princes, with rich presents of various kinds. He was loved, honoured, and admired by all the princes of Europe, who courted his friendship and alliance. He was a mild sovereign, a kind brother, and a true friend. The only blemish which historians find in his whole reign, is the supposed murder of his brother Edwin. This youth, who was distinguished for his virtues, having died two years before his brother, a false report was spread, of his being wrongfully put to death by him. But this is so improbable in itself, so inconsistent with the character of Athelstane, and indeed so slenderly attested, as to be undeserving a place in history.* the Grand Master and his Wardens at their head; it consisted of as many of the Fraternity at large as, being within a convenient distance, could attend, once or twice in a year, under the auspices of one general head, who was elected and installed at one of these meetings; and who, for the time being, received homage as the sole governor of the whole body. The idea of confining the privileges of Masonry, by a warrant of constitution, to certain individuals convened on certain days at certain places, had then no existence. There was but one family among Masons, and every Mason was a branch of that family. It is true, the privileges of the different degrees of the Order always centred in certain members of the Fraternity; who, according to their advancement in the Art, were authorized by the ancient charges to assemble in, hold, and rule Lodges, at their will and discretion, in such places as best suited their convenience, and when so assembled, to receive pupils and deliver instructions in the Art; but all the tribute from these individuals, separately and collectively, rested ultimately in the General Assembly; to which all the Fraternity might repair, and to whose award all were bound to pay submission. * The excellent writer of the life of King Athelstane* has given so clear and so perfect a view of this event, that the reader cannot receive greater satisfaction than in that author's own words: "The business of Edwin's death is a point the most obscure in the story of this king; and to say the truth, not one even of our best historians hath written clearly, or with due attention, concerning it. The fact, as commonly received, is this: The king, suspecting his younger brother, Edwin, of designing to deprive him of his crown, caused him, notwithstanding his protestations of innocency, to be put on board a leaky ship, with his armour-bearer and page. The young prince, unable to bear the severity of the weather Biog. Brit. vol. i. p. 63. 1st. edit. The activity and princely conduct of Edwin qualified him, in every respect, to preside over the Masons, who were employed under him in repair and want of food, desperately drowned himself. Some time after, the king's cup-bearer, who had been the chief cause of this act of cruelty, happened, as he was serving the king at table, to trip with one foot, but recovering himself with the other, 'See,' said he, pleasantly, how brothers afford each other help; which striking the king with the remembrance of what himself had done, in taking off Edwin, who might have helped him in his wars, he caused that business to be more thoroughly examined; and finding his brother had been falsely accused, caused his cup-bearer to be put to a cruel death, endured himself seven years' sharp penance, and built the two monasteries of Middleton and Michelness, to atone for this base and bloody fact."* Dr. Howel, speaking of this story, treats it as if very indifferently founded, and, on that account, unworthy of credit. Simeon of Durbam and the Saxon Chronicle say no more than that Edwin was drowned by his brother's command in the year 933. Brompton places it in the first, or, at farthest, in the second year of his reign; and he tells us the story of the rotten ship, and of his punishing the cup-bearer.§ William of Malmsbury, who is very circumstantial, says, he only tells us what he heard ; but Matthew the Flower-gatherer stamps the whole down as an indubitable truth. Yet these discordant dates are not to be accounted for. If he was drowned in the second, he could not be alive in the tenth year of the king; the first is the more probable date, because about that time there certainly was a conspiracy against king Athelstane, in order to dethrone him, and put out his eyes; yet he did not put the author of it to death; is it likely, then, that he should order his brother to be thrown into the sea upon bare suspicion? But the reader must remember, that we cite the same historians who have told us this story, to prove that Athelstane was unanimously acknowledged king, his brethren being too young to govern: one would think, then, that they could not be old enough to conspire. If we take the second date, the whole story is destroyed; the king could not do seven years' penance, for he did not live so long; and as for the tale of the cup-bearer, and his stumbling at the king's table, the same story is told of Earl Godwin, who murdered the brother of Edward the Confessor. Lastly, nothing is clearer from history, than that Athelstane was remarkably kind to his brothers and sisters, for whose sakes he lived single, and therefore his brother had less temptation to conspire against him. Speed's Chronicle, book vii. chap. 38. Simeon Dunelm. p. 154. Chron. Saxon. p. 111. De Gest. R. A. lib. ii. Matth. Florileg. ing and building many churches and superb edifices, which had been destroyed by the ravages of the Danes, and other invaders, not only in the city of York, but at Beverley, and other places. in On the death of Edwin, Athelstane undertook person the direction of the Lodges; and under his sanction the Art of Masonry was propagated in peace and security. When Athelstane died, the Masons dispersed, and the Lodges continued in a very unsettled state till the reign of Edgar in 960; when the Fraternity were again collected by St. Dunstan, under whose auspices they were employed on some pious structures; but it does not appear that they met with any permanent encouragement. After Edgar's death, Masonry remained in a low condition upwards of fifty years. In 1041, it revived under the patronage of Edward the Confessor, who superintended the execution of several great works. He rebuilt Westminster Abbey, assisted by Leofrick Earl of Coventry, whom he appointed to superintend the Masons. The Abbey of Coventry, and many other structures, were finished by this accomplished architect. William the Conqueror having acquired the crown of England in 1066, he appointed Gundulph Bishop of Rochester, and Roger de Montgomery Earl of Shrewsbury, joint patrons of the Masons, who at this time excelled both in civil and military architecture. Under their auspices the Fraternity were employed in building the Tower of London, which was completed in the reign of William Rufus, who rebuilt London-bridge with wood, and first constructed the palace and hall of Westminster in 1087. On the accession of Henry I. the Lodges continued to assemble. From this prince, the first Magna Charta, or charter of liberties, was obtained by the Normans. Stephen succeeded Henry in 1135, and employed the Fraternity in building a chapel at Westminster, now the House of Commons, and several other works. These were finished under the direction of Gilbert de Clare Marquis of Pembroke, who at this time presided over the Lodges. During the reign of Henry II. the Grand Master of the Knights Templars superintended the Masons, and employed them in building their Temple in Fleet-street, A. D. 1155. Masonry continued under the patronage of this order till the year 1199, when John succeeded his brother Richard on the throne of England. Peter de Colechurch was then appointed Grand Master. He began to rebuild London-bridge with stone, which was afterwards finished by William Alcmain in 1209. Peter de Rupibus succeeded Peter de Colechurch in the office of Grand Master, and Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, chief surveyor of the king's works, acted as his deputy. Under the auspices of these two artists, Masonry flourished in England during the remainder of this and the following reign. SECT. III. History of Masonry in England, during the Reigns of Henry III. Edward I. Edward II. Edward III. Richard II. Henry IV. Henry V. and Henry VI. ON the accession of Edward I. A. D. 1272, the care of the Masons was entrusted to Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York; Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester; and Ralph, Lord of Mount Hermer, the progenitor of the family of the Montagues. These architects superintended the finishing of Westminster Abbey, which had been begun in 1220, during the minority of Henry III. The collegiate chapel of Westminster, in honour of St. Stephen, was begun to be rebuilt by king Edward; at which the Masons were employed more than two years. * That the building of this chapel was completed we are not informed; but we learn from Stowe, that a great fire broke out in the lesser hall of the royal palace at Westminster, which communicated to the adjoining monastery, and consumed the whole. It does not appear that the building was restored during this reign; as the wars in Scotland in which the king was engaged, did not allow him leisure to renew his labours; nor had he sufficient wealth to carry on such a work. In the reign of Edward II. the Fraternity were employed in building Exeter and Oriel Colleges, Oxford; Clare-hall, Cambridge; and many other structures; under the auspices of Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, who had been appointed Grand Master in 1307. Masonry flourished in England during the reign of Edward III., who became the patron of science, and the encourager of learning. He applied with indefatigable assiduity to the Constitutions of the Order; revised and meliorated the Ancient * In the Exchequer rolls is preserved a curious account of the expenses incurred on that occasion. It appears, that the daily pay of the carpenters was 5d.: that of the other workmen 34d., 3d., and 24d. Although the weekly expenses were but trifling, the amount of the whole was considerable. Thomas of Canterbury, Master Mason, is supposed to have been the principal architect; and Hugh de St. Albans, and John de Cotton, were the chief painters, and had the highest wages, viz., a shilling a day.-EDITOR. 1 |