Masonic Notes And Queries.

works published in the middle of the last century , it is clear that then the Craft did not believe that their origin was so recent . If the present system was fabricated in 1717 there would be , say in 1760 , persons living and connected with the Order who could personally testify to the facts ; but can Bros . Hughan and Buchan show any such testimony in their favour among Masonic writers ?—J . A . H .

THE COKTLICT 01 " JTJEISDICTIOK ' . If you ask a Quaker , " What is the time ? " he will reply that " It is a fine day . " Bro . Picfcus adopts the Quaker style of argument by answering a request for the proofs of his own assertions by demanding from me the proofs of something else . I respectfully consider this method of controversy a sign of weakness on the part of Bro . Pictus .

I oundationless notions and dreams , " as Bro . Pictus very properly remarks , " are not evidence . " I await , therefore , Bro . Pictus's " evidence " in support of his "judgment" that "the Boyal Order was not in existence before the beginning of last century . " I am not aware of the " looseness as to dates , " to which Pictus refers . —J . A . H .

EOSLYN CHAPEL . It was a curious coincidence that Bro . " Beitam " and I should have , unknown to each , both been treating of this subject in last week's Magazine ; he , at page 246 , in all the glowing terms of " love at first sight ; " and I , at page 252 , in the most prosaic

style of matter of fact . In ancient times the Scottish masons—as well as other trades—had a " patron or protector , " or referee of their craft , but not until the last century had they any " Grand Master " that I know of . The era of James I . was not in " the end of the

thirteenth century , " but 1405 to 1437 . I do not admit that , although " we have gained speculative Masonry , the secrets of operative Masonry have become lost . " Symbolism no doubt has fallen into disuse , utility being now perhaps the chief object , not to the exclusion of beauty necessarily . It is for the architect to blend utility and beauty together , and if he draw out a good plan the mason

will work it out , especially if properly paid to do so ; however , it lies greatly with their employers—the public—to encourage real art by paying for it . The legend of the " Prentice ' s Pillar " is simply a legend , the character of the architecture is Spanish , not " from Borne . " Referring to this , Mr . Billings

says , " Among the grotesque heads in the decorations , it was not difficult to find that of the Master , the apprentice ' s mother , and the apprentice himself ; the last , for the benefit of visitors from the neighbourhood of Bow bells , was made more telling , by a streak of red chalk being drawn across the brow to

represent a hatchet-cut . " I perceive there is a slight difference between Bro . "Keitam " and Mr . Billings in their descriptions of Roslyn ; the former characterizes it as " one of the most perfect specimens of Gothic architecture in the world ! " while the latter says , — " To describe minutely so well-known a building would be superfluous : and it will be deemed sufficient if the present occasion be taken for noting some of its main

characteristics . The most conspicuous- of these is a lavish profuseness of decoration . In its original character aud design the building has little pretension to symmetry ; and its squat , stumpy outline , is a great contrast to the slender gracefulness of its rival at Melrose . All the beauties of Eosslyn are super-induced on the design in the shape of mouldings

and incrustations . " Yet , doubtless , for many reasons Eoslyn is a most interesting specimen . The idea that " apparently it was under the protection of this Knightly Order ( Knights Templar ) that the Masons were introduced into England and Scotland" is simply nonsensefor there were noble

, , buildings erected in England before the Knights Templar were in existence . The Templars—after their institution—might have been " enthusiastic patrons of the Masons , " because they required their services , i . e ., simply speaking , they required houses , & c , and of course employed Masons to build them .

The greatest patron of the Masons , from five to seven centuries ago , was the Church , hence they are called the " Church-building fraternities . " The ancient clergy might be architects , but they were not speculative Freemasons in any such sense as we now use the term . Designating an architect a speculative Mason and the workman an operative

Mason is drawing up an imaginary distinction , mere sophistry I consider . An operative Mason may build without an architect , for he can be his own architect , as many of the old Masons were ; and much of the old work which we now admire so much was wrought by men who could not even write .

There are many architects at present who are not "Freemasons , " and who know nothing about speculative Masonry . Tet that does not prevent them being good architects . No ! Speculative Masonry has in reality nothing to do with architecture ; it is not stone and lime it deals withbut with men aud their

, actions . There is nothing more impossible in Desaguliers & Co . manufacturing speculative Masonry out of the Bible , the Beformation ideas , and the old operative Masons' charges , & c , than there was of Mahomet instituting Mahomedanism ; besides it must also be

remembered that our " system and ceremonies " have been " amplified and beautified" since 1717 . My " famous year , " as Bro . J . A . H ., at p . 24 S , calls it ; however , if I be wrong , prove it . Speculative Freemasonry needs no imaginary antiquity tackled to it to recommend it ; its principles alone are sufficient to do so , and by them it must stitnd or fall—et Dieu defend le droit . — "W " . P . BUCHAN .

OLD lEEEMASOSET EEJTOBE GEA > B LODGE ( p . 241 ) . I read with great interest the remarks of our esteemed Bro . Hyde Clarke upon this subject , and trust that the MS . he refers to will be carefully copied and a verbatim et literatim copy of it printed so far as possible , by and bye . Had it been older

than "between . 1720 and 1740 , " it would have been more valuable . However , we shall be glad to know its contents , and give due weight to them after Bro . Younghusband has read his paper . As to Bro . Clarke ' s remark that " the first degree properly belongs to minors , " I would observe that apprentices would generally be minors ( according to our ideas )