THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS.
103
with a view to determining the sources whence these were derived. The earliest known extracts
"
or references to the " Old Charges
are to be found in Dr Plot's " History of Staffordshire,"
"
A.D. 1686 (40), and
The Constitutions of tlie Freemasons," by the Eev. James Anderson,
M.A. (afterwards D.D.), of A.D. 1723. The first complete typographical reproduction of a copy
"
of these " Old Charges
was " Printed and sold by J. Eoberts in Warwick Lane, mdccxxii."
This handsome
(44).
little tract
was evidently edited by one who was either a freemason or
favourably disposed towards the society, as the preface is laudatory of the aims of the fraternity,
and is the first distinctly masonic -work known that was issued for general sale. The pamphlet
"
(which was never authorised) appeared one year earlier than the premier Book of Constitu-
The resolution
empower "Bro. James Anderson, A.M., to digest the old Gothic
"
Constitutions, in a new and better method was agreed to by the Grand Lodge, held 29th September 1721, and on the 27th December following " 14 learned Brothers " were appointed to
examine the manuscript, who reported favourably on 25th March 1722, when the Grand
Master was desired " to order it to be printed." ^ The " New Book of Constitutions " was
tions."
submitted in print
addition of
"
to
to the
the ancient
members, 17th January 1723
manner
work could not have appeared before 1723
the
additional matter
is
to
be found in
tlie
and again approved, with the
(|),
of Constituting a Lodge,"
from which we
on the
may
infer that
page) as the
copies extant, paged consecutively with the former
(the year stated
and followed by some twenty more pages.^
I have already expressed my belief that the " Eoberts'
title
portion,
text of No. 11, so that
if
the latter was not
known
to
"
version (44) was based
Dr Anderson,
upon the
was
early last century, he
doubtless familiar with the former, but whether before or after the preparation of his work
cannot now be determined. The first extract is said to be made from " a certain Eecord of
Freemasons written in the Eeign of King Edward IV." (about a.d. 1475), and is in exact
conformity with no MS. extant,^ though in some respects it resembles the quotation (previously
noted) of Hargrove (41) and others, as it alludes to King Athelstan and his youngest son,
Prince
ment
Edwin
;
so far,
that the Prince
many MSS. confirm this excerpt. None, however, sanction the statesummoned the masons at York in " a General Lodge of which he was
do they recite aught about the " Laws of the Freemasons having
been seen and perused by our late sovereign King Henry VI." Possibly the latter information
was obtained from Dr Plot (chap. VIII.), but the former is well known to have been an
Grand Master"
(p.
33), neither
unwarrantable and pernicious interpolation. The second extract is almost word for word with
the concluding sentences of No. 2, except that the verbiage is modernised, and as we know
that such a version was exhibited to the Grand Lodge in 1721, by Grand Master Payne, there
1
From
°
The "General Regulations" inserted
in 1721.
the 2d edition (1738), pp. 113-115.
They were
work were first compiled by Mr George Payne in 1720, and approved
by Dr Anderson, but I apprehend it was tlie historical introduction and
a Freemason," for which the latter was mainly responsible.
in this
also subjected to revision
the arrangement of the " Charges of
'
Although Preston wrote so much later than Anderson, he quotes from this edition of the Constitutions (1723) in
and 1756, and faithfully follows the extract relative to the legend of King Athelstan and
Prince Edwin.
He gives a different version of its origin, nevertheless, ascribing it to "a record of the Society,
preference to those of 1738
.
said to have been in the possession of the famous Elias Ashmole, founder of the
destroyed, with other papers on the subject of masonry, at the Revolution
the original was destroyed,
"
Museum
(Illustrations of
seems that a copy was made in good time, otherwise
Though
stand how Preston became acquainted with its contents.
it
at Oxford,
.
.
and unfortunately
Masonry, edit. 1788, p. 182).
would be difficult to under-
it