Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents FEEEBIASONEY : ITS HISTOEY AND PUBLICATIONS .

10 IHE EDITOIJ OP THE rEEElIASOKS' HAGAZIKE AXD MASOUIC SIII 1 E 0 E . Dear Sir and Brother , —I have taken the liberty to refer occasionally to old volumes of the Magazine as containing much interesting information , and such is my belief still . Now you have had many correspondent ? , but I feel bound to say that in the very first

volume of the present series ( page 50 , date July 23 rd , 1859 ) will be found a communication which will bear comparison with any that have followed it . The author seems to have written , not from a foolish desire to support some imaginary notion , but from a desire to elucidate the truth . I endorse almost every word

he says , and feel that it would be useful to us all to reproduce his remarks , which I trust you will kindly allow me to do : they are as follow , viz : — "Having been led into the consideration of that portion of the history of architecture in England called medievalor Gothicand especiallof the

tran-, , y sition of one style into another , the inquiry has necessitated the perusal of a large number of works , and the inspection of many illustrations and buildings . . Among the publications , those relating to the fraternity of Freemasons were brought forcibly under my attention . The natural result was an inquiry into its

history , as being likely to assist the object of my researches . Greatly to my regret , I fear I have been sadly wasting my time , and it is upon this point that I venture to intrude myself on your attention . " I had always conceived that the present society of Freemasons had an established historical account

of its descent through the medifeval period , tracing the gradual changes in the art of architecture down to the present time . I had heard of the lodges , the signs , the marks , and of the Grand Masters , commen - cing from St . Alban ; but when I came to read , to study , and to compare the various works published

by the authority of the fraternity and otherwise , I grieved to find how valueless is the whole of them in respect of the earlier portion of their history . Mystification appears almost to be the end and aim of all the writers . No author since the earlier years of the last century has attempted to clear awthe obscurity

ay which evidently even then shrouded the subject . The account adopted at that time seems to be merely an attempt at a history of architecture , or of Masonry , as it is called in the works . Names are brought forward ancl titles given to them , for which no evidence is adduced . Transactions are recorded without

sufficient explanation of cause and effect . Old manuscripts , ' that convenient expression , are referred to without a prospect of anyone at tbe present day having the remotest chance of inspecting them—the whole presenting , to me at least , the appearance of having been put together to blind the uninitiated and mislead the unwary . This is the impression I have , resulting

from the perusal and comparison of the old works with modern documents . At the period when the historical account was compiled , it must have been a very skilful production . It is greatly to be regretted , however , that so many succeeding writers should have put such great faith in it ; perhaps they may not have been permitted to think for themselves .

" Though not a Freemason , I am not one of those who despise the Craft . If it had an object when it commenced its modern development in 1717 , it has well pursued it , and is therefore worthy of all commendation . But as an architect I am sadly disappointed at this absence of a satisfactory history of the Craft . I have sought for some account of the history of any

of the old lodges—say , for instance , that of the York Lodge , with its pretensions to date from the time of Athelstane . I have not , however , met with any , and have also been unable to see a copy of Oliver ' s 'Brief History of the Witham Lodge . ' Some ancient charges have been printed at various times , aud it appears to

me the Craft is especially indebted to Mr . Halliwell ( who , I presume , is not a Freemason ) for his discovery and publication of the mediaeval manuscripts on Masonry , which he considers to be of the end of the fourteenth century ; some writers referring to which , I find , are pleased to call them ' of the tenth century '

to suit a purpose . * "Some of the present authors , I consider , are endeavouring to claim for ancient Freemasonry an existence distinct from that of practical Masonry—a position that the earlier writers clearly did not maintain . What is the cause of this seeming inconsistency ? " The original York Lodge , I understand , ceased to

exist many years since . f Its papers and records , I presume , have not been destroyed . J Surely there can now be no such great secrecy in the account of their doings as to necessitatepublic reference to them being withheld . If by chance their records contain any information , it would prove to be highly interesting ,

and would surely repay any Masonic archaeologist for the trouble of the search , and the preparation of the documents for publication . There are two other old lodges in the kingdom whose records might possibly be made serviceable in the compilation of a reasonable historical account of so highly esteemed a

fraternity . " One circumstance forcibly attracted my attention . In 1717 , as you are aware , a Grand Lodge was formed in London . What evidence is there of any Grand Lodge having been held previous thereto anywhere in England ?§ Had there been one , what had become

of the office and officers ? Why was it necessary that a Grand Lodge should have been so established in 1717 ? I presume there are no other accounts but those published in Anderson , Preston , and the other usual works , and they are assuredly unsatisfactory . It is undoubtedly true from other evidence that lodges were in existence previous to that date , but no connection is adduced of them one with another or with

a head lodge . They may just as likely , for all evidence to the contrary , have been independent clubs , though possibly sprung from one another , and formed as the members separated and became resident in the various parts of the country during the commotion of the seventeenth century . " These observations are the result of researches