Original Correspondence.

Mr . W . J . Hughan writes an unbiased letter without much point in it , from which the only deduction that can fairly be drawn favours the assumption by the Prince of a title yet to be proved by tracing a pedigree through four turbulent centuries , because Charles II . was entitled to be called

King during the time he was deprived of his kingdom . I can see no analogy between the two cases —the one was born to be a king , and actually died a king , but the other never will , so far as human foresight can see , fill the Hellenic throne . " Philalethes " says , in his published letter , that

Prince Rhodocanakis is ' altogether unknown on the Manchester Exchange" —a fact that does not much assist his view of the case . Let " Philalethes " inquire amongst the Greek merchants of Manchester who Prince (?) Rhodocanakis is , and he will be amused at the incredulous shrug ( so

peculiar to your pure Greek ' s shoulders ) with which he will be received . He will find that this self-constituted Prince is , so far as his title is concerned , entirely ignored . Now , I submit that , if his claims and pretensions were based upon even a shadow of foundation , the

Greek community here , or at all events some portion thereof , would be proud to consider they had in their midst one who could be justly styled His Imperial Highness . It is a pity the Prince (?) used a title so evidently denied him in his intercourse with the world , for the purpose of taking higher

honours in the Craft . Julius A . Pearson , and your other correspondents who attack Sir Bernard Burke on the ground of his being easily deceived , forget that this argument cuts two ways . If Sir Bernard is easily gullible ,

then Prince Rhodocanakis must have a very bad case , indeed , if he dare not submit his claims to Ulster . Let us have the proofs—the proofs , and nothing but the proofs . I enclose my card , and have the honour to be , Yours faithfully , VERITAS . Manchester , August 16 th , 1870 .

ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I now beg to append my answer to Bro . Paton ' s letter which appeared at pages 345 and 346 of your issue for July 16 th . I sent it to the Star on Saturday , but the editor tells me that it cannot appear in his columns for some time , on account of the pressure

on his space of the war news , and the length of my letter . As the Star has only two leaves , 1 must therefore wait its convenience ; but as that need not keep back the settlement ofthe controversy in your columns , where it first originated , I respectfully trust that you will , by publishing the following , allow the same to be proceeded with .

ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY . ( To the Editor of the Star . ) Sir , —In your issue of June 3 rd appears a second letter from Bro . Chalmers I . Paton , upon this subject , and which I ought to bave replied to sooner ; but as the whole correspondence which appeared in your columns was to be re-published by Till' FREEMASON , a London Masonic

paper , I judged it belter to wait until that had been done , which it now is , ere I replied upon the whole mailer in my second letter , which I now proceed to give : — At the outset of Bro . Paton ' s letter it says "Bro . XV P . Buchan says my letter is full of mistakes , but he does not even condescend to point out these mistakes . " Now , I thought such had been done , to some extent at least ,

but that there may be no quibbling this time , I shall give a list of a number of Bro . Paton ' s mistaken notions . 1 . That the Speculative Freemasonry now in existence is the same as the Operative Freemasonry of several centuries ago . 2 . That the old Operative Free-masons , who built houses , churches , & c , of stone and lime , both knew and

practised our system of Freemasonry . 3 . That ( ' //; - " Freemasonry" existed before last century . 4 . That he can prove that our " three degrees existed before A . D . 1717 . " 5 . That the 17 th century St . Clairs of Roslyn were "Grand Masters . "

6 . That the dates of what are known as the Roslyn Charters are , the fust , in or after 1603 , and the second , 1630 . 7 . That the words " Craft and vocation" in said Charters do not simply mean their trade , but have something mysterious in them . . 8 . That Kings Charles II . and William III . were

initiated into our system of Speculative Masonry . 9- That because the words " free-mason " and " freemasonry " existed in 1570 , therefore it follows that if these words arc used in 1870 the things signified hy these Words are in both cases thc same . 10 . That the pretended Henry VI . document is genuine .

. II . That Elias Ashmole knew aught of , assisted at instituting , or practised our system of Freemasonry . 12 . That the article in Chambers' Encyclopedia on Freemasonry is up to the mark of A . D . 1 S 70 . . ' 3- That it is impossible for Freemasonry , or Speculative Masonry , to have spread as it has done since 1717 . 14 . That the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge , consisting

Original Correspondence.

of noblemen and gentlemen , existed and practised our Speculative Masonry in and before 1717 . 15 . That Speculative Freemasonry existed in Scotland in 1136 . 16 . That the masons , or stone-workers , as craftsmen , were something far above the smiths , or other metalworkers , wrights , weavers , & c , & c . The work of all the

latter being quite common-place , while that of the former had something awfully mysterious and wonderfully incomprehensible about it ! 17 . That because Speculative Freemasonry existed in the 18 th century , it was quite impossible for said iSth century to produce it . ( Ergo , it follows that because our

railway and telegraphic systems exist in the 19 th century A . D ., it was quite impossible for the 19 th century to produce them . They must have " originated" with those wonderful geniuses who existed in the 19 th century B . C ., who , of course , knew everything . Truly , distance lends enchantment to the view . ) 18 . That he is able to " explode " the 1717 theory .

As to Nos . 1 and 2 , of these I need only observe that Operative Masonry has existed for ages , and is older than the pyramids . Operative Masons require to learn their trade , but they do not necessarily require to know anything of Speculative Masonry , especially the Speculative Masonry which is now known as " Freemasonry . " Take , for instance , the Operative Masons working at the new

University on Gilmourhill , it is quite possible there is not a single Freemason among them all , yet they will do their work equally well notwithstanding . Further , while I admit that Operative Masonry is older than the pyramids , I consider that operative carpentry is older than both ; the carpenter preceded thc mason , and the work in wood served as a model , so far , for the work in stone .

As to the 3 rd item , I shall believe it after I have seen proof . tin the 4 th , notwithstanding Bro . Paton ' s vaunted ability in his first letter to prove that our " three degrees " existed before 1717 , he forgot to give us any proof whatever of such having been thc case . He alludes to Elias Ashmole being admitted a "fellow" of thc Masons'

Society in the 17 th century ; but as he might also have been admitted a " fellow , " or honorary member , ofthe Carpenters' Society , such " fellowship " does not prove that he was made a Master Mason such as we now are , but rather the opposite . However , there , is no use in speculating upon this point , there are the minute books of the Edinburgh Lodge for a hundred and sixteen years before 1717 ,

also those of "Mother Kilwinning" and other lodges , long before 1717 . Yet all these show that our system of Speculative Freemasonry was quite unknown to any of them until after 1717 , when it was introduced from England . Further , on these 3 rd and 4 th points , allow me to give the following remarks of Bro . D . Murray Lyon , than whom I know not a better Masonic student in Scotland ,

viz . : "Non-operatives cannot be shown to have to any extent been admitted members of lodges before 1634 , and then only they were admitted as Fellows of the Masonic Craft , just as in our day , the Prince of Wales or any other non-professional gentleman , may be received as an honorary member of the Fishmongers' Society . Such admission had something to do in paving the wav for the

more easy adoption ofthe Speculative Freemasonry that was afterwards manufactured by Desaguliers and ( do . From what I have seen of Mary ' s Chanel records , I am convinced that this is right , and that 1721 may be pointed to as the date of the formal inauguration in Scotland ofthe English system of Freemasonry , as manufactured by Desaguliers , Anderson , and Co . " And anent the third degree , Bro .

Lyon also says , " It has hitherto been pointed to , in proof of the antiquity of the third degree , that Robert Moray , a a soldier , was made a Master Mason in 1641 , in the Lodge of Edinburgh , Mary ' s Chapel . He was nut made a Master Mason , but , like some oilier non-opci . iiives , had an honorary connection with that Masons' Society . " Allow me , also to add a few words of mv most esteemed

friend , and highly-talented brother , \\ . J . Hughan , of Truro , whose writings have thrown a flood of light upon many points of the history of Freemasonry in England , viz ., " The Crafts were provided for from thc 15 th century and afterwards , without any . sp . ci . il distinction for Masons . ' Wrichtes an I Maisone- ' were often classed together , and certainly there was nothing special in the

latter , so far as may be gathered by the Acts of Parliament . Wc read ofthe Wardens and Dcaknes of Crafts , but never as applied exclusively to Masonry . Why ? Surely , because that as a body it contained nothing requiring different legislation to the others . " And anent the third degree he says , " No proof of the third degree having been worked as a degree , apart from any other degree , and

confined to members only of that degree , anterior to the iSth century has ever been given . Let those that say that such ever occurred before , produce the necessary documentary evidence . Mere tradition and legends can be produced to proiv the greatest absurdities , and the mast palpablelies in the creation . " I have no doubt but that these remarks of Bro . Hughan will be highly appreciated by Bro . Paton ,

and he will also be very grateful to me for quoting them , more especially , as , at page 307 of THK FREEMASON , we lately find him—referring to some of Bro . Hughan ' s remarks—observing , "Bro . XV . J . Hughan has , at page 283 , a highly noble duty on hand , and for which every honest thinking member of the Fraternity should accord him tlieir best wishes . I personally do so , " & c .

On the 5 th point , there is not the slightest evidence , either in the Roslyn Charters or elsewhere , to show that any St . Clair of Roslyn was a "Graud Master" in thc 17 th century . They were simply Judges or Referees of the operative masons , appointed or chosen to settle their

trade disputes . A careful perusal , by any sensible man , ofthe two Roslyn writs will show this . There is no menlion of "Grand Master " in either , nor am I aware of the word "Freemason " occurring in any of them . In short , the Lairdsof Roslyn were simply " Wardanes and Justices " over the Operative Masons in the midland counties of

Original Correspondence.

Scotland , just as the Lairds of Udaucht were in the north-eastern . The King , in appointing Patrick Copland in 1590 , writing in a business manner , and in agreement with the nomenclature ofthe time , styles him a ' * Wardane and Justice , " and also gives him full "powers " to act as such , and to appoint "deputtis . " Bro . Paton seeing the word " Wardane " mentioned , immediately jumps to the

conclusion that a " Wardane " in 1590 , was just the same as a " Warden " in 1 S 70 ; but that is a mistake . A Scottish Wardane then was a head officer , with " deputtis " under him . Copland , therefore , was not appointed by the Laird of Roslyn , but by the King . The Masons who appoint St . Clair as their Justice , go down on their knees while doing so , and in a very humble , fawning sort of

style , acknowlege him as their " patron , protector , and overseer , " but the thing signified by these words in 1600 and 1628 , is just the same as that signified by " Wardane and Justice " in 1590 . In short , the Coplands ofthe 16 th century , held just the same position as " Overseers " ofthe operative masons as did the St . Clairs ofthe 17 th , and neither were "Grand Masters , " there being none such

in Scotland until A . D . 1736 . At page 163 of THE FREEMASON , for April 2 nd , will be found one of the best English Masonic students backing up my ideas upon this subject . There is one remark of Bro . Paton ' s that I consider to be perfectly correct , viz ., that strictly speaking , there was no Earl of Roslyn before the present century ; William St . Clair , who died in or about 1480 was then an

Earl , but thc title belonged to his Earldom of Caithness . The first Earl of Roslyn was Alexander Wedderburn , who was made such in 1 S 01 . He was succeed by his nephew , Sir James St . Clair-Erskine , in 1 S 05 . On the 6 th point , in proof that Bro . Paton is wrong , I observe , whereas he boldly reiterates his notion that the first Roslyn charter was granted " after his ( James VI . ' s )

accession to the English thro . ie , " it was in reality granted before that date ; for while that happened in 1603 , the the Roslyn writ was granted by authority of William Scliaw , " Maister of Wark , " and it also bears his signature . Now , as he died in 1602 , it follows that he must have signed it in or before 1602 ; consequently for other reasons I adhere to my date of 1600 , or perhaps 1601 .

As we learn from Bro . W . A . Lawrie ' s " History of Freemasonry , " this William Schaw was born in 1550 , and was Maister of Wark from 15 S 4 to 1602 . For further proof that he is wrong , Bro . Paton may safely consult THE FREEMASON for July 9 th , page 331 . As to the second charter , which Bro . Paton imagines was granted in 1630 , I hold to my former date oi 1628 , because that

was the year in which the parties who signed it held office in their several lodges . It appears to me that Bro . Paton has been misled by the remarks on this subject at pages 102 and 1030 ! Alex . Lawrie ' s "History of Freemasonry , " published in 1 S 04 . It is there stated to be "dated 1630 , " but if Bro . Paton will turn to page 52 of the new edition published in 1859 by Wm . A . Lawrie , he will find this

foot-note-. — "This date ( 1630 ) has been generally given , and is that which appears in the copy of the charter in Hay ' s MSS . in the Advocates' Library ; but on reference lo the books of the Lodge of Edinburgh at that period , it would appear to have been executed between 1626 and 162 S , these being ihcycar . dnring which William Wallace , who subscribes the charter as Deacon of the Edinburgh

Masons , acted in that capacity . From the foregoing I expect your readers will admit the justice of my former remark in your issue of May 12 th , viz ., "Bro . Paton , who is so good at re-retailing dreams and exploded notions , " for instead of giving us the " latest news " he is doing his best to perpetuate the mistakes of sixty-six years ago ! Poor fellow ! he seems to have been asleep for the last

half-century , for here he comes with his cld-fashioned muzzle-loader , expecting , as he tells us , to explode the 1717 theory , which , however , happens to be defended by all the " newest appliances . " So if Mr . . Martini-Henry , or Mr . Snider , is as good as his word , our old friend Mr . Musket may turn to the right-about as long as he has legs left to carry him . ( To be continued . )

DARKNESS . —Thedarkncssof Masonry is invested with a pure and dignified reference , because it is attached to a system of truth . It places- before the mind a series ofthe most awful and impressive images . It pointsto the darkness of death and the obscurity of the grave , as the forerunners of a more brilliant and never-fading light which follows at the resurrection of the just . Figure to yourselves the

beauty and strict propriety of this reference , ye who have been raised to the third degree of Masonry . Were your mindsenvclopcd in theshadesof that darkness ? So shall you again be involved in the darkness of the grave , when Death has drawn his sable curtain round you . Did you rise to a splendid scene of intellectuul brightness ? So , if you

are obedient lo the precepts of Masonry and the dictates of religion , shall you rejoice on the resurrection morn , when the clouds of error and imperfection are . separated from your mind , ami you behold with unveiled eyes the glories which issue from the expanse of heaven , the everlasting splendours of the throne of God !

REPORT of Dr . Arthur Hill Hassall , Analyst of the " Lancet" Sanitary Commission , Author of " Food and ils Adulterations , " & C ., & c , on Mayar ' s Semolina : " I have carefully tested , chemically and microscopically , the samples of Semolina sent by Messrs . L . Mayar & Co ., 36 , Mark Lane , London , E . C . I find them to be perfectly genuine , of excellent quality , and eminently nutritious . They contain a very large percentage of

nitrogenous matter , chiefly gluten , and avc far more nutritious than any other food , such as Arrowroot , Tapioca , Sago , Corn Flour , Farinaceous Food , ordinary Wheat Flour , or any of the Cereals in use as food in this country . — ( Signed ) ARTHUR HH . I . IIASSAI . I ., M . D ., London . " - - Highly recommended by the Faculty for Infants , Invalids , & c . Makes delicious Pudding , Custards , Blanc Mange , & c . After a trial no family will be without Mayar ' s Semolina .