Correspondence.

ot March ; so that the vernal equinox in future shall be on the 21 st March , as it was in the time of the Council of Nice . Accordingly the legal year began on the first Eoman month , March ; so that September was actually the seventh , October the ei ghth , November the ninth , December the tenthJanuary the eleventhand

Feb-, , ruary the twelfth months . So Charles is stated to have had his head cut off on the 30 th day of the 11 th month ( January ) 1648 , which was the 30 th of the first month of January , 1649 , according to customary usage . There ends the difliculty , some will say , but there ends not the mystery of Carolus ' s

decollation . The year 1752 had 354 days , instead of the usual 365 ; but the alteration had no effect upon the fixed festivals oi the Church of England , for , according to the old and new styles , Christmas Day is set down as on the 25 th December , and old Christmas Day on the 6 th of January ; that is at an interval of eleven days between them . Why this difference ? "Wh y should there be an old Christmas Day and a new Christmas Day ?

Victoria was proclaimed Queen on the 30 th June , 1837 , and her anno primo continued until the anniversary of the proclamation . In like manner Charles was proclaimed King on the 27 th March , within two days of the commencement of the Eoman year ; so that the 30 Jan . would be the same to the Eoyal , as

well as to the Eoman reckoning , and as Charles was born in May , 1600 , he would be 48 when he died . The almanacs in Charles' time were not governed by the Eoman or the Eoyal year , they commence the first month in January ,- they are most all astrological works . Indeed , Charles' life as recorded by historians

who were astrologers , is , I believe , a perfect astrological fiction . I say I believe , because I am unacquainted with the occult science . The calendars of Charles' time , bound up with the bibles , do not admit the legal or Eoman st yle or the Eoyal , all commencing with the first of January . Now , as to spoliation and destruction of books ! "What I am about to mention is of considerable

importance to all intellectual men—whether they be Masons or not . The Bible is claimed by Masons , and even now , in their present fallen state , there is usually a folio volume of the sacred writings in every working lodge . The first Latin Bible catalogued in the British Museum is the Mazarene , and , as the index expresses , " it is the earliest printed book known , " date 1543 It

, . is without title-page , and , what is most extraordinary , is that the succeeding fifty Bibles indexed , according to the catalogue , are all without title-pages . These ponderous folio works , it would appear , were too valuable to be destroyed , so they were only mutilated . Had the titles of these expensive productions remained intact , they would probably have prevented Masonry from sinking to its present state .

The Liturgies of the Church of England from the commencement of Charles' reign in 1635 to 1642 are numerous and consecutive year by year ; but from 1642 until 1660 there is not one single copy indexed in the catalogue . It is to be understood that there were no Church of England public forms of Common Prayer or Liturgies published during 18 years , and yet so many before and so many after those dates—or _ did Liturgies printed—if there were any

printed during those years—reveal mysteries , and consequently were destroyed ? Whether the mutilation of the valuable Bibles took place when the less valuable Liturgies were destroyed , cannot now be determined ! There are three Common Prayer-books indexed for 1642 . The first does not appear to denote any thing particular . The title-page for the

second has the date 1642 , but the leaf of the calendar , which would give January , has been taken away , probably before the book was bound as it now appears . The third is a most valuable work , although only a duo decimo ; perhaps its insignificant size allowed its escape from mutilation or destruction . The

titlepage has" The Book of common prayer and administration of the Sacrement ; and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England . London . Printed by Rob . Baker , printer to the King ' s Most Excellent Majestie : and by the assignes of John Bill , 1642 . Gum privilegio . " At the end of the book is— " Imprinted at London by Robert

Baker , printer to the King ' s Most Excellent Majestie : and by the assignes of John Bill , 1642 . Pressmark , C . 36 . a . " There can be no doubt about the genuineness of this little book . In it there is a Calendar . In January , and on the 30 th dag of the month

is—K . CHAR MARTYR Accordingly , some King Char was a martyr at least six years before Charles I . had his head cut off . There is , indeed , a mystery about Charles , and a still greater mystery about 1642 . The 1642 in plain terms means the Assembly of Nice at the vernal

equinox on the 21 st March . In 1643 , Doves Speculum and Almanack places CAROLTJS MAG on the 28 th Jan . ( pressmark , pp . 2465 ) , but 1643 cannot in any way apply to the assemblage of Nicean or Nissian . It will be remarked that I pass the doings of the

Commonwealth ; I do so purposely , leaving others to believe just what they please . However , it is made to appear that in June , 1643 , an ordinance of the Lords and Commons ordained an assembly of learned and Godly Divines to settle the Liturgy of the Church of England ; thatin Jan ., 1644 they did settle itfor

, , , they abolished the Common Prayer-book and supplied in its stead a Directory for public worship ; that in August , 1645 , they made it an offence , subject to a penalty of £ 5 , for anyone to use the Common Prayerbook publicly or in any private family ! "Would an Act of Parliament now-a-day prevent the use of the

Common Prayer-book iu private families ? "Would it not rather insure a most extraordinary demand for the Liturgy ? There is always something cheap and dirty about the Commonwealth productions . Little books and handbills can be printed cheap and valuable books destroyed to suit purposes .

As regards the request in your last number , p . 48 , that I should explain what Solomon ' s Temple really means . I beg to say I decline doing so in this publication . Certain domineering writers of this Magazine must not have their opinions interfered with . They have lost the key of knowledgeand will not .

, enter themselves , and those that -would enter they hinder . Tours fraternally ,

HENET MELYILLE .