Old Undated Masonic Mss.

Avere inflicted . Again , subsequent statutes ordained punishment to tho giver of higher wages as Avell as to the receiver . And , still again , at first masons , carpenters , etc , were to receive Avages by the Aveek , but as they claimed pay for holidaysthen the law

, compelled them to receive pay by the clay , with punishment to these AVIIO received or Avho paid the mason for bis holiday . At last the laAvs became so numerous and

conflicting as to have puzzled a Philadelphia lawjjer to make head or tail of them , consequently they Avere repealed in the 5 th of Elizabeth , as the following SIIOAVS : " A great number of Acts ancl Statutes

concerning' the retaining , departing , Avages , ancl orders of apprentices , servants , and laborers , as well in husbandry as in divers other arts , mysteries , ancl occupations ; yet partly for the imperfection ancl contrariety that is found ancl for the

variety and number of them , ancl chiefly for that the wages and allowances limited ancl rated in many of the said statutes , and are in clivers places too small , and not answerable to this time , respecting the advancement of prices of all things belonging to the said servants and laborers

, the said law cannot conveniently , Avithout the great grief and burden of the poor laborer and hired men be put in good ancl due execution , " etc . The Parliament , therefore , repealed all previous statutesbut justices of the peace

, Avere still empowered to fix annually the price of labor , and continued to punish both giver and receiver of higher wages than they stipulated , but my present purpose is not to criticize the laws of

Elizabeth , but to demonstrate from the statutes of Edward III ., Richard IL , and Henry IV ., the origin of some of the earl y Masonic laws , and deduce these from the age of the Halliwell poem . But I must premise a theory of my own , though I cannot support it Avith quotations

from learned authors , viz ., that whoever , oi- whenever , or by whomsoever , the laiv against stealing , Avith penalties attached thereto , Avas first enacted , that the said law Avas not made before somebod y indulged in pilfering ; and the same theory may be

applied to the origin of all other laws . Well , then , a laAV Avas made in 1385 to enable a lord to recover his villain Avhen he found him in a city . On the continent , and in Scotland , if a bondman remained

in a town tAvelve months and a day , he became free . Whether the same usage existed in England I knoAv not . The law of 1385 , however , rei'eals that bondmen fled into cities , ancl their owners used to be baffled by laAvyers Avith quibbles and

questions , and used to entangle them so as to extort some unfavourable answer , ancl procured the liberty of the bondman . The same method Ave Avitnessed in Boston ere the abolition of slavery , Avhen a slaveholder came here to reclaim his slave , and

the United States government therefore passed a fugitive slave laAv . For the samereason the 1385 laAV Avas made , viz ., to enable the lord to recover his bondman , notwithstanding an unguarded answer that may have been extorted from him in court . We find a Mason ' s laAV was also made to

prevent taking a bondman as an apprentice . It is evident , therefore , before the adoption of that law that Masons used to apprentice bondmen , that is as long as they could do so with impunity . Be it remembered that in 1385 English Avorking people did not believe in the right of the rich to

enslave the poor , and they used to taunt the pretensions of the ruling classes with When Adam delved ancl Eve span , Where was then the gentleman ? Our oldest Masonic MSS . clearly evince that the free bom law Avas forced upon the

Masons by outside pressure . Both MSS . give substantially the same reason for the adoption of the free born JaAv , but as the MattheAv Cook MS . is less vague , I quote the reason from it , which is as follows : " For , because of his lord to whom he is bond , will take him as he Avell may from bis art and lead him with him . out of tbe

lodge , or out the place he Avorketh in , for his felloAvs per adventure would help him , ancl debate for him , and thereof manslaughter mig ht arise , it is forbidden . " Or , in plain English , if the OAvner of the bondman should attempt to capture his slave in the midst of the Masons' quarters , the brethren Avould first assail him Avith

remonstrances , and end Avith breaking the slave hunter ' s skull ; such a catastrophe Avould have brought the fraternity into a snarl with the government , it was therefore forbidden to teach a bondman , all which shows that the brethren were opposed to slavery , and had no prejudice against a bondman , but on the contrary they would have freed him if they could . True , both