483 
MASONRY, 
docs not contain a Angle word about free mafons. If 
Dr. Plot’s argument, therefore, proves any thing, it would 
prove that free mafonry has not been patronifed- fince the 
reign of Henry VI. for that aEl has never yet been repealed. 
That free mafonry was introduced into Scotland by 
thofe architects who built the abbey of Kilwinning, is 
manifeft, not only from thofe authentic documents, by 
which the exiftence of the Kilwinning Lodge has been 
traced back as far as the end of the 15th century, but by 
other collateral arguments, which amount almoft to a de- 
monftration. In every country wdiere the temporal and 
Spiritual jurifdiCtion of the pope was acknowledged, there 
was a continual demand, particularly during the 12th 
century, for religious ftruCtures, and confequently for 
operative mafons, proportionate to the piety of the inha¬ 
bitants, and the opulence of their eccle(ia(tical eltablilh- 
ment; and there was no kingdom in Europe where the 
zeal of the inhabitants for popery was more ardent than 
in Scotland, where the kings and nobles w>ere more libe¬ 
ral to the clergy, and where, of confequence, the church 
was more richly endowed. The demand, therefore, for 
elegant cathedrals and ingenious artifts mult have been 
proportionably greater than in other countries ; and that 
demand could be fupplied only from the trading alfocia- 
tion on the continent. When we confider, in addition to 
thefe fails, that this affociation monopolifed the building 
of religious ftruitures in Chriftendom; we are authorised 
to conclude, that thofe numerous and elegant ruins, which 
{till adorn the villages of Scotland, were erebted by fo¬ 
reign mafons, who introduced into thisifland the cultoms 
of their order. 
After the eftabli.ffiment of the Kilwinning and York 
lodges, the principles of free mafonry were rapidly dif- 
fufed throughout both kingdoms, and feveral lodges were 
ereited in different parts ot the ifland. As all thefe de¬ 
rived their exiftence and authority from the two mother- 
lodges, they were likewife under their jurifdiition and 
controul; and when any differences arofe, that were con¬ 
nected with the art of building, they were referred to the 
general meetings of the fraternity, which were always 
held at Kilwinning and York. 
While this art was flourifhing in England under the 
aufpices of Henry VI. it was at the fame time patronifed, 
in the filter kingdom, by king James I. By the authority 
of this monarch, every grand mafter who was chofen by 
the brethren, either from the nobility or clergy, and ap¬ 
proved of by the crown, was entitled to an annual revenue 
of four pounds Scots from each mafter mafon, and like¬ 
wife to a fee at the initiation of every new member. He 
was empowered to adjuit any differences that might arife 
among the brethren, and to regulate thofe affairs, con¬ 
nected with the fraternity, which it was improper to bring 
under the cognifance of the courts of law. The grand 
mafter alfo appointed deputies or wardens, who refined in 
the chief towns of Scotland, and managed the concerns 
of the order, w hen it was inconvenient to appeal to the 
grand matter himfelf. 
In the reign of James II. free mafonry was by no means 
neglected. The office of grand mafter was granted by the 
crown to William St. Clair, earl of Orkney and Caithnefs, 
baron of Roflin, and founder of the much-admired chapel 
of Roflin. On account of the attention which this noble¬ 
man paid to the interefts of the order, and the rapid pro¬ 
pagation of the royal art under his adrniniltration, king 
James II. made the office of grand mafter hereditary to 
his heirs and fuccelfors in the barony of Roflin; in which 
family it continued till the inftitution of the Grand Lodge 
of Scotland. The barons of Roflin, in the capacity of 
hereditary grand mafters, held their principal annual meet¬ 
ings at Kilwinning, the birth-place of Scottilh mafonry ; 
while the lodge of that village granted conltitutions and 
charters of ereClion to thole brethren of the order who 
were anxious that regular lodges fhould be formed in dif¬ 
ferent parts of the kingdom. Thefe lodges all held of the 
Lodge of Kilwinning; and, in token ot their refpeCt and 
fubmiffion, joined to their own name that of their mo¬ 
ther-lodge, from whom they derived their exiftence as a 
corporation. 
During the reigns cf the fucceeding Scottiffi nionarchs, 
free mafonry ftill flourifhed, though very little informa¬ 
tion can t>e procured -refpeCting the flute of the fraternity. 
In the privy-leal book of Scotland, however, there is a 
letter dated at Holyrood Houfe, 25th September, 1590, 
and granted by king James VI. “ to Patrick Copland of 
Udaught, for ufing and exercifing the office of wardanrls 
over the art and craft of Mafonrie, over all the boundis 
of Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine, to had wardan and 
juftice courts within the faid boundis, and there to mi- 
nilter juftice.” This letter confirms what has already 
been faid concerning the ftate of mafonry in Scotland. It 
proves.beyond difpute, that the kings of Scotland nomi¬ 
nated the office-bearers of the order; that thefe provincial 
mafters, or wardens as they were then called, adminiftered 
juftice in every difpute which concerned the “ art and 
craft of mafonrie;” that lodges were eftabliihed in all 
parts of Scotland, even in thofe remote and at that time 
uncivilized counties of Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine; 
and it completely overturns the unfounded affertion of 
Dr. Robifon, who maintains (Proofs of a Co.nfpiracy,p. 21.) 
that the celebrated antiquary Elias Afhmole, who was ini¬ 
tiated in 164.6, is the only diftinct and unequivocal iri- 
ftance of a perlon being admitted into the fraternity who 
was not an architect by profeffion. 
The minutes of St. Mary’s Chapel, which is the oldeft 
lodge in Edinburgh, extend as far back as the year 159S ; 
but, as they contain only the ordinary proceedings of the 
lodge, we can derive from them little information refpect- 
ing the cuftoms and condition of the fraternity. It ap¬ 
pears, however, from thefe minutes, that Thomas Bofwell, 
efq. of Auchinleck, was made a warden of the lodge in 
the year 1600; and that the honourable Robert Moray, 
quarter-mafter-general to the army iu Scotland, was created 
a mafter mafon in 164.1. Thefe fads are deferving of no¬ 
tice; as they ffiow, in oppofition to Dr. Robifon, that per- 
fons were early admitted into the order, who were not 
architects by profeffion. 
When James VI. afeended the throne of England, he 
feems to have neglc-Cted his l ight of nominating the office¬ 
bearers of the craft. In Hay’s manufeript in the advo¬ 
cates’library, there are two charters granted by the Scottiffi 
mafons, appointing the Sinclairs of Roflin their hereditary 
grand mafters. The firft of thefe is without a date, but 
figned by feveral mafons, who appoint William St. Clair 
of Roflin, his heirs and fucceffors, their “ patrons and 
judges.” The other is, in fome meafure, a ratification of 
the firft, and dated 1630, in which they appoint fir William 
St. Clair of Roflin, his heirs and fucceffors, to be their 
“ patrons, proteCtors, and overfeers, in all time coming.” 
In the firlt of thefe deeds, which feems to have been 
written a little after the union of the crowns, it is ltated, 
that for fome years the want of a protedor had engendered 
many corruptions among the mafons, and had conlidera- 
bly retarded the progrefs of the craft; and that the ap¬ 
pointment of William Sinclair, efq. was with the advice 
and confent of William Shaw, matter of work to his ma- 
jefty. After prefiding over the order for many years, 
William St. Clair went to Ireland, where he continued a 
confiderable time ; and, in confequence of his departure, 
the fecond charter was granted to his Ion fir William St. 
Clair, inverting him with the fame powers which his father 
enjoyed. It deferves alfo to be remarked, that in both 
thefe deeds, the appointment of William Sinclair, earl of 
Orkney and Caithnefs, to the office of grand mafter, by- 
James II. of Scotland, is fpoken of as a fail well known, 
and univerfally admitted. Thefe obfervations will fet in 
a clear point of view what mult hitherto have appeared a 
great inconfiltency in the hiftory of Scottilh mafonry. In 
the deed by which William Sinclair, efq. of Rollin, re- 
figned the office of hereditary grand matter in 1736, it is 
Hated, that his anceltors, William and fir William St. Clair 
3 of 
