Original Correspondence.

BRO . BURGESS AND THK MARK DEGREE . To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I beg to offer my thanks for the article which appears in the Freemason of to-day . There is , however , a point on which you seem to have somewhat misunderstood my case , and on which it is desirable that I should

make a correction . It is true that it was impossible for me to bc in London on the day selected by the " Great Prior's Council , " the 16 th Nov . last . But I did not suggest to the governing oody of " The Order of the Temple " that I would obey its summons for any other day . 1 was , and am , ready to appear before it , or before any body composed entirely of

Masons , who may desire to hear my views as a Mason on certain matters , on any day when I can do so , if invited . But I deny the right of " The Order of the Temple " to summon me to give explanations to it upon any matter concerning a Masonic question ; and the ground on which I stand is , that having distinctly asserted itself to be not a Masonic body , " The Order of the Temple" has no

power over or right of interference in any Masonic matter . Having carefully considered the position of this new Order of Knighthood , as announced by its own acts , and by the explanatory letters addressed to me and to others by Sir P . Colquhoun , I have adopted its own view , that although its members are selected from amongst Masons , it is not a Masonic body . It therefore has , as such , no authority

over a Mason , as a Mason , any more than a club composed of soldiers can have authority , as such , to meddle with the regulations and orders for the army . I had on the Sth August , 1874 , severed my connection with the Masonic Degree of the Temple , a purely Masonic body , on account of the conduct of a Masonic Templar , who happens to be also , as I understand , one of Sir P .

Colquhoun ' s " Knights . " I made no charge against him , but , the facts being indisputable , I simply withdrew from continuing to be a Masonic Templar , ( to which position he had introduced me ) , because I considered that if Masonic Templars could act as this one had acted , then it was no longer creditable to bc known as one , and I best consulted my own self-respect by ceasing to bc one . 1 informed the

person , who at the time of the disappearance of the government of the Masonic Order of the Temple , was its Secretary , of my having done so . It was not until three months afterwards that , by mixing up Masonic with non-Masonic trailers , and by assuming authority over mc as a " Knig ht of the Order of the Temple " ( a position which I have never held , and which , even if I had . held , could not

possibly entail any allegiance to the new Order ) , that it was sought to punish me as a Mason . The Mark Degree , a Masonic body , has been misled into a practical approval and endorsement of these tactics j and it has been so led because it has not , undcrthc rule of the Great Prior . had sufficient moral coutage to say that the treaty which , on the 13 th March , 1871 , the Earl of Limerick signad on behalf of a

Masonic body ceased to bc valid when ( in December , 1872 , ) that body disappeared ; and to declare that , if on any Masonic principles the treaty could now . as between Masonic and non-Masonic parties , bc considered binding , the Mark degree , a society of free Masons and free Englishmen , declines to earry it out to condemn a brother Mark Mason unheard .

I have objected on purely Masonic grounds to the course taken by Sir P . Colquhoun and his friends during the last two years-and-a-half . This public view has caused in some quarters a personal onmity to mc which is at the bottom of my expulsion from the Mark Degree , an expulsion on account of which , except for the sake of those who have procured it , I feel no shame .

I must apologise for occupying so much of your space . I am anxious that it should not go to the outer world thai a Masonic body can , treaty or no treaty , rest under the imputation of having condemned unheard a Mason who has been guilty of no offence against Mark Masonry , and only asks for justice . Faithfully yours , CIIAS . J . BURGESS .

July 24 th , 1875 . P . S . —Since the publication of my letter in The Freemason of the 17 th instant , the Mark Degree has thought it advisable to address to me a letter dated the 20 th instant . If that letter be intended as an explanation it comes too late , —if an apology it has no value , —in any case it had been better for the Mark Degree not to have written it . Of

the intention of the rulers ofthe Mark to try to damage my Masonic character by the expulsion , there is not the slig htest room for doubt , seeing that my written request that the notice to Mark lodges of my expulsion from the degree might be accompanied by a copy of correspondence , showing that the expulsion was not caused by any offence against any Masonic principle , was in writing refused . C . J . B

To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — The questions involved in Bro . Burgess's case are surely very simple . 1 . Did he in his letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the Temple , begging to have his name removed from the roll of the Order , bring at the same time an odious charge of

disgraceful conduct against another member , assigning this as his reason for resigning , and attempting to shelter himself from the consequences of his charge by heading his letter " Private ?" 2 . Did he take every means to prevent the official letters of the Temple authorities from reaching him ? And

when at last a summons to attend and prove or withdraw his offensive charge did reach him , did he neglect to attend ? 3 . After he had appealed to the judicial Council , ( on which , out of seven members , there was only one representative of the Temple ) , and when he had every opportunity of defence or explanation afforded him , did he ex-

Original Correspondence.

press any willingness either to prove or to withdraw his charge , even at the eleventh hour . Or was his only answer a letter couched in the most abusive and childish terms against certain authorities of the Temple , and ignoring altogether the specific charge against him—viz ., having maligned a brother's character , and not coming forward like a man and a Mason , cither to prove or withdraw his

charge ? I venture to think then that Bro . Burgess has only himself to thank for the position in which he finds himself . The general necessity for a common discipline amongst the more select degrees arises from this , that they claim to be select ; and that it is unfair to ask or expect gentlemen to meet those , whether in one degree " or another of which

they are members , who have been guilty of conduct which unfits them for the society of gentlemen . I fully admit that a great distinction must be drawn between what may be called mere breaches of Masonic discipline and dishonourable conduct . In the former case , the sentence of one degree oughtcertainly not to be carried out in the others -, and this is what

the supreme court of appeal " the Judicial Council , " consisting of three members chosen by each degree ) was constituted to secure . Possibly it mi ght bc well to give greater security for the observance of this important distinction , by making the unanimous consent of the representatives of each degree necessary lo the carrying out of a sentence in that degree . A great deal has been made of the dropping

of the word " Masonic " by the Temple . I think it was illjudged to drop it . But still it is really a perfectl y unimportant matter . The word does not occur in lhe convention between the Mark Degree and the Temple in 1871 . It has never been adopted by the 33 . It was only recently adopted by the Mark Degree , who for a long time were

only " Mark Masters , " and not Mark Master "Masons . " And it is defined in the convention with the Red Cross of Constantine to mean " A Chivalric Order composed solel y of Master Masons . " I am not aware that the Order of the Temple consists of any others . A MAKK MASTER .

PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF KENT . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the letter you did me the honour of publishing in your last number there is an error in the number ol subscribing members in the province . It should bc injo ,

and not 2950 , as you have it . I also omitted to mention that a sum of over £ 500 has been voted out of the Provincial Grand Lodge Fund as donations to the three Masonic Institutions . I am , Sir , yours fraternally , Ai . niEu Sri ; sci ; n . Maidstone , July 21 st , 1875 .

BRO . CAPTAIN BOYTON . To the Editor of the freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Ncgociations arc now pending between the Alexandra Palace Company , Limited , Muswell Hill , and myself , with the view of arranging for Bro . Captain Boyton to give two exhibitions of his life-saving dress , and certain feats in

connection therewith , on Saturday , the 7 th day of August , the proceeds coming to our brother to be applied by him in aid of the funds of the Royal Masonic Institutions for Boys and Girls , and he hopes that the members of the Craft generally will patronise these entertainments by attending in large numbers . I am not yet in a position to say that the arrangements are completed , but as 1 have every hope that the scheme

will bc carried out , I have thought it best to call the attention of the Craft to the subject through your paper as early as possible , inasmuch as if I refrained from writing you until the matter was settled you would not be nble to give much notice , as your next issue would only appear the day before the entertainments would come off . The brethren must therefore pleas * watch the company's advertisements in the daily papers and their posters also . Yours fraternally , W . H . GODOI . PIIIN , I . G . 206 .

Multum In Parbo; Or Masonic Notes And Queries.

Multum in Parbo ; or Masonic Notes and Queries .

WAS SIR CIIHISTOPIIRR WHEN A FRKEMASON ? Bro . Buchan asks this question in the last Freemason , and 1 venture to answer it in the affirmative to-day . Independently of the statement that the Postboy from March 2 to March 5 , 1723 , as quoted by Bro . Buchan from the Freemason ' s Magazine , calls him that " worthy Freemason , " proving the general acceptance of the fact , we

have other evidences to the same effect . If the quotation from the Postboy is correct wc might probably find the account of the funeral there , and I will have a search made in the British Museum . The date of the funeral ii not given in Elmes ' s " Life of Wren , " only the date of his death , Feb . 25 , 1723 , and lhe fact that he was buried at St . Paul's , and that " an . assemblage of honourable and

distinguished personages " attended his funeral . Elmes in his " Life of Wren , " just quoted , states , though he gives no authority for it , that Sir Christopher Wren was nominated in 1666 Deputy G . Master under Karl Rivers , and " distinguished himself above all his predecessors in legislating for the body at large , and in promoting the interests of the lodges under his immediate care . " Where he

obtains the evidence of this statement he does not say . He adds that he was " Master of the St . Paul's Lodge , which , during the building of the Cathedral , assembled at the Goose and Gridiron in St . Paul ' s Churchyard , and ia now the Lodge of Antiquity , acting by immemorial prescription , and regularly presided at ils meetings for upwards of eighteen years . "

Multum In Parbo; Or Masonic Notes And Queries.

Neither does he' tell us whence he obtains these facts . E ' mcs is correct in saying that during his presidency he presented that lodge with three mahogany candlesticks , beautifully carved , and the trowel and mallet which he used in laying the first stone of the cathedral ( June 21 , 10 1 S ) t an ( l which arc still hi g hly valued by the brethren of that ancient lodge .

Unfortunately the minutes of the Lodge of Antiquity previous to the beginning of this century are lost , but the tradition is accepted and believed in at the lodge . I feel bound to admit that in the Latin Diary , written b y his son , and countersigned by himself October , 1720 , three years before his death , no mention of his admission into the Fraternity occurs .

Aubrey , in a M . S . "Natural History of Wiltshire , " quoted by Halliwell in his " Early History of Freemasonry in England , " declares distinctly that Sir Christopher Wren was " enrolled among the members of the Fraternity , " as Halliwell puts it . But he fixes the date of admission on May 181 I 1 , 1691 , the Monday after Rogation Sunday , and says he is to be " adopted a brother . "

This date , of course , is entirely opposed to Elmes ' s stateracnt , and to that of the whole of our Masonic historians . The fact , however , remains , that on non-Masonic evidence the reality of his initiation is affirmed , and when wc add to this the Masonic tradition , there can be no valid reason for doubting it or questioning it . A MASONIC STUDENT .

MASONIC MEDALS AND TOKENS . 1 have before mc , as I write , a Masonic token , which differs in some minor particulars from that described b y Bro . Hughan in yourjissuc of 12 th June last . I should therefore feel obliged if that brother would examine his token agair , and compare it with the following description of the one which is temporily in my possession : —ft is

slightly smaller than a halfpenny of the old copper coinage , but not so heavy , and is therefore a little larger than Bro . Hughan ' s . The arms on the obverse arc somewhat different from the arms of the Mason ' s Company ( which I believe were those used by the " Modems" ) a blazon of which appeared in the Masonic Magaiinc ot September last . The arms on this coin may bc described as follo-vs : —

Field Gules , a Chevron ( query colour ?) between three Castles ( query colour ?) ; on the Chevron 1 think there is a pair of compasses . The Crest is a globe surmounted b y a dove , with wings closed . The supporters I believe to be leopards . The mi . tlo is " Amor honor et justicia . " The inscription is " 24 th Nov ., 1790 , Prince of Wales tdected G . M . " The reverse corresponds exactly with Bro . Hughan ' s

description , except that the article he takes to be an hourglass I think is a bible ; at the feet of the cupiil are also a mallet and trowel . The letters on the rim are as sharp as the day they were stamped , and read as follows : — " Halfpenny , payable at the Black Horse , Tower Hill . " This sentence differs materially from that on Bro . Hughan ' s , and Bro . Burdett ' s coins , 011 the former of which it is believed

to run thus : — "Masonic token , Sclnchley , Fecit , 1794 , " and on the latter " Masonic halfpenny token , Schichley , Fecit , 1794 . " The date 1794 upon both somewhat puzzles me . Why should they not have beon made until 1794 , seeing that the Prince was elected iu 1790 ? I have been thus careful in describing my friend ' s token , for it would bc interesting should we obtain proof that there were at least three different issues of it . Will Bros .

Hughan and Burdett therefore bc good enough to look al their coins again , and communicate to this column of the Freemason ? A may add that the halfpenny 1 have dercribed appears so fresh that I cannot help concluding it was withdrawn from circulating immediately on its issue , probably by the owner's great-grand-father , who was a distinguished Mason of the last century , and in whose family it has no doubt been handed down from father to son to the present

time . There arc two Masonic medals belonging to the same family , which 1 hope to describe in the next issue of the Freemason . E . S .

Can ' you , or any of your readers , tell me the registered number of the Sussex Lodge , or of the assembly of Masons at the Sussex Arms , at Kensington Palace , in the year 1841 ? AI . PUA .

Provincial Grand Lodge Of Essex.

PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF ESSEX .

The annual meeting of the above lodge was held at the " Corn Exchange , " Rochford , on Tuesday , ( 20 th inst . ) , under the banner of the Rochford Lodge , No . 160 . Every lodge in the county was represented , with one exception only , that of the " Star in the East , " of Harwich .

It was much to be regretted that the Right Worship ful Provincial Grand Master , R . J . Bagshaw , Esq ., was unable to be present at the meeting , owing to a severe illness from which he has been suffering , it is stated , for several months past . The duties of the chair , kowever , were most efficiently carried out by Bro . Clark , Dep . Prov . Grand

Master , who is well known throughout the province to be as staunch a member of the Craft as he is generous and kind-hearted . After the banquet , which was excellently served in the grounds of the " Old Ship Hotel , " at which upwards of 100 brethren did duty in a most praisewoithy manner , the brethren repaired to their lodge room , where

they were entertained with some charming part songs and solos , under the direction of Bro . T . Lawler , jun ., assisted , amongst several others , by Bros . G . T . Carter , and Lawler , sen . A name in connection with the arrangements , must not bc omitted , it is that of Bro . J . A . Wardcfl , whose strenuous efforts to give general satisfaction were , wc arc happy to say , crowned with well-deserved success .