Obituary.

The Inner Guard , with drawn sword . The Foresters . Forty gentlemen on foot . Vehicles . Horsemen .

Proceeding in" admirable order along Maxwell-road , the cortege halted at some distance from the cemetery , when the coffin was taken from the hearse , and there was placed upon it two swords crossed , a sprig of acacia , the E . A . apron , and the P . M . jewel , presented to deceased

about a year ago . The following gentlemen , representing the original founders , then bore the coffin to the gate : —Messrs . Douslin , Dodson , Nelson , Pitt , Somervill , Currie , M'Lauchlan , and Emerson . Here they were met by the Ven . Archdeacon Butt and the Rev . T . L . Tudor ,

who took their place in front of the coffin , which was borne between the ranks of the Brotherhood by the following as officers : —Bros . Alexander , acting AV . M . ; Marks , P . M . ; Bagge , J . W . ; Earll , P . M . ; Wemyss , Treasurer ; Robinson ; Griffiths , Secretary ; Carey , Organist ; being

followed by Messrs . Hull and Hodgson as chief mourners , having the eldest son between them . The beautiful service of the Church of England being completed , the acting W . M . took his place at the head of the grave , his officers being ranged on each side of him , and the Master Masons

forming a chain round the whole ; Bro . Alexander then completed the affecting ritual of the Craft , . the Secretary deposited the roll in the grave according to ancient custom , an example followed by all the brethren casting in sprigs of

acacia , and the ceremony was closed by the P . M . ' s of the lodge , who planted acacia trees at the head and foot of the grave . The procession then returned to town in the reverse order in which they came , and with the like method as before .

Si monumentum rcquiris circumspise ! When we state that upwards of 300 persons took part in the cortege , the fact will be apparent that it included gentlemen from all parts of the province , who vied to do honour to the lamented

gentleman and his family ; while all business was entirely suspended , and flags were exhibited half-mast high by many of the establishments in town as well as by the shipping . —Marlborough Gazette , N . Z .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

p . — The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Will you or some of your contributors answer me the following question : —How is it that Moses and Solomon arc

designated as the two Grand Parallels in the tracingboard , and in the 5 th section of the first degree the two St . John's arc designated as the two Grand Parallels . Your insertion of the above , with replies , in your next issue , will oblige , Yours fraternally , «» W . M . 264 .

QUALIFICATION FOR THE MARK CHAIR ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Every Freemason must feel great respect for any opinion offered by our worthy Brother William James Hughan . As I know him personally ; and that perhaps no brother can be found who does more to advance the true

interests of the Order , I regret to find myself not able to agree with him with reference to the necessity of a brother having attained the W . M . chnir in a Craft lodge as being a sine qua non for the W . M . chair in a Mark lodge . It has been my good fortune to have been the means of assisting in the resuscitation of one of the

oldest Mark lodges in England , which had fallen into a state of abeyance , and as the paucity of numbers was a serious obstacle in the way of suitably working the degree , it was felt that a new infusion of members desirous of initiation was a step which would conduce to ultimate success . Where , then , were we to obtain qualified brethren to fill the chairs ?

It will , I think , be admitted that a large number of Craft Masons do not express a wish to become Mark Masons , and it is not every W . M . in the Craft who feels impelled to apply for initiation in the Mark . I therefore fully endorse the views expressed b y "A Craft P , M . " in the concluding para-

Original Correspondence.

graph of his letter in your issue of the 29 th ultimo , and most firmly believe that if these views are carried out , the degree of Mark Masonry will gain an immense advantage , as the impetus will be given to brethren who perhaps from the large number of members in a Craft lodge have comparatively only

a slight chance of attaining the W . M . chair in their lodge . As to "dispensations , " my own experience in another degree has led me to say I have found a " dispensation" to be an act of favouritism , not founded upon the principle of " brotherly love . " Yours fraternally ,

A CRAFT AND MARK P . M . London , 4 th May , 1871 .

THE 1717 THEORY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR' SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read the letter by Bro . "Lupus" at page 268 , and have to thank him for the explanation he gives regarding the Masons' Statute of 1425 . Seeing it was entitled

" cap . 1 , " I of course naturally expected some explanation regarding the other heads , which Bro . " Lupus " has now given by informing us that there were "five chapters . " In short , it is a miscellaneous collection of Acts , one of which refers to the " Masons " as openly violating the " Statutes of

Laborers , " and which " Statutes of Laborers , " as Bro . " Lupus " himself tells us at page 268 , simply shows us the masons mixed up with , and also put upon a par with , the carpenters—in fact the carpenters are put first , as it says : " And that as well carpenters and masons be comprised in this

ordinance , as all other labourers , servants , and artificers . " In short , the result of this discussion , so far , has clearly brought out what I have been asserting , viz ., that the masons of that period were simply upon an equality with the carpenters , and that the law which applied to the one would , under similar

circumstances , apply to the other , both carpenters and masons , as well as other crafts in the building line , being all , as Bro . " Lupus" tells us , simply designated " laborers . " In order to regulate their wages all these " laborers " were in the habit of meeting occasionally , just as the trades' unions

of to-day ; but what had that to do with our speculative Masonry ? Certainly , nothing ! And I am very much obliged to Bro . "Lupus" for his interesting and valuable quotations , which so clearly prove this : while in doing so he has been playing into my hands in the most amiable manner

imaginable ! He not only tells us that they were quarrelling about their " wages , " but also that the " Chief Master" of the carpenters got "foure pence" a day , while the " Chief Master" of the masons simply got—thesamc . While , as to " congregations , chapters , oathes , " & c , the carpenters were equally

guilty with the masons . Owing to the word " oathes" being here , the generality of Masonic writers would immediately jump to the conclusion that this is proof positive of the existence of our system then ; but that would be a mistake , as the practice referred to is simply that of the period

when it was customary sometimes for the whole male inhabitants of a town to take the oath in public , the one hand touching the cross while the other was uphaldin , or , as elsewhere , " the said chaplain shall be obliged at his entry , before he be admitted to the said hospital , to give his great oath

by touching the sacred Evangile . So among the crafts , they had an oath only to show they had no particular secrets connected therewith—when even a master was admitted into the company , a certain number of apprentices had to be present . Consequently , so far as I am yet aware , our system of

degrees , words , grips , signs , & c , was not in existence until about A . D . 1717 . On this point our Masonic historian , Bro . J . G . Findel , lately wrote me , 14 th November , 1870 : "You are right if you say that our ' system' of speculative Masonry did not exist before 1717-23 , and also the three degrees ,

in the present form ; but 1 think you arc not right if you deny that the elements , the groundwork of them , is not older . " Now , as to this , I am obliged to Bro . Findel for his admission so far , and as to the " three degrees , " I deny their existence among the pre-1717 masons in any form . I admit that

certain of the " elements , " or " groundwork , " of them existed before 1717 , only not among the masons ; for , as I expressed it so far at page 18 S , April 16 th , 1870 , the founders of speculative Masonry mixed operative terms , Bible references , Rosicrucian lore , Egyptian and Jewish legends , & c ,

and so made up our system . And in connection with this see also page 417 , August 27 th , 1870 , mid column , where certain remarks of Bros . Lyons and Hughan arc given , all , as I consider , tending to confirm the views I am giving . A talented brother

well says : " Facts alone are not sufficient ; they may be distorted to appear in favour of a falsehood . I also agree with you that we want other MSS . on the Crafts generally . " This was in answer to a remark that we want more facts , viz ., truth , e . g .

Original Correspondence.

there were " Freemasons" in 1571 just as there are " Freemasons" in 1871 , but the " Freemason" of the former period was quite a different individual from the "freemason" of the latter , while also the "freemasonry" of the two was quite different in ideas , constitution , objects , workings , end , and aim .

The great thing which I find fault with , therefore , is the oft-repeated misapprehensions and mistakes which our Masonic writers fall into through not observing that a mere resemblance in nomenclature does not necessarily involve a relation—historical or otherwise—in fact .

I may here point out another mistake of Bro . " Lupus , " viz ., at page 268 , where he says , " of statutes of the existence of which he had never before been aware . " Now , if this refers to the Henry VI . statute , which he gave at page 641 , December 10 th , he is wrong , for at page 322 , July 2 nd , 1870 ,

he may read my comments upon it—five months before his publication of it . In his last paragraph Bro . "Lupus" virtually throws up the sponge in regard to his ability to prove the existence of our " Freemasonry " before 1717 , and asserts that I ought to prove its

nonexistence , which of course is simply asking me to prove the negative . I consider this is hardly fair , seeing I was not born until A . D . 1836 , while for above a hundred years previously Masonic authors had been asserting that the Freemasonry then in existence had existed for ages , only when proof vi

asked of its existence before 1717 , it is never forthcoming ! And now I am virtually told , "Well , we find ourselves unable to prove the affirmative , but we challenge you to prove the negative ?" _ Under the whole circumstances , therefore , I consider myself justified in saying that , as to the

existence of speculative Masomy , the 1717 is the true theory , as my foregoing remarks show . There is room for " more light" regarding the immediate proceedings to the first Grand Lodge meeting of 1717 , which I hope we may get by-and-bye . I am , yours fraternally ,

W . P . BUCHAN .

P . S . —In reference to the Clothiers' Gild referred to by Bro . " Lupus " at page 233 , we perceive that , although it was a " clothiers '" gild , it admitted " eminent citizens and neighbouring gentlemen , " or non-clothiers , just as was the case with the old masons—these gentlemen , however , were generally

tuted by Drs . Dcsagulicrs and Anderson , there would have been no more of our speculative Freemasonry in the old Lodge of Antiquity , e . g ., than there was of speculative Clothiery in the Clothiers ' Gild above referred to . I might go on explaining

I suppose , simply " Penticles . " But when so admitted before 1717 , it was not for the purpose of receiving our secrets and degrees , for these were not in existence then , but with some it was an honour , with others a share in a benefit society , and so on . Consequently , had it not been for the system

instithi . s further , but I must remember that your space is valuable ; besides I consider it the duty of brethren to think it out for themselves , for , unless they do so , all our writing is nearly useless . Besides , " more light" will be found at page 417 , August 27 th , 1870 . W . P . B .

PROXY COMMISSIONS TO GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Some of our Scottish brethren seem to be very hard up for something to fling at their Grand Lodge . They talk about Proxy Commissions , as if the whole blame of their existence lay with Grand Lodge , but that is not the case ,

each lodge has the power of sending its own actual Master and Wardens to Grand Lodge ; but if said Master and Wardens will not go , why make any fuss about proxies ! Who , I ask , is it that appoints the proxy ? Is it not the lodge itself , or its Master and Wardens ? Consequently , seeing such is the

case , 1 know nothing more childish than the foolish remarks which have appeared upon this subject . Whence this sudden zeal ? What selftsh object is to be gained by it ? Even when proxies have been appointed , the Master and Wardens of a daughter lodge may personally appear by sending due notice

to Grand Lodge of their intention so to do . However , many of the Masters of Scottish lodges at a distance from Edinburgh refuse or are unable to attend the meetings personally , when of course a Proxy Commission is issued , in favour of whoever the lodge or its Master pleases , and if the one

appointed docs not please , they have it in their power to appoint another . Consequently the whole power lies with the daughter lodges , if they choose to lake the trouble to use it . Then as to foreign lodges , whose Masters , & c , could never be expected to

attend , it is only fair they should have the power to appoint proxies . As to the remarks of a " Past Master , " I greatly fear there is very little in them , while of what there is , some appear rather unmasonic , and the lodge which tries "Past Master ' s''