Original Correspondence.

very reverse opinion to me , " Bro . Simpson now writes , " I read this with . more than amazement—with sorrow . This statement is purely imaginary , as I never so expressed myself . " This is hardly courteous , but I presume is an instance of abounding charitv . He never so expressed

him-! | J | kL \ Why , let any man of ordinary intelligence read Bro . iiimii 5 S ! i ! ' etter to me ( as 1 uoted in your impression of lune 171 * 8 ^ '' ^ '' ^ no ' contam tne vcf y reverse of the , ) iiinin ' nsrXL P resse ' * Grand Lodge ; all the special -. leading in theToilo . . "WBSm ^ the fact . Bro . Simpson next charitably , M * Ufij > L SPint of brotherly

love , takes me to task for the lecture In li In | l i '' to Grand Lodge on " narrow-mindedness " and " selhstfr ness . " Tlie former word I never used . It does not belong to me , and if it is in want of an owner I make Bro . Simpson a present of it . The word " selfishness " I did use , but I did not use it either in the way or with the intention which he seeks to attribute to me . The words 1

used were to this effect , " If you give this money to one of our own charities , will you not be thought by the world to he acting in a selfish manner ? " If I gave offence by saying this , I am sorry for it , but I thaught it , I still think it , and I am generally in the habit of saying what I think . Bro . Simpson says , and here I am glad to be able to agree with him , that " he has yet to learn " that the works

of restoration of churches in the provinces were paid for purely , or at all , out of Provincial Grand Lodge funds . He will learn if he enquires of any of the Provincial Grand Secretaries of the provinces . I have named that grants were made from each of the Provincial Grand Lodge funds . He may enquire further if he pleases , and with a similar result , as to the building and restoration of churches

at Leamington and Nuneaton , and even in my own county , Herts . He says I must see that these are not precedents for Grand Lodge . I beg to say I do not see it . They are to my mind good and generous examples , which I think Grand Lodge might have followed with honoBr and advantage . In the concluding paragraph of his postscript Bro .

Simpson refers to my having forgotten the two urgent communications made by him to me to withdraw my resolution , and which communications were made on thc day of Grand Lodge meeting . I received a letter from him on that day asking me to give him five minutes ' couversalion previous to G . Lodge . I did so , and at that meeting Bro . Simpson asked me if I would withdraw all

the latter part of my resolution , offering in such case to withdraw his own . I naturally declined to do so , stating that to comply would b ^ to deprive my resolution of its whole spirit . He urged no objection to it , but from something in hii manner just before vve separated I put this question to him , " DJ you mean to oppose my motion on the ground that it is a grant foe a denominational purpose ?"

lie hesitated , and then replied that he should not pledge himself . That I used any overbearing threats to him I utterly deny . There were two well known Grand Officers present , and if I used any sort of threat they must have heard it . 1 give Bro . Simpson every credit he deserves for the ability , the sucrecy , and the subtlety with which he conducted

the attack on my resolution . I had made no preparation for it , and 1 fully believed , until led to doubt by his hesitation iu answering my last qucsti > n , tint he meant to run his ruction fairly against mine , and I had no doubt as to the result iu such case . He siys that he quite grants that the fortni ght which elapsed since he wrote his letter had strongly increased his

objections to my resolution . This is an unfortunate admission , because objections which had never been raised could not be increased . The only objection he had raised was that my resolution wanted the living and personal clement , whatever that may be , ' and that he liked his own best . Why , let me ask , did Bro . Simpson not come to me

and say , " My opinions have undergone a very considerable change , I find that there are very strong objections to my resolution on what are called denominational grounds ; there arc equally strong objections to yours . I invite you to withdraw yours , and I will withdraw mine ; if you do not I shall feel it to be my duty to drop my own motion , and to oppose yours on denominational grounds . "

However extraordinary this might have appeared as coming * from a clergyman , it would at least have been a manly and straightforward course , and how different might have been the result . 1 am sorry that I have been prolix , but I thought it right to say so much . I have now done with Bro . Simpson as far as personal matters are concerned . Any

interchange of personalities between him and myself will do no good , will not alter the condition of affairs , or make us to retrieve the steps which I think we have wrongly taken . I am ready to give my help in any way that may be thought desirable , but at present I confess that I do not see my way nut of the difficulty . I proposed my resolution because it had a national

as well as a Masonic object ; if any one will propose a better I will willingly support it , at the same time I quite agree with your witty correspondent of last week , that to give a large sum of money to one of our own charities will not be the best way of exhibiting our generosity . Vour fraternally , ] une ifith , \& l ( y . ' IOIIN H * . BS .

To the Editor of Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — A " Provincial Grand Officer , " whose modesty compels him to be nameless , considers a statement I made in Grand Lodge " an absurdity . " I dare say if we knew

hi « name it would add still greater weight to his opinion , and give me a heavier blow . My statement was to the effect that the passing of a motion in Grand Lodge to grant two donations out of Gr . in / 1 Lodge funds to assist in restoring and adorning two

Original Correspondence.

churches of the Church of England would have been a blow to Freemasonry . Now , Sir , I am dull enough to be of the same opinion still , and have the consolation of feeling that the brethren of Grand Lodge in the proportion of twenty to one are equally obtuse . Perhaps it may be that the fine air of thc provinces gives a man clearer moral and intellectual conceptions than can be expected from our London fogs .

But , Sir , jesting apart , I do hope that when the mist raised by this controversy has passed away , we shall see plainly that we have escaped a great danger , however , veiled in archaeology and illustrated by fiction , " ¦^^ foamount of eloquence or historical res earc h could in thc eyes ^ ii « 8 tei ! Lp S '' s ^ men a ^ ter tnese facts > ( ' ) tnat it was | | ll | " | jl ill ' r £ 2 °° o to two churches belonging to a | nh nln i l ' n i I" i li ' J ^ ( 2 ) that such a proposition was never made in ' I ilge before . Had we passed tws voce where were we to stop ? ^ ftw .

on some similar occasion = Vi , ild not St . Clement Danes ' Church , built by Sir Christopher Wren , and one of these national monuments come in for a grant , but in this case with still stronger claims , inasmuch as there are no wealthy authorities within , and no chance of much support from without .

I quite agree with our "P . G . Officer " in his broad definition of " Charity , " but do not agree with him in the opinion that because we raise a memorial on this occasion in some measure connected with one of our institutions , our " charities will be our ruin . "

If he means that it would be desirable as you yourself , Sir , seem to imply , to purge our charities of the evils attendant on our present unfair and hap-hazard , system of election , I should be inclined to fall in with his gloomy forebodings , but to aid the orphan , the widow , and the aged , after most thorough investigation and according to their just claims , or to raise a memorial having some

direct or indirect reference to those charities will never " ruin us . " Nay , it would build us up and would lead us to erect a superstructure more perfect in its parts , and more worthy of the Great Master Builder than any " temple made with hands , " which is but " a shadow of the true . " As to the queries of your correspondent , " W . T . " ( who also writes from some shady and anoymous spot ) , I would

say : — i . —I have already indicated pretty plainly why I moved a rejection of thc Ktter part of Bro . Havers ' s motion . My own million as to a thanl- sgiving service ( not of Grand Lodge only , but of Freemasons ) stood on very different grounds , as I stated in a former letter , which perhaps I cannot better illustrate than by asking "W . T . " this question :

Of the many men of various creeds who assembled to pay their last tribute to Sir Thomas Henry at the Roman Catholic Chapel of Kensingtcn , how many does he think would have voted a grant from some charitable fund , of which they were trustees , for the purpose of enlarging the chapel , perhaps known to have been built by a man of well known benevolence , and who was also connected with an

institution of which some of those gentlemen were members ? To assemble for a moral and religious purpose in any building is one thing , to vote money for its restoration or decoration is another , and that out of funds raised for a wholly different object , and which were never before even applied for on behalf of such an object . That wc have gone out of what Bro . Havers calls " the

beaten track of Masonry in our grants the records of Grand Lodge amply , and I will add happily , testify . The fire at Chicago , the Indian Famine , the Famine in Persia , the Palestine Exploration , all bear witness that Grand Lodge is not " narrow " in its principles nor " selfish " in its beneficence , but any man with half a head can clearly see the broad line that separates these objects from that

for which Bro . Havers claimed our Masonic support . As to my Indian idea , all I can say is , that I believed , and still believe , that a general object of a charitable kind , or even of a purely Masonic kind , could have been found in India which would have appropriately linked this occasion with our M . W . Grand Mister ' s visit , and would certainly have been more cognate to Masonry and charity

and our Grand Master than St . Alban ' s Abbey , even though justly entitled to the Masonic antecedents which Bro . Havers claimed for it . I have touched on these points raised by "W . T . " I trust they may point to my " motives , " and that if any doubt remains "W . T . " as a good Mason may adopt the definition of " charity " advocated so well by our " Prov . G . Officer , " and pronounce them " good motives . "

I am , dear Sir and brother , fraternally yours , June 26 th , 18 " 6 . R . J . SIMPSON . [ We beg to disclaim distinctly any such opinion as Bro . Simpson credits us with in respect of the elections of our charities . Wc do not consider our present system unfair or " haphazard , " and we cannot understand to what opinion of ours Bro . Simpson alludes , or why he should quote us at all . With all deference to him such a question has not been so far raised . —En . ]

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I was present at the last meeting of Grand Lodge , and was pained to see many things occur which can hardly be mentioned without a blush of shame rising to thc faces of all who assisted by their presence . For the first time I heard hisses in Grand Lodge , yet no caution or

reminder came from the chair that it was an offence specially guarded against in the Book of Constitutions . I heard a paid officer of one of the charities protest against a vote of money in which his institution was not to share . I heard , or fancied I heard , a clergyman of thc Church of

England object to a proposed vote as denominational , while a notice stood in his name proposing that we should all attend a cathedral service , and I heard and saw on all sides displays of temper which were most unseemly . I think it was clear to many present that the worthy and amiable Provincial Grand Master who occupied the chair

Original Correspondence.

was not strong enough to control the assembly . He was not sure of his position , and in putting one of the amendments proposed he made an awkward mistake . The rule of seniority when our M . W . Grand Master , his Pro and Deputy Grand Masters , are all absent is a mistaken one , and one that has before now been productive of considerable mischief . I need not now point out how it mi ght

be amended , simply that it ought to be , and that too without delay . As for the outcome of the whole matter , I hope the committee will never be appointed . 1 hope our M . W . Grand Master will himself recommend how the thankoffering should be applied , and if he were to say that he thought it might be given to an hospital for incurables , the money would be applied to aid a charity lamentabl y

inadequate to the needs of the community , and sadly neglected by most persons in favour of general and special hospitals of all kinds . I believe such a proposal would be accepted by an overwhelming majority . It could not hurt the stT ! SteiRties ° f a single member of Grand Lodge , and , while adoptTng * ! t ¥ r &*&! i firming the proceedings of the last Quarterly Communi « itSrT 7 i 1 r ^> aI 4 £ crriove the stigma of selfishness so painful to the true Freeniasorn— ^ Yours fraternally , ' ~~ - ~ — A PAST GRAND OFI-ICKK .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with deep interest the correspondence between Bros . Havers and Simpson , and the letters of other brethren who have written on the subject of thc discussion at the last O-uarterly Communication . I voted against Bro . Havers's motion , and should do so

again ; I should have voted against the motion of which Bro . Simpson had given notice , and which he afterwards withdrew . If Bro . Havers ' s motion had been lost , and the original motion of Bro . Simpson ' s had been proposed , I should have been bound to move , as an amendment , a rcsolutbn which had been already written out and approved by many of the brethren .

Whilst I admit that great respect is due to Bro . Havers , I cannot , without a sense of humiliation , read or hear the suggestion that we should bow before his authority in a matter on which any properly constituted mind can at least foim an independent opinion . His eloquence , which no one can admire more than I do , was dogmatic in its tone , and on some points questionable in taste , for whilst he had most improperly consulted H . R . H . the Grand

Master on his motion , he made the impropriety of his act thc more pointed by quoting the Grand Master ' s opinion upon a matter delicately relating to himself . The imputation that the brethren had come there with a foregone conclusion was in equally questionable taste , as it implied that no one but himself had a right to form any opinion beforehand . His " foregone conclusion " tvas a mistake ; but it was scarcely fair or courteous to insinuate that the brethren in Grand Lodge were not open to argument and

reason . Bro . Havers questions whether thc remark was apropos —that the contributions from which the vote was to betaken were derived from persons of various opinions , and that we could not expect Jews and others to regard his motion favourably . I can positively state that the brother who alluded to the lews was immediately afterwards

congratulated and thanked by Jews who were present in Grand Lodge-, he has since received other expressions of approval . I am , as many members of the Order in the north of England are , a Unitarian ; and the use of Masonic money to restore and perpetuate architectural emblems derived ( as I believe ) from thc ancient Thallus-worship would be

offensive and disgusting to me and many others . I could not suffer such a thing to be done without a respectful and earnest protest . If sectarianism or denominationalism has been introduced the fault lies with thc original motion . Bro . I [ avers plausibly argues that the vote is asked for these buildings ( St . Paul's and St . Alban ' s ) because they are Masonic monuments , and not because they arechurcWts

belonging to a denomination . My reply is that we should bestow our votive offering upon a Masonic purpose free from the objection which applies to these two churches . If , however , Bro . Havers argues in favour of the churches not because they are places of Christian worship , but because they are Masonic monuments , how can he consistently argue against those who wish the memorial

to be essentially within Masonic boundaries ? If the insinuation of narrow-mindedness applies to those who think that the money should be devoted to purposes connected with thc Masonic charities , does it not equally apply to those who argue that it should be devoted to enlarge or restore a Masonic architectural monument ? I am bound to say on behalf of many liberal Jewish

brethren who are intimate personal friends that their modest habit of tolerance , which challenges no man ' s religious views , would probably have allowed the occasion to pass with only a silent negative vote or abstention from any part in the discussion , but this courteous respect for the opinions of others is not to be mistaken for approval of

even indifference ; and I am assured , and firmly believe that Jewish Masons generally approve of the protest made by one of the speakers on their behalf . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J . BAXTER LANOI . . 50 , Lincolns-inn-fields , W . C .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I write to ask a question , and to suggest practical action . We who were present at the last Quarterly Comniu ";'

cation of Grand Lodge know well what Bro . Havers * motion was . We . know that Bro . Simpson ' s amendnif * " to refer the whole matter to a committee " was carrieO ' and that , therefore , Bro . Hayers ' s motion was not put . When the committee is appointed and approved of •> "