Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

£ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of theoprnrons expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . 1

CHARITY VOTING . Dear Bro . Kenning , — I see that there is a great deal of discussion going on just now in the Freemason about a matter to which I have given very great attention for years , and with which , without any egotism , I fancy I am fully conversant . I , therefore , trouble you with a few lines to-day , though

I trust not to tire your readers , the more so as I fancy I note in some of the communications I have perused many assumptions and more assertions , but little practical knowledge of , the real difficulties of the case . The whole question of charity voting is alike in the abstract and the concrete , a very serious one , and certainly not to be decided by declamatory appeals or hap-hazard

statements . I know of no more really difficult matter , per se , than the . treatment of our Masonic educational and charitable lists . The popular theory just now appears to be this : — There is a list given you , say , of forty cases , and you are bound to select the most distressing case , and vote for it .

Now , however fine and sentimental such a view may be for an argument ad bominem , or a " tag " to a speech or a letter , it will not , I ppprehend , for one moment endure the rough shock of a logical criticism . In the first place , it is not tenable in the abstract , it is not workable in practice . The subscriber is not bound , either " foro conscientise" or anything else , to select the

most distressing case , and for this reason , because it is not possible to lay down what is objectively the most distressing case , we can only realize it subjectively . There are no possible rules or conditions that I am aware of , which can be appealed to , in order to render any one ca'e the most distressing . All that the voter is bound to do is to select a distressing case , and give to it his best efforts . For all

cases are supposed to be distressing cases , a fact too often forgotten , and no one case that is not a distressing case ought to appear on the list . But here comes in difficulty No . i , to which I will allude later . Neither is the most-distressing-case theory practically workable . In this our practice always antagonises our theory . Why it is not notorious , as an illustration , to show the

difficulty of the whole question , that many of us publicly , for some reason or other , put our names to cases which , strictly speaking , perhaps , ought not to appear on the list at all 1 I allude especially to those which emanate from indiscreet Masons , as I consider them , who , though the deceased brother had only subscribed the exact " minimum" of qualification , and was out of Masonry several

years , actuall y put forward such cases and carry them , which shut out the children of those who have subscribed for years , until death took them from the lodge and the Craft . Knowing the inconsistency of us all in this respect , and distrusting from old experience the " tall talk" of hasty eeneralists and would-be

reformers , I deprecate the dogmatic assertion that we are all bound to select " the most distressing case . " We cannot do so , for the reason I have before pointed out ; we can only select what is " pro tanto " to us a sufficiently distressing case , what is comparatively the most pressing one on our sympathy , and help it as much as we possibly can . Now , the real difficulty in al ! this

" vexata questio" arises from a want of conscientiousness in us all alike . We put forward cases which ought not to appeal to eleemosynary aid at all , and the only antidote for this fast growing evil is public opinion , public voting , not the power of elision or recommendation , "for that would onl y intensify the evil . As a result of our present system , attacked as it is hastily and unjustly , we succeed

in electing the most deserving cases as a general rule . When any case fails , it is through want of inward soundness or outward support for the most part , and the per centage of the failing cases is wondrously small . But , reverse the system , give a committee the power to reduce the number of candidates , or to recommend special cases , or to take out received cases , and there will be no limit ,

properly speaking , ( owing to human weakness ) , to the number of unsound cases which will be foisted on to our charities . I advocate , indeed , more inquiry in the initial process ; more careful investigation of the actual merits of the case ; the rank of the petitioner , and the position of the petitioner's friends ; and I quite concur with Bro . Hughan in

suggesting a special certificate from the W . M . and Wardens and Secretary in open lodge . Beyond that , I do not believe in the possibility of much change ; and I am quite sure that Bro . R . J . Simpson ' s well meant suggestions would aggravate instead of diminish the evils he talks about , and which , I confess , after an experience of 18 years , I am , to a great extent , ignorant of .

As regards exchanges , I cannot understand the objection to them , or on what grounds such objections are made . It is ah very well to say they are wrong—but why ? How ? Exchanges proceed simply on the ground of possible election , and without exchanges are permitted many candidates never can get in at all . As for their being corrupt , or injurious to others , such a statement can only proceed from thr ;^ e

whose acquaintance with the subject practically is most superficial and limited . But as the question is so large in itself , and so important , I propose to go into it fully in your next Freemason , if I have not tried the patience of | your readers . I am , dear Bro . Kenning , yours fraternally , AN OLD CHAIRMAN OK A PROV , CHARITY COMUITTEE .

Original Correspondence.

TO BRO . BEIGEL , VIENNA . Dear Bro . Beigel , — I have to use the medium of the Freemason to find out where you are . I answered your letter to Clifton , as you requested , by return of post , but only on Friday last received it from the Returned Letter Office , having been redirected t . ) the Bell Hotel , Gloucester , the day it reached

the hotel at Clifton Down . Another letter has been returned to me from the same hotel , so that our correspondence has been interrupted , and our meeting seems problematical . Fearing you should deem me deficient in courtesy , ( for I wrote by return of post ) , and being most desirous to see you , I hope that this letter may catch your

eye , and that we may arrange a meeting . Yours most fraternally , A . F . A . WOODTORD . 10 , Upper Porchcster-street , Hy de Park-square , W ., June 4 , iS 77 .

A CORRECTION . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I notice in your report of my remarks , as a visitor at the meeting of the Langton Lodge ( No . 1673 ) , held on Wednesday last , a misprint occurs , which by substituting the word " they " for " he" casts a reflection

upon those of whose working I have the highest opinion , and was then referring to with pride . It should read , " he thought they could teach others a great de & l . " I had previously had experience of the working of some of the Metropolitan Lodgi s , and was very pleased to be

able to congratulate the W . M ., Bro . II . D . Stead , that his rendering of the ceremony of initiation was equal to that of the Lancashire lodges , of whose very correct working I could but speak in the highest terms of praise . Kindly insert this in your next issue , and oblige , yours fraternally , HENRY THOMAS , Oldham , June 2 nd , 1877 . P . M . 277 .

THE LAUSANNE CONFERENCE , & c . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Please allow me to say that my letter in your impression of the 26 th ult ., brought me a long circular letter issued by the English Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in regard to the charge of the abnegation of a persi . nal God . It was made by thc Supreme Grand Council

of Scotland against that of EngUnd , and is , I should judce , a satisfactory contradiction to the charge so far as England is concerned . 1 should be sorry if my letter has given offence to innocent brethren , for I by no means qualified it in such a way as to be personal to such . I simply gave the business instead of the name of three persons , of whom I was giving evidence . So I would like to allow the matter to

. There is nothing , in my opinion , so objectionable in Masonry as the intolerance of ignorance . The opinion of those qualified to give it should be listened to with respect , however it may clash with preconceived opinions in any branch of Masonry , and more especially when that branch has no legitimate history ; and so far I am sure you will

agree with mc . Although " W . E . N . " has given us no further information about the marks at Jerusalem and Shushan , and their relation to the Phoenician character , he has yet given us a very interesting explanation of the circle and the triangle , and Iheir relationship with Hindoo science , and I would like to see him extend the application . There is an Indian Order ( established in this country )

called the Sat Bhai , which enters upon the same subject as developed in the sacred lotus—the grand symbol of the Order . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J YARKER . [ Our brother will see that his remarks were personal , and as such open to animadversion . But here let it rest . —ED . ]

ILLEGITIMACY AND FREEMASONRY . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am much interested in the communication from Bro . the Rev . H . John Hatch , P . Prov . G . Chap . Essex , and quite concur in his views on the subject of " illegitimacy and Freemasonry . "

It appears to n-re that the qualifications for being proposed as a candidate , under the Grand Lodge of England , are simply these : " Just , upright , and free-men , of mature age , sound judgment , and strict morals . " Hence the questions as to illegitimacy , or physical disqualifications , have no place in modern Freemasonry , and so long as the Book of Constitutions is observed , evidently an illegitimate ,

or one physically imperfect , may be fairly accepted for admission into Freemasonry . My opinion is that the Editor is of quite the same opinion , and that his explanation meets the case , his remarks having had to do simply with an ancient but obsolete law on the subject . I have , myself , seen copies

of affidavits of the last century , witnessing that the candidates had been born in " lawful wedlock , " but , happily , now our desire is to be convinced of the moral qualifications , and if the candidates are " just and upright men , ' even if they arc illegitimate , as Bro . Hatch says , " they may ultimately reflect honour on our choice . Yours fraternally , WILLIAM J AMES HUGHAN .

P . S . G . D . [ As Bro . Hughan points out , we did not express any opinion ourselves on the moot point . All we did was to treat it archaeologically , and to state what had been the custom of our speculative as well as the operative Order ,

Original Correspondence.

and of which there can be no doubt . There is , however no rule without ? . n exception . —ED . ] ' To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — With reference to the correspondence which has appeared in your columns on the above subject , I should be glad to be informed why you consider " Dunckerley is not quite a case in point , " and what is the difference

between his illegitimacy and that of any other person ? I have never heard that " the rule of the Craft" is adverse to the reception of all not born of honest parentage , " but that their respectability and position in life only have been taken into consideration , and it occurs to me that the " tongue of good report " may speak as favourabl y 0 f those who are illegitimate as of those who are born in

lawful wedlock . If the rule of the Craf : was adverse to the admission of illegitimate persons , would not lod ges take special care that none such were admitted , whereas at the present time ( so far as my experience goes ) there is nothing to prevent their admission , and certainly no law or

rule m the Constitutions to that effect , and if they are otherwise worthy it would undoubtedly be a great hard , ship to them to be excluded solely on account of that which is their misfortune , and not their fault . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , B . A .

To Ihe Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir ami Brother , — If an Iri > h Mason may take part in the controversy begun by " Enquirer " in your publication of the ioth May , and in which 1 have taken much interest , I beg to ask your attention to Clause IV . of thc " Ancient Charges , " as published by the Grand Lodge of Ireland , in the second

sentence of which it will be found that "No Master should take an apprentice that is not the son of honest parents , " there ' n-, wring a " printed law , " as I would read it , to the < fleet that r . ny one emitted to the badge of the "barsinister " is not acceptable as a Free and Accepted Mason . I am fraternally yours , J . On MI STON ANDREWS , H . K . T . 154 aird 513 , I . C .

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN FREEMASONRY . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Being a sojourner here , I apply to your talented journal for information on a subject which has given rise to much discussion in the new world , without settling

the vexed question , or shedding that light which , as the necessary adjunct of truth , ought readily to be fv >\ iiul by those who diligently seek her footsteps . On the occasion of my former visit to England in 187 ; , I took the opportunity to be present at the meeting of a " blue lodge " and the convocation of the Capitular Degrees , and was forcibly s-truck with the great dissimilarity

of their work and ritual to that in use in thc United States , and I naturally inquire whence this anomaly , inasmuch as I am guided by the aphorism that Mascnry is universal and unalterable ? It is absolutely certain , that Masonry , to be pure and identical , should have one—and only one—interpretation in every land where it is known , an . ! the original text can

alone be true , and all others which have been subjected to interpolation must be received with grave apprehension and adopted with extreme caution . I am led to these remarks with the hope that some student of ethics may he able to lay before the fraternity the true nnd original work and ritual of the Cryptic Degrees , and that when so obtained thc Grand Lodges of the world

will decree their restoration in pristine form , to the exclusion of all other versions whatever . While I can in no way agree with those writers , however erudite their arguments , who disclaim any great antiquity to the Institution , because its history and nomenclature arc simply adaptations of earlier times , and are not comprised of any revelations or secrets which the strident

of theology cannot trace from the pages of the Bible and the writingsofthe inspired prophets , lam of thc opinion tbat its principles are co-existent with the creation of man himself , and hence the actual data of the foundation of the Order ( although wrapped in the impenetrable veil of obscurity ) is not a matter to involve any doubt as to its being identical in its intentions to that first altar set up

by our first parents in the gardens of Paradise . It is not possible , perhaps , to prove that the Hindoos , Arabians , and North American Indians do really possess the traditions and the signs , & c , & c , of Freemasoniy , although it has been asserted that many of the wandering Bedouins have received all the lig ht , & c ., and it is certainly known that the Indian chief , Tecumseh , was

a F . and A . M . ; but all these circumstances do not pr . 've the universality of the Institution , which is its only g reat keystone . That Freemasonry was intended for all men who arc " free born , of lawful age , " tic , is the maxim of tne Order , without reference to nationality or colour ; it being " the internal and not the external qualifications which

recommend a man to be made a Mason , " and I am therefore perplexed to know by what rig ht some of the juj * dictions refuse to admit the African , notwithstanding t " he has full evidence of being free-born , Sec . Upon wna principle is his exclusion from the " rights , Sec . " of rtixmasonry based ? And , while entirely opposed to Wj "

ccgenation , I cannot see by what course of reasoning '' ^ " noble savage " is admitted to the Order , and the EtnW " pian excluded , because ot the colour of his skin -, or is ^ red man " Lo , " better than the black man " Pompey- ' < I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , 1 ALFRED W ELDHEN . , London , May 30 , 1877 .