The Westminster Gazette Again.

everywhere . We can simply say that such an assertion is an utter falsehood , and a falsehood which is known to be a falsehood , deliberately persisted in , and calmly repeated without hesitation or regret . The writer makes no distinction between foreign and Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry ,

even supposing all his allegations against Freemasonry abroad be true , which they are not ; and he simply lumps all Freemasons every where together under the appellation and character of a " horrible " society . Now , for the moment leaving out continental Freemasonry , in Great

Britain , and the United States , and Canada , with our 800 , 00001- 900 , 000 Freemasons , the Roman Catholic authorities know as well as we do that we are entirely non-political , and a peaceful , loyal , benevolent , and religious brotherhood . Even Barruel , when he poured forth his bitter

accusations against his compatriots and others , admitted that English Freemasonry had never adopted the " wild notions , " he professed to discover in the continental system . And so it has ever been , so it still is , so it will ever be . Our great principles are still loyalty and charity , brotherly love , relief , and truth . Hence it is a very sad

spirit cf absolute mendacity which persists in ascribing to Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry any such revolutionary tendencies as these highly ngitatetl Ultraniontanes are ascribing in their nervousness and vexation to Freemasonry generally . And even abroad it is not true . The writer declares thai lht ? Freemasons are at the bottom of the

Germanstruggle , andof everythingjustnowwhich does not go as Rome wishes , a fact which has never been proved , and which we believe to be an entire fiction , the result of a deceased Jesuit biain , or an overwrought Ultramontane imagiuation . That foolish Masons , ( for all Masons

are m > t wise , ) and individual lodges may not have been discreet , and have put forth regretable manifestoes , we do not deny , but we doubt if the governing body of any Masonic Grand Lodge or Grand Orient has ever endorsed such views , or jKtbli . lv approved such proceedings . Even the

Bishop of Orleans got no further than the acts of indivi . lual Masons and lodges , and we do not believe ourselves tliat anything more is proveable . To clinch his arguments , to drive his complaints home-, the wnter in the " Westminster Gazette " gives us the following passage of an anonymous

Freemason in 1 S 38 , which we now present tu out' readers simply because , first , we doubt that any Freemason ever uttered such words , and secondly , because they aie such a parody on our ti ue uaciiing that wesbould ourselves be prepared , il n-a !_ y ever made , at once utterly to disavow

them . Here they are , and we append the conclusi . in of the writer . " But let us listen again to tile initiated Freemason of 1838 , and our readers , we fancy , will almost believe with us that we aie listening to the voice of a Bismarckian Prussian of 1875 . Rising in his frenzy , he exclaims

— ' Entice away the priest from the altar and from virtue ; make him idle , or vain , or a patriot . He will then be better able to do our work than if the point of our dagger was blunted on his tonsured skull . Corrupt the people by means of the clergy , and the clergy by our means .

Such a demoralization will alone enable us to bury the Catholic Church . It is a noble aim , and lit for men of our stamp . Let us not be led astray from it by indulging in ' the miserable saistfactiuns of individual revenge . The best dagger for the assassination of the Church , the best

blow at her heart , is demoralization . On , then , to our work . " It seems to us that Freemasonry , painu-d by itself , looks even more horrible than when it is painted b y its enemies , and Freemasonry , to say the least , is as much condemned in ihe eyes of honest men by its own voice as it is

by the voice of the Church . " Do any of our readers believe that such words ever were spoken by a true Freemason r We do not ; and we hope that the writer in the " ' Westminster Ga / . ette " v ill g ive us a specific reference to the source whence he has obtained this passage . VVe see he . -peaks of an initiated of " Judice " writing from

Casteilamare to a fellow conspirator of the" Nubki , " but in what actual publication did these words appear r We pause for a reply , as after lhe proof of the writer ' s absolute unfairness and mental aberration as regards Freemasonry , we aie torry to say we must decline to accept his statements , or credit his " ipse dixit . "

A Reference.

A REFERENCE .

With respect to the quotation in our last issue from the printed reports of the Quarterl y Communication , March 3 rd , I 8 8 , we beg to refer our readers to the " Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror , " vol . from January to June , 18 5 8 , p . 453 , and to the " Masonic Observer " for March

20 th , 1858 , p . 5 . We understand that the official minutes are naturally more condensed , but our readers will see who collate the reports of the " Masonic Magazine " and the " Masonic Observer" that they are almost identically the same , word for word .

A Word Of Warning.

A WORD OF WARNING .

We publish , as we promised , in another column a letter which came too late for insertion last week , relative to the Boys' School , and signed by Bros . Tew and Perrott . We have printed the letter at the request of our two brethren , though we are fully sensible of the deep

evil which may accrue to an excellent institution by Parthian attacks and a protracted controversy , affecting alike the character , work , and progress of the school . Still , as we are unwilto close our pages to the real or supposed grievance of any brother , the more so as we have admitted Bro . Binckes ' s letters , we shall continue

to publish such further correspondence as we may be favoured with on both sides , but minus personalities . We give fair notice to all who henceforth forward to us their " gravamina" or their rejoinders , that we shall rigorously excise all personal reflections , corne from what quarter they may .

Original Corresponence.

Original Corresponence .

[ We do not I 10 UI ourselves responsible for , or even as approving ol" the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion , —liD . j

THE MASONIC BOYS' SCHOOL . To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir ami Brother , — Wc note in your issue of Friday last a letter from the Secretary of the Boys' School with reference to our pamphlet , and we crave space in your columns ( or a brief reply .

For obvious reasons we pass by the Secretary ' s abuse , anil go straight to the point . Bro . Binckes , unfortunately foi himself , aililuccs the case of "James Gasson " to convict us of error , and assures the friends of the institution that all our statements— " mass of vindictive accusations "may be as easily confuted . The Secretary states that £ 5 was paid for an outfit on

leaving in May , 1872 . We find , however , that " James Gasson , " according to a Report , 2 nd edition , before us , did not attain the age for leaving , viz ., fifteen , in 187 2 , till the 28 th October of that year , and , as we are informed in a contemporary that " James Gasson" was " an orphan and entirely friendless , " it is very strange he left the school six months before his time . Again , the

Secretary states that £ ¦ , was paid at commencement of apprenticeship , which , according to the same authority , must have been in the year 1872 . Why then is this second giant of £ 5 not shewn in the 1872 Report , where other grants of the same amount , as late as December , are duly recorded ? Everything concerning " Gasson " is most perplexing : in two liepoits , one reaching a second edition ,

weare informed that he left in December , 1871 ; in another that for 186 5 , " second edition with corrections , " we are told in two places that " Gasson ' s " lime for leaving would not be till the 28 th October , 1872 ; and now the Secretary states that £ 5 was paid for his outfit on leaving in May , 1872 . We fail to see how the Secretary has improved his case , which appears to us to be only more involved , and

all we can say of the Reports for the lasl three years is , that they are thoroughly unreliable , and therefore worthless . The repetition in ltepott for 1873 of grants made in 1872 and previous years , is in direct contradiction to the heading , " With amount of grant not previously made or ascertained . " As regards numbers " in the institution , " as the

several lists are headed , and not on the Secretary ' s books , we sec no reason for altering our verdict , which is , that ihey are all wrong ; this we have shewn conclusively in our pamphlet , and it will hardly escape the notice of our readers , that Bro . Binckes offers none of his solutions for the other blunders , which , being made in tsvo editions of the same Report , ought not to be explained away as " clerical blunders . "

Since the issue of our piimphlet several other errors in these Reports have been brought to our notice by correspondents . What the Secretary means by the sum of £ 510 17 s . from this source we do not know ; and have only to remark concerning his salary and office expenses , that the

total cost last year for the Clergy Orphan Schools under this head , for 210 orphans , amounted to only £ 802 5 s . id ., whereas tit the Masonic Boys'School , with 170 inmates , the total cost was £ 1274 iSs . yd . In the matter of clothing too , our school compares unfavourably with the Clergy Orphan School , where the cost per head is only £$ ios .

Original Corresponence.

4 itl ., whilst each of our boys cost last year £ 1 us . 7 ^ . These are facts , and speak for themselves . The till-now-unheard-of charge of" unparalleled t yranny and persecution , " & c , against Bvo . Perrott argues the extremity to which the Secretary is reduced , and it will strike your readers as most strange that , withal , Bro . Perrott was spontaneously offered by a sub-committee of the governing

body , formally appointed to treat with him , an oppoitunity of withdrawing his previous resignation . The letters from the masters were sent in order that they might offer any suggestions for alterations in [ the different timetables . Wc are glad to observe that the Secretary has at length seen fit to admit , though doubtless with many mental

afterbirth pangs , the paternity of the Matron ' s reply , characterised by a member of the House Committee as " highly improper . " Its authorship was one of Bro . Perron ' s crucial questions , which the Secretary three months ago publicly announced should be crucially answered , and its

late constrained recognition does not say much for a parent ' s natural pride . We are , dear Sir , and _ Brother , yours'fraternally , THOMAS WM . TEW . O . G . 'D . PEIIIIOTT , M . A . Pontefraet , Oct . 26 th , 187 ; .

To lhe Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the hurry of complying with the exigencies of the press , I copied from the uncorrected MS . a statement with reference to outfits , 5 : c . The amount ' ¦ paid in 1871 '

IS £ 45 ( instead of £ 55 ) , and that appearing in Report lS 75 > " paid in 18 74 , " is £ 3-, ios . ( instead of £ 47 ios . ) , the result not being affected . Regretting having thus to trouble you , 1 am , dear Sir and Brother , yours faithfully and fraternally , FREDERICK BINCKES .

MASONIC JEWELS . To . the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In reply to your correspondent , " An Enquiring M . M ., " I can assure him that the '' five-pointed star " is a perfectly legitimate jewel , and may be worn by any M . M . I have many times worn it in Grand Lodge , but what is

perhaps of more consequence , I wore it at the installation of H . K . H . the Prince of Wales as Grand Master , when J had the honour of acting as Steward , and when , as you are aware , every jewel was rigidly examined , so that nothing unorthodox should by any possibility be admitted . You , Sir , have already pointed out that such a jewel is not contrary to Masonic law ( Craft ) , and I trust that" An

Enqvtiring M . M . " will vest satisfied that he is perfectl y in order in wearing it . Should the W . M . and officers of his lodge make any objection , he has an appeal to the Board of General Purposes , when the question will be settled once for all , and I for one will gladly assist him in making such an appeal , if necessary . I remain , dear Sir and Brother , your truly and fraternally , J . J . HOOPER WILKINS , VV . M . 7 ^ & C .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In answer to Bro . the Rev . E . Y . Nepean , the jewels allowed to be worn in the Craft lodge include not only those specified in the " Book of Constitutions , " and the charity and Royal Arch jewels ( Principals , & c ) , but aho all special jewels , like those of the Lodge Antiquitv ( "Royal

Medal" ) , and the Prince of Wales ' s Lodge . I cannot myself see that the " five-pointed star " is a legal Masonic jewel , though it is just possible that the editor of the " Freemason " is correct , and that it comes under the definition of the " Book of Constitutions " as to decorations . In addition to the foregoing there is the centenary jewel ,

a drawing of which appears now in the appendix to the " Constitutions . " Many of these centenary jewels , however , are very handsome , the patterns formerly vary ing considerably , and the designs in many instances being most ornate . A brother may of course belong to twenty centennial lodges , and thus be entitled to wear as many

centenary jewels , just as he may serve as Master of as many lodges , and be decorated with a corresponding number of Past Masters' jewels , but we are of the decided opinion that it would be ornamentation at the expense of common sense and a waste of money , much better turned into our charitable institutions . WILLIAM JAMES HUGIIAS .

COLOURED LODGES IN THE UNITED STATES . To the Editor oj' the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the " Freemason" of Oct . 23 ^ . 4 67 , there is an article on the Coloured Lodges of the United States , and especially on Prince Hall G . L . of Boston , which , I cannot deny has astonished me very much , not only with regard

to the want of information and care of the author , but still more because it is written in a most regardless and unbrotherly style . The author speaks there , that" a distinct opinion has been expressed thereanent by some writers and bodies in Germany . " But if he is at all informed on the subject he touches upon , he will know that the " some " bodies are four independent lodges and the German Grand

Lodge League , composed of all the Grand Masters and representatives of Grand Lodges , i . e ., the whole fraternity of Germany . And the " s . ; me " writers are the publishers of the " Freimaurer-Zeitung , " " Bauhuttc , " " Am Rcissbret , " and " Hamburger Logcublatt , " ami their contributors (

except one brother ) , i . e ., again , the whole fraternity . I may ask the English brethren whether it is allowed in such a case to speak of " some " writers and bodies ? There is a very great difference between the caurse taken by the author of that article and the German bodies ; for the first gives his statements only after an " unimpeachable