destruction? Why were six Royal Arch Chapters, and every lodge in that vicinity, engaged, either directly or indirectly, in that horrid conspiracy? Why was Miller's office enveloped in flames, and its unfortunate occupant taken, and retaken, and taken again; before sufficient strength could be mustered effectually to rescue him from the hands of this lawless banditti? Why was Morgan transported from Batavia to Canandaigua, and from Canandaigua to Niagara, there to be first imprisoned, and then butchered? These questions, and ten thousand more of the same nature, are unanswerable, except on the ground, that, in the opinion of masons, Morgan had violated his obligations, and made disclosures, which they considered masonically illegal.

Again; The conduct of Freemasons themselves, affords unequivocal testimony that the secret principles of their institution are before the public. What is it that has shaken, to its very centre and foundation, every Lodge, and every Chapter, and every Encampment, from Maine to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to the Atlantic; if Morgan and other seceders have not made a full and fair disclosure of what have been called masonic secrets? We may indeed, well ask, partly in masonic language, not, "what occasions the alarm" without? but "what occasions the alarm" within? Why have Freemasons used every possible exertion to defame and destroy the reputation of seceders; if the "secret mysteries" of their institution have not been developed ?

But the strongest argument, that has yet been presented to prove the affirmative of our main question, is, what we have seen and heard in this Hall, this evening!! * I hope it will not be considered that I intend to cast reflections; for I am certainly surprised as well as gratified, that Freemasons themselves, on this occasion, should, so

*The speaker here alludes to the hissing of the fraternity. So soon as he touched "the Morgan affair," the Freemasons, throughout the hall, raised such a clamor and hissing, that his voice was drowned for some minutes, and he was obliged to stop, until the Chairman, who presided with great decision and dignity, succeeded in restoring order. The hissing, however, instead of disconcerting the speaker, as was intended, afforded the most favorable opportunity possible to illustrate what he had at first stated.

unexpectedly, put into my mouth an irresistible argument in favor of my position. It cannot be denied, then, that the evidence is plenary that the secret principles of Freemasonry are before the public. The only remaining question, is,

Are the witnesses competent? That they were Freemasons, there can be no dispute. This, Freemasons themselves do not pretend to deny. They must, therefore, have known whether or not they were telling the truth. They must have known whether or not they had passed through these ceremonies, which they describe as the secrets of masonry. For, they were men of common sense. Otherwise it can argue nothing in favor of the institution to have received them as members.

Many of these witnesses are known to the public, as men of sterling talents, and strict integrity. They were certainly acknowledged as such, by Freemasons themselves, until the moment they left the institution. If then these witnesses were ever worthy to be believed, they were worthy of credence when they dissolved their connexion with the masonic institution. A man's character does not change in a minute. It always takes time for any person to become "a drunken, worthless, miserable vagabond;" as masons have represented some, if not the most of their seceding brethren, who were in acknowledged good fellowship with them, until the moment of their secession.

Nor do these witnesses come forward under the crime of acknowledged perjury, and then, as has been alleged by masons, ask you to place confidence in their integrity. How have they perjured themselves? Not, certainly, against the laws of our country. No person will presume to say, that there is any thing in any of our civil institutions to sanction masonic oaths; but, on the contrary, many of these oaths, as they have been divulged, are in direct opposition to our civil rights. It is equally evident that they have not perjured themselves against the law of God. That perfect rule of moral conduct, which allows no man to forswear himself, and which is recognised and sanctioned by Him, who said, "Swear not at all," must certainly condemn such oaths, as masons are said to take upon themselves. There is nothing in the whole Word

of God, which warrants the administration and observance of such oaths, any more than that of Herod, to kill John, or than the curse that the Jews imprecated upon themselves," that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul." On this subject, I fear not to appeal to the common sense of any enlightened, intelligent and impartial citizen. Indeed, there has been but one opinion, with jurists, divines and laymen, who have attended to the subject, and who are not biassed in favor of Freemasonry, that what seceders have alleged to be masonic oaths, are neither morally nor legally binding. But, if seceders have perjured themselves against the masonic institution, and not against the laws of God and our country; why, then, the masonic institution is in opposition to the laws of God and of our country.

You, fellow citizen, are a Freemason, and you say, These individuals are perjured, and, therefore, not to be believed. Why? Because they have violated their masonic obligations, and have divulged something that is unlawful. This you admit; and, in admitting this, you virtually say, that the secrets of masonry are before the public, and hence, you are perjured, ipso facto, as much as they, and that on your own confession.

The secrets of Freemasonry, then, are before the public. Freemasons know that they are before the public; and every intelligent citizen, who has attended to facts, has just as good evidence, that he is in possession of what were the secrets of masonry, as that there is such a place as London, or that there was such a man as Alexander the Great. It is, Mr. Chairman, an insult to your understanding, for Freemasons to assert, that you know nothing about their secret mysteries. It is a species of falsehood for any one to attempt to evade the subject, and the grossest imposition upon the public, for any Freemason to say, that the witnesses who have testified, are either incompetent, or that they have not told the truth.

Now, if the secret principles of Freemasonry are before the public; then the public have a right to examine them. The free citizens of this country have the same right to examine this subject, that they have to examine any other, which affects our religious and political interests. The clamor, raised by Freemasons, in order to suppress free

inquiry, or to check the freedom of the press, or to silence the warning voice, is altogether unreasonable, and an infringement of the rights of every free citizen.

We may as well submit reason and conscience to the decisions of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, or be under the domination of Cæsar, as be denied the right and the privilege of investigating any subject which affects the public mind. This is a right, indeed, which freemen cannot relinquish. The moment .they relinquish this right, they are no longer freemen, but slaves. Masons might first bind, and then gag, William Morgan; but they must first gag, before they can bind a free people.— They may continue to raise the cry, and to sing the song, "Political Anti-masonry,-Anti-masonry and Orthodoxy, -Anti-masonry and Unitarianism,-Anti-masonry and Priestcraft,-Anti-masonry and Federalism,--Anti-masonry and Democracy;" but they need not think to close the eyes, nor the ears, nor the mouths of an intelligent community, any more than the lullaby of the nurse can sooth to rest the motion of the elements. Those who watch over the religious and political interests of our country, and with untiring zeal and vigilance seek the general good of the great whole, cannot be satisfied with the mere outcry of Demetrius and his "fellow craftsman," -"Great is Diana of the Ephesians." They must have strong reasons and conclusive arguments, that their "image which fell down from Jupiter" is of real, intrinsic value; or they will never consent to let it remain in the temple of their liberty.

The citizens of this community not only have the right to examine the principles of the masonic institution; but they are under obligation to examine those principles. Who, in this country, can secure the rights of the people, but the people themselves? Every free citizen ought to feel himself highly responsible for the public welfare. It is the duty of every free citizen, therefore, to examine every subject which affects the public weal. But who can suppose that the masonic institution has no bearing of any importance upon the general interests of our country! Who can suppose that a society of three hundred thousand members, in the very heart of our country, with

a fund, unlimited and unrestricted, at their control, can be capable of doing neither good nor hurt.

If the secret principles of the masonic institution are before the public; then the public can judge of their nature and tendency. The time was, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, when you might be disposed to inquire of masons, respecting the political and moral tendency of their institution. But this inquiry of them, is now no longer necessary. Every intelligent citizen can examine for himself, and form an opinion for himself. An enlightened community will not now be satisfied with the bare assertion of Freemasons, that theirs "is a noble, scientific, moral and charitable institution;" because every citizen must feel competent to examine and determine for himself.

The public can judge of the morality of the masonic institution. They can judge, for example, whether the following clause in the Master Mason's oath, is founded upon the broad basis of Christian purity, or, is the legitimate offspring of licentiousness, checked only by selfinterest. "Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I will not violate the chastity of a master mason's wife, mother, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent it."-Now, if a Congregationalist should enter into such a covenant respecting the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters, of his own particular communion, would not the Episcopalian, and the Catholic, and the Baptist, and the Methodist, and the Friends, have just reason to be jealous? Would they not draw the natural inference, that the Congregationalist intended to restrain his passions only so far as his own denomination was concerned, and to make common game of the wives, daughters, mothers and sisters, of all others? Would it not be an insult to common sense to say, that such a covenant as this maintained the principles of sound morality? It is, also, easy to determine whether an institution, in which the sacred names, titles and attributes of Jehovah, are used as pass-words, and mock miracles are wrought as signs; and in which the Word of God is used with the most shocking familiarity, does tend to cherish that veneration for the Supreme Being, which becomes rational, moral, and accountable creatures.