Speculative Freemasonry And Its Origin (Pp. 67, 69.)

BEO . H „ MUEEAY ' S ADDEESS ( page 61 ) AND ABEOAD AND AT HOME ( page 47 ) . It seems to me that page 61 shows that "' abroad " there is a great deal yet to be learnt as well as " at home . " To assert that Scotland " maintained the

Craft for many centuries upon a wider and more fittingly oi'ganised basis than it ever attained in England prior to 1717 ' ' is , I consider , purely imaginary . And as to the nobility and gentry joining so largely Scottish lodges in the 15 th and 16 th centuries , I was not aware of it before . Then as to many other statements

of Bro . Murray ' s , they form a curious sort of hotchpotch , which I have not the time to go into ; they , however , serve to show that a speaker may say a good deal , and yet fall very far short of the truth . It is not the amount said that is the true criterion , but the amount of truth contained in what is said that makes it valuable . We shall admit the Magazine to be behind other papers regarding the history of the Craft , whenever proof is given . —W . P . B .

BEO . BUCHAN ' S NATIVE CITY . "Bos Albus , " at page 48 , writes as if Glasgow were his ( Bro . Buchan ' s ) native city ; but that is a mistake—Glasgow has not that honour . He hails from the auld toun o' " Aberdeen awa , " or at least from the shire of that name , the particular locality being

Fraserburgh , in the north-east corner thereof , and the era when he first saw the light of the " neutral world " December 7 th , A . D . 1836 . However , Bro . B . has now been in Glasgow above twenty years , where he served his apprenticeshi p , worked journevman for a short time , and has been established for the last ten years in business for himself ; consequently , although Glasgow may not be " his native city , " yet the binding tie may be otherwise pretty strong . —MOEE LIGHT .

DEP . G . M . MANNINGHAM ' S LETTEE ( page 67 ) . In view of evidence which contradicts it , I consider ¦ that this letter does not " afford sufficient evidence , historically aud legally , that lohat our Freemasonry was in 1757 that it was in the seventeenth century ;" —W . P . B .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondent THE "DEGREE" OF INSTALLED MASTER

IO IDE EDITOR 01 ? IB EEEEMASONS' . MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIBEOIt . Dear Sir and Brother , —I find in your last number a second letter from a brother signing himself " P . M . " Were I as well acquained with his name as he appears to be with mine I should send him a private note , instead of making use of your columns to communicate

with him . After some compliments , he endeavours to make me appear ridiculous , by alluding to my want of "bravery , " and to my exercise of "discretion the better part of valour , " in transferring to some one else a discussion on the point he has raised . I much question whetherin his Masonic careerhe has been so

, , often called upon to display moral courage as I have and with as much success in the issue , at the same time , on . several occasions exposing myself temporaril y to much obloquy , which nothing but a consciousness

Correspondence.

of rig ht enabled me to bear , from those whom it was my personal interest to conciliate . I trust that " P . M . " will g ive me credit for truthfulness in saying that my letter to you was written before I saw his , after perusing which I added a few lines of comment , without any intention of answering the first of his questions , which will be best dealt with by the

committee about to be appointed for revision ofthe rituals , to which body it will , doubtless , be well for him to express his opinion ; and with that object , if my advice be not intrusive and impertinent , I would recommend him to send his name to Bro . James Stevens , the promoter of the Revision Committee , and thus have an opportunity of becoming a member of it , and of bringing forward the view taken by himself and" Fiat Lux . "

Because I wrote , independently of " P . M . " on what I considered a manifest omission , felt by others as well as myself , in the rituals of the Board of Installed Masters and of the Royal Arch Chapter , which are supplied in some districts , but not in others , it does not follow that I was bound to express an opinion on the propriety of the existence of such a board ,

questioned by your correspondent . The point he raised is new to me , and requires much consideration , more especially as the conduct of installation ceremonies by a Board of Installed Masters is universally recognised in this country at least . - On page 49 of your journal , another brother " Fiat

Lux , " has endorsed the views of " P . M . " on the subject under consideration . It might be well for these brethren to attempt to instal a W . M . in the presence ofthe whole lodge , then we should see whether or not they would be censured by their Prov . Grand Master . I fullbelieve that were I to pursue such a course ,

y the next post would bring me a letter of reprehension from the head of this district . Tours fraternally , Jan . 24 th , 1870 . H . H .

MASONIC REFORM . TO THE EDITOE OF THE FEEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIKEOB . Dear Sir and Brother , —I can fully appreciate the feelings of "Res E ~ on "Verba , " in his manifest unwillingness to throw aside the poetic Masonic fictions to which we have all been so long accustomed , for the

prosaic reality of fact . There are times when even truth is distasteful , especially when it interferes with the enchanting romance of preconceived opinions and associations . Notions , however vague and unhistoric , acquire a kind of sanctity by repetition , and in time the very absurdity of a doctrine confirms the votary

in his belief . Out of a long catalogue of inconsistencies , my respected brother only champions the connection ofthe Royal Arch and Craft Masonry ; and if I do not greatly err , the part he has undertaken to defend is more than sufficient . He advances with the dictum

that " unless the word of the third degree , as also the ceremonies belonging thereto , which were worked and acknowledged before , say , 1740 , were again placed in the Master Mason ' s degree ( and thus now taken from the Royal Arch ) , I cannot see the wisdom of separating the Royal Arch from Craft Masonry , as it is

evidently , under the present arrangement , the com-