Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

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

THE LATE WILLIAM PRESTON LODGE OF INSTRUCTION , No . 766 .

letters , also the article that appeared in your paper , and I must state that neither Bro . Godden nor Bro . Hayes deserve the severe remarks that have been used towards them . I have always found them worthy Masons , however much exception may be taken to their so sndden and peremptorily closing the Lodge . I do most earnestly deprecate the use of such remarks . It was not my intention to take

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I was not aware until my attention was called , on Tuesday last , by a Past Master of my Mother Lodge , that a public discussion was taking place in your columns respecting the late William Preston Lodge of Instruction , and the conduct of those present at its last meeting . I have carefully read the various

part in this discussion , but Bro . Godden having thought fit to bring my attendance , or rather the want of it , before your readers , I shall proceed to give the reasons why I discontinued attending their meetings , and similar reasons have I know kept several others away . I joined the William Preston Lodge of Instruction about five years since , and attended pretty regularly for some time , but finding the

working was what is termed the East End working , different to what was , and is , used in my mother Lodge ; that tho young Masons were treated in a somewhat dictatorial manner by some of the older members ; that the Lodge was seldom opened until 9 or half , past ; and that any one who might be desirous of leaving as soon as the Lodge was closed was held np to ridicule ; caused me to seek

a more congenial place for instruction . I was one , amongst others , who received a circular convening the meeting for tho 3 rd of February last , and should have attended , but for the dense fog that provailed that night . I certainly did not think by the wording of that circular that the Lodge was so near its dissolution .

I did not attend tho first two meetings of tho Committee that assembled at Bro . Dunham ' s for tho reason that I did not know that such a Committee was in existence , not nntil I received a letter from the acting Secretary ( Bro . Moore ) inviting me to attend the third meeting , and bring as many brethren as I could with me . I attended that meeting , and was invited to take the post of Preceptor

to the new Lodge of Instruction . After consideration , I accepted the post , on the understanding that as soon as a more experienced and competent Preceptor was available I should retire in his favour j but nntil such an one was found , I would do all I could for the inatruction of the brethren . I feel certain Bro . Godden will , on calm consideration , regret having alluded to an unfortunate circumstance that occurred some

two or three years ago . I regret the nndue publicity that has been given to these unfortu . nate differences , and also that remarks have been made that have not only given pain , but have also ruffled the feelings of brethren who by those that know them are held in the highest esteem . I do most earnestly hope that that excellent virtue of the Craft , Silence , will be more observed in the future .

Believe me , Tours faithfully and fraternally , G . Coor . 20 th March 1882 .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I lose no time in replying to Brother Godden's lengthy communication of last week . I am sorry I canuot congratulate him on the success of his explanation . In his eagerness to meet certain verbal attacks , which are of no moment whatever , he has ignored the main features of the charge brought against

eertain late members of the existing William Preston Lodge of Instruction . He is mightily indignant that , in criticising a published , and therefore pnblic notice , I should have done so under a pseudonym ; but he passes over in silence the really important points of that criticism . All this is very natural , especially in the case of a brother who proposes to himself to bo an authority in matters of which he is

entirely ignorant . However , I will do the best I can to defend myself from what , in the absence of a more clearly explanatory word , I presume I am called upon to describe as his " arguments . " I will premise that , in spite of his very indignant remonstrance at my adoption of " Q . " for a signature , I have no intention of describin" myself as any other person . The charges contained in the letter

of mine , which appeared in your columns of the 4 th instant , were based on a published report , and were levelled , not against individual Masons , but against what I conceive to be a public Masonic scandal . I neither knew , nor cared to know , who was the Secretary , who the majority , or who was anybody else . I criticised the report , not tho person who made it , or those to whom it referred . Consequentl y ,

thongh I am probably far less ashamed of my real name than Bro . Godden by this time should be of his imaginary arguments , I still sign myself " Q . " in this as in my former communication . I am not responsible for the errors either of omission or commission in the report on which I commented , and accept unreservedl y his corrections . I am very glad to learn that , in his summons , he requested of the brethren to whom it was addressed the favour of

their presence " to tal < e part" in the next meeting of the Lodge , especially as it might affect the "future , " not the "fortune of the Lodgo . " Bro . Goddon is pleased to consider these errors are of importance . May I be so rude as to ask him what object he conld have in inviting brethren to be present at a Lodge meeting if it was not " to take part in the same ; " and further , if it were possible that

anything which was calculated to " affect the future of the Lodge " would not certainly affoct its " fortuue , " especially as in the case of the William Preston Lodge of Instruction , it would appear as though it were , at the time the summons was written , the almost general belief that its having any "future " at all was extremely problem , atical .

I accept Bro . Godden ' s description of the events anterior to the meeting of the 3 rd February , and likewise his minutes of the meet , ing on that day . What then ? Do they disturb my allegation as to the complete illegality of the whole proceedings ? Do they in the slightest degree affeot the force of my statement , based on the report of the 10 th February meeting , as published in your columns , that in

accordance with the fourth of the Lodge Bye Laws , it was necessary the minutes of one meeting should be read by the Seoretary for con . firmation at the next . If the Bye Laws prescribed that the pro . ceedings of a meeting should be confirmed in order to become valid , and they were not even , submitted for confirmation , then it follows , in my humble judgment , and with all deference

for the remarkabl y superior intelligence of Bro . Godden , that proceedings taken in accordance with certain minutes , which were never confirmed , are entirely , and ipso facto , illegal . It is not for me to attempt to explain " how the aforesaid minutes of the 3 rd February could be put for confirmation at the so-called meeting of the 10 th ultimo , which meeting was probably known

only to the four brethren who were present . " Equally unconcerned am I to learn that neither Bro . Godden nor " any of he brethren who had constantly attended the Lodge had any knowledge that a meeting was ever contemplated nntil after it had taken place . " Such ignorance on the part of Bro . Godden and his associate brethren would have been impossible had duo respect been paid to the afore .

said fourth Lodge Bye-Law , which made it imperative that the minutes of a meeting should be submitted for confirmation—of course at the next meeting . Therefore , in order to legalise what has since been done in obedience to tho several resolutions passed on the 3 rd ultimo , the meeting should have been adjourned to the 10 th ultimo , in order that the minntes

in which those resolutions were recorded , and , as a matter of course , the resolutions themselves , might be submitted for confirmation . No such adjournment was moved , though the Lodge appears to have assembled , as usual ; and consequently , as far as Bro . Godden , & o ., aro concerned , the proceedings in which they played so leading a part are not only illegal , becanse they were acted upon without the requisite confirmation ; but other members of the Lodge , by a legal

zesolution , passed at the uext regular meeting of the Lodge , and since legally confirmed , have resolved , in the oxercise of their undoubted prerogative , that the minutes of the aforesaid 3 rd Febrnary should not be , and they have accordingly , not been confirmed . Con . sequently , the property of the said William Preston Lodge of Instruction has been illegally sold , and the proceeds placed illegally on the late Preceptor ' s list as Steward for one of our Charity Festivals .

I think no one will be astonished that " in your report of the meeting of the 24 th nit ., ' surprise ' was expressed " at Bro . Godden's " discourtesy in not answering Bro . Moore ' s application for the Lodge Books . " I do not profess to know more than other people abont the usages of civilised society ; but this much I do know , that civilised people are , generally speaking , very mnoh and very justly

" surprised " when their official communications are left unanswered . The books of the William Preston Lodge of Instruction were placed in the hands of its late Secretary in his official capacity as such . Their restoration to the Lodge which so entrusted them to him haa been officially and legally demanded by the aoting Secretary , and though Bro . Godden may , for aught I know to the contrary , be a

veritable Master of the Ceremonies in respect of the amenities of official correspondence , I yet fail to see what ground there is for wonderment that the members of the William Preston Lodge of Instruction should have expressed " surprise" at his very grave " discourtesy . " Had they not so expressed themselves there would , indeed , have been ground for astonishment . As for tho

reason he suggests for the non-restoration of the Lodge Books , I say nothing . It is not for me , who am a stranger , to call in question a course which has approved itself to his conscience . I am sorry I cannot waste more time over this matter . In my former letter , I wrote of the retiring members of the Lodgo and what they had dono , as officials , not as individuals . It is no fault of mine if

in my present letter , I have spoken of the late Secretary otherwise . I have no manner of doubt that Bro . Godden is personally one of tbfl most amiable and obliging of men . I have intended throug hout to view him simply and solely in his late official capacity . If , unintentionally , I have over-stepped this limit , I regret it . Fraternally yours ,

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I see that Bro . Goddon , in the loiter you published last week , speaks of giving up the books of the Willi 11 " Preston Lodge of Instruction only to Grand Lodge . I fancy the announcement will not be hailed with satisfaction bv the officials "

that distinguished bedy . It is no more right to suggest that Gian Lodge should take cognizance of the petty squabbles of a Lodge o Instruction than that the Lord Chief Justice of England should wast ^ his valuable time in trying a man for being ( say ) drunk and inC ' pable . Why not hand them over to the parent Lodge ? I remain , yours truly and fraternally , .