Freemasonry About One Hundred And Fifty-Two Tears Old.

grand foundation upon which 'R . ' rests when he disputes ' the dictum of Professor Cosmo Innes 'one of our most accomplished Scottish historians and antiquarians—anent the supposed existence , & c , of Scottish lodges about or hefore the middle of the 12 th century , is the pretended Charter said to have been granted to ' the free Masons in Stirling , ' by David I .,

on 'the fifth day of March , ' 1471 ! * " Poor ' R ., ' I am sorry to disenchant you ; but this imaginary rock upon which you rest is simply a quicksand , for this pretended charter is , I consider , an impertinent forgery , manipulated during last century and probably since the first edition of

Nlmmo ' s history of Stirlingshire was published in 1777 . Its phraseology is comparatively modern , and the minute distinctions it enters into are those of a much later day , it is also twin brother to our celebrated Glasgow writ , the one document containing exactly word for word ( according to our English

versions ) about 90 per cent , of what the other contains ; therefore , friend ' R ., ' take my advice , and say nothing at all the next time you feel a desire to champion the pretended immense antiquity of

Freemasonry . " In your issue of 7 th inst ., a new Masonic champion comes forward under the formidable cognomen of ' St . John ' s , ' but I am sorry to see St . John in this case wielding such a pointless lance and bestriding such a footless roxinante . Why the lance couldn't pierce silk paperand the steedunable to carry its

, , rider safely off the field , leaves him lying prostrate on the ground loudly crying , ' Who ever heard of a fraternity of Weavers ? " Now 'St . John ' s , ' as you say , we know that s Masons' lodges are dedicated to saints , ' but so also are Protestant churches , at least they are named after

them ; but such a fact is no proof that either have anything to do with Roman Catholicism , and both are anything but favourites with Rome . Then , as to a 'weaver ' s fraternity , " that is nothing extraordinary ; there were weaver ' s fraternities in existence long before speculative Masonry was instituted , and

although the introduction of machinery has now sent the weavers down the hill a bit , yet , as is well known , things were different with them for ages previously . The operative free-weavers had their sodality , fraternity , or brotherhood , centuries ago , just as the free-masons or free-eordiners had theirs , and in the

minutes of Glasgow St . Mungo Lodge , 25 Sept ., 1784 , we find notice of the Glasgow ' King ' s free linen weavers . ' + So here we have free-weavers as well as free-masons , and for the meaning of the word 4 freemason , ' in the 17 th century we read the wellknown Rosling Charter , 1628 , which mentions the 'Deacones , Masteres friemen of the Maissones and Hammermen' as ' deacones , maisteris and freemen of the saidis vocations , ' ergo a free-mason or a

freehammerman then simply meant a mason or hammerman who was free to work at his trade , and before doing so he had to work his ' essay , ' to show he was capable of serving his Majesty ' s lieges . And to show how baseless are the pretensions upon many points of the Masonic fraternity , we find that in all the long period which elapsed in Glasgow between 1604 and

1843 ( 239 years ) we do not find a Mason ever elected as 'Deacon-convener , ' whereas we find the weavers five times , and the fraternity of St . Crispin , alias the cordiners or shoemakers , have one of their Craft 13 times ' Deacon-Convener . ' I should not he astonished to discover that the cordiners of the 16 th

century or so , had at least as many , if not even more ' secrets' than the then Masons . Between 1843 and 1857 , we find two Masons as ' Deacons-Conveners . ' "I do not consider that the Masons , as things were previous to 1720 or so , were capable of keeping alive any such rituals and Masonic ceremonies as we

now have ; even with all the privileges now possessed , I am utterly unable to recall either the name or remembrance of any operative mason here , master or man , who ever performed the ceremonies in my hearing . Upon this point Bro . Lyon observes , — ' It should also he borne in mind that previous to the

introduction of speculative Masonry into Scotland , the number and quality of officers necessary to direct the affairs of lodges were not such as could render practicable the working of any very elaborate ritual . A Deacon , Warden , Clerk ( who was no Craftsman ) , and Officer , were the only officials in Mother Kilwinning till December , 1735 , and in some other lodges till a later period ; and , with such a meagre array of

officers , how , by any possibility could the dramatis personce of speculative Masonry have been sustained ?' " I shall now proceed to grapple more closely with the subject , and prove that not only was there no speculative Masonry or Freemasonry in existence hefore the Reformationbut not even before the 18 th

, century , A . D . The best way to do this is to examine the old books of the Masons themselves , and see what they say . Well , such has been done . I have examined old records of different sorts bearing both directly and indirectly upon the subject , but can find no evidence to prove that the Masons' societies of the

17 th or former centuries varied in any essential particulars from the other trades , any further than that the masons were masons and the cordiners were shoemakers . Then , I may refer to that well-known Masonic Lodge , ' Mother Kilwinning , ' which has records from 1642 , or to the old lodge of Edinburgh ,

'Mary ' s Chapel , ' which has records from 1598 . Well , had speculative Masonry or Freemasonry been practised by either of these lodges previous to 1717 their minutes would surely have said so . Tet what does our Masonic historian , Bro . D . Murray Lyon , saywho went through the former some time since ,

, and who has been lately examining the latter ? He says , no later than 10 th inst ., ' The Reformation was indeed the precursor , but could not be said to have had a special or direct bearing upon Freemasonry . ' Again he says— ' Non-operatives cannot be shown to have to any extent been admitted members of lodges

before 1634 , and then only they were admitted as fellows of the Masonic craft , just as in our day the Prince of Wales or any other ' non-professioual gentleman may he received as an honorary member of the Fish-