Analysis Of The Returns Of The Boys' School Festival.

/ i 47 > ^ Essex produces s 144 18 s . Derbyshire ' offers 5 ^ 129 i . -js . 6 d ., and Middlesex furnishes £ 121 5 s . 6 d . West Lancashire has remitted £ io _ , Oxfordshire £ 93 11 s ., and Greece , through Bro . Matier , £ 92 8 s . East Lancashire has remitted g £ 88 ; Somersetshire

f-, _ 9 s ., North Wales and Salop £ 74 8 s ., Wiltshire £ 6 * J 2 s ., and Nottinghamshire £ 63 . "Norfolk sends £ \_ 3 s ., and Suffolk £ 32 is . ; while Leicestershire and Rutland forward / 12 ios ,, and the Punjab a ^ io . As the Metropolitan lodges have collected in round numthe balance of

bers £ 4700 , £ ~ i _ oo in round numbers ( exclusive cf small amounts from other bodies , as London chapters and the Mark Degree ) , has been collected by the Provincial Stewards and lodges and brethren . Such a fact speaks clearer than words as to the zeal and interest

of our entire fraternity in the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys . And great and commendable as the " totality" is , and gratifying as the result must be to Bro . Binckes , after his many anxieties and arduous labours , there yet remains a goodly margin of duty to

be done and efforts to be made by individual brethren and lodges . As a fact , it is a very striking one per se , as Bro . Terry well put it , that we have received this year , £ 32 , 000 for our great Metropolitan Charities , but there are yet new fields to be worked out by our indefatigable Bro . Secretaries , and new "lodes , " as it were , to

be " struck" by zealous " Stewards" and good workers in the sacred cause and recurring duty of Masonic charity . And we shall not be surprised if Bro . Terry ' s prophecy turns out to be true , that 1877 will witness still larger returns and welcome contributions to the support and extension of our noble Charities .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do net hold ourselves responsible Tor , or even as approving ofthe opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair " play to'all , to permit—within "certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . ]

THE LAST QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the " Freemason " of last Saturday I notice a letter from Bro . J . Baxter Langley , upon which I ask your permission to say a few words . He writes " that he cannot , without a sense of humiliation , read or hear the

suggestion that the Craft should bow before my authority in a matter on which any properly constituted mind can at least foim an independent opinion . " I do not know about every body reducing himself to a sense of humiliation on reading such a statement , but I

should think that everybody who did read it , saw its absurdity . Surely Bro . Langley cannot imagine that I ever made such a claim , or that the writing of so thoughtless and so unwarrantable a remark was more that the work of some too zealous friend . Who that friend was I do not know .

I will not follow Bro . Langley into personalities , or complain of the liberal criticism he has bestowed on my tone , taste , & c . I can only say I am sorry I do not please him , but when he writes that my reference to a " foregone conclusion was a mistake , and that it was scarcely fair 01 courteous to insinuate that the brethren in Grand Lodge were not open to argument or reason , " I have something

to say . If it was not fair and courteous , I can only say that it was true -, and may I ask ( as fairness and courtesy should not be all on one side ) was it fair and courteous , or was it not opposed to all our usual practice in Grand Lodge to interrupt a speaker while he was in the act of reading his resolution , and before he had adduced a single argument

in support of it ? All who were present in Grand Lodge must have observed that there were a large number of brethren congregated at the lower end of the hall who offered the chief interruption , and who did not suffer even the resolution to be read without interrupting by loud cries , who , to use Bro . Langley ' s own words , " were not open to argument and reason , " but who came there ( according to

my words ) with a " foregone conclusion . " It may not bc fair , it may not be courteous in Bro . La-i ^ ley's opinion , but I repeat my solemn conviction ( increased tenfold by what I have since heard of the remarks made at that end of thc hall ) that a large number of brethren did come there with a "foregoneconclusion . " Nay , I will go furtherand for the honour of our

Insti-, tutiun I state my deliberate opinion that the decision come ™ by the majority of Grand Lodge on that occasion will not be received with approbation by the great body of the h at lar S * 1 have far t 0 ° high an opinion of tbe Mge-heartedness of Masons generally and of their chivaltiT ! "V * h'Kh-minded dignity and intelligence to believe that

they will allow prejudice to stand in the way and mar ne progress of all the higher and more enlightened feelln gs of our nature . can Tl 0 t ref'r ' ° other P arts of Bro * Langley ' le «* = r , befor ? i ! a'ready given the reasons which bs now asks h Why we should in a thankoffering se »'; some object

Original Correspondence.

which should be national as well as Masonic , bur , Sir , there is a paragraph in that letter which I cannot pass over in silence . It commences " I am ... a Unitarian . " I will not quote the remainder of the words ( which should never have been written or spoken in Masonic society ) , because I cannot forget that one of the first charges impressed upon us at our very entrance into Freemasonry

is , " that we shall avoid every topic of religious discussion . " In my opinion the paragraph I refer to is in direct violation of our Masonic law ; the belief expressed in it is as unwarranted as it is indecent , and as uncalled for as it is offensive , and insulting to the whole Christian community .

Let me ask you to give me space further to thank "I . P . M . " for his kindly letter , and to say how willingly I will subscribe £ 20 towards carrying out the scheme he proposes , and which I only hope may be successful . Yours fraternally , JOHN- HAVEKS . July 3 rd , 1876 .

To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I hail with much pleasure the frank admissions and regrets which Bro . Havers conveys in his last letter , and also his intention of being " done with Bro . Simpson as far as personal matters are concerned . " I must , however , on public grounds correct one or two

grave inaccuracies into which our brother has fallen . He says , alluding to his speech in Grand Lodge , " I never before heard of the opinion of the Grand Master received with cries of ' No , no . ' When I heard those cries then for the first time I saw the formidable nature of the oppositions to my resolutions . " If Bro . Havers will check his memory by the recollection

of ( almost any other brother present , or by your own excellent report of his speech , he will find this statement of his the very reverse of the fact . The " No , no ' s " were uttered at a very early stage of his speech , as well as on subsequent occasions , and had reference solely to his St . Paul ' s and St . Alban's proposal . His introduction of the Grand Master's name was not made till almost the

concluding passage of his speech , and after Grand Lodge had during the preceding ten minutes given unmistakeable proof of its adverse opinion . I should have thought that under such circumstances Bro . Havers would , on his own present showing , have abstained from the course he now so candidly deprecates . I take it for granted that none of us feel that our

" Grand Master must not express an opinion , " but most of us do think that to quote that opinion may be lawful , but not at all times expedient , especially when a strong opposition has clearly shown itself in regard to a proposal for which the Grand Master ' s approval had been doubtless sought and gained , but probably amidst a thousand other public matters crowding on his attention .

I shall not trouble you about my private letters to Bro . Havers . I am sure he . will not affirm that a man cannot write a private note on public business . If he does not affirm this , his defence for quoting my notes in public without my leave , falls to the ground , as I certainly considered them private communications , and not intended for the public press . But as I said before , I am glad , as

far as I am concerned , that they were published . I wish to assure Bro . Havers that in proposing my amendment I did not act with " secrecy " or " subtlety . " I can give him my word that I had not made up my mind to withdraw my motion up to the moment when I entered Grand Lodge , and that I only rough-drafted my amendment after Bro . Havers began his speech .

I like to conclude with something pleasant in prospect after this " winter of our discontent . It is Bro . Havers ' words in the last paragraph but one , " I am ready to give my help in any way that may be thought desirable . " This is so happy a contrast to the statement contained in his private reply to me , that I take it for granted he will serve on the committee , and help' to bring about that consummation so devoutly to be wished for—a unanimous

decision . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , R . J . SIMPSOS . P . S . —I have read your foot note to my last letter with interest , and if you will allow me , I propose to say a few words in your next number on the subject alluded to , as suggested by your forcible article on " The Present Tendency of Freemasonry , " in your impression of June 24 th .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — If I could feci the deprivation , it vvould doubtless bc a matter of poignant regret that I do not share in lhat obtuseness which is a matter of consolation to Bro . Simpson , and his " twenty-to-one " of Grand Lodge , but I do not feel the loss ; neither is it a matter of ambition to me

that I should be so pretcrnaturally acute as to espy " denonnnationalism" in a generous impulse ; it is quite enough ( or me to be only so far blessed with corners as to bs rectangular , and so to act " on the square , " and view the generous impulse of an open-hearted brother in the same straightforward light in which he conceived it . One further remark ( which I trust Bro . Simpson will

regard as personal only so far as it is a reply to that which he himself wrote , and which had no origin with me ) and I , too , will cast banter aside and address myself once more to the matter under discussion . I cannot , for the life of mc , see thc necessity of the unmerited sneer directed at a Prov . G . Officer by one who has probably

risen to his present position by the same step of the very same ladder of promotion—at all events , if he has not , he would have had no cause for shame if he had . I , too , have been a Prov . G . O ., and I am proud of the distinction ; but more than this , if it should ever be my good fortune to be promoted to Grand rank in Grand Lodge I shall still always cherish the jewel of my Provincial rank ,

Original Correspondence.

as I shall , too , regard with the deepest affection my Mothe Province . If , however , this slighting mention of my brother correspondent be taken as merely a " jest , " then , indeed , has Bro . Simpson spoken the " true word in jest" for the ' . fine air of the provinces " has given the brethren there " clearer intellectual conceptions" to perceive the rightmindedness of Bro . Havers ' s proposal , as well as " clearer

moral conceptions , by which they have in so many instances carried out exactly similar work ( as that brother has so pointedly shown ) , than have the " fogs " to the brethren resident in " London . " I will dismiss this part of the subject by assuring you , Sir , that we Provincials are very happy in filling the more humble places allotted to us , for we feel that so long as a solid structure is required

it would not be well for Masonry , that all of us should be cope-stones like Bro . Simpson . Now , Sir , with regard to the two questions that I put to Bro . Simpson , I find that he has given me no answer at all . I can , however , glean this much , that attendance at a service in St . Paul's is not more "denominational" than following to the last rites the remains of the late chief

magistrate . Just so , for both are decidedly denominational , although pardonably so from the very cause which they vvould be designed to serve . This does not advance us much in trying to understand Bro . Simpson ' s " motives , " but what follows is probably more to the purpose , for in it we find what constitutes the sting of this terrible "denominationalism , " the wherefore of its having to be so

sedulously avoided . It is when it comes lo pulling your hand in your pocket lhat an action becomes denominationalism . Exactly so ! Next Bro . Simpson tries to show that the votes of money proposed by Bro . Havers would be ' alienating the funds of Grand Lodge from their only lawful destination , i . e ., charity . Has Bro . Simpson ever read his "

Constitutions ? " if so , he must surely know that there is such a thing as a " Fund of Benevolence , " which " shall be solely devoted to charity ; " thus clearly leaving the " Fund of General Purposes " entirely at the disposal of Grand Lodge , which may apply it at its good will and pleasure to any object either within or without the Craft . This last remark leads me to ask Bro . Simpson yet

another question in addition to my previous ones . How comes he to decry Bro . Havers ' s proposals as being outside our Order , and yet , in his letter of June 26 th says , " That we 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 italics are mine . )

Yet one other question—If Bro . Simpson withdrew his motion because he knew that it would not be passed unanimously , which he felt that such a motion ought to be , why ever did he press his amendments when he saw that there was not a ghost of a chance of their leading to anything else than a division ? Oh ! for consistency ! One other word and the " W . T . ( who also writes from

some shady and anonymous spot ) " will have done . How " shady ? "" Also , " does " also" refer to " ProvTG . O . "in the " light of the provinces ? " or to " Bro . Simpson " in the " London fog ? " To the former I trust , for I do not at all wish to be considered under the influence of the latter , the description of which seems wonderfully well adapted ( self-chosen , too !) to describe one side of this

controversy . " Anonymous , " how can this " spot" be " anonymous ? " I have written anonymously , it is true , but what object would be served by putting to my queries the name of merely a Provincial Grand Officer ! You , Sir , were satisfied of my identity as a member of Grand Lodge , and , therefore , of my being entitled to a voice . However , if Bro . Simpson really desires to discover my

personality , he may recognize me as one of those brethren ( non- " obtuse , " thanks to Bro . Simpson !) whose right hands were held up to protest against the hollow insincerity of giving to God a vote of thanks " which cost us nothing ; " and more than this , he may recognize me again , if Grand Lodge should ever again suffer itself to be

betrayed into the unmasonic condition of " appearing before the Lord empty , " by mine being the only right hand held up , if need should be , against such a mockery and a sham . I remain , dear Sir and Brother , faithfully and fraternally . W . T .

( To the Editor of the Freemason . ) Dear Sir and Brother , — There were reasons , dictated neither by modesty nor fear , which induced me to write anonymously to you a fortnight ago . In advocating or denouncing principles an anonymous signature is permissible , and often preferable , if thc writer avoids personalities . I attacked no one

in my letter , and my name would not have made Bro . Simpson ' s statement , to which I alluded , more or less absurd than it actually was . I do not know whether " London fogs , " or the want of " clearer moral or intellectual conceptions , " make Bro . Simpson so dull of comprehension , nor do I know by what computation he arrives at the consolatory feeling " that the brethren of Grand

Lodge in thc proportion of twenty to one are equally obtuse " ( I beg pardon of the brethren . I am using not my own , but Bro . Simpson ' s words ) , but judging from the division at the last Quarterly Communication 1 should put his majority at three to two . Bro . Simpson appears to have forgotten the old maxim " practice is better than precept , " for whilst he intersperses his sentences with pious utterances and fervent hopes that " peace may abound ,

Src , he indulges in jests , sneers , and misrepresentations which are not likely to bring about the realization of this desirable end . Bro . Simpson is plausible but not profound . I give two instances from his last letter . He says , "I quite agree with our ' P . G . Officer' in his broad definition of ' charity , ' but I 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