Provincial Funds.

Province of Lincolnshire , owing to its size , is not s 0 rich as some provinces , its returns are both interesting and valuable , and we shall be glad to receive similar provincial returns , and happy to analyze them for the information of our many readers .

Dedication Of The New Masonic Hall At New York.

DEDICATION OF THE NEW MASONIC HALL AT NEW YORK .

We call the attention of our readers to the interesting account of this remarkable scene taken from the Philadelphia Keystone , edited so admirably by our able and courteous confrere Clifford P . MacCalla . It was certainly a wonderful and striking gathering , which our brother so well and

so eloquently records . " Twenty-five thousand Masons were in line , says our brother , and participated in the Masonic procession , and solemn ceremonies . " The official numbers are 23 ,-3 60 ! Surely these figures almost say more than words . The Craft in America have

had bitter trials and angry adversaries , and the dreadful persecution ot the absurd Morgan affair to go through . But to-day Freemasonry is rapidly spreading through the United States , and in ten years more , if it progresses , as it is now progressing year by year , it will be counted by

one or two millions . As it is , it is said , on the authority of the reporter for the Standard at New York , that there are 9 , 101 lodges in the United States , with a membership of 524 , 6 49 brethren , but this does not include the Royal Arch and Templar organization . We believe that their

real number is near 7 > - The reporter states that in the figures he gives as the census for 1870 in America , namely , 58 , 576 , 371 inhabitants ; there is one Mason for every 74 inhabitants in the United States , a larger proportion of Masons than is to be found in any other country . Well these are cheering facts , and the

record of another page proves that our American brethren are wise in their generation , and are building deeply , and truly , and well , as faithful and trusting Craftsmen . May the new Masonic Hall serve as an impetus to Freemasonry in that great city and district , and may it tend to a large developement of as true Masonic charity and practical and useful benevolence .

Archæological Progress. No. Vii.

ARCH ? OLOGICAL PROGRESS . No . VII .

All the little " waifs" cast upon the great shore of Masonic Archaeology are valuable to the Masonic student . It had long been a question what was the exact connexion of tho Masons '

Company of the City of London with our speculative and accepted Order . Sir F . Palgrave laid it down as an historical fact that about the close of the 17 th century , the Freemasons and the Masons' Company separated , but of this

fact , as he puts it , there is , in truth , no historical trace ! It seems most doubtful whether the Masons' Company ever had anything to do with the Society of Freemasons . It seems to have been nothing but a pure trade guild ,

existing side by side with the Society of Freemasons . If ever it was connected with the actual Freemasons , that link has long been broken . Much stress has been laid on two entries in Elias Ashmole ' s Diary , but searches kindly made in the

books of the Masons' Company prove most indisputably that there is no actual identity between the Masons' Company and the Society of Freemasons . The Masons mentioned at Warrington were not members of the London

Masons' Company , as some have thought , and the old Masons whom Elias Ashmole mentions by name , in London , were clearly both Freemasons and members of the Masons ' Company at the same time . Hence the meeting

at Masons' Hall in 1682 , was that of Freemasons proper , and they admitted into their Order , members of the then Masons' Company . Elias Ashmole was not a member of the Masons' Company , nor was , curiously enough ,

Sir Christopher Wren , and we are especially told that the Master of the Masons' Company , Mr . Thomas Wise , was present at the special meeting or emergency meeting , as we should term it , at Masons' Hall , March 10 th , 1682 . All the names of Freemasons mentioned ia Ashmole ' s

Archæological Progress. No. Vii.

Diary are now verified , except Captain Borthwick and Waidsford , Esq ., as belonging to the Masons ' Company , and yet as also members of the Society of Freemasons . As the Masons ' Company did not meet in Basinghall Street , March 10 th , as it did not dine at the , c Hal

-Moon , Cheapside , nor was it in the-habit of dining there , it is quite clear that the meeting Ashmole mentions was a meeting of Freemasons proper , and not of the Masons' Company . We then come to this , that in 1682 , the Society of Freemasons was in existence alike in London ,

Lancashire , Staffordshire , on the distinct statement of trustworthy authorities , and at York in 16 9 8 , and no doubt much earlier . What becomes of the 1717 theory ? To use a slang phrase , it is " nowhere . " We anticipate many further discoveries yet , as regards old

records and minute books . The oldest minute book in England , so far known , is that of Alnwick , 1702 , and the next to it appears to be that of the Lodge of Industry , Gateshead . But others , no doubt , exist inforgotten collections of Masonic

records , and unopened boxes in our various lodges , and we feel sure that careful search would result in the discovery of documents which , as far as they prove anything , * would make clear the existence and continuation of the " Society of Freemasons" before 1700 .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do net holtl ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . ] THE GUILD THEORY ' versus THE 17 * 7

THEORY . To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have several times read over the important letters upon this subject from " A Masonic Student" and Bro . W . J . Hughan , at page 223 , and I am only sorry that pressure of business and other literary work quite prevents

me at present from dealing with this subject in the way I would like to do . There is much to be said upon it that , so far as I am aware , has never yet been said by any one . 1 believe that 1 hold one end of the chain , which if I were only able to draw it in would astonish even Bro . Hughan himself to sec what came with it . For me , however , to attempt to deal with this subject properly at

present would be something equivalent to committing suicide in reference to other matters , and I have not the slightest intention of doing so at present , consequently I must delay coming to real close quarters with Bro . Hughan just now . I may , however , I trust , ask to be permitted to say a few words in reply to the letters on page 223 . ' * A Masonic Student" there says , "That Freemasonry existed before

1717 we have the most undoubted proofs . " Now I admit that fully , and am also ready to admit that " Freemasonry " existed in the thirteenth century , but the " Freemasonry " that existed several hundred years ago was not our Freemasonry . Neither did the " Freemasons " then existing know anything of our system of Freemasonry . As one proof of this I would point to the fact that the French ,

who led the van in mediaeval Freemasonry ( and who carved their records upon cathedrals " in a manner unsurpassed anywhere ) , knew nothing of what is now known as "Freemasonry" until about A . D . 1725 . Now , how is this ? Then there is the Pope ' s Bull of 1738 , which says that the Society had only been recently formed . Was the Pope and his advisers then telling lies , or showing their ignorance ,

or what were they doing ? As to what " A Masonic Student" says about Ashmole and Robert Padgett , & c , being Freemasons , it would be premature to reply until exact copies of a number of the minutes of the London Masons' Company and of this " Society of Freemasons" arc published . As to non-operatives being admitted into Masonic lodges long before A . D .

1717 , I am aware of that just as well as " A Masonic Student " and Bro . Hughan , and I have repeatedly said that they were so admitted , only I do not admit that they were thereby made acquainted with our system of Freemasonry . In fact , how could they ? seeing that even Bro . Hughan himself has repeatedly stated that our system of Freemasonry was not in existence

until A . D . 17171 In regard to this latter point " A Masonic Student" has been more consistent in his published remarks than Bro . Hughan , or else " the Guild Theory" as held by thc latter must be something very different from "thc Guild Theory" as held by the former . To settle this , perhaps both of these talented brethren will in next week's Freemason favour us with independent

explanations on the subject , including the antiquity they give to our three degrees ; and what , or how many degrees , if any , existed before 1717 . As to who were the authors of our system of Freemasonry , I again say that , so far as 1 can j udge , it was Desaguilliers , Anderson , and their friends , who manufactured it out of Bible legends , Pagan mysteries & c , making use of

the four old London lodges for that purpose . The fact of Ashmole and other gentlemen being Freemasons before 1717 simply paved the way for Desaguillicrs and his system , and so far as I can judge no Freemasonry , " identical with our present speculative Order , " existed before A . D . 1717 , any more than did Christianity exist before the time of Christ ,

Original Correspondence.

I find that I am quite unable to follow this up at present for want of time , but , I would beg of those who oppose me to remember that whereas the opponents of the 17 r 7 theory , have been engaged in bolstering up the antiquity of speculative Freemasonry for the last one hundred and forty years , and have hundreds or thousands of published works to refer to in support of their ideas , yet the supporters of the

1717 theory have as yet very little . Bro . Hughan himself has done great service , and has been hard at work , for many years , and has published various valuable Masonic works , yet after reading them I still hold by the 1717 theory , believing that if only one-hundreth part of the time

and money spent on Masonic researches was applied to seek out and publish the equally interesting records of the other Crafts , then the truth of the 1717 theory would be established . I am , fraternally yours , W . P . B . ciuff .

To the Editor ofthe Freemason , Dear Sir and Brother , — I need not copy the tone of Bro . Buchan ' s letter " exemplar vltus imitabile ; " 1 would rather invite your readers to turn back to the correspondence on this subject , commencing about the middle of the year 1870 , and extending through the first few months of 1871 . I venture

to say that they would want no further discussion of that airy nothing which has been dignified by the title of a "theory . " If Bro . Hughan had the leisure to turn back to the past correspondence , I believe he would at once qualify his offer to re-open the subject , and would be amazed that this exploded emptiness should be again dragged out to catch the unwary eyes of new brethren

whose experiences have yet to come . On the i _ th of November , 1870 , Bro . Hughan expressly requests Bro . Buchan to state " the reasons why he believed Freemasonry was originated in 1717 , and not revived . " Here was a plain opportunity for enabling your readers to judge of the grounds upon which Bro . Buchan ' s assertion was based ; grounds which all the laws of fair discussion

and Masonic candour required him , there and then , unequivocally to give . His reply on the 3 rd of December following is at once so brief , as well as self-convincing , that I give it in extenso . Bro . Buchan says : " So tar as I can at present judge , London in 1717 neither saw the ' revival' nor the ' origin ' of our system of Freemasonry ; but its institution and inauguration . " So Bro . Buchan ' s

evidence of a fact is his own judgment , and this is the manner in which so bold a " theorist " ventures to defend his assertions , before the intelligence of your readers , against the facts produced by careful enquirers . On the 24 th of December , 1870 , our patient Brother Hughan again appealed to Bro . Buchan to supply evidence in support of his " theory , " and pledged himself to examine it very carefully ;

but it was useless ; the assertion is empty , and has no evidence , ex nihils nihil fit . After being reminded of these facts , will Bro . Hughan still adhere to an unqualified offer to re-open the discussion with Bro . Buchan J The brother from Cincinnati ( who wrote in January , 1871 ) did not originate my producing the MS . of 1500 That brother appeared only towards the closing scenes '

of the discussion , with a nourish of ( his own ) trumpets , in the role of everybody ' s critic ( excepting , perhaps , Bro . Buchan's ) . He played his ( very small ) part , complained much of his reception , went out ( without the music ) , and returned no more . If Bro . Buchan had stated that I was mistaken in saying he had " challenged " me to produce an early reference to the word " speculative , "

but that his " challenge" had reference to a statute relating to Masons , he would have been right . I was thus far in error , as I readily acknowledge . Bro . Buchan " challenged" me , on the 3 rd December , 1870 , to produce acts of Parliament passed before last century which did not also apply to other Crafts . I met his challenge fairly in the following number ; but 1

regret to say that thc evidence thus offered was , as I and other of your correspondents have had reason to complain , not met with that desire to investigate , rather than detract , which may be fairly expected from any brother who enters upon a controversy with a desire to attain the truth , rather than to back up a mere opinion . My reference to the MS . was published on the 24 th of

December , 1870 , I believe , m opposition to an assertion that the use of the word " speculative" could not be shown in any Masonic document dating before 1717 . I said as much on the 21 st January , 1871 . I think your readers will not consider it necessary for me to reply to an unworthy insinuation , in Bro . Buchan's P . S ., that I should be likely to appropriate anv credit he

may deserve for the production of interesting information . I have not referred to the date he gives ( July , 1871 ) , but I can say that my letter as to the indenture of covenants , in reference to the white aprons and white gloves , appeared on the 10 th December , 1870 , Bro . Buchan at the time doing me the honour to designate it " a pretended quotation , " such being the good taste which he extended to the enquiry .

My adducing this indenture originated in the modest statement by Bro . Buchan ( 29 th October , 1870 ) , that because he knew of no authority for the white apron before 1717 he was kind enough to " consider it was only then introduced . " Verily , it is well for some of us that there

arc a few things in this world besides those which have come under our brother ' s special notice . With a repeated word of warning to new brethren to seek the substance of proof , and to reject the shadow of mere opinion , however confidently asserted , permit me to bid thc thc phantom of 1717 once more adieu . —LUPUS .

THE OLIVER MEMORIAL . To the Editor ofthe Freemason , Dear Sir and Brother-Being the projector of the scheme to obtain a scholarship at one of our universities for one of our ablest boys at the Masonic Institution , I may be excused , -. hope ,