Mr. O'Donnell, M.P., On Freemasonry.

MR . O'DONNELL , M . P ., ON FREEMASONRY .

IT is a pity that when gentlemen rise in thoir place in Parliament for the purpose of denouncing or misrepresenting Freemasonry , they are nofc at the pains to

ascertain what ifc really is . On Tuesday evening , in a long speech on the constitution and functions of the Royal Irish Constabulary , Mr . O'Donnell was pleased to complain thafc " while members of secret societies were forbidden to enter

the force , the rules yet admitted members of the greatest secret institution of all—the Masonic Order . They had no more right to encourage Masonry than Ribbonism , Fenianism , or any other secret society . " He further objected " to the official patronage of Freemasonry , because it established

a cliquism in the public service , whioh was dangerous in a force entrusted with the preservation of the public peace . " Had Mr . O'Donnell taken the trouble of finding out , as he might easily have done , what our Society is , he would

never have coupled it with Fenianism or Ribbonism . Many books have been written for the purpose of explaining to the world what Masonry is , and what its aims and objects , its laws and constitutions . Had he consulted one of these

numerous publications he would at once have discovered that a Mason and a Fenian have nothing in common . The latter belongs to a political organisation whose object , so

far as we know , is the overthrow of the Queen ' s Government in Ireland . The former is loyal to the government of his country , whatever its form may be , or by whomsoever administered . Masons have nothing- in common with the

members of secret religious societies . The former respect all religions equally , the latter respect only the religion they profess , and take every possible opportunity of denouncing and injuring all other religions . Lastly , Masonry is

not even a secret society in the same sense as Fenianism and the other bodies Mr . O'Donnell specified or referred to . Masons are registered in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament , and are known as such to the government officials : but what do these latter know of

Fenianism and its ramifications , and who belong to it , unless indeed some traitorous member discloses their names , or an outbreak against the government takes place , and a score or two of the fellows are taken red-handed ? Mr . O'Donnell may safely lay the flattering unction to his soul thafc the

Queen has no more loyal subjects in any part of her vast dominions than the Irish Freemasons , and none who are less likely to offend the religious scruples or instincts of

their fellow subjects . It would be better for the peace of Ireland if all its inhabitants were as loyal , or as sincerely respected the principles of those who profess a different religious faith .

Our Correspondents: Liberty But Not Licence, To All.

OUR CORRESPONDENTS : LIBERTY BUT NOT LICENCE , TO ALL .

/ ^ VUR readers will have no difficulty in imagining that ^— ' the communications we are continually receiving are as varied in their contents as they are in tho tone and energy with -which the writers give expression to their opinions .

Some are feeble both in style and matter , and these , of course , find their way into that receptacle which alono is fitted to contain them . Others are moderate , well calculated to th row light on the points with which they deal . Those , if we have space enough , are inserted in our columns , but

Our Correspondents: Liberty But Not Licence, To All.

as to a third class of correspondence with which wo are not unfrequently favoured , wo often find ourselves halting between the two desires —( 1 ) To oblige our correspondents ; ( 2 ) to avoid giving offence to our renders . In tho class of letter we are now referring to , the writers arc generally mon

of moro than average ability , and though the " language in which thoy express themselves is strong , their treatment of the subject they render seems logical enough , and fclicy arc as a rule most careful to avoid anything approaching to personality . But the views they entertain arc so extreme

that every now and again we feel it onr duty to refuse insertion to their communications . It is true that over our " Correspondence " columns is inserted a proviso to the effect that , " We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our correspondents ; " but no doubt our readers

will bear with us while we say , that , though we aro anxious , and have again and again given proofs of our anxiety , to offer a fair field and no favour to all ; and though by the proviso alluded to we absolve ourselves of all responsibility for the opinions of our communicants , there aro certain

other responsibilities of which , if we conscientiously endeavour to fulfil our duties , ifc is impossible we can over acquit ourselves . For instance , as a representative organ of Freemasonry , and having the defence and promotion of its interest at heart , it were unreasonable to expect us to make

public letters in which the whole of our Masonic system is abused or misrepresented . We concede that it is allowable for different brethren to regard Freemasonry from different standpoints , just as , in a matter of religion , men will vieivit differently according to the different exigencies of their

religious faiths . But there is a fundamental basis of Freemasonry , as there is a fundamental basis of religion , which must not be disturbed , or the whole edifice topples to the ground . We cannot prevent people from attempting to disturb this basis , and secure—unintentionally no

doubtso undesirable a consummation . But our sense of duty both impels and compels us to refuse admission into our columns all letters which , in our opinion , are calculated to disturb the foundations of our Masonic system . There are those who think that , even as it is , the latitude we have allowed

to some of our correspondents has been too considerable , and there is no doubt about the fact that many letters have appeared in these columns which were i - fused insertion in those of contemporaries . This is a point which should be taken into consideration by those whose letters , or

contributions as the case may be , are rejected . They have no right to complain of our inattention to their wishes , when they have before them so convincing a proof of tho very liberal interpretation we place upon the word "latitude . " It is one thing to say to our friends you aro at liberty to give

expression to your views on Freemasonry or matters connected wifch it , and another to grant an unrestricted licence of opinion , a licence which recognises no limit but that of its own vanity or its own dogmatism . Again , there is the correspondence which deals with matters of fact . Here

there is little danger of any one exceeding tho fair limits of discussion . The facts are stated , or misstated and corrected , and there ordinarily the correspondence ends . But there is also the correspondence which deals with matters of opinion , and here ifc is that an editor must tako upon

himself the responsibility of defining thoso limits of discussion which , in his opinion , are just and reasonable to all parties . It is desirable that in the discussions which generally

follow the expression of any opinion about a disputed or obscure point , there should be the maximum of argument with a minimum of assertion . It is well , so long as the disputants content themselves