The Corporative Masonry of Great Britain 187someone who lays stone or someone of secular status. The word setter
could refer to a stonecutter or the member of a set or association, such
as a guild. The lay mason dependent upon a guild and subsequently a
ligier, lige, or vassal, could then be opposed to the freemason, who is
free because of his connection to the Church.
The 1396 text of the archbishop of Canterbury shows that the term
ffremaceons was then recognized as technically English with no Latin
equivalent. It is quite likely that it also confirms that the term franc
maconnerie is to be understood as similar to francs metiers, artisans
who were not only free but enjoyed certain franchises and exemptions.
Originally, these franchises were not the property of the trade itself but
of the craftsman's domicile. Only the Benedictines, and especially the
Templars, assured trade franchises to everyone throughout the whole of
their domains. Recall that the term franc metier and, consequently,
franc-macon were likely born in the era that witnessed the formation of
trade communities, guilds, and brotherhoods. So whereas some had
only those rights—limited for ratione materiae and ratione loci—that
their sovereign lords had the power to grant them, others who had
emerged from the monastic associations of the Benedictine abbeys, and
especially the Templar commanderies from the time they were at the
pinnacle of their power, benefited from the largest franchises in the
most extensive territories.
Eventually, royal power, inspired by the example set by the reli-
gious orders and by the desire to secure the guilds' political support,
granted charters and franchises to certain trades. It is helpful here to
recall the intelligence agents the English kings kept in the guilds and
brotherhoods of Normandy, Flanders, Guyenne, and in Paris itself dur-
ing their endless wars against the kings of France. It was to the advan-
tage of these kings to support the power and freedom of these
professional associations—and it is now easier to understand the rea-
son for the diametrically opposed policy of the French kings regarding
them.
The privileges granted by the king to guilds ensured these organi-
zations independence from the framework of cities and allowed them
at times to include the profession in all its locations thoughout the
entire kingdom. This was the case for the masons of York and London,