G. Chap.; R. W. Bro. Thomas Pinkerton, Pinkerton, G.T.; R.W. Bro. J. G. Yemen, Stratford, G. R.; M. W. Bro. James Ruth, Grand Valley, G. Sec; R. W. Bro. James Wilson, D.D.G.M., Huron district; R. W. Bro. C. McRoberts, D.D.G. M., London district; R. W Bro. C. H. Hodges, D.D.G M., St. Clair district; R. W. Bro. Wm. Amor, D D.G.M., Hamilton district; R.W. Bro. McConnell, D. D. G. M., Toronto district; R. W. Bro. W. Cooney, D.D.G.M, Ontario district; R. W. Bros. S. C. Row, D.D G. M., St. Lawrence district; E. J. Burke, D.D.G. M., G.S. D.; Dr. Mullen, D. D G M., G.J.D.; L. Palmer, D. D. G. M., E.S.O. W.; D. J. Bain, D.D.G. M., G.D. of C.; A. Robertson, D.D.G. M.; Ass't G.S.; E. R. Barnesdale, D.D.G.M., G. Organist; E. B. Hull, D.D.G. M., Ass't G. O.; T. Dixon, D. D. G. M., G. P.; Bro. Ennis, D.D.G. M., G.T.; M. W. Bro. F Westlake, G. Lecturer.

The Grand Lodge having finished its labors, the G.M.'s gavel fell at high 12, and the Grand Lodge was closed in ample form. The next place of meeting is Bowmanville, on January 16th, A. D. 1889, A L 5889.

[From the London Freemason.]

SUPERINTENDENTS OF ENGLISH BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

Mr. Wyatt Papworth is provokingly brief in his reference to the "Legendary History" of the Freemasons, possibly because, as he truly says, "this subject has been treated very thoroughly by Mr. Gould." I regret, however, the little space given to this division of the Paper, for, to my mind, the more extended the inquiries as to the character, scope and laws of the "Old Charges," the stronger the evidence is found to be, which links us as a Society to the older organizations of the same name. He says of them: "They all bear evidence not only of being copies of some earlier documents, but of the copyists not being versed in what they were trancribing." As to the latter assertion, I consider it is much too strong, but it is not necessary now to attempt any defense of some, at least, of the transcribers, for, after all, we have rather to deal with the general statements to be found in these numerous, curious and valuable rolls or books, about which the transcribers all substantially agree.

Mr. Papworth acknowledges that these documents-"regulations and by-laws, as they may be termed "—were undoubtedly compiled for the use of a body of working Masons; that they referred to the

"yearly assemblies" ("of some companies or guilds, I consider "), and no doubt these are the meetings aimed at by the statutes; to a Lodge as a workshop; directing "the most cunning to be Governor of the work, and to be called Master," taking of apprentices, workmanship, brotherly love, moral conduct, punishment of offenders and observance of their "articles and points," or by laws, as they may be termed, many of which appear very similar to the precepts contained in the indentures of apprentices of the last century.

He also notes the fact that "there are not, in the Masons' ordi. nances, any references to secret signs," and then hazards the remark that there are no references to Masons' marks-monograms, as they might be properly called." The author naively suggests as to the question of "marks" that "probably it will be said by some that I know nothing about the matter." Some may say so, but no member of the Masonic Craft, I apprehend is likely to, and, at all events, if any so do, it would be incorrect. Few, if any, students of the subject of building, viewed from an Archæological standpoint, have been more industrious and zealous than Mr. Papworth, and therefore we may be assured that when he "puts his foot down," the evidence he has accumulated with such care and pains, warrants him accordingly. It is, however, quite possible he may have overlooked the exact bearing and significance of some of the attested facts, and hence I should like to take exception to one or two of his objections, urged against the claims of the present Society being the lineal descendant of the old Freemasons. He need not fear the "concentrated ire of some thousands of the members of that fellowship," for anything to be found in the paper as to that Body, though he may have cause to dread "the execration of some 400 Wykehamites," as they will be recruited from his own Society. Should he desire any aid to withstand the opposition of the latter, he may draw upon several members of the Craft who share his views on the disputed point in question.

Mr. Papworth states that whenever the word "Freemason" simply occurs, "it must be understood only to apply to the practical Mason who worked freestone." I am unable quite to follow this statement, and find myself in good company, for neither can Bro. Gould.

In

There are, however, to the "Mason Word " (Scotland) in seventeenth century, which must not be lost sight of. There are likewise references else to esoteric teaching, only not in ordinances.

deed, with his history before me, and especially Chapter XIV., it seems clear that Gould has the facts on his side. He "contends that the class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington, Staffordshire, Chester, York, London, and their congeners in the seventeenth century, derived the descriptive title which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men, and Masons of Guilds or Companies." He proves that the prefix free was applied to Carpenters in 1666, to "Sewers" in the fifteenth century (styled also "Free Brotherys") to men who belonged to a variety of trades in Durham in 1671, and to others, the exercise of such trades being contingent on the necessary freedom being obtained. This is still clearer, on reference to the Scottish statutes and records. It is just probable that the word originally was employed in reference to free-stone work, but surely later on the prefix meant the freedom to be a Mason Carpenter, Sewer, &c., as noted for the fifteenth and later centuries. The very word "cowan suggests the lack of freedom to work. †

As to there being no reference to Masons' marks in the Masonic ordinances, I refer Mr. Papworth to the "Schaw statutes" of 1598, wherein provision is made for the reception by Lodges of Master or Fellow and that "his name and mark insert," the Lodges in the seventeenth century generally requiring marks to be selected and booked by the neophytes, whether operative, or speculative as the records testify. One gentleman, withother Masons who were present as members of the Lodge of Edinburgh "affixit y. markis" in the year 1600; and many are the instances of noblemen and gentlemen acting in like manner through that century.

Mr. Papworth mentions that "the term 'freemason' does not appear to have been used in Scotland at all." The year 1636 appears to be the earliest dated reference to the term in that country, but virtually it goes back in 1581, the year in which the original of the "Melrose MS." now existing was dated, but these are too late for the purposes of the author, whereas in England the title is met with some two centuries earlier. Mr. Papworth and Bro. Gould are in accord respecting the so-called "Traveling bodies of Freemasons," who are said to have erected all the great buildings of Europe. The latter devotes considerable space to an examination and refutation of the theory, as in duty bound. The former em

+" Unfremen was a term also used in Scotland in early days.

phatically declares "nothing more, however, is to be here noted than that I believe they never existed."

6.

As to the Fratres Pontis," no surprise need be felt as regards England, that amongst the numerous references in my (Mr. Papworth's) notes concerning bridge building especially, no intimation of any such institution appears."

The talented author concludes his remarks by observing "that nothing has been met in the long course of reading required for these Papers to connect the chartered Guilds of Masons and Freemasons, noticed in the Statutes of 1360 and of 1425, and the artificers, handicraftsmen and laborers' of 1548, with the Companies or Lodges of Freemasons mentioned by Ashmole in 1646 and 1682, by Dr. Plot in 1686; a general assembly held somewhere in 1663; the one in which Sir Christopher Wren was (not) elected in 1691; or the four Lodges which formed the Grand Lodge at the commencement of the last century, since which period the Society of Free and Accepted Masons' has attained its position and developement." Possibly, to be exact, directly, this has not been met with according to the careful definition of Mr. Papworth, but we shall rest contented if he acknowledges that we belong now, substantially, to a body of Freemasons continued in one form or other from the period noted, of which Ashmole, Holme, Boswell and other initiates of the seventeenth century were members, whose Lodges owned and issued copies of the "Old Charges," as did their predecessors, and moreover observed similar laws and customs.

Personally, I feel much indebted to Mr. Papworth for his interesting and invaluable researches, and feel certain that to no Body will his papers now reprinted prove more acceptable than to the Society of Free and Accepted Masons. W. J. HUGHAN,

THE light of a Master Mason is darkness visible, serving only to express that gloom which rests on the prospects of futurity. It is that mysterious veil which the Eureka of human reason cannot penetrate, unless assisted by that light which is from above.--Dr. Oliver.

"Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."
"Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.".
Vol. 68.- No. 6.—3.

A FREEMASON.

EDITOR REVIEW-The following verses were recited to me by a man who is in his 90th year, and he learned them when he was a young man learning his trade (shoemaker) in the town of Cummington, Mass. He learned them of the man who learned him his trade. He is not a Mason, but when feeling well he likes to recite them. I would like to see them in the REView.

HALF the misunderstandings of those who can least afford to misunderstand each other at all, arise from two joint reasons-first, from want of frankness on the part of those who think they have no need to explain; next, from want of faith on the part of those who can take nothing for granted without an explanation.