THE BUILDER JUNE 1929

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

By BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN

(Continued from May)

WE now come to the consideration of the second division of the evidence, the old lodge records.

It will, fortunately, not be necessary to bring forward very much that has not already been discussed, with the
exception of the Aitchison's Haven minutes, which will have to be cited in their place. The great bulk of these
records are Scottish; for, beyond York and Alnwick, none exist in England earlier than 1717, and none at all before
1700. Those of Alnwick beginning in 1701 apparently and those of York in 1712 (1).

This state of affairs, which Hughan found inexplicable (2), makes it essential that the question of the relation of
Scottish to English Masonry before the Grand Lodge era should be fully canvassed before we can proceed with
much hope of arriving at safe conclusions; for as Gould says, there is far more involved in the reply made to this
question than at first sight appears (3). We have already had it before us, and we have sufficiently indicated our
own views (4), but the point is too important to be left with a mere expression of opinion. The situation may be
thus described; Gould as learned counsel presented an argument based on the brief provided by Lyon. The
conclusions he reached seem to have been accepted by everyone as final. Fortunately, to continue the legal
metaphor, there is no statute of limitations in such matters, and no judgment at the bar of scholarship is beyond
reconsideration and revision.

Gould treated this question in the sixteenth chapter of his history. While it seems fairly certain that he had not then
been converted to the theory of the existence of a plurality of degrees before 1717, yet he does not ever seem to
have relaxed in the least his conclusion that Scotch and English Masonry were so different that, judging by some
expressions, there was really nothing in common between them. As, for example, when he tells us that the "old
Scottish Mason Word is unknown" and that there is nothing to show whether it was ever, before 1736, the same
as anything used in England.

Owing to his discursive style of writing this chapter requires careful reading and close attention to disentangle the
various steps of his argument. As a whole it makes a general advance over the terrain of Early British Freemasonry.
First one feature and then another is taken up. This tends to conceal whatever weaknesses there may be in the
argument on this particular point. For in one place we are promised further discussion later on, and then we are
referred back to what was said earlier. The chapter should be re-read in conjunction with this criticism, so that our
analysis may be checked (5). To give our own impressions quite frankly, it might be likened to a trial where a
clever rogue is acquitted because there is insufficient legal evidence against him, although every one, judge, jurors
and counsel, are quite certain of his guilt. Or putting it less figuratively, Gould so limited and restricted the
significance of the facts that it was impossible to arrive at anything but a negative conclusion.

THE CHARACTER OF EARLY SCOTTISH MASONRY

The essentials of his argument seem to be the following: It is pointed out that the scanty traces of lodge activities
in England prior to the eighteenth century seem to reveal only speculative (or more accurately, non-operative)
bodies; with possibly, of course, some operative Masons in the membership. Only one exception to this rule exists,
the operative lodge at Alnwick. But it is not properly included in the period as the existing minutes do not begin
until 1701. Besides it was close to the Scottish border, and might well have been of Scottish derivation.

On the other hand, the comparative wealth of records in Scotland reveals an organization, wholly operative in
character, though including a considerable number of honorary and non-operative members, in some lodges, indeed,
a majority. Again there is just one exception, the lodge at Haughfoot. But this also is close to the border, and might
have derived its ritual from England; and besides, like Alnwick, it is too late to be included in the period, as its
earliest records do not begin till December, 1702. It is insisted that, in spite of possible inferences from the Old
Charges, there is no proof, outside of Alnwick, that there ever was an operative lodge in England. Thus a
presumption is raised in the reader's mind that these two exceptional cases in effect cancel each other out. The one
really Scottish though in England, and the other having an English character though in Scotland.

As we have stated earlier (6), Gould went beyond Lyon in his interpretation of the phrase "the Mason Word." Lyon
had said that it was evident, from the Dunblane record, that "this talisman consisted of something more than a
word." This Gould refused to accept, standing on the literal meaning of the phrase. (7) The Haughfoot reference
to a grip he dismisses summarily as abnormal (8). The reference in the Dunblane minutes to "the secrets of the
Mason Word" is then evacuated of its apparent meaning by the following argument.

On Dec. 27, 1729, two Entered Apprentices from Kilwinning desired to join the lodge of Dunblane and be passed
as fellows of Craft. This petition

. . . being considered by the members of Court [i. e. of the Lodge] they ordain James Muschet to examine them
as to their qualifications and knowledge, who having reported to the Lodge that they had a competent knowledge
of the secrets of the Mason Word, then the said Lodge, after entering them apprentiees pass them to be fellows of
craft of this Lodge (9).

However (according to Gould (10)) this really means little (or nothing) because, even so late as 1735 the Kilwinning
"ceremony of initiation was so simple" that two persons, in that year, were "received into Masonry by individual
operators at a distance from the lodge," and "being found" in lawful possession of the word "were recognized as
members of Mother Kilwinning.

CRITICISM OF GOULD'S ARGUMENTS

This seems to be the real substantial argument offered by Gould in support of his position. Naturally, clothed in
literary form, with the aid of forensic rhetoric, and with its weak places concealed by the many breaks in carrying
it through to a conclusion, it appears much more convincing than in this summary. Whether this last is really a just
analysis and exposition or not, must be left to our readers to judge for themselves. To us it seems that the logical
fallacies of the argument are so obvious as to scarcely need pointing out. We have just as much right to insist that
the last mentioned incident proves that "possession of the word" at Kilwinning included the "secrets of the word"
spoken of at Dunblane, as the reverse. We are in fact faced with the negative argument in an acute form. And when
we consider the practical side of the question, it is seen that the inference last suggested gives the most probable
result. Gould presumably understood the "benefit of the mason word" to mean the obtaining recognition as a mason
among strangers. Upon reflection it will be obvious that a single word, with nothing leading up to it, would be
totally inadequate for this purpose, unless, like military watch words, it were changed very frequently. Even then,
there would have to be some rules as to how it was given. Gould appeals to universal silence. But the silence is not
universal, for there are the exceptions. And as we have insisted at painful length, one positive instance is sufficient,
logically, to overbalance the negative weight of an otherwise complete silence. Of course such a single instance must
be "exceptional" as long as it stands alone. To so describe it does not reduce its force, as Gould seemed to think.
To do that some other consideration would have to be brought forward to show why it should not be accepted. This
indeed he tried to do by the suggested doubt raised by date and locality, but these have no weight unless we admit
that the difference which he assumed between English and Scottish Masonry really did exist in this radical form.

Of course Gould (11) was too careful to state these conclusions positively, as being compulsorily required by the
evidence; and we have always to bear in mind that the only alternative to this position which then presented itself
was practically the acceptance of the traditional position of the antiquity of our present system and ritual. We have
no desire to call in question the value of Gould's work. He cleared the ground and laid the foundations; we are only
trying to continue the building where he left off. We are not demolishing any part of the structure he reared, but
removing some of the scaffolding for which there is now no need.

We must go a little further, however. In the course of this argument Gould lay great stress on the date. The
suggestion was that Alnwick, Haughfoot and Dunblane could tell us nothing of the state of affairs in the seventeenth
century. This sounds impressive, but there is a kind of fallacy in it. Centuries, after all, are artificial periods. We
may compare one with another, as wholes, just as we may compare one month with another. March is windy, April
is showery. But the last week of March may be rainy and there may be high winds early in April. We cannot,
without fallacy, separate the last years of the seventeenth century from the beginning of the eighteenth. There is this
just kernel of truth in the suggestion created by Gould's classification of the evidence by centuries; that we can only
infer the existence of a thing before the date of its being first definitely mentioned. Yet in this case such inference
is sound enough when the whole nature of the phenomena is considered, and especially the intensely conservative
and traditional nature of the institution. And we need only ask that a very few years of previous existence be
inferred to carry things back over the fatal (artificial) line drawn between 1699 and 1700.

That there was a difference between English and Scottish Masonry we willingly admit, and Gould has the credit
for having pointed it out. It was a difference of organization and function. Where we hold that he was mistaken,
and indeed went beyond legitimate inference from the evidence, is in the assumption that this external difference
implied equally great differences on the esoteric side. We know that very great differences of organization during
the strictly historic period, even down to the present day, have not involved differences in ritual to the point of
making recognition impossible. Variations exist now, and very likely existed then to an even greater degree than
now, but that is not the same thing at all (12).

ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH MASONRY ESOTERICALLY IDENTICAL

Although Scotchmen will doubtless repudiate the idea with vigor, and perhaps with heat, historically the English
speaking people of Britain have a common origin and culture. The Lowlanders of Scotland are ethnologically the
same race in the main as the inhabitants of the north of England. That there was ever a division between them was
a political accident, largely due, it is probable, to geography. The natural assumption is that Scottish Masonry would
be derived from England. There is no need to go over in detail the minor features that are common. Just one thing
may be mentioned, and that is the fact that a good number of copies of the MS. charges have been found in the
possession of many of the old Scotch lodges. When therefore the argument against recognizable likeness and close
relationship between the Masonries of the two countries has been countered, the original and natural assumption,
that internally they were closely related, once more takes its place.

There is one more argument that may be brought forward. Scottish minutes go on speaking of the "Mason Word"
years after Desaguliers' visit to Mary's Chapel, where he, a London Mason, was examined and "found duly
qualified in all points of Masonry." This hardly bears out the minimal interpretation of the phrase insisted on by
Gould; and, once we are free of that presumption, the possibilities are unlimited. Scottish forms, under the influence
of extreme Protestantism may have been, and very probably were, subjected to a process of deletion in some places,
each lodge being a law to itself, but not to the point of making intercommunication impossible (13). There may also
have been a process of decay and atrophy. Gould gives a sketch of Scottish history, dwelling on the many invasions
the country endured, most of them accompanied by complete devastation of towns and countryside alike; and the
unexpressed suggestion is given that as the arts and crafts generally declined the esoteric side of Masonry would
also decay and be forgotten. This does not necessarily follow. Men could remember and transmit signs and tokens
and secret catechisms even though practically debarred from exercising their craft. The process of decay would
probably, we think, affect England equally. It would be merely another example of the gradual change of
institutions; and one of its effects might well have been that alleged fusing of two grades into one in some non
operative lodges in England in the seventeenth century which Speth suggested.

We have thus given our reasons for refusing to admit that the external differences of organization and function in
the two countries in the seventeenth century necessarily require us to postulate equally radical differences on the
esoteric side. Our contention is that the attempt to prove such differences breaks down under critical examination.
There must have been, in the nature of things this much we may assume geographical variations, both local and
regional, just as there must have been secular changes in the passing of the years. But equally, on the other hand,
the intercommunication, indications of which are everywhere frequent, and the conservatism which so strongly
characterized members of the Craft, must have had a strong stabilizing effect. Like an army on the march, with
scouting and foraging parties on the flanks, the vanguard far ahead while the rearguard lags behind, nevertheless
the organization may be supposed to have retained coherence, and to have evolved along the same lines in different
places and at different rates. We say supposed, deliberately, because it is not proved, nor can it be disproved beyond
all shadow of doubt. The dictum of Huxley, quoted by Gould himself, regarding that "postulate of loose thinkers;
that what may have happened must have happened," is a warning. Yet there is its converse, which Bro. Tuckett has
more recently enunciated; the unconscious postulate that the critically minded often assume; that what cannot be
proved cannot have happened - the pitfall of the negative argument, in other words (14). In view of all which we
hold that we may assume, not only as possible, but to some degree probable, that the Masons of the two countries
employed substantially the same ritual forms and possessed in essentials the same secrets. Upon this assumption we
will proceed.

THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE OLD RECORDS

First we will recall that in our consideration of the Old Charges last month, we saw that they pointed to a definite
dividing line between apprentices and the skilled Fellows and Masters. Further, it appears that (though far from
consistently) there was a tendency to employ different terms for changing the status of the individual. An apprentice
was "allowed" according to some versions, but a Mason was "made," and a Fellow was "received." Any
interpretation of these vague indications by themselves is mere guesswork. But they may fit into a scheme suggested
by other facts. The Schlaw Statutes and the Orders of the lodge at Alnwick do give some further precision to the
hazy impression received. According to the former the apprentice was "taken" by his master; "received" either by
his master or the lodge, or by both for this is not clear and "entered" to the lodge- or in the lodge records for
again it is not clear. On the other hand it is quite clear that a master or fellow was "received and admitted'' into
the lodge; and this "admission" must almost certainly, from the way it is spoken of, have been formal in character.

At Alnwick (15) we saw that the apprentice was "entered" and "given his charge," while "Masons" were "made
free," and apprentices at the end of their servitude were "admitted or accepted." Again we have the same vagueness
as appeared in the Old Charges, yet an outline begins to appear, as in a clearing mist. Remembering, as we saw
last month (16), that "Mason" was apparently used, sometimes, at least, as an inclusive term for the more particular
designations "Master" and "Fellows," it begins to look dimly as if an apprentice was taken and allowed or entered,
and at the end of his term was made free by being admitted or accepted as a fellow or master, or alternatively, made
a Mason. At York the "Old Rules" of 1725 speak only of a "Mason" or "Brother" being "made," there being no
reference at all to apprentices.

Coming back to Scotland (17) we find the Statutes "ordeined" by the Lodge of Aberdeen, in 1670, giving the
conditions under which an "Entering prenteise" is to be "reciaved." "Master meassons" are said to be "made," and
apprentices at the end of their time are to "receave the fellowship." The last is also spoken of as getting his
fellowship.

"Mother" Kilwinning in 1643 wrote into its records the clause of the Schaw Statutes relating to the passing of
fellows. In 1646 four persons, one a Mason of Paisley, were accepted as "fellow brethren to the said trade"; the
meetings being described as "Courts of the Mason trade of the lodge of Kilwinning." This entry probably relates
to what we should call affiliation.. The next item is to the effect that five individuals, who are named, were received
as "prenteisses to ye said craft."

At Glasgow, on the first day of the year 1613, John Stewart younger, apprentice to John Stewart elder, was
"entered" by the Warden and Brethren, "conform to the acts and liberty of the Lodge," whatever that meant
precisely to the clerk who wrote it. The earliest extant minute of the Lodge of Dunblane is dated January, 1696.
In December of that year the members "ordained" a scale of fees to be paid by those wishing to join; "at their
entrey six punds, and att their passing thrie punds Scots, with the ordinar dues." Twenty years later, in 1716, it was
enacted that "there be no meassons or uthers entered and past by the members of this Lodge at one and the same
time," excepting only "such gentlemen" who could not be present at a "second diet." Instead, those "entered" were
to be "first reported prentises, and their passing ordered by the Lodge thereafter according to qualifications."
Evidently the "entering" was generally done by a group of members of the lodge at their own convenience, as was
apparently quite customary in Scotland at the period, and possibly in England, too.

Dec. 27, 1720, is the first of the minutes of the admissions of fellows of craft that contain the peculiar reference
to the square and compass which for a number of years was regularly used by the Secretary of Dunlblane Lodge.
It is worth quoting in full:

Compared John Gillespie, writer in Dunblane, who was entered on the 24 instant, and after examination was duely
passt from the Square to the Compass, and from ane Entered Prentiee to a Fellow of Craft of the Lodge.

While the date of this is later than the formation of the Grand Lodge in London, yet it is hardly likely that the
ripples created by that event could have had much effect in Scotland in the short interval of three years. For the
present, however, we will pass on as this calls for further consideration later. Only it may be said that the phrase
can hardly mean anything aside from some ceremonial to which it was a veiled reference.

The Lodge of Peebles seems to have been deliberately founded by the members of the "Honorable company of
Masons" of that place, who took

. . . into their consideration the great loss they have hitherto sustained by want of a Lodge, and finding a sufficient
number of Brethreen in this Burgh, did this day [Oet. 18 1716] erect a lodge amongst themselves within the said
Burgh.

This makes one wonder just what the "great loss" was that they had sustained. It could hardly have been a business
or financial one, as the Company or Gild should have been sufficient for such matters. It seems as if it might be
a curious parallel to the "Accepcon" in the London Mason's Company. However that may be, in December the
same year, 1716, William Brotherstanes was "decently and orderly" entered; while Alexander Veitch, an "enter'd
prentise, made application" to the lodge and was "received." Minutes of later years up to 1725 speak of Apprentices
being entered, and other persons being "received and admitted," (apparently in most cases non-operatives who were
made fellows at once. But this is not absolutely certain in every case.) A peculiarity of these minutes is that we are
frequently told that these "enterings" and "admissions" were "decently and orderly" performed, which can hardly
refer to anything but some ceremonial.

The minute book of the Lodge at Haughfoot begins in December of 1702, but the first ten pages have been torn out,
and it is strongly to be suspected that they contained, if not a ritual, at least ritual memoranda. In 1704 William
Cairncross "gave in his petition" to be associated with the lodge, and was examined and found to be a "true entered
Apprentice and Fellowcraft." This shortened form of the usual term "Fellow of Craft" was used also at Aberdeen,
whence it was probably transplanted to London by Dr. Anderson, and thence, through the medium of the Book of
Constitutions, it has spread over the whole Masonic world.

On St. John's Day, 1706, "John Scott, brother of Sir James Scott of Gala, was orderly admitted to the Society of
Apprentice and Felllowcraft." A year later a similar rule to that of Dunblane was made. The "meeting" having come

. . . to a general resolution that in time coming they would not, except on special considerations, admitt to the
Society both of apprentice and fellowcraft, at the same tyme, but that one year at least should intervene betwixt any
being admitted apprentice and his being entered fellowcraft.

Here we have another of the puzzling variations in terminology. It is practically certain that in this exceptional lodge
(which has been taken by many students as exceptional in the sense of being sui generis) there were two ceremonies
used throughout its existence. But the term "enter" is used for the higher grade and "admission" for the lower, the
exact opposite to what we have been coming to accept as the normal terminology of the period.

We come finally to the minutes of the Lodge of Aitchison's Haven. These begin in the year before the earliest extant
minutes of Mary's Chapel at Edinburgh, and the first entry records that "Robert Widderspone was maid fellow of
Craft" in the presence of "John Fender the Warden," and seven other fellows of craft. No apprentices are
mentioned. This of course does not prove that none were present, especially as the Warden was one of those who
signed the Schaw Statutes which insisted that two apprentices were required at the admission of fellows of craft.


The omission was remedied on later occasions, however, as on May 28, 1599, "Johne Low was maid fellow of
Craft in ye presence of Johne Fender Warden for ye present," followed by the names of six others, who are said
to be "all fellows of Craft," and then comes "also of enterit Drentis Richart Petticrief [and] James  Petticrief." So
that the lodge was formed of seven fellows with the two apprentices that, as we have seen, were so insistently
required by the Schaw Statutes.

The second minute in the book, January 11, 1598, records that "Alexander Cubie was enterit prenteis to Georg
Aytoune." Two years later, Jan. 2, 1600, we find Alexander Culbie chosen by "Andro Pattene" as one of his
intenders, the said Andrew being "enterit prenteis to Johne Crafurd his maister," having paid twenty shillings for
"his boukin," or fee for registration, and given gloves to his "admitteris," who included six fellows and four
apprentices.

These minutes favor the term "maid fellow of craft" for the higher status, but while frequently using the term
"enterit" in regard to apprentices, this is varied by the expression "buikit," booked or recorded. This definitely
raises the question, which has already hovered in the background, as it were, more than once; was the "entering"
of an apprentice anything more than formal registration in the lodge records, in the presence of its members as
witnesses? For the present we leave it without attempting an answer, though it may be noted that in some places
mention is made also of the "buiking," or paying the fee therefore when fellows were "maid."

It is evident that where men's professional or occupational status is affected records must be kept. And as we have
already noted, in Scotland membership in a lodge was as important to a working stone mason then as membership
in a Trade Union is at the present day to the skilled workman in such trades as are fully "unionized." It is this that
accounts for the fact that Scottish lodges not only made records, but preserved them also. But further than this, it
also accounts for their general character. They are concerned mainly with those things that affected the rights and
seniority of the members of the lodge, and for this reason it is only incidentally, and as it were by accident, that
they ever tell us anything about those traditions and customs in which we are chiefly interested, all of which gives
us an additional reason for being very wary of the negative argument here.

It shows the difficulty of the subject that Gould quite overlooked the significance of the record concerning William
Cairncross at Haughfoot, quoted above. The phraseology irresistibly suggests that he was examined not only as an
apprentice, but also as a fellow craft. But this once granted implies that this lodge was not ritually exceptional, but
that there was a real community between it and the lodge in which Cairncross was entered and accepted.

Our developing picture is now a little clearer; the lines are still vague and misty, but like a composite photograph
certain features begin to stand out. The difference in status between apprentices and full Masons, i. e., Masters and
Fellows, Which the Old Charges clearly indicated, seem, in Scotland, at least in the seventeenth century, to have
been marked by certain formalities, generally referred to respectively, as entering, and admitting or receiving.

NOTES

(1) Gould, History, Vol. iii, p. 13; and Rylands, A. Q. C., Vol. xiv, p. 6, for Alnwick. Gould, op. cit., p. 23,
for York; also Hughan Masonic Sketches and Reprints, pp. 34-35. We have not been able to refer to the
reproduction of the Alnwick minutes published in 1896.
(2) Hughan, Op cit., p. 19.
(3) Gould, op. cit., iii, p. 10.
(4) THE BUILDER, 1928, pp. 135, 170, 299, 332, 333; and 1929, pp. 19? 36 and 68.
(5) Gould, History, vol. iii, Chap. xvi. The argument begins on page 10, is touched on in pages 12 and 13, taken
up again at pages 29 and 30. From pages 48 to 56 is an outline of Scottish history and its bearing on the existence
of the Mason's craft, concluded in pages 58 to 63. Pages 10, 29 and 30 should be read in conjunction with 62 and
63, so far as Haughfoot and Dunblane are concerned.
(6) THE BUILDER, 1928, p. 332.
(7) It is possible, however, that in his cryptic manner, Gould here only intended to convey the fact that nothing
more than this was proven by the evidence.
(8) Gould, op. cit., vol. iii pp. 29, 30 and 36.
(9) Lyon Hist. Edin., p. 417.
(10) Gouid, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 63.
(11) Ibid., vol. iii, p. 30. Compare also vol. ii, p. 51.
(12) Every institution must perforce adapt itself to the conditions of the society in which it exists. Thus we find that
every organization of more than local scope will exhibit variations, and the wider it is spread the greater these
variations will be. In Scotland the lodges retained the quasi-legal status of the gilds which it is possible that the
English lodges had before the fourteenth century. And it is possible that in Scotland the lodges filled the place of
gilds to some extent, as that form of organization arrived later in the northern kingdom than in England. The
Statutes of Laborers in England undoubtedly had some effect on the general situation, although their frequent re-
enactment proves that they were as difficult to enforce as some more recent laws of prohibitory character. But the
law of Henry VI which definitely forbade the Masons "to confederate themselves in Chapters and Assemblies"
would undoubtedly destroy any external authority that custom and usage may have given such organizations, and
would tend to drive the lodges underground. This would quite naturally account for our finding so few traces of
permanent lodges in England, and no records at all before the eighteenth century. Records are a constant source
of danger to an illicit organization, and casual lodges would have no use for them in any ease.
(13) So late as 1764 such a revision seems to have been made. In the second edition of his History of the Lodge
of Edinburgh (Chap. iv) Lyon gives the following excerpt from the minutes of the Old Lodge of Melrose, which
remained independent till well on towards the end of the nineteenth century. The Melrose brethren, it seems,
decided:

"That the Mason word be administered in a simple way and manner, free of everything sinful and superstitious, only
word, sign and grip, and some simple questions to distinguish a Mason from another man, and all under a promise
not to reveal it, under no less a penalty than to forfeit all right and title to every benefit belonging to the lodge, and
to be held in abhorrence by every brother."

Such "reforms" might well have taken place in other lodges at an earlier date.
(14) A. Q. C. vol. x, p. 52.
(15) Gould, Hist., vol. iii, pp. 14-15. The Alnwick Orders are dated Sept. 29, 1701, the "Gen'll Head Meeting
Day" of the Lodge. The 5th Order has already been quoted, BUILDER, May, p. 141. The other relevant passages
are:

"9th. Item. There shall noe apprentice after he have served seaven years be admitted or accepted but upon the Feast
of St. Michael....

"12th. Item. Thatt noe Fellow or Fellows within this Lodge shall att any time or times call or hold Assemblies to
make any mason or masons free Not acquainting the Master of Wardens

"13th. Item. That noe rough Layers or any others thatt has nott served their time or [been] admitted, shall work
within the lodge . . ."

We have here the term "accepted" equated with "admitted" and possibly with "make free" also.

(16) THE BUILDER, May, 1929, p. 131.
(17) It will be more convenient to give the references in the text altogether here, as it would otherwise entail much
quite needless repetition. For Aberdeen, Miller, Notes on the Early History and Records of the Lodge, Aberdeen,
pp. 61-63. Also Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh p. 423. The same chapter contains extracts from the
records of Kilwinning, Glasgow Dunblane and Peebles. For Haughfoot, Yarker, A. Q. C., vol. xxvi, p. 16 - and
for Aitchison's Haven, Wallace-James, Ibid., vol. xxiv, p. 30. See also Gould, op. cit., vol. iii.

(To be continued)
