Masonic Notes And Queries.

TRADESMEN IN LODGES . The remarks of Bro . J . A . H ., at page 30 S , are not to the purpose . —W . P . B . THE ANTIQUITY OP PEEEMASONEY ( PAGE 30 S ) AND ITS EVIDENCES .

Are we always to hear about and never to see these precious " evidences " of the antiquity of speculative Masonry before 1717 ? Surely , after so much tallc about them for years past they should now be forthcoming immediatel y , unless , indeed , as I suppose , they are non est . If they cannot be caught and handled , I greatly fear that thev are mere will-o ' -the-wisps . — W . P . B .

LOOSENESS AS TO DATES . I have written privately to Bro . Buchan to explain how the errors he points out arose , and I trust the explanation will be satisfactory to him . —J . A . H .

DUEGH EECOEDS . The interesting transcript by Bro . Buchan of the ancient rules and customs of the " Curia quatuor Burgorum , " suggests many considerations to Masonic students . These ancient laws and regulations , though known to some few amongst us , have not been

generally accessible , and both Mr . Cosmo Turner and Bro . Buchan have conferred a great benefit on all students by publishing and calling attention to them . And the more such genuine documents are carefully collected and brought forward , the better chance we shall have of arranging and realizing the true history

of Freemasonry . But I confess that I draw an exactly opposite conclusion to Bro . Buchan from the rules on which he comments in the Magazine . They seem to me unmistakeably to point ' out the true connexion of the Kni ghts Templar with the operative guilds . That such a connexion did really exist I have

ever maintained ; and the more I have studied the question the more I have become convinced of it . But what that connexion was , what its ori gin , what its practical bearing , has ever remained a question very difficult of satisfactory solution ; and the difficulty has been increased by the idle fables of the hih

g grades and the untenable claims put forward by the advocates of the Masonic Knights Templar . But still that in some way or other the real Kni ghts Templar used , adapted / and developed , the forms and usages of the operative Freemasons , I have for one never doubted .

The first question that arises upon Bro . Buchan ' s communication is , what guild is meant by "the gild ? " Is it " the gild " operative Masons , or any other gild ? If it be the gild of operative Masons , I for one should have no doubt what the regulation meant . It would incontestably prove to my mind that our old Masonic tradition is the true onethat

, the Knights Templar were patrons of Freemasonry . They found a secret operative order existing , and they took it under their patronage , became by degrees affiliated to it , making its secret organization and mysterious traditions subserve their own purposes . There can be little doubt that the " secreta receptio "

among the Templars was taken from a Masonic pattern . The regulation itself demonstrates the jealousy of the guilds lest the Templars , presuming on being partially affiliated , should seek to appropriate the guild privileges , and it has always been

asserted that the Templars did build their own preceptories and churches with operative Masons attached as serving brethren to the Order . I do not understand what Bro . Buchan means by a "liberty to trade , " as sought by the Templars , but I quite understand the guilds seeking to limit their privileges to Templars actually admited members of

the guild . In process of time , no doubt , the Templars dispensed with guild membership , having developed p secret organization and form of recognition of their own . I have assumed so far that " the gild " alluded to is really tho g ild of operative Masons , and I shall await Bro . Buchan's reply to my question before continuing my remarks on this interesting subject . —A MASONIC STUDENT .

BEO . HUGHAN ( pp . 148 & 2 SS ) . Page 148 . Page 288 . "The crafts were pro- " The absurd notion vided for from the 15 th that there was no speculacentury and afterwards , tive Masonry before 1717 . " without any special

distinctions for Masons . Page 289 . 'Wriehtes and mai- "Masonry was pracsonea' were often classed tised as a secret society , together , and certainly and on a different basis to there was notldnq special any other trade incorpoin the latter . We read rations or guilds . "

of the wardens and dea- , knes of crafts , but never as applied exclusively to Masonry . Why ? Surely because that as a body it contained nothing requiring different legislation to the others . " Will Bro Hughan explain the above ?—POINTED .

THE H . AUGHPOOT LODGE BEPOBE 1717 . It appears to me that the Haughfoot Lodge was merely a friendly and convivial society . They would have been poor speculative Masons to have no Master degree . Where was their system of threes ? Their three degrees , or their youthmanhoodage ; or

, , birth , life , and death ? All their speculative Masonry —if you could really give it the name—consisted , it would seem , merely of a bit of " apron-washing , " with its accompanying word , grip , and sign , just as the operative smiths or cordiners , & c , did . —W . P . B .

TOU 1 MIN SMITH ' S ENGLISH GILDS ( p . 308 ) . Is it not rather suggestive if the " Masons figure but little in the book , " more especially as " one special topic of his is the relationship of guilds as friendly societies ? " It strikes me that Mr . Smith ' s work will support my views . Of course the Masons

of the 15 th and 16 th centuries " figured but little . " The pretensions of the speculative Masons have all sprung up since last century began ; their ideas tooh , hence their spread . —W . P . BUCHAN . DEO . TAEKEE AND OLD PEEEMASONEY ( p . 303 ) . Bro . Yarker writes an interesting article upon an

old story ; but , after all , forgets to give any proofs . He has plenty of suggestions , but no real facts anent the existence of the M . M .- degree or speculative Masonry before 1717 . His imaginary Roslyn anchor has been already shown up at page 271 . —W . P . B .