                 FREEMASONRY IN SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND
                     BEFORE THE FORMATION OF THE
                           GRAND LODGES.

              By the late BROTHER LIONEL VIBERT, P.M.,
               Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076 E. C.

    -----------------------------oOo---------------------

        It is a fact of very great significance in the history of the
Craft that when the revived Freemasonry of London and Westminster was
confronted in 1721 with the Freemasonry of Edinburgh in the person of
Desaguliers, who visited the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) on 24th
and 25th August in that year, the London Brother was able to prove
himself to be a Mason to the satisfaction of the Edinburgh Brethren,
although there can be little doubt that he had only been made a Mason in
London itself in 1718 or 1719, and not before.  The Masonry of
Edinburgh, therefore, in 1721 was for all practical purposes, and quite
apart from any questions of organisation, the same thing as the Masonry
of the south of England four years after the Revival.  But that Masonry
was to all appearance as yet entirely uninfluenced by Scottish customs,
for we cannot assume that Dr Anderson was a Scots Mason, initiated
before he came south in 1709 or earlier, and in any case there are no
grounds for supposing that he had any part at all in the developments
that took place in London prior to his first appearance in Grand Lodge,
which occurred in 1721, after Desaguliers' visit to Edinburgh.  Except
for him there was no one in London at the time whom we can associate in
any way with the Scottish Craft.

        The Craft in the two countries had developed independently, as
was indeed only natural if we remember the political conditions. Between
the fourteenth century and the days of Elizabeth the intercourse between
the nations was confined to the governing classes, and did not extend,
save to a very limited extent, to artisans or craftsmen.  Each country
developed its architecture in its own way, and under different
influences. So also the guild systems of the two countries were quite
distinct, and the relationship between the craft guilds and the
governing bodies in the towns was worked out on different lines. These
are matters which necessarily profoundly influenced the development of
Freemasonry, and not till the second half of the seventeenth century do
we meet with evidence of any degree of contact between the Masons of
north and south. We have accordingly to conclude that the Craft had
already developed its distinctive features at least three centuries
earlier, at a time when the construction of Gothic was still controlled
by one Fraternity, the members of which passed freely between the two
countries, that is to say, at a time anterior to the wars of the Edwards
in the first part of the fourteenth century.

        But although in essentials the Freemasonry of Edinburgh agreed
with that of London and Westminster, the standing, and the history of
the Lodges in the two countries were very different, and in order to
appreciate those differences and in some measure to account for them it
will be necessary, very briefly, to compare the development of Gothic
architecture in the two countries, always with special reference to the
Craft and its organisation.

        In the days of the Norman Style, architecture in the two
kingdoms advanced side by side.  Kelso Abbey, begun in 1128, and St Rule
at St Andrews, begun a year earlier, show just the same degree of
technical skill and knowledge as the contemporary work at Rochester, for
instance.  In the next period, Glasgow Cathedral, 1242-1258, is
comparable with Salisbury, being pure Early English with lancet windows.
The western doorway of Elgin also is fine Early English.  The Decorated
Style was that followed in England roughly from 1250 to 1350, and it is
then that we come to the period of divergence.  From the beginning of
the fourteenth century the two countries were at war, and after the
reigus of Edward II in England and Robert the Bruce in Scotland they
each went their own way.  England developed independently; Scotland was
always in closer touch with continental art.  Accordingly, while English
Decorated developed into the Perpendicular, which survived till the days
of Elizabeth, when it was replaced by the pseudo-classical of Palladio
and his followers -  and Perpendicular is peculiarly an English Style -
in Scotland the Decorated tended rather to become Flamboyant.  At
Melrose we have examples of all three styles, but Melrose is apparently
the solitary instance of the Perpendicular in Scotland, and its position
close to the border might explain this exceptional feature. Elsewhere we
have buildings like the Chapter House of Elgin or the remains of
Dunkeld, showing French influence, while Trinity College Church at
Edinburgh shows German.  Roslin will occur to all, and that would seem
to be Spanish.

        But what we are more directly concerned with is not the style of
the work, but the men who built it.  We know that as early as the end of
the thirteenth century our Masons were working in places styled Lodges.
The word goes back, therefore, before the period of disunion.  We cannot
say when the fraternity first developed anything in the nature of an
organisation; but something of the kind must have come into existence
very soon after Gothic became a skilled art, and therefore the monopoly
of a special trade.  That would imply the thirteenth century certainly,
and we may confidently say that by the beginning of the fourteenth
century there was quite definitely a fraternity, the members of which
were accustomed to travel from Lodge to Lodge up and down the country,
and could prove themselves Masons in those Lodges.  But of actual Masons
employed at cathedrals and the regulations under which they worked we
have no information in England before the Fabric Rolls of York which
give us the Orders of 1352, which are renewed with additions in 1370 and
again in 1409.  These Orders are agreed on between the Cathedral Chapter
and the Masons; they speak of the Lodge, and refer to the ancient
customs of the Craft.  They prescribe in great detail the hours of work
and relaxation and much else.  Now in 1419 we have a closely similar set
of rules for the government of the Master Mason of the Collegiate Church
of St Giles, and these are agreed on between the Master Mason and the
provost, dean of guild, bailies and council of the burgh of Edinburgh.
They prescribe almost exactly the same hours of labour and relaxation;
and they speak expressly of recreation in the common Lodge. So that here
is once more a Lodge of Masons, that is to say, a body of Craftsmen who
work in a place called the Lodge.  The conditions are exactly similar to
those a century earlier at York, except that the Masons are under the
control of the town authorities.  And in 1536 we have the Indenture made
between Dundee and its Masons; once more the contracting parties are the
town authorities, with whom is joined the Kirk-master, and the Mason of
the work, both in kirk and burgh, and he is to keep such hours as are
the old use and "consuetude of our Lady Luge of Dundee".  Here is the
Lodge of the church builders again, but what we now have is that its old
customs and the way in which it is spoken of indicates that it had been
long in existence are to be observed by a Craftsman working for the
town.  It is precisely this change in the condition of the individual, a
change which we also find in the actual Lodges, which constitutes the
distinction between the English and the Scottish Lodges,  The Lodges of
the English cathedral builders, so far as we know, were never converted
into city gilds; the English town Craftsmen knew nothing of Lodges,
although naturally in individual cases members of a Lodge may have later
on become members of the guild in the town in which they settled down.

        The oldest set of Craft Rules known to us, the Book of Charges,
cannot safely be put earlier in date than the fourteenth century.  It
assuredly included injunctions as to behaviour and Craft custom that
were handed down from time immemorial, but it does not appear that
anything corresponding to these rules has been discovered in Scotland.
So also the "Charges General and Special", which in England can be dated
at about 1450, have no contemporary counterpart in the north, nor is
there anything of the period in Scotland to take the place of the
elaborate historical narrative that was written for the Craft about
1400, itself replacing a less learned traditional history.  In respect
therefore of the bodies of Craftsmen who in England were building
cathedrals and churches during the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, they appear, as far as existing records go, to have been
equipped more elaborately in these respects than their Scottish fellows.
But it is very noteworthy that the hours of work, which at York are
stated to be in accordance with the ancient custom, are practically
identical with those at Edinburgh, which are set out in the same
fashion, and again at Dundee they are practically the same, and are
there clearly stated to be the old use and "consuetude of the Lodge".
This close similarity suggests their having been arrived at originally
at a time when the Masons of the two kingdoms were one fraternity.
Perhaps it should be observed that on general grounds it is difficult to
resist the conclusion that the Fraternity was organised, in however
rudimentary a manner, for the whole country at an early date.  However,
the only evidence we have is that of the references in the old texts to
periodical assemblies of all Masons over a large area, and the further
fact that a code of laws, which was to all appearance accepted by the
Craft throughout England, was compiled about 1450, though in fact
replacing one that may have been a century or more earlier.  When we
come to the seventeenth century we get several references to the
"Society" which suggest that it was recognised as one body all over the
country, though without anything in the nature of a governing or central
authority.  In the middle of this same century we meet with what are
known as the New Articles, which do indicate a definite organisation,
but we cannot say that it ever actually existed; there is no other
indication that it did so.  With the organisation of the Craft as a
whole in Scotland, at a period long anterior to any Grand Lodge, I shall
deal later on.

        When we come to consider the guilds of the Masons, the trade
organisations in the towns, we are met by a very different set of
conditions, and one that has resulted in distinctions greatly to the
advantage of the Scottish Lodges.  The Mason Guilds of the English towns
were, as far as can now be ascertained, always quite distinct from
Freemasons, and had neither their Lodges nor their traditions and
customs.  Two different systems existed side by side; the town guilds,
taking their part in communal life, and the Freemasons, the builders of
Gothic, independent of and free from restrictions imposed by cities and
burghs. In the fourteenth century we only know of one body of Masons
outside London itself in association with a guild, and that is at
Norwich. They do not describe themselves as Freemasons, but simply as
Masons.  Th London, however, the company was spoken of indifferently as
the Masons or Freemasons, but the official term was Masons, the trade
being recognised as divided into masons-hewers and masons-layers and
masons-setters.  But whereas at York at this very time the Freemasons
were agreeing with the Dean and Chapter to maintain their ancient
customs, in London the Masons had as yet no laws, and had to come to the
city authorities to get them enacted.  We are clearly dealing with two
distinct sets of people.  At the same time we find that the coat of arms
granted to the London Company in 1472 was subsequently freely used by
Freemasons individually all over the country.

        But as time goes on everything in the nature of organisation
seems to disappear with the single exception of the London Company,
which still exists today.  The Lodges connected with actual building
operations die a natural death; the trade guilds are replaced by more
modern organisations.  In the seventeenth century we find that all that
is left in England is the London Company and a few other trade
associations, and, scattered up and down the country, isolated bodies
which speak of their meetings as Lodges, and look upon themselves as all
one fraternity.  But they have no clear traditions as to their
individual history, though they preserve the customs, ceremonies and old
documents of the Freemasons of a previous century, together with their
phraseology.  One was a sort of inner circle of the London Company; we
first meet with it in 1620, and we lose all trace of it after 1682.  It
was only one of several Lodges in the Metropolis.  In the provinces even
these isolated bodies disappear with but few exceptions.  A Lodge at
Swalwell, which was able to trace its history back to the end of the
seventeenth century, no earlier, came into the Grand Lodge system in
1725.  A Lodge at Alnwick had its rules of 1702, and they were the rules
of an operative association.  The Old Lodge at York has evidence of its
existence in 1705.  In Yorkshire and the neighbourhood there were
various Lodges about 1721, or so, independent in their origin, which
have all disappeared.  Beyond the bare fact of their existence, and of
their membership, so far as known, including a preponderating
speculative element, we know nothing of them.  The Four Old Lodges that
came together to form the Grand Lodge at London in 1717 have no history
of any kind; we know nothing of their antecedents.  One thing only we
can say tentatively; these Lodges, whether in London or the provinces,
were derived ultimately from building associations of Freemasons, and
not from town guilds.  But for the continuity between such an earlier
body and the later one in any individual case there is a complete lack
of specific evidence.

        In Scotland the position is entirely different.  I have already
referred to the Masons meeting in Lodges at Edinburgh and at Dundee. The
word Lodge had clearly come down to them from the days of the men who
built Glasgow or Elgin cathedrals, or soon after, which is when we first
meet with it in England.  Actually, we first meet with it in Scotland in
1483, and the entry occurs in association with a town guild. It is at
Aberdeen.  The masons of the Lodge take an obligation before the town
authorities in order to give legal force to an agreement come to between
themselves,  Three years later the town makes regulations for these same
Masons, who are engaged on the kirk work, and their effect is that no
Mason is to be taken off that work without very special reason. But the
Masons in Aberdeen were incorporated in 1527, and by this time they were
working not exclusively at the church - obviously such a condition of
affairs would only persist so long as it was under construction -  but
they were a regular town Craft Guild, with certain special privileges.
They themselves worked either in or out of the burgh; and they could
bring in Masons from the country and employ them in the burgh. This is a
condition of affairs to which England can afford no parallel; here is
the Lodge of the church builders, carrying on with no break at all to
become incorporated, but as an incorporation still preserving its
character of a Lodge of Freemasons.  That Lodge, as you all will
remember, is at work today, and there is no reason to refute their claim
to an unbroken existence from the fifteenth century, although their
actual minutes do not begin till 1670.  They are today the direct
descendants of a body that was both a Freemasons' Lodge and a Craft
Guild.  And Lodge after Lodge in Scotland has a similar history, and in
case after case the history is fortified by actual Lodge minutes, taking
us back in two instances at least to a date before 1600.

        We can be pretty safe in asserting on general principles that at
every important building in the country there was, during the period of
construction, a Lodge of Masons.  And when this took place in a town, as
we have seen at Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, the Lodge became a part
of the city organisation and was incorporated, sometimes by itself,
sometimes as at Glasgow, Elgin and elsewhere, in conjunction with the
carpenters.  At Edinburgh, although the Masons and Wrights were one
Incorporation, the Masons had a distinct Lodge, but from what year is
uncertain.  But when important buildings were not in towns, what became
of their Lodges?  In England they simply disappeared, although some do
seem, after the decline of Gothic, to have kept up a sort of existence
right into the seventeenth century, but none can be traced as having
come forward into the Grand Lodge system.  But in Scotland we have a
different state of affairs, because we also have, what we cannot trace
in England, a national organisation for the Craft. We know that in 1590
a Warden was appointed over the Masons of the counties of Aberdeen,
Banff and Kincardine, Patrick Copland of Udaught, and he held his office
under the General Warden for Scotland.  The document confirming his
appointment states that his predecessors had been ancient possessors of
the office, so that this is no new thing, and we see that there will
have been not merely earlier General Wardens, but also earlier Wardens
over local areas, who are quite distinct from the Wardens or Deans of
the Lodges.

        Given such an organisation it is obvious that Lodges at
important abbeys, or where important building work was in progress,
might well continue to exist, quite away from any town, long after the
works for which they were assembled had been completed, because they
were taking a part in the administrative business of the Craft.  Such
Lodges were actually being formed in Scotland at a time when, in
England, they could barely continue to exist.  By a Charter of King
James V, dated 1526, the monks of Newbattle were authorised to form a
harbour at a place which was first known as Millhaven, and then as
Atcheson's Haven, and at this place there was a Lodge, minutes of which,
dating from 1598, are still in existence, though the Lodge itself ceased
to work in 1852. The Lodge manifestly came into existence in connection
with the harbour works, but it continued as a Lodge for over 300 years.
But the conspicuous instance of a Lodge away from any town or sort of
civic authority and yet maintaining its existence is, of course,
Kilwinning.  And we meet with this Lodge in the second Schaw Statute of
1599, and that document probably furnishes the explanation why this
insignificant village, for it had been no more for centuries, still
possessed a Lodge of Masons.  The first Schaw Statute of 1598 is
promulgated by the General Warden of the Craft, and its provisions are
to be observed by all Master Masons within the realm.  Subsidiary to
this enactment there was issued a further Statute in the following year,
from which we learn that Scotland is divided into three districts, the
east with Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) as its head Lodge; the west, that is
to say, the Nether Ward of Clydesdale, Glasgow, Ayr and the bounds of
Carrick, with Kilwinning as its head Lodge, and the north with Stirling
as its head Lodge.  It is clear that the head Lodge in each case had
been selected on account of its importance, and this suggests a very
considerable antiquity for the system.  But we can understand that the
position of head Lodge of the western district would be such as to tend
to maintain the Lodge itself in active working long after there was any
building for the members to do on the spot.  I need hardly remind my
readers that Kilwinning has been active ever since.

        Before considering the Statutes themselves, we can survey
rapidly what we know of Lodges in Scotland generally before 1600, at a
time, that is to say, when as far as our knowledge extends today, no
single Lodge can be specified as in existence in England.  There must
have been many, but they have left no trace, except that we know of
transcripts made during the sixteenth century in various parts of the
country of the Old Charges, most of which must have been made for actual
Lodges.  The MS. known as Grand Lodge No. 1 is dated 1583, but it has no
history prior to its purchase in 1839. Then the Levander MS., which was
written about 1740, is stated in an endorsement to have been transcribed
from a text of date 1560, and a text known as the Dauntesey, itself late
seventeenth century, has the wording "true liege man to the King and
Queen", and this implies that the text from which it was transcribed was
of the reign of Philip and Mary.  Finally, the text known as Melrose 2
was transcribed from a text which is called Melrose 1, but has, in fact,
been missing for many years.  That had a certificate on it, dated 1581,
to the effect that, "Robert Wincester hath lawfully done his duty to the
science of Masonry, in witness whereof I, John Wincester, his Master
frie-mason have subscribed my name and set my mark in the reign of our
most sovereign Lady Elizabeth the 22nd year." This was obviously written
in England; the transcript was made at Melrose in 1674, but of
individual Lodges in England at this date we know nothing.

        In Scotland the position is very different.  I have already
mentioned the Lodge at Atcheson's Haven, founded at some time after
1526, that had minutes of 1598, still preserved, which are the earliest
Lodge minutes in the world today, although not the earliest of an
existing Lodge; that honour belongs to The Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's
Chapel).

        The first of the Atcheson's Haven entries is a catalogue of the
names of the Fellows of Craft in the year 1598.  Of these Fellows of
Craft three signed the St Clair Charter of 1600.  That document, as you
will remember, was drawn up by the Deacons, Masters and Freemen of the
Masons in the realm of Scotland with the assent of William Schaw, and
declared that for the keeping of good order among them they consented to
William St Clair of Roslyn obtaining from the crown for himself and his
heirs the office of Patron and judge over the whole Craft.  The document
is signed by representatives of Edinburgh, St Andrews, Haddington,
Atcheson's Haven and Dunfermline. This list of Lodges suggest that the
phrase, "the whole Craft", is rather wide, since all these Lodges would
be within the East district of the Schaw Statute of two years earlier.
But a second and similar Charter of 1628 is signed by representatives of
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Dunfermline and St Andrews, and would
therefore seem to be more comprehensive.

        The Lodge met at several places besides Atcheson's Haven itself;
it was clearly a trade guild, and the members' marks are duly booked.
Apprentices chose intenders, as was the practice in many other Lodges.
At this time the Lodge was strictly operative in character, but in 1672
Alexander Seaton, brother to the Earl of Winton, was entered prentis and
fellow of craft, and he is the precursor of many more.  The Minute Book
has a copy of the Schaw Statutes, and there are actually five entries in
it of earlier date than the celebrated minute of 31st July 1599, of The
Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel).

        Of Mary's Chapel it is not necessary to add much to what has
already been said; its descent from the trade guild is unbroken; its
minutes begin in July 1599, and at that date it already had speculative
members, that being the earliest record of them known to the Craft.  It
was also responsible at a later date for the first initiation of a
speculative Mason on English soil, in 1641, when the Brethren with the
army before Newcastle initiated Robert Moray, General Quartermaster to
the Army of Scotland.  We have also already had occasion to mention two
other Lodges which, though they have no minutes of so early a period,
have a clear descent from a time long anterior to 1600; they are at
Aberdeen and at Dundee.  To these we can add Glasgow St John, which
takes us back in all probability to 1600 itself, when the Incorporation
of the wrights and masons was divided to form two societies by a Seal of
Cause.  In 1613 there is a clear reference to the Lodge as functioning,
and it must surely have been in existence at the time of the Seal of
Cause if not earlier. From 1613 onwards, at all events, no one can deny
it an unbroken career.

        That completes the list of Lodges whose connection with the
trade guilds of an earlier time is proved by specific evidence.  But
reference may also be made to Kelso, where in 1652 the Presbytery stated
that there was "neither sin nor scandal in the Mason's word, as in the
purest times of this kirk masons having that word have been ministers".
Now, at this date the expression, "the purest times", would imply the
period between the Reformation of 1560 and the introduction of
episcopacy in 1610, so that we have here two things, an indication of
speculative members before 1599, and more than a suggestion that the
Lodge of Kelso had been in existence in the sixteenth century.  In
addition to these, as we have just seen, the Lodges at St Andrew's,
Haddington and Dunfermline are signatories to the first St Clair Charter
of 1600.  The Schaw Statute of 1598 mentions no Lodges, although it was
promulgated at a specially summoned meeting of Masons.  But we have a
minute of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) which gives us one more
name.  On 27th November 1599, it is recorded that the master and others
within the jurisdiction of the Lodge of St Andrew's are summoned to meet
and elect their Wardens on the 27th December, and that the Masters of
Dundee and Perth are also warned to attend.

        Accordingly, here are 11 Lodges in existence before 1600:
Aberdeen, Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel), Dundee, Kilwinning, Stirling,
Atcheson's Haven, St Andrew's, Haddington, Dunfermline, Perth and
Glasgow St John, and if we admit Kelso to the hierarchy, then we have 12
as the total.  Of these every one except Atcheson's Haven is active
today.

        There is yet another Lodge to which reference should be made,
and that is Elgin Kilmolymock.  There must needs have been a Lodge at
the Cathedral in the fourteenth century, but of it nothing is known.  In
1541 there is a record of the Crafts at Elgin being organised under
Deacons; and in 1657 we have what are known as the Articles anent
Deaconrie, which appoint a council of Deacons of Crafts to govern the
city in association with the magistracy; the rules direct that the
Crafts are not to encroach on each other's privileges. But no Crafts are
specified by name.  In 1780 the Wardens of both Lodges, Kilmolymock and
Trinity, are members of the Burgh Court; so that the Lodges are
definitely Craft associations at this very late date, and had presumably
been so for many years.  Unfortunately the date assigned to Kilmolymock,
No. 45, is the date of its constitution by Grand Lodge, 20th November
1744.  It was not one of those present at the formation of Grand Lodge
in 1736, and I have been unable to ascertain if it was one of those
invited to attend.  In the absence of any records no claims can be made
on its behalf, but it seems prima facie unlikely that a Lodge that was
only founded as a speculative body in 1744 should in 1780 be a Craft
body with its share in the government of the city.  The inference surely
is that long before 1744 the Lodge was, like so many similar bodies in
other Scottish burghs, an incorporation in the burgh of Elgin, and the
same is to be said of the other Elgin Lodge, Trinity, though no doubt
this will have been a junior foundation.

        With the Schaw Statutes we enter on a period when the two
kingdoms were once more united and on friendly terms, and the fact was
very soon reflected in the Lodges.  The English Craft had framed a code
of laws, the Charges General and Special, about 1450, and they no doubt
figured in every Lodge; probably no Lodge would feel itself to be
properly equipped without its own copy of them.  At the same time, while
in their earliest form, they purport to have been approved by Henry VI
and his Council, they were nowhere put forward as being the law of the
land; they were merely stated to be the Charges that the Masters had
agreed on at diverse assemblies, and the Craft was bound by them of its
own volition.  In both countries there was an official known as the
King's Master Mason.  In England there are two series of patents, one to
Windsor Castle, and the other to the Tower of London and the King's
Castles generally. In Scotland he is Principal ordinary Master Mason
within the castle of Edinburgh and all other castles.  John Mylne,
Master Mason to James VI, is stated to have been Master of the Lodge at
Scone.  But these officers had no authority over the Craft generally. To
William Schaw, Warden General of Scotland, there is no equivalent in
England; Anderson's Grand Masters of the period are wholly imaginary.
Nevertheless, William Schaw promulgates his Statutes in exactly the same
way as is done with the English Charges General and Special; he states
that they are set down by him with the consent of the Masters, who
apparently formally ratified them at a meeting specially convened.  But
he directs an authentic copy to be sent to every Lodge within the realm,
and this is just what no one in England had authority to do.  That there
is no trace of any earlier code in Scotland I have already pointed out;
but the Statutes appear to be no new enactment, but rather a
codification of existing laws, and while there are no definite
resemblances to the English phraseology, more than are inevitable in a
code dealing with the same subject, it does seem as though Schaw had
studied the English documents and thought them worthy of imitation.

        The seventeenth century in England may be described as a period
of survival.  There are actually three Lodges of which we have specific
record: the London Acception, and the Lodges at Chester and Warrington.
Then a copy of the Old Charges at York has endorsed on it: "Found at
Pontefract Castle at the demolishing", and that demolishing took place
in 1649, so that there was presumably a Lodge there prior to that date.
The Lodge at Swalwell had a tradition that it had come from the south
about 1690, which is quite probably perfectly true.  In the next century
there was still preserved in London the recollection of the meeting
places of seven Lodges of this period. And Dr Plot, in 1686, writes of
the Craft as spread more or less over the whole nation. While quite
definite evidence of activity, although we cannot associate it with any
particular Lodge, is the fact that of the versions of the Old Charges
that we possess today over forty are of this century in England alone,
which is nearly half the number.  The Lodges at Warrington, Chester and
London are each associated with one or more of these versions, and
another, now at York, has on it an endorsement of 1693, "The names of
the Lodg", but what particular body is referred to we cannot now say;
but the rest give no indication of the Lodges in which they originated.
Nevertheless, with the possible exception of Swalwell, we cannot point
to a single seventeenth century Lodge which was still in existence in
the next century, or putting the statement the other way, no single
Lodge of the eighteenth century in England, Swalwell always excepted,
has any evidence that it was at work in the previous century.

        In Scotland the position is very different; the period is one of
activity and expansion.  Kilwinning, in particular, chartered a number
of Lodges, and since in 1736 invitations to attend the General Assembly
convened to constitute Grand Lodge were sent to about a hundred Lodges,
we will be fairly safe in saying that half this number, at least, were
in existence at the commencement of the century, because even that
hundred does not appear to have included every Lodge at work in the
kingdom.  But the Kilwinning system has a particular interest for us,
because its custom was to sell to Lodges receiving its charters, copies
of what was styled the" old Buik", and this was actually a transcript of
a version of the Old Charges of the English Lodges. The actual copy
today in the possession of Kilwinning is of date about 1660, being no
doubt the original from which it made its transcripts, and it was
written by the clerk of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel).  It was
copied from some text that was almost word for word the same as Grand
Lodge No. 1, of 1583, to which reference has already been made. From
this date these English documents make repeated appearances in Scottish
Lodge working; there are at present eleven of them known to exist.
There must have been many more originally.

        Kilwinning is the earliest, and next comes Atcheson's Haven,
dated 1666, but it is significant that it is derived from quite a
distinct original of an earlier type.  Aberdeen, 1670, and Stirling,
about the same date, are almost identical, and closely similar to
Kilwinning.  Melrose was copied in 1674 from a text that I have already
mentioned as bearing a certificate of 1581, mentioning Queen Elizabeth I
by name.  That text is missing, and how and when it found its way to
Scotland originally we cannot say.  The text was again copied at Melrose
in 1762.  Dumfries possesses five texts, three closely similar to yet
another text now in London, known as the Harris, which involves that at
least four versions found their way to Scotland at some time or other.
The other two, Dumfries 4 and Thistle, are quite peculiar.  Of these
last two Brother Poole, of Sedbergh, made a detailed analysis, with
results of considerable interest.  He has shown that in 1703 the burgh
of Dumfries decided to build a council house, and for the purpose
brought in an architect from Liverpool, but the gentleman had a Scots
name, Moffat. Now, the Thistle text bears unmistakable indications of
having been put together by someone who was able to refer to a specific
text, the Hope, that we know to have originated in Lancashire or
Yorkshire.  So that we seem to see a body of Masons travelling to
Scotland, and taking with them their precious text of the Old Charges,
and the local Lodge adopts the custom and promptly makes a copy of the
text for their own use.  And with this concrete instance before us of an
importation of working Craftsmen, we can appreciate that at some earlier
date exactly the same thing must have happened at Edinburgh, at
Atcheson's Haven, at Melrose, and at Dumfries.  The local writers copied
their originals in most cases faithfully; in the Kilwinning version
itself the Craftsman is called on to swear to be true liegeman to the
King of England, and the historical portion, which contains no
references to Scotland whatever, is preserved without any modification.
The Lodges took over the English custom all standing, and apparently
accepted the English idea that the possession of a copy of what they now
styled the Mason Charter was necessary for the proper equipment of a
Lodge.  They did not trouble themselves, in most cases, to consider the
precise terms of the actual document, or to vary them so as to make them
more suitable to its new home. Only at Dumfries and Melrose do we find
additions made, extra articles added, and certain changes introduced
into the text.  At Dumfries, while the other copies were pretty close to
their original, the Thistle and Dumfries 4 are quite individual, and
introduce a lot of their own wording, in places giving what seem to be
hints of ritual phraseology.  The Melrose, No. 2, adds a remarkable
charge to the Brethren which is found nowhere else.  It is operative in
character, but contains one interesting sentence.  The Master, if he
cannot have Freemasons, may employ "loses", which would appear to mean
"cowans", but he is not to let them know the privilege of the compass,
square, level and the plumb rule.  One Scottish Lodge adopted the idea,
but made its own record; and that was the Lodge at Perth, which in 1658
composed the Perth Charter, as it is called.  The date is earlier than
that of the Kilwinning Text, and that the writer had an actual version
of the Old Charges before him we cannot say, and it would seem to be
unlikely, but he has undoubtedly produced what may fairly be called a
Scotch Text.  It begins with a brief reference to the building of King
Solomon's Temple, from which a Lodge of Masons came to Kilwinning, and
thence spread Masonry throughout the kingdom, coming to the Abbey of
Scone, where they erected the second Lodge to be founded in Scotland.
The writer is more concerned to magnify his own Lodge than the Craft
generally, and he goes on to recite its history, with especial reference
to the family of Mylne.  The concluding phrase is: "And that so long as
the sun riseth in the East and setteth in the West, as we would wish the
blessing of God to attend us in all our ways and actions."  The phrase
is, of course, suggestive from the point of view of ritual, but more
than that I would not say.

        That the adoption, by some of the Scottish Lodges at all events,
of this English use of the Old Charges had any influence on Scottish
Masonry cannot be said, but it is of interest as showing the Craft in
the two countries to be once more in contact.  Of influence, both
Scottish on English, and English on Scottish, we shall have plenty in
the next period of our Masonic history.

        The English Lodges of this period were purely speculative in
function. Their membership was mainly speculative, that at Warrington
almost entirely so, but the criterion is not the occupations of the
individual members, but the activities of the Lodge as a body.  From the
New Articles we see that it was still considered in the mid-seventeenth
century that a Lodge, that is to say, the meeting, could not be held
unless the members present included an actual Mason by trade.  But the
Lodges at Chester and Warrington were certainly not concerned with trade
matters, and, in fact, at Chester there was a Company of Masons, the
trade organisation, side by side with the speculative Society, the
members of which latter body included many Masons by trade. That the
Company included any non-Masons does not appear.  In London it is the
same.  The Company controls the trade; the Society includes persons not
of the trade and is practically an independent body which before 1682
has cut adrift from the Company altogether.  So also at York, when we
first meet with the Lodge it has no concern with the trade and its
affairs. The movement out of which arose the Grand Lodge at London was
accordingly one confined to speculative bodies.

        Now, in Scotland the position is different.  Every one of the
early Lodges had a larger or smaller number of speculative members, but
was still unmistakeably a trade organisation.  The same body administers
the concerns of the trade, admits the trade apprentices, deals with
infractions of trade rules, and also works as a speculative body.  It is
not till the eighteenth century that the change is made; for instance,
at Edinburgh it is at the end of 1721 that the Lodge abandons its custom
that the Deacon of the guild shall automatically be the Warden of the
Lodge.  At Dumfries in 1687 the Company makes itself a Lodge, which
means, I take it, that it adds the speculative element to its trade
functions.  The process of severance from the operative side goes on all
through the eighteenth century.  The fact is that the Freemasonry of
Scotland at the time of the formation of Grand Lodge was still to a
large extent the true Freemasonry of the mediaeval builders, a special
system maintained in bodies which were still for the most part primarily
trade organisations.  The formation of the Grand Lodge was no doubt
inaugurated by speculative Masons, and it was promoted in the first
instance by four speculative Lodges, but when constituted, the Grand
Lodge included numerous Lodges that were still definitely trade bodies,
and only half the actual membership in 1736 were persons not Craftsmen
(Lyon, p. 191).

        In England, by 1721, the ritual had apparently already begun to
undergo a process of modification and expansion; by 1725 it was a
regular system of three degrees. What it was before the days of Grand
Lodge is quite uncertain, but there would seem to have been a ceremony
of acceptance and a Master's Part, with which was connected the Hiramic
Legend.  But the whole question is very far from being elucidated as
yet. In Scotland it was the opinion of Murray Lyon that before 172l
there was no more than the communication of the Mason word.  The
Haughfoot Minutes of 1702 seem to make a distinction between the
ceremonies of Enterd Prentis and Fellow Craft.  But once more the
subject is difficult, and it would be quite impossible now to embark on
it.  One thing the authorities do seem to be agreed on, and that is that
the present degree system came to Scotland from the Lodges of London and
Westminster; whether brought by Desaguliers, or introduced at a later
date, and this whatever may be the ease with regard to details of the
ceremonies themselves, in which the two countries now differ.

        Some mention should be made of contemporary Freemasonry in
Ireland. We know nothing of it there in operative days.  The glimpse we
have of it in Dublin in 1688 shows us that it was recognised as a
Society that relieved distressed Brethren and disregarded all social
distinctions, so that it was then purely speculative, and had no doubt
come from England.  There is a remarkable reference to being
Freemasonised the new way, which opens up a vast field of speculation.
We find a Grand Lodge already in existence in 1725; it was in its
inception no doubt an imitation of the London institution.  The
intercourse between Dublin and London, and between the south of Ireland
and Bristol was constant and close.  But Freemasonry in Ireland at this
period is an exotic; it has no indigenous background such as we have on
this side of the Irish Channel, in both north and south.

        One practical result of the fact that the Scottish Masons were
still in contact with the trade while the English were not is that the
members of Scottish Lodges, whether operative or speculative, had their
marks, as we see over and over again in minute books and Lodge records
generally, whereas in England at this time - except at Alnwick - they
were unknown, and, indeed, have continued to be so.  The mark today in
England is only used by Masons who have taken the Mark Degree, and I
venture to say that if you challenged an English Mark Mason to exhibit
his mark, you would more often than not find he had wholly forgotten
what it was.  At the same time the Scottish marks, as we see them, for
instance, at Aberdeen, have tended to lose their original operative
character of simple lines and angles such as could readily be scratched
on the stone, and have become elaborate designs and monograms. We have
the rules of the Lodge at Alnwick as they stood in 1701, and they are
trade regulations.  Here the members all have their marks duly
registered. This Lodge survived till 1757, and never came into the Grand
Lodge system. Its members originally seem to have been all Masons by
trade, but it was reconstituted in 1748, when it admitted as members
several persons who were not operative Masons.  But of marks for English
Masons generally at this time there is no trace.

        The list of members of the Lodge of Aberdeen contains the entry:
"James Anderson  Glassier and Measson and Wreatter of this book, 1670,
and Master of our Lodge in the year of God 1688 and 1694."  This James
Anderson had twelve children, and the history of the whole family has
been most fully worked out by Brother A. L. Miller of Aberdeen.  David
was Professor of Divinity at King's College; Adam was the author of a
"History of Commerce", in its day a standard work; James, afterwards Dr
Anderson, was a Presbyterian minister, author of Royal Genealogies, and,
what is to us far more important, of the "Book of Constitutions of The
Grand Lodge of England" in 1723.  He submitted proposals to the Grand
Lodge at London in 1721 for a History of Freemasonry, and that is the
first occasion on which we meet with him in the Craft; we know nothing
of his previous Masonic career. The proposals were approved, but the
work, when it came finally to be published in 1723, contained, besides
the history, a restatement of the Old Charges, a set of thirty-nine
Regulations, the Manner of constituting a New Lodge, and poems and
songs, including the celebrated Entered Apprentice Song which is still
heard in our Lodges.  This and the Fellow-Craft's Song were by other
hands, but for the rest of the work Dr Anderson himself was almost
wholly responsible.  The Approbation is signed by the Masters and
Wardens of twenty Lodges, and Anderson himself signs it as Master of No.
17 on the list.  He adds the words: "The Author of this Book."  We need
have little doubt that when he did so he was thinking of the old Mark
Book in Aberdeen, with his father's entry in it.  That the history of
Masonry as it then was to be found, in the texts of the Old Charges, had
no reference to Scotland, I have already mentioned.  Anderson repaired
the omission, and he was clearly familiar with Scottish Freemasonry,
although some of his statements have not found favour in more critical
times.  But he did more than that.  He introduced to the Masonry of
London and Westminster the phrases Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft,
hitherto unknown to English Masonry, and in his version of the Ancient
Charges he introduced a clause to the effect that Masons shall not work
with those who are not free without an urgent necessity, that finds no
counterpart in the English regulations, but is strongly reminiscent of a
passage in the Schaw Statutes.  And there is another phrase, very
familiar to us in the south, which I think can also be safely attributed
to Scottish influences of this time, though we may not be able to
connect it with any individual Mason, and that is "grip or token".  Now,
as a matter of philology, "grip" is Scots, hardly known in England
before this time, and "token" in England in a previous century had
precisely the meaning of secret indication or sign.  I believe that what
happened was that the Scots word, and perhaps the practice, came south,
and had to be explained to an English Lodge by adding the English
equivalent, and this can hardly have occurred before Desaguliers' time
at all events.  I am not able to say just when it first makes its
appearance in our ritual.

        From now onwards the Craft in the two countries was in close
contact. The Grand Master of England of 1723 was the Earl of Dalkeith,
and he is only the first of a long line of distinguished Scotsmen who
have from time to time ruled over the English Grand Lodges.  That any
English Mason has ever ruled over the Grand Lodge of Scotland I do not
know, nor would there appear to be any necessity for such a proceeding.
But while the Masonry of the South has perhaps led the way in ritual
development, and in the organisation of the speculative fraternity, the
Masonry of Scotland has preserved for us into our own day the mediaeval
characteristics of the Order, and may both ever continue to show to the
world the happy and beneficial effects of our ancient institution.

     -----------------------------oOo---------------------

From an address given by the author to the Masters' and Past Masters'
Association of the Province of Glasgow in 1927.

Also printed in the Grand Lodge of Scotland Year Book for 1976.




