Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of owr Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith .

THE SECRETARYSHIP OP THE GIRLS' SCHOOL . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR Sin AND BROTHER , —A report having been circulated that I have withdrawn my candidature for the Secretaryship , will you kindly contradict this , as such a statement is entirely void of foundation .

I am , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours faithfully and fraternally , F . R . W . HEDGES Freemasons' Hall , 2 nd May 1878 .

Proxy Voting.

PROXY VOTING .

To the Editor 0 / T HE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I havo been spoken to by several Yorkshire brethren on the subject of Proxy Voting at tho coming election for Secretary of tho Girls' School , and I certainly think that it would

be only an net of common justice to Provincial Masons to permit them to record their votes in tho manner suggested . Ifc would bo utterly unreasonable to expect us to attend the ordinary elections of pupils in order to record our votes , and why should wo bo expected to do so in tho case of the election of Secretary ?

I am , yours fraternally , A YORKSHIRE W . M . 2 nd May 1878 .

To the Editor of TnE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read with considerable attention the letters on this subject which havo appeared in your valuable journal , and fully recognising , as all must , tho great injustice done to the Provinces by tho system of personal voting , I do not see how the law can be altered for this election . There is a third course

open , and ono which will recommend itself to every one who has tho good of our Institutions at heart . Ifc is this . If tho voting must be personal , the votes can be recorded at various centres in England , on the samo principle as at a parliamentary election for a county . The Provincial Grand Secretaries of each Province can act as deputy Chairmen , aud receive tho

balloting papers , which thoy can transmit to tho Chairman 111 London , protected of course by various seals . The Chairman will , after the scrutiny and counting of voting papers , declare tho result of tho poll . This gives the Provincial brethren a chance of recording their votes , and does not practically disoufranchiso them , as tho present system docs . Wo would all think it a

great hardship if in a County Election a voter living in Barrow-in-Furness had to go to Manchester to vote , but hero is something still more monstrous . A Life Governor living in Berwick-on-Tweed or Cornwall is obliged to go to London to record his vote , or else is debarred from exercising his right of choice . As our Institntions mainly depend on voluntary donations for their

maintenance and support , it is above all things necessary to conciliate those from whom wo hope to receivo subscriptions and donations , and the success of tho Institution mainly depends upon the energy and tact which is bronght to bear upon tho ever increasing body of the newly-initiated by those who advocate tho claims of Masonic charity , the chief of whom are the Secretaries of the various Institutions .

I must submit to you tho extreme importance of the vital question—Who is to be the next Secretary ? aud my earnest wish that every brother , Metropolitan and Provincial , will look carefully into a matter which may for many years to come affect the best interests of the Girls' School .

Many of our Provincial brethren take the deepest interest iu the well-being of the Schools , but cannot afford time or expense to go to London to vote on this question , which is all important to them , and I certainly think the privilege might be accorded to them of being able to vote for their own choice , in their own Province . I am , yours fraternally , A CHAIRMAN OF A PROVINCIAL CHARITY COMMITTEE

To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE , BEAU SIR AND BROTHER , — Thero aro many of us who feel with " Fair Play" and Bro . Constable regarding proxy voting at the coming election of Secretary , nor do wo think that there need bo any difficulty in the matter . I am , yours fraternall y , ONE OF MANY ,

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAU SIR AND BROTHER , —Your correspondents , Bro . Constable and "Fair Piny , " havo called attention to the disabilities of country voters iu regard to the approaching election of a Secretary to the

Proxy Voting.

Girls School . If such exist , and I admit that your correspondents have fully made out their case , our country brethren who dosiro to vote " must do so under unequal conditions as compared with London brethren . " It seems to me , however , that , to be consistent , your two

correspondents , who cry out against our country brethren being hindered front the exercise 0 / a privilege , should go a step further , and claim for them equality with Londoners in the performance of a duty . Such as is now cast alike upon Masters of Town and Country Lodges under the existing constitution of the Lodgo of Benevolence . Yours fraternally , 29 th April 1878 . 11 . F . GOULD .

"Tolerance" And The French Question Once More.

"TOLERANCE" AND THE FRENCH QUESTION ONCE MORE .

To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I do not proposo to comment at any

length on Bro . Jacob Norton's latest conrteous communication to your columns . I do not think it would bo very profitable ; that is , I do not imagine , if tho controversy bo further prolonged , thoro is tho slightest probability we shall come nearer to an agreement , or that either of us will succeed iu convincing tho other ; and for this reason . There is , to start with , an essential differenco in tho naturo of tho

basis on which each of us rest our argnments . To give one instance only . His definition of morality differs materially from mino It is impossible , therefore , to argue until a common understanding has first of all been arrived at , as to what wo aro arguing abont . Thus brother Norton asks , If atheists are necessarily stupid and immoral ? To which I answer , By no moans , if by " stupid " is meant " meant wanting in

sense , and by " immoral , " not prone to lying , stealing , adultery , and other sins of a like charactor . But I do not take Anderson ' s expres . sion " stupid atheist , " in its ordinary souse , but as convoying the same meaning as the passage I quoted from the Psalms . " Tho fool hath said in his heart there is no God . " Here " fool , " I take ifc , does not mean a person without sense , but an arrogant , self-sufficient , and

dogmatic kind of person , who lays down his opinions tyrannically , and will brook no sort of argument in contradiction . Again , by " the word immoral" I mean to express , and I argue that Anderson did mean to express , not simply one who is not a liar or a thief , bufc one who fails in some essential particulars in the duties he owes towards his Creator and his fellow-creatnros ; who—to be moro precise—refuses

to pay that respectful homage to tho Creator which He has a right to expect , and who declines to be governed by the ordinary obligations which suffice to bind all other men . I can quite conceive of such a person that he is a truth-telling man , that he recognises tho distinction between meum and tuum , but I cannot regard him as a " moral" mau for all that . Thus , until Bro . Norton and I can agree

to lay down ono common acceptation for the terms " stupid" and "immoral , " it is impossiblo we can argue profitably . As to Bro . Norton ' s other question , What harm to Masonry will there be iu admitting a " moral atheist ? " who , I take it , must in tho nature of things be an impossiblo kind of being . Well , tho harm is , that by doing so wo are destroying tho fundamental principles of tho

Craft , as laid down by the founders of our Speculative system . It is very well for Bro . Norton to say , these founders " shared the common prejudices of tho vulgar" against atheists , bufc let us at least give Anderson , Desaguliers , and their compeers , tho credit of knowing what they were about , when they formulated tho new sytem . They saw tho injustice of excluding men from Freemasonry on the score of

religion . Anderson himself was a Scotch Presbyterian , while Desaguliers was an Anglican ; but they took no heed of the atheist except to denounce him , for , as far as I can imagine , this reason , that thoy did not understand how it was possible for a truly moral man to be such . They enlarged the scope of Freemasonry which , in the operative period , was purely Christian , but thoy shuddered at the bare idea of

destroying tho religions character of tho Craft . We in England who have had our charges , & c , & c , handed down to us through successive generations , aro of tho same mind , and what is of tho greatest importance , wo have , in accord with us , the whole of mankind through all ages from tho creation till now , with tho exception of au inlinitesimally small number , who deny aud have always denied , tho

possibility of there being no God . Bro . Norton has admitted that the numbers of atheists is very small . Why , then , I ask , should we be required to alter our Constitutions and stultify the Masonic teaching of all ages at tho dictation of a few ? Why aro we to be denied our undoubted privilege of defining tho principles on which our Society is based ? Why , if it is conceded

that wo have the right of excluding "immoral" men , should wo be denied tho still further and hi gher privilege wo in this country havo always exercised , that of excluding irreligious men . Wo have never required candidates to stato tho nature of their relifions belief . We strictl y forbid tho discussion of religious questions in our Lodges . But wo do not admit those who deny God . This is not

bigotry . By excluding them we arc acting in obedience to the principles of Masonry . In his remarks on my statement , that , there is no antagonism between religion and Masonry , I am afraid Bro . Norton will have to pardon me for saying that ho has weakened his case very considerably . He has confounded together " Religion in the Abstract " with "Religion in tho Concrete . " The former means simply tho

worship of God , and will include all forms of religions worshi p , while tho latter is confined to ono specific form , as when Bro . Norton may speak of his religion or I of mine . So with virtue and vico . is the case may bo , thero is virtue ( or vice ) in the abstract , and virtue ( or vice ) in the concrete ; the former general , tho latter particular . I cannot help saying that , logically , it is absurd to lay it down that because the Roman Catholics or the Trinitarians and others have denied there is any religious principle iu Freemasonry .