The penalties for treason in the 14th centuary were any of the following:-

1. That aforesaid be drawn to the gallows
2. He is there to be hanged by the neck and let down alive
3. his bowels are to be taken out
4. and he being alive, to be burnt
5. his head cut off
6. his body divided into four parts
7. and his head and quarters to be placed where our lord and king shall direct

In another section regarding the punishment of sailors or mariners(or as described, Masters, merchants, mariners with all others that do enjoy the Kings stream with hook, net or any engine), If you disclose anything of the Kings counsel (again  i take this to mean treason) You shall be had down to the low water mark for three times,(where the tide ebbs and flows 3 times) and then and there this punishment shall be inflicted on them, that is, their hands and feet bound. their throats cut, their tongues pulled out and their bodies thrown into the sea.

Alfred Marks in his volume relating to the Tyburn tree notes that in the 14th centuary, a man convicted in the mayors court for treason was taken to the thames and bound at the stake during 2 ebbs and flows of the tide.

Hanging was generally for treason and burning for heresay.

But it certainly makes you wonder where the ancient pealties came from, a lot of the civil peanalties certainly sound familiar.

I also read an article which said that the punishments for betraying the secrets of the Degrees were those that bodies such as the Inquisition would impose upon those who as  a result would fall into their clutches, and certainly that body did make use of torture and ultimately buring at the stake.  I do not know if a Lodge, be it of Stonemasons or Freemasons ,ever did impose the physical penalties on any Brother who improperly disclosed them. In LDH we still have the physical penalties mentioned in full in our Obligations,  unlike UGLE which has them as an aside, their having changed their Obligations about 20 years or so ago. What is the situation as regards the Penalties in a GL of Scotland Lodge?

It was written by WBro W J Holland at about the time GL were about to change the emphasis on the penalties an was drafted in October 1964. It certainly opened my eyes to the penalties and why we should have left well alone.

Rgds

Joe

QUOTE:

Masonic Penalties

+++++++

Whether the ‘medieval Penalty Clauses,’ as they are often described, of a Masonic Ob. are in keeping with our present day ‘enlighten’ state – and if not – Whether they should be included as an essential element of the Ob. –is no new question.  It has been raised time and again over a very long period.

Brethren have asked, inasmuch as the Penalty Clauses reflect the cruelty and mental darkness of other days, whether Ob’s. Including them as essentials may be properly sworn on the V. S. L., or whether any reasonable modification would constitute an ‘innovation’ affecting any true Landmark of the Order.

Disregarding the opinions held by some Foreign Constitutions, the majority of the Brethren of the English Constitution, (and it is with the English Constitution that we are particularly concerned) assume that the Penalty clause is absolutely an essential part of the Ob. and of the Ceremony of Initiation – but that Penalty is purely Symbolic.

You may well ask:- “How is it Symbolic”? and “What is the origin of the severe penalties attached to the Ob.”?

We must remember that the Ritual of our Institution is influenced to a very considerable extent by Jewish Tradition and practise.

The Ancient Hebrews observed a solemn ceremonial when entering into a binding Covenant, the significance of which will not escape the attention of every M. M. Who is of a discerning mind. (This is alluded to in the 34^th. Chapter of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Vss. 18 & 20.)

An animal, usually a calf, free from imperfection and blemishes was selected.

[Original text removed by me - essentially the penalties of the degrees were effected on the calf word for word - if you want the orginal please email or PM me]

It was commonly accepted in those ancient days for the contracting parties to profess that, if either of them violated their engagement then symbolically subjected themselves to a death similar to that which had been inflicted on the victim sacrificed by them in making the contract – and this I submit is exactly what the Candidate symbolically does when he repeats the Ps. of the three degrees.

So that I do not accept that our penalties are merely promiscuous expressions of medieval barbarism, but are based on an established Jewish Procedure, so many of which are accepted by us without question.

There is no historical record of the actual infliction of these penalties, but their retention as pure symbolism in our Institution for over two centuries, bears witness of their antiquity.

It is an unfortunate omission on our part, and on the part of all English speaking Lodges, that the Initiates are not taught to regard the physical penalties, in a strictly symbolic sense, neither do we cleverly insist that the Candidate fully understands that the real penalty is that which follows:- “that of being branded ......................etc

Again, if the modification of the phrasing is adopted as is suggested in the motion, considerable alteration in our Ritual will be necessary. The Master explains to the Candidate the two great dangers that he has escaped, and recites the third that will await him until his latest hour ‘that of having etc. etc. should he improperly disclose the secrets of Freemasonry. A similar situation obtains later in the Ceremony when the Candidate is presented to the S. W., who asks: - ‘To what does it allude’? and the Candidate replies: - ‘To the P. Of my Ob. wherein I have sworn etc. etc.

Another important question is, will all Brethren who have taken the Ob. in the form as at present in practise have the same bond with those future members taking the Ob. in a different form?, and in consequence of this will any undesirable situation be created by a reversal to the conditions of pre 1813, since which time the unity and prosperity of the Order has been so marked and permanent, and the Craft again be split into two opposing factions of “Ancients and Moderns”?.

The “Landmarks of the Order” is a subject upon which much may be said, but very little be dogmatically laid down. Grand Lodge has wisely declined to enumerate them, and it is considered that the most advisable course is to regard them as those leading and essential characteristics which are generally received amongst us and intimately bound up with the very existence and conditions of Freemasonry.

I submit that the proposed alterations strikes at a fundamental condition of our Order, and in company with many other Past Masters, question whether such an alteration would constitute a violation of Ancient Charges and Regulation s No 11, to which every Master Elect is required to give his unqualified assent before he is Installed as Master of the Lodge.

Finally in terms of the Motion in it’s present form, is ‘permissive’, which, if it is passed, will permit individual Masters to use the ‘amended’ or the ‘established’ form as they desire. With strong partisan feeling on either side of this question, will the introduction of the suggested modification tend to produce harmony and unanimity in the Lodge or promote goodfellowship between one Lodge and another which hold opposing views?. I am no advocate of total uniformity, but if this amended form is adopted then it must be under a definitive directive from Grand Lodge that it shall be observed in all Lodges under the English Constitution, and not left to individual Lodges or the Master of any Private Lodge to please themselves.

Joe

WM 9475 UGLE

'H' 5705 UGLE

295 A&AR E

So as I say, UGLE changed the wording of the Obligations as regards the Physical Penalties but that was their business alone and did not affect any other Constitutions, such as my own, which have kept them intact.

Also, and correct me if I am wrong. Although this original proposal, I imagine to Grand Lodge, allowed the old style wording to be used if a Lodge desired, a compromise I would feel was neceassry to get such a motion approved, subsequently that permission was removed and UGLE Lodges must now use the new format?

As joeboy has said, it is the symbolic aspect which is important and like so many other things when dealing with a system which has evolved over many centuries, it becomes watered down and more politically correct every year.  Ijust thought that it could give opening to the debate of wear or rituals were formalised, if that was the effrective civil punishment in the 1400's then maybe that is when modern freemasonic ritual got it's terms from.

Another is they closely resemble penalties taken by those entering the Bar in the 16th Century.

Penalties for breach or violation of ones Obligation in many trades during the middle ages were similar in content.

So they are not exclusive to Freemasonry and never have been,  we still use them symbolically in our ceremonies, when every other association stopped using them.