At Westminster on the 1 November 1388 (according to the Calendar of Close Rolls) a writ was issued by King Richard II and sent to all the sheriffs throughout the land.

To the sheriff of Lincoln. Order, for particular causes declared in the parliament last holden at Cantebrigge, on sight &c. to cause proclamation to be made, that all masters and wardens of guilds and fraternities shall before the Purification next certify in chancery the manner, form and authority for the foundation of such gilds, the continuance and ruling thereof, the oaths of the brethren and sisters, their meetings, the liberties, privileges, statutes, customs &c. thereof, their lands, rents &c. mortified and not mortified, their goods and chattels, the value of their lands and price of their goods, and all circumstances relating to the same, under pain of forfeiture of their lands, goods &c., bringing before the king and council any charters and letters patent of the king or any of his forefathers concerning the same under pain of revocation thereof, and annulment of the liberties, privileges and grants therein contained; and order to certify before the octaves of St Hilary next the days and places where proclamation was made, and the names of those who made it. The like to singular the sheriffs throughout England.
    To the sheriff of Lincoln. Order to make proclamation ordering all masters, wardens and overseers of misteries and crafts likewise to bring charters &c. concerning the same. The like to singular the sheriffs throughout England.

The King, it appears, needed money, hard pressed as ever to fund his military activities. Some kind of freemasonry - which would certainly fit the designation of ‘misteries and crafts’ - was apparently flourishing in this period, albeit with its collective pocket under threat.
    Interestingly, the date of the order is very close indeed to the approximate dating of the Regius manuscript of masonic Old Charges (c.1390) which would answer, at least in part, the demand for the ‘privileges, statutes and customs’ of a guild or craft. The perhaps high-handed nature of masons’ privileges outlined in the Old Charges – that Masonry’s special status had been anciently ratified by saints, sages and ancient kings – might suggest an irritation with royal demands for their exact legal status. The Regius Ms may represent in part a response to Richard II’s order.
    Less than 40 years later, masons were in more serious trouble. We know this from an Act headed Statutes made at Westminster, Anno 3 Henrici VI. Anno Dom.1424.

Masons shall not confederate themselves in chapiters and assemblies.

FIRST, whereas by the yearly congregations and confederacies made by the masons in their general chapiters and assemblies, the good course and effect of the statutes of labourers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the commons; (2) our said Lord the King willing in this case to provide remedy by the advice and assent [of parliament] aforesaid, and at the special request of the said commons, hath ordained and established, That such chapiters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden. (3) And if any such be made, they that cause such chapiters and congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged for felons. (4) And that all the other masons that come to such chapiters and congregations, be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the King’s will.

Documents such as the Cooke Manuscript (c.1420) of Old Charges, indicating the high status of Masonry do not seem to have deterred the attack – and may have been confidence-building exercises for masons. The Statute may explain a certain reticence thenceforth to reveal meetings of masons to the public. Clearly, if they were to meet with the knowledge of the Commons, there might be problems.
    The Act is mentioned in William Preston’s Illustrations of Freemasonry. Preston says the Act was never put into execution, but does not tell us why. Preston also says that, later, the King was initiated with ministers and nobles following his example. There is no evidence for this. In fact, Henry VI (b. 6 December 1421) was only three when the Act was passed. Henry V’s brother, Gloucester, was Regent of England and the Act appears to have been a Commons initiative.
    To those who assert that medieval masons and, in particular, those referred to in the Act cited above, have nothing to do with Freemasonry – at least as we think of it today (has it not evolved?) – it is worth mentioning that this Act of Henry VI was well known to Elias Ashmole’s colleague Dr Robert Plot. Plot makes special reference to it in Chapter Eight of his Natural History of Staffordshire (1686), describing lodges of ‘Free-masons’ operating in the Staffordshire moorlands who accept gentlemen as part of their fraternity, wear special gloves, give advice on building materials, have secret passwords and who mutually support one another in times of need – only 31 years before four London lodges came together to form a Grand Lodge. Plot is in no doubt that he is talking of the same Society which came under pressure for setting its own wage schemes apart from normal practice in the 15th century. He further states that Henry VI’s Act against masons was repealed in 1563 by order of Elizabeth I – and one would like to know more about the background to this intriguing detail. Plot, furthermore, refers to what he regards as the Free-masons’ spurious (we might say mythological) history of Free-masonry whose elements tally well with what we know of the late medieval Old Charges, and is even keen to add that the practices of Free-masons, with regard to their independent wage-setting, warrant scrutiny in his own time. Of course, Plot could have been wrong about all this, but there is no persuasive reason to think so.
    There are parallels with our times. Firstly, external opposition necessitates writing down, perhaps unwillingly or defensively, something of the mysterious nature and origin of the Craft. (The danger of ossification, once this has been done, is obvious). Secondly, Masonry is attacked because it is ‘different’, somehow apart from mainstream society. It is neither a religion nor an ordinary social grouping. It has an exalted sense of its individuality and purpose. Some eras are friendly to it, seeing the many benefits of its work, others are not. One thing today though is different. This may be the first time in history when the response to attack has been to advocate more openness rather than more secrecy. On the other hand, it is also arguable that the establishment of Grand Lodge in 1717 was itself an act of politically necessary openness. Either way, the issue of openness has a long history behind it.