Note: The following material is a scanned-in research resource; it is NOT intended as an exact reproduction of the original volume. Due to computer display variances, page numbers are approximate. Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph Omholt, PM - June 2007.
The History Of Freemasonry
By
Albert G. Mackey 33°
VOLUME THREE
CHAPTER IX
THE EARLY ENGLISH MASONIC GUILDS
TO Brother William James Hughan are we indebted, more than to any other person, for the collection and publication of all the Masonic Guild ordinances that have been preserved in the British Museum, in the archives of old Lodges, or in private hands.
In the beginning of his work on The Old Charges of the British Freemasons (a book so valuable and so necessary that it should be in the library of every Masonic archaeologist), Brother Hughan says:
"Believing as we do that the present Association of Freemasons is an outgrowth of the Building Corporations and Guilds of the Middle Ages, as also a lineal descendant and sole representative of the early, secret Masonic sodalities, it appears to us that their ancient Laws and Charges are specially worthy of preservation, study and reproduction. No collection of these having hitherto been published we have undertaken to introduce several of the most important to the notice of the Fraternity."
As Brother Hughan is distinguished for the accuracy and fidelity with which he has himself made, or caused to be made by competent scribes, copies of these Constitutions from the originals, I shall select from one of the earliest of them the ordinances or regulations, which shall be collated with those of the early Saxon Guilds, specimens of which have been given in the preceding chapter.
An account of these Old Records, as they are sometimes called, will be found in the first part of this work, where the subject of the Legend of the Craft, which they all contain, is treated.
It will be unnecessary therefore to repeat here that account.
I might have selected for collation the statutes contained in the poem published by Halliwell, or those in the Cooke manuscript, as both are of an older date than any in the collection of Hughan.
But as they are all substantially the same in their provisions, and the latter have the advantage of greater brevity, I shall content myself with referring occasionally, when required, to the former.
The manuscript which is selected for collation is that known as the Landsdowne, whose date is supposed to be 1560.
The date of the manuscript is, however, no criterion of the date of the Guild whose ordinances it recites, for that was of course much older.
It is thought to be next in point of antiquity to the poem published by Mr. Halliwell, to which the date of 1390 is assigned, and Hughan says that "the style of calligraphy and other considerations seem to warrant so early a date being ascribed to it." In copying the statutes from the copy published by Brother Hughan, I have made an exact transcript, except that I have numbered the statutes consecutively instead of dividing them, as is done in the original, into two series.
This has been done for convenience of collation with the Guild ordinances inserted in the preceding chapter and which have been numbered in a similar method.
The orthography, for a similar reason, has been modernized,
CHARGES IN THE LANDSDOWNE MANUSCRIPT.
1. "You shall be true to God and Holy Church and to use no error or heresy, you understanding and by wise mens teaching, also that you shall be liege men to the King of England without treason or any falsehood and that you know no treason or treachery but that you amend and give knowledge thereof to the King and his Council; also that ye shall be true to one another (that is to say) every Mason of the Craft that is Mason allowed, you shall do to him as you would be done to yourself.
2. "Ye shall keep truly all the counsel of the Lodge or of the chamber and all the counsel of the Lodge that ought to be kept by the way of Masonhood, also that you be no thief nor thieves to your knowledge free; that you shall be true to the King, Lord or Master that you serve and truly to see and work for his advantage; also you shall call all Masons your Fellows or your Brethren and no other names.
3. "Also you shall not take your Fellow's wife in villainy, nor deflower his daughter or servant, nor put him to disworship; also you shall truly pay for your meat or drink wheresoever you go to table or board whereby the Craft or science may be slandered."
These are called "the charges general that belong to every true Mason, both Masters and Fellows." Then follow sixteen others, that are called "charges single for Masons Allowed." The only difference that I can perceive between the two sets of charges is that the first set refer to the moral conduct of the members of the Guild, while the second refer to their conduct as Craftsmen in the pursuit of their trade.
The former were laws common or general to all the Guilds, the latter were peculiar to the Masons as a Craft Guild.
The second set is as follows:
4. "That no Mason take on him no Lord's work, nor other mens, but if he know himself well able to perform the work, so that the Craft have no slander.
5. "That no Master take work but that he take reasonable pay for it, so that the Lord may be truly served and the Master live honestly and pay his Fellows truly; also that no Master or Fellow supplant others of their work (that is to say) if he have taken a work or else stand Master of a work that he shall not put him out without he be unable of cunning to make an end of his work; also that no Master nor Fellow shall take no apprentice for less than seven years and that the apprentice be able of birth that is freeborn and of limbs whole as a man ought to be, and that no Mason or Fellow take no allowance to be made Mason without the assent of his Fellows at the least six or seven and that he be made able in all degrees that is freeborn and of a good kindred, true and no bondsman and that he have his right limbs as a man ought to have.
6. "Also that a Master take no apprentice without he have occupation sufficient to occupy two or three Fellows at least.
7. "Also that no Master or Fellow put away lords work to task that ought to be journey work.
8. "Also that every Master give pay to his Fellows and servants as they may deserve, so that he be not defamed with false working.
9. "Also that none slander another behind his back to make him lose his good name.
10. "That no Fellow in the house or abroad answer another ungodly or reprovably without cause.
11. "That every Master Mason reverence his elder; also that a Mason be no common player at the dice, cards or hazard nor at any other unlawful plays through the which the science and craft may be dishonoured.
12. "That no Mason use no lechery nor have been abroad whereby the Craft may be dishonoured or slandered.
13. "That no Fellow go into the town by night except he have a Fellow with him who may bear record that he was in an honest place.
14. "Also that every Master and Fellow shall come to the Assembly if it be within fifty miles of him if he have any warning and if he have trespassed against the Craft to abide the award of the Masters and Fellows.
15. "Also that every Master Mason and Fellow that have trespassed against the Craft shall stand in correction of other Masters and Fellows to make him accord and if they cannot accord to go to the common law.
16. "Also that a Master or Fellow make not a mould stone, square nor rule to no lowen nor set no lowen work within the lodge nor without to no mould stone. [1]
17. "Also that every Mason receive or cherish strange Fellows when they come over to the country and set them on work if they will work as the manner is (that is to say) if the Mason have any mould stone in his place on work and if he have none the Mason shall refresh him with money unto the next Lodge.
18. "Also that every Mason shall truly serve his Master for his pay.
19. "Also that every Master shall truly make an end of his work task or journey which soever it be."
Now, in the collation of these "Charges" with the ordinances of the early Guilds we will find very many points of striking resemblance, showing the common prevalence of the Guild spirit of religion, charity, and brotherly love in each, and confirming the
[1] The Freemason must not make for one who is not a member of the Guild a mould or pattern stone as a guide for construction of mouldings or ornaments, whereby he would be imparting to him the secrets of the Craft.
The word "lowen," which is found in no other manuscript, is supposed to be a clerical error for "cowan." It is just as probable that it is a mistake for "layer," a word used in other manuscripts and denoting a "rough mason." The stone‑mason and the bricklayer are at this day separate trades.
But whether the correct word be "cowan" or "layer," the object of the law was the same, namely, that a member of the Guild should not work with one who was not.
opinion of Hughan, and the hypothesis which has been constantly advanced, that the one was an outgrowth of the other.
The religious spirit which pervaded all the Guilds is here exhibited in number 1, which requires the Mason to be true to the Church and to use no error or heresy.
The charge in number 2, to keep the counsel of the Lodge, is met with in nearly all the Guild ordinances.
Thus in the ordinances of the Shipmen's Guild, of the date of 1368, it is said:
"Whoso discovereth the counsel of the Guild of this fraternity to any strange man or woman and it may have been proved . . . shall pay to the light two stone of wax or shall lose (forfeit) the fraternity till he may have grace.
That is he shall be suspended from the Guild until restored by a pardon."
The same regulation is found in the ordinances of several other Guilds, whose charters have been copied by Toulmin Smith.
In those of the Guild of St. George the Martyr, dated 1376, there is no option afforded of a pecuniary fine.
The words of the statute are that "no brother nor sister shall discover the counsel of this fraternity to no stranger on the pain of forfeiture of the fraternity forevermore." Nothing short of absolute expulsion was meted out to the betrayer of Guild secrets.
In the "Charges of a Free Mason," said to be "extracted from the ancient Records," published by Anderson in 1723, and adopted by the Grand Lodge, soon after the Revival, for the government of the Speculative Masons, this principle of the Guilds has been preserved.
It is there said, in Charge VI., sec. 5, that the Mason is "not to let his family, friends, and neighbours know the concerns of the Lodge." It is at this day an almost unpardonable crime to disclose the secrets of the Lodge.
The spirit of the Guild has been preserved in its successor, the modern Lodge.
The prohibition in the fourth charge, to dishonour a brother, or "put him to disworship," is found in the earliest of the Guilds.
That of Orky, for example, prescribes a punishment to any member who "misgretes," that is, insults, abuses, or injures another member.
The Guild was always careful to preserve a feeling of brotherly love and harmony among its members, a disposition which is also the characteristic of the Masonic fraternity.
Hence we find the tenth point of these Masonic charges declaring that "none shall slander another behind his back." But the very language of the fourth point of the charges would appear to have been borrowed from the ordinances of some of the Guilds.
In those of the Guild of the Holy Trinity, whose date is 1377, we meet with these statutes:
"No one of the Guild shall do anything to the loss or hurt of another, nor allow it to be done so far as he can hinder it, the laws and customs of the town of Lancaster being always saved.
"No one of the Guild shall wrong the wife or daughter or sister of another, nor shall allow her to be wronged, so far as he can hinder it"
From the fifth to the twentieth charge, the regulations principally relate to the government of the Craft in their work.
There is some difficulty in comparing these with the early Craft Guilds, from the paucity of charters of the latter which have been preserved.
But wherever there are any points common to both, the analogy and resemblance between the two is at once detected.
Thus in the Charter of the Guild of Fullers at Lincoln, which Guild was begun in 1297, it is said that "none of the Craft shall work at the wooden bar (full cloth), with a woman, unless with the wife of a Master or his handmaid."
Toulmin Smith says that he cannot explain this restriction.
But it was in fact only an effort of the Guild spirit common to all the Craft Guilds, which forbade one who was a member or freeman of the Guild from working with one who was not a member.
The Guild of the Tailors of Exeter had an ordinance that "no one shall have a board or shop of the Craft unless free of the city." And in the charter of the Guild of Tylers or Poyntours (pointers of walls) of Lincoln it is said that "no Tyler or Poyntour shall stay in the city unless he enters the Guild."
The same spirit of exclusiveness is shown in the seventeenth point of the Masonic Constitutions, which forbids a Master or Fellow from working with a Cowan, or one who was not a "Mason Allowed," that is to say, one who has been admitted into the fraternity or Guild.
This exclusion from a participation in labour of all who were not members of the sodality was a regulation common to all the Craft Guilds, but was perhaps more fully developed and more stringently urged in the Constitution of the Masonic Guild than in those of any of the others.
It is from this principle of exclusiveness that the modern Lodges of Speculative Masonry have derived their strict regulation of holding no communication with Masons who have not been "duly initiated," or with Lodges which have not been "legally constituted."
Contumacy, rebellion, or disobedience to the laws of the Craft or of the Guild was severely punished.
The ordinances of the Smiths' Guild of Chesterfield prescribed that any brother who is "contumacious or sets himself against the brethren or gainsays any of these ordinances" shall be suspended, denounced, and excommunicated.
A similar regulation is to be found in other Guilds.
According to the Landsdowne Statutes, a Mason is required to be true to every member of the Craft, and to reverence his elder or superior, and in the points of the statutes of the Masonic Guild, as set forth in the Halliwell MS., it is said that the Mason must be "true and steadfast to all these ordinances wheresoever he goes."
Suits at law between the members were discouraged and forbidden, except as a last resort, in all the Saxon Guilds.
The Shipmen's Guild provided that the Alderman (or Master) and the other members should do their best to adjust a quarrel, but if they were unable, then the Alderman should give them leave "to make their suit at common law."
In the Guild of the Holy Cross it was declared that no brother or sister of the Guild should go to law for a debt or a trespass until he had asked leave of the Alderman and of the men of the Guild.
The Statutes of the Guild of St. John the Baptist, enacted in, 1374, are more explicit.
There it is said that a member "cannot sue until he has shown his grievance to the Alderman and Guild brethren that are chief of the Council," and it adds that "the Alderman and the Guild brethren shall try their best to make them agree; and if they cannot agree they may make their complaint in what place they will."
The same provision is met with in all the Constitutions of the Masonic Guild.
The earliest of them, the Halliwell MS., prescribes in case of a dispute a "love‑day" or arbitration. The Landsdowne says that when a wrong is done by one of the members to another, the other Masters and Fellows must try to make them agree, and if they cannot agree they may then "go to the common law," which is the very expression used in the Shipmen's Guild above cited.
It is a very strong proof of the connection between the early Guilds and the modern Lodges that this reluctance to permit the brethren to carry their personal disputes out of the Craft and into the publicity of the courts was fully developed in the "Charges of the Speculative Masons," adopted in 1723.
In these it is said, in the true spirit of the old Guilds to which Speculative Masonry succeeded, that, "with respect to Brothers or Fellows at law, the Master and Brethren should kindly offer their mediation, which ought to be thankfully accepted by the contending brethren; but if that submission is impracticable, they must, however, carry on their process or law‑suit without wrath and rancour."
It is needless to extend these comparisons.
Sufficient has been done to show that there is a close resemblance in their mode of organization, method of action, constitution, and spirit between the Saxon Guilds and the modern Masonic Lodges, which actually are, under another name, only Masonic Guilds.
This resemblance indicates an historical connection between the two, and this connection may be more closely traced through the civic companies of London and other cities of England.
That these latter were the direct off‑shoot from the former is a fact generally admitted by writers on the subject, and of it there can be no doubt.
" In the Trade Guilds," says Mr. Thorpe, "we may see the origin of our civic companies." [1]
To these civic companies, and to one of them particularly, the Masons' Company in Basinghall Street, the reader's attention must be invited.
[1] "Diplomatarium Anglicum Evi Saxonici," Preface, p. xvi.
P. 588
CHAPTER X
THE LONDON COMPANIES AND THE MASONS' COMPANY
ABOUT the middle of the 14th century, perhaps a little earlier, and in the reign of Edward III., the various trades began to be reconstituted under the name of Livery Companies and to change their name from Guilds to Crafts and Mysteries.
There was, however, very little real difference between their new and their old organization, and the Guild spirit of fraternity remained the same.
There has been a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word "Mystery," which was applied to these companies in such phrases as "the Mystery of the Tailors," or "the Mystery of the Saddlers."
Herbert says that the preservation of their trade‑secrets was a primary ordination of all the fraternities, and continued their leading law as long as they remained actual "working companies," whence arose the names of "Mysteries" and "Crafts," by which they were for so many ages designated.[1]
This derivation is a reasonable one, especially when we remember that the word "craft," which was always associated with the word "mystery" in its primitive usage, signified art, knowledge, or skill.
But this explanation has not been universally accepted, and the word "Mystery," in its application to a trade or handicraft, has more generally been derived from the old or Norman French, where mestiere was used to denote a craft, art, or employment.
There is no certainty, however, that the word was not employed to denote the trade‑secrets of a Guild or Company, as Herbert suggests.
If mestiere denoted, in old French, a trade, mestre meant, in the same language, a mystery, and the former word may have been de‑
[1] "History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies," vol. i., P. 45.
rived from the latter.
But the modern Masons, in borrowing the word "Mystery" from the old companies, where they find their origin, undoubtedly use it in the sense of something hidden or concealed.
The origin of the livery and other companies out of the earlier Guilds is a matter of historical record.
Guilds, it has been already shown, existed in England from a very early period, but, as all tradesmen and artificers did not belong to Guilds, or, if they did, often acted irregularly in buying and selling a variety of wares or working in different handicrafts, a petition was presented to Parliament in the year 1355, in consequence of which it was enacted that all artificers and "people of mysteries" should choose forthwith each his own mystery, and, having chosen it, should thenceforth use no other.
It is here that we may assign the origin of the chartered companies, many of which exist to the present day, and among whom we shall find at a lake period the Masons' Company, which was the direct predecessor of the Masons' Lodges, both of the Operative before and the Speculative after the beginning of the 18th century.
In a document found in the records of the City of London, of the date of 1364, and which has been published by Mr. Herbert, [1] we find the names of the principal, if not the whole of the city companies, which were in existence in that year.
This document is an account, in Latin, of the sums received by the city chamberlain from those companies as gifts to the King, to aid him in carrying on the war with France.
The list records the names of thirty‑two companies.
Though we find several Craft Guilds, such as the Tailors, the Glovers, the Armourers, and the Goldsmiths, there is no mention of a Guild or Company of Masons.
Whether such a body did not then exist as a chartered company, or whether, if in existence, it was too poor to make a contribution, which seems to have been a voluntary act, are questions which the document gives us no means of deciding.
Five years afterward, in 1369, a law was enacted by the municipal authorities of London, which must have tended to encourage the organization of these Companies.
By this law the right of election of all city dignitaries, and all officers, including members of
[1] "History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies," vol. i., p. 30.
Parliament, was transferred from the representatives of the wards, who had hitherto exercised this franchise, to the trading companies.
A few members of each of these were selected by the Masters and Wardens, who were to repair to Guildhall for election purposes.
This right has ever since remained, with some subsequent modifications in the twelve Livery Companies of London.
The effect of this law in increasing the number of Companies very speedily showed itself.
In a list in Norman French of the "number of persons chosen by the several mysteries to be the Common Council" in the year 1370, it appears that the Companies had increased from thirty‑two to forty‑eight.
In this list we find the seventeenth to be the Company of Freemasons, and the thirty‑fourth the Company of Masons. The former appears to have been a more select, or at least a smaller, Company than the latter, for while the Masons sent four members to the Common Council the Freemasons sent only two.
Afterward the two Companies were merged into one, that of the Masons, to which I shall hereafter again revert.
The constitution and government of these Companies appear to have been framed very much after the model of the earlier Guilds.
They had the power of making their own by‑laws or ordinances, and of enforcing their observance among their members.
These ordinances were called "Points." The word is first used in the charters of Edward III., who wills that the said ordinances shall be kept and maintained en touz pointz, or "in all points." We find the same word in the Constituciones Geometric in the Halliwell MS., where the ordinances are divided into fifteen articles and fifteen points.
It is also met with in all subsequent constitutions.
As a technical term the word is preserved in the Speculative Masonry of to‑day, whose obligations of duty are to be obeyed by initiates into the fraternity in all their "arts, parts, and points." these little incidents serve to show the uninterrupted succession of our modern Lodges from the early Guilds and the later Companies which were formed out of them.
They are therefore worthy of notice in a history of the rise and progress of Freemasonry.
It has been seen that in the most of the Saxon Guilds the principal officer was called the Alderman.
After the Guilds were chartered as Companies, the chief officers received the title of Masters and Wardens, titles still retained in the government of Masonic Lodges.
The ordinances required that there should be held four meetings in every year to treat of the common business of the Company.
These were the quarterly meetings to which reference is made by Dr. Anderson when, in his History of the Revival of Masonry, in the year 1717, he says that "the quarterly communication of the officers of the Lodges" was revived.
The regulation of apprentices formed an important part of the system pursued by the Companies.
No one was admitted to the freedom or livery of any Company unless he had first served an apprenticeship, which was generally for the period of seven years.
And even then he could not be admitted into the fellowship except with the consent of the members.
Masters were not permitted to take more than a certain number of apprentices, lest the trade or art should be overstocked with workmen and the journeymen or fellows find less opportunity for employment.
Care was taken that one member should not undersell another member, or work for a less amount of pay or interfere with his contracts for labour.
It was the duty of the Company to protect the interests of all alike.
There were judicious regulations for the settlement of disputes between the members, so as to avoid the necessity of a resort to law.
The spirit of the early Guild was in this exactly followed.
"If any debate is between any of the fraternity," says an ordinance of one of these Companies, "for misgovernance of words or asking of debt or any other things, then anon the party plaintiff shall come to the Master and tell his grievance and the Master shall make an end thereof." [1]
To speak disrespectfully of the Company; to strike or insult a brother member; to violate the regulations for clothing or dress; to employ or work with men who were not free of the Company, and who were generally designated as "foreigners," or to commit any kind of fraud in carrying on the trade or handicraft, were all offenses for which the ordinances provided ample punishment.
The feeling of brotherly love exhibited in charity to an indigent or distressed member prevailed in all the Companies.
When
[1] "Ordinances of the Company of Grocers," anno 1463.
a member became poor from misfortune or sickness, he was to be assisted out of the common fund.
All of these regulations will be found copied in the Old Constitutions of the Operative Masons a fact which conclusively proves that they were originally a Company following the general usage which had been adopted by the other Companies, whether Trade or Craft, such as the Grocers, the Mercers, the Goldsmiths, or the Tailors.
The subject of "Liveries" is one that will be interesting to the Speculative Freemason, from the rule with which he is familiar, that a Mason, on entering his Lodge, must be "properly clothed." The word "clothing" here indicates the dress which he should wear, especially and imperatively including his "lambskin apron."
We have the very important and very authentic evidence of the fact that secret societies existed in the 14th century, marked by all the peculiarities we have seen distinguishing the English Companies.
In the year 1326 the Council of Avignon fulminated what has been caged the "Statute of Excommunications," its title being "Concerning the Societies, Unions and Confederacies called Confraternities, which are to be utterly extirpated."
This statute is contained in Hardouin's immense collection of the arts of Councils. [1] The following is a part of the preamble, and it shows very clearly that the Church at that time recognized and condemned the existence of those Guilds, Companies, or Societies for mutual help, some of which were the precursors of the modern Masonic Lodges, against which the Romish Church exhibits the same hostility.
The statute passed at Avignon commences as follows:
"Whereas, in certain parts of our provinces, noblemen for the most part, and sometimes other persons have established unions, societies and confederacies, which are interdicted by the canon as well as by the municipal laws, who congregate in some place once a year, under the name of a confraternity, and there establish assemblies and unions and enter into a compact confirmed by an oath that they will mutually aid each other against all persons whomsoever, their own lords excepted, and in every case, that each one will
[1] "Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales ae Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum," Paris, 1714, tome vii, p. 1,507
give to another, help, counsel and favour; and sometimes all wearing a similar dress with certain curious signs or marks, they elect one of their number as chief to whom they swear obedience in all things."
The decree then proceeds to denounce these confraternities, and to forbid all persons to have any connection with them under the penalty of excommunication.
And here again is a pointed reference to the subject of livery:
"They shall not institute confraternities of this kind; one shall not give obedience nor afford assistance or favour to another; nor shall they wear clothing which exhibits the signs or marks of the condemned thing."
That the medieval Masons wore a particular dress when at work, which was the same in all countries, is evident from the plates in several illuminated manuscripts from the 10th to the 16th centuries, copies of which have been inserted by Mr. Wright in his essay on medieval architecture. [1] The dress of the Masons in all these plates, whether in England, in France, or in Italy, is similar.
"In reviewing and comparing these various representations," says Mr. Wright, "of the same process at so widely distinct periods, we are struck much less with their diversity than with the close resemblance between both workmen and tools, which continues amid the continual, and sometimes rapid changes in the condition and manners of society.
Whether this be in any measure to be attributed to the circumstance of the Masons forming a permanent society among themselves, which transmitted its doctrines and fashions unchanged from father to son, it is not very easy to determine." [2]
The question is not, however, of so difficult a solution as Mr. Wright supposes, when we see that every Guild or Company of tradesmen or artificers had its form of dress peculiar to itself, which was called its "livery." The Masons, as a Company, followed the usage and adopted their own livery or clothing.
The modern Speculative Masons preserve the memory of the usage by declaring that none shall enter a Lodge or join in its labours unless he is "property clothed;" that is, wears the livery of the fraternity.
According to the authority of Stow, in his Survey of London, liveries are not mentioned as having been worn before the reign of
[1] "Essays on Archaeological Subjects," vol. ii., pp. 129‑2 50.
[2] Ibid., p. 136.
Edward I., or about the beginning of the 14th century.
That is, they were then first licensed at that time or mentioned in the characters of the Companies, but he admits that they had assumed them before that time without such authority.
And this is confirmed by the illuminated manuscripts to which allusion has been made above, which show that the Masons used a particular clothing as far back as the 10th century.
In the "Statute of Excommunications," passed in the beginning of the 14th century by the Council of Avignon, societies or confraternities are denounced which had been established for mutual aid, and which are described as "all wearing a similar dress with certain curious signs or marks."
About the middle of the 14th century there began a separation between the wealthier and the more indigent Companies, which ended after a long contention in the exclusion from the municipal government of all except what are now called "The Twelve Great Livery Companies," namely, the Companies of Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners, and Clothworkers.
These Companies, as distinguished by wealth, by political power and commercial importance from the minor Companies, which were often only voluntary associations of men of the same trade or craft, were called the "substantial companies," the "principal crafts," the "chief mysteries," and other similar titles which were intended to imply their superiority, though many of the so‑called " minor companies," as the weavers and bakers, were really of greater antiquity, of more public utility and importance.
Among these "minor companies," the one of especial importance to the present inquiry is the "Masons' Company."
Of this Company, Stow gives the following account in his Survey of London:
"The Masons, otherwise termed free masons, were a society of ancient standing and good reckoning, by means of affable and kind meetings divers times and as a loving brotherhood should use to do, did frequent their mutual assemblies in the time of King Henry IV. in the 12th year of whose most gracious reign they were incorporated."
A fuller account of the Company is given by Chiswell in the, New View of London, printed in 1708, in the following words:
"Masons' Company was incorporated about the year 1410 having been called the Free Masons, a fraternity of great account, who have been honoured by several Kings, and very many of the Nobility and Gentry being of their Society.
They are governed by a Master, 2 Wardens, 25 Assistants, and there are 65 on the Livery.
"Their armorial ensigns are, Azure, on a Chevron Argent, between 3 Castles Argent, a pair of Compasses, somewhat extended, of the first Crest, a Castle of the 2nd." [1]
The Hall of the Company, in which they held their meetings, was "situated in Masons Ally in Basinghall street as you pass to Coleman street." [2]
Maitland, who published his London and its Environs in 1761, gives a later date for the charter.
He says that "this Company had their arms granted by Clarencieux, King‑at‑Arms in 1477, though the members were not incorporated by letters patent till they obtained them from King Charles II. in 1677." [3]
The conflict in dates between Stow, with whom Chiswell agrees, and Maitland, the former ascribing the charter of the Company to Henry IV., in 1410, and the latter to Charles II., in 1677, may be reconciled by supposing that the original charter of Henry was submitted to a review and confirmation, which was technically caged an "inspeximus," an act which we constantly meet with in old charters.
In other words, the Masons first received a charter for their Company from Henry IV. in 1410, which charter was confirmed by Charles II. in 1677.
These Companies of traders and craftsmen were not confined to London, but were to be found in other cities.
The Masons, however, do not appear to have always maintained a separate organization, but seem sometimes to have united with other craftsmen.
Thus among the thirteen Companies which were incorporated in the city of Exeter, the thirteenth consisted of the Painters, Joiners, Carpenters, Masons, and Glaziers, who were jointly incorporated into a Company in 1602.
It may be remarked that all of these crafts were connected in the employment of building.
Each, however, had its separate arms, that of the Masons being described by Izacke in
[1] "New View of London," vol. ii., p. 611.
[2] Ibid [3] "London and its Environs," vol. iv., p.304
his Antiquities of Exeter thus: "Sable, on a chevron between 3 towers argent, a pair of Compasses, dilated Sable." [1] This will be an appropriate place to examine this subject of the Masonic Arms as historically connecting the Operative Craft with the Speculative Grand Lodge.
According to Stow, the Arms of the "Craft and Fellowship of Masons" of London were granted to them by William Hawkeslowe, Clarencieux King‑of‑Arms in the twelfth year of Edward IV., that is, in 1473, and were subsequently confirmed by Thomas Benott, Clarencieux King‑of‑Arms in the twelfth year of Henry VIII., or in 1521. These arms, which are blazoned in the original grant, now in the British Museum, are as follows: "Sable, on a chevron, engrailed argent between 3 castles of the second, with doors and windows of the field, a pair of compasses extended of the first." Translating the technical language of heraldry, the arms may be plainly described as a silver or white scalloped chevron, between three white castles with black doors and windows on a black field, and on the chevron a pair of compasses of a black colour.
Woodford says that these arms are supposed to have been adopted by the Grand Lodge of Speculative Masons in 1717. Kloss gives the same arms, except that the chevron is not scalloped (engrailed), but plain, as the seal of the Grand Lodge of England in 1743 and in 1767.
The arms adopted by the Grand Lodge of England at the union in 1813, and still used, consist of a combination of the old Operative arms (the colours being, however, changed) with those of the Athol Grand Lodge, which are impaled.
But as the latter arms were most probably an invention of Dermott, they are of no historical value.
From all this we see, so far as heraldry throws a light on history, that the English Speculative Masons have to the present day claimed to deduce their origin from the Operative Masons who were incorporated as a Company in the 15th century. They claimed to be their heirs, and according to the law of heraldry assumed their arms.
To assume the subject of the Masons' Companies, we have no records of the existence of those organizations under that name in more than a few places in England.
[1] "Remarkable Antiquities of the City of Exeter." By Richard Izacke, heretofore chamberlain thereof. Second edition, London, 1724, p. 68.
But the Masons seem often to combine with other Guilds for purposes of convenience.
Several instances of this kind occur in old records, as in an appendix to the charter of the Guild of Carpenters of Norwich, begun in 1375, where it is stated that "Robert of Elfynghem, Masoun, and certeyn Masouns of Norwiche " had contributed two torches or lights for the altar of Christ's Church at Norwich.
Now, as that church was the place where the Carpenters' Guild celebrated their mass, and as the fact of the contribution is noted in their charter, it is reasonable to suppose that the Masons, having no Guild or Company of their own in Norwich, had united in religious services with the carpenters.
The impossibility of obtaining any continuous narrative of the transactions of the Masons' Company, which was one of the forty companies of London mentioned by Stow, must render many of the deductions which may be drawn from certain portions of the Harleian MS. altogether conjectural.
The probability or correctness of the conjecture will have to be determined by the reason and judgment of the reader.
The Masonic public has in its possession at this day, and easily accessible by any student, some twenty or thirty documents printed from manuscripts ranging in date from the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 18th century. These documents are usually denominated "Masonic Constitutions." A very few of them were known to Dr. Anderson, and he has given inaccurate quotations from them in both of his editions of the Book of Constitutions.
But for the greater number, new until a recent period, to the world, we are indebted to the researches of Masonic archaeologists, by whose unpaid industry they have been unearthed, as we may say, from the shelves of the British Museum, from the archives of old Lodges, or from the libraries of private collectors.
But though we possess transcripts of these Constitutions correctly made from the original manuscripts, there is nothing on record to tell us by whom they were written, nor under what authority.
Internal evidence alone assures that they are all, except the first two, copies of some original not yet found, and that they contain the legend or traditionary history of Freemasonry which was believed and the laws and regulations which were obeyed by the Operative Masons who lived from the 15th to the 18th century, if not some centuries before.
To make any conjecture as to the source whence they have emanated and for what purpose they were written, we must recapitulate what little we know of the history of the Masons' Company of London.
The Masons' Company was incorporated, according to Chiswell, in the year 1410, or thereabouts, by King Henry IV., which charter was renewed by Charles II. in 1677, I suppose by an "inseximus" or confirmation of the original charter, as was usual.
But we know from the list contained in the records of the city of London, and published by Herbert, which has already been referred to, that in the year 1379, in the reign of Edward III., there were in London a company of Freemasons and a company of Masons, the former of which sent two and the latter four members to the Common Council of the city.
These two were wholly distinct from each other, but Stow tells us that at a subsequent period they united together and were merged into one Company.
What was the difference between these two Companies, is a question that will naturally be asked, and which can not very easily be answered.
My own conjecture, and it is merely a conjecture, though I think not an unplausible one, is that the Company of Freemasons was the representative in England of that body of Travelling Freemasons who had spread, under the auspices of the Church, over every country of Europe, and whose history will constitute hereafter an important portion of the present work; while the Company of Masons was the representative of the general body of the Craft in the kingdom, who had formed themselves into a Guild, Company, or Sodalily, just as the Mercers, the Grocers, the Tailors, the Painters, and other tradesmen and mechanics had done at the same period.
The two companies were, however, afterward merged into one, which retained the title of "The Company of Masons."
Each of the Trade and Craft Guilds or Companies kept a book in which was contained its ordinances and a record of its transactions. The language of these books was at first the Norman‑French; sometimes, says Herbert, intermixed with abbreviated Latin, or the old English of Chaucer's day.
Afterward, during the reign of Henry V., and by his influence, the ordinances were translated into the vernacular language of the period, and the books of the Companies were thereafter kept in English.
We find just such changes in the dialect of the old Masonic Constitutions from the archaic and, to unused ears, almost unintelligible style of the Halliwell poem to the modern English of the later manuscripts.
If the Masonic Company had an historian like Herbert, who would have given a detailed history of its transactions from its origin, as he has done in respect to the twelve Livery Companies of London, we should, I think, have had no difficulty in defining the true character of the Old Constitutions.
