The So-Called Locke Ms.

asserted to have first appeared m German in 1748 , and to have been translated really or professedly for the Gentleman ' s Magazine of 1754 . It is not to be found in his published correspondence . If this supposed letter of Mr . Locke did first appear in a German translation , that one fact , to my mind , would settle the question . It is no doubt perfectly true that , according to his correspondence with Mr . Molyneux , Mr . Locke was in London in 1696 , and then it ivas , according to Oliver ( too fond of jumping to conclusionson the " post hoe propter hoc" principle ) , that Mr . Locke was initiated into

, Ereemasonry . But such a view has much to contend with . Anderson , writing in 1723 , knew nothing about it , and it would obviously have been so important for the Ereemasons to claim brotherhood with Mr . Locke when Anderson wrote in 1723 , that Mr . Locke ' s initiation , if it had taken place in 1696 , could not have been ignored or forgotten in 1723 . It is impossible , as I see it , to believe that Anderson would not have mentioned , in 1723 , the admission of such a person into thc Fraternity as Mr . Locke in

1696 , if such an event had really taken place , or was even a tradition of the Order . It coidd not , as I before remarked , be overlooked , or have passed out of remembrance . Anderson mentions , as we shall remember , the initiation of King William in . ' , though of this no proof is now forthcoming , but is entirely silent about Mr . Locke , and knows nothing clearly of this MS . The so-called " Locke MS . " first appears in the " Constitutions " of 1759 taken

, from the Pocket Companion of 1754 , but does not appear in Smith ' s Companion of 1736 , nor "Anderson ' s Constitution" of 1738 , nor the printer ' s edition of 1746 ; . and when we come to consider Mr . Locke ' s letter carefully , the critical student will be struck by one or two remarkable facts .

This letter , written , it is said , in 1696 , first appears in 1748 , in a German translation . In this letter , ivhich I need not transcribe , for it is well known to all Masonic students , Mr . Locke is made to say that through the kindness of Mr . C ns ( Collins ) he has procured a copy of a MS . in the Bodleian . This MS . ( which Mr . Locke had not seen ) " appears " to be 160 years old , he asserts ; but " in itself , " he adds , " a copy of one yet more ancient by about 100 years , for the ori ginal is said to have been the

handwriting of King Henry VI . " Perhaps in no single sentence , that I am aware of , is a writer made to commit more offences against the canons of genuine criticism than in this . He pronounces a MS . he has not seen , first to be in existence , then to be a copy of another and 160 years old , and that other , ivhich he has not seen either , to be the handwriting of King Henry TL , only saving himself with an ul dicitur . No wonder , then , that our Masonic writers have gone astray , misled by the venerable name

aud the bad example ( critically ) , if quasi authority , of Mr . Locke . Of the alleged MS . nothing is known in the Bodleian Library . It has been carefull y searched for both by Dr . Bandinel and Mr . Halliwell , and others in vain . If it could be supposed to exist , it might be found probably among the Tanner MSS ., where Molash ' s Register was also discovered , by Mr . Hackman , some years ago , 'though I fear this is even a forlorn hope . No known MS . copy of it existsexcept the

, among additional MSS ., British Museum , in the handwriting of Essex , the architect , late ih the last century , and ivhich is a copy , in all human probability , of the printed pamphlets containing the letter of Mr . Locke and the so-called MS ., of which copies are extant . Of course , if Mr . Essex transcribed his MS . copy from a common MS . original , which for the present has eluded research , the whole aspect of the controversy will be changed .

Some support for the reality of the MS . has been given in the alleged authority of Leland , than which , per se , none can be higher ; but when this is looked into it also tumbles away into unreality . It has been often said , and tho assertion is repeated in all our Masonic Cyclopasdias , that it is mentioned in " Hearne ' s Life of Leland . " This statement is to be found even in " Kenning ' s Cyclopcdia i" though its editor had previously round out the inaccuracy , but in the hurry of compilation had overlooked his own inferences T ] ie mistake has arisen by confounding " Leland ' s Itinerary , " edited by learne . with a book ivhich has no existence really . There is no such work as " Hearne ' s - je of Leland : " The "Itinerary " of Leland , iii nine volumes , was edited by Thomas