Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.*

reading of the paper comments were made or submitted by Bros . SPETH and CRAWLEY , and as regards those of Dr . CRAWLEY on the alleged claim of the "Ancient" or "Atholl" G . Lodge to have been descended from thc York Grand Lodge , we say

unhesitatingly , we accept his view rather than Bro . Huc . HAN's . We have ourselves most carefully studied the whole of thc " Ancient" records , and we submit , with all due deference to Bro . HuGHAN , that there is nothing in them to justify the

contention that LAURENCE DERMOTT ever claimed for his " Ancient" Society a descent from or connection with the York Masons in any other sense than that the two Societies had in common the same principles and thc same system of

work . They were " York Masons in the same sense that he mig ht have described them as" Irish Masons , " " Scottish Masons , " " American Masons ; " that is to say , they were an integral part of the ancient Masonic body , working upon precisely the same

system , and inculcating the same principles as the other integral parts , while their London rivals of 1717 formation had sanctioned innovations of greater or less importance . But probably thc contribution which , for obvious reasons , will most favourably

impress the reader is that which Bro . HuGHAN has written " in loving remembrance of John Lane , P . A . G . D . C . ( 1843-1899 ) . " That it is written in the kindliest spirit is a matter of course ; thc two had been in almost daily intercourse for many years and

had learnt to love and respect each other , and by reason of that close and intimate friendship were able to appreciate ( he efforts which each was constantly making in furtherance of the cause

of Masonic literature . The paper is a credit to Bro . HUGH AN as it is to the virtues and ability of thc distinguished Mason it is written to commemorate .

Among the other contents are two which stand out prominently and are certain to attract the sympathetic attention of the reader . These are Bro . R . F . GOULD ' sketch of " The Chevalier Burnes , " beintr the eisrhth of his series of " Masonic

Celebrities , " and the paper by Bro . W . I I . UPTON , Past G . Master of the Grand Lodge of Washington , in which are very fully described the contents of" Prince Hall ' s Letter Book . " As regards the former , it will , perhaps , suffice if we state that Bro . GOULD

has been as happy in this as in his former selections of a subject for his scries of " Celebrities , " Bro . BURNES having been one of thc strongest , as he was also one of the ablest , promoters of Freemasonry in India and elsewhere to be met with in the

records of the Craft . Of Bro . UPTON S paper it will be enough to say that those who de-sire lo know more about the founder of Negro Masonry in the United Stale's cannot fail to benefit by a careful sliulv of the article . Bro . UPTON , as our readers are

aware , caused a terrible commotion in United States Masonry some two years ago when he induced his Grand Lod ge' to accord recognition to the Negro Grand Loelge in the State of

Washington—a recognition which , however , has since been cancelled . This paper shows , at all events , that Bro . UPTON has made a careful study of the subject .

There arc other papers , such as ( he account given by Bro . W . J . ALLEN of "The Third Masonic District of die State of New York , " Bro . A . J . COOPER OAKLEY ' "Hindoo Temples , " and Bro . ALBERT J . L . WGE ' S "Sketch of Norwegian Masonic History , "

which materially enhance the value of the Part , while the section of the " Chronicle " which is devoted to " Ireland " furnishes more information about the Craft in that country than is

ordinarily vouchsaled to us , and lor which we are extremely grateful . In short , the Part is in all respects admirable , and Bro . Sl'F . TH has done his part as Editor with his accustomed ability and success .

Masonic Jurisprudence.

MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE .

[ eo . MMi ' . vic . vrnu'j . In the course of our preceding remarks , the' landmarks have been occasionally alluded lo , and before wi : enle-r upon the rights and wrongs of the' private brother or the private : lod « "eit

, will clear Ihe ground il we discuss those landmarks which have not already been allude-d to . A landmark differs from an ordinary rulv or regulation , in that it cannot be removed or altered or . suspended— -and moreover no new one can be created .

Masonic Jurisprudence.

It would , of course , be competent , by agreement among all sovereign Grand Lodges , to add to the list by recognising as such those practices and customs among Freemasons which could be proved to have existed from time immemorial . And it would be an advantage to the Craft if Grand Lodge were to publish , as an

introduction to the Book of Constitutions , a list of what were admitted to be landmarks . As it is , in Article 4 Grand Lodge admits the limitation of its own powers by a reference to the antient landmarks of the Order ; but destroys the value of such admission by entirely omitting to say what they are .

In ordinary language , a landmark is a feature of a landscape by which it has always been recognised , a feature that has come into existence without human agency—or , at all events , has existed from time immemorial . Thus a young tree or a wall would not be a landmark . But an old oak or a wall covered

with moss would be , so would a watercourse or a ravine or a hill . So in Freemasonry , those customs and practices which have distinguished Freemasons from the rest of the world , and which , good or bad , have existed from time immemorial , are landmarks ,

They cannot be local , or the product of legislation . The person who transgresses them becomes ipso facto a spurious Freemason , and out of the pale of Masonic intercourse until properly heled .

The first three refer to the ritual , and especially to the Hiramic legend of the 3 . The next \\\& refer to the Grand Master . Three lay down the religious aspect of the Order , and the remainder are concerned with the private lodge and the private brother .

First of all , there are the * modes of recognition . Within recent years the question of ritual has been before Grand Lodge , both officially and unofficially . In September , 186 9 , the Worshipful Master of a London lodge was officially reprimanded for causing an announcement to appear in the lodge

summons to the effect that " the new working as approved b y the Board of General Purposes will be used . " Grand Lodge informed the Worshipful Master that "the Board have not sanctioned or approved any form of working whatever , nor has the question in any way come before the Board . " What the

Worshipful Master probably meant was the working sanctioned by Grand Lodge at the Lodge of Reconciliation . If so , the announcement in the summons would seem to have been rather

superfluous . His error , or rather that which brought him before Grand Lodge , was in attributing it to the Board , and the decision of Grand Lodge would have been clearer if such had been explained to him .

But a more important pronouncement was made in 1 S 95 , under the authority of the Grand Master . In 18 95 a certain lodge was warranted , whose name and

number are immaterial . In the ordinary course of things by-laws were drawn up and submitted lo the Most Worshipful Grand Master for approval , through the usual channel . One of these by-laws ran thus—¦

All le'i's fur ile-jfreTs HUM l » ' paiil bcfeire' tlit- ele' ^ re'e . ' is I'onfirrijcl . . . When they came back to the Worshipful Master , it was observed that this particular enactment had been deleted by the District Grand Master , and such deletion had been tacitly approved at

headquarters . Chat is to say , the District Grand Master ' s explanation was passed without comment . That explanation was " By-law No . 5 is inconsistent with the ritual sanctioned and approved by Grand Lodge , which refers to the future payment of fees for initiation . "

The Grand Secretary was written to on the subject and wrote under date January 22 nel , 1 S 9 6 , practically confirming the District Grand Master ' s decision . In the course of his letter he said " The ritual referred to is that which was rehearsed and approved in Grand Lodge in 1 S 13 and which , with but few

modifications has ever since been the recognised ritual of English Freemasonry . " Here , then , we have the important statement , made with all the authority of the Grand Secretary , that there is an authorised ritual . The next question , of course , is , which is it ? There are

the Emulation working , the Oxford Ritual , the Scottish workings , & c , & c . Only one of these can be right . Shortly after this correspondence , and possibly inspired by it , we do not know , the Preceptor of the Woking Emulation Lodge of Improvement made a little speech after dinner ( March 30 th ,

1 No />) . He claimed that the Emulation working was the only " authorised " one , and quoteel the revered name of Bro . Thomas Fenn in support of his contention . It seems pretty certain that the Emulation Lodge of Improvement sprang directly from the

Lodge of Reconciliation , which was warranted at the time of the Union in order to draw up a ritual that might be acceptable . The new ritual was rehearsed in 1816 before two special meetings of Grand Lodge , the Duke of Sussex presiding on both occasions .