Charity Reform.

does not deserve such hard word- * and such serious imputations as he has thought well , in the Jast Freemason , to use respecting it , as we shall be quite willing to point out in " extenso " if he thinks well to continue the discussion .

New Grand Lodges.

NEW GRAND LODGES .

We have received and read carefully the Freemason of April 15 th this year , " published under the patronage" of the fieshly-constituted socalled Grand Lodge of New South Wales . We are sorry to say that we cannot sympathize in any sense with this rash movement , and

disapproving in toto , on the old true principles of Freemasonry , of the unnecessary multiplication of Masonic jurisdictions apparently so popular with some minds just now , we feel bound honestly and in all Masonic friendship and courtesy to g ive our reason why . Our contemporary quotes

fully from us , and we have no wish in anything that we say to seem to dogmatize harshly , or speak censoriously , but we feel bound to point out one or two considerations , which vitiate , in our opinion , the constitution of this so-called Grand Lodge , and fully justify the prudent action

of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts , and other American Grand Lodges , as well as our own and the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland , in the matter . 1 . In the first place , Jet us remember and realize the position of Freemasons in Niivv South Wales . There are three

jurisdictions in existence , the English , the Scottish , and the Irish Grantl Lodges and thus in the colony of New South Wales the triple jurisdiction of England , Scotland , and Ireland is naturally re-produced . It is a great mistake to see , as * -oine do , in 3 great and successful colony

like new South Wales , with its popular selfgovernment , any analogy with the States of America . Each State of America is equal , sovereign , and self-governed , and , except for the general purposes of the constitution , supreme in its own territory , a position entirely different from

that of the colony of New South Wales . And hence as new States are formed in America , as each new State is equally a sovereign State with the others , it is not un-Masonic for a meeting of lodges , be they more or less , if lawfully warranted , to form a new Grand Lodge . But in New South

Wales , with three existing jurisdictions , before these jurisdictions can be absorbed in a new Grand Lodge , a majority of the lodges in all the three jurisdictions must have agreed to surrender their warrants to their mother Grand Lodges , and take out fresh warrants from the new central

authority . The body winch calls itself the Grand Lodge of New South Wales is composed , as it states , of a majority of the Irish lodges , a number of the Scottish lodges , and one English lodge . Its apologists assert , indeed , that other English lodges would join but are hindered by

the district authority . Still the " damning fact " remains that of one of the jurisdictions , only one lod ge so far has joined the movement , and that it has a minority in two out ofthe three . In our opinion , therefore , the whole movement has

¦ ailed Masonically , and the so-called Grand lod ge of New South Wales has no legal or constitutional existence , and cannot be recognized either by the Grand Lodge of England , Scotland , or Ireland . We are quite aware that much doubt exists as to the Masonic law on the

subject . Some Masonic writers have contended that given no existing jurisdiction at all , except a private lodge , it is competent for Master Masons thereat convened , with proper certificates , to constitute a Grand Lodge " ad hoc , " and in the history of Masonry , private lodges have before

now proclaimed themselves Grand Lodges with . out any reference whatever to the principle of ? 'egation or aggregation of lodges . Perhaps it 's still true of this as of many other matters in 'he world "fieri non debet , factum valet . " Our n glish practice seems to have been one of coeitnio n sense , namely , to recognize the wish of a of

^¦ ijoi ity lodges , in meeting properly convened , 10 create a Grand Lodge , and separate from the '" tiler Grand Lodge in our colcnii s and dfpen-^ cie-s and districts which originally hailed fiom " * > but we are aware of no precedent where minority in three jurisdictions has been Emitted in our colonies and dependencies

New Grand Lodges.

to set up a Grand Lodge , or where that body has been recognized in England . The new movement claims to have enrolled 800 Master Masons but this fact is also denied . We feel bound to say that the members of the "Irish Prov . Grand Lodge seemed to have egregiously failed in their duty to their Grand Lodge . See Bro . Oldham ' s letter elsewhere . n . We

note , in the second place , that in this very paper , not content with this hasty , and , in our opinion , in all deference , unconstitutional movement , it is suggested that a Grand Lodge should be formed in New Zealand as well . Where is all this to

end ? It cannot be for the good of Masonry to create a Grand Lodge wherever a colony of England exists ; neither , we venture to think , will it serve to enhance the true and tolerant principles of Freemasonry . We trust that in New South Wales as elsew'iere our English brethren will

remember the links which bind them to the mother cooatry and the mother Grand Lodge , and will gladly continue distinct and real off * shoots of that great body , the Grand Lodge of England , which has done so much for true Freemasonry everywhere . One argument does surprise us and amuse us : it is this— " Because we

have done so well for our Charities in England , therefore , ( note the sequitur ) , the brethren in New South Wales should form a new Grand Lodge , and do something for their poor brethren in New South Wales . " But surel y the District Grand Lodge has a Fund of Benevolence , and if that is the only reason , why should not the Masons in New South Wales erect

Masonic Orphanages , and establish Masonic Annuities of their own , without a new Grand Lodge ? We have said all this fraternally and dispassionately , but firmly and clearly we hope , and we trust our contemporary , the New South Wales Freemason , will believe us when we aid that , though we differ from him conscientiously , we

differ with the good feeling which should always characterize Freemasons . We regret the step which has taken place , and we fear we can hold out 110 hope of Masonic recognition at home . We doubt very much , moreover , whether the American Grand Lodges will recognize this new body . Indeed , we feel sure they will not .

Bro. Simonsen's Appeal.

BRO . SIMONSEN'S APPEAL .

We think it right to say , with reference to the letter of Bro . Wergeland , Prov . G M . of Norway , and some information we have ourselves received on the . subject , that any charge of persecution as against the ecclesiastical authorities in Norway on account of Bro . Simonsea being a Freemason

must at once be withdrawn . It seems that Bro . Simonsen , who has now , happily , returned to Norway , received Lutheran orders in America , and that the ecclesiastical authorities in Not way declined to admit him and others similarly situated as clergymen in the Norwegian parishes , but

Freemasonry has nothing whatever to do with the question , and many of the Norwegian clergy are avowedly Freemasons , and hold Masonic rank . On this point Bro . Simonsen , owing to his inexperience in Masonry , was entirely incorrect , and has entirely misled us . We } therefore , regret to have given currency to the statement .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ Wi do pot hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in i spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . ]

THE BOYS * SCHOOL FESTIVAL , 1879 . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In your issue of the 28 th nit . I n"t ce that you have placed the name of Bro . H . B . Marshall , C . C , with the London lodges ii the list of Stewards of the Boys ' School , and , again , in page 271 of your last issue , you

have placed the province of Middle-sex next in rank to Durham , whereas the amount should have been £ 227 7 s ., placing Middlesex next to Dorsetshire . Please excuse mj troubling you , but as the Royal Hanover Lodge , No . 1777 , has taken such a prominent place in the charity IhU this year I should be sorry for Middlesex to lose its rightful

I osition through an excusable error in a report circulated through the medium of your journal . An enquiry was made recently as to the proper dress for the Prov . Grand Chaplain , and I venture to suggest that the Rev . J . Rol inson , D . D ., was correct when preaching bclore the Prov . Grand Lodge at Great Stanmore . He wore a * surplice , doctor ' s hood , and the collar of his Masoni

Original Correspondence.

office . For such a service the apron is not required , and I fail to see how it could be hidden more by the surplice than by the nearly obsolete black gown . Yours truly and fraternally ,

HENRY LOVEGROVE , S . W . Royal Hanover Lodge . [ We agree with our brother that the apron is not required . The collar is quite sufficient , in our opinion , for the preacher , because ecclesiasticall y not illegal . The apron , we think , would be . —ED . 1

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I address you as much individually as a journalist , knowing we are both interested in the Province of Middlesex . I beg to draw your attention to the fact that our province deserves a higher position in the order of those who brought up lists at thc last festival . I find from your

excellent leader that we stand as to amount fourteenth on the list , with an aggregateof £ 122 7 s . only . As a fact , a brother of my own lodge , No . 1777 , personally contributed £ 105 , which is credited to London district ; add this anv . unt to that announced it will make £ 227 7 s ., and place the Province of Middlesex No . 9 on the list . Thus correcting the gross figures £ 3343 is- 6 d . credited to

London , deduct £ 105 , add this to £ 518 9 is . 6 d . credited tothe provinces , we shall find as follows : Metropolitan Lodges , £ 5240 is . 6 d ., Provincial £ 5294 is . 6 d . ; the provinces in result heading the home district , subject to any further lists that may come in . Yours fraternally , Vf . M . Town Hall , Hownslow , 7 th July , 1879 .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The Kilburn Lodge , 1608 , sent through me , their Steward , £ 210 for the Boys' School , not £ 118 12 s . 6 d ., as stated in your report , so that the lodge is third on the list , and not seventh . By kindly inserting this you will oblige , Yours fraternally , CHARLES BREWER , W . M . 1608 .

MASONIC GRAMMAR . To the Editor if the " Freemason . " Dear Sir antl Brother , — Were I the most exacting of grammarians or the most anient eif conttovec » ianaUs * . < e , mercy an I pity , two Masonic graces always , would lead me to spate your readers the infliction of another long letter from Bro . Dron , and

the im liable nonsense my original and p ,. or little letter has evoked from others . I congratulate Bro . Dron on the possession of s 1 much spire time , that he can wiite such a succession of paragraphs all about nothing at all , and which remind one dreadfull y of the old Joe Miller , of the " Sheep ' s Head . " Verbum sat . Had I ever considered it possible that my little attempt to commence a friendly

discussion should have led to such personality , I need hardly say I should not have troubled you . Because , though a man , like Dogberry , may "write himself down an ass , " he does not want to be told so by Bro . Dron , simply because he and Bro . Dron do not agree about a question of philology . Neither is it usual among gentlemen or M-isons for one writer to tell another writer , knowing

nothing of him , and only because he happens to differ from him on a " moot point , " that he is practically an ignoramus , an impostor , and a dunderhead , which , I contend , Bro . Drim , paraphastically , indeed , but clearly and un-Masonically , nid tin in his original reply to " Lindley Murray . " I naturally resented such narrow-mindedness and such impettinence , and wrote , as I always will write ,

my opinion on such folly , perfectly justly and openly , under the circumstances . I do not profess to be above the weaknesses of my fellow mortals , ¦ ' nihil humanum a me alienum puto . " If any brother will kindly read over my first letter , which was purely critical , whether right or wrong , and compare it with Bro . Droit ' s replr , most uncritical and entirely

personal , I think he will agree with me that I have good rause to complain , and complain seriously , ofthe tone and temper of Bro . Dron , which at once changed a simple critical discussion into a personal " tu quoque" and a hopeless lrgomachy . I had said nothing in my first letter surely to offend any one . My note was simply a " Grammatical exercize , " and had Bro . Dron replied as I

commenced the discussion , we might have shown to your readers the edifying spectacle of two brethren who could differ with couitesy and with Masonic feeling . But as I object both to " cheek" and vulgarity , especially in Masonic controversies , I felt I had a right to assert the right of free literary discu'sion . 1 therefore , ventured to assert it , and always shall do so , in your impartial

columns . I am excessively amused with Bro . Dron ' s apparent difficulty as to the lines of Dryden which I qui ted . AH I can say is , if he does not understand their application I think I do , and that is quite enough for me ; for us I before remarked , I am not , as far as I know , compelled by any rules of controversy to try to enable my antagonist

to understand and appreciate my humble words . As they say , if such a task was imposed upon me , the "labour of Sisyphus would be nothing to it . " I am , myself , quite indifferent as to any remarks about my " pseudonym " or special " verbiage . " I wrote to hold my own , as I hope I always shall write , with all due

deference to the true principles of Freemasonry , but I have yet to learn that it is forbidden to a Fieemason , when well m- * ant ifforts to commence a little friendly discussion are only met with a vile spiiit of personality , to seek , if in his power to do so , to check and expose upstart ignorance or overweening arrogance . I am , yours ftdternally , LINDLEY MURRAY .