Foreign Grand Lodges.

Masonic life and work which have stood the test of time , and which wc have not the slightest intention of relaxing or letting go . Though we do not interfere with any religious opinions or

controversies , in any shape , and though we carefully eschew all political declarations , yet we openly avow that , as an Order , we are , both in profession and practice , moral and respectable , and that the

Law of God , as contained in the Bible , ( a book always open in our Lodges ) , is alike our golden rule of personal duty and active benevolence . This one fact alone would bring us into collision

at once with many foreign bodies , which , following in the path of the " Illumines , " would apparently seek to graft by degrees upon the pure and simple teaching of Freemasonry , the dogmas

of a sceptical philosophy , and the cold negations of a refined stoicism . So to-day , as we know well the utter hopelessness of all such proposals , from whomsoever they may emanate , we do not

in our practical English Freemasonry , give them any heed , content ] to leave to the future the things of the future , and in the meantime to progress , let us hope , alike , safely and truly in the

good old ways of our honest and active English craft . "Whatever else may betide , however other Grand Lodges may prosper , or decay , we shall adhere to our ancient landmarks in all of fealty

and firmness . We shall march on contentedly under our goodly banner , " a band of brethren , " a " phalanx , " so to say , , of those , who , cemented together in the ever sacred cause of

toleration , peacefulness , and brotherly love , are also associated in all of fraternal good-will and sympathy , to aid , support , and relieve those for

whom , in our numerous brotherhood to-day , by unavoidable calamity , or helplessness , or decay , our Masonic sympathy is justly claimed , or our kindly assistance is earnestly invoked .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , I had hoped , that , we had heard the last of this remarkable correspondence , and that your many readers had seen the last ^ of my appearance " in this character . " But many are

[ Wc do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , hut we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary I imits—free discussion . —Eu . J MASONS' MARKS .

the disappointments of life , and something like our good old friend , the clown , in happy pantomime days of yore , one has to say perforce , " Here we are again . " For in the meantime Bro . Paton has re-appeared on the scene , with all the " vis" and length of his last " deliverance , " and I openly at once profess my deep

admiration for the controversial skill , ( the snarling critic might say , perhaps , the cool assurance ) , with which he makes himself out to be right , and everybody else to be in the wrong , and with which , above all , he puts a good face on his own original blunder , and his own want of forbearance and self restraint .

No one can regret more than I do , on every ground , that , any possible exception could be taken to any words of mine , for any personal remarks especially , as I have always eschewed personalities j but , I have yet to learn that the pages of The Freemason are not open to free

discussion , or that any one is to be debarred from expressing an honest opinion , because it runs counter to some claimant of Masonic infallibility . Now I am not a believer in infallibility in general , or in Jlasonic infallibility in particular , and certain I am , even from the present discussion , that , were I to seek for a " Ductor Dubi-

Original Correspondence.

tantium , " in our Masonic controversies to-day , I should not take Urn . Paton for mine . M j great offence , no doubt was , that , in our archaeological discussion I ventured , as an old "

MaS'jnic Student , to enter a caveat for the benefit of my brethren against that baseless pretension to dogmatic authority , anent Masons ' Marks , to which Bio . Paton appeared to me , so rashly and so egotistically to lay claim .

" Hine ilia ; lachrymw . " •Let lis recall to our minds for a little space , and for my justification , how all this controversy arose , and how above all it took a personal turn , so , that , " culpam qui meruit ferat . "

Bro . Paton in the plenitude of his archa : ological knowledge of Masons' Marks originally boldly stated , that , the double triangle was not a Mason ' s Mark , because it had even points . All Marks he said must have an odd number of

points . Startling statement to me , and to others , who thought , that , we had studied the subject carefully , and yet had never heard of such a rule , and knew that as regards the Operative Marks , it was simply nonsense .

In his first precise statement , Bro . Paton neverlimited the discussion to Speculative Marks , whatsoever he may have intended in his own mind . We had only to deal with his bare and remarkable statement . ' It was at this time , that , I ventured to modestly

intervene , having carefully and specially studied Masons' Marks , now for OTer a decade of years , with the remark , that I had never heard of such a rule as regards the Operative Marks , and that the evidence of Laurie and D . M . Lyon ' s valuable works was fatal to Bro . Paton ' s sweeping assertions .

I also repeated , that , whether Bro . Paton knew it or not , the double triangle was an Operative Mark . Bro . Buchan also intervened , if I remember , in the discussion almost simultaneously with

myself . Now this was a purely archaeological question and had to be met archxologically . How did Bro . Paton reply ? In a most unfriendly , uncourteous , unmasonic letter .

Put paraphrastically it amounts to this , and if any one doubts it , let them peruse the choice production , for " litera scripta manet , " in the pages of The Freemason : — " You neither . of you know what you are writing about .

"My remarks [ apply only to Speculative Marks .

" As for ' Masonic Student , he has never studied the question , or if he has , his studies have only been utterly profitless to him . For he does not even know the difference between Operative or Speculative Marks , and has evidently never read Laurie , or D . M . Lyon , or Oliver . "

Now I say nothing of the gross discourtesy of any brother venturing to make such a reply to Masonic antagonists , and i ; pass over the personal rudeness of Bro . Patons' answer , ignoring my special reference to Laurie and Lyon , but I do say , that , from Bro . Paton such remarks are

simply offensive . Bro . Buchan replied very quietly that Bro . Paton had nowhere mentioned Speculative Masonry , and my reply was ( which is the fact ) that Bro . Paton had simply got beyond his depth altogether , and was laying down the law ,

without any authority whatevei , and clearly to my mind , without any original study ofthe subject . I also recommended him toamend his vocabulary , and to become a little more , a true " magister opens , " before he attempted to dogmatize to others , or overbearingly to prevent a fair

discussion of the question . Am I wrong , either in my opinion or my advice ? J think not . And all that has taken place only confirms my original opinion , how utterly incompetent

Bro . Paton is to attempt to set everybody else right on a matter of which he has yet to learn the very first princi ples . It may relieve Bro . Paton ' s mind to ' ,, know that I am a Mark Mason , and hold my " " Mark " from one of the oldest English Mark Lodges . My whole interest in the question is an archaeo-

Original Correspondence.

logical one , mid as regards the evidence of the speculative regulations , it is to me worie than useless . All I am anxious to impress upon your leaders is , that , Bro . Paton is the ori ginal offender , and that his great want of true Masonic courtesy was the cause of any remarks I felt it to be my duty to make .

My one aim ever has been the promulgation of Masonic truth and li ght , but I could not overlook such a retrograde step as Bro . Paton was taking in our Masonic study of our own archaeology and history , when he proposed to substitute for what was indisputable by evidence , the assertion of his own unfounded theory of Masonic Marks .

Yours fraternally , A MASONIC STUDENT .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In looking over the controversy which has taken place upon this subject in The Freemason , some may think that as Bro . Paton is dealing with the matter from a

Scottish point of view , while " A Masonic Student , " Bro . Hughan , & c , are English Masons , that , therefore , it may be possible that both may be right . If that be so , I fear that the idea is wrong , and , looking at the subject from a Scottish point of view myself , having personally

received the Mark degree in a Scottish lodge , I feel bound to differ from Bro . Paton in many of his ideas . In the pages of The Freemason this question is not to be dealt with either as a Scottish or an English one , but as a historical subject of general interest , to be handled in a

truthrul manner , the great object of every worker and writer being not to pander to any mere notion of the time for the sake of the temporary popularity it may bring , but to earnestly strive after the elucidition of the truth . It is in such a frame of mind , therefore , that I again

touch the shield of Bro . Paton with my lance , and , although a " Brither Scot ., " for the sake of truth , I again challenge him to the combat . I did so before at page 250 , April 25 th , but he declined the encounter . At page 375 , June 30 th , he , however , repeats the assertion

formerly made by him that the Scotish Mark Ritual " has been in use in Scotland for nearly 200 years . " Now , as a Scottish Freemason , I take the liberty to deny that , and give it as my opinion that said statement is most decidedly untruthful , the Scottish mark ritual not being

concocted until years after the introduction of our system of Speculative Freemasonry into Scotland by Desaguliers in 1721 . If I am wrong let Bro . Paton bring forward substantial evidence to prove it , and I shall then be ready to acknowledge that he was ri ght , and also to apologise for what I have said .

Yours fraternally , W . P . BUCHAN . [ With this letter , the"Masons' Marks " controversy must close in our columns . —En . ]

MARK MASONS AND THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS .

To the Editor of The Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Thus early I venture to inform the Mark Masons under the English constitution , that on their behalf my services have been accepted by the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons

of England , & c , as Steward at the next Festival in aid of the funds of the Masonic Boys' School . I trust that the support I shall receive from the provincial lodges , private lodges , and individual members will be of such a liberal character as to justify my appeal , and at the same time

do credit to the Mark Degree . At the meeting of Grand Lodge , held on the and of June , it was proposed by Bro F . Davison , D . P . G . Mark Master Mason of Middlesex and Surrey , and seconded by Bro . W . E . Gumbleton , P . G .

Senior Warden , that the sum of forty-two pounds be placed on my list . The example thus set by the Grand Mark Lodge should , I most fraternally submit , be followed by the Mark Lodges and Mark Masons throughout the country , and the total of my list on the day