and regulations of the fraternity, as collected from their ancient records. These facts are contained in a record written in the reign of his successor, Edward IV. and confirmed by a manuscript in King Henry's own hand-writing, which is familiar to every person who has studied the history of our order*. This manuscript consists of questions and answers concerning the nature and tendency of Free Masonry, and seems to be the result of the King's examination of some of the brethren before he became a member of the fraternity. It was first procured from the Bodleian library by the celebrated Mr Locke, who transmitted it to the Earl of Pembroke, with several excellent explanatory notes †. In the title

of

* We have hitherto been careful to bring forward no facts upon the sole evidence of the records, or the opinions of Free Masons; such evidence, indeed, can never satisfy the minds of the uninitiated public. But when these records contain facts, the fabrication of which could be of no service to the fraternity, they may, in this case, be entitled to credit; or, when facts which do reflect honour upon the order, are confirmed by evidence from another quarter, the authority of the record entitles them to a still greater degree of credit. With respect to the facts mentioned in the text, we have not merely the authority of the record and manuscript alluded to, but we have proof that there was no collusion in the case; for the record is mentioned in the book of Constitutions by Dr Anderson, who had neither seen nor heard of the manuscript.

This manuscript was first printed at Franckfort in 1748, and afterwards reprinted in the London and Gentleman's Magazines for 1753. It may be seen in the lives of Leland,

Hearne

of the manuscript, it is said to have been faithfully copied from the hand-writing of King Henry VI. by John Leland, antiquarian, who, according to Mr Locke, was the celebrated antiquary of that name who lived in the sixteenth century, and was appointed by King Henry VIII. at the dissolution of monasteries, to search for, and save such books as were worthy of preservation. As this manuscript was originally printed at Frankfort, I was led to enquire what grounds there were for believing that the explanatory notes, and the letter to the Earl of Pembroke which accompany it, were the production of Mr Locke. But I found that this had been uniformly taken for granted by every writer upon the subject, though the circumstance is not mentioned in the folio edition of Mr Locke's works. The style of the letter, however, and the accuteness of the annotations, resemble so much that philosopher's manner of writing, and the letter is so descriptive of Mr Locke's real situation at the time when it was written, that it is almost impossible to deny their authenticity. In the letter itself, which is dated 6th May 1696, Mr Locke remarks that he composed the notes for the sake of Lady Masham, who was become very fond of masonry, and that the manuscript had so much excited his own curiosity, that he was determin

ed

Hearne, and Wood, 8vo. Oxford, 1772, vol. 1. pp. 96, 104. Appendix, No viii.; in Preston's Illustrations of Masonry, p. 110. and in Dermott's Ahiman Rezon, p. xlv

N

ed to enter into the fraternity the next time he went to London, which, he adds, will be very soon. Now Mr Locke was at this time residing at Oates, the country seat of Sir Francis Masham, as appears from one of his letters to Mr Molyneux, which is dated Oates, March 30th, 1696; and it appears, that he actually went to London a short time after the sixth of May; for another letter to the same gentleman is dated, London, 2d July 1696*. Notwithstanding these facts, Dr Plot maintains that Free Masonry was not patronised by King Henry VI. † and that those who have supported a different opinion, were ignorant of the laws and chronicles of their own country. Dr Plot may have been a good chemist and natural historian, but when our readers hear upon what foundation he has established his opinion, they will agree with us in thinking that he was a bad logician. He observes, that an act was passed in the king's minority, prohibiting all general assemblies and chapters of Free Masons, and that as this act was not repealed till 1562, by 5th Elizabeth, cap. 4. it was impossible that Free Masonry could be patronised in the same reign in which it was prohibited. The fact is, that the act was not repealed by 5th Elizabeth, cap. 4. which does not contain a single word about Free Masons. If Dr Plot's argument, therefore, proves any thing, it would prove that Free Masonry

* Locke's Works, folio, vol. 3.

+ Natural History of Staffordshire, cap. viii. p. 318.

has

has not been patronised since the reign of Henry VI. for that act has never yet been repealed. But supposing that it was repealed, the prohibitory statute in Henry's reign might never have been put in execution, as very often happens; and Dr Plot himself remarks, that the act 5th Elizabeth was not observed. It is plain, therefore, that instead of being impossible, it is highly probable that King Henry patronised the fraternity. When they were persecuted by his parliament, he was only three years of age, and could neither approve, nor disapprove of its sentence; and it was very natural, when he came to the years of maturity, that he should undo a deed which his parliament had dishonourably done.

WHILE Free Masonry was flourishing in England under the auspices of Henry VI. it was at the same time patronised, in the sister kingdom, by King James I. By the authority of this monarch, every Grand-Master who was chosen by the brethren, either from the nobility or clergy, and approved of by the crown, was entitled to an annual revenue of four pounds Scots from each master mason, and likewise to a fee at the initiation of every new member. He was empowered to adjust any differences that might arise among the brethren, and to regulate those affairs, connected with the fraternity, which it was improper to bring under the cognizance of the courts of law. The Grand-Master, also, appointed deputies or wardens, N 2

who

who resided in the chief towns of Scotland, and managed the concerns of the order, when it was inconvenient to appeal to the Grand-Master himself *.

IN the reign of James II. Free Masonry was by no means neglected. The office of Grand Master was granted by the crown to William St Clair, Earl of Orkney and Caithness, Baron of Roslin, and founder of the much admired chapel of Roslin. On account of the attention which this nobleman paid to the interests of the order, and the rapid propagation of the royal art under his administration, King James II. made the office of Grand-Master hereditary to his heirs and successors, in the barony of Roslin; in which family it continued till the institution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The Barons of Roslin, as hereditary Grand-Masters of Scotland, held their principal annual meetings at Kilwinning, the birth place of Scotish Masonry, while the lodge of that village granted constitutions, and charters of erection to those brethren of the order, who were anxious that regular lodges should be formed in different parts of the kingdom. These lodges all held of the lodge of Kilwinning; and, in token of their respect and submission, joined to their own name, that of their mother lodge, from whom they derived their existence as a corporation t.

See Appendix, No II.

+ Such as Canongate Kilwinning, &c.

DURING