Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason
  • Aug. 28, 1875
  • Page 8
Current:

The Freemason, Aug. 28, 1875: Page 8

  • Back to The Freemason, Aug. 28, 1875
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Page 8

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Original Correspondence.

feeling * happily existing between thc brethren of Hampshire and those of thc Isle of Wight . The fact is that from thc signature book , containing 200 or 250 names , I selected all thc Provincial Grand and Past Provincial Grand Officers ; this resulted in tbe publication of 37 names , 7 of which represented lodges in the island , in which there are 4 working lodges , tbe remaining - 30 names representing lodges on tbe mainland , when they

number in all 23 . In the hurry of copying out these names I did not notice that the P . P . G . Oflicers of the Cowes and Medina Lodges had either unfortunately not been able to attend , or had omitted to sign the attendance book . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J . G . Li : l- ' iaviti-:, P . G . Sec . Hants and Isle of Wight .

THE INSTALLATION OK THE M . W . G . MASTER . To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Seveial portraits of our M . W . G . M . being published , and in course of publication , in which different jewels are exhibited on his breast and banging from his neck , I

should like to know the actual jewels ( both Masonic and otherwise ) that he wore on his installation , as some I have seen on the portraits arc those belonging to Masonic Orders not recognised by the Grand Lodge of England . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J SMITH , 1257 .

THE POWERS OF W . MASTERS . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I shall feel greatly obliged if you could in your next issue give me your opinion as to the extent of the control which a VV . M . possesses over his lodge , and what constitutes incapability of discharging the duties of his office

other than by death or removal—see Constitutions , Art . 6 , of Masters and Wardens of Lodges . It often happens , I imagine , that a Master is temporarily absent from his lodge on account of sickness or othei pressing emergency , and what I want to know is whether such absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge . Has the lodge , for instance , any right to r < -fuse to

obey his directions that he should be regularly furnished with a copy of the summons for each meeting , and a report of the proceedings thereat , in order that he may be kept acquainted with all that was going on during his absence . The length of the term of such absence would not , I apprehend , affect the question in the least degree , for if absence at all deprives a Master of authority over his lodge , he

would lose it as much by one day ' s absence from the place where the lodge meets as by an absence of several months . And if a Master ' s absence is so fatal to his authority , it follows , I think , that all the W . M . ' s of provincial and foreign lodges who attended H . R . H . ' s installation as M . W . Grand Master in April last lost all control over their respective

lodges during their absence from the places of meetings of their lodges , and their wishes and instructions would therefore be necessarily disregardetl ! Yours fraternally , AN A 11 sKNT W . M . 18 th August , 1875 . [ A very difficult question to answer . —ED . ]

GRIMSBY MASONIC HALL . To Ihe Editor of Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — On the 2 nd inst . I was present at the laying of the foundation stone of the Masonic Hall , Great Grimsby , and from the large gathering together of P . G . Officers , and seveial noted members of the Craft , I quite expected to see

a full account of that most interesting ceremony in your paper , and looked forward with impatience for this last week's number , and I was somewhat disappointed at not even a word being mentioned , even to say that the ceremony had taken place , especially when the stone was laid by one who had done so much for our province and for the Craft . I now beg to furnish you with one of our local

papers , and beg that you will give room in your valuable paper for at least a moiety of the report . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , THOS . Fnvicn , W . M . 1282 , P . G . S . of Lincolnshire .

[ We only received the account on Friday , nor had we any intimation from any brother of what was going to take place . We publish the report in this impression . Brethren who ask for reports to be inserted should attend to the notices , and not blame us for their own carelessness . —ED . ]

MASONIC INFIDELITY . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read your criticism at page -jiio , but while cordially placing myself upon your side , I am not sure that the small heart and weak brain of " A Churchman" were really worthy of the lubbing down you give

them . I have no doubt but that this innocent genius imagines that he can reckon up the history of our globe upon his ten digits—thumbs included—in five minutes . The idea that rises up before my mind is that , having expended the large sum of sixpence sterling upon a pocket telescope , he has lately taken to studying astronomy , and upon directing bis gaze ' to the stars , with the big end of the

said telescope next his eye , for a better view , of course , he imagined himself to be a second Archimedes , and that with his pen for a lever , the telescope for a prop , and himself the power , he could easily overturn the world , especially the Masonic portion of it . 1 fear , however , he will not effect much , as the tools are too soft . Leaving " A Churchman " to digest his " abominable sentence , " and finish bis work at his leisure , 1 would re-

Original Correspondence.

spectfully call attention to thc various renderings given by Bro . Parkinson and yourself of what is requisite in a candidnte for Freemasonry . Bro . Parkinson says " Let a man ' s religion or mode of worship be what it may , he is not excluded from the Order , providetl he believe in the Glorious Architect of I leaven and Earth , and practise the sacred duties of morality . " You say , " In the lodge we

know nothing of religious disputations , differences , decrees , or dogmas ; we accept all good men who believe in the Great Architect of the Universe , ami revere the Revelation which He has given us . " Now , 1 would ask , Why this difference in the latter clause ? So far as I can Masonically judge , the words , " and revere thc Revelation which He has given us , " are an interpolation . Bro . Parkinson docs not

use them , and I do not see bow you could have penned th-m in a Masonic article unless through inadvertence Were tbey intentionally included I would feel inclined to say that their insertion caused the one part of the sentence to be contradictory to , or inconsistent with , the other part . We are told that a Mahommedan may make as good a Freemason as a Christian , but as " the Revelation " of the

one is not " the Revelation" of the other , it follows that thc less said about Revelation thc better for Masonic consistency , anil for their standing as Freemasons . If it were not for the cursed selfishness that makes a political tool of it , Religion would be left more to thc private home than it generally is . The world , however , is not yet old enough for that , hence the need of Freemasonry . Yours fraternallv , A FIU : I :. \ IASON .

[ The words animadverted upon are our own . See our leader . —En . ]

BRO . MAJOR BURGESS AND THE MARK . DEGREE , To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I find that in my last letter I omitted , under paragraph 3 , to say that of the persons there enumerated as forming the "Judicial Council , " Nos . 2 , 3 , 8 , y , and 10 , are all , to the best of my knowledge and belief , in addition

to Nos . 1 and 4 , " Knights of the Order of the Temple , " so called . It seemsiniportanl . as touching- " a Mark Master's " remarkable statement about that Council , that this fact should be stated . " A Mark Master , " apparently retreating from the po . sition , that I wrote a letter making a false charge , and marked that letter " private " in order to avoid thc

consequences of so doing , now says I have made " a disgraceful charge , " and " against a brother Mason . " 1 ask your readers , before they accept his statement , to require of bim good proof that my retirement from being a Masonic Templar ( a point proved by my letter to Mr . Tinkler , which he aids me by publishing ) , on account of certain conduct by a Masonic Templar , was merely a pretence and was not a

bona fide step on my part , sincerely taken by me on Masonic grounds , and in as a quiet a manner as was possible consistently -with thc c ' ncuinblanccs . 1 have not , as " A Mark "( Master" alleges , " refused to withdraw or prove , " to any Masonic body competent to deal with the matter , the true statement of the true cause of my retirement as a Masonic Templar . But I have refused , and

I do refuse , as a Mason and on Masonic grounds , to enter into any discussion respecting a Masonic matter with a body which has openly avowed itself to be not a Masonic body ; and from this position I have no intention of retreating . The charges brought against me by " A Mark Master " are new evidence of the use of the weapon

misrepresentation by " the Order of the Temple . " Until the close of the meeting of the "Judicial Council , " and afterwards , I was not aware that I had been charged by the " brotherhood of gentlemen " with ungentlemanlike conduct . The gushing virtue of " A Mark Master , " which prevents him from meeting me in " society , " is it is sad to think , unlikely to be put to the test ; and , as a comment upon his fear of

contamination , I may add , that since the meeting of the " Judicial Council , " which in February last went through the farce of trying me , I have had the pleasure of meeting , and also of corresponding , with more than one of the seven " Knights" who , with three other gentlemen , composed it , and their greeting has been as warm and as friendly as of yore . Further than this , let me ask , if my conduct as a

man and as a Mason has been such as " A Mark Master " wishes to make it appear , how comes it that , not daring to make a public statement of truth under his own name , in the cause of virtue , he takes refuge under a series of insinuations made anonymously , and with evident intention . ' How comes it , too , that if my conduct has been such as " A Mark Master " insinuates , his Mark brethren , the three

Past Grand Mark Masters who sat on the Judicial Council , acquiesced in its decision , which , as far as the Mark Degree could , upheld me as against the Temple by allowing me a month in which to retire from the Mark Degree ? Why did not these three gentlemen , careful of the honour of the Mark Degree , insist upon my sham expulsion by

" the Order of the Temple " being then and there carried out , as regards the Mark Degree , against mc ? I low comes it that , with a month allowed me for retirement , I have declined for a single moment to entertain the notion of obligatory retirement from a body against which conscience accuses me of 110 offence ?

My case is in truth a simple one , but it is not what " A Mark Master" wishes the Mark Degree to believe it to be . It is simply this , that since December , 1872 , when "The Order of the Temple " came into existence , I have , as a loyal subject , objected to it as a sham and unauthorised

Ortier of Knighthood , anti I have , as a Mason , objected to Masonry being used as a foundation for any such thing . If I had supportctl the new " Order , " would you have ever heard anything but good of me from " A Mark Master " and his friends ? I guess not . The " Order of the Temple " is , self-acknowledged , not a Masonic body . It has , how-

Original Correspondence.

ever , been glad enough to allow me and a large number of Masouic Templars ta attend its meetings , no doubt thinking thereby to establish a claim of allegiance upon thuswho may be weak enough to admit it . As a non-Masoni body it cannot be a party to a Masonic treaty ; and if the Mark Degree bad not been under thc rule of the ruler of the Temple no Grand Mark Master Mason would have dared to say that such a treaty could validly exist . Faithfully yours , CHAS . J . Bunoi-.- s .

SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — It is amusing to see how gallantly our good Bro . Buchan rides his hobby , though in this instance he seems to be tiding it literally to death . He will not have the pre-1717 Freemasonry at any price

and will shut his eyes to the facts of indubitable history . I ask him again thc question he has left unanswered , and to which , if he declines to reply , as far as I am con . cerned , and , 1 believe , as far as Bro . 1 Iughan is concerned , thc discussion must be closed in the " Freemason . " The question is this : —If your theory is correct , how do you git over the evidence of Dr . Plot , a non-Mason , and of Elias

Ashmole ? I confine myself to-day to these two points . Take Plot first of all . In the last quarter of the seven , teenth century he states that Freemasonry had existed for many years in Staffordshire , that gentlcmtn anti operatives belonged to it , practically , very much the same as it still is , anti that he had seen a parchment roll , no doubt one of our MS . Constitutions . He was not friendly altogether to

the Craft ; to use a French word , be seeks to " persifler " its pretensions to long antiquity , he criticizes its chronology , but of the fact of its existence , and that long prior to 1682 , he has no doubt . Is he speaking truth ? Could he be mistaken ? If it must be admitted , as I believe it must be , that he is speaking truth , nnd lhat he cannot hi mistaken ( he hail no motive to be so ) on such a subject ,

what becomes of Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There is so little difference between Dr . Plot ' s description of the Staffordshire Freemasonry and our own even to-day , " mutatis mutandis , " that it is quite clear to any fair reader of his book that the order be alludes to is tha same as our own . So , too , as regards Elias Ashmole . " Society of Freemasons . " It is quite clear tlmt the Fteemasons to which he

belonged were not the London Masons' Company . It was an independent organization , and the meeting in Basinghall Street was a meeting , in all probability , as Bro . Hughan suggests , of the actual body from . which the ] Lodge of Antiquity descends . If so , I ask again , where is Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There are many other points and evidences which might

be adduced to prove that a society did exist akin to our own altogether , and the fact that Freemasonry is alluded to as a secret institution in a public magazine ¦• uitc early la the { eighteenth century is , in itself , utterly fatal to Bro . Buchan ' s elaborate argument . I await his reply . With regard to Sir Christopher Wren , I do not lay so much stress on Aubrey as some do , but accept his

evidence as non-Masonic corroboration . I am somewhat inclined to believe that Sir Christopher Wren was a member of our Order earlier a good deal than Aubrey puts it , and that our histories are correct , and for this reason . Anderson in 173 8 states the fact distinctly , though I admit not so clearly in 172 , * , and as Sir Christopher Wren only died in 172 * , there must have been many living who knew

the fact to be as Anderson stated it or not . It is hardly likely that if Anderson had stated a deliberate untruth some one or other of the eager assailants of Freemasonry then would not have controverted his statement . Pace Bro . Buchan , 1 am inclined to ' . accept Anderson ' s statement , though I think we may yet . find better evidence of the fact . A MASONIC STUDENT .

LODGE OF INDUSTHY , GATESHEAD . To Ihe Editor if Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir anti Brother , — In the " Masonic Magazine " for this month , I sec a notice with several extracts from an old minute book of the Lodge of Industry , Gateshead , No . 142 , and amongst those extracts 1 see that several persons signed the rules

from 1732 to 1773 . I presume the lodge was then located at Swalwell , a village about 4 miles from Gateshead , at which place it was supposed 10 have been founded by som * of the operative Masons brought from the South of England by Sir Ambrose Crowley , who established large ironworks there , and at Winlaton Mill and Winlaton villages , near Swalwell . Can you tell by tbe old minute book if

anyone of the name of " George Heppel was amongst the number of the persons who signed the four columns iu the book ? He was residing either at Swalwell or Winlaton Mill about that time , anti was manager for the ironworks of Crowley , Millington , and Co . lie is an ancestor of mine , and am anxious to know if he was a Mason , as I think it is very likely , being one of the most influential men in the

village at that time . Yours fraternally , CHAS . ANDKHSON , P . M . 104 O . [ In answer to Bro . Anderson , I am happy to inform him that the name of George Heppel occurs twice . June 24 th , 1756 , Enters George Heppel , and his name also is found aniong those who became a " Highrodiam , " June 2 . * rd , , 750 . ] A . F . A . Woouroiti *

MINULES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . To tht Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — The view taken by our Bro . P . G . W . in the freemason " of 21 st August is not only legal but rational , viz ., that thc minutes of previous meeting are put for confirmation " that everybody may have an opportunity of recor -

“The Freemason: 1875-08-28, Page 8” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 29 July 2025, django:8000/periodicals/fvl/issues/fvl_28081875/page/8/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Article 1
REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 1
Royal Arch. Article 2
Red Cross of Constantine. Article 2
Scotland. Article 2
DISTRICT GRAND LODGE OF BENGAL. Article 2
THE POSITION OF MASONRY IN THE YEAR 1875, AND ITS NOBLE CHARITIES. Article 3
LAYING THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE GRIMSBY MASONIC HALL. Article 4
UNITED GRAND LODGE. Article 5
LAYING THE FOUNDATION STONE OF NEW SCHOOLS AT OLD CUMNOCK. Article 5
" MASONIC INFIDELITY." Article 5
Masonic Tidings. Article 5
Untitled Article 6
TO OUR READERS. Article 6
TO ADVERTISERS. Article 6
Answers to Correspondents. Article 6
Births, Masrriages and Deaths. Article 6
Untitled Article 6
OUR ROYAL GRAND MASTER AT SHEFFIELD. Article 6
OUR QUARTERLY ACCOUNTS. Article 6
THE RELIGION OF FREEMASONRY Article 6
THE CHESHIRE EDUCATIONAL MASONIC INSTITUTION. Article 7
ALLEGED MASONIC INFIDELITY. Article 7
THE "FREEMASON." Article 7
Original Correspondence. Article 7
Multum in Parbo; or Masonic Notes and Queries. Article 9
Review. Article 9
RESIGNATION OF BRO. SUPERINTENDENT FOWLER, OF PRESCOT. Article 9
Obituary. Article 9
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN SUBSCRIBERS Article 10
METROPOLITAN MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 10
MASONIC MEETINGS IN WEST LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE. Article 10
MASONIC MEETINGS IN GLASGOW AND VICINITY. Article 10
MASONIC MEETINGS IN EDINBURGH AND VICINITY. Article 10
Untitled Ad 10
Page 1

Page 1

4 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

7 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

4 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

4 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

7 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

11 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

6 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

3 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

7 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

9 Articles
Page 8

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Original Correspondence.

feeling * happily existing between thc brethren of Hampshire and those of thc Isle of Wight . The fact is that from thc signature book , containing 200 or 250 names , I selected all thc Provincial Grand and Past Provincial Grand Officers ; this resulted in tbe publication of 37 names , 7 of which represented lodges in the island , in which there are 4 working lodges , tbe remaining - 30 names representing lodges on tbe mainland , when they

number in all 23 . In the hurry of copying out these names I did not notice that the P . P . G . Oflicers of the Cowes and Medina Lodges had either unfortunately not been able to attend , or had omitted to sign the attendance book . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J . G . Li : l- ' iaviti-:, P . G . Sec . Hants and Isle of Wight .

THE INSTALLATION OK THE M . W . G . MASTER . To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Seveial portraits of our M . W . G . M . being published , and in course of publication , in which different jewels are exhibited on his breast and banging from his neck , I

should like to know the actual jewels ( both Masonic and otherwise ) that he wore on his installation , as some I have seen on the portraits arc those belonging to Masonic Orders not recognised by the Grand Lodge of England . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J SMITH , 1257 .

THE POWERS OF W . MASTERS . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I shall feel greatly obliged if you could in your next issue give me your opinion as to the extent of the control which a VV . M . possesses over his lodge , and what constitutes incapability of discharging the duties of his office

other than by death or removal—see Constitutions , Art . 6 , of Masters and Wardens of Lodges . It often happens , I imagine , that a Master is temporarily absent from his lodge on account of sickness or othei pressing emergency , and what I want to know is whether such absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge . Has the lodge , for instance , any right to r < -fuse to

obey his directions that he should be regularly furnished with a copy of the summons for each meeting , and a report of the proceedings thereat , in order that he may be kept acquainted with all that was going on during his absence . The length of the term of such absence would not , I apprehend , affect the question in the least degree , for if absence at all deprives a Master of authority over his lodge , he

would lose it as much by one day ' s absence from the place where the lodge meets as by an absence of several months . And if a Master ' s absence is so fatal to his authority , it follows , I think , that all the W . M . ' s of provincial and foreign lodges who attended H . R . H . ' s installation as M . W . Grand Master in April last lost all control over their respective

lodges during their absence from the places of meetings of their lodges , and their wishes and instructions would therefore be necessarily disregardetl ! Yours fraternally , AN A 11 sKNT W . M . 18 th August , 1875 . [ A very difficult question to answer . —ED . ]

GRIMSBY MASONIC HALL . To Ihe Editor of Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — On the 2 nd inst . I was present at the laying of the foundation stone of the Masonic Hall , Great Grimsby , and from the large gathering together of P . G . Officers , and seveial noted members of the Craft , I quite expected to see

a full account of that most interesting ceremony in your paper , and looked forward with impatience for this last week's number , and I was somewhat disappointed at not even a word being mentioned , even to say that the ceremony had taken place , especially when the stone was laid by one who had done so much for our province and for the Craft . I now beg to furnish you with one of our local

papers , and beg that you will give room in your valuable paper for at least a moiety of the report . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , THOS . Fnvicn , W . M . 1282 , P . G . S . of Lincolnshire .

[ We only received the account on Friday , nor had we any intimation from any brother of what was going to take place . We publish the report in this impression . Brethren who ask for reports to be inserted should attend to the notices , and not blame us for their own carelessness . —ED . ]

MASONIC INFIDELITY . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read your criticism at page -jiio , but while cordially placing myself upon your side , I am not sure that the small heart and weak brain of " A Churchman" were really worthy of the lubbing down you give

them . I have no doubt but that this innocent genius imagines that he can reckon up the history of our globe upon his ten digits—thumbs included—in five minutes . The idea that rises up before my mind is that , having expended the large sum of sixpence sterling upon a pocket telescope , he has lately taken to studying astronomy , and upon directing bis gaze ' to the stars , with the big end of the

said telescope next his eye , for a better view , of course , he imagined himself to be a second Archimedes , and that with his pen for a lever , the telescope for a prop , and himself the power , he could easily overturn the world , especially the Masonic portion of it . 1 fear , however , he will not effect much , as the tools are too soft . Leaving " A Churchman " to digest his " abominable sentence , " and finish bis work at his leisure , 1 would re-

Original Correspondence.

spectfully call attention to thc various renderings given by Bro . Parkinson and yourself of what is requisite in a candidnte for Freemasonry . Bro . Parkinson says " Let a man ' s religion or mode of worship be what it may , he is not excluded from the Order , providetl he believe in the Glorious Architect of I leaven and Earth , and practise the sacred duties of morality . " You say , " In the lodge we

know nothing of religious disputations , differences , decrees , or dogmas ; we accept all good men who believe in the Great Architect of the Universe , ami revere the Revelation which He has given us . " Now , 1 would ask , Why this difference in the latter clause ? So far as I can Masonically judge , the words , " and revere thc Revelation which He has given us , " are an interpolation . Bro . Parkinson docs not

use them , and I do not see bow you could have penned th-m in a Masonic article unless through inadvertence Were tbey intentionally included I would feel inclined to say that their insertion caused the one part of the sentence to be contradictory to , or inconsistent with , the other part . We are told that a Mahommedan may make as good a Freemason as a Christian , but as " the Revelation " of the

one is not " the Revelation" of the other , it follows that thc less said about Revelation thc better for Masonic consistency , anil for their standing as Freemasons . If it were not for the cursed selfishness that makes a political tool of it , Religion would be left more to thc private home than it generally is . The world , however , is not yet old enough for that , hence the need of Freemasonry . Yours fraternallv , A FIU : I :. \ IASON .

[ The words animadverted upon are our own . See our leader . —En . ]

BRO . MAJOR BURGESS AND THE MARK . DEGREE , To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I find that in my last letter I omitted , under paragraph 3 , to say that of the persons there enumerated as forming the "Judicial Council , " Nos . 2 , 3 , 8 , y , and 10 , are all , to the best of my knowledge and belief , in addition

to Nos . 1 and 4 , " Knights of the Order of the Temple , " so called . It seemsiniportanl . as touching- " a Mark Master's " remarkable statement about that Council , that this fact should be stated . " A Mark Master , " apparently retreating from the po . sition , that I wrote a letter making a false charge , and marked that letter " private " in order to avoid thc

consequences of so doing , now says I have made " a disgraceful charge , " and " against a brother Mason . " 1 ask your readers , before they accept his statement , to require of bim good proof that my retirement from being a Masonic Templar ( a point proved by my letter to Mr . Tinkler , which he aids me by publishing ) , on account of certain conduct by a Masonic Templar , was merely a pretence and was not a

bona fide step on my part , sincerely taken by me on Masonic grounds , and in as a quiet a manner as was possible consistently -with thc c ' ncuinblanccs . 1 have not , as " A Mark "( Master" alleges , " refused to withdraw or prove , " to any Masonic body competent to deal with the matter , the true statement of the true cause of my retirement as a Masonic Templar . But I have refused , and

I do refuse , as a Mason and on Masonic grounds , to enter into any discussion respecting a Masonic matter with a body which has openly avowed itself to be not a Masonic body ; and from this position I have no intention of retreating . The charges brought against me by " A Mark Master " are new evidence of the use of the weapon

misrepresentation by " the Order of the Temple . " Until the close of the meeting of the "Judicial Council , " and afterwards , I was not aware that I had been charged by the " brotherhood of gentlemen " with ungentlemanlike conduct . The gushing virtue of " A Mark Master , " which prevents him from meeting me in " society , " is it is sad to think , unlikely to be put to the test ; and , as a comment upon his fear of

contamination , I may add , that since the meeting of the " Judicial Council , " which in February last went through the farce of trying me , I have had the pleasure of meeting , and also of corresponding , with more than one of the seven " Knights" who , with three other gentlemen , composed it , and their greeting has been as warm and as friendly as of yore . Further than this , let me ask , if my conduct as a

man and as a Mason has been such as " A Mark Master " wishes to make it appear , how comes it that , not daring to make a public statement of truth under his own name , in the cause of virtue , he takes refuge under a series of insinuations made anonymously , and with evident intention . ' How comes it , too , that if my conduct has been such as " A Mark Master " insinuates , his Mark brethren , the three

Past Grand Mark Masters who sat on the Judicial Council , acquiesced in its decision , which , as far as the Mark Degree could , upheld me as against the Temple by allowing me a month in which to retire from the Mark Degree ? Why did not these three gentlemen , careful of the honour of the Mark Degree , insist upon my sham expulsion by

" the Order of the Temple " being then and there carried out , as regards the Mark Degree , against mc ? I low comes it that , with a month allowed me for retirement , I have declined for a single moment to entertain the notion of obligatory retirement from a body against which conscience accuses me of 110 offence ?

My case is in truth a simple one , but it is not what " A Mark Master" wishes the Mark Degree to believe it to be . It is simply this , that since December , 1872 , when "The Order of the Temple " came into existence , I have , as a loyal subject , objected to it as a sham and unauthorised

Ortier of Knighthood , anti I have , as a Mason , objected to Masonry being used as a foundation for any such thing . If I had supportctl the new " Order , " would you have ever heard anything but good of me from " A Mark Master " and his friends ? I guess not . The " Order of the Temple " is , self-acknowledged , not a Masonic body . It has , how-

Original Correspondence.

ever , been glad enough to allow me and a large number of Masouic Templars ta attend its meetings , no doubt thinking thereby to establish a claim of allegiance upon thuswho may be weak enough to admit it . As a non-Masoni body it cannot be a party to a Masonic treaty ; and if the Mark Degree bad not been under thc rule of the ruler of the Temple no Grand Mark Master Mason would have dared to say that such a treaty could validly exist . Faithfully yours , CHAS . J . Bunoi-.- s .

SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — It is amusing to see how gallantly our good Bro . Buchan rides his hobby , though in this instance he seems to be tiding it literally to death . He will not have the pre-1717 Freemasonry at any price

and will shut his eyes to the facts of indubitable history . I ask him again thc question he has left unanswered , and to which , if he declines to reply , as far as I am con . cerned , and , 1 believe , as far as Bro . 1 Iughan is concerned , thc discussion must be closed in the " Freemason . " The question is this : —If your theory is correct , how do you git over the evidence of Dr . Plot , a non-Mason , and of Elias

Ashmole ? I confine myself to-day to these two points . Take Plot first of all . In the last quarter of the seven , teenth century he states that Freemasonry had existed for many years in Staffordshire , that gentlcmtn anti operatives belonged to it , practically , very much the same as it still is , anti that he had seen a parchment roll , no doubt one of our MS . Constitutions . He was not friendly altogether to

the Craft ; to use a French word , be seeks to " persifler " its pretensions to long antiquity , he criticizes its chronology , but of the fact of its existence , and that long prior to 1682 , he has no doubt . Is he speaking truth ? Could he be mistaken ? If it must be admitted , as I believe it must be , that he is speaking truth , nnd lhat he cannot hi mistaken ( he hail no motive to be so ) on such a subject ,

what becomes of Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There is so little difference between Dr . Plot ' s description of the Staffordshire Freemasonry and our own even to-day , " mutatis mutandis , " that it is quite clear to any fair reader of his book that the order be alludes to is tha same as our own . So , too , as regards Elias Ashmole . " Society of Freemasons . " It is quite clear tlmt the Fteemasons to which he

belonged were not the London Masons' Company . It was an independent organization , and the meeting in Basinghall Street was a meeting , in all probability , as Bro . Hughan suggests , of the actual body from . which the ] Lodge of Antiquity descends . If so , I ask again , where is Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There are many other points and evidences which might

be adduced to prove that a society did exist akin to our own altogether , and the fact that Freemasonry is alluded to as a secret institution in a public magazine ¦• uitc early la the { eighteenth century is , in itself , utterly fatal to Bro . Buchan ' s elaborate argument . I await his reply . With regard to Sir Christopher Wren , I do not lay so much stress on Aubrey as some do , but accept his

evidence as non-Masonic corroboration . I am somewhat inclined to believe that Sir Christopher Wren was a member of our Order earlier a good deal than Aubrey puts it , and that our histories are correct , and for this reason . Anderson in 173 8 states the fact distinctly , though I admit not so clearly in 172 , * , and as Sir Christopher Wren only died in 172 * , there must have been many living who knew

the fact to be as Anderson stated it or not . It is hardly likely that if Anderson had stated a deliberate untruth some one or other of the eager assailants of Freemasonry then would not have controverted his statement . Pace Bro . Buchan , 1 am inclined to ' . accept Anderson ' s statement , though I think we may yet . find better evidence of the fact . A MASONIC STUDENT .

LODGE OF INDUSTHY , GATESHEAD . To Ihe Editor if Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir anti Brother , — In the " Masonic Magazine " for this month , I sec a notice with several extracts from an old minute book of the Lodge of Industry , Gateshead , No . 142 , and amongst those extracts 1 see that several persons signed the rules

from 1732 to 1773 . I presume the lodge was then located at Swalwell , a village about 4 miles from Gateshead , at which place it was supposed 10 have been founded by som * of the operative Masons brought from the South of England by Sir Ambrose Crowley , who established large ironworks there , and at Winlaton Mill and Winlaton villages , near Swalwell . Can you tell by tbe old minute book if

anyone of the name of " George Heppel was amongst the number of the persons who signed the four columns iu the book ? He was residing either at Swalwell or Winlaton Mill about that time , anti was manager for the ironworks of Crowley , Millington , and Co . lie is an ancestor of mine , and am anxious to know if he was a Mason , as I think it is very likely , being one of the most influential men in the

village at that time . Yours fraternally , CHAS . ANDKHSON , P . M . 104 O . [ In answer to Bro . Anderson , I am happy to inform him that the name of George Heppel occurs twice . June 24 th , 1756 , Enters George Heppel , and his name also is found aniong those who became a " Highrodiam , " June 2 . * rd , , 750 . ] A . F . A . Woouroiti *

MINULES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . To tht Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — The view taken by our Bro . P . G . W . in the freemason " of 21 st August is not only legal but rational , viz ., that thc minutes of previous meeting are put for confirmation " that everybody may have an opportunity of recor -

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 7
  • You're on page8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2025

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy