IN order to ascertain what is the real tendency and end of Freemasonry, it will be necessary to clear the way by a brief examination of the Landmarks, which denote certain standard principles in the general laws, usages, customs, and language of the Order, and were originally established by our ancient Brethren to preserve its identity, and prevent innovation. It has ever been considered essential to the integrity of Masonry that they should remain intact, because, if its leading tenets were subject to periodical changes at the will and pleasure of the Fraternity in every successive generation, its distinctive character, in process of time, might perchance be destroyed; in which case the institution would be denuded of all its fixed and determinate principles. It was fenced round with Landmarks, therefore, to preserve its integrity, and prevent the introduction of unauthorized novelties, which would affect its peculiar claims to consideration in the eye of the world.

In a disquisition on the rise and progress of Freemasonry, it is usual to trace it by means of certain presumed Landmarks through the dark ages, including the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, particularizing the era of the Dionysiacs, who built the Temple of Solomon, and the Collegiae Fabiorum, both of which were strictly operative; and after noticing the establishment of a Speculative Grand Lodge at York in the tenth century, the theorists proceed to the presumed institution of what is termed on the Continent of Europe the rite of Ecossais, or the Order of H.R.D.M., the origin of which, from tolerably correct evidence, is assigned to King Robert Bruce, as the consummation of the battle of Bannock Burn, which was fought on St. John's Day, 1314. In the course of this inquiry the fable of Osiris and other practices of the heathen mysteries are incidentally mentioned, together with the traditional period when religious rites were first introduced as a speculative feature in the operative Craft.

The genuine Landmarks of Masonry, however, are of a different character, and are susceptible of division into twelve distinct classes, which may be arranged under the following heads

1. ELEMENTARY as in the opening and closing, the preparation and admission of a candidate, the ballot 

2. INDUCTIVE as in the badge, meeting and parting, the qualification questions 

3. RITUAL as in the floor and covering of the Lodge, the when and where, the ornaments, furniture, and jewels, labour and refreshment, the porch, dormer, and stone pavement of the Temple 

4. PERSONAL; as the signs, words, and tokens, the principal point, hele and conceal, of, at, and on, the working tools

5. LANDMARKS CONNECTED WITH THE CARDINAL POINTS as the form, extent, and situation of the Lodge, the pillars, the lesser lights, the deiseal, hailing from Jerusalem

6. SCIENTIFIC as in Masonic labour and refreshment, Geometry, numbers, the vesica piscis, the universal language, worldly possessions

7. HISTORICA as the alliance of Solomon and Hiram, the building of the Temple, Jacob's vision, the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, passing the Red Sea, wandering in the wilderness, crossing the Jordan

8. TYPICAL as the legend of the Third Degree, darkness visible, the Shekinah, the Cherubins

9. DOCTRINAL as the qualifications of the W. M., oral communication

10. PRACTICAL as in the powers of a Grand Lodge, the O.B., moral duties

11. OBSOLETE as free by birth, Abraham and Hagar, illegitimacy, the fixed lights, age of a candidate, the original parallels (according to the English system), H. XII

12. SPURIOUS as the facultie of Abrac, the Preadamites, the cost of the Temple, the amount of wages paid to the workmen, the precious stones in the foundation, under such a classification a Landmark may be recognized with tolerable accuracy.

The strict inviolability of a Landmark is somewhat problematical. There are certain obsolete particulars in Masonry which were formerly esteemed to be Landmarks, but have undergone alterations in a greater or lesser degree. It follows, therefore, that if the old Landmarks cannot, by any possibility, be removed, then we incur the unavoidable conclusion that these never had a claim to any such distinction. In all existing Constitutions, however, there is a prohibitory clause which pronounces the Landmarks, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, to be unchangeable, but we shall find that in practice it has been occasionally violated, and therefore inapplicable to all the contingencies that may arise in practice.

To persist, then, in asserting that the Landmark cannot be altered, with an array of positive facts against the hypothesis, is indefensible and absurd, because it places the society in a false position. It is well known, that whenever it has been found expedient to expunge a Landmark, the means of accomplishment were never wanting. The letter of the law is stern, but the spirit is feeble. Practice is more than a match for it, and beats it on its own ground. Salus populi suprema est lex.

Now, before I proceed it must be distinctly understood that I neither justify nor condemn the practice of modifying a Landmark to meet a new condition of society; my intention is merely to record historical truth. The question resolves itself into a matter of expediency, of which however the policy is somewhat doubtful; because if that be a sufficient pretext for the renunciation of a single Landmark, who knows but our successors in the course of a very few ages may witness the abolition of them all on a similar plea? The restrictive law of Landmark bears some resemblance to the fiction that the Pope has no authority or jurisdiction in theserealms, which, de jure, is correct enough; but yet everybody knows that he regularly exercises both with perfect impunity, by the appointment of cardinals, legates, and bishops; and in effect he allows no important ecclesiastical affairs to be transacted in the United Kingdom without his approbation and consent.

The true state of the case is, that in the actual business of Freemasonry, as it is now understood and practised by the whole Masonic community in all parts of the world, progress is the text, and improvement the commentary. The Grand Lodge, like the British Parliament, is all powerful; for it is a representative institution in which every Brother is present by delegates elected by himself, and there is consequently no appeal against its decisions, even if a majority were to agree on a general sweep from the system of every existing Landmark, whether of ancient or modern imposition. Other Masonic communities might protest against the innovation, but the English Fraternity would be utterly powerless either to prevent it or to apply a remedy. It is true such a comprehensive measure is very unlikely to occur; yet it cannot be denied that the Landmarks appear to be considered merely as a series of arbitrary boundary lines, which, when they obstruct the ever-flowing current of progress, are to be levelled in detail, if expediency suggests the necessity of their removal. And so they might disappear, and become obsolete one by one, till the Fraternity of, another generation would forget that they ever existed.

General laws, as I have already had occasion to observe, are inviolable, and reputed in theory to constitute impervious Landmarks, because they enforce the observance of some moral virtue, while particular and local laws admit of alteration and revision when necessary; but if, in carrying out these principles, any Grand Lodge for the sake of expediency does actually proceed to the ultima Thule of removing one Landmark and altering another at its own will and pleasure, why retain a prohibition on the Masonic Statute Book, which may thus be violated with impunity whenever a majority shall so ordain? A great deal might be said on this subject if it were necessary; but I have some doubts as to the propriety of entering on a field of argument when the object of these Lectures is simply to make a plain statement of facts as they are connected with the existing system of practice. It is a general opinion amongst the Craft that in the present state of Masonic progress, it ought not to be impeded by hypothetical obstructions; and many worthy Brethren contend that the Order would be benefited by a free and ample discussion of first principles, unshackled by imaginary precedence in any possible form. "Let it once be understood what are Landmarks and what are not," they say, "and all objections will be for ever silenced. But until some such general agreement amongst the several Grand Lodges of the world be accomplished, we are grovelling in darkness, and all our boasted accessions of light are no better than the glimmerings of reason compared with the full blaze of divine revelation."

If there be anomalies, these Brethren urge, let them be swept away; but to persist with such pertinacity from age to age in the fiction that Landmarks are unalterable, with certain irrefragable facts before us to repudiate the assertion, is unworthy of a great institution. We live in an age of reform, and if there be anything in Freemasonry that needs excision, the sooner the Grand Lodge take the bull by the horns the better. Malus uses abolendus est. H.R.H. the late Grand Master, whose authority on this subject will scarcely be questioned by any living Mason, contended that "obedience, however vigorously observed, does not prevent us from investigating the inconvenience of laws which at the time they were framed may have been prudent, and even necessary; but now, from a total change of circumstances and events, may have become unjust, oppressive, and useless. Justinian declares that he violates the law who, confining himself to the, letter, acts contrary to the spirit of it."

If the above reasoning be sound, these conclusions will be clearly deducible from it. Freemasonry is evidently in a state of transition. If what are usually esteemed Landmarks offer an obstacle to its onward progress; if they clog and imperil the institution, or apply solely to another phase of society, there is no valid reason, in the opinion of the late Grand Master, why they should not give way when the interests of the Craft require it. And it is evident that the Fraternity in the last century entertained a somewhat similar opinion. It will not do to be continually tinkering; stopping one hole and making two. A comprehensive scheme of reform is of more value than a thousand pieces of patchwork. Let the question be settled at once and for ever. Either wholly draw aside the veil or let it not be touched. Name the Landmarks that are unalterable, and make it penal to violate them; and then it may be truly said, that " it is not in the power of any man or body of men to make any alteration or innovation in the, body of Masonry." In such case we may have some chance of avoiding litigation, for our own time at least.

But the question is, in what sense we are to understand the immutability of these ancient laws. Dr. Clark has a judicious observation, which I quote, as bearing in some degree on the subject under discussion. "I do not think," he observes, "that this law is to be understood so as to imply that whateverlaws or ordinances the Medes and Persians once enacted, they never changed them. This would argue extreme folly in legislators in any country. Nothing more appears to be meant than that the decree should be enacted, written, and registered according to the legal. forms among the Medes and Persians; and this one to be made absolute for thirty days. The laws were such among this people that, when once passed with the usual formalities, the king could not change them at his owns will. This is the utmost that can be meant by the law of the Medes and Persians that could not be changed." If we substitute Grand Master for king, this may, perhaps, be the utmost latitude which the Grand Lodge of England assigns to the word "unalterable," as applied to the Landmarks of Masonry.