Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . " ) ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Can you inform me whether there is any list in existence which shows the meetings of all English and Foreign Lodges , or if not the former , the latter ; and where the samo can be obtained ? I enclose my card .

I am , yours fraternallv , A SUBSCRIBER TO "THii FREEMASON . " Liverpool , Aug . Slst , 1869 . [ The Grand Lodge of England Calendar gives the information alluded to for all lodges under the

English Constitution , and the Universal Masonic Calendar contains lists of Scotch , Irish and a few foreign lodges , but we are not aware of any publication in which the meetings of all lodges are recorded . ] —ED . F .

( To tha Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR AND BROTHER , —In reference to two papers in your last week ' s number , I beg to submit for your consideration the question whether the admissibility

into the Craft of a person born in slavery , or out of wedlock , is reconcileable with one fundamental law , that " no man can be made a Mason who is not ' free by birth ?"' Yours fraternally , P . M .

[ There can be no doubt that . according to the " Antient Charges , " no bastard , freed-man , or slave , Could be admitted a member of the Craft , but after the emancipation of the slaves in Jamaica , the Grand Lodge of England directed the omission of the word " free-born , " and substituted "free-man , " and this alteration is now embodied in the ceremony of initiation as practised by the English Craft . ]—ED . F .

JERUSALEM ENCAMPMENT . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am obliged to my friendly reviewers , and would crave a few words in reply to Bro . H * . J . Hughan . I , —In regard to the rank assigned to the Jerusalem Encampment , I may state that I have repeatedly

written to the Grand Viee-Chaiieellor to rectify Ins dates , without any attempt having been made by bis oflice to rectify the same ; and with regard to those Encampments styling themselves "immemorial , " steps must be taken to make them show dates , and they must be ranked according to the doumentary

evidence they can produce . This ought to bc brought before Grand Conclave at once . 2 . —Though the Grand Lodge at York may never have recognised the Ancient Grand Lodge in the South by formal < l « cnnunt , yet even such recognition is proved iu my pamphlet liy the fact of the York

Grand Loilge having granted a Templar warrant to an Athol Lodge and these writing the former under date of 17 S 0 * — " Your immediate decisive answer to the following question agitated amongst us is desired : If a mail who is au Ancient Mason in the three first degrees made Arch Mason and Sir Knt . Templar , but

sitting under a modern warrant , may be accepted in our Royal Encampment . " 3 . —I am glad Bro . Iliiglmu has been able to get copies of the Todmorden warrants , and hope to see them in yonr pages . I have made tw . mty applications for these documents , and therefore presume the

brother witheld them because he knew that he had deceived me . 4 . —There can be no doubt , that ( lie most important York documents were given to Rro . Godfrey Higgins by Rro . lllaiichard , as the former states so in his Auacilypais ( vol 1 , hook x , chant , viii , sec . I , page

708 ) and adds that he hail conveyed them to liis Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex . 0 . —The lute e-leeiued brother , Laurence Ncwnll , D . P . G . O . of K . T ., was eliielly my authority as to ritual of 17 . ' 1 * > , and I was given to understand both by him and others , that they had taken great pains as to

evidence , both as to the . appearance of the ritual , and alsj as to ( he hands through which it had passed . I can only express my entire agreement with our esteemed U * 'o . Hughan , that something nii' ^ lit to be done by lie' I ' alwiu and other old Conclaves to illustrate tlicprocccdin-r-i of Chivalric Masonry , Fraternally yours ,

JOHN YARivi- 'R , . Fit ¦ Manchester , Aug . 20 , 1801 ) .

A "BUMrat TOAST . " ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR AND BHOTIIKII .--Will you allow me , as an Isle of Wight Mason , space for a few remarks

aprojms to your last week ' s article , headed **• A Bumper Toast . " I am not a member ol * ihe lodge of which it is said that the members refused to drink the Grand Master ' s health , and not having been present when tho alleged occurrence took place , 1 have no means of

Original Correspondence.

knowing whether the report be true or false ; therefore I give no opinion about it . But I do think that the brethren of the Isle of Wight , have grave reasons for complaining of the way in which they have been treated in the matter of the appointment of a Prov . Grand Master . The Grand Mastership of the Isle of

Wight lately became vacant by the resignation of Bro . Fleming , and that of Hampshire by the death of Bro . Sir Lucius Curtis . \\ e never received the slightest intimation that the two Provinces , thus vacant , were to be united—there was no reason why they should be ; but ail at once we were electrified by

a letter lrom the Grand Secretary , notifying us that the Grand Master had united the two Provinces , and appointed Bro . Beach as Prov . Grand Master for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight . A very natural and unanimous feeling of dissatisfaction at once showed itself . It was asked why this should be done ,

without the slightest attempt being made to ascertain our feelings upon so important a matter ? The Isle of Wight had existed as a separate Masonic Province ever s nee 1813 , and previous to that period it had a separate Grand Lodge , and a separate deputy Grand Master .

Why were we to lose our independence and be thus annexed to a Province , from which we are geographically separated by a line of the most marked character , namely , the sea itself , and no opportunity given to us to say yea or nay ? We have had recourse to the constitutional means alluded to

by you , and have , through the Grand Secretary , memorialized and petitioned the Grand Master , but without avail ; and as a last recourse we appealed to the Board of General Purposes , on the ground that the Grand Master had no legal power to abolish a Masonic province which derived its existence

from Grand Lodge . Ihe Board , however , flatly refused to entertain the appeal , alleging that it was a question of the Grand Master ' s prerogative . I entertain not the slighest shadow of a doubt that the Board of General Purposes ought to have allowed our appeal as being perfectly constitutional , but they

thought differently , and so it seems we must submit to what most of us consider to be a death-blow to Masonry in the Isle of Wight . Under these circumstances it is not to be wondered at if we feel rather sore and disgusted , but I do not know where the lla <;

ol rebellion has been hoisted , nor of what precise materials it may be composed . I may add that Bro . Beach would be very acceptable to us as P . G . M . if only we could maintain our independent status as a Province . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , Cowes , C Sep ., 1 « 6 * 9 . JUSTITIA .

INELIGIBILITY OF BASTARDS AS FREEMASONS . ( 7 b the Editor of Thc Freemason . ) DEAR S : it AND BROTHER , —I am glad to see my brother , " A Jewish Freemason , " taking an interest in this subject as per his remarks page 91 , Aug . 21 st , where he takes exception to my speaking of" the dark

and dim rays of ancient Jewish or Mosaic times . " I consider myself justified in saying so , because that was the era , when law and ceremonial miuuticc reigned , whereas I count this the era more especially of love and freedom , when the "heavy burthens "' which were formerly borne , are done away with . Again , aucientlv

it was " nn eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth , " that was the doctrine of retaliation ; whereas we now have more prominently brought before us the more noble doctrine ol" forgiveness , i . e ., "Ye have heard that it hath been said , thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine eneniv . " That was the "dark and dim

ray , '; but now we have it , '' Love your enemies , bless them that curse you , do good to them that hateyou , nnd pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you . " Truly Moses was a great man , but the . Jew who spoke the latter words I quote , taught , like a God . He understood tlie . ipiril where others only saw tho letter .

"A Jewish Freemason" mis-quotes ine upon one point . 1 did not say "His whosai I love , thy neighbour " & c . I said ( page 81 ) , "I lis who said , whatsoever ye would that men should do to yo * . i , do ye even so lo lliein , " but , I added un that oilier golden sentence , " Live thy neighbour as thyself , " which ihe context

in ay show I reL-rivd In in the light thrown upon it iu tha parable ofthe good Samaritan . While I admit the many high and clear views which Moses and others of tho prophets had or exprcs-cd , these were not generally understood ; the majority ot

the pre-Christian Jewish teachers misunderstood the giva : truths and ideas of their own scriptures , and misled the people , being more lakeii up with outward ceremonial trilles than a clean heart and a practical rood and honest life .

lo those who would debar bastards—although good aud true men par se—from being admitted as Freemasons , I would read a few historical statemenls , such as the . "> 8 th chap , of Gcnisis , where we perceive the

doctrine of extenuating circumstances receiving practical ell ' ect ; then read Ruth chap . 1 v . 18 to end , from which we learn that I'liurez , who was a bastard ( and not a common bastard , but even the son of Judith , by his daughter-in-law Tamar ) was the ancestor of Boaz ,

Original Correspondence.

who married Ruth—a Moabitish damsel , a descendant of Lot and his daughter , ( Gen . 19 th chap ., 37 th v . ) from Boaz and Ruth , descended David and his son Solomon , & c , and from David , according to the flesh , descended Christ . As an example of God ' s dealings , the above remarks anent the pedigree of King David

—from whose loins the Jews expected their Messiah to come—will serve as a sufficient practical exposition of the words in Isaiah chap . 1 , verse 18 th . The above from Jewish history shows that bastards may be eligible to eveu the highest privileges . How much more then should Christians , with their great pretentions

be charitable in their dealings ? There are some shortsi ghted individuals who would cany off the ocean of God's love in a bucket , and gather up the river of Masonic sympathy in a thimble ; they have no idea of the universe of love exhibited hy even some of the simplest-looking passages of the Bible , a universe in

which worlds may disport in perfect freedom with an unknown amount of unoccupied space to spare . While therefore we resist the actual evil-doer , let us encourage all who desire to , and do act well ; let us bc merciful that we may obtain mercy , God has

forgiven us ten thousand talents , let us forgive one hundred pence ( Mat . 18 th chap ., v . 23 rd to end . ) All the charitable and noble principles and teachings of Freemasonry are not worth a pin to any one excep t in so far as they are acted up to . I am , yours fraternally , LEO .

SPURIOUS MASONIC BODIES AGAIN . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER Thanking you for your notice of my communication under the above head , I take the liberty of responding , because I believe the discussion of this subject may do good and enli ghten many American as wall as our English brethen .

As to me assuming that your first article was prompted by the letter you published from A . G . Goodall , 33 ° , I beg pardon , and only now assume that that assumption was natural , inasmuch as you favoured decidedly the views of that gentleman , I think I had as much ground to thus assume , as I now have

to assume that your article in THE FREEMASON of July 31 , was prompted by my letter in that of July 24 . In the latter article you proceed to copy the statement nearly verbatim of A . G . Goodall , 33 ° , as explanatory of your views and knowlege , thus again showing that you favour his account of the matter , and not the

correct one . Now , where , than in that statement ( ms ) you get the history you recount , is not for me to say , as I do not know . What I believe , as it is derived from competent and undisputed authority iu reference to the matter , is this : — In 1813 when Louisiana was ceded by France to the United States , there was extant iu New Orleans , not

a Supreme Council but a Consistory , which had therein been established whilst Lo . was yet a French province . In the same year was established the Grand Lodge of Lo . American , York , or Ancient Free and Accepted Masons . Willi this preface 1 will now quote from The A merican Masonic History of Dr . Folger , published in 18 ( i * 2 , and which on this subject is regarded as most authentic : —

" In 1839 a Supreme Council nf the 33 was erected in New Orleans by the Count St . Angelo and others , in consequence of the United Supreme Council of the Western Hemisphere having ceased its activity . It assumed to be the successor of that body , was acknowledged by the Grand Orient of France in 1813 ,

and the Consistory came under its charge . This Supreme Council cont ' nued in active operation until 1850 , when a disturbance took place between the Grand Lodge of Lo . and itself . The Grand Lodge at that time dissolved the Scottish chamber which had been allied wiih it fur seventeen years in harmony ,

and prohibited all connection with Scottish Masons and the Scottish Rite . Whereupon theSupieiiieCouncil immediately resumed its control ( previously , agreeably with American practice , waived ) over the first three degrees , chartered and established lodges , and has now

over twenty under her jurisdiction iu that State . As soon as the Grand Lodge dissolved the Scottish chamber , Dr . Mackey , of Charleston ( Secietarv-Gcneral of the Charleston Supreme Council ) , established a Consistory in 18 . 3- ' , and which was intended as a rival to the Supreme Council of Louisiana .

" In 18 . 35 a quarrel ( by design ) took place between the oflicers of the Supreme Council , the principal of which resigned their offices , leaving behind a party who favoured the Charleston Council . Whereupon that party declared the Supremo Council of Lo . extinct , and at once revived the Consistory of 1813 ,

which Consistory united with that created by Mackey in 18 . 32 , and the United body entered into a concordat with the Charleston Council and became its dependent . It is now in existence , as the Grand Consistory of the State of Lo . But these membera

who withdrew , at once re-erected the Supremo Council , renewed active operations , and now have twenty lodges , and nearly as many Rose Croix Chapters and Councils of Kadosh under their conlrol . " You will see , from the above ,, how far you , following