Correspondence.

Correspondence .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents , kiit we wish , in a spirit o £ fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limitsfree discussion .

THE LODGE CHARTER OR WARRANT . To thc Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , The letters of your able correspondents , Bro . John Lane and Bro . Lamonby , in last week's Freemason , if they will permit me to show , do not cover the enquiry made by my letter in your issue of the 24 th ultimo . It goes without

saying that no regular lodge can meet without a Warrant of Constitution and the provision ' of Article 125 of the Book of Constitutions— " that the warrant shall be produced by the Master at every meeting of the lodge "—may possibly have more reference to , and be evidence of , its continued safe custody , than to the real necessity for its actual corporal presence at each meeting . I find nothing in the

Constitutions rendering any meeting irregular , or the business transacted at such meeting invalid , in case the lodge warrant should not actually be present , and I venture to state jthat it would be going too far to suggest rhat by implication any such business transacted was rendered either irregular or invalid simply by reason of the absence of the warrant from the place of meeting .

English Freemasons undoubtedly regard—and properly so—Bro . Lane as a high authority in matters pertaining to the Craft , but I hope he will excuse me when I venture to doubt that it was " absolutely essential " —as he puts it—at the emergent lodge to which my previous letter referred that the warrant of the lodge should have been taken from the walls of one room to another where the emergent Iodge was being held , inasmuch as the lodge was duly warranted and the warrant was actually suspended on one of the walls of the same building .

It is remarkable—according to Bro . Lamonby ' s letter—that in Australia and in the English provinces , lodges are careful as regards the warrant being kept on view in the lodge room during the period of labour , but that in London—under the very shadow of Grand Lodge as it were—the lodges—or some of

themdeem it a sufficient compliance with the Constitutions to produce the warrant or charter at installations and on occasions when candidates aie initiated into the Craft . I had this confirmed only recently when in conversation with a London Mason ; this correspondence may prove useful if only to bring to the light such alleged irregularities as Bro . Lamonby referred to .

Let me reiterate what I sought information upon in my former letter , namely , " Is the work done or business transacted by the Iodge in the absence of the warrant or charter irregular or invalid ? The Wisconsin decision which I quoted in my previous letter covered the question from an American standpoint ; has the Grand Lodge of England—otherwise than by the Constitutions—made any reported pronouncement regarding the matter ? It would have been interesting

to your numerous readers had Bro . Lamonby stated what decision the Board of General Purposes arrived at regarding the irregularity referred to in the concluding paragraph of his letter in your issue of the 1 st inst . ; doubtless Masons had been initiated , passed , and raised during the year when the lodge warrant had been misplaced , yet as the lodge in question was a regularly constituted and

warranted lodge , I venture the opinion for what it is worth , that neither the Board of General Purposes nor yet Grand Lodge would hold that such Masons had not been regularly made nor the Worshipful Master who received the bogus parchment as the lodge warrant had not been duly installed—the temporary absence of the lodge warrant notwithstanding . —Yours fraternally , J . T . LAST . Bradford , October 4 th .

RORKE OR ROOKE . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I had an opportunity on Friday last of once more looking at the page of the Grand Lodge Register which gives a list of the members belonging to the Lodge at the " Goat at the Foot of the Haymarket " ( 1730 ) . The name ,

with regard to which there has been a slight difference of opinion between two of your recent contributors , is , without the shadow of a doubt , " George Rooke , " who , it is highly probable , was also the " Geo . Rooke" referred to by Bro . Lane in your last issue as having been a member of the lodge at the " Swan " in 1723 . Many years ago , when searching for materials that might enable me to compile a record of eminent Soldiers and Sailors who have been members ot our Society—a

task only recently resumed , but very shortly f hope to be concluded—I met with the name of " George Rooke " in the Lists of 1723 and 1730 , and the possibility of its being that of the famous Admiral , Sir George Rooke , occurred to me . I found , however , on looking into the matter , that the Admiral died in 1709 ; but , while examining a file of old newspapers for 1723—I think the Daily Courant for

October in that year—I came upon a mention of " Geo . Rooke , son of Admiral Rooke , " so it would seem likely that , while unsuccessful in identifying the father as a Freemason , I accidentally stumbled on some evidence which will go a long way towards inducing the conviction that among thc members of lodges in the early Grand Lodge era , was the son .

Admiral Sir George Rooke , as everyone is aware , was in chief command at the capture of the fortress of Gibraltar in 1704 . But it is perhaps not so well known that among the naval captains who particularly distinguished themselves in this exploit was Robert Fairfax , afterwards promoted to be Rear-Admiral , and a little later ( 1713 ) "admitted and sworne into the honourable Society and Fraternity of Freemasons , " at York .

For his services at the taking of Gibraltar , Queen Anne presented Captain Fairfax with a silver cup . A good portrait of him was painted in the last years of his life . The left hand rests on a globe , and in the right he holds a pair of compasses . —Yours fraternally , R . F . GOULD . Woking , October 3 rd , 1898 .

LOST JEWELS AND CLOTHING . To tht Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I have had the misfortune to have had my Masonic case stolen , containing a Past "Master ' s apron and collar , together with somo 14 jewels attached

thereon , and I should therefore feel obliged if you will please insert this letter in your widely circulated paper , so that the same may be traced , as most of the jewels have my name engraved upon them , and they may be offered to some brother in London or the Provinces . Anticipating your compliance to my ¦ request , believe me , fraternally yours ,

J . M . KLENCK , P . M . 1339 , 1686 , P . Z . 1339 , & c , 64 , Bishopgate-street Within , October 3 rd .

Review Of "An English View Of American Freemasonry. "

REVIEW OF "AN ENGLISH VIEW OF AMERICAN FREEMASONRY . "

BY JOSIAH H . DRUMMOND .

While the reading of the article under ^ this title , by Bro . Speth , will produce a broad grin upon the countenance of every intelligent American Mason , as illustrating the danger of writing about a matter of which the writer knows scarcely anything , even if he is as able a man as Bro . Speth , I deem a reply to be for the interest of the Craft .

In this country the decision of all questions in the administration of the affairs of a lodge is left to the good sense of a Master . But sometimes a Master is in doubt , even after consulting the Past M asters , if there are any , and he seeks instruction from one who knows , and speaks by authority . In spite of Bro . Speth's opening questions , this is quite rarely done . In a Grand Jurisdiction having 200 lodges the average number of reported decisions

does not exceed 20 , and in many not half that number . While it is probably more in accord with English character for the Master to go ahead and decide on his own knowledge and let those aggrieved fight it out afterwards , we in this country , holding that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure , " seek instruction from the Grand Master and settle the matter without any fight at all . And we cannot help thinking that our method is more in

accord with the teachings of Masonry and less liable to disturb the harmony of the Craft . Nor do we have any "Board of General Purposes" ; that piece of machinery may be a good and useful one in a jurisdiction as vast as that of the Grand Lodge of England , but in our comparatively small jurisdictions it would be worse than useless . The business usually performed by it is here divided among the Committees of Grand Lodge , to which they report directly for its action .

It may be that some of the questions seem to learned Masonic Jurists to be trivial and puerile ; but to a young Master , without access to Masonic libraries , and not skilled in examining Constitutions and codes , they do not seem so , especially when the members of his lodge differ in opinion in relation to them . And if 10 or 20 such cases arise in a year in 200 lodges , it gives no ground for the gibe that we " do not seem to dare to call our souls our own without appealing to a Grand / Master to corroborate the fact . "

The imputation , also , that our Grand Masters are " anxious to mark their terms of office by a string of decisions " is entirely without foundation , and a gross slander upon our American Grand Masters , though made through ignorance and without malice . Usage requires Grand Masters to report their decisions to the Grand Lodge to be passed upon by it and thus establish a rule for the future , and there is no self-glorification of the Grand Master in doing it .

It is true , that the ambition to be Grand Master is here deemed a laudable one , just as in England it is deemed very desirable to become a Grand Officer of any rank ; but the reading of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England has led me to believe that the pressure for office in that body is vastly greater than in our American Grand Lodges . But Bro . Speth utterly fails to appreciate the difference in circumstances in England and America . In England , to speak in common parlance but

without disrespect , the Grand Master isa mere "figurehead" ; while in America he is the executive officer of the Grand Lodge during the recessthe active and not the nominal head of the Fraternity . Of course , his Royal Highness , the Prince of Wales , cannot be expected to bs more than nominal Grand Master j his being Grand Master gives the Fraternity an importance that conduces very greatly to its prosperity . But in America , such a thing would be utterly impossible * , while we respect the magistrate , civil rank gives way to the Masonic rank in the lodge .

It follows that the duties of a Grand Master necessarily consume much of his time . Thc laying of corner stones , the dedication of halls , the constitution of new lodges , and visitations , are no small item of his official duties . It is true that he can , and in some instances does , perform these acts by deputy , * but it pleases and interests the Craft the most when these duties are performed by the Grand Master .

But in addition , our leading Masons are business men , " active business men " in the American sense of that term ; they can sacrifice their business interests for one year , and some can for two years , and now and then one can do so for three years . So that frequent changes are absolutely necessary . But fortunately we have so far had sufficient material for able and efficient Grand Masters . We have had very few , if any , poor or e * - * en weak ones .

Now as to physical qualifications , I entirely agree with Bro . Speth that " as long as a candidate can comply with the ritualistic requirements we arc satisfied . " One , reading his article , would understand that all our Grand Lodges hold to the opposite doctrines , * whereas in fact , our doctrine prevails in a vast majority of the Grand Lodges , in fact those which hold to the

" perfect youth " rule are very few . II he had limited his rem irks to the six or eight jurisdictions to which alone they are applicable , I would hive said " amen , " although as able man and as learned Masons as there are in ths world , hold that his doctrine and mine is in violation of the landmirksof Masonry .

The pressure everywhere is , however , to admit men who are otherwise well qualified , without regard to their physical eligibility ; and so it is that these questions are presented in the hope that the lodge will be justified in admitting candidates concerning whose physical quililications there is a doubt . In this country a lodge which should admit a candidate not physically qualified according to the law of the jurisdiction , would certainly be disciplined . So in close cases , while sympathy would incline the lodge to admit the candidate , prudence leads it to seek for instruction .

I have devoted much thought to the question of the size of our lodges , and have often expressed the wish that the experiment of a small lodge might be tried . But , according to Bro . Speth , the objects of lodges in England and America are vastly different . He says that " the main object of tho Craft ( in England ) is good fellowship . " While , from the reports of recent visitors to England , I had rather inferred that such was the case , and had so stated in a report on correspondence . I did not feel sure of it till I read this

from Bro . Speth ' s pen . Now , if that is the main object of a lodge organisation , there is no question that he is entirely correct in relation to the sizes of lodge-.. But in America such is not the main object . The prime object of the working o a lodge is to teach Masonry ; to impress upon the min " of individuals the principles of Masonry as rules to govern their own conduct ' in their daily life and conversation ; it is to make better men rather than