The History Of Freemasonry.

were distinguished Freemasons , such as his father and elder brother , both Grand Masters in Ireland , tho Princo Regent , the Duke of York , William IV ., & c , & c , and

though we believe in after life the Duke repudiated , or at all events ignored , ever having had anything to do with tho Craft , yet we should not bo justified in arguing that he was not a Freemason because there is no reference to the

Society in his Grace ' s memoirs . Certainly most , if not all , of the inferences which Bro . Gould adduces in favour of Wren ' s non-membership might be made to apply Avith almost equal force to Wellington ' s non membership . Of course , in Wellington ' s case , no amount of sophistical

argument will get rid of the positive and direct evidence of the Lodge record , while , in Wren ' s case , there is the absence of all direct testimony . On the othev hand , there is no particular reason to be argued from the nature of his avocations why Wellington should have concerned himself

about Freemasonry , but Wren ' s profession mnst have brought him into almost daily communication with the operative masons of his day , and , as we have said before ,

his alleged membership of our Society may justifiably be included among those greater probabilities which approximate so closely to certainties as to be almost incapable of being distinguished therefrom .

Returning to Bro . Gould ' s * work , the paragraph following those in which the inferences above referred to are set

forth , begins curiously enough with the words , " But putting conjecture aside , " and it is not unnatural we should imagine that the author having amused his readers •with certain plausible arguments , -will henceforth treat of such facts as cannot fail to make his position

impregnable . Instead of this , however , we are told that " Christopher Wren amongst ' his brethren of the Royal Society , ' to whom he dedicated his own book , must have constantly met Dr . Richard Rawlinson—writer of the memoir of Ashmole , containing the description of Freemasonry in the

' Antiquities '—and I think it in the highest degree probable that the latter , who , for reasons stated elsewhere , I conceive to have perused both versions of Aubrey ' s manuscript history , mnst have satisfied himself of the inaccuracy of the statement relating to Wren , by personal

inquiry of the architect or his son . " He then continues , " It would , on the whole , appear probable that Christopher Wren knew of , but rejected , the statement of John Aubrey , and , indeed , in my judgment , we may safely go further , and conclude , that the omission of any reference whatever

to the prediction of 1691 , is tantamount to an assurance that , in the opinion of his son and biographer , there was no foundation whatever , in fact , for any theory with regard

to Wren ' s membership which had been set up . " This is , indeed , " putting conjecture aside" with a vengeance . Christopher Wren the younger " must have constantly met" Dr . Rawlinson—no evidence is adduced of their

meeting . " I think it in the highest degree probable " that Rawlinson " perused both versions of Aubrey ' s manuscript history , " and " must have satisfied himself of the inaccuracy of the statement relating to Wren , by personal inquiry of the architect , or his son . " All this is conjecture

pure and simple . Rawlinson may have seen the two versions of Aubrey ' s MS . Having seen them , he may have communicated Aubrey ' s prediction as to Wren ' s adoption into the Fraternity ; and having done this , he may have satisfied himself , by personal inquiry of Wren or his son ,

of the inaccuracy of Aubrey ' s statement . There is no evidence that any of these things did occur : they are assumptions which rest on Bro . Gould ' s opinion . "I think , " says Bro . Gould , " it is in the highest degree probable "the reader is invited to remark that this is neither more

nor less than an expression of opinion about a conjecture , or one conjecture built upon another—and we have no alternative but to accept his estimate of this probability as being equivalent to a statement of fact , all idea of hazarding anything further in the way of conjecture having been

summarily put aside . So , too , as regards what follows . It would " appear probable " that Christopher Wren—the son — "knew of , but rejected Aubrey ' s statement ; " in " my judgment , " we may go further and conclude that the

omission from the Parentalia of Aubrey ' s prediction of 1691 is " tantamount to an assurance , " not that Wren was never a Freemason , but that "in the opinion" of Wren ' s son there was no foundation for the allee-ation of

his membership . This is another illustration of " wheels within wheels . " Bro . Gould thinks it probable that Christopher Wren , the son and biographer of his father , must have met Dr . Rawlinson ; if so , that Rawlinson must

The History Of Freemasonry.

have told him what he ( Rawlinson ) must havo read in Aubrey ' s " Natural History of Wiltshire" about his ( Wren's ) father ' s connection with Freemasonry ; and that , consequently , as thero is no mention of Aubrey ' s statement in the " Parentalia , " we may look upon such

omission as an " assurance " that , in the opinion of Wren the son , Ihore was no foundation for any theory as to Wren tho father ever having been a Freemason . We trust we havo done no injustice to Bro . Gould's labours in this branch of his inquiry . If wo have , it has been done

unconsciously , aud becauso wo have been uuablo to follow him through so finely a graduated scale of contingencies , each of which is in turn dependent on a number of other contingencies , while the opportunity of dealing with them conjecturally is denied us .

It is unfortunate that in treating tho Wren question , Bro . Gould should have thought it desirable to interpolate a digression extending over many pages relating to the " Theory of Masonic organization with which his ( Wren ' s ) name is associated . " When , however , wo are led back

to a consideration of the evidence on which Wren ' s membership is presumed to rest , we find the author exhibiting the same apparent determination to annihilate the tradition , as if it had done him some personal injury . In adopting this course , Bro . Gould , as we have before pointed out , has ,

in our judgment , made a very grievous mistake . There is nothing in the tradition that Wren was a Freemason , whether he was merely associated with the Craft in his professional capacity of the King ' s " Master of work " or in tho sense in which we of the present day understand a man

being a Freemason , which causes it to grate against our ideas of reason and propriety . But his membership , if it can be established , will only be one more link in the chain of events which learned and laborious students of our

seventeenth century history have succeeded in forging ; while , if it cannot be established , it will in no wise weaken that chain . Bro . Gou ^ d has bestowed upon it almost as much attention as if it had been the basis on which the

whole superstructure of Masonic history rested . Hence our difficulty in accounting for his multiplication of evidence against the Wren tradition , except on the assumption either that he feels himself personally aggrieved by its continuance , or that , having undertaken the task of

demolishing it , he considers he must carry out his intention at all hazards , even though it may have a prejudicial effect on his impartiality as an historian . Moreover , he has himself told ns , on tho authority of the eminent Locke , that " in traditional truths each remove weakens the force of the

proof ; and the more hands the tradition has successively passed through , the less strength and evidence does it derive from •them . " Thus , fie further he gets away from the Wren period the less effect will the statements he may be able to adduce have in favour of or against the theory of

Wren having been a Freemason . The passage he quotes from the Manningham letter of the 12 th July 1757 , on the subject of degrees , contains the following : " My own father has been a Mason these fifty years , and has been at Lodges in Holland , France , and England . He knows none

of these ceremonies . Grand Master Payne , who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren , is a stranger to them , as is likewise one old brother of ninety who I conversed with lately . This brother assures me he was made a Mason in his youth , " & c . Bro . Gould is not slow to mark the verbal inaccuracies in

the foregoing : — " The expression ' Grand Master Payne , who succeeded Sir Christopher Wren , is a stranger to them . " he points out is " both inaccurate aud misleading , " firstly because Grand Master Payne "did not sxtcceed Wren , " and secondly , because " he died in the previous

January . " But surely Bro . Gould doesnot mean to insist on strict chronological accuracy in a letter , which was written in the first instance casually , and in the second on a subject which had nothing to do with the question whether Wren was or was not a Freemason . We are not likely to

undervalue this kind of accuracy , but to us this testimony of Manningham , though coming second-hand , seems to have a far higher value than usually belongs to such testimony , because it is presented to us incidentally . This distinguished brother was asked his opinion about certain

degrees which had found their way into Holland ab ^ ut that time . In reply , he speaks as from his own knowledge of Grand Master Payne , in the present tense , as being

ignorant of their existence , though Payne had been dead some six months when the letter was written . He also mentions , but quite by chance as it were , that Payne succeeded Wren , whereas he succeeded Sayer , who succeeded