Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

| p # do not hold ourselves responsiblt for the opinions of our Correspondents . J . II letters must hear the name and address of tht Writtr , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . ~ fft cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

BRO . GOULD'S LITERARY TREATMENT . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Bro . Gould ' s letter in your issue of the 16 th ult . deserves immediate notice by all Freemasons as a gross injustice to himself , as the laborious author of a great work , and as a serious breach of the customary principles of Masonic courtesy and honour .

It is certain , I apprehend , that neither Bro . W . J . Hughan nor Bro . Woodford , in England , have anything to do with the matter , and therefore the extraordinary prospectus mentioned by Bro . Gould is most antagonistic in itself to Masonio verity , as proclaiming to the Craft an audacious untruth .

It is impossible but that thinking brethren , alike in America and England , must regard with grief and displeasure such an infraction of Masonio " good form , " such as the latest development of a new Masonio morality . There are so many high-minded brethren , alike in the United

States and iu Canada , thafc they will , I feel sure , not hesitate to repudiate snch a peculiar forgetfulness of the unchanging dictates of Masonic good feeling and fair play . Of course , it is an undeniable fact that there is , unfortunately , no international copyright between this country and the United States ,

and therefore legally no one can claim to stand between the author and an American publisher . But morally , Masonically , what shall we say ? Is there no comity amongst Freemasons ? Does it or does it not exist ?

And if so , must ifc not be asked again , is such a comity compatible with the fact that two American Past Grand Masters are giving their active assistance to the publishers of a work taken without leave from an English Masonic writer ? The prospectus alluded to is a very remarkable production , both for

its " suppresgio veri "and its " suggestio falsi . For instance , can an English Masonic author who writes and finishes a work be said to have been assisted by persons in America , whose so-called aid he only hears of from the prospectus title page of a piratical work ? I have already said I feel sure that Bro . Hughan and Bro . Woodford

will repudiate the use of their names . And if there is then no formality in such matters , could it be held to be eqnally justifiable if Mackey ' s great work , or Fort ' s charming writings , were brought ont in England with the remark , " assisted by Bros . Brown , Jones and Robinson , " or any names unscrupulously

used , or " pro hac vice , invented to try and push tho sale ? I for one can hardly believe it possible that the three eminent American Masons mentioned , literary brethren and students , could have consented to lend their names to the publishers without thinking it necessary to give the author the slightest intimation of their intention . For the sake of universal and international

Freemasonry , I hope we may at ouce receive a disclaimer . Yours fraternally , LEX .

THE GREAT QUESTION SETTLED . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The letter signed "J . FLETCHER BRENNAN , " in your last issue , and " published by request" as you

very properly tell your readers , is one hardly calculated to advance the claims of that undoubtedly able brother to literary distinction , or give to any one a fair and befitting commentary on a recent notable discussion .

_ It is marked , I feel compelled to say , neither by a kind appreciation of Bro . Clifford MacCalla's prominent claims to respect , good feeling and regard , nor by a desire to avoid that unfailing stumbling block to all Masonic discussions especially , the subjective views of

amusing or even daring personality . So leading a brother as Bro . Brennan need not surely attack Bro . MacCalla for a little " change of front , " for a " shifting of tho ground " on which ho builds up an " edifice of argument or reasoning , " as some ono has said .

It may indeed be put forward thafc tho writer is only " chaffing " Bro . MacCalla , bnt there is a little more in the letter than deals with the mere pleasantry of fair " chaff . " It imputes " mala fides , " and an uttor recklessness of opinion to advance a specific view , alike to him aud our eminent Brother

C . E . Meyer . Now as an old student , I consider this very unfair in itself , an d unadvisable in the best interests of Masonic literature . 1 Would fain hope Bro . Brennan may yet admit courteously ho has

D ° t quite done justice to a worthy Mason and a keen Masonic Htrjclent , to whose studies and investigations the universal Anglo-Saxon Oraft owe a great debt of gratitude . Bro . Brennan should remember that in the confused state in which the students 0 f the authentic school found . 'ill Masonic evidence ., a

generation ago , many positions and many views havo , as the clouds at > d mists cleared away , been successively given up and abandoned ono by one . The particular question of Price constitutes a most difficult " crux " to explain and make clear . H , ^ ad a Patent , but apparently did not nse ifc ; and on this hear ! he voice of tradition was per contra unheld by the seeming facts ot 'no case .

Correspondence.

If in early days a belief in Price's personal action was prevalent , it was shared in by more or less all Bro . MacCalla ' s contemporaries . Bro . Jacob Norton has , no doubt , with his customary vigour , been

hammering away at what he terms ( sometimes not without reason ) our Masonic superstitions , but Bro . MacCalla had the support and sympathies of those who had looked into the question np to a certain date .

Bro . Gould gave forth , in his admirably argued history of American Masonry , a view which had not . altogether escaped ihe notice of some Masonic student ., who had for some time been puzzled with Coxe ' s know-nothingness , do-nothingness , as was becoming clearer day by day , and especially since the publication of Liber B . made the

earlier version very doubtful indeed . But it was re- ^ rved to Bro . Gonld , with his great powers of language , to set fche matter clearly before thinkers and readers . Instead of blaming , or making sarcastic pleasantry at Brother MacCalla ' s expense , we ought to praise him , inasmuch as he has only

properly yielded fco an accumulation of facts , to the force of evidence , and sought to place the history of Freemasonry in Philadelphia on a surer basis , on safer grounds . I trust that Bro . Brennan , whose abilities I thoroughly recognizp , may be induced on reconsideration to take my humble view of the

matter , and admit that if there is any valne in Masonic researches , any good whatever in Masonic investigation , the facts we collect , the proofs we heap up , it is , that untenable gronnds may be gradually surrendered , and the one real right aim of the trne Masonic historian and student be furthered and realised , namely , Masonio truth and historical accuracy , however unpalatable to the few or the

many . Yonrs fraternally , PHILADELPHOS .

THE SO-CALLED PHILADELPHIA CLAIMS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In your issue of 2 nd July , "A Student of Bro . Gould ' s History " asserts that " The passage in fche Pennsylvania Gazette , of 26 th June 1732 , seems fco show that the [ Pennsylvania ] brethren knew of the [ Coxe ] Patent , and acted

under it . I , however , laid the passage of the Pennsylvania Gazette before yonr readers , which proved conclusively thafc ifc did not seem to show that they knew of Coxe ' s Patent , and they certainly did not act uuder it , because the Patent required them to elect their Grand

Master every second year , and it authorised the Grand Master to appoint his Wardens ; but the Pennsylvanians in 1732 eleefce t their Grand Master for" fche ensuing year " only , and the wardens were no : appointed , but chosen , or , iu other words , they were elected . Iu your issue of 13 th August my opponent says : —

Tho choosing the two Wardens is not necessarily in opposition to appointing the Deputy Grand Master , though it may be so . They were loose in their terminology in those days . " I confess that I do not understand tho meaninsr of the above

remarks : ' The choosing of the Wardens was not necessarily in opposition to the appointing of a Deputy Grand Master . " Who says it was ? I maintain , however , that the choosing of the Wardens was in opposition to the requirement of Coxe ' s Patent . Again , he says , " They were loose in their terminology in those days . " If he

meant thereby that Franklin by mistake wrote " chosen" instead of ' appointed , " I think my opponent is decidedly mistaken , for iu Bro ' MacCalla ' s pamphlet—viz ., "Dr . Franklin ' s Newspaper Account of Freemasonry" ( p 33 ) , Bro . MacCalla , in tho first place , says : " William Allen , the first elected Grand Master in 1731 and 1732 . "

While my opponent s theory is , or was , that the 1731 election of Allen as Grand Master was a mistake of the scribe ; and that Franklin did not make a mistake in his terminology may bo inferred from his repeating the word ' chosen' in his Pemisi / l ' .-. Tna . Gazette of 28 th . Tnne 1733—viz .:

" Monday last , a Grand Lodgo of the Ancient and Hon . Society of Free and Accepted Masons wan held at the Tun Tavern in Water Street , when Humphrey Murray , E-q ., was elected Grand Master for the year ensuing , who appointed Mr . Thomas Hart his Deputy , and Mr . Peter Cuff and Mr . James Bingham were chosen Wardens . "

With regard to the new theory that the Philadelphians derived their Masonic privileges from " time immemorial , " thafc is , thafc Philadelphia Masonry originated beyond tho memory of Messrs . Button , Allen Franklin and Co .: all I have to say about it is , thafc ifc is a pure conceit—if is sheer nonsense—it is even more absurd than

Bro . MacCalla s " Coxe Philadelphia raothor theory , " forfchereis n fc a particle of evidence thafc th « very word " Freemasonry" was known in Philadelphia before 1730 . In January 1731 eleven mon opened a Lorlire in Philadelphia , and no man of common sense can doubt that Benjamin Franklin was acquainted with everyone of the

originators of Masonry there . So much for "Time immemorial " theory . With regard to the phrase " Masonic charlatans and dreamers , " I shall only say , that nil onr Masonic traditions that an . not tru > , including tho Euclid aud Athelstan traditions , must have first be n

promulgated either by a knave or by a credulous fool , and as ti « said Euclid and Athelstan sto ies mado their first appearance , as far as I know , in the ILilliwell Poem , tho author must havo been eifc . T the inventor of those stories or a believer , hence the word charlatan or dreamer was not misapplied to the said author .

Fraternally yours , JACOB NORTON . Boston 23 rd Aug . 1887 .

Bro . William Worrell , P . M . and Secretary No . 7 G 6 , lias been elected a member of the Lambeth Vesty for the Stockwell Ward .