lodge ad vitam , ' and five apprentices were received . " On 20 th January 1656 " another member was obliged to promise , on his oath , not to work with any cowans for the future , under pain of
being fined according to the ancient rules . " Later on , in connection with the speculative element we read , " the Earl of Cassillis was elected a deacon of the Lodge in 1672 , but , singular to state , his lordship was not entered as fellowcraft until a year later , when Cunninghame , of Corsehill ,
was his companion , and in the following year occupied the same office . The latter was created a baronet of Nova Scotia by Charles II . in 1672 . Alexander , eighth Earl of Eglinton , appears in the sederunt of the annual meeting in 1674 as a 'felloe-of-Craft , ' being elected as the chief
deacon in 1677 . These appointments necessitated the selection of operative brethren to act as deputies , so that the office of ' Deputy Master ( which is an arrangement of modern times , consequent npon a 'Prince of the Blood Royal' accepting the mastership of a lodge ) may be said
to have its archetype in the election of deputies for Lords Cassillis and Eglinton . " Later on we have a case in which Mother Kilwinning usurped a power she really did not possess . We read : "The members of Kilwinning . . . . in 1677 exercised what they
deemed to be their rights by chartering a lodge in the city of Edinburgh , which was a direct invasion of jurisdiction , and contrary to the ' Schaw Statutes , ' No . 2 . It was , to all intents and purposes , a new lodge , that was thus authorised to assemble , subject to its parent at Kilwinning ,
and is the firsfc instance of its kind in Great Britain , being practically the premier lodge warranted by a body taking upon itself the position , and exercising somewhat of the functions , of a Grand Lodge for Scotland , though neither so designated nor , do I think , was such au institution
thought of at the time . " We may remark in reference to this that it is as well , perhaps , there were then no such bodies as Grand Lodges scattered throughout the world , and especially throughout America . Such an invasion of the territorial rights of such bodies would have
been followed by the delivery of scores upon scores of addresses on the wrongs thereby inflicted by the venerable Mother , and such outrages would have been resented by the most heartrending appeals on interjurisdictional Masonic relations to the rest of the Grand Lodges , while
the anathemas which the Grand Master Grahams would have hurled back at the devoted head of Kilwinning would have deprived it of all sense and understanding . _ But to return to our subject . The Lodge thus estabished " Canongate Kilwinni ng ( No . 2 ) " was only one of
The History Of Freemasonry.
many so chartered . "A lodge warranted for Paisley , by its authority , bore the number 77 , " and there being Nos . 78 and 79 " for Eaglesham and East Kilbride , " ifc is clear that though Bros . Lyon and Wylie have accounted for some thirty-three such Charters , " there are still more than
forty lodges to be accounted for " as owing their origin to the Mother , and " these are more likely to have been constituted " by her " before 1736 than afterwards , and probably several were established—or , in Scottish phrase , erected—during the latter part of the seventeenth century . "
With a few remarks to the effect that , dnring all these vicissitudes and rivalries , "the different parties never fell out upon the point of a correct knowledge of the ' secrets of freemasonry , ' " and on the subject of masonic degrees , the consideration of Mother Kilwinning is completed , and we enter ou that of the " Lodge of Edinburgh , No . 1 . "
It has already been shown from the second of the Schaw Statutes that , whatever its present place on tbe roll of the Grand Lodge of Scotland maybe , this Lodge was originally the "first and principal Lodge of Scotland . " Its minutes extend back in an almost unbroken series to the last day of
July 1599 , when there is recorded " a breach of the statute against the employment of cowans . " From this we learn that one George Patoun had presumed to employ a cowan to work at" ane chymnay heid , " but as he humbly submitted himself and expressed penitence , "the penalty was nofc
imposed , though he and others were duly warned of what awaited them , should they ever violate the law , after this exhibition of leniency . " The subject is not again noticed till 1693 , when the same penalty as enacted by Schaw in 1598 was imposed . Two ofcher items , " of uncertain date ,
but in the same handwriting as the minute of 1599 , " are noted , one to the effect that Wardens are to be chosen yearly upon St . John ' s Day ( the Evangelist ) ; and the other , " thafc Commissioners be elected at the same meeting , who are to act as conveners , by command of the . General Warden
( Schaw . ) " It is next explained how the Lodge came to bear its name of " The Lodge of Edinburgh ( Mary ' s Chapel ) , " and reference is made to the " Incorporation of Wrights and Masons , " known usually as the " United Incorporation of Mary ' s Chapel , constituted in 1475 , and
their Statutes , and it is explained how the Incorporation b y doing its utmost to weaken the foundations of the Lodge ultimately brought an end to both " as trade monopolies . " The action of the Lodge against " unfremen , " and its abhorrence of enterprise among apprentices are also made the
subject of remark , the case of Alexander Stheill being cited in the case of the former , when thafc personage in 1599 " was placed outside the pale of the freemasters , who were not allowed to employ him but afc their peril , because he set fche lodge at defiance by working as a master , " while
" even those who had lawfully served their apprenticeships were prohibited from obtaining work , or from utilising the services of other apprentices and servants until they had secured the consent of the lodge by taking up their freedom , and of the municipal
authorities by the purchase of their tickets as burgesses . " As showing the dislike of enterprise among apprentices , Bro . Gould mentions a case cited by Lyon , of the year 1607 , " in which an apprentice passed as a fellow craft and received his freedom , but the latter was conditional on its
non-exercise for two and a half years from the date of its nominal bestowal by ' Mary ' s Chapel ! ' The bond also arranged for the conditional freeman not working outside Edinburgh during the period named . " And again , " the
' brethreine fremen of the masones of Edr . ' in 1652 , on finding that a ' maisone journeyman ' had wronged them in ' several relations , ' unanimously agreed not to give the offender work within their liberties for seven years , and nofc even then until due submission had been made . " We
are further told that " the same parties viewed with great disfavour the importation of craftsmen , aud resolutely set their faces against employing any who were nofc approved of by fche lodge . In 1672 , such an event occurred ; the strangers , hailing from a town about three miles distant
from the city , for seven years were subjected to all possible annoyances in order to obtain their removal or prevent their securing work ; eventually the small minority left—i . e ., gave np the struggle—in 1680 . " Other matters of interest are also noted , such as " the wages received by
fche Masons generally in Edinburgh and elsewhere , " the hours of labour , the " exact position of the journeyman Masons connected with the lodge , " <___ ., & c , Brother Gould remarking with reference to " the initiation of the clerk ( or notary ) " that , though no record