Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , no necessarily for publication , bv , t as a guarantee of good faith .

BRO . JOHN YARKER v . BRO . W . P . BUCHAN . To the Editor of THE FKEEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIB AND BROTHER , —As a young Mason I am interested iu the discussion now waging between Bros . Yarker and Bnchan , and hope that something of importance will be decided before the friendly encounter ends . I want to know a deal about Freemasonry , and fraternally look to Bro . Yarker , an old veteran , to assist us " recruits . "

Bro . Buchan has all the fire and enthusiasm of a young volunteer , and so ; what with age aud youth , 1 am anticipating a storehouse of facts to bo reared . Bro . Yarker refers Bro . Bnchan to Aubrey ' s "Natural History of Wiltshire" for proof that Sir 0 . Wren was initiated 18 th May 1691 . Will Bro . Yarker kindly tell me the date of the edition ( the first , if more than one ) of the History

mentioned ? It is idle for Bro . Buchan to cavil as to tbe difference between to be and ivas " adopted . " The note has reference to the day of " adoption , " and so it is quite enough for all practical pur . poses . Let us not be hypercritical , and expect too much from the evidence now being accumulated after the lapse of years of neglect . I should like to know more about the work of 1721 , which Captain

Irwin has in his library , and which speaks of the " higher class , and I wish Bro . Irwin would permit some other brethren to peruse it , such as our well known writers , Bros . Lyon , Hughan , Woodford , Woof or others , or would the owner kindly transcribe all the portion in any way referring to the Craft , so that the context may exhibit the character of tho complete paragraph . It is surely most important , and deserves

much more than a passing notice , and I thank Bro . Yarker for calling attention to it . Will our brother favour mo with the evidence that in 1725 the Eoyal Arch was called the Fifth Order ? I have not been able to discover any evidence that warrants such a positive statement , neither has any Masonic historian with which I am familiar made any such

proof known , neither has Bro . Yarker himself in his " Speculative Masonry , " which is a valuable work , and so I presume Bro . Yarker has something in confirmation of his emphatic afllrmative , about which we are , as yet , in ignorance . How does Bro . Yarker know that Bro . Eamsay ' s system " was started in 1728 ? " I thought there was a lack of evidence on the subject , but now , as our brother again

states emphatically his discovery , will he kindly say the grounds on which he rests so important an assertion ? It was said Eamsay visited tho Grand Lodge of England ( at London ) , but tbe minutes of the Grand Lodge were searched carefully for me by an English brother , but all to no purpose , and certainly in Prance there has not been a record produced which refers to Eamsay of so early a date

as 1728 ( and his degrees ) . The " Antient and Primitive Eite" must be a very old society . Of what date are its earliest records , and did it precede the " Antient and Accepted Eite ? " Is it not true that many of the degrees are alike virtually , and , if so , which was first of the two Eites , for one must be the younger , and therefore the plagiarist ? Now then , which

was first ? It does not matter two straws to me as to the answer , save and except to discover tho truth , and I am determined to sift the loose statements so frequently made , and see for myself what it all means as to Degrees , Eites , Offices , Antiquity , Hnmbug , and Pretension , and from the whole I hope to evolve the truth . We have far too many degrees and authorities , and if it is true , as I am told ,

that the " Ancient and Primitive Eite " is a late creation , then I say away with it to the bottom of the sea , or anywhere but in Great Britain , for else ere long it will be imported into the "Emerald Isle " to the disgust of us all ! If it is ancient and worthy , then stick to it , and do away with the counterfeits , but do not in tho name of common sense go on multiplying until all that is really Masonry , and

Freemasonry , is banished from our degrees . With respect to the mart , is Bro . Yarker quite sure there was no ceremony . Why was thcro a fee for " chasing ye merk , " and is he warranted in denying what now , in the ordinary course of things , cannot be decided either way ? What "ancient documents go to prove that tho Master's Degree had nothing to do with the Arch . "

This is news to me , aud quite upsets my mind after it had rested on the perusal aud study of Dr . Oliver ' s " Origin of the Eoyal Arch " ( Spencer ) , and which connects tlie Arch with the Third Degree prior to say 1750 . What had Dr . Dassigny to do with the Masonic Templars ? His work was issued in 1744 , aud the Masonic Templars have not been traced until about 20 years after that date . Will Bro . Yarker , or any good brother , give me light ? MASONIC INVESTIGATOR .

OUR FREEMASONRY AND BRO . YARKER . To the Editor of THE FKEEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —At page 86 Bro . Yarker asserts that he referred me in his first letter ( page 53 , 24 th July , I suppose ) to two MSS . " which themselves prove the antiquity of the system of the three degrees , and their identity with the present first three

ceremonials . Now the proof here spoken of appears to mc to exist onl y in the region of Bro . Yarker ' s imagination . Imagination , however , goes a great way with our psendo Masonic historians . As a specimen of Bro . Yarker ' s extreme accuracy turn to pa"e 53 , where he tells us that the note in Aubrey ' s MS ., which says ° that Wren

Correspondence.

" is to be adopted , " is the " sole minute , yet known to be preserved , of Sir C . Wren's initiation . " What a wonderful transformation Who but a doughty knight of the real old high grades could have managed that ? Then , again , when we turn to page 70 , and behold our gallant

warrior spurring on his Eosinante against tho Mark Degree , how the better informed amongst the Mark supporters must have chuckled when they heard his solemn vow that " So sure as the 1598 speculative lodge system of Wm . Schaw was identical with our ancient three degree system , so sure was it that he would prove the Mark Degree

wasn't !" I have for long believed that the paragraph in Schaw ' s 1598 Statutes which says : — " Item , That na Maister or Fallow-of-Craft be ressavit nor admittit without the numer of six Maisteris and tua enterit Prenteisais , " & c , clearly showed that neither degress nor secrets were here involved , but extra privileges .

If Bro . Yarker can produce some real" minute , " or any properly clear evidence that " a Masonicjsystem ofthree degrees , " identical with the present first three ceremonials , " existed either in or before the Seventeenth Century , and also therefore before A . D . 1717 , pray let him do so in the next number . I trust ho will not content himself with referring to some former quotation in some past volume , but give us real evidence now , and that to the point . I am , yours fraternally , W . P . BUCHAN .

IRISH MASONIC CHARITIES . To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —From yonr article on the Masonic Female Orphan School , Dublin , you seem to consider tho Eeport for tho year 1874-5 satisfactory . I regret , however , that this is farfrom being the case , as both of tho Irish Schools , Female as well as Male ,

are ill supported by the brethren in Ireland . The Lodges and their members , with a few honourable exceptions , spend money lavishly on refreshments , while they are slow to subscribe any to support the children of their deceased brethren . Take the number of tho brethren belonging to the Irish Lodges ( which does not represent

the whole ) , and compare them with the number that supports the Schools , and it will be found that the latter are ridiculously small ; and , anywhere in Ireland , if you ask an individual brother to subscribe , he excuses himself , as " my Lodge subscribes , " yet , probably the same man will boast he is a good Mason . I am , Dear Sir , Yours fraternally ,

G . H . KlNAHAN . CHARGES OF A FREEMASON .

Br CORNELIUS MOORE , Editor of the Masonic Review . To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In an article nnder the above heading , at page 84 , we find the writer stating that candidates for Freemasonry " must be ' free born . ' The Grand Lodge of England ( he adds ) has , within the last few years , substituted ' free man , ' instead

of ' free born , ' thus in our opinion , striking at a most vital principle , which that body was especially bound to protect , and setting an example of the most pernicious tendency . " How terrible thus to think that the mother of Freemasonry has gone astray ! I used , foolishly I fear , to imagine that this substitution of "free man" for " free born , " was a truly noble deed , and a specimen of real Masonic liberality

but since onr worthy critic has told ns that the tendency is " pernicious , " I fear that like Galileo , the Grand Lodge of England will have to go down on her knees and do such penance as may be satisfactory to this worthy son of her worthy daughter . As a Masonic reason for thus laying down the law wc are told that — "The principle in the text is borrowed from one laid

down by the Supreme Architect in the economy of salvation . " Now , Bro . Cornelius , you must excuse me here reminding you of that other " text" which says , that before taking the mote out of your brother ' s eye you are first to take the beam out of your own . " You a Masonic guide ! You would tell us that English Freemasonry had done wrong when it , as you say ,

substituted " free man" for "freeborn . " Why it appears from your own words that yon have yet to learn what the real moaning of " Freemasonry" is . The chair of a Masonic Lodge , you must remember , is not exactly the pulpit of a Christian minister , nor is a Masonic review the proper place to promulgate the idea that the only way of salvation is through a belief in a Jewish Shiloh .

I am , Yours fraternally , W . P . BUCHAN . Glasgow , 9 th August 1875 .

REPORT OF PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF LINCOLNSHIRE .

To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . Laughton Vicarage , near Gainsborough , 10 th August 1875 . Sir , —By whomsoever you were furnished with a report of the

proceedings of Lincolnshire Provincial Grand Lodge , held at Boston , in June last , allow me to attest that yonr report was accurate and fair , —not so tho official report just issued . The Provincial Grand Secretary has thought proper to eliminate certain important matters