THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS.
museums have been
public
searched in vain."
It
was republished
Mr
in
75
" Old
Spencer's edition of the
Its title,
Constitutions," 1871, and also separately by that indefatigable masonic collector and student.
and sold by J. Roberts in War\rick-Lane, mdccxii. ") is "THE OLD CONSTITUTIONS Belonging
("Printed
to the Ancient and Honodeable SOCIETY of Free and accepted MASONS Taken from a Manuscript wrote
Hundred Years
ahove Five
modest price asked
As
it
for a
Since."
The claim
for its great antiquity
was scarcely commensurate with the
copy of the publication in 1722, and I need hardly say, was not
justified.
printed pamphlet for general sale on Freemasonry, and typographically one of the best issued,
has a special value quite apart from its alleged age, and particularly as it preceded the first " Book of
the
first
Constitutions" of the premier Grand Lodge by one year. The preface is chiefly an apology for the existence
"
of the Society of Freemasons, in which it is stated that none of the Persons of Honour who have lately grac'd
the Society with their Presence, have yet seen any Reason to be asham'd of them, or to withdraw their
Protection from them," therefore it seems probable that the tract was edited by some one who was at least weU
acquainted with, if not a member of, the fraternity.
" It has
yet seen the World but in Fragments, but
The
conclusion also suggests the aim of the publisher, viz.,
together as a Thing of too much Significancy to
our Observation, and which will effectually vindicate the Ancient Society of Freemasons from all that
pass
has or can be said against them."
The writer does not inform us of what the " fragments " consisted, unless, indeed, he refers to a portion of
the legendary history not peculiar to the society.
" Roberts" version a
I have no hesitation in terming the
reproduction, or a counterpart, of No. 11, not only
from the fact that there is not another MS. which so resembles it, but also because the dUIerences are so trivial in
is
now put
the text, and the additions so evidently of an editorial character, that the proofs of such an origin are irrefragable.
Woodford and Hughan both concur in this view. The 13th rule of No. 11 is omitted (apparently a clerical
'
error), but is supplied in No. 44 (it is, however, common to most MSS., and will be generally recognisable in
The 21st rule of the one is divided into two in the other, and after
15, Clause 2, of the Special Charges).
the 26th (the whole of the rules being numbered consecutively from the first), the obligation is inserted in
No. 44, as well as at the end, the latter only being in No. 11.
Then, again, the ten separate rules entitled
" This
to Apprentices," ^ which immediately follow in the former, come after " The New
Charge belongeth
Articles " in the latter, but it only de