Original Correspondence.

Master of the Masons of Scotland , and the Laird of Udaucht , Warden in a certain district . I beg leave to call attention a little further to the charters granted by the Masons of Scotland in the beginning of the seventeenth century to the St . Clairs of Roslin . I prefer to quote from the second charter , that of 1630 , because it is fuller and more explicit than the older one . It

begins with a statement that " from age to age it has been observed amongst us and our predecessors that the Lairds of Roslin have ever been patrons and protectors of us and our privileges . " I modernise the spelling , but quote the exact words . Then follows the statement that the writs of the Lairds of Roslin , which had been granted to them by the Kings of Scotland , antl in virtue of which

they exercised authority over the Masons , had been consumed by a fire in the Castle of Roslin , so that there was danger of detriment to the Masons , aud also that the Lairds of Roslin would " lie out of their just rights . " I ask what meaning can be assigned to these words if the Lairds of Roslin are to be supposed lo have been " patrons " of a Craft of Operative Masons , and judges or " referees , "

as Bro . W . P . Buchan says , in " trade disputes" Of what value could such a right be to them ? The words which I have quoted become intelligible only on the supposition that the Masons of Scotland were something more than a mere Operative Craft , so that it was held a high honour to be connected with them and to preside over them .

Again , in the same charter , the Masons of Scotland speak of their " having full experience of the old good skill and judgment" which Sir William St . Clair of Roslin has in their " Craft and vocation . " Is this language easily to be explained on the supposition that there was nothing in that Craft and vocation beyond mere Operative Masonry ? I leave Bro . \ V . P . Buchan to crack these

nuts at his leisure , and when he has done so I will excuse him , even although he should again speak of me as " good at retailing dreams and exploded notions . " It is not easy to deal with an assertion so general as that contained in the following sentence of Bro . W . P . Buchan ' s letter : " All sorts of forgeries have been manufactured , and innumerable lies told and written to

support them , in order to prove that our system of Freemasonry is older than last century ; but wherever said documents have been examined by competent parties they have been easily shown to be mere trash . " It would be comparatively easy to investigate any particular question , and I am willing both to enter into such investigation , as to make known the result , if the question

proposed is one at all affecting the controversy as to the antiquity ol Freemasonry . I am aware that the notion of the recent origin of Freemasonry has received acceptance with some on the imaginary ground that the term Freemason and Freemasonry are altogether of modern use . The real question , however , is whether or not that which is now known as

Freemasonry existed before the year 1717 ? The introduction of a new term is common enough in all languages , and many instances of this kind as to the English language might be adduced . Does Bro . XV . P . Buchan regard the often republished letter of the celebrated John Locke to the Earl of Pembroke as a forgery ? It is genuine , antl until evidence is

produced to the contrary I must believe it . It affords conclusive proof that Masonry in England in the end of the seventeenth century ( A . D . 1696 ) was something very different from a mere Operative Craft . How inconsistent with such a supposition is the statement made in this letter that Lady Masham " is become so fond of Masonry as to say that she now more than ever wishes herself a man ,

that she might be capable of admission into the fraternity . " The MS . in the Bodleian Library to which Locke ' s letter refers , if not an absolute forgery , fabricated since the year 1717 , shows Masonry in England , in the time of Henry VI ., or thereby , to have been very different from a mere Operative Craft . I could make this evident by

quotations , if it were not that they woultl occupy too much space , and that it docs not seem to be necessary that the MS . is in the handwriting of Henry VI ., as has been supposed . This MS . exists , and I am not aware that its genuineness has ever been denied , or the accuracy of the copies which have been published ; it is enough ol itself to refute the 1717 theory and to explode it

altogether . Locke s letter , however , may again be quoted as showing that in 1696 , that is twenty-one years before the da ' . c , when according to Bro . W . P . Buchan , Frcercnsonry was brought forth , it was reported , erroneously or not , that King Henry VI . " entered himself as one of the Brotherhood of Masons . " And as far as the 1717 theory is concerned , this is concltisiv ; enough .

Evidence is to be found in the diary of the celebrated Elias Ashmole , founder of theiMuscum at Oxford , which still bears his name . In his diary he siys , " I was made a Freemason at Warrington , Lancashire , with Colonel Henry Mainwaring , of Hertliingliam , in Cheshire , by Mr . Richard Penhet , the Warden , and the Fellow Crafts , on the sixteenth of October , 1646 . " On ; would think this

wis conclusive , and it is to be observed that we have here the term Freemason employed before the middle of the seventeenth century . The article on Freemasonry ( "Masonry Free" ) in " Chambers' Encyclopedia has evidently been written by one who does not believe in the antiquity of our system , but his theory of its origin is not the 1717 t ' icory . He says it dates from the seventeenth century , and that its

real foun lers were Elias Ashmole antl some of his literary rien Is , w ' . io amused themselves by devising a set of symbols borrowed in part from the Knights Templar , and in part from the Rosicrucians . lie states as an unquestioned antl unquestionable fact that Charles II . and William III . were Masons , and adds that " the appearance of a connection with Operative -Mason . ; was kept up ny the appointment of Sir Christopher Wren to the office of Grand Master . " It is not necessary , at present , to

Original Correspondence.

examine very closely the grounds of this theory . That it has been put forward , and in a work of such a character as " Chambers' Encyclopaedia , " is enough to show that the advocates ofthe 1717 theory have not all their own way even with those who agree with them in rejecting the claims of Freemasonry to a high antiquity . In the article just referred to , we are told that the epithet Free was

applied to the Craft of Masons in consequence of their being exempted by several Papal bulls from the laws which regulated common labourers , and exonerated from various burdens thrown on the working classes at large , both in England and on the Continent . In conclusion , I would only now ask the question , how , either on the theory that our modern system of

Freemasonry was invented by Desaguliers , Anderson , and others in 1717 , or on that of its invention by Ashmole and his literary associates , in the previous century , its immediate adoptionand rapid extension can beexplained ? The letters are still extant by which the four lodges which had existed for a long period previous to 1717 , and then existing in London , invited their brethren throughout

England to unite with them in 1717 to form the Grand Lodge of England ; and certainly they do not accord with the notion of the perfect novelty of the system . But if it was then newly devised , how did its framers succeed in winning for it such general approbation ? How did they succeed in getting the Grand Lodge founded at all , and in getting noblemen of the highest rank to join them , and to

accept office as their Grand Masters ? To me this seems utterly incredible ; and nothing more , I think , is requisite to show the 1717 theory to be utterly baseless . A similar argument is applicable to the theory of the invention of the system of Freemasonry in the 17 th century by Elias Ashmole and his friends . The only possible solution , it seems to me , of the difficulty which presents itself is that

of supposing Freemasonry to be of ancient origin , and to have grown to greater and greater perfection through the lapse of ages , holding a high place in the estimation of men , so that kings and nobles were willing to be enrolled amongst the members of the Order . The probability of this supposition appears , at least , to be much greater than that of any other ; and it behoves those who maintain

those opinions to show clearly what ground they have for them . A mere arbitrary assumption of a particular date or authorship is of no value . I have no doubt that both Ashmole , Desaguliers , and Anderson contributed much to the improvement of the system of Freemasonry . But so have others since , and improvement is not to be confounded with invention .

Moreover—and this , I think , is an important consideration—none of them were at all likely to set up a system of imposture . For it comes to this , on the theory that either the one party or the other invented the system of Freemasonry , whatever it may be in itself , either party invented it , and they must have been guilty of palming it

upon the world as what they knew that it was not . Now , Ashmole , Desaguliers , and Anderson were men of high character , and menofhigh scientific attainments . Werethey likely , let me ask , to employ themselves in framing a system founded on imposture , and asking others to join them in it ? There are few things that appear to me more incredible .

Although Bro . XV . P . Buchan has attempted to throw cold water upon Dr . Anderson , a native of Edinburgh by birth , and for many years Chaplain to the Grantl Lodge of England , the Parliament of Scotland gave him a vote of thanks for a work of his production , considering him a man of a high order of literary talent . This is sufficient , I think , to satisfy the world of his abilities . In my letter I mentioned that I was busy with several

Masonic works , and on their being finished I would take up the whole question . I mentioned it for the sole reason that it is quite impossible for any one to enter into a controversy about the history of l reemasonry without occupying a very great deal of time , and such I have not to spare at present . I shall not again reply to anything from liro . XV . P . Buchan , except through what I consider the proper channel , The Freemason , and I trust to him doing the same .

I remain , Sir , yours obediently , CHALMERS I . PATON . The Tower , Porlobello , 21 st May , 1 S 70 . Bro . W . P . Buchan says , in his introduction at page 322 , " Perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a portion of your valuable space to show the answers which I gave . " Although it is quite truethat

he did give answers to my letters , they were not given in the same words as now appearing in THE FREEMASON ' . There is a portion of one letter inserted in the other , and also a portion of one of them left out . It would have been more truthful just to have given his letter as it appeared in the newspaper . That is what 1 would call , to use a

familiar phrase of his own , " raising a little smoke , so that all will not see his mistake . " The mistake I mean is the putting down of Dr . Anderson ' s works as "displaying little judgment . " I am of opinion that Bro . W . P . Buchan feels a little ashamed of this , and now withdraws it . This I feel pleased to see he has done , and for which I give

him credit . If Bro . W . P . Buchan would give us a series of articles in THE FREEMASON to support his 1717 theory , he might expect some support if he can prove his statement , which , I believe , he is unable to do . Till then we can only believe what is

written in history . It is my intention to send to THE FREEMASON a series of articles on "The Origin of Freemasonry the 1717 Theory Exploded . " In which I will say all that I intend taying , and thus end the controversy . CHALMERS I . PATON .

Consecration Of A Masonic Hall In Australia.

CONSECRATION OF A MASONIC HALL IN AUSTRALIA .

A new Freemasons' Hall was consecrated at Flinders-street , Adelaide , on Tuesday , the 22 nd of March , 1870 . Seats were provided for close on 200 persons , and the right of enMe was strictly confined to Master Masons . Soon after seven o'clock , every seat being

occupied , the D . G . Master ( Bro . Arthur Hardy , J . P . ) entered the hall , accompanied by the Provincial G . M . Irish Constitution ( Bro . the Hon . John Tuthill Bagot , M . L . C ., Chief Secretary ) , and attended by the D . D . G . Master ( Bro . His Honour Henry E . Downer , Commissioner of

Insolvency and S . M . ) , the P . D . D . G . Master ( Bro . Dr . Whittell , J . P . ) , the D . G . Senior Warden ( Bro . His Honor Judge Gwynne ) , the D . G . Junior Warden ( Bro . C . R . Darton ) , the D . G . Chaplain ( Bro . Rev . Canon Farr , M . A . ) , the D ' . G . R . ( Bro . J . R . Gumer ) , the D . G . Treas . ( Bro . F . J . Botting ) , the

D . G . Sec . ( Bro . R- E . Lucy ) , D . G . Sup . Works ( Bro . Hon . Thomas English ) , and the other officers of the District Grand Lodge . There were also present the D . P . G . M . Irish Constitution ( Bro . W . Fiveash ) , and the Substitute P . G . M . Scotch

Constitution ( Bro . Wills ) , besides several officers ofthe Irish and Scotch Grand Lodges . The usual forms were observed , and on the District Grand Lodge being declared open , the following ode was sung by an efficient choir , accompanied on the organ by Bro . H . L . Durieu ( D . G . Organist ) : —

TUNE— " God Save the Queen . " Hail ! Universal Lord , By heaven and earth adored ; All hail ! great God ! Before Thy name we bend , To us thy grace extend ,

And to our prayer attend , All hail I great God ! The imposing ceremony of consecration was then gone through . But the grand feature of the evening , valuable both for its originality and its intrinsic beauty—the oration of the Rev . Canon Farr , D . G .

Chaplain , following the ceremony of consecration ) was as follows : — " Among other thoughts imprinted on our minds as Masons , we are especially led to consider that our time is not our own ; that it is a great and solemn trust committed to our care by the Great Architect of the Universe—not

foi our own enjoyment only , but for the use of all around us . In consonance with this teaching we have been this day dedicating to the service and to the use of our brethren a hall in which our meetings may be held , and in which the brethren may receive that instruction which will enable them to rear up

for the services of the Almighty no mere material temple , but a house not madewith hands , a spiritual temple , in which each artificer duly labouring will find his place . Of that spiritual temple we have the figure here . If the corner stone be well and trulylaid ; if the walls

becarefullytestedbythcplumbline , are upright and stable ; if the cement is firm and binding , years and years may roll on , and our work will still be standing . How many generations of men may assemble within these walls I How often will the words that have come down to us through long ages be here repeated in hushed

solemnity to those who will be our successors I Perchance this hall , where we now assemble in the vigour of health , may witness another gathering when wc have been called away , and our brethren are summoned to follow that which remains of us to the tomb ; for , like the bells , our hall has a

changeful voice—it speaks of sorrow as well as of joy—of the evening ' s labour and its refreshmentof life ' s labour and its rest . How many generations indeed—for of the end of Freemasonry who shall speak ? Its foundations are so deeply sunk that man cannot reach them with certainty ; they are at

least so wide and so strong that the building raised upon them may grow to tne world's end . Wide as the world itself , we know no distinction of colour or of country . We acknowledge the brotherhood of all wdio are of Adam ' s race . We close our doors to no free man whose faith rests in the Great Creator ;

and surely in a system such as ours , where each symbol has its significance , each word its hidden meaning , 'free' is a word of more than ordinary import . For he is not free who is a bondsman to his passions ; he is not free who is a servant to uncleanness ; he is not free who is Ihe slave of

avarice ; he is not free whos ; Lord is 'hisappetites ;' but he is free who , by Gcd ' s grace , is himself his own master , who can still in his breast the tumultuous uprisings of anger ; who can control and subdue the wildness of desire ; who can sec with unenvying contentment the prosperity of those around him , and , if God has blessed him with worldly

means , can pour forth from the fountain of his wealth an ever-flowing stream of benevolence . Nor is he free whose mind is in the toils of superstition . Freemasonry does not concern itself with political questions . It teaches those who belong to the brotherhood to be obedient to the laws of the land wherein they live . S-iperstition alone recognises a