of all the before mentioned improvements, and indeed of all others, except sensual gratifications, and that adoration which nature inspires, the Great Grand Royal Arch High Priest and Grand King, Solomon, was most profoundly ignorant.

But, Mr President, one word as to their real antiquity. Of this we find scarcely any vestige. Through the darkness which covers their mischievous and detestable ancestry, there breaks out here and there a recorded crime or execution, to show that such a race has existed.

In 1424, or 5, an edict of the British government, applying, as I think, to speculative Masons, though some of them might be operative too, denounced their order as guilty, and inflicted the punishment of death on some of their principal leaders; and fine and imprisonment on all that followed them. In latter days, the sudden and unaccountable death of Alexander of Russia, soon after issuing an edict to suppress those infamous assemblies, has marked another epocha in their history.

Mr OLIVER, of Lynn, spoke at considerable length on the character of the Masonic institution. He alluded to the extravagant panegyric bestowed on it by its orators and votaries, its highwrought claims to antiquity and moral excellence, and to the passive submission with which it had been received by the world. He stated that for a long time, he paid but little attention to the growing opposition against it, nor to the alleged disclosures of its ceremonies and oaths. But when individuals of his own acquaintance who belonged to the society had assured him of the truth of these disclosures, he had investigated the subject, and been convinced that the institution was not deserving of public support. He concluded with an impressive appeal to Christian ministers, who, leaving the open and cheerful daylight of the Gospel, were groping for more light in the dark and gloomy caverns of Masonry.

The Committee on the truth of the disclosures of Free Masonry, made a report.* On motion for its acceptance, Mr Bow MAN, of Cambridge, moved an amendment of that part of the Report which stated, the body of William Morgan had been sunk in Niagara river. He had seen no positive evidence of this fact. He thought nothing should proceed from this body, which was not capable of being fully substantiated, by direct and unimpeachable evidence. He understood the subject was now before legal tribunals in New York, and it did not become us to interfere, and prejudge the case. Whatever might be the conviction of individuals, as no legal decision had yet been made, it was not advisable for this convention to make any statements which were not supported by positive testimony.

Mr HENRY D. WARD was in favor of adopting the report as it stood. He entertained no doubt that the body of Morgan had been sunk in the river, as alleged. He spoke in high and bon

* Doings of the Convention, page 4.

orable terms of E. Giddins, with whom he had conversed on this subject. Mr G. had the care of Morgan during the first part of his confinement in the magazine of the Fort. In common with several others of the fraternity, he once started for the Fort, for the express purpose of inflicting the penalties of Masonry on Morgan. Before they reached the place, Giddins and another fell back, and refused to proceed. His partiality for the institution began to weaken from this moment, when he found it was leading him to the destruction of human life. His scruples brought him into a dispute with Col. King, one of the party, and he gave up to him the key of the magazine. Finding they were determined to go on with their inhuman work, and fearing to be implicated in the catastrophe, he made business which took him away into Canada, for a few days. When he came home on the 20th his family told him that his ferry-boat had been made use of the night before. The men in whose clutches he had left Morgan, gave him to understand, in the most significant terms, that he had been destroyed. He shrunk from hearing particulars, for he felt the information might be perilous to himself, and unsafe to them. He was directed by them, to walk the shore of the lake, mornings, to watch whether the body floated ashore. Whilst the people afterwards were raking the river, these masons were in the utmost consternation and alarm. They were continually on the shore, watching the result of the labor. A high mason came to him, and told him [G.] to be on the alert, saying with great energy, they'll find that damned carcase yet.' Mr W. mentioned a great number of facts and circumstances, which left not the shadow of a doubt in his mind, that Morgan had been sunk in Niagara river, on the night of the 19th of September, 1826.

Mr S. D. GREENE, of Boston, (formerly of Batavia, N. Y.) followed in support of the Report, and spoke at some length, giving other circumstances which went to prove the fact alleged.

Mr MORTON, of Milton, (who drafted the report) observed that as unanimity of opinion was desirable in this case, the expression of a single dissent, to a part of the report was sufficient for him to yield his own views; and he consented to the amend

ment.

The amendment was then unanimously agreed to.

Mr WARD then spoke of the truth of the disclosures of Free Masonry as far as his personal knowledge extended. He had taken three degrees, and the work of Morgan was a fair and complete revelation of what he had taken. He alluded to the question so often asked, why seceders remained so long in the society before they discovered its corruption and withdrew. He said many joined it with the solemn belief that the institution had been patronised by Moses and Enoch, by Solomon and Noah, by the holy St John, and all the great and good men since. Masonic orators and historians had said that it came from God, and that it was the foundation of all religion. Individuals joined it with exalted prepossessions in its favor. They could not presume to

judge and condemn in an instant what had beca lauded by so many scholars and divines before them. The oaths were not written; they were delivered to them word by word; they swore to them by peace-meal, and knew not what they did till all was done. In fact, they relied on the description of others for the character of the institution, and never examined it themselves. When they found they had been imposed on, and that Masonry was corrupt and corrupting, they withdrew, and raised their voice to warn others. Had such a voice been heard before, they might not have been deluded into the snare.

Rev. Mr THACHER, of Wrentham, could attest to the correctness of the disclosures to the seventh, or Royal Arch degree, which he had taken. He considered the oaths of Masonry neither legally, religiously, nor morally binding, because they were illegal, irreligious, and immoral in themselves. He alluded to the blasphemous personification of Jehovah in the burning bush, and entered at some length into a description of the oaths and ceremonies of the seven degrees he had taken. The Report* was then unanimously accepted.

THURSDAY MORNING, DEC. 31. The Convention met according to adjournment. Prayers were offered by the Rev. PETER SANBORN of Reading.

The Committee on the Antiquity of Speculative Free Masonry, made a Report. On motion of its acceptance

Mr HOBART, of Leicester, conceived that a Report of this nature, containing important facts, ought not to be hurried through the Convention; and if it was in order he would move that its further consideration should be referred to a future hour, in order that we might deliberate and act with deliberation upon it. He moved its further consideration be postponed till 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Dr PHELPS, of Boston, thought an earlier period was preferable. There was much business before the Convention, and the time was short. Many members were a great distance from their homes and it was inconvenient to hold a long session. He wished to proceed with all the despatch which the nature of the case would admit. He was therefore in favor of one o'clock, this day; which hour was afterwards agreed upon.

The Committee on the State of the Public Press made a Report. On motion for its acceptance, Mr SIMONDS, of Boston wished to have the names of those editors who refused to publish information on this subject. The public expected newspapers to be the fair and faithful chronicles of the times, and if there were papers, which suppressed information important to the communi

See Proceeding of the Convention, p. 4.

ty, the fact should be generally known, and the names of the publishers given. He had no wish to injure the feelings or interests of any individual connected with the press, neither did he think the public should suffer injury by the suppression of facts which strongly affected their interests and rights. He hoped the names of papers would be given, whose editors had been applied to, to publish information on this subject, and who had refused; and he made a motion to that effect.

MR WALKER, of Boston, did not wish that any such invidious distinctions should be taken. He portrayed the delicate situation in which editors and publishers were placed, and gave some forcible reasons why such a course was not expedient.

MR SIMONDS replied that if the fact were true that the press was muzzled, the public ought to know it; and also by whom it was done.

MR HOBART, of Leicester, hoped the motion would not prevail. Printers of newspapers were under the necessity of relying on the patronage of those who supported their presses. They must watch the feelings of their subscribers, and they could not with prudence hazard the excitement which an unpleasant developement might make. The time would come when they might express their sentiments on this subject without fear and without injury; but that period had not yet arrived. It was too early to censure these individuals, these editors, and to mark them out in distinguished lines. To do it now was premature; it was bad policy.

MR WHITNEY, of Boston, thought that 'sentinels on the watchtowers of liberty,' as editors had been called, should not be deterred from doing their duty. After the garrison had driven the foe from their gates, there was not much merit in sounding an alarm. It should be heard at the approach of the enemy, and not after the battle was fought.

He, however, was not disposed to ask for names at this time, as a perfect list could not be obtained. The country presses were locked as close on this subject as those of the metropolis; and it might appear invidious to publish the names of a few, and omit those of many who were equally obnoxious to censure; for if the disclosures of masonry were true, the interests of the community must suffer by their suppression. It was a fact, that a great majority of the public presses in this city, were conducted by masons;-men who had sworn not to write, print, paint, nor engrave the secrets of masonry, on anything moveable or immoveable under the canopy of heaven, whereby they may become legible or intelligible to themselves or to any others in the known world.' This all masons swear in their first oath. Now if such editors consider the masonic oath binding, they, of course, will not consent to break it by publishing information on this subject, and if they did, they would commit perjury, in his view, just as much as those masons who take other methods of disclosing these

secrets. When the nature and tendency of masonic oaths were generally understood, together with the improper and deceptive manner in which they are administered, editors would not feel so shackled as they do at present. They swear not only never to reveal, but ‘ever to conceal' the secrets of masonry. In order to conceal what is already disclosed, they have to suppress, and refuse to publish facts which many of their patrons are interested in knowing. All editors, therefore, who are masons, and who consider their oaths binding, must be presumed as acting under a sense of masonic duty in suppressing information and perverting facts which go to expose the hidden things of their order. To publish their names, might be visiting on their heads, the censure which belongs to the institution. We sought not to injure individuals; our efforts were directed towards the destruction of an institution whose secret principles we believed to be corrupt, and whose power we considered dangerous.

MR RICE, of Northborough, would offer another reason why no sweeping censure should be made against the conductors of the press. Some papers never admitted the discussion of religion in their columns; others never took a decided ground, but abjured politics - many were free for both. From the latter, the public had means for information, and from these there was a sufficient avenue to enlighten the public. He did not wish to do anything which might appear like proscription in any case. He thought the press ought to be left wholly free to publish what it pleased, and the public also should be left free to patronize whom it pleased. There were several religious papers in Boston, which noticed nothing but religious matters; the conductors of these papers might not be aware of the bearing which masonry had on religion, and therefore have omitted to allude to the subject. He should be sorry to do anything which might have a tendency to diminish the circulation of such papers. He thought, however, that they should publish an abridged statement of the masonic disclosures, and of the doings of the people, in the same manner that they described the progress of Temperance Societies, Lyceums, &c. These matters, in his view, did not nearer affect religion than Anti-Masonry did.

Mr AMASA WALKER, of Boston, remarked, that he considered the subject now before the Convention, (the report on the state of the Public Press,) the most important that would be presented to their attention, and he hoped it would draw forth a full discussion. It was one of the great objects of the meeting, and was second to none in its practical consequences. The report assumes the position, that Masonry does exert an undue influence over the public press. Mr W. said he need not use an argument to convince the gentlemen of this Convention that the position was true. It was well known to all, but there might be some within the sound of his voice, who might not be equally satisfied on this point, but he believed that the fact would be apparent to every man, if he would for a moment reflect on the