Correspondence.

obligations to the Mother Chapter , Dr . Jones is not a member of it , and never received any degree whatever from that source , his name not appearing recorded in the boohs of the Supreme Chapter , which is the only criterion of acknowledged legitimacy . It is to be doubted , therefore , Avhether the others stand in any different position . " When I read this , I immediately wrote to Scribe N ., requesting a list of members affiliated into the Bon Accord Chapter ; also the list of office-bearers elected in 1854 ( it should have been 1853 ) . Upon the 13 th , I received from Scribe N . a list of the

Companions who had been exalted in the Chapter , along with a list of original members . Dr . Jones's name was not in either list , the office-bearers for 1854 were correctly given , but the answer for the list of 1853 was , that the return had not been filled up . I will transpose the extract from the letter above quoted , and without hesitation say , that the Supreme Chapter is not correct , that it has not been fulfilling its obligations to the daughter Chapters , that Dr . Jones is a member of the Bon Accord Chapterthat he received three degrees ( MarkPastand Excellent ; ancl

, , , , must have done so before being affiliated into if , that his name does appear to be recorded in the books of the Supreme Chapter , the only criterion of acknowledged legitimacy . What are the facts of the case ? Companion Jones was affiliated into the Chapter , Sept . 23 rd , 1851 ; his name , along with the recording dues , was sent to the Supreme Chapter , January 23 rd , 1852 , for which monies we have a receipt signed by the Grand Treasurer , who at length sets forth that " Wm . Jones , of the Royal York Chapter , No . 7 , of England , " is recorded in the books of the Supreme Chapter , as a

member of the Bon Accord Chapter , No . 70 , Aberdeen ; this , in my opinion , and I think Scribe N . will coincide with me , is the only criterion of acknowledged legitimacy . And still further ( to guard the character of my friend , tho late Daniel Robertson , then Grand Treasurer ) , if Scribe N . will look at the accounts of the Supreme Chapter for the year 1851-52 , he will find it published that a sum of money was paid by the Bon Accord Chapter , for recording the name of a Companion ; the name of that Companion was Dr . Jones ; how conies the name to be omitted from the

record;—perhaps the " recording angel , " having some slight prophetic compunction , " dropped a tear upon the word , and blotted it out for ever . " Companion Jones was elected one of the office-bearers of the Chapter in 1853 ; how it happened that the annual return made by Chapter No . 70 that year was not filled up , I cannot say , but this I knoiv , that it was the Grand Scribe's duty to see that it was filled up . As to the other members " forming the London Bon Accord , " if you permit me in your next number , I will show you " the glaring amount of ignorance displayed" ( his

own words ) by Scribe N ., with reference to them , and of his knowledge of the laws ancl regulations of the Supreme Chapter . I think that I have already pointed out some facts wliich I hope will be of use to him in future , so that he may not be so very confident in his assertions , let him bear in mind that assertions are not facts , even when made by a Grand Scribe ; such individuals are not infallible , as can be proved by ¦ the many errors which his letter contains , errors not entirely the fault of the printer . I remain , Sir , Your obedient Servant ,

JAMES RETTIE , First Principal , Chapter No . 70 . To the Editor of the Masonic Mirror . SIR AND BROTHER , —You will probably receive many comments on the i r ery extraordinary letter of Comp . Gaylor , Scribe N . for Scotland , which appeared in your

number for September , on the subject of the London Bon Accord Lodge of Mark Masters . It must be admitted that the Bon Accord Chapter of Aberdeen has no power to grant warrants to hold Chapters or Lodges either in Scotland or elsewhere , and that the warrant granted by it to hold the London Bon Accord Lodge is a nullity . But the London Bon Accord Lodge is not on that account either a spurious or an illegal body . The Supreme Chapter of Scotland may , as long as it pleases , thunder forth its anathemas against the London Bon Accord Lodge . That Lodge is composed of a very large